6 ms·

This is similar to something Jordan Peterson has argued [1]. In short: Societies which afford economic rights to women have flourished, but women pay a huge pr

by 013a 9y ago

This is similar to something Jordan Peterson has argued [1]. In short: Societies which afford economic rights to women have flourished, but women pay a huge price for it. The question shouldn't be "why aren't more women in positions of power", but really "why are there any men who are insane enough to occupy those positions" when social science has already proven that money beyond a certain number doesn't make you happier and the work conditions are absolutely atrocious. Women are much more sane than men, and anyone who argues that we should have more women in power is arguing that women, as a class, should be terminally unhappy. Which isn't to say that the same opportunities shouldn't exist, and in many fields they don't, but be careful when conflating opportunity and outcome. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvUtDdlNGwY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvUtDdlNGwY

jawbone3 9y ago
Thats funny! By your summary women have poor representation in tech fields because the working conditions are bad, so people should stop trying to get women into the sector because the will get crappy jobs. Let me suggest that a sane person would argue in support of improving working conditions instead of perpetuating suffering, but I guess thats a point of contention in these contexts....
- peak_body_yo 9y ago
  Perception vs. reality The general perception is that programming is a socially isolating, boring, monotonous job where you stare at a screen all day. People making career choices don't know about the lax environment. So tech completely aligns with what he/she wrote. edit: and your sarcasm is hostile
  - Zarath 9y ago
    This will be an unpopular opinion here but it's true in my experience.
    - yarper 9y ago
      It's time to leave your employer and do something that makes you happy
      - MrTonyD 9y ago
        I was recently reading that there are estimated to be 6 billion people in the world who want jobs, and estimated to be 2 billion jobs. So advice to "leave your employer" reflects a very narrow world view - a view from those having privilege, and without empathy for those with different choices.
  - jawbone3 9y ago
    The op speaks about the choices of people based on thier lived experience of working these jobs, and the grand parent is also arguing inside that context. You present arguments that clearly seek to support of the GP, but talk about the outsiders erroneous perception of these jobs when their harshness is an agreed premise. And its not even my premise you argue againts, I merely inherited it from the the user you try to defend!
kaybe 9y ago
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't you expect a better total outcome with saner people in positions of power?
- manigandham 9y ago
  Sure, but you have to challenge the "insane" focused competition to attain that power, and you'll likely lose to their ambition and drive.
- 013a 9y ago
  But sane people, generally, do not attain positions of power. If they did, our system would usurp them in favor of someone "insane". Its something that is fundamental to how some humans operate. If I'm President and I don't wake up at 4am to handle a crisis in Syria, I am showcasing a pattern that will probably mean I won't be re-elected. What I've described is horribly unhealthy, if done consistently. Yet, we need people like that if we want to scale and grow as a species. We need crazy Presidents, crazy CEOs, crazy engineers, crazy doctors, crazy lawyers, etc. The point I wish were more widely accepted is that its alright to not be in these positions. I've heard people say "Its unacceptable that we haven't had a female President because I want my daughter to grow up in a world where she could be President." Two things: First, yeah! If that's what your daughter wants, then she should have that option, and having precedence and a role model helps. But, more importantly: You as a parent don't understand what it takes to be President. You should want your daughter to be happy, not powerful.
sedachv 9y ago
Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." [1] Someone who has no idea what a dowry is has no business trying to teach anthropology. Peterson gets attention for being an obnoxious know-it-all but he just repeats well known ideas in psychology and ethology; when it comes to anthropology Peterson does not have a clue. [1] This quote is in one of Peterson's many digressive rants somewhere in the first seven lectures of the 2017 Maps of Meaning course: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-O... I gave up on it after realizing he was just basically making shit up as he went along when it came to his ideas about anthropology.
- _Codemonkeyism 9y ago
  "Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." I couldn't decide from your comment, if you think the fact is wrong, or you disagree on ideological grounds, or he is a nutcase.
  - sedachv 9y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry is an extremely common practice across the world going back a very long time. The fact that Peterson asserts that "only rich women get married" was not the case in the past shows an atrocious lack of knowledge about anthropology.
    - chongli 9y ago
      When Peterson makes authoritative claims, it's important to recognize that he's only talking about Western countries. That's where his expertise is focused. Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. Take a gander at his Biblical series. It's 100% about Western civilization.
      - sedachv 9y ago
        > Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Do you not understand that being able to provide a dowry in the past is being "rich" today? Peterson's whole approach to evolutionary psych can be summarized as "this is what people have done in the past, therefore it is a big problem that people are now doing something different." The problem is that Peterson does not seem to actually know what people have done in the past, and how similar it is to what happens today. The result is a lot of ignorant ranting about problems that do not exist. > Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. This was actually the start of Peterson's rant that I mentioned. When in the history of "Western civilization" was this not the case? Lower class women were always treated as slaves, serfs and/or prostitutes and constituted the majority of the population in Europe. Out-of-wedlock births and maternal material deprivation is the historic norm. Forget even having a single mother, many more children than today were raised in orphanages because their single mothers were too poor to provide for them. The only discernible reason Peterson finds this novel or "alarming" is because of his misogynist views on women now having the choice of marriage and divorce.
skore 9y ago
I found this longer video of his on the same subject to be better at explaining the nuances of his viewpoint: https://youtu.be/NV2yvI4Id9Q https://youtu.be/NV2yvI4Id9Q
borplk 9y ago
Men are disposable and get no sympathy from anyone in the society. No one attaches any "inherent" value to a man. It's all about their power and status. Women also contribute to this by rewarding the high status men.
- ue_ 9y ago
  From a feminist point of view, this is how patriarchy negatively affects men, too.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Allower 9y ago
This is very tortured argument. i hope you are misrepresenting it
Clubber 9y ago
>when social science has already proven that money beyond a certain number doesn't make you happier I've read that's a media misinterpretation of the results. From what I understand a certain salary satisfies your basic needs, as in Maslow's Triangle, but further income improves happiness. Of course, if you work in a shithole, you're going to be miserable no matter how much you make.
- 013a 9y ago
  That might be. I'm not up to date on the research. That being said, very few people just "get money" without working an incredibly demanding job. There have been plenty of stories into lottery winners, who after winning become completely miserable, many of which end up killing themselves. Of course, you don't hear about the success stories, and there's also a certain type of person who plays the lottery which might attract insanity when they win. [1] The "rest and vest" story from a day or so ago was also interesting. It might be that these people were happy just sitting around collecting a paycheck and vesting. But the story talked about how many of these people say they want to leave and start their own thing, but can't/don't because the position they are in is too good. Is that happiness? Or is it complacency and "good enough"? Another angle is "trust fund babies"; people who receive large inheritances and don't generally have to work. I'm not sure if I'm aware of any studies into their happiness. I'd love to see more research and stories on this. The traditional saying is "money can't buy happiness"; maybe that's absolutely true, or maybe it should be tweaked to say "the average work it takes to have a lot of money will leave you unhappy." [1] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/ http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/
  - newman8r 9y ago
    In book 1 of the republic, socrates discusses (with cephalus) inherited vs earned wealth, and concludes that those who earn it tend to become obsessed with it. I believe there's some truth to that, but I also believe that there's a fear/weakness in those with inherited wealth that if they became destitute, they do not have the ability to rebuild the wealth.
  - Clubber 9y ago

