Why I Named My Blog, "PROVOCATIVE INSPIRATION"

Reasons !!

This is the first time that I have decided to share personal information about me and why I named my blog, "Provocative Inspiration". In an Epistemology course, (theory of knowledge). The Traditional Analysis of Knowledge (TAK) does not believe that inspiration is a source of knowledge. It claims 

Almost everything that we know originates from four basic sources:

·         Senses                   (possibly the most important)

·         Authority    (knowledge from other sources, hopefully experts)

·         Reason                 

·         Intuition                

I argued that inspiration is also a source of knowledge and wrote some papers defending my thesis. 

I am inspired all the time and it has been a true learning experience for me, thus the title, 
Provocative  Inspiration

 I am an African-American male with a Ph.D. in Health Care Administration. I have a post-doctoral M.Div. from the Harvard Divinity School and a post-doc M.A. in Philosophy (need to defend thesis). My special areas of interest are Ethics, Medical Ethics, Health Care Ethics and Phenomenology. I do a lot of reflective thinking most of my days and look around my world with care and understanding. Each entry (blog) touches my moral center. Almost a third of my blogs is intellectual property, including papers that I have written. The other blogs are articles that I have read and make me go, "oh oh!". Thanks for reading my blog

PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE BELOW FIRST "

The Debate About 'Feminine Traits' At The Office Is Getting Absurd

I struggle to tell the truth. Having said that, this response is an intellectual reflection on what I have seen, witnessed and experienced. I never mean to be offensive

This particular article inspired me to respond to Corporate America and some of its values. One of the first things that comes to my mind in this article, is "the old boys club". And distant to this idea is the idea of college fraternities. Some of us believe that fraternities are a replacement supply for the "old boys club". Money and Privilege!

Corporate America, White men, believe that they know what is best for humanity in its larger sense; and, in addition, what is best for any particular social group. This type of thinking ideal or notion interferes with the fundamental idea of human dignity and worth. The respect for human dignity and worth gives to a rational being a sense of innate being in the world. Along with this sense of innate being in the world, there is a rational need for social beings to make contributions. From the perspective of phenomenology, philosophers who support this philosophical sub discipline explain why all rational beings can make meaningful contribution to an idea or concept as it relates to "parts and whole".

Having said that, we come to a moral and/or theological question; who decides what attributes that rational beings should have? And, especially, when it comes to men vs women and minorities. In the office, why should it matter who possesses the qualities for a successful business. It appears that some other type of misused social construction is the operative deciding factor in deciding who's who. The reality is, "some men are strong. some men are weak; some women are strong, some women are weak".

The second idea in the article,  "feminine emotions"  even if this means crying at work . She says women need to stop pretending that they're not human at the office" sparks my imagination. First of all, crying is healthful and purging with a lot of other humane benefits. One of the outstanding ideas in feminist theory, not included in male theory, is  the idea of nurturing and caring. All men have been nurtured by a woman, their mother. All great men, including Jesus of Nazareth, Einstein, Michaelangelo, etc. had mothers who nurtured and cared for them. Mothers started the nurturing process that resulted in all of these men becoming  successful in their chosen art or work. This same behavior from women can certainly be transferred to the work place with the idea of "success" in mind

Finally, in this argument about the validity of gender issues, a woman should be permitted to exhibit any type of strength that she might have if it is who she is.  Many things have preserved because of a strong and assertive woman. Many strong women have saved families, friends, communities and businesses, as well.

The Debate About 'Feminine Traits' At The Office Is Getting Absurd

By Vivian Giang and Gus Lubin | Business Insider – 8 hours ago

• Email
• Print

It seems like everyone is arguing about whether feminine traits are a strength or weakness for executives.

Sheryl Sandberg says in her controversial book  that women should embrace their  "feminine emotions"  even if this means crying at work . She says women need to stop pretending that they're not human at the office.

Ashleigh Shelby Rosette,   an associate professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, writes in The New York Times that the  skills women naturally posses, such as "demonstrating respect and sensitivity" and "taking an interest in employees" elicit trust from employees, creating a more productive work environment.

But Alan Goldman, a professor of management at Arizona State University West  disagrees in another Times articles called "Tough Guys Win For A Reason."  Goldman, who consults Fortune 500 companies, says that  "[d]espite current attempts at demonizing old-school male behavior, it continues to rule" and that  the "veneer of male dominance" is what's going to earn you respect in the end.  In short, women need to be more assertive and self-promoting because  "distasteful male leadership works."

So what's the answer? Should women at the office behave like men or like women?

We think this obsession with characterizing traits as "male" or "female" is getting absurd.

First of all, anyone who has taken a gender studies course in college will tell you that these terms are problematic. Calling assertiveness a male trait, for instance, references thousands of years of human history when women were not granted equal rights and were discouraged from asserting themselves. Thinking in these terms is not only meaningless, but it also reinforces sexist assumptions.

Second, it's ridiculous to think that anyone should choose between two positive traits. You don't have to decide whether to be a compassionate person or an aggressive person. A good executive, or person, exhibits a wide range of positive traits.

While the rise of women to the board room is a major opportunity to shake up old ways of doing things, it helps no one to cling to unenlightened gender norms.

IT WOULD BE VERY APPRECIATED IF YOU SENT A LINE OR TWO IN RESPONSE. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU THINK. Thanks for reading my blog !!!

Donnell