Women in charge

I have not refuted my own posts.

That you think I have just demonstrates my previous point about you being an ignorant fucktard, or a troll.


All The Best

Imagine a Greek or Roman member of the "landed gentry".
Imagine they have 100 slaves.
The chances that they will treat them all the same, and think equally well, or poorly, of them all would be Zero.
Thus there is a hierarchy of "value", not just monetary, within those slaves.
From that hierarchy of value we could then say that the slave at the top of the hierarchy was held in high esteem RELATIVE to the slaves at the bottom of the value hierarchy.

Would any of those slaves be held in as high esteem as another Roman or Greek citizen?
Almost certainly not.
But within the hierarchy of slaves the one at the top would be held in high esteem.

Likewise, of all the chattels a Greek Man may "own" it is likely that the wife who bears his children and manages his household is held in high esteem REALTIVE to the other chattels owned by that man.


Is this really so difficult to understand?
You surely have to be pretending to be this thick, right?


All The Best

See, you are missing a key word here that makes it impossible for you to grasp something that really is quite simple.

I am talking about "RELATIVE high esteem".
You seem to be talking about absolute high esteem, which doesn't exist because there are no absolutes in social structures.

Until you grasp that vital difference I'll continue to conclude that, based on the evidence of this thread, you are "a bit thick".

What is moronic is failing to grasp that ALL social values are RELATIVE.


All The Best

When I was younger, I was surprisingly left wing and I believed in empowering women and all that stuff. I believed that a woman can be as good as a man in many roles, and indeed I still do.

But over the years, the majority of bad bosses that I've experienced have been women. I didn't initially notice this, but one day I was enjoying an after work beer with some other highly experienced colleagues and the conversation came around to management fuck-ups.

After about the tenth tale of “Who remembers the time when..” one of my colleagues said: “And can anyone spot the common denominator?” And bingo, there it was: The majority of those memorable fuck-ups involved a female boss.

The rush to recruit more women, to have x number of women on the board etc. has lead to a decrease in standards. It's not that women can't fulfil those roles but when none of the applicants are suitable but you have to select a woman well, the result is inevitable.

And that's a problem for the women themselves who are often pressured into taking more responsibility than they are comfortable with. That leads to poor decision making, micro-management and declining staff relations. And ultimately, the career death of the boss themselves due to stress.

Indeed, I've observed that the giveaway of such female managers is the need to assert dominance over everything even where it's completely unnecessary. So I can easily see how something like the Post Office scandal can occur where you have an over promoted female CEO presiding over an incoming disaster while shouting down anyone that dares raise a concern. I see it on a smaller scale quite regularly.

My experience has been different; the less competent bosses I have worked under have all been male.
The two most competent have been female.

But I do find common ground with your last paragraph.
When shit goes wrong Women do seem less able to rapidly find a solution by delegating and do become somewhat overbearing.  I wonder if this is a desire to not "rock the boat" with the higher-ups, because even Bosses ultimately "work for someone"; I wonder if they'd rather engage in damage limitation than face the problem head on because of the perceived fallout of doing so.

The one other area I have noted a difference is that Women tend to more easily be thrown into a tail-spin by non-workplace factors.  I have had two bosses, one Male one Female, who were working through serious family crises.  The Male boss simply said "I need to be at home a lot more for a few weeks you guys are all going to have to step up significantly" and was gone, he'd check twice-weekly with his second in command, and that was it.  The Female boss was all over the place, going into overbearing micro-management mode when there was no crisis in the workplace, and trying to do it all - inevitably work suffered.  The net result was the same, the rest of us had to step up a bit, but the mistakes she made in that initial rush to "do everything" meant it was harder for us keep things on an even keel than it was with the Male boss who just trusted us from the start.

Also, from talking to other people it does seem that nepotism is rife is most areas of British Business and that Male bosses are as likely to be involved as Female bosses; however, I have only personally encountered it under a Female boss.  Maybe the "mother instinct" to protect her children and help them in anyway was responsible for the fact we were paying one of her kids to do externally as "a freelancer" to do what we could, and should have been doing in-house at a third the cost we were paying her kid.


All The Best

I suppose I'm on the other side of the mirror. And there are definite reasons

I've said it before. The Y chromosome creates muscle cells to develop differently and creates more cones than rods in the retina. The result is a triumph of power over dexterity and 3D colour vision over low light level fine detail

As a direct result any man is put at a specific disadvantage in the life sciences where dexterity and squinting into dark places is part of the training and par for the course.

Add to this a leaning women seem to have for these sciences as distinct from physical and theoretical ones and pretty quickly any bloke following my career is going to feel a bit outnumbered.

It is what it is.

But as a stark consequence women in those areas of research, development and endeavour are there not because some lefty twat decreed we need more of them but because they're good at the job

And yes. I agree with you.

The difference between for example the 1981 biochemical society meeting where every woman in the place was there because she was either already an acknowledged expert in the field or working to being one, versus well almost any woke driven endeavour of today where identifying as having a cervix whether you do or not is more important than having competence at the job is stark and soul destroying