"Jessica Kennedy of Wharton and Laura Kray of Berkeley report on three studies in a paper forthcoming in Social Psychology and Personality Science."
In the first study, subjects read 14 vignettes describing ethical compromises in a business context. Values seen as sacred, such as honesty, loyalty, or the well-being of others, were traded off for the secular values of money or status. An executive secures a big bonus by using a cheap ingredient in a cancer drug, knowing it will kill some people. A project manager takes credit for the work of a subordinate who stayed late at the office. Subjects rated how objectionable the behavior was, and how much business sense it made. Compared with men, women found the acts more offensive, and said they made less business sense....
This calls to mind the old Supreme Court case
Bradwell v. State (1872), upholding the exclusion of women from the legal profession:
The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life....
The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence.... In the nature of things, it is not every citizen of every age, sex, and condition that is qualified for every calling and position....
Of course, the present-day study leads modern-day thinkers to propose ways to change the workplace so it will align better with the sensibilities of women:
Kennedy recommends that companies implement more ethical training, select people partially on the basis of ethics, and emphasize ethics as a core cultural value when recruiting. “If business organizations take a long-term view of success, they can allow people to value both ethics and achievement,” she says. “This would allow the people within organizations—both men and women—to be more fully human.”
Posts
91 comments:
So, how many of the Atlanta 35 were men?
Nice gals finish last, apparently.
Gee, I wonder if one of the ethical vignettes discussed involved sleeping with the boss or a possible big client in order to advance one's career?
Anecdotal evidence from 30 years in business: Women are morally certainly no worse than men, but they aren't any better, either. The common sins are just different, is all.
Business was compared with law because both are lucrative, competitive professions. Women associated business with immorality more strongly than men did.
The conclusion should be titled "women more susceptible to anti-business demonization campaign".
The problem with setting out to select people on the basis of ethics is that the most unethical of people will have no problem concealing their lack of ethics.
Kennedy recommends that companies implement more ethical training, select people partially on the basis of ethics
it's a trap ladies. you'd probably fail an objective ethics test.
Watch the language in this article and the sample questions used in these studies.
This is academe's view of business; not how life actually works.
I do not like being lied to; it's dangerous in the construction industry, but it does happen. However, thinking back over a long career, I believe that I have been lied to by a larger percentage of women than men. No biggies, just to make me go away and avoid "unpleasantness" or admitting responsibility for whatever I was so upset about, but lie they did.
So, they won't make the ethical choices. And they won't work the long hours. And they won't put their families on the back burner to advance their career. And they won't forgo or postpone having children.
But they want to get paid the same amount of money. And they want special privileges.
Sigh. Anyone see a trend here?
Of course, the present-day study leads modern-day thinkers to propose ways to change the workplace so it will align better with the sensibilities of women
Ummm OK What could go wrong? Clearly the best results will come by leaving "modern-day thinkers" out of the process.
I think I'll wait and see what James Taranto has to say about these two women. People tend to say self serving things and I especially include women among those people.
Given that these were hypotheticals rather than real life situations, maybe the women were just more willing to lie.
So far 12 posts on this and no Shouting Thomas diatribe?
Most women have a better developed sense of the long term good that comes from using honesty as a style.
Most men are gamblers that calculate the odds of getting caught against the possibility for short term gain.
But there also exists a rare level where morality is never an issue functions because no one ever gets caught. The fix is in among those power elites. The Atlanta Public Schools conspiracy is an example. In the African American community women are those elites.
However, thinking back over a long career, I believe that I have been lied to by a larger percentage of women than men. No biggies, just to make me go away and avoid "unpleasantness" or admitting responsibility for whatever I was so upset about, but lie they did.
There is a stark contrast in conflict resolution between the men I have worked with in my life versus the women and Hagar nails it. The old trope about women being catty and subtly nasty while men just wear it on their sleeve has some bearing here.
Men would rather get a conflict out in the open and resolved rather than let things festure and that includes vertical power relationships within an organization. Women, it's been my experience, are far more conflict averse, to the detriment of all when a short, nasty spat can clear the air.
The academy hates business and the form of questions is geared to getting the reaction they receive. It is a good test of how well the academy has inculcated a lie.
