Why "Gender Differences" In Jobs, Etc., May Actually Reflect Societal Progress
Interesting piece at AEI by Christina Hoff Sommers, commenting on what she sees as pie-in-the-sky 70s feminism in Sheryl Sandberg's just-published book:
Sandberg envisions a time where gender roles all but disappear. "A truly equal world would be one where women ran half our countries and companies and men ran half our homes." She blames society for tricking little girls into liking princesses and little boys into preferring superheroes. "The gender stereotypes introduced in childhood are reinforced throughout our lives and become self-fulfilling prophesies."...Sandberg's goal is to liberate her fellow Americans from the stereotypes of gender. But is that truly liberating? In a 2008 study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a group of international researchers compared data on gender and personality across 55 nations. Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing, risk averse and emotionally expressive, while men are usually more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally flat. But the most fascinating finding is this: Personality differences between men and women are the largest and most robust in the more prosperous, egalitarian, and educated societies. According to the authors, "Higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of sex difference variation across cultures." New York Times science columnist John Tierney summarized the study this way: "It looks as if personality differences between men and women are smaller in traditional cultures like India's or Zimbabwe's than in the Netherlands or the United States. A husband and a stay-at-home wife in a patriarchal Botswanan clan seem to be more alike than a working couple in Denmark or France."
Why should that be? The authors of the study hypothesize that prosperity and equality bring greater opportunities for self-actualization. Wealth, freedom, and education empower men and women to be who they are. It is conspicuously the case that gay liberation is a feature of advanced, prosperous societies: but such societies also afford heterosexuals more opportunities to embrace their gender identities. This cross-cultural research is far from conclusive, but it is intriguing and has great explanatory power. Just think: What if gender difference turns out to be a phenomenon not of oppression, but rather of social well-being?
Consider, in this regard, the gender disparities in engineering. An article on the Wharton School website laments the paucity of women engineers and holds up China and Russia as superior examples of equity. According to the post, "In China, 40 percent of engineers are women, and in the former USSR, women accounted for 58 percent of the engineering workforce." The author blames workplace biases and stereotypes for the fact that women in the United States earn only 20 percent of the doctoral degrees in engineering. But perhaps American women earn fewer degrees in engineering because they don't have to. They have more opportunities to pursue careers that really interest them. American women may be behind men in engineering, but they now earn a majority of all Ph.Ds and outnumber men in humanities, biology, social sciences, and health sciences. Despite 40 years of consciousness-raising and gender-neutral pronouns, most men and women still gravitate to different fields and organize their lives in different ways. Women in countries like Sweden, Norway and Iceland enjoy elaborate supportive legislation, yet their vocational preferences and family priorities are similar to those of American women.
...An up-to-date manifesto on women and work should steer clear of encounter groups and boys-must-play-with dolls rhetoric. It should make room for human reality: that in the pursuit of happiness, men and women often take different paths. Gender differences can sometimes be symptoms of oppression and subordination. But in a modern society they can also be the felicitous consequences of liberated choice--of the "free to be you and me" that women have been working towards for generations.
via @arthurbrooks







98% of workplace deaths in the United States are guys; when feminists start advocating for the right to die on the job, then I'll start believing they're serious about equality
DirkJohanson at March 20, 2013 6:36 AM
I'm inclined to agree with this with some caveats. I find a vision of society where women and men are interchangeable unrealistic (and unappealing) but people should be very cautious about confusing immutable characteristics with societal beliefs. Women have moved successfully in appreciable numbers into fields they were considered temperamentally and intellectually unsuited for only a few decades ago.
I am an analytical women with little interest in nurturing activities. I am glad I was able to study engineering and astrophysics and have a career in an area (building instruments for telescopes) that is traditionally heavily male-oriented. I don't expect our subfield to achieve gender parity but I have already seen a dramatic increase in women working in this area in my 15 years on the job as it becomes easier to break in.
Statistical trends are informative but because most people don't understand statistics, they confuse broad tendencies with individual traits. They also like simple answers over ambiguity and tend to want to stuff people in their appropriate boxes. Hoff Sommers celebrates "free to be you and me" but a large number of people will read this and say, "see, I told you women can't do math!"
Astra at March 20, 2013 6:49 AM
I happen to like being female, thankyouverymuch. There are some things about it that I don't like, such as being looked down on by ignorant men, but there are ignorant women out there too. I don't care much for the double standards, either, but I pretty much ignore those, and there seems to be less emphasis on them lately, anyway. I know what I can and can't do, and I act accordingly. If someone says "you can't do that" and I can prove them wrong, I do. Besides, I thought men and women are supposed to be different. We are. Bottom line. Sandberg's got her head up her ass. There's nothing wrong with being who we are. Trying to force little boys to be little girls and vice versa is just wrong. (Unless, of course, the little boy wants to be a little girl. In which case, just leave him alone. He'll figure it out or he won't, but don't punish the kid ferpetesakes.) In any case Vive la différance!
