6 ms·
> I think what's more likely is people who are good leaders go into leadership and good leaders are far more common in men. This thread is a reaction to this s
by dmos62 5y ago
> I think what's more likely is people who are good leaders go into leadership and good leaders are far more common in men.
This thread is a reaction to this statement. You didn't really back it up, so no-one bothered to pick at it with any care.
People tending to pursue leadership because they're skilled at it is an ok statement. But, you saying that that's why there's more men in leadership positions is a leap. For starters, you're ignoring the possibility of a patriarchal society, and gender roles more specifically, limiting the choices of the men and women involved. As long as gender roles affect the participants, actions between genders cannot be directly compared.
Imagine a woman thinking that she shouldn't be a leader, due to social conditioning, even though her faculties are otherwise suited for it. Imagine an older white male being perceived as leadership material, not due to true merit, but because of social conditioning.
- globular-toast 5y agoWhy is it a leap? Why do you think gender roles exist? Do you really think men have enslaved women? Look around you. Do you really think that? In our highly competitive world do you really think "patriarchy" or "gender roles" would trump merit? That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Now that's a leap.
- dmos62 5y agoYou should have started with that. No one would have had any doubts about your viewpoints. I'm tired of you walking your position back and forth between ambiguity and sexism. It's a leap, because there's other possibilities you don't account for. I don't pretend to know why we have a patriarchal society, but I do believe that history is largely random and far from optimal, which is what you argue for. That is what I think is naive. You describe the world as a meritocracy, governed by the skilled. Believe me, you're in the minority in thinking that. > do you really think [...] That not a single company in the history of the world would have got a competitive edge by shunning gender roles and having more women in charge? Do you really see companies as the pinacles of human history? What if we still had racial slavery? Would you argue in favor of that as well? Is history the true judge of what is a good idea? History is what we do. To say that something is right, because it's prevalent in history, is to say that what we do is right, because we do it. If you want your close ones to fulfill some social dictates, I find it sad, but it's fine. I'm not interested in that, and I don't see it as anything more than useless dogma.
- globular-toast 5y agoApparently some leaps are more acceptable than others. At the end of the day, it was my comment asking for evidence that was flagged.