Against panic about “feminization”: how pipeline, tasks, and norms actually shift work. And for modes, not morals: human organizations need challenge, support, and triage—without the gender war...
Having worked at an institution that hires the gold medallists in economics from around the world, I can assure you it is not effective to have a team of people who all think they are the smartest.
I took part in a startup that was and remained loaded with very smart people. Fortunately (?!) the chief founder and first CEO was obviously smarter than any of us. We succeeded.
Mode 1 aggression in Economics is ridiculous. I've seen it not only in seminars, but in business. It was counterproductive. But to your wisdom, read how to best interact with the individual, not the cohort.
Likewise, I've seen people who were ridiculous risk takers in business. The people weren't traders, but acted like they were. The problem wasn't that they took risks, it is that they doubled and tripled down as everything went wrong. They never had a stop loss or exit strategy because that would admit failure. Worse, they weren't making trades, but investments. It was expensive. Too often, high risk appetite is a cover story for vanity. Male aggression is just another cover story.
My experience is that there are 2 main factors here:
1. Plain misogyny. Men can dress this up with all sorts of excuses, but it is fairly plain for those willing to see it.
2. Personality type. Extroverts dominate meetings, while introverts shrink from this. Extroverts tend to get their ideas selected, whether good or bad.
We can nuance this to death. As for women being attracted to certain jobs, I call BS. Certain roles were allocated to women, and this has created an employment nucleus. Just like Krugman's argument for centers of expertise becoming stronger over time. It is also similar to self-segregation by ethnicity in cities that strengthens over time.
This isn't to say there are not some terrible women in corporations - using their sex to ascend the corporate ladder, or the women who hate the competition from other women. In my experience, it is 2 factors that dominate, at least in the companies I have worked for.
I think political science does better than either econ or history/sociology. I went to many econ seminars at Wash U; overwhelmingly the speakers didn't even get to their results because of the interruptions and criticisms. In political science it's common to begin a seminar by saying "clarifying questions are fine anytime, but let's hold substantive questions to the end." The speakers got to make their case, and question periods were quite vigorous.
I tend to agree: unless you are an extrovert who can say "we'll talk about that later", "that will become clear soon", and "I need to move on", and keep saying that, there are **a lot** of econ seminars (although not here at Berkeley) where excessive aggression does turn it into a s***show. That, of course, selects for aggressive extroverts:
> Barry Ames: I think political science does better than either econ or history/sociology. I went to many econ seminars at Wash U; overwhelmingly the speakers didn't even get to their results because of the interruptions and criticisms. In political science it's common to begin a seminar by saying "clarifying questions are fine anytime, but let's hold substantive questions to the end." The speakers got to make their case, and question periods were quite vigorous...
FWIW, honestly, there's so much gender-specific bias at every stage from the first early months of life to the emeritus phase of a long career that I would have to see a lot more data than I've seen so far to believe in any significant behavioral difference between the genders that hasn't been culturally induced:
1. I'm skeptical of claims that we know it exists because there's never been an observational context that would let us measure it, and lifelong biases are too large and ubiquitous to simply adjust for them.
2. I'm skeptical of claims that it's an ex ante likely hypothesis because that assumption is ultimately supported by at best outdated or exaggerated pop science and at worst plain prejudice.
3. If forced to bet in some way, the last century-plus of history has shown a consistent pattern of women being able to succeed at fields where "men have a natural advantage," so I would bet that the more you defuse gender-specific rules and biases, the less predictive gender becomes not just of performance but of style.
4. Incidentally --and more anecdotally-- I'd hypothesize that the "feminization of the workplace" is a mixture of two different but related phenomenons: higher presence and [relative] power of women in areas where they usually weren't, and a temporary and relative relaxation of interpersonal hierarchical structures due to specific patterns of qualified labor supply and demand. If you are a locally powerful male or in their socio-economic affinity, both things imply loss of social and psychological power: it's not really a surprising move to consider the latter caused by the former, and on the whole a negative.
TL;DR: IMHO in the presence of lifelong, ubiquitous, multifaceted bias it's statistical malpractice to ascertain most inter-gender differences, and if anything history shows the hypothesis to have been disproved time and again in ever narrow context in which it has been tested.
That is very helpful. The specific examples clarify what you're thinking of as context-switching.
I would add that the tone of online discussion (particularly of politics) can make it harder to see and reward people who understand that context-switching. The idea of "context-collapse" -- of taking small snippets out of their original context has been noted for many years but one element that is lost in that process is the ability to figure out which type (1-3) the original snippet was operating in.
1. First, in my limited experience, what men fear most is a false charge of sexual harassment. I know of one man accused of such and having to leave the organization. I knew him fairly well, and just could not believe the stories.
The one woman that was the gender equality person in the organization was a very bad person, but not sure if she was involved in that harassment charge. I think that such women have a one track mind that the only women worth helping out are those who want to go straight to the top, and women in more supporting roles like my job they do not like.
