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.

JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
edited August 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
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.
Cesur wrote:
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.

This was actually his original comment.
Cesur wrote:
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?

JamesKeenan on
«1

Posts

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I've definitely heard this theory before. I've never seen any number done on it, but I guess there might be something to it. The issue is that it seems to stop at sex. Generally this sort of thing continues on to talk about Woman being driven to provide for their children, which these days often DOES mean occupational success, as it is more and more expected for families to have dual incomes.

    georgersig.jpg
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Basically any time someone claims to have found a succinct explanation for the combined behavior of billions of people, you can be pretty certain it's pseudo-scientific BS.

    There's nowhere near enough information on the functioning of ourselves or our society, or on our evolution as a species, to make any certain conclusions.


    Also, it's silly to compare "studs" to "sluts", because "studs" generally have the additional connotation of only bedding attractive people.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    This is the Christopher Hitchens argument. It may hold some validity, but I've always found to be overly reductionist. I don't think sex-drive and sexual behavior (e.g. courtship) weigh as heavily on forging a personal identity. I could probably rant about it for quite some time, but I'll just sum it up in two points:

    1. Happily married couples often continue to push boundaries and achieve in society despite their sexual desires weighing more closely to fulfilled.

    2. Musicians, often tied directly to sexual nature (e.g. the archetypal rock star), don't tend to display any sort of gender discrepancy when it comes to pushing boundaries or achieving in creative self-expression.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
  • HachfaceHachface Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Paging Dr. The Cat
    Attention Dr. The Cat, please pick up the white courtesy phone.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Also, it's silly to compare "studs" to "sluts", because "studs" generally have the additional connotation of only bedding attractive people.

    Likewise one is generally considered a compliment, while they other is an insult.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Um. The initial premise of the argument is flawed. Many male mammals don't compete at the feet of picky females. They compete with other males for a chance to grab and rape females. And then they have to defend their female harams against rival male conquest.

    Birds, though.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Not to mention there are a fair few mammals, and even primates, that eschew all this in favor of lifelong monogamy.

    Honestly, I think there is a complete lack of evidence for any kind of genetic or instinctual basis for any kind of human behavior with the possible exception of 1) fear of snakes 2) repulsion or fear of the smell of most kinds of rotting flesh and 3) nursing (edit: just to be clear I mean the instinct on the part of newborns to nurse).

    Maybe someday there will be sufficient data to even begin to try and make arguments for more complicated inherited behavior but I doubt it. Just figuring out how to knap flints is hard enough.

    So what does this mean? If indeed a significant number of people behave in the way outlined in the OP then it is for the very simple reason that it is how they were taught to behave. Not because of any bullshit evo-psych nonsense.

    What you think "makes sense" has nothing to do with reality. It just has to do with your life experience. And your life experience may only be a small smidgen of reality. Possibly even a distorted account of reality at that. So what this means is that, beginning in the 20th century as our means of decoding nature became more and more powerful, we started realizing our common sense is no longer a tool to pass judgment on whether or not a scientific theory is correct. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Huh, that is true. I've never heard anyone refer to a balding, overweight, short man as being a stud. He may be a 'good catch' or a 'babe' but stud is only reserved for tall well-dressed men who are hung like a horse.

    Angryspider2_zps663851d1.jpg
  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Huh, that is true. I've never heard anyone refer to a balding, overweight, short man as being a stud. He may be a 'good catch' or a 'babe' but stud is only reserved for tall well-dressed men who are hung like a horse.

    Likewise I'm sure many women who are average weight have been referred to as "hot", but terms like "supermodel" are reserved for tall, well-dressed women who are generally underweight.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Riemann you forgot mans inherent fear of giant god damn spiders and our love of putting them in fiction and media. Seriously giant spiders everywhere, it's like mankind fought a race of giant spiders and we just forgot or something.

    OH SHIT!

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Not to mention there are a fair few mammals, and even primates, that eschew all this in favor of lifelong monogamy.

    Honestly, I think there is a complete lack of evidence for any kind of genetic or instinctual basis for any kind of human behavior with the possible exception of 1) fear of snakes 2) repulsion or fear of the smell of most kinds of rotting flesh and 3) nursing (edit: just to be clear I mean the instinct on the part of newborns to nurse).

    Maybe someday there will be sufficient data to even begin to try and make arguments for more complicated inherited behavior but I doubt it. Just figuring out how to knap flints is hard enough.

    So what does this mean? If indeed a significant number of people behave in the way outlined in the OP then it is for the very simple reason that it is how they were taught to behave. Not because of any bullshit evo-psych nonsense.

