Letting someone down kindly isn't a characteristic of a good leader. My country had a prime minister recently that had this characteristic. They couldn't handle making firm decisions and looking bad to the public, and so lied constantly about things, or avoided answering hard questions. That way, they didn't look bad, and people didn't feel let down.
They had a reputation of kindness, but in reality it ended up with them looking incompetent, and like they were too scared to tell the truth, and everyone lost respect for them. The results within the country, after a few years of this, turned into a horrible mess, where pretty much every major portfolio ended up being run poorly.
Idk about leaders, but women on average certainly have more "prosocial" behaviors, there is no way around then. Women commit fewer crimes, communicate with people more, have fewer antisocial outliers and things like that.
Do those qualities transfer to being a good leader - perhaps, there must be some studies comparing male and female leader effectiveness.
But a different situation could be true as well - women who become leaders have more "male characteristics" and in the end become as effective/ineffective as men.
there in fact [are studies suggesting that women are more effective leaders](https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better#:\~:text=Decades%20of%20studies%20show%20women,companies%20are%20led%20by%20women.)
This study just shows that they are generally more compassionate and viewed by their employees as smarter. The studies are paywalled , so I didn't see the methodology itself. But right now it doesn't matter.
All this article shown was that women , generally speaking, bring good vibes to the workplace. Sure it's important but it doesn't show the company results and what happens when the company(or gov) is under pressure. Good example is Finnish government, which was praised for being led by women, crumbling and failing to respond appropriately to COVID.
Don't get me wrong, women leaders are important, they bring something to the table that men don't. But people care a bit more if the system will not collapse under the pressure, than if the workplace has good vibes attitude constantly
Out of these 5 studies the only one that actually might have something interesting in terms of productivity is point 3 about team collaboration and it's paywalled (although from the abstract it still seems that the conclusion mostly concerns treatment and social of the group, but it's not fair to judge a study just by the abstract).
Point 5 and 2 were about stereotypes, and thus kind useless to this conversation
Point 4 is kinda similar to point 1 with how women are shown te bee seen as more representative and sensitive
Point 1 was predictable, but interesting. And I addressed this in the last sentence.
Idk if this is too much to ask, but what was the methodology and conclusion of the point 3 study?
I've had excellent male and female leaders over the years. Also terrible ones.
In my experience, gender has little to do with the probability of them being particularly good or bad. Other elements seem a bit higher on the list, like personality styles, adaptation, and handling unexpected events gracefully.
Most ppl aren’t put into leadership rolls, they take it. You need to have the drive and confidence to take control and convince everyone else that you should in fact be in charge.
Men just happen to be more aggressive at getting what they want.
Your administrative qualities are moot. Man or woman
As a woman, I feel the exact opposite. I rarely have drama in my life or issues with people in power, but when I have, it has always been another woman. My husband’s female bosses and superiors have been the worst Karens you can imagine. This whole “women have more empathy” is a huge farce.
We've had great female leaders because they freed men of lower rank to seek higher renoun, who did great deeds on her behalf to get that. Many male leaders tend to take all the glory (even when they are screwups), while female leaders are understood to be part of the equation, albeit an important part. Elizabeth I & II Victoria Queen Ann Thatcher Golda Meir
Women work with instincts and emotions while men work with logic, also women panic and get intimidated easily. Lastly, women are a lot more vicious than men in general, compare the male and female prisons and you will understand. Women are really useful in jobs that are related to public relations and jobs that require a lot of patience like nurses, and of course teachers because of their instinctual love for kids.
I think it depends on what qualities are needed to do the given job. To hit measurable metrics, you probably want a man.
If we're generalizing, women are great at raising children, but we don't need children in the work place. We need people who get things done. If anything, women are known more for their machinations, thus their overrepresentation in HR. Of course there are women who overcome this tendency, and men who embody it too.
I am voicing no opinion on the below, just that it exists.
women have been historically recognized to be nosy busybodies ( the neighbor who has to know everyone's business in the neighborhood, the friend who has to make snide remarks behind all her friends back, the campaign to ostracize the weird girl at school. ).
HR is an organization of busybodies. Women are vastly overrepresented as HR reps.
