On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 3:07 AM, Udhay Shankar N<[email protected]> wrote: > Um. Interesting take. Comments?
Heh, as always Udhay gets away with jabbing others for comments without revealing what he thinks... :p > > http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/06/18/the_death_of_macho > > The Death of Macho I think the author's flawed line of thought correlates"aggressive, risk-seeking behavior" i.e. machoness to men. Every successful business woman I've met has been more alpha-male than the most men. This one could say is what happens when a woman has to succeed in a man's world. Perhaps, but my theory is that "aggressive, risk-seeking behavior" is a cornerstone of success, and woman or man, the top dog will always be a mean bastard. It's simple, we humans don't elect any other type of leader. The good and bad leaders are only differentiated by their depth of tact when pursuing their selfishness. The selfish end goal need not be money or power, but an end result that is very dear to the leader. Hence we see Gandhi accused of selfishness in his handling of the partition, Nehru's selfishness when it came to Kashmir or Indira Gandhi's all around selfishness. Being the world's first modern lesbian leader or being a politician with a black belt in karate shows an appetite for risk and aggression. I don't see how women in power changes the equation. The meek inheriting the earth is an ancient pipe dream, so ancient we ended up making it a task for God. Cheeni
