#is higher than that of winners for lead role. And that is despite many male lead-role winners being over 50.

[langernameohnebedeutung]

I get the “older” actors thing but Chris Evans is actually talented. Many don’t know of his non Marvel movies. Wrong actor to use that against. Dude has been acting since he was a pre teen. I advise to go watch Snowpiercer, Sunshine, The Ice Man, Defending Jacob, Gifted, and Knives Out. I know people talk about his looks a lot but he’s given some great performances that should not be shunned just because people think he’s hot. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Dude wasn’t randomly spotted or knew someone who knew someone, he went after a dream and put himself out there not knowing if he would be successful or not, on top of that he’s gotten this far, has a beautiful career while battling mental health issues so yeah that’s a win for me. He’s good but could be great and I will say he’s a natural in front of that camera, especially in comedy….the movie the losers, his character was a great comic relief. If you have time look up the movie Puncture and tell me what you think. 😊

I think new Gen Z actors and some older ones….. and the ones where you see them all the time but can’t even name one show or movie, or you finally watch them in a film that was hyped up and you watch their performance and it’s like…..seriously? Many actors today lack charisma AND talent. Or you can tell acting to them is just reading words back. But others I see potential of greatness …they just need a better roles or more experience. An actor who is talked about a lot but I can’t tell you one performance that has made me go …wow he’s talented is Michael B Jordan. 🤣

I mean, I've seen Knives Out and he didn't bother me...but also he didn't particularly stand out to me? Maybe I was a bit harsh saying he only gets the roles for his looks but I've genuinely never seen a single scene with him in it where I thought: 'wow, no other actor could have done this like him' or 'I got to go back to see that film for him!'

There are sometimes scenes in movies where I actually skip back and watch the same scene or line several times in a row, just to see that again or hear that again. And there are many scenes that are just legendary on their own for the acting that's being delivered.

And to me, I never had that kind of moment with Evans. Which, again, maybe I was being a bit too harsh saying it's just about looks. It's okay. He gets his job done and it's not like he shatters my immersion or does anything that really bothers or annoys me. He's just there and does his performance. But (taking the example of Knives Out which I did watch two times) - the performances I think of are Daniel Craig's. Jamie Lee Curtis'. Christopher Plummer's. And again, Chris Evans didn't bother me or annoy me. (and in fairness, the plot calls for him to not stand out much for a large chunk of the film).

But if they announced tomorrow, that they were going to remake Knives Out, I wouldn't have any second thoughts or feelings on them recasting that role, while (for example), having another actor fill the shoes of Daniel Craig in that one would have me at a bit of 'but that's Daniel Craig's role??'

I googled Puncture and it genuinely looks interesting to me from the description, so I might give it a chance. Plus, I've read one review that really praises his performance and compares him to Al Pacino.

Tbh, I've only seen Michael B Jordan in one episode of House and Black Panther. I don't really remember him on House but that doesn't say anything imo because I barely remember anything after season 6-7 when the show got bad. I do think he was solid in Black Panther (although I might be biased because I really liked his character). I was actually planning to check out Fahrenheit 451 (the tv-show) at some point where he plays Montag (which is a character I hate, so I'll be less biased lmao) but I was kind of held off because what I've seen of the lighting and scenes and the whole...cyberpunk vibe didn't really fit the vision I had when reading the book which was a less glossy and elegant... and the tv-show gives me 'hey, fellow kids, we made this classic look coool'-vibes. but I digress).

I feel like Black Panther is a good example for what I'm trying to say (though what I said isn't about any singular film. Of course I'm not opposed to films about young people) though because as a movie, it had many great performances! Chadwick Boseman was amazing in his role! His scene with his father on the ancestral plane, the way he portrays that feeling of betrayal and upheaval is definitely one of those scenes that I love to linger on and watch two times, three times, because it is just genuinely really good acting. It's probably one of the strongest scenes in the MCU.

