Ad Nihilo wrote:Ostroeuropa wrote:
This is precisely the sort of thinking that allows sexism to continue.
How many women apply for those jobs?
I'd ask you to adjust your statistics for applicants VS accepted. (You'll find that it comes out with both sexes roughly equal.)
Women tend to enter professional careers rather than business, and there are less women than men in the job market.
Adjust the statistics appropriately or it's pointless using them.
It's also an extension of the old type of sexism that stems from our tribal origins.
"Men do work, too dangerous for baby machine. Leave her in house, ban her from leaving." <-Good for survival, as it happens, hence its prevelance.
Look... patriarchy doesn't hurt both genders. Patriarchy hurts females.
But you do have a point if what you mean is that the notion of gender in general hurts members of both genders in that it assigns certain gender roles and expectations that do not fit every member of that group and that's fine.
But when it comes to men vs women in the board room, do you genuinely think that gender stereotyping (which is what you are against) has nothing to do with why less women than men apply for those well paid jobs that carry all that social and socio-economic power?
Also, please don't appeal to evolutionary science to support spurious claims, unless you wish to undermine evolutionary science itself. You could just as well use evolutionary science to to say that because women are "designed" to run households, which are economic units, whereas men are designed to go hunt, which does not involve economic units, women are designed to run politics and corporations, and men are designed to mine, fish, hunt, and go to war.
So leave this "male/female nature" bullshit aside, and tell me why is it that women exclude themselves from jobs for which they are perfectly well qualified, not just that they do?
I'm appealing to evolutionary science on a social level to explain why sexism arose.
Indeed, should have arissen during a time where our survival depended on keeping women safe, and men really were an expendable gender.
During that time, a man became a replaceable machine and a woman had no right of agency, lest she endanger the entire future of the tribe.
It isn't a biological fact, it's a social fact that arose from the tribes which adopted that view vastly outbreeding and supplanting say, matriarchal societies, or equal societies.
These days, we are not in danger of turning around one day to suddenly find that we don't have enough women to continue the species, so why is this aspect of our culture still around?
Regarding females as precious property, to be protected, and males as expendable workhorses.
And yes, patriarchy does hurt both genders, either that or we are not a patriarchy. I invite you to explain how it doesn't.






