Why women should rule the world

As I was running down my usual routine of internet "check-up's" (Facebook, Hotmail, EthicalAtheist, ArmenianGenocide, and some others), I bumped into MSN's main page after logging out of my Hotmail account, and discovered an interesting article. It's called Why Women Should Rule the World, which is an exerpt from the book with the same name by Dee Dee Myers. Now, before I discuss this article in more detail, I have some questions pertaining to the title of this article: what does it mean to rule the world? Is it political power; the power to influence; military power; the power to kill; or is it the power to prevent the conception of children; to prevent human life on Earth as we know it from ever existing? Is it easier to kill, or is it easier to prevent life from entering into the world? Another thing we must note is that Dee Dee is a woman, who admits within the article itself in one of the bolded points below that she has a pretty good chance of being biased toward "girl power." Apparently, it's all a matter of leadership styles.

A Matter of Leadership Styles

All of which begs the question: Do men and women lead differently? Is there such a thing as a "female style"? A recent analysis of forty-five separate studies addressing the question found that the answer was "yes." Women are slightly more likely to be "transformational" leaders, collectively setting goals and empowering their teams to achieve them. And men are more likely to be "transactional" leaders, letting subordinates know what is expected, rewarding them for their successes and holding them accountable for their failures. Not surprisingly, most leaders did not fit neatly into one or the other of these categories, but there was, nonetheless, a measurable difference based on gender.

This is the common knowledge pointed out here: men tend to lean more toward being brutes than women do, and women are more sociable. However, women tend to be "soft" because of this sociability, and at times, softness isn't a good thing. Once people know you're easy to step on, they'll walk all over you. Perhaps this level of softness is what lead us to being more into helping others, and we all know that when you help somebody, they're more likely to do something for you. With that being said, people listen to us because there's an emphasis on closeness and warmth, and we give that. But, would that work in the military? I'm not going to imply that it wouldn't, because certainly, no military has applied caring and understanding as part of their policy on how they treat their recruits, soldiers, combatants, whatever the names are.

Now comes the kicker: Research also shows that transformational leaders --
especially those who also reward good performance, a positive aspect of
transactional leadership common among women - tend to be more effective,
particularly in the less-hierarchical, fast-paced, and innovation-driven
contemporary world. So not only do women have a somewhat different style; it's
more likely to be successful.

The point made here is that people will want to feel appreciated. Women give that feeling of appreciation.

To me, what's most important about that finding is not that women rule (though I obviously have a soft spot for studies and statistics that put us girls in the most flattering light). Rather, it's further evidence that there is more than one way to bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan, that different leadership styles -- regardless of their gender bent -- can get the job done. And that gives everyone more options; it creates a more flexible, more adaptive and ultimately more productive workplace.

Sum: different strategies work best in different situations. Diversity increases productivity in the work process. I've no arguments with Dee here.

"By valuing a diversity of leadership styles, organizations will find the
strength and flexibility to survive in a highly competitive, increasingly
diverse economic environment," says Dr. Judith Rosener of the University of
California, Irvine.

Again, diversity rules.

Bringing up the topic of diversity, I have a scenario for you to think about: let's say the whole world was 100 people. You've got 30 women, who tells everyone what goes - they're the leaders. Then you've got 35 women who listen to them, as well as 35 men who listen to them, too. Is the leadership they're undertaking really diverse? Or, what if it was 30 men ruling everyone? Or better yet, let's say there are 15 men and 15 women leading the 70 others, who are also 50% women and 50% men. According to Judith's lean toward diversity, would that not make things better? Would that mean one group is better than the other at leading?

The answer to that question is no. Because there is an equal split, and because the leaders are as diverse as the subordinates, the needs of everyone, or at least the majority, are met as best-suited as possible. Now, back to the article.

Sally Helgesen, a leadership development expert, believes that because women
have rarely fitted easily into corporate molds not designed for them, they have been "forced to pioneer policies and strategies that are turning out to be exactly suited to the conditions of the new knowledge-based economy. In the end, women's greatest contribution to our changing world may be their insistence upon breaking the mold rather than just fitting in."

Challenges create struggles. Struggles create needs for solutions. The creation of solutions needs creativity in order for solutions to be created in the first place. Now, looking at this again, this seems to apply more toward a European or North American viewpoint. As a lady once discussed with me, there have been societies in time's past where men have been considered to be below women (like in several Native tribes), and thus, had more to struggle for.

