have been reading the book leadership - theory and practice over the past 2 days and today, as i read the chapter on leadership and woman, something struck me! lots of the characteristics described in the chapter sounds damn so familiar! eg like how woman tend not to negotiate for power, how woman tend to exhibit transformational leadership characteristics, la la la... and i thought, hey! that sounded just like me!
hmmm, damned it! i think the chapter should have been re-titled as `leadership and gender' instead! or erm... `leadership and woman and gay men' or something like that! such ironies, the chapter started by talking quite a bit about stereotyping and its danger and highlighted how woman tend to fall prey to social stereotyping when it comes to leadership roles and so on... yet, by the very nature of using the 2 specific gender types of `woman' and `man', it actually fell into it's own trap of stereotyping the subjects. why not look at the whole continuum of sexuality... asexual male, heterosexual male, top-homosexual male, flexi-homosexual male, bottom-homosexual male, transvestites, transexuals, femme homosexual-female, flexi homosexual female, butch homosexual female, heterosexual female, asexual female and every possible types in between. i am so sure it will be a super accurate and interesting study. heh heh... ok, just being cheeky here. i guessed leadership studies has very much been man-centric (regardless of sexuality) and studying it empirically in this manner that i have cheekily suggested would probably be next to impossible considering the difficulty of getting a proper sample size. so, i supposed it is already a step ahead to look at it from the woman's perspective.
:-)
hmmm, damned it! i think the chapter should have been re-titled as `leadership and gender' instead! or erm... `leadership and woman and gay men' or something like that! such ironies, the chapter started by talking quite a bit about stereotyping and its danger and highlighted how woman tend to fall prey to social stereotyping when it comes to leadership roles and so on... yet, by the very nature of using the 2 specific gender types of `woman' and `man', it actually fell into it's own trap of stereotyping the subjects. why not look at the whole continuum of sexuality... asexual male, heterosexual male, top-homosexual male, flexi-homosexual male, bottom-homosexual male, transvestites, transexuals, femme homosexual-female, flexi homosexual female, butch homosexual female, heterosexual female, asexual female and every possible types in between. i am so sure it will be a super accurate and interesting study. heh heh... ok, just being cheeky here. i guessed leadership studies has very much been man-centric (regardless of sexuality) and studying it empirically in this manner that i have cheekily suggested would probably be next to impossible considering the difficulty of getting a proper sample size. so, i supposed it is already a step ahead to look at it from the woman's perspective.
:-)
No comments:
Post a Comment