An interesting bit of psychology on male & female bosses

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/03/0...ame-classically-masculine-personality-traits/

Female bosses are personality-wise basically men.

Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???

What a fucking stupid OP.

No wonder there are more male scientists than female scientists...
No wonder there are more male doctors than female doctors...
No wonder there are more males in orchestras than females....
No wonder there are more male actors than females actors...

How many barriers do women need to bash through before people start recognizing that while gender differences do exist, those differences are NOT the reason why women haven't been in countless fields of employment in the past or positions of power. The reason is because society had deemed it that way, and quite arbitrarily. Once the door is opened, women typically enter and show that they are as qualified as men for such jobs. There are few fields where women simply lack the qualifications to work in because of gender, male strippers for instance. Otherwise, women have followed through in so many fields that the desire for people to show charts showing monkeys indicate a certain difference in behavior between sexes is just the wool over their own eyes to help with the willful ignorance needed to notice that women have excelled in almost all fields, except male strippers, that they were at one time prohibited from working in.

No, we don't because it's not true.

It is true. Men and women display different personality types. You have aggressive males and females. You have passive males and females. You have alpha males and females. And you have Trump males and females.

It is therefore natural that men excel in careers that require them to be assertive and/or aggressive, without much need for empathy or sociability, such as management of big companies.

...and nursing, teaching.

Similarly women tend to do better in careers that require empathy and sociability, while not needing assertiveness or aggression, such as a doctor, nurse or teacher.

...and Scientists and management of big companies (though not as common based on current restrictions in the field).

 

[barbos]

Jimmy Higgins, Scientists (including females) disagree with you.

 

[Toni]

What a fucking stupid OP.


It is true. Men and women display different personality types. You have aggressive males and females. You have passive males and females. You have alpha males and females. And you have Trump males and females.

Lol
You are correct, of course. My error was in following Jon’s post stylistically and logic.


Did you also imagine Loren drooling in glee as he posted that OP?

 

[Emily Lake]

It is true that there are a few sex-linked behaviors. Toy preference and play activities actual demonstrate them. Although if you look into the research, it's a bit more nuanced than one might think at first glance. Time and again, we see that absent cultural prompts, girls will play with almost any toy, and play almost any game. Buys, on the other hand, tend to not play with dolls or to engage in activities that represent the skills needed in mothering. The distinction isn't that girls prefer dolls and boys prefer trucks - it's that boys prefer trucks and girls prefer everything.

This makes sense, from a biological perspective. Men don't really benefit from early childhood training for motherhood - they will never find themselves in a position where they have to carry a fetus for nine months, breast feed a newborn for another nine months, and generally make sure that their offspring doesn't die. While we as a society are working to shift the burden of that responsibility... there's a significant portion that cannot be transferred.

But most people will gloss over the fact that girls play with everything. It's often a case of lying with statistics

I can find lots of studies that reference toy selection... but I can't seem to access any actual data. So for argument's sake, I'll introduce a scenario to demonstrate what I mean about misleading statistics.

Let's say you've got an even mix of girls and boys, and an even mix of "girl toys" and "boy toys". For simplification, we'll use dolls and trucks. Now, let's say that for every 10 hours of play time, we observe that boys spend 1 hour playing with dolls and 9 hours playing with trucks. Over that same time period, we observe that girls spend 5 hours playing with dolls and 5 hours playing with trucks. If you look at the statistical distributions of those, you see:

Boys: 90% Trucks and 10% Dolls
Girls: 50% Trucks and 50% Dolls
-----------------------------------------
Net: +40% Trucks for boys, +40% Dolls for girls

Read this way, it's naively easy to walk away with the conclusion that boys have an innate preference for trucks and girls have an innate preference for dolls. But if you look at it more critically, what you see is that boys have a preference for Trucks... and girls have no preference.

The same thing is actually referenced in Trausti's post regarding toy selection in Rhesus monkeys: Male monkeys preferred non-male toys, but female monkeys "showed greater variability in their preferences". If you read the linked study, it's fairly easy to see that boy monkeys exhibit a strong preference, but that girl monkeys don't. Their conclusion actually calls this out explicitly:

Mirroring the marked sex difference in infant interactions and children’s toy preferences, male monkeys interacted significantly less with plush toys than did female monkeys. By contrast, males and females interacted with wheeled toys comparably, displaying no reliable sex differences. As is the case with sex differences in children’s toy preferences, only male monkeys showed a significant preference for one toy type over the other, preferring wheeled over plush toys. Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.

