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

[Ferguson97]

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.

[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.

[VBM]

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.

Fun fact: Homo sapiens are, in fact, animals. We may be the best of the worst, but we're still animals. Like almost every other mammal species, our two sexes have evolved to be naturally more inclined towards certain roles. For example, there's a reason why hunter-gatherers almost always had the males be the ones hunting the big game. Males are just naturally stronger than females, and obviously it would be evolutionarily favorable for the male humans to be the members of the species which are more inclined to hunt dangerous prey, since obviously being physically stronger would make them more likely to survive and thus more likely for the species to survive.

Yes, I know that in our modern society, these biological differences between males and females are exceedingly irrelevant, but evolution hasn't caught up to technology. Males and females' minds are still wired to be more inclined towards roles due to the advantage it provided in ancient times, even if that advantage no longer exists. There's a reason why like over 90% of elementary school teachers are women, and it's not because elementary schools are just sexist towards men. It's because there are much more women trying to become elementary school teachers in the first place.

Nurture plays an important role, but so does nature.

[ProgressiveModerate]

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.

[Beet]

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.

That is easy to say when men are 88% of executive roles. If it doesn't matter what percentage of executives are women, let's organize society so executives are 88% women and see what happens.

[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.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

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

I disagree with this pretty strongly but I am curious what "natural" differences you think are at play here?

I ask because of comments like this:

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.

How a person thinks is very strongly going to be socially conditioned. Most of these things aren't what I would consider "natural" at all.

[lfromnj]

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

I disagree with this pretty strongly but I am curious what "natural" differences you think are at play here?

I ask because of comments like this:

Honestly you aren't going to accuse anyone of being a bigot so I'm willing to reply here but there definitely are natural tendencies in risk taking behavior that men are more likely to partake in. It is likely due to testosterone or other hormones.


https://twitter.com/p_millerd/status/1364068369893261318

This isn't exactly risk taking behavior but its just men doing something stupid/pointless compared to women. Its also almost something innately biological as I highly doubt there is some weird societal pressure making men wanting to take the shock. Note that the shock was already administered before entering the room so it wasn't just curiosity.

There are  studies showing that men used to have a bigger advantage in the SAT when there was a guessing penalty as the guessing penalty had the same EV as a pure guess or leaving it blank which therefore made it advantageous to guess in any scenario where you could eliminate one of the answers.

https://hbr.org/2016/07/designing-a-bias-free-organization

he test once penalized students for incorrect answers in multiple-choice questions. That meant it was risky to guess. Research by Katie Baldiga Coffman of Ohio State University shows that this matters, especially for women. Among equally able test takers, male students are more likely to guess, while female students are more likely to skip questions, fearing the penalty and thus ending up with lower scores. Katie’s research reveals that gender differences in willingness to take risk account for about half of the gender gap in guessing. An analysis of the fall 2001 mathematics SAT scores suggests that this phenomenon alone explains up to 40% of the gap between male and female students in SAT scores. The 2016 SAT has been redesigned so that it doesn’t penalize for incorrect answers. Taking risk out of guessing means that different appetites for risk taking will no longer affect students’ final scores. This can be expected to level the playing field for male and female students.

Risk taking behavior does explain a lot of outcomes between men and women. I'm willing to bet 12% of prisoners are also women as well. Taking more risk means possible outcomes especially on the tail ends of the curve.

[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

I disagree with this pretty strongly but I am curious what "natural" differences you think are at play here?

I ask because of comments like this:

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.

How a person thinks is very strongly going to be socially conditioned. Most of these things aren't what I would consider "natural" at all.

In prehistoric times, it would have been evolutionarily advantageous for men to be more assertive, confident, and aggressive than women since men are naturally way stronger than women and thus more likely to come back alive from hunting dangerous prey. Basically, it was better off for our species that one of our sexes had the means (raw strength) and the right mindset necessary to be successful in hunting prey. This is the case for many other mammals too.

As I mentioned to Ferguson, this is obviously obsolete in modern society, but evolution hasn't caught up to technology. Since Generic Male is naturally more hardwired towards being assertive, aggressive, and confident than Generic Female is, it's hardly surprising that a majority of executives are men since those are 3 important qualities for an executive to have.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Risk-taking behavior is actually the exact example I had in mind as most plausibly explaining the difference. But even then, I'm not entirely sure why that would be a particularly favored quality for an executive/leader to have.

I think even with that example (and probably some other small ones) in mind I have a pretty strong prior that it's low on the list of factors at play and that other socially constructed dynamics are much, much more influential here. A pretty obvious one is that professional women pay a penalty for having children (and taking parental leave). Another obvious one is an inertial effect of executive committees being so male-dominant for so long in a way that's very easy to self-perpetuate. These seem much, much more obvious to me as reasons why there are so few women in executive positions than any sort of innate biological differences.

