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

[jojoju1998]

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.

I think we're missing the point. We have to focus on creating broad spectrum prosperity from top to bottom. Where Men and Women have oppotuniries to pursue their happiness.


That will do far more to increase women leadership roles than going down the rabbithole that South Korea has gone. That country scares the crap out of me.

[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.

I think we're missing the point. We have to focus on creating broad spectrum prosperity from top to bottom. Where Men and Women have oppotuniries to pursue their happiness.


That will do far more to increase women leadership roles than going down the rabbithole that South Korea has gone. That country scares the crap out of me.

I agree.
I'm not even necessarily against affirmative action of sorts on this on some level. But in the end, ludicrously overoptimistic goals don't do much good.

[jojoju1998]

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.

I think we're missing the point. We have to focus on creating broad spectrum prosperity from top to bottom. Where Men and Women have oppotuniries to pursue their happiness.


That will do far more to increase women leadership roles than going down the rabbithole that South Korea has gone. That country scares the crap out of me.

I agree.
I'm not even necessarily against affirmative action of sorts on this on some level. But in the end, ludicrously overoptimistic goals don't do much good.

I keep on repeating South Korea, but there are documentaries of how the Kpop Culture, toxic misygonity, and toxic feminism, overworked culture, are damaging South Korea's long term prospects. Their population is declining, and they have gthe lowest birth rate in the world. Now....The US is not like South Korea, of course but I think we can take lessons from that country, and say, let's avoid the gender wars as much as possible.

[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.

I think we're missing the point. We have to focus on creating broad spectrum prosperity from top to bottom. Where Men and Women have oppotuniries to pursue their happiness.


That will do far more to increase women leadership roles than going down the rabbithole that South Korea has gone. That country scares the crap out of me.

I agree.
I'm not even necessarily against affirmative action of sorts on this on some level. But in the end, ludicrously overoptimistic goals don't do much good.

I keep on repeating South Korea, but there are documentaries of how the Kpop Culture, toxic misygonity, and toxic feminism, overworked culture, are damaging South Korea's long term prospects. Their population is declining, and they have gthe lowest birth rate in the world. Now....The US is not like South Korea, of course but I think we can take lessons from that country, and say, let's avoid the gender wars as much as possible.

I broadly agree.
There's good things about South Korea and all but I wouldn't like seeing SK-style gender wars here...I really wouldn't...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Some of the arguments being put forward in this thread would have sounded unreconstructed in the 1960s. Christ alive.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Some of the arguments being put forward in this thread would have sounded unreconstructed in the 1960s. Christ alive.

Why is your commentary focused more on what would sound passé than what is right or wrong?

[HisGrace]

Well first of all, a decline of 0.4% in anything in one year over year poll is pretty meaningless.

Red avs are always insisting that there are "male brains" and "female brains" so if that's the case there's no reason to automatically assume you'd have 50/50 numbers in every field. If men and women's minds are completely different than that could result in different interests and yes, even different aptitudes and there'd be no reason to assume any difference in outcome is because of discrimination without evidence. And I haven't seen any in the thread.

I personally don't know if gender differences are the result of gendered "brains" or socialization but they do exist nonetheless so the point still stands.

On top of that, given the age of most executives, this is going to tell you more about what things were like 20-30 year ago rather than today since that's when most people up for executive roles began their careers. With women now getting 60+ percent of college degrees and young women outearning young men in big cities I'd expect this to close rapidly in the coming decades.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Well first of all, a decline of 0.4% in anything in one year over year poll is pretty meaningless.

Red avs are always insisting that there are "male brains" and "female brains" so if that's the case there's no reason to automatically assume you'd have 50/50 numbers in every field. If men and women's minds are completely different than that could result in different interests and yes, even different aptitudes and there'd be no reason to assume any difference in outcome is because of discrimination without evidence. And I haven't seen any in the thread.

I personally don't know if gender differences are the result of gendered "brains" or socialization but they do exist nonetheless so the point still stands.

On top of that, given the age of most executives, this is going to tell you more about what things were like 20-30 year ago rather than today since that's when most people up for executive roles began their careers. With women now getting 60+ percent of college degrees and young women outearning young men in big cities I'd expect this to close rapidly in the coming decades.

You think there is a chance that men and women have exactly the same brains and that all differences between them have been created by socialization?

[heatcharger]

Some of the arguments being put forward in this thread would have sounded unreconstructed in the 1960s. Christ alive.

Interesting this is considered a compelling response. At least earlier in the thread you had passionate cases for feminism.

Just because an idea was considered regressive yesterday or today doesn’t make it any less correct. There are plenty of reasons to believe women aren’t cut out for executive positions. You don’t need to subscribe to The Patriarchy to believe this either. Just talk to women: most will tell you they have zero interest in being a CEO or President of the United States.

The hard truth for feminists: most women aren’t deeply interested in climbing the corporate ladder.

I quipped about interest rates but it’s obvious in corporate America why attention has shifted from away from diversity, equity and inclusion and towards profitability.

The era of free money is over.

[Ferguson97]

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.

The degree to which you are proud of your ignorance is astounding. There is nothing about evolution that says men are better suited to be leaders than women are.

There are plenty of reasons to believe women aren’t cut out for executive positions. You don’t need to subscribe to The Patriarchy to believe this either. Just talk to women: most will tell you they have zero interest in being a CEO or President of the United States.

The hard truth for feminists: most women aren’t deeply interested in climbing the corporate ladder.

Wtf are you even talking about?

[VBM]

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.

The degree to which you are proud of your ignorance is astounding. There is nothing about evolution that says men are better suited to be leaders than women are.

