3 ms·

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 t

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.
      - malvosenior 7y ago
        There are very few CEOs in this world, there are millions of men in prison though. I'm not sure how many homeless there are, but definitely more than there are CEOs. I think there are a lot of other things you have to look at but by your logic that's evidence of oppression.
        SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        That pretty much doesn’t function like any sort of oppression that we know of. By this reasoning, poor people would simultaneously be overwhelmingly CEOs as well as homeless. Black people would be overwhelmingly POTUS multiple times over.
belorn 7y ago
If there was a systematic push of men to dominate all levels of higher education, then only a minority of men would end at the bottom of society while the wast majority at the bottom would be women. So it isn't making intuitive sense why the most people at the bottom of society is male if it holds true that men should have the most power and have held the most power over the success pipeline for over a generation. It also does not make any sense looking at other system of oppression. If we model our theory based on the typical caste system with the oppressed at the bottom and the powerful at top, then men and women as either the oppressed or oppressor does not fit.

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.
    - malvosenior 7y ago
      There are very few CEOs in this world, there are millions of men in prison though. I'm not sure how many homeless there are, but definitely more than there are CEOs. I think there are a lot of other things you have to look at but by your logic that's evidence of oppression.
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        That pretty much doesn’t function like any sort of oppression that we know of. By this reasoning, poor people would simultaneously be overwhelmingly CEOs as well as homeless. Black people would be overwhelmingly POTUS multiple times over.

belorn 7y ago

If there was a systematic push of men to dominate all levels of higher education, then only a minority of men would end at the bottom of society while the wast majority at the bottom would be women. So it isn't making intuitive sense why the most people at the bottom of society is male if it holds true that men should have the most power and have held the most power over the success pipeline for over a generation. It also does not make any sense looking at other system of oppression. If we model our theory based on the typical caste system with the oppressed at the bottom and the powerful at top, then men and women as either the oppressed or oppressor does not fit.