Now if I were really inclined to get people riled up, I'd say that this is evidence that women are more flexible and adaptable than men, and that women are better suited for a wider variety of roles, while men are simply bound by their instinct. And while it would certainly be entertaining to throw that grenade out there... it actually doesn't accomplish anything. At the end of the day, there are some sex-linked behaviors, but they are both 1) very few and 2) more strongly exhibited in males than in females.

And yet in society we see a more consistent relegation of women to lower-paying, lower-power, less influential jobs on the premise that those women just aren't as good at the powerful, logical, higher-paying jobs.

 

[Toni]

It is true that there are a few sex-linked behaviors. Toy preference and play activities actual demonstrate them. Although if you look into the research, it's a bit more nuanced than one might think at first glance. Time and again, we see that absent cultural prompts, girls will play with almost any toy, and play almost any game. Buys, on the other hand, tend to not play with dolls or to engage in activities that represent the skills needed in mothering. The distinction isn't that girls prefer dolls and boys prefer trucks - it's that boys prefer trucks and girls prefer everything.

This makes sense, from a biological perspective. Men don't really benefit from early childhood training for motherhood - they will never find themselves in a position where they have to carry a fetus for nine months, breast feed a newborn for another nine months, and generally make sure that their offspring doesn't die. While we as a society are working to shift the burden of that responsibility... there's a significant portion that cannot be transferred.

But most people will gloss over the fact that girls play with everything. It's often a case of lying with statistics

I can find lots of studies that reference toy selection... but I can't seem to access any actual data. So for argument's sake, I'll introduce a scenario to demonstrate what I mean about misleading statistics.

Let's say you've got an even mix of girls and boys, and an even mix of "girl toys" and "boy toys". For simplification, we'll use dolls and trucks. Now, let's say that for every 10 hours of play time, we observe that boys spend 1 hour playing with dolls and 9 hours playing with trucks. Over that same time period, we observe that girls spend 5 hours playing with dolls and 5 hours playing with trucks. If you look at the statistical distributions of those, you see:

Boys: 90% Trucks and 10% Dolls
Girls: 50% Trucks and 50% Dolls
-----------------------------------------
Net: +40% Trucks for boys, +40% Dolls for girls

Read this way, it's naively easy to walk away with the conclusion that boys have an innate preference for trucks and girls have an innate preference for dolls. But if you look at it more critically, what you see is that boys have a preference for Trucks... and girls have no preference.

The same thing is actually referenced in Trausti's post regarding toy selection in Rhesus monkeys: Male monkeys preferred non-male toys, but female monkeys "showed greater variability in their preferences". If you read the linked study, it's fairly easy to see that boy monkeys exhibit a strong preference, but that girl monkeys don't. Their conclusion actually calls this out explicitly:

Mirroring the marked sex difference in infant interactions and children’s toy preferences, male monkeys interacted significantly less with plush toys than did female monkeys. By contrast, males and females interacted with wheeled toys comparably, displaying no reliable sex differences. As is the case with sex differences in children’s toy preferences, only male monkeys showed a significant preference for one toy type over the other, preferring wheeled over plush toys. Unlike male monkeys and like girls, female monkeys did not show any reliable preference for either toy type.

Now if I were really inclined to get people riled up, I'd say that this is evidence that women are more flexible and adaptable than men, and that women are better suited for a wider variety of roles, while men are simply bound by their instinct. And while it would certainly be entertaining to throw that grenade out there... it actually doesn't accomplish anything. At the end of the day, there are some sex-linked behaviors, but they are both 1) very few and 2) more strongly exhibited in males than in females.

And yet in society we see a more consistent relegation of women to lower-paying, lower-power, less influential jobs on the premise that those women just aren't as good at the powerful, logical, higher-paying jobs.

