I agree 100 percent with your overall point, but I do want to comment on the part where you point out that women are still underrepresented in politics and that girls drop out of sports. I believe that statistics show that in the most egalitarian countries, where men and women have the narrowest pay gaps and the most equal standing legal…
I agree 100 percent with your overall point, but I do want to comment on the part where you point out that women are still underrepresented in politics and that girls drop out of sports. I believe that statistics show that in the most egalitarian countries, where men and women have the narrowest pay gaps and the most equal standing legally, women end up choosing to stay at home and work part time more often than in comparably rich but not as egalitarian countries. Women do have different priorities and likes (on average, of course). I don't have the data for this, but I suspect that a lot of girls choose not to continue with sports because their priorities change, and that's ok. I also suspect more men than women enjoy the competitive and often combative and aggressive side of politics. That's where the difficulty arises oftentimes - in the murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes.
It's entirely possible that if we really had equality and choice, and equality of choice, more women would hew to stereotypically feminine pasttimes. But we don't have a way to separate gender roles from biology under we achieve that still-mythical equality. So in the meantime, we can focus on equality of opportunity. I'm writing about this a lot in my book on the ideal of the housewife.
Yes, equality of opportunity is certainly important. And I also wish that we would cultivate a societal acceptance of the differences between men and women, and not rank the qualities associated with the sexes, which would also benefit gender non-confirming people, by the way. Women do tend to want to stay home with the kids more than men, and I suspect it has a lot to do with biology rather than socialization. That work should be seen as much a contribution to society as, say, working in an office. It would be even better if staying at home was remunerated, which would enable parents, regardless of their sex, to decide who stays home with the kids not based on their jobs but based on their desires... But of course that's mythical utopia again, at least for now.
I look forward to reading your next book! "Tomboy" is on its way to me from my local library already.
But if that's the case - some merit in it - then one might argue that many of the social problems we face are due to women falling down on that job. 😉 Or that economic factors have conspired to prevent them from performing it.
Though part of the problem there is a case of supply and demand: the more people available to do a given task, the more competition there is for those jobs and lower wages offered. Might be wise if we paid housewives - at least those with kids - a decent salary, though there's then the problem of ensuring adequate performance and decent quality of the resulting "product" - so to speak. 🙂
But to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone, and relative to your earlier, "murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes", you might be interested in this oldish essay which has helpful population distributions by sex of a composite of personality traits - essentially "gender" in a nutshell:
Of maybe particular relevance to something you had said earlier:
"When social influences are weakened (in more egalitarian societies), the sex-related differences in personality and preferences increase.[h] [i] This suggests that as environmental pressures become relaxed, innate sex-specific preferences surface."
Rather moot, and often a fractious bone of contention, as to how much of those personality and behaviour differences by sex - and their consequential stereotypes - are due to nature and how much to nurture. And how much to individual choice - presumably we are all, more or less, more than just our biology or what our environments have "programmed" us as.
I agree 100 percent with your overall point, but I do want to comment on the part where you point out that women are still underrepresented in politics and that girls drop out of sports. I believe that statistics show that in the most egalitarian countries, where men and women have the narrowest pay gaps and the most equal standing legally, women end up choosing to stay at home and work part time more often than in comparably rich but not as egalitarian countries. Women do have different priorities and likes (on average, of course). I don't have the data for this, but I suspect that a lot of girls choose not to continue with sports because their priorities change, and that's ok. I also suspect more men than women enjoy the competitive and often combative and aggressive side of politics. That's where the difficulty arises oftentimes - in the murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes.
That could be, but I was thinking of these stats, which don't point to dropping out because of changing interests, but rather changing pressures: https://www.womenssportsfoundation.org/do-you-know-the-factors-influencing-girls-participation-in-sports/#:~:text=By%20age%2014%2C%20many%20girls,times%20the%20rate%20of%20boys.&text=Through%20more%20than%2025%20years,contribute%20to%20this%20alarming%20statistic.
It's entirely possible that if we really had equality and choice, and equality of choice, more women would hew to stereotypically feminine pasttimes. But we don't have a way to separate gender roles from biology under we achieve that still-mythical equality. So in the meantime, we can focus on equality of opportunity. I'm writing about this a lot in my book on the ideal of the housewife.
Yes, equality of opportunity is certainly important. And I also wish that we would cultivate a societal acceptance of the differences between men and women, and not rank the qualities associated with the sexes, which would also benefit gender non-confirming people, by the way. Women do tend to want to stay home with the kids more than men, and I suspect it has a lot to do with biology rather than socialization. That work should be seen as much a contribution to society as, say, working in an office. It would be even better if staying at home was remunerated, which would enable parents, regardless of their sex, to decide who stays home with the kids not based on their jobs but based on their desires... But of course that's mythical utopia again, at least for now.
I look forward to reading your next book! "Tomboy" is on its way to me from my local library already.
"That work [staying at home with the kids] should be seen as much a contribution to society as, say, working in an office."
Indeed. Reminds me of the quip that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" - old 1865 poem in fact:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hand_That_Rocks_the_Cradle_(poem)
But if that's the case - some merit in it - then one might argue that many of the social problems we face are due to women falling down on that job. 😉 Or that economic factors have conspired to prevent them from performing it.
Though part of the problem there is a case of supply and demand: the more people available to do a given task, the more competition there is for those jobs and lower wages offered. Might be wise if we paid housewives - at least those with kids - a decent salary, though there's then the problem of ensuring adequate performance and decent quality of the resulting "product" - so to speak. 🙂
But to kill the proverbial two birds with one stone, and relative to your earlier, "murkiness of predispositions versus stereotypes", you might be interested in this oldish essay which has helpful population distributions by sex of a composite of personality traits - essentially "gender" in a nutshell:
https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-child-is-born-in-the-wrong-body-and-other-thoughts-on-the-concept-of-gender-identity/
Of maybe particular relevance to something you had said earlier:
"When social influences are weakened (in more egalitarian societies), the sex-related differences in personality and preferences increase.[h] [i] This suggests that as environmental pressures become relaxed, innate sex-specific preferences surface."
Rather moot, and often a fractious bone of contention, as to how much of those personality and behaviour differences by sex - and their consequential stereotypes - are due to nature and how much to nurture. And how much to individual choice - presumably we are all, more or less, more than just our biology or what our environments have "programmed" us as.