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

[lfromnj]

FWIW there is a pretty decent evidence of a variance gap between men and women. Lawrence Summers pretty much got fired from Harvard for saying this but it at least suggests some people believe it. If men have a 50% higher variance then there would be roughly 5 times as many men 2 population standard deviations above and below the population mean.

If the President of Harvard, a former Democratic cabinet secretary, uttered an idea that led him to be cancelled by the left, it's a safe bet that whatever he said was/is believed by 70% of Americans.

No because I doubt even 7% of Americans care or know about this stat. It is probably a common belief among the elites of society though.

[jojoju1998]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever.

The bolded is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm not sure how a study could prove what the ratio of males to females in different roles should be. What I would say is that real world evidence suggests that gaps far larger than 8:1 should not be presumed to be the result of discrimination. After all, the male skew of prison populations is far larger than 8:1, and there is strong consistency to male overrepresentation in executive roles -- even in very feminist countries like Sweden.* Obviously, iq gaps on their own probably don't explain it (hence why I mentioned other factors), but if you adopt both the variability theory (more extremes for men) and the gap theory and then combine it with pregnancies, differential monetary motivation rates, etc, why should we presume that an 8:1 gap is unreasonable, particularly when it has been so persistent in the face of strong governmental and societal encouragement, and across so many different societies? In other words, why should we demand scientific evidence for the idea of gaps being normal, rather than the reverse?

*I looked at this list of the biggest Swedish companies. Of the top 10, by my count 19/20 of the listed senior executives are men, so 95-5.

Will it also depend by industry though ?

“Among the industries that hired the highest share of women into leadership positions in 2021 are Non-governmental and Membership Organizations (54%), Education (49%), Government and Public Sector (46%), Personal Services and Wellbeing (46%), Healthcare and Care Services (46%), and Media and Communications (46%).”

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full/2-4-gender-gaps-in-leadership-by-industry-and-cohort/#:~:text=Among%20the%20industries%20that%20hired,Media%20and%20Communications%20(46%25).

Wouldn't that prove my point about these gaps being primarily attributable to sex differences rather than discrimination though? Notably, all of those fields are ones (excluding government) that would align relatively strongly with traditional views of femininity/women's interests.

I don’t see how education for example necessarily is feminine however.

My Grandpa was an educator.


Seriously, though.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

FWIW there is a pretty decent evidence of a variance gap between men and women. Lawrence Summers pretty much got fired from Harvard for saying this but it at least suggests some people believe it. If men have a 50% higher variance then there would be roughly 5 times as many men 2 population standard deviations above and below the population mean.

If the President of Harvard, a former Democratic cabinet secretary, uttered an idea that led him to be cancelled by the left, it's a safe bet that whatever he said was/is believed by 70% of Americans.

No because I doubt even 7% of Americans care or know about this stat.

Not the exact stat itself, but the idea that sex differences between men and women are real and that unequal group representation is not proof of discrimination. Summers was merely making a specific version of that argument.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever.

The bolded is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm not sure how a study could prove what the ratio of males to females in different roles should be. What I would say is that real world evidence suggests that gaps far larger than 8:1 should not be presumed to be the result of discrimination. After all, the male skew of prison populations is far larger than 8:1, and there is strong consistency to male overrepresentation in executive roles -- even in very feminist countries like Sweden.* Obviously, iq gaps on their own probably don't explain it (hence why I mentioned other factors), but if you adopt both the variability theory (more extremes for men) and the gap theory and then combine it with pregnancies, differential monetary motivation rates, etc, why should we presume that an 8:1 gap is unreasonable, particularly when it has been so persistent in the face of strong governmental and societal encouragement, and across so many different societies? In other words, why should we demand scientific evidence for the idea of gaps being normal, rather than the reverse?

*I looked at this list of the biggest Swedish companies. Of the top 10, by my count 19/20 of the listed senior executives are men, so 95-5.

Will it also depend by industry though ?

“Among the industries that hired the highest share of women into leadership positions in 2021 are Non-governmental and Membership Organizations (54%), Education (49%), Government and Public Sector (46%), Personal Services and Wellbeing (46%), Healthcare and Care Services (46%), and Media and Communications (46%).”

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full/2-4-gender-gaps-in-leadership-by-industry-and-cohort/#:~:text=Among%20the%20industries%20that%20hired,Media%20and%20Communications%20(46%25).

Wouldn't that prove my point about these gaps being primarily attributable to sex differences rather than discrimination though? Notably, all of those fields are ones (excluding government) that would align relatively strongly with traditional views of femininity/women's interests.

I don’t see how education for example necessarily is feminine however.

My Grandpa was an educator.


Seriously, though.

It's not, but as discussed earlier in this thread it tends to be predominantly a women's profession in most developed countries, and interacting with/raising children is often thought of as being something that women are better at or enjoy more than men.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If Richard Hanania counts as 'a serious author' then I'm a Dutchman.

