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 ...
How many children do YOU have, if the answer to the above query is "yes"?
Do you now, or have you ever had an IBS or colitis attack? If so, for how long have you had either condition?
Should the answer to the above questions are "no", then you are incapable of comprehending my posts and it shows. If the answers are "yes", then none of your recent posts make any sense. ;^)
Re "war"/being in the thick of battles...not familiar with Florence Nightingale, are you? *snicker*
This is sort of neither here nor there to Victoria ruling, but your implied contention that she was a great ruler because she was the “grandmother of Europe” really means very little in weighing her leadership skills.
Having her children was little more than biology.
She had sex.
She got pregnant.
A child was born.
By most accounts she was not an entirely great mother, however it would be somewhat unfair to judge her according to today’s standards.
And of course, no fault of Victoria’s that her grandchildren marrying introduced hemophilia to several ruling families.
One thinks of Russia and the effect that Alexandra’s obsession with Rasputin had on events there.
The revolution would have happened anyway, but perhaps they would have survived if the populace and the court itself had not been so disgusted with them.
Of course I’ve been pregnant, of course I have children!
And yes, all of that leads me to know that pregnant women or women of childbearing age are not suited to lead battles.
And when she’s past childbearing age, she’s too tired to go roaring off to battle.
About all she’s good for at an advanced age is to sit around and give opinions.
Anyone with a hint of common sense and a sliver of honesty will agree that no, women do not belong in battle. That's why it's always been the domain of men.
I believe things do change-like more tired or crampy or something-but not to the point that one becomes a shrew for a week.
I agree, PMS as it is commonly defined is BS.
That you fail to understand "THE GRANDMOTHER OF EUROPE" meme, proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you are much wanting in knowing and understanding its implications AND the machinations which she, and she alone, put into motion, that showed what a true "leader" she was. And even before she started to play around with placing her own kids on various thrones, she tried, but failed to get a "fine Italian hand", vis-a-vis the marriage plans, for his son, of King Louis-Phillip of France.
I'm NOT judging anything at all by "today's standards". I'm stating historical facts.
OTOH, you are "judging" things by assumptions based on 1)not much knowledge 2) your own skewed opinions.
Hemophilia has less than nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand; that being whether or not Queen Victoria was a good leader, or simply a "tool" of Albert's.
How about IBS or colitis...ever have either health woe? How about diverticulitis/diverticulosis ?
Nappy had at least one of the above problems, all of which are far more debilitating than menstruation, PMS ( which ALL females do NOT suffer from ), being preggers, and yes, post partum depression all put together.
I agree...women do NOT belong on a battlefield; but none-the-less, Florence Nightingale was in the thick of things...just not in the front lines.
Love comes in many forms, some forms are preferable to others.
That much is good. This is needed.
Don’t be weird.
It’s not a smear against women to say that pregnant or menstruating women are not suited for the battlefield!
Listen to yourself and stop advocating for completely ridiculous and ludicrous things.
Seriously. Women do not belong on the battlefield. Full stop.
1. No one said Victoria was a tool of Alberts.
2. By diaries left behind, we know that Victoria had warmer relationships with some of her children.
3. She arranged marriages. Easy to do from ones sitting room. Akin to leading soldiers on to a battlefield? No.
4. Additionally I’ll submit that her infatuations and obsessions with younger men as she was in her dotage should be looked at in askance.
My main point here is that men are better suited for leadership. Even Victoria knew that.
NEVER !
OTOH...my example of Florence Nightingale, re your claiming that women can't do thus and so ( including war ) due to menstruation, being preggers, and PMS,blows your contention out of the water. She and the women she trained and brought with her, into a raging war, meant that none of them had any time to put their feet up, moan & groan, be incapacitated, wasn't there. The wounded and sick men needed their ministrations round the clock and THAT is just what they gave them.
You have smeared women with every post, whether you realize it or not and even sounded somewhat like Hilary, with the implied and out right putdowns.
I suggest that you reread ALL of my posts and your posts too.
You've ignored the vast majority of things I wrote and then made broad brush pronunciomentoes implying that ALL women are exactly the same. Pssssssssssssssst...they aren't and neither are ALL men the same either.
No, you’ve just been going on and on and on saying I’m smearing women.
I’m just re-directing your attention to the subject at hand.
You're being disingenuous at best; obtuse and irrational at worst!
We're talking about "LEADERS"; not about battlefield tacticians.
Victoria, by her children's accounts an d those alive throughout her reign and yes, even afterwards, including all of her children, NEVER claimed that Victoria Regina had "warm relations" with any of her children! Did she like some more than others? Yes, she did. That's just not the same thing at all.
OTOH, even Victoria, herself, said that Albert was the better, more caring parent.
Oh, so old, widowed men are "better" ?
And she wasn't "infatuated" with Abdul; she as the EMPRESS OF INDIA, was fascinated by India and as a GOOD LEADER should do, wanted to learn EVERYTHING she could about th nation and people of India!
The Scot "gillie", John Brown, filled a hole in her weary, sad later years. Can we or should we call it "infatuation"? I doubt it.
Though far more men than women have ever been in leadership positions, most fall far short of being an actual "LEADER"!
And yet, here you are, still smearing women in your latest post.
Few men and even fewer women, the later due to both cultural and biological reasons, have had far fewer chances to become "leaders" of any kind.
Please state the source for your "....men are better suited for leadership. Even Victoria knew that." assertation.
Since obviously, you are having grave difficulty comprehending my posts, please get some man to read them, ALL OF THEM,and explain them to you, in more simple terms, so that your feeble female mind is then able to grasp what I have stated. ;^)
Circle back around to this when you put pregnant and lactating women on the battlefield to prove you contention that men are NOT better suited than women for these leadership positions.
Yeah, Milk boobies, that's teach the attacking hordes not to mess with 'Murica.
Yes, yes he did.
I can’t answer that, i’m barefoot in the kitchen cooking.
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.