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

[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".

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

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

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

[lfromnj]

Men actually get into accidents less than women per mile driven. Their accidents are far more severe though .

[Skill and Chance]

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

[citation needed]

Nature, history, etc.

Least sexist Atlas poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Skill and Chance]

I doubt this is statistically significant? 

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

[Electric Circus]

I doubt this is statistically significant? 

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

They're not using a sample; they're calculating the actual total from regulatory filings. It amounts to about sixty positions. So it does tell us something about those organizations, especially as the decrease is a break from a consistent trend.

What it doesn't provide is strong evidence for making broader inferences about how American society is changing. Which very much does not fit with either how the Washington Post covered the report or how the discussion has proceeded in this thread.

I thought that putting "12.2% to 11.8%" in the subject line would make this clear, but this thread proceeded as  if I had thrown raw meat into a cage despite this. At least I learned something interesting about alewives.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

[Ferguson97]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

Good lord…should a women have to get her husband or father‘s permission before getting a credit card as well?

I don’t know why you reactionaries are so committed to relitigating culture wars that you lost decades ago. All it does is draw suspicion on the sincerity of your criticisms of cultural issues.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

Good lord…should a women have to get her husband or father‘s permission before getting a credit card as well?

I don’t know why you reactionaries are so committed to relitigating culture wars that you lost decades ago. All it does is draw suspicion on the sincerity of your criticisms of cultural issues.

No, and it's a myth that they historically had to do so.

I'm not so sure that the idea that women should be 50% of corporate executives is a "lost culture war." Even if it was lost, it might still be worth relitigating to eventually secure a better outcome. But as this thread title shows, despite large scale government intervention to boost women's proportion in managerial roles, women still make up less than one in eight of executives. That's pretty far from 50%, and while it is probably too high* it's not a lost cause either. In fact, I bet that even now the proposition that "Government should do nothing to either encourage or discourage women's participation in the workforce" would get pretty substantial support.

*I don't have a strong opinion on what the correct percentage would be, but government subsidies tend to encourage more than equilibrium of whatever they subsidize.

[Alcibiades]

No, and it's a myth that they historically had to do so.

When my grandparents applied for a mortgage in Britain in the late 60s, the bank refused to let them do it in my grandmother’s name, despite the fact that she earned more than my grandfather at the time.

[VBM]

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom. I'm pretty sure that the only example of males caring more about their young than females do is seahorses, and that's just because male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant. I don't think it needs to be explained why it would be highly evolutionarily advantageous that the sex which has to devote a lot of time and energy to forming the new life would instinctually want to protect and nurture it...

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

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

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, and it's a myth that they historically had to do so.

When my grandparents applied for a mortgage in Britain in the late 60s, the bank refused to let them do it in my grandmother’s name, despite the fact that she earned more than my grandfather at the time.

This is an example of a bank preferring a man to be the mortgage holder over a woman (for any number of reasons: perhaps they thought it would be easier to file court proceedings against a man than a woman? Perhaps there was something about your grandparents' financial situation that led them to think he would in the future be the head of household?). It is still is a myth to say that women could not have bank accounts or open credit lines in their own names, as should be pretty easily intuited for a number of reasons (ie, widows, female college students, etc).

[jojoju1998]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom. I'm pretty sure that the only example of males caring more about their young than females do is seahorses, and that's just because male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant. I don't think it needs to be explained why it would be highly evolutionarily advantageous that the sex which has to devote a lot of time and energy to forming the new life would instinctually want to protect and nurture it...

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

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

Actually, this might just be only a Western aspect. The irony is that in other countries, people are actually looking for male elementary teachers, to provide a strong masculine male presence for young boys.

https://en.brilio.net/viral/china-wants-more-male-teachers-because-masculinity-china-wants-more-male-teachers-160208h.html#:~:text=is%20also%20implausible.-,Officials%20are%20actively%20recruiting%20male%20teachers%20and%20as%20local%20media,values%20are%20seen%20as%20masculine.

And the teaching career in many countries is seen as a prestigious occupation, that a male can enter into.

[Alcibiades]

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

It’s rather odd that you’re bringing this up as an example in your defence, when perhaps the more obvious way of looking at it is that, within the teaching profession, the more prestigious and highly-paid a job is, the more male-dominated it is: secondary school teachers are more male than primary school teachers, and in turn, university lecturers are more male than them.

[VBM]

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

It’s rather odd that you’re bringing this up as an example in your defence, when perhaps the more obvious way of looking at it is that, within the teaching profession, the more prestigious and highly-paid a job is, the more male-dominated it is: secondary school teachers are more male than primary school teachers, and in turn, university lecturers are more male than them.

It's not either/or. Both factors can contribute to the huge gender discrepancy in elementary school teachers. Anyways, that was hardly the main point of my post

[VBM]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom. I'm pretty sure that the only example of males caring more about their young than females do is seahorses, and that's just because male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant. I don't think it needs to be explained why it would be highly evolutionarily advantageous that the sex which has to devote a lot of time and energy to forming the new life would instinctually want to protect and nurture it...

