There is an interesting article entitled "What Would A Female-Dominated Business World Look Like?" at this link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-sasha- ... 99677.html

(Dr. Galbraith is a current partner of Galbraith Management Consultants, an international consulting firm founded by her husband, Dr. Jay Galbraith, specializing in solving strategy and organizational design challenges across corporate, business unit, and international levels. Dr. Sasha Galbraith’s expertise focuses on executive women and their progression in corporate hierarchy and provides consulting services to large multi-national organizations regarding women in management and diversity issues.)

Michael

Michael,

A good article and pertinent to this thread. Could you please edit your post and include a link to the origin of that article?

I don't know how well it was perceived that way as you must work with what you have available, but that is largely the way that I tried to run things after I took over my father's company. A number of the employees 'developed' well and did well later after I closed the business in the early 90s when business from our big customers suddenly went away. You have to 'grow' your employees. They need to see themselves as fitting into the organization and having a place there where they are encouraged to take responsibility rather than being constantly managed. I forget what general said it but he claimed to avoid giving orders unless absolutely necessary as once you give an order it must be repeated into the future or that 'thing' will not get done any more without being ordered.

Ted

Ted,

I watched an interesting documentary on Warren Buffett not long ago. He insists on running Berkshire Hathaway along the very same hands-off principle in his relationship with all the managers of his vast empire.

Michael

whatever IS, is your starting point.

Genetic hard wiring are immovable objects to be noted, and then you walk around them, step over them, or you use them to advantage.

Living according to what is, rather than how we would imagine our innate nature should be.

From what is, we consider investments in impulse suppression, so that we can have more sustainable pleasure over our lifetimes.

We might smoke some social grass, but say no to harder drugs. Reasonable pragmatic override. Short term pain, long term gain. Live to play another day.

That girl in the bedroom drunk out of her mind and taking her pants off...well, higher ruleset considerations...we put her clothes back on and take her home, and maybe circle back another day with a proper sober seduction where there will be no regrets or abuse of decision space. (and never ever let a sperm get anywhere near an egg, if you do not have a plan to deal with the result).

Primal, pragmatic and higher ruleset in this endless juggling act, maximizing sustainable corporate fun, not only over each players lifetime, but over each players IUOC eternal lifetime.

Tom is investing in teaching society how to have fun in this wholeistic big picture way. This is also what all the great religions try to do as well, at least at their inception.

Marriage should be fun, like life should be fun. This is the mission of this thread and Tom's book. What are we doing wrong, how can we fix it? One starts with understanding the machine code of the hardware.

Are we having fun yet?

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Buffet is a very very weird guy, if you study his life. He was very engaged with Civil Rights in the 60s, by way of example.

http://www.businessinsider.com/11-aweso ... 012-5?op=1

Almost all of his money is going to the Gates Foundation.

His kids did not get any financial help. His daughter once asked him for a loan to reno her kitchen. He said no.

It took the first Catholic President, who was by the way a raging one percenter, to look at racial segregation and say, this is fucked up, and actually do something about it.

Him and his brother probably got shot for that, thought they went after so many vested interests, its more like a "who shot JR" situation.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

the problem here is that you only perceiving power at the courser level of authority and money. One of my neice's is very book smart and focusing on being national top ten in her profession. I told her less "book-motivated" sister once, smart girls get the corner office, but girl geniuses figure out how to dispatch a man to haul ass every day and do it for them. This is much harder than it looks.
You are seeing power in a superficial way. Low entropy families are matriarchal by definition, as the males serve and protect the females as the first impulse of expressing their quality. She does not have to worry about pragmatic issues, as he is taking care of these things and is happy to do it.

Same goes for the low entropy rich. There are two kinds of rich people. Rich people who have found a way to serve the community and are serene in this, and unhappy rich who continue to invest in materialism.
right, the rich are rich because they are crooks or were lucky. That is largely true in many countries of the world, and largely untrue, in fact, most untrue, in America.

