Can women fix "it"?

reply to post by pieman


Neither the OP nor the article mentions the things you do. Words mentioned are: "risk aware" and "asking questions". You can't really deny the differences between men and women, women are less inclined to take uneducated risks, they conform more than men, men like to play extreme sports and they conform less than women, for example.

It’s such a shame that an article like this whips up "anti-feminism" stuff, this is just life, not some hidden agenda to castrate all men and put 'em in slave pits (lol sorry my other half has been playing Dawn of War).

reply to post by Hazelnut


maybe the fact that you were banging on about revered women and aryan warriors made people uncomfortable with you handling their money. sorry to be harsh, but to be fair, the way you paint it right there you were part of the machine that created the problem, take some responsibility. how many investors did you fill in on the situation?

reply to post by Dae


"asking questions" and "risk aware" suggest that no-one pulling the strings was totally clued in on the situation, this is total bull. if we knew on ATS, crazy conspiracy nuts that we are, months in advance, you can be damn sure that those involved were very much aware.

they were also aware that there would be no consequences for their actions, which there haven't been. golden parachutes, big bonus checks and hefty pensions have made sure they weren't hit with this stuff.

women did it, men did it, this is about greedy people, not greedy men.

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Hazelnut

 

maybe the fact that you were banging on about revered women and aryan warriors made people uncomfortable with you handling their money. sorry to be harsh, but to be fair, the way you paint it right there you were part of the machine that created the problem, take some responsibility. how many investors did you fill in on the situation?
reply to post by Dae

 

Dude you assume too much. I don't talk about my personal beliefs nor the history of civilization with my co-workers. I save that for ATS. If you do then its probably why you assume other people do. I'm happy to burst your bubble about the investors I handled who were extremely pleased with my performance.

Just because you aren't grilling your investment institution is no reason to take it out on me. I was not responsible for making the decisions nor was it within my powers to "inform" anyone of anything. I asked questions of my superiors and was fired for it. Subject of the OP - women ask questions, even simple ones.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Hazelnut]

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Hazelnut]

Originally posted by hotbakedtater
reply to post by andy1033

 

I cannot comment on the Catholic Church analogy, I am lapsed and my feelings for priests is not good.

But as a woman I can tell you this. My intuition has never been wrong. Many times in the past I did not listen to myself, or doubted it. But not now that I am older. And like I said my intuition, gut feeling, what ever you want to call it, has never let me down.


Example.

One day it snowed and the school did not call off. I had an intuition to drive them myself. Good thing, their bus was in a minor accident.

Men have those feelings and act on them? It is sometimes called mother's instinct too.

I am curious to hear from the men if they have intuitions.
I DEFINITELY think if females ran things, we would all be better off, including banks.

That was a pretty ridiculous statement to be honest. Different people are better or worse for different positions based on morals, experience etc... To say men or women would be better to run something based on their sex... that's an ignorant opinion. The best qualified would be the superior person for the job.

Fix what? i thought the global monopoly of every major financial insitution was the plan..Anyway woman are human and can be just as corrupt and power hungry as men.So i fail to see how having woman run things would be any better.

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I'm happy to burst your bubble about the investors I handled who were extremely pleased with my performance.

you just suggested that you sold them investments as sound that would "curdle your blood", just because they were happy about it doesn't make it right.

Just because you aren't grilling your investment institution is no reason to take it out on me.

thankfully i educated myself and covered my own backside, i'm not taking anything out on you. i'm lucky enough to be in that minor negative effect group. i'm just stating the obvious, no malice intended.

I was not responsible for making the decisions nor was it within my powers to "inform" anyone of anything.

so, did you handle other peoples money or not, make up your mind, either you made decisions or you didn't. i'm just taking you at your word here. if you were in a position to ask questions you were in a position to inform.

reply to post by pieman


You said: If you were in a position to ask questions you were in a position to inform.

How do you come to that brilliant conclusion? Being suspicious does not equate to infallible proof. If it did, we wouldn't have this here forum to chat on.

reply to post by Hazelnut


i inform you that i have suspicions, i have these suspicions based on the following factors. i tried to bring these factors to the attention of my superiors but they have terminated my contract, i believe it is on the basis of the questions asked.

investors informed, i know, a brilliant conclusion.

[edit on 18/5/09 by pieman]

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by Hazelnut

 

i inform you that i have suspicions, i have these suspicions based on the following factors. i tried to bring these factors to the attention of my superiors but they have terminated my contract, i believe it is on the basis of the questions asked.

investors informed, i know, a brilliant conclusion.

[edit on 18/5/09 by pieman]

Right! Like I was undercover and conspired to bring an illegal file consisting of personal information to some locked safe at home just in case I needed to sound the alarm and contact thousands of retirement plan participants with nonconclusive suspicions. Whatever.

From the OP - "They founded Audur in 2007, and by the time they got their operating licence in May 2008, the economic crash was looming. "Yes, but we were very careful, and very risk-aware," they say. "Risk-aware, not risk-averse. Women are risk-aware, men are risk takers."

Enough said.

Originally posted by Hazelnut
Males are in constant combat with one another whether actively or subconsciously.

This makes me question whether you have ever seen a teenage girl in highschool.

As far as the rest of your post. Women already have too much power. You ever see a guy buy a convertable corvette just to impress his buddies? What about a big house? or just about anything else that men buy to satisfy and attract women. Hell, man even defied GOD for a woman.

