Do people here believe women are less capable and poorer leader?

[Mr.Rob]

let's not forget the pre-COVID WW3 memes

 

[Chrance]

fml forgot that time a guy won woman of the Year

aka men are just as good at looking pretty. what gives?

 

[Velasco]

Its easy to see women as silly and cute, when you can get your way, in dating and relationships with them....Each man's perspective on how he sees woman is intimately linked. . . with his experiences with them.

take note @lux7

Maybe you shouldn't quote general statements if you're going to butcher your reframing attempts this way. . .

 

[Lofty]

The capability to get one's way is a leadership ability.

This statement leaves little to be argued in the form of women not having leadership capabilities.

Now, this guides us to question the way that society views leadership as a whole.

Remember that business, military, and other forms of traditional leaders – both men and women - are oftentimes leading from positions of authority. They have titular power. This does two things:

1. Allows the person more comfort in giving orders
2. Makes employees of lower rank follow their direction or risk professional ramifications

Of course, some of these people have earned their titular power. They have performed extremely well in their past roles, met the status quo, and fulfilled the mission of the organization as a whole. Others, perhaps, had heavier reliance upon valuable social connections and tactful manipulation.

However, it is important to note that those who gained leadership positions were not given them solely due to having inherent leadership qualities. Rather, they were awarded authority after also demonstrating a variety of skills such as field expertise, asset management, and reliability. In actuality, the only minimum requisites of someone awarded a top position in a structure is that they have a base competence to direct and avoid giving lower-ranking members a reason not to follow their command. Even so, these people can still be considered a “leader,” and that is because leadership is incorrect to be viewed in the universal, ever-dominating sense. Instead, it is much more dynamic and situational.

To take a closer look at the complexity of leadership, I will discuss one of my friends. She is the top student in her university’s MBA program. This is a woman who has founded multiple companies and charitable organizations before the age of thirty, in addition to working multiple years for a top investment bank prior to pursuing her MBA. Before we had met, I heard her speaking very impressively at an event with over 500 people. I remember saying to myself, “Wow, this is one goddamn motherfucking boss lady.”

Professionally and academically, that was the truth. She commands respect among her classmates with her intelligence and poise. Her former business partners constantly seek her involvement in their new ventures. She owns that shit. Outside of that, I became shocked at how socially submissive she was. Relationship-wise, her five-year LTR broke up with her and she was hardly able to function – clingy and lacking confidence. Workplace-wise, we worked together at a part-time job as hierarchical equals and she consistently sought validation for even the simplest of tasks.

@lux7 mentioned that leadership is contextual, and that is something displayed through these experiences.

Imagine this. The stereotypical jock – captain of the football team – may not be leading the biology group project. Perhaps his girlfriend – the aspiring biologist – takes the lead on that one. After the study session, the jock takes his girlfriend into the bedroom. He leads the sex.

This is how nature works. Men and women have different traits for a reason: to foster a mutualistic relationship.

Then, this begins the discussion of whether men are better leaders than women at the same, gender-neutral tasks.

And this answer is no.

What are gender-neutral, leadership-oriented tasks? Business owner? University administrator? Politician?

Just as in nature, each individual occupies their own niche. In order to occupy this niche, they attempt to become successful at whatever is needed. Despite the general tendencies of each sex to gravitate towards certain tasks – a combination of both natural and environmental influences – a crucial aspect of life must be remembered. And that is the aspect of individuality. The abilities of each human widely vary from person-to-person. If it is possible for a woman to be more intelligent than a man, would it be plausible to say that a committed, intelligent woman may run a country better than a slightly less committed, intelligent man?

Sure, a woman might be smart, but could she attract as powerful of a large-scale following as a man? There have been enough prominent female politicians in Western countries (Merkel, May, etc.) to suggest that it’s at least possible to get votes, and these efforts will likely be aided with the proliferation of unrelenting, sensationalist media - if they play it the right way, of course.

Here enters some of @Chase's questions (which, in my mind, are absolutely the right questions to ask):

• Why are women so underrepresented in leadership roles throughout business, political, and military history?
• If it is due to oppression, could women have... led their ways out of oppression? If so, why haven't they been able to lead men into not oppressing them?
• If it is due to disinterest, is it possible that a sex that is generally disinterested in a specific profession is also likely to be as good at it as another sex? e.g., would we say that men are equally as nurturing, caring, and patient as women are, in general?