By the way, how far did you go in school? How many businesses have you attempted? A business can be something as simple as dog walking or painting or window washing. Don't you think your position in society might have something to do with your decisions and effort?
most women who get the corner office have the shocking realization that its a high entropy pressure cooker, and that having a Beamer in the garage is not a good trade-off for missing the kids birthday party. Or not having kids at all. Or watching the husband drift into someone else's life. Wow, bossing people around and firing them and getting screwed over by your colleagues and management...this is great fun.

It relates to overweighting the importance and significance of material power versus the true richness of personal life.
under the MBT lens, I see it as matriarchial. Keeping the trains running on time is a lessor responsibility to keeping the social wheels of intimate life running efficiently.
Its like when Tom talks about the power of the macho bully...its an impression of power at the surface, whereas the apparently meeker nerdy guy actually has personal power to make things happen in the world, which becomes increasingly evident as their life plays out. Its the same with women. Some women have the direct power of the corner office and big investment portfolios.

Then there is this other group who mated with low-entropy-high-effectiveness husbands, and they have a different, I would say deeper power. They still maintain their medical licenses and do cataract surgery a couple of days a week to stay in practise, but that is not the focus of their lives.
I was a raging socialist in my youth and opened a street hostel for the homeless. People who are not left in their youth are somehow ill-formed later in life, and get stuck as tough paleo-conservatives rather than compassionate conservatives, or are stuck in the theoretical extreme of libertarianism.
actually, you are the old guard and I am the revolutionary. I am reaching beyond the fear paradigm and representing Tom's model of cooperation and love between fear groups rather than war.
no, we just do what she wants, unless we think it will harm her or the family, then we have long discussions to convince her. In a low entropy family, the woman is the boss. This is profitable in the big picture, as women generally have less ego and are more attuned to the things that really matter.

This is also an investment in her waking up if she has not done so. When she wakes up, she then surrenders some of her decision space and asks, well, what do you think? Or, please take care of this (like, perimeter security) and don't bother me about it. When cooperation and loyalty is presumed, the dynamic is completely different than your fear based paradigm.
When Bob is effective and loyal (low entropy), she does not need to wage corporate warfare herself, she has him for that. That being said, the prudent female hedges. Also, some females are constructed for corporate warfare and all the types of work in between, and they should be encouraged to find their own equilibrium. Its all about figuring out what IS, and then permitting everyone to have it all, or as much as possible of it all.
Its like the fact that women congressmen of both parties get together socially whereas the men increasingly do not. This is typical and profitable regarding the role of women in societal problems, especially when the core problem fear and lack of cooperation.

The woman who is in a position to do so, with an interest in neatening society up, who has run out of problems to manage in her own family, should get involved in town politics and chase the moneychangers out of the Temple, and work her way up the political food chain. Those with less decision space should ally with such a woman and work on her campaigns. This is good rich MBT life experience, and part of the process of building a life that is engaged with real things and real people.

Just always keep in mind that good intentions are not enough. Much damage is done to the poor by the ill informed good intentions of middle and upper class women (and men) who do not understand business and economics. A person who cannot run a hot dog cart is unlikely to be a helpful player in the business of regulating an industry. There is a lot of data that suggests that Robin Hood economics is a lose lose proposition for all parties, including the target population you are trying to help.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Randy,

I doubt if Buffet's daughter appreciated then or now appreciates his attitude. Last I heard she was running a foundation or something for him. No doubt at a good salary. Pretends that she likes it.

Ted

I am glad, that not all men see this world, as you do, Randy.

Lena

_________________
'Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.' Confucius.

I'm having a bit of a tough time teasing out your central thesis, but it appears to me to be this: the best arrangement for social harmony is for the majority of women to tend to domestic affairs and the majority of men to tend to external affairs like work and politics. Only if a women has "run out of problems to manage in her own family" should she focus on external affairs. You have this dressed up as if it is ultimately empowering for women to let men keep power over the external world. Sorry, this is hardly revolutionary--it is a propagation of the old paradigm, the old sexism. If I am incorrect about your perspective, please correct me.

