"Competent women are getting bypassed by overconfident men"

Submitted by Mastodon on Mon, 2015-02-09 07:41

Article here. Excerpt:

'Ezra Klein: There are a couple parts of the book in drawing out the implications of those findings that are really depressing. When you read some of these studies, I think you might step back and say, "You know what, that's great. If men are overconfident fools, and women correctly have more humility about what we as fallible human beings know about the world, that's going to be a huge advantage for women."

Then you run the numbers, and you find that people projecting overconfidence in the workplace ends up being a huge advantage for them.'

---
The Illiberal Ezra Klein: '...in Klein’s words, that it will “create a world where men are afraid” enough of the authorities that they “feel a cold spike of fear when they begin a sexual encounter.” All in all, Klein adduces, “The Yes Means Yes law could also be called the You Better Be Pretty Damn Sure law.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

One man's 'overconfidence' is another's 'confidence'. It isn't anyone's fault, least of all men's, that so many women seem to need to be 100% sure of themselves to apply for a job above their current pay grade. It isn't any "patriarchy". It isn't "society". It's them.

Is it due to relatively low testosterone in women, a hormone that, if it drops precipitously in men, is associated with a drop in those men's self-confidence? Gee, maybe. Is it due perhaps to self-selection, or self-image, or maybe, self-determination? Is it possible, just possible, that many women would prefer that men work in positions that earn more than they do because of the positions' demands so they can avoid dealing with said positions' stressors but, because of gender role expectations, still gain many of the benefits of someone (not them) h@ving to assume said roles to make more money? Back to the question of: "Who pays for the date?", and "Who's most likely *not* to get custody of kids *and* be on the hook for child support?" You got it!

Can't say for sure, but I am guessing that you'd see a lot of women's attitudes toward seeking promotions change dramatically if being able to live off men were taken entirely out of the realm of opportunities for them: no men subsidizing their lifestyles in any way, no men supporting them in any way, no men doing *squat* for them... then and only then would the voluntary underachievement and assumed/feigned helplessness/incompetence so many women seem to revel in displaying go away.

If men disappeared for two weeks, civilization would collapse. If men disappeared for a year, well, surprise, surprise, there'd be loads of female auto mechanics after all!

But why bother when you can just get men to do the dirty work for you.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2015-02-09 08:18

In 1995 I was a post-doc.

I wrote a proposal to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. In this proposal, I knew I already had the ability to perform two of the promised tasks. I had no knowledge of the last, but just assumed I could learn it.

For six months, I sweated. I locked myself in my office and worked ten to twelve hour days. I saw no friends. I lost weight. I did not work out. I stressed. I worried. I grew despondent. But I had faith in myself.

20 years later, I am now an emeritus professor of engineering in the US and a tenured professor in Norway.

During those critical months I was not working under the umbrella of confidence. I worked under the umbrella of masculinity. And it is a good thing.

Get the word right, Ezra.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by ThomasI on Mon, 2015-02-09 08:28