Nope, quite the contrary (according to the stats available at the World Bank). The share of women in Poland is twice as high as in Switzerland.
Then again, Poland isn’t that high on gender equality indicators or rankings.
It’s not perfect, but high rates of female STEM graduates seem quite obviously negatively correlated to gender equality among countries.
In the case of Poland, the country is religiously conservative, which generally means lower gender equality. And there is, I’d guess a leftover from decades of socialist policy and economic conditions that encouraged female labour force participation (though that has markedly declined from pre-1990s levels).
I am always surprised when non-single men make disparaging comments about divorce cases. To me, it sounds like they don’t think their partner is contributing equally in their relationships. I have to wonder how successful these men are in their relationships.
Abortion ban infuriated many in Poland. There were large demonstrations. The society was torn on the subject. The east of the country is much more conservative, big cities + west are overwhelmingly for abortion. Personally I think the existing compromise should have stayed unchanged. There were only about 1’000 abortions performed per year (1 in 300). I think the decision was cynical play by the government to cover other issues.
Regarding the Gender Equality Index, I’m not going to study its specification. But we can look at gender pay gap:
In Poland, the gap is very low. Anyway, the gap can be attributed to many factors other than discrimination.
Growing up, I do not remember being taught or feeling that women were somehow inferior intellectually or given worse treatment. My mother earned 3x what my father did (and now she still works and he’s unemployed), most of my teachers were women, women were prime minister and president of the national bank in the 90s.
It does sound maddening that your daughters still have to hear such stupid and harmful comments. I remember that “girls suck at sport” was also something that floated around when I was at that age. I’m not sure where we got the idea… I don’t think that our parents told us such things. Maybe it is a “meme” that is passed on within kindergarten and primary school?
I’m not sure if a discussion about sports is super helpfull. I expect gender differences in abilities and traits related to “being a CEO” or “growing a firm” to be much smaller than they are in sports.
Also I do think that there might be traits women tend to be better at (listening, trying to understand the person in front of you, compassion) that could lead to women being, on average, slightly better CEOs, lawyers or doctors.
I’m not sure where people actually disagree here.
I suppose that most people would agree with the statement:
There are some innate differences in traits and motivation that lead to different occupational and income outcomes.
So the actual point of disagreement might be closer to something like what Y is correct in the following statement?
The observed gender disparities in X are explained to Y% through differences in innate traits and motivation.
Where I, personally, would guess that the Y is quite high when it comes to football but quite low when it comes to gender disparities in executive board members.
There are some innate differences in traits and motivation that lead to different occupational and income outcomes.
I’m not buying this because we have countries with extreme gender equalities policies (such as sweden) but we never had a society which is really fully gender equal. So we don’t know if it is truly innate or if are engrained from your birth from within your cultural exposure.
A man calling his grandparents and telling them “ah by the way even if we have kids I will be working 100%” raises 0 social reactions. He could have as well said the water is wet.
A woman calling her grandparents and telling them “ah even if we have kids I’m working 100%” is going to make the grandparents either comment “good for you! you are brave!” or “poor kids they never see their mother”
either as a positive or negative, she is going to have a reaction 99% of the time.
The same happens btw if the men call the grandparents and says “oh btw we have kids now I will not work anymore, I will be staying home looking over them and the house”
This is going to get a reaction.
In a truly egalitarian society, the amount of time one of the two partners spent home with the kids and who is (man or woman) will be encountered by complete indifference and free of prejudice.
This right now is not the case in any society of the world. So “innate trait” is really not that scientific, because we haven’t excluded all cultural imposition yet.
I’m confused. I thought you would agree with the quoted statement because you wrote “of course if pitted against same age men, I do believe there is going to be a physical advantage for the men’ teams”.
So at least for some occupations, let’s say a sprinter or a weightlifter, you would agree that innate traits lead to different occupational outcomes.
I don’t think this makes a lot of sense. With your view it woud be virtually impossible to ever proof anything being influenced by anything but cultural factors, because we will presumably never achieve a 100% totally egalitarian society. (I don’t think we could even agree how such a society would look like, but that’s a different topic.)
But we obviously can say something about the extent cultural factors influence occupational choices and income. There is a lot of cultural variation within and across countries that does allow for statistical analysis of this question.
It seems just weird to read about Neuroscience of sex differences - Wikipedia and see how men and women are innately slightly different and then conclude that “No, these differences don’t have any effect on the real world behavior of people”.