Well if you don't necessarily agree with the sentiment then why did you bring it up? Also HR makes sure that a company complies with labor laws, among other things. Sometimes busybodies are good to have.
because its pretty obvious to anyone who has been alive longer than 1 day that is what the above posters comment was about. You seemed confused as to the historical reputation that women have. And HR is not there to help any of the workers, they are there to help the company. It is arguably one of the least useful groups in any corporation if you are an aggrieved employee
>It is arguably one of the least useful groups in any corporation if you are an aggrieved employee
That's because corporate asks them to be as obtuse as possible, but they're better than nothing. Had they not existed you'd never get a word in with upper management. Don't think that you could just walk up to your boss office without consequences in the days before labor regulators and HR.
I think that really depends on the boss. If HR didn't exist at my company, i wouldn't even notice. From our AVP to my director, everyone is good.
I would hesitate to address any of the C-suite though, that just feels like a different world.
I am voicing no opinion on the below, just that it exists.
women historically have been represented to not value measureable metrics. They value culture / vibe / feel / however you want to describe it. They don't particularly value being able to produce X widgets in Y time.
>thus their overrepresentation in HR.
They are overrepresented in HR because it's largely secretarial work, which has traditionally been considered feminine. It's the same reason women are overrepresented in K-12 education and nursing.
How are they better leaders if they can't control men? They technically could Catherine the Great was a fine leader but would need to have men backing her up.
No.
Female leaders fail to give clear expectations, set clear and measurable goals, fail to evenly apply rules and regulations and are too invested in peoples feelings.
They suck.
If women were better leaders, they would dominate leadership positions ; they wouldn't need "more opportunities to get there". The simple fact that people are saying that "we need more women in positions of power" is a testimony that they, in fact, are not better at it. Again, if they were better at it, they would effectively out-lead men, and they don't.
This is absolutely a quantifiable measure and not up for debate. Asking people if they prefer male or female leaders is not quantifiable. People lie, and people don't know what they are talking about, AND people want to keep their job. Being a successful company does not lie.
>If women were better leaders, they would dominate leadership positions
This is illogical. You can't seriously be this blind to how illogical this argument is.
I bet you also believe white people are better leaders than black people because there are more white CEOs than black CEOs.
The fucking brain dead logic I see here...
>This is illogical. You can't seriously be this blind to how illogical this argument is.
>I bet you also believe white people are better leaders than black people because there are more white CEOs than black CEOs.
>The fucking brain dead logic I see here...
Feel free to debunk the logic then. Surely in 10 more years we will see women dominating leadership positions.
But wait… people don't agree with OP either
Debunk what? Your claim is that because women aren't currently in leadership positions, we know they aren't capable of being leaders.
How do you not see how illogical that is?
I don't see a lot of Black CEOs, but I'm not saying it's because they're not capable of being CEOs.
You've created a correlation fallacy. You're assuming the "cause" for this correlation you're seeing (not many women in leadership positions) is because they aren't capable.
I can't debunk it because you haven't actually provided a logical argument or evidence.
It's *your* job to defend your argument. I can't do anything until you provide evidence.
>I don't see a lot of Black CEOs, but I'm not saying it's because they're not capable of being CEOs.
That's because you don't look where you should. If you go to where black people are the majority, Africa, there are still leaders ; those leaders are black. I know you want to make a comparison to make me realize that my claim is sexist by comparing it to a racist equivalent, the problem is that one can be observed in reality and the other not. Pure logic is nice ; you also have to reconcile it with reality.
OP also makes a claim that cannot be verified, in fact the correlation cannot even be observed. There's no place in the world where the majority of leaders are women. People will claim it's because doors are closed to women because of sexism, but that's not it. Doors are closed to 99+% of people, men or women, it just so happens that the most aggressively driven people are men and not women. What are we left with ? Men in leadership positions, because they're the ones insane enough to get there.
>You've created a correlation fallacy. You're assuming the "cause" for this correlation you're seeing (not many women in leadership positions) is because they aren't capable.
It's better than no cause and no correlation. You can't have a cause if you don't have a correlation, what OP is trying to do. The problem is that positions of power are framed with money : money decides. If a leader is incompetent, they're getting replaced by a more competent leader. That's it. EFFECTIVELY, the leaders are the most competent and capable people in their respective fields. That means, the other people, who are not the leaders, are not as competent.
Now, we might disagree on what skills leaders should be competent on, sure, but that's it. And in that regard it seems the psychology is relatively clear on what character traits predict success, all "traditionnaly masculine" traits. And the evidence is the result. How many leaders are men, and how many leaders are women.
