|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 3, 2024 10:22:27 GMT
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. I agree, but just to add to that, how many smart people thinking of taking a career in what you do/did gave it one look and decided it was woke central and they just did not fancy that kind of lifestyle so never even applied. Funny you should say that. My old job (a government department and hence one of the largest employers in the UK) recently advertised hundreds of positions and failed to get a single applicant. These days I'm just a part time minion but they're shitting themselves in case people like me leave. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 3, 2024 14:25:21 GMT
You keep posting this shit that a human chattel can be held in high esteem then follow up with claiming anyone who doesn’t accept this nonsense must be thick . Claiming that a human chattel without any meaningful rights can be held in high esteem because there may be some other chattels that are treated worse is moronic , completely moronic . ” I hold my pedigree breeding bitch in high esteem “ ” Really? Every morning youkick it up the arse “ ” Yes but I kick the others up the arse twice “ This is the level of debate you have chosen to support a premise that you lost several posts ago . 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 You said ‘ high esteem’ when you were proved wrong you changed the goal posts ….now its become ‘ relatively high esteem ‘ which is so subjective as to be meaningless . Not only were you wrong but every post you made defending your false claim refuted it . And you have the nerve to call me thick 😁 This is the problem with deluded posters like you who pretend to be clever . When they are found out they have nothing but insults and projection left . As you have demonstrated in this thread and others . If you really were clever you would have said ‘ valuable commodity’ if you were honest and a pair then you would have said ‘ I accept your point that they were not held in high esteem , I should have said ‘ valuable commodity’. You didn’t because you are neither and don’t have them . |
|
|
|
Post by oracle75 on Jul 4, 2024 18:07:23 GMT
What they are saying is that being born with a penis gives natural birthright.
Dont forget who birthed you. Who brought you up. Who showed you values and behaviour that you used to "control the universe".
And now they are fed up watching their male offspring fucking up the progress of Civilisation by belittling empathy and réciprocity.
Grow up grandads. You sound so yesterday.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 4, 2024 19:43:53 GMT
What they are saying is that being born with a penis gives natural birthright. No. Providing security comfort and ease gives you a right Providing children also gives you a right |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 4, 2024 20:57:37 GMT
What they are saying is that being born with a penis gives natural birthright. That's a fallacious argument, similar in style to the well worn out "just because of the colour of their skin" which is of course wrong because it is not just their skin pigment which is different and far from the thing that pisses people off about them.
It's a propaganda trick formally known as re-framing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 4, 2024 22:13:01 GMT
What they are saying is that being born with a penis gives natural birthright. Dont forget who birthed you. Who brought you up. Who showed you values and behaviour that you used to "control the universe". And now they are fed up watching their male offspring fucking up the progress of Civilisation by belittling empathy and réciprocity. Grow up grandads. You sound so yesterday. Penis envy and misandry . That’s quite a burden to carry . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 6, 2024 11:28:32 GMT
The title was correct. Take a look at the new cabinet. The proles are cheering the fist woman to run the economy in its 800 years. Typically on the ITV we have 3 women rolled out for the cameras, and one bloke as the last of the four featured. This is how you should read the news. It's reading between the lines. Three women: one two, three, then a token bloke ending it briefly. The format is the same throughout media. This is subliminal conditioning, always there in the background, so much that you just take it all in without noticing.
Just you wait until these bitches are required to make real decisions. Bitching is one thing, comes natural to many, but it won't help you improve the economic figures or any other figures. What nearly always happens after that is a cover-up.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 6, 2024 16:07:47 GMT
The title was correct. Take a look at the new cabinet. The proles are cheering the fist woman to run the economy in its 800 years. Typically on the ITV we have 3 women rolled out for the cameras, and one bloke as the last of the four featured. This is how you should read the news. It's reading between the lines. Three women: one two, three, then a token bloke ending it briefly. The format is the same throughout media. This is subliminal conditioning, always there in the background, so much that you just take it all in without noticing. Just you wait until these bitches are required to make real decisions. Bitching is one thing, comes natural to many, but it won't help you improve the economic figures or any other figures. What nearly always happens after that is a cover-up. She can't possibly do worse than the men who have held that role for the last 14 years. You need to realise, what is between their legs is 100% irrelevant; what is SUPREMELY relevant is their "ability to to the job". All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 6, 2024 19:46:06 GMT
The title was correct. Take a look at the new cabinet. The proles are cheering the fist woman to run the economy in its 800 years. Typically on the ITV we have 3 women rolled out for the cameras, and one bloke as the last of the four featured. This is how you should read the news. It's reading between the lines. Three women: one two, three, then a token bloke ending it briefly. The format is the same throughout media. This is subliminal conditioning, always there in the background, so much that you just take it all in without noticing. Just you wait until these bitches are required to make real decisions. Bitching is one thing, comes natural to many, but it won't help you improve the economic figures or any other figures. What nearly always happens after that is a cover-up. She can't possibly do worse than the men who have held that role for the last 14 years. You need to realise, what is between their legs is 100% irrelevant; what is SUPREMELY relevant is their "ability to to the job". All The Best The worst economic decision we ever made was in 1914, and that set in motion the destruction of our empire. Admittedly at that time it would likely all have been men who decided, albeit a bit of the Suffragettes inspiration what with them planting bombs and all, but back then the woman influence was rather negligible.
