Posted on 03/17/2018 5:35:47 PM PDT by simpson96
Most people will draw a man. Researchers investigate the consequences.
This series of images emerged from a simple prompt: “Draw an effective leader.”
Tina Kiefer, a professor of organizational behavior at the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, fell upon the exercise accidentally, while leading a workshop full of executives who did not speak much English. Since then it has been adopted by organizational psychologists across the world.
In terms of gender, the results are almost always the same. Both men and women almost always draw men.
“Even when the drawings are gender neutral,” which is uncommon, Dr. Kiefer said in an email, “the majority of groups present the drawing using language that indicates male (he) rather than neutral or female.”
And yet, her clients often insisted that what they meant by “he” is actually “both.”
Several researchers in organizational psychology who have had a similar experience with this exercise decided to investigate further. How might holding unconscious assumptions about gender affect people’s abilities to recognize emerging leadership? What they found, in a study posted by the Academy of Management Journal, seems to confirm what many women have long suspected: getting noticed as a leader in the workplace is more difficult for women than for men. Even when a man and a woman were reading the same words off a script, only the man’s leadership potential was recognized.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ok, now picture a criminal. If it wasnt Hitlary, I bet it was a man
Funny that they did not bother to ask people to draw an INEFFECTIVE leader as well. They’d still draw a man.... because what they are focusing on is the adjective, not the noun. The first thing the mind does is to try to figure out how to visually represent the description “effective.”
Of course she missed Albert and went into deep mourning; yet managed to keep the Empire on an even keel. :-)
Your post is bordering on being Hilaryesque; sadly.
Look, she had a HUGE number of kids, suffered Post Partum Depression after most of those births and Albert, though she relied on him for many things, wasn't "ruling from behind the throne". And before you ask me how I know, I've been a BIG fan of Queen Victoria's since childhood and as such, have read many books about her, read her published diaries and letters, and have avidly studied her, her times, the MPs she had to deal with, watched every single movie and documentary about her and that era, as well as books about her children. Do I know EVERYTHING...every jot & tittle of her life? No, but then, NOBODY alive then, nor now did/does.
[Quote-Women haven’t been leaders for very long.]
They have been cursed to desire to be leaders since the garden of Eden.
Eve ‘desiring’ her Adam was a desire to have his position as head- of the marriage,family, patriarchal govt.
And Adam was supposed to not listen to Eve, but listen to His Creator and rule over her.
Women leaders desired voting and equality- what has that bore? A now cursed matriarchal system of govt instead of a blessed patriarchal system of govt. That cursed matriarchal system has fruit that includes millions of unborn children slaughtered on the altar of womens rights/equality/freedom. Curse from the garden.
The curse in the garden of Eden on Adam’s and Eve’s still apply. On demorat Eve’s, republican Eve’s, independent Eve’s, non political Eve’s.
Eve is cursed to desire Adam’s headship/authority
And if Adam doesn’t rule over Eve, Eve will keep listening to the serpent.
And Adam will continue to be cursed because Adam listens to Eve who is listening to the serpent.
Not going to preach in too many places but that’s why Satan has been allowed to kill Adam and Eve for almost 6000 years.
The Lamb came to reverse that curse but Adam and Eve still have cursed flesh and not glorified bodies like the Savior.
Nothing new under the sun.
There will be one ‘eve’ who will not seek her Adam’s authority of listen to the serpent: the Bride of the King of Kings (which if He tells us the ending from the beginning, is still hidden within His body till the Body of Christ falls asleep)
Men are encouraged not to be men these days.
They are listening to their Eve’s or other Adam’s who are listening to their Eve’s.
See problems and curses in: marriages,families, communities, government, churches, the world.
Same old problem from way back in the garden.
A lot of women overcompensate and become bossy micromanagers.
Not really...there’s lot written about him, as well as plaudits, handed him during his life, for some of his contributions to “The Crown”. But please don’t go overboard in praising him; as you did.
I did? Where did I do that?
Wives should not be the bosses of their husbands.
Not in a successful marriage
I’m with ya, sister.
Despite the man-denying going on in society lately, there is still a very strong sexism going on which basically assumes anything good is manly, and womanly traits are bad.
Take the pejorative of women being “emotional”. Do men have no emotions? Actually people often assign anger and hostility to men, and those are emotions.
For the other side of the coin, ask the question “picture a murderer”. Guess what will also be assumed?
Can’t argue with that at all!
That PMS garbage is just that...garbage. If anything it’s an excuse, and something men go on about having no clue what they mean.
Cyclical changes have never affected me. I don’t notice a lick of difference and neither had anyone else. It’s BS.
Some women are logical; some men aren't.
Some men ( Comey, Obama, Stroke, McCabe, Slick Willie Clinton, Brennan, Glenn Beck, and Chris Matthews, to name but a few ) are highly emotional/hysterical ( if they were females, we could call it "HORMONAL" )wrecks!
Some women aren't highly emotional hysterics, no matter what.
EXACTLY !
IN YOUR POST #49 !
And it’s been studied...men have “cycles” too. :-)
No they shouldn’t, but I guarantee you that they often are.
There are women who are leaders of other women, as should be.
Sorry for you.
Song of Solomon 8:7
Many waters cannot quench love, neither can the floods drown it: if a man would give all the substance of his house for love, it would utterly be contemned.
Of course Napoleon had problems. There is no permanent war.
But had he been off the battlefield every two weeks, his problems would have been much worse.
Also, had Napoleon been female, he also would have risked becoming pregnant.
And then what?
The mindset of the gestating female is hardly suited for conquering Europe.
If my example of Napoleon doesn’t suit you, insert the name of any famous general, any man who won wars, any man who conquered nations.
And note, you will have to insert the name of a man, because, well, that’s who does that sort of thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.