Corporate Blackpill

From Incel Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is a WIP, please do not hesitate to edit

The Gender Pay Gap Myth[edit | edit source]

In most western countries, the gender pay gap is measured by "full-time earnings" (with WSJ's data on 400+ occupations[1]) or "gross hourly earnings", both failing to capture the job preference of females vs males, for example females are less likely to pursue hard labor, and more likely to pursue care-related services.

Family Status[edit | edit source]

AEI[2] has confirmed such suspicion, that marriage, childrearing and age are the major sub-factors (older males can out-work older females). Feminists will claim that family is what is holding them back from financial freedom. TBD.

Hour Difference[edit | edit source]

Historically[3], in 1950 the weekly hours between men and women are different by 24 hours, whilst in 1990 and 2000 the gap has been reduced to less than 10, even though average hours did not change, at 23 hours a week throughout the time period. This implies that women only work 70% of a man's hours in 2000s.

Career Choice[edit | edit source]

Career choice wise, in both US[4], UK[5], and Worldwide[6], females consistently picks care-related jobs more than males, and males consistently picks business and STEM jobs compared to females. Females are also more likely to pick low-paying college majors compared to males[7]. Even in the case of within-STEM environments[8], females consistently pick social sciences (AKA "soft" sciences), and males consistently pick Engineering and Computing (AKA "hard" sciences). More feminized and low-paying university majors also correlates to high graduation rates[9].

Gender Differences in Scams[edit | edit source]

Females are more likely to participate in Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) schemes, 74% of the participants are women[10][11], representing 15% of the female population[12], often for the sake of feminism and "Girlbossing"[13], and as a 92-99% failure rate[14]. They often exploit friendships to meet sales and recruitment quotas, which is detrimental to themselves and others[15][16][17][17]. This topic has been reported by Iilluminaughtii[18] among others. Note: MLMs are legal in the United States.

Conversely, males are more likely to be victim of IT Support Scams[19][20], and "Business Guru", "Get Rich Quick", or "Self-Help" Scams (aka Contraprenuers). Most top "Gurus" are male as well[21], and represented by 72% Males[22]. This topic has been reported by Mike Winnet[23] and Coffezilla[24].

Observing these discrepancies, one can make two notes: schemes that targets females are less likely to be subjected to legal scrutiny compared to those that target males, and that such schemes relies more on social networking and pressured repayment than charisma (or Confidence and Coolness) and lazy voluntarism.

Eastern vs Western Corporate Culture[edit | edit source]

Western HR, PR, Administration and Sales Culture[edit | edit source]

In the west, 67% of HR managers are Female[25][26], 63% of PR specialists are female[27][28]. Compare to this the majority of C-Suites and Technologists being Male. The same can also be said for administration and sales positions. Effects TBD.

"Girlboss" as "Queen Bee" and "Bully Boss"[edit | edit source]

Benenson[29] demonstrated that high status women simply are less altruistic. Naomi Ellemers'[30] study in Netherlands, on female law enforcement, discovered that "self-group distancing" effect exists, where females copies male stereotypes (but not necessarily male traits of success). Pew and Gallop Polls[31] reported that female employees simply prefer male bosses. Warning and Buchanan[32] noted that females will praise other female managers, but will not work with them. Rosalind Wiseman[33] theorized that those who are raised in a power scarcity paradigm, will hoard power. Feminism in the workforce has to reconcile between abusive female bosses and "internalizing sexism".[34]

The feminist argument, is that the corporate structure is biased against females, is forcing them to be like males, and that it does not allow them to show their feminine traits. This line of argumentation suffers from multiple issues:

  • beneficial traits are dependent on corporate structure (e.g. Charismatic Leadership vs Relationship Culture vs Task Orientation)[35][36] and dimensionalities[37]
  • the possibilities that negative managerial trait (e.g. Machiavellianism, Passive-Aggression) adaptation can be position-biased rather than male-biased
  • the possibilities that positive managerial traits (e.g. Trust, Merit, Confidence, Focus) are more likely a male-biased trait rather than position-biased

There are three major "Nightmare Traits"[38] for leaders: Dishonesty, Disagreeableness, and Carelessness. Further research[39] indicated that Honesty, Extraversion and Conscientiousness are the best traits for leadership. Further research into Relational, Ethical, Task, Transactional, and Transformational leadership is needed. TBD

Head Girl Syndrome[edit | edit source]

A major phenomena that explains this is the Head Girl Syndrome[40][41][42], or girls that are agreeable and "well-rounded", whilst being incompetent by doing "pretend work" in a conscientious manner. This is diametrically opposite to the creative genius who are disagreeable and open about their creativity in one specific niche. Head Girls are made specifically to oversee the functioning of a corporation, but they are blind against nuance. On the feminist side of the equation, there is the Good Girl Syndrome[43][44], which only warned females against inferiority and fragility towards criticism, pathological altruism/positivity and its association with acquiring love, and lack of commitment (leading to Dark attraction). The major difference between these two terms, is that the latter only addresses abuses of personal power (prestige), but not malformity of positional power (dominance). Later sections will discuss its relevance.

