The Hidden Sexism of How We Think About Risk
nautil.us
nautil.us
A male who takes greater risks has a chance to mate with many more partners and produce substantially more offspring. Women don't have the same sort of payoff opportunity. There's evolutionary pressure for men to take greater risk than women.
Think Genghis Khan or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1358654/The-worlds-b....
Did you even read it?
2. What if economic incentives, not culture effects, are at fault? This would explain why countries with higher inequality have higher violcence and risk taking -- being "passive" could mean death. That is, people will act risky when the economic incentives reward them for it and avoid acting risky when there's only downside potential. This would make culture a result of, and not the cause of, differences in perceived risk.
Anyway this is a good first draft of an article, I look forward to seeing revisions in which the author makes a good faith attempt to represent the opposing view.
At no point does this talk about "fault", all its saying is white men rightly perceive greater benefits from risk taking. Stop moralizing.
The article blames culture for the difference, when it is likely caused by economic incentives. My comment pointed this out.
(your comment assumes it's caused by economic incentives as well. The author of the linked article does not.)
Flynn and colleagues then established that it was a particular subset of white males who were particularly cavalier about risks: those who, in response to the social justice movement’s currently fashionable suggestion to “check your privilege,” would take significantly longer than others to complete the task. These men were well educated, rich, and politically conservative, as well as more trusting of institutions and authorities, and opposed to a “power to the people” view of the world. A number of studies have now replicated this so-called “white male effect” with other large U.S. samples, and the research points to it being “not so much a ‘white male effect’ as a ‘white hierarchical and individualistic male effect.’ ”
It all sounds very matter of fact to me so it's funny to see you throw around words like "fault" and "blame". Seems like you're taking this personally.
We should be looking at median progress or other robust indicators rather than simple averages (which are greatly affected by the presence of outliers and long-tailed distributions)
And no, it's not flabbergasting that you care. It's flabbergasting that a highly educated place like hacker news, in aggregate, might care enough.
Articles like this remind me that I'm having an identity crisis.
While the focus is on western civilization, it's still valid to say that the assertions can be generalized to any society. I make this point because I partly identify as a white male stereotype. I'm using the word stereotype here as something we're both told we are and also an expectation we must simultaneously live up to. Criticism of my stereotype threatens my identity, or the amalgamation of concepts I have of who I am, most of which consists of stereotypes. It's through my identity that I achieve my purpose. If you identify differently and there's a conflict between our stereotypes, then I'll at least start by acknowledging that. While there could very well be little overlap between our stereotypes, chances are there's lots more overlap between what's important to you and I. We both want food, shelter, happiness for ourselves, and the same for people we're close to.
But like, when someone says for example that it's unjust for me as a white male to earn a lot of money - I cannot accept that. Personally, my mother is on the brink of poverty and is unable to work. She doesn't qualify for disability and her social security isn't enough to sustain her. Her health expenses have been $1.5k per month. She's going into $100k worth of debt just to survive. In my immediate family, between my mom, two grandmas, one uncle, and one aunt - I'm the only one with job. When it comes to my income, someone who says that I don't need that money because I'm privileged is making enemies with me. If I loose then my whole family looses. Academics talking about class hierarchy sound smart and may even be right, but they aren't going to save my family.
My identity leads me to disagree with some of the ancillary statements in this article, such as the generalization below. Like a minority of men, a significant part of my childhood was with just a single mother. I believe that for me personally and for others who fall into the same category, "a cringingly low sense of self-worth, apathy, incompetence, and stupidity" are glaring red flags in a woman. For people like me, this is because from a young age, our parental role model has shown us these strong personality traits are important for both sexes.
``But for women, there are no such benefits to be gained from taking risks. This is because—the authors seem to try to put it as tactfully as they can—“men tend to desire women with characteristics that signal high reproductive capacity (e.g., youth) rather than characteristics that might be signaled by risk-taking.” In other words, so long as the hair is glossy, the skin smooth, and the hip-to-waist ratio pleasing, then a cringingly low sense of self-worth, apathy, incompetence, and stupidity are relative trifles, more easily overlooked from the male perspective.``
This next one is also not true for me personally. Again, generally I'm trying to make sense of articles being critical of white men yet they also assume masculine traits have been fostered in these men by patriarchs. In my own opinion and experience, powerful women in the workplace are especially effective.
``For example, there is a stronger expectation of women to “be nice” than there is of men. When women violate this norm in a workplace setting (by behaving in domineering ways or negotiating for better remuneration and conditions, for instance) they encounter backlash from others, who become less willing to work with them, and like them less.``
My identity is more than just a white male stereotype. In terms of ethnicity, I'm also part Indonesian, but that's not where I'm going with this. I identify partly as an effeminate male. I had a distant father figure. Not only was he distant, but for decades and because of a troubled history, I viewed him as the opposite of a role model. Other than men wearing a suit and tie, there's very little he did to reinforce for me the white male stereotype. It's the absence of a patriarch which magnifies the force of the matriarch (and vice versa). Fact is my concept of manhood and the male stereotype was dominated by the conservative ideals of my mother and her mother: My sole propose is to produce.
To the extreme white male stereotype, my small hint of femininity is "cancer" and "degeneracy" and "being a cuck". Their mantra is simply to become more like them, at which point, I shall magically become more confident, sure of myself, and successful. To the opposite ends of the many spectrums, my participation in the oppressive power structures - and by proxy my mere existence - are what damn me. It's an identity crisis, I tell you.
After a long rant what I have to say is: What this article highlights for me is identity-based division and hierarchy make the world a terrible place.
Seemingly the perfect world would be one where everyone could achieve the same things. If sexism hadn't existed, then my mother could have been better off financially, and I wouldn't have been obligated to take on the bill in her late age. If she hadn't been indoctrinated with conservative values through her religion, then maybe she'd have made a better match for my liberal father, and maybe I'd be a more well-rounded person having had grown up with a balance of matriarchal and patriarchal influences - right now I feel like something's missing. My father might also be alive today if he had stayed married to a partner who could have watched over him.
In contrast my present situation is dissatisfying and what's even scarier is that the sheer myriad of conflicting identities inside, let's say, current western civilization, ensures people will continue treating each other in what amount to terrible ways. In a sense I feel an existential crisis as well. By virtue of existing none of us can ever absolutely change the stereotypes assigned to us. Our identities may therefore always be at odds. Seems the best way to get around this is to acknowledge and focus on the common needs we all share, but what an insurmountable challenge it is when our behaviors are ruled by blindness and fear.
"What on first inspection seemed like a sex difference was actually a difference between white males and everyone else."
The entire point of the article is that people are not in fact biologically predisposed to risk; the quote is rather misleading for people who are just skimming the article.
The "white male", in that case, is used because it was an American study, and in America "white males" are privileged due to socioeconomic structural biases.
The article goes on to point out that in a more egalitarian country like Sweden there is far less gender bias in risk taking, which further supports the article's claim.
The article then goes on to discuss similar biases in China, where, again, males are privileged, though obvious they aren't "white" in that case.
If one is reading this article without an intent to take offense, one would realize its conclusions would lead us to predict that, in truly matriarchal society, it would be the women who would predominantly be risk takers.