10 ms·

Boys Rules, Girls Lose - Women at Work

100 points by icey 16y ago

SecretAgentMan 16y ago
Boys rules, Girls lose? Do these theories still hold true? This year, for the first time in the US, the number of women in the workforce surpassed the number of men. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-... I don't believe this majority exists in blue collar jobs, but I could be mistaken.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  That's a good question. But cultures have inertia, so it's likely that even with women forming the majority of the workforce, "masculine" conventions will prevail for a while. This is especially true given that men still tend to hold more positions at the top of the corporate hierarchy.
  - zeynel1 16y ago
    yes i agree with your comment - men are now coasting - that is - they move on inertia - riding the male system designed 2000 years ago - but women have the momentum and therefore they will conquer the workplace within 50 years i have been researching this topic lately and as i wrote here http://makebelieve1.wordpress.com/about/ http://makebelieve1.wordpress.com/about/ women have kept alive from generation to generation the memory of a society where females were rulers of men this information comes from the book -when god was a woman- http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/015696158X http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/0156961... especially this quote in the original female society –all authority was vested in the woman who discharged every kind of public duty – the men looked after domestic affairs and did as they were told by their wives – men were not allowed to undertake war service or to exercise any functions of government or to fulfill any public office – such as might have given them more spirit to set themselves up against the women – the children were handed over immediately after birth to the men who reared them– http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=when+god+was+a+woman&hl=en&ei=-G96TM-aK8P_lgf928XrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=diodorus&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=f...
    - SecretAgentMan 16y ago
      For the record, this book is pretty controversial. It theorizes about a society that may have existed over 6000 years ago. It references the Amazons - who were mythological - and there is quite a bit of disagreement in the academic community about the validity of the conclusions.
      - zeynel1 16y ago
        --it references the amazons - who were mythological-- these are the references in the book to amazons - what do you find objectionable in them http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=when+god+was+a+woman&hl=en&ei=-G96TM-aK8P_lgf928XrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=amazon&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=f... --there is quite a bit of disagreement in the academic community about the validity of the conclusions-- i read a book for myself and draw my own conclusions - the authority of an -academic community- means nothing to me - if you read the book and wrote your own opinion that would have been a valuable contribution instead of a reference to the authority of something that does not exist namely -academic community-
ojbyrne 16y ago
I think some of the stuff about "hard-wiring" is actually parents underestimating the influence of society vs their own influence. I once read a study that found that eight years old was the point at which children were influenced more by non-family sources than family sources.
- bmelton 16y ago
  My daughter was raised similarly to the girls in the article -- we bought gender-neutral toys, painted her room in neutral colors, and deliberately avoided buying any toys that swayed particularly one way or the other. By the age of three, she had all but insisted that we buy her pink clothes and girlier toys, to which we of course caved (I mean, if she wants it, so be it -- we just weren't trying to influence.) She's a smart kid, and she's into plenty of non-girl things (She's currently training mixed martial arts at the age of 8, and loves playing in the mud) -- but her school wardrobe almost entirely consists of decidedly non-boy attire, and her field hockey and lacrosse sticks are pink. We weren't exactly TRYING to steer her away from it, and it was by no means an experiment on our part, we just didn't want to predispose her to girlie things without provocation, so it's in no way scientific -- but we definitely didn't steer her.
  - sprout 16y ago
    I think a substantial part of it is also parents missing the importance of their expectations. If you're aggressively trying to be 'neutral,' you've got some extreme in your mind you're trying to avoid steering your child towards, and your child can, over time, subconsciously pick that up.
    - bmelton 16y ago
      I suppose that's possible, but we were trying to steer away from either extreme -- it wasn't as though we replaced her Barbies with GI Joes, we just bought Legos instead. We tried to ensure that all her toes were educational, even if it wasn't the focus of the toy (i.e., we didn't try to eliminate 'fun'.) That said, we weren't doing anything in particular to keep her away from commercials, or limiting social interactions from her peers or anything, so there really wasn't much of a 'control' group whatsoever.
masklinn 16y ago
> We started to believe that perhaps there was some hard-wiring about gender. Uh... gender, perhaps?
- joshuacc 16y ago
  I'm not sure how Steve was using the term, but "gender" isn't equivalent to "sex" in this sort of discussion. "Sex" denotes biological differences, while "gender" denotes cultural conventions (which may or may not be directly related to biology).
  - ubernostrum 16y ago
    Fallacy of begging the question. "Gender" denotes the things which are not the physical genital apparatus, and includes but is not limited to types of behavior or preferences or tendencies toward behaviors or preferences. Whether all differences between the sexes in such areas are "cultural conventions" or whether some are in fact "wired in" at a non-cultural level is a topic of endless debate.
