Gender inequality talk is starting to annoy people

[Argus]

Let me start out by saying I'm a firm believer in merit. A person should not be held back from going as far and fast as they can in any career or undertaking based on gender, race or religion. But the problems with the 'gender inequality' types is they're not interested in equal opportunity, but equal results. And the only way they can justify their indignation that results aren't equal is to completely ignore human biology and reality. Which, I suppose, is pretty typical of progressives like Trudeau.

Not enough female CEOs? So what? Who really gives a damn other than progressives? Are women being held back because of their gender? That's the question they never bother to investigate. Instead they simply presume it is so. But the only way they can do that is by ignoring reality. As any psychologist will tell you, women and men do not think alike. They do not have the same motivations to the same degree. They don't LIKE the same things in the same numbers. They have different preferences. And no, it's not all culturally learned. Some of it is simply biological instinct. 

Who becomes a CEO? Well, aside from someone whose father owns the company,  a person who devotes themselves to climbing the greasy ladder. Someone with the drive, motivation, often enough ruthlessness, and intelligence to make it up to that level. That person generally doesn't have much of a social life. They take little time off and work long hours without complaint. They're much more aggressive than most in pursuing what they want. Women are simply much less likely to be into all that. Women tend to be less aggressive, in general, and care more about family and life (kudos to them btw). That's not to say there aren't some who can make it, but to expect their numbers to be anything similar to that of men goes against reality and biology.

Why aren't their more female politicians? Because women, in general, have far less interest in being one. As hard as the left wing parties work to find women candidates, they can never get the same number. Women just aren't into politics like men are (in general). Nor are they into the STEM professions like men.  Women don't want to be cops or firefighters or join the military either. Not in the same numbers as men. Nor do they have the same physical ability (in general) to be good cops, firefighters or soldiers.  Almost all normal people acknowledge this. But the idiots who insist on female equal results instead of equal opportunity demand qualifications for these jobs be lowered, the requirements be lowered, and women be pushed ahead of men of more merit. We get the Trudeaus of the world demanding more women be hired everywhere, launching special programs for female run companies, female entrepreneurs, female professors and students.

All this produces is incompetents in roles above their abilities, and resentment from men. It's no surprise that Trudeau's support among men has fallen steadily since the election, and he now has just 30% support among male voters. I think many men are becoming fed up with his continuous haranguing on the subject of women and 'gender diversity'. I know I am.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-real-reason-there-arent-many-female-ceos-is-biology-2012-2

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-justin-trudeau-is-losing-the-male-voter-can-the-pm-win-him-back/

[GostHacked]

Equal opportunity does not mean equal outcome.  What you are talking about is something Jordan Peterson has been saying some some years.  When all things are equal, preferences and interests take over. Men and woman are generally interested in different things, and that is even more apparent with that equal opportunity notion.

Men and women are different and there is no reason denying it, and there is no reason to go against it.

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

When I started in my job there were no female project managers, now about 40% are.  No one would say they are ill-suited to the job because of their gender, yet they said that then.  And you are saying that now effectively.  Women are ill-suited to being CEOs ?  Why exactly ?

 

This is mushy thinking, which is amplified by your incessant desire to throw drive-by insults at caricatures called 'progressives' and  'gender inequality' types.  It's like calling people 'racists' for liking Doug Ford or Harper, ie. should not be necessary to a well-articulated thesis.

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This is mushy thinking, which is amplified by your incessant desire to throw drive-by insults at caricatures called 'progressives' and  'gender inequality' types.  It's like calling people 'racists' for liking Doug Ford or Harper, ie. should not be necessary to a well-articulated thesis.

Argus might as well be referring to Chads and Stacys - the whiny hatred and disdain that too many conservatives reserve for the left really is indistinguishable in tone from that of incels.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

When I started in my job there were no female project managers, now about 40% are.  No one would say they are ill-suited to the job because of their gender, yet they said that then.  And you are saying that now effectively.  Women are ill-suited to being CEOs ?  Why exactly ?

