One reason that women might not do as well as men in a capitalistic
society is that the goals don't make any sense to them.
Bill
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 13:27:47 -0700 "Darryl and Natalia"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi Selma,
>
> I'm sure you've noticed:
> for all the studies done from year to year on this topic, and for
> all of the
> great
> strides of competing women in a man's workplace, with the exception
> of few
> examples, the progress with respect to real change for the good of
> humankind
> has a tendency to be undone rather rapidly for the sake of economy
> and
> control.
> It is true of the good work of both men and women.
>
> Studies done on women in the workplace and their ability to compete
> are not
> truly representative, are selective like most data, and though they
> may cite the opinions of a few executive females, are usually
> conducted from
> the P.O.V. of women who hope to manipulate the system that
> perpetuates the
> illusion of being in control. Their achievements do little to
> challenge the
> low value
> placed on women, and as you mention in a later post, would not come
> from
> the mind of a woman who understands or could initiate real change.
>
> Situations in which change has been initiated and maintained have
> been
> examples
> of creativity becoming the tool of resistance, rather than one of
> perpetuating an
> old and dysfunctional patriarchal model in which one vainly hopes to
> build
> on
> something devised out of inequalities.
>
> One can plainly see that big business is now the demi-god of school
> systems,
> despite the predominance of women therein, and this is mostly
> because
> corporate
> men are in charge not only of administration in top positions, but
> more
> particularly
> of allocation of funding. Funding must fall in line with the
> corporate ideal
> of
> perpetuating what helps the nation to grow--and arts, they
> erroneously
> think,
> does not contribute enough to an economy.
>
> Another aspect, and one that underlies this hasty almost global
> negation
> of the arts, is that creativity itself is an act of resistance that
> breaks
> through
> conformity. It is greatly feared for its genuine ability to make
> lasting
> change,
> that will topple any unreal power-over that patriarchy has
> mis-created.
>
> Since the mishandling and abuse of the 9-11 incident by BushCo and
> the
> neocons, the tool of fear--in which creativity has such limited
> opportunity
> to flourish the way that it is meant to--has unfortunately been
> directly and
> indirectly applied to every aspect of our lives, locally and
> globally. This
> has
> resulted in a thousand steps backwards for humanity. Real social
> issues will
> now be buried in favor of defending the wealth of the nation, and
> ultimately
> the wealth of very few. The controls now imposed upon the U.S. are
> at the
> expense of its infrastructure. Other nations, all of whom are run by
> similar
> patriarchal systems that negate creativity and suppress expression,
> have
> taken advantage of the scapegoat threat which helps the masses to
> forget
> about their inability to change inequities and injustices, and have
> initiated
> homeland security measures of their own. These measures will do
> little to
> ferret out terrorism, but will do lots to augment power-over, and so
> much
> more for the pockets and portfolios of the those who like to invest
> in fear-
> related industries.
>
> I believe I've said it before on this list: the chances of anyone
> ever being
> within a mile of a terrorist are so remote--you are far more likely
> to be
> attacked by industrial pollution, the pharmaceutical arsenal, a
> nuclear
> power station, the local rapist, your spouse, a drunk driver, or
> some
> top U.S. military officials who lose it and push the wrong buttons
> from
> within the largest and scariest panoply of weapons of mass
> destruction
> ever invented by patriarchy. The latter also applies to my guess
> that it was
> within the U.S. military/airforce command that 9-11 was born or
> allowed
> to transpire as the excuse for egregious military spending and
> unilateral
> action.
>
> Such is the "control" and chaos out of which most men make inference
> to
> women's inability to compete. The playing field has little relevance
> to the
> life
> around which people should be working. It is misguidedly focused
> upon money
> instead of humanity and the pursuit of education and civilization.
> Changing
> the
> arena would mean that most men do not get voted into positions of
> authority
> by
> the women who are the majority, and then perhaps, we can take the
> time
> to examine why it is that once most men assume the reins of control,
> they
> seriously abuse it, and then help them to grow out of it.
>
> I doubt the neocons looked to the future in this respect, by making
> elections subject to cancellation for the good of the nation, as
> might occur
> if it appears that Bush will lose in 2004. If re-elected, I suspect
> that
> they will
> bring about the ultimate threat--ALIEN INVASION--a most lucrative
> enterprise, that will keep the media going 24/7, perpetuate war as
> the
> highest
> pursuit possible, and refill the pockets of the military industry
> magnates.
