4 ms·

The most obvious explanation is that there really are inherent differences between men and women such that (some) men drive themselves harder to attain these hi

The most obvious explanation is that there really are inherent differences between men and women such that (some) men drive themselves harder to attain these high level positions. Sadly, this is an area that's more or less forbidden to investigate and discuss due to politics.

martin_a 7y ago
This is fascinating. I would describe myself as "burning for the job", to a level that is not really healthy sometimes. But I love what I do, it's more than a job for me and I will (maybe) stop looking for better jobs and giving 110%, once I reach a salary of 100k or more a year (this is still quite a number in Germany, I think). While some male colleagues also really burn for their jobs and want to achieve great things, my female colleagues are really hard to motivate to go the extra mile. They value free time and work-life balance more than staying overtime, getting something done today and not tomorrow and things alike. Maybe they are doing the right thing, work is not everything, but I think this might lead to men taking positions which require the aforementioned "mindset", no matter whether it's healthy or not.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I agree that the choice to not prioritize career need not be viewed in a negative light. The focus on everyone having a high powered career seems somewhat anti-human to me. It devalues the very important role of family in society. It also seems somewhat sexist to label what has traditionally been a stronghold of women (motherhood) as being somehow less important that working a full-time job. Being a stay at home parent is very difficult and very valuable work.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
Arguably, if it was the case there is a systematic push of women to dominate all levels of higher education, then only a minority of extremely hard working or talented men would achieve high level positions while the vast majority would be women who used nepotism and social networking to achieve their standing (via feminism-boosting). So it still isn't making intuitive sense to me why most leadership is still male if it holds true that women should have the most power and have held the most power over the leadership pipeline for over a generation.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  I would say because at the end of the day, the work must still be done and social networking and nepotism aren't producing the candidates that can do the job. They are just filling the middle to upper middle ranks with those who benefit from it but those at the top get there through some combination of competence, extreme dedication and ruthlessness. Some of which are qualities that we probably don't want highly represented in the general population.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Middle to upper middle ranks are still mostly men in many instutions, so much so that its well known that male nurses statistically advance faster than female nurses into middle to upper-middle nurse management. If one were to attribute it to competence and dedication, this would mean that by and large only men are capable of extreme dedication, competence, and ruthlessness. Is this the conclusion we wish to garner? That simultaneously men are systematically oppressed but also the only sexual demographic inherently capable of consistently achieving excellence?
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      It’s not about what anyone “wishes to garner”, it’s about being factual. I don’t find it hard to believe at all that extreme dedication and ruthlessness are highly correlated with testosterone for instance. We already know it’s coupled with aggression. Edit: And this isn’t to say women aren’t competent and can’t be leaders! There are females CEOs, just not as many as males CEOs. There are also more male inmates and homeless. The same traits can easily lead to opposite results.
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        Yes, however, we don't have facts here. We're speculating based on assumptions that have no proof (ie. that women are systematically oppressing men and also that men are by and large the default gender to excel in the job market due to their testosterone). I'm trying to ask that if the hypothetical is actually represent of reality, why there exists phenomena that intuitively makes no sense. For example, it makes no intuitive sense that the vast majority of world leaders, CEOs, business owners, etc. are men if all men are being systematically oppressed by feminisim. This isn't how any other system of oppression works (race, class, physical ability). It also makes no sense that extreme dedication is correlated with testosterone but males are not correlated with child rearing, which requires arguably the maximum possible dedication.

martin_a 7y ago

This is fascinating. I would describe myself as "burning for the job", to a level that is not really healthy sometimes. But I love what I do, it's more than a job for me and I will (maybe) stop looking for better jobs and giving 110%, once I reach a salary of 100k or more a year (this is still quite a number in Germany, I think). While some male colleagues also really burn for their jobs and want to achieve great things, my female colleagues are really hard to motivate to go the extra mile. They value free time and work-life balance more than staying overtime, getting something done today and not tomorrow and things alike. Maybe they are doing the right thing, work is not everything, but I think this might lead to men taking positions which require the aforementioned "mindset", no matter whether it's healthy or not.

malvosenior 7y ago
I agree that the choice to not prioritize career need not be viewed in a negative light. The focus on everyone having a high powered career seems somewhat anti-human to me. It devalues the very important role of family in society. It also seems somewhat sexist to label what has traditionally been a stronghold of women (motherhood) as being somehow less important that working a full-time job. Being a stay at home parent is very difficult and very valuable work.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago

Arguably, if it was the case there is a systematic push of women to dominate all levels of higher education, then only a minority of extremely hard working or talented men would achieve high level positions while the vast majority would be women who used nepotism and social networking to achieve their standing (via feminism-boosting). So it still isn't making intuitive sense to me why most leadership is still male if it holds true that women should have the most power and have held the most power over the leadership pipeline for over a generation.

malvosenior 7y ago
I would say because at the end of the day, the work must still be done and social networking and nepotism aren't producing the candidates that can do the job. They are just filling the middle to upper middle ranks with those who benefit from it but those at the top get there through some combination of competence, extreme dedication and ruthlessness. Some of which are qualities that we probably don't want highly represented in the general population.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  Middle to upper middle ranks are still mostly men in many instutions, so much so that its well known that male nurses statistically advance faster than female nurses into middle to upper-middle nurse management. If one were to attribute it to competence and dedication, this would mean that by and large only men are capable of extreme dedication, competence, and ruthlessness. Is this the conclusion we wish to garner? That simultaneously men are systematically oppressed but also the only sexual demographic inherently capable of consistently achieving excellence?
  - malvosenior 7y ago
    It’s not about what anyone “wishes to garner”, it’s about being factual. I don’t find it hard to believe at all that extreme dedication and ruthlessness are highly correlated with testosterone for instance. We already know it’s coupled with aggression. Edit: And this isn’t to say women aren’t competent and can’t be leaders! There are females CEOs, just not as many as males CEOs. There are also more male inmates and homeless. The same traits can easily lead to opposite results.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Yes, however, we don't have facts here. We're speculating based on assumptions that have no proof (ie. that women are systematically oppressing men and also that men are by and large the default gender to excel in the job market due to their testosterone). I'm trying to ask that if the hypothetical is actually represent of reality, why there exists phenomena that intuitively makes no sense. For example, it makes no intuitive sense that the vast majority of world leaders, CEOs, business owners, etc. are men if all men are being systematically oppressed by feminisim. This isn't how any other system of oppression works (race, class, physical ability). It also makes no sense that extreme dedication is correlated with testosterone but males are not correlated with child rearing, which requires arguably the maximum possible dedication.