But also, another performance that really stood out to me was Angela Bassett's and I feel like she doesn't get enough credit for it. She's so authentic and effortless. She can communicate so much with just her eyes - she's absolutely convincing in the way she balances the warmth and the composure of her role. And she brings that same authenticity and complexity to her characters on AHS (literally every scene with her and Jessica Lange in Coven is just ??? so good??). You can just tell that she brings 40 years of acting experience to the table - and knows how to use that experience to really incorporate traits and features into her character in a way that just...doesn't feel like acting at all. It seems so natural. Even just wearing the costumes she does in that movie and moving and acting in them in ways that make you go: 'yeah, this character has been wearing clothes like that her entire life' is already a big feat of acting.

There are actually a lot of scenes in Black Panther that make me wish there were actually fewer other characters on screen because it would have put more focus on Angela Bassett and more time to just...see her act/give her character more independence from the other characters around her, but she's just not given that position. Which is fine, because it's T'Challa's story.

My problem really isn't with any singular show or film - but the overall tendency that the industry has to place older actors with a lot of talent and experience in the backseat. Which isn't a problem when you have strong actors in the main-roles - but it does become a problem when you sit there through the main-characters' plot always wishing to see their grandpa give an Oscar-worthy performance in his chair by the fireplace again.

#I actually googled it and I do think it's telling that the average age for Oscar winners in -best supporting role- #is higher than that of winners for lead role. And that is despite many male lead-role winners being over 50.

[predatoryfuzzball]

Debunking the “Male Privilege” Meme:

I've seen this post shared around on on a slew of conservative pages, despite the fact that many of its statistics are misleading and imply gender discrimination/bias where there is none. The following is my rebuttal: 1. Combat deaths are 97% men and 3% women — Of the three sources given for this particular statistic, only one link actually still works. This is mostly likely due to the age of the meme and of no fault of its creator(s). The only accessible citation was from a marketing publication by the name of "Hat Research Group" [1]. The PDF itself is a compiling of data from various sources to create two separate tables regarding "America's major wars". One table outlines the percentage of the American population that was enrolled in the military during these major conflicts and the second outlines the number of soldiers wounded and killed in these conflicts overtime. Neither so much as mention gender. I'm curious as to wether or not the creator(s) actually read the PDF they're citing or wether they just put it there to give their post a false sense of credibility. 

That being said, men are more likely to die in combat. The Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAF) collects data on the demographics of wounded and killed soldiers during the United State's recent wars and operations. It's obvious going through this data that men make up the vast majority of casualties [2]. However, focusing solely on combat deaths is simplistic at best. It's well known that vast majority of war casualties are not the result of combat, even when you include civilians. One study compared the amount of deaths in direct military confrontation (including civilians) to the amount killed indirectly due to the famine, disease, poverty, poor infrastructure, etc. caused by a series of modern African conflicts. They found that battle deaths only accounted for about 6% of war casualties on average [3]. This becomes particularly relevant when you consider the fact that women are significantly more likely to be killed by these indirect factors when compared to men. 

According to a review of multiple studies by PIRO, "men die more frequently than women in direct armed conflicts, while more women than men die in post-conflict situations of the indirect causes of war" [4]. That said, the study also makes clear that "[i]t is still unclear what it is about these post conflict situations that leads to all these female deaths and this is a research area that merits more attention". Regardless of the cause, it's not inaccurate to state that women are the primary victims of war. 

Moreover, the reason that the majority of combatant deaths are men is because of the propagation of traditional gender roles that feminists seek to abolish. Thus, using it in this context only serves to address one of the main points of the feminist movement.

2. Homicide victims are 76% men, 24% women — Of the 8 sources presented, none of them have anything to due with homicide. Of the two sources that had to do with criminal law, one links to a paragraph of commentary from the National Coalition For Men on an article from the Seattle Times regarding the sentencing gap [5], and the second was to a 2001 study from the University of Georgia also regarding the sentencing gap [6]. Neither of these have to do with homicides or any of statistics presented here. 

