6 ms·

To summarize the article: for some reason, the society is more willing to tolerate "pushiness" in males than in females. Why is that the case? Any ideas? (Other

To summarize the article: for some reason, the society is more willing to tolerate "pushiness" in males than in females. Why is that the case? Any ideas? (Other than "because it's always been like that..."). Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.

invalidOrTaken 15y ago
Could the analogy be extended to give some clues on how to get a better deal without violating for-whatever-reason-ingrained reactions? The standard advice for a single woman is not to ask men out on dates, but to "get yourself out there." What would the analogous behavior look like from a potential employee? Conferences? Blogging? Fine-tuning of resume?
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  That's an absolutely great point. What if, for example, prices for things like conferences were lower for women? I'm sure that even men would appreciate a higher female-to-male ratio at such events (and women would not feel like black sheep being there). In fact, this is such a win-win scenario that I don't understand why this is not being done currently.
  - mjdwitt 15y ago
    I don't know if you saw Sarah Mei's talk[1] about getting the female population of SF Ruby from 2% to 18% in a year, but she presented a lot of interesting (and effective sounding, based on her experiences) methods of how to attract more women to conferences. [1] http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2010/02/20/scale-8x-slides-posted/ http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2010/02/20/scale-8x-slides-post... The audio is a bit long, but it's worth listening to over the slides.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    Because lowering prices for women would absolutely be sexism, by definition, and to a certain extent would cheapen their presence there. Maybe it would be worth it. Maybe you could spin it as a promo so it wasn't as big a deal. But that's why.
    - bluekeybox 15y ago
      > lowering prices for women would absolutely be sexism Just like affirmative action got called racial discrimination... Not really. I guess that's along the lines of how one would spin it.
aangjie 15y ago
Perhaps, it's time we as a society reconsidered the negative connotations we attach to the word "slut"
- randomdata 15y ago
  From my male point of view, I would say our society celebrates women who are, so called, "sluts." They are the envy of many people, men and women alike. Nobody wants to be the religious nun doing valuable charity work that benefits the world, they want to be the next Kim Kardashian. The women we place in high regard are women who know how to get what they want. If you ask a young girl today what she wants to be when she grows up, she will most often tell you she wants to be a celebrity – the most recognized group of women who fit that description. No one goes anywhere in that business by being passive. Obviously it is a problem that exists. It is just a strange dichotomy where we, as a society, promote girls to be "sluts," while women still feel negative towards themselves to live up to those expectations. What can be done to fix the problem?
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    Stop celebrating "sluts"? If we're going to idolize pushy women, let's idolize the ones who make constructive contributions to society , which are hopefully the same standards we apply to men.
jdp23 15y ago
> Why is that the case? Any ideas? The situation gives men an enormous advantage. And the vast majority of the 90%+ of Fortune 500 CEOs and tech startups and VCs who are guys don't seem to have any interest in changing it. Why do you think that's the case?
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  That's a major consequence, but I doubt it's the true cause. I think many of us (even women) have ingrained the negative stereotype of a pushy "bitch." When we imagine a particular woman as such, we do not consciously think about perpetuating any particular power hierarchy; we simply think that she's a "bitch". I'm not saying it's right; just stating the (obvious) facts. My hypothesis is that the society unconsciously believes that aggressive "pushy" women would make bad mothers or would be otherwise somehow bad at raising children. But would they really? What if strong women give birth to natural leaders, to put it figuratively? Human societies have a tendency to place higher value on things like complacency and moral propriety, even if those things could be detrimental at the individual level, and a related tendency to ostracize those with high social intelligence or manipulative traits even though those traits could be beneficial at the individual level. What if the "bitch" stereotype is due to a similar effect? EDIT: if you disagree with me enough to downvote this, I would love to hear your opinion on why precisely you disagree, so please comment.
  - itmag 15y ago
    Society is supposed to make sense now?
- mjdwitt 15y ago
  What makes those male power figures focus on excluding women specifically from their roles? I doubt they care about the gender of their competition; they just want themselves to be the ones in power and nobody else, man or woman.
  - jdp23 15y ago
    I didn't mean to suggest that they're focused on excluding women from their roles. It's more that the people at the top have gotten there in the current situation. So emotionally they tend not to want to acknowledge what a huge advantage they and their peers have had getting there ... and they don't have any incentive to change things in a way that reduces that advantage.
itmag 15y ago
"""Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.""" Most people seem to prefer atavism when it comes to dating and bedroom activities. Those are some really deep patterns, and I doubt that they are solely the result of social conditioning. A sexually pushy woman might be labelled a slut, but a sexually unpushy man will be labelled a beta male. Because, in the end, we are just chimps.
- bluekeybox 15y ago
  > but a sexually unpushy man will be labelled a beta male True point: women pay closer attention to men's pecking order than vice versa. But then again, the reason women do this is likely because for men, pecking order is more closely linked to high salary / reproductive fitness than it is for women, which comes back to the point in the original article -- if women don't get promoted or given higher salary, then there is no major salary inequality among them (at least compared to men), so we are back to square one.
  - itmag 15y ago
    Women compete on looks, men compete on social status. The latter of which being to some extent fakeable through one's appearance and behavior.
azernik 15y ago
With regards to the first question: I think it has something to do with the stereotype/expectation that women will be demure or unassertive. Assertiveness by a woman goes more against our expectations than the same level of assertiveness by a man, and so is magnified in our minds.
Mz 15y ago
Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out. I'm female. I have found it's really tough to try to initiate a relationship with a man because the default is to treat me like a "slut" if I do so and then get really threatened/angry/hostile when it turns out I am not throwing myself at him sexually, I am actually looking for a relationship. I've concluded that what "slut" means is really "someone who indiscriminately serves the needs of men/others". "Women looking to serve their own needs" is something society doesn't seem to really have a term for. (Anyone know of such a term? I would be happy to be proven wrong and enlightened that it's just my whacked life that lacks this concept. Men who sleep around tend to get called "Players" and the assumption is they are taking advantage/doing the using. "Slut" is generally a term we use to indicate the party being used/in the subservient position.)

