5 ms·

That's certainly the most common rationalization that's given for the disparity, but even if accepted as valid, the criterion of being an "avenue for social adv

That's certainly the most common rationalization that's given for the disparity, but even if accepted as valid, the criterion of being an "avenue for social advancement" is difficult to apply to one, but not the other. What's to stop people from 'networking' in women-only cars, and what of the myriad 'women in business' networking events and clubs that exist?

x0x0 10y ago
As long as you ignore who in society actually has power, that will work just great. On a totally unrelated note, there are 31 women who have served in the Senate. Ever. And there are zero women who have served as president, though that will change in February. There are a tiny minority of female board members. There is a high of 22 of the fortune 500 with female ceos.
- pervycreeper 10y ago
  You think that no attendees of 'women in business' networking events hold any kind of power?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bjornstjerne 10y ago
  > As long as you ignore who in society actually has power > ....Senate...president...board members...ceos. A man or a group of men having power is not the same as men, as a class, having power.
  - x0x0 10y ago
    When you're discussing gender-segregated networking or social events that underlie a gender-segregated power structure it is exactly a denial of access to women.
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    Kiiiiinda but not really? You're forgetting about the implied sub-selection (or lack thereof), which then needs to be re-applied to the situation over which the group has power. Take random small town A containing subgroup B, which holds most seats of power in town A. This is the same as: Subgroup B, as a class, having power, within town A. So let's rephrase: American men, as a class, have power in America. Now, what happens if our sub-selection ISN'T a sub-selection, and is just "humanity"? Human men, as a class, have power in humanity. This is backed up by leadership statistics. Now, I think what you're trying to say is: Correlation of the "man" attribute with power is the not the same as the "man" attribute causing power". Again, this kinda makes sense, but, AFAIK/IMHO, so long as the attribute in question is disproportionately shared by the people with power vs the distribution amongst the population, that attribute IS causing some degree of the power held.
    - bjornstjerne 10y ago
      Not really. What I was getting at was that social forces change over time. Certain members of the "man" class benefited from past social forces, not some innate powerful characteristic of the "man" class. So, it's wrong enact (and justify) policies to counteract that non-existent characteristic, like denying that class access to sex-segregated networking groups that are equivalent to those available to other classes. Power usually goes to the classes who are most organized and cooperative. If you forbid cooperation, you eventually forbid (equal) power as well.
- wskinner 10y ago
  And what is the right number of Fortune 500 CEOs or women Senators?
  - RangerScience 10y ago
    ~250, because the average age of a CEO is 55 and it looks like the gender ratio (at least in the US and Canada) is about 50/50 at that age: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/d...
    - smallnamespace 10y ago
      Is there any natural limit to this? If we take this to its logical conclusion, should every group of humans should form a stratified sample[1] of the population? What should the variables be -- age, gender orientation, sex, religion, disability status, race, color, national origin, pregnancy, marital status, number of pets, ... ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling Do you see any downsides to making every group 'representative'?
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - RangerScience 10y ago
        Dear god yes there are downsides. Here's my thinking: First, consider that the sample size vs population size of CEOs is goddamn tremendous, and the size of both pools is pretty substantial. It's one thing to try to select a stratified sample of 10 out of 20; it's another to select a stratified sample 500 out of millions. I would expect the transition point to be around when people stop being people, and start being statistics. Second - It's like dark matter, and then it gets more complicated. Notionally, men and women are equal in capability; given just that, I'd expect to see a sample representative of the population demographics. This is not what is observed, so we can posit a) inequality in capability and/or b) other forces acting on the system. A isn't born out by other experiments, leaving B. So then it becomes a question of: What are those other forces AND are they ones we want to keep? Contrast with age, which clearly has a correlation with inequality in capability, so less of the disparity with the theoretical stratified sample must be explained by B. Of course, shit gets complicated fast; the correlation of skill with age is not only non-linear, but is more like a non-linear probability function of skill given an age; self-selection might at first seem to be a reasonable B force, but then you have to consider what's causing the self-selection, and what effect that should have on the "equally capable" population sizes... At 55, it looks like CEOs should be equally split down the middle. That this is not the case means there's more forces in play than explained by the "theory".