That being said, according to the FBI, men represent about 71% of homicide victims [7]. However, this is not evidence of criminal gender bias or female privilege. For example, in mass shootings, the victims are 37% women, 36% men, and 27% children [8]. This isn't consistent with the idea that felons primarily target men and avoid hurting women due to either conscious or subconscious biases. If mass shooters were biased towards women, we would see a decline in the percentage of female victims in randomized acts of murder.

In Canada during 2012, 15% of homicides were related to illegal professions [9] such as the drug trade, this number appears to be consistent in most other Western nations. Men make up the vast majority of involvement these illicit professions, including in the drug trade. While this doesn't explain away the whole disparity, it would explain why the the number of male homicide victims has been slowly declining alongside the rate of violent crime over the past two decades [10]. I suspect that the rest of the disparity has to do with the fact that men are more likely to take risks due to various factors. This is not me trying to victim-blame, I'm merely trying to describe demographic trends. The reason why men make up the majority of homicides is most likely the same reason why men make up 94% of shark attacks victims [11] and 81% of people who are struck by lighting [12]. In case you weren't already aware, sharks and lightening aren't misandrist.

3. Industrial deaths and accidents are 93% men and 7% women — Once again, out of all eight links given, none of them mention industrial deaths and accidents. However, men still make up the vast majority of workplace deaths [13]. There is not much that I can say in regards to this particular point other than the fact that it is partially an example of traditional gender roles at play, something that feminists have long sought to abolish.

4. Suicide victims are 80% men, 20% women — This is one of the few numbers presented that has a credible source [14], and it isn't one that I will question. Instead, I will argue that presenting it in this context ignores a larger picture. While men are more likely to commit suicide, the vast majority of attempted suicides occur among women [15]. This is commonly known as the gender paradox of suicidal behaviour. The reasons for this are partially due to the fact that men are more likely to use methods with higher rates of lethality. For instance, in 2005 the primary cause of death for American men who committed suicide was firearms (58%) while the primary cause of death for American women who committed suicide was poisoning (39%) [16]. This is not due to sexism of any kind, it's merely that suicidal men are more likely to be successful.

5. Winners of custody are 84% women, 16% men — While this is true, the reasons are not primarily due to bias in the family court system. In 51% of child custody cases, the decision is made by the parents with legal advice, in 29% of cases it was made by the parents without any third-part involvement, in 11% of cases the decision is made during mediation, 5% of time it's after a custody evaluation and only 4% of the time will the case actually go to trial [17]. All this tells us is that divorced fathers, on average, care less about child custody when compared to divorced mothers.

CITATIONS [1] http://archive.is/zOWJ6 [2] https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_oef_deaths.xhtml [3] https://www.prio.org/Global/upload/CSCW/Data/Monitoring%20trends%20in%20global%20combat%20EJP.pdf [4] http://file.prio.no/Publication_files/Prio/Armed%20Conflict%20Deaths%20Disaggregated%20by%20Gender.pdf [5] https://ncfm.org/2011/04/issues/criminal-sentencing/ [6] http://people.terry.uga.edu/mustard/sentencing.pdf [7] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6 [8] http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_55d3806ce4b07addcb44542a [9] http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2013001/article/11882-eng.htm#a1 [10] http://www.heuni.fi/material/attachments/heuni/projects/wd2vDSKcZ/Homicide_and_Gender.pdf [11] http://www.goshark.co.za/1/all/all/all [12] http://www.lightningsafety.noaa.gov/resources/RecentLightningDeaths.pdf [13] https://www.statista.com/statistics/187078/occupational-injury-death-rate-in-the-us-by-gender-since-1995/ [14] https://www.merckmanuals.com/professional/psychiatric-disorders/suicidal-behavior-and-self-injury/suicidal-behavior [15] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8205283/ [16] http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html [17] http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1617115

[mariahronnie-blog]

Essence and ethical issues of women in business in Eastern Europe

  Introduction

 Modern women in our world are becoming more and more independent thereby moving men to the background taking the turn with them on the social stage by changing their stereotypes that were perceived by her since childhood, but if a woman decided to climb the social ladder, she should Prepare to master another's territory. And the higher it goes up, the less around it will be representatives of the weaker sex. Thus, for a higher level, a woman needs to learn the rules of business conduct in the world of men. The participation of women in business in developed countries is a familiar phenomenon and is not surprising in the business world and society. Rather, it is respected by the fact that women show remarkable abilities and business qualities.

