« Two nations | Main | A case for rent control? »

August 16, 2013

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451cbef69e20192ac91e7a6970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gender, competition & boardrooms:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

FromArseToElbow

There's something missing. Possibly a gratuitous St Trinian's upper-sixth photo.

Valerie Keefe

"Yet another thing: as a Marxist, I have no dog in this fight. I couldn't give a toss what shysters, exploiters and rent-seekers have in their trousers."

A cissexist Marxist, apparently.

curt doolittle

I think we know the answer and have known the answer for years:
1) the distribution of IQ at 130 or higher, which is common threshold in CEO's and board members, and necessary for marginally competitive advantage means that executive participation by women will max at around 30%. Nature does not produce an equivalent number of marginally different women.
2) board membership is not fun. It is largely hard work. The material is quantitative. And decisions are legal, funancial, political, factional and risky. Appeals to empathy or sympathy are considered rightly to be attemts at deception. Board members usually have little information and what they do have they must treat skepyically. Consensus can be difficult and intractable.
3) Women will not as willingly play the cost of maintaining unpleasant, argumentative factional loyalty as often or as well as men, so they are percieved as less trustworthy partners on a team. Those that do are paired with men they agree with. And that combination seems to be powerful.
4) more men prefer to specialize in abstract rules, and devote their time to one specialization. So more men tend to master what organizations value.

Free from nevessary domestic toil, women dominate the middle of the economy and men the margins, and assortive mating reinforces that distribution. There is no chance it will change and if it did, those companies operation by existing means would rapidly dominate those with less meritocratic orders.

We are only equal under the law in the resolution of disputes over property and even then not universally so - as males will attest in family court

But we are not equal in ability. Equal in value to others. Equal in status ( mating potential). Nor equal in value to mankind.

Equality is achieveable in kinship matters, but not commercial relations. And commerce under individualism is not kinship outside of a homogenous city state.

Just how it is and must be.

SteveH

We shouldn't be surprised that a psychotic, greed driven system rewards psychotic greed driven people.

"board membership is not fun"

This made me roar with laughter.

BenSix

I don't understand why Typepad, which costs money, lets through so much spam but Wordpress, which is free, is good at blocking it. You'd expect a private club to employ more and better bouncers than a local boozer.

It does look neater, though.

redpesto

@Valerie Martin:

Transgender people are perfectly capable of being "shysters, exploiters and rent-seekers" alongside the cis-gendered.

Frances Coppola

Shorter Curt Doolittle:

1) Women are dim
2) Women don't like hard work
3) Women are a soft touch
4) Women don't concentrate on anything long enough to become expert in it

Summary:

Women are mediocre.

Nice.

emma

curt doolittle's comment was a nice long list of assumptions dressed up as an argument.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Why S&M?

Blog powered by Typepad