If there truly are no differences between men and women and these traits get one to the top of the food chain, why are feminists demanding that workplace becomes more feminine (women friendly) so women can make it to the top without exhibiting said traits?
I believe the argument is that these traits aren’t exactly indications of effective leadership but are being selected for because they are indications of masculinity and work with an inherent bias that men are good leaders, which in turn reinforces the selection because the leaders you observe tend to be men and have these traits.
The researchers and article both write that one can not draw any conclusion if those traits are being selected by others or is self selected. It could be bias, or it could be traits that correlate to higher leadership ambitions. The research data do not provide any insight to that question.
Instead of speculating which one of those is the correct answer, maybe we should ask what kind of research data would conclusively prove or disprove either theory. Just like this study attempted to establish some data on the theory that senior management tend to share common traits regardless of gender, what kind of study would help to establish date on the theory behind why those traits are common among senior management?
Jordan Peterson talks about this a lot; that these traits are the best predictors of success in the workplace. He also states that he doesn't know whether "feminine" traits would work as well. Not enough data.
So how do you test it? You could re-organize a company around "feminine" traits but the only data we have right now would indicate that you'd lose out to competition. So unless a billionaire with deep pockets would like to run a social experiment it is not going to happen.
Governmental fiat? That's partially what is happening in some places. I mean specifically more women in the boardroom (e.g. EU rules mandating at least 30% women). But then those women that made it turned out to make same decisions as men (no, your female boss is not less likely to fire you).
What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't happen.
I think the problem lies in what success means. Public companies are forced to return value to shareholders. I remember reading an article about Etsy. They seem to have had "feminine" traits at the core of the company culture and later on the culture was changed top-down in the name of chasing corporate profits.
But as a listed company what choice do they have? If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman.
> What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't happen.
Implying that success is not in part due to luck and that they are we at evolutionary ends? We still evolve. Also survival of the fittest is hilarious considering the oligarchy and how difficult it is to get into certain spaces without starting capital. Starting capital that is harder (on average) for women to come by. Also, women gaining leadership roles and being respected in the workplace is still a relatively young movement. Males have been dominant for thousands of years -- let's give women a few more decades before evaluating their impact?
In addition, citing Peterson without mentioning the context that he is a classical liberal who relies on pseudo-science and has a target audience of (white) males is disingenuous. He has monetary incentive to push a narrative that the world of male-dominated wealth as being ideal. Let us not forget that he uses lobsters as proof of hierarchical societies being inevitable and does not understand biology. Finally, he also believes that women should not wear makeup in the workplace (a feminine trait by his understanding -- increasing female sexuality) and still be able to complain about sexual harassment. That is, Jordan B. Peterson actively believes that feminine traits should be discouraged.
> If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman.
There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. Courts give management wide latitude to exercise their own judgement about how to run a company. The only way that they will intervene on behalf of shareholders is when management can be proven to have acted in bad faith.
CEOs are chosen not because they are objectively the best at maximizing profits but because they have traits that investors believe make for a good CEO. If investors are choosing masculine CEOs it's not necessarily because masculine CEOs are better at producing profits, it's because investors perceive them as being better at producing profits.
Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the optimal strategy always wins out. If you believe that then you would have to believe that every species of life is perfect.
> There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue.
There's always pressure to cut costs and cutting costs is always rough. CEO compensation is usually tied to share price. So they work to maximize the share price. I wish there were more companies with a "mission" beyond $$$ but it is hard to do. You have to stay private, I suppose.
Do you have any data at all to back your claims about how CEOs are chosen?
Stop being thick headed, there are all sorts of differences between men and women, just like there are all sorts of differences between individual men or individual women. The point is none of those differences make women unsuited to leadership or incapable of being a scientist or something, and the system currently rewards alpha-male bullshit (another fallacy, the alpha male thing is based off of a basic misunderstanding of wolves or something and is total bullshit and shouldn't be rewarded) instead of actual leadership qualities. Everyone would actually be better off in the workplace if we moved away from rewarding those traits and becoming, as you said, woman-friendly.
My statement may appear thick headed without context. However, I am simply repeating a feminist talking point. It is not my opinion or belief that there are no differences between men and women. It is the feminists who argue that!
Also, I think it is a gross oversimplification to equate "masculine traits" with being an "alpha male" caricature. The article specifically talks about assertiveness and agreeableness.