People need skill development and professional access to be successful in these areas. Women were not getting these for the vast majority of history. For centuries, being a politician in most places was about bloodlines. Business was about social class. Military was about both of these things with an emphasis on the innate strengths of men.

Now, do I think that is a coincidence that men became leaders in almost every societal group on record, and likely before that? No, because the niche of the man is inherent. Stronger, faster, and more physically aggressive. This would be the dominant group. But what happens when the natural tendencies of a man are removed through sophisticated societal structures?

The niches shift. It is likely that the roles of men and women have never changed as much as they have over the past 150 years. Prior, it probably wasn’t just the oppression or disinterest that prevented more diverse opportunities for women. It was the agency. Communication improved in the 19th century. Transportation improved. Gathering and conventions could begin, movements were started, and society slowly became liberalized enough to distance from the traditional orthodoxies. Discourse about the equality of opportunity proliferated among women alongside other ethical schisms, and sentiments of natural, unchangeable truisms were transposed into furor. Many of the women during this time (and before) likely just viewed the world as it was, just as many do now.

We are still only beginning to see the effects of this, but some of them suggest that women can perform equally as competent as men in previously unavailable niches. Women have been the presidents of universities and led them to success. Women academics have led seminal research projects. Women have become self-made millionaires through entrepreneurship. Women politicians have garnered significant followings consisting of all genders, even while being physically unattractive in an image-obsessed world.

The representation of women in these fields will likely continue to increase as more women are encouraged into these areas. In the end, these rates are eventually likely to plateau because there will always be a segment of women who value comfort over ambition - which most people succumb to at some point – but attractive women remain having more societal advantages to do so at a younger age.

And no, throw Merkel into a warzone and she would not be able to physically dominate the SEALs or force the military generals into mobilization. Just like Zuckerberg or Gates or Jobs, though all four of these people are successful leaders within their own niches. Just like how I could not imagine Floyd Mayweather Jr. running a country despite being an extremely dominant, physical leader. And just like how my friend can lead her charities and businesses but not her social group.

It may be all about the bitches to us. But to the unforgiving society, it’s all about the niches – now more than ever.

 

[Mr.Rob]

Well said @Lofty , good insight there.

The only difference in opinion I have might be:

It is likely that the roles of men and women have never changed as much as they have over the past 150 years. Prior, it probably wasn’t just the oppression or disinterest that prevented more diverse opportunities for women. It was the agency. Communication improved in the 19th century. Transportation improved. Gathering and conventions could begin, movements were started, and society slowly became liberalized enough to distance from the traditional orthodoxies.

While I agree this is probably the MOST gender dynamics have shifted in history (mostly due to technology) I wouldn't say its that drastic.

I quoted this earlier but "The Fate of Empires" among other history pieces (that one just happens to be my favorite and easily digestible one to read) show us that feminism isn't a new thing. It occurs consistently when societies are successful and become economically properous and safe. The men in ancient Rome were complaining about women getting their way and getting into affairs that were once controlled by the men.

Its easy to think when you're so up close to the timeline of history (looking from a scope of 150 years) but the West as it is will not be around forever. Something will happen whether it be pandemics, collapse of the financial system, war, or environmental issues that will cause the West to collapse and be in a state of scarcity, danger, and famine.

It could go fast or it could go gradually but when it does happen if we are to use history as a guide it can be certain that the gender dynamic will swing back just as it always had.

It is neither good nor bad. It is just the way people behave in a given environment.

Humans are merely like water that takes on the shape of the container they are put in.

 

[Chrance]

Just like how I could not imagine Floyd Mayweather Jr. running a country despite being an extremely dominant, physical leader.

CHAZ 51st state of US.

