France surrenders: passes legislation to take jobs from men and give them to women

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]apenguinatemyhamster -7 points-6 points-5 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is so typical. I've debated many topics on Reddit, but why is it when it comes to gender that immediately you give any kind of alternative view, some of you folks start saying that that person has not grasp of reality - so what kind of world do you think I exist in? I work at a government research institute, and our job is to find out the facts (including economic) underlying social problems and make proposals on that basis. Lots of healthy debate goes on there, but people don't go around saying 'you don't have a grasp of reality'. That's a pretty childish way to have a debate. So, would you care to quote this research that shows a 'tenuous correlation'? Most workers are in some way 'generating income'. It's not just managers. Managers may have to focus on efficiency, but what makes you think men are better at it than women? Women aren't 'cold blooded' enough for you? Have you ever run a business or an organisation? I have. And some of the most driven, charismatic and witty people I have worked with have been women.

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You began "debate" aggresssively, and with little logical basis. We don't value sound-bites here; and it's surprising that, while you work for a "government research institute" you seem unable to understand statistics. Take your previous reply, for instance:

Gareth321: A company exists for a sole purpose: to make money. To believe that they wouldn't have already been hiring women if it was in the best interests of this goal is either horribly naive or willfully ignorant. Now that they are forced to hire less suitable recruits, they'll inevitably experience a decline in profits. A sound business decision would be to move base of operation off-shore.

You: So you are saying women don't understand the concept of profit. Are they too stupid?

I didn't say women are unable to understand the concept of profit, or that they're too stupid. You created what's called a strawman in order to "win". Most of us have a basic understanding of logic and debate, so that sort of nonsense doesn't work. Your other "arguments' littered about offer much the same level of dicussion. Substantially weak, sound-bite heavy, and inflammatory. I don't know what sort of discussion you're used to, but that's unacceptable here.

Now, no studies I'm aware of prove a causal relationship between level of education and income. This is why I call the relationship "tenuous". There are studies which show a causal relationship between intelligence and level of education. However, intelligence does not represent a linear relationship with income. To me, this would suggest that level of education is irrelevant.

To you other point. Managers don't just focus on efficiency. Their primary goal is generation of production units by employees. Efficiency is but one way to achieve this. Now, if a manager believes they can generate more production units through a primarily male dominated department [and earn themselves a bonus], then it is in their best interests to hire more men. Your assertion that a male manager would hire more males simply because of some ethereal sexist patriarchal force is insulting to my intelligence. That's why I say your claim isn't rooted in reality. A manager will hire anyone that will generate the most units of production. It's as simple as that.

Then you digress into statements like "women aren't 'cold blooded' enough for you". Don't you see how that makes you lose credibility?

To your last question: yes, I have, but only small businesses. I also don't doubt that there are driven, charismatic and witty women out there. I've met them. I'm simply saying that whatever characteristics generate profit [production units] are more representative in males.

[–]Little_Kitty 8 points9 points10 points 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]kragshot 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 3 points4 points5 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -3 points-2 points-1 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 16 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditbannedmeagain 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

Your comment assumes that men are 90% of the time better at doing managerial jobs than women?

Where did you get that from? Nothing like 90% of managers are male. The article talks about 90% of people who make it to the board being male, and there could well be a reason for that: men are over-represented at the top and bottom ends of many ability scales. Men are more diverse than women.

And why would that be if women are continuously outperforming men in academic achievement, which gives us some kind of unbiased measure of intellectual capacity.

So women are smarter than men because they do better in school? How quickly people like you forget the past. There is good reason to believe that boys are under-achieving now, just as girls were a few short decades ago.

Or are you saying women just don't have leadership skills? Of course, if they never have a chance to exercise those skills at the highest levels, I can see how that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One does not become a CEO overnight. Men and women have equal opportunity to display their leadership skills at lower levels and move up the ladder. The fact is that women are failing to move up the ladder, and rather than looking at women for the cause, you jump to blaming an evil male conspiracy.

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I'm not suggesting it's an evil male conspiracy. It's just an assumption when recruiting that in a world of men, another man is going to fit in better. But it goes deeper than that. Men's talents are made more visible by ingrained perceptions, not based on evidence. Lots of gender research has shown that to be true.

Women are not necessarily smarter than men, though some clearly are, but they are currently more hard working. I offered the education because there seems to be an assumption that women are not smart enough.

