More glass ceilings, Pt. 2: Why fight biology?


A little under a year ago, I wrote the first post in what I had originally intended to be a two- or three-part series providing my unfair, unbalanced, and thoroughly unmedicated views as to why it is that women should be held back by that dreaded "glass ceiling". It took me a rather long time to get around to writing the follow-up (of which I think there will almost certainly only be one) partly because I'm quite lazy sometimes, partly because I got rather busy with everything else, and mostly because of the way things evolved at work after I wrote that post.

You see, I originally wrote it after I landed in soup thanks to someone in my team who complained to management that I had created a "hostile working environment" for her.

That was... interesting, to say the least.

Even so, my sentiments in the intervening time on the subject of women in the workplace have not changed. Women, particularly in fast-paced, challenging, technical environments, or in dangerous and difficult ones, are on balance a detriment to the health of a workforce and the profitability of a business.

However, that post was not, as it happens, written in a fit of pique. There was and remains a serious point to be made, and it is simple: pushing women into the workplace is not just bad for business, it's bad for them as well.

The Dilbert Principle

As for the reason why I landed in soup in the first place, it's easy to narrate: I found, and still find, the person in question to be deeply unqualified for the job and totally unsuited to the work. And since I do not tolerate fools, incompetents, or slowpokes, it should come as no surprise at all that we don't exactly see eye-to-eye.

The stupid thing, though, is that this entire mess could have been avoided three years ago if only we as a team had exercised a bit of sense.

I had interviewed her back in the day for a position in our team. I knew instantly that she was not sufficiently qualified, rejected her as a candidate, provided my feedback, and basically got on with my day. At the time my team consisted of basically three people- me and two other chaps, all with technical backgrounds and all well-versed in the complex systems and processes that we deal with on a daily basis.

Of the remaining two interviewers, one agreed entirely with me and rejected her as a candidate. But the other... well, it so happened that the interviewee and the interviewer are of the same ethnicity and speak the same language. And the interviewer basically wanted someone to follow his orders.

The end result was that the VP in question overrode the objections of his co-equals and hired this woman into our team- despite our clearly voiced opinions that she would be totally unsuited for the work.

I have since spent the last three years watching myself being proven correct. Again. And all because of racial preferences and the Iron Law of Bureaucracy that we know of as The Dilbert Principle: the tendency of people to get promoted or hired into their areas of maximum incompetence.

The result has been a clear fracturing of our team into disparate little units with no common goal or vision, and no development of individual skills or cross-training.

Worst of all, from my perspective, is the inevitable effect that substandard team members have on relationships with clients. Problems that would take me an hour or two to investigate, analyse, and resolve routinely take this person two weeks- or more. Her ability to talk to the business is non-existent. Her skill set is quite limited and has not grown in the entire time that she has been in the group.

Indeed, there are, in fact, times when being right so often gets to be a real burden.

But then, at the beginning of the year, she went to our senior managers and told them that she was expecting her third child with her husband.

This, as far as I am concerned, is a very Good Thing.

What Women Really Want

Everyone benefits. Our team gets rid of some dead weight for about a year. Our clients benefit from actually getting their problems resolved in a timely and efficient fashion- or at least, I hope so, given the internal politics of my group. And our erstwhile colleague gets a new child.

It is almost certain that, in the long run, she will be far happier being a wife and a mother to her two existing daughters, and her future child, than she will coming in at 9, leaving at 5, and barely getting anything done during her time at the workplace. And good for her- because that is exactly what most women would prefer in the first place.

You see, no matter what any STRAWNG EMPAWAHHHD WIMMENZ tells you, the fact of the matter is that women are almost universally going to be happier being mothers and housewives than they are ever going to be climbing the corporate ladder.

There are exceptions to this rule, to be sure. A very small number of so-called "alpha females" do exist who are extremely intelligent, inclined to logic, equipped with a very sharp sense of humour and pair it with a deeply cutting sense of sarcasm, and do not tolerate nonsense or softness.

Here is a rather good example of that sort of thing:


That is not, by the way, a criticism of the supremely talented Ms. Coulter. On the contrary, I have immense respect and admiration for her. But the fact is that Ms. Coulter is not exactly what one might call "housewife material". She lacks the feminine softness and delicacy and tolerance for nonsense that is required of such- and she knows it. She knows that her greatest talents lie in the field of political punditry, and she herself knows that she probably wouldn't prove to be a very good wife, because very, very few men would have the necessary Alpha-male qualities needed to handle a woman like her.

She is, however, a rarity. And I suspect that if you are a young woman, or if you are a man with a young daughter, and you asked Ms. Coulter what she thinks young women should do with their lives, she would agree with me.

Sperm is Cheap, Eggs are Expensive

The harsh but true reality is that the Western world simply does not need women in the workforce.

Quite aside from the points that I had raised in my first article on the subject, pertaining to how having women in a team is often detrimental to productivity, morale, camaraderie, and career security, all of the data that we have available point to two inescapable facts.

First, as stated above, housewives and mothers are far happier than their working, stressed-out, career-driven counterparts.

Whether you like it or not, whether you are willing to admit it or not, the fact remains that men can do (just about) everything that women can in the workplace. Actually, they can do considerably more in manually intensive, or very technical, or very risky jobs- because men are constitutionally and biologically more willing and able to take risks, work longer and harder hours, and endure privation and discomfort than women are.

(I am aware of the standard female counterargument that nothing a man experiences could ever be as bad as childbirth. I'll believe it when a woman who has worked 12-hour shifts in the freezing cold of a North Dakota oil rig for weeks on end, and then given birth to a child, tells me that the latter is more miserable and more difficult than the former.)

But, there is one thing that women can do that men cannot ever do:

Conceive, carry, and give birth to, new human life.

That simple fact alone is what makes women valuable and men expendable. This one distinction more than makes up for every deficiency that a woman possesses in physical strength and stamina relative to a man. It is what gives women such immense power over men.

This is why the maxim about sperm being cheap and eggs being expensive is much more than merely a glib remark. It is a fundamental truth.

And (almost) any woman who ignores that fundamental truth, and thereby ignores her own biology, is setting herself up for a lifetime of unhappiness and pain. The sole exceptions are the very, very rare Alpha females, as mentioned above, who are actually better off being single and doing their own thing instead of becoming wives and mothers.

But for most women, their true path to happiness is not in their careers. It is in their families, and in the joys that they will find from building families of their own.

Raise the Ceiling a Few Feet Higher

If, therefore, women are inclined by temperament and biology to pursue motherhood and family over careers and stress, why, then, do we insist on supporting their careerist ambitions when all of the evidence tells us that doing so is plainly idiotic and simply makes women less happy?

And, by extension, makes men less happy too?

We do so partly because we're men, and therefore not very bright sometimes- but mostly because Western culture and civilisation has forgotten these basic truths, and is in the process of receiving a very harsh lesson about the costs associated with ignoring the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God.

If anything, we should be making it harder for women to climb the corporate ladder, and easier for them to quit and become mothers and wives.

We should be giving them incentives to work part-time for lower pay but with generous benefits. Western governments, in particular, might need to start thinking about subsidising children of native-born parents (not immigrants, let's get that straight).

Most of the Western world, and most of the Far Eastern world, does not need more childless, stressed-out, unhappy, pill-popping HR ladies and marketing managers in their late twenties and early thirties working themselves into infertility and misery.

Those parts of the world do need masculine sons and feminine daughters- which will not happen if their women are stuck in the same stupid rat-race of promotions, anti-depressants, binge-drinking, and meaningless short-term flings.

Comments

Popular Posts