Given men and women are similarly good at leadership, I’m suspecting a 50/50 split cropping up in our new neighbor

Jkjk good post. Though tbh when I go out tonight, and look around at the bar, I don’t think the temperament for leadership in a woman (dominance, calmness, vision, ambition, etc) will have anything todo with whose a babe and who isn’t; whereas my temperament for leadership will in fact be a factor if I want to get anywhere.

something maybe not considered or missing in this thread is that you judge a man based off how much he acts and appears like a man, and a woman based on how much she acts and appears like a woman. This is what makes for an attractive man and an attractive woman, hence why caitlyn Jenner is really just a freak, not a beautiful woman or a handsome man.

the Angela Merkels of the world, even at a political event, will sit behind actual feminine babes based on the measure of “whose the best woman in this room?” I.e. which one would you prefer to imprégnant and raise your kids.

talk of leadership women or athletic women missies the point - these women are just pulling a caitlyn jenner, acting like dudes because that’s what they want to do. That’s cool and all but doesn’t make them more of a woman or more like a babe. Like, who gives a shit if a woman is bossy or muscly? It makes her less than if she had simply acted more like a woman or did something else. This is why we give guys shit for acting weak or doing lame shit - they are acting like a subpar member of their sex. It’s not because submissiveness is necessarily bad or following others is totally evil.

 

[lux7]

@lux7 all this talk of “strong independent women” goes out the window when you’re walking through a shitty neighborhood. I literally know women who were arrogant enough to think they could stroll at night down a shitty part of town and not get hurt, then they got hurt. Now they know to be accompanied by male friends.

Chrance,

I agree with you, it's far better being a man for the situations you are describing.

That has only limited repercussions on leadership and "life competence", though.
Especially if you consider that powerful people, men or women alike, have others who take care of their well-being, sometimes putting their own life on the line (think of bodyguards).

But here is something for you to consider:

The same traits that make women weaker in a tough neighborhood is also what makes you spend hours in here learning how to talk to those women.
Think about that.
And it's what makes many men willing to invest, provide, and protect for them.

It's just a different form of power, man.

And it's exactly that form of power that many men resent, and that makes them happy when they see some other men "showing" to women who is more powerful.
This is something that researcher Deborah Tannen correctly pointed out as well.

Sure, the top 1% of man is far more likely to be at the top than the top 1% of women, and we can argue that top men have more power than top women.
I'm actually convinced of that.
But like some others have already pointed out, that top 1% does not represent "men" in general. And they're not scoring a win for "men". They just represent themselves.

 

[lux7]

Its easy to see women as silly and cute, when you can get your way, in dating and relationships with them.

True indeed.

But she is not going to be "silly and cute" on 360 deegrees, all her life (if she's a high-quality or high-power woman, at least, of course there are some women who do are very submissive and low in power).

Some examples:

• The same woman who might be submissive at home with a dominant man, might be ruthless at work
• The same woman who's submissive when you first start dating will be less submissive when the power relations start changing (example: you get married and a divorce would be costly to you; she wants a family and you keep stringing her along forcing her to make the tough choice; etc.)
• The same woman who might be submissive with one man, can be intimidating to many other men
• When it comes to deciding the home decor, she might take the leadership role, while he just drives around like a chauffer

Plus:

• There are plenty of women who never get submissive (among the reasons, she might just be not attractive enough to attract very powerful men)

Calling her "silly and cute" because she is submissive in some areas of her life, to me, is nonsense.

Almost all men also act submissive within their lives, including the very dominant ones.

Just one example: you can rest assured that otherwise dominant man will get far less dominant and confident when the big boss calls him up in his office (men are far more sensitive to power hierarchies than women are, BTW).

 

[Velasco]

Outside of that, I became shocked at how socially submissive she was. Relationship-wise, her five-year LTR broke up with her and she was hardly able to function – clingy and lacking confidence.

Imagine this. The stereotypical jock – captain of the football team – may not be leading the biology group project. Perhaps his girlfriend – the aspiring biologist – takes the lead on that one. After the study session, the jock takes his girlfriend into the bedroom. He leads the sex.

yeah I mean this is why i view them as silly and cute. Even when they're making bank as "leaders" of weak men. Whole reason I got in this thread (beside backing up my boy, flux) is that I'm banging one of them. So when I saw lux talking about "feel good mantra" and "high self esteemed individuals like myself don't view women that way" I was like aight....lol.

 

[Carousel]

Calling her "silly and cute" because she is submissive in some areas of her life, to me, is nonsense.

