4 ms·

I think this argument would carry more weight if, you know, the numbers had changed. If the top spots in the highest paid fields (finance, medicine, management,

I think this argument would carry more weight if, you know, the numbers had changed. If the top spots in the highest paid fields (finance, medicine, management, research, technology, media, government) were actually reasonably close to parity, you might say the movement has run its course. But since we are still far off from that, and women are still expected to do more than half the work around the house and so on, it seems there is still work ahead. I'm not saying men should not have parental rights (and, it should be added, obligations). And of course there are people working on that issue (to pick one). But do you have data that suggests this is as large an issue as, say, the dearth of women in top positions?

NotAnEconomist 7y ago
> If the top spots in the highest paid fields (finance, medicine, management, research, technology, media, government) were actually reasonably close to parity, you might say the movement has run its course. That's exactly what I'm calling out -- That conclusion, that they should reach "parity", is an authoritarian fantasy unsubstantiated by actual data and represents a bigoted sort of view of the world: the only outcome that matters is tribal equality, because people are defined by these base, essentialist tribes. I'd counter the only outcome that matters is people who want to pursue a career are free to do so -- to which I'd point out that women entering male dominated fields enjoy considerably more support than men entering female dominated fields. As far as we can tell, when women are freer to choose their careers, such as in Scandinavian countries contrasted with Eastern European ones, they tend to choose different careers on average than men. Feminism, as such, has morphed from gaining rights for oppressed people into trying to oppress people into a paint-by-numbers outcome, and a position that women aren't accountable for the outcome of their actions, such as when they make different choices than men do.
0815test 7y ago
The top-paying subfields in finance, medicine, sci/tech, are all heavily affected by the "people vs. things" distinction that the article talks about, in being highly skewed towards "things". (Business management actually has similar problems as managers are heavily selected for being risk-loving and it's well-known in the social-science literature that women tend to be more careful than men at assessing risk.) There might be more hope wrt. the people-focused part, and we do see women having quite a bit of success there, even more so in parts of the world like East Asia where contemporary feminist ideology, with its pandering to wishful thinking and populism while neglecting the facts on the ground (as described by OP) is not really a major focus compared with the West.
- projectramo 7y ago
  People vs things is not a thing. Imagine someone wrote a paper that said men are horrible at management or anything collaborative because all their testosterone makes them so angry that they simply get too emotional to work with others. If you are a man -- and who knows on the internet -- you know this is garbage. Yes men have more testosterone. That is a fact, and no one is arguing. Yes, testosterone means you are more likely to get angry, but it doesn't follow that your anger levels prevent you from working. Come on! But now, instead of believing you, people say you are hysterical and anti-science, and you have to do a study to prove you don't get so angry you can't work. Every day people post examples of men who went ballistic at work. The study is inconclusive and you are wasting all this time trying to prove that the testosterone doesn't make you angry. Every time you lose your temper, people point out that you are a guy and of course you're prone to that. That's what this "people vs things" distinction is like.

NotAnEconomist 7y ago

> If the top spots in the highest paid fields (finance, medicine, management, research, technology, media, government) were actually reasonably close to parity, you might say the movement has run its course. That's exactly what I'm calling out -- That conclusion, that they should reach "parity", is an authoritarian fantasy unsubstantiated by actual data and represents a bigoted sort of view of the world: the only outcome that matters is tribal equality, because people are defined by these base, essentialist tribes. I'd counter the only outcome that matters is people who want to pursue a career are free to do so -- to which I'd point out that women entering male dominated fields enjoy considerably more support than men entering female dominated fields. As far as we can tell, when women are freer to choose their careers, such as in Scandinavian countries contrasted with Eastern European ones, they tend to choose different careers on average than men. Feminism, as such, has morphed from gaining rights for oppressed people into trying to oppress people into a paint-by-numbers outcome, and a position that women aren't accountable for the outcome of their actions, such as when they make different choices than men do.

0815test 7y ago

The top-paying subfields in finance, medicine, sci/tech, are all heavily affected by the "people vs. things" distinction that the article talks about, in being highly skewed towards "things". (Business management actually has similar problems as managers are heavily selected for being risk-loving and it's well-known in the social-science literature that women tend to be more careful than men at assessing risk.) There might be more hope wrt. the people-focused part, and we do see women having quite a bit of success there, even more so in parts of the world like East Asia where contemporary feminist ideology, with its pandering to wishful thinking and populism while neglecting the facts on the ground (as described by OP) is not really a major focus compared with the West.

projectramo 7y ago
People vs things is not a thing. Imagine someone wrote a paper that said men are horrible at management or anything collaborative because all their testosterone makes them so angry that they simply get too emotional to work with others. If you are a man -- and who knows on the internet -- you know this is garbage. Yes men have more testosterone. That is a fact, and no one is arguing. Yes, testosterone means you are more likely to get angry, but it doesn't follow that your anger levels prevent you from working. Come on! But now, instead of believing you, people say you are hysterical and anti-science, and you have to do a study to prove you don't get so angry you can't work. Every day people post examples of men who went ballistic at work. The study is inconclusive and you are wasting all this time trying to prove that the testosterone doesn't make you angry. Every time you lose your temper, people point out that you are a guy and of course you're prone to that. That's what this "people vs things" distinction is like.