Hacker News Reader

Comment by DonaldPShimoda | Hacker News Reader

Is it not possible that men are more competitive and seek leadership positions because most leadership positions are already held by men? Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging — it says "You can do this!" Modern society has built an image of men becoming successful, and so in a self-fulfilling prophecy the society's leadership positions are dominated by men who were told they would end up there.

I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard. It seems to me to be primarily caused by societal expectations which are enforced starting from a young age.

View on HN

Yep, the idea there is that representation matters. After Obama was elected, there was a whole spate of articles quoting young Black children, saying, "if he can do it, I can do it." A new world of possibility opened up to them, just because someone had done it.

When one of those recent Star Wars movies came out (I haven't seen any of them, so I might get the details wrong), and one of the leads was a Latino guy, I saw a few interviews with Latinx fans basically saying the same thing--"now I can see myself as the hero of the story".

Representation matters.

Of course it matters, but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life. There are firmly established natural explanations for male drive which aren't overcome by representation.

> but being represented in a movie isn't going to make Latino people be able to force push in real life.

I'm... confused why you decided this was a valid argument. Nobody said that anybody would assume this. The point of the other comment was that young Latino kids are used to seeing white males as the protagonists in stories, but seeing a Latino guy as a protagonist has altered how they perceive themselves.

> I don't think there is a natural (i.e. biological) imperative that drives men and women significantly differently in this regard.

Yep, the links between testosterone and hierarchy/drive/dominance have been established for decades. Its effects can be examined between males, and across multiple species, but there's actually no natural imperative which drives men in this regard. Come on man.

You gotta understand, those literature students who learned critical theory know far better about these topics than biologists and psychologists.

Of course hormones mean nothing. You think it's adrenaline making your heart beat stronger when you think you're in danger, or is it really social constructs all the way down?

There isn't such as thing as true objectivity.

We shouldn't even aim for objectivity.

War is peace.

I kind of resent the way you say "literature students" as though (1) you think it's valid to assume from my comment that I'm a literature student (I'm not) and (2) that somehow literature students in general are all the way you describe (they aren't).

Maybe in the future consider adding to the discussion constructively instead of resorting to silly (baseless) hyperbolic rhetoric.

Sorry, I wasn't very specific with my phrasing and I think I misrepresented my opinions. Of course I'm aware that hormones play a role in this stuff — that's basic science, and it was my fault for not addressing that more carefully.

But hormones are only a part of the story, and I think they're less important than maybe you do. I don't think the defense of "but testosterone!" is a valid explanation for the incredible disparity in representation we see in the upper echelons of society. Yes, it plays a role, but it isn't everything.

Most leadership positions are held by men, and I think that the way younger people (or people "lower in the hierarchy" I suppose) perceive this is more important than the natural inclinations due to hormonal differences. And that's what I meant by my use of the word "significantly" in my original comment. Not that the biological imperatives don't exist, but that they are not significant when compared to the societal imperatives.

> Looking upwards and seeing people like yourself would be encouraging...

Is it? You presume male employees see themselves in their bosses. If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"

> If a male employee is gay, Zoroastrian, or a little person, does he look at all the male CEOs and say, "Hey, all those males are just like me! I can do it too!"

It's possible that they don't, which may explain why we don't see a lot of openly gay executives, for example. Remember when Tim Cook came out? He was the only openly gay Fortune 500 CEO. It was fairly recent, so I can't imagine a significant change has happened yet, but it's possible that more closeted gay executives may come out, which in turn may encourage younger people to pursue leadership roles like these.

I'm not saying it's an absolute thing — I mean, Tim Cook was able to get where he is without having a gay CEO to look up to. But having that representation may help those who are slightly less determined (but still qualified). You see what I mean?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com