What men on PUA forums and in the Manosphere refer to as "silly" is usually NOT "silly" behavior. For example, flaking is rational from female perspective (it allows women more time to screen guys + screen multiple guys, and also probe their reactions to flaking). Drama is also rational (periodically test whether the man is still in control). It only seems irrational for guys who project male mating criteria onto females, which is just a statement of the silliness of the man. There is even an entire school of thought now that "drama" should be avoided at all costs, this is just idealism unfounded in reality.

Also the level of social influence (whether it be social norms, laws or politics) women wield today does not back the notion that they are irrational or "silly" as a group.

Ironically, many of the same guys talking about the "irrationality" or "stupidity" of women are shit scared or furious about how fem-centric society treats men, backed with never ending individual horror stories about men losing their assets and kids in the courts, men getting fired for some trivial "offensive" remark, FRAs/harassment charges etc. Campaigns like #metoo did even reach a worldwide state of moral panic. Even the senior guys here who are certainly not cowards have discussed how to deal with this. There are also endless complaints about structual discrimination like non-meritocratic hiring pratices or the hate-fact that women do not pay net tax (this is backed by official statistics here in Norway, they take more out of the coffers than what they deposit over a lifetime).

If you are being fucked over by a "silly" opponent, what does it say about you? You are smarter, but you still lose? I call it BS.

A lot of these historically great leaders or warriors people are talking about in the Manosphere to back the superiority of males would NOT be scared to go to jail or become outcasts for their cause, let alone being ridiculed in public or accused of heresy, perversity or called names. Many of them even founded new nations, religions or tribes or went into exile because of moral panics and unfavorable conditions in their own culture. Or returned to infiltrate or subvert its power structure. Again, laughable attempts to piggyback on actually brave men.

This narcissism is just weak guys constructing an alternative reality online. Because they are not able to dominate the actual reality, at least not every aspect of it.

Most people who spend their time talking about how "smart" or "rational" they are are just projecting their interests upon everybody else and rationalizing it. There is also a cognitive bias that we want to see our adversaries as stupid and morally defective. This also goes for lesser conflicts like political disagreements or gender relations - and it leads most people to not understand the nature of their opponent and his/her actual capabilities.

My point with this is not that women are equal to men in terms of talent. Neither do I support any kind of misogyny or gender war.

My point is that guys should go out and confront the ACTUAL reality instead of patting themselves on their backs in some virtual fantasy world.

.

 

[Carousel]

“Girls are silly and cute” is simply a straight-forward POV. . . to facilitate the acquisition of more sophisticated mental models.

+1.

It should be regarded as a beginner-mindset. It is certainly better than chode bitterness.

 

[Chrance]

Sure, the top 1% of man is far more likely to be at the top than the top 1% of women, and we can argue that top men have more power than top women.
I'm actually convinced of that.
But like some others have already pointed out, that top 1% does not represent "men" in general. And they're not scoring a win for "men". They just represent themselves.

yes but that top 1% of men absolutely do represent the ideal for all men to some degree. Maybe not in every way (like I don’t want Zuckerbergs body lol) but in their capacity to have a vision, implement it, cooperate in others, deal with unknowns, etc - all this reflects an ideal for all men. Full stop.

The opposite is not true for women. The angela Merkels are not ideals for women, more like idk Pamela Anderson or the Virgin Mary lol. These “top 1%” of women are so only if they are in the same league as an actual babe like Lindsey pelas. Otherwise they’re just subpar representations of their sex - aka who gives a shit (I know there are feminist and other societal consequences that force men to give a shit in general but that’s bending beyond the scope of what I mean here).

It is fair to compare top men and “top” women since the latter are simply acting as half baked men and are not actually representing the ideal for their sex. It is a comparison between men being men with women not actually being women. This is why “top 1%” of women really just means “girls who are really really hot (not merely aesthetically, there’s other factors too lol)”. You are in fact misconstruing what is a top woman. Actual top women are found in beauty contests. Top women are proven through sexual selection, not through history books or recognition or political status or vanity games. What kind of women do you want to stick your dick in and impregnate? Your own desires are the source of the answer.

i do agree and totally understand that a man can get an ego boost from being domineering over a woman or feeling he’s entitled to be domineering. That is an unfortunate reality that should be stopped. I avoided that though since I don’t think it really gets to the heart of the topic.

 

[Bismarck]

It’s fairly common knowledge that some women can be as smart or smarter than some men, that some women can be as strong or stronger than some men, etc.

