Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition. As we see equality better represented out there, women should feel less inhibited, in terms of role compliance to get opportunity, and with that, should be expressing themselves through work, as they would any other thing they are doing.
We live in a political climate where people are looking at the tech industry and especially FANG companies with a microscope and unless they see 50/50 representation they feel there must be inequality at work.
James Damore was fired for highlighting this very fact.
What I did not do was declare all people of a given gender different in some immutable way.
Women and men overlap. What we are seeing is more of the feminime presented, and that is womens contribution as inhibition is reduced.
There are guys who operate that way, and they are not common. There are women who operate quite masculine too. Both not so common.
Over time, again as inhibition is reduced, people will present more as who they are, with greater role freedom, and that is a very good thing.
The workplace will be more vibrant as people are represented in all their shades.
That too is a good thing.
I am not judging people, the genders, etc... others have, and the pushback on that is understandable.
The goal here is those who can do the work, desire to do it, should be doing it. Ideally, they present as who thay are and everyone works together with mutual consideration, respect, etc...
None of that is controversial.
It's just as easy to confuse the two concepts in the human society as it is in weakly typed programming languages.
If all genders were truly identical, there would be no point distinguishing between them in the first place.
What I think this study shows (and its not the first) is that it debunks the notion that discrimination is the only reason for any differences in gender representation. If a particular field does not have a 50/50 gender split, then that must be wholly explainable by discrimination. This study shows that this is not the case. There is a component of the unequal split that is based on personal preference. And that personal preference has a biological component. This idea is taboo.
Which is also a notion that nobody has ever argued but suits polarized demagoguery.
For representation, if you increase the scope of the notion from "discrimination is the only reason" to "discrimination and unconscious social biases are the only reason", it certainly applies.
If they could just change it, I assure you so many people that suffer dysphoria would snap their fingers and cure themselves.
.
And it's gender roles that are a social construct, not gender identity. It's unfortunate that both those terms are referred to as "gender", but please try not to spread the confusion.
If we just look at sex rather than gender, I can count five sexual options that mammalian biology likes to throw darts at;
1 - male genitalia
2 - female genitalia
3 - male and female genitalia
4 - no genitalia
5 - make shit up wholesale
Now, only the first two generally go on to produce offspring and the last one usually doesn't make it to birth, but nature doesn't really care for isolated categories or people's desire for simple classification systems.
When it gets to gender things are even more complicated, as some people have a very strong impulse towards a category that they essentially have very little control over, while other people feel as though they can chose from a menu. And both can be correct.
My thoughts on gender and social construct stuff likely wouldn't fit with whatever is politically correct and I've been gratuitously burned enough, thank you, so I don't care to go there at all this time around.
In a nutshell, I'm saying your 5th scientific category of "make shit up" would be more accurate for a broader subset than your framing would tend to suggest.
It's a little like the concept of Newtonian gravity, which was made obsolete by Einstein's Theory of Relativity, yet we still use mathematical formula based on that for calculations here on earth because it's sufficient to that scenario and less work. Theory of Relativity calculations matter for interplanetary travel. Using Newtonian formulae would get you very off course in a basically deadly fashion.
For many situations, male and female are broadly sufficient mental models. Where they aren't, they can be actively harmful. But the fact that higher levels of accuracy are frequently not needed doesn't mean they are actually true anymore than using Newtonian math here on earth makes Newtonian physics not obsolete in a post Einstein world.
I get you, I think I may have put my point across fairly badly in that case.
I would like to add that you just can't live in a complex world without the broader models. Trying to use the accurate models for every case would be just overwhelming.
Sure, everyone likes to bitch about other people using the broader model for their own pet peeves, but this doesn't mean that they aren't - and have to be - ignorant in other cases.
Now we have iron spaceships and wooden small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
If someone was arguing that genders are identical, rather than making an argument about societal treatment of people by others, which is what the actual argument seems largely to be about, they'd be effectively arguing that gender doesn't exist.
There has been considerable and consistent outcry whenever anyone even hints at the idea that gender disparities could be due to irreconcilable gender differences, rather than disparities resulting from social pressures. Many people have been fired even for suggesting it.
So, to reply to your renark: many people in the social sciences think genders are equal at birth, and many other people think that this alleged equality should be somehow preserved by society.
