You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_itqkjir wrote



[deleted] t1_itqb86d wrote



[deleted] t1_itqruv4 wrote



[deleted] t1_itqwi6g wrote



[deleted] t1_itr18vh wrote



[deleted] t1_itrm9mc wrote



[deleted] t1_itrpxg9 wrote



aaahhhhhhfine t1_itqn8qn wrote

This study is a little odd and maybe I'm just not getting it... I also can't see the whole article because academic publishing sucks.

But it looks like the comparison was simply between high status women and low status women... That basically people trusted information from low status women more than high status women. That's kind of an odd comparison case. I would obviously like to know whether that effect persisted regardless of gender, for example. Like do people distrust high status men in favor of low status men?


MilfshakeGoddess t1_itswber wrote

From the article:

"It's also the opposite for men. When they occupy these senior positions, people tend to trust them more than junior male colleagues, or women in senior positions.”


aaahhhhhhfine t1_ittb6bn wrote

Ahh ok... Thanks! Yeah that feels like a line I'd have put in the abstract!


okblimpo123 t1_itsp8rw wrote

Anecdotally I have found people in general who are in high status positions are less trustworthy than people in low-status positions. For seniority, I find it a mixed bag on how trustworthy they are. The gender of the person rarely affects any of this in my experience, with some empathetic gems and many crusty assholes being the norm for people who seek out/obtain high status jobs.


E_Snap t1_itu0rql wrote

Yeah, people seem to forget the fact that money and power are thicker than blood. No matter what somebody’s ethnic background or gender is, the moment they ascend beyond reasonable means, all of that stops meaning anything compared to the fact that they are now rich and you are not. Do we really need more minority and female CEOs in this world or do we just need fewer CEOs altogether?


Haptoh t1_itu4rp5 wrote

I just assume that anyone in the corporate above my manager is doing everything to screw anyone below them and never trust them. So far noone proved me wrong.


[deleted] t1_itqj0yy wrote



After-Cold-4689 t1_itsr744 wrote

I think bosses in general aren’t trusted, nothing to do with gender or sex


GrumpyKid86 t1_itsdkpz wrote

This is odd to me because 9/10 female bosses I've had have handled things better: more common sense, more supportive, more logic and more empathy. The whole teamwork thing was actually better as well. FYI: I'm autistic and most of the places I've worked with female supervisors or management I've been employed for longer with no detriment to the company or the team. With males it has been the complete opposite bar one male manager that wanted me to succeed and move into management myself.


CthuluTheGrand t1_itsop35 wrote

Well, that's the thing with personal experiences. They differ. Any time I've had a female boss they had that compensative hostility. Like they think they won't be respected so they try to role-play Thatcher thinking that they will gain respect through fear. Always backfires, no exception.


GrumpyKid86 t1_itsqx77 wrote

I'm sorry you went through that and I had the one experience where that happened, and it did backfire. Amusingly.


KingfisherDays t1_itsocaf wrote

Based on the article it doesn't look like they compared men with women, but higher ranked with lower ranked women, and found that the former were trusted less. They also found that higher ranked men were trusted more than lower ranked. But they didn't do a comparison across the genders.

Edit: seems like they did compare


MilfshakeGoddess t1_itswkyb wrote

From the article:

"It's also the opposite for men. When they occupy these senior positions, people tend to trust them more than junior male colleagues, or women in senior positions.”


GrumpyKid86 t1_itsqo04 wrote

I've actually had mixed experiences with that one, but in general I actually trust higher ranked females than lower because lower tend to power grab, backstab and poison drip just to get ahead. Only on one occasion was that scenario reversed.


phdoofus t1_itsgxfp wrote

I was going to say. Have been in the tech world for 25 years and the women are, in general, no worse than the men if not better. Studies have also show that they also make better decisions for the company and focus less on how it affects their own personal outcomes.


LarsBohenan t1_itsi9lf wrote

Not my experience. I've found them to place more value on social engagements and feelings about other people than their job. I've seen over and over again blatant sexism of women toward men and massive treatment disparities. I've also found them more prone to allowing stress get the best of their behaviour. I've had great female supervisors and deplorable male supervisors in my time but on average, in my experience, men hold themselves to a higher standard.


Disastrous_Use_7353 t1_itsug0l wrote

My entirely non-scientific hypothesis: Sexism is so rampant in the workplace that people assume a woman must be hyper-driven, bordering on ruthless, in order to ascend the corporate hierarchy. They probably paid a hefty cost to play the boss and it is logical to consider them a professional threat. Some might argue that a certain degree of fear and mistrust comes with respect. It just reads differently because we are unaccustomed to seeing this power dynamic play out with women in superior roles and men in subordinate roles.


eabred t1_ittcjb1 wrote

It would be interesting to see if women in high positions actually are less trustworthy than lower status women (and also for men).