[jojoju1998]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever.

The bolded is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm not sure how a study could prove what the ratio of males to females in different roles should be. What I would say is that real world evidence suggests that gaps far larger than 8:1 should not be presumed to be the result of discrimination. After all, the male skew of prison populations is far larger than 8:1, and there is strong consistency to male overrepresentation in executive roles -- even in very feminist countries like Sweden.* Obviously, iq gaps on their own probably don't explain it (hence why I mentioned other factors), but if you adopt both the variability theory (more extremes for men) and the gap theory and then combine it with pregnancies, differential monetary motivation rates, etc, why should we presume that an 8:1 gap is unreasonable, particularly when it has been so persistent in the face of strong governmental and societal encouragement, and across so many different societies? In other words, why should we demand scientific evidence for the idea of gaps being normal, rather than the reverse?

*I looked at this list of the biggest Swedish companies. Of the top 10, by my count 19/20 of the listed senior executives are men, so 95-5.

Will it also depend by industry though ?

“Among the industries that hired the highest share of women into leadership positions in 2021 are Non-governmental and Membership Organizations (54%), Education (49%), Government and Public Sector (46%), Personal Services and Wellbeing (46%), Healthcare and Care Services (46%), and Media and Communications (46%).”

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full/2-4-gender-gaps-in-leadership-by-industry-and-cohort/#:~:text=Among%20the%20industries%20that%20hired,Media%20and%20Communications%20(46%25).

Wouldn't that prove my point about these gaps being primarily attributable to sex differences rather than discrimination though? Notably, all of those fields are ones (excluding government) that would align relatively strongly with traditional views of femininity/women's interests.

I don’t see how education for example necessarily is feminine however.

My Grandpa was an educator.


Seriously, though.

It's not, but as discussed earlier in this thread it tends to be predominantly a women's profession in most developed countries, and interacting with/raising children is often thought of as being something that women are better at or enjoy more than men.

But wouldn’t it be beneficial for men to enter the teaching profession to provide a strong male presence ?

I think especially with the middle to high school grades, kids would appreciate that.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever.

The bolded is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm not sure how a study could prove what the ratio of males to females in different roles should be. What I would say is that real world evidence suggests that gaps far larger than 8:1 should not be presumed to be the result of discrimination. After all, the male skew of prison populations is far larger than 8:1, and there is strong consistency to male overrepresentation in executive roles -- even in very feminist countries like Sweden.* Obviously, iq gaps on their own probably don't explain it (hence why I mentioned other factors), but if you adopt both the variability theory (more extremes for men) and the gap theory and then combine it with pregnancies, differential monetary motivation rates, etc, why should we presume that an 8:1 gap is unreasonable, particularly when it has been so persistent in the face of strong governmental and societal encouragement, and across so many different societies? In other words, why should we demand scientific evidence for the idea of gaps being normal, rather than the reverse?

*I looked at this list of the biggest Swedish companies. Of the top 10, by my count 19/20 of the listed senior executives are men, so 95-5.

Will it also depend by industry though ?

“Among the industries that hired the highest share of women into leadership positions in 2021 are Non-governmental and Membership Organizations (54%), Education (49%), Government and Public Sector (46%), Personal Services and Wellbeing (46%), Healthcare and Care Services (46%), and Media and Communications (46%).”

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full/2-4-gender-gaps-in-leadership-by-industry-and-cohort/#:~:text=Among%20the%20industries%20that%20hired,Media%20and%20Communications%20(46%25).

Wouldn't that prove my point about these gaps being primarily attributable to sex differences rather than discrimination though? Notably, all of those fields are ones (excluding government) that would align relatively strongly with traditional views of femininity/women's interests.

I don’t see how education for example necessarily is feminine however.

My Grandpa was an educator.


Seriously, though.

It's not, but as discussed earlier in this thread it tends to be predominantly a women's profession in most developed countries, and interacting with/raising children is often thought of as being something that women are better at or enjoy more than men.

But wouldn’t it be beneficial for men to enter the teaching profession to provide a strong male presence ?

I think especially with the middle to high school grades, kids would appreciate that.

I totally agree that else being equal that would probably be good for kids. (I think that from a practical perspective, this maybe isn't worth the cost that would be required, but I'm open to argument.) However, that's a separate point from what this discussion is about, which is whether sex differences or discrimination explain this disproportionate representation. While I won't deny that, say, a more feminine culture in educational systems, or a more masculine culture in engineering both affect interest in those fields, I think the evidence continues to support the idea that sex differences are the best explanation of differential representation.

[jojoju1998]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever.

