End of the Age of Testosterone-Men In Suits Made a Mess-Women Take Over

[terisan]

TIMES ONLINE.CO.UK see the Female Takeover in Iceland as the Wave of the Future.


<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5679378.ece>
Next week a newly minted left-leaning Government led by Johanna Sigurdardottir will start to tackle the tough agenda of cleaning out the old-school-chum networks that have led Iceland to the verge of bankruptcy.

Half of her Cabinet will be women; female advisers carrying briefcases move in and out of the Prime Minister's whitewashed office, a former jailhouse in the middle of Reykjavik. Two women, Birna Einarsdottir and Elin Sigfusdottir, now run the struggling and disgraced New Landsbanki and New Glitnir banks.

Everyone had expected that Iceland — so badly shocked by the collapse of its financial sector, the dashing of its dreams of wealth — would go back to basics, that the traditional dish of rams' testicles would be back on the restaurant menus rather than imported truffles.


But instead of digging out their grandmothers' recipes for home-made bread and returning to the hearth, women are stepping into the firing line. “We have to create a new sense of solidarity,” says the Social Democrat Prime Minister.

The departing Government — retreating would be more precise — put business first, people second, say the premier's counsellors. Now is the time for a shift in values.

Listening to Ms Sigurdardottir talk in her dry, schoolmistress manner, it becomes clear that the fall of the Icelandic Government was not just the first political casualty of the global downturn, but also a signal that men in suits have led the world astray.

“We are going to base our economic policies on prudence and responsibility, but we also stress social values, women's rights, equality and justice,” she says.

No one doubts that there is a gender revolution under way, and not just because Ms Sigurdardottir, 66, is the world's first openly gay Prime Minister.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Turning lemons into lemonade. nt

[Xipe Totec]

2. With due respect for Ms Sigurdardottir

and I agree that her Ascension to power is a milestone for gender equality and for the gay community,

Still, I wish there was not this edge of man hatred in your post.

[knowbody0]

3. I do not see it as man hatred

rather, a different perspective

[terisan]

6. It is Times Online perspective-UK- I am presenting. nt

[omega minimo]

5. that's fucking bullshit, back up that "edge of man hatred"

[Lorien]

35. " Man hatred" ; suggesting that men don't always do a job better than a

woman 100% of the time.

Personally I don't honestly know how much gender plays into all of this; I know a few greedy and ruthless women too, so no gender has a lock on those characteristics.

[roody]

39. "Men in suits have led the world astray."

Is that man hatred???

[omega minimo]

57. ".....a signal that men in suits have led the world astray."

Perhaps Europeans/Norsks are more accustomed to subtlety than in the US press.... "a signal" sounds like what it is: "a signal," not an indictment. Under the circumstances of news reporting reality, perhaps the thin-skinned could take a back seat and open their minds a little.

It has become necessary "to tackle the tough agenda of cleaning out the old-school-chum networks that have led Iceland to the verge of bankruptcy."

Imagine ALL the people affected by this, fe/male, including children. Why stick up for "the suits" just because they're men? Is that "women hatred"?


“We have to create a new sense of solidarity,” says the Social Democrat Prime Minister.

Not much "man hatred" is expressed in the phrase SOLIDARITY.


"The departing Government — retreating would be more precise — put business first, people second, say the premier's counsellors. Now is the time for a shift in values."

Sound familiar?

[ensho]

68. it's the truth - men in suits and men in religious garb have ruined the

earth.


there are more women in the world then men.

[BlooInBloo]

4. hahahaha!

[Cerridwen]

9. Accepted. Let's dance. n/t

eta: changed "go" to "dance." 'cuz I can.

[omega minimo]

7. Authoritarianism, old as the three lines of Abraham

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/dean/20070905.html


Rather than "edge of man hatred" I was struck by how the writer had to resort to the old cliche "frigid woman" insult in describing this professional women speaking on serious matters:

"Listening to Ms Sigurdardottir talk in her dry, schoolmistress manner..."