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      Indeed. I don't disagree with any of this. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but my parenthetical was intended to convey what you said in your comment.
      - ubernostrum 16y ago
        You described gender as "cultural conventions". Which sort of assumes an answer to the nature/nurture debate; thus my reply.
GFischer 16y ago
Anecdote: I've had women bosses in 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked for (not IT shops). In all cases, IT was a collaboration/support department, subservient to the "men's" departments like sales And of course the CEO, president or equivalent was a man However, I think the fact that the #2 person was a woman in all three cases is a win for women. I wonder if it was subconsciously set up by the leader that way, maybe they feel less threatened by a woman as #2?. Being in a department that's not in the line of fire hinders the possibility of advancement in the career ladder significantly, I've noticed.
- Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
  I'm in IT and six out of the dozen or so managers I've reported to in my eleven years here have been women. (We're definitely a serious outlier—there was at least one time when my entire five- or six-level management chain was female except for the CEO.) I haven't seen much direct evidence for the competition-vs.-collaboration model in our organization, but there's one generalization I can make: for whatever reason, on average the women have been far more competent than the men. I've encountered several men up the hierarchy from me who were indifferent, ineffectual or incompetent, but none of the women have been, and the sharpest woman I've worked for could run rings around the sharpest man. I suspect this happens because women have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously in IT. The main difference here seems to be that they can eventually get real career traction.
  - GFischer 16y ago
    I have to agree that most of the women bosses I've had were much better than the men. And they do get some career traction, what I wanted to say is that they have some kind of glass ceiling at the CEO / President level. Since I'm praising them, I guess it's okay to use real names :) . The women bosses that were excellent were: Matilde Milicevic ( http://uy.linkedin.com/pub/matilde-milicevic/6/12/905 http://uy.linkedin.com/pub/matilde-milicevic/6/12/905 ), currently chief of operations at Equifax Uruguay and Noela Próspero, currently chief of operations at Urudata Software
Tichy 16y ago
I must admit, my experiences are rather the opposite. That is, men seem to collaborate more than women. At least with women I constantly see mobbing behavior, they can get really worked up about having people around they don't like. With men there seems to be more of a laissez faire attitude. Purely anecdotal, of course...
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I've observed this as well. But I think it is not because boys are more collaborative, but because boys are taught not just how to fight, but when to fight. We start fighting when someone yells "fight", but more importantly we stop fighting when the bell rings. Then we hug our opponent and share a beer, because we've got a lot more in common with him than with the people sitting around watching. I've never observed women being unable to compete - that's just a matter of technical competence. I have observed women being unable to stop competing when the bell rings. Losing is fine, holding a grudge isn't. (To be fair, some men exhibit the same problem. Academia seems rife with them.)
  - Lewisham 16y ago
    This is about right. When I've seen my SO in female-dominated workplaces, the constant strain of "collaboration" is exhausting. However, "collaboration" in this sense is usually playing a competitive popularity contest, and in the archetypal case this was achieved by bad mouthing people behind their backs. If you were able to talk to every girl individually, you'd eventually build a picture which painted everyone loathing everyone else. That wasn't true, but that's how they bonded ("You're my favorite in this office, I don't like everyone else" being said to multiple people). In my small sample size (< 4), this seems to be how a lot of female-dominated workplaces are. I think the difference might be that the bell never rings for females, the popularity game they are playing is constant and exhausting. Men are able to see each individual flash point as an individual battle, and that it's usually a battle of ideologies rather than active dislike. Actively disliking someone is tiring; I can't keep it up for longer than a couple of weeks. The ability for guys to hug the opponent and share a beer is drastically underestimated, in my opinion. We don't often talk about positive traits of males in workplaces, but I think that is definitely one of them.
Jd 16y ago
"Women can be equally competitive if they desire. It’s not a question of competency. Or a skill only boys have. If they want to succeed by competing they can. They just have to learn the rules and practice them." It is hard to imagine that someone who decides that play fighting with sticks is important for their career will be better at it than someone who has been play fighting with sticks for fun since they were 8 years old and it is misguided to tell that person that does not have the competitive instinct that they can "succeed" in an environment of play fighting enthusiasts.
emmett 16y ago
Hm. Growing up, I spent most of my time on collaborative play (building giant lego structures and creating intricate dioramas with action figures), not competitive play (though I certainly liked competitive games, and still do). I'm not sure that men really spend any more time competing that collaborating, compared to women - is there any evidence to that effect that's not anecdotal?
- ramidarigaz 16y ago
  From what my sister (still in highschool) has to say about the girls in her class, girls are ridiculously competitive. Far more than I ever was.
  - presidentender 16y ago
    On what is their competition based? How is the winner determined?
    - 16s 16y ago
