All these anecdotes about how this kid and that kid displayed common traditional gender preferences seem to be offered as an argument against trying to upset the traditional nature of these preferences. Sure, maybe only 5% of girls are ever going to want to race cars, but the idea is to make room those 5%, and that takes conscience effort.
Overwhelmingly the feminist position that's pushed to the fore is "any lack of equal representation of females in a roles that're desirable is down to patriarchal actions and unrelated to any natural differences between the sexes; which differences are an illusion".
> Overwhelmingly the feminist position that's pushed to the fore is "any lack of equal representation of females in a roles that're desirable is down to patriarchal actions and unrelated to any natural differences between the sexes; which differences are an illusion".
How do we as a society address this point? Whether one argues that the above statement has merit (me) or not, many people on both sides (and probably me in many cases) have such emotional investment in their points that attempting to soberly look at where society is and where society should be on the spectrum between 'the above statement is categorically true globally in 100% of cases' and 'the above statement is categorically false globally in 100% of cases' can feel to me like trying to do laproscopic open-heart brain surgery.
"Equal pay" statistics here purposefully ignore choice of occupation. Also the equal pay stats show (or did last year, they're put out monthly) that even ignoring occupational variations women under 30 got almost the same pay as men, and indeed that men lag behind women in wages for part-time work. I strongly suspect of you discount upper management that you'd find wages very equal -- in which case it's primarily an issue of wealth gap, so not really about sexual disparities in the general population but about sexual disparities in the C-suite (still an issue if there are artificial barriers there based on sex) but it might be busy as hard to break in for someone of the wrong class as anything else.
Which might make harping on "equal pay" (which we have) move focus away from the primary factor of income disparity.
Education and experience bring it to 98% parity overall, with asian women getting to 102% parity. https://www.payscale.com/data/gender-pay-gap
"job market forces and gender preferences in relation to marital status and parenthood could explain almost all of the pay gap. Most of the gap is not the result of gender discrimination" https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hou...
"Because men tend to work more hours than women, especially if they are married, and even more if they are married parents, this could explain a large portion of the pay gap."
"As years pass, men accumulate more practice and training than women. The job market pays more if the worker has more experience. In other words, the gap widens as men acquire more experience than women."
The “multi-variable” is no answer at all. Each of those variables is part of the discussion.
Seems like everybody has a comical view of the pay gap: a big fat cigar chomping man conspiring with his cronies to set low wages for women. It’s far more broad than that, so please get serious about those variables before trying to blow the whole thing off.
Starting point: how do we better make care work less gendered and pay appropriately?
The data says otherwise. Countries that are more egalitarian and have more equal gender roles (e.g. men doing more childcare and housework) actually see lower rates of women in fields like tech as compared to places like the Middle East and Indonesia with very strict gender roles.
This also plays out internally within countries. The United States had larger rates of women in tech during the 70s and early 80s, which saw stricter gender roles as compared to today. These rates of women in tech dropped during the 90s and 2000s during which time fields like law and medicine saw substantial growth in women's representation.
Making work less gendered and making pay non-discriminatory are two different discussions. The solution to the latter is straightforward: stop discriminating.
Saying the wage gap is because of "gender roles" is no answer at all - it suggests you should target the pay scale.
Multi-variable analysis is an attempt to piece out the answer. If the wage gap is $10, and the multi-variable analysis shows it is $2 education, $3 experience, and $5 career choice, then you can investigate why those factors differ, including possible effects of gender roles, without the specter of "gender discrimination in pay".
> Starting point: how do we better make care work less gendered and pay appropriately?
As with everything, either reduce the supply or increase the demand. As long as there is a sufficient supply of people willing and able to provide the service for a low price, the price will be low.
Remember that "price" is not a direct measure of "value". Air, water, and the first 1000 calories per day are incredibly valuable, but they are very inexpensive because there is excess supply.
For what it's worth, limiting supply and providing government subsidies is a great way to make things cost more - health care and the university education are prime examples. Note that these should be viewed as cautionary examples, not recommendations.
