Discussion When does the magical metamorphosis happen?

But it didn't suddenly happen. Their fathers (and many of their mothers) were happier to see them when they were born - or when ultrasound revealed that they were boys. Then they were constantly told how brave and strong they were, then the teachers allowed them to dominate every project and conversation, even though the girls were the ones actually learning and achieving. Their interests were actively encouraged, their activities, like sports, were more highly valued and the systems to show mastery were built to reward their strengths. Their lies still got them dates, because young women were pressured and convinced that they were only valid if they were desired by young men, and they acted in good faith, assuming that the boys did the same. Then they graduated and headed out into a world designed for them, by them. There was never any need to metamorphose; the world was and is already theirs.

Honestly, I'm convinced the only reason men run anything is because of the looming threat of physical harm they could dish out if they don't get their way; like placating an overgrown destructive toddler. Them being more ruthless about getting what they want is a factor, as well. Its certainly not because they're overall more intelligent or competent, as we can observe. If I had thousands of years of unchecked hubris and no serious societal push-back for my behavior, I'd be obnoxiously confident too.

I honestly feel like it's because cruelty and a disregard for how actions impact other people allows people to "get ahead" in managerial settings. That isn't to say that all managers/people in power are awful; it just seems like an awful lot of them are self-centered and entirely careless men. Even looking at my own family members who have gone down corporate paths, many are highly self-centered men and seriously have no care in the world for how they hurt others, as long as it furthers their personal interests.

Capitalism rewards self-interest and doesn't care about collateral damage. So, it seems to disproportionately benefit sociopathic and self-absorbed men more than anyone else. I know that my reply is an oversimplification of a complicated issue, but I feel like this is a huge contributing factor.

The things you name in boys, are males practicing competing with other males, practicing reducing their empathy in order to have life-changing decision making over others, practicing ordering others around and watching the consequences, practicing demanding things from others and seeing if they can get them. This is a straight line to men having power, whether just over a wife and kids, or over the cashiers at a store, or in men who are often born into a higher class, having power over money, lives, and nations.

I've seen so many men fail up.

They do say that with law school - that the A students go to the big firms and the C students open their own firms and will hire the A students one day.

They didn't, any and all bad behavior up to that point is simply excused as boys being boys or immaturity. He was always qualified and worthy, he had a penis the whole time didn't he?

I say it all the time, its the patriarchy doing what the patriarchy does.

I see it as more of a continuous progression. Boys are given more importance and more leeway from birth, and they keep on throwing their weight around all the way through. Hard work and maturity have nothing to do with it. It’s their world from the beginning.

Have you ever read The Women’s Room by Marylin French? She asks the same question

This is a good question. I can only tell you what I see happening with the older teens I work with. Whenever there is a leadership position going, I'd say 80%+ of the girls hang back and look to the boys to accept that role and take charge. Even when, as happens more often than you'd think, the boys don't want to do it, they end up taking it on. Even when the boys are told it's the girls' turn now and the girls are invited to have a go, they still hang back and shake their heads no.

This is merely what I've observed. It's not true all the time but it's true more often than not. Why it's this way is the big question, although I think we all have some inking of the answer.

The men in positions of power see themselves in young men and want the type of people around them that reflect their values (i.e. male supremacy). Men are often hired on their future potential; women are not because they are burdened with most of the domestic chores and child rearing, which compromises their perceived future working potential.