I Don’t Want to Hire Women: Spillover Thread

This is a spillover thread for the massive post from May of 2014 that has attracted 650 comments. If you still have something to add, please do so. Just a small recap, however, to prevent people from reproducing that mammoth thread verbatim:

1. The only reason why men and women sometimes behave differently is that this is what they’ve been told they should be doing.

2. Scientists are desperate to please the public and find proof of inherent psychological, emotional, and cognitive differences between all men and all women. Still in spite of the enormous confirmation bias, not a shred of evidence supporting the belief that “men and women are different” in anything but the basic physiology of their reproductive apparatuses has been found.

3. It is very useful to analyze the reasons why you experience the desperate need to repeat “but men and women ARE different!” like a crazed parrot. To offer an example of how one can approach oneself in an honest and critical way, I can explain why I keep repeating “no, they are not.” I am from a different culture. My scripts of what men and women “are like” are different from yours. More often than not, they are the opposite of yours. Your screechings about the way “all women are supposed to be” define me as somebody who is not a woman. And I’m reacting against that. Now you take a few very deep breaths and try to do this exercise. What is it that you think I’m taking away when I tell you that “men” and “women” do not think, feel, process information, etc. in inherently different ways?

96 thoughts on “I Don’t Want to Hire Women: Spillover Thread

  1. Men and women are different means I should want to host more parties and do more service work, and be less research oriented and more nurturing in a certain kind of maternal way. It means I should care about and care for, take care of, anyone I sleep with. (Make no mistake about it: when they say women have sex for love only, it means mean expect the women they sleep with to perform various types of service work for them, dishes, mending.)


    1. And that’s precisely why this rhetoric bugs me so much! I find it extraordinarily stupid that some idiot chirper whose knowledge of life comes from a couple of crappy Facebook reposts about these invented “differences” should dictate to me who I am and how I should live my life. And as you say, this way of thinking does tend to seep into the workplace, which makes it very dangerous.

      This is one of the reasons why I freaked out today when a female colleague posted a piece calling us to treat students as if they were our children. The very idea makes me want to gag.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “The only reason why men and women sometimes behave differently is that this is what they’ve been told they should be doing.”

        And that is gender mainstreaming bullshit. People are the way they are because they are. Are you seriously telling me I like football because society tells me to like football? Not true at all. I like it because I do. There are women that like other things, but a surprising amount of them like shopping. And they don’t like it because someone told them so.
        I have absolutely nothing against women and I like women in my work environment, but denying that certain things are more comon for women than for men is simply ignorant and dull.


        1. “Are you seriously telling me I like football because society tells me to like football? Not true at all. I like it because I do. There are women that like other things, but a surprising amount of them like shopping. And they don’t like it because someone told them so.”

          • Child, this is a blog for adults. One day you will grow up and then you are welcome back to discuss these complex things with us. For now, though, I suggest that you concentrate on your homework.


          1. Wow. You do realize you replied in the most immature way one could reply and didn’t even bother to recheck if you were posting total crap? Good god. I’m 35 and an employer in a 2000 man company. And I get along well with male and female colleagues, mostly because I do not choose to ignore differences. If you talk to females like you just talked to me you shouldn’t wonder why they hate you.


            1. Are you really so dumb that you are failing to notice that the authors of the post and of the comments are two entirely different people?

              Well, what could one expect from a dumbass who refers to women as “females.”


      2. Alot of parents really do their daughters a disservice raising them to ‘never cause offense’ cap. I suspect that is the largest part of it. Every woman I know who can hold her own in the job market didnt have a parent sugar coating everything.


      3. So basically you get triggered because you believe the idea that women and men are different somehow means that people are telling you that you should change your behavior.

        What those people who are saying that actually mean is that there are observable differences in the behavioral trends between the two sexes.

        You are an exception to the trend, that’s what you’re missing.


        1. “So basically you get triggered because you believe the idea that women and men are different somehow means that people are telling you that you should change your behavior.”

          That’s a deranged idea. Did you invent it yourself? Or are you trying to translate my clear prose to your own mumbly style of writing?


  2. It is true that the “men and women are different!!!!” is often code-speech for the meta-message:

    I treasure my emotional problems and intend to use them as an excuse to act in a horrible self-centered way and if you protest I’m going to get hysterical and/or violent.

    On the other hand, no society exists that doesn’t socialize the sexes differently and it’s not clear what the benefits of taking that approach would be.


      1. “Above all, I mean that women can carry on the business of a complex world in ways that are more focused, efficient, deliberate, and constructive than men’s because women are not frequently distracted by impulses and moods that, sometimes indirectly, lead to sex and violence. Women are more reluctant participants in both”

        • Gosh, this author is really projecting his bad luck with women onto the rest of the world. 🙂

        “Contrary to all received wisdom, women are more logical and less emotional than men.”

        • Oh, Lordy.

        “But life on this planet isn’t threatened by women’s tears; nor does that brimming salty fluid cause poverty, drain public coffers, ruin reputations, impose forced intimacies, slay children, torture helpless people, or reduce cities to rubble. These disasters are literally man-made. They result from men’s emotions, which are a constant distraction to them.”

        • Is this supposed to be some sort of a weird joke?

        “Most men are not destructive, and not all women are cooperative and nurturing; women have their own means of creating conflict and oppressing others.”

        • Thank you for that, at least. Even though the point is completely destroyed by the subsequent yes-butting.

        “But we must understand how the sexes differ, in two ways especially: violence and what I call “driven sexuality” — the kind that says, I have to have it now, and too often leads to behavior that demeans or oppresses women or distracts and derails male politicians.”

        • OK, he’s got to be a standup comedian.

        “As women gain in influence, all else being equal, the world will become more democratic, more socially compassionate, more equal, less discriminatory, less sexually casual, and less pornographic.”

        • Poor facile fool.


  3. I’ve worked with women before, but never one who “fit the bill” here. Although I’ve known women who almost surely acted this way at work. I have worked with men who brought emotional bullshit to the office though. I believe corporate america is better equipped to deal with jingoistic competitive bullshit, ala “we’re transferring you from engineering to sales.”