 Studies conducted by the US Census Bureau showed that the percentage of women with their own business increased by 20% between 1997-2002. The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), the company that is the foremost in the business enterprise research market, has found that in the United States at the moment, for every 100 male entrepreneurs, 89 women entrepreneurs are run by companies that are less than 42 months from the date of establishment.

 Their sisters in the UK seem to follow the same path. Despite the fact that women-headed enterprises are much smaller here than in the USA (46 women per 100 men), there is still an increase in the number of such companies. According to GEM, in the previous years, the total number of UK companies remained at the same place, but the difference between the number of men's and women's companies decreased by 40% in 2002 and continues to decrease.

 The contrast in the whole world is obvious. Women continue to find it difficult to overcome the barrier between the middle and top management link. Only 11 out of 100 FTSE companies in 2005 held executive directors of women, a figure that is actually lower than in the previous three years.

 In 22 out of 100 companies all board members are men. In the States, approximately 13 percent of board members of 500-companies, according to Fortune magazine, are women. In 2005, the number of women directors of companies (CEOs) in these enterprises decreased from 9 to negligible.

 Thus, on the one hand, there has been a tendency to increase enterprises headed by women, and on the other, the increase in the number of women in leading positions is completely invisible, and according to some reports, even falls.

 At this rate of change, we must wait for the second half of this century to approach parity in the company's board. This statistic is a blow to the old myth that women can not rise to the heights of management, as they lack entrepreneurialism and self-confidence, and there is only a desire to overcome the prevailing opinion in society that it is impossible for women to occupy top positions.

 When it comes to fighting in large companies at the average level

Managers, many rushing to the top, and beginning business owners, there will be only one winner. Forget, the empty chatter about corporate stresses, high goals and long hours of work, it's all about sharing pie.

 Moreover, Korn / Ferry and Columbia Business School, conducted a study entitled "Why Women Executives Leave Corporate America for Entrepreneurial Ventures," which found that 41% of those who took this step indicated their family and personal circumstances as the main reasons for their departure, 78% To test their abilities, and 65% wanted to influence the strategy of their companies.

 Penina Thompson, co-author of A Woman's Place in the Boardroom, writes that in this patriarchal environment, the most impatient and imaginative women are forced to leave the company and "test their potential" elsewhere - often in their own companies.

 The billionaire investor, Warren Buffet, is an ardent supporter of women's leadership. He publicly announced that the famous journalist / editor Carol Loomis and Katharine Graham, who led the Washington Post for more than two decades, set an example for him to follow. He also advocated the expansion of business opportunities for women in his popular essay, which was published in the magazine Fortune in 2013.

 Kevin O'Leary, an investor in the cycle of American reality shows SharkTank, agrees that women are of great value when it comes to successful business management. In a recent article published on the Business Insider news portal, he said that of the 27 companies that he is an investor, no firm under the management of a man surpassed the organizations that are ruled by women. By the way, women occupy 55% of the positions of the CEO in his companies.

 These results are consistent with studies that show that women entrepreneurs achieve excellent results when compared to their male counterparts:

 Private IT companies, run by women, demonstrate greater capital efficiency, and also bring a 35% higher return on investment. When they get venture financing, they bring in 12% more profit than IT-companies run by men (taken from the Kauffman Foundation report "Women and IT: Evolution that will save the world").

 Venture companies with more women in top management are more likely to achieve positive results than companies solely with men in leadership (taken from the Dow Jones VentureSource report "Women at the helm: do they manage as leaders to lead a startup to success?")