I think from that point on it set in motion a series of events which somewhat forced decisions in some cases, but I can't think there was anyone really smart. We were just blindly taking orders from the US and getting deeper and deeper in the shit. Thatcher did some good, but she also did bad as well.
I will reserve my judgment on this lot until I have seen the real manifesto, as in what they really do, because what they say they will do does not make sense. The problem now is we have just borrowed way too much, and that started under Labour when the banks got bailed out.
Oh by the way, in case someone wants an example of where Thatcher did bad, well I have a little video of her privatising water. The shit we have now is the long-term effect of that decision. They have also destroyed many of the natural rivers by taking too much water out from underground. That's very serious environmental damage.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 6, 2024 21:36:18 GMT
She can't possibly do worse than the men who have held that role for the last 14 years. You need to realise, what is between their legs is 100% irrelevant; what is SUPREMELY relevant is their "ability to to the job". All The Best The worst economic decision we ever made was in 1914, Made by a MAN. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 7, 2024 11:46:21 GMT
The worst economic decision we ever made was in 1914, Made by a MAN. All The Best Yes but the error is to think if men screwed it up then women will do it better. Of course the reason men were given these responsibilities in the past was because they were better at managing things than a woman due to their logical brains. The thing is you can't corrupt logic, but with woman-think they think intuitively and intuition is vulnerable to brainwashing techniques. This then turns the competition from seeking the goal of success to one where it is about what things sound like. We see the same in marketing and you know it really stands out for me because I tend to buy from a lot of Chinese firms and their marketing is far more male-orientated. Males buy goods based on their performance, so you'll get specifications like minimum lifetime and what have you . In woman marketing it is all about whether the product makes you look sexy and is compatible to your life style. Even the term life style illustrates the senselessness of this mode of thinking. Life is not a style.
Now though the traditional norms have been radicalized and men have had a female education, so they think more like women. The whole society has been feminised. An example of this was a while back I was listening to a history teacher with a lifetime's experience in teaching history. History was once more about power structures, as per which nation defeated which other nation, which were allies and all of that. In feminine history we are taught what is called social history, which would be say which style of clothes the Victorians wore and how they would set the dinner table out etc. We are back to this idea that life is but a style. So it is no wonder we have retards now. The Women's Lib has made itself the over-ruling consideration in all matters of life, and we must conclude this is one reason why men never trusted running the country to women in the past. They have made a hash of it and destroyed the men in the process.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 7, 2024 16:00:43 GMT
Made by a MAN. All The Best Yes but the error is to think if men screwed it up then women will do it better. Of course the reason men were given these responsibilities in the past was because they were better at managing things than a woman due to their logical brains. The thing is you can't corrupt logic, but with woman-think they think intuitively and intuition is vulnerable to brainwashing techniques. This then turns the competition from seeking the goal of success to one where it is about what things sound like. We see the same in marketing and you know it really stands out for me because I tend to buy from a lot of Chinese firms and their marketing is far more male-orientated. Males buy goods based on their performance, so you'll get specifications like minimum lifetime and what have you . In woman marketing it is all about whether the product makes you look sexy and is compatible to your life style. Even the term life style illustrates the senselessness of this mode of thinking. Life is not a style.
Now though the traditional norms have been radicalized and men have had a female education, so they think more like women. The whole society has been feminised. An example of this was a while back I was listening to a history teacher with a lifetime's experience in teaching history. History was once more about power structures, as per which nation defeated which other nation, which were allies and all of that. In feminine history we are taught what is called social history, which would be say which style of clothes the Victorians wore and how they would set the dinner table out etc. We are back to this idea that life is but a style. So it is no wonder we have retards now. The Women's Lib has made itself the over-ruling consideration in all matters of life, and we must conclude this is one reason why men never trusted running the country to women in the past. They have made a hash of it and destroyed the men in the process.
That's not the error I am making. I am advocating that as men have fucked it all for hundreds of year, maybe let the women try and see how good or bad they are at it. Also, it is more demographically representative to have a few more women in the higher tier roles. Incorrect. Men had these roles because women had the more important role of breeding, raising and educating the "next generation". I do not think logic is as robust as you think. There are some genuinely hilarious outcomes from some cornerstones of logic. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 7, 2024 16:52:17 GMT
I've worked directly for two women bosses, and also in a department with a woman director. The one difference between men and women in offices is the "softer" language, however direct, and the lack of bad language so beloved of macho bosses...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 7, 2024 17:00:26 GMT
I've worked directly for two women bosses, and also in a department with a woman director. The one difference between men and women in offices is the "softer" language, however direct, and the lack of bad language so beloved of macho bosses... That’s because there is a different dynamic between the sexes man to man , woman to woman and men to women . This applies to just about any interaction. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 7, 2024 17:12:54 GMT
I've worked directly for two women bosses, and also in a department with a woman director. The one difference between men and women in offices is the "softer" language, however direct, and the lack of bad language so beloved of macho bosses... That’s because there is a different dynamic between the sexes man to man , woman to woman and men to women . This applies to just about any interaction. I don't disagree. But in my experience, the difference wasn't judged to have been accompanied by poorer performance or less effective work by them or their staffs... |
|
