Women Rule: Kick Out Corrupt Old Men & Apply Here

[arildno]

I fully agree!

Women do seem to think in a different way to men, evidenced by the things they like around them,

Like lacquered toe-nails.

there are some that break the general patern but they are few.

For example, both men and women like to pick their noses in secret.

 

[wolram]

I fully agree!

Like lacquered toe-nails.

For example, both men and women like to pick their noses in secret.

Picking ones nose is a VERY bad habbit

And who the heck looks at womens feet?

 

[arildno]

Picking ones nose is a VERY bad habbit

Shrug. Not as bad as picking others' noses.

And who the heck looks at womens feet?

I don't.

 

[wolram]

Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain. Acetone does bad things to brain.

Is there a hidden message in this?

 

[Moonbear]

As my wife points out - "Women come in a full range of human
possibility just like men, dogs, cats and chimpanzees.

Dogs, cats and chimpanzees come in a full range of human possibility? Maybe you've misquoted your wife a bit there?

 

[honestrosewater]

Is there a hidden message in this?

Yes, but not for human eyes.

 

[Astronuc]

Dogs, cats and chimpanzees come in a full range of human possibility? Maybe you've misquoted your wife a bit there?

No, that part was a 'copy and paste'.

More correctly stated - women have a full range of behavior (and potentials, or possibilities), as do men, as do dogs, cats, and chimpanzees.

Or more generally, humans have a full range of possible behaviors - one size does not fit all.

 

[wolram]

I wonder what it woul be like if a man turned into a woman over night or
tother way round, would he/she still like the same things?

 

[marlon]

The "unwarranted" part is that it's not true.

Well, that's exactly why i don't get it because it IS true.

If everyone has a few anectdotes to contradict you, then how much of a general trend could it possibly be?

I never said that everyone has such counter examples because i actually know lot's of people (yes and also females) that agree with what i am saying here. So, NO just because many people have certain anecdotes does not mean they actually represent a trend. It is naive to think that.

You're simply wrong that such a trend exists.

Am i simply wrong ? Well, if that's what you think about it, ok ...

I've worked in plenty of environments that were all female

Ohh, really, like you have already worked in 25 different places that were ALL all-female. I really don't believe that and i am convinced that you won't be able to sell this argument to many other people as well. Such arguments are typical examples of the "anecdotes" i was referring to previously. Funny thing is that these little stories tend to change their content as a discussion goes on and on. I really wonder why that is

(I attended a women's college;

Why ?

it was inevitable that the student organizations and committees were all female),

Obviously

and we got plenty accomplished and all worked together just fine.

That does not really represent the professional world no ?

If having a male present changes the group dynamic, and you're male, how can you even begin to claim you know how an all female group works when no men are present?

Easy, because i know women that work an all female group. Also, i have seen many documentaries on influential women (not just some little people like us, working in small departments or occupying any other ordinary position) like Margret Thatcher who explicitely stated that they preferred working with MEN.

In short, women are not very good (to say the least, but i want to be polite here) at making a sacrifice for a group. Why is it that group sports is a "guy-business" in at least 95 % of the cases ? This is just some manifestation of primitive male behaviour, you know...

Besides, i know one is not supposed to say what i am saying because the content of my message will be classified as "discrimination". I resent that because i never say that women are inferior to men, i just say that they have other talents (and no i don't mean just cooking, as i am sure you will be thinking now). Women can be the CEO of a big company, but NOT IN AN ALL FEMALE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. We are just not the same...Is that really such a bad thing ?

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

Easy, because i know women that work an all female group. Also, i have seen many documentaries on influential women (not just some little people like us, working in small departments or occupying any other ordinary position) like Margret Thatcher who explicitely stated that they preferred working with MEN.

That's because the men are easier to control.

. . . women are not very good . . . at making a sacrifice for a group.

I'd respectfully disagree.

Why is it that group sports is a "guy-business" in at least 95 % of the cases ? This is not just some manifestation of primitive male behaviour, you know...

Guy team sports IS certainly a manifestation of primitive male behavior.

 

[marlon]

That's because the men are easier to control.

With all do respect, this is not funny at all.

Guy team sports IS certainly a manifestation of primitive male behavior.

Yes indeed, i made a bad mistake there. I should not have written the "not". Anyhow, i have corrected it. Thanks for the notification Astronuc.

marlon

 

[Moonbear]

Well, that's exactly why i don't get it because it IS true.

