I am not a conservative, but the first paragraph really turned me off to reading the remainder of this article by asserting that "conservatives and chauvinists" tend to endorse the notion that there is an under-representation of women in management because "they are not capable."
Speaking as a non-conservative, I find the implication that conservatives believe women to be incapable of management offensive. I believe conservatives would say that there is no single and simple answer to the question but that it has do with the differing career and life goals between men and women--the priorities and decisions that men and women use to guide their decision-making. This is how conservatives explain the wage gap, and the same logic would be applied to the management gender gap. As a non-conservative, dismissing their argument about the wage gap (which boils down to, "You're telling me I could pay $0.72 on the dollar for equal skill? Why in the world would I ever hire men?") out of hand is isolating yourself from a genuine criticism. I believe this introductory paragraph attempts to isolate its argument from genuine criticism by similarly dismissing viable counter-arguments as unworthy before it even begins.
I also find the article's juxtaposition of "conservative" alongside "chauvinists" a particularly underhanded and obvious attempt to imply that there is a great deal of overlap between these two groups.
If you actually believe conservatives think this way, you'll never actually convince them of anything because you're speaking at them as if they are children. You're not giving their point of view any legitimacy.
I am a woman, 45 years old, building websites for a living.
After 13 years, I still prefer to sit down and disappear into the screen and build things. I have natural leadership ability, I have a big personality when required, but I just don't feel motivated by money or rewards to take on the responsibility of leading a team.
I watch my colleagues get promoted, all male. And then I watch them try to balance wife, kids, and life. Without their wives, they tend to do poorly at life maintenance. They get fat, or pot-bellies at least, their hair falls out (probably just genetic but still) and after a few years the stress has broken them. The factors of leading means your reward depends on others whom you are unable to really control. So they spend time playing head games with people and taking work home that others can't or won't complete.
The handful of women I know in leadership positions also have a stigma attached. Their ego leads just like the males, but the women are considered "too aggressive" and get labeled as such.
So with minimal reward (I require double my income to ruin my life), management/leadership is just not an option for me, regardless of my abilities. I suppose living up to my capabilities should be reward enough, but it isn't.
Until I get a wife and/or make enough money to pay for the easy leisure and lack of worry I have now, I don't care about the prestige of leadership.
Chauvinistic or not, I truly believe if the reward were there, our society would have more women in leadership positions.
My personal life has a higher "fee" than men for living and breathing my job. Pay me that fee, I will make a go of it.
I'm not sure precisely how to interpret your comment. It sounds like your personal observations but does not offer a conclusion. (And we're so conditioned to assume people only share stories in order to make a point!)
When you say...
> Chauvinistic or not, I truly believe if the reward were there, our society would have more women in leadership positions.
Specifically, what is the reward you are describing and how does it differ from the reward available for men? Are you saying you believe the reward to incent women to management would need to be greater (putting aside the uncertainty about how to define "greater") than the rewards that sufficiently incent men?
Legitimate question. But it is a trap. I'm under a new user name here, but I used to post here years ago. Every answer I give will get me closer to hell-banning. :)
I will think about it. If I can find a way to present my position more clearly without social Hacker News repercussions, I will.
edit: funny, how I do the same in real life, with my career, etc. I withhold strong positions, and give watered down expressions, to survive. Kinda sad. Lack of real anonymity means I also have to moderate expressions. Any future employer finding me here will hold everything I say here against me.
I understand. I was merely curious, and I don't ask you to put yourself in a position where your professional or personal integrity is in jeopardy! If there is more to share anonymously elsewhere, just let me know. :)
> They get fat, or pot-bellies at least, their hair falls out (probably just genetic but still)
What "but still"? What is it about that that still supports your point, even if it is entirely out of ones hands if your hair falls out? If it is indeed mostly/totally genetic, why continue to look at it as a symptom of "letting oneself go"? That's just a stigmatizing attitude to hold on too (if it is indeed mostly genetical).
Getting fat is for many a lifestyle issue (a bad lifestyle is what you alluded to in the first place). It may be partly genetic in that some people only have to start worrying about their waistline in their thirties while some have to do so in their teens. It is not clear at all that baldness is a lifestyle issue.
>>If you actually believe conservatives think this way, you'll never actually convince them of anything because you're speaking at them as if they are children. You're not giving their point of view any legitimacy.
I don't want to turn this into a political debate, but the conservative ideology does lack legitimacy for the most part. The reason the term "conservative" is used is because the person is resistant to alternative points of view as well as information that contradicts their perspective. This is why those who reject climate change are conservatives: they are rejecting or ignoring scientific evidence because it doesn't fit their worldview.