> Women will be threatened by alien impregnation or having to do
> laundry for
> an
> invading hyper-freighter. Superior U.S. technology will place the
> imperial
> crown on Bush's brave little head, and our global fear will be
> replete.
>
> If the nation could believe that it took over an hour to scramble
> defence
> jets in response to a terrorist threat like 9-11, and further
> believe
> everything
> else that Bush threw at them around this event, then it is
> appositely primed
> for the alien invasion hoax that will unite both East and West. At
> this
> point
> Bush will probably announce that he does indeed talk to God, Who
> favours
> America of course. Then Bush will be written about in the new
> neocon
> bible, like all the other mostly male prophets who heard the voice
> of a
> vengeful and punishing god.
>
> Yes, I've heard of the exceptions, like Joan of Arc, the Amazons,
> the
> rare exceptions who came out of matriarchies. Spare me, you men on
> the
> list who will be quick to jump in with your remarks about abusive
> women,
> increasing numbers in the military, and other power positions, etc.
> Patriarchy has successfully screwed up both sexes, and the offspring
> of
> both.
> Take an honest look at who is in power, world-wide, and what they
> represent.
> Power-over is not real power, can never be a real power, and it will
> come
> to pass because its foundation is illusory.
>
> As a relevant aside, please take note of the medical and
> pharmaceutical
> sectors as they increase prescriptions for what are actually social
> problems.We have a nation of men and women on cry-if-I-could Prozac
> and other anti-depressants, and children on Ritalin. The offspring
> of the
> parents
> who take these drugs often end up on Ritalin, then must graduate to
> the
> grown-up drugs. Hence the current medicalization, and very
> suppressed
> not to mention creatively repressed populace, looking to the
> immediate
> gratification of media and Hollywood for fulfillment. Another
> feather of
> control
> in the cap of capitalism. Another blow for the Arts. Another sad
> example of
> insane men assuming control over healing from good men and mostly
> women
> of yester-year.
>
> This type of control will be rampant the more desperate and demised
> the
> military machine becomes. Air, water, food, electronics & various
> signals
> will
> be quite contaminated with control features. Patriarchy is really
> only run
> by a
> few men. Most of the rest, along with women and children, are pawns
> too, but
> have bought the illusion of being part of the control team. Perhaps
> that
> illusion is
> expressed in the non-verbal male communication that was mentioned,
> whose
> nuances many will remember from basic psychology or real estate
> courses.
> Trying to communicate or negotiate as patriarchal pawns rather than
> as
> people
> with goals based in real values simply feeds a flawed existing
> system, and
> contributes to the erosion of the very qualities that make us human.
> If
> women
> only mirror men in their communications, they will not be aspiring
> to the
> ideals
> that humankind holds for itself. Nurturing and inspiring creativity
> will be
> subjugated to the edicts of the state, like in good old Russia
> under
> communist
> rule. Eventually even patriarchy wonders where the love for life has
> gone.
>
> More women in the workplace has not resulted in a shift in power.
> The
> wealthy
> few have simply tightened the reins, and increased their power base
> and
> wealth
> almost beyond restoration to balance. I believe, however, that the
> fear that
> binds
> is going to be its imminent undoing, and that that undoing will
> occur before
> the
> decades it would take for real change to transpire. Too many
> weapons, too
> much
> insanity in the White House, changing nature itself, changing humans
> for
> countless
> generations, taking away the basic necessities of life from their
> very own
> hopes for
> tomorrow. The trick is, if we simply let patriarchy crumble, there
> will
> still be a
> handful who retain their money and power, and it will not be easy
> to
> disempower
> or disinherit them
>
> We will have to make the necessary changes to the power grid, and
> re-
> shape it to one of fruit bearing structure, or else succumb to the
> suicide
> of all vapid
> cultures, by greed, W.M.D.'s or by the apathy due to loss of
> honouring the
> soul.
>
> Women, who are in the majority, must reconsider how such absolute
> power-over
> comes about, must look at peaceful alternatives and step up to the
> vote with
> foresight. Alongside the aware men of which there should be enough,
> we must
> remove the insane mostly men from power positions, starting at the
> oval
> office.
> Let that trickle down into a system that can resuscitate a
> life-force. The
> world and all
> precious life upon it cannot afford to wait for gradual change.