Based on your own anecdotal evidence. If anecdotes are not sufficient to refute your claims, then anecdotes are also insufficient to make your claims. You have shown no evidence to back up your claims other than a few women you know, and one who claims to prefer to work with men in a documentary, which says nothing about all the other women in the world. Besides, preferring to work with men means nothign about what one can accomplish when working with other women, it just might be that men make life a bit more interesting for women.

I never said that everyone has such counter examples because i actually know lot's of people (yes and also females) that agree with what i am saying here. So, NO just because many people have certain anecdotes does not mean they actually represent a trend. It is naive to think that.

And lots of women will DISAGREE with what you are saying here too. It's ALL anectdotal, unless you'd like to cite the references for the studies saying otherwise.

Am i simply wrong ? Well, if that's what you think about it, ok ...

Yes, that's what I think about it.

Ohh, really, like you have already worked in 25 different places that were ALL all-female.

When all you have is anectdotal evidence and a big generalization, just a few counter-examples are all it takes to dismantle your theory.

I really don't believe that and i am convinced that you won't be able to sell this argument to many other people as well. Such arguments are typical examples of the "anecdotes" i was referring to previously.

Yep, just like your claim. Sexist people usually do refuse to accept anything that contradicts their own view of women.

Funny thing is that these little stories tend to change their content as a discussion goes on and on. I really wonder why that is

What little stories? Yours?

Why ?

Because it was an excellent school where I was able to really develop leadership skills.

That does not really represent the professional world no ?

Why wouldn't it? We all wound up in the professional world. Of course, in the professional world, it's rare to have any group of only one sex...either sex. That's why I don't believe that you really know many people who have worked in such an environment who can state with any certainty how well it works.

Easy, because i know women that work an all female group.

Anectdotal...you've already said anectdotal evidence doesn't count. I've also worked in all female groups, as stated above, and have not experienced such problems. Maybe it was just the particular group they worked in.

Also, i have seen many documentaries on influential women (not just some little people like us, working in small departments or occupying any other ordinary position) like Margret Thatcher who explicitely stated that they preferred working with MEN.

Please name all those "many" documentaries. Or was it just one, and one woman who had such a preference?

In short, women are not very good (to say the least, but i want to be polite here) at making a sacrifice for a group. Why is it that group sports is a "guy-business" in at least 95 % of the cases ? This is just some manifestation of primitive male behaviour, you know...

Actually, the studies show that women work better in groups than men. Making "sacrifices" for a group is not necessarily a good thing. If you're making a sacrifice, it means you're not contributing your best, but leaving that out for someone else to shine...that's more an individual ego-booster than a team skill. Instead, listening to the other group members and integrating the best of their ideas is a good team skill.

For example:

Research has demonstrated that men have generally enjoyed greater recognition for their work than have women. While there has been some change, many stereotypes remain.[8] However, even if this is true for single-person research, the dynamics may shift when dealing with multiple-member teams. Some have suggested that female leaders more naturally integrate the contributions of the group than do men and that this tendency may yield superior outcomes. A growing body of research has demonstrated that women are more likely than are men to have mastered "the patient skills of relationship development, communication, and social sensitivity,"[91] all of which should improve synergy formation within a research team. However, it should be noted that there are others who take issue with the notion that men and women manage differently.[10]

In our project on management research, the gender of the authors involved in the study did affect the significance of the publication effort in one particular way. We found no significant difference in the number of citations for either male and female single-author articles or single-gender teams. However, when the teams were composed of both men and women, female-led teams were more often cited than were male-led teams, thus providing preliminary support for the notion that women may be more effective than men at integrating the contributions of research team members. However, same-gender teams were more frequently cited than were mixed-gender teams.

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/032/teamwork.html

And:

Women think through decisions better than men, are more collaborative, and seek less personal glory, says the head of IBM's Global Services Div., Douglas Elix, who hired two managers within this year--both women. Instead of being motivated by self-interest, women are more driven by ''what they can do for the company,'' Elix says. Adds Harvard Business School Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter, author of the 20-year-old management classic, Men and Women of the Corporation: ''Women get high ratings on exactly those skills needed to succeed in the global Information Age, where teamwork and partnering are so important.''

http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_47/b3708145.htm
Particularly noteworthy of the above, is this:

Using elaborate performance evaluations of execs, researchers found that women got higher ratings than men on almost every skill measured. Ironically, the researchers weren't looking to ferret out gender differences. They accidentally stumbled on the findings when they were compiling hundreds of routine performance evaluations and then analyzing the results.

