
Womenomics: Feminist management theorists are flirting with some dangerous arguments
I can't say I completely agree with this story over at the Economist, which contends that first-generation feminists were "tougher" than the current generation of feminists, *and* also "tougher" than men. Excerpt:
'The new feminism contends that women are wired differently from men, and not just in trivial ways. They are less aggressive and more consensus-seeking, less competitive and more collaborative, less power-obsessed and more group-oriented. Judy Rosener, of the University of California, Irvine, argues that women excel at “transformational” and “interactive” management. Peninah Thomson and Jacey Graham, the authors of “A Woman’s Place is in the Boardroom”, assert that women are “better lateral thinkers than men” and “more idealistic” into the bargain. Feminist texts are suddenly full of references to tribes of monkeys, with their aggressive males and nurturing females.
...
Women would be well advised to ignore the siren voices of the new feminism and listen to Ms Dong instead. Despite their frustration, the future looks bright. Women are now outperforming men markedly in school and university. It would be a grave mistake to abandon old-fashioned meritocracy just at the time when it is turning to women’s advantage.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
It's totally false to say
It's totally false to say that since women are more 'networking-oriented', they are 'more collaborative'. It is two entirely different things - women form personal networks, whereas men excel by far at workplace team-building, which at bottom line is what is necessary to run a workplace. This is one reason why, despite recent social trends, in the long run genetics will play out (as it always does), and men will again predominate in the workplace. In fact, in the U.K. , things are now moving in that direction.
-ax