      Shoes, clothing, make-up, houses, boobs, boyfriends, husbands... you name it. Women are just as competitive as men. Something the article did not mention, that I have found to be true. We tend to collaborate with people we trust and fiercely compete with those we do not. Two women may get on fine together (no fierce competition only friendly competition) but two who dislike each other, will not get along and will try to outdo the other... just like guys. So I'm not sure it's 100% gender that determines the situation.
      - presidentender 16y ago
        So the women in your example compete to see who can have the best boyfriends and husbands and possessions, right? While the men compete to see who can do the best job, run the fastest, hit the hardest, and win the football game or finish the job or beat the other guy at pool.
        16y ago
bpyne 16y ago
One of the most important take aways is understanding the rules of the game. It's important any time humans organize. A French professor I had in college gave me the sage advice, "Know the rules before you try to break the rules." It's a little out of context to the situation at the time, but still applicable nonetheless.
sunir 16y ago
I have worked for many male and many female led organizations. Since life is too short, I only work for high achievers who do amazing things. Nevertheless, I have observed that the rules of workplace status differ between the two organizations. Actually, the rules of workplace status differ in every organization as the leader sets the tone. However, since we are generalizing, I wanted to express my thoughts to see what people thought. Steve Blank describes this as a competition vs collaboration model. I think it's better to take it to the school yard and it's about play fighting vs. social belongingness which are each expensive strategies that require total investment and exclude each other. Men (let's say) usually play fight to determine the pecking order. Aggression for men is like a status bubble sort: continuously comparing and swapping status with your peers. This strategy consumes energy continuously, but transactionally. Women (let's say) often mistake play aggression for real aggression and respond inappropriately, thereby losing the game. Women (let's say) have a different status game. While it's usually described as building relationships, I think that's not quite it play fighters build relationships too. The other game is about constantly demonstrating support of other people around you. This is more like neural networks: reinforce connections or prune them. This strategy also consumes energy continuously, but over time. Men (let's say) often make a mistake of not responding correctly and come off as insensitive. If we are truthfully generalizing, none of this really matters since every leader is different so you'll have to adapt skillfully to your situation. Trust me: gender is not a true signal of which strategy is in play. Lessons: 1. Learn how to be acutely aware to your organization's status game and play accordingly. 2. When you're in power, make sure you create a productive status game and enforce accordingly.
jpark 16y ago
Here's one tragic result of forced gender assignment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer plus anecdotes from friends and family: ""When I say there was nothing feminine about Brenda," brother Brian Reimer later recalled, "I mean there was nothing feminine: She walked like a guy. Sat with her legs apart. She talked about guy things, didn't give a crap about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup. We both wanted to play with guys, build forts and have snowball fights and play army. She'd get a skipping rope for a gift, and the only thing we'd use that for was to tie people up, whip people with it. She played with my toys: Tinkertoys, dump trucks. This toy sewing machine she got just sat." http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html
abalashov 16y ago
That's strange. While some boys were undeniably competitive (mostly athletes, where they're expected to be), on the whole, my observations growing up were that girls were viciously competitive, following the maxim "it's a small world, so use your elbows a lot." They were also often cruel to each other, and in any case, keen to establish explicit hierarchies of social popularity and dominance. I am not sure they were in it for authority or power or respect per se - psychological desires often attributed to men - but they were definitely aggressive and competitive. Most men I knew, meanwhile, easily made friends with each other, were not particularly standoffish, and tended to work together to achieve common goals rather effectively. Sometimes there would be a little bit of healthy competitive dynamic, but almost always within the context of a universally acknowledged, healthy group effort.
- gaius 16y ago
  Completely true. Men and women are equally competitive. The difference is that men compete explicitly and in packs (e.g. team sports) and women compete implicitly and within the group (any Hollywood high-school movie).
theklub 16y ago
I think electronic medical records is going to help equal out the amount of women in IT type jobs. At the place I work now medical billing/EMR implementation there are about 40 women and just 3 men. And yes the women all talk shit about each other constantly, and few get along genuinely.
Goladus 16y ago
I think the competition vs. collaboration is a little off, but the general point about recognizing the rules of the game is spot on and very important. When you understand the rules you can choose to play, choose not to play, and may in some situations be able to change the rules to suit you better. (When you don't understand the rules and just have a vague sense of being treated unfairly, all you can do is whine, blame, and be miserable)
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
amatheus 16y ago
I've read a very good book on the subject, Pink Brain Blue Brain, in which the author writes about what are the really physical differences between genders and which are social differences (basically nature vs. nurture). A good read for anyone trying to understand where science stands as of today on the gender gap questions. The main theme of the book is, there are differences, but not as dramatic between genders as between two individuals; and much of the differences may be alleviated by paying attention to stereotypes when raising or educating children.
