I am coming to the conclusion that there is a certain kind of human that does not belong in a hierarchical administrative system, and certainly not at the top.
I am talking about woman.
Yes, yes, women can do everything that men can do. Not. But this last weekend there has been a cascade of news about women in hierarchies that don't have a clue.
Yes. I know that men are mostly clueless, but the difference is that nobody is making excuses for them, not at least if they are white males. So we are supposed to believe that dear little Hillary didn't understand the mansplaining meaning of a (C) in a government document. But Trump is supposed to know exactly what all his minions are doing, otherwise it's Russian collusion all the way down.
So here are a few examples of female cluelessness. From Powerline, a hospital director at Harvard Medical School is worried about stuff that "might upset women and minorities who are training to become doctors." So,
Then there is the woman President Deborah MacLatchy of Canada's Wilfred Laurier University. Her faculty sanctioned Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student and teaching assistant, who showed a video of Jordan Peterson in debate with a liberal about gender pronouns. Not for expressing a heretical opinion: just for showing the video. In her suit against the university Shepherd cites chapter and verse of how the faculty harassing her for the thought crime of actually showing a video were violating all the university's bureaucratic rules against harassment, but nothing was done. Does this woman president -- that was finally shamed into disapproving of the harassing actions of her underlings but has since done nothing to fix the problem -- not understand that one of the jobs of any executive leader is to lay down the law to her subordinates pour encourager les autres?
But here's the loveliest one of all. Remember that collision between a US Navy destroyer and a container ship in June 2017? Guess what: the "officer of the deck" (OOD) and the "Tactical Action Officer" in charge of "monitoring the combat radar" were both women.
And they didn't communicate at all on the watch leading up to the collision with the Philippine container ship.
Of course this all precipitates out of the basic difference between men and women. Men are organized to fight for the survival of the tribe on the border. Women are designed to fight for the survival of their children until puberty.
That means that the male strategic mind is thinking about what vital fact about the war plans of the neighboring tribe am I not paying attention to? And the female strategic mind is thinking about what food or dangerous shrub might be threatening the life of my child.
That is why when you walk around Green Lake in North Seattle you hear the men talking about tactical issues at work and the women talking about the health care issues of their friends.
Men naturally self-organize into quasi-military hierarchies, because that is the way not to get killed in the next dawn raid. Women naturally organize into gossip networks because village harmony depends on a consensus of who said/did what to whom and who is to blame.
Again, from James Bowman's Honor: A History, there is a fundamental difference between male honor and female honor: two separate cultures. Male honor is about guarding the reputation for courage; female honor is about guarding the reputation for chastity. Notice the profound difference. For men, it does not matter whether you are right or wrong, but whether you stood in line with your brother soldiers. For women it does not matter whether you stand together, but that you were "right" or "innocent." Thus the universal female complaint: "I can't believe she said/did that."
Now, in my view, taken from Rodney Stark, the original human "informal social control" is epitomized by the female village gossip network. But that didn't work when humans moved from villages to cities and the first stirrings of the market economy where anonymity started to rear its ugly head. So "formal social control" is all about hierarchical armies and state bureaucracies based in cities. And trials with formal rules about evidence/gossip. Oh and church bureaucracies.--
I wonder if women are really cut out for formal social control. Unless you are Margaret Thatcher with the will to completely reinvent yourself as an Iron Lady.
By the way, the whole culture of microaggessions and safe spaces is a girl thing. The whole point of being a man is to be impervious to minor insults, and not to need a place to hide. Because male honor and the reputation for courage among your male warrior pals. I mean: what kind of a man can't take a insult without collapsing into tears? And what kind of a man needs to hide away from his enemies unless on a modern lethal battlefield?
But I am optimistic. My whole existential worry about the world is that it is impossible to reform any government program, so nothing changes until the whole thing collapses from failing to adapt to changing circumstances.
But with women getting to be top managers of big bureaucratic organizations from schools to hospitals to universities we can expect an increased failure to adapt, because of an inborn inability in women to succeed in a "formal social control" environment. This means that our current bureaucratic monstrosities in health care and education are heading for the cliff earlier than we would expect if ordinary dull men were in charge.
Put it this way. Charles Dickens represents your average male bureaucrat as a "Barnacle" or a "Stiltstocking." Clearly such names just do not connect with women. But what names would be appropriate?
That is the question for today. And I have to admit that I don't have a clue.
I am talking about woman.
Yes, yes, women can do everything that men can do. Not. But this last weekend there has been a cascade of news about women in hierarchies that don't have a clue.