I have spent forty years in business after spending six as an associate in the university. There is no doubt that I saw more back biting, heard more lies, listened to more bullshit and witnessed more crass behavior and unethical behavior in the university than I have in many decades of work in finance. And, trust me, I have seen some sleazeballs and heard some bullshit and witnessed some attempts at unethical behavior in business. But nothing, absolutely nothing, like in an American university.
How does women finding something more offensive translate into them being less willing to make compromises?
Based on the comments I've read here -- for example, yes, I think it is killing human life, but women should have that choice anyway -- there is a greater likelihood that women will more more willing to compromise even believing it to be more morally wrong than men.
There are plenty of people in the world who will say, yes, I know its wrong, but I'm doing it anyway.
Nonapod said...
So far 12 posts on this and no Shouting Thomas diatribe?
Didn't you see he's against "brawls" today? He's claiming some sort of religious epiphany.
I have about half and half women and men at my company in all job types from welders to managers. There are clear differences, but ethics is not one of them. Breaking rules, drinking, and being lazy are male dominated problems. Fighting, backstabbing, taking credit for other peoples' work are female dominated.
One clear advantage that women have is the ability to work and talk at the same time, but they will pass up a great opportunity for advancement if it means getting too dirty or having to wear any kind of head gear. There is a glass ceiling, but men put on the helmet and break through it.
I think we've discovered that when asked such questions, men give more honest answers than women.
And maybe more thoughtful, too. In the real world, for example, a cheap, widely distributed drug with occasional side effects might save far more people than the rare, expensive drug with fewer side effects. Ignoring real-world tradeoffs doesn't make you more ethical, just more dogmatic.
Geez and 99% of the embezzlement cases around my neck of the woods have women perps. More opportunity, I guess, because so many bookkeepers are female. They sideline a bunch of money, and use it to Live the Life.
That shows me there's really no difference.
I believe this study is correct as reported, but as said above, women will lie about their true feelings, and are often willing to do what they will not admit to. They will readily attack another woman for doing something, and then do it themselves with no problem. This is why they make great Democrats. You can't test ethics by asking people if they would be ethical. That's like believing in gun control.
“This would allow the people within organizations—both men and women—to be more fully human.”
If organizations want more ethical behavior, they need to allow people to be less fully human.
There have been two major cases of embezzlement at my company in 30 years - both women, despite the fact that the people in position to pull it off have been 50/50 men to women.
I'd put a lot more stock in a report that showed how men and women conduct themselves in actual career situations. Women are generally more likely to give teachers (and probably biz gamers) the answers they think are correct or expected. The women want to be liked.
The men want to be respected. In my business experience nearly all men understood that a reputation for honesty, reliability and ethical conduct was a very positive attribute. There were always a few who tried to get the reputation without actually being ethical. But generally they got found out.
And Hagar is correct when he points to the female grade fixing conspirators in Atlanta. These women said (in their own defense) that they could not do the ethical thing because it might reduce their bonuses or even cost them their jobs. I just guess that their seminar responses in a simulation might have been different.
Perhaps I was just fortunate to have trustworthy men and women be the norm in my career. But I think it far more likely that integrity breeds success. Regardless of gender.
Women apparently believe the story line of every movie they have seen in which the corporate guy is the evil doer, in which the corporation is poisoning the water, food, minds, Children!, and good hearted people of all colors. All for PROFIT. Women do not want to hurt children and the water and so are inclined to be wary of the evil corporations and the PROFIT that makes them do whatever is required in order to fuck the poor and hurt the children to get their dirty money to buy their stupidly big house and buy presents for their lover even as the wife is dying of some unspecified disease caused by the corporation the husband works for. Women believe and are moved by this and thus are not likely to be tempted into working for a company that does not value ethics above PROFITS because you cannot have one and the other. Not in the story that has been told these fifty years.
Well, I've known a few women who embodied a virtue that I admire: the inability to hold a grudge. Maybe it's a lack of talent, or maybe it's a personality trait. Not sure.
Women SAY they are less willing than men to make the ethical compromises often required in business.
FTFY, professors.
Considering how some of the women I've seen in business don't even think about it before knifing somebody else (and you can forget the "sisterhood"), these broads better stay at Wharton and Berkeley .
They wouldn't last 10 seconds outside the ivory tower.
We have had 3 men and three women running our accounting. Two of the three women did big dollar thefts. There is something there. It somehow seems like a female thing, but I can't put my finger on it.