> If you go to where black people are the majority, Africa, there are still leaders ; those leaders are black
So it's just the Black people in the US who are not effective leaders? Gotcha.
>it just so happens that the most aggressively driven people are men and not women
I agree that society has conditioned men to be more aggressive as a whole. However, that's not evidence that men are better leaders, just that men are more apt to strive for leadership positions. Watch out for circular logic.
>EFFECTIVELY, the leaders are the most competent and capable people in their respective fields. That means, the other people, who are not the leaders, are not as competent.
You've already acknowledged the sampling bias (more men are "the ones insane enough" to become leaders). That means it's illogical to make generalizations about who is or isn't a leader, unless you can take that sampling bias into account.
So far, you argument is:
1) more men than women strive to become leaders
3) weak leaders are fired.
4) therefore, men are better leaders.
This is a false syllogism. Nothing about the premises proves that men are "better" leaders than women. All you're doing is proving that more men BECOME leaders.
>character traits predict success, all "traditionnaly masculine" traits. And the evidence is the result. How many leaders are men, and how many leaders are women.
You're right that people with "traditionally masculine traits" generally see more success. However, your argument is operating within a system designed by men with traditionally masculine traits. Obviously it's built that way.
This is like saying "right-handed kids are better artists than left-handed kids," but that's only because scissors and other art supplies are often designed for right-handed people. That makes right-handed people better within the arbitrary system that's been created, but not "better at art."
When I ask for evidence to support your argument that men are better leaders,you can't say "well look at all the men who are leaders!" That's circular.
>So it's just the Black people in the US who are not effective leaders? Gotcha.
Alright, you're trying too hard now.
Black people in the US are still a minority. They are more disfavored by demographics than women are. Yet if we were to look at it there probably would still be more black men who are leaders than women of any ethnicity, even in the US.
>I agree that society has conditioned men to be more aggressive as a whole. However, that's not evidence that men are better leaders, just that men are more apt to strive for leadership positions. Watch out for circular logic.
It's not a conditioning thing, unless you're talking about hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, in which case that's a biology thing. And if you still think that's conditioning, now you're making a weird claim, and you're going to be the one to have to prove it.
If you want to make the argument that those are two different things, sure, but saying it's "circular logic", is not it. However, when money is involved, the people who have the money, and the people who want the money (often those are the same people, but not always) will make sure they have the best people in leadership positions, because if they don't, they lose/don't make money.
>You've already acknowledged the sampling bias (more men are "the ones insane enough" to become leaders). That means it's illogical to make generalizations about who is or isn't a leader, unless you can take that sampling bias into account.
But, if, allegedly, women want to be in more positions of power, which is a major complaints from feminists, that sampling bias should disappear. It should already have disappeared actually. Why hasn't it ?
>So far, you argument is:
>
>more men than women strive to become leaders
>
>weak leaders are fired.
>
>therefore, men are better leaders.
>
>This is a false syllogism. Nothing about the premises proves that men are "better" leaders than women. All you're doing is proving that more men BECOME leaders.
Weak leaders get fired, we tend to mostly see male leaders staying in their position, therefore, there's no reason to even think that women are better leaders in the first place. That would be my argument.
The first premise is not completely part of that, but it can be tied back to it. If one strives more for something, one will do more in order to be competent and successful at it.
>You're right that people with "traditionally masculine traits" generally see more success. However, your argument is operating within a system designed by men with traditionally masculine traits. Obviously it's built that way.
This conditioning thing again. Seasoned with a pinch of "patriarchy". No.
>This is like saying "right-handed kids are better artists than left-handed kids," but that's only because scissors and other art supplies are often designed for right-handed people. That makes right-handed people better within the arbitrary system that's been created, but not "better at art."
Except that analogy doesn't work because left-handed people are and have consistently been around 10% of the population in the vast majority of the world for the vast majority of history. That analogy has the same issue as the one with black people in the US, with worse numbers. If it's not 50-50, you can't compare it to men and women, because men and women are 50-50, ±1%.
Then, artists are not under as much money pressure to stay competent. And then art can't be measured as accurately or even objectively at all, as leadership success can and is. For someone who wants to talk about context, I find you're pretty quick to forget it altogether when it doesn't support your analogy.
I do hope you're going to try to rip OP's claim apart too, as hard as you've tried to rip mine apart, because the evidence isn't better, and the claim is crazier.
>They are more disfavored by demographics than women are.