So, unlike many gender-based studies, this one didn't go in with any particular bias or expectations about gender differences from the outset.

Of course, if you only form your teams based on gender, to the exclusion of the other skills of the members, it matters little whether you have a team composed of all men, all women, or a mixture of both...you're still going to have conflicts that reduce productivity. Perhaps that was the experience of the women you know.

Again, for example:

Diversity on teams has been shown to be positively associated with performance if process challenges are addressed. Diverse teams have been shown to generate a greater variety of ideas, draw on a greater store of tacit knowledge, make better decisions, and more effectively accomplish complex tasks than individuals. Since several recent studies have found a tendency toward homogeneity in self-formed work teams, managers may need to intervene during the formation process to encourage diversity.

Gender is among the characteristics associated with diversity and is known to influence team behaviors. For example, research suggests that women are more comfortable than men with team-based evaluations and rewards. This may be partly due to findings by gender theorists that men's relationships tend to be defined by role and status, while women tend to value relationships based on communication and understanding.

http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/014/teams.html

 

[Astronuc]

That's because the men are easier to control.

With all do respect, this is not funny at all.

Why is it not funny. There is probably some element of truth to it. I'm sure one could find anecdotal evidence.

As for competitive male behavior, one can look at corporate America and look at the success/failure rates of co-executives - look at AOL-Time Warner, Disney, and a number of other Fortune 100 or 200 corporations where one executive was forced out because of disagreement with other executives. I witnessed some corporate dog-fighting in the previous company at which I worked. There were co-presidents, and one out-maneuvered the other. It cost the company a lot of money, and the company went into a nose dive. I ended up forcing the ouster of the remaining president who was mis-managing the company. The VPs were freaked out (scared), but they eventually went along when I pulled together the necessary support. I wish what I did wasn't necessary. Then the VP's moved up and one became the new president. Unfortunately he was a bigger yutz than the ousted president. The situation with our company ended up in Federal court in a first of kind case. So my division ended up getting itself sold to another company.

 

[Moonbear]

As for competitive male behavior, one can look at corporate America and look at the success/failure rates of co-executives - look at AOL-Time Warner, Disney, and a number of other Fortune 100 or 200 corporations where one executive was forced out because of disagreement with other executives. I witnessed some corporate dog-fighting in the previous company at which I worked.

What's interesting, and substantiated by the above articles that I cited, is that the women's willingness to put the best interests of the company ahead of their own best interests, while good for the company, is also what hurts the women in the long run. Instead of taking personal credit for an accomplishment, they share it with the team. The men, when assigned to a team, will instead still work more individually and divide up tasks in a way that makes it easy to assign credit to each of their accomplishments. The work still gets done either way, but with the women, the team actually works as a team, and with the men, they really are just each working as individuals on a component of the project and then coming together at the end to fit all the parts together. At the end, the men are all accountable for their individual contributions, and get rewarded on the merits of those contributions. The women's teams, on the other hand, really worked cooperatively and do not have any way to recognize individual efforts, so just split the credit equally based on the outcome.

 

[marlon]

Based on your own anecdotal evidence.

Ok, first of all, i used anecdotal evidence to counter your objections on my first post here. In your original post, 99.9% of the content was based upon such evidence. Now, that we both agree that anecdotal evidence does not denote a general trend (like you first said) this must tell you that your original post really did not say that much at all.

You have shown no evidence to back up your claims other than a few women you know, and one who claims to prefer to work with men in a documentary,

Well call it evidence or whatever, it does not matter. I gave you an example of a woman in an exceptional position who clearly agreed with the content of my message here. Other women are Marie Curie, Frieda Kahlo (Mexican painter), etc etc... Keep in mind that i only use examples of women in top positions and such examples are rare (i wonder why that is).

which says nothing about all the other women in the world.

I am not talking about all the other women in the world since 99.9 % of them are not in the professional positions that i just outlined. they are not in those positions that make an actual difference to a company or society.