Flynne at March 20, 2013 6:56 AM
From the quote:
Then the answer presents itself clearly, doesn't it? Just change our standard of living, system of government, and culture to match contemporary China or the former Soviet Union, and watch the disparity disappear! What could possibly go wrong?
From the esteemed Flynne:
I dig Flynne.
Old RPM Daddy (OldRPMDaddy at GMail dot com) at March 20, 2013 7:46 AM
I heart Flynne.
I was acquaintances with a woman who gave new definition to the term "feminazi". She was extreme to the point of being offended when men held doors for her or pulled out her chair, etc... I disliked her personally but we both were part of this group so I was sorta forced to interact with her socially. In the group was also this flaming homosexual male who made Carson on Queer Eye look like a macho man. We were all out at a bar after an event we all attended, just sorta hanging out casually and she begins one of her tirades about being treated equally and directing it at him for some reason (Mind you, he's probably more woman than both of us but I guess he was the closest thing with an actual penis). No one knows what prompted it but she just would.not.stop.ranting. Then, Flamer boy says, "Will you PLEASE shut up! NO one wants to hear your damn mouth all night!"
She hauls off and smacks him. Clear in the mouth. So, being the truly fabulous queer that he was, he stood up, faced her, and smacked her right back. He then said, "Now we're equal, bitch." and sat back down. It was as dramatic as you can imagine. And glorious; She was stunned to silence for the first time since ever.
Then she tried to get us women at the bar to take her side. None of us would. She demanded that Flamer boy be "removed from the premises and the police called". The bartender said, "Honey, you started it."
She paid her tab and left, ranting the whole time of course about men hitting women and pressing charges... blah blah.... I bought him a drink and promised to bail him out if he was arrested.
I always think about this story when these articles come up. The way I look at it, if women want true "gender equality", then women can't pull the vagina card when it's convenient. All or nothing, bitches.
Sabrina at March 20, 2013 9:49 AM
When talking about societal changes I keep thinking about the Amish people and their lifestyle. Not going to find much more traditional than that. Although some would point at superficial things like clothing differences between their men and their women, in personality ethics and views their men and women were way more similar to each other than those in mainstream America.
This runs counter to what Gender Feminists would claim, but follows what this article says.
Joe J at March 20, 2013 9:56 AM
Our friend's wife (from Moscow) has a degree from a Russian engineering school.
They live in Dallas now, and she's studying....nursing.
ahw at March 20, 2013 11:37 AM
As an engineer (and a female), I don't see why anyone needs a doctorate in engineering. A lot of companies actually shy away from hiring someone with "too much" education. I have worked with only one Ph.D, and I, with my bachelor's, could probably have done his job. Also I suspect anyone who goes and gets a doctorate in anything is afraid to leave academia or filled with self-loathing or both.
Sosij at March 20, 2013 12:31 PM
At work they were just touting our "Diversity" stuff a couple weeks ago. I hate that stuff. Diversity itself is fine, but diversity for diversity's sake is just stupid. If we want to remain a top company, we should always try to hire the best person for the job. I don't care if they're a man, woman, hermaphrodite, white, black, blue, green, whatever. Not to mention the hypocrisy that forced diversity programs usually are: they're essentially aiming for "equality" by being deliberately discriminatory.
It's also hypocritical that most people that push for "equality" and "diversity" never seem to have a problem with things like women dominating in a field, or a minority group dominating in a sport, or similar outcomes. Those are always ok.. it's only when it's something men (and especially white men) dominate that it's a bad thing.
I love the bit in there about "tricking" kids into gender roles. I've seen relatives kids grow up and they're not tricked into anything. They know what they like/want from a pretty early age.
That's like the recent "women in combat" stuff. I say go for it.. step one when it's ok'd: All women must sign up for the draft.. err. "selective services" just like men. A lot of women seem to suddenly clam up when that's mentioned.
Miguelitosd at March 20, 2013 1:49 PM
"As an engineer (and a female), I don't see why anyone needs a doctorate in engineering. "
Short answer: government jobs. And the irony is that they usually wind up being contractor babysitters.
Cousin Dave at March 21, 2013 7:20 AM
I have a 2yo girl. We're equal opportunity toy providers, we leave 'girl' and 'boy' type toys around, she chooses what she plays with, we don't guide her (except I try guide her toward more educational type toys, which are generally gender-neutral). On her own though, quite overwhelmingly she ignores the 'boy' type toys .. she just loves playing with her dolls, she drags them around, hugs them, talks to them, feeds them etc. .. we've never encouraged this, it's just intrinsic somehow. I wonder if Sandberg would want me to force her to play with the 'boy' type toys and punish her for playing with dolls.
Lobster at March 23, 2013 5:13 AM
Leave a comment