Well I wouldn`t agree with a guy OR gal going for a job that they couldn`t do physically or mentally.
There are times though that guts and determination can get you through, maybe further than someone else with a natural gift and ability...male or female.
Ok I'm going to put out some random thoughts that hit me while reading the posts from the past 24 hours.
Authority in any relationship doesn't have to be denied to be lost. It can also be relinquished. This can be a good thing when there is a greater good that is served. It can be disastrous when the person better suited to make a decision or do the job is deferring to another, less qualified person - "just because." We have seen this in marriages and in the workplace. I've even seen it on the playground! How many times have you seen a group of children trying to come up with something to play and they all follow the "leader" of the group even though there is another idea that is much better but not offered through the proper channels? You can actually see the dilemma on their faces. ("Boredom or follow the leader? Boredom or follow the leader?")
Another point: Frequently (but not always) the person with the most inherited or innate ability is not the best person for the job because they don't always push themselves to achieve more or push the envelope of their abilities. Here I must use an example from my experience as a drawing teacher. Each year I get students who have a wide range of abilities. Some have natural talent, others have great desire but less natural ability, still others are there because Mom is making them take my class. I won't discuss this last group for obvious reasons.
I tend to prefer those students who have great desire over those with great natural abilities. This has nothing to do with playing favorites - just an honest look at the students themselves.
When I get a student with natural ability, all too often they have been praised and put on a pedestal. Not that this is a bad thing, but the fear of losing praise can be a factor when it comes to trying some new thing. There are a lot of things I do with my students that are designed to break down old and bad habits. If a student is only interested in impressing Mom and Dad, they don't do what I tell them and they stay stuck in their ruts.
These students come to class and give me 'what they do" but don't seem to push beyond. Their work is nice but shows no growth from month to month. I get their "tricks." When my assignments challenge them to break out and push and stretch they complain and whine. ("This is stupid!")
OTHO - when I have a student with less ability but a ton of desire I see growth and enthusiasm right from the start. They tend to not only do the assignments, but even repeat them again for themselves. They have no tricks they are trying to impress me with, but rather impress me with their hard work and the progress they make. It's as if they realize they have nothing to lose by doing what I tell them to do as I tell them to do it.
Such can be the case with women in certain fields. A few posts back I put up Norman Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" to make a point. During WWII women not only did the work, they did it WELL! They were motivated by love of their men - brothers, sons, husbands, lovers - as well as love of their country. The results were stunning.
Regarding a woman as the Commander in Chief. Well, I guess we would have to start a list of those qualities that we deem important in that role. For many Americans, the person filling that position must at least have served their country as a commanding officer. (I'm not stating MY opinion per se, only what arguments have come up in the past.) I personally think that the ability to compartmentalize and separate emotion and fact is a must. I also see the that one must possess the capacity to listen to many suggestions and filter the facts from the "spin."
Ok - done for now.....Fire away!
I see that I made one of the same points that Rascal made- I just used more words to do it ;)
I agree with your thoughts on which student you enjoy working with and it's cool to think of athletes also that had disabilities that turn out to be the best in their sport because of their determination to go beyond what would hold them back, great post dooj.
God is a spirit, hence asexual. And, by the way, I think many of the early First Ladies fell into the category of well-behaved women, and I think we would all concede that they made history. I think their contributions to this country were at least as great as their husbands', and they managed to do it without sacrificing their femininity
It depends on what you call being "well-behaved." The wives of the men that signed the Declaration of Independence may have been feminine and genteel - but to the British I bet they were not considered well-behaved at all.
Think about Joan of Arc. She definitely didn't fit the status quo of being well-behaved in France!
Amelia Earhart? Eleanor Roosevelt? Harriet Tubman? Ann Sullivan? Helen Keller? Mary?
I don't believe that a woman has to sacrifice feminity in order to make a difference.
I am not an advocate of women being harsh and hard - strength comes from within. It takes great strength to break out of what is dictated as acceptable in a society. Whenever I let public opinion speak louder than my inner moral compass and my passion for fairness, I may be considered well-behaved by those around me, but I become contemptable to myself. That in my opinion is the worst behavior one can exhibit.
Speaking of first ladies. I think that Laura Bush brought back into the white house what Hilary Clinton failed to provide. A sense of class.
