SvennoJ said:
o_O.Q said:
SvennoJ said:
How did you come to that conclusion? Women are better at managing and keeping track of the overall picture, next to having better communication skills. Men are better at focusing on details. Men might be better generals, Women seem better suited at leading a company or country.
|
"Women are better at managing and keeping track of the overall picture"
so how, therefore, could they become subjugated beneath men?
it must either be that what you are claiming here is not really true or that women understood that the position they had in the past was the most beneficial one for them and so they accepted those roles
" Women seem better suited at leading a company or country."
the most successful business and countries were not built by women... so this claim appears to have no basis at all
can you give me some actual real world exampes that validate your claim?
i tend not to trust studies generally because they are often times found to be flawed
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/14/margaret-thatcher-20-changes-britain
Learn some history if you want to understand how women were subjugated beneath men. It's a combination of reproductive necessity and religion enforcing the roles. Understood that their position was more beneficial to them? lol.
|
i'm just trying to show you that what you are saying does not hold together logically
you are claiming that women are better managers and that is fine i have no problem with that but my question is that if they are better managers or in other words leaders (because that is essentially what a manager is anyway)
how did they therefore end up as the ones being lead? i've asked this for about 3 times now and you have not given me an answer yet
"Understood that their position was more beneficial to them? lol."
this is the only thing that makes sense with regards to what you are telling me
"religion enforcing the roles."
religion is a societal management system that came from men btw
