|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 7, 2024 17:21:30 GMT
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... Indeed. I was in charge ( amongst other things ) of a group of middle aged women bench workers when I was about 30 . I treated them completely different than the men . One of our bosses was a small attractive women who was shagging one of our clients . She was absolutely charming to the men ( who was useful to her )and indifferent to the women . You need to know about people to control them . |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 7, 2024 17:29:10 GMT
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... Indeed. I was in charge ( amongst other things ) of a group of middle aged women bench workers when I was about 30 . I treated them completely different than the men . One of our bosses was a small attractive women who was shagging one of our clients . She was absolutely charming to the men ( who was useful to her )and indifferent to the women . You need to know about people to control them . I'd say manage rather than control... |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 7, 2024 17:31:22 GMT
Indeed. I was in charge ( amongst other things ) of a group of middle aged women bench workers when I was about 30 . I treated them completely different than the men . One of our bosses was a small attractive women who was shagging one of our clients . She was absolutely charming to the men ( who was useful to her )and indifferent to the women . You need to know about people to control them . I'd say manage rather than control... Management is control . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 8, 2024 7:48:17 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... 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. Not entirely sure of that, there are some cases that buck the trend. I've worked on building sites with women tradespeople, and labourers etc, and the language and banter is just the same as if it were all men. I think it is also a bit of an age thing, younger women tend to be more forthright with their language then women who 50+. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 9:17:38 GMT
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. Not entirely sure of that, there are some cases that buck the trend. I've worked on building sites with women tradespeople, and labourers etc, and the language and banter is just the same as if it were all men. I think it is also a bit of an age thing, younger women tend to be more forthright with their language then women who 50+. All The Best There’s always exceptions to the rule but I’m sure you know better . |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 8, 2024 15:24:54 GMT
Not entirely sure of that, there are some cases that buck the trend. I've worked on building sites with women tradespeople, and labourers etc, and the language and banter is just the same as if it were all men. I think it is also a bit of an age thing, younger women tend to be more forthright with their language then women who 50+. All The Best There’s always exceptions to the rule but I’m sure you know better . No, you are correct; there are always exception to the rule. The question is how many exceptions are enough to demonstrate the rule is bollocks. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 15:28:23 GMT
There’s always exceptions to the rule but I’m sure you know better . No, you are correct; there are always exception to the rule. The question is how many exceptions are enough to demonstrate the rule is bollocks. All The Best You post enough bollocks to know the exact number. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 8, 2024 15:33:21 GMT
No, you are correct; there are always exception to the rule. The question is how many exceptions are enough to demonstrate the rule is bollocks. All The Best You post enough bollocks to know the exact number. Ah, playing the man, not the point; must mean I have won the argument. ERG strikes again. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jul 8, 2024 15:35:49 GMT
You post enough bollocks to know the exact number. Ah, playing the man, not the point; must mean I have won the argument. ERG strikes again. All The Best Or it means that you post enough bollocks to know the exact number . |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 8, 2024 15:54:35 GMT
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 The woman in charge experiment started with the Suffragettes, so it is over a century of experimentation so far.
Point about psychology is genetics changes over a very long time frame.
Point about logic. Well I don't mean they just choose to do logic, it is a region of the brain which does logic and it is better developed in males compared to females. It's two distinct kinds of intelligence and is a well established and understood science, just of late people are being less than honest about it. I can show you the experimental proof if you want, but actually I've already posted it twice on here. They are probabilistic distributions, so don't rule out exceptional females having more logic than men, but generally speaking it is not the case. Mix-up occurs due to bad scientific reasoning and ill-defined statements.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 8, 2024 16:55:03 GMT
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 The woman in charge experiment started with the Suffragettes, so it is over a century of experimentation so far.
Giving women the vote did NOT put Women in charge. First time that happened, politically, was in 1979. So that is 45 years, much less than a century. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 8, 2024 17:12:42 GMT
The woman in charge experiment started with the Suffragettes, so it is over a century of experimentation so far.
Giving women the vote did NOT put Women in charge. First time that happened, politically, was in 1979. So that is 45 years, much less than a century. All The Best I don't mean in charge of the country. I mean just being in charge in all its many manifestations. According to orthodox history the women working in the factories contributed to the Wimin's Lib spirit during the world wars. They made a lot of bombs, which is hardly a feminine pursuit. There was a parallel development going on over in the Land of the Free. The thing is if you give women male jobs it often makes them into tom boys and very butch. The way sex works between men and women is men find women sexy according to their feminine characteristics, one of which is vulnerability. It's the reverse for women who are attracted to the man who has the power to do what he wants, as per anti-vulnerable. We can go on to say that men attracted to women with male traits is a kind of homosexual attraction.
In other words it is a a mindfuck compared to how nature was when it evolved naturally. One way some people look at this is via a philosophy of naturalism, which states nature is a very complicated thing we only partially understand, so by fiddling with what we don't understand has unpredictable consequences and knock-on effects. The Chinese learnt this with the Four Pests campaign, which inadvertently did the reverse of what they were hoping for due to the delicate balance of forces within the natural ecosystem. In today's Britain the fertility rate has plummeted. You can't really make a bigger mistake than to become extinct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 10, 2024 5:51:15 GMT
An interesting discussion
Same notion expanded on -
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 10, 2024 14:43:55 GMT
The trouble with this argument is it is a bit of the reductio ad absurdum kind. He is repeating his point as if this were some law of physics which is immutable and beyond argument. People on Youtube and elsewhere love these simple reductionist arguments. They are easy on the brain, but often do more to confuse understanding. It's verging on a kind of packaged dogma he is selling.
If I were arguing agaisnt his point, I would point out evolution is efficient. Humans have similar sized brains and you need a man and a woman to reproduce (this is a real law of physics by the way) and so you would think, why would nature waste brain power. Surely it is in fact a delicate balance of forces. Man has certain advantages, like physical strength, but women have ways to gain power over men by attraction. Nature appears to function best where the balance is near equal, as per a more sensitive zone for change. It's like where Labour and Cons are neck and neck, the slight advantage makes far more difference than if they were way outnumbered, like 10:1. What is more likely is our skewed ideology has caused us to wrongly read the situation thereby upsetting the natural power balance, leading to the Title of the thread and suboptimal performance of the society. One way this may have occured is via over-simplification, which is why I don't like the sound of this guy. Well I would not feel like listening to any more of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 10, 2024 15:02:51 GMT
The trouble with this argument is it is a bit of the reductio ad absurdum kind. He is repeating his point as if this were some law of physics which is immutable and beyond argument. People on Youtube and elsewhere love these simple reductionist arguments. They are easy on the brain, but often do more to confuse understanding. It's verging on a kind of packaged dogma he is selling. If I were arguing agaisnt his point, I would point out evolution is efficient. Humans have similar sized brains and you need a man and a woman to reproduce (this is a real law of physics by the way) and so you would think, why would nature waste brain power. Surely it is in fact a delicate balance of forces. Man has certain advantages, like physical strength, but women have ways to gain power over men by attraction. Nature appears to function best where the balance is near equal, as per a more sensitive zone for change. It's like where Labour and Cons are neck and neck, the slight advantage makes far more difference than if they were way outnumbered, like 10:1. What is more likely is our skewed ideology has caused us to wrongly read the situation thereby upsetting the natural power balance, leading to the Title of the thread and suboptimal performance of the society. One way this may have occured is via over-simplification, which is why I don't like the sound of this guy. Well I would not feel like listening to any more of it. Oh, the mother-fucking irony. God just called the Universe's Irony Meter just broke. All The Best |
|
