Foxy

Exactly.

Pericles

Thanks for edifying Forrest on the message contained within "'Hey Good Lookin'". I wouldn't describe Hank's lyrics as reminiscent of a more innocent time, rather a reflection of its era and appears a bit naive today.

A-septic

It is interesting to note that any search combining women and business owners invariably nets more information on small business than for large businesses, especially at a corporate level.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/featurearticlesbytitle/F2FF2CA4C1C1D192CA2573CC0012FE7E?OpenDocument

“Men are far more likely to be owner managers than women. In August 2006, more than two-thirds (70%) of owner managers of incorporated enterprises were male (down from 73% in 1992), as were two-thirds (67%) of owner managers of unincorporated enterprises (down from 68% in 1992).”

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbytitle/3D34EB400B78894BCA2568A900136279?OpenDocument

“At February 1997 there were 846,300 small businesses in Australia. These business were operated by 1.3 million people (849,600 males and 462,300 female operators), an increase of 4.8 per cent since the previous 1995 survey.

The number of women business operators increased by 9 per cent however, only 10 per cent of small businesses were operated by an individual female or predominantly by females. By comparison 37 per cent of small businesses were predominantly male operated.”

So a search on women CEO's found the following:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fewer-women-holding-top-company-jobs/2008/10/2

“It shows the proportion of women senior executive managers - who directly report to the CEO - has declined to 10.7 per cent from 12 per cent in 2006 and is lower than in 2004. The number of women in these positions has fallen to just 182, down from 246 in 2004. While the size of executive management teams has fallen, women's representation has fallen faster.”

Cont'd

Cont'd

Few female leaders also limits the diversity of women in power in the workplace. It is generally the 'Maggie Thatchers' who grace the halls of power and they more likely to be female versions of the alpha-male. In fact, they can be a woman's own worst enemy. However, the style of our adversarial system of promotion tends to favour both males and females who are naturally autocratic. The phenomena of the workplace psychopath is now well documented.

Then there is the so-called lipstick business femme, I submit Chrissy Hefner as an example of female exploiting female, and why not? She's making mega dollars, while dear old dad can sit by the pool, surrounded by a bevy of 'beauties' (if you are into silicon and heavy makeup) and fool himself that these lovely laaaadies think he is the sexiest thing since money was invented.

Solution: Promotion of males and females who have EQ's as high as their IQ's. Our corporation world is currently an empathy free-zone. I doubt the current GFC would've occurred had our corporate leaders had a little more heart, nor would our young people be exploited as objects. If you don't like the idea of your daughter being exploited, well if trends continue exploitation can happen to your son too. Anorexia in young men is happening now

Dear Fractelle,

Perhaps if we live long enough we'll see
true liberation from the restrictions of
gender. When all possible options would
be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's individual human qualities, rather
than their biological sex, would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

You can only hope.

*Then a person's individual human qualities, rather
than their biological sex, would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.*

Foxy, the market is already gender neutral, 50% of
consumers are women.

Anyone can have a good idea, mortgage the house, risk
their neck and run their own business. Gender has
nothing to do with it. Women can choose or not choose
to take that risk, it is up to them, as it is up to
men.

Much of business is gender neutral, for it's based on
performance. Top analysts on Wall St are often women,
they stand or fall by their predictions. Every day people
of both genders predict what will happen. Those who are
correct on more then chance, make a fortune. Gender has
nothing to do with it.

What we do have however, is have a great many people in life
who fail, who then search for an excuse to blame their
failures. Its easier to blame others, then to admit that
they simply don't have what it takes.

Once again, the market is there for anyone, of any colour,
of any gender, to show their abilities. Consumers will
decide if they have what it takes or not, by voting with
their wallets

Dear Yabby,

Women occupy very few high-paying positions:
only 8 of every 1,000 employed women holds a
high-level executive, managerial, or
highly paid administrative job. Even when men
and women do similiar jobs, they have different
titles and pay scales.

It is not a level playing field - and setting
up a business is something very few women
would be financially capable of doing.

Women may be more than half the population,
but they have only a few of the seats on boards
of the country's leading corporations.

Corporate leadership is a kind of old-boy network,
there is no old-girl network to speak of.

And as we know there are still many men who feel
a woman should be at home, or in bed, or having
babies - rather than hiring, firing, and ordering
men around.

Also, part of the problem is that women are taught
from childhood to be nice, to defer to men, to listen
to them without interrupting, to be supportive rather
than competitive.

The few women who rise to the top tend to be those
who have learned to behave in some respects as an
"alpha male," as Fractelle has pointed out. Because
that's what the corporate world understands. Other
women, whose management style is less abrasive and
more caring - won't get a chance at the higher levels of
the corporate culture.

Anyway, we've argued on this topic many times before
without making any progress, I suspect it's going to
be the same - this time around.

Dear Yabby,

Women occupy very few high-paying positions:
only 8 of every 1,000 employed women holds a
high-level executive, managerial, or
highly paid administrative job. Even when men
and women do similiar jobs, they have different
titles and pay scales.

It is not a level playing field - and setting
up a business is something very few women
would be financially capable of doing.

Women may be more than half the population,
but they have only a few of the seats on boards
of the country's leading corporations.

Corporate leadership is a kind of old-boy network,
there is no old-girl network to speak of.

And as we know there are still many men who feel
a woman should be at home, or in bed, or having
babies - rather than hiring, firing, and ordering
men around.

Also, part of the problem is that women are taught
from childhood to be nice, to defer to men, to listen
to them without interrupting, to be supportive rather
than competitive.

The few women who rise to the top tend to be those
who have learned to behave in some respects as an
"alpha male," as Fractelle has pointed out. Because
that's what the corporate world understands. Other
women, whose management style is less abrasive and
more caring - won't get a chance at the higher levels of
the corporate culture.

Anyway, we've argued on this topic many times before
without making any progress, I suspect it's going to
be history repeating itself again this time around.