    Xenophobia is instinctual.

    Otherwise, sure.

    georgersig.jpg
  • NotYouNotYou Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    You all seem to be getting too involved with the biological/evolutionary side when the majority of his argument was cultural.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    You all seem to be getting too involved with the biological/evolutionary side when the majority of his argument was cultural.

    So he's saying that most of the animal kingdom does a thing CULTURALLY?

    georgersig.jpg
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Huh, that is true. I've never heard anyone refer to a balding, overweight, short man as being a stud. He may be a 'good catch' or a 'babe' but stud is only reserved for tall well-dressed men who are hung like a horse.

    Isn't that the point?

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    NotYou wrote: »
    You all seem to be getting too involved with the biological/evolutionary side when the majority of his argument was cultural.

    The guy quoted in the OP is the one who went all pseudo-science evo-psych on it. All trying to draw parallels between the "animal kingdom" and bar-hopping.

    What you think "makes sense" has nothing to do with reality. It just has to do with your life experience. And your life experience may only be a small smidgen of reality. Possibly even a distorted account of reality at that. So what this means is that, beginning in the 20th century as our means of decoding nature became more and more powerful, we started realizing our common sense is no longer a tool to pass judgment on whether or not a scientific theory is correct. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Article wrote:
    In an ugly if typical turn, one’s column is suddenly moved from the Manhattan section to the North Jersey “auto buy” section because of the arrival of a younger, hotter writer.
    I feel like I know her, or more likely I know girls like her. Except my friend doesn't work for the Atlantic, she works for some magazine I've never heard of.

    She works hard. At everything. More than I do, and she probably gets paid less to do it. (Different industries, but still.) She does have a lot of options, but I think she's worked and is working for them. I don't every see her becoming a 'leisure-class wife'

    At any rate something tells me the commenter in the OP is wishing hard-working ladies like my friend would date nice guys like him instead of stockbrokers or whatever.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • StranaStrana Registered User
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    You all seem to be getting too involved with the biological/evolutionary side when the majority of his argument was cultural.

    So he's saying that most of the animal kingdom does a thing CULTURALLY?

    I think he's saying that human males approach everything with the intention of evolving our species.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go circle a mammoth and suck the marrow from its bones to replenish my energy. I must spread my seed far and wide this night, lest my inferior brood perish in obscurity, clawing at the earth with their ineffectual, girly hands.

  • HeartlashHeartlash Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Strana wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    NotYou wrote: »
    You all seem to be getting too involved with the biological/evolutionary side when the majority of his argument was cultural.

    So he's saying that most of the animal kingdom does a thing CULTURALLY?

    I think he's saying that human males approach everything with the intention of evolving our species.

    Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go circle a mammoth and suck the marrow from its bones to replenish my energy. I must spread my seed far and wide this night, lest my inferior brood perish in obscurity, clawing at the earth with their ineffectual, girly hands.

    Strana was later crushed by the massive bulk of the creature, thus forever eradicating from the human genome the inherent desire to fraternize with mammoths.

    TiSBcast.com - Home of This is Serious Business, a weekly roundtable podcast involving media, beer, and general merriment.
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Man, if he thinks that every female primate gets to fuck whoever she feels like he's never watched a single goddamn show about primates that wasn't a cartoon on Nickelodean.

    If people are going to pull the evo-psych crap they had better get their goddamn zoology right first.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Hahaha

    Go ask the ancient greeks, or even the earlier arthurian legends whether a woman can control who she has sex with.

    Also yeah, the whole total ignorance how things actually go down in the animal kingdom.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    I can imagine that the idea that success and competency are valued in a male in a way similar to how looks are valued in a female can be seen across a large sample group.

    The problem is when you take something that's statistically true (for the sake of this argument) across a large group and start to make assumptions about individuals and their motives based on it. It's like saying "statistically, blacks attend college at a lower rate than whites or asians, so being black is a reasonable strike against you when interviewing for a job that requires a college education."

  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Anecdotally I've seen evidence against the notion that women "dabble" and men achieve. Not just that there are women who are high achievers -- everyone's familiar with the Marie Curies of the world -- but that lots of men (at my swanky college) dabble, pursue impractical interests, take time off to travel or volunteer, and seem unfazed by being temporarily supported by their families. Women seem just as stressed out over "will I get that Manhattan job/ grad school acceptance?" as men are. I hardly know of anyone who truly wants to opt out.