"DRY SCHOOLMISTRESS"

[terisan]

8. Good point!

[omega minimo]

10. we've tried many times to discuss how the institutions affect both women and men

but flamebaiters like the one above want it to be all about them and feel threatened personally so the broader forces can't be discussed.

:thumbsdown:


oh and :hi:

[roody]

40. edge of woman hatred---more than an edge

[Ex Lurker]

11. Women will screw things up just as badly as men have

perhaps they'll screw things up in a different way, but they're human too, and subject to the same failings.

[Cerridwen]

12. Depends on the standards applied.

Or, don't you agree?

:evilgrin:

[KittyWampus]

13. Various microloan programs give money only to women. They are more likely

to pay back the money and make a success of their business venture.

Often when those loans go bad, it's not even the women's fault. Their husbands take the money and spend it.

[Political Heretic]

16. All of this has to do with oppression and not biology

[KittyWampus]

19. hmmm, how about cultural mindsets rather than oppression or biology?

[Political Heretic]

51. cultural mindsets form the base for oppression

Yes, for certain to cultural context as part of the equation.

[omega minimo]

20. Many of those places the women take the money and feed the kids, the men take the money and feed the

bartender

[omega minimo]

14. Human failings but not "the same failings"

:hi:

[terisan]

17. Yes but bringing so-called "women's issues" to the table will help us a lot.

I think the perspectives and lives of men and women are still different enough so that when women do not have parity in Congress and Executive branch, and Supreme Court
we tend to have the interests of one gender reinforced to the detriment of the other and to the detriment of our country.
Women have only 17 % representation in Congress , never have been president or vp, and only a very small % of Supreme Court. I think approaching more equal representation will help us all.

That said, I agree with your post re screwing up being something women will be fully equal to.

[omega minimo]

22. except that women know how to listen

"screwing up being something women will be fully equal to"


:yoiks:

[terisan]

24. I hadn't hought of the Listening factor--that would be a big plus.

[omega minimo]

27. thank you for listening

++++++++++++++++

[seabeyond]

28. bah hahahha, wink

as i have been clicking down the thread listening. lol

[omega minimo]

30. thank you for

lurking

:evilgrin:

[Donnachaidh]

26. that's doubtful

As usual, they will be the ones cleaning up after the bloody carnage left by men.

[JerseygirlCT]

61. Might be nice to see what happens with them in charge for a change

And until that really happens, we can't know that they'll screw up. Men have had thousands of years to pretty demonstrably prove that - over and over again.

I'd say we'll need at least half that time to adequately judge the difference with women in charge.

[Political Heretic]

15. Good - the sooner we can dispell the myth that it will be any different

I'm sorry but there's nothing biologically more or less likely to incline toward greed between sexes.

The issue has to do with the fact that power is a corrupting force. Women, historically marginalized in western society, have not had the same access to power.

When they do, the effect will be exactly the same - some women will continue to keep their focus on justice and equality, many will not - just like the dominant male power group of today.

Women aren't "better" than men - they just haven't been given equal opportunity to be exactly the same.

[omega minimo]

18. on what evidence do you base your assumptions?

"When they do, the effect will be exactly the same..."

"just like the dominant male power group of today...."

"they just haven't been given equal opportunity to be exactly the same."


You assume the power structure dictates the behavior.

Can the behavior influence the power structure?

What if the power structure is the problem?

Aren't the general differences b/w males and females enough to indicate it can't possibly be "exactly the same"?

:popcorn:

[Political Heretic]

25. There is no quantitative evidence base.

My assumptions are based on research, of which there is inconclusive research supporting different conclusions. And I base my assumptions on a theoretical framework of constructivism which to me, most accurately explains my experiences of the world in which I exist.

There is no absolute proof one way or the other. However, I find that theories that suggest something different create contradictions with my lived experience that I can't resolve.