    I suspect you’re witnessing a general problem with professionalism here. Did you perhaps fast track some iffy female candidates early on? Imho, you should not place the women’s resumes into a ” call later” but neither should you admit questionable candidates.

    Treat female employees just like the male employees. If they give you emotional bullshit then explain that (a) you do not award praise for every little thing since you award money for it, (b) expecting praise for every little thing is actually unprofessional, but (c) thank her for brining it to your attention because you’re mildly autistic and you realize that if you gave more praise then you’d probably be able to pay people less. I think (a-c) will shut down most drama queens.


  4. THe idea that gender (as opposed to biological sex) is entirely cultural used to be mainstream scientific thought. As in, that was once the scientific concensus. So, if there had been any sort of bias, it was in favor of trying to prove that gender was merely a social construct, part of the ‘blank slate’ theory of mind, which has been thoroughly disproven.
    Many studies were conducted to try and confirm this notion of gender.

    There was even a set of twins of male twins where one had had his penis accidentally destroyed during a botched circumcision.

    Under the guidance of a therapist who believed gender was merely a social construct, they attempted to raise one as a boy one as a girl.
    It failed miserably. The one who was raised as a girl constantly resisted, always wanting to be a boy and do traditionally male activities. The parents, under the guidance of the therapist, would not let him live as a boy, despite his constant desires.
    Eventually, he became the lone female employee at the mechanic workshop in town.
    Once he found out he had been born a boy, he instantly changed genders.
    This is documented in the book ‘the boy who was raised as a girl’ by John Colapinto.
    Besides, if gender was merely a social construct and had no biological basis, why would those who transition genders take hormone therapy? Hormones are biological. And why would that hormone therapy have such profound psychological impact?
    Might I suggest this episode of This American Life about testosterone. There is a fascinating piece about a woman who transitions to a man and the enormous psychological impact testosterone (a biological intervention) had.


    1. First of all, thank you for being the very first new commenter who honored my request to bring the comment into the spillover thread. My faith in humanity has been restored.

      As for the case you quoted, I studied it at length and not in popular books but through actual research. The case demonstrates as conclusively as anything possibly can that gender is 100% a social construct. The parents were overcompensating like crazy and the result is obvious.


        1. I studied this case at length when I was working on (my now famous :-)) intersex article. Those parents were playing some very weird game with the kid and fully reached their goals.

          However, even if we take the most responsible, intellectual parents on the planet who are also MOSSAD agents with a professional training in concealment, their training will work on everybody but not on their own infant child. The child always knows. For instance, children whose paternity is concealed from them by the mother or by hateful adoptive parents always know that something is amiss and act out in a variety of well-known ways.


  5. I don’t want to hire women either, but I also don’t want to hire men …

    I want my own New Model Robot Army, complete with secure encrypted Combat Wiki and protocols for auto-joining of forces.

    I also want this army to look like the turret robots from the video game Portal, and I also want them to sound like the hapless children who succumbed to the Great Infernal Mother Computer on “Bring Your Daughter To Work Day”.

    I will make certain that the New Model Robot Army will be installed around the borders of the Great Knowledge State of Castalia, and I will instruct the army to shoot at people who do not carry books with them, in addition to demanding proof of a sufficiently large library on “e-book readers”.



    [at this point Elon Musk must be crapping himself with fear over this Modest Proposal, and by now he must be rather seriously considering building the Iron Man suit we all know is an inevitability …]


    1. I think this is my favorite response in this never ending thread. I too, now see the wisdom of an army full of murder robots and drones instead of fallible emotionally overwrought humans.
      What place does Siri have in all of this?


  6. So at one point the poster says she crashed the glass ceiling and later in the article she mentions that “Yet, I had no idea that the problems women faced in their workplace were often far removed from the typical inequalities feminism continues to address. It is not men who sabotage women and stump their career growth – it is women themselves!” So at one point she claims to break a glass ceiling and then later admits that men don’t sabotage women women sabotage themselves. Of course she had no idea because feminists have been trying for years to silence anyone who doesn’t conform to their religion (political correctness). Also her assumption that men and women are the same is based on her ideology nothing more. The fact that she feels the need to silence anyone that contradicts it and her need to protect it like a house of card shows how little she really believes it herself!

    PS. She’d probably be calling a male sexist and protesting his business if he said the same shit she did!


    1. Gene, your comment started out so well but then really disappointed. The author of the piece and the moderator who “feels the need to silence” are different people. The reason why I (the moderator, not the owner) am deleting the repetitive comments is that I’ve received thousands of them, and they all say the exact same thing in the exact same hysterical tone. How many times can a person respond to the same uninformed statements and not get bored?

      As for the intelligent part of your comment, I absolutely agree that, at this point, the only obstacle to equality in Western societies are women themselves. This is a new direction that feminism has taken and it’s the most promising one in my view, as I’ve been saying for years. But the problem I’m facing is that whenever I try to discuss it, I encounter parrot – like repetition of the same tired mythology by people who don’t even try to read what is published. Among the thousands of commenters, there were maybe a dozen who managed actually to read the piece they were commenting on and at least notice that I’m not the author. You’ve got to agree that it’s hard to take people seriously when they demonstrate how bad they are at processing very simple information. I hoped this post would lead to am interesting discussion but that’s impossible as long as people remain so careless and pompous in their carelessness.


      1. OK sorry for going off a little bit. Sometimes I enter into these posts already in a mood (I’m more level headed right now). To be fair I figured nobody was even going to read this post so I was venting a bit and I didn’t put much effort in. Here’s a detailed explanation of why I believe men and women are the way they are. I’ve explained this to other women and so far I’ve gotten positive feedback.

        I believe there is a misconception when it comes to men and women and how the gender argument has been presented. The current conversation being promoted is how men and women are more alike then people initially believed. I’ve always agreed with this sentiment. However, I believe we are attracted to different qualities in the opposite sex based on what historically has benefited our genetic survival. Adults and children both notice these characteristics (basically who’s successful with the opposite sex) and it affects how the child is groomed if they wish to reproduce. For example, if a girl notices guy’s paying attention to certain types of girls and they want the boy’s attention they are going to try and figure out why the girl is getting it. The parent’s know what type of girls guys were going for when they were young so if they want their daughter to get married they might try and groom these characteristics into their daughter. Same with a boy. Most boys think that if they aren’t successful they won’t get girls (that they are attracted to). They see what types of guys get the attention and it affects how they turn out.

        Think about how men and women reproduce. Men can have unlimited children all the time, until they die. Women can have very few children, only once in a while, for only so many years, with historically high risks. One man can have hundreds of children so any man’s reproductive value to society is almost nil. A woman can have very few children in their life so no matter what, she has far more reproductive value to society than a man does. If 95% of women died society would go extinct. If 95% of men died society would replenish those loses within a generation and the men left over would genetically benefit from the current conditions. Due to this reality a man’s only value to society is how valuable he is to it.

        I believe that women are exploited for their sexuality and men are exploited for their expendability and utility to society and both are taught ways to express their value to members of the opposite sex (that they find attractive). Women are taught to focus on their looks, men are taught to man up, toughen up, never complain, put themselves at risk for others, etc. Another cavet is that men are conditioned to never show weakness in order to make it easier for them to be expendable and utility for society. If a man becomes sympathetic it’s harder to exploit him.

        I don’t want to go on to long but this affects how men and women are obviously going to turn out. Men have to constantly prove their value to society, women are handed value by birth. Men are conditioned to be useful to society, no such expectation is put on women. The men at the job have been taught not to complain and if they do they are shamed by others (men and women) if they do complain. I’m not sure how much this is women not going along with the program rather than men playing their role as being a utility first and putting their needs second which set a different standard.

        P.S. There’s been a lot of people over the years who’ve addressed things like the Wage Gap before explaining why women (on average) have made less money than men and tend to be less successful in the corporate world (for over 30 years now). The points made by these people have never been addressed by the people who keep pushing their oversimplified explanation of why there is a wage gap (ie. discrimination) to further their own agenda. There’s a nice video about why there is a Wage Gap by Warren Farrell on youtube. Warren Farrel is the highest man ever nominated (during his time) to NOW. He fell out of favor with them when he found them to be intentionally excluding data that NOW didn’t want revealed:


        1. Within this theory, how do you explain the existence of cultures – and I mean enormous cultures, hundreds of million of people – where girls are taught to toughen up, never complain, put themselves at risk for everyone, especially for men who are by nature fragile, more prone to sickliness, less tolerant to pain?

          I’m from such a culture, which is why I know so well that all of these gender narratives are manufactured.


            1. Here you go again, quoting yellow press. And that’s after all of the information I provided on how and why the media distort the actual research. 😦


        2. And by the way, in the society I described, women are still discriminated in terms of wage. Kind of casts a shadow over your entire theory, eh? 🙂


          1. Did you watch the video I gave you? There are 25 different characteristics (or so) that explain most of the reasons for the pay gap. He goes through them. If you feel like discrediting them or have a credible source to discredit them with I’m willing to read it. I’m still not aware of what culture you’re from.

            By the way, here’s a video that’s kind of unrelated but you might find interesting. It’s by a woman named Erin Pizzey who created the first shelter in the (modern) world for female victims of domestic abuse. She also wrote the first book on domestic abuse ever called “Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Here.” She also had a mother and father who were abusive and knew domestic abusive wasn’t one way. She came forward with her information and received death threats for her, her children and grandchildren from militant feminists. This is her speech from the 2014 domestic violence symposium.


            1. You probably don’t understand. I’m a serious scholar with a very demanding research agenda. Why would I want to waste my time on weird videos by anonymous posters? I only access legitimate scholarly sources.


              1. Shouldn’t have wasted my time with you. I’ve asked you twice what country you were from where in your words you stated “girls are taught to toughen up, never complain, put themselves at risk for everyone, especially for men who are by nature fragile, more prone to sickliness, less tolerant to pain?” You have ignored this request multiple times which makes me believe you are intentionally lying. I also find the idea ridiculous that you’re so busy that you won’t check out a video which in a way covers the topic at hand yet you have time to monitor this topic.


              2. The blog makes money for me and this is the money I send back to my country which is now fighting a war against a powerful invader. *Wink, wink. So this is time well-spent. And by being here, you contribute resources to a really great cause.


              3. “Why would I want to waste my time on weird videos”

                Well the video sort of supports your viewpoint. Erin Pizzey says essentially that women are just as violent as men (which has earned her unending anger from many of the ‘men and women are completely different’ feminists).

                I’m not sure what the poster thought linking to it would accomplish.


              4. It often happens that people lay their problems with generic feminists at my feet. This makes me think that they are in need of precisely this kind of feminists and reject those who are different.


  7. One of the primary clues of a theory being flawed is the lack of a null hypothesis.

    Null hypothesis being a method of disproving the theory. For instance, the null hypothesis of a geocentric universe is a demonstration of the heliocentric nature of our solar system–the orbits of planets appearing to go ‘backward’, orbital telescopes which can demonstrate distances of planets and how their orbits vary, etc.

    Something that is not a scientific theory has no null hypothesis. For instance, there being a God is not a scientific theory because we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of an all-powerful, all-knowing superbeing. Ergo, it’s an ideology and/or religion.

    Now, if there is no evolutionary evidence for sexual dimorphism in the mentality of male versus female homo sapiens and it is all driven by society, what is the null hypothesis? According to feminists there is no null hypothesis and evolutionary psychology is ‘junk science’. They don’t say WHY it’s junk science, only that it is.

    So what is the method one would go through to prove a null hypothesis? What evidence can we put forth that there IS sexual dimorphism in the mental processes of males and females and it’s NOT caused by society?

    Well, since feminism denies evolutionary psychology as a legitimate science, we can’t use that. And if we point out that we have clear differences (as was shown in the article) then that’s evidence of social conditioning rather than biology. If we point out that gender differences are universal in all societies, then that’s evidence of how widespread misogyny is–so widespread that it appears to be biology.

    So ask yourself this: what evidence could be presented to you that would make you think that it is biology? Is there any possible sets of data that would change your mind? Or would you assume any evidence is manipulated by ‘misogynist’ scientists? Or if the evidence is brought to you by female scientists, would you assume they’re filled with ‘internalized misogyny’?

    Is there any possible argument which would change your mind?

    If not, you may want to consider that maybe your belief in it has less to do with science and more to do with faith and ideology.


    1. This has all been discussed at enormous length in the thread. Evo psych is garbage not according to feminists but according to the entire scientific community. It entertains the congenitally stupid but it is not brought up in the company of people who are at least marginally educated.


      1. Charles: Evolutionary psychology is not a field pursued by scientists, but by ‘social scientists’. In other words, you’re an idiot.


        This is as good an explanation you’ll ever read on why evo-psych is 100% unadulterated garbage.

        “Seriously, it’s this feeling that I have to remind them that they’re not dealing with two species, Man and Woman, or even two populations, the man-tribe and the woman-tribe, but one goddamned species, obligately breeding within themselves. If there is a ‘spatial navigating gene’, both men and women have it. If there is a gene that grants us the color sensitivity to distinguish puce from plum, we all carry it.

        This is the problem for the evolutionary psychology of sex differences: for each trait that you want to claim is a product of selection for a behavior that is different between sexes, you have to postulate a Plus that restricts its expression to a single sex.

        You can’t simply have a just-so story that Woman evolved ability X to cope with gathering berries; you have to also have a just-so story that explains why Man evolved a repressor to shut off X for better hunting. And vice-versa for ability Y that aids in hunting.
        So, sure, tell me that humans evolved cognitive mechanisms to aid in navigating by landmarks for better fruit and tuber searching, and I might well believe it to be reasonable; now tell me why you think it would only operate in women, and how it would be actively suppressed by genetic mechanisms in men. Then you can tell me why navigating by distance and direction is actively shut off in women. You’re the ones who like purely adaptive explanations: why would there be an advantage to individuals having each only half the suite of potential genetic navigation tools switched on?”


        1. That’s the thing, though. People who believe this evo-psych shit DO think of men and women as entirely different species. I wonder what emotional satisfaction they derive from it. Fortunately for us, they only breed amongst themselves.


          1. Weird ideas are found all over the academic spectrum. I’ve known a feminist or two who thought and spoke of men and women as separate species… (if you think there’s something to neoteny then women would be the more evolved).

            Even when I took more feminist theory seriously than I do now I could never get behind that one (or a very pronounced feminist that liked to proclaim that her success was because she had a ‘male brain’).


            1. “Weird ideas are found all over the academic spectrum. I’ve known a feminist or two who thought and spoke of men and women as separate species…”

              • Oh yeah. I’m still reeling from a discussion with a feminist scholar who kept trying to convince me that women are more close to animals than men, which is why we supposedly deal better with torture. I finally told her that I was probably not female enough to put up with being tortured with that line of reasoning. She actually wanted me to co-author an article with her on the animalistic nature of women, believe it or not.


          2. “That’s the thing, though. People who believe this evo-psych shit DO think of men and women as entirely different species. I wonder what emotional satisfaction they derive from it. Fortunately for us, they only breed amongst themselves.”

            • 🙂 🙂

            The reason why the intellectually limited people are so into this shit is that they are desperate for a system that will explain the universe to them. Learning, educating oneself, dealing with the world’s complexity – all that is too onerous. How much easier is it to find some fake system that promises to explain everything?


          1. “Isn’t Gender Studies a ‘social science’?”

            • Are you serious?

            “What’s the null hypothesis?”

            • Of what? Try to raise your culture of discussion. This would entail learning to participate in a dialogue and not a monologue.


            1. Is Gender Studies a “hard” science like STEM fields, or a social science like History or Sociology?

              What evidence would nullify the assertion of “socially created gender differences”? What evidence would you accept?


              1. “Is Gender Studies a “hard” science like STEM fields, or a social science like History or Sociology?”

                • If you want to be taken seriously as a discussion partner, try to avoid this childish terminology. We are serious people discussing serious subjects here, not a bunch of confused 11-year-olds.


              2. I was unaware 11-year-olds discussed the differences between social sciences and STEM fields.

                Now could you please answer any of my questions. If not, I can only assume you’re either unable or unwilling.

                Or if you have become jaded in attacking my intellect, you could always migrate to attacking my morality, physical appearance or sexual prowess.

                That’s what adults do, right? Not 11-year-olds?


              3. It has been repeated dozens of times in the discussion that the field which didn’t find any evidence of the existence of “gendered brains” is called neurobiology and not gender studies.

                Quit wasting everybody’s time with your scatterbrained fantasies and poor linguistic skills. Nobody gives a crap about your morality, appearance or sex life. Nobody gives a crap about you at all. Get over it.


              4. “Scatterbrained” would be an attack on my intellectual prowess but you did manage to shoehorn an attack on my self-esteem/self-image via the “nobody gives a crap about you at all” which I hadn’t anticipated–so kudos.

                And again, you failed to answer my question. Are you afraid of an actual exchange of ideas?


              5. “Go away. You are unwanted.”

                That answers my question. If you ever get tired of that cramped ideological bubble, I’ll be waiting.


  8. “Shouldn’t have wasted my time with you. I’ve asked you twice what country you were from ”

    Shame on Clarissa for not dropping everything to answer this guy’s question.
    Why on earth should he spend any time reading the blog where the question is answered every few posts? He deserves the personal attention of the hostess.


  9. I heard something about theories of “female language” in feminist criticism. That male tradition and language limit female writers, who should find their own voice / language / style of writing. Is it all another “evo-psych” kind of thing? Do you think there are / should be differences in male vs female writing styles?


    1. Literary criticism has not been able to find any characteristics that all female writers in the world throughout history have shared. 🙂 That is not a project that is likely to be successful.

      I’ve read the whole “write with your vagina” theory and found it boring and secondary. Renoir had said he painted with his penis a lot earlier than these theorists came up with their thing.


  10. Clarissa, I agree with you and believe that America has serious culture problems when it comes to raising women.

    I do physical warehouse work for a living and whenever I am applying for a new job, I cringe if I am going to be interviewed by a woman. Whenever there is a male hiring manager, he wants to know about weather I am physically able to do the job and if I am going to show up every day- just stuff that has to do with the job. Whenever I have an interview with a female interviewer, she want’s to know about past drama and politics I have had with previous jobs.

    America raises women to be good girls who know their place and are not allowed to directly assert themselves and are taught that everyone has to like them. This is why they become indirect and manipulative and covertly get someone back instead of directly confronting them.

    Men who assert themselves are encouraged. Women who assert themselves are bitches.



  11. I just came across your original post.

    I used to feel similar things, think similar things. And then I had a child and was introduced to the world of women. There aren’t many mothers who have any choice about that, because childrearing is not only grueling work but is unpaid and — though sentimentalized — a ticket to invisibility and collecting disrespect. The work, which is the most responsible work most people will ever do, is seldom even recognized as work. So mothers are very careful to look after each other, help each other, praise each other, listen to each other, thank each other, celebrate each other’s work. The chitchat about the children’s soccer and school plays is not chitchat; it is, urgently, shoptalk. I don’t think children would fare as well as they do otherwise; I know mothers would not. There is nothing trivial about it. While my daughter was young I came to see how little in the world would function without the work these women do in taking care of other people, thinking of other people, talking to and about other people, considering the feelings, remembering to thank and praise, looking out for what someone might need before anything is said. Offering help.

    Most women, still, are mothers.

    Women who grow up with women — mama’s girls, eldest daughters, sisters of sisters — very often learn the importance of taking care of other people; their mothers teach them, knowing the value of it. And when we go to work, eventually we come to realize that that embittered feminist talk about good ol’ boys and their networks has something to it, and that once again we’d better look out for each other.

    When you dismiss all that, it’s a show of ignorance: you don’t know what the mode means. But it’s also, wittingly or not, an absorption of the sexist, if not outright misogynist, attitude towards these things: they are stupid and meaningless and a waste of time! You might as well be angry that a 60-year-old answers a question with reference to things that happened forty years ago, or that an 80-year-old walks slowly.

    I spend a great deal of time talking with women in my department — including my boss — about families and children and emotions and diets, and there’s a good deal of conversational petting and hugging that goes on. I don’t do this because of any intense interest in their families, and I know that they aren’t deeply interested in mine. But it’s a large part of how we know each other, come to trust each other, and in the end will work very hard to help each other even when there is no immeidate advantage to ourselves. That, too, is part of why the department functions.

    I would suggest stepping outside yourself and your world a bit further than you have, and recognizing these modes as cultures that exist for reasons, and have value. And that you have some responsibility for understand them as part of the larger society in which you share.

    (I don’t, incidentally, see why you ought to be so contemptuous of women who quit work and go enjoy themselves when someone else is pleased to support them. I don’t think I’d either trust or enjoy that condition, but it’s their own business, no?)


    1. I’m sure you mean well but this blog is probably the worst possible place to leave this kind of comment. Pompous self-congratulation might be sincere but it’s quite off-putting.


  12. If you believe that fundamentally, there are no cognitive differences between the brains of men and women, then I’ve got two questions for you:

    Do you believe that there are men born in the body of women and vice versa? Because plenty of people claim this to be the case and go on to have gender reassignment therapy. And yet, if you are born in the body of a man, you are from a physiological point of view a man. If you are saying that male and female brains are identical, then is this not an obvious contradiction? How can you have the body of a man and yet feel as though you are a women, if there is no difference between the male and female brain?
    How do you explain the difference in IQ between men and women? IQ gets a lot of stick, but it’s a not terrible indicator of certain skills. And there is a rather interesting difference between the results of men and women. As you would expect, IQ follows a normal distribution with both male and female results showing the same mean IQ. The strange thing is, women’s results tend to be far closer to the mean whereas men’s results are much more spread out (you said you conduct studies, so to put it more formally IQ in males has a far larger standard deviation). So how would you explain this difference in distribution of IQ between men and women if there are no fundamental differences between their brains?

    I cannot see how social conditioning could possibly explain either of these phenomena. I can think of plenty other apparent contradictions to the idea that there are no differences between male and female brains, but these two will do to be getting on with, and I would welcome your personal views on the causes of these.

    P.S. I have made no attempt to attack or defame you, merely posed two phenomena which I feel are compelling evidence to at least consider the possibility that there are fundamental differences between men and women. I would appreciate it if your response could similarly avoid any attempts to attack or defame myself.


    1. IQ is a joke and no serious person takes it any more seriously than astrological horoscopes.

      No, there are no “men born in women’s bodies. ” Transgender people do not describe their experience this way. And please don’t use this phrase around a transgender person if you don’t want to offend them.


      1. You’ve done rather what I feared you would, and completely dodged both points I’ve made.

        I am not claiming that IQ is a valid measure of intelligence. What I am claiming is that it is a test that purely uses the brain. Now whilst people’s performances on IQ tests have little and less to do with their objective intelligence, surely you must agree that if men and women have no differences in their brain then there is no good reason for the results to show this difference? Note that I am not in any way extrapolating anything from what the results themselves prove about anyone’s intelligence, so that argument that ‘IQ is a poor measure of intelligence’ is a straw man as I am not using IQ results as a measure of intelligence.
        Well that was an interesting rebuttal. Firstly, the two transgender people I know describe their experience precisely this way, and I’m pretty sure Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner described his own experience precisely this way during an interview, so the claim that ‘[all] transgender people do not describe their experience this way’ is a straight up lie. You need only google the phrase ‘men born in women’s bodies’ or ‘women born in men’s bodies’ to see plenty of people describing their experiences this way. So are you saying these people are wrong in seeing their experience this way? And secondly, if your position is someone is born with a male body has the exact same brain as any other human, why do some of them need gender reassignment? What I’m getting at is if men and women are fundamentally the same on a neurological level, how do you explain people feeling the need to transition?

        You have rather resorted to precisely what I expected; a response that doesn’t actually answer either of the points I raised. Just out of interest, what experimental evidence or survey could make you at least reconsider the idea that men and women have identical brains? Because if the answer is none – which I suspect it might well be at this point – then your belief is absolute, and in spite of any facts that may be presented to the contrary. The word we use to describe this phenomena is faith, and is similarly felt by anyone who is religious. If that is your stance, then I will stop trying to convince you otherwise. Firstly cause it’d be futile, and also because you are more than welcome to have faith in whatever you so choose. But please don’t present your beliefs as facts if you aren’t actually willing to properly debate it and instead resort to cheap logical fallacies.


        1. Please read the literature referenced in this long thread. For now, you are not prepared intellectually to participate in the discussion. Pay specific attention to the mountain of scientific evidence offered in both threads. All of your questions have been answered at length by scientists.


          1. How very convenient. Surely as I am so intellectually undeveloped, you wouldn’t mind pointing me in the direction of the links that specifically explain how the differences in IQ results, and the desire of people to change their sex, are both social constructs and absolutely disprove the notion that there is any biological cause?

            For what it’s worth, I should inform you that by dodging questions posed in an eminently reasonable manner (at least as far as I can tell, many apologies if I came across rude) you do little to further your opinion. On the contrary, it makes you seem unable to defend your opinion, which further shoehorns you into the ‘blind faith’ category. I would be willing to wager anyone who stumbled on this thread with no preconceived notions about this debate would conclude that you cannot support your argument.


              1. I went down the library and gave it a read, and I have to say that I’m not exactly impressed – I guess you presumed I wouldn’t go to the effort, but luckily my university library contains a copy of every book printed in english. If you could provide me quotes, or just page references to where she answers both of the points I raised, I’d be grateful. Because as far as I can see, she doesn’t actually explain either of the phenomena I brought up.

                She certainly gives lots of reasons why she thinks it would be bad to believe that there exists behavioural sexual dimorphism, and she certainly gives plenty of empirical evidence too, with the occasional insult for those who believe anything contrary. But it should be noted that, if we’re treating this like a scientific fact, it has a somewhat higher burden of proof than this. Specifically, it has to be able to provide an answer for any and all phenomena related. So until you can provide an actual explanation for both of the two points I originally raised, I will remain skeptical to say the least.

                Secondly, can you think of any other group of people who defend their belief by stating how terrible it would be for you to believe anything different, combined with plenty of empirical evidence and the odd attempt to smear the alternatives? It’s religions, to be clear. Frankly, the only thing you’re convincing me of right now is that feminism is becoming more and more like a religious ideology.

                You see, I have no absolute desire to cling on to my opinion on this matter. If you (or anyone) provide compelling evidence that any and all differences are entirely cultural, and could answer any questions posed of your theory, then I would be the first to admit I was wrong. And yet, if you were capable of doing so then I fail to understand why you would be tiptoeing around my questions and resorting to petty insults. Hence I can only conclude you cannot answer the questions I posed.

                P.S. I’d brush up on evolution if I were you. Reading over an earlier conversation about evolutionary psychology I couldn’t help but laugh. Whilst there are issues with evolutionary psychology, the criticism you raised is ironically one of the things it explains really rather well.


  13. I am not sure exactly why I’m weighing in on a conversation that seems to be going nowhere but this is for Luke above:

    1) This is probably the most famous recent study on the notion of the female/male brain. It’s not the only study but one that is thorough and that has gotten a great deal of traction. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/50/15468.abstract

    2) IQ tests–like the SAT, ACT or any standardized exam– notoriously demonstrate cultural/gender biases. They don’t measure any “pure brain” function.

    3) The issue of transgender people is admittedly vexed. While most feminists want to celebrate and encourage multiple types of gender expression, the idea that a “female brain” or “male brain” dictates that gender expression is troubling. While I respect transgender people, I tend to see transgenderism as a reaction to overly-cemented gender roles– not as a biologically-driven. And Caitlin Jenner’s ridiculous comments that equate “femaleness” with certain clothing, hair, and makeup choices is ridiculous and quite frankly, offensive.


  14. I hope I can add something original or unique here. My own take on this insightful and hard-hitting piece, is that people by and large, male and female, tend mostly to be satisfied to adopt a cliche of their environmental influences as a persona, a sort of path of least resistance, if you like. Since the author calls herself a feminist, I will be as blunt and describe myself as “counter-feminist”, as opposed to “anti-“. Why this is so, is not for a disrespect of women but quite the opposite. In these times the influences of decades of women’s assuming greater roles and more power, has been accompanied with messages to young women that their grievances, rather than their achievements as women, must continue to define what womanhood is. No favor to women, that.

    This in my view has created an environment of less checks and balances on female behavior, less call for insight and self-reflection on women than is placed on men. The role of manhood today has become one somewhere between permanent defendant for our male existence, for everything we are told, by women, that being a man means, and one of men placing expectation on ourselves to somehow rise above the very worst qualities of maleness we are told describe all of us and not just the worst of us.

    No such similar pressure that I can observe, is placed on women not to be the very worst things that women are capable of being: catty, gossipy, manipulative, duplicitous, over-sensitive, in short, all those qualities in her female employees that seems to have led the author to write this thing at all. What I seem to be reading, is a story of men who have every reason to want and need to be at their best, and women who don’t seem to have any abiding motivation to be anything but what is held out to them as acceptable in women; which in today’s world is, well, just about anything.

    The childish, impossible woman runs very little risk that she will face consequences for being at her worst, and little reason to follow the best and most magnificent examples of what a woman is capable of. Womanhood all by itself, she has been told for a lifetime, is an achievement all on its own. While manhood, men are told all our lives, is a thing we must make retribution for by all means available. It seems the men in this author’s story were mostly trying to do what history required of them. And the same for the women.


    1. Unlike you, most employers are not sexually unsatisfied and don’t need to use such exotic ways of getting some action. Have you tried consulting a sexopathologist for your issues?


  15. I have to agree, women are a chore in general. Not all women are like that, but so many today are so spoiled, entitled, you name it. I’m lucky to have a girlfriend that keeps her emotions in check, but still shares her feelings constructively rather than destructively. She recently lost her job, I let her cry and comforted her. Next day, she’s asking me for advice, telling me her plans, etc. I love her so much for being so strong, but I digress. Personally, I think it’s upbringing, mental issues and even social media (Not so much, but I’ll explain what leads to it). Ultimately, anyone can break free of the cycle of bad parenting, but not everyone can, whether it be fear or laziness. I think that as a man or woman grow up, the values, or lack thereof, taught to them can be taken and it develops them into their teen years and beyond. The healthy minds use what is taught and sees what works for them, but also develop their own personality. Some just do as their parents say and never grow out of it. Some also defy everything and do the opposite rather than 50/50 values taught and values developed. The social media addiction that is rampant in America really factors to it as well, as a majority are so anti-government/men/women/this side, that side and without a proper critical thinking, many can fall into the traps of seeing opinions and believing they are true rather than researching what are facts. Being a victim comes with the thought that since “It’s not my fault, or never is, I do not need to improve myself and just need a sympathetic crutch.” It’s laziness that can develop from a poor upbringing or even mental issues that can impair one’s judgment or behavior. Take Tumblr, for example. Many men and women on there literally flaunt their mental disorders (ADHD, PTSD, Bipolar, autism, etc) like it makes them unique and special. This is why a lot of trolls and “s***lords” will call these types of people “autistic” because they take everything seriously and have no sense of humor. Out of the three possibilities, I think mental issues are probably the biggest with upbringing coming close. Some people are manipulative and it takes intelligence to do that and upbringing or outside influences (Social Media, for example), can bring about those types of personality changes. As for men and women being different, physically, of course, mentally, outside of different thought processes, it’s all a matter as to what they act stronger upon to be honest, but we all have the same brain function in general.



  16. You need to read the book “Work With Me” by Dr John Gray who is a relationship expert. There are gender blind spots with women. Not only you have to thank and appreciate women you have to actually listen how they accomplish their task or goal. With men you only have to tell them they did a great job. Men are just easier to please.

    I’m a MGTOW and we have been saying this for years. Now you only confirm what men are complaining about. What you don’t realize no matter how much spend on a woman she is never happy.

    Generally speaking white men are more suited for new ideas and problem solving. Asian are better doing what they are told and will work hard to accomplish the goal. That doesn’t mean white men are better or Asian men are better, just that they have their strengths.
    I am a natural problem solver and brain stormer if you have any business difficulties or want to improve your business I can problem help. I won’t do the work other than research and the tools and knowledge that I have. Since I would do it for free I’m not going do it for a long time but I can get the ball rolling for you.



    1. It’s extremely embarrassing to read crap like “Dr Gray” and take it seriously. Please try to educate yourself. It’s sad to be this ignorant and gullible.


  17. I’m curious to know if the author ever figured out the answers to her questions, “What is at the root of the problem? Lack of confidence? Wrong upbringing? What am I not seeing? Is there something else I should be doing as a manager?”

    If anyone ends up in a similar position, stop everything and find a mentor. It will save your sanity and make the workplace better for everyone.



    1. With all due respect, this is the most inane piece of advice anybody could imagine. What’s the point of inflicting these infantile platitudes on people, seriously?


      1. It seemed more respectful than pointing our her (lack of) leadership skills was the root of the problem. Maybe she lacked the confidence a good leader needs to make tough decisions that might hurt someone’s feelings. Or maybe she had the wrong upbringing for imparting skills essential to successful management. Any of those short comings could be improved with a good mentor.

        You seem to be rather dismissive of the idea. Have you ever had a mentor?


        1. Child, it’s New Year’s Eve. Go celebrate and let adults discuss serious things. But just to put your mind at rest, both the post’s author and I have been mentors since before you were born. In the future, try to ascertain who you are talking to before attempting to lecture people who are much older and successful than you.


          1. You’re right. I didn’t spend any time on discovery before I posted my comment. I wrongly assumed the missive was the catalyst often used when trying to ascertain answers to complicated questions, and I certainly didn’t expect to have the moderator piss vitriol on an innocuous nugget of advice.

            Your acerbic response should beg me off further engagement, but I do love me a learning moment and your half century of experience intimates your prowess as a mentor. What advice would you give a person who reads through the blog post and has the immediate thought, “This is me.”, complete with caustic workplace and list of unanswered questions.

            Now as a newb who rarely comments, I could use advice on how to ask for an update on the situation and receive an honest response. Is it even possible in the Troll age?


  18. Okay, so the OP will accept the “socialization” in the nature/nurture debate. So what’s the cause and what’s the solution then? I work in STEM where the few females who work here are FAR more rational and pragmatic than most other women. In non-stem fields, women seem to think that the workplace is expected to provide for their often complex emotional needs. I think all careers should provide people with some sort of psychological benefits, but not necessarily on a continual and ongoing basis. I don’t do things at work for a pat on the head, or for validation – I do things at work to get a job done, and from that I derive my validation.

    I think leftist colleges and 3rd wave feminism are creating these females who think the workplace is there to provide them with feelz and validation and that somehow work and productivity is some close second. I also think this sort of female behavior is being encouraged – because the left tells women (and men) that emoting is GOOD and being “empathic” is a job skill, as is this “emotional intelligence” (an oxymoron if you ask me). We all know that college campuses are very biased towards the left, and are into this new pop-psychology about the strength of the feminine and the toxicity of masculinity.



    1. I’m a professor of literature. And in my profession, men seem to think that the workplace exists to provide for their complex emotional needs. I personally hate it. For me work is completely separate from my emotional life and I feel very uncomfortable when people start emoting all over my workplace. So I agree with you completely that it’s beyond obnoxious but I see so many men (and no women) who do it. I’ve never seen a female colleague, for instance, drag the wife and the mistress to a scholarly conference and then bug the presenters with the ensuing drama. But male colleagues seem to think it’s part of the program.


  19. Your original blog entry made for some really bizarre reading. I’ve worked in a handful of environments and must say I haven’t seen anything close to what you describe, with the only exception being a retail job that attracted the high school brat types. A couple times a female coworker has cried, usually after a death in the family, and once an employee was just having a tough go of things and sought treatment for depression. What you describe is like an alien planet. I have worked in medical research, legal offices, academia, so maybe it’s the type of work (I didn’t catch what field you are in.) In any case, while I have seen sexual harassment, for the most part I’ve seen men and women respect each other and working efficiently. Everyone knows what is professional, what is expected and what is tolerated. As a manager I’ve been VERY quick to stop anyone pushing envelopes (aforementioned sexual harassment.) No melodrama.
    So it would be to our detriment to hire someone who did not hire women, or who did not know how to lay out boundaries And enforce them.

    And, I must say, I wonder if you would have written a post like this if the differences you saw were from different races. Really, would you have had the spine to write “I dont want to hire Asians anymore”?
    From what I read of your post, I get the distinct impression that you played a big role in the drama you experienced. But marking that up as “women are crazy” is an easier pill to swallow.



    1. I’ve never seen anything like this either. And I didn’t write this post. And given that you somehow managed not to notice the fact that it’s not my original blog entry, I’m wondering whether your powers of observation are as good as you think.


  20. I went to 5 job interviews over the course of this year, as a result of which I didn’t get the jobs I applied for.
    All these interviews had one thing in common. The interviewing panels were all-female.
    If the panels had been all-male, I would definetely have been in with a chance. If there had been a male-female split, I might have been in with a chance, but perhaps not such a good one.
    However, if the interview panel is all-female, I might just as well not show up. This has been the case throughout all 25 years of my working life. After 10 years in an all-girls’ school, and 3 years at fashion college, I still do not understand women.
    I suppose I have gotten some good experience in that time working in male-dominated sectors, where I have been almost the token female in the company. A lot of women can’t deal with male talk and swearing, but I personally couldn’t care less.
    It’s not to say all women are bad. Individual women are fine – I’ve worked with some brilliant ones, but these tended to be the ones who had a bit more upstairs, and would go the extra mile. When you look at some of the further runs who interview you, who later feed back with the fact that you came over very well and said all the right things, but were, oh they didn’t know…maybe “overqualified”… you have to consider that if you were employed by them, being the worker bee you are, and racing round getting at least 60 things done before breakfast, you might very well show them up.



  21. I think it comes down to cultural programming and conditioning.

    A lot of women are raised to think they have to have or create a lot of drama in their lives and for other people. Or that they have to play mind games to get ahead personally and professionally.

    I recommend finding women who aren’t into the drama and mind games to work for you. I know they’re out there because I’ve met and worked with them.

    Look for women who aren’t drama queens, who aren’t overly sensitive. Avoid women who expect their manager to double as a babysitter and therapist.

    Look for women who are dedicated to improving themselves, learn new things, invest in themselves, who are committed to getting things DONE.


  22. This is an interesting article – whether it was written by the person actually talking or not. I am going to give you a little different perspective on the same experience. When I started my business, many, many years ago, the only people available to hire were women – bright, serious minded, some mothers, industrious women.

    I was entering a new field that did not have many currently capable people to apply and I had to train most of the employees in the technical skills required to do the job. What was the job/ Programming the new IBM computers for small businesses. At that time no one was available to do the job. Those capable of doing the tasks already worked for IBM and they did not have the skills that I needed. But some did – the wives of those men that had dropped out of the computer field to raise their new families – guess what era this was.

    So, I knocked on their doors and offered them an opportunity they would find had to refuse. Work at home, part-time. I will design the systems, give you the specs, you code the specs, give them to me and I will have them put into a format that the computer can read, you occasionally go to the customer’s office to test the programs. Keep track of your time and give me weekly time sheets, I will turn them into the customer, the customer will pay me, and I will pay you.

    This was very successful and the company grew for several years. I eventually hired other men and women as the industry grew and they became experienced in programming. Eventually the company grew to 50+ employees and some other opportunities presented themselves in areas as system design, documentation, training and sales. Whoever wanted to try for the new jobs were free to apply, but each job required unique skills and some found that they were not interested.

    I experienced none of the trauma and frustration that the CEO of the company experienced and described. When I hired the individuals I was very specific as to what I would provide and what I expected from them. There was no misunderstanding what our roles were to be. Many of my male friends, who were also heads of companies, queried me as to why I did not have the problems that they had, particularly with the women. I explained that I treated the men and the women the same way – I gave them responsibility, respect, equal pay for work done, rewards when applicable, and while I would listen to their problems if they had to do with work, personal concerns were their theirs to resolve.

    I will now tell you what was different with my situation and that described in the story that initiated this discussion.
    I am a man. In today’s world many women do not like working for a woman, no matter how qualified they are. It has nothing to do with their qualifications as it has to do with the female-female interchange. The employee is female, therefore my boss will understand me and have sympathy and empathy for me – hence I can ‘talk’ to her and she will understand. You will note that she did not have any of these problems with the men and in fact had a ‘business’ relationship with them that was satisfactory to all.

    I don’t have a solution to this but only to state that this is what happens. The fact that the workplace has changed considerably since the situation I describe, I suspect that the interactions would be much the same. Current studies seem to show that both men and women in management are very reluctant to hire, in general, as well as for specific jobs young women. I am not going to get into that discussion but it is happening more and more in the workplace.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.