https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-women-are-rarely-innovators-1517585411
(if paywalled, see https://outline.com/YDUNsz)

[blockquote]
Why Women Are Rarely Serial Innovators

A single-minded life of invention is hard to combine with family obligations. One solution: ‘nonlinear’ careers

By Melissa Schilling
[Prof. Schilling teaches management at New York University’s Stern School of Business. Her new book is “Quirky: The Remarkable Story of the Traits, Foibles and Genius of Breakthrough Innovators Who Changed the World,” which will be published on Feb. 13 by Public Affairs.]

It’s 6 a.m., and I’m rushing around my apartment getting ready to fly to California to teach an innovation workshop, when my 10-year-old son looks at me with sad eyes and asks, “Why are you always busy?” My heart pounds, and that familiar knife of guilt and pain twists in my stomach. Then a thought flickers through my head: Does Jeff Bezos go through this?

I recently finished writing a book about innovators who achieved multiple breakthroughs in science and technology over the past two centuries. Of the eight individuals I wrote cases about, only one, Marie Curie, is a woman. I tried to find more, even though I knew in my scientist’s heart that deliberately looking for women would bias my selection process. But I didn’t find other women who met the criteria I had laid out at the beginning of the project.

I had hoped that Grace Hopper, a pioneer in computer programming language (and a U.S. Navy rear admiral), would make the cut, and I talk about her in the book. But in the end, it was hard to make the case that she was a serial inventor.

After studying Marie Curie and Grace Hopper, I know why there aren’t more women on these lists, and there’s no easy fix. The historical discrimination against women is only part of the story, and believe it or not, it’s the easier part to fix. The other part is much deeper.

...

In my own case, I can afford more child care, but I don’t want to relinquish more of my caregiving to others. From the moment I first gave birth, I felt a deep, primal need to hold my children, nurture them and meet their needs. Nature is extremely clever, and she has crafted an intoxicating cocktail of oxytocin and other neurochemicals to rivet the attention of parents on their children.

The research on whether this response is stronger for mothers than for fathers is inconclusive. It is tough to compare the two, because there are strong gender differences in how hormones work. Historically, however, women have taken on a larger share of the caregiving responsibilities for children, and many (myself included) would not have it any other way.

Is such a view hopelessly retrograde, a rejection of hard-won feminist achievements? I don’t think so.

[/blockquote]

Pence is vindicated.

"Female staffers and lobbyists have found many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately..."

https://nypost.com/2018/02/03/a-male-backlash-against-metoo-is-brewing/

Feminism is cancer:

http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/04/nyc-school-cancels-father-daughter-dance-because-gender-guidelinesnyc-school-cancels

Metoo has gone way too far. It’s no wonder some men are pushing back. Why should they be lumped all in the same category as the truly vile people who deserve to be hated. I tweeted to metoo that not all men are rapists and not all rapists are men. Silence. Easy to ignore facts when you’re hysterically attacking anything with a penis.

Why should they be lumped all in the same category as the truly vile people who deserve to be hated. ~ Kendra at February 5, 2018 5:23 AM

Because we've lost our ability to see degrees of difference. A womanizer is a rapist. When some behavior at the end of a spectrum is evil or vile, all behavior along that spectrum is just as evil or vile.

> Because we've lost our ability to see degrees of difference.

Reminds me of the spanking conversation we had the other day.

Automation: not as easy as it looks.

I’ve been working in automation for 20 years. When you see how hard it is to simply digitize a paper process inside a single plant (often a multi-year project), you start to roll your eyes at ivory tower claims of entire industries being totally transformed by automation in a few years. One thing I’ve learned is a fundamentally Hayekian insight: When it comes to large scale activities, nothing about change is easy, and top-down change generally fails. Just figuring out the requirements for computerizing a job is a laborious process full of potential errors. Many automation projects fail because the people at the high levels who plan them simply do not understand the needs of the people who have to live with the results.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/02/will-truckers-automated-comments.html

@Snoopy -

Good start, now how do we get the story to become

"Lobbyists have found legislators will no longer meet with them"?

https://harpers.org/archive/2018/02/the-other-whisper-network/

Given what men have gotten away with for centuries, this anger is understandable.