HilbertSpace 16y ago
Part I I tried that: it was a super strong effort, didn't work, and was a disaster. Too much in this thread is "dance 'round and 'round and suppose while the secret sits in the middle, and knows.". Since I've been there, tried that, "Oh he suffered terrible. Got the scars to prove it", I discovered much of the secret and will let you know some of the main points. So, here's Girls and Women 101 for Dummies, That Is, Men. Hackers, listen up. Girls, not just like boys but softer! Here are three simple explanations: (1) Just what is it about motherhood people are finding so difficult to understand? (2) It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. (3) The strong parts of the tree are from the strong limbs, not the weak, sick, or dead limbs. I know; I know; now it goes: "Women, not just for babies anymore.". Believe much of that, and I've got a great bargain on a bridge over the East River you'd really be interested in. Warning: The ways Mother Nature has to fight back are intricate, strong, and deep beyond belief, well hidden, and very poorly understood. Why? Sure, now we want women to do men's work for more in economic productivity. A woman wants a nice paycheck as a source of financial security; her husband might also like the extra income. I suggest that essentially just this desire for economic productivity goes WAY back, to whatever men and women did day by day over the past few hundred thousand years at least. The result was nearly always the same and remains so: Women who did much on men's work were weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. Or, for many thousands of years humans have tried to find, and occasionally have found, ways women could do men's work and for each way found Mother Nature quickly pruned out that part of the tree. By now Mother Nature has a huge catalog of well proven, fully effective, long never seriously overcome means to keep women from doing men's work. So, now for a woman to be good at men's work, the work essentially must be quite different from anything Mother Nature pruned out over the past few hundred thousand years. Lot's of luck finding such work now! So just why don't women like real-time, object-oriented, multi-threaded, multi-processing software technology, with a dynamic inheritance hierarchy, active objects, transactional integrity, with an extensible hashing symbol table? Don't ask, but be sure Mother Nature knows! "But, but, but, she has great grades in school, has a very high IQ, is very determined ...! She's AWASH in ability." Still, for nearly anything in men's work, better bet that Mother Nature long since found a way so that she couldn't do it. Do I have any strong, real world examples? Unfortunately, yes, some VERY strong examples. Like we said back in Tennessee, "That dog won't hunt.". That's a fact, Jack, and that we don't have a detailed explanation for why doesn't change the fact.
HilbertSpace 16y ago
Part IV To be more clear, is pink hard wired? No. What is hard wired is that she wants to grow to be an adult woman and wants to fit into the group of other girls who want to grow to be adult women. In particular, she wants to fit into the group of other girls who want pretty, pink dresses. And notice, the adult women with the greatest influence on girls 3-4 are the ones who are MOMMIES. E.g., can't expect that a women, who for the past 5-10 years has been working 24 x 7 to be a mommy, would mostly communicate to her daughters that what women should do is to be information technology entrepreneurs. Sorry 'bout that. Here's a guess: Use standard color graphics software and see how to make a pastel color: Take any saturated color and just mix in a lot of white. Done. So, saturated colors are more bombastic, and pastels are more sensitive. So, guess which is more appropriate for a human female? But, fathers, there's another reason, comparably strong, she wants pretty, pink dresses: One of the A+, astounding talents of little girls is being able to be endearing and to elicit supportive, protective emotions and behavior from their fathers. A girl of 4 can totally outclass her father, wrap him around her little finger. How does she do this? She copies from women and other girls, runs experiments, and sees what gets supportive, protective behavior from her father. Quickly she figures out that being in a pretty pink dress and acting cute, sweet, meek, darling, adorable, precious, dependent, needing to be supported, cared for, and protected, smiling, having her eyes big, looking small by keeping her elbows at her side and her feet together, looking meek by keeping her hands together, being spotlessly clean, etc. gets back an ocean of support, protectiveness, approval, smiles, affection, more pretty, pink dresses, etc. from Daddy. She says, "Daddy, Daddy, will you get me X?". For X a hammer, gun, or toy truck, she sees it doesn't work. For anything pretty and pink, it does work. Age 3; pattern set for life. Mainly she does this work with her astoundingly effective emotional sensors and processors; always right along she knows what Daddy is feeling and likely thinking about what to do. Fathers: She can read your emotions, ones you never knew you expressed or even had, like a book. If you smile at her, even a little, when she looks a little prettier, and you WILL, then she will look prettier. Bet on it. Mother Nature does. So, fathers, you've been telling your daughters in terms loud and clear to them that you want them to be cute, sweet, pretty, .... Or, she's nearly never so happy as when she can look cute, sweet, pretty, ..., because she knows that then she can get what she really wants -- supportive and protective behavior from Daddy. So, fathers, to see why she wants a pretty, pink dress, in part look to your own reactions. Again, just what is it about motherhood we're having such a tough time understanding? It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. Be not deceived: I've only touched on a little of what Mother Nature has, and I omitted the many monsters in Pandora's box. Don't mess around with Mother Nature.

