Uit: Winning by sharing: "The network is female"

Graag plaats ik hier een stuk uit een PDF die te downloaden is op de site van Winning By Sharing van Léon Benjamin:

I’m a big fan of an independent news site called the Yellow Times. It has a core of journalists and industry experts who write articles of the highest quality on a voluntary basis. Paul Harris, a Canadian freelance consultant, wrote a superb article a couple of years ago called Women have ruined the world that illustrates a point I want to make. He says;
“It has been my experience over a half century, most of that alive, that women tend to be much better people than men: more honest, more loyal, more caring, more thoughtful, more trustworthy, and much less dangerous. But women are to blame for the state of the world because they have utterly failed to take charge of it.” But wait, he goes on to say;
“I am proposing a "new world order" - not that crap that George Bush the Elder was always talking about or even the biblical stuff that believers are always trying to force on others. I mean something real, something substantive; something designed to fix the mess we're in. I am proposing a political movement whose sole purpose is to convince all the nations of the world to change their laws so that only women can hold political office.”

The article ends with;
“Think this is an idiotic notion? Then think on this: If men don't run things, there is no Hitler. There is no Mussolini. There is no Napoleon. There is no Hirohito. There is no Atila. There is no Genghis Khan. There is no Inquisition. There are no Crusades. There is no Robert Mugabe. There is no Ariel Sharon. There is no Stalin. There is no George Bush. Wouldn't that be a safer and happier world?”

I happen to agree with him. For all men in power, the difference between rape and seduction is only a question of salesmanship. In general, my experience of participating in online communities, mostly in the past few years with Ecademy and Ryze, is that despite their male dominance (Ecademy is over 70% male) the posture, attitude and expression of these communities are predominantly female. By this I mean people are genuinely welcoming, offer unsolicited benevolence, guidance and assistance and freely give the most valuable thing that anyone can give; their time. It’s not always peaches and cream and people do fall out – a very small minority have to be banned. Many Ecademy women feel completely comfortable attending events on their own without fear of being hit on, or their proactive approach to networking misinterpreted as a ‘sure thing’. This isn’t normal for other types of male dominated organisations. When anti-social behaviour arises, the community mostly polices itself in zero tolerance fashion.

Je vindt de PDF hier, samen met nog een aantal hoofdstukken uit het boek.


At 00:49, Blogger Danny said...

Very interesting, I found this blog about female leaders as invoking and cleaver - absolutely possible. However, it appears that the original other may never have married. All joking aside and with complete sincerity, it doesn't take one long after marriage to discover who the real strength (or in some unfortunate examples, weakness) in a marriage is, the wife!

Therefore, I agree with you and the author of the article, women are the better or rather more influential leaders. As the saying goes, behind every great man is a better women and I would add, behind every evil man is a more conniving women.

However, there article you quoted presents a confusing and conflicting argument. If in fact women are great leaders and would do the world better then the men why would we men need to create laws to make sure this happens?

The argument that the world is not conditioned or ready to have women lead is a deflating and circular argument which has no bearing on the topic. However, if it was true, that we as a society are not accepting of the idea, why have not women woken the society like Rosa Parks refusing to relinquish her seat? Why do women need someone other then a man to lead the cultural change…thus the circular argument!

It is true women are better leaders and would do the world much good, it is true that there would be no Hitler, Genghis Khan etc. but that doesn’t mean that women can not be as evil or destructive then Stalin or a Pol Pot. Such naivety, lack of historical and sociological understand is in itself dangerous. The fact that we don’t hear of women leaders slaughtering millions or starting wars also doesn’t mean that they haven’t or wouldn’t. War isn’t the only danger that needs to be avoided, what about economic down fall, natural catastrophe and defense from those (women or men) who want to wage war.

The point is that it is one thing to be a good leader and another to lead. Can women do it, yes! But if we as men throw them into such demanding and extreme situations as running a world power we are setting them up to fail. You can be a great leader, but what all non leaders assume is that if one can lead a state as a governor (for example) they would be a good president…not true. These are to different subjects and situation with all there complexities included. There are phases and levels of leadership, and the only way one gets to the next step in this ladder of influence is through paying the “price”. If you throw women into a role that they have not paid the price for they will fail (as would men). This is not a pessimistic view but an experienced view with reality to substantiate it.

If women are ready, let them lead…don’t get in there way, even if you think is helping. Let them, like Rosa Parks stand strong on there own and support them!


Post a Comment

<< Home