2. And now think of Albert Einstein. He had very productive research in his early years when he was married to his first wife, Mileva Maric. Then nothing much after he moved to the U.S and remarried. His focus in his last 20 years was the “theory of everything”. Others may have theorized, as I have, that his first wife was the “ideas” person, which may be a common female role, and Einstein was the person to develop those theories, a job which she may have not wanted to do, or would not have time to do. One quote I have read is that she believed Einstein would sometime become famous for her ideas. He also provided some support for her after he won his Nobel prize, but did not give all of the prize money to her. I think it does show that he felt an obligation to her for her help in developing his theories.
3. Another of my experience of one person, a woman advancing her education, when attending conferences, preferred the poster session, rather than a talk presentation.
I fear even this, valuable as it is, risks sanewashing this proposterous backlashing cant. Pussy corporations are betraying the American worker? I mean, that's gymnastically unserious, however salable it may be.
With all due respect, you guys are over in eliteville. There are other, female-preponderant loci (general sense) where "thou shalt not compete on merit" seems to be the rule, also "thou shalt not critique", and the outcome is as you'd predict. Not sure if it is artifice, but if it is genuine, how do you help such an institution to reconnect with its original mission?
A lot of complaints about feminization are actually complaints about women starting to think and act more like men. The Sapping Attention blog, ages ago, had an article on the fall of liberals arts degrees and pointed out that the big drop was a result of women starting to choose their majors more like men. Women used to be taught never to beat men at anything even if they were better at it. Now, they are more likely to go for the grand slam, and men are pissed because the woman is supposed to throw the game. You can go down a long list, but the problem isn't the feminization of society that has the right so upset, it's the masculinization of society. Men want their safe spaces, like combat roles, and are upset when they have to share the glory. Look at how upset so many were when Truman integrated the armed services, and that was just letting more men into combat. (*)
One thing that leapt out at me from Orzel's remarks was his conflation of striving and competing as masculine characteristics. They're two very different things. I've always been a striver. It's about getting what I want. Competing is just a waste of time and energy unless it's a means to an end. Besides, anyone who doesn't think women are competitive doesn't read Reddit or Jane Austen.
(*) The unit cohesion argument was always garbage even back when Peter Stuyvesant tried to keep Jews from manning the wall on what is now Wall Street.
Having worked at an institution that hires the gold medallists in economics from around the world, I can assure you it is not effective to have a team of people who all think they are the smartest.
I took part in a startup that was and remained loaded with very smart people. Fortunately (?!) the chief founder and first CEO was obviously smarter than any of us. We succeeded.
Mode 1 aggression in Economics is ridiculous. I've seen it not only in seminars, but in business. It was counterproductive. But to your wisdom, read how to best interact with the individual, not the cohort.
Likewise, I've seen people who were ridiculous risk takers in business. The people weren't traders, but acted like they were. The problem wasn't that they took risks, it is that they doubled and tripled down as everything went wrong. They never had a stop loss or exit strategy because that would admit failure. Worse, they weren't making trades, but investments. It was expensive. Too often, high risk appetite is a cover story for vanity. Male aggression is just another cover story.
One reason I chose not to do academic economics was very poor behavior on display in seminar s***shows. Pathetic little people.
My experience is that there are 2 main factors here:
1. Plain misogyny. Men can dress this up with all sorts of excuses, but it is fairly plain for those willing to see it.
2. Personality type. Extroverts dominate meetings, while introverts shrink from this. Extroverts tend to get their ideas selected, whether good or bad.
We can nuance this to death. As for women being attracted to certain jobs, I call BS. Certain roles were allocated to women, and this has created an employment nucleus. Just like Krugman's argument for centers of expertise becoming stronger over time. It is also similar to self-segregation by ethnicity in cities that strengthens over time.
This isn't to say there are not some terrible women in corporations - using their sex to ascend the corporate ladder, or the women who hate the competition from other women. In my experience, it is 2 factors that dominate, at least in the companies I have worked for.
I think political science does better than either econ or history/sociology. I went to many econ seminars at Wash U; overwhelmingly the speakers didn't even get to their results because of the interruptions and criticisms. In political science it's common to begin a seminar by saying "clarifying questions are fine anytime, but let's hold substantive questions to the end." The speakers got to make their case, and question periods were quite vigorous.
I tend to agree: unless you are an extrovert who can say "we'll talk about that later", "that will become clear soon", and "I need to move on", and keep saying that, there are **a lot** of econ seminars (although not here at Berkeley) where excessive aggression does turn it into a s***show. That, of course, selects for aggressive extroverts:
> Barry Ames: I think political science does better than either econ or history/sociology. I went to many econ seminars at Wash U; overwhelmingly the speakers didn't even get to their results because of the interruptions and criticisms. In political science it's common to begin a seminar by saying "clarifying questions are fine anytime, but let's hold substantive questions to the end." The speakers got to make their case, and question periods were quite vigorous...
FWIW, honestly, there's so much gender-specific bias at every stage from the first early months of life to the emeritus phase of a long career that I would have to see a lot more data than I've seen so far to believe in any significant behavioral difference between the genders that hasn't been culturally induced:
1. I'm skeptical of claims that we know it exists because there's never been an observational context that would let us measure it, and lifelong biases are too large and ubiquitous to simply adjust for them.
2. I'm skeptical of claims that it's an ex ante likely hypothesis because that assumption is ultimately supported by at best outdated or exaggerated pop science and at worst plain prejudice.
3. If forced to bet in some way, the last century-plus of history has shown a consistent pattern of women being able to succeed at fields where "men have a natural advantage," so I would bet that the more you defuse gender-specific rules and biases, the less predictive gender becomes not just of performance but of style.
4. Incidentally --and more anecdotally-- I'd hypothesize that the "feminization of the workplace" is a mixture of two different but related phenomenons: higher presence and [relative] power of women in areas where they usually weren't, and a temporary and relative relaxation of interpersonal hierarchical structures due to specific patterns of qualified labor supply and demand. If you are a locally powerful male or in their socio-economic affinity, both things imply loss of social and psychological power: it's not really a surprising move to consider the latter caused by the former, and on the whole a negative.
TL;DR: IMHO in the presence of lifelong, ubiquitous, multifaceted bias it's statistical malpractice to ascertain most inter-gender differences, and if anything history shows the hypothesis to have been disproved time and again in ever narrow context in which it has been tested.
That is very helpful. The specific examples clarify what you're thinking of as context-switching.
I would add that the tone of online discussion (particularly of politics) can make it harder to see and reward people who understand that context-switching. The idea of "context-collapse" -- of taking small snippets out of their original context has been noted for many years but one element that is lost in that process is the ability to figure out which type (1-3) the original snippet was operating in.
1. First, in my limited experience, what men fear most is a false charge of sexual harassment. I know of one man accused of such and having to leave the organization. I knew him fairly well, and just could not believe the stories.
The one woman that was the gender equality person in the organization was a very bad person, but not sure if she was involved in that harassment charge. I think that such women have a one track mind that the only women worth helping out are those who want to go straight to the top, and women in more supporting roles like my job they do not like.
2. And now think of Albert Einstein. He had very productive research in his early years when he was married to his first wife, Mileva Maric. Then nothing much after he moved to the U.S and remarried. His focus in his last 20 years was the “theory of everything”. Others may have theorized, as I have, that his first wife was the “ideas” person, which may be a common female role, and Einstein was the person to develop those theories, a job which she may have not wanted to do, or would not have time to do. One quote I have read is that she believed Einstein would sometime become famous for her ideas. He also provided some support for her after he won his Nobel prize, but did not give all of the prize money to her. I think it does show that he felt an obligation to her for her help in developing his theories.
3. Another of my experience of one person, a woman advancing her education, when attending conferences, preferred the poster session, rather than a talk presentation.
I fear even this, valuable as it is, risks sanewashing this proposterous backlashing cant. Pussy corporations are betraying the American worker? I mean, that's gymnastically unserious, however salable it may be.
With all due respect, you guys are over in eliteville. There are other, female-preponderant loci (general sense) where "thou shalt not compete on merit" seems to be the rule, also "thou shalt not critique", and the outcome is as you'd predict. Not sure if it is artifice, but if it is genuine, how do you help such an institution to reconnect with its original mission?
Also, can you give an example of #3? Hypothetical is fine.
excellent. thank you. I agree with you at to 1, 2, 3.
Not sure I've worked out how to deal with 3.
OTOH, WRT Trump, neither has any significant US institution, (like the Judicial system for example)
A lot of complaints about feminization are actually complaints about women starting to think and act more like men. The Sapping Attention blog, ages ago, had an article on the fall of liberals arts degrees and pointed out that the big drop was a result of women starting to choose their majors more like men. Women used to be taught never to beat men at anything even if they were better at it. Now, they are more likely to go for the grand slam, and men are pissed because the woman is supposed to throw the game. You can go down a long list, but the problem isn't the feminization of society that has the right so upset, it's the masculinization of society. Men want their safe spaces, like combat roles, and are upset when they have to share the glory. Look at how upset so many were when Truman integrated the armed services, and that was just letting more men into combat. (*)
One thing that leapt out at me from Orzel's remarks was his conflation of striving and competing as masculine characteristics. They're two very different things. I've always been a striver. It's about getting what I want. Competing is just a waste of time and energy unless it's a means to an end. Besides, anyone who doesn't think women are competitive doesn't read Reddit or Jane Austen.
(*) The unit cohesion argument was always garbage even back when Peter Stuyvesant tried to keep Jews from manning the wall on what is now Wall Street.