Why Women Operated Businesses Fail Part 1
In preparing the title for this article I wrestled with the tense to use for the word fail. The natural Western inclination would prefer the past tense of have failed because then statistical “facts†or “supporting data†could back up the basic premise. Or I could have used the future tense and supplied data to show how female operated businesses are in a declining state and will fail. To speak in the present-the true and immediate present-would eliminate statistics and empirical data. It would rely on intuition, which when converted to deductive reasoning, might better address the issue and gain understanding. With this approach in mind I offer the following premise.
Behind everything seen there is something unseen that controls it. The unseen something is the masculine principle. What is seen is the feminine principle. The physical universe is feminine. It is a materialization and personalization of the unseen impersonal masculine principle.
Another nature of the unseen is that it is the assertive influence of the universe. It would have to be in order to control the seen. The feminine principle would then be the receptive entity. The relationship of the seen and unseen entities produces the world of cause and effect. The unseen initiates a cause that results in a visual effect. The only possible solution to change an effect is to change the cause. To treat the effect cannot change it.
Women are the human embodiment of the feminine principle; they deal with what is seen and possess the inherent motivation to care for and nurture all that exists. Their visual acuity enables them to see the tiniest blemish, the slightest indication of pallor, and a trace in change of countenance among whom they nurture. They notice the smallest speck of dust, the almost imperceptible changes in aroma or odor, and the variances in temperature, sound, and harmony of their environment. Because of their responsive nature they are able to attend immediately to the needs of those who are under their care and all that is under their jurisdiction.
Their sensitive adaptive nature of women makes them very susceptible to their environment. If the environment contains the materials with which to nurture and the security and structure in which to function, their ability to nurture will be limitless.
The masculine principle embodied in men, provides the environment and means in which women can operate. The material means of food and clothing are but a small part of what men provide. They specialize in organization and the structure that enables it. Men establish unseen concepts such as left and right; north, south, east, and west; up and down, latitude and longitude; which enable them to navigate both their immediate environment and the furthest extent of their travels. Even the most intelligent women have difficulty in remembering these designations because they are all unseen-they do not even exist-but they provide necessary structure to the simplest of activities.
In addition to providing the structure in which to navigate, men develop certain rules of conduct that enable them to move about in these unseen structures in harmony with other men and women. These rules of conduct also derive from concepts such as courtesy, consideration, and fair play to name a few of a large arsenal of rules called ethics, which serve as guides of conduct with their fellow man enabling a geniality of conduct called camaraderie.
Understanding the adaptable, receptive nature of women-in addition to their weaker physical structure-men devise traditions, customs, and laws for their protection. The primary purpose in the difference of gender is to facilitate mating; however, men realize that indiscriminate mating results in the weakening of the race, and for a multitude of reasons; therefore, women are kept separate from men for most activities and when they do relate in familial groups there are rules of behavior that govern their interactions.
Women do not see all these conceptual structures used to preserve society, but they can be trained to respect them and to function in accord with them.
When women leave the home and the patriarchal structure that supported it, and go into business to do what men do, they really do what they “see†men do, for they are completely unaware of the unseen activities of men that enable the functioning of the seen. Unable to comprehend the unseen, women then have only one purpose for all that they do in the world of men-making money. They think the reason to publish a book is to make money; whereas, men know the reason to publish a book is because it contents are worthwhile, and the challenge of the publisher is to make a profit on its publication.
Women think the purpose of a business is to make money; men know the purpose of a business is to bring products and services to humankind, and that the challenge of the businessman is to make a profit so that the business can be sustained.
Women get jobs in order to make money whereas men go to work to support their families.
As women operated business enterprises gradually sever the connection with the unseen forces that established them, the enterprises begin to fail, for as was stated earlier, causes change effects, and since causes are unseen, negative effects will go un-remedied. Unseen qualities such as reliability, constancy, dependability, truthfulness, and objectivity begin to wane and affects the relationships with customers, suppliers, and professional support services.
The degree to which a woman owned or operated business can survive and prosper is related to the degree of assertive male involvement in the management; without it the business will disappear.
The above treatise on why female operated businesses fail did not use any historical, religious, or scientific information. I hope that you will feel that it can stand on its own merits. However, I will now provide examples of the above premise and its conclusions, which you can supplement with your own observations.
The May 1992 issue of Working Woman listed America’s top 25 women business owners. An analysis of the contents revealed that 24 of them obtained the business from their, fathers, husbands, or brothers; or had gone into business with their husbands. The one woman who did start her own business was in chapter 11 at the time of publication.