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

I disagree with this pretty strongly but I am curious what "natural" differences you think are at play here?

I ask because of comments like this:

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.

How a person thinks is very strongly going to be socially conditioned. Most of these things aren't what I would consider "natural" at all.

In prehistoric times, it would have been evolutionarily advantageous for men to be more assertive, confident, and aggressive than women since men are naturally way stronger than women and thus more likely to come back alive from hunting dangerous prey. Basically, it was better off for our species that one of our sexes had the means (raw strength) and the right mindset necessary to be successful in hunting prey. This is the case for many other mammals too.

As I mentioned to Ferguson, this is obviously obsolete in modern society, but evolution hasn't caught up to technology. Since Generic Male is naturally more hardwired towards being assertive, aggressive, and confident than Generic Female is, it's hardly surprising that a majority of executives are men since those are 3 important qualities for an executive to have.

I think even at this there's plenty of evidence that these characteristics, even if there is a biological difference between the sexes, is socially reinforced in a way that exaggerates the differences.

[VBM]

Risk-taking behavior is actually the exact example I had in mind as most plausibly explaining the difference. But even then, I'm not entirely sure why that would be a particularly favored quality for an executive/leader to have.

I think even with that example (and probably some other small ones) in mind I have a pretty strong prior that it's low on the list of factors at play and that other socially constructed dynamics are much, much more influential here. A pretty obvious one is that professional women pay a penalty for having children (and taking parental leave). Another obvious one is an inertial effect of executive committees being so male-dominant for so long in a way that's very easy to self-perpetuate. These seem much, much more obvious to me as reasons why there are so few women in executive positions than any sort of innate biological differences.

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

I disagree with this pretty strongly but I am curious what "natural" differences you think are at play here?

I ask because of comments like this:

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.

How a person thinks is very strongly going to be socially conditioned. Most of these things aren't what I would consider "natural" at all.

In prehistoric times, it would have been evolutionarily advantageous for men to be more assertive, confident, and aggressive than women since men are naturally way stronger than women and thus more likely to come back alive from hunting dangerous prey. Basically, it was better off for our species that one of our sexes had the means (raw strength) and the right mindset necessary to be successful in hunting prey. This is the case for many other mammals too.

As I mentioned to Ferguson, this is obviously obsolete in modern society, but evolution hasn't caught up to technology. Since Generic Male is naturally more hardwired towards being assertive, aggressive, and confident than Generic Female is, it's hardly surprising that a majority of executives are men since those are 3 important qualities for an executive to have.

I think even at this there's plenty of evidence that these characteristics, even if there is a biological difference between the sexes, is socially reinforced in a way that exaggerates the differences.

Sure, I never denied that nurture is playing some role here. If sexism was totally eliminated from society, there would probably be a greater percentage of female executives than 12%, but there's no hard evidence that it's the main factor in why the ratio isn't 50/50.

And I think it's worth reminding everyone that we're talking about a measly 0.4% decrease here. I'd be surprised if this was actually a statistically significant decrease instead of just random noise

[lfromnj]

0.4% in a poll is really nothing but when its the entire population it is at least statistically significant .

[DaleCooper]

Part of the problem with this subject is that everybody hates business executives so no one is going to be sympathetic to concerns about representation. For a significant percentage of the country, you might as well be complaining about a lack gender diversity amongst suicide bombers. It's just a losing battle in this culture.

[Boobs]

You have to be a pretty dense idiot to believe that feminism is the belief that there are literally no differences between men and women whatsoever. Unfortunately, Atlas, and this thread, is full of dense idiots, so we have to have this mind-numbing discussion. The concept of "the patriarchy" is not critiquing the idea that men and women are different; it critiques the notion that these differences must be ingrained in every aspect of society.

