Men make the world VIOLENT, Women make it full of SEX

[kenpo tiger]

MARGARET THATCHER and INDIRA GHANDHI weren't aggressive and "warlike," in any way?

Say what?

My dear Robertson,
To my way of thinking, no, not warlike. When's the last time India invaded a major power's territory? Aggressive? Surely, since one of the qualities of a leader, in my opionion, is to be aggressive, thus taking the lead... Or are you saying that they were aggressive in a negative sense, since they're women...
*tiger claws scratch the earth slowly and methodically*

 

[PeachMonkey]

To my way of thinking, no, not warlike.

So was England's conflict with Argentina over the Falkland Islands not a war?

When Indira Ghandi won a war with Pakistan in 1971, did that not somehow not count as a war? Is Pakistan not *major* enough of a country for the war to really matter?

When she was caught manipulating election results, was ordered to vacate her seat as Prime Minister, and instead declared a State of Emergency and created a dictatorship, imprisoning political foes, censored the press, and placed the nation under the rule of her eldest son Sanjay, was that somehow justified? Was that simply "taking the lead", as you say?

When she responded to Sikh separatists by nearly destroying their holiest shrine and massacring its occupants, was that a sign of sweetness and love?

Indira Gandhi desecrated the memory of her father, Jawaharlal Nehru and did near-irreparable harm to India's democratic processes.

None of this means women as a gender are not capable of providing lawful, peaceful leadership, mind you.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Peach,

Look at what you cited - and how long ago. And, no, I don't deem Pakistan a *major* power, which is precisely why I said what I did. I'm talking about conflicts which include, willingly or not, every major power in the world - like the Iraqi war - or a potential WWIII, should that ever occur.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Thanks for the backup I was too lazy to provide...

And as for the assertion that, "aggression," is essential to leadership, well, I'd say either, a) what a guy's argument, or b) then I look forward to the day that we get rid of the disease of, "leadership," in the way we normally conceive of it.

I've seen enough phony, "educational leadership," thanks. It always boils down to the same same: bullying by some fool who's got a little power for some reason that has nothing at all to do with their brains, record or plans, bullying which draws on crackpot notions about human nature, culture, and history.

These are the clowns who stuck us with, "Mission Statements," and "Vision Statements," and I'll bet it's pretty much the same in the government....and a lot of business, for that matter.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

For at least one researcher who is doing excellent work with chimpanzees (common chimps) and cognition, you may want to check out Dr. Sally Boysen's site

http://chimpcenter.osu.edu/default.htm

She doesn't have research article links, but I will try to find any that might be free online.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Look at what you cited - and how long ago. And, no, I don't deem Pakistan a *major* power, which is precisely why I said what I did.

KT, I have to admit I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe you can help me out.

First, you mentioned that you didn't consider Thatcher and Indira Ghandi to be warlike. Robert contested -- you claimed that they weren't warlike to your way of thinking.

The facts and wars that I cited happened *during their terms of power*. That's how "long ago" they took place. In what other way is the time since they occurred relevant?

I'm talking about conflicts which include, willingly or not, every major power in the world - like the Iraqi war - or a potential WWIII, should that ever occur.

I think I understand your reasoning, although I find it incredibly flawed.

Why does it not make someone warlike to invade Pakistan? Are the lives of Indian and Pakistani soldiers and civilians not important unless they take part in some kind of global conflict?

Why is it not warlike to massacre members of a religious sect you aren't a member of?

Why is it not warlike to defend your claims to a far-off island by effectively destroying Argentina's navy and expelling Argentine soldiers with your military?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

You are all feminists. Yes. You. The Testosterone Tribe. Your moms should be very very proud of you. Evolved males -- what a concept!

Um, thanks for what I think is a compliment, but I have to seriously ask: Huh?

 

[kenpo tiger]

Thanks for the backup I was too lazy to provide...

And as for the assertion that, "aggression," is essential to leadership, well, I'd say either, a) what a guy's argument, or b) then I look forward to the day that we get rid of the disease of, "leadership," in the way we normally conceive of it.

Show me one leader who is completely non-aggressive and I will gladly concede the point to you. I have a feeling that you agree more with your latter statement here. As to it being a 'guy's' argument, well, I'm not in a position to provide first-hand information... so I'll take your word for it for now.

Upthread there was discussion about the aggressive males and females in the chimp tribes, wasn't there? (Gotcha.)

