Guys vs Gals

[clutch]

Investing might be just another form of competition for men.

 

https://web.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.AnnualReview.Print.pdf

 

BTW, this tendency might also explain why fewer women reach the C-level roles. At some level when you make enough money, women tend to find and prioritize values / meanings in other things such as families. Men still pursue higher pay / positions, as a way to keep scores from their corporate competitions, and more frequently end up at executive management positions.

 

If you want to resolve the issue of gender discrepancies in certain occupations (I'm not advocating this should be done, BTW), I think we need to understand these tendencies - and of course, accept the fact that there are gender differences.

 

For instance, if an organization really wanted equal gender compositions, the best strategy might be to focus on making jobs more meaningful / flexible and killing competitions within the organization (so that women finds more meaning in their work and men would look for competitions elsewhere). The problem of course is then the productivity / efficiency will likely deteriorate. 

[rukawa]

BTW, this tendency might also explain why fewer women reach the C-level roles. At some level when you make enough money, women tend to find and prioritize values / meanings in other things such as families. Men still pursue higher pay / positions, as a way to keep scores from their corporate competitions, and more frequently end up at executive management positions.

 

In every single society that has ever existed historically for which we have good records or been observed directly by anthropologists its always been the case that men dominate all roles with high formal social status and power, regardless of what those roles are. My view is that the simplest explanation is that men are biologically wired to strongly desire to ascend status hierarchies. Thus they are much more willing to sacrifice to do it than women are.

 

Consider a guy like Warren Buffett. He spent most of his life, holed up in rooms, reading financial statements. I think Susan Buffett, his first wife, commented on how this was a poor way to live life. I completely agree with her.

 

This isn't uncommon. I remember reading about Julius Caesar as a young man seeing a bust of Alexander the Great and feeling like a failure because he realized that when Alexander was his age, he had already conquered the known world. Julius Caesar wanted to be a great Conquerer, Buffett and Rockefeller wanted to be enormously rich....same underlying motivation (ascend a status hierarchy) but filtered through a different society with very different values (military conquest vs money). In India, men dominate the "spiritual guru" role. Does anyone really think men are more capable at being spiritual than women. Or better at cooking than woman.

 

Women also tend to prefer to date men who are likely to or end up ascending a hierarchy. So men's mating strategy is "ascend the hierarchy". Women's is to get noticed by and marry the guy who ascended or will ascend it. This actually provides an extremely good explanation of one thing I have always but puzzled by...why women put so much effort into their appearance when in other animals the male usually is more colorful and tends to do more visual displays to attract the female.

 

I don't really think women are any less capable or intelligent than men. I just think the priorities are way different and dictated by different mating strategies.

[alwaysinvert]

BTW, this tendency might also explain why fewer women reach the C-level roles. At some level when you make enough money, women tend to find and prioritize values / meanings in other things such as families. Men still pursue higher pay / positions, as a way to keep scores from their corporate competitions, and more frequently end up at executive management positions.

 

In every single society that has ever existed historically for which we have good records or been observed directly by anthropologists its always been the case that men dominate all roles with high formal social status and power, regardless of what those roles are. My view is that the simplest explanation is that men are biologically wired to strongly desire to ascend status hierarchies. Thus they are much more willing to sacrifice to do it than women are.

 

Consider a guy like Warren Buffett. He spent most of his life, holed up in rooms, reading financial statements. I think Susan Buffett, his first wife, commented on how this was a poor way to live life. I completely agree with her.

 

This isn't uncommon. I remember reading about Julius Caesar as a young man seeing a bust of Alexander the Great and feeling like a failure because he realized that when Alexander was his age, he had already conquered the known world. Julius Caesar wanted to be a great Conquerer, Buffett and Rockefeller wanted to be enormously rich....same underlying motivation (ascend a status hierarchy) but filtered through a different society with very different values (military conquest vs money). In India, men dominate the "spiritual guru" role. Does anyone really think men are more capable at being spiritual than women. Or better at cooking than woman.

 

Women also tend to prefer to date men who are likely to or end up ascending a hierarchy. So men's mating strategy is "ascend the hierarchy". Women's is to get noticed by and marry the guy who ascended or will ascend it. This actually provides an extremely good explanation of one thing I have always but puzzled by...why women put so much effort into their appearance when in other animals the male usually is more colorful and tends to do more visual displays to attract the female.

 

I don't really think women are any less capable or intelligent than men. I just think the priorities are way different and dictated by different mating strategies.

