Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Differences Between Men and Women in the Workplace.
Following the reading of this article, a man by the name of Cesur wrote this comment. (The one at the top, highlighted in yellow. ;-) I recommend at least reading the comment, for that, essentially, is what I'm basing this post on.
The comment was so interesting at least, I knew I'd want to talk about it.
If you don't want to read the whole thing, here's the guy's short version.
In most of the animal kingdom; and certainly for the primates; sexual selection is done by the female. Males first have to compete amongst themselves so they can later even have a shot at trying to impress the females enough to have a chance to procreate. For different animals, all this competition means different things. Longer horns here, brighter feathers there, a hit song in the charts or a huge bank account. Like we still see today at bars, all the female has to do is sit tight and chose.
Think about the "sexist double standard" of promiscuous men being called the positive "studs", and promiscuous women being called the negative "sluts". As Jim Jefferies points out, it's very easy to be a slut. Being a stud, however, is fucking hard.
To be a stud you have to be witty, charming, well-dressed, have nice shoes and a fake job. To be a slut you just have to be there. There are fat-ugly sluts out there; there are no fat-ugly studs. I've met slutty dwarfs; I've never met a stud dwarf.
Why aren’t the women who are outnumbering men in undergraduate institutions leading the information economy? “Because they’re dabbling,” she snaps.
I think she really nailed it. Women have so many options that they aren't really motivated to excel in anything. Especially not to find a suitable partner.
Is that so? The guy also cites individual acts that men do to try and set them apart, like the rednecks jumping off higher and higher roofs into a pool...
Now, anecdotally, I can say, "that's not true at all. I can think of plenty of women in my life driven to excel professionally. My own girlfriend, for instance."
But the truth is I don't know that many, and anecdotal evidence is irrelevant anyway.
What about on a larger scale? Is this difference real at all?
Most of his point is based on Evolutionary Psychology, which I know isn't... isn't the firmest ground to stand on. How much of this behavior, then is societally imprinted, and how much of it is directly related to our biological modus operandi?
Is testosterone and sexual competition in men why men seem driven to succeed more than women who are have, on the large scale, less need to have large bank accounts to compete sexually? Or is this just pseudo-scientific bullshit?