Among other things, the line between work and home is fading, and people --
especially women -- are learning to invent their own positions. I more or less
invented my current "job," which I sometimes describe as "stay-at-home pundit."
It's an interesting and flexible mix that has included contributing to Vanity
Fair, giving speeches, yakking about politics on television, consulting on
politically themed-movies and television shows, and writing about stuff that
interests me. I work out of an office in my house, which saves me time commuting
(and I confess, on some days, showering). My children have (mostly) learned to
respect my closed door, and when they don't, I escape to the local public
library, conveniently equipped with free wireless Internet. The technological
innovations and cultural transformations that allow me to do what I do came
together just in time for me. While I realize that it can't work for everyone,
there's no question that opportunities to define a career path will continue to
increase -- a trend that I believe will be led by women.

It probably will be led by women, considering there's been, historically, more challenges, and thus more need for creativity for women rather than men.

The biggest downside to my current arrangement is the anxiety that I feel when I
face the "occupation" line on a school form or loan application. I usually write
"consultant" -- and then hope I don't get busted for I'm-not-sure-what. There's
also a certain guilt that comes from not having to leap out of bed before dawn
to unload the dishwasher, fold the laundry, shower and blow-dry and apply
makeup, get the kids ready for school, and burn rubber backing out of the
driveway at 7:45 a.m. I recently saw a cartoon that summed up my life. A couple
is sitting at the kitchen table in their bathrobes, drinking coffee. As the man
taps away on his laptop, his wife says: "You've blurred the boundary between
working from home and being unemployed."

This increasingly less structured, more flexible workplace suits women's
lives -- and their skills. "When you put together a thirty-person project team
[in the past], it was all people from Raytheon," explains Tom Peters, the
management consultant. "Now, the thirty-person project team involves people from eleven companies, seven countries, and three continents. There's no formal power or hierarchy. So we need a different set of relation-driven skills."

Again: women understand people better than men. Women have also been proven to be better at multi-tasking than men, so the range of flexibility works better for them than it does for men.

"This is why you want to hire women," says Pat Mitchell, a pioneer in
broadcast news and the current president of the Museum of Radio and Television.
"They are consensus builders. They really do look for different ways to resolve
things. They are innovative and creative thinkers. And they do act on instinct
and intuition."

Ending off on this article, it basically implies that women should rule the world. Well, should we? Do you feel appreciated when someone's ruling over you? And why don't women rule the world? Or, is this implying that we're subordinates, and we shouldn't be subordinates, but the superiors? In the end, it all comes to this: do you feel better being someone's subordinate, or having a subordinate of your own? Considering that people listen to others when they have a relation of warmth and closeness, having one over the other might diminish that warmth, and thus, make the idea of women having to be superior or men having to be superior worth as much as nil.

1 In 100

More than one out of every hundred American adults are serving time in jails or prisons for their crimes.

The incarceration rates have been reduced in several states (such as in California, but still remain high in this state and in Texas), but the Justice Department and the Pew Center on the States have shown, through statistics, that there is a national increase. However, many do not see a real problem with the current situation and are not affected by the statistics because they simply cannot relate overcrowded prisons with decreasing violent crime rates.

I question whether the debate ends when one comes to the realization that, obviously, higher rates of incarceration will lead to lower crime rates, but perhaps only temporarily and with a diversion away from what may now be the real issues at hand that have to do with rehabilitation, the excessive indictment and persecution of nonviolent offenders (or known more implicitly as punitive incarceration), and prison reform. What about the seemingly racial divide within the judicial and penal systems? 1 out of every 15 black male adults are behind bars, while only 1 in every 355 white women are in jail. Is discrimination truly at play here or is it a combination of many cultural and social factors that have been ingrained in American society? Can we continue to afford a system in which it costs the American public $24,000 to keep one prisoner in jail for a year?

Incarceration should not be the only answer to crime, especially for nonviolent or minor crimes or juvenile misdemeanors. If only I could speak of viable alternatives that would make me look more credible. Many argue for more correctional facilities and more education so that prisoners who are released can have the opportunity to be productive citizens. Would cost-benefit analysis show that, in addition to lower crime rates, these prisoners would contribute to society and give back more than what they took from the system and tax-payers?

I understand the difficulty of proposing new public policies that would simultaneously reduce overcrowdedness and crime rates, while also reducing costs, or increase costs, yet reaping the benefits of proper investment such as education? It will be hard to address every issue that the prison system entails, and fixing the problems that surround the system may require fixes in many other areas of our communities. Various facets of society play a role and we have to ultimately ask ourselves what we should do to prevent crime, in general, and what provokes people to commit crimes on a communal basis so that we can better address the root of the criminal problem.