 

This is all correct. In addition, men also have a flatter bell curve for psychological traits, including IQ. The societal implications of that are pretty clear for those inclined to ruminate over it.

[wachtwoord]

Or maybe people who post crap like that are straight up trolling for fun, but I'd suggest anyone like that go give HanA--holeSolo's apology a read and rethink their life.

 

 

You mean the one coerced out of him by CNN who threatened a minor with public humiliation?  You're trying to have the moral high ground and you really just gave THAT as an example ..... ?

[rb]

BTW, this tendency might also explain why fewer women reach the C-level roles. At some level when you make enough money, women tend to find and prioritize values / meanings in other things such as families. Men still pursue higher pay / positions, as a way to keep scores from their corporate competitions, and more frequently end up at executive management positions.

 

In every single society that has ever existed historically for which we have good records or been observed directly by anthropologists its always been the case that men dominate all roles with high formal social status and power, regardless of what those roles are. My view is that the simplest explanation is that men are biologically wired to strongly desire to ascend status hierarchies. Thus they are much more willing to sacrifice to do it than women are.

Given all the restrictions that have been imposed by women by most (all?) societies is this a little like saying that the reason why there is a lack of female leaders today in Saudi Arabia is that men are biologically wired to strongly desire to ascend status hierarchies.

[rukawa]

Given all the restrictions that have been imposed by women by most (all?) societies is this a little like saying that the reason why there is a lack of female leaders today in Saudi Arabia is that men are biologically wired to strongly desire to ascend status hierarchies.

 

If X varies enormously and Y is invariant then you can't use X to explain Y. Societies vary enormously but the outcome of mostly male leadership is an invariant. It can't be explained by arbitrary social factors since these factors are arbitrary and therefore will vary enormously across societies. It could be explained by a social factor that every society has in common but then the logical question is WHY every society has the social factor in common. My claim is that every invariant social factor that every society has in common is either due to basic human nature or some fundamental aspect of reality that is very difficult to alter. Otherwise you would find a society where it was altered.

 

Saudi Arabia is one society and if it was the only society ever studied your claim about restrictions would make sense. But it isn't. Polynesians had far fewer restrictions on woman...but they had mostly males in power. Same with Native Indians, modern Europeans, ancient Egyptians, Chinese across their whole history, Romans...you name it. Given the enormous variation of these societies in all kinds of things: beliefs, religion, philosophy of life, mode of living, environment, technological ability the obvious question is why? And societies change enormously over time...there are wars, famines, disease, massive cultural shifts...isn't it odd that these "restrictions" were able to survive across all this tumult.

 

The idea that males subjugated females is a common explanation. But it still begs the question of how and why? How and why did males in every single society ever known manage to subjugate woman. And why don't we observe it? In other words why have we never observed a society where women were in leadership positions and then spontaneously the men all decided: hey lets subjugate woman and then passed a whole bunch of restrictions. And then of course the next question is why didn't the powerful women leaders stop them?

 

We never see this. Instead all we see is societies everywhere where for some reason men just happen to be in power and it seems like they always have been. There is no coherent explanation that isn't biological for the exact reason that biology is invariant and social factors aren't.

[LC]

The premise that Y (male leadership) is invariant is false.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

[louisdog]

You mean the one coerced out of him by CNN who threatened a minor with public humiliation?  You're trying to have the moral high ground and you really just gave THAT as an example ..... ?

 

The guy is a 35 year old man not a minor

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/cnn-will-expose-reddit-user-if-he-ever-trolls-again/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/cnn-staff-reeling-after-personal-info-leaked/

 

 

 

 

[rukawa]

The premise that Y (male leadership) is invariant is false.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

 

Your link supports my argument. From the third sentence of the link you posted:

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have.

 

Additionally from the link you posted

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Matriarchal_Prehistory

 

The evidence that matriarchies ever existed is extremely poor and the idea is mostly a wholesale invention and feminists and marxists. Second the current definitions of matriarchy need not even contradict the idea of mostly male leadership since many anthropologists/feminists/marxists redefine matriarchy to mean social roles are relatively egalitarian. This would imply that North America is matriarchal since social roles are relatively egalitarian...however it still has mostly male leadership. Leadership is the extreme of the distribution....not the average.

[wachtwoord]

You mean the one coerced out of him by CNN who threatened a minor with public humiliation?  You're trying to have the moral high ground and you really just gave THAT as an example ..... ?