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

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

Actually, this might just be only a Western aspect. The irony is that in other countries, people are actually looking for male elementary teachers, to provide a strong masculine male presence for young boys.

https://en.brilio.net/viral/china-wants-more-male-teachers-because-masculinity-china-wants-more-male-teachers-160208h.html#:~:text=is%20also%20implausible.-,Officials%20are%20actively%20recruiting%20male%20teachers%20and%20as%20local%20media,values%20are%20seen%20as%20masculine.

And the teaching career in many countries is seen as a prestigious occupation, that a male can enter into.

I don't think that we should be looking to China of all places as an example for how we should treat women...

[Libertas Vel Mors]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom. I'm pretty sure that the only example of males caring more about their young than females do is seahorses, and that's just because male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant. I don't think it needs to be explained why it would be highly evolutionarily advantageous that the sex which has to devote a lot of time and energy to forming the new life would instinctually want to protect and nurture it...

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

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

Actually, this might just be only a Western aspect. The irony is that in other countries, people are actually looking for male elementary teachers, to provide a strong masculine male presence for young boys.

https://en.brilio.net/viral/china-wants-more-male-teachers-because-masculinity-china-wants-more-male-teachers-160208h.html#:~:text=is%20also%20implausible.-,Officials%20are%20actively%20recruiting%20male%20teachers%20and%20as%20local%20media,values%20are%20seen%20as%20masculine.

And the teaching career in many countries is seen as a prestigious occupation, that a male can enter into.

This isn't a Western thing: 76% of South Korean teachers are female. It's a developing country thing: one theory is that where consistent salaries are less common and money from the central government more relatively lucrative, more men will go into education. Another is that in less wealthy countries (with usually corresponding lower levels of common knowledge,) education has higher status. But regardless of the cause, it's common for education systems to go from being predominantly male at their inception to predominantly female as they develop. For example, while "Teachers as a group in colonial American were overwhelmingly white and male," "teaching was essentially female" by 1900 in the US.

https://stuff.mit.edu/afs/athena.mit.edu/org/w/wgs/prize/eb04.html#:~:text=By%201900%2C%20teaching%20was%20essentially,differences%20between%20men%20and%20women.

[jojoju1998]

At a certain point, the blank slatist left is going to have to recognize that men and women are not the same. Men care more about money, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to executive roles, while women tend to be more caring, and disproportionately have skills well-suited to parenting and educational roles. A free and just society will thus naturally tend towards an equilibrium in which most executives are men, and most teachers and stay at home parents are women. Government intervention to try and reverse that will only destabilize society and create unnecessary economic and social burdens, with the net effect of making almost everyone less happy and growing governmental power.

I don't get why people like Fergie get so offended at the suggestion that women naturally tend to care more about children than men do. This is one of the most universal truths across the animal kingdom. I'm pretty sure that the only example of males caring more about their young than females do is seahorses, and that's just because male seahorses are the ones that get pregnant. I don't think it needs to be explained why it would be highly evolutionarily advantageous that the sex which has to devote a lot of time and energy to forming the new life would instinctually want to protect and nurture it...

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

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

Actually, this might just be only a Western aspect. The irony is that in other countries, people are actually looking for male elementary teachers, to provide a strong masculine male presence for young boys.

https://en.brilio.net/viral/china-wants-more-male-teachers-because-masculinity-china-wants-more-male-teachers-160208h.html#:~:text=is%20also%20implausible.-,Officials%20are%20actively%20recruiting%20male%20teachers%20and%20as%20local%20media,values%20are%20seen%20as%20masculine.

And the teaching career in many countries is seen as a prestigious occupation, that a male can enter into.

I don't think that we should be looking to China of all places as an example for how we should treat women...

And I'm not saying other wise. I'm just saying that the perception that education is a female orientated profession is not.... neccsarily prominent in other countries, and it seems to be a byproduct of US Protestant culture, and the fact, that elementary school teachers especially are drastically underpaid.


Although that being said, I would want more male Elementary School teachers, to as stated in the article, be that male presence in many children's lives. But in order for that to change, we have to drastically revamp American teacher training, to be more on par with international norms, and raise salaries as well.

Cut out for example, underperforming schools, that have low admissions rates.

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

[citation needed]

Nature, history, etc.

Least sexist Atlas poster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-8485

Veterinarians have a perception of relatively high pay, and flexible work conditions. It allows women who want to have children, AND work, to be able to do both.

[Del Tachi]

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 doare not made in the image of God.

FTFY

[jojoju1998]

One fact I would like to add; is that the percentage of school principals that are women is also relatively high.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cls/public-school-principals

School Principals are a position of leadership and responsibility yes ?

[Devout Centrist]

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

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

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

[jojoju1998]

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.

For example. South Korea.

[Ferguson97]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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

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

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

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

[VBM]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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