Note the difference between saying 'women are ill suited to being CEOs' and saying 'women, in general, lack the drive, motivation and aggressive determination to succeed at all costs'. There are a few who have the traits necessary, including, as I said above, the willingness to ignore family and social life. But they are few in number compared to men simply out of biological and social instinct. Women (in general) have different desires and priorities. And it isn't men in general who get to the level of a CEO anyway. It's not the 'median' or 'average' man but the one on the extremes of interest, and almost everyone on that extreme is male.

The same is true of interest in the STEM professions. Men have a generally higher interest, though a lot of women do have interest too. But if you are measuring that interest, it's not the median we're talking of but the extreme, the tail, and those who have an extreme interest are virtually all male. Same goes for policing, which, by and large, men do better anyway due to the need for physical strength.

Edited May 2, 2018 by Argus

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Argus said:

1) Note the difference between saying 'women are ill suited to being CEOs' and saying 'women, in general, lack the drive, motivation and aggressive determination to succeed at all costs'.

 

2)   simply out of biological and social instinct. Women (in general) have different desires and priorities.  

3)  Same goes for policing, which, by and large, men do better anyway due to the need for physical strength.

1) Yes, it's a subtle difference though.  You are still saying they're not suited to the task regardless of whether the attributes are admirable or not.  

2) Determinism was also an argument used in the past to explain why women lacked the 'drive' to be middle managers, and generally as a rationale for other specious arguments such as race and sports.

3) Yes, whenever I need someone to lift something I call the police.  I don't need someone with social skills, or de-escalation ability in my police.  Yes, that was sarcasm.

 

Anyway, I have room for about one self-justifying argument from you per day.  This was it.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Yes, it's a subtle difference though.  You are still saying they're not suited to the task regardless of whether the attributes are admirable or not.  

No, I'm clearly not. And I'll thank you not to interpret my statements in the light of your own biases.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

2) Determinism was also an argument used in the past to explain why women lacked the 'drive' to be middle managers, and generally as a rationale for other specious arguments such as race and sports.

So you believe there is no difference between men and women? They have the same emotional desires for the same things in the same quantity and quality? There is no biological or instinctive difference?

You won't, btw, find a psychologist who won't laugh at you if you say yes to that.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

3) Yes, whenever I need someone to lift something I call the police.  I don't need someone with social skills, or de-escalation ability in my police.  Yes, that was sarcasm.

I'm going to guess you know just about nothing about policing and have never had much, if any interaction with police.

First, you make an assumption that males don't have social skills and don't have the ability to De-escelate a situation. That's nonsensical.

Second you utterly ignore that police are there to enforce the law, and that this often requires the actual application of physical force. Not important to you? I guess not.

I have seen and heard about so many instances where small, even petite women have been unable to deal with physical interactions with male offenders.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Anyway, I have room for about one self-justifying argument from you per day.  This was it.

How is any of this self-serving in any way? I have no desire whatever to be a CEO or a cop. I think what you're doing is simply glaring out as you hover protectively around a sacred belief, one which you have put virtually no thought into and desire to put no thought into. Men and women are equal! End of story! Don't you dare try to apply logic to my sacred belief!

[Goddess]

Men and women ARE different and are interested in different careers.  (In general)

I think the difference is that the fields and careers that women are more likely to go into, are not VALUED by society, because it has always been patriarchal.

I'm thinking specifically of the healing, teaching or caregiving careers.  It is mostly women who do the caretaking - of children, of the elderly, of men when they are injured or sick or elderly.  The problem to me is that the work that women do, while beneficial to society, is not VALUED by our patriarchal society.  And this is reflected in the "wage gap".

 

 

[Goddess]

I read a book about how archaeologists are finding more and more that women were a valued part of hunter/gatherer societies.

The men would hunt occassionally, but not always successfully.  Tribes relied on the gathering, agriculture and hunting of small prey done by women and it did not just "supplement" what the men were doing.  It was in integral, valueable part of survival.

The Invisible Sex: Uncovering the True Roles of Women in Prehistory - by Adovasio, Soffer & Page

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

Men and women ARE different and are interested in different careers.  (In general)

I think the difference is that the fields and careers that women are more likely to go into, are not VALUED by society, because it has always been patriarchal.

