Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican Party, finally said it in a more pointed (though subliminal) way than I have been able to express it.
Often I have stated, in one or another less-than-effective way, that there exists a Republican attitude and that even those who most effectively wave the GOP flag are probably unaware of it. Similarly, most people who are racists (of any and all political persuasions) are unaware when they are making racist comments.
Recently, in response to the many accusations that his party is out of touch, anti-minorities, anti-women, anti-gay, etc., etc., Priebus made the flat statement that it isn't true - that the Republican Party is concerned about every voter!
Let that sink in deeply. Without realizing it, he highlighted the very specific point I've always tried to make. They are concerned with every voter - not with every citizen, every child, every human. Even if the subject of concern for humans in general is narrowed to mean only every human in this country, the Republican attitude to which I refer keeps them from stating flatly that they are concerned. Only with each voter are they concerned - again, as always, bringing it around to the basic question of "What can you do for me?" I want what I want, and your vote might help me get what I want, therefore I am concerned for you - the voter.
The Democratic (and truly democratic) attitude is typically one of concern for the disenfranchised - indeed, for all humanity. But the party has a hell of a time translating this worthy attitude into solid action and commitment to managing things that will actually help all people. Therefore they often lose that all-important voter to the aggressive party who has a laser focus on grabbing the vote. This was best expressed by Will Rogers who stated he was not a part of any organized political party; he was a Democrat!
If you ever wondered why anyone would be an Independent, such as I am, here's the perfect reason. My self image is of one who has a lot of heart and plenty of guts to fight for something I believe is good. How could I ever associate myself with either Republicans who are heartless or with Democrats who are gutless?!
Sunday, March 24, 2013
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Gender Foolishness
Here I am, a male with my own set of stupid built-in prejudices regarding the sexes and our many differences, pointing out that a bit of news from the business world reveals an innate stupidity. It was the news that many businesses are reeling in their employees who had been allowed to work from home - called remote employees. The practice of allowing tele-commuting has been growing and I fear the new trend will be to gradually end this mode of conducting business that has been helpful and merciful to some workers and to a great degree, more profitable for their companies. But then, business executives are quite capable of tossing aside many things that were actually successful.
Be that as it may, my particular attention was drawn to the comment that of those who are allowed to practice tele-commuting, men are far more acceptable than women to move into these positions.
Stupid! There is no question, in my own opinion, about the likelihood of female workers being better suited to serving their employers in the remote employee position. Females almost invariably out-do males in three of the most critical capacities for business: they are more dedicated to living up to expectations, more capable of multi-tasking (by far!) and more honest in their self-disciplined activity. Oh - and then there is the small matter of employers doing the right thing. Women are the people who most need the chance to stay at home and do those paying jobs while multi-tasking to handle kids and /or many other necessities.
As a basically honest male, I freely admit that given the chance to work from home, as a younger man, I would have arranged most of my work around my personal desires rather than the other way around. Most men who are managing businesses should also grasp this general male tendency and know that if they truly want anyone working in a dedicated way while staying at home, they had best choose female employees to do so. It would be instructive to see a graph showing the total number of tele-commuters employed today and revealing a break-out of the measurable productive out-put of these workers, comparing by gender.
It's just a guess, but I would strongly assert that a thorough study would show that companies who make females their choice for tele-commuters are better served. It is also a guess, but I would predict that a side revelation in such a study might be that those companies best served by these remote employees who are female, are companies having females in upper management helping make sound decisions.
Sorry guys, but our gender has held the reins of business - and government - far too long without showing any impressive proof that we know what the hell we are doing.
Be that as it may, my particular attention was drawn to the comment that of those who are allowed to practice tele-commuting, men are far more acceptable than women to move into these positions.
Stupid! There is no question, in my own opinion, about the likelihood of female workers being better suited to serving their employers in the remote employee position. Females almost invariably out-do males in three of the most critical capacities for business: they are more dedicated to living up to expectations, more capable of multi-tasking (by far!) and more honest in their self-disciplined activity. Oh - and then there is the small matter of employers doing the right thing. Women are the people who most need the chance to stay at home and do those paying jobs while multi-tasking to handle kids and /or many other necessities.
As a basically honest male, I freely admit that given the chance to work from home, as a younger man, I would have arranged most of my work around my personal desires rather than the other way around. Most men who are managing businesses should also grasp this general male tendency and know that if they truly want anyone working in a dedicated way while staying at home, they had best choose female employees to do so. It would be instructive to see a graph showing the total number of tele-commuters employed today and revealing a break-out of the measurable productive out-put of these workers, comparing by gender.
It's just a guess, but I would strongly assert that a thorough study would show that companies who make females their choice for tele-commuters are better served. It is also a guess, but I would predict that a side revelation in such a study might be that those companies best served by these remote employees who are female, are companies having females in upper management helping make sound decisions.
Sorry guys, but our gender has held the reins of business - and government - far too long without showing any impressive proof that we know what the hell we are doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)