This would allow the people within organizations—both men and women—to be more fully human.
So when people behave the way men naturally behave, they are less than fully human.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Hagar said...
Watch the language in this article and the sample questions used in these studies.
This is academe's view of business; not how life actually works.
I'd love to see a similar study where the ethical questions were centered on a government agency, a university and/or a non-profit.
Speaking of ethics:"Kennedy recommends that companies implement more ethical training, select people partially on the basis of ethics, and emphasize ethics as a core cultural value when recruiting."
What chance do you think that Kennedy might be willing to provide consultation to a company in need of such ethical training? To devise tests to weed out unethical candidates? To create an elaborate two day session on emphasizing ethics as a core cultural value? Is it possible? She has a PhD and is doing post doctoral work at Wharton. She is a student princess.
Compared with men, women found the acts more offensive, and said they made less business sense....
Yawn...yet another study showing that women lie more than men.
It would be interesting to see what questions or scenarios the researchers used to come up with their conclusions.
The problem with setting out to select people on the basis of ethics is that the most unethical of people will have no problem concealing their lack of ethics.
True. Knowing what is ethical, or right from wrong, is much different from choosing to do what is in your own best interests or of your company, even though it may not be ethical.
Doesn't the Althouse principle apply here? When comparing women to men the comparison must always show women to be superior.
Let's approach this from another perspective.
Women are more willing than men to make moral compromises often required to acquire and preserve democratic leverage. This includes, but is not limited to, sacrificing human life for benefits obtained through redistributive change (i.e. involuntary exploitation).
What is the greater dilemma, is it moral or ethical capriciousness? Is the greater concern a fundamental or exception corruption?
To be a Progressive, or Feminist, one must continually assert a rock-solid conviction that men and women are exactly the same and completely interchangeable in every way, shape, and form...but just as a prelude to pointing out all the ways women are superior token in every way, shape, and form.
Women are just so good and men are just so wicked. That's the ticket.
Life experience tells me otherwise. The fact that women are less honest when answering questions for a study doesn't change my opinion.
One thing I have noticed, and this is progress, is that much of the feminist moaning and groaning these days centers on how they are victims of nature, rather than male oppression. They just want to change the rules to suit them and make men suffer. But there's much less complaining about the glass ceiling as if it's been erected by the patriarchal "power structures" or whatever.
In other words, women seem to have come to the realization that they just can't hack it, professionally, under the current rules. They aren't as good as men, on average.
So there must be some explanation that doesn't offend. It must be that men are wicked, or that women are too good, or that women are victims of biology. So everything must change to equalize results.
The most unethical manager I ever had was a female when I worked at a mental health center. She committed actions of sexual harrasment and drove a handicapped woman out of her job via actions that would be a violation of ADA now. Abusing her power, she took a preparation I had prepared and presented it as her own to the center staff. She unfairly got another man fired. Ironically, she later became president of the local mental health association.
It's important to remember that we're talking percentages here, not absolutes. Women can be just as bad and the article doesn't give the actual numbers.
An executive secures a big bonus by using a cheap ingredient in a cancer drug, knowing it will kill some people.
That's Berkeley for you, always brainstorming great ideas!
"Honesty is the best policy," and that is actually true in my experience. Besides it makes life so much simpler, you don't have to try to remember just what you told whom.
It is also so, that if people find they can trust you, they will give you favored treatment, which is good for business.
I have found that even some people with decidely checkered reputation around town would deal fairly and squarely with me, because I was fair with them.
Two of the three women did big dollar thefts. There is something there. It somehow seems like a female thing, but I can't put my finger on it.
A lot of women have entitlement complexes that lead to this corruption.
The idea that women are more ethical than men is sexist horseshit.
""Women are less willing than men to make the ethical compromises often required in business.""
If you're making ethical compromises in your business perhap your in the wrong business.
There is something there. It somehow seems like a female thing, but I can't put my finger on it.
Shoes.
"Shoes"
Exactly! If the question was would you kill a few cancer patients for a nice set of pumps, it wouldn't even be close.
I've practiced law for 37 years, and I've not noticed a difference in the ethicalness of men and women.
women seem to have come to the realization that they just can't hack it, professionally,
There's something to that, I think. The "realization" takes the form of moving on, going to a different company or getting a job at the U or govt..always because things are so *dysfunctional* at the current job. And everyone totally understands, of course.
Thing is, I think most companies/govt/universities etc are *dysfunctional* too. It's the human condition. But the guys hang on longer, whereas the women find an escape hatch.
What a load of shite.
Unlike men, women are not raised on the fair play standard implicit in all sports, which is one of the many reasons they don't "get" them. Consequently, they are much quicker to kneecap someone - either personally or professionally - particular the next woman in line.
Larry J said ...
I'd love to see a similar study where the ethical questions were centered on a government agency,...
Oh, no you wouldn't. Government ethics ... almost an oxymoron, but for the few actual honest leaders & operators that you will never hear about, ever.
Yours truly,
"Fed"dawg.
PS: Government stresses ethics, but enforcement amidst all the lying is nearly impossible.
I've been dealing with a professional woman all day today who has been lying through her teeth about Fedexes and emails and what was sent when and who said what just to avoid responsibility. and it's all so stupid because there are emails and time stamps and tracking#'s and a lack of tracking#'s. total and complete documentation that I have now compiled and sent to her. I'll bet she lies again in the morning.
Don't know about superior ethics, but the Mrs. much prefers working with (less underminey-competitive) and for (less catty-vindictive) men than women.
And the leadership men are at least equal-to and often better-than women as mentors, says she.
My experience with women executives is that they do not approve of, nor can they abide, testosterone-charged disagreements between and among male managers.
Rather than lead discussions to logical conclusions, they would rather manage the meeting atmosphere.
I never worked for a female who came across as a competent decision-maker, but corporate policy required their employment.
That's my story and I am sticking to it!
Aridog,
In government there is always someone with one more day in time and grade than you who will delight in reversing any statement or decision you may have made.
Therefore, truth is in the latest memo from Comedy Central, typos, duplicate pages, missing pages, and all.
I am not opposed to brawls. I just think we ought to have a topic before we start one in the morning.
Nor have I had a religious epiphany.
Well, I was Saved, but not in the way you think.
In my experience women and men are both equally ethical or unethical. Women and men are both humans with the same human failings.
Scene: The Situation Room
Obama: Well, it's 7 PM. Bedtime for me.
Pinetta: So I'm in charge here?
Obama: You have my fool... er, full confidence.
Pinetta: And if the worst happens?
Obama: Don't wake me till morning, make that mid-morning.
Pinetta: But what if Austin...2 AM...puff?
Obama: DON'T. WAKE. ME.
HC: Yeah Lou, the man don't wanna be waked, don't wake the man. Anyway, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?!
Obama: Lighten up Lou, be a pro like Hillary and me.
Pinetta: Yeah, comedy tonight.
Oops, wrong thread. ;^(
As George Costanza said, it's not a lie if you believe it.
Is there any evidence that ethics training has ever worked anywhere when it was bureaucratically required?
Subjects rated how objectionable the behavior was, and how much business sense it made.
Did the study also contain a measure of impression management or self deceptive enhancement? or some other validity measures of answering questions honestly or was that simply assumed by the authors?
Hagar said... So, how many of the Atlanta 35 were men?
Hagar -- Exactly.
This discussion was done in one.
"the most unethical of people will have no problem concealing their lack of ethics."
Reminds me of the racist on the jury. If she/he is truly racist, she/he will lie about having a prejudice.
Hagar said...
Aridog, ... In government there is always someone with one more day in time and grade than you who will delight in reversing any statement or decision you may have made.
Don't I know it...however, when what is happening is against the law, blow the whistle and protect your identity. You help more people, public and civil servant if you do this. Period.
More than once I had to explain that I salute the uniform, not the dick head who may occupy it. Not frequent, but enough to be irritating. Sometimes folks get rank confused with privilege.
Shoutin' T ... I have difficulty imagining you doing the Hoochie Coochie Co ... but whatever saves you, eh :-)
Oh, and just for the record, my experience has been women can be great managers, ethical and forthright, just as well as men. But that is just me and my career path, which is hardly a scientific study, just an opinion.
When I retired, hands down the best manager I worked with was a female in the acquisition side of things...people who can spend your money need to be near flawless, and she was and is today.
Carol:
"Hanging on" was traditionally known as loyalty and frequently considered a virtue. Today, it represents a character deficit born from an idealism unmatched by reality.
I believe Obama refers to such virtuous people as "bitter clingers." The men and women who generally respect human and civil rights, and are responsible for their actions and lives.
Oh, well. The rule today is to dream of instant gratification without consideration for any consequences.
You know, it never ceases to impress me how (1) naive or (2) disingenuous social "scientists" are, when they take what people say at face value.
So...it never occurs to them that men might shy away when questioned on the point from saying that they would compromise profit because of ethical qualms, or that women might feel compelled by how they think it will look to say of course they'd do no such thing?
Oh no. We're all 100% honest and 100% accurate about predicting what we'd do. Geez Louise. And these people are supposed to be smart.
Most just put letters in their personnel file stating that they are proceeding as ordered, though against their personal and professional judgment.
I took ethical training for my job. We all did. I now know not to take a foreign dignitary's wife on a paid shopping trip to Harrods.
Hagar said...
Most just put letters in their personnel file stating that they are proceeding as ordered, though against their personal and professional judgment.
I'll have to take your word for that because I've never heard of such a thing [in my world] implemented by the individual whose personnel file is generally unavailable for such modification. Never mind that doing so would amount to testifying in advance of interrogation. You may answer questions that were never to be asked....a classic no-no.
A better approach, at least for a fed or military, is to keep scrupulous "contemporaneous records" via a note book (thread bound is best), like NSN 7530-01-060-7511 pocket sized notebook from FEDSTRIP or MILSTRIP sources...e.g., GSA or DLA. Only you have access until time to testify....and it does stand up as evidence. I still have mine from way back in 1969-1971 when subject to a Board of Inquiry (AR 15-6 Investigation) and it/they got me out of that mess. I have carried one since 1968 and still still carry one in my pocket to this day. Call me paranoid.
I do know individuals who have made their objections as footnotes to implementation documents, usually as marginal notes, and they are usually punished for such action...demoted if not fired. No matter if the objection was pursuant to fiscal law or other code. Being right or righteous is no defense.
That is a lie.... women can just as ruthless and dishonest as men and in my experience even worse.
An executive secures a big bonus by using a cheap ingredient in a cancer drug, knowing it will kill some people.
Yes, because killing your audience/user base is so savvy.
I think women would be more inclined to favor ethical answers in a survey. Sadly the ethical problems we encounter in a life are rarely encountered in surveys.....I wouldn't want to say that women are more dishonest. That hasn't been my experience. However, I've known a few who have gone full Borgia, especially on their younger, more attractive female subordinates. I knew one who was some kind of Disney stepmother with the younger women in the office. She got along OK with the guys, but she was truly evil with the girls. Women can be the worst sexists.
My mother always said men can be evil, but it takes a woman to be wicked.
yeah.........they are so pure of heart. I've worked with women as superiors, cohorts, and subordinates for 30 years. Most of them were very vindictive and scheming to their fellow female workers and female customers. just my experience.
I used to believe in all this feminist bullshit.
Then I married a feminist.
Of course, the present-day study leads modern-day thinkers to propose ways to change the workplace so it will align better with the sensibilities of humans:
"Kennedy recommends that companies implement more ethical training, select people partially on the basis of ethics, and emphasize ethics as a core cultural value when recruiting."
FTFY, troglodyte.
As George Costanza said, it's not a lie if you believe it.
Al Franken's lawyer, famed first-amendment defender Floyd Abrams, said the same thing about Bill O'Reilly when he attempted to sue his client for breaking what conservatives imagine to be a law against satire.
The small memorandum book I mentioned earlier is available to anyone who wants them Here.
It occurred to me, after citing the NSN & Govt sources, that not citing a civilian source made my statement a pretentious piece of crap. For that I apologize.
Try them, if you need to privately "qualify" circumstances, you'll like them and they fit almost anywhere.
They really did help keep me, and two other NCO's, plus a FNG hapless Lieutenant recently assigned, out of jail when some Pentagon cake eaters decided to make "stooges" out of three long time extended NCO's in a hardship tour area who were native speakers to boot...just have to be crooks, right?
I've used them to document multiple things over time...a little record can trip up the biggest liar.
Astro said...
Hagar said... So, how many of the Atlanta 35 were men?
Hagar -- Exactly.