Men, on average, are physically larger and stronger than women, on average. In hunter-gatherer societies, this may have made the division of labor relatively straightforward. Even then, that narrative is hardly universal - or even descriptive of a majority, with the traditional imaginary perhaps a projection of our own gender roles onto the past. Even if it were true, it hardly lends credence to any sort of "natural division of labor" in agricultural societies, let alone industrial ones! The invention of tools and the domestication of beasts of burden meant that the natural average differences in size and strength between men and women were less relevant. The difference in strength between an ox pulling a plow and a human man is likely an order of magnitude greater than the difference in strength between the average man and woman. Industrial machinery further erodes any sort of biological difference; by the time we get to the contemporary economy, and the topic of the original article, the differences between men and women are so abstract and irrelevant to the role of businesses executive (or any other role of "authority") that advocates of it like VBM and TimTurder appear cartoonishly sexist. Indeed, there is no inherent reason we should think a good CEO is aggressive or metaphorically "strong" - but because of how deeply ingrained patriarchy is in society, we are conditioned to believe that a good CEO would share the same traits that make a good hunter, even though logically we understand these are wildly different roles, requiring different skills, and making different decisions. That is the very nature of patriarchy - larger than any one man or any one culture: differences between men and women are artificially exaggerated in society rather than minimized, creating the appearance that the roles each gender is funneled into are "natural" and "inherent". Take for example, the misconception or myth than boys are better at math than girls. There is no scientific, inherent basis for the idea that boys are somehow better at learning and understanding math or analytical thinking in general. But, because this misconception had been frequently repeated over the past century or more, girls have internalized the idea that they are worse at math, leading them to shy away from choosing to take higher level math courses, or pursue careers in mathematical and engineering occupations, or pursue further education in STEM fields, all leading to an underrepresentation of women in these classes, occupations, and fields, creating the appearance that, "yes, boys are just naturally suited to math - just look at who takes math classes, or works in mathematical fields, or publishes academic research in mathematics!"

Furthermore, the idea of women as the homemaker and men as the breadwinner are, again, a creation of, often explicit, patriarchal ideology. Child-rearing duties were not delegated solely to women in pre-agricultural society. In fact, I don't believe there was ever a period of time in which neither child-rearing nor "work" were shared between genders - both men and women contributed to the household. Unsurprisingly, duties that men gravitated toward became more valuable in society, which in turn further pushed out women of those duties and toward "household" duties. My favorite historical anecdote is that of the alewife , a profession common in many medieval societies. When ale was the drink of choice, men and women were both well-represented in the profession; since ale did not keep for long prior to the invention of refrigeration, it had to be made close to the place of consumption. This led to the proliferation of alehouses throughout Europe, and many women were employed as brewsters of ale - hence, alewife. Hops was first added to the brewing process in the Low Countries, and beer made with hops could keep, unlike ale. Suddenly, large-scale production was possible, creating in its wake a male-dominated field. Eventually, as beer overtook ale as the drink of choice, the alehouses gradually faded away, and the alewives with them. Women were shut out of this new profession, in an industry that now was significantly profitable and powerful. Even now, even within industries, the differences between women and men are purposefully exaggerated. Women are shuffled toward the "care" position of nurse while men are funneled toward the "analytical" doctor.  The imaginary of the stay-at-home mom emerges out of Victorian morality and full realized in the 1950s - even when (or rather, because) just a decade prior saw record women's participation in the open economy. In order for men to reclaim their jobs and position of economic power, women had to be pushed back into the home, a societal campaign reinforced by the media of the day. Yet, for some reason this entirely artificial, momentary image of society has become what many today believe is "normal", "natural", and, the worst among them, "desirable".


This is to say that these sorts of beliefs that there are "natural" causes for men and women's differences in roles of authority are based entirely in pseudoscientific feel-goodery rather than historical evidence, reliant entirely on circular reasoning. The difference between sexism and patriarchy is vast - an action can be sexist, an individual or a work of media or a concept can be sexist. A society is patriarchal - a thought rot that penetrates so deep that it predates the society itself, that is beyond one person to resolve or overturn. It is so overwhelming in its grasp on society that people are led to believe that it is in fact inherent rather than constructed.

I almost always regret effort posting on here, and I anticipate Atlas will live down to my expectations.

[VBM]

You have to be a pretty dense idiot to believe that feminism is the belief that there are literally no differences between men and women whatsoever. Unfortunately, Atlas, and this thread, is full of dense idiots, so we have to have this mind-numbing discussion. The concept of "the patriarchy" is not critiquing the idea that men and women are different; it critiques the notion that these differences must be ingrained in every aspect of society.

Men, on average, are physically larger and stronger than women, on average. In hunter-gatherer societies, this may have made the division of labor relatively straightforward. Even then, that narrative is hardly universal - or even descriptive of a majority, with the traditional imaginary perhaps a projection of our own gender roles onto the past. Even if it were true, it hardly lends credence to any sort of "natural division of labor" in agricultural societies, let alone industrial ones! The invention of tools and the domestication of beasts of burden meant that the natural average differences in size and strength between men and women were less relevant. The difference in strength between an ox pulling a plow and a human man is likely an order of magnitude greater than the difference in strength between the average man and woman. Industrial machinery further erodes any sort of biological difference; by the time we get to the contemporary economy, and the topic of the original article, the differences between men and women are so abstract and irrelevant to the role of businesses executive (or any other role of "authority") that advocates of it like VBM and TimTurder appear cartoonishly sexy. Indeed, there is no inherent reason we should think a good CEO is aggressive or metaphorically "strong" - but because of how deeply ingrained patriarchy is in society, we are conditioned to believe that a good CEO would share the same traits that make a good hunter, even though logically we understand these are wildly different roles, requiring different skills, and making different decisions. That is the very nature of patriarchy - larger than any one man or any one culture: differences between men and women are artificially exaggerated in society rather than minimized, creating the appearance that the roles each gender is funneled into are "natural" and "inherent". Take for example, the misconception or myth than boys are better at math than girls. There is no scientific, inherent basis for the idea that boys are somehow better at learning and understanding math or analytical thinking in general. But, because this misconception had been frequently repeated over the past century or more, girls have internalized the idea that they are worse at math, leading them to shy away from choosing to take higher level math courses, or pursue careers in mathematical and engineering occupations, or pursue further education in STEM fields, all leading to an underrepresentation of women in these classes, occupations, and fields, creating the appearance that, "yes, boys are just naturally suited to math - just look at who takes math classes, or works in mathematical fields, or publishes academic research in mathematics!"

