4 ms·

The higher number of men in senior positions isn't necessarily sexist. I think it's because men are more likely to accept insane work-life balance in exchange f

The higher number of men in senior positions isn't necessarily sexist. I think it's because men are more likely to accept insane work-life balance in exchange for the status, because it increases their attractiveness more than it does for women. A women who is a CEO is not much more attractive to a man than a women who is a dental hygienist; however, a man who is a CEO is much more attractive than a man who is a welder. Take it as sexism or not but lots of men are hellbent on getting that high-status, high-stress job.

MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
Gender pay gap in a nut shell: "Females were four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women," sciencedirect.com/science/articl… See: https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/946679625505230848 https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/946679625505230848
- geofft 9y ago
  None of this establishes that there aren't other reasons for wanting a high-paying job besides attractiveness (e.g., not wanting to be dependent on finding a spouse with a high-paying job). Also, this would imply that gay (non-bi) or asexual men, who are not seeking women as partners, would be found in high-status/high-pay positions at rates more comparable to (all) women than to straight men. This seems like a pretty straightforward hypothesis - do we have the data to test it?
  - MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
    True, there are probably many other factors. For some we have the data. All of them more credible than „theres a giant conspiracy against women“.
    - geofft 9y ago
      > All of them more credible than „theres a giant conspiracy against women“. Why is that not credible? Remember that until the 1860s, the United States literally had a giant conspiracy against black people - so much so that huge parts of the US economy were absolutely dependent on black people not having the rights to life, liberty, and property. Women didn't have a constitutional right to vote in the US until 1920, when the Constitution was changed to add one. Why is it not credible that there's a giant conspiracy against women? What changed in the last 100-150 years that made humankind more reasonable, given how completely unreasonable humankind was just a couple of generations ago? (Note that I'm only speaking of the US, which is what I'm familiar with and where the US is based. It's possible that countries other than the US are more reasonable.)
      - MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
        I would be inclined to agree with you if the phenomenon was limited to the US. But its not, it occurs world wide, even in Scandinavian countries. What you are suggesting is a world-wide conspiracy, across all countries and cultures, and across all corporations. I can't prove you wrong, but Occams Razor tells me this is unlikely.
lurr 9y ago
Because women's lives revolve around maximizing their value to husbands. Yup, sounds completely reasonable. Hey, how come so many more women become doctors now? High stress job, takes a long time, I don't think it's any more "attractive" then being a nurse. I'm gonna go ahead and say that this line of thinking is sexist. I'm not trying to attack you I just think it needs to be said because I think it's actively harmful. It ignores any other reasons behind the gap, and it's a terrible line of thinking for anyone who manages women. "I don't know if I should give her this role, women aren't really suited for leadership".
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- alvah 9y ago
  Parent is merely saying women tend to be hypergamous (look it up). This used to be uncontroversial.
  - lurr 9y ago
    > This used to be uncontroversial Lots of things used to be uncontroversial. Get with the times.
    - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
      Do you have an argument against women being hypergamous, or are you just going to be derisive in every comment?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - alvah 9y ago
      Are you saying women no longer tend to be hypergamous? That seems a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.
      - noir_lord 9y ago

MrBuddyCasino 9y ago

Gender pay gap in a nut shell: "Females were four times more sensitive than males to economic status cues when rating opposite sex attractiveness, indicating that higher economic status can offset lower physical attractiveness in men much more easily than in women," sciencedirect.com/science/articl… See: https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/946679625505230848 https://twitter.com/degenrolf/status/946679625505230848

geofft 9y ago
None of this establishes that there aren't other reasons for wanting a high-paying job besides attractiveness (e.g., not wanting to be dependent on finding a spouse with a high-paying job). Also, this would imply that gay (non-bi) or asexual men, who are not seeking women as partners, would be found in high-status/high-pay positions at rates more comparable to (all) women than to straight men. This seems like a pretty straightforward hypothesis - do we have the data to test it?
- MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
  True, there are probably many other factors. For some we have the data. All of them more credible than „theres a giant conspiracy against women“.
  - geofft 9y ago
    > All of them more credible than „theres a giant conspiracy against women“. Why is that not credible? Remember that until the 1860s, the United States literally had a giant conspiracy against black people - so much so that huge parts of the US economy were absolutely dependent on black people not having the rights to life, liberty, and property. Women didn't have a constitutional right to vote in the US until 1920, when the Constitution was changed to add one. Why is it not credible that there's a giant conspiracy against women? What changed in the last 100-150 years that made humankind more reasonable, given how completely unreasonable humankind was just a couple of generations ago? (Note that I'm only speaking of the US, which is what I'm familiar with and where the US is based. It's possible that countries other than the US are more reasonable.)
    - MrBuddyCasino 9y ago
      I would be inclined to agree with you if the phenomenon was limited to the US. But its not, it occurs world wide, even in Scandinavian countries. What you are suggesting is a world-wide conspiracy, across all countries and cultures, and across all corporations. I can't prove you wrong, but Occams Razor tells me this is unlikely.

lurr 9y ago

Because women's lives revolve around maximizing their value to husbands. Yup, sounds completely reasonable. Hey, how come so many more women become doctors now? High stress job, takes a long time, I don't think it's any more "attractive" then being a nurse. I'm gonna go ahead and say that this line of thinking is sexist. I'm not trying to attack you I just think it needs to be said because I think it's actively harmful. It ignores any other reasons behind the gap, and it's a terrible line of thinking for anyone who manages women. "I don't know if I should give her this role, women aren't really suited for leadership".

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
alvah 9y ago
Parent is merely saying women tend to be hypergamous (look it up). This used to be uncontroversial.
- lurr 9y ago
  > This used to be uncontroversial Lots of things used to be uncontroversial. Get with the times.
  - hi-im-mi-ih 9y ago
    Do you have an argument against women being hypergamous, or are you just going to be derisive in every comment?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - alvah 9y ago
    Are you saying women no longer tend to be hypergamous? That seems a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly.
    - noir_lord 9y ago