To your questions:

It's not "power structure." That's something different. It is the nature of power in essence.

There's little evidence to suggest that behavior is connected to biology in such a way that if you are female you are more likely to behave one way and in you are male you are more likely to behave another. There is way more historical an anthropological evidence that culture and context plays a much larger factor, with historical culture in which women behaved and functioned in society in ways that are associated with "maleness" in western society, and so on.

The hope would be that an oppressed group could come to "power" by act of tearing down an old structure and replacing it with something in which power was shared and distributed more equally. Perhaps women, as a marginalized group might be able to do that, and if so - I can find no evidence to suggest it has anything specifically to do with a certain Chromosome and much more to do with the lessons a disempowered group often learns, and the necessity of forging stronger community/relational ties as a matter of function within an oppressive system.

Again - there's no definitive right answer. A goodly amount of study and research can be used to support both a more structuralist or constructivist perspective to these things.

[omega minimo]

29. you've proven my point about listening

Your first paragraph seems to say you are basing your assumptions on your own experience. If you were referring to actual "research" or "a theoretical framework of constructivism," you might reference them or give some idea of what you're referring to.

This already has the tone of you feeling challenged beyond my interest in your basis for assumption -- you put yourself on the defensive and are pretending to have data that is not data that is insufficient data but BY GUM it's data!!!

If that's the case, mightn't it be okay to come from a human perspective, since all you've really said is your assumptions are based on your experience?

My questions hoped to prod an open mind to consider the questions rather than immediately try to COUNTER THEM. See how that works?

Did you think even for a second about this question?

"Aren't the general differences b/w males and females enough to indicate it can't possibly be "exactly the same"?"

If you do, there's a hint there for the potential in what I termed "influence" of/on power, rather than an unlikely (esp. immediately in Iceland) complete restructuring that you call the "hope."

"The hope would be that an oppressed group could come to "power" by act of tearing down an old structure and replacing it with something in which power was shared and distributed more equally."

[Political Heretic]

34. I think you are projecting

Your first paragraph seems to say you are basing your assumptions on your own experience. If you were referring to actual "research" or "a theoretical framework of constructivism," you might reference them or give some idea of what you're referring to.


Not quite. I base my assumptions on my interpretation of research and theory. My interpretation of research and theory is informed by subjective experience, so that I'm more inclined to embrace research and theory that seems to explain my experience over that which seems insufficient to explain my experience.

You apparently aren't aware of this, but by identifying a theoretical framework as "constructivist" I just give you "some idea" of what I'm referring to. You can look into it yourself. Searching in any research database (or even Google) for Constructivism will give you fine overviews to explain the theoretical base.


This already has the tone of you feeling challenged beyond my interest in your basis for assumption -- you put yourself on the defensive and are pretending to have data that is not data that is insufficient data but BY GUM it's data!!!


I don't believe you know enough about me to justifiably make this assumption, which is why it smacks of projection. I think its as likely (note your "popcorn" emoticon in your first post) that you had already decided that I would be argumentative, defensive, or whatever else before I even posted anything.

In truth, I am just a wordy person - and this happens to be within my field of expertise, so I naturally like to talk a bit about it. I felt like giving you a little more information about where I'm coming from so that you would appreciate that it isn't a thoughtless point of view - but after 60 plus hours of work - I don't feel like going "above and beyond" to present research you can look up for yourself.

As far as research goes - gender theory and all related fields is well established. If you are interested, then you can go read research and debate just like I have. I work really hard, so that when I come to this internet discussion forum, I am selfish - no question there. I don't want to do more work to locate, copy, link and detail research for you...

...Instead I tried to be as honest and fair-minded as I possibly could, by saying that this is an area of ongoing debate, where qualified persons still disagree. It's not a hard science - you can't "prove" one side or the other. And I try to be honest about that. But I'm pretty comfortable about which "school" of thinking I belong to.