Ever notice no one is ever able to explain what men did to women that was so horrible over the past centuries?

Or explain how it was worse than what en in power did to men without power over those same centuries?

Newsweek tanking:

"Newsweek fired editor-in-chief Bob Roe and executive editor Ken Li Monday. Additionally, TheWrap has learned that the publication has parted ways with the top reporters of its investigations unit, including Celeste Katz and Josh Saul. International Business Times reporter Josh O’Keefe was also dismissed.

Employees who were not fired were sent home Monday — potentially without pay, TheWrap has learned."

https://www.thewrap.com/newsweek-fallout-top-editors-reporters-fired/

Say, nice business you have there. Be a terrible shame if something happened to it.

https://boingboing.net/2018/01/30/for-a-few-thousand-bucks-detr.html

Remember that funny guy in 'Police Academy' who did all the sound effects?

Larvell Jones does Whole Lotta Love

Jews are the new white nationalists -

https://forward.com/opinion/393514/white-nationalism-is-spreading-in-the-orthodox-community/

Pence is vindicated.

"Female staffers and lobbyists have found many male legislators will no longer meet with them privately..."

Snoopy at February 5, 2018 4:28 AM
_______________________________________

I knew someone would mention that eventually. Though it's not clear whether Pence, at least, is more worried about a false accusation from a woman, a false accusation from some third party conspirator who wasn't even there, or...a TRUE accusation.

But this is a very good point too:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/15/opinion/pence-rule-christian-graham.html

No need to bother with the article itself. What REALLY caught my eye was in the comments.
_________________________________________

HN Philadelphia, PA November 15, 2017
"This so-called Christian rule prevents men from dining alone or taking meetings alone with women. But what about men dining alone or taking meetings alone with men? Is the assumption that no Christian men have the capacity to be gay predators?"
________________________________________

(And, we've all heard stories of homophobic politicians who turned out to be in the closet, so it's not as though only openly gay politicians have to worry about false accusations. How can any politician, male or female, afford to be alone with ANYONE from now on, really?)

Also:
______________________________________

Ms. Pea Seattle November 15, 2017
"I once worked with a guy like Pence, who wouldn't have a meeting with a woman and wouldn't even get in an elevator with a woman if no one else was getting in at the same time, nor would he walk down a hallway with a woman if they were alone. He carried it to such extremes that he was reported to human resources. It became a kind of discrimination that he was practicing, under the guise of his religious belief. It was demeaning to the women in the office, who felt he treated them as second class. People have to be able to function in the world, and in an office it is sometimes necessary to speak with or meet with a coworker. No one is interested in seducing Mike Pence, just as no one was interested in the guy in my office. We all just want to get on with our work and our day. This 'rule' is just a foolish waste of time."

Maria Ashot EU November 15, 2017
"Jesus did not avoid women, obviously.

"Just pray & focus on the purpose of the meeting."
_______________________________________

(And that was long AFTER the story of Potiphar's wife, if anyone's interested.)

And, from a Miss Manners 1995 column I've posted here before ("Reader Offers Some Workplace Rules"):

"...But it is not Miss Manners' job to try your case, of which she knows nothing. It is your proposed etiquette that interests her. So she went fastidiously past your wounded tone and examined the rules you so bitterly offered.

"And you know what?

"Some of them constitute discrimination against women, which could land you right back in that legal tangle you did not seem to relish. You cannot refuse to conduct ordinary business with the otherwise appropriate people because of their gender.

"But other rules that you offer as draconian are very sensible rules, indeed..."
______________________________________

Finally, someone said something interesting - that while big companies probably can't get away with not hiring women in the future, small ones can and will. Don't know how likely that is.

> it's not clear whether Pence, at least, is more
> worried about a false accusation from a woman, a
> false accusation from some third party conspirator
> who wasn't even there, or...a TRUE accusation.

It really doesn't matter what he's worried about. The fact is that it is turning out to be a very prudent policy for men to follow.

> Is the assumption that no Christian men have the
> capacity to be gay predators?