100 points by icey 16y ago

Boys rules, Girls lose? Do these theories still hold true? This year, for the first time in the US, the number of women in the workforce surpassed the number of men. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-of-men/8135/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-end-... I don't believe this majority exists in blue collar jobs, but I could be mistaken.

joshuacc 16y ago
That's a good question. But cultures have inertia, so it's likely that even with women forming the majority of the workforce, "masculine" conventions will prevail for a while. This is especially true given that men still tend to hold more positions at the top of the corporate hierarchy.
- zeynel1 16y ago
  yes i agree with your comment - men are now coasting - that is - they move on inertia - riding the male system designed 2000 years ago - but women have the momentum and therefore they will conquer the workplace within 50 years i have been researching this topic lately and as i wrote here http://makebelieve1.wordpress.com/about/ http://makebelieve1.wordpress.com/about/ women have kept alive from generation to generation the memory of a society where females were rulers of men this information comes from the book -when god was a woman- http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/015696158X http://www.amazon.com/When-God-Woman-Merlin-Stone/dp/0156961... especially this quote in the original female society –all authority was vested in the woman who discharged every kind of public duty – the men looked after domestic affairs and did as they were told by their wives – men were not allowed to undertake war service or to exercise any functions of government or to fulfill any public office – such as might have given them more spirit to set themselves up against the women – the children were handed over immediately after birth to the men who reared them– http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=when+god+was+a+woman&hl=en&ei=-G96TM-aK8P_lgf928XrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=diodorus&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=f...
  - SecretAgentMan 16y ago
    For the record, this book is pretty controversial. It theorizes about a society that may have existed over 6000 years ago. It references the Amazons - who were mythological - and there is quite a bit of disagreement in the academic community about the validity of the conclusions.
    - zeynel1 16y ago
      --it references the amazons - who were mythological-- these are the references in the book to amazons - what do you find objectionable in them http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=frontcover&dq=when+god+was+a+woman&hl=en&ei=-G96TM-aK8P_lgf928XrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=amazon&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=plkmFjler8cC&printsec=f... --there is quite a bit of disagreement in the academic community about the validity of the conclusions-- i read a book for myself and draw my own conclusions - the authority of an -academic community- means nothing to me - if you read the book and wrote your own opinion that would have been a valuable contribution instead of a reference to the authority of something that does not exist namely -academic community-

ojbyrne 16y ago

I think some of the stuff about "hard-wiring" is actually parents underestimating the influence of society vs their own influence. I once read a study that found that eight years old was the point at which children were influenced more by non-family sources than family sources.

bmelton 16y ago
My daughter was raised similarly to the girls in the article -- we bought gender-neutral toys, painted her room in neutral colors, and deliberately avoided buying any toys that swayed particularly one way or the other. By the age of three, she had all but insisted that we buy her pink clothes and girlier toys, to which we of course caved (I mean, if she wants it, so be it -- we just weren't trying to influence.) She's a smart kid, and she's into plenty of non-girl things (She's currently training mixed martial arts at the age of 8, and loves playing in the mud) -- but her school wardrobe almost entirely consists of decidedly non-boy attire, and her field hockey and lacrosse sticks are pink. We weren't exactly TRYING to steer her away from it, and it was by no means an experiment on our part, we just didn't want to predispose her to girlie things without provocation, so it's in no way scientific -- but we definitely didn't steer her.
- sprout 16y ago
  I think a substantial part of it is also parents missing the importance of their expectations. If you're aggressively trying to be 'neutral,' you've got some extreme in your mind you're trying to avoid steering your child towards, and your child can, over time, subconsciously pick that up.
  - bmelton 16y ago
    I suppose that's possible, but we were trying to steer away from either extreme -- it wasn't as though we replaced her Barbies with GI Joes, we just bought Legos instead. We tried to ensure that all her toes were educational, even if it wasn't the focus of the toy (i.e., we didn't try to eliminate 'fun'.) That said, we weren't doing anything in particular to keep her away from commercials, or limiting social interactions from her peers or anything, so there really wasn't much of a 'control' group whatsoever.

masklinn 16y ago

> We started to believe that perhaps there was some hard-wiring about gender. Uh... gender, perhaps?

joshuacc 16y ago
I'm not sure how Steve was using the term, but "gender" isn't equivalent to "sex" in this sort of discussion. "Sex" denotes biological differences, while "gender" denotes cultural conventions (which may or may not be directly related to biology).
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  Fallacy of begging the question. "Gender" denotes the things which are not the physical genital apparatus, and includes but is not limited to types of behavior or preferences or tendencies toward behaviors or preferences. Whether all differences between the sexes in such areas are "cultural conventions" or whether some are in fact "wired in" at a non-cultural level is a topic of endless debate.
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    Indeed. I don't disagree with any of this. Perhaps I didn't phrase it well, but my parenthetical was intended to convey what you said in your comment.
    - ubernostrum 16y ago
      You described gender as "cultural conventions". Which sort of assumes an answer to the nature/nurture debate; thus my reply.