Besides, preferring to work with men means nothign about what one can accomplish when working with other women,

I disagree, it means exactly that. If someone tells you that they prefer to work with you other than someone else, it's exactly because they think they will achieve more with you. No sain person is selfdestructive, you know.

it just might be that men make life a bit more interesting for women.

That, on the other hand, is very true and the same goes the other way around.

And lots of women will DISAGREE with what you are saying here too. It's ALL anectdotal, unless you'd like to cite the references for the studies saying otherwise.

I don't have references to "studies" because women in top positions are very rare. I am sure that most women that want to be in such positions, will say they want an all female staff or something. But, when they actually are in that position, they will conclude that they need men to do the job. Ask all female prime ministers for that matter. besides, Angela Merkel also said a similar thing on a public conference in the European Union.

Yes, that's what I think about it.

OK

When all you have is anectdotal evidence and a big generalization, just a few counter-examples are all it takes to dismantle your theory.

C'mon, you are saying the same thing over and over again. Haven't i already answered to this ?

Sexist people usually do refuse to accept anything that contradicts their own view of women.

Pfff,, generalization, generalization, generalization,...

no comment

What little stories? Yours?

No, the anecdotes YOU were using in your very first post.

Because it was an excellent school where I was able to really develop leadership skills.

Ohh, and that's the only school where you could learn this ?
Or let me put it like this : Ohh, this school just happened to be all female. I mean, you found out about that later

Why wouldn't it?

Because it's just a bunch of stupid students that actually try something for the first time. There are no real life penalties/risks like the ones in the professional world. C'mon, don't tell me you fail to see that difference.

We all wound up in the professional world.

Well, keep in mind that the academic world is not really the professional world.

Of course, in the professional world, it's rare to have any group of only one sex...either sex. That's why I don't believe that you really know many people who have worked in such an environment who can state with any certainty how well it works.

You don't believe this ? No, problem, i don't believe you either. But it does not matter since all female groups will never occur in the professional world because of the disfunctional groupdynamic.

I've also worked in all female groups, as stated above, and have not experienced such problems.

Well can i answer like you : "i don't believe you because ..."

Please name all those "many" documentaries. Or was it just one, and one woman who had such a preference?

What does it matter if it was just one BBC documentary on Margret Thatcher ? If she said it, she said it. Look at the composition of her political cabinet. That should give you enough proof.

Actually, the studies show that women work better in groups than men. Making "sacrifices" for a group is not necessarily a good thing. If you're making a sacrifice, it means you're not contributing your best, but leaving that out for someone else to shine...that's more an individual ego-booster than a team skill. Instead, listening to the other group members and integrating the best of their ideas is a good team skill.

All these studies can be very true but they clearly do not reflect the achievements of men in both the professional and sports world. All great companies (except Estée Lauder i guess ) have been founded by men. All biggest donations to charity (Gates, Buffet, Pavarotti (War child Concerts)) have been done by men. The best music groups, artistic geniusses, best inventors... I mean , who takes such studies seriously if you look at how men can work together...



regards
marlon

 

[marlon]

What's interesting, and substantiated by the above articles that I cited, is that the women's willingness to put the best interests of the company ahead of their own best interests, while good for the company, is also what hurts the women in the long run. Instead of taking personal credit for an accomplishment, they share it with the team. The men, when assigned to a team, will instead still work more individually and divide up tasks in a way that makes it easy to assign credit to each of their accomplishments. The work still gets done either way, but with the women, the team actually works as a team, and with the men, they really are just each working as individuals on a component of the project and then coming together at the end to fit all the parts together. At the end, the men are all accountable for their individual contributions, and get rewarded on the merits of those contributions. The women's teams, on the other hand, really worked cooperatively and do not have any way to recognize individual efforts, so just split the credit equally based on the outcome.

But my remark was on how men can get more things done in a group. Yes , better then women.

Examples :

1) compare male music groups to female music groups in number and quality.

2) All the big companies were started by men.

3) Find me a female analogon of the group that started Microsoft.

4) Find me a women's team that gives as much spectacle in whatever sport as an all guy-team.

The list goes on and on and on...

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

1) compare male music groups to female music groups in number and quality.

