Why Most Women Are Not CEOs and Earn Less Money Than Men

[genericname85]

Now in this whole equal rights movement, we have that "women earn less despite equal work" argument, which I want to just get out of the way first, because there's lots of bullshit and misunderstanding involved.

It is correct that on average, women do in fact still earn less money, though this has nothing to do with structurally institutionalized suppression mechanics. In fact if we really compare apples to apples, the more accurate the levels of comparison gets, the smaller the difference in income gets.

The difference in income between men and women can be narrowed down to 4 factors.

1. Women choose different fields that do not pay as highly as other fields.

For example the majority of women go into jobs of a nurturing nature like medical, teaching and raising as well as social jobs. Whereas men prefer to choose constructive, mechanical jobs, like Engineering, which is why they end up in the better paying jobs.

2. Women often choose to be the stay-at-home partner who raises the children.

After the children are old enough, they mostly continue with a part time job, since they didn't develop their work skills during the socialization of the child, making them fall behind the competition. They also often realize that they don't really need much more family income so that working full time is really not the most sensible choice.

3. Women choose partners that are higher than them in socioeconomic status.

I know there are exceptions but this is about the average, not about the exceptions. So then even if she's a very career oriented woman, and let's say she earns as much as her husband: most girls in their 30s realize that the amount of family income they generate gets above a certain threshold, it doesn't create any more subjective quality of life and overall happiness. So they realize they could just work part time and still have the same levels of overall happiness.

4. Women are more agreeable than men.

This is a biological and psychological fact. If we look at gender comparison of the big five, all the other 4 (openness, neuroticis, extraversion, conscienciousnes) are on pretty similar levels between men and women and only the agreeableness is much higher in women than in men. However in a very competition driven market, agreeableness does not lead to success. It is one reason why "SOME" women earn less than a man with equal job performance and it's one of the reasons why they don't get into CEO positions. Because being agreeable makes one more likely to settle for a lesser wage in the negotiations of raises and stepping back to leave the higher position to someone else.

Those 4 factors can not only explain the difference in income. They can also explain why most women are not CEOs. Let's just look at the typical CEO to find some more reasons why it's often men:

As you can see the average CEO is a grey/white haired man in their fifties and up and that is for good reason. To get into this position, you have to be litterally bat shit crazy. You're not working a measely 40 hours a week, you're working 80 hours a week. And that is highly efficiently and over the course of like 30 years nonstop. The majority of CEO's are clinically diagnosed workaholics. Being a worcaholic is often used jokingly to describe a person that just works a lot but real CEOs are actual "workaholics" as in "psychological condition" which is pretty close to depression in many ways. Being a CEO is not a desirable job for most people.

Those jobs are not inherently hostile towards "women" they are hostile towards everyone and you need very low levels of agreeableness in order to successfully compete. One literally needs to sell one's own grandmother to get into those jobs and women mostly do not have the character needed, which is a good thing.

It's a psychological condition that can come with extremely low levels of agreeableness as explained in point 4. Not all men have that. Only very few men have it but out of the genders, men are much more prone to having it than women. Women "can" have it (there are some female CEOs obviously) but it's very very rare for them to have this condition compared to men, making them not be CEOs as often as men.

So to sum up this take: as you can see in the 4 reasons women don't earn as much, it has everything to do with choices, not with institutionalized suppression. Women don't want high level white collar jobs or even CEO positions. Most women decide against a higher paying or even CEO job because it makes more sense and my argument is that this is because they "on average" are more sane and psychologically healthy than men when it comes to career decisions, so it's a good thing...

If you are a social justice warrior that blindly fights for womens rights, you should really consider if you want women to get the psychological condition needed to compete for those jobs.

Women earn less on average because they are smart and realize it doesn't improve their overall happiness if they earn more and because they don't suffer from "workaholism" and low levels of agreeableness. It has nothing to do with social inequality (anymore). At this point it's just evidence that women on average are more sane than men.

[NerdInDenial]

Thomas Sowell, economics guru

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=G_sGn6PdmIo

[genericname85]

her argument is just the standard uneducated feminist argument. look at 2 numbers and infer social inequality... that's just dumb as fuck.

i mean how freaking old is this video? and feminists still argue with this stupid bullshit.

kudos to the black dude in this video. he gets it.

[NerdInDenial]

This was in the 1980's; they have been arguing the same thing for decades.

[genericname85]

yeah and i guess people just can't understand, cause they're dumb and that's why we STILL have this discussing xD ugh annoying.

