That is why I have to giggle when I hear the wishful thinking Manabees talking about the wonderful communication skills of the fairer sex. We talk a lot, that I'll give them but it takes a powerful farm tool thingy running full speed to separate the wheat from the chafe. We are most adept at talking about our feelings, and sometimes our feelings are very relevant, but they will not give us a unique advantage when it comes to discovering a cure for cancer, building a rocket-ship or negotiating a crucial deal.
We may have a different perspective than men, which can certainly add value to the mix, but it is a perspective, not the definitive truth. Usually it is wise to consider multiple perspectives lest one conclude the elephant is a snake.
Recent studies claim to prove that women are better suited for the modern business world, citing as evidence companies with relatively high ratios of women in key positions that have outperformed their rivals. To this, I have the following to add: cream of the crop data bias.
See, it's like this. Suppose Macy's has a 3 day sale. If you get there early, you will be able to snap up some really great items at bargain prices whereas those arriving on the third day may feel a little gypped. Then, armed with your wonderful buys, you proceed to boast that Macy's has better quality and lower prices than Nordstrom's (which is not having a sale) and you generalize your conclusion even further to say that Macy's is the best overall for all products.
OK, so maybe the shopping analogy isn't perfect. What I mean to say is that the women working for those companies are going to be the most motivated, since they are early adopters, and will probably have better qualifications than the general hiring pool. At some point a man made the decision to hire or promote them. Smart guy. (That last statement I threw in mostly to irritate any feminists who may be passing through...They deserve to be irritated as frequently as possible.)
Men, for whom working for a living has never been merely one of many life fulfilling choices to be made, come in a range of competencies, as do their female counterparts. So if you can believe that those companies that hired lots of women went out and looked for the best women around, and given that they got to the sale early and got to take their pick, your conclusion should be more in the way of: companies who hire the best women will outperform other companies who are stuck with hiring from the entire Bell curve. But then you can easily say that companies staffed with the best men will outperform Bell-curvy companies - it's just that all the best men are usually not so readily available for the taking.
Karl Marx and Krankengeschwisterschadenfreudetoastbrot
Karl Marx had the same problem as many of today's mannabee feminists. He looked around at the world and made the assumption that everything that existed was just plunked there from the heavens. He did that so he could conveniently ignore the risk element in his whole Kapitalists exploit the workers fantasy view of the world. He had to - otherwise his whole BS (not Bachelor of Science) theory falls apart. See, the risk portion of the profits reaped by Kapitalists is what explains how all of those means of production came into existence in the first place - somebody saw an opportunity, took a risk and is rewarded by making a profit. Yippee!
Feminists believe in heaven plunkings as well, although they are somewhat better off than sad, pathetic Karl as I shall explain. Men, it has been claimed, are more likely to take risks than women. Then there is usually a sentence about testosterone, so I am including this one here. Ah but Wall street and risky behavior and we are all doomed, bad bad men.
Ahh but how many new companies exist today that are sizable enough to even warrant a discussion of the gender composition of key management or the board of directors were started by us darling, superior women? There are a few... Martha Stewart comes to mind, and I do love her taste in home decor, but we are going to need many, many more Marthas if we want to have one job for each person who wants one. So where are they?
My conclusion: Anytime you hear somebody say "men still dominate the highly lucrative fields of science math and engineering" step on their toes - hard enough so it hurts and they can't finish their thought. Why? Because what usually ends up following is some stupidity about how we need to get more females into those professions for no other reason than that your injured toe victim thinks it's a good idea.
In a world of limited resources, that means that some qualified male is denied his spot to study and possibly be the next Wozniak or that other guy. I mean, while your sitting around waiting for the army of female Billina Gateses to arrive, you've got to do something to earn a living, right?
Some Interesting News About Women...
- What Women Want - Survey done in Norway...sorry for the robo-translation....but I couldn't locate a human translated version.