ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) (03/14/86)
In article <459@ccivax.UUCP>, rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: > [...] most men, for whatever reason, tend to have a win/lose type of > aggression. Simply put, for a man to feel he has won, he must feel that > the other person has lost. > > Women, although they may choose to "compete", have the option of developing > a win/win approach. Simply put, a woman can feel she has "won" if > she gains benefit from the encounter even though the "opponant", if any, > may have also gained. The win/win approach has been the cornerstone of professional diplomacy for many centuries. And the profession hasn't exactly been known for its lack of discrimination by gender. It's interesting you work in a place where the men are win/lose problem-solvers, and the women are win/win. I've never worked in a place like that. To me, the trait has appeared in people independent of gender. Peter Ladkin
rb@ccivax.UUCP (03/17/86)
In article <5776@kestrel.ARPA> ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin) writes: >In article <459@ccivax.UUCP>, rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) writes: >> [...] most men, for whatever reason, tend to have a win/lose type of >> aggression. Simply put, for a man to feel he has won, he must feel that >> the other person has lost. >> >> Women, although they may choose to "compete", have the option of developing >> a win/win approach. Simply put, a woman can feel she has "won" if >> she gains benefit from the encounter even though the "opponant", if any, >> may have also gained. > >The win/win approach has been the cornerstone >of professional diplomacy for many centuries. And the profession >hasn't exactly been known for its lack of discrimination by gender. Even though diplomacy begins with a win/win approach, frequently, the end result has been one side or the other gaining a distinct advantage. Often, "Teams" are built for the purpose of increasing pressure on opposite side. This is win/lose. >It's interesting you work in a place where the men are win/lose >problem-solvers, and the women are win/win. >I've never worked in a place like that. >To me, the trait has appeared in people independent of gender. > >Peter Ladkin I agree that this win/win strategy can be developed by men. In fact, it should be allowed to developed at a much earlier age than it does. Those men who use this approach too early to the exclusion of win/lose, are frequently considered effeminate(sp?). In elementary school, boys who aren't willing to fight or play with guns were considered "sissies" (Derivation please?:-)). In Jr. High they were considered "fairies". In high school, they were simply written off as homosexuals (many were, but not all). Fortunately by college (perhaps because there was no draft by the time I got there), it was acceptable to be non-competitive. Even then, there were competitions of "wits", but it was possible to win without the "opponant" loosing. In my college (a predominately female school) we were encouraged to compete against ourselves rather than each other. The object was to be better today than you were yesterday. Of course, the two predominate programs were music-theater and nursing and 70% of the men at the school openly admitted that they were homosexual. Many of the heterosexual men experienced profound personality changes during there stay in this school. The sample was very small, less than 60 males in a school of 800 students, only 18 heterosexual males. Another interesting observation was that in the fencing course (one of the few competitive courses), the women were initially more instintively defensive, ie. able to deflect the thrust, and less counter-offensive (able to deflect then counter thrust). Later, the women became more effective at the counter-offence, so much so that although some never initiated the offense, they could win in the first deflect/counter. During the final "tournament", there were no male finalists (they had all lost in early rounds). This minature model of a "female dominated" society was one of the most educational experiences of my life. I don't claim to understand women better because of it, but it did shatter many of my old sexist beliefs. It also exposed me to several "feminine" characteristics which I found to be quite admirable (and a few that weren't, but we won't get into that:-)).
