D
davislane1
I couldn't care less what is considered "smart". I care only about what is factual, not whether those facts are emotionally agreeable.
You've also failed to properly interpret my comment.
1. The first statement in this paragraph addresses the general issue of women not being taken seriously.
Women wanting to "have their cake and eat it too" is a readily observable behavior by anyone with reasonable personal experience with more than a handful of women, outside of a professional environment. They have a proclivity for the irrational, a fascination with the trivial and often shrug off responsibility for their mistakes.
Note: This is a general principle and not a universal. Out of the some 3.5 billion women on this planet I am 100% certain you can find at least 900 million who don't fit this stereotype. They are, however, a statistical minority.
2. The second statement is that cognitive differences and different time management priorities lead to different professional outcomes.
In the interest of being "smart", here is an excerpt from an article concerning a related study. If you would like me to produce several academic papers related to these differences, I can do that, too.
". . . research on the neural connections within the human brain suggests sex-based differences that many have suspected for centuries: women seem to be wired more for socialization and memory while men appear geared toward perception and coordinated action. The female brain appears to have increased connection between neurons in the right and left hemispheres of the brain, and males seem to have increased neural communication within hemispheres from frontal to rear portions of the organ."
Different jobs require the utilization of different cognitive abilities to differing degrees. A programmer has to be good with logical reasoning to write a complex program and a negotiator has to posses high emotional intelligence to understand the state of negotiating parties. Consequently, measurable differences in cognitive functions will be reflected in the ability to complete job-specific tasks. If you doubt this, I challenge you to find me someone with poor mathematical reasoning skills who has written a profitable trading algorithm.
Where time management is concerned, women take more time off to take care of their families than men do. This is a time management choice, and something to be considered during the hiring process. What's more, highly qualified women exercise this option more often than their counterparts because, in many cases, they simply can. Consequently, you get fewer women in the labor force.
My overriding points are that (1) women and men are different, (2) these differences have real-world consequences, and (3) lack of female participation in various industries is the result of both these differences and women's choices.
Sexism doubtless plays a role in these interactions, but it is far from being the primary factor in women not doing this or that.
At what point has anyone here advocated for racial or gender discrimination?
If you were to put up a poll, perhaps a Weekend Open Forum "Should Capable Women Be In Technology?" you would find overwhelming support for the idea. However, as is the case with Ms. Horvath, women don't get a free pass for saying daft things that undermine their position simply because they're Women™.