Because the fact that people think that women are less trustworthy might just be sexism against high status women. There is no way of telling.


lostinKansai t1_itt3uen wrote

For what its worth my experience from working in the government was that women were often (but not always) "groomed" for these senior positions rather than seeking them out and this had a direct impact on how the other staff saw them. I mean if you're just a rank and file worker and someone drags you unwillingly into senior management, who's gonna take you seriously?


Enjutsu t1_ittggb2 wrote

Diversity hires. People don't believe they got their position on merit.


AutoModerator t1_itq9y1t wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


lookylookylulu t1_itt989q wrote

I don't trust anyone in those positions.


VSM1951AG t1_itsdkzi wrote

Is ANYONE in positions of power trusted anymore? I can only think of one who, if exiled to a desert island, wouldn’t make the company I work for better.

Stupidity, rank hypocrisy, focusing on woke BS instead of efficiency, productivity, and profitability.

I mean look who’s running the country: a corrupt, senile dude who can’t do anything but read cue cards, and a high school girl who giggles and can’t put a cogent sentence together.


SportySaturn t1_ittmp71 wrote

>Stupidity, rank hypocrisy, focusing on woke BS instead of efficiency, productivity, and profitability.

I know facts aren't the kind of thing people with your worldview are super interested in, but just to be overly optimistic about who you are: we currently have the greatest corporate profitability ever in the history of the US.

GDP per capita has also been trending upward for a long long long time and is at all time highs:

By the way, America does better economically under Democratic presidencies pretty much as a rule. More job creation, better GDP growth, higher increases in median income, greater improvements in quality of life, stock market returns, deficit reduction, you name it

Democrats invest in America. Republicans have austerity policies that cut investment in growth. By the way, Republican presidents pretty much always usher in a recession, and almost every recession we've had has been ushered in by having a Republican in the white house:

But don't worry. I know. What do facts matter? It feels like Biden is "corrupt" amiright? Hell yeah borther!


VSM1951AG t1_itueaff wrote

Why did you make this about party politics? Did I say anything about party politics? No. I never mentioned either party.

Why would you assume, merely because I criticize a Democratic president and vice president, I’m automatically a Republican? (I’m not.) If I were a Democrat, would I be forbidden somehow from criticizing the current administration? I hope not, as millions of Democrats are as disgusted by our current leadership as I am.

What you’re engaged in is called tribalism. My Team vs. Your Team. “My Team is always awesome, and your team offers nothing of value. “. It’s a two-dimensional worldview, and it’s killing us. We need good ideas and great leaders from wherever we find them.


SportySaturn t1_itv8gtf wrote

You sound defensive. If you're not worried about the facts being extremely clear that Democratic presidencies are much better for the economy, if you're not tribal and able to just call it as it is, can you affirm clearly that we should all be voting for Democrats if we're concerned about the economy?


VSM1951AG t1_itvwkik wrote

No. Again, I am not tribal. Some Democratic policies are better, and some Republican policies are better.


SportySaturn t1_itw3fjb wrote

You don't get to pick policies, you get to pick candidates from a party. The economic track record by party is extremely clear. Democrats are better for the economy. Go read that link. Better numbers for:

Real GDP growth

Job creation rate

unemployment rate

Unemployment rate change

inflation rate

budget deficit

S&P annual returns

Democrats are better for the economy, right? The numbers are very clear, right? Democrats are better, even if you feel like Republicans have better policies, right? Democrats have better outcomes, right?


VSM1951AG t1_itwiqax wrote

Please go away, Democratic Bot. When your party finally fixes the schools, particularly in African American neighborhoods, we’ll talk. The Party of Slavery, the Confederacy, the KKK, and Jim Crow is in no position to blow trumpets about how great it is.


HueBearSong t1_itt3gyr wrote

I mean... it's kind of on society a little bit.

You can be the least sexist person ever and still believe that. This is due to things that are put into place like affirmative action and this whole pc outbreak. It's just a fact that it's not completely unreasonable to think that a female colleague at a high position will be less trusted by coworkers

Factually, men might be more likely to get the role if it's a dead tie due to sexism, but then you can factor in the fact that they are inherently more trustworthy due to being a man. If you're looking for just job performance and not about the status quo, then choosing the man is more logical on average. (but 99% of the time it's just sexism). The point being this huge PC attitude and push for inclusion is so in your face, I can't blame some people for feeling that way.

To reiterate, on average men are favored because sexism but with how aggressive this pc push is makes it a lot more obvious than the secret underlying sexism that is in everyone


alpinepunch2021 t1_ittjtw2 wrote

Someone's mad they couldn't hack it against a woman


HueBearSong t1_ittkjjk wrote

man it's hilarious how stupid y'all are

I stated facts, and even ended it with me agreeing but ok