As my crazy uncle jethro used to say: "women have all the P**** and half the money, and that makes them very dangerous"

[edit on 18-5-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

Originally posted by ExistenceUnknown

Originally posted by Hazelnut
Males are in constant combat with one another whether actively or subconsciously.

This makes me question whether you have ever seen a teenage girl in highschool.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by ExistenceUnknown]

You have an excellent point.

reply to post by Hazelnut


Gender has nothing to do with whos better at what. That all depends on individual talent.

To say that womans intuition is always right is completely sexist and ignorant. I dont understand how you and people like you fail to see the ignorance of your statements. I mean do you honestly believe woman have some sort of special intuitive power that men dont?

Good thread. Though I think history (not for ALL women) risking getting pregnant just to keep a man is pretty inherently risky!!!

That said, though there haven't been many women banking figures, there would hav been female bankers who have contributed and played SOME part at least.

On the note of MPs expenses (f***in LEECHES, they are!), I would like you all to Google News...

"Hazel blears capital gains"
"Margaret Moran dry rot"
"Jacqui Smith second home"
"Andrew MacKay's wife"

...just before you endorse this article wholesale and are tricked into thinking women can't be wreckless with other people's money.

Food for thought

Originally posted by caballero
reply to post by Hazelnut

 

Gender has nothing to do with whos better at what. That all depends on individual talent.

To say that womans intuition is always right is completely sexist and ignorant. I dont understand how you and people like you fail to see the ignorance of your statements. I mean do you honestly believe woman have some sort of special intuitive power that men dont?

You've got me mixed up with someone else, I didn't comment about women's intutition. I commented on the subject of asking questions of my male superiors and the ensuing results.

I don't see how you and people like you fail to comprehend the ignorgance of your testosterone induced statements....Jeesh.

reply to post by Hazelnut


You know the point I was trying to make your argument is that men are the reason everything is wrong with the world. You argument is that if woman could have positions of power (which they do) then things would be different.

What you dont understand is that gender has nothing to do with anything. Woman are as much to blame as men.

To put your argument into different context, White people can fix this problem better than black people. Same exact argument as woman v. men. It makes as much sense as well because skin color, like gender, has nothing to do with anything. Only the most ignorant fools honestly believe that something as trivial as gender or race will make one person better than another.

Even if I did have you mixed up I understand your argument and I stand by what I said before, you and people who think that gender has anything to do with anything are wrong.

reply to post by Hazelnut


The fact that women are in mainly support positions has more to do with equality (or lack of) and a "breakdown" of previous social norms from when equal rights for women first began in the post-modern era. This only began forty or so years ago and progress has been slow (thus career minded women are VERY recent in our history and haven't 'ascended' the ladder en masse, unfortunately).

More needs to be done to redress balance, however! I am not condoning the supression of womens' careers.

That fact is this... Women are STILL (see my previous post) as capable of wrecklessness and selfishness with others money as men are.

This is so because THE MOST POWERFUL WOMEN IN BRITAIN HAVE RECENTLY SHOWN IT TO BE TRUE. This says that gender (or race, but that's off topic, I feel) has NOTHING to do with it the nonsensical notion that women wouldn't have ended us up in this, or a worse mess.

Look at the facts. My testosterone induced response commands it of you.

If you do want an alternative, more chauvenistic response, it's that most powerful (MOST- not all!) women in power are a bit Dykey (check all the tight and short Thatcherette/KD Lang-esque do's arouns politics and business).

Thus, your argument MAY have some substance, on some level at least!

[edit on 18/5/2009 by TailoredVagabond]

reply to post by TailoredVagabond


I dont feel that race is off topic because gender, like race, has absolutely nothing to do with the content of a persons character. Its an empty title that has nothing to do with whether a person is smart, dumb, good or bad.

If we are going to recognize the real problem here we have to take a look at every facet of the problem. We need to learn to judge a person based on their character rather than their ethnicity, gender, religion, or what have yous.

To the OP, short answer No!! long answer I cant believe this type of thread has even been brought up. Do you know the number of women that currently work as high level executives in the biggest world banks during and before this crisis, the answer is thousands so your argument is knackered from the start. It is such a sexist thread and all this rubbish about the sacred feminine. I work in an organisation predominately managed by women and employing an 85% female staff, I am one of only two male managers and can tell you I spend most of my day dealing with inadequacy, bitching, listening to gossip and hearing them moan about their lives and partners. If this is the type of management you want the banks to be handed over to then we will be bartering animal skins and services for bread by the end of the year

reply to post by caballero


It isn't?? Whilst you're correct saying gender is not necessarily indicative of financial responsibility (and as you say, ethics, the way you were raised, motives, circumstances, education, etc all play a part) I disagree with you - race is off topic.

Race is off topic because it factors in new dynamics to this argument - and thus creates another one entirely.

Think cultures who are comparatively more community orientated, such as native Australians and Spanish (I work for a translaiton company - these are things we neeed to recognise, it is not an asumption or stereotype ihave drawn on my own).

There could (COULD) be quite valid arguments that collective traits associated to race - or even values - that might render some financial insitutions more 'people friendly' and less inherently greedy, if they were governmend by a higher concentration of people from certain races.

Would that not create a perfectly valid argument (this, despite that greedy and evil people are in every culture)?

It isn't necessarily my view, but I could see the "race" argument being less one-sided and less flawed by the argument on this thread, which is totally absurd (that women would manage the economy better outright - or wouldn't have made it worse, or haven't contributed at all to the mess we're all in).

[edit on 18/5/2009 by TailoredVagabond]