Girls and women are more flexible than boys and men. I have always attributed this to social pressures: girls may be called tomboys if they engage in stereotypical male activities but there isn’t a really harsh penalty. Boys are called sissies which is much more perforation than tomboys. Girls are presumed to ‘grow out of it.’ Boys are considered deeply flawed.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Here's the crux of the problem: leadership roles in business and politics require a person to be confident, assertive, and in control of their emotions. These are traits that we, as a society, have decided are male traits.

It's not that society has decided it, it's how we observe people acting.

And when a woman displays those exact same traits, they are viewed as negative behaviors from a woman. In a man they are positives, in a woman they are negatives. So if a man is seeking a leadership position, his behaviors are in accordance with the social expectation of both the role and his gender. If a woman is seeking a leadership position, her behaviors (which are needed for that leadership role) are in contradiction to the social expectation of her gender - and they act against her. Men don't like women who "act like men" and they get passed over for leadership positions as being uncooperative and unlikeable... but women who "act like women" aren't portraying the characteristics needed for leadership and get passed over as well. The small percentage of women who can manage to be both assertive and collaborative, confident and demure, emotionally controlled and ebullient - those are the few who have managed to attain leadership roles.

If you're right this is a problem with society, not discrimination.

Just look at this last election. Irrespective of how much I personally disliked Clinton... how many comments were there on her pant-suits? How many disparaging swipes were taken at her for being unfeminine, for being masculine? And let's not even get into the whole calling her by her first name thing - women are consistently treated in an overly casual fashion in business and political encounters, where men are treated with a distanced respect. Women are more likely to be addressed by their first name only, where men are more likely to be referred to by their title, or at least their surname.

The GOP had over a decade of demonizing her. She's not a good example.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is true that there are a few sex-linked behaviors. Toy preference and play activities actual demonstrate them. Although if you look into the research, it's a bit more nuanced than one might think at first glance. Time and again, we see that absent cultural prompts, girls will play with almost any toy, and play almost any game. Buys, on the other hand, tend to not play with dolls or to engage in activities that represent the skills needed in mothering. The distinction isn't that girls prefer dolls and boys prefer trucks - it's that boys prefer trucks and girls prefer everything.

I do agree about this--but that doesn't change the fact that the result is the boys play more with boy toys than the girls do.

And yet in society we see a more consistent relegation of women to lower-paying, lower-power, less influential jobs on the premise that those women just aren't as good at the powerful, logical, higher-paying jobs.

I disagree. We see men selectively going for STEM jobs, we see women going for a variety of jobs. Same sort of thing as the toys.

- - - Updated - - -

Girls and women are more flexible than boys and men. I have always attributed this to social pressures: girls may be called tomboys if they engage in stereotypical male activities but there isn’t a really harsh penalty. Boys are called sissies which is much more perforation than tomboys. Girls are presumed to ‘grow out of it.’ Boys are considered deeply flawed.

Monkeys don't get labeled sissies. It's more than just how people are treated.

 

[Toni]

I do agree about this--but that doesn't change the fact that the result is the boys play more with boy toys than the girls do.

What makes a toy a 'boy toy?' I am obviously leaving out the sexual implications of the term.

I disagree. We see men selectively going for STEM jobs, we see women going for a variety of jobs. Same sort of thing as the toys.

That begs the question: Why do men selectively going for STEM jobs? Is it because they are naturally more interested in math and science? I actually don't believe that simply looking at not only my own family but also my workplace (I'm in a STEM field--and so are my sisters).

Is it because it is more generally acceptable/assumed that this is a career path that a male would take? Is it because STEM jobs reliably pay better than most liberal arts jobs?

Monkeys don't get labeled sissies. It's more than just how people are treated.

Really? How do you know that monkeys are not penalized for violating the gender norms for their species? How much do you know about primate behavior?

What do you mean "It's more than just how people are treated?"

 

[barbos]

That begs the question: Why do men selectively going for STEM jobs? Is it because they are naturally more interested in math and science? I actually don't believe that simply looking at not only my own family but also my workplace (I'm in a STEM field--and so are my sisters).

So your entire statistics is based on members of your family and workplace? And you have some weird workplace if you claim it's STEM and dominated by women. I would like to know more about it because I have never seen such a thing


But yes, I do believe men are more interested in STEM.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I do agree about this--but that doesn't change the fact that the result is the boys play more with boy toys than the girls do.