invalidOrTaken 15y ago

Could the analogy be extended to give some clues on how to get a better deal without violating for-whatever-reason-ingrained reactions? The standard advice for a single woman is not to ask men out on dates, but to "get yourself out there." What would the analogous behavior look like from a potential employee? Conferences? Blogging? Fine-tuning of resume?

bluekeybox 15y ago
That's an absolutely great point. What if, for example, prices for things like conferences were lower for women? I'm sure that even men would appreciate a higher female-to-male ratio at such events (and women would not feel like black sheep being there). In fact, this is such a win-win scenario that I don't understand why this is not being done currently.
- mjdwitt 15y ago
  I don't know if you saw Sarah Mei's talk[1] about getting the female population of SF Ruby from 2% to 18% in a year, but she presented a lot of interesting (and effective sounding, based on her experiences) methods of how to attract more women to conferences. [1] http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2010/02/20/scale-8x-slides-posted/ http://www.sarahmei.com/blog/2010/02/20/scale-8x-slides-post... The audio is a bit long, but it's worth listening to over the slides.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  Because lowering prices for women would absolutely be sexism, by definition, and to a certain extent would cheapen their presence there. Maybe it would be worth it. Maybe you could spin it as a promo so it wasn't as big a deal. But that's why.
  - bluekeybox 15y ago
    > lowering prices for women would absolutely be sexism Just like affirmative action got called racial discrimination... Not really. I guess that's along the lines of how one would spin it.

aangjie 15y ago

Perhaps, it's time we as a society reconsidered the negative connotations we attach to the word "slut"

randomdata 15y ago
From my male point of view, I would say our society celebrates women who are, so called, "sluts." They are the envy of many people, men and women alike. Nobody wants to be the religious nun doing valuable charity work that benefits the world, they want to be the next Kim Kardashian. The women we place in high regard are women who know how to get what they want. If you ask a young girl today what she wants to be when she grows up, she will most often tell you she wants to be a celebrity – the most recognized group of women who fit that description. No one goes anywhere in that business by being passive. Obviously it is a problem that exists. It is just a strange dichotomy where we, as a society, promote girls to be "sluts," while women still feel negative towards themselves to live up to those expectations. What can be done to fix the problem?
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  Stop celebrating "sluts"? If we're going to idolize pushy women, let's idolize the ones who make constructive contributions to society , which are hopefully the same standards we apply to men.