It was once thought that sex differences in cognitive task and problem solving did not occur until puberty. However, as of 2000, evidence suggested that cognitive and skill differences are present earlier in development. For example, researchers have found that three- and four-year-old boys were better at targeting and at mentally rotating figures within a clock face than girls of the same age. Prepubescent girls, however, excelled at recalling lists of words. These sex differences in cognition correspond to patterns of ability rather than overall intelligence. Laboratory settings are used to systematically study the sexual dimorphism in problem solving task performed by adults.[23]
Again: This doesn’t mean that men are superior or that differences in occupational/income outcomes are not partially based on discrimination/biases.
For all I know, in 2098 women might have a higher income than men.
Sorry, I was not completely clear. Yes there are physical and neuronal differences.
What I want to say is that I would be wary to link these differences as the main culprit for gender disparity in income and wealth, when there is this combination of factors:
working 100% is still a requirement if you want to advance your career - I don’t know any CEO that works 60% or 80%. That’s even fine - it comes with the job/responsibilities.
from young age girl are surrounded by women usually doing part-time work - this gets ingrained that this is the ideal role for women. This does not happen for men unfortunately.
many girl and women are therefore unconsciously or not driven towards occupation that allow for part time (teachers, nurses, social sciences, lawyers etc).
these occupation rarely allow to jump to a CEO-like position and CEO like paygrade
is there anybody really refuting that women have today an higher pressure than man to:
have kids
and if they have kids, work only part time or stay home to be a “good mother”.
And this pressure comes from movies, other women, older generations etc.
It’s maddening that I work 100% and I am NOT CONSIDERED a bad father. I should be. I should be considered a bad father because I work 100%. A woman is very often judged as a lesser mother if she works 100%. Why is this not happening to me. Why are people not angry at me for working 100% and not dedicating at least one more day to my kids.
But I don’t think women are pressured that much into having children anymore (in Switzerland).
Yes and no.
Above all, I think you (men) are supposed to be a good provider for your family.
If you and your family were poor, people would say you should work more.
I would be surprised if they didn’t in (many) EU countries and in many economic sectors.
On a relative basis, according to qualification, ambition/pursuit of a career, hours worked, etc.
Legislation for gender quotas under the guise promoting „equality“ will probably be responsible for that.
Maybe not in Switzerland, but Germany (and maybe France).
that’s exactly part of the problem - the stereotypization of men as the providers, the women as the caregivers.
And it is discriminating that if my family would be poor, they would tell me to work more, and not my wife. Why in your case you thought I should work more, the first spontaneous thought in your mind? and not my wife? or both?
women are not forced or pressurized - but there is the continous, veiled expectations. From the parents of both spouses “when do we get nephews?”, from your colleagues, jokes like “when it’s your turn?”, and even if you tell clearly that you don’t want children, there is an high chance your employer would still consider you at risk of taking maternity leave (for promotions etc).
But let’s just say that there is no pressure whatosever - nobody asks and nobody expects a woman to have children.
The moment they arrive though - society still judges working mom at 100% as lesser moms than working dads at 100%, which is perfectly acceptable
Could it be that you’re too sensitive on the gender issue regarding your kids? If your kids came home crying, because other kids called them fat/ugly/poor/stupid, would you treat it as a systemic problem that has to be solved on the central level, or rather an example of poor upbringing? Find nicer kids to play with and support your kids in their goals. I think it’s a great skill to learn, not to let other people get into your head, there are many other biases than gender, that they can come across later in life. You can’t protect them from everything.
It’s still fairly pervasive, e.g. try getting an obgyn who won’t focus mostly on reproductive health (they usually don’t even ask if you’re planning to have kids, they just assume it’s the case).
mmm is weird. I see some of you that have “thrown the rock” by posting theories that:
but I feel I posted some reason why some things are still culturally engrained:
but I only see now comments on my “increased sensitiveness” instead of commenting and refuting the above points.
I’m not discussing that there are inner traits that lead to different physical performance and way to approach/solve problems.
But I’m saying that those do not explain alone the “funneling” of women towards part-time careers, which effectively kills your career opportunities and your shot to become CEO.
And do not explain the funneling of men towards high paying, full time careers (stereotype of the “provider”).
Are people here truly stating that all of these “funneling” is purely the expression of inner traits? I see it difficult if not impossible to demonstrate, so why so sure?