Women, on average, score lower on assertiveness and higher on agreeableness. Why? It could simply be upbringing and societal pressures. But then why shouldn't women simply aim to be more assertive, through training and self-improvement, rather than deride this personality trait as "alpha male" and "to be avoided"?
High levels of testosterone are associated with assertiveness. So men, on average, end up being more assertive. Upbringing and societal pressures probably skew that even further. But, being a male, I wasn't given a golden ticket to success. I am still learning how to be assertive and at the same time non-confrontational. I recognize it as beneficial trait though. A trait that will contribute to my life success.
I can’t believe there are articles taking Jordan Peterson’s pseudoscientific claims seriously. He’s widely recognized as a sexist and transphobic male chauvinist.
14 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 41.1 ms ] threadInstead of speculating which one of those is the correct answer, maybe we should ask what kind of research data would conclusively prove or disprove either theory. Just like this study attempted to establish some data on the theory that senior management tend to share common traits regardless of gender, what kind of study would help to establish date on the theory behind why those traits are common among senior management?
So how do you test it? You could re-organize a company around "feminine" traits but the only data we have right now would indicate that you'd lose out to competition. So unless a billionaire with deep pockets would like to run a social experiment it is not going to happen.
Governmental fiat? That's partially what is happening in some places. I mean specifically more women in the boardroom (e.g. EU rules mandating at least 30% women). But then those women that made it turned out to make same decisions as men (no, your female boss is not less likely to fire you).
What about survival of the fittest? If "feminine" traits are of any advantage then some company would successfully evolve to benefit from it. That didn't happen.
I think the problem lies in what success means. Public companies are forced to return value to shareholders. I remember reading an article about Etsy. They seem to have had "feminine" traits at the core of the company culture and later on the culture was changed top-down in the name of chasing corporate profits.
But as a listed company what choice do they have? If they don't chase profits they'd get sued by shareholders or some activist investor will mount an attack. You can't leave money on the table, whether you're a man or a woman.
Implying that success is not in part due to luck and that they are we at evolutionary ends? We still evolve. Also survival of the fittest is hilarious considering the oligarchy and how difficult it is to get into certain spaces without starting capital. Starting capital that is harder (on average) for women to come by. Also, women gaining leadership roles and being respected in the workplace is still a relatively young movement. Males have been dominant for thousands of years -- let's give women a few more decades before evaluating their impact?
In addition, citing Peterson without mentioning the context that he is a classical liberal who relies on pseudo-science and has a target audience of (white) males is disingenuous. He has monetary incentive to push a narrative that the world of male-dominated wealth as being ideal. Let us not forget that he uses lobsters as proof of hierarchical societies being inevitable and does not understand biology. Finally, he also believes that women should not wear makeup in the workplace (a feminine trait by his understanding -- increasing female sexuality) and still be able to complain about sexual harassment. That is, Jordan B. Peterson actively believes that feminine traits should be discouraged.
There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. Courts give management wide latitude to exercise their own judgement about how to run a company. The only way that they will intervene on behalf of shareholders is when management can be proven to have acted in bad faith.
CEOs are chosen not because they are objectively the best at maximizing profits but because they have traits that investors believe make for a good CEO. If investors are choosing masculine CEOs it's not necessarily because masculine CEOs are better at producing profits, it's because investors perceive them as being better at producing profits.
Survival of the fittest doesn't mean that the optimal strategy always wins out. If you believe that then you would have to believe that every species of life is perfect.
> There is no objectively best profit maximizing strategy for a company to pursue. There's always pressure to cut costs and cutting costs is always rough. CEO compensation is usually tied to share price. So they work to maximize the share price. I wish there were more companies with a "mission" beyond $$$ but it is hard to do. You have to stay private, I suppose.
Do you have any data at all to back your claims about how CEOs are chosen?
Also, I think it is a gross oversimplification to equate "masculine traits" with being an "alpha male" caricature. The article specifically talks about assertiveness and agreeableness.
Women, on average, score lower on assertiveness and higher on agreeableness. Why? It could simply be upbringing and societal pressures. But then why shouldn't women simply aim to be more assertive, through training and self-improvement, rather than deride this personality trait as "alpha male" and "to be avoided"?
High levels of testosterone are associated with assertiveness. So men, on average, end up being more assertive. Upbringing and societal pressures probably skew that even further. But, being a male, I wasn't given a golden ticket to success. I am still learning how to be assertive and at the same time non-confrontational. I recognize it as beneficial trait though. A trait that will contribute to my life success.