And is entirely irrelevant.

I disagree. We see men selectively going for STEM jobs, we see women going for a variety of jobs. Same sort of thing as the toys.

Yup, no men get business degrees.

These arguments are ridiculous as women have entered so many fields and have done so very well.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think people are missing the issue here.

Firstly, we need to acknowledge that men and women tend to display different personality types. This is inevitable because they are biologically different with different hormones coursing through them. Testosterone, for example, tends to make one more aggressive and assertive. It is therefore natural that men excel in careers that require them to be assertive and/or aggressive, without much need for empathy or sociability, such as management of big companies. Similarly women tend to do better in careers that require empathy and sociability, while not needing assertiveness or aggression, such as a doctor, nurse or teacher.

I don't think there is anything wrong with this per se, other than we need to have non-discriminatory structures in place to allow assertive women and empathetic men to participate in the appropriate careers for their skills.

However, the real issue is that our society values the careers associated with masculinity (CEOs etc) over the careers associated with femininity (nursing, teaching, parenting etc). This is the real problem we should be trying to address. In my opinion, there is no more important job in our society than teaching the next generation, and it is appalling that our teachers are so poorly valued by our society as a whole. If we could somehow socially engineer our society to equally value important careers that are benefited by the more feminine traits, the gender pay gap would disappear and we would have a far more equitable society.

Great post, imo. Right on the money, if you'll excuse me making a pun.

 

[barbos]

Yes, I have said it before, the problem is not that women don't get to be CEOs, the problem is that CEOs get paid so much.

 

[ronburgundy]

Aggression is behavior, not personality trait. Assertiveness is a skill that can be learned and developed.

Both are highly predicted and impacted by psychological temperament and disposition, which are in turn heavily impacted by an interaction of genes, sex-linked physical differences in brain development, and sex-linked hormones.
These will heavily determine the when, why, and how often a person is aggressive and/or assertive. While acting "assertive" can be coached, so can sprinting. Yet how well one does at either will be impacted by innate differences. Also, there are innate differences in how much people find acting assertive to be enjoyable or aversive, with most introverts being among those who find it unpleasant and thus unlikely to act that way even when the know it is advantageous.

Males also have estrogen; females have testosterone.

And rabbits and giraffes both have some non-zero amount of height, yet the cause of giraffes being able to eat more leaves on trees is their difference in height. I used animals that differ extremely in height because the difference in hormones between males and females is similarly extreme, with average males having 10 times the testosterone levels of average females. And the difference begins in testosterone exposure in the womb, which is far greater for males and causes numerous physical changes to the brain shown the be highly relevant to various aspects of "personality" and behavior, including aggression and assertiveness.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Aggression is behavior, not personality trait. Assertiveness is a skill that can be learned and developed.

Both are highly predicted and impacted by psychological temperament and disposition, which are in turn heavily impacted by an interaction of genes, sex-linked physical differences in brain development, and sex-linked hormones.
These will heavily determine the when, why, and how often a person is aggressive and/or assertive. While acting "assertive" can be coached, so can sprinting. Yet how well one does at either will be impacted by innate differences. Also, there are innate differences in how much people find acting assertive to be enjoyable or aversive, with most introverts being among those who find it unpleasant and thus unlikely to act that way even when the know it is advantageous.

Males also have estrogen; females have testosterone.

And rabbits and giraffes both have some non-zero amount of height, yet the cause of giraffes being able to eat more leaves on trees is their difference in height. I used animals that differ extremely in height because the difference in hormones between males and females is similarly extreme, with average males having 10 times the testosterone levels of average females. And the difference begins in testosterone exposure in the womb, which is far greater for males and causes numerous physical changes to the brain shown the be highly relevant to various aspects of "personality" and behavior, including aggression and assertiveness.

Having worked on largish engineering projects ($100 million plus) with male and female project managers, I can really say that the sexual organs the project manager had was irrelevant relative to their ability to manage the job. Some male PMs were good some female PMs were good to work with. And some male / female PMs were bad to work with. And ultimately, the jobs get done.

People want to wail about the hypothetical and monkeys with dolls in order to ignore the real world. Right now, there are fewer female bosses because women just really getting into this in the 60s and 70s. So it takes time to catch up. Kind of like with female doctors, musicians, pilots, etc...

