Re[2]: "united we stand"
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:48:51 -0400

In a message dated Tue, 9 Apr 2002  1:52:44 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Eugen Leitl <> writes:

>On Mon, 8 Apr 2002, carey wrote:
>> To your question:  Why?  Is it always requisite that for a company to
>> succeed, they first must have some asshole making the decisions?  I'm
>> working by your standard of external ruthlessness/asshole persona.
>The process is similiar to by which water and feces separate
>spontaneously. Shit floats to the top. The assertive, politicky person
>winds up in control. Competence is really secondary here, but it of course
>> PErhaps in our society the concept of a non-asshole just hasn't come
>> into flavor yet.  IT doesn't necessarily mean that women can't be
>> leaders, they just might be leaders via a different means.
>They can have as many different leadership touches as they want, as long 
>as they're cold calculating bastards, or at least faking it well enough to 
>be able to steal a meal from a pack of hyenas.

My own observation: women are less self-promotional than men - culturally ingrained to be such. we have no trouble getting on the mate-promotional bandwagon, however: we're taught to gauge our worth, to some degree, by how successful our mates are. the ones with the richest/most well connected/best pedigreed men receive deference among their female peers.  

then again, maybe it's just me. i'm a total wimp on my own behalf but will expend tons of focus on the success of others. i even defend others better than i do myself. from friends:

     No. Your have closure when someone steals a
credit card, rents a car and runs him over with it.
Then your have closure. Silly girl. You kill me.
                                 Sherry and John

but dammit, i have the BEST friends.