[lenticular]

I doubt it is anywhere near just as likely to flow in the opposite direction. It's not like masculine white males are favored just because of their voice pitch. That ideal as the ideal of power is deeply ingrained in our society.

More generally, humans will basically always show bias towards those in more dominant groups, because currying favor with such people is a far better winning strategy than being nice to low-status individuals. Whether the Hutus and Tutsis, white and black, masculine male vs effeminate, etc, it always is the same.

This is just an unfortunate thing about the human brain, but we can use our reasoning ability to correct it. But first, we have to accept hat it exists.

[microcolonel]

Why would it be unfortunate that masculine men are preferred in some roles to effeminate men? I don't see the moral issue of such a preference.

[lenticular]

We're talking about employment here. Masculine vs. feminine has nothing to do with job performance except in maybe porn or something.

If masculine men are preferred, then that means everyone else isn't. It's an obvious avenue for discrimination against women and LGBT people.

I'm a very masculine gay man (I'm just stating that as a fact, I'm not better than anyone else for it). I do know many more effeminate gay men. Things really are more difficult in the workplace for them especially, not jut in my experience, but empirically. I'm glad I don't have that affect because it makes my life easier, but biases like this can creep in and will always be damaging.

[microcolonel]

> We're talking about employment here. Masculine vs. feminine has nothing to do with job performance except in maybe porn or something.

That seems like a baseless assertion to me, what makes you so certain that masculinity or correlated factors have no effect on job performance for male CEOs?