In part. I think that's because the 'traditional' womens jobs were considered those which required less formal education. I'm not sure what you'd call a low paid 'woman's job today. Nurses get paid pretty well, and so do teachers. In any event, the majority of graduates of medical school are now women. If women aren't the majority of law school grads they soon will be. These are the kinds of jobs women would have no problem doing but which they were once shut out of.

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

 The problem to me is that the work that women do, while beneficial to society, is not VALUED by our patriarchal society.  And this is reflected in the "wage gap".

Again, if it's easy to do, easy enough almost anyone can do it, then it's not going to be greatly valued.

I think police and firefighting are actually OVER valued and should have their wages cut. But I think jobs which sometimes require physical strength tend to be ones men prefer, especially if there might be violence. By all means let those few women interested who have the size and strength apply for front line policing and firefighting and the military.  And if they meet teh standards, hire them. But I don't favour lowering standards, and going out beating the bushes to persuade women to enter jobs they have little interest in, much less aren't able to do as well as men.

Same goes for CEOs and such. if there are really capable women willing to put in 14 hour days doing a high stress job like that, fine. But pressuring companies to hire women just because someone wants to see numbers increased seems dumb to me.

[Argus]

Jonathan Haidt demonstrates why we can't use stastics on gender parity in professions to show sexism or inequality. And why that is.

 

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

When I started in my job there were no female project managers, now about 40% are.  No one would say they are ill-suited to the job because of their gender, yet they said that then.  And you are saying that now effectively.  Women are ill-suited to being CEOs ?  Why exactly ?

The problem is that not many are saying that women are ill-suited for being CEOs. It may be that many women are simply not interested in the role.

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1) Yes, it's a subtle difference though.  You are still saying they're not suited to the task regardless of whether the attributes are admirable or not.  

No.  This is part of the conversation that is really frustrating. Argus clearly stated a difference between them. And just like that woman interviewer on Channel 4 that did not listen to a damn thing Peterson said .. 'So you are saying'.. and again he has to point out NO, that's not what I said. 

You are pulling a Cathrine Newman here.

Let's break it down between you and me. I have been in IT for close to 20 years now. I really don't know your profession. But I would ask you, why you selected the profession you did? And why did you not chose another profession? What were your thought processes and reasoning for selecting the career you chose?

 

 

[Argus]

Jordan Peterson explains it all, as well, as to why women mostly don't WANT to be CEOs and in jobs which take 80hrs a week and don't allow any social life.

 

[Michael Hardner]

40 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

 No.  This is part of the conversation that is really frustrating. Argus clearly stated a difference between them.  

 

Here it is again:

" a person who devotes themselves to climbing the greasy ladder. Someone with the drive, motivation, often enough ruthlessness, and intelligence to make it up to that level. That person generally doesn't have much of a social life. They take little time off and work long hours without complaint. They're much more aggressive than most in pursuing what they want. Women are simply much less likely to be into all that. Women tend to be less aggressive, in general, and care more about family and life (kudos to them btw)."

This is saying women are ill-suited, ill-equipped, not designed to be CEOs.  That's what was said and if you can't see that you are plain blind. 

[Argus]

56 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here it is again:

" a person who devotes themselves to climbing the greasy ladder. Someone with the drive, motivation, often enough ruthlessness, and intelligence to make it up to that level. That person generally doesn't have much of a social life. They take little time off and work long hours without complaint. They're much more aggressive than most in pursuing what they want. Women are simply much less likely to be into all that. Women tend to be less aggressive, in general, and care more about family and life (kudos to them btw)."

This is saying women are ill-suited, ill-equipped, not designed to be CEOs.  That's what was said and if you can't see that you are plain blind. 

I've been careful to present the argument in terms of general male/female psychological attributes and desires, and which are much more likely to be choosing this or that career. You are presenting instead as a complete dismissal of the ability of ALL/ANY women to be CEOs. That's patently dishonest. Nothing I've said can be factually contradicted so instead you're mischaracterizing what I've said.

