--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <some snippage done throughout>
> > > I also don't think that "progress" is only
> > measured by
> > > technology and business -- particularly I don't
> > think
> > > that most corporations have a shining "vision of
> > the future"- other than their own profits (of course
> > there are responsible and innovative companies which
> > do).
> >
> > 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. While
personal advancement was not unkown, it was not common for it to be placed
above the mission. While there was political rambeling internaly, it was not
based primarily on who empowered who, who liked who, and who sucked up to who
in just the right way, as to make who ~feel~ important or powerful.
At least not in a majority. There was a study...(read it after listening to a
bit on NPR about 10 months ago - can't find it now as I don't remember any of
the names.) which found that most buisneses do more to hinder themselves than
they do to better themselves and that the reason was internal politics
centered most usualy around people skills and popularity battles, not
technical decisions.
> > > > Support for this can be shown in advancements
> > made in the last century prior
> > > > to "womens lib" and those made after it.
>
> > > ??? My understanding (and if someone has a site
> > >showing
> > > otherwise, I'd appreciate the posting) is that
> > > scientific advancement in the past hundred or so
> > years has been on a nearly asymptotic curve (IIRC
> the
> > >term) compared to the prior millennia. <snip>
>
> > Exactly it is only when the effort was achieved that
> > the advancement
> > deterioraited. NASA can't even listen to their
> > experts any more, and why?
> > Becouse they are not "people persons" enough to get
> > themselves heard in a
> > strickly empathic driven political environement.
>
> I'm not tracking here, Jan; 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 (and deadly, as it
> turned out).
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.
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".
Not only is such a system extreamly ineficient, but it fosters failure. In
this case death.
You see, it's not that they were foolish as individuals (becouse clearly many
in the group were not), it's why, as a group they were foolish.
> -- but the
> first two examples in this paragraph are errors of
> judgement rather than genuinely encountered unforeseen
> problems, IMO.
Not the judgment of the scientists and engeneers, but the judgment of the
leaders.
> 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? I assure you if you want an article linked on the web to
support any argument, it will be available if you look long enough. If you
look longer you will find the opposite support.
so - No, but I am questioning it. It is my own thought...I think. First you
would have to show that there is a decline. Ok well, we went to the moon in
1969, where have we gone since?
We use to have software that could comunicate across many differnt nodes and
work concurently and quickly in binary. Now we have port 80 and unicode and
it keeps being fed down our throats like it was some kind of advancement.
nuf said?
Now to why these decisions are being made. Maybe I should formalize this.
comlete with references...finding the NPR thing might help. But all you
really have to do is talk to Engineers over 50 about the way things use to
work compared to how they work now. Sure there is plenty that has improved
but the one overiding theam keeps comeing back to the whole touchy feely,
people person, empathic, mamsy-pamsy, buisness "culture" than now seems to
drive science and engeneering fields.
And it's not just men I'm talking to.
> <snip description of microculture that employs both
> "male" and "female" modes of thinking>
>
> > > Reason, logic, intuition and empathy definitely
> >>are synergystic when working on major problems, with
> > >of course one mode sometimes being more important
> > >than the others at different stages; the
> > > engineering/materials science had better be solid
> > when a bridge is designed and built, and the foreman
> > better
> > > have good people skills when it comes to choosing
> > the right worker(s) for the particular job, and
> being
> > able to spot trouble before it gets out-of-hand.
> >
> > I disagree. What possible use could a forman 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.
>
> I think we're using different descriptions of "people
> skills" -- I meant exactly what I said, that a foreman
> needs to be able to judge who is best for a particular
> job/team, which includes being aware of who might
> cause trouble
what is "trouble" and who might case it are "judgment calls". i.e. they pick
people they -like- or who the -like- to work with. Not necisarily who is best
at their job.
> or need closer supervision,
Once again a judgment call. BS!
>or who can
> be depended on to do the correct work without constant
> oversight. I did not say "brown-nosing" or
> "shmoozing."
You didn't have to. The BM-shmoozer (in whatever appropriate cultural way BN
and smoozing take in any particular environment) is exactly what will get the
forman to not put you on the list of "troubel-makeing needs close supervision
slacker".
> > > > i.e. I think we are shifting from the standard
> > > >being the "male" model to the
> > > > standard being the "female" model....At the same
> > > >time I do not think that either
> > > > extreem is the best one,
> > > > but rather the acceptance of individuals.
>
> > > I agree that using the best strengths of
> > >individuals is an ideal to strive for...<snip>
> > >(Except from the POV of those who want to be alone
> > >at the top of a pyramid
>
> > 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?
> > >-- it is not to their purpose at all for
> > > everyone to fulfill their individual potential.
> >
> > Not in the empathic world we live in.
>
> Not in any world -- brutal bullies have always stomped
> on the necks of those they consider their inferiors,
> and jealously guarded their "rights" to lord it over
> the lowly slave/serf/common man.
So shouldn't the culture be one that fosters the technicaly best people to
the top, not the best "lords".
> > > Women's equality under the law threatens the "I'm
> > > better than at least half of the population!"
> > > mentality of many men,
>
> > True if the only focus was on technical ability in
> > engeneering and science,
> > and the probability of getting a probelm solveing
> > brain really is higher for
> > men than for women, the ratios of men to women in
> > the leadership of such
> > fields would be skewed. They really would be better
> > statisticaly.
>
> <blinks at apparent non-sequitur>
> You deleted the part where I described the 'threatened
> men' as being found "particularly in many
> non-Western cultures, and in all
> extremist/fundamentalist religions. IMO" 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?
If is so happens that there are certain things that statisticaly women realy
are better than men at, then why shouldn't the number of women in those
positions be greater than men? And why shouldn't the average pay for that
position be higher for women than it is for men?
What do you consider equal? opertunity or numbers?
> And our problem-solving modes are just different,with
> quite different approaches. A personal example: <snip>
good for you, but these are not eximplery of the types of differences to
which I am reffering.
Please note that were are talking statistics here, not statisitics for the
abilities of each individual, but the statistics that the individual will be
naturaly incined for the ability. Watch _GATACA_ if you don't understand that
consept.
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.
> > An acknowledgment of this truth is not sexism.
> > Denying an individual who is
> > exceptional (given that this model is correct) would
> > be.
> >
> > i.e. if men really are better than women at certain
> > tasks (& vice versa) then
> > why do we as a people care if more men than women
> > (or vice versa) are
> > prominent in fields that require those tasks?
> > Especialy when wer recognize
> > that we can't tell where a person is on that
> > spectrum just by acknowledging their gender.
>
> 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? Or is it just on
~average~ that women are paid less?
> 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 :)
> "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? If you had 100 employees and they all either had no skill and lots of
drive, or no drive and lot of skill, which would you choose? And no, you
can't have the unskilled ones learn drive any more than the undriven ones
learn skill.
So let's rephrase it.
Equality under the law" to me includes having the opportunity to go as far as
my skills take me.
What skills? In what profession? Why would a marketing specialist selling
magazine addvertising to toy manufactures need a masters level understanding
of quantum physics? Simple they don't. But if they don't have good people
skills they might not be so good for the job.
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.
=====
_________________________________________________
Jan William Coffey
_________________________________________________
__________________________________
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