 

[PeachMonkey]

And as for the assertion that, "aggression," is essential to leadership, well, I'd say either, a) what a guy's argument, or b) then I look forward to the day that we get rid of the disease of, "leadership," in the way we normally conceive of it.

Agreed. This is another part of the military and sports mindset that seems to have taken over (at least) American management philosophy.

The best managers I've ever worked for were not at all "aggressive". They led by example -- they worked hard, cared about the people they managed and their customers, had good senses of humor, earned the trust of their employees and trusted their employees in turn.

It would seem that for all the lip service we give to the TQM philosophies of Deming, it's really just that -- lip service.

I have to admit that I'm surprised that experienced martial artists participate in this common delusion -- the arts we practice help to teach us about the appropriateness of agression and passivity, in balance.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Um, thanks for what I think is a compliment, but I have to seriously ask: Huh?

Random, it was meant as complimentary. If you don't understand why, well, you are a guy... women regard different traits as desirable.

 

[loki09789]

KT, I have to admit I don't understand what you're talking about. Maybe you can help me out.

First, you mentioned that you didn't consider Thatcher and Indira Ghandi to be warlike. Robert contested -- you claimed that they weren't warlike to your way of thinking.

The facts and wars that I cited happened *during their terms of power*. That's how "long ago" they took place. In what other way is the time since they occurred relevant?



I think I understand your reasoning, although I find it incredibly flawed.

Why does it not make someone warlike to invade Pakistan? Are the lives of Indian and Pakistani soldiers and civilians not important unless they take part in some kind of global conflict?

Why is it not warlike to massacre members of a religious sect you aren't a member of?

Why is it not warlike to defend your claims to a far-off island by effectively destroying Argentina's navy and expelling Argentine soldiers with your military?

Of course all life is precious. I think the point is to ask yourself how many female lead dictators/imperialists...totalitarians can you remember from history that pulled some kind of major 'domination campaign' or serious genocide?

Personally I can't think of a one, but I am only an amatuer at this game. AND personally I don't think it is a point of gender (though I would say that the process that M and W apply will be different) as much as intent and motives.

If your selfish and greedy, or fantatical and convinced that your cause is just and absolves you of any immorallity in accomplishing your goals, then you are going to be capable of serious violence and corrupt acts - at least corrupt by a western historical perspective.

Sun Tzu supposedly killed a Concubine in the process of winning a bet with a nobleman who gambled on the idea that Sun Tzu couldn't train a group of concubines into a fighting unit....pretty 'immoral' to me, but within the context of the time and culture, not as bad as I would see it.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Agreed. This is another part of the military and sports mindset that seems to have taken over (at least) American management philosophy.

The best managers I've ever worked for were not at all "aggressive". They led by example -- they worked hard, cared about the people they managed and their customers, had good senses of humor, earned the trust of their employees and trusted their employees in turn.

And how did they get to that position of leadership? Hard work - long hours - isn't that being aggressive? And, I do agree that the mindset Robertson described is part of the *military/sport mindset* to which you refer. That's why so few women are managers - we are competitive, but our playing field, as it were, is far smaller because we are limited as to where we can go vis-a-vis where the deals are struck (men's clubs of all types) as well as not being included in "the old boy" network. Try, as a woman, to break into one of the above, and you're labelled. Look at Hillary Clinton, for example.

 

[kenpo tiger]

Of course all life is precious. I think the point is to ask yourself how many female lead dictators/imperialists...totalitarians can you remember from history that pulled some kind of major 'domination campaign' or serious genocide?

Personally I can't think of a one, but I am only an amatuer at this game. AND personally I don't think it is a point of gender (though I would say that the process that M and W apply will be different) as much as intent and motives.

If your selfish and greedy, or fantatical and convinced that your cause is just and absolves you of any immorallity in accomplishing your goals, then you are going to be capable of serious violence and corrupt acts - at least corrupt by a western historical perspective.

Sun Tzu supposedly killed a Concubine in the process of winning a bet with a nobleman who gambled on the idea that Sun Tzu couldn't train a group of concubines into a fighting unit....pretty 'immoral' to me, but within the context of the time and culture, not as bad as I would see it.

Thank you, Paul.

 

[PeachMonkey]

And how did they get to that position of leadership? Hard work - long hours - isn't that being aggressive?

I disagree. "Aggression" and "ambition" are two different things (although they often go hand-in-hand in our society these days).

Let's keep in mind that the word "aggression" literally means initiating hostilities or attacks, or behaving in a hostile or destructive fashion.

