Re: "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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.