--- Jan Coffey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<major snippage done throughout, but still an L3!>
> > > [D] I also don't think that "progress" is only
> > > >measured by technology and business --
> > >
> > > [J] Was it allways that way?
> >
> > I don't follow you here - I said that progress
> >does not equal technology and business alone...
>
> I am not sure that those who participated in sending
> a man to the moon has as
> a majority money grubing buisnessmen. In fact having
> met many of them I am
> quite certain that it was the mission, not the
> profit which drove them. <snip>
I did not equate NASA with a 'money-grubbing
corporation' -- and again, progress does *not* equal
merely technology and business. When I was a child,
there were still many states where "colored folk"
couldn't drink from the same drinking fountain as
whites - today that seems positively bizarre (and
wrong of course), I think to the majority of people
alive -- that is cultural progress.
Since the advent of women's rights, workplace safety
has improved -- I'm not saying that there is any
relationship -- but that is progress in the welfare
and health of many people.
<large snip>
> > [me]...failing to account for one
> > set of calculations done in kilometers and one in
> > miles (or feet) doesn't have anything to do with
> > "empathy" from my POV; not listening to warnings
> from their experts is just plain foolish...
>
> [J]Exacty the culture no longer is one where the
> administrators are there to
> facilitate the "technicals". The administrators are
> more concerned with their
> own position, prestige, and sense of power than what
> their experts are
> telling them. They are so full of themselves that
> they believe they know better than the experts.
<big ole grin> And huge egos are the provenence of
only women? Not in _my_ experience.
> Advancement to such positions require
> "empathic...people skills" not
> technical ability or savvy. Why? becouse only
> someone with those skill is
> able to survive the political in-fighting at "the
> top".
<cut&paste>
> > > What possible use could a forman have with
> > > People skills? The right
> > > workers are the ones that get the job done. The
> > >only trouble that is
> > > important is those that effect the task at hand.
> > > Focus on the people skills
> > > and who gets the job depends on who likes who,
> > > what personalities fit
> > > together, not who can get the job done. And if
> > > you are concerned with
> > > conflict then don't be. Conflict can be just as
> > > much a benifit as a
> > > detriment. Conflict is naturual, let it happen.
Again, you equate "people skills" with political
in-fighting and getting 'on-top.' We have nearly
polar opposite views of what goes into "people skills"
-- when one works with people, it is necessary to deal
effectively and efficiently with them. Sometimes it
does indeed means 'schmoozing,' but what it really
involves is "how do I get accomplished what I need to
be done now in the most effective way possible, that
will also allow me to _continue_ to get my job done in
the future?" Sometimes that means praise, sometimes a
swift verbal whack to the nose, sometimes
encouragement, sometimes refraining from interfering
and letting the other person figure it out on their
own.
Those who don't want to read a parallel from the
dogsledding realm addressing the issues of
personalities, conflict, and 'getting the job done' --
skip the next two paragraphs:
You have 8 huskies - all of them have particular
qualities ('skills') and personalities.
~Nikki - alpha bitch; she won't quit running until
exhausted, but she won't run at all unless she's in
the lead
~Ranger - easygoing and in no particular hurry, but
tremendously strong and steady; a reliable
weight-puller
~Kenai - despite his medical problems, the swiftest of
all; he tends to over-pace himself if in the lead,
compelling the others to keep up, thus tiring sooner
~Frank - competitive and the strongest puller, he
unfortunately picks fights constantly; most of the
team bear scars from his bullying
~Molly - enthusiastic and friendly, she works well
with any other dog, but is too distractable to keep
the team in line when problems erupt
~Thunder - a steady puller, his encounters with Frank
have damaged an eye and left him hesitant to try new
trails; he needs encouragement to extend real effort
~Silver - aloof, calm and never flustered, he is the
'Zen Of Dogsledding' puller, who expends exactly the
effort needed and not a jot more - or less
~Montana - other than scrapping with Nikki, an eager
puller who loves to race flat-out; she is paired with
Kenai to consistently win the 2-dog sprints (for kids)
Can you tell from these thumbnail sketches what team
configuration should be used for a medium race? a
sprint race? an endurance race? avoidance of fighting
in harness? maximal pulling power for an up-mountain
haul? [Of course, for true endurance you'd add 2 or
more pairs, but you get the picture.] Unlike polar
teams, which are configured in a 'fan' with each dog
on its own traceline, the uneven terrain and trees
mean that this team is attached to a single traceline,
in pairs, like the Budweiser Clydesdales.
> > Do you have an article stating that there has been
> >a technological decline, and how it is related to
> >the women's rights movement?
>
> What if I did?.... so - No, but I am questioning it.