Luckily, data from life sciences seems to contradict this construction.
Well, they do state their analysis is consistent with other data available (which they cite).
> Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition.
Not sure why you're getting down-voted, I think that's fairly accurate. I just read Sandberg's Lean In (recommended by a colleague), from the perspective of a male manager for multiple teams with women at multiple levels (I have 2 to 3 levels of folks below me and all my bosses are women). This concept of affluence lowering inhibition seems to hit Sandberg's thesis and frustration on the head. She knows, knows, friends-with-Gloria-Steinem, knows, that women worked really hard to get what they have, and she worries the current generation is not consolidating those gains and pushing forward but may instead be ceding won territory.
But that's consistent with the resource hypothesis. They has, so they don't want moar. They want to be who they believe they should be, which, at least based on the 6 metrics I see in the paper, seems to be generally nicer people.
Interestingly, IF I read that right, then by correlation, in those same affluent, gender-equal societies, the model predicts men would tend to be more male.
My impression is that there is a lot more social pressure on women to be nice in western countries and especially united states. To the point that expectation is sometimes that women dont swear etc. I dont think I encountered that in Slavic countries that much despite them being less equal overall - the expected differences are elsewhere. The whole women and niceness issues sounded to me like crazy talk, until I learned more about western culture and spend more time in it at which point it started to make sense.
The other thing is that I was personally the most like stereotype when I was stay at home with kids - and I was most unhappy during that time despite it being "choice". It seemed from outside I am choosing stereotypical things, but it was mostly adaptation to situation that looks good and sucked in ways that are hard to explain. Everyone chooses similar friends, but I was not alone in that.
Similarly the least happy women I knew were wifes of well paid men (googlers) who effectively had to stay at home for social/practical reasons (she earned less and it was easier to organize kids/life this way). It was their choice, but primary topic was depression despite seemingly having zero problems in life.
FWIW, a woman swearing definitely lowers her attractiveness, at least to me, by quite a bit.
Different strokes for different folks.
Lazy profanity carries most of the value in the expression.
Carlin: Fuck the fucking fuckers.
Not lazy profanity adds to strong value, and is valid and potent.
You picked well. I have one of those in my life too. She is a gem.
If only! My life would be vastly simpler if my foul mouth just got me left the hell alone by men.
Also, everything I have read and experienced suggests that other women are a huge source of social pressure on female behavior, possibly far more than male sexual predilections.
An actress once said "I dress for women. I undress for men." That seems to sum certain things up nicely in a nutshell.
A lot of men (me included) check for a ring and do not approach if there is one. Not all men are dissuaded by that, of course.
Consider there are a lot worse things than being attractive to men. Attractiveness makes for many opportunities, studies show that attractive people get paid more and get better tips. I am not physically attractive to women (none of my girlfriends have ever complimented me on my looks) so I have to work that much harder. Maybe they like me because I don't swear :-)
Plenty of women have been raped and stalked. Some would be hard pressed to name worse experiences than the ones they have had for the crime of being attractive.
> Also, everything I have read and experienced suggests that other women are a huge source of social pressure on female behavior, possibly far more than male sexual predilections.
It is kind of interesting that whenever general "society expects women x" many many people translate it into "men expects women x". My observation is that men are bigger on putting social pressure on other men and women on other women. Or more generally, people tend to be much bigger on being upset about breaking rules they consider themselves being bound up to.
It's not just me. It's unusual to see a couple where one swears and the other doesn't. Swearing will also exclude one from various social, business, and political circles, and they'll never tell you why. They may not even consciously know themselves.
Profanity is often used as an expression of comfort and security among ones peers. That is nice to have in play.
Happy to leave you alone that way. :D But would enjoy working with you otherwise. Sadly, a lot of guys see that signal as the wrong kind. Unfortunate.
As for dress, it should be for you first and foremost. Those other people should be doing them, you do you. Maybe we will get there.
Stating blatantly that "Really, what we are discussing here is lowering of inhibition." is a low effort conclusion when the study actually compares the competing "social role hypothesis" and "resource hypothesis".
From the reading here, I should be.
Honestly, it just means my natural inclinations toward gender issues are not far off the mark. That may be less common than I realized.