jdp23 15y ago

> Why is that the case? Any ideas? The situation gives men an enormous advantage. And the vast majority of the 90%+ of Fortune 500 CEOs and tech startups and VCs who are guys don't seem to have any interest in changing it. Why do you think that's the case?

bluekeybox 15y ago
That's a major consequence, but I doubt it's the true cause. I think many of us (even women) have ingrained the negative stereotype of a pushy "bitch." When we imagine a particular woman as such, we do not consciously think about perpetuating any particular power hierarchy; we simply think that she's a "bitch". I'm not saying it's right; just stating the (obvious) facts. My hypothesis is that the society unconsciously believes that aggressive "pushy" women would make bad mothers or would be otherwise somehow bad at raising children. But would they really? What if strong women give birth to natural leaders, to put it figuratively? Human societies have a tendency to place higher value on things like complacency and moral propriety, even if those things could be detrimental at the individual level, and a related tendency to ostracize those with high social intelligence or manipulative traits even though those traits could be beneficial at the individual level. What if the "bitch" stereotype is due to a similar effect? EDIT: if you disagree with me enough to downvote this, I would love to hear your opinion on why precisely you disagree, so please comment.
- itmag 15y ago
  Society is supposed to make sense now?
mjdwitt 15y ago
What makes those male power figures focus on excluding women specifically from their roles? I doubt they care about the gender of their competition; they just want themselves to be the ones in power and nobody else, man or woman.
- jdp23 15y ago
  I didn't mean to suggest that they're focused on excluding women from their roles. It's more that the people at the top have gotten there in the current situation. So emotionally they tend not to want to acknowledge what a huge advantage they and their peers have had getting there ... and they don't have any incentive to change things in a way that reduces that advantage.

itmag 15y ago

"""Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out.""" Most people seem to prefer atavism when it comes to dating and bedroom activities. Those are some really deep patterns, and I doubt that they are solely the result of social conditioning. A sexually pushy woman might be labelled a slut, but a sexually unpushy man will be labelled a beta male. Because, in the end, we are just chimps.

bluekeybox 15y ago
> but a sexually unpushy man will be labelled a beta male True point: women pay closer attention to men's pecking order than vice versa. But then again, the reason women do this is likely because for men, pecking order is more closely linked to high salary / reproductive fitness than it is for women, which comes back to the point in the original article -- if women don't get promoted or given higher salary, then there is no major salary inequality among them (at least compared to men), so we are back to square one.
- itmag 15y ago
  Women compete on looks, men compete on social status. The latter of which being to some extent fakeable through one's appearance and behavior.

azernik 15y ago

With regards to the first question: I think it has something to do with the stereotype/expectation that women will be demure or unassertive. Assertiveness by a woman goes more against our expectations than the same level of assertiveness by a man, and so is magnified in our minds.

Mz 15y ago

Not to bring down everything to sexuality, but a sexually pushy woman would be typically labeled a "slut." Which is why a woman will almost never ask a man out. I'm female. I have found it's really tough to try to initiate a relationship with a man because the default is to treat me like a "slut" if I do so and then get really threatened/angry/hostile when it turns out I am not throwing myself at him sexually, I am actually looking for a relationship. I've concluded that what "slut" means is really "someone who indiscriminately serves the needs of men/others". "Women looking to serve their own needs" is something society doesn't seem to really have a term for. (Anyone know of such a term? I would be happy to be proven wrong and enlightened that it's just my whacked life that lacks this concept. Men who sleep around tend to get called "Players" and the assumption is they are taking advantage/doing the using. "Slut" is generally a term we use to indicate the party being used/in the subservient position.)