The bolded is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm not sure how a study could prove what the ratio of males to females in different roles should be. What I would say is that real world evidence suggests that gaps far larger than 8:1 should not be presumed to be the result of discrimination. After all, the male skew of prison populations is far larger than 8:1, and there is strong consistency to male overrepresentation in executive roles -- even in very feminist countries like Sweden.* Obviously, iq gaps on their own probably don't explain it (hence why I mentioned other factors), but if you adopt both the variability theory (more extremes for men) and the gap theory and then combine it with pregnancies, differential monetary motivation rates, etc, why should we presume that an 8:1 gap is unreasonable, particularly when it has been so persistent in the face of strong governmental and societal encouragement, and across so many different societies? In other words, why should we demand scientific evidence for the idea of gaps being normal, rather than the reverse?

*I looked at this list of the biggest Swedish companies. Of the top 10, by my count 19/20 of the listed senior executives are men, so 95-5.

Will it also depend by industry though ?

“Among the industries that hired the highest share of women into leadership positions in 2021 are Non-governmental and Membership Organizations (54%), Education (49%), Government and Public Sector (46%), Personal Services and Wellbeing (46%), Healthcare and Care Services (46%), and Media and Communications (46%).”

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full/2-4-gender-gaps-in-leadership-by-industry-and-cohort/#:~:text=Among%20the%20industries%20that%20hired,Media%20and%20Communications%20(46%25).

Wouldn't that prove my point about these gaps being primarily attributable to sex differences rather than discrimination though? Notably, all of those fields are ones (excluding government) that would align relatively strongly with traditional views of femininity/women's interests.

I don’t see how education for example necessarily is feminine however.

My Grandpa was an educator.


Seriously, though.

It's not, but as discussed earlier in this thread it tends to be predominantly a women's profession in most developed countries, and interacting with/raising children is often thought of as being something that women are better at or enjoy more than men.

But wouldn’t it be beneficial for men to enter the teaching profession to provide a strong male presence ?

I think especially with the middle to high school grades, kids would appreciate that.

I totally agree that else being equal that would probably be good for kids. (I think that from a practical perspective, this maybe isn't worth the cost that would be required, but I'm open to argument.) However, that's a separate point from what this discussion is about, which is whether sex differences or discrimination explain this disproportionate representation. While I won't deny that, say, a more feminine culture in educational systems, or a more masculine culture in engineering both affect interest in those fields, I think the evidence continues to support the idea that sex differences are the best explanation of differential representation.

I don’t know. Your point seems to be only valid in elementary school contexts, because if you go up into middle schools and high schools, the gender profiles get more balanced….


I mean, the football coach/history teacher is very stereotypically male.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever.

The bolded is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

I'm not sure how a study could prove what the ratio of males to females in different roles should be. What I would say is that real world evidence suggests that gaps far larger than 8:1 should not be presumed to be the result of discrimination. After all, the male skew of prison populations is far larger than 8:1, and there is strong consistency to male overrepresentation in executive roles -- even in very feminist countries like Sweden.* Obviously, iq gaps on their own probably don't explain it (hence why I mentioned other factors), but if you adopt both the variability theory (more extremes for men) and the gap theory and then combine it with pregnancies, differential monetary motivation rates, etc, why should we presume that an 8:1 gap is unreasonable, particularly when it has been so persistent in the face of strong governmental and societal encouragement, and across so many different societies? In other words, why should we demand scientific evidence for the idea of gaps being normal, rather than the reverse?

*I looked at this list of the biggest Swedish companies. Of the top 10, by my count 19/20 of the listed senior executives are men, so 95-5.

Will it also depend by industry though ?

“Among the industries that hired the highest share of women into leadership positions in 2021 are Non-governmental and Membership Organizations (54%), Education (49%), Government and Public Sector (46%), Personal Services and Wellbeing (46%), Healthcare and Care Services (46%), and Media and Communications (46%).”

https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-gender-gap-report-2022/in-full/2-4-gender-gaps-in-leadership-by-industry-and-cohort/#:~:text=Among%20the%20industries%20that%20hired,Media%20and%20Communications%20(46%25).

Wouldn't that prove my point about these gaps being primarily attributable to sex differences rather than discrimination though? Notably, all of those fields are ones (excluding government) that would align relatively strongly with traditional views of femininity/women's interests.

I don’t see how education for example necessarily is feminine however.

My Grandpa was an educator.


Seriously, though.

It's not, but as discussed earlier in this thread it tends to be predominantly a women's profession in most developed countries, and interacting with/raising children is often thought of as being something that women are better at or enjoy more than men.

But wouldn’t it be beneficial for men to enter the teaching profession to provide a strong male presence ?

I think especially with the middle to high school grades, kids would appreciate that.

I totally agree that else being equal that would probably be good for kids. (I think that from a practical perspective, this maybe isn't worth the cost that would be required, but I'm open to argument.) However, that's a separate point from what this discussion is about, which is whether sex differences or discrimination explain this disproportionate representation. While I won't deny that, say, a more feminine culture in educational systems, or a more masculine culture in engineering both affect interest in those fields, I think the evidence continues to support the idea that sex differences are the best explanation of differential representation.

