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

[Skill and Chance]

Interest rates also went up.

In economic studies, women are consistently found to be more risk averse than men.  That would seem to favor hiring more women into senior management the higher interest rates go, when quarter-to-quarter cash flow and dividend payouts matter more, and more men during times of near zero interest rates when longshot bets matter more.

[Skill and Chance]

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.

Yes, we should try to undo societal attitudes which impede or discourage perfectly capable women from pursuing leadership positions. I just think that even with those hurdles removed, we'd still see men outnumber women as executives because males are more often than not the sex which takes up the leadership position in many other mammalian species, and our own history as a species clearly shows that we're not an exception in that regard.

It seems like you and several others here at least agree that even with sexism eradicated, male CEOs may stillslightly outnumber female CEOs (like a 55/45 ratio or something like that). Obviously there's no concrete way of knowing for sure what the real ratio would be, but I would like to point out that there are plenty of cases of there being a roughly 80/20 split in careers where it's hard to see how sexism could really be playing that big a role. For example, like 85% of Uber drivers are men, despite the fact that really the only qualification that you need to be an Uber driver is owning a car and not having a bad driving history. Men actually get into accidents more often than women, so you'd think that there'd be more qualified women, yet it's still heavily male occupied. And  there's also the case of the prison population being 80% male. As far as I'm aware, society heavily discourages males and females from committing crimes, so it seems to me like this large discrepancy is more likely than not due to women being naturally less inclined to engaging in the risky and/or violent behavior which lands you in jail.

One of the more interesting examples is that veterinarians are ~80% women.  There was obviously no history of young women being compelled by their fathers/husbands to study and treat animal diseases for thousands of years!  It's a clearly above average status/income profession, too. 

[Skill and Chance]

I doubt this is statistically significant? 

Regardless, the modern American left has become way to focused on ensuring equal odds of entering the elite (if such a thing is even possible given family connections/lack thereof) vs. improving average people's lives as they are today.