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Argus said:

 You are presenting instead as a complete dismissal of the ability of ALL/ANY women to be CEOs.  

You are making a generalization about women, that's what I'm saying.  It's mushy thinking, and annoying to read from people who have the propensity to show intelligence on the odd occasion.

 

Yes, I agree that this stupid talk is starting to annoy people.  Some think because dumb generalizations are not spoken in mixed companies, there is some kind of secret truth in there...

 

Meanwhile I am annoyed by dumb generalizations and specifically making conclusions based on them.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Michael Hardner

[-1=e^ipi]

Question:

Suppose that there are no on average nature-based differences in preferences or behaviour between men and women.

 

Does that mean that all the transgender people that go on different hormones and tell us that those hormones affect their behaviour and preferences are liars?

 

Why do gender-preference-deniers hate transgendered people?

Edited May 3, 2018 by -1=e^ipi

[Argus]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

.  They think because dumb generalizations are not spoken in mixed companies, there is some kind of secret truth in there...

So you object to my stating an indisputable truth that all psychologists agree with? Have I got that correct? You refer to this as a 'dumb generalization"?

 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, Argus said:

So you object to my stating an indisputable truth that all psychologists agree with? Have I got that correct? You refer to this as a 'dumb generalization"?

 

From 'men and women don't think alike' you are extrapolating a host of conclusions that are unproven at best.   Your logic is at its worst when you are working with group characteristics and - usually - aching to reach a pre-ordained conclusion.  It's mushy.

[Michael Hardner]

9 hours ago, Argus said:

So you object to my stating an indisputable truth that all psychologists agree with? Have I got that correct? You refer to this as a 'dumb generalization"?

 

"Groups of people think differently from other groups".  No i don't object to that statement.  It's dumb and it becomes idiotic when you use it to say, for example, "White males propagate violence on all other peoples".

Group politics is a blunt force weapon of stupidity and it doesn't help if it's wielded by a semi-smart person.

[GostHacked]

12 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Here it is again:

" a person who devotes themselves to climbing the greasy ladder. Someone with the drive, motivation, often enough ruthlessness, and intelligence to make it up to that level. That person generally doesn't have much of a social life. They take little time off and work long hours without complaint. They're much more aggressive than most in pursuing what they want. Women are simply much less likely to be into all that. Women tend to be less aggressive, in general, and care more about family and life (kudos to them btw)."

This is saying women are ill-suited, ill-equipped, not designed to be CEOs.  That's what was said and if you can't see that you are plain blind. 

So what you are saying is women are useless? And why are you not a CEO?

Edited May 3, 2018 by GostHacked

[dialamah]

When studies demonstrate that merely changing the name on an otherwise identical resume from female to male results in better call back, then the claims made by Argus and supported by Ghosthacked are just more patriarchal BS designed to deny anti-female bias in the corporate world.

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, GostHacked said:

So what you are saying is women are useless? And why are you not a CEO?

I applied no value to any of this.  That's your action.  To say I myself am ill-equipped to be a CEO is the understatement of the year.

[Argus]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

From 'men and women don't think alike' you are extrapolating a host of conclusions that are unproven at best.   

Not according to Haidt and Peterson. What is YOUR psychological qualification to dispute their findings?

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

"Groups of people think differently from other groups".  No i don't object to that statement.  It's dumb and it becomes idiotic when you use it to say, for example, "White males propagate violence on all other peoples".

Did I say that? Is this about white male violence? What the hell are you even talking about? I"m assuming you've been drinking here, which helps explain your double reply to my one post.

Quote

Group politics is a blunt force weapon of stupidity and it doesn't help if it's wielded by a semi-smart person.

As far as I can tell virtually the entire Left is in love with gender imbalances equating to mysogeny and sexism, and addicted to policies which address this. You have no issue with any of it, but when I point out the flaw in this, the flaw in thinking a gender imbalance is the result of anything but the choice of individuals, you get furious and dismiss it all as blaspheme and sacrilege. I don't see any point in continuing this discussion with you. Your mind is closed and locked tight and you clearly are angry at the suggestion your assumptions are based on nonsense.

Edited May 3, 2018 by Argus