WP: Percentage of women in executive-level roles declined from 12.2% to 11.8% in 2023

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I already know that I’m gonna get jumped by a bunch of red avatars for saying this, but men are just naturally more inclined towards leadership positions, so even in a society where sexism is nonexistent,  >50% of executives will be men. I’m not saying that sexism isn’t holding any women back from becoming executives, I just don’t think it’s the main factor. I’m also not saying that someone should be held back from being promoted to an executive position just because they’re a women. I’m just saying that Generic Male will be a bit more inclined towards leadership positions than Generic Female. Maybe in a post-sexism society, the amount of females in leadership positions would be 35%, maybe 25%, or maybe even 12%. Idk how much more inclined the male mind is towards leadership than the female mind, but I don’t think the ratio would ever naturally be 50/50

Why should women prioritize stressful and hours-consuming executive jobs when they could just raise children or take advantage of the fact society doesn't require them to personally earn a living just to support themselves?
The sheer focus on 50/50 everything is stupid, silly, and deranged. The genders are different. To think you can brute force 50/50 or that all women are the same as all men in how they look at this, on a biological level, is anti-scientific nonsense.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Humble idea: require that by 2030, 50% of all elementary school teachers are male.
If we're pushing 50/50 stuff we need to apply it to both genders equally.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I already know that I’m gonna get jumped by a bunch of red avatars for saying this, but men are just naturally more inclined towards leadership positions, so even in a society where sexism is nonexistent,  >50% of executives will be men. I’m not saying that sexism isn’t holding any women back from becoming executives, I just don’t think it’s the main factor. I’m also not saying that someone should be held back from being promoted to an executive position just because they’re a women. I’m just saying that Generic Male will be a bit more inclined towards leadership positions than Generic Female. Maybe in a post-sexism society, the amount of females in leadership positions would be 35%, maybe 25%, or maybe even 12%. Idk how much more inclined the male mind is towards leadership than the female mind, but I don’t think the ratio would ever naturally be 50/50

Why should women prioritize stressful and hours-consuming executive jobs when they could just raise children or take advantage of the fact society doesn't require them to personally earn a living just to support themselves?
The sheer focus on 50/50 everything is stupid, silly, and deranged. The genders are different. To think you can brute force 50/50 or that all women are the same as all men in how they look at this, on a biological level, is anti-scientific nonsense.

Because, famously, raising children isn't a time consuming and stressful thing to do  

Also Tim do you really think women are being forced to be executives against their will to ensure parity in gender?

Executive jobs as in the kind being discussed here are a different kettle of fish and don't really operate within the same space. To be frank, it's a clear downgrade from a household where women frequently have far more control for the same amount of effort. As such, yes, the time is an issue. It's plainly not as rewarding. Why subject yourself to the sheer pressure of top suite executive positions when you could effectively at least quasi-dominate a household instead? (fun fact: women control over 80% of consumer spending in the United States)
You'd have to brute force women to become top level executives or give them the proper incentives to actually get them to reach 50% collectively. In fact such conditions did exist, particularly in societies that insisted men did the fighting, and you had women within managerial families operate said businesses. In which cases, the share of female effectively-executives was well above 50%. But this is a very different system to our own today and, is still rooted in gender roles.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Making everything a game of males and females are given given percentage just pits each gender against each other doesn't it? I could care less about specifically what percentage of executives are women, I care more about the collective happiness, long-term, of men and women alike, considered together.
In a war between the sexes both men and women lose.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I guess most mammal species are also sexist because the leaders of their packs are pretty much always males.

Why do you guys always make these stupid “muh animal kingdom” arguments? Human beings and animals are not even remotely comparable, because animals do not possess the same cognitive abilities that humans do.

Across a large variety of species which don't have the same types of societal pressures as humans, there are notable differences in male and female behaviors. It's not unreasonable to assume male and female humans might naturally be attracted to persue different roles.

Exactly.
Denying there could be any possible ground for gender differences in what people could do is in fact denying science. These aren't inevitably going to win out in all cases but it will impact the decision-making process.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The "patriarchy" is mostly a myth.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I already know that I’m gonna get jumped by a bunch of red avatars for saying this, but men are just naturally more inclined towards leadership positions, so even in a society where sexism is nonexistent,  >50% of executives will be men. I’m not saying that sexism isn’t holding any women back from becoming executives, I just don’t think it’s the main factor. I’m also not saying that someone should be held back from being promoted to an executive position just because they’re a women. I’m just saying that Generic Male will be a bit more inclined towards leadership positions than Generic Female. Maybe in a post-sexism society, the amount of females in leadership positions would be 35%, maybe 25%, or maybe even 12%. Idk how much more inclined the male mind is towards leadership than the female mind, but I don’t think the ratio would ever naturally be 50/50

[citation needed]

Nature, history, etc.

Least sexist Atlas poster

I guess most mammal species are also sexist because the leaders of their packs are pretty much always males. It’s not sexist to point out that men and women, when compared as an aggregate, have different preferences. It’d be sexist if I said that men are just straight up better than women overall or women are literally incapable of being leaders, which is not what I said.

Let me spell it out for you in very simple terms because it seems very hard to understand for the extremely intelligent, apparently leadership-inclined atlas males. First, there are animals where females take leadership roles, and animals where male do. This is a fact. Second, I hope you will agree, humans are unique in how developed they are as a society- it is extremely influential on human attitudes and actions historically. Human society has developed as a patriarchal society, and as these attitudes lessened somehow in recent years, so did women’s roles in many countries radically changed. So far this is factual.

Taking in mind the huge influence of social attitudes on gendered behavior, how the hell can you claim to know exactly what women are naturally inclined for? In a society with zero societal influence you could have anywhere from 0% to 100% female executives, but a society with zero societal influence is impossible. When you try to use preference aggregation, numbers that are painfully obviously influenced by patriarchal norms, you just look ridiculous. So what we’re left with is pushing for equality, because patriarchal society does incredible harm to both men and women. When you come into this thread and claim to know something that is impossible to know- the true, unfiltered preferences of each sex absent society- the message you convey is simply “I don’t want women in leadership positions- here’s why”.

Idk how people keep on missing that I did say sexism probably is also playing a role here. The point I'm trying to make here is that this might not be as much of a problem to solve as many red avatars here think it is, not that I "don't want women in leadership positions".

No, you said that men are more naturally inclined to leadership positions than women, something you have absolutely no way of knowing for a fact considering the huge influence of societal attitudes. That you made the effort of making and defending that baseless claim leaves one with the inescapable thought that you take issue with efforts to change these attitudes.

It depends on what leadership roles we're talking about here. But clearly it seems despite countless pushes to try to increase the percentage we're seeing here and active promotion of affirmative action on this, American women still aren't biting. Top suite jobs aren't something that will ever be 50% women or more unless we remove men out of the picture through encouraging different pursuits. Case in point: my stated example of medieval European estates, where men were of course inclined to other facets of life and their wives managed the business for them. It's far from unheard of for Medieval European women to have been good money managers; Eleanor of Aquitaine was even a quite prolific property developer.
That's not necessarily the social model you want, though...
Daresay, in general to speak of American women as an particularly oppressed class by using terms like "patriarchy" is silly. Women control 80 percent of household spending.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Because, famously, raising children isn't a time consuming and stressful thing to do 

Also Tim do you really think women are being forced to be executives against their will to ensure parity in gender?

Alas, it is well documented that women lack certain abilities and skills to leave the house on their own without supervision. Oftentimes they require a family member, usually paternal, to guide them through the outside world.

Your decision to go after my ethnic background rather than my arguments speaks volumes.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom.

I do not give a damn about what wild animals do. Get that through your head.

Do you guys think that a supermajority of elementary school teachers are female because schools are discriminating against aspiring male elementary school teachers?

No, but the cultural value that “teaching=women’s job” is problematic and should be done away with. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that this value is both directly and info taught to everyone since birth is results in women going into teaching more, not “natural interest”.

It would be cool if we lived in a world where these almost obsolete primal instincts which developed as the result of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection no longer held any significant sway over us, but the simple fact is that they still do and you can't just close your eyes and cover your ears and pretend like they don't exist just because you wish they didn't.

It’s remarkable the degree to which you confidently speak of a subject that you know nothing about.

You need to get it through your head that humans ARE animals, even if we are the best among them. This anti-science belief of yours is a relic of your Christian upbringing. We are thus prone to many of the natural instincts common among animals, whether those instincts are good or bad. You can't just wish this away. Sure, I agree that it would be great if we could ignore these instincts, but I think the past 8 years of American politics should make it clear to you that that's just unfeasible for much of the population.

To be fair, many people think they can completely change human nature in their ideal image. Even if that's a delusion, or just really optimistic.
Ferguson97 and some other red avatars fall in this mould.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom.

I do not give a damn about what wild animals do. Get that through your head.

Do you guys think that a supermajority of elementary school teachers are female because schools are discriminating against aspiring male elementary school teachers?

No, but the cultural value that “teaching=women’s job” is problematic and should be done away with. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that this value is both directly and info taught to everyone since birth is results in women going into teaching more, not “natural interest”.

It would be cool if we lived in a world where these almost obsolete primal instincts which developed as the result of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection no longer held any significant sway over us, but the simple fact is that they still do and you can't just close your eyes and cover your ears and pretend like they don't exist just because you wish they didn't.

It’s remarkable the degree to which you confidently speak of a subject that you know nothing about.

You need to get it through your head that humans ARE animals, even if we are the best among them. This anti-science belief of yours is a relic of your Christian upbringing. We are thus prone to many of the natural instincts common among animals, whether those instincts are good or bad. You can't just wish this away. Sure, I agree that it would be great if we could ignore these instincts, but I think the past 8 years of American politics should make it clear to you that that's just unfeasible for much of the population.

To be fair, many people think they can completely change human nature in their ideal image. Even if that's a delusion, or just really optimistic.
Ferguson97 and some other red avatars fall in this mould.

I think we're missing the point. We have to focus on creating broad spectrum prosperity from top to bottom. Where Men and Women have oppotuniries to pursue their happiness.


That will do far more to increase women leadership roles than going down the rabbithole that South Korea has gone. That country scares the crap out of me.

I agree.
I'm not even necessarily against affirmative action of sorts on this on some level. But in the end, ludicrously overoptimistic goals don't do much good.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom.

I do not give a damn about what wild animals do. Get that through your head.

Do you guys think that a supermajority of elementary school teachers are female because schools are discriminating against aspiring male elementary school teachers?

No, but the cultural value that “teaching=women’s job” is problematic and should be done away with. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fact that this value is both directly and info taught to everyone since birth is results in women going into teaching more, not “natural interest”.

It would be cool if we lived in a world where these almost obsolete primal instincts which developed as the result of hundreds of millions of years of natural selection no longer held any significant sway over us, but the simple fact is that they still do and you can't just close your eyes and cover your ears and pretend like they don't exist just because you wish they didn't.

It’s remarkable the degree to which you confidently speak of a subject that you know nothing about.

You need to get it through your head that humans ARE animals, even if we are the best among them. This anti-science belief of yours is a relic of your Christian upbringing. We are thus prone to many of the natural instincts common among animals, whether those instincts are good or bad. You can't just wish this away. Sure, I agree that it would be great if we could ignore these instincts, but I think the past 8 years of American politics should make it clear to you that that's just unfeasible for much of the population.

To be fair, many people think they can completely change human nature in their ideal image. Even if that's a delusion, or just really optimistic.
Ferguson97 and some other red avatars fall in this mould.

I think we're missing the point. We have to focus on creating broad spectrum prosperity from top to bottom. Where Men and Women have oppotuniries to pursue their happiness.


That will do far more to increase women leadership roles than going down the rabbithole that South Korea has gone. That country scares the crap out of me.

I agree.
I'm not even necessarily against affirmative action of sorts on this on some level. But in the end, ludicrously overoptimistic goals don't do much good.

I keep on repeating South Korea, but there are documentaries of how the Kpop Culture, toxic misygonity, and toxic feminism, overworked culture, are damaging South Korea's long term prospects. Their population is declining, and they have gthe lowest birth rate in the world. Now....The US is not like South Korea, of course but I think we can take lessons from that country, and say, let's avoid the gender wars as much as possible.

I broadly agree.
There's good things about South Korea and all but I wouldn't like seeing SK-style gender wars here...I really wouldn't...