The most famous of the women running a large corporation was Linda Wachner, CEO of Warneco. She ran the company into bankruptcy and was fired from the enterprise that her husband created. The staffs of Working Woman were all women and hee hee; they could do anything a man could do. They went out of business. At the time of publication of that Working Woman issue there was an organization by the name of The Executive Female headquartered in mid-town Manhattan. The president was George A. Tunick. He was the rooster at the head of the flock. When George Tunick left, the organization ceased to exist. Like Working Woman, which attempted to operate without men, it disappeared.
Of the 25 businesses listed in the article those that have survived are those who have competent staffs of male management.
All the pioneers of the Internet were men yet at that time the number of women engineering and science graduates exceeded those of men, and women had already taken a strong presence in the media. Women do not pioneer; they deal with what is; with what they “see.†Any woman-started business will be in a field that already exists. They do not start new things nor do they invent things, both of which require dealing with the unseen.
The sole purpose of doing anything in the economic world now revolves around making money. The idea of offering a product or service that might be for the benefit of humankind is met with derision. Children are told to get an education, so that they can get a job, make money, and be somebody. Money is the motivation of all societal acts; that is the thinking of a hooker. We live in a hooker society; we peddle our asses for a buck. As the hooker wears out, so do our business and institutions, because they are not based on enduring unseen values.
Business ethics have all but disappeared. I can’t remember the last time someone answered a question with yes or no. Maybe and I’ll think about it do not make for constancy or even reliability. The spirit of the law, which is unseen, has given way to the letter of the law, and the letter of the law requires an increasing amount documents and legal activity. All commitments need expediting because the holy feminine mantra of “I’m busy†is evoked whenever commitments are not lived up to.
I hope the above examples will suffice as support of the opening premise. The effect of the removal of the unseen masculine influence in business is symptomatic of the demise that engulfs all aspects of our society and will be gone into in more detail in part 2.
I'm also the Chief of Men's Action to Rebuild Society, an organization that not only addresses the issues confronting you, but takes action to resolve these issues. | More from Elder George
Stumble It!
February 25th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Brilliant.
February 25th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Somewhere in these pages I know the dots have been connected, but I’ll say it here anyway…feminized men (or societies as it were) are little if any better than women when the terms are substituted in this article. And therein lies the manifestation of this right up in our faces in American corporations.
How else can we explain the creation of vitually an entire industry around the simple concept represented by the word “change”. We have been recommended books to read (Who Moved My Cheese?) that say change will occur and best not to resist it (there, saved you some $…thats the book in a nutshell), or we are explained the Seven Habits of Effective people…things that used to be and should be an ingrained part of who we are, not an external to be written in a daytimer or typed into a PDA. Worse, bpth concepts have been written about for decades 9since the 70’s mainly) and we treat each new tome as new wisdom, because it is repackaged with newer and sexier jargon.
Corporations spend millions, and even state the amounts boastfully, to “develope” their Mission Statement. Here, as EG says, are those lost qualities like, well, quality, reliability, etc., but we must write them out and hang them on the wall. We must fly all executives to Katmandu for a summit on mission statement writing, and we must announce the new statement with much fanfare.
Consultants of “change” have popped up everywhere, leading expensive seminars where witty men display common sense in clever ways, a veritible businessmans magic show, and otherwise intelligent middle aged men bob their heads enthusiastically and breathlessly exhale the word….cchhhhaaaannngggeeee. We’ve then embraced this to the point we’ve created entire departments for managing change, and have “MOC” employees and certifications. Management of Change, huh, I wonder how they made it through the industrial revolution without someone to tell them things were changing and don’t resist it.
EG nails it when stating that we have no absolutes in terms of yes or no in corporate life anymore. We “run things up the flagpole”, “caucus with the team”, and “get back with you with a counter proposal”, somehow eventually accomplishing but never able to attach results to people, success or failure.
An old boss of mine went to work in another company. His new employer was a massive company, and number 3 in world size in that industry, an old industry, very conservative in nature. He arrived at a meeting involving several departments. The meetings, he was told, all start with what they called a “safety minute”, followed by a “diversity moment”.
The safety minute involved passing a gavel and each person allowed to suggest something for safety. The diversity moment also passed the gavel, but it was very different. The concept of diversity in this situation was explained to be the inherant diverse ideas and biases and attitudes represented in the room, not race necessarily. But there was a rule. Anyone can talk for as long as they wanted about diversity, sharing their heart, crying even, and it was not allowed to stop them, even if the entire time alloted for the meeting was consumed, a resumption would be scheduled and there the diversity whining could continue. My friend told me he worked his way around the table, making eye contact, seeking anyone who felt this was as much BS as he did, and frighteningly, no, they all were wide eyed and involved.