mat@mtx5a.UUCP (m.terribile) (03/20/86)
> aggression. Simply put, for a man to feel he has won, he must feel that > the other person has lost. For young boys and men, this is acted out > in the form of fighting, competitive sports, and "contests" of various > types. Later, if and when maturity occurrs, the "contests" become more > intellectual, insult matches, debates, and "intellectual clubbing matches" > of various types. For the male, this is not really optional. For a male > to not participate, results in low social status. Frequently, males who > do not compete are given "lables" normally associated with homosexuality. > For this article (and follow-ups) I'll call this agressive win/lose > trait "macho". We've got a few of these a**holes around here. All are despised to a greater or lesser degree. > Women, although they may choose to "compete", have the option of developing > a win/win approach. Simply put, a woman can feel she has "won" if > she gains benefit from the encounter even though the "opponant", if any, > may have also gained. Personally, I consider this "feminine" trait to > be superior in a society which must cooperate to survive. > For this article, I'll call this trait "feminine". > > Think about it, would you really rather have an arms treaty negotiation > between two "masculine" types, each insisting on a clear competitive > advantage (and risk being on the "loosing" side), or two "feminine" > types, each insisting that they be safer than they are now? I often > wonder if we might not be better off having the "first ladies" cut the > treaty (providing neither is actually a "macho woman" in disguise). Note, however, that most of those who work the win/lose game sucessfully know where to stop. Those who don't usually don't get very far in an organization. Douglas Hofstadter, a few years ago, ran a column in Scientific American in which he reported on programs that were designed to play a Co-operate/Defect type of game. The most successful programs were those that mimiced their opponents, being just as nice -- or as nasty -- as the opponents were. > A few "male feminist" role models: > Mr Spock on Star Trek - in contrast to "shoot 'em up" Kirk, a pioneer! > Even when he fights, the emotional restraint of the > character is admirable. And not necessarily a good role model for humans. If you supress/ignore your emotions, you will end up being ruled by them, in one way or another. > Tom Baker's Doctor Who - "ask questions first", seldom uses a gun, seldom > fights, frequently a "win/win" resolution of the problem. Hmm. Yes. Very interesting. > By the way, are there other such role models available? My wife and I > are both a little concerned when my three year old son comes up to > daddy and says "I'm gonna break your face". He gets this stuff from > television, but it is hard to find non-violent, non-insulting, > "feminine" male role models. I've got a better idea. Cut out the TV. Get him into books now, before it's too late. Start with The Wind In The Willows, and the classic Dr. Suess books. Make the TV hour a twice-a-week thing, make it a family affair, and try to avoid the trash. And recognize that he is just playing. Play it out with him, and try to get him interested in other things. > As an example, most of our evaluation engineering staff are > women. For some reason, when a male engineer is told by another > male engineer that his program doesn't work right, the response is > to "compete" by trying to prove that the test was done wrong. The > women have come up with approaches that keep the men off the defensive. > For example: "I'm not sure what is happening, but I can't get xyz > function to work right, could you give me some help?" I use this sort of thing with men and women -- no sex involved. Don't look to the handbooks of seduction. Look to ``How To Win Friends and Influence People'' by Dale Carnagie. Men like Lincoln and Franklin and both Roosevelts and Andrew Carnagie and ... have done this. Just don't say ``could you give me some help?'' as though you WANTED to be patronized. Say ``could you show me what I'm doing wrong?''. > The male programmer comes to the "rescue", simply to discover that his > pride and joy (program) is broken. He further "rescues" the evaluator > by having the fix done before the ink is dry on the trouble report. > > The evaluator knows full well that the space cadet programmer has left > a gaping bug in the code that has to be fixed, but by not taking the > "macho" role, both she and the programmer have saved time, effort, and > emnity. Men have more difficulty taking this feminine role. In > reality, the "feminine" is actually in control of the situation. Men > are also less likely to "rescue" other men. If this capability is the exclusive province of women, we are ALL in trouble. > We also have a few "feminine" men who have actually gained more by > using win/win tactics than those who take the "macho" aproach. And > despite wives, children and clear heterosexual preferences, the "Gay > Jokes" and "hints" can be heard in the woodwork. What the hell kind of place do you work in? The Dodge City municiple iron works? The best way to deal with people like that is to show them ONCE that you can be a worse SOB than they want to deal with. Then go about getting your work done. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat (Please mail to mtx5b!mat, NOT mtx5a! mat, or to mtx5a!mtx5b!mat) ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.