My feeling is even bringing it up for discussion could be an automatic DQ, sadly.
I’m for pay equality, we all benefit, but I’m also for finding out what’s what.
Admittedly, I don't have a big world-shattering new point to add or logical argument to segue to based on the results of the question, I'm just curious.
When actually talking to people that is, but if I instead looked at social media, tabloids and tv-talkshows, I would only find extremes.
So even if gender differences are in some sense causal in differential representation that doesn't mean that they're inevitable or that they're something we should just accept.
PS. As pointed out by another comment, there's of course a significant road we have to travel just to get to the baseline, like equal pay for equal work.
This is something that should be said more frequently, maybe packaged up in a catchy slogan, as it would enjoy nearly universal agreement. Whoever does that will end the culture war.
Are you sure about that?
My stance is if there is a natural preference it's probably slight and even if it isn't we should build a system that silos people into jobs because most people like them may prefer to do a particular thing.
Further, just proposing that nature is the cause can get a person fired.
My stance is that lack of proof is being met with lack of proof by a group that is tired of being the target of constant accusations.
This is the basis of "critical X theory", the new non-scientific, default theory for all of society's woes! So if there are any differences between two groups of people, it is assumed from the outset that there is a systematic (evil!) force causing that difference, typically to the detriment of a (perceived, in the case of women) minority group!
So, for example, if there are more men in high-paying jobs, regardless of what the job is, that is Prima facie evidence of current systematic sexism against women to keep them out.
Same with the fact that there are higher rates of Black people in prison, or lower standardized test scores for Black children are, in themselves, proof that there is current systematic racial bias against them by White people.
This has resulted in incredible "solutions" from adherents to this type of theory to this, such as The Progressive Stack, in classrooms[2]
It is noteworthy, that this does not go the other way around! So, for example, the fact that such a small rate of East Asians are in prison, or higher rates of high salaries, or higher standardized test scores, are not evidence of pro-East-Asian bias, it is simply accepted as a combination of nature and nurture that works out for them! However, the fact that a small percentage of East Asians are represented in film and TV, is taken as evidence of coordinated, systemic bias to keep them out.
But not directly because of their race (except as much as racism applies).
I love gals who race. I once had a female instuctor who was wickedly accurate in forumla ford; Molly could consistently put half the tire off the pavement without dropping it into the dirt, no mean feat that. Females are perhaps better suited to some forms of Motor sport than men are--they can be truly topline drag racers.
I don't necessarily agree with conscious effort sentiment however. Race drivers do Not discriminate against females on the track--we Hate every other competitor equally...it does not matter your race, creed nor gender.
The key is to acknowledge first that our society is incredibly gendered (and racist) in ways we often oblivious to.
The same is absolutely not true for boys. Just look at what happens to a little boy if he decides he wants to wear girls' clothes or play with dolls. Whereas a girl wearing pants and playing with trucks will, at worst, be called a tomboy.
How much of that is due to the efforts of men or boys? Or how much is due to bullying by other girls in middle school and high school?
As far as I can tell, schools have put in enormous effort to stop boys from fighting each other. I can’t find much evidence of their efforts to stop girls from bullying each other by spreading rumours. Girls are highly susceptible to peer pressure, particularly from other girls.
Just a few quotes from /r/Parenting:
"BUT his dad had a conniption when he found out that I bought him a baby doll and he thinks that he should not play with “girl” toys." https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/b403o6/how_do_yo...
"A lot of adults (men, women, young, old) make snarky comments in my son's presence about his toy selections (doll houses, play kitchen sets)." https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/b403o6/how_do_yo...
"Now, my husband generally doesn't mind that my step-son plays Barbies or dollies with his sister. However, he draws the line at actually buying "girl" toys for him." https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/53p1ut/boys_and_...
"I'm constantly reminded my girl isn't very "girly". At times I'm even asked whatever I'm concerned about her enjoy so many "boy's things"" https://www.reddit.com/r/Parenting/comments/2ke89r/parents_w...
[edit] what I mean is simply that those kinds of sentiments might be a reaction to perceived bias in culture, expressed as bias but not driven by same, if that makes sense. A kind of re-enforcing meta-bias. Again, doesn't make the effect any better.