You *can* work hard, get ahead, and do well without attacking others or their works. The greatest leaders, in fact, are those who grow and "move up" without tearing others down.

That's why so few women are managers - we are competitive, but our playing field, as it were, is far smaller because we are limited as to where we can go vis-a-vis where the deals are struck (men's clubs of all types) as well as not being included in "the old boy" network. Try, as a woman, to break into one of the above, and you're labelled. Look at Hillary Clinton, for example.

In my field, there are actually quite a few female managers, and the number is growing. I certainly wouldn't say equality has been achieved, however.

 

[loki09789]

Try, as a woman, to break into one of the above, and you're labelled. Look at Hillary Clinton, for example.

Though not a Billary fan, I can respect the struggle of being a woman in a male dominated game and how, honestly, being percieved as a cast iron...well you know, might be the only way to 'break even' in that game. Fair? Not really. I think the phrase is something like 'having to be twice as good just be seen as equal' or something like that.

Let's flip this around a bit:

Do men make poorer stay at home parents just because they are men? Do men make 'better' doctors because they are men, or do women because they are 'natural nurturers'.... come on. This logic, whether at an individual level or sociological level of study is so full of holes it isn't even funny.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Of course all life is precious. I think the point is to ask yourself how many female lead dictators/imperialists...totalitarians can you remember from history that pulled some kind of major 'domination campaign' or serious genocide?

I don't fully disagree.

The point I was debating, specifically, was whether Margaret Thatcher and Indira Ghandi could be termed as having been "warlike" leaders.

I still assert that one does not have to murder millions or plunge the planet into catastophic global warfare in order to have behaved in a warlike fashion.

Moreover, Indira Ghandi's practices towards Sikhs and Moslems bordered on the genocidal.

I'm also not convinced that, had society provided more equality and more opportunities for female leadership during social, economic, and political situations that led to widespread warfare and genocide, that there would not have been female leaders as totalitarian, genocidal, and just plain insane as the male ones.

As an example, I will bring you back to the discussion of male vs female management, and "aggression". I have worked for both men and women, and with both genders, I have seen calm, ideal leaders as well as manipulative, aggressive, micromanaging, cuthroat leaders.

 

[loki09789]

I disagree. "Aggression" and "ambition" are two different things (although they often go hand-in-hand in our society these days).

Let's keep in mind that the word "aggression" literally means initiating hostilities or attacks, or behaving in a hostile or destructive fashion.

You *can* work hard, get ahead, and do well without attacking others or their works. The greatest leaders, in fact, are those who grow and "move up" without tearing others down.



In my field, there are actually quite a few female managers, and the number is growing. I certainly wouldn't say equality has been achieved, however.

Agressive can either be an adjective or a verb. I think that in this case it is being used as an adjective, which only serves to describe the way that people would work hard. I am pretty sure that the Hillary Clinton example could be describe as 'agressively pursuing her career goals.' without it having to mean physical hostility.

 

[loki09789]

As an example, I will bring you back to the discussion of male vs female management, and "aggression". I have worked for both men and women, and with both genders, I have seen calm, ideal leaders as well as manipulative, aggressive, micromanaging, cuthroat leaders.

And there may be 'trends' that could be indicative of nature (being 'a man') or culture/upbringing (gender roles/trained behavior...) or a combination of both, so I think on the idea that it is a 'woman thing' or a 'man thing' we agree that it isn't just because of gender.

I have had agressive, positive and productive bosses both male and female.

I have had agressive, manipulative and unproductive bosse from either gender.

I have had passive, laid back bosses...

In otherwords, 'gender' isn't the only or in most cases the major indicator of what kind of leadership will be in place.

 

[rmcrobertson]

No, not gotcha with the bonobos. Faux biology/ethnology summoned up to support patriarchal ideology is not the sort of stuff I consider convincing evidence.

But beware of TQM. What I've read is more...let's just say stuff, and anyway, wasn't this developed to manage Blue and Gold crews on navy missile subs?

I go for it when they give English teachers control of Trident IIIs.

Again, though, claiming that Thatcher and Ghandi weren't hyper-aggressive can only be supported if you ignore what everybody who ever worked with them had to say.

 

[PeachMonkey]

Again, though, claiming that Thatcher and Ghandi weren't hyper-aggressive can only be supported if you ignore what everybody who ever worked with them had to say.

It also helps if you ignore virtually all of their political and military policies and actions.