Once you become father, for instance you start to see sexism in opposite direction: uncountable movie scene where the fathers are “bad at changing napkins” or are unable to properly care for a baby, sometime with a comical flavour. This again reinforce the idea that fathers are usually bad at baby care, and is something that should be left to others (ie women). It makes me angry. I do believe men can be as good caregiver for baby and infants as women. But simply defending this position as earned me some comment from for example from my father-in-law saying that “a mother is very special, impossible to substitute by somebody else”. Bullshit. Just take any single father who lost the partner or a stay at home dad and yu will see they can be as good as any woman.
Nah, in my opinion this could easily happen without any gender quotas or reverse discrimination. If I look at fellow university students, the women tend to have more drive, a higher willingness to work, they tend to be more conscientious, etc.
All characteristics which make me think they will earn more than the average student. But we’ll see
I’m afraid it is not changing as fast as it should, as least from my perspective as a female engineer and mother to two daughters. There are biases everywhere, subliminal messages that young girls absorb much quicker than we think.
I have many more anecdotes, but here are a couple:
My daughters have attended several schools and day care institutions while in Switzerland, at least 5 different ones in total. These are places where personnel is 95% female. And everysingletime the director has been a man. Even when one of the school directors unfortunately died last year, he was replaced… by another man!! Mmm, maybe it is because all those female employees are less competent? Or unambitious? Statistically speaking, it seems at the very least suspicious. And it sends a strong message to the children that no matter how many women are available for a job, the boss is always a man.
While in another (but developed) country, one of the teachers said at a parent’s meeting “this year, since there are many boys in the class, we’ll do an outing to the Science Museum”. When I objected, the teacher - and many other parents - looked at me as if I was out of my mind. I then went to speak to the teacher, and she kept on saying “you don’t understand, you haven’t seen the boys in the class”. And it was only when I explained that as an engineer myself I take my daughters to the Science Museum regularly and that they enjoy it very much, that she got kind of embarrassed and said something like “ah, but your daughters are very smart”, and “I’m an old-fashioned teacher”. She still didn’t get that a big part of the reason why my daughters are good with science and maths is that they’re expected to be as good at it as anyone else, male or female.
I could go on and on. It’s difficult to see if you’re not paying attention though.
I don’t have any children, so can’t add any experience. But stuff like the second point is awful and would make my blood boil as a parent.
(Concerning the first point. Being the school director is highly disliked by most, male or female, teachers. Teachers often love to teach and not be a manager/accountant. The director job is a lot like being the CEO of a small company, but with only a small increase in pay. At my fathers school, none of the teachers wanted to be the director. So the only solution was to hire a new teacher totally unfamiliar with the school. My father then begrudgingly became school director and hasn’t been very happy in the position.)
What? Then I completely misunderstood the point of the article posted by Bojack (the one from Jordan Peterson). Have you read it? This quote for instance:
The best explanation, so far, for the fact of the growing differences is that there are two reasons for the differences between men and women: biology and culture. If you minimize the cultural differences (as you do with egalitarian social policies) then you allow the biological differences to manifest themselves fully. I have seen social scientists struggle to offer a cultural explanation, but I haven’t heard any such hypothesis that is the least bit credible, and have been unable to formulate one myself.
This is what I have a problem with. I think is plainly wrong to say that egalitarian social policies immediately translates to a minimized cultural difference. In the long run maybe, but egalitarian social policies have been around only for 20 years or so and this is not enough to completely remove biases.
Is plainly wrong to say “egalitarian policies solve the cultural problem, thus it must be biology”. A better sentence is:
“egalitarian policies may solve the cultural problem in 200 years, after 5 or 6 generations, then we can see if it is truly biology or not”
At least in case of the creche where my daughter goes it is the opposite - the director is a woman and 2 of the caregivers are men :). But I guess it is not that common.
And then, there are other traits that make women worse CEOs.
Women have a higher tendency to conform and to comply with rules and regulations than men.
They do tend to play more strictly by the book, are more conservative and use less discretion in making decisions (and are therefore less inclined to take risks).
While that may not be a bad trait in and of itself, it’s counterproductive to running a very successful business and/or become highest-paid CEOs. Men are more inclined to slightly “bend” the rules if needed and take greater risks (not only for the business, but also personally).
By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, tu confirmes avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.