Surely you mean to let them go whichever “directions” they like.
But I’m not sure that phrasing was accidental.
If they view any amount of advertising or interact with other children who do, for example, they could already have ideas about what is "appropriate" for them to like.
All I want to say is that there seems to be a stupid amount of aggression towards even the mere idea that statistically girls/boys might like something other than boys/girls do even if social conditioning were completely removed(which is a nonsensical idea in the first place, a child is a member of the society from the second they are born, they are not goldfish).
But on the other hand, lots of people have a tendency to think and say that certain things are "obviously true" based on what they are used to seeing in society, like that boys like cars and girls like dolls, and even start rationalizing it ("This is what is natural and right!") and even actively fight to maintain this "natural truth". They treat boys who like dolls and girls who like cars as deviants who need to be corrected.
And that's bullshit, even if there is a natural inclination towards trends for genders, that doesn't mean that's "natural law" and we ought to make sure to maintain and protect it.
Isn't it somewhat likely though? Kids are born with all of their genes and they can't do anything straight out of the womb. What has zero impact at that point is nurture though. Nurture therefore seems to have a huge influence, this somewhat downgrades genes to only push what's already been established by culture.
I don't think that's a safe assumption to make.
I agree, but the reality is we don't know. Also there's evidence that cultural norms do substantially shape our opportunities (e.g. Denmark vs Saudi Arabia) and we should be mindful of this always. This cuts both ways too — men in Scandinavia are much more likely to be involved in child rearing through choice, and this is something men in other cultures miss out on.
The real fallacy has always been people who think that if something can be proven to be nurture rather than nature, that means it's "naturally right" and should thus be encouraged, and deviancy from that norm "corrected".
It's totally okay for boys to play with dolls even if it turns out nature makes boys favor toy cars over dolls on average.
This seems absurdly out of touch with reality.
To give just one example, but I hope you'd agree there are literally millions if you think about it for a second: There was a recent Hollywood movie and documentary about the true story of a man who was beaten into a coma and permanently brain damaged for wearing the wrong kind of clothes for his gender. And that doesn't seem particularly unusual to me (it's not really the focus of the movie).
I can't think of anything close to that in reverse?
GP did not say anything about x > y. The post merely pointed out that some people like to link everything to social influence.
Yes, pi is not 3 but are people really unaware of the social signals they give off by being so outraged at the mistake given the context?
To extend this analogy far beyond what is wise, I'm not really sure there are that many people who think that pi is 3, probably mostly 3.1 or 3.2, which makes fixation on extreme outliers who might believe it's 3 extra odd.
This has changed over time too. Just look at lego adverts from the 70s https://flashbak.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/LEGO-81-768x...
They don't look like that now!
We dressed her in neutral cloths (second hand), we dont have a TV. Her mother does not wear juwlery or makeup. To us this appears innate.
I don't think your child is interested in jewellery and fancy hats for the same reason as a grown up. My children of both genders enjoy that stuff too, to the point where my none of my wife's jewellery is in one piece.
One thing I've noticed is that I can't look at them without a cultural confirmation bias. So I've completely lost faith that anyone can judge these things without a stringent experimental method.
Which shows nothing. The natural allure might be for girls [in general] to go with pink, and the use of pink for boys (is/was it something to do with hunting?) might have been pure social conditioning.
Aside: Are their examples of paintings showing boys in pink? The only historical "pink" I know of is "hunting pinks" which are bright-red.
I imagine we're only talking "aristocratic boys", as red dyes were expensive and most boys through history will have had natural coloured clothing, I imagine.
My eldest boy used to adore his pink handbag, fwiw. That's a very limited data point, however.
Edit: found https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_sources_f... it does strike me these are selections to prove the point, ie poor statistics. Also there might be errors (blue for a boy, and pink for a boy - sounds most likely to be an error). Also that a lot of the pink for a boy quotes are for babies; seems like what mother's choose for babies is different to what children/juveniles/adults will choose for themselves.