by 013a 9y ago

jawbone3 9y ago

Thats funny! By your summary women have poor representation in tech fields because the working conditions are bad, so people should stop trying to get women into the sector because the will get crappy jobs. Let me suggest that a sane person would argue in support of improving working conditions instead of perpetuating suffering, but I guess thats a point of contention in these contexts....

peak_body_yo 9y ago
Perception vs. reality The general perception is that programming is a socially isolating, boring, monotonous job where you stare at a screen all day. People making career choices don't know about the lax environment. So tech completely aligns with what he/she wrote. edit: and your sarcasm is hostile
- Zarath 9y ago
  This will be an unpopular opinion here but it's true in my experience.
  - yarper 9y ago
    It's time to leave your employer and do something that makes you happy
    - MrTonyD 9y ago
      I was recently reading that there are estimated to be 6 billion people in the world who want jobs, and estimated to be 2 billion jobs. So advice to "leave your employer" reflects a very narrow world view - a view from those having privilege, and without empathy for those with different choices.
- jawbone3 9y ago
  The op speaks about the choices of people based on thier lived experience of working these jobs, and the grand parent is also arguing inside that context. You present arguments that clearly seek to support of the GP, but talk about the outsiders erroneous perception of these jobs when their harshness is an agreed premise. And its not even my premise you argue againts, I merely inherited it from the the user you try to defend!

kaybe 9y ago

By that line of reasoning, wouldn't you expect a better total outcome with saner people in positions of power?

manigandham 9y ago
Sure, but you have to challenge the "insane" focused competition to attain that power, and you'll likely lose to their ambition and drive.
013a 9y ago
But sane people, generally, do not attain positions of power. If they did, our system would usurp them in favor of someone "insane". Its something that is fundamental to how some humans operate. If I'm President and I don't wake up at 4am to handle a crisis in Syria, I am showcasing a pattern that will probably mean I won't be re-elected. What I've described is horribly unhealthy, if done consistently. Yet, we need people like that if we want to scale and grow as a species. We need crazy Presidents, crazy CEOs, crazy engineers, crazy doctors, crazy lawyers, etc. The point I wish were more widely accepted is that its alright to not be in these positions. I've heard people say "Its unacceptable that we haven't had a female President because I want my daughter to grow up in a world where she could be President." Two things: First, yeah! If that's what your daughter wants, then she should have that option, and having precedence and a role model helps. But, more importantly: You as a parent don't understand what it takes to be President. You should want your daughter to be happy, not powerful.