I would need more information before I agreed or disagreed. I never thought that either woman was particularly more or less classy. They just each have different agendas. (No! I don't want Hillary for President. She just doesn't seem to be a good fit.)
Again, this all begs the question: What qualities make a good President?
Oh and one more point regarding well-behaved women. Here is the meaning of the quote in the words of the author herself:
The phrase you coined, "Well-behaved women rarely make history," has come to mean that if you're a woman and you want to make history you need to misbehave. And in fact you meant the opposite, as in "Well-behaved women don't get their due."
Exactly. It's come to mean everything and anything. Every once in a while I'll Google and see where's it's turned up next. It's come to mean a whole range of things, from the very frivolous to the very serious. And actually, I've just handed in a manuscript of a book with that title, which will be out next fall.
I'd say the argument can be made for both sides. You certainly don't make history by following the crowd. On the other hand - there is certainly something to be said for living your life in a manner that speaks of high character, class and integrity.
After reading your last post, which I might add was excellant. I googled "Well-behaved women rarely make history" and one of the cites I found was Think exist .com; you probably know...so if I did the link wrong maybe doojable will redo it. , but it is a great cite !
I would hardly name Joan of Arc as a prime example of a woman who made a difference without sacrificing her femininity, considering that she was executed before the age of twenty for cutting her hair like a man's, and dressing like a man. I will certainly concede that she changed history.
I would hardly name Joan of Arc as a prime example of a woman who made a difference without sacrificing her femininity, considering that she was executed before the age of twenty for cutting her hair like a man's, and dressing like a man. I will certainly concede that she changed history.
I'll give on that point even though I don't agree that short hair necessarily implies a loss of femininity. What certainly was true was that she was perceived to have misbehaved.
BTW - why are we arguing about losing feminity? I don't think that it is necessary for a woman to stop acting feminine to make history. But there certainly are times when acting feminine would be perceived as misbehaving.
It may be that we agree to disagree on this matter - but I still welcome the discussion.
I guess my waybrain was showing. I am not really a feminist, and I subscribe to the idea that true equality between men and women can be found in the Bible. I don't believe that the admonition for women to be subject to their own husbands necessarily carries with it the idea that women are second-class citizens, nor does the reference to women as the "weaker vessel" necessarily carry with the inference of "I must be dumb, or lesser than my husband because I'm 'only a woman'". I guess I believe that God created men and women to complement each other not necessarily to compete with each other, and you can achieve that without sacrificing equality.
Subjecting one to another, pretty much covers it for me. There were times in our life when I was required to take charge. There were times when my husband was entirely unreasonable and it was necessary for me as the mother of the children and guardian of the home, a Godly responsibility to stand up against and actually defy him, in complete disregard of the twi teaching. (He just never had much trouble defying me for some reason...lol)
As with most of our understanding from twi, I didn`t think I could or should untill it was actually required. Then I realised how dumb we had been. There are times in everyones lives where they are mistaken or arses, in spite of their gender.
Sometimes when your judgement if faulty, or impaired, your actions will affect innocent people adversely.
I just know that life was tough while I followed the *submit to your husband/leader* dogma. We began to heal and grow once I quit shutting up as the meek little woman.
Our role is so much greater than we usually can see it.
I think the only thing that limits some of us many times is ourselves.
Subjecting one to another, pretty much covers it for me. There were times in our life when I was required to take charge. There were times when my husband was entirely unreasonable and it was necessary for me as the mother of the children and guardian of the home, a Godly responsibility to stand up against and actually defy him, in complete disregard of the twi teaching. (He just never had much trouble defying me for some reason...lol)
As with most of our understanding from twi, I didn`t think I could or should untill it was actually required. Then I realised how dumb we had been. There are times in everyones lives where they are mistaken or arses, in spite of their gender.
Sometimes when your judgement if faulty, or impaired, your actions will affect innocent people adversely.
I just know that life was tough while I followed the *submit to your husband/leader* dogma. We began to heal and grow once I quit shutting up as the meek little woman.
Our role is so much greater than we usually can see it.
I think the only thing that limits some of us many times is ourselves.