This accounts for huge amounts of wasted money and productivity. Entire industries have grown to fill gaps left where corporate employees have no time to do any work external, in their marketplace, but rather are 100% inwardly focused. Ive worked in these back fill organizations, literally selling a companies product for them and providing them a better sales team than the one they paid, simply because my small employer spent all day in the marketplace…not internally. This Blob is growing, and growing less and less efficient. Its in the corps., its in the military, its definately in government, and its even in the churches.
The failure will be aggregate, and will take awhile, but there still exist “can do” and “get it done” cultures on the planet. They will be the possesors of the business, and we will wonder what happened.
As an aside, in terms of small businesses, Ive owned a couple of them (dry cleaners)that locate in strip centers and met many women owners of tanning salons and boutiques etc. My experience though anecdotal says that these women I knew were either given the money to get a business to keep as a hobby, by their successful husband.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
“HOW FIVE WOMEN CEO’S DESTROYED CONFIDENCE IN THE U.S. ECONOMY
This $208 billion dollar loss is a 76% reduction in the value of the above five corporations’ stock, from a market capitalization of $273 billion to $65 billion, since they appointed women as CEOs.
Compare this to the 34% loss in the NYSE, and the “mere” $70 billion loss at Enron which has captivated the …media’s attention ad infinitum.”
For more facts and charts look here…
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2006/10/feminists-lying-about-female-ceos-in.html
February 25th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Women do not pioneer; they deal with what is; with what they “see.� But what about the millions of female inventors? Oh, wait, never mind.
February 25th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
How does the Army rate EG? Armies are usually considered (condemned by the femonazis) as masculine. The teeth-tail ratio for the Army (US) is currently 1:3. The ratio for the Special Forces Command is 2:1. Translated. In the Army, 3 out of 4 personnel are ’staff’ supporting 1 out of 4 who are the fighting men (usually by the same sort of ‘change’ committees and ‘diversity’ conferences you aptly describe) while SFs have 2 out of 3 personnel actually front line (actually mostly behind the enemy’s front line !). The American Army is a feminine organisation without the females !
February 25th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
Hi Squiggy,
I expected a response such as yours, and I’m glad it came in early.
Do not confuse patents with conceptual inventions. Patents were issued for disposable diapers, the Barbie doll, and white out; all innovations to that which was “seen.”
The radio, telephone,and electric light,to name but a few, were not “seen” until they were invented. In fact, the inventers did not know what their inventions would look like when completed.
When a woman “invents” something she knows what it wil look like because she cannot concieve of what she cannot “see.”
Understand?
February 25th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
To christianj,
That link contained enlightening info about the effect of women CEO’s in business. I recommend it to anyone with business experience. Then they wonder why there’s a glass ceiling.
Was any of that contained in a business publication?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Quote in regards to money:
“If money is your hope for independence you will never have it. The only real security that a man will have in this world is a reserve of knowledge, experience, and ability.”
- Henry Ford
February 26th, 2007 at 9:48 am
The notions of the masculine and the feminine have interested me for many years and I often use diagrams to organize my thoughts about such things. It occurred to me that a barbed point, as one finds on a fish hook or harpoon, does a fairly good job of describing the masculine and feminine roles in a society. The masculine is the extreme point of the implement. The extreme point intrudes into unknown territory through exploration, conquest, invention, scientific study, political intrigue, financial speculation etc. This behavior can be termed reckless, imaginative, brave, audatious or restless in nature. A harpoon or fish hook with only a point would penetrate its target and inflict a puncture wound but would fall out allowing the prey to escape. The interior point jealously holds on to what has been penetrated; consolidating gains and preventing retreat. The interior point does not project in the opposite direction from the extreme point but rather along an oblique angle. An interior point which protruded at too great an angle would impede the progress of the extreme point. Too small an angle would fail to consolidate gains.
By way of example: The husband has earned a big payday through a bold investment and is ready to lunge ahead on the same heading; he wants to reinvest the gains in the same field. The wife senses the need to secure what has been won. She looks for a safe investment in the realm of the familiar and suggests that some of the money be placed in an index fund. The conflict is theirs to worry about but some compromise might be mutually beneficial.
An important component of my model is that “The Masculine” and “The Feminine” represent extremes on an abtract graph. Not all men are reckless explorers and not all women are greedy shrews. A society advances when the components work in harmony. The extreme point of a harpoon is not well suited to seize only what has already been penetrated and the interior point cannot well be used to initiate the attack. When bold people are discouraged from endeavor and when “consolidaters” annoint themselves for shrewd seizure of gains made by others, the mechanism, society, fails.