I cannot help but think that the current conditions are creating more burden and have greater ramifications than many would like to believe. What is most disconcerting is the fact that the United States is currently spending more on the prison system than on our education system. How ironic and unfortunate.

Women's History Week

It was the big WHW - Women's History Week. A big topic of discussion during this week is generally is how women overcame oppression and rose above all obstacles. Speaking of "overcoming", this year is historic in it's significance to all women - a woman, for the first time, is running for the US presidency. My theory is that, since it's also historic because of the first black man running, some will choose to place a dualistic comparison of the Civil Rights Movement (famously led by Martin Luther King Junior) and the Women's Suffrage movement (led by Nelly McClung in Canada, and by Susan B Anthony in the US, both of whom worked closely together). But we'll stop at comparisons here, and take a look at some of the women whom I've personally found most memorable. I can't, however, guarantee that you'll recognize all of them.

Nelly McClung

Susan B Anthony

You should recognize these women, as they're the reason why the Women's Suffrage Movement existed, which, in turn, brought women to the level of equality. Okay, I know that was a bit of a lie, but we're almost there.

Cristina Adriana Chiara Scabbia

Cristina Scabbia is the female leads of Lacuna Coil. She's a lady in the male-dominant world of metal, which usually works at undermining women. However, not only was she noticed in such a world, but she is also the reason why Lacuna Coil has sold millions and millions of record to date.

Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

What's there to say about The Material Girl that hasn't been said? She is the ultimate icon of confident femininity, a style legend who's style has been emulated heavily by the likes of Gwen Stefani, Brittney Spears (or however you spell the bitch's name; I honestly don't know), and is the best-selling female artist of all time at over 200 million records sold world-wide to date.

Benazir Bhutto

Pakistan's bravest lady by far. In a place where women get in large heaps of trouble just for practically existing, and even more for speaking, she said it all, and without regret. She was a great ally inthe fight against Islamic terrorism within Pakistan and the fight against terrorism in general. RIP Benazir Bhutto.

Madame Curie

Madame Curie is a landmark lady and one of the most celebrated chemists of her time. Not only did she discover radiation (also known as radium), but she is one of the few to have 2 Nobel medals, and the only one to have 2 Nobel medals in 2 different science fields. To try to sum up her life and her accomplishments for women in one paragraph would be immensely hard, so I'll leave it be here.

Well, that's it, really. Those are just some personal favourites, and since my attention span gets short at times, I wanted to make it shorter for all of you, since I know you're all probably too fucked up to read much longer during the March break. To all of my ladies out there - never deny who you are or feel bad about it. Like the women listed here, make the world your playground and surprise it with each coming day.

A vicious circle and a promise to our readers

Today was quite an annoying day. Me, my brother Samir, my brother Rafi, my mom, my aunt Shukria, and my dad Ramzi Gorgees were all downstairs. Yes, I'm revealing his last name because I am that fucking pissed off. Here's why:

While we were all downstairs, my brother had a fight with my dad. Ofcourse, it was all my dad's doing. My dad was actually trying to get him to pay back all the expenses my brother had incurred on the family just for practically existing. He was yelling at my brother and acting like he could just take his money at any time, and he'd get to make Samir pay for existing if he didn't abide to his rules. So basically, the thousands of dollars Samir earned for himself was part of what he owed to our dad just for living.

What pissed me off the most though, is the way he undermined my mother when he talked to her like she was some concubine in Iraq. He was malicious with his words, and undermined her wholly even though she's the one making the money that allows him to manipulate my brother psychologically. My mom not saying anything about it all pissed me off almost as much. It's honestly like she's lost her will to voice herself.

Later on, me, my mom, and Shukria were talking to each other. My mom was crying, and I kept trying to cheer her up with some success to show for it. I finally got her happy, and then we started talking about Jamile (my great uncle and Shukria's now-dead husband). I only knew since today of how he committed physical and mental abuse on her over the years, which enraged me. Now I'm glad I didn't go to his funeral.

This all calls for a new category called "Promises" - basically what we promise to abide by on this site. We'll also have "Goals" to see what we can go without talking for at least a certain period of time. So, here's for my promise: I promise not to talk about my father ever again on this site. Consider him erased from every corner of ATWKS. He's just become too much of a negative presence in my life, even to write about.