No, according to the link, it is highly subjective and there is no yardstick that I can find:
There is nothing in there whatsoever about sales for 2010 or 2011. I don't know where you got that, unless you simply assumed it. Unless it is somewhere in the phrase "their shows and art work speak for themselves."
Many of the other links are similarly subjective. I'm not going through all of them but they appeared to be very subjective.
I'll go back over and find out where the top sales figures for the fashion was...what year exactly (I believe 2010)
and, with all due respect, if your not going to go through what I put down, and the links I included for reference, then your opinion of what is or isn't subjective or objective is completely invalid. What your really saying here is something more like "well, I don't like what I'm hearing, and I don't have the facts because I'm choosing not to do my own looking, but i'll give my opinion anyway."
I'm getting the feeling that toes have been stepped on, and rational point-for-point debate or discussion is basically taking a back seat to logical fallacies, assumptions without any attempt to provide evidence, or even just dogmatic "PC" viewpoints.
I've gone out of my way to some degree to provide a level of objective measure for my claims, and even extended that i'm open to ANYONE suggesting an alternative way to "measure" who is the "best in a particular field" As long as we can agree there is SOME objectivity, like annual sales, or number of publications, or body of evidence, etc. We all know that this isn't going to work out like a math equation.... so no hard theorems need be held up as a "standard of proof"... but i'm asking for someone to provide any equivilent list for women, and it's just not shown up yet.
But you're missing the point. No one is denying that men dominate most fields. We're just saying that that doesn't mean men are inherently more able than women. Women are often either not given the chance to perform at that level, not encouraged to attain that level as much as men are, or not recognized when they do attain that level of skill.
Sure, you can find objective means of classifying the "rank" of people within any field, but just because someone has more acclaim/makes more money, doesn't mean they're superior to all others in their field. There could be an equally or more talented person (possibly a woman) going unnoticed.
If anything, your lists only prove that men are more often rewarded for their expertise. Not whether they're actually the "best" in their field.
Well, thank you for a thoughtful, objective, rational post.
This is kind of my point too. Why then are women so universally unrecognized in every possible "emperically measurable" way? I mean, I could understand it if it was like, men top most fields, but women hold their own in a significant minority. (like, out of 50 fields, men top 35, but women top the other15) this would make sense with what I know of gender bias.
Today in the united states, women outnumber men in university education, and have also surpassed men in terms of graduation rates from college. they also are getting post grade degrees at a rate which will surpass men (if it hasnt' already) within a generation. Women run some of the worlds most successful companies, and hold political office around the world at the highest levels. The only thing a woman has yet to do in the U.S. in terms of career acheivements is become president of the U.S.
but for all this "progress", like, almost NONE of it translates over into recognition or as I suspect actual achievement at the highest level in HIGHLY MERITOCRATIC fields??? It doesn't add up.
I also agree with you though, I don't think for a moment it is a function of "men being ultimately better than women"... nothing could be further from the truth (at least, that's my belief)
My hypothesis is that men have a higher degree of a few characteristics or traits if you will, and those attributes are what makes the difference in the distribution of "top top performers"
I believe men, on the average, are more able to take a "single minded" approach to their goals. Women on the average tend to place a higher degree of importance on things like having kids, raising a family, etc.
Even women with great professional talent often "slow down" to raise a family. Men don't experience this nearly on the order that women do. maybe it's cultural... I tend to think there are darn good evolutionary reasons to explain why women will often sacrifice a career to have a kid or raise a family... just as there are darn good evolutionary reasons for women to find "self confidence" as the most attractive trait in a mate. But, this is pure speculation, as I have no evidence of this... at least not yet... (maybe i'll find some, maybe i'll take up a new hobby and research this further myself)
Also, men are, on the average, more willing to take on "risk" in all of it's forms. physical danger, financial risk, emotional and psychological risk. This is neither good nor bad. It gets us killed more often. It ruins familys, it causes bankruptcys... but for the "survivors" who end up beating the odds that they are playing against... they usually end up with a greater "reward" of sorts. Women, on the average, are usually not willing to take such risks that men will take without much of a second thought.
Some women do of course, and some survive long enough to reap the great rewards. Julia Child was mentioned earlier...and I think she is an excellent example of someone willing to take big social and personal risks in trying to do for the american culinary arts what she did. Against all odds, and all precident, an american woman decided to publish a comprehensive series of incredibly detailed books of how to cook int eh french style, and she did it on a level of excellence that many french chefs were forced to admire....
but she was willing to risk her reputation AND her ambassador husbands reputation (and to a degree, his career prospects as well)... she was willing to face rejection after rejection from publishers who wouldn't support her. she was willing to risk her time invested (which was literally years), and she was willing to risk money, as well as close personal friendships, etc. All the while knowing she was trying to do something that no one believed in execpt a very few close to her... and, that no one had done before, and that really had in the past always failed to generate any significant profits for publishers! Yet, she did it anyway.
SHE... IMO, is the exception. If you lined up 100 men and 100 women and outlined the risks that julia child would have faced to do what she did... I'm willing to bet that maybe 20-40 men would be willing to face those risks, if they felt that was something of interest for them to do. Most would fail of course...but a good amount would be willing to have a go at it.
And, if the same situation was posed to the women... I believe a singnificantly fewer amount would be willing to take such risks. Say, maybe 10-15. Most of these would also fail! but... you see where i'm going with this.... nothing ventured, nothing gained, and men are more prone to "venture" than women. If we say that 10% of the men who take the risk are successful, we end up with a number of 2-4 "rockstars". if we say that same number, 10%, of women who take the risk are sucessful, it shows that women are indeed equallly capable. but yet, we would only have maybe 1-2 female "rockstars"... because fewer women would have taken such daunting personal and professional risk in the first place.
Of course.... this would also mean that 18-36 men FAILED... and only 9-13 women FAILED.... hah! lol. in fact... that's potentially a very revealing bit of data!
but, we don't track the losers...we just see the winners. So, if i'm even partially correct.... it is true that men are overrepresented at the very top.... but then, it must also be true that men are over represented at the bottom as well! We just notice those...it's a "surviorship bias"
This risk tolerance is in part, a biological construct and is in fact evident in the way men and women select their mates. For most guys, give him a girl who is trustworthy, who he has a chemistry with, and who is "hot"... and that's all he needs to fall in love, and be willing to move toward marriage.
Women, on the other hand, are MUCH more picky. They have to be. They can't reproduce like men, and they don't want to choose a partner that will abandon them or fail to protect them...evolutionarily speaking. In this way, men are more "romantic" with their mate selction, and women are more "pragmatic". Thats why women are more likley to marry the older, ugly, but "rich" dude... where as men are more likley to marry the younger, dumber, but hotter, chick. Women are bioligically wired to consider more practical and pragmatic details when it comes to making large life changing decisions (on the average). Men, don't do this as much.
But, such pragmatic instinct also impedes embracing risk as men will so often do.
It's not that women CAN'T do it. they totally can (and, sometimes, do!) it's just that women are wired in such a way that they are more pragmatic, and more risk averse by nature than the average human male. And I believe that this is one of the biggest reasons women arn't as evenly represented at the very top of highly meritocratic vocations/avocations. But, they probably have less spectacular heart wrenching soul crushing failures. We just don't notice that part....we notice the "surviors"...not the fields that are littered with the bodies of those who failed.
Any thoughts? comments? sexist slurs?
would like to maintain this type of objective thought and commentary... maybe we'll all find something revealing here....
-E
