Post Reply
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Christine Lagarde - New IMF Chief
3 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2011 - 7:11PM #11
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Tja.. for some ideological doctrine, you're willing to put up with a dysfunctional society.


I call that a self-defeating attitude.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2011 - 7:18PM #12
Erey
Posts: 18,946

Jun 28, 2011 -- 7:11PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Tja.. for some ideological doctrine, you're willing to put up with a dysfunctional society.


I call that a self-defeating attitude.





Char do you really think a female dominated society or organization will be free of dysfunction?  If so you are sorely naive. 


I suffered through the Girl Scouts for about 4 years with my daughter and let me tell you women have their very own special form of dysfunction.  I also did the Boy Scouts with my son and whereas they are not perfect they are not as over the top with their dysfunction as the Girl Scouts. 


The most dysfunctional, destructive boss I ever had was a woman, in a female dominated organization.  Males worked there but females were the executives.  They simply could not deal with my boss.  Women are wonderful, I love women and I am glad to be living in a time where there are so many different opportunities for women.  But women have their own brand of dysfunction and yes - abuses.


Can't there be a different, less humiliating way to procure a little "accountability"?    And where would society be if nobody was permited to take risks?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2011 - 7:21PM #13
Erey
Posts: 18,946

Jun 28, 2011 -- 7:11PM, CharikIeia wrote:


Tja.. for some ideological doctrine, you're willing to put up with a dysfunctional society.


I call that a self-defeating attitude.




Ohh and the Muslims would retort that you would be willing to put up with sexual abuses and women ruining themselves (sexualy) for your idealogical atitude?  Don't you care about women?  If you care about women you make sure they have a male guardian in charge at all times,  if you care about women you don't let them ruin justice by equating their testimony as equal to a man. 


There is alot of ways to spin that game!

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 1:57AM #14
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 28, 2011 -- 7:18PM, Erey wrote:


Char do you really think a female dominated society or organization will be free of dysfunction?  If so you are sorely naive. 



You apparently don't know what you talk about. Female dominance is not what is to be achieved, but a minority representation of about 20-25%. Dominance is never good.



Can't there be a different, less humiliating way to procure a little "accountability"?    And where would society be if nobody was permited to take risks?



I'd be happy to see/hear about any better ideas!


We know Obama made a looooong list of proposals for rule changes in the banking sector, which all are good to some degree - but we also know that he was not able to implement any of it so far. Instead, his Geithner man is attacking Europe to deflect attention from his own incapacities...

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 2:25AM #15
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Jun 28, 2011 -- 6:54PM, CharikIeia wrote:

As psychology proves beyond any reasonable doubt, males are excessively risk taking compared to females. A female banking sector would not have led to the recent crashes, I am very convinced about that.




The psychology is rather more complicated than that. I appreciate you have to simplify it for the layman but I'd rather they didn't get the impression that it's as simple as MEN-BAD, WOMEN-GOOD.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 3:08AM #16
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 29, 2011 -- 2:25AM, Ebon wrote:


 I'd rather they didn't get the impression that it's as simple as MEN-BAD, WOMEN-GOOD.



I don't think I did that.


Why would you consider risk-taking as bad, Ebon?

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 3:14AM #17
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

Jun 29, 2011 -- 3:08AM, CharikIeia wrote:

]Why would you consider risk-taking as bad, Ebon?



Oh, that's complicated. It depends on the degree of risk and reward and circumstance. For example, a fighter at odds of 10-1 is an excessive risk but at 5-2, he's a good bet. In financial management, I would say that risk-taking was, broadly speaking, a bad thing. And that's because the constant pressure to profit in financial management encourages taking excessive risks.


Edited to remove comments that no longer apply.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 29, 2011 - 8:01PM #18
arielg
Posts: 9,116

The gender bean counters look at everything from their crotch, just like the political bean counters look at everything from their conservative/liberal point of view.


Lagarde position will mean nothing to the  way the IMF works. In order to get to that position, she must have proven that she is one of the club and have a certain outlook.  She is the figurehead of a much larger organization that works based on certain viewpoints. Certainly not based on the social fashions of the times. Those with the money will still be calling the shots.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 3:19AM #19
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

Jun 29, 2011 -- 8:01PM, arielg wrote:


The gender bean counters look at everything from their crotch, just like the political bean counters look at everything from their conservative/liberal point of view.



You don't understand anything, it seems.


As argued earlier, this is about psychological traits differing between the genders. It has nothing to do with "the crotch" except correlationally.


As a self-proclaimed Buddhist, don't you know how much the body is equally important as the mind for becoming a whole, wholesome person? Why would it be different for organisations?


What you call "gender bean counting" is care, mindfulness, for the sanity of the organisation.

tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 30, 2011 - 7:41AM #20
arielg
Posts: 9,116

Maybe you don´t understand anything.  The whole point of equality is to transcend the differences and focus on what is common to all.  You dont transcend anything by keeping your attention on  differences that are irrelevant to the issue and therefore  keep emphasizing them.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 2 of 4  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook