r/SeriousGynarchy

On the recent negotiation thread I commented this website. Well i spent some time reading a few more of their articles and I came across this one:

https://www.shenegotiates.com/blog/2022/1/11/why-some-deals-fall-apart-for-apparently-no-reason

It's a short explanation of a simple solution. It's almost too short and too simple. So I duck'd a term I found in the comments "Negotiator’s Dilemma" and found a much more in depth article which excellently explains the phenomenon and possible solutions

https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/managing-the-negotiators-dilemma-nb/

I find it fascinating as it discusses a common issue with negotiations which is that "First Offers Often Trigger Competition". With this matriarchy/gynarchy stuff, women are sticking their neck out there and making the first offer. We are starting the negotiations.

Some of you will hate a post like this in that I am seeming to be advocating for:

1. Telling men they've won

2. Giving up and turning our political movement into a request not a demand

3. Staying small, pretending to be powerless, trying to trick men

Well, you can see it that way if you want, but demanding a matriarchy out of men is just as bad or worse than requesting one. Men can't give us power, (they never had our power). We don't need to feel insecure about telling losers they've won (unless we secretly feel that we are the real losers).

Idk sometimes I feel like all the keys to women winning are already in our hands and most of us are just fighting a shadow and being afraid of exposing our own weakness, instead of taking the reigns and leading with the true strength that comes from vulnerability.

We are strong in cooperation, competition need not be a factor unless we make it one. And why? Negotiations always work better without competition mentality.

Here is an interesting article about women and men in business negotiations.

For years we've been told that "tough" or aggressive negotiation is the path to success, and that style has often been associated with men. Yet this research came to a different conclusion: women achieved the same financial outcomes while consistently leaving people feeling more respected, more satisfied, and more willing to negotiate with them again...even when participants couldn't identify the negotiator's gender.

That raises an interesting question. If leadership isn't just about winning once, but about building trust, cooperation, and relationships people actually want to return to, don't we want women to lead our negotiations teams? If we're smart, we do.

The researchers even say these advantages could compound over time into greater long-term opportunities.

Do you think this reflects something fundamentally different about female leadership? If so, what is it about women's approach that makes people prefer following, cooperating with, and working alongside them? And why do you think so many institutions still default to assuming male leadership is the norm despite evidence like this?

If you've ever heard of the Women's Christian Temperance Union, you probably came away thinking they were a bunch of crazy ladies out to close all the saloons. The truth is they were out to protect children, like women always do. Here's what really happened—and why we need women leading today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8znD-ul792w

Women only fought en masse for voting rights because when they lobbied every single state legislature in the country demanding to raise the age of sexual consent that MEN set as young as 7 years old, the all male legislatures refused and mocked the women of the Christian Temperance movement for daring to challenge their sexual entitlements.

And YES it was Christian women who fought men for the political power to protect childr*n.