 

[ronburgundy]

Both are highly predicted and impacted by psychological temperament and disposition, which are in turn heavily impacted by an interaction of genes, sex-linked physical differences in brain development, and sex-linked hormones.
These will heavily determine the when, why, and how often a person is aggressive and/or assertive. While acting "assertive" can be coached, so can sprinting. Yet how well one does at either will be impacted by innate differences. Also, there are innate differences in how much people find acting assertive to be enjoyable or aversive, with most introverts being among those who find it unpleasant and thus unlikely to act that way even when the know it is advantageous.



And rabbits and giraffes both have some non-zero amount of height, yet the cause of giraffes being able to eat more leaves on trees is their difference in height. I used animals that differ extremely in height because the difference in hormones between males and females is similarly extreme, with average males having 10 times the testosterone levels of average females. And the difference begins in testosterone exposure in the womb, which is far greater for males and causes numerous physical changes to the brain shown the be highly relevant to various aspects of "personality" and behavior, including aggression and assertiveness.

Having worked on largish engineering projects ($100 million plus) with male and female project managers, I can really say that the sexual organs the project manager had was irrelevant relative to their ability to manage the job. Some male PMs were good some female PMs were good to work with. And some male / female PMs were bad to work with. And ultimately, the jobs get done.

People want to wail about the hypothetical and monkeys with dolls in order to ignore the real world. Right now, there are fewer female bosses because women just really getting into this in the 60s and 70s. So it takes time to catch up. Kind of like with female doctors, musicians, pilots, etc...

Ah, the smell of anti-science leftism is eerily similar to that of the right.
What the science clearly shows is that the brain is a highly sexualized organ that is massively altered by sex-linked hormones in ways shown alter emotional reactivity and aggressive/assertive behaviors in addition to countless other aspects of human psychology.
Less certain, but still well supported by social science evidence is that these behaviors have an impact on raises and promotions to managerial positions. The only fact in doubt is whether this is because these traits are inherently important to job performance or whether they are selected for other reasons (including everything from false beliefs of those doing the promoting, sexist goals to promote males by relying on male-typical traits, or just trying to get pests off one's back.

What your anecdotes show is absolutely nothing, because they are meaningless anecdotes. But even if we look at your anecdotes, they are not even inconsistent with the OP article. You said the male and female managers did not differ in competence. The article agrees with that and nothing I or others have said suggests otherwise. Those that are selected for management are selected for having particular traits, and thus they are a subset of each gender that don't differ from each other. However, because they are not a random subset, they don't similarly represent what is typical of their respective genders, which do differ on those traits. Also, whether the traits used to pick managers in general are used for engineering PMs in particular or whether those traits are objectively relevant for job performance are not part of what the OP article or I am saying (notwithstanding Loren's own unsupported implication that these traits are what determine "qualifications").

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Both are highly predicted and impacted by psychological temperament and disposition, which are in turn heavily impacted by an interaction of genes, sex-linked physical differences in brain development, and sex-linked hormones.
These will heavily determine the when, why, and how often a person is aggressive and/or assertive. While acting "assertive" can be coached, so can sprinting. Yet how well one does at either will be impacted by innate differences. Also, there are innate differences in how much people find acting assertive to be enjoyable or aversive, with most introverts being among those who find it unpleasant and thus unlikely to act that way even when the know it is advantageous.



And rabbits and giraffes both have some non-zero amount of height, yet the cause of giraffes being able to eat more leaves on trees is their difference in height. I used animals that differ extremely in height because the difference in hormones between males and females is similarly extreme, with average males having 10 times the testosterone levels of average females. And the difference begins in testosterone exposure in the womb, which is far greater for males and causes numerous physical changes to the brain shown the be highly relevant to various aspects of "personality" and behavior, including aggression and assertiveness.

Having worked on largish engineering projects ($100 million plus) with male and female project managers, I can really say that the sexual organs the project manager had was irrelevant relative to their ability to manage the job. Some male PMs were good some female PMs were good to work with. And some male / female PMs were bad to work with. And ultimately, the jobs get done.