[lumos]

Before my mom started her own business, she used to work for a marketing firm. To simplify the whole thing, she was basically given a task. Quite a big one. It was so big, that her boss later decided to divide the work between her and another dude. The guy was completely lost. He just didn't understand the task and gravely underperformed, so my mom ended up doing most of the work anyway. Later on, it became apparent to her that the guy had earned more from the job than she did. Even though they were on they had the same title and were on the same team, and despite the fact that she had done 70% of the work - her boss completely overlooked this.
She brought this up to her boss (another dude, might I add) and after lots of arguing and her boss being a whiny little bitch, she finally convinced him to give her the money she deserved.
This sort of shit happens all the time. My mom has about 10 other stories like this, where she had to fight for her unjust pay while her male co-workers never had to. To pretend like people aren't taking advantage of paying women less and trying to pass it off as "women not being good negotiators" is BS. When you're in the same exact position as a male colleague, you shouldn't have to negotiate to get the same exact pay as that colleague the way my mom has had to do several times.

[lumos]

"Even though they were on they had the same title and were on the same team"
Should be "even though they were on the same team and had the same title".

[genericname85]

"my mom had to fight for unjust pay while male co worker never had to"... of course they have to. every man has to negotiate their wage and i explained why they usually bargain more. otherwise i'd say exemplary stories don't tell much about society xD

[lumos]

You don't get it, they had the exact same job title and were on the exact same team - hence they have to get the same pay and doing otherwise is actually quite illegal, which is one of the reasons why her boss had to bite the bullet and give her the money she deserved. If your job position is somehow unique then sure, your argument stands and what you ask for is what you'll be given. But their positions weren't unique, hence they deserved the same exact pay.

[genericname85]

pay is always negotiated. if she got less, she didn't negotiate well.

[lumos]

Jesus, it's not always negotiated, a lot of the time it's 100% based on your title. For instance, I work as a waitress. I get the same exact pay as all the other waitresses, except for one. And that other waitress also has some chef training under her belt, and will actively help out with the cooking as well. Kind of like a sous chef.
If I went to my boss right now and tried to negotiate a higher pay for myself, she would laugh in my face and say that I do the same exact tasks in the same exact manner as all the other waitresses, hence there's no reason for me to get a higher pay. Unless I'm promoted to a higher position, I won't be able to negotiate a higher pay for myself.
The same exact logic applied to my mom in this case. She worked on a team that were all supposed to get the same exact pay because they had the same titles, previous experiences and degrees. I'd even argue that she deserved to earn MORE than her male counterpart simply because she did more of the work, and her boss

[lumos]

even knew about it, but yet paid her male colleague more simply because.

[genericname85]

yeah well anyway. not the average.

[TheUglyMan]

I wish pay was always negotiable 😪

[genericname85]

@TheUglyMan it is.

[genericname85]

@lumos i'm not trying to invalidate your story or something. i'm sure it sucks for her and it's unjust or whatever but i really don't think that it adds up to some kind of autopoietic mechanism creating social inequality. i'm sure she just had an asshole job and i'm sure men do have to fight to get equal pay in many cases, cause sometimes those things are decided by "how much in favor of your boss you are" and that really is true for both men and women.

[lumos]

You are EXACTLY trying to invalidate what happened to my mom by claiming that her colleague somehow negotiated better than her or that it was a part of her job. It really wasn't. They should have gotten equal pay. That's how the entire company and system was set up. So just accept that this sort of thing happens even when it shouldn't.

[Swolebusser]

What you don’t understand is that it happens to all of us. Women just don’t know how to fight for what they want.

[lumos]

@Swolebusser oh shut up.

[genericname85]

i'm not "invalidating" it. i'm saying that this is a part of the standard deviation if you want me to speak in scientific terms xD it means that of course her story is true but it doesn't add up to change anything about the averages and statistical propabilities. it's just a single case and single cases can of course not be in line with the average.

[lumos]

Well it wasn't a single case, this is something she has consistently had to face throughout her career before she said fuck it (for several reasons) and started her own business. I also know that hers is not the only one and it's actually quite normal for these things to happen, they're just not talked about a whole lot because these things either don't surface and become apparent to the women they're happening to, or the women feel like this is what it's supposed to be like and they have little to no say, lest they want to be called bitchy or too demanding. Which, in a lot of careers, means that people will be less likely to want to work with or for you.
It's also ingrained in women to be "bad negotiators" because it's just seen as bitchy/too bossy, and as if we're taking up space we don't deserve or need.

[Anon-ymous1]

@lumos There is definitely some truth in that. Thanks for sharing.