Men are not more diverse than women. Give me one scale where that is true and show me the evidence? Differences on most scales except aggression show men and women to be very similar, with often differences within genders being greater than differences between genders. Men more diverse, what kind of stupid mythological thinking is that!!

[–]redditbannedmeagain 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

but they are currently more hard working

Blatant sexism with no evidence.

Differences on most scales except aggression show men and women to be very similar,

Giving women more of the male hormone testosterone can turn them into fairer and more amiable game players, link to aggression 'all in the mind'

There's actually no reason to believe men are more aggressive than women rather than simply more able to follow through.

Give me one scale where that is true and show me the evidence?

IQ, math and reading ability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence#Variance_in_IQ

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/06/global-study-shows-greater-male.html

That took 30 seconds on Google and I didn't even have to touch Google Scholar. I submit that you are willfully ignorant. That being the case I'm taking somewhat of a risk by linking to the following article, as you may choose not to read to the end.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4355355.stm

The same principle described at the end of the article applies to other phenotypes, too.

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

So, you had to Google. I see you know the research really well. I notice that wiki states 'citation needed' for the sentence on gender variance. That's no surprise. That's not to say there isn't some variance, it's just to say that the reasons are unclear and as an overal conclusion, it simply doesn't hold up. For example, here is some research on variance, pointing out that when controlling for factors like health and health habits, differences in cognitive performance disappear for genders.

And this is typical, where earlier research has focused on hormones as a possible explanation, it turns out that it's something much simpler and much less 'sex-based'. Of course, this explains a lot of the reason males do worse, too. I'm not overlooking that. But basic assumptions of male superiority in certain skill sets as an explanation for variances in employment and job-based reward does not stand up. Differences are typically slight, whereas male dominance in the boardroom and various other positions of authority typically stands at between 80-90%. Gender differences at best will account for only a 60-40 bias. This bias also matches the (very conservative) proposal by the French parliament.

By more hard-working, I refer to the consistent evidence that girls work harder and are achieving on average better grades than boys AT ALL AGES of education. This is not controversial, but here is somewhere for you to start on if you care to explore it in any more detail. Of course, the reasons are as much cultural as anything. But a hard-work ethic is part of a value system, isn't it! I'm not suggesting it's genetic.

On that same Wiki page you link to, you'll notice research that looked at the variance issue for math performance and found that although there was an increased variance among males, the effect was considered slight. It's worth quoting the conclusion:

"Conclusion. Our analysis shows that, for grades 2 to 11, the general population no longer shows a gender difference in math skills, consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis (19). There is evidence of slightly greater male variability in scores, although the causes remain unexplained. Gender differences in math performance, even among high scorers, are insufficient to explain lopsided gender patterns in participation in some STEM fields."

Clearly, this is not the only research on the matter. But with this conclusion, the 'variance' bit is often latched on to by the media and reported out of context and in the mythic form 'men do this, women do that'. As I said in another post on this thread, the differences are small, and they do not explain the fact that only 15% of people working in STEM fields are women. Even taking the most extreme results for white American males, there should be at least 33% (this is at the 99th percentile, so the top 1% of math performance). And it's important to note that that performance advantage in white males over females at the 99th percentile is reversed in Asians.

As for the BBC link, which you quoted at the end, this research states FEMALES are more genetically varied, NOT males, as you perhaps seemed to imply or interpret by using it here to back up your argument that men are more varied. Did you actually read the story? tut tut!

[–]redditbannedmeagain 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

So, you had to Google. I see you know the research really well.

The fact that I knew such research existed at all is enough to prove I have a greater knowledge of it than you. My failure to memorize the particulars of the studies is hardly relevant.

The point remains that the evidence is widely available, so to deny its existence is patently absurd even for a rabid feminist such as yourself.

I notice that wiki states 'citation needed' for the sentence on gender variance.

There is more than one such sentence. The second paragraph of the linked section is clearly cited, and its findings cannot be easily dismissed.

On that same Wiki page, you'll notice research that looked at the variance issue and found that although there was a slight increased variance among males, the effect was considered slight.

Potentially interesting. But as you quite deliberately ignored the study I pointed out, I think I shall retaliate by ignoring yours. I'm increasingly convinced that you're simply a dedicated troll anyway.

As for the BBC link, which you quoted at the end, this research states the FEMALES are more genetically varied, not males, as you perhaps seemed to interpret or imply by using it here to back up your argument.