A politician that enacts a steep tax on production and uses the proceeds for hand-out programs is an example of the feminine (not necessarily female) component attempting to act in the role of the masculine to the detriment of all.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:18 am
To stands2p,
Great analogy. Perhaps you can get it published.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
And don’t forget that the only reason there are many womyn owned businesses is that the “men are n@gg@rs, get to the back of the bus,” federal law requires the government and large businesses to discriminate against white men so they have to put their businesses in their wife’s name in order to pursue contracts with government or large business.
For all the fear that feminism has long since destroyed America, and the very real danger of 2 generations of indoctrinated kids coming out of Soviet style federal feminist gay sex-education; I still maintain that if all the racist, sexist, feminazi laws and judicial edicts were repealed tomorrow things would return to normal.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
or perhaps not, see below (slightly off topic):
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254720,00.html
Overweight 8-Year-Old May Be Taken Into Protective Custody in U.K.
>>
Monday, February 26, 2007
AP
LONDON — British authorities may take an 8-year-old boy weighing 218 pounds into protective custody unless his mother improves his diet, officials said Monday.
Social service officials will meet family members Tuesday to discuss the health of Connor McCreaddie, who weighs more than three times the average for his age.
“The worst case would be Connor getting taken into care. He is well cared for,” the boy’s mother, Nicola McKeown, told ITV television.
A spokeswoman for health officials in Wallsend, North Tyneside, 300 miles north of London, said Tuesday’s hearing was part of a process that could eventually lead to Connor being taken into protective care. She declined to comment further.
The health agencies organizing Tuesday’s meeting issued a statement saying they “have been working with the family over a prolonged period of time and will continue to do so.”
An unnamed health official was quoted as telling The Sunday Times that taking custody of Connor would be a last resort, but said the family had repeatedly failed to attend appointments with nurses, nutritionists and social workers.
“Child abuse is not just about hitting your children or sexually abusing them >>, it is also about neglect,” the official was quoted as saying.
Dr. Colin Waine, the director of the National Obesity Forum in Nottingham, England, called Connor’s lifestyle “extremely dangerous,” adding he is at risk of developing diabetes in his early teens, and cardiovascular and nervous system problems in his twenties.
“He’s really at risk of dying by the time he’s 30,” Waine said. >>
Pediatrician Dr. Michael Markiewicz agreed.
“I’m not saying they can’t care for him, but what they are doing is through the way they are treating him and feeding him, they are slowly killing him,” he said.
Connor’s case attracted national attention after his mother allowed an ITV News crew to film his day-to-day life over the course of a month.
Connor’s mother said he steals and hides food, frustrating her efforts to help him.
“He has double, treble what a normal boy (of his age) would have, but if I didn’t give him enough at teatime then he would just go on at us all night for snacks and stuff,” she told ITV.
Connor, who lives with his mother and sister, has difficulty dressing and washing himself, misses school regularly because of poor health and is targeted by bullies.
“People pick on us because of my weight. They call us fat. It makes us feel sick of the nutters always shouting at us,” Connor told ITV.
>>
———-
In some sense the real fruit of feminism, the death of god, the hooker mentality, and hedonism is that we are all total cowards in the West. No one is willing to die for anything. Try taking someone’s kids in the UK in 1950 and see if they don’t go postal. Now we are all so scared to die that there is nothing worth dying for. Its the slave mentality. If 70% of people were willing to fight to the death to prevent their kids being taken away, none of this would happen. This is hitler’s toe testing the water. Temp is good, it seems inviting.
The Holocaust happened because its victims weren’t willing to fight. Let’s face facts it was only possible because the mentality was, “don’t make any trouble.” My life is worth too much to risk getting hurt resisting no matter how big the injustice. That attitude invites further abuse.
Its time for the subjects to the UK to go mujahadeen or they are going to go to the oven.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
“Entire industries have grown to fill gaps left where corporate employees have no time to do any work external, in their marketplace, but rather are 100% inwardly focused.”
I have been trying to find something on the net for YEARS about all of this, and it’s creepy and disturbing there is virtually nothing at all, & what could be more important to dicuss? (Except marriage and family) The way I’ve noticed females behave in the workplace over the last decade especially is that they are very clever at getting out of actual work. They simply create issues out of nothing or extremely petty concerns or calling meeting every minutes to discuss ‘how’ to do something- ‘procedures,’ ad nauseum, etc., and never actually work. And of course we know who has to work twice as hard to cover for these posturing women. Women need to GET OUT of the workplace. If all women suddenly quit their jobs, there would be a huge ripple, but society would easily adapt within a year or two. If all men left the workplace, the world would collapse.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:40 pm
to clarify, by “go mujahadeen”, I mean to kick up the resistance, even get off the couch for that matter. The people of the West are total cowards compared to our weak joke of an enemy in the Muslim world. In fact the terrorism problem only exists because the west is so cowardly. Funny that something like 9/11 never happened at the height of the Cold War. Go ahead make my day.