The problem of "fake work" and "hustling" is noted[45][46][47][48] to be harmful, where most recognized that a 32-35 hour workweek is healthier and more productive then those with 40-45 hour workweeks. However[49][50], female on average works 11% more hours (both paid and unpaid) compared to men whilst earning 17% less money, implying that females are 34% less efficient at work compared to men. The overworking, underqualification and feminist self-deceit are more likely breed an atmosphere that overworking is good, when in fact it is harmful.

Chinese Cheerleader Culture[edit | edit source]

Chinese Tech Company has done the exact opposite of "hiring more female workers" by hiring females to act as "cheerleaders" to increase productivity[51][52]. Internal Surveys noted that romantic relationships are a major factor for productivity[53]. TBD.

Prestige Hierarchy[edit | edit source]

The Prestige Hierarchy[54][55] is an independent system from the Dominance Hierarchy, since dominance strategies can often backfire[56] if one does not have enough coercive advantage, and is often fragile and do not last long. Prestige instead is earned through social networking in the long term. It can be said that prestige is a Beta male strategy in the workplace, as they have to rely on teamwork and social cohesion to prevent failure.

Prestige as "Friendship" Acquisition and Nice Guy Behavioralism[edit | edit source]

From a mobile network study[57], Openness and Agreeableness are tied to friendship turnover and friendship "nepotism", whilst Extraversion is the main factor for "persistence" of friendship. In an ego network study[58], Extraversion implies more contacts and less age diversity. In a Facebook friend group study[59], Extraversion (and Maybe Conscientiousness) correlates to more friends, openness correlates to less friends. In a longitudinal study[60], Extroversion and Openness has opposite effects in exploring social group sizes, whilst having similar effects in social adaptation. From a social capital study[61], Openness can increase expertise notoriety, Emotional Stability and Agreeableness can increase aid and support, whilst Extraversion increases both forms of "social capital". In a study on close friends[62], Extraversion and Openness leads to having friends in similar age groups, Emotional Stability and Agreeableness leads to having younger friends, Conscientiousness leads to having friends of diverse age groups. Also Extraversion, Emotional Stability & Agreeableness dictate social and cultural homophily, whilst Openness imply the converse.

Through these studies, one can identify some critical traits of acquiring friendship. (these can be superimposed into Dominance_hierarchy#Viewing_Male_Requirements_from_the_eyes_of_Male_Hierarchy and alternate interpretations of moral frameworks[63])

  1. Emotional Stability and Agreeableness are often correlated to drifting social groups towards homophilic and advantageous environments with younger cohorts. The former is a narcissistic trait under Dark Triad, while the latter is an authoritarian trait. It can be implied that these two traits corresponds to the Prestige Hierarchy. A more masculinized right-hand digit ratio[64] also implies the increase of these two traits, suggesting that prestige is an orthogonal trait to Extraversion or Dominance.
  2. Openness are often nomadic in relation to acquiring expertise over time with culturally diverse individuals of similar ages, rather than social "support" (Personal Power) and "stability". Since Openness is heavily tied to IQ[65], it can be safe to assume that open-minded intellectuals are more likely to favor independence and like-mindedness.
  3. Extraversion (Masculine) is beneficial in acquiring multiple forms of friendship, support and prestige, and can often solidify fraternal homogenous social bonds. These can be considered Chad trait (narcissism) under the Dominance Hierarchy.

Dominance, Prestige and Expertise as Social Network Roles[edit | edit source]

As a primer to the following paragraph, there are three major forms of Centrality[66]: Degree Centrality (e.g. Hub, PageRank, Leverage), Closeness Centrality (e.g. Eigenvector, Information, Laplacian), and Betweenness Centrality (e.g. Bridging). Degree Centrality relates to having high social connections (and Oversocialization), Closeness Centrality relates to depth of social relations (and embeddedness), and Betweenness Centrality relates to the ability to be in multiple communities (and social diversity).