The article does indeed state that women are more genetically varied than men. But this discussion is not about genotypes, it is about phenotypes. Men are more varied in the latter, and the end of the linked BBC article should clue you in as to why.

Edit:

You added:

As I said in another post on this thread, the differences are small, and they do not explain the fact that only 15% of people working in STEM fields are women. Even taking the most extreme results for white American males, there should be at least 33% (this is at the 99th percentile, so the top 1% of math performance).

Variance may not explain the difference in its entirity, but it may well help to explain it in addition to other factors that also aren't direct discrimination by men against women. For example: women's preferences, either learned or (god-forbid) innate, could also contribute to explaining the gap.

If there is a lack of women with the combination of talent and passion required to enter STEM fields...well, tough. Discriminating in their favour there is no more justifiable than discriminating in favour of us "lazy" males in other areas.

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

You are taking a different tack now. :) It's women's preference or "lack of passion" that is the reason they do not get the top jobs.

But thank you for conceding the point, that variance does not explain it in its entirety. I'd go so far as to say it doesn't explain it anywhere near enough to be satisfying to most scientists/sociologists. I take it you are neither of the above? The reason I say that is most researchers are not so contentious discussing these issues as laypeople, simply because they know that evidence can often go one way and then the other. Generalisations are for the media and political activitists looking to justify their own agendas.

EU Governments are committed by several pieces of legislation now towards a more gender equal society. When the system doesn't right itself, you have to legislate. Most political decision makers are perfectly clear on that point. It's not the best solution, but sometimes its the only way to get towards a solution.

For the record, I am pro-men's rights on some issues, and pro-feminist on other issues. The debates have been far too polarised. No surprise, I guess. I would say that many so-called pro-equality feminist groups have deteriorated into undisguised 'women's interest' groups, and that should not pass the attention of political decision-makers, and on the whole, from my experience, it does not. So I do not simply accept that the feminist agenda is the only 'right' agenda. I take it issue by issue.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I remember some excellent research I read a couple of years ago where samples of university professors, both male and female, were sent the exact same resumes with the only difference being the supposed gender of the canditates. Participants were asked to rate the resumes on their suitability to serve an internship. Questions focused on research strengths, qualifications and individual skills. Now the interesting thing was that both the male and female professors both consistently rated the 'male' resumes as being better, and some of the comments in regards to the strengths of the research career were striking, with the 'female' candidates consistently criticised for having weak histories and the male one's praised for having diverse and comprehensive histories. These were the exact same resumes! And the biased perceptions were consistent for both male and female professors, so this isn't so much a male conspiracy as a male and female 'conspiracy'. So, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about the whole notion of 'qualified/experienced' when it comes to gender.

EDIT: Okay, here was the research on psychology professors preferences for male candidates. And here is some more research along the same lines where women researchers who were 2.5 times more productive than male counterparts where nonetheless given the same competence score.

[–]AnnArchist 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditbannedmeagain 12 points13 points14 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan 10 points11 points12 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kanuk876[🍰] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Sarstan 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]redditbannedmeagain 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]apenguinatemyhamster -6 points-5 points-4 points 16 years ago* (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 4 points5 points6 points 16 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Gareth321 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Ok, you went one step too far. First I never said anything even remotely close to what you're implying and secondly it's fallacy to end with that question. As if any other opinion was disrespectful...

If you're running a soveriegn wealth fund and some-one comes along and says, you must have a women in charge of it, feasable or not, or we will start to fine you and eat into your fund until you do. Is that soveriegn anymore?

Seriously, the idea that society can mandate who is appointed to a trust by a board kinda destroys the idea that the company can operate freely as it wishes.

If you're competing in an enviroment that requires fidcuiary trusts the last thing society can do is dictate who you appoint to the trust. Infact the concept of appoitment is completely destroyed if the trust isn't free to pick who ever is choses.

[–]apenguinatemyhamster 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster 0 points1 point2 points 16 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]galimi 5 points6 points7 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]loulan -4 points-3 points-2 points 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]apenguinatemyhamster -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	France surrenders: passes legislation to take jobs from men and give them to women
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	42
Comments	59
Date	January 23, 2010 5:55 AM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/at5d2/france_surrenders_passes_legislation_to_take_jobs/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/france-surrenders-passes-legislation-to-take-jobs.1051096 https://theredarchive.com/post/1051096

Comments