The Oreos String Quartet is a vibrant, fully professional all female string group which has been performing together for the past six years in London and throughout the UK. The quartet has come to be recognized for its energetic and charismatic performances and highly professional approach. The repertoire of the group includes Classical, Jazz Standards, Show Tunes, Classic pop and some of their own highly original arrangements.

http://www.oreosstringquartet.co.uk/

Bond (Female string quartet)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/2948689.stm
http://www.deccaclassics.com/artists/bond/biog.asp
http://www.undercover.com.au/idol/bond.html

2) All the big companies were started by men.

And that was achieved when women were discouraged from entering the business world - and many prior to the various Rights Movements.

3) Find me a female analogon of the group that started Microsoft.

what about Anita Roddick (The Body Shop) or Sandy Lerner (Cisco) or Kay Koplovitz (USA Networks)? http://www3.babson.edu/CWL/research/Myths-and-Realities-of-Women-Entrepreneurs.cfm
Perhaps these examples not as big as Microsoft, but that only means it has happened - yet. On the other hand, Cisco is a Big company.

4) Find me a women's team that gives as much spectacle in whatever sport as an all guy-team.

The US Womens Soccer Team, the US Womens Basketball team. Both team have put in great performances!

 

[turbo]

4) Find me a women's team that gives as much spectacle in whatever sport as an all guy-team.

Apparently, beach volleyball has not caught on where you are. :!)

 

[honestrosewater]

But my remark was on how men can get more things done in a group. Yes , better then women.

Examples :

1) compare male music groups to female music groups in number and quality.

2) All the big companies were started by men.

3) Find me a female analogon of the group that started Microsoft.

4) Find me a women's team that gives as much spectacle in whatever sport as an all guy-team.

The list goes on and on and on...

marlon

Oh, puhleez. I thought you were a scientist? Even if you are right, you're never going to prove it this way. Are you choosing areas in which women and men have been on equal footing and had equal opportunities to succeed? Can you name a male analog to the group that started Microsoft? What would that even be? What is the connection between being able to get things done in a group and starting a successful musical group or any of your other 'tests'? And anyway, that something doesn't happen doesn't imply that it can't happen.

It seems to me that what you would need to do is find groups of women that failed and try to discover the reasons for their failure. And find something like, say, a failure rate for groups of women and compare that to the failure rate for groups of men. No?

 

[wolram]

Out of all this rhetoric i would still give women the chance, what can we loose?

 

[wolram]

The new rules for this discusion.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

 

[marlon]

And

The Oreos String Quartet is a vibrant, fully professional all female string group which has been performing together for the past six years in London and throughout the UK.

err, you have many male variants of that as well. My point was, a group that has the same famosity and well known repertoire as let's say The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dire Straits, Metallica, Nirvana, Guns 'n' Roses.

Let's forget about classical composers because they were all men.

And that was achieved when women were discouraged from entering the business world - and many prior to the various Rights Movements.

Then toake the female variant of Larry Page and co (ie Google)... the guys that made Netscape, the people that made Doom...

You know, not everything can be countered by saying "ohh well, women were not allowed". What do you think Estée Lauder would have thought about that. Surely she must have heard such arguments, yet that did not stop here. And we are far back in the past with this woman, so it was even more difficult for her.

what about Anita Roddick (The Body Shop) or Sandy Lerner (Cisco) or Kay Koplovitz (USA Networks)? [/QUOTE] No no, Sandy lerner d...as i do wath the truth is. regards marlon

 

[marlon]

Can you name a male analog to the group that started Microsoft?

the guys that started Google, the brothers http://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2004/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&uniqueId=3VFF& who started ALDI. They are the richest people in Europe.

ps : keep in mind that analog does NOT mean "the same"

What is the connection between being able to get things done in a group and starting a successful musical group or any of your other 'tests'?

Clearly, you have not been following the discussion. We are not looking for that connection.

It seems to me that what you would need to do is find groups of women that failed and try to discover the reasons for their failure. And find something like, say, a failure rate for groups of women and compare that to the failure rate for groups of men. No?

With all do respect, NO. I want to balance the achievements of all male groups with all female groups on the top level. That was the original intention of this discussion. Why would we change this all of the sudden ?

regards

marlon

 

[marlon]

Out of all this rhetoric i would still give women the chance, what can we loose?

Ofourse, women should get any chance they deserve, but they should NOT rule

marlon

 

[Astronuc]

err, you have many male variants of that as well.

Yes there are male quartets, and there are mixed quartets. I don't remember hearing an all-male quartet that is as good as Bond (the all-female quartet). Bond is fairly unique.