Yes. I know that men are mostly clueless, but the difference is that nobody is making excuses for them, not at least if they are white males. So we are supposed to believe that dear little Hillary didn't understand the mansplaining meaning of a (C) in a government document. But Trump is supposed to know exactly what all his minions are doing, otherwise it's Russian collusion all the way down.
So here are a few examples of female cluelessness. From Powerline, a hospital director at Harvard Medical School is worried about stuff that "might upset women and minorities who are training to become doctors." So,
Dr. Nabel has removed 31 portraits of former department chairmen from the hospital’s Bornstein amphitheater because they are all men and all but one of them are white.Ya know, I would say that in a major teaching hospital there are 20,000 problems in need of executive action before the vital and important job of moving the pictures around. So this is what female leadership reduces to? Redecorating? Indeed, the dissent of an Iran-born doctor suggests that Dr. Nabel and her "posse" seem suspiciously like your average Mean Girls clique in high school.
Then there is the woman President Deborah MacLatchy of Canada's Wilfred Laurier University. Her faculty sanctioned Lindsay Shepherd, a graduate student and teaching assistant, who showed a video of Jordan Peterson in debate with a liberal about gender pronouns. Not for expressing a heretical opinion: just for showing the video. In her suit against the university Shepherd cites chapter and verse of how the faculty harassing her for the thought crime of actually showing a video were violating all the university's bureaucratic rules against harassment, but nothing was done. Does this woman president -- that was finally shamed into disapproving of the harassing actions of her underlings but has since done nothing to fix the problem -- not understand that one of the jobs of any executive leader is to lay down the law to her subordinates pour encourager les autres?
But here's the loveliest one of all. Remember that collision between a US Navy destroyer and a container ship in June 2017? Guess what: the "officer of the deck" (OOD) and the "Tactical Action Officer" in charge of "monitoring the combat radar" were both women.
The OOD was named Sarah, and the Tactical Action Officer was named Natalie, and they weren’t speaking to each other!!!OMG! Like, I Can't Believe They Would Do That!
And they didn't communicate at all on the watch leading up to the collision with the Philippine container ship.
Of course this all precipitates out of the basic difference between men and women. Men are organized to fight for the survival of the tribe on the border. Women are designed to fight for the survival of their children until puberty.
That means that the male strategic mind is thinking about what vital fact about the war plans of the neighboring tribe am I not paying attention to? And the female strategic mind is thinking about what food or dangerous shrub might be threatening the life of my child.
That is why when you walk around Green Lake in North Seattle you hear the men talking about tactical issues at work and the women talking about the health care issues of their friends.
Men naturally self-organize into quasi-military hierarchies, because that is the way not to get killed in the next dawn raid. Women naturally organize into gossip networks because village harmony depends on a consensus of who said/did what to whom and who is to blame.
Again, from James Bowman's Honor: A History, there is a fundamental difference between male honor and female honor: two separate cultures. Male honor is about guarding the reputation for courage; female honor is about guarding the reputation for chastity. Notice the profound difference. For men, it does not matter whether you are right or wrong, but whether you stood in line with your brother soldiers. For women it does not matter whether you stand together, but that you were "right" or "innocent." Thus the universal female complaint: "I can't believe she said/did that."
Now, in my view, taken from Rodney Stark, the original human "informal social control" is epitomized by the female village gossip network. But that didn't work when humans moved from villages to cities and the first stirrings of the market economy where anonymity started to rear its ugly head. So "formal social control" is all about hierarchical armies and state bureaucracies based in cities. And trials with formal rules about evidence/gossip. Oh and church bureaucracies.--
I wonder if women are really cut out for formal social control. Unless you are Margaret Thatcher with the will to completely reinvent yourself as an Iron Lady.
By the way, the whole culture of microaggessions and safe spaces is a girl thing. The whole point of being a man is to be impervious to minor insults, and not to need a place to hide. Because male honor and the reputation for courage among your male warrior pals. I mean: what kind of a man can't take a insult without collapsing into tears? And what kind of a man needs to hide away from his enemies unless on a modern lethal battlefield?
But I am optimistic. My whole existential worry about the world is that it is impossible to reform any government program, so nothing changes until the whole thing collapses from failing to adapt to changing circumstances.
But with women getting to be top managers of big bureaucratic organizations from schools to hospitals to universities we can expect an increased failure to adapt, because of an inborn inability in women to succeed in a "formal social control" environment. This means that our current bureaucratic monstrosities in health care and education are heading for the cliff earlier than we would expect if ordinary dull men were in charge.
Put it this way. Charles Dickens represents your average male bureaucrat as a "Barnacle" or a "Stiltstocking." Clearly such names just do not connect with women. But what names would be appropriate?
That is the question for today. And I have to admit that I don't have a clue.
No comments:
Post a Comment