Aswad
Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RumpusParable Yes, there are genuinely many men that just plain don't like dominant women. Okay, a bit short here, but: this does not match my experience. See, I love lasagne, and mine has garlic and cinnamon in it. Ask me how much of each, and I couldn't get more precise than "just a little bit of cinnamon, but somewhat more garlic," which would only be helpful to you if you are used to lasagne, garlic and cinnamon individually, or if you are inclined to make a few attempts before pulling off that parfaît lasagne. But this is hardly something new, nor is it in any way confined to cooking. It's called tacit knowledge, and it comes from experience, and will frequently be taught nonverbally. In the case of authority dynamics, one will be passed on matrilineally, while the other is passed on patrilineally, with both converging on one lineage, although different lines have been converging at different speeds. Some men and some women can carry authority well. The difference is primarily that men know it, while (some) women are too obsessed with what they are now entitled to do, so that they forget what they are able to do, and thus neglect learning to do it in the first place. Men with the same deficit, however, are aware of their deficit, and thus do not try to pull it off. Tacit knowledge. There are certainly many men (and women) who do not like when non-dominant women get domineering. These same men will punch a non-dominant man who gets domineering until he gets back in line. I think the women may be getting the better deal in that department. C'mon, it's been a scant few decades since suffrage, and you're expecting gynoculture and androculture to converge in a matter of years after diverging for centuries? Where is the realism in that expectation? Are women exempt from considering the realities of biology, neurology, culture, language, cause and effect, by virtue of gender alone? Or must they now acquire the tacit knowledge that men possess in order to compete on par with one, while men must acquire the tacit knowledge that women possess in order to compete on par with one? Fact of nature: the validity of authority is not established by the higher cognitive functions that understand delegation, but by more primitive functions that respond to the qualities of the person in question. When those instincts tell us that someone is overextending their authority, we experience cognitive dissonance due to the conflicting needs of the situation we are in (work) and the desire to call an obvious bluff. When those same instincts tell us that someone can back their authority, this dissonance does not occur. Whether the required qualities are common in women or not remains to be seen. I have certainly met women who possess the required qualities in my career, though. And I have had no problem with them in charge, nor with them being assertive. Perhaps it's time to stop whining about how delegated rights and authority do not substitute well for backed rights and innate authority, and instead of sitting down to complain about this nonequivalence, simply dealing with the problem as an authority figure should: first understand the problem, then solve it. Such would certainly set an example that would be worth emulating, and show a lot of men that women are capable of what they claim. Because I have met very few men who had an active dislike for dominant women, but so long as it's a matter of chance who has it or not, and those who do not act as if they do, there will be conflicts between what we are, and what some might want us to be. My bank does not allow me to cash checks without coverage. My nature does not allow others to do so, either. Does yours? Health, al-Aswad.
_____________________________
"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind. From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way. We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.
|