My questions hoped to prod an open mind to consider the questions rather than immediately try to COUNTER THEM. See how that works?

Did you think even for a second about this question?


If it feels like an "immediate counter" it is only because these questions were thought provoking for me about a decade ago. Since that time I have researched, debated, written about, listened and discussed these particular elements to death. I've come to an understanding of my own position.

You've made the assumption that you've presented me with some new or refreshing alternative perspective that I haven't yet explored, and then feel offput when it is quickly responded to. But those assumptions are based out of total ignorance about me or my background, and a lot of projection on your part.

Just because I may not agree with you, doesn't mean I'm defensive. I've just been doing this for a very long time, so in finding your post it was not the first time I've ever thought about these things.

""Aren't the general differences b/w males and females enough to indicate it can't possibly be "exactly the same"?""

I do not believe that biology plays a significant factor in outcomes when it comes to power and social structure. I believe that oppression and marginalization plays a much more dominant role.

Further, I believe that the major differences between "males" and "females" (if one even excepts the binary categorization) are socially constructed, not independently objective. Certainly from a perspective of biology, there are differences between sexes. But gender, I believe, is a pure social construction. That's a slight detour from the main point...

Which is I believe that being in a position of authority over others creates certain potentials for domination or exploitation. If those in power accept the framework, the same problems will remain - I believe. For example, if Carly Fiorina and other female modern capitalists suddenly rose to dominant positions of power across all branches of government - I do not believe the oppressive tendencies of capitalism would suddenly be lessened, nor do I believe such women would over turn capitalism.

On the other hand, if a large number of women came together as a social movement against capitalism and for something more participatory and sustainable, that could indeed be a much better social situation - in theory. But I find nothing to suggest that only women can bring such a social movement or only men. There seems to be little to nothing specific to gender that garuntees a better outcome.

Now, the only time through out this entire exchange that I've felt defensive, is when you accused me of being defensive. :) So, in my defense I think its really hard to look at what I've written and my tone and claim that I'm being defensive or reactionary in my response. What's actually happened is you came into this with a lot of assumptions (hence your "popcorn" icon) - and many of them were wrong. I'm not knee-jerk dismissing your questions - rather, I've engaged your questions for over a decade, and as such I have some more complete responses rather quickly.

[Occam Bandage]

37. ...

I would like to say that what you have posted amounts to the most thorough yet genteel destruction of a smarmy, reactionary, shallow poster I have recently witnessed, and you have accomplished that through nothing more than displaying a humble, patient intellectual depth. I apologize for tarnishing (and perhaps, to a very limited extent, undercutting) your entirely reasonable post by attempting to cast it in the gladiatorial light your present opponent seeks, but seen in that light your rejoinder amounts to a withering volley of rhetorical destruction.

[TahitiNut]

43. Ditto.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[omega minimo]

58. if you ever want to participate without kneejerk cliches and hostility, please do

you won't seem like such a "smarmy, reactionary, shallow poster"

:thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

60. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the word "cliche" means. nt

[omega minimo]

63. epitome

of cliche:

Occam Bandage (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-07-09 09:17 PM
Response to Original message
31.

Cliche:I would have thought that Margaret Thatcher and Nancy Pelosi

Cliche: would have been evidence enough that women can fuck up just as badly as men can,

Cliche: but apparently some people still believe in the innate superiority of one gender over another.


Posted by DailyGrind51

Cliche: Women like Thatcher, Palin, Bachmann, Coulter, Dole?


Cannard, red herring, flamebait, call it what you will.

We would be interested in what you have to say, if you choose to express yourself less kneejerkishly

:applause: :applause:

[omega minimo]

48. Perhaps you think you are projecting

more of your learned meaning into your words than actually comes through.

This reply was more informative than the previous, apparently world-weary one was.

It will be worth it, especially if you have some valid ideas and interest to contribute to this sort of discussion.