[lumos]

@Anon-ymous1 no problem, thank you for your comment :)

[Anonymous]

1. Pure generalization. Lots of guys may like constructive, mechanical jobs, like engineering, but not all men... personally - I never liked such professions.
On the other hand, some women actually like that kind of jobs.
Despite that, women are less paid in that field of work.

2. Such behavior in women is based on tradition imposed by the patriarchal religions, long time ago, however, there are some men who choose to be the stay-at-home partner who raises the children.

3. Not all women, only gold diggers... but there are also some men who are male version of gold diggers, basically - lazy younger men who are in relationships with rich older women.

4. More agreeable than men? LOL, I don't think so, lots of women are completely disagreeable.
Women can be quite stubborn and assertive too, but only when they are emancipated (released from the negative influence of church and patriarchal upbringing) - nope, there is nothing biological about it, it's all about psychological factor influenced by religion, as the worst thing that ever happened to humanity.
Again, on the other hand, there are lots of men who are naturally shy, introverted, timid, and agreeable - more likely to settle for a lesser wage in the negotiations of raises and stepping back to leave the higher position to someone else.

It's all about affinity, different people have different tendencies, regardless of their gender, not all men are the same, and not all women are the same. Patriarchal religions are the ones who are trying to impose the so called "gender roles" to men and women.
We all know our biological gender, but there are no "roles", some women are tomboys, some men are sissies, it's all individual.

[genericname85]

you're speaking from your subjective feelings. my take contains well researched facts.
1. aggregate averages are not "generalizations" they are quantifyable averages.

2. the reasons are not discussed here. your argument doesn't change anything about the truth of the status quo that i put down in my take.

3. not all women are gold diggers. again this isn't my opinion. this is well established in social science. women "ON AVERAGE" go for men with higer socioeconomic status. no point in arguing against that. some that don't don't denie that fact, cause they're a minority.

4. agreeableness is a trait of psychology, that doesn't mean that they don't bitch and moan. yo need to interpret the big five properly and not just load it with some normative that you then commence to disagree with xD that's not how it works.

it's all about affinity that's right and my take does nothing less by showing those affinities statistically represented in society

this take is not opinion or guesswork.

[TheUglyMan]

@genericname85 he thinks women get paid less because businesses want to.

[Opinion Owner]

1. Subjective only to a certain extent, I'm sure there are lots of other men who don't like mechanics and engineering.
I'm aware of what aggregate averages are, but have you ever wondered why are they quantifiable against women? Because of the centuries of patriarchal upbringing, imposed by the church and similar religious organisations in islamic countries, as well as in Israel.
2. The reasons are always important, people should understand what caused such situation.
3. Of course, however, "on average" doesn't mean "all of them", otherwise it's just a generalization, just like claiming that "all men like mechanics".
4. I know, but that still doesn't mean that all women are agreeable, or that men can't be more agreeable compared to women.
Your myTake = your opinion, as for the Statistics, there is a saying in my country: "Statistics is the quantified set of inaccurate data".
As for the rest of the world, there is a famous quote by Mark Twain ;)
https://i.imgur.com/0LpLKhY.jpg

[Anon-ymous1]

I agree with some of what you said-- all I would ask it, *why* do those patriarchal religions that you're referring to operate the way they do?

[Opinion Owner]

@Anon-ymous1 Because those religions were founded by people who were patriarchal and most likely misogynists.

[Anon-ymous1]

... But what makes someone mysogynistic? Where does it come from?

[Opinion Owner]

@Anon-ymous1 There are several possible reasons why someone is misogynistic but the three most likely possibilities are:
A) Bad parenthood (mothers who are neglecting or molesting a child)
B) Homosexuality (Gay children often hate women because they subconsciously consider them a competition).
C) Frustrated heterosexual males (who were rejected by women multiple times).

[Anon-ymous1]

... What? No man. Just no.

[genericname85]

This is not generalization dude. It's sociological facts. Statistics don't lie. Psychology doesn't either.

[Anon-ymous1]

Let's see the statistics and the psychological evidence that you're referring to. Post it here for us?

[Opinion Owner]

@Anon-ymous1 Yep, those are the main reasons.

[Anon-ymous1]

... No.

[Opinion Owner]

@genericname85 Statistics lies because it always disregards the reasons. Quality is more important than quantity... but both statistics and psychology are influenced by certain factors imposed by the church, politics and philosophy (in this particular case, it's all about chauvinistic/patriarchal reasons).

[Opinion Owner]

@Anon-ymous1 Yep, check it out:

1. www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/misogyny

2. http://www.newnownext.com/casual-misogyny/03/2017/

3. jezebel.com/the-4-reasons-misogynists-become-misogynists-according-1475672690

4. www.independent.co.uk/.../...es-tells-1483437.html

5. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Misogyny

I just summarized the most important parts from the texts.