People want to wail about the hypothetical and monkeys with dolls in order to ignore the real world. Right now, there are fewer female bosses because women just really getting into this in the 60s and 70s. So it takes time to catch up. Kind of like with female doctors, musicians, pilots, etc...

Ah, the smell of anti-science leftism is eerily similar to that of the right.

Cute, "science". This isn't about science, this is about social inertia and the inability of some people to look outside and see the real world progress women have made in countless fields.

What the science clearly shows is that the brain is a highly sexualized organ that is massively altered by sex-linked hormones in ways shown alter emotional reactivity and aggressive/assertive behaviors in addition to countless other aspects of human psychology.
Less certain, but still well supported by social science evidence is that these behaviors have an impact on raises and promotions to managerial positions. The only fact in doubt is whether this is because these traits are inherently important to job performance or whether they are selected for other reasons (including everything from false beliefs of those doing the promoting, sexist goals to promote males by relying on male-typical traits, or just trying to get pests off one's back.

And we go back to the 'hiding behind "science"' thing again, instead of looking at the real world progress.

Person A: It is pretty amazing that with the exception of male strippers, women pretty much can be found in almost all other areas of employment, including positions of authority.
Person B: Yeah, but have you seen this study that shows adolescent monkeys play with different toys based on their gender.
Person A: Who cares?
Person B: It explains why women don't make good bosses.
Person A: What?!

Admittedly this is a gross oversimplification, but I think follows the general issue of women doing great in the working world and men struggling to find reasons why they shouldn't be.

What your anecdotes show is absolutely nothing, because they are meaningless anecdotes.

Yes, because PM's of large engineering projects is not anything like being a boss.

Those that are selected for management are selected for having particular traits, and thus they are a subset of each gender that don't differ from each other.

They are selected from a pool of employees that exist and that pool continues to change. The management argument is full of shit because you could make that argument with any of the fields women are in 30 years ago.

 

[ronburgundy]

Ah, the smell of anti-science leftism is eerily similar to that of the right.

You can cram that elsewhere. This isn't about science, this is about social inertia.

It is absolutely about science, science that you are dogmatically discarding because it doesn't cohere with your ideology, using the exact same kind of excuses that rightist ideologues use (e.g., "monkeys" have no relevance to humans, systematic science is too artificial or "hypothetical" to tell us about real life).

What the science clearly shows is that the brain is a highly sexualized organ that is massively altered by sex-linked hormones in ways shown alter emotional reactivity and aggressive/assertive behaviors in addition to countless other aspects of human psychology.
Less certain, but still well supported by social science evidence is that these behaviors have an impact on raises and promotions to managerial positions. The only fact in doubt is whether this is because these traits are inherently important to job performance or whether they are selected for other reasons (including everything from false beliefs of those doing the promoting, sexist goals to promote males by relying on male-typical traits, or just trying to get pests off one's back.

And we go back to the 'hiding behind "science"' thing again, instead of looking at the real world progress.

No, it's called applying scientific knowledge where it is logically relevant. It is what honest and rational people do.
And "progress" in terms of number of female managers does nothing to counter that relevant science. Nothing in the OP article (the monkey article) or my posts implies that the workplace and culture cannot be modified to increase the number of female managers. And such progress does nothing to imply that the sole or even primary cause of the gender gap in management was or is cultural gender biases. Just because a doctor can treat a genetic disease doesn't mean that poor medical treatment was the cause of the disease.

What your anecdotes show is absolutely nothing, because they are meaningless anecdotes.

Yes, because PM's of large engineering projects is not anything like being a boss.

It is a particular type of "boss" and not all "boss" positions are the same. The empirical relation between particular traits and the probability of becoming management is what is generally true at the aggregate level, averaging across all management positions.
That doesn't mean there cannot be exceptions where particular types of management in particular contexts fail to show the relation to those traits. Just how many logical reasoning errors can you make in one post?

Those that are selected for management are selected for having particular traits, and thus they are a subset of each gender that don't differ from each other.

They are selected from a pool of employees that exist and that pool continues to change.

They are not randomly selected from the pool of employees, which makes them a non-representative subset of employees and of each of their genders. And the science you blindly dismiss shows that female managers are even less representative of their gender in that workforce than the male managers are of their gender (meaning the % of male employees who fit the typical manager profile is higher).