Well, I never advocated shutting up as the 'meek little woman', nor was I addressing times when one or the other spouse was being unreasonable to any degree. There have been many times over the years when I stood up to my husband (usually over the way he was treating the kids). There have also been many times when we sat down and discussed various courses of action, logically not emotionally, and when all was said and done, were still at odds with each other, and a decision still had to be made. At those times, my husband exercised his role as tie-breaker, and I have never found him to be other than fair and just in those situations, but I was blessed with a husband who takes more seriously his duty to love me as his own flesh, than worrying about my duty to be subject to him. In fact it is usually easy to obey him because I have learned over the years to trust that he is always considering my point of view and our family's needs before making a decision, not just being an arbitrary jerk. To quote Song of Solomon 2:4 for many years now "his banner over me has been love", and I have been very fortunate to have been married to such a wonderful man.
I'm beginning to think authority has to be given to ourselves by ourselves before we can have it over another. Or in other words we have to believe in ourselves and our ability before we can ask another to believe in us also. Authority given in a work place isn't our personal choice. You work there, you give respect to the one in authority. But in personal things we earn or give ourselves the right to have authority.
Well, Chatty, that certainly is one of the steps. However, I can give myself authority all day long and if I don't possess the skills to carry out the demands of the particular responsiblity, then there's a problem.
The marriage relationship is just that - a relationship. It seems to me that for a marriage to really work there needs to be a sense of mutual respect and shared authority.
But what of the other areas we mentioned? I think the workplace has been touched on somewhat.
I would really like to see a serious discussion on the qualities that women possess that would qualify them to be President. That takes authority. There are pros and cons to a woman being in the White House. I would expect that there is also a lot of prejudice regarding a woman in that role.
Some qualities I would find necessary are: strength of character, integrity, the ability to lead a wide range of personalities and backgrounds. A strong sense of being able to listen to one's gut important to me in order to cut through the spin.
I think one of the arguments I've heard about a woman in the White House has centered on a woman being too emotional.
If a woman were to become president, it would certainly not be the first time in history that a woman has filled a position of globally significant importance. What were some of the personal qualities of other female leaders and how did they deal with the adversity they surely must have encountered?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
26
68
41
19
Popular Days
Mar 26
41
Mar 21
35
Mar 14
33
Mar 22
29
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 26 posts
ChattyKathy 68 posts
FreeAtLast 41 posts
QuietThinker 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 26 2007
41 posts
Mar 21 2007
35 posts
Mar 14 2007
33 posts
Mar 22 2007
29 posts
rascal
Well I wouldn`t agree with a guy OR gal going for a job that they couldn`t do physically or mentally.
There are times though that guts and determination can get you through, maybe further than someone else with a natural gift and ability...male or female.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Agree. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ok I'm going to put out some random thoughts that hit me while reading the posts from the past 24 hours.
Authority in any relationship doesn't have to be denied to be lost. It can also be relinquished. This can be a good thing when there is a greater good that is served. It can be disastrous when the person better suited to make a decision or do the job is deferring to another, less qualified person - "just because." We have seen this in marriages and in the workplace. I've even seen it on the playground! How many times have you seen a group of children trying to come up with something to play and they all follow the "leader" of the group even though there is another idea that is much better but not offered through the proper channels? You can actually see the dilemma on their faces. ("Boredom or follow the leader? Boredom or follow the leader?")
Another point: Frequently (but not always) the person with the most inherited or innate ability is not the best person for the job because they don't always push themselves to achieve more or push the envelope of their abilities. Here I must use an example from my experience as a drawing teacher. Each year I get students who have a wide range of abilities. Some have natural talent, others have great desire but less natural ability, still others are there because Mom is making them take my class. I won't discuss this last group for obvious reasons.
I tend to prefer those students who have great desire over those with great natural abilities. This has nothing to do with playing favorites - just an honest look at the students themselves.
When I get a student with natural ability, all too often they have been praised and put on a pedestal. Not that this is a bad thing, but the fear of losing praise can be a factor when it comes to trying some new thing. There are a lot of things I do with my students that are designed to break down old and bad habits. If a student is only interested in impressing Mom and Dad, they don't do what I tell them and they stay stuck in their ruts.
