English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

give reasons to support your view.

2007-02-27 03:34:26 · 12 answers · asked by nizzy dizzy 1 in Social Science Gender Studies

12 answers

I love it! I cried with joy when Speaker Pelosi was giving her acceptance speech! Women in such positions of power = long overdue. Of course you're going to have the annoying morons who claim that men are more inherently capable of dealing with stress/are more innately agressive than are women (just as there were similar claims for the superiority of whites when blacks were first getting into positions of power), but their claims are totaly unsubstantiated and totally refuted by the obvious capability of many of the women who have assumed such positions. Reasons to support my view: all of the wonderful and beneficial institutions, companies, etc founded and headed by women (i.e, the Red Cross - Clara Barton..... and check out Forbes 100 most powerful women)

2007-02-27 05:36:14 · answer #1 · answered by Cristy 3 · 1 1

One of my best friends was my boss for a period. She is intelligent, capable, kind hearted: even though she was my boss we became easily friends. We go out a lot and have much fun. I have worked for men and for other women in the past. It was not that good, even though I am a dedicated person when I work. I find that most women try to mimic the men when they have a top position: it was never the case of my friend. In fact she managed her job with such a different, womanly, attitude and all co-workers respect her even more for that (she has never stop having a sense of humor).

2007-02-27 06:10:20 · answer #2 · answered by remy 5 · 1 1

From experience, I have seen women who have upper management positions, that is that they have a team to manage rather than being an equal part of a team.

For instance, women managers in my experience have not been able to direct a team efficiently, especially if she feels above the rest of them. Women managers who feel they have a certain amount of responsibility WITHIN the team are much more effective.
Some women who dominate in the home, as a homemaker also tend to have very pathetic family lives. They are over stressed on just about everything. I
Women who are part of boards or are ceo's are not above any of their collegues, thus they are VERY effective to the contribution.
It just seems men are better designed to deal with the stress, probably because they don't intertwine logic with emotion, so like women do.

2007-02-27 05:19:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Forbes & Fortune Magazine can't keep up with the number of rising women. They're more that top managment in the USA, but are powerful women emerging from China (Wu Yi, Vice Preimier), India(Sonia Gondhi, Pres Nat. Cong. Party), yes even in Israle (Tzipora Livni, Foreign Minister, Vice Prime Minister).

As with men, there are so many different personality types that we can truly only catagorize them in the leader category. Don't think they'll be running to the kitchen anytime soon eithor by the looks of it.

Since women are now making more $$$ than men, we're seeing the curtain unveiled. Many men are like the sterotypical "Blond Bombshell Gold Digger" in that the men only view themselves as "Wallets"; so, in many way's we're left witnessing the effects sickness objectification has on men. Sure he's had strings of one night stands, but he's the lonlyness S.O.B. to be witnessed. This drives him into third world countries so he can still lingur in the filth of buying love instead of sharing intamancy. This is disturbing since, " There is more hunger for love and appreciation in this world than for bread.
Loneliness and the feeling of being unwanted is the most terrible poverty."

2007-02-27 04:23:26 · answer #4 · answered by Giggly Giraffe 7 · 2 2

It strikes me that the fact that anybody asks this question proves that it is still not mainstream for women to be in high corporate positions. It should never be an issue whether or not a woman holds any job. To ask about the CEO of XYZ Company, and hear either a man's name or a woman's should not elicit any reaction one way or the other. As long as people do their jobs honestly and ethically, who cares what they are under their clothes?

2007-02-27 03:41:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4 1

SHOULD I HEAR OF A NOTED COMPANY APPOINTING A FEMALE CEO IAM GOING TO SHORT THAT STOCK.

When Fiona took charge of HP I shorted HP I shorted HP like crazy. I made a truckload of money. Untill they appointed a man again, I dont even care who he was or what he did before, only knew he could not be any worse than that woman, so I reversed everything and made even more money.
So yeah Iam hoping really hard that a woman will follow up on Gates and Jobs.

2007-02-27 08:05:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

I feel no different than I do about men in such positions. I would be very suspicious of the descisions they would make, because I think most descisions made by upper management are more greed-based than those made by other positions.

2007-02-27 04:44:00 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

They are capable and hardworking, like anyone in top management posts. And they are helping women move a step foward.

2007-02-27 04:38:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

It needs to be higher, that's for sure, but it's definitely on the rise. I'm hoping to become a department manager in an ad agency one day.

2007-02-27 05:58:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I think they do a marvellous job of destroying these patriarchal institutions:

Andrea Jung - Avon products objectifies women - $1,491 million loss
Anne Mulcahy - Xerox makes slavery machines for women (photocopiers) - $2,997 million loss.
Patricia Russo - Lucent Technologies - $18,882 million loss.
Marce Fuller - Mirant - $17,770 million loss.
Carly Fiorina - Hewlett Packard - $166,984 million loss : ~ $96,000 million bigger loss than Enron

Loss from Enron: ~ $70,000 million (Less than one half of HP, Less than one third of total loss)

Total Loss: $208,124 million: ~ $138,000 million bigger loss than Enron for these five alone.

2007-02-27 13:44:43 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers