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

[Electric Circus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/04/03/women-csuite-research-gender-parity/

Female executives lost roughly 60 “C-suite” roles last year, a reversal after several years of slow but persistent growth, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. Women now claim 11.8 percent of 15,000 chief executives, financial officers and other top roles at publicly traded U.S. companies, down from 12.2 percent the previous year, S&P said. It’s the first decline in that percentage since S&P started tracking this data in 2006.

The report, from S&P Global Market Intelligence is here. They say that this is the first drop in their study period, which goes back to 2005. They also report that publicly-traded firms are spending less on diversity and inclusion based on "Natural Language Processing of earnings call transcripts."

[PSOL]

I knew this would happen. DEI is necessary to defend in this day and age. It’s our ERA.

[Landslide Lyndon]

More proof that white men are under persecution and wokeness is destroying society.

[Arizona Iced Tea]

Now measure LGBTQIA+ and come back with the findings.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Now measure LGBTQIA+ and come back with the findings.

There's a pretty obvious problem here in that changes over time are a lot more likely to be due to changes in disclosure/survey answers than in actual demographic turnover.

[Electric Circus]

One suspicion is that organizations are reducing the number of senior leadership positions and that the positions getting cut are disproportionately occupied by women, but I didn't see anything about this in the report. The Post mentions Chief Diversity Officers, but it's not as if that's the only trendy C-suite title in the mix. What caught my attention more than anything is that the year-over-year difference amounts to a few dozen positions nationwide.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

I wonder what UlmerFudd thinks about this...

[Progressive Pessimist]

Yep. Trump being President again will fix this.

[heatcharger]

Interest rates also went up.

[VBM]

A 0.4% decrease doesn’t seem statistically significant

[VBM]

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

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

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]

[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.

[VBM]

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.

[KaiserDave]

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

[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.

[VBM]

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.

[Never Made it to Graceland]

Who could have foreseen this thread being a disaster?

[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.

[ProgressiveModerate]

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

Yeah I tend to agree with this. My ideal is equality shouldn't be about trying to achieve arbitrary quotas, but to give everyone equal opportunity and access and let the chips fall where they may. We already see this with a lot of lower-tier jobs that aren't super hard to obtain - elementary school teachers are disproportionately female for instance.

One problem in the case of the executive example that could be hard to pick up on is that existing executives being disproportionately male may mean females who are qualified and actually want to become executives face more hardships simply by being in the minority, even if it's a "natural minority".

I feel like many people (left and right) struggle with basic concepts, like equality =/= equity, or men and women being different on average can still mean there are many cases where those averages don't apply.

[FT-02 Senator A.F.E. 🇵🇸🤝🇺🇸🤝🇺🇦]

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?

[VBM]

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

Yeah I tend to agree with this. My ideal is equality shouldn't be about trying to achieve arbitrary quotas, but to give everyone equal opportunity and access and let the chips fall where they may. We already see this with a lot of lower-tier jobs that aren't super hard to obtain - elementary school teachers are disproportionately female for instance.

One problem in the case of the executive example that could be hard to pick up on is that existing executives being disproportionately male may mean females who are qualified and actually want to become executives face more hardships simply by being in the minority, even if it's a "natural minority".

I feel like many people (left and right) struggle with basic concepts, like equality =/= equity, or men and women being different on average can still mean there are many cases where those averages don't apply.

I wouldn't deny that sexism is probably reducing the ratio of male to female executives by some amount, but I just don't think it's by a very significant amount. Maybe if sexism was just totally removed from society, the % of female executives would be 15-20%.

A bit of a tangent, but it's weird to me how the posters who get most offended by the suggestion that Generic Male and Generic Female don't think exactly alike are also the most pro-trans posters. If there are no natural differences between the male and female mind, then how could trans people exist? You can't be a woman stuck in a man's body if there are no general mental differences between men and women

[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.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

Is the concept of differing preferences between groups being caused by said groups facing different societal expectations incomprehensible to y'all? There are probably biological differences between men and women psychologically, but AFAIK they appear to be much smaller than the biological differences crowd likes to think and are dwarfed by societal differences that are ultimately rooted in the fact that AMAB people had on average serious physical strength advantages that made them far more important to society in subsistence agriculture societies.

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

Yeah I tend to agree with this. My ideal is equality shouldn't be about trying to achieve arbitrary quotas, but to give everyone equal opportunity and access and let the chips fall where they may. We already see this with a lot of lower-tier jobs that aren't super hard to obtain - elementary school teachers are disproportionately female for instance.

One problem in the case of the executive example that could be hard to pick up on is that existing executives being disproportionately male may mean females who are qualified and actually want to become executives face more hardships simply by being in the minority, even if it's a "natural minority".

I feel like many people (left and right) struggle with basic concepts, like equality =/= equity, or men and women being different on average can still mean there are many cases where those averages don't apply.

I wouldn't deny that sexism is probably reducing the ratio of male to female executives by some amount, but I just don't think it's by a very significant amount. Maybe if sexism was just totally removed from society, the % of female executives would be 15-20%.

A bit of a tangent, but it's weird to me how the posters who get most offended by the suggestion that Generic Male and Generic Female don't think exactly alike are also the most pro-trans posters. If there are no natural differences between the male and female mind, then how could trans people exist? You can't be a woman stuck in a man's body if there are no general mental differences between men and women

Tell me you don't understand trans people without telling me you don't understand trans people.

[VBM]

Is the concept of differing preferences between groups being caused by said groups facing different societal expectations incomprehensible to y'all? There are probably biological differences between men and women psychologically, but AFAIK they appear to be much smaller than the biological differences crowd likes to think and are dwarfed by societal differences that are ultimately rooted in the fact that AMAB people had on average serious physical strength advantages that made them far more important to society in subsistence agriculture societies.

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

Yeah I tend to agree with this. My ideal is equality shouldn't be about trying to achieve arbitrary quotas, but to give everyone equal opportunity and access and let the chips fall where they may. We already see this with a lot of lower-tier jobs that aren't super hard to obtain - elementary school teachers are disproportionately female for instance.

One problem in the case of the executive example that could be hard to pick up on is that existing executives being disproportionately male may mean females who are qualified and actually want to become executives face more hardships simply by being in the minority, even if it's a "natural minority".

I feel like many people (left and right) struggle with basic concepts, like equality =/= equity, or men and women being different on average can still mean there are many cases where those averages don't apply.

I wouldn't deny that sexism is probably reducing the ratio of male to female executives by some amount, but I just don't think it's by a very significant amount. Maybe if sexism was just totally removed from society, the % of female executives would be 15-20%.

A bit of a tangent, but it's weird to me how the posters who get most offended by the suggestion that Generic Male and Generic Female don't think exactly alike are also the most pro-trans posters. If there are no natural differences between the male and female mind, then how could trans people exist? You can't be a woman stuck in a man's body if there are no general mental differences between men and women

Tell me you don't understand trans people without telling me you don't understand trans people.

@bold Explain it to me then.

As I said several times before, sexism probably is lowering the amount of female executives by some amount, but there's no good reason to believe that it's the main factor. Any business which bars a perfectly qualified women from leadership positions based just on their sex is probably not a very successful business