Nowhere in the essay Tom has posted here does he say that male dominance over external affairs is either eternal nor optimal for contemporary or future society. In fact, he states that in the old social paradigm based upon survival,
It sounds like that is your viewpoint, and the whole thrust of Tom's essay is that we are no longer in survival mode, so we can begin to create what he calls a "gender neutral culture." I would appreciate from Tom a clearer definition of what he means by that.

+++++
When I said you propagate a retrograde paternalism, I did not mean patriarchy, but I meant that I sense you think those who have power (whether it is financial, intellectual, gender-based) have more of a right to arrange the affairs of the less-powerful for their own good. If I am wrong, please correct me.

+++++
You say "women generally have less ego and are more attuned to the things that really matter." You continually make categorizations and generalizations, breaking the world into categories convenient for your beliefs [plus, are you saying the external struggle for survival does not matter?] Personally, I have absolutely no evidence that women have less ego than men. How do you feel about what Tom wrote in the above essay:
Ego is a side-effect of low QOC, so I find the idea that women have less ego than men to be exceptionally unlikely.

+++++ I don't want to derail this thread with my own history, but I have a graduate degree and I have been working nearly non-stop since I was 14 (I am now 30). I am now in a job which makes me very happy, which doesn't pay as much as it should, but pays the bills. How much of this do I credit to "my decisions and effort?" Very Little. My parents have been unconditionally supportive in nearly every way you can imagine, creating conditions for me to basically slip into the shoes I'm in now. Plus, I am white and middle-class and male, so I have thousands more doors open to me than others who are not any of those things, but are far better people than me in terms of QoC and effectiveness. I have been running on autopilot for most of my life in terms of choices (which is consistent with the MBT model--I've merely been expressing my inherent QOC). Only recently have I really had some victories I would really call "mine" (in the sense of belonging to this current personality); namely, getting control over some pretty bad alcoholism I had for most of my late teens and 20s. I think boasting about one's "decisions and effort" as the primary factors for their "position in society" is largely a thing of ego. We are born into a web of social structures [not to mention genetic ones] and those are the overwhelming factors determining our "position in society." I think that linking social class to quality of consciousness is morally wrong.

Have I attempted starting a business? The thought of that makes me want to puke. I am completely uninterested in playing the capitalist game, which I'm guessing lowers my value and quality in your eyes. Perhaps someday I will look into starting a non-profit or something. But I'm doing great where I am now, thanks.

+++++
Look man, I'm sorry if I'm always coming off as argumentative; I just disagree with a lot of what you write. I do like to read your posts, and I think your heart is in the right place, but I guess I just see the world differently than you. I do find some value to conservatism: it helps keep social order, which is largely better than chaos. Logistical, pragmatic people are invaluable to that effort. But I tend to err on the side of human freedom rather than order, and where many people see order, I often see a degeneration into oppression. I can definitely accept that I may be making a wrong-headed analysis, but I'm just expressing what comes naturally, as I am sure you are, too.

_________________
Everything is simpler than we can imagine, at the same time more complex and intertwined than can be comprehended--Goethe, Maxims & Reflections

Here's an article about how Sweden is implimenting changes in an effort to evolve more towards a gender-neutral society, and it brings up some interesting questions as well: http://www.examiner.com/article/sweden- ... al-society

yes, there is always more to a story. My understanding is that the foundation job came later in her life, but I am not sure.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Well, I think this is where Tom is heading. Its not at all telling anyone to do anything or constraining anyone's decision space, its rather, looking at the data and then modelling it, with belief stripped out. Where this becomes a therapy is for the woman to ask herself what she really wants, and then for her to have permission to reinvent herself according to this more accurate model of reality.

The man who is depressed and not interacting with the outside world might want to try attending a political meeting and taste the feedback, by way of example. Its all about honest connection with your feedback, rather than living according to belief. In the anti-Religion of MBT, everyone is their own Pope.
Neo-sexism rather asks, where is her true heart and feedback? Is it investing an afternoon going to the zoo with the grandchild who is having problems, or it is chairing an important budget meeting of an important organization? In this way, I have for a long time believed that feminism = materialism, in its broadest sense. It is an overdialed fetishishness regarding power, mostly based on fantasy rather than direct experience.
sure, I am getting ahead of Tom on this regarding where his thinking might lead, but you are taking innocent love-based concepts and consistently putting a negative fear spin on it. Giving women permission to craft their own lives, free of the narrower decision space of materialism and power pressure, is very different that "promoting male dominance".