[Anon-ymous1]

... You're seriously holding up Jezebel as a scholarly source, or something?

I think that tells me all I need to know about your viewpoint. Sorry.

[Opinion Owner]

@Anon-ymous1 No, not really, that was just an example of opinion similar to mine, but the other posts are not from Jezbel.

[Anon-ymous1]

Posting articles that simply follow the opinion you have already formed about something isn't *proof* of anything.

[genericname85]

you have obviously a complete disregard for any scientific thinking. please spare us your uneducated comments.

[genericname85]

@Anon-ymous1 give it up. he has his opinion. facts don't matter. if google shows some people 1000 results for opposing facts but 1 supporting their opinion, they will cling to the 1 instead of learning something.

[Opinion Owner]

@Anon-ymous1 Your chauvinism is also not a proof so we can only agree that we disagree on everything.

[Opinion Owner]

@genericname85 I don't care what majority thinks, being a majority doesn't mean that you're right. Realistically speaking, most people are dumb, that's why statistics is not reliable, just like Mark Twain said.
For the same reason, democracy is the worst political system... masses of dumb people voting for corrupted politicians who are cunning enough to trick them with skillful propaganda in all medias. Basically - two unintelligent voters will always outnumber one smart voter... at the end - bad people usually win the elections.
It has been known since ancient times...
Plato once said: "You see my friend the three shepherds on the hill? As long as they can outvote me and Socrates, and then makes decisions, I will not believe in democracy".

[genericname85]

you sir are extremely uneducated and ignorant. get some education dude. i'm not speaking about some random statistic that i found on fucking google image search. i'm speaking about statistics that are peer reviewed and are considered valid in the whole discussion...

if you shit on everything science has found and actually think your "opinion" is more valid than that, then go to your flat earthler anti vax conspiracy cave and take yourself and the other moron out of the genepool, so the informed educated world can thrive without your bs

democracy is of course not the best solution but it is the best we have. ithas nothing to do with this topic whatsoever.

just stay ignorant. ignorance is bliss but don't try to argue with people that aren't ignorant. you have no place in those debates.

[Opinion Owner]

Plato and Socrates were more educated than you, so was Mark Twain... people who believe in statistics are ignorant, its no science at all... and you are desperately trying to use it just to "prove" your chauvinist ideas. Democracy is definitely not "the best we have", it's just a dumb system where two or three idiots outvote one smart person... that's why it's suitable for ignorant and chauvinist people, quasi-intellectuals and pseudo-scientists who are trying to impose their ideas trough statistics.
Oh, right, I'm not here for I debate, I'm just stating my opinion on this mytake - which is not yours, so it doesn't concern you.

[Anonymous]

I work in a head office with 400 employees. Recently I found on our intranet a folder cobtaining a breakdown of who earns what in our company - and was surprised to find I was on the lowest salary even though I am the most senior and longest serving man in our department. I took it to my boss and he doesn't want to deal with it as it would open up a can of worms.

What incensed me even more was finding out almost all the men are on a lower hourly rate than the women doing the same role. However, many of the women work less hours than we do (because they choose to work less hours). So when they complained about earning less than us, I produced the evidence that this was not a fair representation and called them out on it. The Union conceded that the company is discriminating against men but won't do anything about it because it is politically incorrect.

So sorry, I don't believe the media hype about this. I think there is a lot of "playing with the figures" to create the argument in favour of women.

[genericname85]

There's certainly exceptions and fucked up cases. You can't deduce things for the whole society from this though.

[Miristheiss]

Yeah, to be one the first thing is you've to got want to do it. To be a CEO you've got to become a workaholic and let your life revolve around work and put in long hours and you have to compete head to head against tons of super competitive guys that are willing to make work their life and you have to beat them out.

Most woman want a more balanced life with other things in there besides work. I doubt the same number of women will go after these positions with their entire life the way some of the guys do. Some will but not a lot.

Most women still want quality time and some fun and family time too. Not 80 hour weeks and nothing but work with little social/family time.

[genericname85]

exactly. having a balanced live and not being a ceo is just the more sensible option.

[JSmith925]

You have overlooked a major factor. Women are the child bearers and maternity leave is viewed as a disruption to businesses. This asshole attitude needs to change. Parenting is one of the most important jobs on the planet. If we don't get that right, little else matters.
~JSmith

[genericname85]

actually i considered this factor. it just can not be changed. in lots of societies there is compensation in place to create a more egalitarian society but even there it stays the same. i know this is counterintuitive but the more egalitarian a society is, meaning the more chances of free choice the women have, the more they gravitate to traditional roles... so since they act the same given the chance or not, i decided not to bring it up to begin with.

