Since, in the ancestral environment, women were seldom bosses, whereas that minority of males that became ancestors frequently became ancestors because they were successful bosses, it is unsurprising that men are
inherently better adapted to it by a very large margin, a margin that is as large and obvious as the difference in upper body strength, or possibly larger.
To argue that women bosses are on average equally likeable as bosses, is like arguing that women are on average as strong as men. It is just nuts.
To argue that women bosses are on average equally likeable as bosses
Nobody here argued that, as far as I can tell. What you seem to find offensive is the prediction that female bosses may be more likeable in Sweden than in Texas.
As for the evolutionary argument, even if I acknowledged modern-day bosses of capitalist companies to be the equivalent of the sword-swinging warlords and kings, it doesn’t explain to me why Queen Elizabeth is seen as so much more likeable than Prince Charles, and in an informal poll I just found here it doesn’t explain why four out of five favourite monarchs from everyone seem to be female.
Evolutionary arguments often merely have the shape of a justification, but in reality they’re like snakes that you can twist them any old way to plug into any bottomline one seeks. After all one could just as well argue that male bosses could use physical strength and intimidation to frighten opponents, but his consorts needed to be well liked in order to have favorite position to produce the heirs—so likeability goes to women, and physical strength goes to men. Evolutionary arguments are often of very little use.
You would like to see Harvard bless a fact that runs contrary to Harvard doctrine? You will have a long wait.
Yet the fact is evident, so evident that to make a study would be as ludicrous as a study to confirm that women have less upper body strength. There is, however, a study which reports, not that female bosses are less likeable, but that every single person surveyed is so horribly sexist, racist, stupid, and nasty, that they do not like female bosses
Since, in the ancestral environment, women were seldom bosses, whereas that minority of males that became ancestors frequently became ancestors because they were successful bosses, it is unsurprising that men are inherently better adapted to it by a very large margin, a margin that is as large and obvious as the difference in upper body strength, or possibly larger.
To argue that women bosses are on average equally likeable as bosses, is like arguing that women are on average as strong as men. It is just nuts.
Nobody here argued that, as far as I can tell. What you seem to find offensive is the prediction that female bosses may be more likeable in Sweden than in Texas.
As for the evolutionary argument, even if I acknowledged modern-day bosses of capitalist companies to be the equivalent of the sword-swinging warlords and kings, it doesn’t explain to me why Queen Elizabeth is seen as so much more likeable than Prince Charles, and in an informal poll I just found here it doesn’t explain why four out of five favourite monarchs from everyone seem to be female.
Evolutionary arguments often merely have the shape of a justification, but in reality they’re like snakes that you can twist them any old way to plug into any bottomline one seeks. After all one could just as well argue that male bosses could use physical strength and intimidation to frighten opponents, but his consorts needed to be well liked in order to have favorite position to produce the heirs—so likeability goes to women, and physical strength goes to men. Evolutionary arguments are often of very little use.