🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 31 Dec 1996 17:29:35 -0800, Anonymous
<non-...@mailmasher.com> wrote:

>> So  you are saying that there will only ever be one top entity
>of each sort?
>
>No, that's not what I said.  What I said was that if the number
>two entity doesn't maintain equal competitiveness, then it will
>be a distant number two.
>
But you still haven't said what competitiveness is, nor why women are
inherently less competitive than men.  You did imply in an earlier
post that women are destructively competitive against men - well,
isn't that just what would succeed, when most of the competition is
run by men?
>
>Go to an economics class and learn about market niches.
>
A cheap jibe - unworthy of your undoubted inteligence. Just say why
women can't succeed in such a venture just as well as men.
>
>> What has this to do with anything? A strong female could defeat a puny
>> male, eg Bobby Riggs and Billie Jean King. So what?
>
>So what??  You response indicates that you are really out of
>sync with the point of the example.
>
The point is . . .? You said that men are, by nature, better able to
compete, and quoted a boxing example. I point out a contradiction to
your example and you say I'm out of sync. I suppose if I pointed out
David and Goliath that would be more suitable?
>
>> 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.
>
>So, you pointed out a rare exception to a general rule.  I already
>conceded that there are such rare exceptions.
>
They are rare because of the scarcity of top female managers. This is
because prejudiced men don't appoint females to top positions - simply
because they're female, not because of their ability.
>
>> 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.
>
>Well, anyone who is quick to point out matters of opinion will
>point to the assertion above!
>
Not just my opinion!

Also, you can't really have it both ways.You said that the US is doing
terribly because of equal opportunities, etc. How can this be, when
the vast majority of your Congress is male? 

What you are seeing, same as here, (and I am regrettably forced to
agree with you) is the effects of short-sighted policies regarding
trade and multi-national companies. You, as we, have thought it
beneficial (by you I mean the US Government, not yourself) that
foreign companies build plants and factories which - in the short term
- create employment. Our car industry has been all but destroyed as
the result of such policies, just as yours is being. This applies also
to consumer electronics, 'white goods' and many other industries. But
this really cannot be laid at the door of the Government, rather the
whole country is to blame. If you see a VCR in a shop for $299, and
one next to it for $199, which are you going to buy, assuming they are
functionally equivalent? Our motorcycle industry, which led the world,
was killed by the Japs in the late 60s, early 70s. There were
accusations of 'dumping' - selling at less that cost price, which were
unfounded, since the truth was just that they could make better bikes
than us, and cheaper.

However, in the long term, all this will balance out. The countries
which are currently winning will enjoy economic growth until it
becomes cheaper to buy American (or British) than a home-built
product. All swings and roundabouts, really. The real winning is in
product excellence, innovation and good design. 

But this still has nothing to do with male v female superiority, or
otherwise.