Interesting though.
Not quite sure what your nope refers to, but you release that's not a reason. All you've done is shift the question from "why is pink for boys" to "why is red for boys" and still haven't countered any of my observations, particularly that it might be "pink" was for boys because of social conditioning in the past.
Pink was once for boys.
On the other hand it seems that infant chimps and rhesus monkeys play with gendered toys - https://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/20/chimps-play-...
It seems like nurture isn't naturally all that strong except in certain circumstances.
Was your kid different? Your comment is not a lot to go off of but I get the sense you haven't raised a kid.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222673203_Sex_Diffe...
Oh, and she loves the police/ambulance/fire dept, but most of all, the garbage truck!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2583786/
We shouldn't discount possible genetic influences on preferences.
That still shows a gender imbalance, but I find it interesting that it always seems to be used to imply that girls don't like trucks, rather than boys don't like dolls as much.
(A similar rhetorical trick is used when talking about favorite colours. Apparently lots of people's kids just love pink and this tells them it's all genetic, yet if you survey women their favourite color is the same as men, blue. They just collectively prefer pink more than men relatively speaking)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4785908/
The preference for dolls is likely related to the role of females in childcare. Males are more the explorers and hunters. Women never explored nor hunted very much.
We're in a progressive country where gender equality is good and most people are aware to not show bias and offer girls toy cars and stuff.
My takeaway from the past two years is: There is clear gender preference. Boys generally like cars, girls like dolls. Both like books and puzzles.
Of course there are exceptions but the stereotype is a stereotype for a reason.
EDIT: I looked into this more and could only find studies on 9 months old, which is potentially old enough to argue for socialization, although the studies obviously tried to control for that.
Also, not all ancient hunting was dangerous enough that only the disposable sex would engage in it.
That, and the megafauna that have existed alongside humans have pretty much always been herbivorous mammals. Mammals seem to be universally capable of recognizing which members of another mammal species are children of that species, and are less wary around them, and tend to (for the herbivores) even be intentionally gentle toward them. Mothers of many mammalian species even choose to adopt and care for orphaned children of other mammalian species that don’t look particularly like their own species (and I’ve never heard of this happening with a non-human mammal mother adopting a non-mammal, or a non-mammal adopting anything, so AFAIK it seems to be mostly a “mammal thing.“)
Of course, this same awareness of child-ness leads the carnivorous mammals to think of another species’ children as easy prey. I think humans do have an instinctual understanding of the difference between a herbivorous/“friendly”-looking species, and a carnivorous/“predator”-looking species, and human children do seem to have much less of a desire to attempt to wander up to lions or Tasmanian devils than they do to approach e.g. elephants or giraffes (or horses or cows, for that matter.) And even the kids that love dinosaurs certainly have very little compulsion to approach crocodiles, snakes, or birds of prey. They might think they’re cool—but there’s a component of fear to that admiration.
Humans don’t seem to have any instincts to avoid approaching omnivorous megafauna, and that’s seemingly a hit-or-miss proposition, but maybe this is where the perception-of-child-ness thing comes most into play. An adult human definitely shouldn’t provoke a gorilla or a bear, because an adult human is a viable threat to them, one they feel they have to respond to; but a human child won’t be as easily read as a threat, and might just be ignored, the same way humans don’t really worry about gorilla infants or bear cubs getting near us. (That, and there just aren’t that many omnivorous megafauna, so maybe we don’t have any instincts about them.)
Evopsych "just-so" stories are designed to explain a single fact or observation, so they may sound convincing until you look at the bigger picture.
"Add that to the fact that children frequently conceive of a vehicle as an enormous living creature—“It has lights and those look like eyes, so suddenly it’s got a face,” Toubes pointed out—and it’s almost no wonder that some kids look at garbage trucks like gigantic zoo animals visiting their home."
[0] https://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php?term=Conser...
[1] Things that do not grow or shrink change over time, even if they're redistributed.
No, kids aren't computers.
It's an easy and facile analogy, because we work with computers all day, and are intimately familiar with them. That's precisely why the analogy is wrong.