This discussion was done in one
Ah, but that's different! The Atlanta 35 are government employees, sainted teachers and administrators, not evil business people. That makes all the difference in the world! They were just doing it for the children!
PS: [reference my comment at 6:54 today]...the little note book I cited a civilian source for is also available through the Althouse Amazon portal.
Aridog,
It is what I was told my superiors did back about 1961-62 when word came down from the Kennedy Administration that they would justify construction of the Trinidad Dam in Colorado, or heads would roll.
At White Sands Missile Range a little later, the inspectors all kept two diaries like you mention, one to turn in a the end of the project and one to keep at home. The back ground for that was that when the shit hit the fan from a recently completed hospital project, the inspectors' diaries had all mysteriously disappeared from the Area Office safe when the lawyers requested to see them.
Hagar ... I can't say I ever thought of trying to insert a qualifying statement on a specific topic in my personnel file...I assumed it wasn't possible, except in the case of a official written reprimand already being in that file [letters of reprimand only stay for two years in the military system]. I've had a few of those...when you sign one you are only stating that you received a copy, not that you agree with the issues outlined.
Either way I'd not have done it...no matter what position you take, you will be pissing someone off...why announce it? Again, I refer to the rule about not answering questions not asked...which is exactly what you are doing if not responding to an official interrogatory.
There is no question that you keep/kept a private diary, filed at home, that you don't share unless forced to do so ... no matter how many activity reports you file as part of your job. You can get in to trouble if you lie on an activity report, so refine your words to be ambiguous if necessary...the cake eaters will only see what they want to see, so ambiguity is safer.
Sad state of affairs, no?
I would get all excited and they would look at me sadly and say, "Hagar, if you had been here during the Great Depression, you would not say those things," and I would go, "What are you talking about!The Depression was over 20 years ago!" And they would say, "Yes, but if you had been here then, you would not say those things; you would be glad you have a job!"
Those people had completely lost their manhood and would put up with anything as long as their paychecks kept coming.
And I am afraid we might be breeding another generation to reinforce that attitude in government employees.
It's good to be wary of business and businessmen. Nothing is more suspect than entities and people engaging in voluntary exchanges. Especially so for those drug companies, what with their massive at-risk expenditures to bring products to market and all. No worries about businesses promoted by government though.
We in the lay people need to be very cautious where research is presented about gender differences. Have we accounted for perception bias, personal agendas or political correctness? Most time i doubt when it involves the battle of the sexes. One striking matter that as a man is how the academic (i did not say scientific) community goes out of its way to produce female positive messages in its research conclusions. We have heard over an over how marriage is beneficial to men in so many ways especially in terms of health and longevity. Yet i find this hard to believe. Men are closing the longevity gap and the are marrying much less. Bella De Paulo has uncovered the flaws where researchers lump the divorced with the single - in other words they took the 'cancer' from marriage and counted it with the single. But back to the topic here about women being ethical. Just look at youtube social experiments "gold digger prank" and you see a phenomenon that most people are aware of - women go after money and comfort and without any apologies about it. Hypergamy is socially acceptable. Lying to get an innocent person in jail for some serious offense - appears to be totally in the realm of female behavior – especially when she feels justified to hijack the legal system for her own revenge regardless of how many casualties her action takes even her own children, and what’s worse is that other women support this behavior even when they know she is lying deliberately. Aggressive/Parental alienation and psychological abuse of children, even serious physical harm to children - all seem to be typical female behavior. Even academics rush with faulty research to show that these phenomenon are so rare that we need to ignore them. Why is academia so flawed when it comes to studying female behavior - is it that researchers are so polarized that they cannot be objective - even males proudly side with those who support these problematic female behaviors, to the point where its prove that women receive very disproportionate sentences for serious offences that involve serious harm or death of someone else. In some western jurisdictions advocates are even suggesting that women not serve any jail time or that it be in mental health facilities because they are victims of our 'male centric" culture.
So can we really trust these articles advocating the superiority of women - whether it be intelligence, multitasking an now ethics and morality? I suggest not - that the answers are still out there and illusive as ever. Women of the Christian Temperance Union who framed the 18th amendment, always considered themselves to be of superior moral fiber – why should they think any different today. About ethics and comparison of the sexes – who do you think is more likely to get justice a man before a female judge in a family court matter or a woman before a male judge in a family court matter? Lets not kid ourselves.
Post a Comment