[genericname85]

legitimate point though.

[JSmith925]

Cool. Good take and one that bears repeating. Not that this will change much. . .
~JSmith

[genericname85]

yeah i don't take enough time for my takes :D i just basically put down my ideas and then send it straight away, no shits given xD

[CubsterShura]

I understand THESE.

What I don't understand is why a woman who is being just as productive as her male colleagues gets less wage.

If you believe that women are never taken bad advantage of, then you are wrong. In many places women ARE paid less for simply being women.

It is not about having equal number of CEOs or having equal number of women being in high-paid jobs.

Just whatever job a woman is doing, be it CEO or just average office worker, she should be getting her wages based on how well she works.

You are missing out on the wage gap issue.

[Thisperson98]

The wage gap is so small it is in the margin of error.

[DamnMan]

I worked with women in the same field and position as me, they got paid more.
Wage gap crap is BS.

[CubsterShura]

@did they get paid more simply because of gender?

[genericname85]

women don't get as much on average, cause on average they are more likely to settle for less than men in wage negotiations. that's a fact provided by psychology and verified by sociology.

[CubsterShura]

I know that women get less in average because women settle for more comfortable jobs. That is not the issue with wage gap. The issue is a woman and a man getting different wages despite working equally hard and being equally productive.

[genericname85]

the wage gap if we compare apples to apples (assume time worked, qualifications and actual work done are exactly the same), the wage gap gets negligibly small.

[CubsterShura]

It isn't the same everywhere.

[DamnMan]

No, they got paid more because they were good, like a lot of women I know.

[CubsterShura]

@DamnMan well this is how it should be. The ones who work better and are more productive would earn higher.

[Djaay]

Women are partly to blame for not being paid for what they are worth. Men seem to know this principle all to well.

[10dsw]

Completely factually correct! To add to this, there was a study that came out a while ago that showed that putting women in positions of power had negative psychological consequences whereas putting men in positions of power had positive psychological consequences.

Also, female physicians face extremely high rates of depression and anxiety, more so than most other careers.

[genericname85]

that's in the nature of the job though. male physicians face the same problem.

[10dsw]

They do, agreed. But the impact is not nearly as significant on men. My close friend who is a surgical resident works 14 hour days 6 days a week. As an example (it might sound sexist), I just don't believe a woman is mentally wired to work under hot lamps in bloody conditions for 14 hours while undertaking the emotional roles associated with risking the death of someone.

[genericname85]

Those cases are accounted for in he sociological theory behind my take.

[Logorithim]

Pretty much any woman that has kids isn't going to want to work the crazy hours you need to in order to become a CEO, so that greatly reduces the number of potential female CEO candidates right off the bat.

Good points in this Take...

[genericname85]

well yeah that but the biggest thing is actually the high levels of agreeableness, that makes them fail to even want to compete.

[Logorithim]

There is something to that, and it makes women well suited as HR personnel. However, there may be enough of a sample size to analyze the traits of female CEOs.

[genericname85]

in psychology, we know that low levels of agreeableness is what separates CEOs from the normal folks. women almost always have high levels of agreeableness. plus again most of them go for a higher status man, which is why the ceo woman is so rare... and not a bad thing at that.

[Unit1]

Very nice and descriptive and informative. Gute arbeit!

Being a CEO or entrepreneur is no joke. It's a literal bandwagon of work. It's exactly the one that keeps the company in place and managing it all requires exceptional abilities.

And might I add a dark humored and sexist joke?
Because women rather have men earn all the money.
Kill me now (please don't!).

[genericname85]

as i stated in this post, women go for men with higher socioeconomic status than them. that's just a fact and lots of guys and girls are like "but this girl doesn't" or "but my mom doesn't" xD who cares? this is about aggregate average, not about your mom xD

[Unit1]

Hahaha, ja, so einigermaßen ist das auch so :>
Hypergamy kennt keine grenzen in unserer kapitalistischen gesellschaft. Die Weiber haben es gut, sie haben nämlich eine wahl: Gold digger sein oder karrierefrau zu sein. Oder weder noch. Wir haben aber so eine wahl leider nicht. Allerdings gibt es den Begriff Gigolo, was das selbe eigentlich ist, jedoch nicht so häufig wie gold digger vorkommen.

[EnglishArtsteacher]

I agree with the points here, but I also do think that most women are discouraged from being ambitious.

[genericname85]

i think there are more encouraged than ever xD

[genericname85]

*they

[TheUglyMan]

Lol with all the "equality" probaganda flying around I highly doubt that. Mind elaborating on why you think that?