    Life's not all about attracting a mate; most people's goals come down to living in some way that brings self-respect. And in my (well-educated, swanky) community, self-respect comes from pursuing a high-status activity. That's why some men and women do things that are high-status but don't necessarily bring in money (volunteer service, art, graduate study in non-lucrative fields) but nobody seems to want to be an accountant or
    a housewife.

    The article linked in the original comment -- about the differences in women and men being explainable by the fact that men are so much more expendable than women and therefore have higher genetic variance in just about everything -- is actually interesting. Normally I resent evo-psych because it's so reductionist. (Don't I have free will?) But this guy, perhaps because he doesn't read as so much of a woman-hater, actually presents the idea as pretty compelling.

    But just because there might be a good evolutionary reason for men to have been more creative and more powerful historically -- a good evolutionary explanation, in fact, for sexism -- doesn't really imply that it holds in modern developed countries. After all, a plague or war isn't likely to wipe out half our men, and I think hardly anyone in my graduating class is likely to sire hundreds of children. I'm going to get as much benefit from my math degree as a man would; possibly more, on the margin, since it's a rarer skill in women and these days math girls are a hot commodity. Hell, I think it even helps on the dating front, depending on who you date. Evo-psych works better, I think, as an origin story than as a current prescription for sex roles.

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Go ask the ancient greeks, or even the earlier arthurian legends whether a woman can control who she has sex with.

    Or many current cultures.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Consider Doc's post limed.

    On that note, too, women have the freedom to pursue economic success, but they aren't pressured to value themselves and define themselves by it in the way men are. And thank god for that, because it kinda sucks. (Luckily, I don't have to be pretty all the time, either.)

    The ideal situation would be one where the following passage from the original article could have been written by a woman or a man:
    I dance and sing and play the guitar and listen to NPR. I write letters to my family, my congressional representatives, and to newspaper editors. My kids and I play tag and catch, we paint, we explore, we climb trees and plant gardens together. We bike instead of using the car. We read, we talk, we laugh. Life is good. I never dust.

    I see no reason to lament any state of affairs that gives any human being the freedom described here; if I must lament anything about this kind of freedom, it is that too few people get to enjoy it.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • zeenyzeeny Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    The ideal situation would be one where the following passage from the original article could have been written by a woman or a man:
    I dance and sing and play the guitar and listen to NPR. I write letters to my family, my congressional representatives, and to newspaper editors. My kids and I play tag and catch, we paint, we explore, we climb trees and plant gardens together. We bike instead of using the car. We read, we talk, we laugh. Life is good. I never dust.

    I see no reason to lament any state of affairs that gives any human being the freedom described here; if I must lament anything about this kind of freedom, it is that too few people get to enjoy it.

    ...I'm probably broken or something, but is it supposed to be obvious if the above is written by a woman or a man?

  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    You're probably a sweetheart. People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm.

    It's supposed to be obvious that it's written by a woman.

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • DuffelDuffel Registered User
    edited August 2009
    celandine wrote: »
    People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm..
    ...I think there may be parts of this website you've never seen

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Like hell men are more competitive then women in the workplace. I'm going to tell you right now, I've worked at a place that was 90% female and I'm never doing that again. It was way too much stress and bullshit over a part time job..

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    I remember flipping through some random publicationyears ago (I dunno what it was, or whether it was paper or online) and reading an article claiming that women are more likely to complain about work-related problems to their coworkers than men are. They don't actually have more of them and aren't any worse at solving them, but are more likely to be looked down upon because of it.

  • FyreWulffFyreWulff Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    jothki wrote: »
    I remember flipping through some random publicationyears ago (I dunno what it was, or whether it was paper or online) and reading an article claiming that women are more likely to complain about work-related problems to their coworkers than men are. They don't actually have more of them and aren't any worse at solving them, but are more likely to be looked down upon because of it.

    I didn't see any of that.

    It was just how freaking vicious they were to each other.

    It's kind of funny because before I started working there my mom warned me about it, saying she doesn't like to work with women either because of that. I thought she was kidding.

  • redxredx East Bumblefuck, PARegistered User regular
    edited August 2009
    eh, the "I never dust" bit kinda gives it away even if you aren't going by it being a homemaker. A househusband wouldn't feel it necessary to point out that they are not following typical roles assigned by society. I'd think.

    I'm not a fan of those roles. I think they are anachronisms that are pretty much universally harmful to society and the folks that make it up. The only thing I bemoan is that their isn't much of an effort to rid ourselves of the ones that apply to males. It's still an issue of feminism, but most of the folks involved with feminism have other things higher up on their list of priories. While I don't disagree with such notions, I don't think any amount of waiting and supporting other issues is going to change them much. There is an ever growing and ever more visible number of males involved with feminism, I'd like to see more of them take a more significant interest in issues that directly affect them. I'm one of them to some degree, and it's not like I actively do anything even remotely about it either. meh.