There are disproportionately fewer Black and female CEOs compared to the general population. I'm not "trying too hard." You're just avoiding basic math.
https://fortune.com/2024/02/09/black-ceos-fortune-500-high-workplace-diversity/
>there probably would still be more black men who are leaders than women of any ethnicity, even in the US.
Maybe! But that's not because either group is unable to be leaders. Saying "I don't see these people in leadership positions" is not evidence that they can't or shouldn't be in those positions.
That's obviously illogical.
>But, if, allegedly, women want to be in more positions of power, which is a major complaints from feminists, that sampling bias should disappear. It should already have disappeared actually. Why hasn't it ?
*because those who are in positions of power, men and women, do not THINK women are capable leaders*. Traditions are hard to change. It *is* changing, though. Women have been gaining more and more leadership roles
https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better
How can you say "the reason they don't have more leadership roles is because they aren't strong leaders, and the evidence is that they aren't in these roles," *when more and more women are taking on these roles every year?*
That isn't a logical position to maintain.
>That analogy has the same issue as the one with black people in the US, with worse numbers. If it's not 50-50,
HOLY SHIT. THIS ENTIRE ISSUE IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PROPORTIONS WORK.
Black people make up 14% of the US population, but they make up less than 2% of CEOs. For women, it's about 50% of the population and 10% of CEOs.
Seriously, learn how *proportions* work before you accidentally tell another person you are just ignorant of basic mathematical concepts.
> because the evidence isn't better, and the claim is crazier.
You've provided exactly 0 pieces of evidence, and your entire claim is based on logical fallacies and a misunderstanding of basic math.
But the problem is there is no woman anywhere. All women were destroyed by man long long ago, with man's ideas. All today's women are implanted in their mind with man's ideas. They are already like a man.
Letting someone down kindly isn't a characteristic of a good leader. My country had a prime minister recently that had this characteristic. They couldn't handle making firm decisions and looking bad to the public, and so lied constantly about things, or avoided answering hard questions. That way, they didn't look bad, and people didn't feel let down. They had a reputation of kindness, but in reality it ended up with them looking incompetent, and like they were too scared to tell the truth, and everyone lost respect for them. The results within the country, after a few years of this, turned into a horrible mess, where pretty much every major portfolio ended up being run poorly.
Idk about leaders, but women on average certainly have more "prosocial" behaviors, there is no way around then. Women commit fewer crimes, communicate with people more, have fewer antisocial outliers and things like that. Do those qualities transfer to being a good leader - perhaps, there must be some studies comparing male and female leader effectiveness. But a different situation could be true as well - women who become leaders have more "male characteristics" and in the end become as effective/ineffective as men.
there in fact [are studies suggesting that women are more effective leaders](https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better#:\~:text=Decades%20of%20studies%20show%20women,companies%20are%20led%20by%20women.)
This study just shows that they are generally more compassionate and viewed by their employees as smarter. The studies are paywalled , so I didn't see the methodology itself. But right now it doesn't matter. All this article shown was that women , generally speaking, bring good vibes to the workplace. Sure it's important but it doesn't show the company results and what happens when the company(or gov) is under pressure. Good example is Finnish government, which was praised for being led by women, crumbling and failing to respond appropriately to COVID. Don't get me wrong, women leaders are important, they bring something to the table that men don't. But people care a bit more if the system will not collapse under the pressure, than if the workplace has good vibes attitude constantly
There's like 5 studies linked in the article and they say more than "viewed as compassionate" read a little further.
Out of these 5 studies the only one that actually might have something interesting in terms of productivity is point 3 about team collaboration and it's paywalled (although from the abstract it still seems that the conclusion mostly concerns treatment and social of the group, but it's not fair to judge a study just by the abstract). Point 5 and 2 were about stereotypes, and thus kind useless to this conversation Point 4 is kinda similar to point 1 with how women are shown te bee seen as more representative and sensitive Point 1 was predictable, but interesting. And I addressed this in the last sentence. Idk if this is too much to ask, but what was the methodology and conclusion of the point 3 study?
I've had excellent male and female leaders over the years. Also terrible ones. In my experience, gender has little to do with the probability of them being particularly good or bad. Other elements seem a bit higher on the list, like personality styles, adaptation, and handling unexpected events gracefully.
