Ladies on the forum, do you consider yourself to be a feminist?

[-Peacemaker-]

those are stereotypes perpetuated by culturally imbedded gender roles. there is no scientific basis that says these are in born traits and there are plenty of examples where the opposite is true and women will exhibit these traits more. besides I would actually argue that being more nurturing would be a sign of strength in a leader. I find it amusing how you say we should rely on science and yet don't post any links to scientific studies to back up your claims. Are you actually arguing that women are unfit to be CEO's or at least less fit for such a position than a man simply because she is a woman.

Also you still have yet to answer my question of why a relationship must have a "leader" or "CEO" to begin with? Why can't it be an equal partnership? Why does there have to be a single person who always has the final say?

In the interest of having a practical discussion on the internet in our free time I had hoped we could settle on few assumptions, namely that men and women exhibit different tendencies in behavior. There's also two separate issues: 1. existence of a certain behavioral tendency and 2. the explanation of why it happens. I'm more interested in discussing issue one because there can be far less debate about it.

 

[MoonWater]

In the interest of having a practical discussion on the internet in our free time I had hoped we could settle on few assumptions, namely that men and women exhibit different tendencies in behavior. There's also two separate issues: 1. a certain behavioral tendency and 2. the explanation of why it happends. I'm more interested in discusing issue one because there can be far less debate about it.

Talk about missing the point.

Cultural tendencies are by no means an indicator of leadership potential.

Are you going to answer any of my other questions?

 

[crossfire]

besides I would actually argue that being more nurturing would be a sign of strength in a leader.

Nurture is more egalitarian than hierarchial, as it is about development and crossing boundaries rather than comparmentalization and drawing boundaries.

Also you still have yet to answer my question of why a relationship must have a "leader" or "CEO" to begin with? Why can't it be an equal partnership? Why does there have to be a single person who always has the final say?

Insistance on hierarchial organization and compartmentalization, perhaps?

 

[crossfire]

In the interest of having a practical discussion on the internet in our free time I had hoped we could settle on few assumptions, namely that men and women exhibit different tendencies in behavior. There's also two separate issues: 1. existence of a certain behavioral tendency and 2. the explanation of why it happens. I'm more interested in discussing issue one because there can be far less debate about it.

This is a sweeping generalization without regard to particulars. (This is useful when describing/conveying general concepts, but not really that useful in describing actual reality.)

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Talk about missing the point.

Cultural tendencies are by no means an indicator of leadership potential.

Are you going to answer any of my other questions?

I agree that they aren't. I just think the starting place would be creating a list of characteristics and then perhaps choosing a few of the more debatable ones to explore in more detail. Also, didn't I already address the whole "two leaders of equal rank"?

 

[Riverwolf]

I agree that they aren't. I just think the starting place would be creating a list of characteristics and then perhaps choosing a few of the more debatable ones to explore in more detail. Also, didn't I already address the whole "two leaders of equal rank"?

And you were given an analogy wherein two leaders of equal rank works quite well, and the situation given was far closer to what families do.

So, yes you did, and the analogy falls apart.

Besides, why do households need authoritarian structure?

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Let's cut to the chase, in the secular arena, the case for male leadership must be based off of far more than scripture. We must invoke the authority of science if we are to make a case. Let's make this a discussion about the inherent differences between men and women. Ideally, these would be indisputable. I'll throw out a few differences that I believe there isn't much debate over. let's list characteristics irrespective of whether or not we personally see it as a factor in leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that no one is arguing about whether women are fit to be leaders, simply whether they are best equipped to be the CEO. Here are the fist few just to get the ball rolling.

men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture

Yyeeeaaahhh this isn't scientific. The jury is still out on these supposedly inherent differences between male and female.