That's not the assumption. Compare the situation where a female teacher has sex with a male student, and where a male teacher has sex with a female student. When the "victim" is male, commenters say they wish they had been that lucky. When the "victim" is female, commenters say they wish they could personally kill the teacher. Female teachers in this situation normally get only a slap on the wrist whereas male teachers end up in jail for many years.

Society is very unlikely to find that a man who had sex was a "victim" regardless of the circumstances. See also the case Amy mentioned a while back where a woman gave a passed out man oral sex and it was the man who got expelled from university.

> People have to be able to function in the world,
> and in an office it is sometimes necessary to
> speak with or meet with a coworker

So bring in a third person to join the meeting, or hold the meeting in an open or public space. It's not that difficult.

A woman just doesn't take the same legal risk in being alone with a man, so it can be difficult for a woman to understand. A man can literally lose everything a be zeroed out on the word of a woman - a slight inconvenience is going to be worth avoiding that for most men.

Men are pragmatic and deductive. Given the very real threat of losing everything, they will adapt to the environment in ways that will protect them, including avoiding being alone with a woman.

> Is the assumption that no Christian men have the
> capacity to be gay predators?
_______________________________________

That's not the assumption.
________________________________________

But the fact that the possibility is being ignored is absurd, as I spelled out.
________________________________________

Compare the situation where a female teacher has sex with a male student, and where a male teacher has sex with a female student. When the "victim" is male, commenters say they wish they had been that lucky.
_________________________________________

And, as I've mentioned, those who say "lucky boy" are almost always...men.

Plus, most men certainly DON'T say that when a man preys on a teen boy.

"Is the assumption that no Christian men have the capacity to be gay predators?"

1. There aren't that many of them. At 1% or less of the population as well as a trend to self segregate there just aren't a whole lot of gays to go around. The number of gay predators is far far less than that. So yes, to some extent there is an assumption there aren't any gay predators, Christian or otherwise.

2. The concern that the Pence rule addresses is accusations. Pence isn't worried he will do something. He is worried about being accused of something. Like it or not no one would take an accusation of him being a gay predator seriously. This holds for the vast majority of men. So the accusation holds no threat.

Ben, don't forget that bisexual men exist too. They just might be more reluctant to admit it than bisexual women. As Dan Savage said, bisexual women are EVERYWHERE. Maybe because they make themselves easy to see - and it turns the public on?

Not to mention, what makes you think the gay male population is THAT low? Maybe it isn't 10%, which is what people used to say 30-40 years ago, but maybe it isn't even as low as 3% - even if you don't include bisexual men. (3% is a common statistic these days.)

And while Pence may have done whatever mysterious moves it takes to prove he's purely heterosexual and not in the closet, just what made it somewhat easy for male accusers of male politicians from the last 20 years to be believed, when many of the accused WERE in the closet? I don't see why "the accusation holds no threat" "for the vast majority of men." Especially if the male politician looks handsome and boyish. (Though I'd guess that most men would hesitate to make any FALSE accusations, for several reasons. But not all.)

No Lenona bisexual men aren't everywhere. They do exist but not in large numbers. Reality is ~98% of men are purely hetero give or take a percent. And as I mentioned people self select and separate. Many and perhaps most companies don't have a single non-hetero employee. The flip side is a small number of companies have almost no hetero employees.

Also you responded about politicians. Most of us aren't politicians. I mentioned Pence because he got famous for refusing to be alone with women. The stated reason being fear of accusations. If Pence was a Democrat that wouldn't be a concern. At least not until #MeToo happened. But for most men this is a concern given the current nature of how sexual harassment is defined.

You raised the issue of men making false accusations. As I said this isn't a concern. Not that men don't make false accusations but that virtually no HR departments take accusations of sexual harassment from men seriously. I am sure that some men make both false as well as real accusations. And then those accusations get thrown in the trash. Not fair perhaps but that is real life.

As for proof, no man is concerned about a closed door meeting with another man. Well, maybe one or two but nothing significant. On the other hand a large percentage of men are concerned about being in a closed door room with a women. You may claim they shouldn't have that view. But the reality is they do.