I don’t know. Your point seems to be only valid in elementary school contexts, because if you go up into middle schools and high schools, the gender profiles get more balanced….


I mean, the football coach/history teacher is very stereotypically male.

Sure, which again reflects my point that sex differences rather than discrimination best explain differing gender representation.

[lfromnj]

By the way I am trying to find it, but IIRC there are some studies showing that total fertility rate actually starts to rise again at the right most end of the income bell curve for family income.  If it is true that once people feel 100% secure in all aspects of their financial security they are willing to actually have more kids then unless the parents want to nanny raise their kids fully that would require one parent to drop out from the career ladder at least somewhat. Even assuming both parents were very egalitarian in their beliefs the mom still would have a few weeks at the very least taken out for pregnancy and birth.

[Electric Circus]

By the way I am trying to find it, but IIRC there are some studies showing that total fertility rate actually starts to rise again at the right most end of the income bell curve for family income.  If it is true that once people feel 100% secure in all aspects of their financial security they are willing to actually have more kids then unless the parents want to nanny raise their kids fully that would require one parent to drop out from the career ladder at least somewhat. Even assuming both parents were very egalitarian in their beliefs the mom still would have a few weeks at the very least taken out for pregnancy and birth.

Guessing it's this one:

Data source is ACS.

[VBM]

Well, that's enough Atlas for me. It's been real everyone.

I can hardly imagine why this website has so few female users.

You're leaving a left-leaning website because some people argued that men tend to have a stronger inclination to pursue high-paying executive roles? That reflects a mindset incredibly shielded from the real world, where in my experience such a view is basically uncontroversial.

And btw, I don't think is a male female thing. Maybe women are slightly to the left of men on this overall, but I know plenty of women including relatives who believe that men tend to have greater executive function, ambition, wherewithal etc, and even that there is an average IQ gap between men and women, as some serious authors have suggested. This isn't always a positive thing -- men are strongly overrepresented in prisons for reasons that are also mainly attributable to sex differences -- but it is a part of life and something that should not be denied by any serious person.

Nobody ever actually leaves Atlas unless they're banned. We're here forever. The bolded text is not all that has been said in this thread. My post was made in collective response to all of the lovely statements that have been made over the last 4 pages.

There likely are biological differences between men and women which result in differentials in various professions, but I have not seen any evidence that an 88:12 ratio of men to women is to be expected in generic executive-level roles.

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here.

With regard to Richard Hanania's point, a 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining the gap. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Doesn’t this work both ways though? There’s no scientific study which has been done to show that an 8:1 ratio of men to women in executive roles is unnatural and primarily the result of sexism. It seems like some posters where think that the default explanation for gender imbalance in any role should be sexism, while others like me do not.

[Conservatopia]

In my company I am, on paper, a trans-woman. So are a bunch of the other execs. We present as men, use he/him pronouns and have never told anyone directly that we're trans. It means that technically 50% of the highest earners are women and means we can pay the real women much less without it affecting our gender pay gap.

[lfromnj]

By the way I am trying to find it, but IIRC there are some studies showing that total fertility rate actually starts to rise again at the right most end of the income bell curve for family income.  If it is true that once people feel 100% secure in all aspects of their financial security they are willing to actually have more kids then unless the parents want to nanny raise their kids fully that would require one parent to drop out from the career ladder at least somewhat. Even assuming both parents were very egalitarian in their beliefs the mom still would have a few weeks at the very least taken out for pregnancy and birth.

Guessing it's this one:

Data source is ACS.

Thanks, it’s not huge enough for the entire gap but it has to be at least somewhat of a factor .

[Del Tachi]

The reason there are relatively few female CEOs is the same reason there's relatively few female serial killers.  Women lack a certain kind of intensity. 

[VBM]

Even if we assume that this CEO gender gap is caused primarily by sexism, what exactly are we even supposed to do about it?

[HisGrace]

Even if we assume that this CEO gender gap is caused primarily by sexism, what exactly are we even supposed to do about it?

I'm going to guess most the people complaining in this thread want discrimination against men in hiring (hiring a woman less qualified than at least one male applicant just to have more women) if not outright quotas.

[Del Tachi]

Even if we assume that this CEO gender gap is caused primarily by sexism, what exactly are we even supposed to do about it?

I'm going to guess most the people complaining in this thread want discrimination against men in hiring (hiring a woman less qualified than at least one male applicant just to have more women) if not outright quotas.

I don’t think people here are daft enough to argue for such.  More likely is the trend of workplace feminization will just continue. Employers have been weakening incentives for risk, innovation and competition and stifling their employees under HR-gobbledygook for years, which are both feminizing influences.