The irony is that cavemen will defeat the west because we have no will to fight.
People get the government they deserve. People with this coward mentality can look forward to the kind of government that takes a fat kid from his parents at gunpoint, feminizes business until productivity is 0%, allows large business to ignore laws without consequence, even write the law, etc.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
To Deeznuts,
You’ve got the makings of a good fanatic. Wish you were in NYC. Check out my website, anddon’t cool off.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Not fanatic, reasonable just frustrated. Being a parent of young children is tough today. Its hard to maintain hope for a better future when our civilization is so clearly on a suicidal path.
People forget what can happen. It may seem like fiction or ancient history, but I grew up with relatives who had numbers tattooed on their forearms by the real Nazis.
February 26th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
To Deenuts,
You apparently haven’t read my blogs of the past two weeks. I refer to fanatics as the necessary motive force to make change. It was a compliment.
I will have part 2 posted in the morning. Hope you tune in.
February 26th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Its not good to be a real fanatic, blind to reason.
However in today’s sick culture the reasonable are labeled fanatics, and the fanatics define what is reasonable.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:06 pm
“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”
Winston Churchill
February 26th, 2007 at 9:20 pm
To DeezNuts,
A very interesting discussion. I have often wondered how governments with so few people are able to control to their detriment so many millions of people… And how to fix that problem here in America.
It makes absolutely (OK, almost absolutely) no sense to me.
It is so easy for a government with a small number of people to make a law but almost impossible to get the education and cooperation of large numbers of the dispersed populace.
I’m Jewish and I’ve also considered previously your comment about the annihilation of so many Jews during the 1940’s. I totally agree with you that the Jews should have fought back. I wonder how many did that we’ve never heard about.
I also wonder how governments can overcome organized crime where a large number of criminals/gang members are involved. For example in Mexico, they killed the police chief one after the other until the next one finally started towing the line.
I’m working on a solution. How would you fix this problem?
February 26th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
To Dittohd,
The Jews didn’t fight under the Nazis because they had no hope. They fought hard in 1948 in Israel becuase they had hope. I covered that in Why There Is No Men’s Movement Part 2.
Hope is the prime motivating force for a mass movement. People live and die for hope.
Unless we give the masses hope, there is no reason for a movement.
February 26th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
There are many cases of armed Jewish resistance during the war, but it was too little too late. There were several successful concentration camp revolts, and the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising among others.
http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1998-no-frames/resistance.htm
Once the War and Holocaust were underway, Jews who wished to resist could contribute more by escaping and joining the Allied war effort.
The problem is that prior to the war Jews did not take the threat seriously and as a group they tended to avoid confrontation even in the face of serious insult. The mindset was in the words of an Auschwitz survivor, “everyone expected the unexpected, no one expected the unthinkable.”
The problem is that if you are too willing to take shit you invite more. Everyone hoped for the best. This can’t be happening here, its a civilized country. Total denial. My understanding is that the children often realized they were on their way to their deaths as the adults consoled themselves in denial.
As to overcoming organized crime, all first world nations have this in common, if you challenge the law, the law WILL WIN. ALWAYS 100%. Its non-negotiable. Even if it means someone gets hurt. Even if it means a lot of people get hurt. Even if it means troops in the street. If your society doesn’t have the will to take it to the next level and re-balance the equation so that crime truly does not pay, then you will always have crime running the show. In some sense this is the definition of being first world, that law and order has been established beyond a doubt to the point that all parties have faith in the system. This allows for things like ownership, investing, and credit.
Have federal police or troops jail or off every member of the gang or gangs involved in the assassinations. Make any association with those gangs costly. Bring in federal police or troops from other areas and rotate them out to prevent graft.
The other prong of the approach: Legalize it. Take most of the money out of crime.
During prohibition gangsters running booze armed themselves with full auto Tommy guns. They ran the streets. The cops couldn’t even think of getting into a gun fight with them. So J. Edgar Hoover orders G-men armed with the 30-06 BAR Squad Machine Gun. When the G-men identified a suspect armed with a Tommy gun, they literally laid in wait for the car to go by and opened up on it with several full auto BARs. No contest. Crime doesn’t pay. Say this for Frank Rizzo’s approach, you probably haven’t heard of MOVE.
The lessons. 1. If you want a first world country the government has to establish order. If there is an understanding that this is necessary for the betterment of all good people, it helps.
