6 ms·

> That’s why I laugh at the common modern trope that we are the same. The ‘modern trope’ holds true in corporate environments, at least among the engineers, PM

> That’s why I laugh at the common modern trope that we are the same. The ‘modern trope’ holds true in corporate environments, at least among the engineers, PMs and customer success agents I work with. Obviously your average man has higher bone density and muscle mass and inability to bear children, but this only really affects activities outside of the workplace. That said, aside from drinking more beer and working out more, my lifestyle is pretty much the same as my partner’s.

rybosworld 5y ago
Disagree. Males and females are different and it's important to talk about it. Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males. Males and females are interested in different types of work. And if we are being honest, you can find things that the average member of one gender is better at than the other. This also shows it's head in the work place. Generalizations made about females and males are concerning the averages. On average, it's easier for a male to gain muscle mass. On average, women do better socially. Humans are uniquely adaptable so we can become better at things through practice. This does not alter the fact that people have different starting points for any skill set. Ignoring the differences does more harm than good.
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  > Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club? I also refer you to the observed effects of testosterone in financial markets (riskier trades, bubbles) which are typically seen as pathological. Personally I’m not extremely competitive but do suffer from the ‘testosterone-overdose’ fairly regularly which usually involves impulsivity and rashness.
  - rybosworld 5y ago
    > Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club? If we aim for meritocracy, then yes it's definitely an issue. The most competitive males tend to have lots of negative personality traits (e.g. low empathy). That is to say: It's very often not the smartest/most creative people that make it to the top. It's the most cutthroat.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      It's the same reason that most multi-billionaires share similar traits, those without those traits often bail out when they're comfortably multi-millionaires and so never have a chance to get to the very top.
    - seneca 5y ago
      This is only true if you presuppose that being cut throat isn't a merit. An attribute being distasteful doesn't mean that attribute doesn't make the holder better adjusted to some environments.
      - rybosworld 5y ago
        Right - I guess my point is that competitiveness in of itself is not useful. Competitiveness is really just motivation/drive. It's important and necessary and we can use it to reach our goals. But competitiveness for competitiveness-sake leads to bad things. Other people are harmed along the way, shareholders don't make as much money as they could, etc.
      - Damogran6 5y ago
        It's a merit for the fewest number of people. Not to get all socialism on this. Cutthroat certainly moved advancement forward by leaps and bounds (industrialization, Dot Com, etc.) but it comes with an awful lot of drawbacks at the same time (Pollution, Taking disproportionate advantage of the workforce, making evil decisions because 'it's cheaper to pay the family of the deceased than it is to fix the problem')
subjectsigma 5y ago
Hahaha, no it does not. I joined my current place of work a little bit before another new hire, an attractive blonde woman. Nobody gave a fuck about me, I had to walk around and actively introduce myself and try to make friends, whereas she had a literal stream of dudes visiting her office the first week. I made a joke about this once to her and she rolled her eyes and said it was really annoying, but it did help her get up to speed very quickly on the whose-who and what their roles were. To this day her network is much bigger than mine. I guess you could argue that this happened because she's hot and not because she's a woman or something like that. My point is corporate environments are nowhere near equalizing.
- AyyWS 5y ago
  Here's the real life flip-side from someone I know very well. She was propositioned by her creepy, married supply chain manager. Didn't report to HR. When layoffs came around her name was pulled most likely because her creepy manager was embarrassed. Other insecure women in the office viewed her as a threat and tried to silence or embarrass her. Oh yeah, she also got an award from the supply chain VP for a perfect year of all on time deliveries (which never happens), but was still laid off...
- gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
  I think a situation like this can be similar to the kind/nice distinction. Your hot coworker may never get the respect (or have the chance to earn it) because people only seek them out for their surface level traits and work-irrelevant things like having access to attractive women. The behaviour is not hard to reign in either: I work with a few very attractive women with whom I have great chemistry and could probably lure into long conversations and yes, build subtle sexual tension. However, it’s way more mutually beneficial that our relationship is based around their competence in engineering, or HR, or sales. As you pointed out, the easy route for many men is to baby or pester such women, which can even kill a company if it gets too pathological. I’ve even seen well meaning male personalities at work cut off or talk over the more soft spoken (and IMO smarter) women. I actively try to fight that tendency when I can- without being imposing- and see surprise/appreciation when I do so.
upsidesinclude 5y ago
You have defined yourself and your group as a distinctly small and specialized subset of humans. Largely one that does not represent humans en masse

rybosworld 5y ago

Disagree. Males and females are different and it's important to talk about it. Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males. Males and females are interested in different types of work. And if we are being honest, you can find things that the average member of one gender is better at than the other. This also shows it's head in the work place. Generalizations made about females and males are concerning the averages. On average, it's easier for a male to gain muscle mass. On average, women do better socially. Humans are uniquely adaptable so we can become better at things through practice. This does not alter the fact that people have different starting points for any skill set. Ignoring the differences does more harm than good.

gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
> Male competitiveness plays a huge role in the corporate world, and is a reasonable explanation for why the top of the hierarchy is naturally dominated by males Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club? I also refer you to the observed effects of testosterone in financial markets (riskier trades, bubbles) which are typically seen as pathological. Personally I’m not extremely competitive but do suffer from the ‘testosterone-overdose’ fairly regularly which usually involves impulsivity and rashness.
- rybosworld 5y ago
  > Could you foresee this being a problem? Such as the best person for a job being passed over for someone more competitive/in the club? If we aim for meritocracy, then yes it's definitely an issue. The most competitive males tend to have lots of negative personality traits (e.g. low empathy). That is to say: It's very often not the smartest/most creative people that make it to the top. It's the most cutthroat.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    It's the same reason that most multi-billionaires share similar traits, those without those traits often bail out when they're comfortably multi-millionaires and so never have a chance to get to the very top.
  - seneca 5y ago
    This is only true if you presuppose that being cut throat isn't a merit. An attribute being distasteful doesn't mean that attribute doesn't make the holder better adjusted to some environments.
    - rybosworld 5y ago
      Right - I guess my point is that competitiveness in of itself is not useful. Competitiveness is really just motivation/drive. It's important and necessary and we can use it to reach our goals. But competitiveness for competitiveness-sake leads to bad things. Other people are harmed along the way, shareholders don't make as much money as they could, etc.
    - Damogran6 5y ago
      It's a merit for the fewest number of people. Not to get all socialism on this. Cutthroat certainly moved advancement forward by leaps and bounds (industrialization, Dot Com, etc.) but it comes with an awful lot of drawbacks at the same time (Pollution, Taking disproportionate advantage of the workforce, making evil decisions because 'it's cheaper to pay the family of the deceased than it is to fix the problem')

subjectsigma 5y ago

Hahaha, no it does not. I joined my current place of work a little bit before another new hire, an attractive blonde woman. Nobody gave a fuck about me, I had to walk around and actively introduce myself and try to make friends, whereas she had a literal stream of dudes visiting her office the first week. I made a joke about this once to her and she rolled her eyes and said it was really annoying, but it did help her get up to speed very quickly on the whose-who and what their roles were. To this day her network is much bigger than mine. I guess you could argue that this happened because she's hot and not because she's a woman or something like that. My point is corporate environments are nowhere near equalizing.

AyyWS 5y ago
Here's the real life flip-side from someone I know very well. She was propositioned by her creepy, married supply chain manager. Didn't report to HR. When layoffs came around her name was pulled most likely because her creepy manager was embarrassed. Other insecure women in the office viewed her as a threat and tried to silence or embarrass her. Oh yeah, she also got an award from the supply chain VP for a perfect year of all on time deliveries (which never happens), but was still laid off...
gunfighthacksaw 5y ago
I think a situation like this can be similar to the kind/nice distinction. Your hot coworker may never get the respect (or have the chance to earn it) because people only seek them out for their surface level traits and work-irrelevant things like having access to attractive women. The behaviour is not hard to reign in either: I work with a few very attractive women with whom I have great chemistry and could probably lure into long conversations and yes, build subtle sexual tension. However, it’s way more mutually beneficial that our relationship is based around their competence in engineering, or HR, or sales. As you pointed out, the easy route for many men is to baby or pester such women, which can even kill a company if it gets too pathological. I’ve even seen well meaning male personalities at work cut off or talk over the more soft spoken (and IMO smarter) women. I actively try to fight that tendency when I can- without being imposing- and see surprise/appreciation when I do so.

upsidesinclude 5y ago

You have defined yourself and your group as a distinctly small and specialized subset of humans. Largely one that does not represent humans en masse