> It is my own thought...I think....
OK, so we have differing opinions on this idea.
<snip>
> > > A type workers will allways try and make it to
> > >the top and then stay there.
> > > Why not focus their advancement on technical
> > >results rather than shmoozing, and being "people
> > >persons".
> > Ah, I wasn't being clear: I was referring to those
> >who want to be at the top of a pyramid *by
squashing
> >down those they consider their inferiors* - not
> > people who just want to show their prowess in
> >their chosen field.
>
> So we are agreeing?
<grin> Maybe! I was originally referring to those
who wish to be "lords," whether or not they have any
particular skills other than having actual power over
others. I think that those who rise to dictatorial
power (without a hereditary boost) do need to have
some compelling force, charm or personal magnetism
to gather enough followers to grab that power.
I think you are referring to people who rise in their
profession because of some valuable skill. I
certainly think that the skilled in any area ought to
be able to rise as far as their skill and drive take
them (I won't comment further on the "Peter Principle"
of 'rising to the level of one's incompetence,' other
than to note that it does seem to have some basis in
reality).
> So shouldn't the culture be one that fosters the
> technicaly best people to
> the top, not the best "lords".
Not exactly; the best leaders have actual 'hard'
(technical) skills as well as the ability to see and
utilize/enhance/foster the skills of others, (this
ability to put a team together is a 'soft' skill - or
people skills - *my* description of the latter, not
useless brown-nosing "yes-men" ;} )
<snip>
[me]> > Or are you
> > saying that *all* men are threatened by women
> >having equal rights under the law?
>
> We are all threatened when "equal rights" become
> "equal numbers". Should
> Dyslexics have "equal rights" to become english
> teachers? Do you want people
> with I.Q.'s under 80 to have "equal rights" to be
> Mathmaticians? The blind to be fighter pilots? Well?
<snort!> Obviously not - I *did* qualify "equal
rights" 'under the law' with "as far as [my] skills
and drive can take [me]." Which I think is just a
different way of saying what you did WRT 'individuals
being judged on their own merits.'
<snip>
> And I am not suggesting that skills you are not
> naturaly incliend to can not
> be learned -even better than one who is naturaly
> inclined-. But believe me,
> it means you are going to have to give something
> else up. If I wanted to I
> could be a perfect speller. But I would have to give
> up a lot of my time to
> it. I would probably be very overweight and
> depressed..actualy, I would
> probably have already had a hart attach and died. It
> isn't worth that price to me.
Yes. There is always a price to one's choices: actual
money, mental health, location, physical health...etc.
<snip>
> > I think what angers women is being denied equal
> >pay for work done *as well* as their male
> >counterparts,
>
> As it should, but is that really what is happening?
Yes. Of course, this is hard to prove, but I have a
number of women colleagues who found out that despite
their equal "productivity" and high ratings from
"customers," their salary/raise/bonus was less than
their male colleagues.
> Or is it just on ~average~ that women are paid less?
That too, statistically at least.
> > and being condescended to in their chosen
> professions,
>
> Yes I agree. What is worse is when men automaticaly
> assume that a woman is
> wrong and stop listening when she is trying to
> describe her ideas.
>
> > and being denied advancement when they are as well
> >(or better) qualified for a position.
>
> What about being denied advancement (even though
> your technical skills are
> far supperior) simply becouse you don't have the
> ~right kind~ of "people
> skills"? ...No, I didn't get passed over or
> anything. So don't read
> that...although admitedly that has a high
> probablility of happening :)
If "brown-nosing" is one of the 'right kind of people
skills,' then that of course is wrong (but not likely
to go away in our lifetime, I daresay <rolls eyes>);
but if one has superior technical skills yet *no*
ability to work with a team - and that is what
advancing requires - then being passed over is
reasonable.
> > "Equality under the
> > law" to me includes having the opportunity to go
> >as far as my skills and drive take me.
>
> What does drive have to do with it? If you had no
> skill at all, should drive matter? <snip>
Because if I have no/little drive or ambition, then my
superior is taking a risk in advancing me, as I may
not work as hard as he/she expects and needs. Then
they will have to demote or laterally transfer me, and
start over the process of finding the advanced
position. But you're right that ambition doesn't
factor into the law (except as motive in murder, I
guess!).
> So let's rephrase it.
>
> Equality under the law" to me includes having the
> opportunity to go as far as my skills take me.
OK.
> I don't want a patriarcle or a matriarcle society. I
> just hope that we
> quickly get over the aftershock of fixing gender
> based inequality.
That would suit me well. :)
Debbi
who in fact has worked with a dogsled team...woof! ;)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