[genericname85]

@TheUglyMan cause the image of the career driven women is pushed by media and everything creating that trope of the carreer woman encouraging women to strive for that ideal.

[TheUglyMan]

@Generic my reply was for English not you.

[andreasderjuengere]

To be over-ambitious presently destroys our planet.

[Anonymous]

“It has nothing to do with social inequality (anymore).”

That claim is too strong. Yes, women earning less than men has something to do with social inequality (the question is how much) today. To say it has “nothing” to do with social inequality suggests we live in a perfectly equal society (in regards to opportunity, for example) that does not benefit some (men in this case) over others etc. That is a fantasy, not a reality.

Also, it is easy to defend the world as it is, and simply make the argument that it is natural. For example, I could say that whites are more likely to be addicted to opioids as a result of their nature. They *choose* it because they prefer it, like women *choose* certain jobs etc. Both arguments are absurd because human phenomena is a lot more complex than the simple essentializing of groups.

[TheUglyMan]

Sexual dimorphism look it up😉

[Opinion Owner]

@TheUglyMan There are of course differences between men and women. It doesn't mean that those differences determine the current world as it is. In other words, humanity wasn't destined to feudal society or totalitarian society, for example. There are many possibilities for social and gender arrangements. Only an impoverished and uneducated mind couldn't see that. That mind would instead insist the way the world is currently arranged is "natural."

[genericname85]

well we are damn new to the idea of women even being allowed to work at all. of course we're still on the way of figuring things out but as it standas wage differences come from women having too much agreeableness. it's in their character. the "anymore" part was refering back to a time where there was no female breadwinner model at all.

the "they choose" part is more complex of course but it's true nonetheless. it's actually quite well documented in several sociological studies, that it's a "choice". that's why i claim that. it's not a "guess". it's well founded.

[TheUglyMan]

Let's call a spade a spade. There's no such thing as equality and they never will be. Equal representation can only be forced through racist and sexist affirmative action. "Social inequality" will never go away. Because social equality simply does not exist and never will. The truth is out. People are finally realising that this feminist equality propaganda is bs. The truth is out.

[genericname85]

@TheUglyMan the problem with "social inequality" is that it exists and there actually was social inequality, not giving women the chance to vote, to work and to generally determine their own life. however, it is very difficult to differenciate between social inequality and average gender preference adding up to a big difference between men and women in the statistics. we need to educate people about that and we need to find out what is down to choice and what is actual suppression and we do need to fight suppression but not before we know that it's not actually a conscious choice, cause we can't force women to "want" something they just don't want xD

[Opinion Owner]

Many of the choices you keep talking might be due to adaptive preferences, a concept that has been backed up by extensive social science. I guess you will dismiss the claim, since it doesn't agree with you.

global.oup.com/.../adaptive-preferences-and-womens-empowerment-9780199777877

"Women and other oppressed and deprived people sometimes collude with the forces that perpetuate injustice against them. Women's acceptance of their lesser claim on household resources like food, their positive attitudes toward clitoridectemy and infibulations, their acquiescence to violence at the hands of their husbands, and their sometimes fatalistic attitudes toward their own poverty or suffering are all examples of "adaptive preferences," wherein women participate in their own deprivation. "

[TheUglyMan]

Bro I'm just telling you guys straight up equality doesn't exist. Social inequality and "genders going there preferred way"will be seen as the same thing in most peoples eyes. As bad because it does not produce equal representation.

[Ironic_Pepe]

@TheUglyMan Hell ya! No such thing as equality unless you have racist and sexist affirmative action! Otherwise all white men would dominate, as they should! Good for Trump for putting the most qualified people in the highest positions! White males!! F ya!

[TheUglyMan]

So anonymous what that study is saying is women have conditioned themselves to stick to more traditional roles? Do to unfair systems of the past?🤔

[TheUglyMan]

@Ironic_Pepe lol troll alert

[Opinion Owner]

@TheUglyMan so you disagree with the troll? A fair system would not be dominated by white males?

[TheUglyMan]

I dont think it's that simple.

[Opinion Owner]

@TheUglyMan so there would be more racial diversity than there is todAy?

[TheUglyMan]

Depends on the field of work

[Opinion Owner]

@TheUglyMan so some races are better at some fields than others? What’s fields are whites better at?

[Ironic_Pepe]

@TheUglyMan First, trolls make the world go around. Second, I am not a troll. Third, of course you agree with me. I mean, unless we are talking about basketball, anything significant white males are better at, and you know it! IQ scores baby!

[TheUglyMan]

@Ironic_Pepe IQ isn't everything.