 

[Alceste]

Let's cut to the chase, in the secular arena, the case for male leadership must be based off of far more than scripture. We must invoke the authority of science if we are to make a case. Let's make this a discussion about the inherent differences between men and women. Ideally, these would be indisputable. I'll throw out a few differences that I believe there isn't much debate over. let's list characteristics irrespective of whether or not we personally see it as a factor in leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that no one is arguing about whether women are fit to be leaders, simply whether they are best equipped to be the CEO. Here are the fist few just to get the ball rolling.

men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture

I don't see how being insecure and uncooperative, uncommunicative, uncaring and insensitive could possibly be perceived by any sane human, male or female, as a leadership quality. Why do you believe the defects you listed make others worthy of respect? Would you submit to a competitive, uncommunicative, uncaring and insensitive woman, or are those awful character flaws only capable of dominating you in conjunction with penis ownership?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

In the interest of having a practical discussion on the internet in our free time I had hoped we could settle on few assumptions, namely that men and women exhibit different tendencies in behavior. There's also two separate issues: 1. existence of a certain behavioral tendency and 2. the explanation of why it happens. I'm more interested in discussing issue one because there can be far less debate about it.

I'm game. Part of my expertise and grad study has been studying and documenting gender differences in movement and responses across cultures. It's been fascinating in my line of work, but conclusively it still doesn't correlate with tendencies of what makes a successful CEO or military general being specifically male.

I also wonder if you and/or anyone else here are open to moving a debate like this to another thread, or if you'd like to open a one-on-one debate thread with permission of whoever you'd like to debate specifically. I'm not sure if a gender study and debate is particularly relevant in this thread here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hmmmm....are there people who deny being a feminist, but actually are?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Let's cut to the chase, in the secular arena, the case for male leadership must be based off of far more than scripture. We must invoke the authority of science if we are to make a case. Let's make this a discussion about the inherent differences between men and women. Ideally, these would be indisputable. I'll throw out a few differences that I believe there isn't much debate over. let's list characteristics irrespective of whether or not we personally see it as a factor in leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that no one is arguing about whether women are fit to be leaders, simply whether they are best equipped to be the CEO. Here are the fist few just to get the ball rolling.

men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture

Assumptions in gender studies rarely translate to capability in job duties and descriptions.

Ever heard of Keiko Fukuda? Achieved 10th dan in Judo and was recognized as the world leader in the martial art itself at the age of 99. Her personal motto is quoted as follows:

Be gentle, kind, and beautiful, yet firm and strong, both mentally and physically.

It's simple, and isn't gender-specific, yet she was a trailblazer and an effective leader until her death.

 

[crossfire]

Let's cut to the chase, in the secular arena, the case for male leadership must be based off of far more than scripture. We must invoke the authority of science if we are to make a case. Let's make this a discussion about the inherent differences between men and women. Ideally, these would be indisputable. I'll throw out a few differences that I believe there isn't much debate over. let's list characteristics irrespective of whether or not we personally see it as a factor in leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that no one is arguing about whether women are fit to be leaders, simply whether they are best equipped to be the CEO. Here are the fist few just to get the ball rolling.

men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture

I'm game. Part of my expertise and grad study has been studying and documenting gender differences in movement and responses across cultures. It's been fascinating in my line of work, but conclusively it still doesn't correlate with tendencies of what makes a successful CEO or military general being specifically male.

Indeed, this appears to have more correlation to a caste system than it does to a military system.

I also wonder if you and/or anyone else here are open to moving a debate like this to another thread, or if you'd like to open a one-on-one debate thread with permission of whoever you'd like to debate specifically. I'm not sure if a gender study and debate is particularly relevant in this thread here.

Sounds like a good idea

 

[crossfire]

Let's cut to the chase, in the secular arena, the case for male leadership must be based off of far more than scripture. We must invoke the authority of science if we are to make a case. Let's make this a discussion about the inherent differences between men and women. Ideally, these would be indisputable. I'll throw out a few differences that I believe there isn't much debate over. let's list characteristics irrespective of whether or not we personally see it as a factor in leadership. Also, let's keep in mind that no one is arguing about whether women are fit to be leaders, simply whether they are best equipped to be the CEO. Here are the fist few just to get the ball rolling.

men are more competitive
men use less words than women when expressing themselves
men are less emotional
women tend nuture

Perhaps something based on real science might be in order here:

BBC - Science & Nature - What Sex Is Your Brain?