 

[Toni]

It is absolutely about science, science that you are dogmatically discarding because it doesn't cohere with your ideology, using the exact same kind of excuses that rightist ideologues use (e.g., "monkeys" have no relevance to humans, systematic science is too artificial or "hypothetical" to tell us about real life).

What the science clearly shows is that the brain is a highly sexualized organ that is massively altered by sex-linked hormones in ways shown alter emotional reactivity and aggressive/assertive behaviors in addition to countless other aspects of human psychology.
Less certain, but still well supported by social science evidence is that these behaviors have an impact on raises and promotions to managerial positions. The only fact in doubt is whether this is because these traits are inherently important to job performance or whether they are selected for other reasons (including everything from false beliefs of those doing the promoting, sexist goals to promote males by relying on male-typical traits, or just trying to get pests off one's back.

And we go back to the 'hiding behind "science"' thing again, instead of looking at the real world progress.

No, it's called applying scientific knowledge where it is logically relevant. It is what honest and rational people do.
And "progress" in terms of number of female managers does nothing to counter that relevant science. Nothing in the OP article (the monkey article) or my posts implies that the workplace and culture cannot be modified to increase the number of female managers. And such progress does nothing to imply that the sole or even primary cause of the gender gap in management was or is cultural gender biases. Just because a doctor can treat a genetic disease doesn't mean that poor medical treatment was the cause of the disease.

What your anecdotes show is absolutely nothing, because they are meaningless anecdotes.

Yes, because PM's of large engineering projects is not anything like being a boss.

It is a particular type of "boss" and not all "boss" positions are the same. The empirical relation between particular traits and the probability of becoming management is what is generally true at the aggregate level, averaging across all management positions.
That doesn't mean there cannot be exceptions where particular types of management in particular contexts fail to show the relation to those traits. Just how many logical reasoning errors can you make in one post?

Those that are selected for management are selected for having particular traits, and thus they are a subset of each gender that don't differ from each other.

They are selected from a pool of employees that exist and that pool continues to change.

They are not randomly selected from the pool of employees, which makes them a non-representative subset of employees and of each of their genders. And the science you blindly dismiss shows that female managers are even less representative of their gender in that workforce than the male managers are of their gender (meaning the % of male employees who fit the typical manager profile is higher).

Clearly, neuroscience is not your forte. Nor is biochemistry and you seem to understand very little basic biology.

This is perhaps at your reading level:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ps.../201402/brain-differences-between-genders?amp

 

[Emily Lake]

If you're right this is a problem with society, not discrimination.

Yes, you are correct - it's a problem with society, and is not a case of discrimination.

That said, however, leading off the thread with a comment of "Is it any wonder more men than women are qualified???" is really, really on the line between social bias and discrimination. You expressed a sentiment that implies that you, personally, believe that men are "more qualified" to be in leadership roles than women are. And while it may not be intentional, and may very well be a reflection of socially created gender bias... the effect of such a sentiment is to support and justify acts of discrimination. You implicitly convey that it is acceptable to youfor women to be discriminated against in leadership positions because of a social bias. And drawing a distinction between that sentiment and discrimination can be quite challenging.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Back in the 80's boys actually did play with dolls: g.i. joe, macho man wrestling doll, chuckee. They are just not called dolls.

Trigger warning: If you can't take me flipping Loren's conclusion on its head using the same premises, don't read the rest of this post about men...

Yeah, so notice anything about these dolls? It's the aggression. So I will posit males are too aggressive. They actually by and large don't deserve their leadership roles because they got them through aggression. Less aggressive men are more deserving but get outplayed by aggression.

Kim Jong Un is a man, an aggressive one. He has killed a few rivals. Same with Putin. Trump was less deserving than Clinton. He was less deserving than Kasich. But low brow aggressive men helped Trump win because he was their aggressive leader.

Even nerdy Bill Gates was extremely aggressive as a businessman.

Think about it. How many male managers have you known who were complete dicks... squeaky wheel gets the grease my ass. No, aggressive people play politics way better than assertive people. So if it's true that men are different, it doesn't make them more deserving, it makes them less.

(On average).

Also, the obligatory: I am just being scientific. Why do you hate science?