GFischer 16y ago

Anecdote: I've had women bosses in 3 out of the 4 companies I've worked for (not IT shops). In all cases, IT was a collaboration/support department, subservient to the "men's" departments like sales And of course the CEO, president or equivalent was a man However, I think the fact that the #2 person was a woman in all three cases is a win for women. I wonder if it was subconsciously set up by the leader that way, maybe they feel less threatened by a woman as #2?. Being in a department that's not in the line of fire hinders the possibility of advancement in the career ladder significantly, I've noticed.

Lazlo_Nibble 16y ago
I'm in IT and six out of the dozen or so managers I've reported to in my eleven years here have been women. (We're definitely a serious outlier—there was at least one time when my entire five- or six-level management chain was female except for the CEO.) I haven't seen much direct evidence for the competition-vs.-collaboration model in our organization, but there's one generalization I can make: for whatever reason, on average the women have been far more competent than the men. I've encountered several men up the hierarchy from me who were indifferent, ineffectual or incompetent, but none of the women have been, and the sharpest woman I've worked for could run rings around the sharpest man. I suspect this happens because women have to work twice as hard to be taken seriously in IT. The main difference here seems to be that they can eventually get real career traction.
- GFischer 16y ago
  I have to agree that most of the women bosses I've had were much better than the men. And they do get some career traction, what I wanted to say is that they have some kind of glass ceiling at the CEO / President level. Since I'm praising them, I guess it's okay to use real names :) . The women bosses that were excellent were: Matilde Milicevic ( http://uy.linkedin.com/pub/matilde-milicevic/6/12/905 http://uy.linkedin.com/pub/matilde-milicevic/6/12/905 ), currently chief of operations at Equifax Uruguay and Noela Próspero, currently chief of operations at Urudata Software

Tichy 16y ago

I must admit, my experiences are rather the opposite. That is, men seem to collaborate more than women. At least with women I constantly see mobbing behavior, they can get really worked up about having people around they don't like. With men there seems to be more of a laissez faire attitude. Purely anecdotal, of course...

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I've observed this as well. But I think it is not because boys are more collaborative, but because boys are taught not just how to fight, but when to fight. We start fighting when someone yells "fight", but more importantly we stop fighting when the bell rings. Then we hug our opponent and share a beer, because we've got a lot more in common with him than with the people sitting around watching. I've never observed women being unable to compete - that's just a matter of technical competence. I have observed women being unable to stop competing when the bell rings. Losing is fine, holding a grudge isn't. (To be fair, some men exhibit the same problem. Academia seems rife with them.)
- Lewisham 16y ago
  This is about right. When I've seen my SO in female-dominated workplaces, the constant strain of "collaboration" is exhausting. However, "collaboration" in this sense is usually playing a competitive popularity contest, and in the archetypal case this was achieved by bad mouthing people behind their backs. If you were able to talk to every girl individually, you'd eventually build a picture which painted everyone loathing everyone else. That wasn't true, but that's how they bonded ("You're my favorite in this office, I don't like everyone else" being said to multiple people). In my small sample size (< 4), this seems to be how a lot of female-dominated workplaces are. I think the difference might be that the bell never rings for females, the popularity game they are playing is constant and exhausting. Men are able to see each individual flash point as an individual battle, and that it's usually a battle of ideologies rather than active dislike. Actively disliking someone is tiring; I can't keep it up for longer than a couple of weeks. The ability for guys to hug the opponent and share a beer is drastically underestimated, in my opinion. We don't often talk about positive traits of males in workplaces, but I think that is definitely one of them.

Jd 16y ago

"Women can be equally competitive if they desire. It’s not a question of competency. Or a skill only boys have. If they want to succeed by competing they can. They just have to learn the rules and practice them." It is hard to imagine that someone who decides that play fighting with sticks is important for their career will be better at it than someone who has been play fighting with sticks for fun since they were 8 years old and it is misguided to tell that person that does not have the competitive instinct that they can "succeed" in an environment of play fighting enthusiasts.

emmett 16y ago

Hm. Growing up, I spent most of my time on collaborative play (building giant lego structures and creating intricate dioramas with action figures), not competitive play (though I certainly liked competitive games, and still do). I'm not sure that men really spend any more time competing that collaborating, compared to women - is there any evidence to that effect that's not anecdotal?