x0x0 10y ago

As long as you ignore who in society actually has power, that will work just great. On a totally unrelated note, there are 31 women who have served in the Senate. Ever. And there are zero women who have served as president, though that will change in February. There are a tiny minority of female board members. There is a high of 22 of the fortune 500 with female ceos.

pervycreeper 10y ago
You think that no attendees of 'women in business' networking events hold any kind of power?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bjornstjerne 10y ago
> As long as you ignore who in society actually has power > ....Senate...president...board members...ceos. A man or a group of men having power is not the same as men, as a class, having power.
- x0x0 10y ago
  When you're discussing gender-segregated networking or social events that underlie a gender-segregated power structure it is exactly a denial of access to women.
- RangerScience 10y ago
  Kiiiiinda but not really? You're forgetting about the implied sub-selection (or lack thereof), which then needs to be re-applied to the situation over which the group has power. Take random small town A containing subgroup B, which holds most seats of power in town A. This is the same as: Subgroup B, as a class, having power, within town A. So let's rephrase: American men, as a class, have power in America. Now, what happens if our sub-selection ISN'T a sub-selection, and is just "humanity"? Human men, as a class, have power in humanity. This is backed up by leadership statistics. Now, I think what you're trying to say is: Correlation of the "man" attribute with power is the not the same as the "man" attribute causing power". Again, this kinda makes sense, but, AFAIK/IMHO, so long as the attribute in question is disproportionately shared by the people with power vs the distribution amongst the population, that attribute IS causing some degree of the power held.
  - bjornstjerne 10y ago
    Not really. What I was getting at was that social forces change over time. Certain members of the "man" class benefited from past social forces, not some innate powerful characteristic of the "man" class. So, it's wrong enact (and justify) policies to counteract that non-existent characteristic, like denying that class access to sex-segregated networking groups that are equivalent to those available to other classes. Power usually goes to the classes who are most organized and cooperative. If you forbid cooperation, you eventually forbid (equal) power as well.
wskinner 10y ago
And what is the right number of Fortune 500 CEOs or women Senators?
- RangerScience 10y ago
  ~250, because the average age of a CEO is 55 and it looks like the gender ratio (at least in the US and Canada) is about 50/50 at that age: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/demo10a-eng.htm http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/d...
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    Is there any natural limit to this? If we take this to its logical conclusion, should every group of humans should form a stratified sample[1] of the population? What should the variables be -- age, gender orientation, sex, religion, disability status, race, color, national origin, pregnancy, marital status, number of pets, ... ? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling Do you see any downsides to making every group 'representative'?
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - RangerScience 10y ago
      Dear god yes there are downsides. Here's my thinking: First, consider that the sample size vs population size of CEOs is goddamn tremendous, and the size of both pools is pretty substantial. It's one thing to try to select a stratified sample of 10 out of 20; it's another to select a stratified sample 500 out of millions. I would expect the transition point to be around when people stop being people, and start being statistics. Second - It's like dark matter, and then it gets more complicated. Notionally, men and women are equal in capability; given just that, I'd expect to see a sample representative of the population demographics. This is not what is observed, so we can posit a) inequality in capability and/or b) other forces acting on the system. A isn't born out by other experiments, leaving B. So then it becomes a question of: What are those other forces AND are they ones we want to keep? Contrast with age, which clearly has a correlation with inequality in capability, so less of the disparity with the theoretical stratified sample must be explained by B. Of course, shit gets complicated fast; the correlation of skill with age is not only non-linear, but is more like a non-linear probability function of skill given an age; self-selection might at first seem to be a reasonable B force, but then you have to consider what's causing the self-selection, and what effect that should have on the "equally capable" population sizes... At 55, it looks like CEOs should be equally split down the middle. That this is not the case means there's more forces in play than explained by the "theory".