>
> Still optimistic,
> Natalia
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: Selma Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why men succeed at work
>
>
> > I have mixed feelings about that, Bill.
> >
> > There are two schools of thought about how women should compete in
> a male
> > marketplace. One school obviously consists in those women who try
> to beat
> > men at their own game; i.e., learn how to manipulate and use power
> the way
> > men do.
> >
> > Another school, which I'm sure you'll agree, is probably
> unrealistic in
> many
> > ways, would like to see the business world change so that it
> becomes more
> > humane and this latter school hopes that having more women in the
> business
> > world will make that more possible.
> >
> > I think there is a little bit of evidence that there has been a
> recognition
> > in some quarters that a more humane approach actually increases
> profit,
> but
> > it hasn't gone very far. For a while there was some discussion of
> the
> > "feminization" of the workplace as less brutal methods were seen
> as
> > beneficial for business.
> >
> > I haven't been involved in current events in either sociology or
> women's
> > studies for the last eight years so I don't know what's been
> happening in
> > that regard. Perhaps there are some on this list who are more
> up-to-date.
> >
> > Selma
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 10:45 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why men succeed at work
> >
> >
> > > Selma,
> > >
> > > I certainly agree with you. Rather than expecting men to change,
> I feel
> > > that there is need to set up a training program so that women
> will be
> > > able to steal men's signals.
> > >
> > > Bill
> > >
> > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:35:58 -0400 "Selma Singer"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > There is considerable sociological evidence that women are at
> a
> > > > disadvantage
> > > > in business relationships precisely, as Bill has noted,
> because they
> > > > do not
> > > > have the same experience with sports that boys and men do.
> > > >
> > > > As a feminist who is not crazy about capitalism, I don't
> necessarily
> > > > believe
> > > > that that kind of interaction is necessarily good for human
> or
> > > > societal
> > > > development but that is a totally different issue.
> > > >
> > > > Selma
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 9:14 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why men succeed at work
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Ray,
> > > > >
> > > > > You are absolutely right. A lot of times, men skip
> important
> > > > issues and
> > > > > come to a resolution having to do with the power structure
> of the
> > > > group
> > > > > or with known vested interests. A lot of times, women
> realize that
> > > > there
> > > > > are better ways of dealing with the issue but still are
> unaware
> > > > that the
> > > > > power structure has ended discussions. I certainly was not
> trying
> > > > to
> > > > > imply that men are better decision makers, just that they
> are
> > > > attune to
> > > > > signals coming in from the bench.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bill
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:10:05 -0400 "Ray Evans Harrell"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > writes:
> > > > > > Was the issue truly resolved or was it just that a
> decision had
> > > > been
> > > > > > made?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > REH
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 8:53 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Futurework] Why men succeed at work
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > My hypothesis as to why men do better at work is that
> men, due
> > > > to
> > > > > > their
> > > > > > > sports and other patterns of interaction, have created
> > > > nonverbal
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > coded patterns of communication when doing business. I
> have
> > > > seen
> > > > > > > situations where negotiations on an issue have ended
> where
> > > > both
> > > > > > men and
> > > > > > > women are present and women have not realized that a
> decision
> > > > has
> > > > > > been
> > > > > > > made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The males will be moving on to other issues while the
> woman
> > > > is
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > > discussing the issue unaware that it has been resolved.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Bill
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 00:02:18 -0700 Stephen Straker
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > > > > > > from this week's Economist:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <<<<
> > > > > > > > > BE A MAN
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Men compete harder than women. That is why they do
> better
> > > > > > > > > at work ...
> > > > > > > > [cut]
> > > > > > > > > women
> > > > > > > > > and men have different attitudes to competing...
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Maybe's men's attitudes towards work and towards
> their
> > > > > > > > fellow workers is part of the PROBLEM ... ("Do unto
> others
> > > > > > > > before they do it unto you", etc.). Many things we
> have
> > > > > > > > talked about on this list over the years would suggest
> as
> > > > > > > > much.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stephen Straker
> > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > > Vancouver, B.C.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Futurework mailing list
> > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >
> http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > > > > > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno
> SpeedBand!
> > > > > > > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> > > > > > > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up
> today!
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Futurework mailing list
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > > > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno
> SpeedBand!
> > > > > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> > > > > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Futurework mailing list
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> ________________________________________________________________
> > > The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> > > Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> > > Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Futurework mailing list
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Futurework mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
> >
>
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________
The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