My point was, a group that has the same famosity and well known repertoire as let's say The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Dire Straits, Metallica, Nirvana, Guns 'n' Roses.

There are plenty of female artists who quite popular and famous - Aretha Franklin, Ella Fitzgerald, Gladys Knight (and the Pips), Natalie Cole, Lena Horne, Diana Ross & The Supremes, Mahalia Jackson (considered by some to be the world's greatest gospel singer), Chrissie Hynde (and the Pretenters), Annie Lenox, Heart (Nancy and Ann Wilson), Grace Slick (Jeffereson Airplane), Janis Joplin, . . . .

No no, Sandy lerner did not found the Cisco company herself.

From its modest beginnings at Stanford University in 1984 when Cisco founders Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner

http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/779/largeent/landingPage/innovation.html
Well, she co-founded it (that's good enough). I don't know of any individual who founded a large company on his (or her) own. One usually requires help from others. Even Edison and Westinghouse had help from others.

Dame Anita Roddick, founder of The Body Shop, is a Non-Executive Director of the Company and was Co-Chair with Gordon Roddick until February 2002. The Company has a consultancy agreement with Anita Roddick Publications Ltd through which Anita provides expertise and creativity to the central and regional product development teams.

Anita opened the first branch of The Body Shop in Brighton in 1976. She was the creative inspiration behind the Company's original style and image. Anita was awarded an OBE in 1988 and a DBE in June 2003

The Body Shop is multi-national.

Now 30 years on The Body Shop is a multi local business with over 2.045 stores serving over 77 million customers in 51 different markets in 25 different languages and across 12 time zones.

Anita Roddick started another company. http://www.anitaroddick.com/aboutanita.php


Lynne Cox - long distance swimmer
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0375415076/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Just about every other person in the world seems like an unfocused dilettante compared to long-distance swimming legend Lynne Cox. Soon At the age of 14, after several years of training hard in pools and the open sea, she was swimming the 26 mile stretch from Catalina Island to the coast of California. A year after that, she surpassed a lifelong goal by not only swimming the English Channel but setting a new men's and women's record in the process. Rather than be satisfied, Cox aimed still higher, conquering the Cook Strait in New Zealand, the Strait of Magellan and, the Cape of Good Hope, none of which had been swum before. Being the first to swim the Bering Sea from Alaska to what was then the Soviet Union is perhaps Cox's most impressive achievement, requiring a phenomenal amount of physical strength and endurance to withstand the chilly waters and diplomatic persistence to gain permission from Gorbachev during the Cold War. Swimming to Antarctica is Cox's remarkably detailed account of her major swims and all that went right and wrong with them. While there are plenty of highs, as one might expect in a memoir by so impressive an athlete, all is not sunshine and roses for Cox. She overcomes extreme physical hardship, predatory sharks, and a swim through a sewage-soaked Nile while suffering from dysentery. There is plenty in Swimming to Antarctica to encourage even non-swimmers to work hard to achieve the seemingly impossible, but Cox, a skilled and highly readable writer, sticks to the swimming, leading the reader by example. For thrills and inspiration, it's hard to find anyone better than Lynne Cox.

from Amazon

Women compete alongside men in Triathalons and Marathons.

Women's records in Marathon
http://www.athletix.org/statistics/wrmarathonwomen.html

Men's records in Marathon
http://www.athletix.org/Statistics/wrMarathonmen.html

Still about 11 minute difference between top men's and women's scores - but they have been converging over the years.

 

[honestrosewater]

Clearly, you have not been following the discussion. We are not looking for that connection.

Well, someone needs to establish that connection: how are these questions that you're asking relevant? How many groups of women have started current Fortune 500 companies? How many groups of women had walked on the moon in 1875? How is either question relevant to either of your claims that (i) women cannot work together in a group at all or (ii) women cannot work together in a group as well as men can?

Besides, the onus would normally fall on you to provide evidence supporting your claims, yes, rather than on others to refute them?

With all do respect, NO. I want to balance the achievements of all male groups with all female groups on the top level. That was the original intention of this discussion. Why would we change this all of the sudden ?

My thoughts exactly: why change? Your first post in this discussion said:

Besides, you do realize that women are not able to work with each other on the same project. Girls just don't get along with each other. This is a psychological fact.