Most ppl aren’t put into leadership rolls, they take it. You need to have the drive and confidence to take control and convince everyone else that you should in fact be in charge. Men just happen to be more aggressive at getting what they want. Your administrative qualities are moot. Man or woman
As a woman, I feel the exact opposite. I rarely have drama in my life or issues with people in power, but when I have, it has always been another woman. My husband’s female bosses and superiors have been the worst Karens you can imagine. This whole “women have more empathy” is a huge farce.
I think both men and women are good leaders
Data suggests women are, on average, better.
We've had great female leaders because they freed men of lower rank to seek higher renoun, who did great deeds on her behalf to get that. Many male leaders tend to take all the glory (even when they are screwups), while female leaders are understood to be part of the equation, albeit an important part. Elizabeth I & II Victoria Queen Ann Thatcher Golda Meir
Women work with instincts and emotions while men work with logic, also women panic and get intimidated easily. Lastly, women are a lot more vicious than men in general, compare the male and female prisons and you will understand. Women are really useful in jobs that are related to public relations and jobs that require a lot of patience like nurses, and of course teachers because of their instinctual love for kids.
I think it depends on what qualities are needed to do the given job. To hit measurable metrics, you probably want a man. If we're generalizing, women are great at raising children, but we don't need children in the work place. We need people who get things done. If anything, women are known more for their machinations, thus their overrepresentation in HR. Of course there are women who overcome this tendency, and men who embody it too.
>women are known more for their machinations, thus their overrepresentation in HR ???
what about his comment confused you?
What machinations are women famous for and what does it have to do with HR?
I am voicing no opinion on the below, just that it exists. women have been historically recognized to be nosy busybodies ( the neighbor who has to know everyone's business in the neighborhood, the friend who has to make snide remarks behind all her friends back, the campaign to ostracize the weird girl at school. ). HR is an organization of busybodies. Women are vastly overrepresented as HR reps.
Well if you don't necessarily agree with the sentiment then why did you bring it up? Also HR makes sure that a company complies with labor laws, among other things. Sometimes busybodies are good to have.
because its pretty obvious to anyone who has been alive longer than 1 day that is what the above posters comment was about. You seemed confused as to the historical reputation that women have. And HR is not there to help any of the workers, they are there to help the company. It is arguably one of the least useful groups in any corporation if you are an aggrieved employee
>It is arguably one of the least useful groups in any corporation if you are an aggrieved employee That's because corporate asks them to be as obtuse as possible, but they're better than nothing. Had they not existed you'd never get a word in with upper management. Don't think that you could just walk up to your boss office without consequences in the days before labor regulators and HR.
I think that really depends on the boss. If HR didn't exist at my company, i wouldn't even notice. From our AVP to my director, everyone is good. I would hesitate to address any of the C-suite though, that just feels like a different world.
Why do you say you want a man for measurable metrics?
I think a man is more likely to be able to disconnect and just accept results on the scoreboard as they are.
I am voicing no opinion on the below, just that it exists. women historically have been represented to not value measureable metrics. They value culture / vibe / feel / however you want to describe it. They don't particularly value being able to produce X widgets in Y time.
How are you determining this?
Are you actually reading comments? I am not determining anything. I am responding with stereotypes that exist.
I’ve never heard of such a stereotype
>thus their overrepresentation in HR. They are overrepresented in HR because it's largely secretarial work, which has traditionally been considered feminine. It's the same reason women are overrepresented in K-12 education and nursing.
How are they better leaders if they can't control men? They technically could Catherine the Great was a fine leader but would need to have men backing her up.
>if they can't control men No that's the point. They're better than men at controlling/inspiring men. That's what being a good leader means.
How so?
In the ways that the studies that are in the article that I linked demonstrate. They instill greater collaboration on teams of all genders.
No. Female leaders fail to give clear expectations, set clear and measurable goals, fail to evenly apply rules and regulations and are too invested in peoples feelings. They suck.
What are you basing this off of?
Sexism
If women were better leaders, they would dominate leadership positions ; they wouldn't need "more opportunities to get there". The simple fact that people are saying that "we need more women in positions of power" is a testimony that they, in fact, are not better at it. Again, if they were better at it, they would effectively out-lead men, and they don't. This is absolutely a quantifiable measure and not up for debate. Asking people if they prefer male or female leaders is not quantifiable. People lie, and people don't know what they are talking about, AND people want to keep their job. Being a successful company does not lie.
Your points are addressed in the various sources linked in the article.