Personally, at the macro societal level, I see time and time again that women provide a necessary balance to governance, especially regarding corruption and higher ruleset considerations. What is good for society though, is different than what is good lets say for giving direct "micro" level advice to a young woman.

There is a natural order and sequence to things. If a woman feels compelled to invest her time in local politics or doing the 70 hour grind at the corporation, while her children are drifting or are managed by others, or her husband slowly drifts away, of course, she is free to make these decisions. The hypothesis however is that it is not in her nature to do so. Tom may or may not see this an an implication of his primal man primal woman model.
I think the basic model is that the environment caused some stuff to be encoded in our DNA, and that we simply need to account for this when forming intent, on a win win or other serving basis. I am also hoping that Tom will discuss hemispheric sexual asymmetry and its implications for higher ruleset interaction..."mystic man, mystic woman".

In the workplace, job one is gender neutrality. Where there is very low entropy, players start to think in terms of "boy jobs" and "girl jobs" in the context of what people enjoy doing and anthropological effectiveness. Like for an extreme example, in a hog slaughter plant, not in a million years would anyone put a woman in the kill room.

In the home, gender neutrality may be an inefficient concept.
what seems to be outside your perception space is how power dynamics shift in low entropy environments. In such environments the guy truddling off to his impressive high power job is the wife's "bitch", in a manner of speaking. The women are the superior race, being served by the worker male drones. Its hard to believe if you have not seen it with your own eyes. The man is slave to his wife's approval.
you have to start with generalizations of average tendencies, then work in normal curve tails and exceptions following. This caveat is explicit and Tom invested a lot of lines with this warning.
maybe then we have different data. My theory is that biology puts women at a natural disadvantage regarding the material and ego, so they are stripped down to reality sooner than men. This is the case for all minorities or disadvantaged.
Yes, I have for a while been offside to Tom on this. As above, I am floating the idea that women grow in to their inherent quality more effectively, due to the female incarnation being more challenging regarding the ego aspects. Not so much when young, but more the humiliations of middle age. Or there is a different explanation for my perception on this.

Just to take one example...volunteers at palliative hostels are virtually entirely women. Why is this?

"She who must be obeyed" wants me off the laptop. Gotta go.

_________________
Does this PMR make my butt look big?

Oh, suddenly everything you write makes sense. It's all from the perspective of White Guilt, which I know so well ... it's a form of defense for the evergoing unspoken accusation from the environment that you are "undeserving" of your life.

This has to be overcome. There is no such thing as a level playing-field and there never will be. It's also the least of our worries, but it's a wonderful vehicle for fear, accusations, victim-mentality, and so on.
I'm a product of various influences. Partly scandinavian efforts of leftist social engineering (which are not new), partly of strange family dynamics (a euphemism ...)

Feminism as a cause has no meaning because no one is opposing it (- no one will argue for mistreatment of women.) Because of this it has become a uniting flag and safe haven for anyone who feels victimized or afraid, but it also means that there can be no actual debate or discussion. Only one view is allowed - that of whomever claims the biggest right to victimhood. In the real world it's used as a form of intellectual clothing over a general contempt of men, and there's almost always a tragic personal story behind every "hardcore" feminist.

When I was taught as a child (although not in these words) that I was "a bad person" for wanting to play with wooden swords, it had a deep impact on me. A million little judgements coming from teachers, children's television, and so on, through my life has contributed to an understanding that the people behind these arguments have no idea what the human experience is. All of it is a scripted and rehearsed attempt to assert control over a world that they are too afraid to face and that they feel is running away from them. Children are convenient defenseless targets. You can choose to either be victimized by it, or reject it. The ones who are victimized take on a belief that they are somehow "wrong" - like all forms of traumatization.

