"united we stand"

Gary Lawrence Murphy garym@canada.com
08 Apr 2002 16:03:14 -0400


>>>>> "c" == carey  <carey@tstonramp.com> writes:

    c> Gary, Don't you think this 'smells right' logic would have been
    c> fully tested in the late 60's to early 70's when the women's
    c> movement was strong?  

No, because it is politically incorrect to presume that human behaviour
has any basis other than the rational.

    c> I dont' think its pheremones.  

Maybe not pheremones per-se, but after searching google for an hour
(hardly a thesis, I know) I am unable to locate any anthropological
studies which speculate on _where_ primates might store cultural
information.  Memory is only one candidate of many.  We also know that
human beings do have fixed action patterns that have their basis in
pre-cultural times, for a trivial but universal example, raising your
eyebrows when you first see someone you know.  No amount of
"deprogramming" can completely remove that behaviour, and we were
never taught that behaviour, although, if we can stay aware of it (for
example, undercover operatives) we can over-ride it, but it's a
struggle.

I have no doubt a lot of our cultural behaviour is learned, but all we
have to do is look around to see that the Taliban and Christian
Coallition are not your only macho orgs.

How about the Oval Office?  What is the percentage of advisors to the
US President who are female?  How about the military?  What is the
percentage of senior Washington-based policy-making officers who are
female.  The supreme court?  The Senate?  And that's just the
"Enlightened" nation.  What about in other countries, even progressive
liberated countries like Holland and Sweden?

How about where you work?  Being a consultant, I see a lot of
different corporate workplaces, and while most do have a few women in
senior positions, I've never encountered any that have parity
opportunities, although they'd be first to deny it: "We can't find any
women with suitable skills" yet put the dolt ex-football hero as the
VP of Marketing.

    c> ...  What better a guise to hide from the possibility of women
    c> in power (in the church, in the workforce, of their own bodies
    c> ) than behind arcane and sectionalized scripture.  

At least it is an excuse.  Our "enlightened" culture won't offer /any/
excuses.  We just say "Oh, you already /have/ complete rights as a
person, so if you're not in positions of power, it's your own fault,
not ours" and all I am wondering is if both the Taliban and the Oval
Office (and your local bank, and your municipal governments and ...)
are really just trying to cope with a deep-seated discomfort trying to
break from pre-historic primate behaviour patterns.

Also, as any hunter knows, the prey's instincts can be fooled to your
advantage: If there is some primate social-programming dynamic at work
in the office, women who grasp a bio/anthropological model for their
social interactions may actually do better than those who wait for the
male world to be 'rational' or rail against injustice.  

How many times have we heard successful women say they had to be "more
male" than those they competed against?  How often have we heard
senior female execs described as "having balls"?  Maybe these gender
comments imply the exec successfully fooled the pre-verbal primate
minds into accepting them, not as "equals" but as "virtually male".

This could be big!  It could lead to new lines of perfumes!  (instead
of a cat urine base, they should use chimp saliva?) New styles of
office wear (remember the 40's shoulder pads ladies?) and whole new
genre of self-help "career councelling" books!

-- 
Gary Lawrence Murphy <garym@teledyn.com> TeleDynamics Communications Inc
Business Innovations Through Open Source Systems: http://www.teledyn.com
"Computers are useless.  They can only give you answers."(Pablo Picasso)