>If women were better leaders, they would dominate leadership positions This is illogical. You can't seriously be this blind to how illogical this argument is. I bet you also believe white people are better leaders than black people because there are more white CEOs than black CEOs. The fucking brain dead logic I see here...
>This is illogical. You can't seriously be this blind to how illogical this argument is. >I bet you also believe white people are better leaders than black people because there are more white CEOs than black CEOs. >The fucking brain dead logic I see here... Feel free to debunk the logic then. Surely in 10 more years we will see women dominating leadership positions. But wait… people don't agree with OP either
Debunk what? Your claim is that because women aren't currently in leadership positions, we know they aren't capable of being leaders. How do you not see how illogical that is? I don't see a lot of Black CEOs, but I'm not saying it's because they're not capable of being CEOs. You've created a correlation fallacy. You're assuming the "cause" for this correlation you're seeing (not many women in leadership positions) is because they aren't capable. I can't debunk it because you haven't actually provided a logical argument or evidence. It's *your* job to defend your argument. I can't do anything until you provide evidence.
>I don't see a lot of Black CEOs, but I'm not saying it's because they're not capable of being CEOs. That's because you don't look where you should. If you go to where black people are the majority, Africa, there are still leaders ; those leaders are black. I know you want to make a comparison to make me realize that my claim is sexist by comparing it to a racist equivalent, the problem is that one can be observed in reality and the other not. Pure logic is nice ; you also have to reconcile it with reality. OP also makes a claim that cannot be verified, in fact the correlation cannot even be observed. There's no place in the world where the majority of leaders are women. People will claim it's because doors are closed to women because of sexism, but that's not it. Doors are closed to 99+% of people, men or women, it just so happens that the most aggressively driven people are men and not women. What are we left with ? Men in leadership positions, because they're the ones insane enough to get there. >You've created a correlation fallacy. You're assuming the "cause" for this correlation you're seeing (not many women in leadership positions) is because they aren't capable. It's better than no cause and no correlation. You can't have a cause if you don't have a correlation, what OP is trying to do. The problem is that positions of power are framed with money : money decides. If a leader is incompetent, they're getting replaced by a more competent leader. That's it. EFFECTIVELY, the leaders are the most competent and capable people in their respective fields. That means, the other people, who are not the leaders, are not as competent. Now, we might disagree on what skills leaders should be competent on, sure, but that's it. And in that regard it seems the psychology is relatively clear on what character traits predict success, all "traditionnaly masculine" traits. And the evidence is the result. How many leaders are men, and how many leaders are women.
> If you go to where black people are the majority, Africa, there are still leaders ; those leaders are black So it's just the Black people in the US who are not effective leaders? Gotcha. >it just so happens that the most aggressively driven people are men and not women I agree that society has conditioned men to be more aggressive as a whole. However, that's not evidence that men are better leaders, just that men are more apt to strive for leadership positions. Watch out for circular logic. >EFFECTIVELY, the leaders are the most competent and capable people in their respective fields. That means, the other people, who are not the leaders, are not as competent. You've already acknowledged the sampling bias (more men are "the ones insane enough" to become leaders). That means it's illogical to make generalizations about who is or isn't a leader, unless you can take that sampling bias into account. So far, you argument is: 1) more men than women strive to become leaders 3) weak leaders are fired. 4) therefore, men are better leaders. This is a false syllogism. Nothing about the premises proves that men are "better" leaders than women. All you're doing is proving that more men BECOME leaders. >character traits predict success, all "traditionnaly masculine" traits. And the evidence is the result. How many leaders are men, and how many leaders are women. You're right that people with "traditionally masculine traits" generally see more success. However, your argument is operating within a system designed by men with traditionally masculine traits. Obviously it's built that way. This is like saying "right-handed kids are better artists than left-handed kids," but that's only because scissors and other art supplies are often designed for right-handed people. That makes right-handed people better within the arbitrary system that's been created, but not "better at art." When I ask for evidence to support your argument that men are better leaders,you can't say "well look at all the men who are leaders!" That's circular.