There are plenty of reasons to believe women aren’t cut out for executive positions. You don’t need to subscribe to The Patriarchy to believe this either. Just talk to women: most will tell you they have zero interest in being a CEO or President of the United States.

The hard truth for feminists: most women aren’t deeply interested in climbing the corporate ladder.

Wtf are you even talking about?

Yeah I don’t think this conversation is going to go anywhere lol.

[Holy Unifying Centrist]

Hopefully Trump fixes this disgusting gap. 2022 was the year of sugar mommas but I've been struggling to find any since 2023

[lfromnj]

Well first of all, a decline of 0.4% in anything in one year over year poll is pretty meaningless.

Red avs are always insisting that there are "male brains" and "female brains" so if that's the case there's no reason to automatically assume you'd have 50/50 numbers in every field. If men and women's minds are completely different than that could result in different interests and yes, even different aptitudes and there'd be no reason to assume any difference in outcome is because of discrimination without evidence. And I haven't seen any in the thread.

I personally don't know if gender differences are the result of gendered "brains" or socialization but they do exist nonetheless so the point still stands.

On top of that, given the age of most executives, this is going to tell you more about what things were like 20-30 year ago rather than today since that's when most people up for executive roles began their careers. With women now getting 60+ percent of college degrees and young women outearning young men in big cities I'd expect this to close rapidly in the coming decades.

It's not a poll. Its public data of all public executives. Aka the whole sample size. A census survey showing 0.4% decline in a city is nothing but a census showing the 0.4% decline would actually be something. Infact, 0.4% decrease is extremely surprising based on the article as it suggests for the past few years there was a continuous increase

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Jumping on the "statistical significance is inappropriate for this analysis" bandwagon to say: even if you were interested in trying to do some sort of inference here, zero change in the annual year-over-year composition in female executives is still probably a bad null expectation. You'd expect that, even if the gender breakdown of executives shouldn't equilibrate at 50-50, it should equilibrate to something more even than 88-12 (or 7-1) just through sampling variation because the underlying population of people who are eligible for promotion into these populations is much closer to 50-50 than it is to 88-12.

In a statistical sense a change of zero may make some sense, but from a statistical-demographic perspective it really shouldn't be. Something strange would still have to be happening to get zero y-o-y change!

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

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.

I don't think this is the case? You do have patriarchal animal groups but they tend to be harem based societies where one male guarda a large group of females.

[lfromnj]

Jumping on the "statistical significance is inappropriate for this analysis" bandwagon to say: even if you were interested in trying to do some sort of inference here, zero change in the annual year-over-year composition in female executives is still probably a bad null expectation. You'd expect that, even if the gender breakdown of executives shouldn't equilibrate at 50-50, it should equilibrate to something more even than 88-12 (or 7-1) just through sampling variation because the underlying population of people who are eligible for promotion into these populations is much closer to 50-50 than it is to 88-12.

In a statistical sense a change of zero may make some sense, but from a statistical-demographic perspective it really shouldn't be. Something strange would still have to be happening to get zero y-o-y change!

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-california-law-requiring-women-corporate-boards-unconstitutional/#:~:text=A%20Los%20Angeles%20judge%20has%20ruled%20that%20California%27s,this%20year%20violated%20the%20right%20to%20equal%20treatment.
I think I figured it out




U.S.
Judge rules California law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional
May 16, 2022 / 1:47 PM EDT / AP

A Los Angeles judge has ruled that California's landmark law requiring women on corporate boards is unconstitutional.

Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis said the law that would have required boards have up to three female directors by this year violated the right to equal treatment. The ruling was dated Friday.

The conservative legal group Judicial Watch had challenged the law, claiming it was illegal to use taxpayer funds to enforce a law that violates the equal protection clause of the California Constitution by mandating a gender-based quota.

The law was on shaky ground from the get-go with a legislative analysis saying it could be difficult to defend and then-Gov. Jerry Brown saying he was signing it despite the potential for it to be overturned by a court. Brown said he signed the bill to send a message during the #MeToo era.

In the three years it has been on the books, it's been credited with improving the standing of women in corporate boardrooms.

The law required publicly held companies headquartered in California to have one member who identifies as a woman on their boards of directors by the end of 2019. By January 2022, boards with five directors were required to have two women and boards with six or more members were required to have three women.

edit: Wait this is actually corporate boards and not executive level roles. Still it could have been one factor.

[ꙮ]

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

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

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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

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

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

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

[ꙮ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jojoju1998]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People keep talking about the scientific fact that men and women are different, but has anyone here actually produced a real scientific finding that would explain the fact that there is a 8:1 ratio of men to women in these positions? The closest thing to actual evidence that has been posted here is the risk-taking study, but even that is only weakly linked to topic here. A 1.6 point IQ difference, if accurate, would not even come close to explaining it. A standard deviation is 15 points for an IQ test. Even if that one study is accurate we're talking about a difference in intelligence which is practically unnoticeable.

Why bother arguing with a guy who has a festish for a neofeudalistic libertarian utopia and who thinks the civil rights act of 1964 was bad ?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

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

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

[jojoju1998]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

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

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

Will it also depend by industry though ?

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

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

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for the thoughtful response.

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

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

Will it also depend by industry though ?

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

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

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

(So, if taking your question at face value, totally, it would definitely make sense for the ratios to differ across fields based on the distributions of interest/drive/skill etc -- so many different factors as to make prediction near impossible, but to plausibly lead, say, men to be overrepresented in engineering and women in education or veterinary services.)

[lfromnj]

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

In the end its important to treat everyone as individuals

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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

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