Men and women are actually very similar in the way they think. However, females show more aptitude at

• distinguishing between subtle hints and details
• having a good visual memory

Males tend to show more aptitude at:

• seeing things in 3 dimensions
• being able to imagine how things rotate

Feel free to try the test yourself to test its accuracy.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

I'm game. Part of my expertise and grad study has been studying and documenting gender differences in movement and responses across cultures. It's been fascinating in my line of work, but conclusively it still doesn't correlate with tendencies of what makes a successful CEO or military general being specifically male.

I also wonder if you and/or anyone else here are open to moving a debate like this to another thread, or if you'd like to open a one-on-one debate thread with permission of whoever you'd like to debate specifically. I'm not sure if a gender study and debate is particularly relevant in this thread here.

As long as no one has a problem with it, I'd like the OP of this new thread we're creating to come from the angle of defending the Christian God's judgement in choosing men to be the head of household. This thread should be about attempting to discern the wisdom behind that command. Part of that is understanding the differences between how men and women are wired, their tendencies, strengths and weakness, etc. I have no qualms with women being actual CEOs in the workplace. Hell, I would've voted for Hillary Clinton if she had gotten the nomination. I may not have communicated as well as I could've in this thread but all I really care about is defending the model of family outlined in the NT. Perhaps the title could be "The wisdom behind making man the head of the family"

 

[MysticSang'ha]

As long as no one has a problem with it, I'd like the OP of this new thread we're creating to come from the angle of defending the Christian God's judgement in choosing men to be the head of household. This thread should be about attempting to discern the wisdom behind that command. Part of that is understanding the differences between how men and women are wired, their tendencies, strengths and weakness, etc. I have no qualms with women being actual CEOs in the workplace. All I really care about is defending the model of family outlined in the NT. Perhaps the title could be "The wisdom behind making man the head of the family"

Are you looking for more discussion, or are you open to a debate on the subject?

Also, are you open to discussion or debate with members outside your faith, or strictly within your religious description?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Are you looking for more discussion, or are you open to a debate on the subject?

Also, are you open to discussion or debate with members outside your faith, or strictly within your religious description?

I'd like to put it in the general debate forum so that all are welcome take part amd heated debates are allow

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I'd like to put it in the general debate forum so that all are welcome take part amd heated debates are allow

My suggestion is to start a thread such as the one you are describing in the General Religious Debates section, since it sounds as if you are wanting to inject an argument that carries with it a religious tone as well as wanting to open the debate up to non-religious assertions.

Debates such as this will certainly become heated, but as long as the posts are within the bounds of RF Rules and Regulations, it is entirely welcomed.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

My suggestion is to start a thread such as the one you are describing in the General Religious Debates section, since it sounds as if you are wanting to inject an argument that carries with it a religious tone as well as wanting to open the debate up to non-religious assertions.

Debates such as this will certainly become heated, but as long as the posts are within the bounds of RF Rules and Regulations, it is entirely welcomed.

I will post it by the end of the day. I have a class in a couple hours that I need to prepare for and don't want my attention diverted.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I will post it by the end of the day. I have a class in a couple hours that I need to prepare for and don't want my attention diverted.

No problem. Have a great class. I'll see you in your thread later on.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Assumptions in gender studies rarely translate to capability in job duties and descriptions.

Ever heard of Keiko Fukuda? Achieved 10th dan in Judo ...

That is amazing. I once got to briefly interact with a 9th dan aikidoka (I believe he was 82 at the time) and the experience was remarkable - not to mention humbling.