And sure, some women can be better leaders in some middle management roles than some men.

Whether Merkel is a “successful leader” is another matter. Merkel has no vision for Germany, which concordantly, despite being the European economic powerhouse, is consistently indecisive in foreign policy, for example when confronted with Putin’s aggression in Ukraine, not to mention with the EU - where is the much-talked-of banking union? Merkel is excellent at delaying decision-making as much as possible, or forgoing it altogether. She relies heavily on opinion polls. Douglas Murray is spot on regarding her “willkommenskultur” and the disaster it caused in 2015.

There are definitely advantages to being a woman today. Look at the new EU Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen. She plagiarized most of her doctoral thesis...

And the new President of the European Central Bank, Christine Lagarde, has already shown that she will simply copy what Mario Draghi was doing before her. Hasn’t really brought anything new to the table..

Evaluating the result of Theresa May’s recent stint as head of the Conservative Party and UK Prime Minister as anything other than mediocre and, again, indecisive regarding Brexit, seems like denial of reality. She obtained the worst result ever for her Party at general elections.

It seems that everywhere the appointment of women (or their election) is celebrated as a sort of triumph because they have shown they can be like men. The time is ripe for them.

Are there men who could do better jobs? Probably. Perhaps in different circumstances, if the opportunity cost for not making decisions were higher, these women wouldn’t be where they are in the first place. Remember the post-war rules-based United Nations international system was created in the forties inspired by men like Jan Smuts, Isaiah Bowman and Benjamin Gerig.

It also seems impossible to open a magazine like National Geographic nowadays and not have everything, from biology to history, be about the roles of women, and women authors/scientists/whatever. Movies and TV shows as well. There is definitely an agenda of pushing women as a sort of new men. In my own country girls are finishing high school and entering university more than boys.

The logic behind this seems to be that it’s a way to right past wrongs, because, so many seem to believe, women have been oppressed by men for most of history.

To the question of why all great civilizations, political systems, scientific discoveries, religions, philosophy, inventions, art, architecture: everything, was overwhelmingly made by men, I’d say the answer is more nuanced - women simply didn’t need to go through all that trouble, since they are the key, through their wombs, to the survival of the species.

Perhaps if men were the ones to give birth as well as the weaker sex women would have created systems of equal or better quality. But this is not reality. So yes, I don’t think it really matters, ultimately, whether women can or can’t perform like or better than men in tasks too far removed from their biological imperative.

 

[FunGuy]

A lot of interesting points are being made in this topic. I want to dive a little deeper into what Mr.Rob mentioned:

From what I see the women that are motivated enough to be that ambitious to make it in the corporate world that high are not your average girl. Their usually very dominant, high T women.

But those roles for man or woman are incredibly demanding and soul sucking and require a massive amount of motivation/desire to do it. Men are motivated by money/power/status but what are the women motivated by?

I don't know 100% for sure but it seems its partly a mating strategy (get access to higher tier more dominant/higher status men [think Dagny Taggart pairing up with Hank Reardon in Atlas Shrugged]), partly getting sucked into the social narrative from a young age (nd once their in they rationalize it doesn't suck because if they quit they lose social status), and partly some women very well thrive and excel at the role and do it for a purpose they believe in.

I think its a very small few outlier women that fall into the latter category. The women who are corporate leaders that I've talked to never seem to be truly happy and passionate about being in the corporate world. My cousin said she wishes to have kids and be a writer, but doesn't want to lose the money/lifestyle she gets... Women are much more tuned into keeping up with the Jones's and buying into the social narrative that's fed to them day in and day out (happiness comes from being a powerful leader!). So there they stay.

I feel like that right there is the driving reason we see so much disparity in stereotypical "leadership" roles. Men's quality of life directly depends on these factors, while its not as relevant for a women. At the end of the day, most of us are aware of the biological advantages and disadvantages that we have based on our gender. The problem starts with either of these 2 scenarios: people trying to completely ignore the fact that men and women's social status are measured differently , and when people try to force their gender ideologies upon others.