    FyreWulff:What sort of work?

    The best-laid keikaku o' mice an' men gang aft agley
  • taerictaeric Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    celandine wrote: »
    You're probably a sweetheart. People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm.

    It's supposed to be obvious that it's written by a woman.

    I missed that, too... :( I can see why it is supposed to be obvious after the fact, but at first reading I see no problem either way. I think according to some other studies, it is no wonder that I am underpaid compared to other guys.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Duffel wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm..
    ...I think there may be parts of this website you've never seen

    I think you're giving the national norm too much credit.

    At least we're not Saudi Arabia, though.

    georgersig.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm..
    ...I think there may be parts of this website you've never seen

    I think you're giving the national norm too much credit.

    At least we're not Saudi Arabia, though.

    Indeed.
    http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/11558.html#7
    Majority of Americans say wife should change her name. Today's couples continue to struggle over whether the woman should change her name upon marriage, despite the gains women have made in the workplace and other aspects of American society since the 1970s. In a national survey, 71 percent of respondents agreed it is better for women to change their name upon marriage, with only 29 percent disagreeing. Surprisingly, respondents even split fairly evenly in their support of government regulation requiring name change.

    So about 50% of respondents supported the idea that women should be legally required to change their name at marriage.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm..
    ...I think there may be parts of this website you've never seen

    I think you're giving the national norm too much credit.

    At least we're not Saudi Arabia, though.

    Indeed.
    http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/11558.html#7
    Majority of Americans say wife should change her name. Today's couples continue to struggle over whether the woman should change her name upon marriage, despite the gains women have made in the workplace and other aspects of American society since the 1970s. In a national survey, 71 percent of respondents agreed it is better for women to change their name upon marriage, with only 29 percent disagreeing. Surprisingly, respondents even split fairly evenly in their support of government regulation requiring name change.

    So about 50% of respondents supported the idea that women should be legally required to change their name at marriage.

    At least they aren't saying she can't drive.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/14/AR2009081401598.html



    Personally, I like when a couple creates a new and interesting last name for themselves.

    georgersig.jpg
  • celandinecelandine Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Actually, I think the combo name usually sounds dopey.
    Keeping your maiden name is a necessity if you've published anything before marriage; otherwise just pick something, and don't multiply hyphens, for Pete's sake!

    I write about math here:
    http://numberblog.wordpress.com/
  • TheMarshalTheMarshal Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Some rather forward-thinking friends of mine actually used parts of each of their names to come up with a totally new last name that they both used. This decision was probably helped that the guy already had a hyphenated last name.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    celandine wrote: »
    Actually, I think the combo name usually sounds dopey.
    Keeping your maiden name is a necessity if you've published anything before marriage; otherwise just pick something, and don't multiply hyphens, for Pete's sake!

    if by combo name you mean hyphen, the I think it's awful. I knew too many kids in grade school with six syllable last names thanks to those.

    What I'm talking about is a couple picking out an entirely new last name for themselves, either by hybridizing their previous last names, or just picking something that they both like. It seems like a neat thing to do to me.

    Then again, my last name has only been in my family since my great grandfather, so I don't really feel much of a tie to it.

    georgersig.jpg
  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    Duffel wrote: »
    celandine wrote: »
    People on PA seem to be a lot better about gender than the national norm..
    ...I think there may be parts of this website you've never seen

    I think you're giving the national norm too much credit.

    At least we're not Saudi Arabia, though.

    Indeed.
    http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/11558.html#7
    Majority of Americans say wife should change her name. Today's couples continue to struggle over whether the woman should change her name upon marriage, despite the gains women have made in the workplace and other aspects of American society since the 1970s. In a national survey, 71 percent of respondents agreed it is better for women to change their name upon marriage, with only 29 percent disagreeing. Surprisingly, respondents even split fairly evenly in their support of government regulation requiring name change.

    So about 50% of respondents supported the idea that women should be legally required to change their name at marriage.

    I wonder how many of the people who want government regulation requiring name change want to government to stay out of healthcare, and away from their guns etc.

    I bet the answer won't surprise anyone.

    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • YougottawannaYougottawanna Registered User regular
    edited August 2009
    Not necessarily about the workplace - but the fact that it might be harder to be a "stud" than a "slut" doesn't necessarily excuse the unfairness of "stud" being a compliment and "slut" generally being an insult.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.