SplitDik (imported) wrote: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:07 am I totally agree. I would say that the author of that book is actually anti-feminist because she doesn't realize how far women are behind men right now. I do think the opportunities for women are actually there, but something (you can argue if it is innate in women or result of culture) in women themselves seems to prevent them from really trying. I work in Silicon Valley and there is decent rate of female engineers I work with (although still only about 20% of the workforce) and they are well accepted; however I've never seen any of them interested in moving ahead in terms of management. They seem very content to work away. In contrast about 1 in 4 guys is like "where's my promotion", "f*ck that I'm going to run this place some day" sort of attitude. We do have a couple women execs though, so I'm not saying never, but it is still really rare even in the most fair-minded profession (high tech is really a meritocracy -- people with merit are recognized no matter what their race, gender, disability, background) -- we have a couple full on transgender people working with us.

The problem is - it requires different skills for engineering and management. I work in IT, and well, with very rare exceptions, there was one specific kind of persons who worked in management.

Spending time paperpushing (no, I am not saying that management is not needed), when I could do much more useful things as an engineer? Well, the answer is obvious. And if the pay is right, what is the point of moving higher (except for the ability to do system architecture right, but it would be <censored>up anyway, by marketing team adding bells and whistles)? In short - if I'll be promoted to management, I will leave current company for something more interesting and productive.

PS. May be with time, I'll change this attitude.

PPS. And this drive to dominate, IMO, in upper management only causes trouble.

One more addition. Usually this drive to dominate turns into phallometry and blanket tugging between departments. Seen that, end result - going way over budget, promising project closed, management moved to competing companies. The only ones who were fired and truly fucked up were the ones who did the real work.

You gotta remember that women have been in the workforce far less then men. That and a good number of women choose to raise their children and take a second position job in a marriage because of the children. It's only a matter of time before when out earn men, but you can't use the argument that there are more men in higher positions today other than they have been at it longer.

I agree with you but your final statement is ludicrous:

...

BiBikerFL (imported) wrote: Thu Aug 27, 2015 11:46 am It's only a matter of time before when out earn men, but you can't use the argument that there are more men in higher positions today other than they have been at it longer...

Woman will always have that paternal feeling to take care of a child. And the fact that men had higher positions for ages has nothing to do with the fact that women cannot get those positions today. High position vacancies are advertised every day and the women don't get the job because men "have at it longer". What kind of a statement is that. Women can get any job they what. The acceptance of that job depends on factors mentioned above. Woman don't want it for various reasons like military and construction being too "mucho" for them.

Here in South Africa we have a system by law which have to be adhered to. When a company interviews a candidate, the choice of the candidate to get the job, in priority, is:

1) Black person

2) Coloured person

3) White woman

4) Disabled person

5) White men

So as you can see, Caucasian men here is South Africa, are considered last in the que and must be considered lastly for a particular job. That SUCKS!!

Our white kids (for 20 year now) have a very small chance (about 2%) of getting a government or Mega Company (like Telecommunications) job. When our white kids leave school, they will study further at University or College, but the will have to entrepreneurs and create their own businesses (career opportunity) and then that law of employment gets into play when they want to employ workers. If that white boy hires outside that system mentioned above, that company gets fined huge amounts of money.

So I'm not sure where woman rates in all of this but what I do know is that lots of women in the non white cultures do not keep their positions very long. They take the jobs and wait for their golden handshake.

We do have a few women in government, a few admirals and generals in the Defence Force but I don't see many women at CEO level in large companies.

So BiBikerFL...there are far more considerations at play here in the modern era as just saying "men have been at it longer...". I guess this subject is different in different countries.

Obscuron (imported) wrote: Mon Sep 08, 2014 11:54 am Basically, the author argues that, all over the world, women's employment rates, education levels, and incomes are all going up, while men's are stagnating or dropping.

This sentence encapsulates the basic fallacy of the argument. If we are electing more women to the Senate, the logical consequence of that trend is that less men will be elected to the Senate. To imagine that such a temporary redress of unequal opportunity signals a real change in male behavior or aspirations is foolish. It only means that unnecessarily privileged opportunities are disappearing for an unnecessarily privileged class. While there are today women seriously aspiring to the presidency, we still see a room full of unqualified males making appearances at Fox News forums. No change in fundamental behavior there.

YodaNell (imported) wrote: Tue Sep 09, 2014 9:40 am Women also have a strong paternal instinct to want a baby.

Not unless they change their chromosomal makeup; paternal instincts (if they exist) apply to males; females have maternal instincts.

gareth19 (imported) wrote: Fri Aug 28, 2015 6:02 pm Not unless they change their chromosomal makeup; paternal instincts (if they exist) apply to males; females have maternal instincts.

That kind of brings up the point that eunuchal (adolescent onset) instincts do seem to be very different than either maternal or paternal instincts. I have thought about this a little bit in the past.

fhunter wrote: Sun Sep 14, 2014 11:33 am PPS. And this drive to dominate, IMO, in upper management only causes trouble.

That is why many IT companies have hindus as leaders. They are less competitive and more cooperative.

erikboy (imported) wrote: Sat Aug 29, 2015 9:47 am That is why many IT companies have hindus as leaders. They are less competitive and more cooperative.

Seriously?

As a business owner for over 30 years I have many strong opinions about hiring preferences, laws, political correctness, etc. but I'll get bounced off of here in the blink of an eye if I even think of commenting. That's a good thing. People get to ranting and pissed off at each other and no one's opinion changes anyway.