 Women-headed venture firms that invest in enterprises outperform firms run by men (according to the results of the SBA Office of Advocacy study).

 Methodology

 Formulation and substantiation of the problem

 This study is devoted to the study of the role of women in modern business.

 In many countries the problem of "gender-based separation" has always been the case, and often developed into discrimination against women, in the belittling of her rights. With the problem of "hidden" discrimination, of course, every woman faced: employers, especially in the business sector, often prefer not to take on responsible positions of women, motivating it in various ways (for example, the possibility of downtime due to maternity leave), but never Not acknowledging the main thing: in the modern society there continues to exist a stereotype that a woman, as a being of the weaker sex, simply can not cope with any kind of responsible task.

 One significant problem related to the restriction of career advancement of women to senior management positions. Many women run into the so-called "glass ceiling (or wall)", which is a weak discrimination that does not allow them to occupy the highest positions. In Western and Eastern Europe, women are often denied promotion, because many believe that they are less interested in work and are more attached to the family than their male counterparts. According to experts, a good way to combat this prejudice is to provide

Women of two different career paths: fast - for those who believe that work has the highest priority, and the so-called mother's way - for those who want to more evenly distribute their time between work and family.

 Although many women are concerned about the concept of the "mother" way, because they think that it can serve to justify discrimination, 82% of the 1000 professional women showed in the survey that they would rather prefer a career path that combines a flexible work schedule, A full working week, the opportunity to spend more time on the family, albeit with a slower promotion, than a path that involves rapid promotion, combined with a hard work schedule.

 Another common problem faced by working women is the problem of sexual harassment. This problem concerns not only women, but also men. However, the number of sexual harassment against women is several times greater (at least in our days) than in relation to men. According to the definition of the US Commission for the Equal Employment Opportunity, sexual harassment is an unprovoked sexual desire, an attempt to gain favor and other verbal and physical actions of a sexual nature directed at an employee who have an impact on his or her activity and career. Studies show that most often sexual harassment is directed from the boss to the subordinate. The Enlightenment consists of conducting special seminars and conferences, warning its employees of dismissal when proving sexual harassment in the organization. The firm can also develop a special policy in the field of preventing sexual harassment.

 However, today, the situation has begun to change dramatically. Twenty years ago to see a woman driving a car, to put it mildly, was considered a great rarity - today women own and drive cars on a par with men. Twenty years ago there were practically no women in the highest political elite - today some of them occupy key positions in the government, political parties; Are the heads of subjects of the federation. Twenty years ago the concept of "a woman in business", "an entrepreneur woman" caused a smile from a common man in the street, today they cause respect. What happened in those twenty years? How and why has the public consciousness changed - or, perhaps, the women themselves have changed?

 The head of the State Committee for Entrepreneurship of Russia, Alexandera Kuzhel, said in an interview: "Thanks to their natural abilities, women can adapt to new market relations much faster than men." And most sociologists agree with her words. When I was preparing to write this paper, I came across an interesting expression: "Doing business is the same as riding a bicycle: either you move or you fall." This phrase perfectly reflects the content of my research.

 It seems to me that the conflict between the male and female leadership styles is somewhat incorrect. After all, when we talk about business, here the borders that relate to sex are blurred. And if we focus on making decisions in business on who is before us: a woman or a man, then this is not going forward on that same bicycle, it's not a business. This, at best, is the fallout from the saddle of the process in which all the progressive world of humanity participates.

 My opinion might contradict the "generally accepted" point of view. Therefore, I would like to devote my work to answering the question: a woman in business: who is she? It will be appropriate to begin with the history of the issue. The woman - leader as a phenomenon in Russia only declares itself. In my opinion, in our country historically there are no prerequisites for this. The Soviet system limited the person's personality, his freedom in everything, including the possibility for women to occupy top positions in the production and government structure. The patriarchal way of life of Russia did not allow career growth for a woman, limiting her to the kitchen, children and home. According to the Center for the Study of Public Opinion, just under 10% of women held senior positions in the late 1980s.

