[JustlookingForAGoodTime]

Another example on just how fucking stupider than usual the femnazis are now getting. Is there nothing beyond petty complaint?

http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-mone...ch-success

[Private Man]

"Mansplaining" and "manterrupting" are just ways to tell men to shut up.

"Manspreading" is just a way to tell men to be less visible.

Putting the word "man" in front of a word in these contexts is dismissive, demeaning and indicative of the writer/speaker's general misandry.

[Patriarch]

The creation of new, ridiculous words isn't clever or cute, it's moronic. Womenterrupting sounds better anyway.

[TonySandos]

The secret plague of women at work: 'manterrupting'

Recent studies suggest Americans are not ready for a female leader – even if she can get beyond the interruptions of male colleagues who won’t let her speak

Quote:

As a young lawyer in Arkansas, Hillary Clinton came across an advice column on how to decorate your first office.

If you are a man, pepper it with pictures of your family, the male writer advised: “Everyone will know you’re a responsible, reliable family man.”

But if you’re female and you have your own office? “Don’t have any pictures of your family. Because then they think you won’t be able to concentrate on your work,” she said, to a laughing audience at a 2014 women in leadership summit.

A Pew Research Center survey confirms that lopsided attitudes about gender from Clinton’s years in Arkansas persist even now, in 2015.

Forty-three percent of the people who responded to the Pew survey said that women in top executive positions are held to higher standards than men. A substantial 38% believed that the high standards extended to women in public office.

The survey polled 1,835 people, roughly half of whom were men, on the barriers to women taking up top positions in business and politics.

In politics, 37% of respondents felt that America was simply not ready to elect female leaders. That number rose to 43% when they were asked about female leaders in corporate America.

A third reason women have been held back in politics, according to 27% of those polled, was that women often lacked party connections and support. For business leaders, the third most-pressing problem, 23% said, was dealing with family responsibilities.

Twenty-four percent of male respondents felt that women were better off not having children if they wanted to get ahead in their careers. Twenty percent of women polled shared that thought.

Some attitudes were surprising: 34% and 31% of all respondents believed that women were better at being honest and ethical in politics and business, respectively, while only 3% believed men were better. However, 34% of respondents believed men were more willing to take risks, while only 5% of respondents said that applied to women.

A majority of respondents, however, believed that gender made no difference in such issues.

The survey on Americans’ attitudes to women in leadership comes alongside Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant’s op-ed in the New York Times on why women tend to stay quiet in meetings.

Sandberg and Grant write of young female writers on the TV show The Shield who would keep quiet during story meetings. To the show’s producer Glenn Mazarra’s suggestion that they speak up, the response was:

“Watch what happens when we do.”

Mazarra, Sandberg and Grant write, noticed that every time the women spoke in meetings, they were always interrupted by male writers, shot down, or their ideas hijacked by aggressive male voices – what Time magazine dubbed “manterrupting” and “bropropriation”.

Succour was found only when the producer introduced a “no-interruption rule”, noting that the team became far more effective when everyone could exchange ideas without getting in the women’s way.

Sandberg, Facebook’s COO and the author of Lean In, teams with Wharton professor Grant to describe how women speak less in meetings not only because they are often “manterrupted”, but also because, evidence suggests, women are actively punished for making themselves heard.

Yale University’s Victoria Briscoll found that experienced and powerful male senators spoke more than their juniors on the Senate floor. But experience and power did not correlate with more speaking time for female senators. In her research, Briscoll also noted that loquacious male leaders got 10% higher ratings than their peers in the same organization, while female executives got 14% lower ratings than their peers if they spoke more.

Nothing explains these numbers better than Hillary Clinton’s remarks from the summit last summer. When asked if there was indeed a double standard for women holding public office in the media, Clinton, sitting next to IMF chief Christine Lagarde, rolled her eyes before saying: “There is a double standard, obviously. There is a deep set of cultural, psychological views that are manifest through this double standard.”

And if they persist even in this open, transformational society, she emphasised to the interviewer, “you know how deep they are.”

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

If women in any office were held to standards equal as men, let alone higher than men, there would hardly be any women in management positions anywhere.

That said, I know plenty of women who hamsterrupt.

[2Wycked]

More shameless self-promotion: My article on ROK about the idiocy of mansplainning and problem of integration of men and women in the workforce.

Consider this article from the same website trashing the idea of a "boy crisis." It should be noted that the author makes the elementary logical mistake to assume those who disagree with you agree on the primary cause of a social ill. The author assumes that those researching issues affecting boys are going to blame the ills suffered by boys on a matriarchal conspiracy to create a permanent male underclass (force boys into second-class roles).