sedachv 9y ago

Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." [1] Someone who has no idea what a dowry is has no business trying to teach anthropology. Peterson gets attention for being an obnoxious know-it-all but he just repeats well known ideas in psychology and ethology; when it comes to anthropology Peterson does not have a clue. [1] This quote is in one of Peterson's many digressive rants somewhere in the first seven lectures of the 2017 Maps of Meaning course: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-OKOpQlHyR4k5h https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL22J3VaeABQAT-0aSPq-O... I gave up on it after realizing he was just basically making shit up as he went along when it came to his ideas about anthropology.

_Codemonkeyism 9y ago
"Jordan Peterson also argued that "Now only rich women get married." I couldn't decide from your comment, if you think the fact is wrong, or you disagree on ideological grounds, or he is a nutcase.
- sedachv 9y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowry is an extremely common practice across the world going back a very long time. The fact that Peterson asserts that "only rich women get married" was not the case in the past shows an atrocious lack of knowledge about anthropology.
  - chongli 9y ago
    When Peterson makes authoritative claims, it's important to recognize that he's only talking about Western countries. That's where his expertise is focused. Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. Take a gander at his Biblical series. It's 100% about Western civilization.
    - sedachv 9y ago
      > Dowry is almost non-existent today in Western culture. Do you not understand that being able to provide a dowry in the past is being "rich" today? Peterson's whole approach to evolutionary psych can be summarized as "this is what people have done in the past, therefore it is a big problem that people are now doing something different." The problem is that Peterson does not seem to actually know what people have done in the past, and how similar it is to what happens today. The result is a lot of ignorant ranting about problems that do not exist. > Divorce rate is extremely high among lower status people. Single motherhood is alarmingly common. This was actually the start of Peterson's rant that I mentioned. When in the history of "Western civilization" was this not the case? Lower class women were always treated as slaves, serfs and/or prostitutes and constituted the majority of the population in Europe. Out-of-wedlock births and maternal material deprivation is the historic norm. Forget even having a single mother, many more children than today were raised in orphanages because their single mothers were too poor to provide for them. The only discernible reason Peterson finds this novel or "alarming" is because of his misogynist views on women now having the choice of marriage and divorce.

skore 9y ago

I found this longer video of his on the same subject to be better at explaining the nuances of his viewpoint: https://youtu.be/NV2yvI4Id9Q https://youtu.be/NV2yvI4Id9Q

borplk 9y ago

Men are disposable and get no sympathy from anyone in the society. No one attaches any "inherent" value to a man. It's all about their power and status. Women also contribute to this by rewarding the high status men.

ue_ 9y ago
From a feminist point of view, this is how patriarchy negatively affects men, too.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Allower 9y ago

This is very tortured argument. i hope you are misrepresenting it

Clubber 9y ago

>when social science has already proven that money beyond a certain number doesn't make you happier I've read that's a media misinterpretation of the results. From what I understand a certain salary satisfies your basic needs, as in Maslow's Triangle, but further income improves happiness. Of course, if you work in a shithole, you're going to be miserable no matter how much you make.

013a 9y ago
That might be. I'm not up to date on the research. That being said, very few people just "get money" without working an incredibly demanding job. There have been plenty of stories into lottery winners, who after winning become completely miserable, many of which end up killing themselves. Of course, you don't hear about the success stories, and there's also a certain type of person who plays the lottery which might attract insanity when they win. [1] The "rest and vest" story from a day or so ago was also interesting. It might be that these people were happy just sitting around collecting a paycheck and vesting. But the story talked about how many of these people say they want to leave and start their own thing, but can't/don't because the position they are in is too good. Is that happiness? Or is it complacency and "good enough"? Another angle is "trust fund babies"; people who receive large inheritances and don't generally have to work. I'm not sure if I'm aware of any studies into their happiness. I'd love to see more research and stories on this. The traditional saying is "money can't buy happiness"; maybe that's absolutely true, or maybe it should be tweaked to say "the average work it takes to have a lot of money will leave you unhappy." [1] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/ http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/
- newman8r 9y ago
  In book 1 of the republic, socrates discusses (with cephalus) inherited vs earned wealth, and concludes that those who earn it tend to become obsessed with it. I believe there's some truth to that, but I also believe that there's a fear/weakness in those with inherited wealth that if they became destitute, they do not have the ability to rebuild the wealth.
- Clubber 9y ago