 In the USSR and the countries of Eastern Europe (social camp), women hardly participated in making economic decisions, since they were poorly represented in key positions in the economy. In Hungary, for example, in the mid-80's. Almost 90% of the top management were men [1]. Women were appointed to managerial positions in strategically less important sectors, in particular, in retail, in hotel and restaurant business, and in the textile industry.

 With the advent of the market, women began to penetrate more actively in business management, including large ones. Over the past ten years, Russia has made a huge leap in building a democratic state with a market economy. Such a path of the state of Europe passed for decades, quite smoothly and without shocks. Russia had to repeat the same path, but a much shorter period of time. Many of the phenomena and trends that accompanied this path are not always adequately perceived by society. Not because they are good or bad, but because the stereotype of thinking that has developed over many decades is not ready for their perception.

 That's such a bright phenomenon, I would call a woman in business, a business lady. According to statistics, the number of women who occupy a leading position in business is steadily growing. In 1996, out of 200 large business enterprises, already in a quarter of the companies leading posts were held by women, and now average management in Russia is 60-65% represented by women.

 In addition, the interesting fact is that with the arrival of the market, the so-called "women's layer" appeared in the top management of those enterprises that required crisis management. And society, most likely, will have to break the entrenched stereotypes about the female leader. And there are many such stereotypes. So, for example, it is believed that women in business pay less attention to the main thing, more trifles; Less content and more form; Make less emphasis on the prospect, more on current problems. They pay less attention to the production of money than to their preservation. Men, respectively, vice versa.

 A typical antiscientific stereotype is the view that female managers are often forced to fall under the influence of their subordinate men in matters of the future of the company, its strategy. This stereotype is based on the view that strategy requires a more rational approach, rather than intuition. Although practice shows that everything can not be calculated and driven into a rational mathematical framework. It is intuition that allows you to create creative lines of behavior in a business environment with many unknowns. And strategy, successful strategy is rather a prediction. And when they talk about foresight, they often remember a woman.

 I would like to reinforce my research with those researches in the field of psychology, sociology and marketing conducted by scientists all over Europe. In the following parts of the work, a detailed analysis of a number of such studies will be given, but now I would like to dwell on some of them. In 1997, the Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences conducted a number of interesting studies. When asked why women can not successfully run a business, respondents named the following reasons: 22% "simply" believe that women are not at all capable of doing business. 22% sympathize with women, but feel that it is more difficult for them to get support from officials, take a loan from a bank, etc .; 12% paid attention to the fact that it is more difficult for women, for some reason, to get an appropriate education; And 21% note the resistance of relatives, relatives, their families engaged in business. What comments can there be here? Socrates also expressed the following words: "Three things can be considered happiness: that you are not a wild animal, that you are a Greek, and not a barbarian, and that you are a man, and not a woman." Almost two and a half millennia passed since the days of Socrates, and the situation has changed little.

 This issue of leadership effectiveness, depending on gender, has been discussed by researchers for more than a decade. Most foreign scientists do not find any difference in the effectiveness of leadership between men and women in general. So, American researchers Nayv and Gatek believe that at a certain stage of career growth, the top priority of an effective leader is his professionalism.

 Here I would like to quote one short parable. Once, three builders were asked what they were doing. The first one answered that he was killing stones, the second one was making a living, and the third one said: "I'm building a temple." I think that many will agree with me that the attitude towards their business is very important in business. Yes, there is an opinion that the so-called "female" leadership style is that women tend to focus on relationships within the collective, as they are by nature emotional. And men, because by their nature they are considered more persistent and goal-oriented, in their leadership are guided by the task. According to psychologists, the reasons for this separation of leadership styles can be personal characteristics of a businessman, his character and temperament or a certain situation, and not sexual characteristics.