I don't treat conservatives as children. That does children a huge disservice. Children by their nature are curious and they want to learn new things. Conservatives in contrast are stuck in certain mindsets (that revolve around Just-World Fallacy) and are scared of change in general.
I do see a hint of irony. I'm open to changing my opinion on what conservatism is if I encounter enough data that overwhelmingly points in the other direction: that conservatives are very accepting of new ideas and viewpoints. So far, I have not.
Of course conservatism isn't very accepting of new ideas and viewpoints. Nothing political you can slap a label on, and that includes any of the left-wing varieties, is very accepting of new ideas and viewpoints. Otherwise, the label itself would be meaningless. (That's not to say the meanings of these political labels don't change at all, but it takes a hell of a long time.)
When individuals decide to accept new ideas and viewpoints, this creates conflict with the label they've chosen to apply to themselves. Enough new ideas, and they simply start call themselves something else. A conservative open to too many new ideas will stop calling themselves conservative, and a liberal open to too many new ideas will stop calling themselves liberal. This happens all the time, in both directions - it's the people that change, not the labels.
As another anecdote, I have met many conservatives who are willing to discuss and debate ideas. None of these conservatives I have met has acted or said anything that suggests they believe women are incapable of management.
I have met chauvinists and I have met conservatives. I don't see a whole lot of correlation.
I suppose. But those two notions are related, and I think appealing to an interest to discuss and debate honestly without fear of jumping to name-calling is a peaceful way to go about changing minds. I absolutely will never change minds if I belittle my adversary.
If there's any difference between the conservative and liberal positions on women's rights or capabilities in comparison to men's, the conservative position tends towards the restriction of women's rights and a characterization of women as having less capability in decision making or leadership.
That the conservative position has liberalized over time to meet the liberal position in a lot of places and on a lot of subjects is good. That doesn't change the fact that when the conservative position differs from the liberal position, it differs by offering some sort of biological or religious defense of discrimination against women.
>If you actually believe conservatives think this way, you'll never actually convince them of anything because you're speaking at them as if they are children.
I don't think that observation is controversial, or that children are the ones who either originate or maintain these beliefs in society. Also, I don't think that you should pick your beliefs about reality based on their marketing potential rather than observation and the historical record.
It appears "children" was too specific a choice of word. Perhaps a better fit would have been "simpleton."
The point being that when we engage those of opposite views by dismissing their views out of hand, we usually make ourselves feel righteous in doing so by rationalizing that they are simpletons. They are beneath our level of understanding and any attempt we make to sway them is hopeless.
I don't mean to imply that the author was trying to persuade the opposition's point of view. Rather merely that the introductory paragraph exhibits the hallmarks of a closed mind, and unfortunately one that disingenuously feigns being open. I find that particularly disappointing.
These labels we assign to political points of view are so broad that I find it distracting to dwell too much on historical associations of each word. Historical perspective cannot be dismissed, but if the present and past differ, I'd rather consider the present.
On this subject, what do conservatives think now about women in leadership and management positions? I honestly cannot say with a straight face that modern conservatives think women are incapable of management. In fact I feel perpetuating that myth only serves to diminish whatever progress they have made toward our point of view, as if we're moving the goal posts and sneering at them for even trying. It seems like petty politics and not genuine effort to improve matters.
"If you actually believe conservatives think this way, you'll never actually convince them of anything because you're speaking at them as if they are children."
Also, It is a chauvinistic position to claim that about conservatives as it seems to make an assumption that conservative=male.
I personally would not class myself as conservative as I tend to disagree strongly with their policies, however I do not think that people like Thatcher or Widdicombe believe that women are not capable of leadership and it would be hard to claim that they are not conservatives.
Speaking as a non-conservative, I find the implication that conservatives believe women to be incapable of management offensive. I believe conservatives would say that there is no single and simple answer to the question but that it has do with the differing career and life goals between men and women--the priorities and decisions that men and women use to guide their decision-making. This is how conservatives explain the wage gap, and the same logic would be applied to the management gender gap. As a non-conservative, dismissing their argument about the wage gap (which boils down to, "You're telling me I could pay $0.72 on the dollar for equal skill? Why in the world would I ever hire men?") out of hand is isolating yourself from a genuine criticism. I believe this introductory paragraph attempts to isolate its argument from genuine criticism by similarly dismissing viable counter-arguments as unworthy before it even begins.
I also find the article's juxtaposition of "conservative" alongside "chauvinists" a particularly underhanded and obvious attempt to imply that there is a great deal of overlap between these two groups.
If you actually believe conservatives think this way, you'll never actually convince them of anything because you're speaking at them as if they are children. You're not giving their point of view any legitimacy.