🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 30 Dec 1996 09:19:18 -0500, nob...@notknown.org (Anonymous)
wrote:

>First of all, even if female management is a reasonable, or close
>substitution for male management - which it IS NOT - there will
>still be highly deleterious effects on the running of enterprises
>and on the entire economy.
>
>This is because the nature of competition is such that it is
>subject to the natural law of the path of least resistance whereby
>the most competitive entity will be number one by a wide margin
>garnering the lion's share of the economic rewards EVEN IF IT IS
>ONLY SLIGHTLY MORE COMPETITIVE.  If the number two entity does not
>maintain equal competitiveness, it will be a distant number two.
>
So  you are saying that there will only ever be one top entity of each
sort? How come that other companies even bother if this is a natural
law? It would help if you could define your idea of competitiveness -
for me it consists of a lot more than what you seem to think,
otherwise why would anyone ever bother to make computers knowing that
IBM is in the game? Product innovation, excellence and marketing all
contribute. Your premise re competitiveness is nothing to do with our
assertion that female management is ingerently inferior and does not
prove it in any way.

>Look to the world of boxing as an example.  If contender A is
>slightly bigger and slightly stronger than contender B, then
>contender A will knockout contender B almost every time and
>claim the big payoff almost every time.

What has this to do with anything? A strong female could defeat a puny
male, eg Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. So what?
>
>Female management is, at minimum, taking the edge off American
>competitiveness such that foreign companies are prevailing in
>just about every area of the economy (most notably Japan).
>This is because the path of least resistance for economic
>rewards has shifted to those foreign companies.
>
There is insufficient data for this assertation to be taken as fact.
Name any American company (or English or European) which has suffered
as a result of having female management. Sadly, female management is
still sufficiently rare for our blanket statement to be substantiable.
The only large company I know which has roughly equal female
management and is led by a female is the Body Shop, which is doing
very nicely, thank you very much. Also, it seems to me - and many
others - that my country was much better led by Margaret Thatcher than
the wimp who runs it now.

>For sooth, female management IS NOT a close substitute for male
>management.  Female management, with few rare exceptions, has 
>proven itself to be atrocious!

I say again, examples?
>
>Here we are pissing away our own birthright and that of our
>posterity all for the sake of granting to certain twit-brains
>and bitch-brains the pleasure of stomping through an office
>and barking out orders like a little Imelda to substandard,
>pusillanimous male subordinates.

Get told off, did you?
>
>The Treatise on the Downward Wage Equalizing Effects of
>Equal Employment Opportunity is available at:
>http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/3982/

Bet it's a rivetting read!