Furthermore, the idea of women as the homemaker and men as the breadwinner are, again, a creation of, often explicit, patriarchal ideology. Child-rearing duties were not delegated solely to women in pre-agricultural society. In fact, I don't believe there was ever a period of time in which neither child-rearing nor "work" were shared between genders - both men and women contributed to the household. Unsurprisingly, duties that men gravitated toward became more valuable in society, which in turn further pushed out women of those duties and toward "household" duties. My favorite historical anecdote is that of the alewife , a profession common in many medieval societies. When ale was the drink of choice, men and women were both well-represented in the profession; since ale did not keep for long prior to the invention of refrigeration, it had to be made close to the place of consumption. This led to the proliferation of alehouses throughout Europe, and many women were employed as brewsters of ale - hence, alewife. Hops was first added to the brewing process in the Low Countries, and beer made with hops could keep, unlike ale. Suddenly, large-scale production was possible, creating in its wake a male-dominated field. Eventually, as beer overtook ale as the drink of choice, the alehouses gradually faded away, and the alewives with them. Women were shut out of this new profession, in an industry that now was significantly profitable and powerful. Even now, even within industries, the differences between women and men are purposefully exaggerated. Women are shuffled toward the "care" position of nurse while men are funneled toward the "analytical" doctor.  The imaginary of the stay-at-home mom emerges out of Victorian morality and full realized in the 1950s - even when (or rather, because) just a decade prior saw record women's participation in the open economy. In order for men to reclaim their jobs and position of economic power, women had to be pushed back into the home, a societal campaign reinforced by the media of the day. Yet, for some reason this entirely artificial, momentary image of society has become what many today believe is "normal", "natural", and, the worst among them, "desirable".


This is to say that these sorts of beliefs that there are "natural" causes for men and women's differences in roles of authority are based entirely in pseudoscientific feel-goodery rather than historical evidence, reliant entirely on circular reasoning. The difference between sexism and patriarchy is vast - an action can be sexist, an individual or a work of media or a concept can be sexist. A society is patriarchal - a thought rot that penetrates so deep that it predates the society itself, that is beyond one person to resolve or overturn. It is so overwhelming in its grasp on society that people are led to believe that it is in fact inherent rather than constructed.

I almost always regret effort posting on here, and I anticipate Atlas will live down to my expectations.

Idk why everyone keeps glossing over the fact that I've repeatedly acknowledged that sexism likely is playing some role in the large gender gap between male and female executives. I'm sure there's plenty of females who got turned down from a leadership position because some males, consciously or subconsciously, thought that her being a woman made her a worse fit for the job, or there's plenty of females who would be good CEOs but didn't pursue it because they thought that was a man's job. Obviously we as a society should do our best to minimize these sexist tendencies. I'm just unconvinced that it is necessarily a more dominant factor than natural differences between men and women. Even just a small difference in mentality could cause a large gap in the gender ratio of many careers.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The "patriarchy" is mostly a myth.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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”.

[America Needs R'hllor]

I almost always regret effort posting on here, and I anticipate Atlas will live down to my expectations.

The "patriarchy" is mostly a myth.

Narrator: HCP had no idea how correct he was, as his incredibly informed post was met with the most braindead response imaginable.

[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.

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".

[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]

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".

The point you're trying to make here is well understood. The points being made in response, however, seem to be going completely over your head.

[America Needs R'hllor]

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.

[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.

@bold Explain it to me then.

You have persistently shown an unwillingness to engage on this topic constructively and in good faith. I'm not going to try my hand at a 5 paragraph effortpost that will ultimately be responded to with the same kind of vapid response you always make on issues relating to gender and such. Instead I'm going to link to a youtube video that changed my perspective on gender.

[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.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If anyone but trump was the nominee , I’d just respond with popcorn to this thread . Seeing red avies fight each other like this lol

[PSOL]

Women in all human societies work harder than men and are usually far better networkers than men.