*Even when men
and women do similiar jobs, they have different
titles and pay scales. *

Foxy, the CEO of Australias largest bank, is a migrant
female, who started off as a bank teller. She earns
millions.

Even my ex, bless her heart, had the ability to sell
herself to employers and show them that she was value
for money to the company. They paid her far more then
I ever thought she was worth lol.

Stop blaming men, because some women fail. It is
up to each of us to use our skills as we see fit.

*and setting
up a business is something very few women
would be financially capable of doing.*

They are as capable as men are. Unless you are
implying that they don't have the smarts, which I doubt.

*but they have only a few of the seats on boards
of the country's leading corporations.*

They are free to stand for election. Let the shareholders,
many of whom are women, vote on it.

*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*

Err so what? Business is not like the old ducks knitting
club, where we all tell each other how we feel about things
today and then clap our hands, singing Kumbaya.

If you'd seen the cute new blonde banking analyst on Bloomberg,
who is knocking their socks off, she plays the game her way.
But she produces results, nothing else matters.

Yes some women fail, so the problem must be men. All quite
simple really.

yabby:"the problem must be men"

The problem must always be men because "girls can do anything", we've been told so for years.

Besides, we all know that women are always victims of ruthless men; why even a CEO on millions would no doubt be getting paid even more millions if she was a man - it's discrimination, is what it is. It's all those jealous, talentless men on the board who picked her for CEO just getting even because she's better than them. Men are like that, you know - always trying to work out ways to keep women down, especially the smart ones.

Foxy is normally a very sensible, readable poster but she's easily caught up in the "woman as eternal victim" hysteria. It's funny, but don't, for pity's sake, laugh.

The only people talking about 'women as victims' in this discussion thread has been from a few male posters.

Everyone else have discussed the gender imbalance in many areas of our culture such as media, with which I commenced this thread. I have also suggested changes to the status-quo by changing the criteria by which we select leaders. There are men and women who are compassionate and capable of leadership. However, at present, the system supports the psychopath be they male or female.

Perhaps those who scream loudest that males are being unfairly targeted are the ones who least want change. They are happy that our leaders in politics and business are all about power and not concerned with the well being of all people.

Early in this thread I set a link to a simple little test which determines whether a persons abilities, aptitudes and thinking patterns are more 'male' or 'female'. Human ability follows something of a bell curve with the female and male extremes at either end with the rest of us falling somewhere in the middle. I am sure that the very manly Yabby and A-septic would definitely fall closer to the 'male' end of the curve, so they would not have to fear that they are somehow 'emasculated' by having feminine abilities such as facial recognition.

"Some researchers say that men can have 'women's brains' and that women can think more like men.

Find out more about 'brain sex' differences by taking the Sex ID test, a series of visual challenges and questions used by psychologists in the BBC One television series Secrets of the Sexes:

* Get a brain sex profile and find out if you think like a man or a woman.
* See if you can gaze into someone's eyes and know what they're thinking.
* Find out why scientists are interested in the length of your fingers."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/sex/add_user.shtml

You have nothing to lose, why not find out just how butch you really are?

And don't forget to measure your fingers - I'll tell my size if you tell me yours.

What a disappointment.

>>Find out more about 'brain sex' differences by taking the Sex ID test<<

All that, and I came smack in the middle. Big fat zero. How humiliating.

Mind you, I did get some pretty spectacular scores along the way - 20/20 on the angles, 71% on "spot the difference", 11/12 on the 3D shapes. Blew it badly on the empathy bits though - 5/20 on the empathy score and 5/10 on the "eyes". I know someone who would say "quelle surprise" at those last two.

Great fun though, thanks Fractelle.

My fingers stay secret, though. There has to be some mystery in a relationship, you know.

Pericles

I'm glad you enjoyed the test, all I wanted was to include some levity in this topic.

Sounds to me like you're one balanced individual.

They should include a test for humour - one of the most valuable qualities for either sex.

I was really bad at "eyes" but fared better on the "empathy".

As for finger length, well, mine was a surprise... not sure what to make of it...

"Returning to article one of the memorandum ...."

Fractelle:

"I just typed "sexy magazines for women" into Google and got 4 hits, whereas typing "sexy magazines for men" garners 149 hits."

Being ever one to check, on occasions, some of the premises upon which an argument may be based, I sought to replicate Fractelle's feat. So I clicked on 'File' on my Firefox browser display, and selected 'New tab'. In the untitled new tab that opened I clicked on the Google search icon in the little search pane at the top right of my screen. Up came the Google search entry page. I was (as ever) ready to go.

I just typed 'sexy magazines for women' into the pane, and clicked the 'Google Search' button. The search was set to the default 'the web', not 'pages from Australia'. I did not include the search term within quotation marks, double or single.

The first Google page of search results told me I was seeing results 1 - 10 of about 1,810,000 for sexy magazines for women.

Having secured a very high score on that page of the little test (to which Fractelle gave a link) in which one had to identify all the items which had been moved when compared to a remembered display, I immediately noticed that there was a slight discrepancy of 1,809,996 between Fractelle's claimed results and mine. Unwilling to believe Fractelle could possibly be in error, I tried the same search in 'pages from Australia'. In this latter search I got results 1 - 10 of about 24,900.

What had she done?

I tried including the search term within double quotation marks. No results at all for 'pages from Australia'. From 'the web', I was seeing results 1 - 5 of 5! That's how she did it! I quickly checked ""sexy magazines for men"", and saw results 1 - 10 of about 132. Yep, that was how she must have searched. The discrepancy between her 149 and my 132 results clearly only reflects the number of such magazines recently having ceased publication.

Quandary!

TBC