Originally Posted by cowmeat

Well your point in all of your posts has been.

"women generally just don't want to be in the most respect positions in our society, it has nothing to with societal pressures or expectations"


I don't think I need to say much more here.
You are being very "Woke" indeed.

Originally Posted by Ele

Nope. That's not my position at all, and you know it. That's just your trivialisation of my position, purposely ignoring all nuance. Who you tryna fool here?

You know well what my position is, you just cbf thinking up a counter-argument. So you just trivialised my position, threw some shade and gave up... I thought you were better than that.

Originally Posted by Ele

No. I said societal pressures don't hold as much stock now verses how they used to.

Originally Posted by Ele

No, it means that this pressure is less pressuring though - So much so, that I believe the unconscious biological pressures are more influential than those of society.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

e.g.Qualities required in a successful business leader include confidence and risk taking, the hormone testosrerone is known to make people feel confident and take risks. As a result people with more testosterone may be more likely to become a CEO than people with less or none.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

Of course biology is more complicated than just testosterone and there are other hormonal and mental differences at play, but the biology of males and females are different so finding different numbers of each in each profession should not come as a surprise.

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

There are less high paid male fashion designers than women, are men discriminated against in this field?

Originally Posted by SmallBowl

I also agree with what Ele said about societal pressures, gender stereotypes can have a huge effect on a person but they dont necessarily - I also dont see any teachers or parents telling girls they cant become a CEO because of their gender (infact it seems like the kind of topic a news story would be made about if it happened).

Originally Posted by Oracle

This is assuming risk taking is somehow a beneficial trait for business. While there's a time and place for risk taking, it's not an all important business skill. Successful businesses survive because of a combination of risk taking and risk management. Risk taking is only really necessary during the early stages of a business, and during periods of large market shifts. Risk management is more valuable when a company is large and long-standing, since stability is more valuable at that point than rapid growth. Yet long-running companies still typically have male CEOs, despite testosterone encouraging risk taking and males producing more testosterone than women. From a purely biological standpoint, this is the worst possible gender to pick from for the role.

No matter how I look at this statement, it looks like a modern reinterpretation of "this is a man's job". Risk taking and confidence are not binary traits determined easily by chemical levels, and can be fostered in the correct environment. Neither is risk taking or confidence required to be exceptionally high to be successful as a CEO. It looks more like the role is being labeled to fit a certain piece.

Studies even say that women either perform evenly, maybe even better than male counterparts when in leadership roles within business. While the sample size is small, it does beg the question of whether environmental factors, such as this assumption that males are better at business than women, push females away from pursuing an otherwise successful career in business. While it's not systemic discrimination, it is societal predisposition that functionally achieves the same result.

But to write it all off as biological is a pretty big stretch. Women perform about equally to men in mathematics, yet they're underrepresented in STEM jobs, fields that emphasize strong math skills. Biologically, males and females seem about equal in learning math, yet representation heavily skews to favor males. What biologically would be causing this? People would have said something along the lines of "well females are more compassionate so they likely go to more service related jobs" which seems more like another example of tailoring the hole to the puzzle piece again. Why would being compassionate be a reason a woman avoids a STEM job? You can use compassion in STEM fields just as much as any other field. Again, it seems like societal influence pushes women into certain fields because of preconceived notions.

I actually looked into this, and this is false. The world of fashion is a man's world, with only around 40% of top fashion designers being women. So no, men are not discriminated against in this field, this is you discriminating against the field by assuming it's a woman's field.

It's less what they say you can't be, and more what they say you can be. Because of these aforementioned gender roles that society still perpetuates, the jobs children are pushed towards are different. There's been an improvement in recent years, but you'll still see that there's a gender divide even as children between jobs, and a lot of it seems to be based around gender stereotypes. Boys are more likely to want to grow up to be athletes, firefighters, astronauts etc. etc. while girls are more likely to want to grow up to be doctors, teachers, scientists, and chefs/bakers. It's also worth noting that, despite more girls wanting to be doctors, there's twice as many male doctors compared to female doctors in America. And female doctors performing, on average, better than male counterparts.


Basically, biology should be playing a minuscule amount in representation within a field. All genders are equally qualified, it just appears that the societal narrative steers genders into different fields.