As much effort as I put into writing clearly, it is astonishing when others project their view of one of my post based on a smilie -- especially when they're sure they know exactly what I meant by using particular cartoon character.

:hi:

You may have decades of thinking about questions and "quickly" generate responses you think are "complete."

Your erudition and condescension may impress the smug, content free and willfully ignorant posters who show up only to disrupt.

Yet you may have more to offer if you project your meaning clearly; otherwise risk being, like your fan club cheering you on "gladitorially" (because boys will be boys with their toys), perceived as obtuse.

That's no way to get to the heart of the matter.

:thumbsup:

[Political Heretic]

50. Okay

[WildEyedLiberal]

47. Yes, because female-only environments are havens of harmony and gentle goodwill

:eyes:

You couldn't have paid me to deal with the bitchiness of an all-girls school.

[terisan]

21. True, but they bring a different perspective and will tend to focus differently.

Right now women are woefully underrepresented in American Government. 17% of Congress, 0% of Elective office in Executive Branch, and only one of the nine Supreme Court Justices is a woman.

[omega minimo]

23. women are able to focus on other perspectives, not just their own

:bounce::wow::bounce:



:yoiks:

[Karenina]

62. Funny thing, UAE trained female pilots

who out performed their male counterparts. Something about teamwork... :rofl:

[omega minimo]

65. "male counterparts"?!!

:bounce: :hide: :bounce:


if DU was allowed to have a discussion on this subject in relative peace
and heard from
women/pilots
and learned brainiacs
and self centered maniacs
about what they actually know
to share and contribute
in an unthreatened manner
with like actually sentences n stuff
it would be interesting
to discuss that example of pilots
or others
where differences in perception/communication/action
inform and affect the outcome...

Like grownups
not statisticians whose final measure is subjective
or bullies who challenge our right to call BS
when it shows up
after ten
seconds.

:thumbsup:


discuss innate/trained/biological/conditioned capabilities in
cooperation
communication
vision
compassion
expression
organization
motivation
______________
etc.

that may flow from more BALANCE in power structures of all kinds.

[Karenina]

66. There are also articles on the effect of testosterone on Wall Street.

I'll look for the one in particular that caught my attention.

[Karenina]

70. FOUND IT!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/04/20/ST2008042001865.html

[omega minimo]

71. "generally may be more stable if they had a greater diversity of endocrine profiles""

Note also the paper used "hormones" the headline... if it was TESTOSTERONE some endocrine profiles would be seeing RED!! ;)
Thanks, K




On the days a trader's testosterone was higher than usual in the morning -- before most deal-making began -- he tended to post higher profits, the researchers found. The amounts varied, but on average, if the most experienced traders had performed all year as well as they did on high-testosterone days, they would have made about $1 million more, Coates said.

The researchers were surprised to discover that the traders did not tend to make less money on days when their cortisol was higher. But they did find that cortisol levels tracked the volatility of the market: the greater the uncertainty, the higher the cortisol, and the hormone spiked as the release of key economic data approached.

"As volatility increases after a crash, it may start affecting traders and make them risk-averse. They may see danger everywhere and not want to take risks. As securities get cheaper and cheaper and you would expect them to buy, they might not buy. It's sort of what we're seeing right now," Coates said.

Together, Herbert said, the findings indicate that "once we're in a situation where things are going up or going down, it's reinforced by these hormone changes."

If substantiated by further studies the researchers are planning, the findings may complicate the task of regulating markets, Coates said.

"Monetary policy is based on price signals. If traders are not responding, then you have a problem," he said. "It makes it extremely difficult to stop a bubble and extremely difficult to stop a crash using price signals."

Coates warned against interpreting the results to mean that traders might make a killing more often by taking testosterone supplements. That could backfire by disrupting the body's finely calibrated hormonal system.

"Guys would probably just ruin their health and not make any money," he said.

But trading houses might want to employ more older men and women, who tend to be less prone to the pull of testosterone, Coates said.