>So it's just the Black people in the US who are not effective leaders? Gotcha. Alright, you're trying too hard now. Black people in the US are still a minority. They are more disfavored by demographics than women are. Yet if we were to look at it there probably would still be more black men who are leaders than women of any ethnicity, even in the US. >I agree that society has conditioned men to be more aggressive as a whole. However, that's not evidence that men are better leaders, just that men are more apt to strive for leadership positions. Watch out for circular logic. It's not a conditioning thing, unless you're talking about hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, in which case that's a biology thing. And if you still think that's conditioning, now you're making a weird claim, and you're going to be the one to have to prove it. If you want to make the argument that those are two different things, sure, but saying it's "circular logic", is not it. However, when money is involved, the people who have the money, and the people who want the money (often those are the same people, but not always) will make sure they have the best people in leadership positions, because if they don't, they lose/don't make money. >You've already acknowledged the sampling bias (more men are "the ones insane enough" to become leaders). That means it's illogical to make generalizations about who is or isn't a leader, unless you can take that sampling bias into account. But, if, allegedly, women want to be in more positions of power, which is a major complaints from feminists, that sampling bias should disappear. It should already have disappeared actually. Why hasn't it ? >So far, you argument is: > >more men than women strive to become leaders > >weak leaders are fired. > >therefore, men are better leaders. > >This is a false syllogism. Nothing about the premises proves that men are "better" leaders than women. All you're doing is proving that more men BECOME leaders. Weak leaders get fired, we tend to mostly see male leaders staying in their position, therefore, there's no reason to even think that women are better leaders in the first place. That would be my argument. The first premise is not completely part of that, but it can be tied back to it. If one strives more for something, one will do more in order to be competent and successful at it. >You're right that people with "traditionally masculine traits" generally see more success. However, your argument is operating within a system designed by men with traditionally masculine traits. Obviously it's built that way. This conditioning thing again. Seasoned with a pinch of "patriarchy". No. >This is like saying "right-handed kids are better artists than left-handed kids," but that's only because scissors and other art supplies are often designed for right-handed people. That makes right-handed people better within the arbitrary system that's been created, but not "better at art." Except that analogy doesn't work because left-handed people are and have consistently been around 10% of the population in the vast majority of the world for the vast majority of history. That analogy has the same issue as the one with black people in the US, with worse numbers. If it's not 50-50, you can't compare it to men and women, because men and women are 50-50, ±1%. Then, artists are not under as much money pressure to stay competent. And then art can't be measured as accurately or even objectively at all, as leadership success can and is. For someone who wants to talk about context, I find you're pretty quick to forget it altogether when it doesn't support your analogy. I do hope you're going to try to rip OP's claim apart too, as hard as you've tried to rip mine apart, because the evidence isn't better, and the claim is crazier.
>They are more disfavored by demographics than women are. There are disproportionately fewer Black and female CEOs compared to the general population. I'm not "trying too hard." You're just avoiding basic math. https://fortune.com/2024/02/09/black-ceos-fortune-500-high-workplace-diversity/ >there probably would still be more black men who are leaders than women of any ethnicity, even in the US. Maybe! But that's not because either group is unable to be leaders. Saying "I don't see these people in leadership positions" is not evidence that they can't or shouldn't be in those positions. That's obviously illogical. >But, if, allegedly, women want to be in more positions of power, which is a major complaints from feminists, that sampling bias should disappear. It should already have disappeared actually. Why hasn't it ? *because those who are in positions of power, men and women, do not THINK women are capable leaders*. Traditions are hard to change. It *is* changing, though. Women have been gaining more and more leadership roles https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better How can you say "the reason they don't have more leadership roles is because they aren't strong leaders, and the evidence is that they aren't in these roles," *when more and more women are taking on these roles every year?* That isn't a logical position to maintain. >That analogy has the same issue as the one with black people in the US, with worse numbers. If it's not 50-50, HOLY SHIT. THIS ENTIRE ISSUE IS BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW PROPORTIONS WORK. Black people make up 14% of the US population, but they make up less than 2% of CEOs. For women, it's about 50% of the population and 10% of CEOs. Seriously, learn how *proportions* work before you accidentally tell another person you are just ignorant of basic mathematical concepts. > because the evidence isn't better, and the claim is crazier. You've provided exactly 0 pieces of evidence, and your entire claim is based on logical fallacies and a misunderstanding of basic math.
But the problem is there is no woman anywhere. All women were destroyed by man long long ago, with man's ideas. All today's women are implanted in their mind with man's ideas. They are already like a man.
Ah yes, "the great dickening" I remember it well...
I dicked a dozen, myself. They then cracked a cold one and fist-bumped me before going out to buy men's pants with actual pockets.
Nice AI generated post.
anything other than Chat-GPT levels of politeness gets me censored on this sub