There are real and true biological differences in temperament, personality, etc between boys and girls. Anyone who argues differently has no clue. And using children is inexcusable.

Women can't understand what it feels like to be male. It has to be experienced through the process of going from "boy" to "man".

The process of "becoming a man" involves a series of lessons. One of the first instincts boys have is to fight each other, for toys, for territory, for attention, for the heck of it. Battlefields in the sandbox, drawing of battle lines, creating alliances, mud-slinging, fist fights. It's "Lord Of The Flies". Us boys knew we had to hide this from the teachers, because they would stop it, and the instinct to fight and compete is so strong that even the losers in the game won't stop it. The worst offense a kid could do was to call on the teachers. The instinct in little boys when left alone is to teach each other to own their fear, own their position in the game, and honor the rules. In practice it's about throwing mud, "snow war", and so on. Feminist women have no basis for understanding this. They just can't comprehend it.

As boys get older, this slowly grows into more sofisticated penalism, and the purpose of it is to teach each other to defend themselves psychologically. "Jackass" demonstrates the extremes of this. The boys who learned to deal with their fear through the victim-mentality (and calling on teachers for help) find it difficult when they have to rely on themselves. In teenage years, as boys grow muscles, physical fighting means real injuries and so it becomes mental. The end-goal is to overcome fear, and once this is achieved - everything that once looked like "penalism" becomes a joke. Examples: "Jackass", skating-culture.

The ultimate result of this process is the realisation that fighting with someone who is fearless has no benefit, and therefore conflicts have to be resolved on a basis of honor. The concept of honor can't be explained to women. To them it sounds like "stupid male prestige".

It is a contract that means we have to honor each others' strengths, without measuring them. We divide resources without fighting for them. We avoid conflict, if the resolving the conflict would cost too much. We don't lie. If this contract is broken, then we have to accept being challenged and that means willingness of losing everything. Being "challenged to a duel" is a caricature of this. Within this context, it means males can only be as assertive as they trust their strengths. This "code of honor" only applies if you are fearless, and can demonstrate it by some sort of charisma or "test".

Males form "alliances" with peers that are based on honor. It means willingness of self sacrifice. The trust that is necessary is based on a mutual knowledge of how much pain we are willing to endure before giving up. There is a feeling of bonding that only males can have, either as adolescents or in the military, and that is discovering that someone is truly fearless and completely loyal. In adolesence this happens through fighting each other and bonding.

Suicide-bombing, harakiri, and so on are extreme versions of male honor. The trust between males is proportional to willingness of self sacrifice.

A healthy male can never turn his aggression on a female. It's impossible genetically. A healthy male will never expect a female to sacrifice herself for "a cause". When a woman has to face real male aggression it disturbs her world view to a point where it's almost impossible for her to survive with her mental health intact. Boys spend their lives training each other to overcome this.

This is why women will never compete with men on an equal basis. There will always be a code of honor between males. There is no substitute for the trust between males that's based on honor, and it's against male genetics to demand the same of women.

This gives men a few advantages when it comes to keeping the lights on in a civilisation. That's all.

Women, however, have tremendous power if they would wake up it. Jobs, business suits, cars don't matter. In a hundred years the jobs will be gone, suits will have rotted away, cars rusted. Nothing remains. The world is full of ruins - architected by males, built by male slaves, once inhabited by women. The only thing that remains of thousands of years of human struggle is the current generation human beings.

Women decide who the next generation of people will be. Women have created every generation. In human evolution - it's the job of women to dispatch men into the world to create safe environments for the next generation of people.

"Modern women" are currently forfeiting this role in a faustian attempt to prove themselves in "competition". And it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be human.
Not only that - it is what it is because everything else failed to survive. Right or wrong is a pointless a discussion.

The futility here is that, any plotting of social engineering now, will at the very best, only concern a part of population that currently live in industrialized nations. These populations already make a small percentage of the world's population and they are declining.

The future belongs to whatever survives. And it won't be western feminism.

The future will have those most adaptable in it.
Love
Bette

_________________
All That Is
what is?
Consciousness.

Absolutely right.