Regarding Social Network Centrality[67], prestige personalities correlates to low Closeness Centrality, openness correlates to low Degree Centrality, and dominance personalities correlates to low betweenness centrality.

Contrast this to research on mental illness[68] where the available indices are

  • Indegree (a directed form of Degree-likes), which correlated to less likelihood of being Schizoid, Schizotypal, Avoidant
  • Outdegree Bias, which correlated to Cluster B, Paranoid, Schizoid, and OCPD personalities.
  • Betweenness and Outdegree, which correlated to less likelihood of being Schizoid, Schizotypal, Avoidant, Dependent, and OCPD personalities, and more likelihood of being cluster B.

Prestige as Personal Power and "Authenticity"[edit | edit source]

This dual dynamic can be further described as the two forms of power[69][70] noted by French & Raven[71], those that are dominant have "Positional Power" (AKA "structural power" or "formal power", top-down authority and compliance), and those that are prestigious have "Personal Power" (AKA "relational power", peer support and commitment). Those that relies on the latter form of power often require to get in the good graces of other co-workers in order to handle office politics. Also, there has been a push towards leader-less (egalitarian) work environments where peer pressure is increased, popularized by Netflix's HR model[72].

This dual dynamic can extend into the view of self[73], where Hubris is correlated to Dark Traits, social fear and anxiety, whilst Authenticity is correlated to lower attachment avoidance and anxiety (i.e. sociability). This can be mapped onto dominance (positional power) and prestige (personal power). It is not surprising that corporate culture's emphasis on identity and positivity is on the rise due to a shift from hubris to the authenticity.

Detachment From Professionalism[edit | edit source]

However, both dominance and prestige are independent from task knowledge (AKA Expertise Power)[74][75]. This is often caused by the Dilbert Principle (refusal to fire incompetents leads to managerial positioning), as noted by the concept of Bullshit Jobs as noted by David Graeber[76], which includes Flunkies (prestige services), Goons (corporate tacticians), Duct Tapers (legacy system maintainer), Box Tickers (quality and compliance), and Taskmasters (unnecessary management). This can cascade to the Peter Principle (incompetence increases the higher you go) and Putt’s Law (Expertise-Management divergence), which its defensive mechanism will ultimately follow Shirky Principle (companies will preserve the problems they intended to solve) and Conquest's Third Law (bureaucracy behaves like the enemy).

Most Bullshit Jobs are Email Jobs (See: Statusmaxx), i.e. tertiary sector (service jobs), however replacing Box Tickers and Taskmasters with Automated Decision Makers (ADM) is often frowned upon, including the introduction of GDPR's Article 22[77], and the backlash on Amazon's automated firing policy[78][79] and optimized ("sexist") AI resume readers[80][81]. It can be said that such jobs exists for humanist purposes. Another theory is that those in such position have Psychopathy (masculinized), and cannot be integrated into other more high IQ (feminized) jobs like forth sector (research and development), and therefore use such position as containment device against social instability. TBD.

Desire for Leadership[edit | edit source]

Leadership[82] is often motivated by prestige rather than dominance, and that it requires both plasticity and stability. However, people that are dominant are often low in openness and conscientiousness, whilst those that are prestigious are more agreeable.

The "Linkedin is the new Tinder" phenomena[edit | edit source] This phenomenon has been noted by people as a new trend since 2018. The Article provided a first hand account of a 38-year old[83] Femoid (a "Business Developer") getting "unsolicited" attention from an unidentified person. There are a few identifiable red flags:

  1. Inability to understand Corporate simping e.g. "I work in BD, I’m paid to get people to like me." (See: Joshua Fluke's investigations) e.g. "Red flags were raised when he kept commenting on EVERY post I made on LinkedIn."
  2. Either the person is not a predator, or that the women in question is unwilling to directly block him e.g. "I questioned whether I had led him on at all." e.g. "I didn’t want to ‘out’ the guy." e.g. "But again, as it didn’t affect me directly, I thought I’d give him the “benefit of the doubt’."
  3. Social shaming and social isolation tactic being readily used e.g. "Are you that sad and pathetic in your real day to day life that you must resort to using a cover story of potential work or project opportunity to find a date?" e.g. "I have chosen to ignore him but I have kept my friends on (personal) social media completely updated as to this absolute mind-blowing nonsense from this seemingly clueless male."

See Also[edit | edit source]

References[edit | edit source]

  17. 17.0 17.1