These students come to class and give me 'what they do" but don't seem to push beyond. Their work is nice but shows no growth from month to month. I get their "tricks." When my assignments challenge them to break out and push and stretch they complain and whine. ("This is stupid!")
OTHO - when I have a student with less ability but a ton of desire I see growth and enthusiasm right from the start. They tend to not only do the assignments, but even repeat them again for themselves. They have no tricks they are trying to impress me with, but rather impress me with their hard work and the progress they make. It's as if they realize they have nothing to lose by doing what I tell them to do as I tell them to do it.
Such can be the case with women in certain fields. A few posts back I put up Norman Rockwell's "Rosie the Riveter" to make a point. During WWII women not only did the work, they did it WELL! They were motivated by love of their men - brothers, sons, husbands, lovers - as well as love of their country. The results were stunning.
Regarding a woman as the Commander in Chief. Well, I guess we would have to start a list of those qualities that we deem important in that role. For many Americans, the person filling that position must at least have served their country as a commanding officer. (I'm not stating MY opinion per se, only what arguments have come up in the past.) I personally think that the ability to compartmentalize and separate emotion and fact is a must. I also see the that one must possess the capacity to listen to many suggestions and filter the facts from the "spin."
Ok - done for now.....Fire away!
I see that I made one of the same points that Rascal made- I just used more words to do it ;)
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I agree with your thoughts on which student you enjoy working with and it's cool to think of athletes also that had disabilities that turn out to be the best in their sport because of their determination to go beyond what would hold them back, great post dooj.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
FreeAtLast
At this point I have nothing to add but am enjoying seeing the thought processes you guys are laying out. All very interesting. I love this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
is god a woman ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I've never checked.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
God is a spirit, hence asexual. And, by the way, I think many of the early First Ladies fell into the category of well-behaved women, and I think we would all concede that they made history. I think their contributions to this country were at least as great as their husbands', and they managed to do it without sacrificing their femininity
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
It depends on what you call being "well-behaved." The wives of the men that signed the Declaration of Independence may have been feminine and genteel - but to the British I bet they were not considered well-behaved at all.
Think about Joan of Arc. She definitely didn't fit the status quo of being well-behaved in France!
Amelia Earhart? Eleanor Roosevelt? Harriet Tubman? Ann Sullivan? Helen Keller? Mary?
I don't believe that a woman has to sacrifice feminity in order to make a difference.
I am not an advocate of women being harsh and hard - strength comes from within. It takes great strength to break out of what is dictated as acceptable in a society. Whenever I let public opinion speak louder than my inner moral compass and my passion for fairness, I may be considered well-behaved by those around me, but I become contemptable to myself. That in my opinion is the worst behavior one can exhibit.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
FreeAtLast
Speaking of first ladies. I think that Laura Bush brought back into the white house what Hilary Clinton failed to provide. A sense of class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
You have a point there Free. Yup.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I would need more information before I agreed or disagreed. I never thought that either woman was particularly more or less classy. They just each have different agendas. (No! I don't want Hillary for President. She just doesn't seem to be a good fit.)
Again, this all begs the question: What qualities make a good President?
Oh and one more point regarding well-behaved women. Here is the meaning of the quote in the words of the author herself:
The phrase you coined, "Well-behaved women rarely make history," has come to mean that if you're a woman and you want to make history you need to misbehave. And in fact you meant the opposite, as in "Well-behaved women don't get their due."
Exactly. It's come to mean everything and anything. Every once in a while I'll Google and see where's it's turned up next. It's come to mean a whole range of things, from the very frivolous to the very serious. And actually, I've just handed in a manuscript of a book with that title, which will be out next fall.
The Rest of the Article
I'd say the argument can be made for both sides. You certainly don't make history by following the crowd. On the other hand - there is certainly something to be said for living your life in a manner that speaks of high character, class and integrity.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
RainbowsGirl
Thank You Doojable,
After reading your last post, which I might add was excellant. I googled "Well-behaved women rarely make history" and one of the cites I found was Think exist .com; you probably know...so if I did the link wrong maybe doojable will redo it.
, but it is a great cite !