[genericname85]

@TheUglyMan IQ is actually "everything" when it comes to making reliable predictions about what level of education and job someone is gonna be able to get. on average women are actually 3-4 IQ points below men but that's really not a significant enough figure to base any assumptions on.

[ItsMeYPJ]

Very well explained and it also educated me a little bit. Nicely done!

[genericname85]

wow i'm flattered :3 happy that you liked it.

[ItsMeYPJ]

It reminds of a great deal about psychologist Dr. Jordan B. Peterson's talks. Maybe you should look him up if you feel like. I think he has a great perspective.

[genericname85]

well i was actually inspired by him xD

[Anonymous]

Love love love it!
That was the best take I've read in a while.
Love the CEO part best. It's so true! :-)

[genericname85]

yup. you're old enough to understand xD i think all the rage against my take may actually come from just having a immature point of view xD

[Anonymous]

I notice women have a hard time finding the right balance in the work place. Being disagreeable doesn’t mean always being a douche bag. But it doesn’t mean being a pushover either.

Anyway I’ve met some women who overcompensate by bitchy in the workplace thinking that they are being “strong”. No, being bitchy comes from a place of insecurity. These women will often cry sexism when in reality they are going WAY to far in the wrong direction. Even aggressive guys know when to pull back.

I also agree that women can be too agreeable. I notice this during sales pitches. It was more important that I was funny and likeable vs. the cold hard facts of the product or service I’m offering. Men are more cynical but just because I’m not a stand up comedian doesn’t mean my idea is out. They want the cold hard logic of what I’m offering. Being “likeable” is less important. It’s more about business.

[genericname85]

exactly. it's not structurally generated inequality. it's how the marked works. you either learn that or you don't. complaining won't help you. if you wanna sell a product, you have to learn how to do that and not make others accountale for your failure.

[Opinion Owner]

Right. Wearing a Vagina hat and crying about inequality will never make you gain any bodies respect.

[genericname85]

amen

[Anonymous]

Some very fair points there. I would point out though that you used the word “choose” in point number 2. I would actually say that for many it’s definitely more of a “sacrifice” than a “choice”!

[Opinion Owner]

I really don’t think men appreciate this for what it actually is. This plays into the agreeableness of women making a sacrifice rather than a choice.

[genericname85]

point 2 closely correlates with point number 3. women choose men with higer socioeconomic status, making them the stay at home partner the more logical choice since they earn less but aside of that, women are more likely to feel compelled to be the one staying with the child regardless of the economic situation.

[Opinion Owner]

I don’t actually agree with that and I know many women that don’t. In my profession plenty of women would be happy to be the earners while their partners look after the children.
No doubt some women prefer the stay at home role, but it’s definitely far from the so called expected norm!

[Opinion Owner]

If it’s for the sake of money (with her partner earning more) it’s still a sacrifice due to economical and societal pressures. Not what she’s actually prefer given the “choice”.

[genericname85]

let's not make this about my or your opinion. the average woman is the partner that stays at home. that's a fact, not my opinion. if you want, you can look at some studies about this and the truth is that women that prefer career over family are the deviating minority, not the norm.

[Opinion Owner]

Believe me it’s not just opinion. I was having this discussion with a mental health professional in an academic context too.

[Opinion Owner]

I’m sure if you break those studies down you’ll see where the inconsistencies lie.

[genericname85]

we have international comparative studies that show that there is a coherence between egalitarism and a gravitation to more traditional gender roles.

we don't have a "true" egalitarian system in the word but the scandinavian comes closest to egalitarian comparatively and it ironically is there, where women are EVEN MORE prone to be stay at home partners or go with nurturing jobs as i pointed out in points 1 and 2

there are some lies that are spread only by American left wing activists. those arguments are not regarded as viable or true or in any way scientifically founded in anywhere else in the world of social science and psychology... so i think it's fair to assume that what they say is bullshit, not what the scientific community says, cause you know we have proven it in studies and not with "i think so" arguments.

[genericname85]

i mean take the gender pay gap. or glass ceiling theory. those are all bullshit theories that have been debunked. and still those people use those aged and "proven" wrong theories as factual truth to fight for their cause xD it's really unique to america for this to happen.

[TheUglyMan]

That's because women want the higher status and wealthier men.

[TheUglyMan]

What sacrifice?

[genericname85]

@TheUglyMan well you pretty much have to sacrifice family or career. and most choose to go for family in this choice, while most men go for career.

[TheUglyMan]

Feminist fear this type of stuff you write about. Theyve been trying to hide Sexual dimorphism for years now to get their way. The truth is out.

[jc_miller]

I don't like men either.