2. Prohibitions create opportunity and profit for crime. Prohibition, and our current War on Drugs provide motive. Take it away and criminals would never have organized, armed themselves with Tommy Guns, killed police chiefs, no Crips or Bloods, etc. That’s not to say their are no ramifications to decriminalizing drugs, but they certainly pale in comparison to prohibitions costs to society.
The constant search for contraband alienates many citizens. If only real crimes against persons or property were illegal, good citizens would support their police 100%.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
One of the ramifications of decriminalizing drugs is that THERE is a chance that people will get too baked to write in proper English.
I need to go back to kindergarten.
http://www.better-english.com/easier/theyre.htm
Why its important:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/orwell1.htm
February 26th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
EG is right about hope,
“Hope is the prime motivating force for a mass movement. People live and die for hope.
Unless we give the masses hope, there is no reason for a movement.”
But there should never be a men’s movement. If a NOM existed to balance NOW, what would that accomplish? Deep the rift, alienate those on the margin, more marxist identity politics?
Its the same mentality that brought forth feminism.
Instead there should be a Children’s Movement. It would invite all concerned people, men and women to oppose the insane policies that are destroying our children. It would be results oriented. One can’t deny that the children of new age policies are adrift at best, perhaps a lost generation
Use results oriented language. Describe the problems in universal terms. Avoid terms like feminist or women’s rights to avoid alienating potential allies. There are many women who oppose the turn our culture has taken, who see our boys failing, who don’t know why it happened or what to do about it. Any non-violent movement that fails to attract them will fail.
If women think the movement’s aim is to roll back the clock on women’s rights by 100 years most women and many men will not support it.
Many people are now coming to realize that the revolutionary new-age policies of the last 30/40 years have failed miserably and that in trying to end injustices we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We lost core pillars of our civilization.
I was not raised in a religious tradition, but I and many others who weren’t have come to realize that core concepts that were nearly universal for 6000+ years of human history should have weight over ideas that have only been foisted on us in the last 30 years.
The movement must gain support by spreading OUTRAGE. Use words like dictatorship, threatened, “government mandated gay sex classes for 3rd graders.” All of these changes and in many cases reversals of conventional wisdom came through anti-democratic judicial edicts, executive orders, and the like.
All the men in my entire generation are deeply demoralized, and the younger generation of men is truly hopeless. Why are boys failing in school?
The answer is, what’s the big deal about being asked to sit at the back of the bus? If its really that bad to be demonized, what effect do you supposed it had on generations of boys? Girls are truly Sex in the City style sluts. You go whores!
For a movement to succeed it must attract men and women in support of their children. It must oppose “new-age values” instead of “women’s rights,” and it must convince those on the margin that there is hope for the future, and that men and women have a common enemy in the fight to protect our children and make the world better for them.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Long story short, most decent people aren’t really in favor of a men’s movement or a women’s movement for that matter. They don’t want men to have more power, or women to have more power. They want what’s best for the future. The movement to fix our civilization must focus on the children and what’s gone wrong with the current generation. There is no denying the culprit is the new-age values of the last 30 years.
Even people who truly don’t care, aren’t vested or are uninformed love to feel good about themselves by supporting the right cause. That’s basically our current political culture. Its time for reasonable people to offer a package that the idiocracy can accept.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Elder George,
This does not make sense to me. The world in which I live has men and women both failing business and both succeeding.
I work for myself. I studied business and I do accounts for both men and women. I certainly know the customer is the most important person.
Maybe it is just certain women that can be a part of the men’s movement.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Elder George,
This does not make sense to me. In the world I see both men and women fail in business and succeed.
I studied business and I do accounts for both men and women. I certainly know the customer is the most important person.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:59 am
I’m not for a men’s movement. See my website for the mission statement.
I’m for a mass movement that will bring about the change we need.
February 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Mr. Elder, where can I go on the net to get more information about all of this? Or can anyone provide links? I can’t find anything anywhere- it’s like as if I live in China or the Soviet Union- no freedom of information. I heard there was a British study that proved ANY business that employed a majority of women will always fail.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
To windle2007,
Go to my website and send me an E-mail after you reviewed it. I’ll let you know where to get more info
February 27th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Exactly! It is like China or the Soviet Union. That’s exactly what its like, and people should be as afraid, angry, and ready to act as if enemy troops just landed, and “Red Dawn” just popped off.
The difference is the communists took control without firing a shot. That doesn’t make it OK and people need to wake up and get furious.
Don’t believe your lying eyes, women are oppressed and they are better then men at business and everything else, just ask Carly Fiorina.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2005/tc20050210_5176_tc119.htm?campaign_id=nws_techn_feb11&link_position=link1
Notice how gingerly they tiptoe around the fact that she was a total hysteric in way over her head.