 According to psychologists, the reasons for this separation of leadership styles can be personal characteristics of a businessman, his character and temperament or a certain situation, and not sexual characteristics. Perhaps a woman by nature is more wise and adaptive than a man. And this creates a certain style or, say, the illusion of style. I think that we can not make generalizations here, but on average this is probably so. Life consists of some compromises and half-tones, and most importantly - to see and realize them. And when you see, you realize and feel, this is exactly the wisdom of management. Another common stereotype suggests that women decision-makers use more understanding, gentleness and love for people. And men are supporters of a detached expert evaluation

 Experts on this occasion say that both women and men professional top managers - are not explicit supporters of just one style of leadership and decision-making. It is appropriate to talk about the so-called variability. As a rule, effective businessmen unconsciously, again intuitively combine different strategies of leadership and management. Psychologists note that there is such an opinion: a woman-top manager builds more cautious relations with her business partners, avoiding too risky strategies. However, this does not mean that a woman does not know how to take risks. The same studies have shown that both men and women - leaders almost equally evaluate their own abilities to take risky decisions.

 Psychologists say that the qualities of an effective entrepreneur are of a common nature and do not directly depend on sex. According to the same research, the men and women of top managers have the same professional qualities: ability to act in situations of conflict and risk, constant readiness for change and innovation, ability to effectively use the skills and abilities of other people, ability to resist pressure and pressure, defend Its position. Another conclusion of psychologists seemed interesting to me: successful entrepreneurs are those who, regardless of their gender, have a psychological scenario of behavior - managers. This means that both men and women have almost equal psychological capabilities for managing the enterprise. The characteristics of the floor are practically not limiting for successful leadership.

 According to the research, the most pronounced motives for both women and men of top managers are: self-realization and self-assertion, the desire to prove one's own peculiarity, non-standardity - 40%, interest in the profession - 30%, material well-being and independence - 30%. The phased implementation of them creates more ambitious goals and aspirations. In my opinion, in modern society it is hidden, intuitive, but nevertheless there is a desire to extol the masculine and belittle feminine. I think that this is wrong. Yet this stereotype idea that a woman in business is, first of all, a weak woman with her tricks, style of behavior, gentleness, tolerance and so on. You know, I recall this famous phrase: "Every desert is proud of its mirages." We should strive to get rid of such stereotypes, and not to show them to the world, which has long crossed this line.

Goals and objectives of the study

 Based on the foregoing, I would like to formulate the goals and objectives of my research.

The main tasks of my work, I would call analysis of research conducted on this topic, the definition of the characteristics of women's business, the search and formulation of problems, the proposal of their options for solving these problems. The main goal of my research is to try to prove that success in the sphere of business and management does not depend on the gender of the entrepreneur or manager; That the concepts of "male" and "female" business are not so different from each other. In addition, to the purposes of this study, I would attribute an attempt to prove that in recent years the role of women in business has increased, almost equaling the male. An answer will be given to the question of what causes prevent women from fully developing their abilities in business, how to resist stereotypes, and what methods of overcoming the above problems exist in Eastern European and worldwide practices.

 Object and subject of research

 The object of the study is a social group of women entrepreneurs. This group is characterized by its heterogeneity, which causes certain difficulties in the analysis of personal data: to clarify the results of elections after the study, it seemed to me appropriate to divide the category of women entrepreneurs into three groups. The first unites the convinced business woman. The motivation for their choice is an inner desire to become an entrepreneur, an interest in this type of activity. They came into the business of goodwill and with the most serious intentions (one third of the surveyed population). The second, and the most numerous type, which absorbed half of the business lady, united entrepreneurs "on occasion." They took their decision spontaneously, under the influence of unexpected random circumstances (on the advice or example of friends, unexpected favorable prospects, newspaper information, etc.). And, finally, the third type - entrepreneurs involuntarily - united women who did not voluntarily come into business. They were forced by force of various unfavorable circumstances to open their business. This is the smallest group - 1/5 of all surveyed. The motivation for their choice is real unemployment or the threat of unemployment, lack of means to live, non-payment of wages, and pressure from outside.