Looking for groups of women that were not able to work together seems like a good start to testing that claim, which is the one I had in mind.

And what do you hope to learn by comparing the achievements of two groups without knowing whether those groups have had and seized the same opportunities?

I'm not actually interested in arguing with you about either of your claims. I just had to point out how erroneous your methods seem to me.

 

[honestrosewater]

Also, don't forget that a music group's success does not depend solely on the ability of its members to work together or whatever, but also -- perhaps more so -- on whether people actually consume their music. So what are lists of music groups supposed to prove?

The same considerations apply to sports, business, etc. These groups don't function in a vacuum.

 

[Moonbear]

Ok, first of all, i used anecdotal evidence to counter your objections on my first post here. In your original post, 99.9% of the content was based upon such evidence. Now, that we both agree that anecdotal evidence does not denote a general trend (like you first said) this must tell you that your original post really did not say that much at all.

Because YOUR original post really says nothing much at all. You claim a trend, but have not given ANY evidence other than anecdotal evidence, then claim anecdotal evidence is useless. You can't have it both ways. I'll just take it that you have no evidence other than your own misguided personal bias on this matter. I'm not surprised. Usually sexist arguments take this tactic of picking and choosing examples of a woman failing here or there and then refusing to acknowledge all the successes or advances made in spite of all the roadblocks put in the way. Show me the studies that demonstrate the trend you speak of, or admit there is no trend other than in your own personally biased point of view. Claiming trends where there isn't even a study to demonstrate a trend is not at all scientific.

 

[Moonbear]

Nobody cares about that if you look at the number of people in the audience. One cannot compare this to the Tour de France, The WorldCup Soccer, the WorldCup Rugby...

And I couldn't care less about any of those. Utterly useless wastes of time. The thread was a nice, light-hearted bit about ruling the world, then you took it to the business world, and as we've shattered those misperceptions of yours, now you're grasping at sports. It's overgrown children who haven't yet left the playground.

C'mon, don't tell me that all my arguments can be countered here, because you know as well as i do wath the truth is.

I know what the truth is. The truth is that you have no argument. We can't counter nothing. Offer up studies, evidence, something more than anectdotal nonsense, picking and choosing of skills that are only important in your own mind. Really...music groups and sports? Neither of those are areas in which popularity and talent necessarily go hand-in-hand. How many people will route for the home team even if they are complete losers? How many people attend concerts of the talentless pop groups? It means nothing. Personally, I think someone like Arethra Franklin beats the socks off the Beatles any day. I don't really know why the Beatles have all the popularity they do.

Now stop derailing this thread.

 

[honestrosewater]

Okay, it's time for Aretha's cover of Let it Be. I'll play it for everyone every afternoon when I take over the world.

 

[wolram]

Okay, it's time for Aretha's cover of Let it Be. I'll play it for everyone every afternoon when I take over the world.

Steady on old girl, when did you get these delusions grandeur

 

[honestrosewater]

Steady on old girl, when did you get these delusions grandeur

Oh, woops. I meant we... when we take over the world. *nervous chuckle*

 

[marlon]

There are plenty of female artists who quite popular and famous

Astronuc, most of the examples you gave are famous women but they are not famous female groups ! This is what we originally talked about. And don't tell me that the Eurythmics are in the same league as the Rolling Stones.

Why didn't you mention Destiny's Child. They indeed are very famous. BUT, all these girls do is sing (well only Beyonce Knowles, but anyhow) and dance but the actual song writing, music producing and editing is done by men in 99.9 % of the cases. the creative work is done by men and don't come and tell me that women are not allowed to do that. Why is there no female variant of Quincy Jones (again : WITH THE SAME LEVEL OF EXPERTISE, HIT SONGS, HIT RECORDS) or Dr Dre, ...

I don't know of any individual who founded a large company on his (or her) own. One usually requires help from others. Even Edison and Westinghouse had help from others.

But i am not talking about individuals i am talking about groups !

The Body Shop is multi-national.

If that's started by an all female group than that would indeed classify as an example.