"Banks and the financial system generally may be more stable if they had a greater diversity of endocrine profiles," Coates said.

[SoCalDem]

38. Women, as a group..going waaaaay back are not as big of "risk-takers", as are men

a female with young, who takes risks, may lose her young..and women also may be better at multi-tasking, just because we are "designed" that way..

Until quite recently, women have not had the chance to be "in charge"..unless royalty or inheritance were involved..

Go girls !!! They cannot screw it up any worse, give 'em a chance to see if they can clean it up:)

[Political Heretic]

41. This is not universally true.

This would be more of a western generalization. There have been however, matriarchal cultures/tribes in which the women, not the men were the "hunters" and "warriors"

But getting away from the abstract and the sociological - I am on board with a basic "go girls!" sentiment! :D

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. Well said. The alternative view is the textbook definition of sexism. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

31. I would have thought that Margaret Thatcher and Nancy Pelosi would

have been evidence enough that women can fuck up just as badly as men can, but apparently some people still believe in the innate superiority of one gender over another.

[BlooInBloo]

32. Yup.

[omega minimo]

33. WAY TO TOTALLY MISS THE POINT, MISREPRESENT THE IDEAS, REINFORCE DUMB CLICHES!!!!!!!

:applause:

Well done. Perfect example of stubbornly willful ignorance.

Oh and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5006768&mesg_id=5007002

[Occam Bandage]

36. CAPS LOCK, MISSING CONJUNCTION, A LOT OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given that you're displaying an obsessive need to reply (in a preposterously defensive manner) to every post not aligned with your impression of the OP, I'd really have to question whether your statement about "feeling personally threatened" was not a bit of transparent projection.

[omega minimo]

49. pathetic

"MISSING CONJUNCTION" :rofl:


speaking of "personally threatened"

:rofl:

[Occam Bandage]

59. I'd knock you on substance, but really, all you got is style. nt

[omega minimo]

64. all you got is

insults

[terisan]

67. It is about equal representation in government not superiority

[TahitiNut]

42. “Our ground rule is simple — we won't invest in anything we don't understand.”

They'd NEVER get away with that in our Republican Party ... or the other one, for that matter. :shrug:

[Political Heretic]

44. Indeed!

Sad, isn't it? :(

[TahitiNut]

45. Yes, it's sad ... pitiful, even.

As an "analytical type," I've had more than my share of flim-flam that was intended to stifle dissent. I stopped tolerating that long, long ago. The "expert" who cannot describe something in plain language for a relatively intelligent layman is NOT an "expert." The individual who pretends to understand merely because he doesn't wish to appear ignorant merely portrays himself as STUPID.

It's pitiful that flim-flam has attained such 'success' ... ESPECIALLY in the financial sector, the most IQ-deprived sector of all.

[ColbertWatcher]

52. One bad thing about the way The Times reports this is ...

... by framing it as the meme that "women will fix the problems" they raise the expectations to an unachievable level. Such that when the new (female) leaders make their first mistake (and they will eventually) it will be easy to say that they (women) shouldn't be allowed to run anything because of it (no matter how big or small it is or how short- or long-lasting it will be).

First the leaders will be blamed (the women), then the party (Social Democratic), then the ideology (socialism). Followed by calls to return to tradition.


(I wanted to add something about that tiny village where girls outperformed boys in mathematics, but I can't remember the name)

[Karenina]

53. .. ...

:popcorn:

[Delphinus]

54. WOW!!!

The departing Government — retreating would be more precise — put business first, people second, say the premier's counsellors. Now is the time for a shift in values.

They get it - they understand! People MUST come first over business!

[DailyGrind51]

55. Women like Thatcher, Palin, Bachmann, Coulter, Dole? Please, spare me, and the world!

[omega minimo]

56. Where's your imagination? And why make a wish list of false assumptions?

:eyes:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

69. Yeah, Cause Lord Knows Women Are So Much More Responsible With Money Than Men Are.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: