A standard mantra of the modern world – women are just as good as men at everything. Plus, obviously, very much better at other things. That famed empathy and nurturing for example. This entirely missing the point of comparative advantage of course. The only non-trivial and non-obvious result in all of the social sciences.
That one bit of Ricardo being all we need to explain this:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]‘Bro culture’ means nearly half of UK’s venture capital firms still have no women in senior roles[/perfectpullquote]Hmm:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Almost half of Britain’s venture capital firms have no women working in senior investment roles, a new report has found. Research released today by Diversity VC found that only 13pc of senior jobs across British venture capital firms were occupied by women. The figure has remained unchanged since the group’s 2017 report. Female investors and entrepreneurs have criticised the prevailing “bro culture” widespread among many technology investment firms which are usually dominated by white men. Until recently, the term had largely been applied to the US technology industry and in Silicon Valley. [/perfectpullquote]One possible explanation is just the misogyny inherent in a capitalist society – no, some people do indeed say that. Another is that the hunting aspects of VC work suit those hunting innates of men rather more than the gathering ones of women – but to believe that you’d have to believe in evolution, something the left only does when it’s convenient. A third would be that there are fewer women here for the same reason there are fewer women at the top of any of our career structures. Because children.
But we can actually put those all aside and consider the instance itself. Let us agree that women are just as good as men at everything. And also that they’re – on average of course, all of this is upon average – better than men at certain things like that empathy.
Women should therefore be doing those empathy things. We’ve already agreed that they’ve an absolute advantage, so obviously they should be. But they’ve also that comparative advantage. Of the varied things that women could be doing they’re even better better at those empathic things. Therefore that’s what they should be doing. For we should all be doing what we’re least bad at and then swapping the resultant production, that’s how we maximise human utility.
OK, there’s not many women VCs. So, come up with a reason as to why there should be more. One not addressed above….
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
More than half of VC companies have women in senior roles....
Where's the problem?
Another is that the hunting aspects of VC work suit those hunting innates of men rather more than the gathering ones of women – but to believe that you’d have to believe in evolution, something the left only does when it’s convenient.
Evolution directs a species to survive and reproduce optimally.
Female humans are the important people here. They must be protected, able to chose suitable mates, and be able to care for the young until the children reach reproductive age themselves.
Males are required during the reproductive process, which is typically over early in their lives. Thereafter they are redundant. What seems to have happened is that they are conditioned to take much more risk than females - partly to prove their mating suitability, but also to improve the general lot of the species. Many risk-takers fail, or die, but the few that survive will have expanded the capabilities of the human race.
So It seems fairly obvious to me that the reason a FEW males do very well in business is that they are the winners in the 'risk' game. The majority of males fare much worse. The vast majority of females are not designed or optimised for risk-taking, and you would be working against the species design to try to encourage them to do this.
What we SHOULD be doing is valuing the contribution of females to the species far more than we typically do. They, after all, are the ones that keep the species going. We would be much better off, and it would be much more efficient, to provide strong support for women doing what women are best at, rather than try to change them into men...
Brilliant by Tom.