 

The guy is a 35 year old man not a minor

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/cnn-will-expose-reddit-user-if-he-ever-trolls-again/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/cnn-staff-reeling-after-personal-info-leaked/

 

Because CNN says so?

[onyx1]

You mean the one coerced out of him by CNN who threatened a minor with public humiliation?  You're trying to have the moral high ground and you really just gave THAT as an example ..... ?

 

The guy is a 35 year old man not a minor

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/cnn-will-expose-reddit-user-if-he-ever-trolls-again/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/cnn-staff-reeling-after-personal-info-leaked/

 

Because CNN says so?

 

 

CNN prime time ratings are now lower than 40-year old reruns of Yogi Bear. 

 

 

 

[wachtwoord]

You mean the one coerced out of him by CNN who threatened a minor with public humiliation?  You're trying to have the moral high ground and you really just gave THAT as an example ..... ?

 

The guy is a 35 year old man not a minor

 

https://www.engadget.com/2017/07/05/cnn-will-expose-reddit-user-if-he-ever-trolls-again/

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/cnn-staff-reeling-after-personal-info-leaked/

 

Because CNN says so?

 

 

CNN prime time ratings are now lower than 40-year old reruns of Yogi Bear. 

 

 

 

 

It's nice when the market punishes the bad actors :)

[LC]

The premise that Y (male leadership) is invariant is false.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

 

Your link supports my argument. From the third sentence of the link you posted:

Most anthropologists hold that there are no known societies that are unambiguously matriarchal, but some authors believe exceptions may exist or may have.

 

Additionally from the link you posted

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Matriarchal_Prehistory

 

The evidence that matriarchies ever existed is extremely poor and the idea is mostly a wholesale invention and feminists and marxists. Second the current definitions of matriarchy need not even contradict the idea of mostly male leadership since many anthropologists/feminists/marxists redefine matriarchy to mean social roles are relatively egalitarian. This would imply that North America is matriarchal since social roles are relatively egalitarian...however it still has mostly male leadership. Leadership is the extreme of the distribution....not the average.

 

The article lists a bunch of examples:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy#By_region_and_culture

 

The sentence you quote is more an issue with syntax and the strict definition of matriarchy.

[rkbabang]

Why do some of you get so angry about this topic.  Is it not true that there are few female investors (either professional or otherwise)?  Yes there are some brilliant women in every field, but that isn't the point.  I've worked with some brilliant female engineers, but I'd be lying to you if I didn't admit that there are few female silicon design engineers.  There are few female truck drivers as well.  However you'd like the world to work aside, simply saying these things is not misogynistic if it is true. 

 

EDIT: 

 

A few weeks ago my wife and I went on a tour of a 2 year school my son is considering going to before moving on to a 4 year school.  Anyway, the tour took us through every building on campus.  When we got to the dental hygienist building they had a class picture of every graduating class in the dental hygienist program from the opening of the school in 1964 until last years class.  I'd say about 40 people in each photo.  The tour guide pointed out that if you are looking for a male graduate there was one in 2012 and none in any other year.  Was this anti-male of him to point out?

 

[clutch]

A documentary on the Nordic gender equality paradox:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

 

A book on the same topic:

http://nordicparadox.se/

 

 

[Gregmal]

Why do some of you get so angry about this topic.  Is it not true that there are few female investors (either professional or otherwise)?  Yes there are some brilliant women in every field, but that isn't the point.  I've worked with some brilliant female engineers, but I'd be lying to you if I didn't admit that there are few female silicon design engineers.  There are few female truck drivers as well.  However you'd like the world to work aside, simply saying these things is not misogynistic if it is true. 

 

EDIT: 

 

A few weeks ago my wife and I went on a tour of a 2 year school my son is considering going to before moving on to a 4 year school.  Anyway, the tour took us through every building on campus.  When we got to the dental hygienist building they had a class picture of every graduating class in the dental hygienist program from the opening of the school in 1964 until last years class.  I'd say about 40 people in each photo.  The tour guide pointed out that if you are looking for a male graduate there was one in 2012 and none in any other year.  Was this anti-male of him to point out?

 

I would imagine the same is largely true of nurses. Some people just like to complain. It's also kind of cool now a days to be self righteous and a PC police officer.

 

The other day I actually had someone argue with me that woman typically having smaller feet than men isnt an evolutionary byproduct of their environment; an advantage allowing them to get closer to the sink and as such, why they are better at washing dishes... (kidding, of course)