ramidarigaz 16y ago
From what my sister (still in highschool) has to say about the girls in her class, girls are ridiculously competitive. Far more than I ever was.
- presidentender 16y ago
  On what is their competition based? How is the winner determined?
  - 16s 16y ago
    Shoes, clothing, make-up, houses, boobs, boyfriends, husbands... you name it. Women are just as competitive as men. Something the article did not mention, that I have found to be true. We tend to collaborate with people we trust and fiercely compete with those we do not. Two women may get on fine together (no fierce competition only friendly competition) but two who dislike each other, will not get along and will try to outdo the other... just like guys. So I'm not sure it's 100% gender that determines the situation.
    - presidentender 16y ago
      So the women in your example compete to see who can have the best boyfriends and husbands and possessions, right? While the men compete to see who can do the best job, run the fastest, hit the hardest, and win the football game or finish the job or beat the other guy at pool.
      - 16y ago

bpyne 16y ago

One of the most important take aways is understanding the rules of the game. It's important any time humans organize. A French professor I had in college gave me the sage advice, "Know the rules before you try to break the rules." It's a little out of context to the situation at the time, but still applicable nonetheless.

sunir 16y ago

I have worked for many male and many female led organizations. Since life is too short, I only work for high achievers who do amazing things. Nevertheless, I have observed that the rules of workplace status differ between the two organizations. Actually, the rules of workplace status differ in every organization as the leader sets the tone. However, since we are generalizing, I wanted to express my thoughts to see what people thought. Steve Blank describes this as a competition vs collaboration model. I think it's better to take it to the school yard and it's about play fighting vs. social belongingness which are each expensive strategies that require total investment and exclude each other. Men (let's say) usually play fight to determine the pecking order. Aggression for men is like a status bubble sort: continuously comparing and swapping status with your peers. This strategy consumes energy continuously, but transactionally. Women (let's say) often mistake play aggression for real aggression and respond inappropriately, thereby losing the game. Women (let's say) have a different status game. While it's usually described as building relationships, I think that's not quite it play fighters build relationships too. The other game is about constantly demonstrating support of other people around you. This is more like neural networks: reinforce connections or prune them. This strategy also consumes energy continuously, but over time. Men (let's say) often make a mistake of not responding correctly and come off as insensitive. If we are truthfully generalizing, none of this really matters since every leader is different so you'll have to adapt skillfully to your situation. Trust me: gender is not a true signal of which strategy is in play. Lessons: 1. Learn how to be acutely aware to your organization's status game and play accordingly. 2. When you're in power, make sure you create a productive status game and enforce accordingly.

jpark 16y ago

Here's one tragic result of forced gender assignment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer plus anecdotes from friends and family: ""When I say there was nothing feminine about Brenda," brother Brian Reimer later recalled, "I mean there was nothing feminine: She walked like a guy. Sat with her legs apart. She talked about guy things, didn't give a crap about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup. We both wanted to play with guys, build forts and have snowball fights and play army. She'd get a skipping rope for a gift, and the only thing we'd use that for was to tie people up, whip people with it. She played with my toys: Tinkertoys, dump trucks. This toy sewing machine she got just sat." http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html http://www.singlesexschools.org/reimer.html

abalashov 16y ago

That's strange. While some boys were undeniably competitive (mostly athletes, where they're expected to be), on the whole, my observations growing up were that girls were viciously competitive, following the maxim "it's a small world, so use your elbows a lot." They were also often cruel to each other, and in any case, keen to establish explicit hierarchies of social popularity and dominance. I am not sure they were in it for authority or power or respect per se - psychological desires often attributed to men - but they were definitely aggressive and competitive. Most men I knew, meanwhile, easily made friends with each other, were not particularly standoffish, and tended to work together to achieve common goals rather effectively. Sometimes there would be a little bit of healthy competitive dynamic, but almost always within the context of a universally acknowledged, healthy group effort.

gaius 16y ago
Completely true. Men and women are equally competitive. The difference is that men compete explicitly and in packs (e.g. team sports) and women compete implicitly and within the group (any Hollywood high-school movie).

theklub 16y ago

I think electronic medical records is going to help equal out the amount of women in IT type jobs. At the place I work now medical billing/EMR implementation there are about 40 women and just 3 men. And yes the women all talk shit about each other constantly, and few get along genuinely.

Goladus 16y ago

I think the competition vs. collaboration is a little off, but the general point about recognizing the rules of the game is spot on and very important. When you understand the rules you can choose to play, choose not to play, and may in some situations be able to change the rules to suit you better. (When you don't understand the rules and just have a vague sense of being treated unfairly, all you can do is whine, blame, and be miserable)

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

amatheus 16y ago

I've read a very good book on the subject, Pink Brain Blue Brain, in which the author writes about what are the really physical differences between genders and which are social differences (basically nature vs. nurture). A good read for anyone trying to understand where science stands as of today on the gender gap questions. The main theme of the book is, there are differences, but not as dramatic between genders as between two individuals; and much of the differences may be alleviated by paying attention to stereotypes when raising or educating children.

