People have been drawing some interesting correlations about the current economic crisis, such as the fact that the people in charge of all the money were mostly all… men.
“Wall Street is one of the most male-dominated bastions in the business world… Aside from issues of fairness, there’s evidence that the result is second-rate decision-making.”
“That study found that men are particularly likely to make high-risk bets when under financial pressure and surrounded by other males of similar status. As for women, their risk-taking was unaffected by this kind of peer pressure.”
And the Washington Post summarized it as One Gender’s Crash:
“We need women in leadership positions not only because they can manage as well as men but because they manage differently than men; because they tend — over time and in the aggregate — to make different kinds of decisions and to accept and avoid different kinds of risk. We need women who will say no to bad decisions based on male-dominated rivalries and clubby golf course confidences. We need women to blow the whistle when risks explode and to challenge the presumptions that too many men, clustered too closely together and sharing a common worldview, can easily indulge.”
I find the correlation to leadership in the Church to be striking. “We need women in leadership positions… because they manage differently.” Here’s why.
“It is not good for man to be alone” (Gen. 2:18). I think the articles above have provided plenty of confirmation of why that’s still true. Women counterbalance men. A hundred years ago it was said that women “civilized” men. Yet man consistently shuts this helper out of much of the decision-making process. Even if you choose to interpret that verse as exclusively referring to marriage, there’s still this: “God created man in his own image… male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Many people aren’t sure how to feel about the female aspect of God, and yet there it is. The counterbalance exists within God’s own image – we are part of the same whole. Complimentarians in particular shoot themselves in the foot with this one, claiming complimentary roles and gifts, while simultaneously excluding many of those very gifts from leadership, where a representative balance of God’s image would be most beneficial to the body of Christ.