This one is a womyn’s rights article from Salon but it proves my point better than any men’s rights research ever could. Its basically a defense of crying in the workplace, because in the author’s view women have such poor control over their emotions:
Yep. I want you for my CEO. “Public tears feel liberating, an act of defiance against those who would subdue me with decorum and logic.”
That hateful racist, sexist logic again. Let’s ban it. What is going to happen to our civilization when business schools teach that logic and decorum are the enemy, and weeping uncontrollably is the goal?
http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/2005/10/18/cry/index.html
Cheers for tears
Why women should feel free to cry in the workplace — and anywhere else they damn well please.
By Cecelie S. Berry
Page 1
LifeOctober 18, 2005 | When I feel the urge to cry, I go with it. I don’t care who’s around. And I do it even though it makes me look terrible. My nose swells and lights up, my eyes shrink to mean little slits, my mascara runs. So be it. When I’m crying, as much as when I’m laughing, I feel completely alive. It works for me. As a writer, the test of my best work is whether it does more than simply stimulate thought — it must also provoke emotion. As a mother, I’ve noticed that my tears can quell the intense rivalry between my two sons; they quickly join forces to comfort me.
Plus, I love the drama.
Two recent articles exploring women’s supposed emotionality in the workplace made me think about my own tendency to tear up. In the New York Times, Martha Stewart and other female honchos say that women who want to succeed in business must not weep, period. It’s a remnant of advice from the era when women felt they had to imitate the dress and behavior of men in order to succeed. And a number of women executives in the article attest to the fact that, regardless of a female’s biological predisposition to cry, stoicism is essential to her credibility as a leader.
A cover story in Newsweek on “Women’s Leadership” takes a polar tack. There, successful women from politics, science, media and business expound on the unique emotive capacities that women bring to their management style. Unlike the women in the Times story, the women in Newsweek share a sensitivity to work-life balance issues, to building a sense of community at the office, and a keen, unapologetic recognition of the obstacles to advancement women continue to face.
It seems that when it comes to assessing whether women’s emotions are a hindrance or, simply, a difference, we are still as divided as Janus.
I discovered early on that crying was controversial. “People will think you’re weak,” my older sister said, when I came home from a schoolyard fight in tears. “People will think you’re unstable,” I was told as a summer associate in a big city law firm, when I went crying to a female lawyer after a senior partner obliterated one of my memos. “People will think you’re unhappy,” my mother warned when I cried at my son’s brilliant performance as Charlie Brown in the kindergarten play.
Often I’ve been cautioned that emotions make people uncomfortable. As a black woman, I am also aware that my crying jags might fulfill a stereotype: that all black women are prone to fly off the handle, to be illogical, perhaps uncontrollable. I remember, after the O.J. Simpson verdict, how the exultation of many blacks was seen by some as a collective intellectual failure to understand the legal issues of the case. Emotions can be used against you, rendering you either too human, or less than human. And yet, yielding to the tornado of feeling that whirls inside me at times is irresistibly cathartic, and ultimately empowering. Public tears feel liberating, an act of defiance against those who would subdue me with decorum and logic.
——
Yep. I must have you for my CEO. Cry your little eyes out in defiance against those who would subdue you with decorum and logic.
February 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Yet another productivity benefit of women in the workforce:
http://www.georgebrown.ca/releases/work_romance.aspx
MEDIA RELEASES
George Brown College
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Feb. 20, 2006
Contact:
Suzanne Kavanagh
416-415-5000, ext. 2276
skavanag@gbrownc.on.ca
Workplace romances gone sour reduce productivity
George Brown College survey finds
Toronto – Workplace romances gone sour are costing Canada millions in lost productivity, a survey by George Brown College business students has found.
Once passions fade – like a week-old Valentine’s bouquet – the people involved can be distracted, stressed, take time and trouble to avoid each other, and sometimes change jobs, the survey found.
“Failed romances can cripple work relationships, poison the atmosphere and seem to have a greater effect on women than men,” says Human Resources Management student Taryn Ellis, who helped develop and administer the survey.
Far more women than men reported to have suffered negatively at work after relationships with co-workers ended, she says.
“43 per cent of the female respondents who commented said their work was negatively affected by failed romance but only 25 per cent of men said the same. In fact, some men bragged that their work performance increased,” Ellis says.
February 27th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
To windle2007,
I only quote studies or use references as illustrations of my points, not proofs of them; nevertheless, I find it gratifying that the British study confirmed what I stated in my article.
The Western mind is overly study and test oriented (that’s feminine materialistic thinking) and therefore has tremendous hindsight but is extremely lacking in foresight. Westerners make great historians but poor prophets.