Our sense of self worth, happiness and validation is completely different. A man might feel very insecure about his job even if it pays well because its associated with a low status. A woman in that same situation will not feel as insecure. Whether we admit it or not, as human beings we are compelled to avoid situations that make us feel low-value, and we try to portray ourselves as high value. We do this even in situations where it isn't rational, like spending money we don't have on name brand clothes and stupid things just to look high value. So in 2020, contrary to what a lot of groups try to portray, a lot of gender based disparities are caused by our biological inclinations and not on oppression. At least here in the US, I cannot say the same for other countries.

I don't think gender is the deciding factor in deciding whether a person is suited for leadership roles. Competency in the field and people-skills are the only relevant factors. We just pursue our happiness differently, which naturally lands us in different roles. I noticed that the people who stir up gender drama are usually the ones who are trying to fill a void. There is something about them that makes them unsuccessful, and instead of fixing the issue they find ways to villainize a targeted demographic. They mask the real reason that they hate their target by either nitpicking about irrelevant things, by victimizing themselves, or by having a distorted sense of entitlement.

And to add to your question about what motivates women to climb the corporate ladder, I see a lot of possibilities. It can be a charisma thing, women can be more likeable and easier to get along with . A woman who stays on top of their shit and is charismatic will be given a lot of opportunities. It can also be an up bringing thing, their parents hammered them with career values. That is their driving force, their whole sense of self worth revolves around their occupation. Lastly, although unlikely, it can also be a compensation thing. A lot of women after a rough patch with men will use their careers as a way to qualify themselves and feel validated. Men are more prone at trying to leverage their occupation to compensate for their lack of dating success. There are so many possibilities, but regardless I root for women who are career oriented. If they are unhappy I doubt that their job is the reason, there is some other underlying cause. The ones I worry about are the ones who are career oriented and only date men who make more money or are more accomplished than them.

 

[Chase]

Some interesting turns this thread's taken!

I'd urge everyone to resist strawmanning their opponents here. I am seeing a lot of "People who believe X are the same people who believe Y" when attempting to dismiss perspectives rather than reason through them. Careful with that kind of logic (it tends to be specious).

"Girls are silly and cute" is a fantastic mindset. Every highly skilled natural I've known had this mindset. I still have this mindset. It doesn't mean you walk around thinking women are constant goofballs all the time. However, when you see women doing goofy things that perplex you as a man, it's often very good (for instance... your girlfriend orders you takeout once a week. Sometimes she tells you it's too late and they're no longer delivering. Months later she tells you "Never mind, I don't want to order it, they're not offering a discount today. Look, I told you the truth this time! Before I used to make up a reason why I couldn't order!" -- you, personally, do not really care about any of this, and both the lying to you and the confession of the truth and the caring about getting a discount or not all are stuff you don't care about. So you can sit there and spend a half hour unpacking it, trying to parse the psychological nuance of this, and arrive at a deeper understanding of the female psyche... or you can just crack a little smile and say "Okay babe. Well thanks for being honest").

In a seduction scenario, when the girl you're with is on her way out of the bar with you, and then suddenly she remembers she forgot to take a group photo with her friends tonight, and she drags you back in... you can get angry about it, going back for something so irrelevant as a group photo when you have a shag on the line... you can try to talk her out of it... you can think deep thoughts about the meaning of leaving the bar then returning for a group photo... or devise an in-depth seduction game plan... or you can just roll with it, smile to yourself because girls do these silly cute things sometimes, let her take her photo, say her farewells to her friends, then take her back out of the bar again.

Women know when they're doing something silly or goofy or childish or flakey. They know when they're doing it in a calculating way, versus when they are making little faux pas or being kind of an airhead. Obviously if you treat them like they're just being silly when they are doing something calculating, it's not the right call. Provided you're able to understand what a woman is actually doing though, and the underlying driver of her action, treating her like she's being a little silly when she's being a little silly will establish you as the guy who knows what's up and isn't too bothered by it.

(as with anything, there's potential for misuse of this mindset... guys can use it as a cope... "She rejected me? Well, girls are just silly sometimes" -- rule of thumb is if you feel that bad feeling in the pit of your stomach while telling yourself anything, it is probably a cope, and should not be used for that. However, the alternative to this mindset -- "Women are serious and their actions are consistently mechanical and rational" -- well, you can make a case for that, every action being governed by some sort of logic inside a person's head... but man it really just sucks the fun out of everything)

Chase