What Women Want - New York Times
This links to a column by John Tierney in the New York Times. It's nothing profound but is one of those quirky little pieces I find interesting to read. The jist of it is about research by economists trying to figure out why there are less women in the top tiers of business. The conclusion is that women prefer not to compete whereas men love to. I'd suggest that the word "compete" is the problem itself and that in this instance should be replaced by "gamble".
As a male of the species, I certainly do not fit this particular stereotype. As a humble creative type, I do not relish partaking in competition and will avoid the idea of gambling at all costs. As a Capricorn I'm ambitious, but I work to get things done - not to win or lose in some notional hierarchy. So maybe I'm a woman in disguise - I've certainly always found them the easiest sex to work with.
According to the article, shareholders themselves are increasing seeing the male desire for competition as a liability. As gamblers by nature, they cannot be trusted to run a company without taking risks or departing the playing field at an inopportune moment. Women, on the other hand, will nurture a company and focus on its growth. Maybe feminism, in the commercial world at least, is at last, er ... , queen!
On a vaguely related point, I was considering the next race for the White House. Assuming Bush doesn't do a Hitler and declare himself the supreme ruler of Earth, it's fair to say there will be the usual contest - or should I say "competition". All heavily packaged and marketed of course. Given there is a fair chance the Democrats could nominate Hillary Clinton and that (excluding Rumsfeld) Bush's second in command increasingly seems to be Condi Rice, could we see these two warring away in the election stakes?
Funny thing - whoever won there'd be a woman in the White House. Maybe that's a cause for optimism in itself!
No comments:
Post a Comment