[Chaoseverywhere]

Yeah. Most women. If they wanna go into business they can. We are so stupid, we get jobs like this to chase them :(. Men are also more competitive (read it somewhere), so naturally we all go for top positions.

girl smarter understands less is more :/
guys: get money, get power, get girllll

[genericname85]

well the strategy for men is viable, cause socioeconomic status actually gets them the girl, which is why it is actually desirable for men to go that way, while for women it is not.

"men are more competitive". that's what "low levels of agreeableness" implies. you're less agreeable and more likely to fight for your interest rather than going back on your interest in order to be agreeable. so i bascially actually said what you think you read somewhere ;)

[Chaoseverywhere]

@genericname85

Something like that :). I kinda understand "less is more" but can never really do it.

[genericname85]

if you have enough money to keep people that you owe money to away from your door, you won't raise your overall happiness by generating more income anymore.

[jjjoanaaa]

Hey, I just want you to watch this video till the end if you can. Thank you.

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

[BraveRecreation]

I agree with most of the things she says, however, its one-sided feminist means gender equality and all she mentions is the women side of the matter I live in Denmark a country that almost everyone is feminist but most of the things she says we refer to as feminazi.
I dont mind if she is feminazi but at least be honest with yourself.

[jjjoanaaa]

@BraveRecreation She mentions things guys go through as well.

[BraveRecreation]

Me being honest I have never seen a real feminist outside of Scandinavian countries since they either believe one some things and don't or they just take the female side of the matter constantly.
As I said I don't mind feminazi either people have their own believes we can't change that I just don't like it when they call them self-feminist it runes it for other feminists such as me.

[jjjoanaaa]

@BraveRecreation Sure, your opinion is valid.

[BraveRecreation]

I see feminism as a freedom which you are able to do anything you want without being judged or punished based on your gender but we are far from that.

[jjjoanaaa]

@BraveRecreation Agree.

[genericname85]

this video while she was still dumb xD you should follow her these days, she got way smarter now. besides most of the things she says in the video doesn't have to do anything with this take. and the arguments she has that are relevant to this take are covered by me.

[genericname85]

please take your time and watch the other video posted by some guy down in the comments.

[jjjoanaaa]

Sure

[Anon-ymous1]

Damn, Laci Green used to be hot before she got chunky...

[jjjoanaaa]

@Anon-ymous1 Okay?

[genericname85]

get that fucktard lacy green out of here. she has no idea what she's talking about... i mean specially back then when this video was made. these days she has actually evolved a little bit. she's become smarter than that and i advice you try to get there too.

[genericname85]

but nothing she says in this video actually contributes anything to this topid anyway. all the wrong shit she says (and thr right stuff that she blames the wrong things for) is elaborately explained in my take.

[LittleSally]

*Because they are never given the same opportunities nor taken as seriously as men...

**Because they didn't have rich daddies to leave them companies...

[Sjeggy]

What same opportunities are women not given?
And also, that second one is rather odd, I mean a girl can have a rich father too so this argument is nonsensical

[Kkaos]

@Sjeggy Good luck getting a valid and objective response.

[genericname85]

@LittleSally women have equal opportunities and chances. the reason they are not taken as seriously is cause they are too agreeable. it's not mens or womens fault. it's just a psychological fact.

well having a rich daddy is always a help xD for guys as well as for girls.

[BaileyisDarcy]

What opportunities does my brother have that i dont?
he's not got his own company because he's a guy, he's got his own company because he wanted it.
Im not running on minimum wage because im a woman, im minimum wage because i haven't reached any higher than that.

The wage gap doesn't exist in first world countries. If you have to fight for rights of any kind fight for rights in poverished countries.

[genericname85]

@BaileyisDarcy amen

[Anonymous]

I don't agree with it. It's full of stereotypes... I know plenty of women with a stem/science/math background
If not a lot of CEOs or make less money than men, it's because people keep recycling these stereotypes you wrote

Also medical jobs aren't paying well? Since when? Last time I checked doctors were one of the most well-paid jobs

[cavmanier]

A quick Google search revealed 70% of stem degrees are by males and 70% of active docs are male.

[genericname85]

it's not "stereotypes". it's interdisziplinary research results from social science and psychology.

[Anonymous]

Very nice take. One other point I'd add is that men are more willing to aggressively pursue better job market outcomes because they ALSO improve a man's mating outcomes. But the same is far less true with women. So basically guys have much more motivation to deal with all the crap you have to go through to get to a CEO type of level.

[genericname85]

yeah i agree, i might have added that in point 3 i mean it somewhat is between the lines but could have made it more obvious.