You see, i don't want to go on and on about this but i do think that i have proven something here. I asked for some examples of all women's achievements in various fields and i don't think you will deny how difficult it is to give good examples. This clearly shows something about the ability of "all female groups" that has nothing to do with female discrimination or whatever. Why ? Because we are talking about various fields, in various areas, various times (eg Estée lauder) and various societies. So the easy way out (ie : women were not allowed to) does not fly here. It is just a fact that statistically, men tend to be more creative, innovative and effective then women. that's all there is to it. i know that this is not a popular message and many people will directly disagree. But i assure you that of those many people, at least 50 % will still agree but just does not have the guts to say it out loud.

regards
marlon

 

[Moonbear]

You see, i don't want to go on and on about this but i do think that i have proven something here. I asked for some examples of all women's achievements in various fields and i don't think you will deny how difficult it is to give good examples. This clearly shows something about the ability of "all female groups" that has nothing to do with female discrimination or whatever. Why ? Because we are talking about various fields, in various areas, various times (eg Estée lauder) and various societies.

No, that's the error in your premise. You're using examples from societies that have ALL discriminated against women. This discrimination has been rather ubiquitous among industrialized nations.

So the easy way out (ie : women were not allowed to) does not fly here. It is just a fact that statistically, men tend to be more creative, innovative and effective then women. that's all there is to it. i know that this is not a popular message and many people will directly disagree. But i assure you that of those many people, at least 50 % will still agree but just does not have the guts to say it out loud.

Again, you're making completely baseless claims. 50% will agree? Oh, nice way to wiggle out of accepting the truth, "they agree with me, but won't admit it"...yep, talk about denial!

I've already pointed you to actual SOURCES that refute your claim completely, that show that women work BETTER in groups.

Though I laugh when you cite bands as good examples of teamwork. Hee. How many times did those bands break up because they couldn't work together long-term?

Oh, by the way, the Eurythmics is not an all female group.

The Supremes, however, was, and unlike the Beatles, the individual members also were highly successful when they moved into independent careers.

With twelve #1 pop singles, numerous gold recordings, soldout concerts, and regular television appearances, the Supremes were not only the most commercially successful female group of the Sixties, but among the top five pop/rock/soul acts of the decade...

The number one female group had 18 Hot 100 hits as the Supremes, nine as Diana Ross and the Supremes, three as Diana Ross and the Supremes and Temptations, twelve as the Supremes after Ross left, and two as the Supremes and the Four Tops. Obviously, the whole was always greater than its parts to its fans, and the Supremes sound as good at the end as they did when the hits first started.

http://www.history-of-rock.com/supremes.htm

As for why women are not moving further ahead in the business world, here is an example of why:

Reaching outside the business community in order to have a woman director is tokenism, and the demise of this practice "is actually a good thing", according to one male director. Yet he too expressed frustration as he watched his fellow directors discuss the desirability of recruiting a woman board member but never actually do it. Year after year, he told us, names of prominent, "highly qualified" women would be proposed, including, once, a Nobel Laureate. These women were rejected, our source said, typically because they were perceived as "too strong ... [the other directors] wanted someone nice and non-controversial, someone who wouldn't rock the boat.". Despite management's avowed desire to have a woman on their board, they have not managed to accomplish this, whatever the actual reason. This male director's opinion was echoed by one of the most distinguished women directors: "They don't want someone who will shake the tree too much."

But if a woman with significant non-profit experience is no longer qualified and a Nobel Laureate is too strong, what does that say about the opportunities for women to make it into the boardroom?

http://www.cyberwerks.com/dataline/mapping/womenonf.html

So Gilmore carved out a dual solution in the form of Connect, a Littleton, Colorado-based IT staffing company she founded with partner Maureen Clarry. The business allows the two women the flexibility they crave while providing them with an outlet for their entrepreneurial drive. In the years since, Connect has grown to a $6.8 million business.

The number of women-owned businesses in this country grew at twice the rate of all firms between 1997 and 2002, jumping 14 percent to 6.2 million, according to the Center for Women's Business Research.
Women-owned businesses account for 28 percent of all privately-owned businesses, and employ 9.2 million people. They contribute $2.38 trillion in revenue to the U.S. economy, according to the Small-Business Association.

http://www.score.org/m_pr_20.html

Marlon, I also wonder why you dismiss academics as not part of the "professional" world? It most certainly is a profession. Could it be that women's groups and teams are successful in academics, so you need to dismiss academics in order to continue tilting at your windmill?

 

[Cyrus]

Though I laugh when you cite bands as good examples of teamwork. Hee. How many times did those bands break up because they couldn't work together long-term?

AHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAH! I love your sarcasm.