February 28th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
To whom it may concern:
While arguing about minor details the obvious gets lost. To wit: There are no businesses of any importance that are run on a womans paradigm of emotionality and generalized supportiveness and inclusiveness. Any successful women use a mens paradigm wherein the productive gets rewarded appropriately and the nonproductive is discarded efficiently. Any successful business woman take on a mans role, not that of the mother or lover…
February 28th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
To red pill,
She does it to the degree that she is able to as a woman, but few can.
Unfortunately men are being trained to act as women, since women cannot be trained to function as men. The comments received on these blogs indicate that businesses are breaking down. NEW is decreasing from the marketplace, instead we are getting adaptations of the old.
Government is the major influence in most businesses and it is insisting upon the proper “mix” of gender. It’s all comming down.
February 28th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
EG:
It’s all coming down.
Yes, I know.
I’ve always known.
Always.
I’m not happy being the red pill but it’s the burden I was given. I hate being right all the time when there’s no up-side to it whatsoever.
Cassandra has nothing on me.
BEWARE all these “gifts” being forced on us by our enemies…
March 1st, 2007 at 4:37 am
Elder George,
I owe you an apology. I am sorry for being defensive and thinking you would delete comments that are challenging you ideas.
Firstly, anyone who gets off their backside to make a change for the better whether male or female deserves encouragment IMO and from myself rather than being pulled down or have each little piece scrutinised. I see too much “tall poppy syndrome” around and it is destructive.
I am going to read your site and learn what you are writing about and where you are coming from.
Yes, there does need to be a mass movement and there IMO needs to be certain issues that everyone can relate to and every one agrees to. That can’t be hard surely with the state we are in.
I think the ‘He’s better than she’ and ‘She’s better than he’ is stumbling me a bit.
Also, when I didn’t see my comments I pressumed … not healthy to judge quickly.
Sorry for my negative attitude.
March 2nd, 2007 at 4:25 am
Hi Elder George,
I thought I should first say that in my above comment I didn’t mean ‘Tall poppy Syndrome’ in MRA but mean’t society as I see it.
Your site is very good. I see the signs that you speak of yet I do think America is worse. Some males would disagree although either way we will soon have the bloodbath with gang members if we can’t stop it. (The guns are moving fast into homes and these include machine guns) No council or Government department will publicly recognise it because they don’t have a solution. I am calling this man’s day because I don’t think societies have a choice but to turn to men for the answers and the doing.
What you are proposing is something very similar to what some of us all the way over here are trying to do. We are thinking that building families or fighting for families is the key rather than encouraging ‘no marriage’ which in turn is seperating people even more.
In saying that I do understand why men don’t want to get married and the strange thing is that neither do the women. Why should they when the state is more trusting than the males who are in and out of prison or in gangs. And why should the men when they are being treated as wallets only.
Whether the good men leave to go East such as Asia or not will not change things for the country. If we are left with lesser men then we must turn them into greater men. In some areas it is already happening. Those that have walked the wrong roads are stepping up to help the younger ones. Thank God.
Yet we also have very many good men that are working to change things in the FC, political arena and with child support.
You proposal (ideas) are sensible yet I wonder how it would sell. We are as you know 3 -4 generations down the track. Trust is a big ask from both genders yet with a long term plan with action, it will be done. Personally, I think those that hurt badly and have hit rock bottom will listen.
Just one thing about your site.
Under the page; Have you been forsaken:
“If your answer to most of these questions is no, you have been forsaken.” and if you say yes to most of these questions, then you have also been forsaken. I don’t understand how both yes and no can have the same outcome.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
This is the most brilliant article on failed women’s businesses that I’ve ever read.
I don’t have links, because I was banned from the forum which hosted the articles, but…. (1) a study exposed men and women to anti-male rhetoric before giving them a math test. The results for men and women weren’t significantly altered. (2) the same study exposed both men and women to anti-female rhetoric before giving them a math test. The mens’ results stayed the same, but the womens’ results were significantly lowered. These results are Part One – that women need “extra protection” from criticism, blame, and general discouragement – or else they won’t live up to their potentials.
Part Two is an off-shoot of Part One. In the harsh world, men perform their tightrope acts over active volcanoes – one slip and they die. Women, because they are shielded from general discouragement and risk, perform their tightrope acts over safety nets. It doesn’t matter whether a woman’s routine is comparable in difficulty to a man’s, because the volcano will be the strongest image from both acts.
Until women lose the safety net and begin performing over volcanoes, both men and women will refuse to respect women on equal footing. But since women can’t bring herself to voluntarily do this, and since society doesn’t need to force them to do so, they never will.
March 7th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
go george.. george orwell states “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionarry act”