But … so are women.
We’ll do this in the form of some observations. These are observations we view as so obviously true that we can say them without needing to buttress each one with any of the massive piles of evidence supporting each. 🙂
Just a Few Observations about Men and Women and Workplaces:
- Stereotypes — those horrid, bad ol’ things — are usually based on reality, and we recognize and tap into their ability to give us a general understanding (allowing, of course, for myriad individual exceptions) about a large group of people. They allow us to observe the following:
- Men’s way of doing things in the world of business and commerce stinks. If men had complete sway over how businesses were to run — absent women’s moderating influence, then their all-male staffs would never leave the premises, and we’d live in a dystopian world of technology. Yes, I’m over-simplifying — a bit. This is, and has always been, the actual direction of society. Just a question of how fast we’re getting there.
- Women’s way of doing things in the world of business and commerce stinks. If women had complete sway over how businesses were to run — absent men’s hard-charging influence, then nothing would ever get done, and we’d all still be in caves. Yes, I’m over-simplifying — a bit.
- Feminist whining is almost always over things that are not problems, but rather represent an attempt by feminists to say simply that women are right, and men are wrong. Again, both are wrong. As is almost always the case, in big questions the “two sides” to a question almost never get to the truth: The reality is generally somewhere else … and more complex
- Men’s way of doing things involves, and has long involved, overworking men. However:
- Men are stronger, more durable, have astonishing stamina — way more than women. Please: No pettifogging here. This is so obviously true that any attempt to disprove it indicates a lack of seriousness.
- This astonishing strength on the part of men has led to “normality” being defined as a general exploitation of men throughout the millennia. This is not a bad thing — except for the men’s being exploited. If you’re in a competitive environment, the way to compete most effectively is to exploit the vast reserves of strength, both intellectual and physical … of men.
- Women are the consensus builders in business, commerce, and life. This is a good thing.
- If it were the only way, then nothing would get done, and those businesses, families, clans run by women would simply get run over by those run by men.
- The only way women’s leadership works is if all businesses, commerce and life were run by women. Otherwise, women are ill-suited to compete with men.
- Ironically, the ones who pay for this are women, forced to live in matriarchies that keep everyone living at a primitive level.
- The only way men’s leadership works is if all businesses, commerce and lives were run by men. Otherwise, men are ill-suited to provide for a good quality of life for society as a whole.
- Ironically, the ones who would pay for this the most are the men who represent nothing more than fuel to such a society.
- Men are more decisive. This is a good thing. (Except, of course, if they make bad decisions)
- If men’s way were the only way, as it has generally been for millennia, we observe what we’ve always seen throughout history: Men being worked into the grave, tossed in front of hostile spears, arrows, bullets and bombs, being used, abused, discarded and buried. And it’s been no picnic for women either. Again, men by themselves are ill-suited to provide for a good quality of life for society as a whole.
- The really good aspect of women’s increasing influence is to moderate this tendency by all societies to treat their men as nothing more than fuel. Feminists have long complained that men view them as “chattel.” However, men have been nothing more than fuel. Which is better, which is worse…feminism never addressed this, the only question that really mattered. And the answer isn’t obvious. The correct answer is: a properly-ordered society wouldn’t treat women or men as anything but precious, valued, crucial components of a society’s lifeblood.
- The really good aspect of men’s influence is their innate ability and drive to push things forward.
- The way things have functioned in the past: Men overworked themselves and, in the interest of remaining employed, were denied the vast rewards involved in family life. Women kept the home fires burning, and pressured the men for relief from the more tedious parts of that otherwise incredibly rewarding “job.” It has always, until recently, been this way.
- Now, however, women have joined the work force, demanding to be given the levels of power and responsibility that men have always had. Note: I did not use the phrase: “that men have always enjoyed.”
- A problem with this: the arrival of women into the workforce did not bring about a diminution of the work load on men. The now much greater supply of workers competing for the same number of jobs simply put enormous downward pressure on everyone’s wages (read: mostly men’s), forcing them to compete even harder to get ahead. With even greater chance of failure. While increasing the pressures and workload on men in the workplace, women then began to demand that men “help out around the house.” We all met the fictitious “superwoman,” who could “bring home the bacon, and fry it up in a pan.” She didn’t really exist in any large numbers, so the end result was that the home life of American families deteriorated. Does anyone really think this isn’t true? Does anyone really think the continued crumbling of the American family is not largely the responsibility of feminism?
- When women arrived in the workforce, they brought with them the demand that the workplace become more like home life. There was no such thing as an HR Department until only recently. Furthermore, I remember Playboy calendars in cubicles in the mortgage company where I began my career. HR Departments are here to stay, and Playboy calendars are gone.
- A workplace more like home life implies a less competitive, more family-oriented enterprise.
- This is also a mixed blessing. In the very recent past there were not all the speech codes that we have now. The workplace was much more lenient in terms of people’s personal behaviors. Another, unwelcome arrival, along with women in the workforce, was enforced politeness, with draconian punishment for violations of that decorum. The politeness is good; the draconian-ness is ridiculous.
- The less competitive enterprise is here, but it’s not really all that much more family-friendly. Nothing wrong with that — it’s inevitable that one would lag the other –but it means less progress, slower economic growth. I really don’t mind that all that much, but there will be dislocation, and a re-ordering of society back around lower levels of productivity and economic growth. And that will tick off a lot of people.
Yeah … men and women. They’re both wrong about … men and women.
As usual by far the best society is the one that values the innate differences between the two sexes; that values and uses the astonishing strengths inherent in both sexes; that recognizes the weaknesses in a way that elicits only help, compassion and additional respect for having been able to admit the failing.
The current zeitgeist would have us believe that women are saintly, supernatural creatures, without weakness of any kind, while men are hopeless dopes. That’s ridiculously unfair to both: it’s too much pressure for women, and it’s untrue about men. It sets the bar impossibly high for women, and when they fail to clear it, everyone simply pretends they did, leaving the impossibly high bar in place. But, the women who don’t clear the bar, even with all of society’s cheerleading, know they didn’t clear it. And it’s humiliating.
Just as bad, society sets the bar way too low for men, and when they clear it as they usually do, the zeitgeist still treats them as if they’re idiots and dopes, leaving the humiliatingly low expectations bar in place.
No healthy, successful society can leave those lousy states-of-mind in place for long.