Of course, he goes forth to smash that strawman and then go on to invoke the fallacy of the Oppression Olympics and assert that women still have it worse than men, all the while refusing to assert the sex of the person doing the discriminating in his world. For example, he cites a clearly feminist study about money leant by investors, without disclosing the sex of the investor (this omission is made to make the reader assume investor = male) and, also, leaves out that the study focused on physically attractive males.

That being said, here is a relevant quote from my article:

Quote:

They pretend men talk to them in such a “sexist” manner because they are women. What they have done is find out when men treat women like equals. We debate, attack and go back and forth constantly with other men. We break each other’s balls and mock each other. Then we go get drunk at the bar like brothers. Women don’t understand that. Since they start from themselves and extrapolate outwards, they take every slight as personal and meant to degrade them – you know, how women treat each other. They apply the relational calculus to men and find the answer is horribly sexist because they falsely assume if equality is achieved between men and women then conflict, anger and all untoward emotions will drain away into a modern day Eden.

This really is just one more addition to the multiplicity of articles and studies that focus on what women could be if they were better consumers while pretending they are arguing for more efficient business models or gender equality. Make no bones about this, this isn't about corporate efficiency. While lowering labor costs is sacred corporate policy, what is most important is that a corporation has consumers for their goods. We can debate the why, but corporations consider women much better consumers than men.

Of course, this desire for women to blow lots of $$$ on iPad's and needless furniture upgrades is furthered by articles like OP posted. Of course, the author thinks that addressing "mansplaining" or "manterrupting" are ways of not silencing men because they are men, but because the modern workforce needs women more than men. This author is part of the status quo, but he pretends he is on the outside, working to make the world more equitable. Of course, this mythical equality can only be achieved if society prioritizes women over men.

[WestIndianArchie]

(01-20-2015 02:26 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

but corporations consider women much better consumers than men.

It is said that the demographic that spends the most money are married mothers
- they pick the house, they often pick the neighborhood
- they pick the furniture and appliances
- they have a say in the vehicles, pick one and don't allow Hubby to get the Camaro
- they pick clothing for the children, husbands, and themselves
- they buy the food

Very little in the average american house is up to the traditional head of the household.

The SUV craze that drove 2 American car companies into bankruptcy wasn't driven by guys wanting to compete @ Pike's Peak or go Mudding, but a manly compromise to station wagons and minivans.

Even when Dodge tried to appeal to masculinity with their Dodge Charger commercial years back, it didn't pass the female smell test and was largely mocked.

WIA

[TonySandos]

That commercial feels like watching a promotion for a beaten animal charity.

Somebody edit that commercial into a rooshv advertisement. Right before the car comes in, impose the word "marriage" against a black back drop followed by rooshv.com

[T and A Man]

I'm gonna tell a chick to not cunterupt me as soon as I can

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Studies have shown women speak 13,000 more words than men per day (source). If that's really the case, of course men need to "manterrupt" -- they can't get a word in edgewise.

Anyone who has ever sat in a work meeting primarily made up of women knows that there tends to be a lot of talk with very little results. Heck, my ex-wife complained about not wanting to be in meetings with women because they were endless gabfests with no point. We had a joke in our office about women who talked and talked about communicating while actually saying nothing.

If men are interrupting, rather than criticizing them for it, we should look to why they're cutting off women. Women's incessant droning on about nothing and everything is the reason.

[It_is_my_time]

(01-20-2015 04:59 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

Studies have shown women speak 13,000 more words than men per day (source). If that's really the case, of course men need to "manterrupt" -- they can't get a word in edgewise.

Anyone who has ever sat in a work meeting primarily made up of women knows that there tends to be a lot of talk with very little results. Heck, my ex-wife complained about not wanting to be in meetings with women because they were endless gabfests with no point. We had a joke in our office about women who talked and talked about communicating while actually saying nothing.

If men are interrupting, rather than criticizing them for it, we should look to why they're cutting off women. Women's incessant droning on about nothing and everything is the reason.

I have worked professionally for well over a decade, and the biggest complaint I hear from other professional workers are the endless line of pointless meetings. I feel the same way myself, and luckily I am not involved with many meetings and find ways to get out of them.

But when I go to meetings I notice the following things...

- If there is a strong alpha male presence leading the meeting and he has a purpose for the meeting, it not only feels worth while, you get shit done and get the hell out. The way a meeting is supposed to go.

- If the meeting is run by a weak male or a woman, it will drone on for probably twice as long as needed, and everyone will agree it was a waste of time. But everyone is too brainwashed to point out as to why. The weak leader will allow the blowhard men to ramble on and talk about themselves and the women to go on and on and on about nothing.