HilbertSpace 16y ago

Part I I tried that: it was a super strong effort, didn't work, and was a disaster. Too much in this thread is "dance 'round and 'round and suppose while the secret sits in the middle, and knows.". Since I've been there, tried that, "Oh he suffered terrible. Got the scars to prove it", I discovered much of the secret and will let you know some of the main points. So, here's Girls and Women 101 for Dummies, That Is, Men. Hackers, listen up. Girls, not just like boys but softer! Here are three simple explanations: (1) Just what is it about motherhood people are finding so difficult to understand? (2) It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. (3) The strong parts of the tree are from the strong limbs, not the weak, sick, or dead limbs. I know; I know; now it goes: "Women, not just for babies anymore.". Believe much of that, and I've got a great bargain on a bridge over the East River you'd really be interested in. Warning: The ways Mother Nature has to fight back are intricate, strong, and deep beyond belief, well hidden, and very poorly understood. Why? Sure, now we want women to do men's work for more in economic productivity. A woman wants a nice paycheck as a source of financial security; her husband might also like the extra income. I suggest that essentially just this desire for economic productivity goes WAY back, to whatever men and women did day by day over the past few hundred thousand years at least. The result was nearly always the same and remains so: Women who did much on men's work were weak, sick, or dead limbs on the tree. Or, for many thousands of years humans have tried to find, and occasionally have found, ways women could do men's work and for each way found Mother Nature quickly pruned out that part of the tree. By now Mother Nature has a huge catalog of well proven, fully effective, long never seriously overcome means to keep women from doing men's work. So, now for a woman to be good at men's work, the work essentially must be quite different from anything Mother Nature pruned out over the past few hundred thousand years. Lot's of luck finding such work now! So just why don't women like real-time, object-oriented, multi-threaded, multi-processing software technology, with a dynamic inheritance hierarchy, active objects, transactional integrity, with an extensible hashing symbol table? Don't ask, but be sure Mother Nature knows! "But, but, but, she has great grades in school, has a very high IQ, is very determined ...! She's AWASH in ability." Still, for nearly anything in men's work, better bet that Mother Nature long since found a way so that she couldn't do it. Do I have any strong, real world examples? Unfortunately, yes, some VERY strong examples. Like we said back in Tennessee, "That dog won't hunt.". That's a fact, Jack, and that we don't have a detailed explanation for why doesn't change the fact.

HilbertSpace 16y ago

Part IV To be more clear, is pink hard wired? No. What is hard wired is that she wants to grow to be an adult woman and wants to fit into the group of other girls who want to grow to be adult women. In particular, she wants to fit into the group of other girls who want pretty, pink dresses. And notice, the adult women with the greatest influence on girls 3-4 are the ones who are MOMMIES. E.g., can't expect that a women, who for the past 5-10 years has been working 24 x 7 to be a mommy, would mostly communicate to her daughters that what women should do is to be information technology entrepreneurs. Sorry 'bout that. Here's a guess: Use standard color graphics software and see how to make a pastel color: Take any saturated color and just mix in a lot of white. Done. So, saturated colors are more bombastic, and pastels are more sensitive. So, guess which is more appropriate for a human female? But, fathers, there's another reason, comparably strong, she wants pretty, pink dresses: One of the A+, astounding talents of little girls is being able to be endearing and to elicit supportive, protective emotions and behavior from their fathers. A girl of 4 can totally outclass her father, wrap him around her little finger. How does she do this? She copies from women and other girls, runs experiments, and sees what gets supportive, protective behavior from her father. Quickly she figures out that being in a pretty pink dress and acting cute, sweet, meek, darling, adorable, precious, dependent, needing to be supported, cared for, and protected, smiling, having her eyes big, looking small by keeping her elbows at her side and her feet together, looking meek by keeping her hands together, being spotlessly clean, etc. gets back an ocean of support, protectiveness, approval, smiles, affection, more pretty, pink dresses, etc. from Daddy. She says, "Daddy, Daddy, will you get me X?". For X a hammer, gun, or toy truck, she sees it doesn't work. For anything pretty and pink, it does work. Age 3; pattern set for life. Mainly she does this work with her astoundingly effective emotional sensors and processors; always right along she knows what Daddy is feeling and likely thinking about what to do. Fathers: She can read your emotions, ones you never knew you expressed or even had, like a book. If you smile at her, even a little, when she looks a little prettier, and you WILL, then she will look prettier. Bet on it. Mother Nature does. So, fathers, you've been telling your daughters in terms loud and clear to them that you want them to be cute, sweet, pretty, .... Or, she's nearly never so happy as when she can look cute, sweet, pretty, ..., because she knows that then she can get what she really wants -- supportive and protective behavior from Daddy. So, fathers, to see why she wants a pretty, pink dress, in part look to your own reactions. Again, just what is it about motherhood we're having such a tough time understanding? It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature. Be not deceived: I've only touched on a little of what Mother Nature has, and I omitted the many monsters in Pandora's box. Don't mess around with Mother Nature.