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/well-behav...ake/180481.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I would hardly name Joan of Arc as a prime example of a woman who made a difference without sacrificing her femininity, considering that she was executed before the age of twenty for cutting her hair like a man's, and dressing like a man. I will certainly concede that she changed history.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'll give on that point even though I don't agree that short hair necessarily implies a loss of femininity. What certainly was true was that she was perceived to have misbehaved.
BTW - why are we arguing about losing feminity? I don't think that it is necessary for a woman to stop acting feminine to make history. But there certainly are times when acting feminine would be perceived as misbehaving.
It may be that we agree to disagree on this matter - but I still welcome the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
I guess my waybrain was showing. I am not really a feminist, and I subscribe to the idea that true equality between men and women can be found in the Bible. I don't believe that the admonition for women to be subject to their own husbands necessarily carries with it the idea that women are second-class citizens, nor does the reference to women as the "weaker vessel" necessarily carry with the inference of "I must be dumb, or lesser than my husband because I'm 'only a woman'". I guess I believe that God created men and women to complement each other not necessarily to compete with each other, and you can achieve that without sacrificing equality.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
No arguments from this corner........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
Great post Jean.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Subjecting one to another, pretty much covers it for me. There were times in our life when I was required to take charge. There were times when my husband was entirely unreasonable and it was necessary for me as the mother of the children and guardian of the home, a Godly responsibility to stand up against and actually defy him, in complete disregard of the twi teaching. (He just never had much trouble defying me for some reason...lol)
As with most of our understanding from twi, I didn`t think I could or should untill it was actually required. Then I realised how dumb we had been. There are times in everyones lives where they are mistaken or arses, in spite of their gender.
Sometimes when your judgement if faulty, or impaired, your actions will affect innocent people adversely.
I just know that life was tough while I followed the *submit to your husband/leader* dogma. We began to heal and grow once I quit shutting up as the meek little woman.
Our role is so much greater than we usually can see it.
I think the only thing that limits some of us many times is ourselves.
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
FreeAtLast
Rascal you make many great points. Maybe what you are stating is why so many way marriages didn't last outside the confines of the Organization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jeaniam
Well, I never advocated shutting up as the 'meek little woman', nor was I addressing times when one or the other spouse was being unreasonable to any degree. There have been many times over the years when I stood up to my husband (usually over the way he was treating the kids). There have also been many times when we sat down and discussed various courses of action, logically not emotionally, and when all was said and done, were still at odds with each other, and a decision still had to be made. At those times, my husband exercised his role as tie-breaker, and I have never found him to be other than fair and just in those situations, but I was blessed with a husband who takes more seriously his duty to love me as his own flesh, than worrying about my duty to be subject to him. In fact it is usually easy to obey him because I have learned over the years to trust that he is always considering my point of view and our family's needs before making a decision, not just being an arbitrary jerk. To quote Song of Solomon 2:4 for many years now "his banner over me has been love", and I have been very fortunate to have been married to such a wonderful man.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChattyKathy
I'm beginning to think authority has to be given to ourselves by ourselves before we can have it over another. Or in other words we have to believe in ourselves and our ability before we can ask another to believe in us also. Authority given in a work place isn't our personal choice. You work there, you give respect to the one in authority. But in personal things we earn or give ourselves the right to have authority.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Well, Chatty, that certainly is one of the steps. However, I can give myself authority all day long and if I don't possess the skills to carry out the demands of the particular responsiblity, then there's a problem.
The marriage relationship is just that - a relationship. It seems to me that for a marriage to really work there needs to be a sense of mutual respect and shared authority.
But what of the other areas we mentioned? I think the workplace has been touched on somewhat.
I would really like to see a serious discussion on the qualities that women possess that would qualify them to be President. That takes authority. There are pros and cons to a woman being in the White House. I would expect that there is also a lot of prejudice regarding a woman in that role.
Some qualities I would find necessary are: strength of character, integrity, the ability to lead a wide range of personalities and backgrounds. A strong sense of being able to listen to one's gut important to me in order to cut through the spin.
I think one of the arguments I've heard about a woman in the White House has centered on a woman being too emotional.
Anyone else...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
If a woman were to become president, it would certainly not be the first time in history that a woman has filled a position of globally significant importance. What were some of the personal qualities of other female leaders and how did they deal with the adversity they surely must have encountered?
Any anecdotes come to mind?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.