This is another push by the left to make our society even more inefficient. At some point we will have to put an end to this or the entire system will collapse.

[Suits]

(01-20-2015 02:11 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Quote:

Yale University’s Victoria Briscoll found that experienced and powerful male senators spoke more than their juniors on the Senate floor. But experience and power did not correlate with more speaking time for female senators. In her research, Briscoll also noted that loquacious male leaders got 10% higher ratings than their peers in the same organization, while female executives got 14% lower ratings than their peers if they spoke more.

Maybe they get rated lower when they talk more, because they say a lot of stupid things.

[Hedonistic Traveler]

I read that women average 3x as many words per day as men. Something like 20,000 words vs 7,000. Of course they're still being repressed though.

[Private Man]

Quote:

Yale University’s Victoria Briscoll found that experienced and powerful male senators spoke more than their juniors on the Senate floor. But experience and power did not correlate with more speaking time for female senators. In her research, Briscoll also noted that loquacious male leaders got 10% higher ratings than their peers in the same organization, while female executives got 14% lower ratings than their peers if they spoke more.

Here's another thought. A confident, authoritative, masculine voice gets a lot of attention. I've noticed that most male politicians have deep voices, something that cuts through the chatter and immediately garners attention. A woman's higher voice simply can't do that. But anyone notice how low Maggie Thatcher's voice was? She did OK politically.

[Sir Vigorous]

This is because women take an inordinate amount of time/words to say a basic thought. Essentially, you know what they're going to say well before they finish their long-winded sentence. Me and my friend refer to this as the "land your plane" problem. Girls circle around the point waiting for the perfect feel good moment to land, or will never actually "land the plane" because landing the plane puts them on the record as having a precise position on something.

Women don't like to be able to held down to a specific statement which is why they intentionally talk in long-winded obtuse ways. Many times I've actually heard a woman making a decent point but taking so long to make the point/joke that i've lost interest. They should write an article about the prevalence of woman not landing the plane.

[Renzy]

(01-20-2015 03:02 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:26 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

but corporations consider women much better consumers than men.

It is said that the demographic that spends the most money are married mothers
- they pick the house, they often pick the neighborhood

I remember back during the housing bubble, Century21 ran the following cringe-inducing ad.

Ads like that pretty much sum up how modern American marriages work when it comes to making purchasing decisions.

[heavy]

(01-20-2015 06:18 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:11 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Quote:

Yale University’s Victoria Briscoll found that experienced and powerful male senators spoke more than their juniors on the Senate floor. But experience and power did not correlate with more speaking time for female senators. In her research, Briscoll also noted that loquacious male leaders got 10% higher ratings than their peers in the same organization, while female executives got 14% lower ratings than their peers if they spoke more.

Maybe they get rated lower when they talk more, because they say a lot of stupid things.

(01-20-2015 02:11 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Recent studies suggest Americans are not ready for a female leader – even if she can get beyond the interruptions of male colleagues who won’t let her speak

Besides women use way more words to say the same thing, surprised nobody mentioned that a lot of this is probably due to female on female jealousy...listeners hating on the female leader/speaker.

I've had one female director (really hot ~40 yr old), and all the chics in the office hated her.

[puckerman]

These women obviously have never observed how men talk to each other.

Men interrupt each other all the time.

[Shortest Straw]

(01-20-2015 08:09 AM)heavy Wrote:  

(01-20-2015 02:11 AM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Recent studies suggest Americans are not ready for a female leader – even if she can get beyond the interruptions of male colleagues who won’t let her speak

Besides women use way more words to say the same thing, surprised nobody mentioned that a lot of this is probably due to female on female jealousy...listeners hating on the female leader/speaker.

I've had one female director (really hot ~40 yr old), and all the chics in the office hated her.

Even my mom, who's a feminist, said she would never work for a woman.

I've worked for a couple of women. One was pretty good, but she was extremely masculine. The other was horrible.

[CelMasc]

Another silly word created by feminists in order to support their ridiculous claims.

Akin to other scenarios where you are faced with these words; it's best to just point and laugh.

[The Reactionary Tree]

Meanwhile in the middle east, women are being stoned to death for leaving the house without a male family member. We need a collapse in the west to get rid of all this nonsense and bullshit.

[GeroMeroHero]

According to these gals, men just HAVE to have their opinions be heard... classic projection

[MrXY]

Women yap so ceaselessly a man has to interrupt just to get a chance to speak.

[R Smoov]

Never let a bitch hoeterrupt whatever you want out of life.

[Travesty]

This is why nodding with brief eye contact and slightly smiling feigning deep interest while thinking about important shit like that Latina girl's ass in the coffee shop earlier is so imperative when being forced to talk with women you don't want to.