The poll isn't representative of our opinions, since you didn't put a "doesn't matter" option. And a lot of people here are expressing that opinion.
I know, I did not place that option deliberatly because I was/am pretty sure that alot of people would vote for that one. So I was wondering what will happen if I remove that option and "force" you to choose. (And people that don't want to will not vote.)
If you ask me mods(if they want to) can add that option in the poll since this one doesn't show much.
If there are differences in male and female leadership, what makes one better?
And what actually makes for such differences?
I'm of the opinion that there is very little inate difference between the two, and that any difference is more likely to result from the genders reacting to how they are perceived. With that in mind, I'm finding the stuff about female leaders being more gentle, cooperative, compassionate, etc.. comical. When my international relations professor was discussing the biological theory of leadership(that bio-factors, like gender, play a major part in how leaders behaved) he pointed how various limitations to that theory. The most interesting thing he noted, though, was that not only were female political leaders not more peaceful and compassionte, they may historically be less so on average. I know the subject here is not strictly politics, but if you look at it in political terms, female leaders seem much more beligerent. Now, that may just be an appearance, but I decided to work out a theory in case it were true. Perhaps it's because the perception of females as weak means that only a really grizzled woman will actually be accepted by the establishment. It was obvious even with Hillary Clinton. She was really reaching to look tough. But if a woman acted as tough as Obama, she would be considered typically weak, "just like a woman".
Anyway, the conclusion of that little pet theory is that I can hardly say one group is a better leader than another, when the difference result only from the course of popular perception.
Last edited by Magic Poriferan; 07-22-2009 at 05:22 AM.
Go to sleep, iguana.
INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp. Live and let live will just amount to might makes right
The answer is obvious (this time around, I'm being serious).
Should it even be a debate? It's like asking 'Do people with blue eyes make better leaders than those with brown eyes' Obviously this is a crazy question.
It all matters at what type of a person the leader is. Male or female. Are they motivated to help and please the demands of the people? Are they strong, straight edged, goal oriented, and sympathetic and caring? Are they successful with their work? Do they give their work full reverence and not give half-assed efforts?
Trends may seem to think it may be biased, but as a general rule of thumb, you can't narrow it down to males or females and which one generally makes a better leader. Maybe 200 years ago this question may have have leaned towards men, but it really doesn't anymore.
Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?