Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

science.sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 536 posts

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#11

Post by retrogradeorbit »

starbeast wrote: post #9
retrogradeorbit wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not get the memo? Gender is purely a social construct. It has no biological underpinning. One can identify as any gender they feel. And then they are that gender. Thus any "differences" you may think you perceive between genders are not real. They are purely cosmetic.

Did you not get the memo? All social constructs are biological. All behaviour has a biological underpinning, how could it be otherwise?

I don't disagree with you at all. There are a huge amount of people who do disagree with you, though. You just commented that you didn't know anyone pushing such a narrative. And that surprised me because it's everywhere. So I thought I'd just flesh out that dominant point of view so that you could identify it in the society around you.

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.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#12

Post by starbeast »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #8
starbeast wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone pushing the notion that genders are or should be identical.

There's huge amounts of double-speak on such subjects. There's an awful lot of denial that there are any real differences at all, combined with insistence on the exact opposite, often from the same people, depending on the topic.

I think the double speak comes from a desire for a definitive taxonomy where none exists.

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.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#13

Post by ur-whale »

retrogradeorbit wrote: post #7
starbeast wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know anyone pushing the notion that genders are or should be identical.

Did you not get the memo? Gender is purely a social construct. It has no biological underpinning. One can identify as any gender they feel. And then they are that gender. Thus any "differences" you may think you perceive between genders are not real. They are purely cosmetic.

Can't tell if sarcasm

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#15

Post by DoreenMichele »

starbeast wrote: post #12
DoreenMichele wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's huge amounts of double-speak on such subjects. There's an awful lot of denial that there are any real differences at all, combined with insistence on the exact opposite, often from the same people, depending on the topic.

I think the double speak comes from a desire for a definitive taxonomy where none exists. 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…

Your remarks on the sex thing don't actually fit with what I've read from (people I understand to be) actual scientists specializing in this stuff, which basically boils down to "You know that binary male-female classification? We basically made that up and nature didn't ask our opinion, kind of like how the platypus fails to conveniently fit our made up categories for animals because our made up categories and mental models are just that and nature doesn't really have a big investment in what we think before it does its thing."

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.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#16

Post by killjoywashere »

ddingus wrote: post #2

This seems like non-news to me. 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.

> This seems like non-news to me.

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.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#17

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

starbeast wrote: post #6
seagullz wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet, the preferential difference in expressing themselves implies that genders are not identical after all, an idea that doesn't get treated as a truism.

I don't know anyone pushing the notion that genders are or should be identical.

At least in terms of jobs (not opportunities, but being fit for a given task and performing it, or even being interested in it) there is a lot of pressure that they be identical, and in certain countries even questioning this is a taboo.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#18

Post by seagullz »

ur-whale wrote: post #13
retrogradeorbit wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you not get the memo? Gender is purely a social construct. It has no biological underpinning. One can identify as any gender they feel. And then they are that gender. Thus any "differences" you may think you perceive between genders are not real. They are purely cosmetic.

Can't tell if sarcasm

Sans /s probably because "explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog; you understand it better but the frog dies in the process."

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#19

Post by starbeast »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #15
starbeast wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the double speak comes from a desire for a definitive taxonomy where none exists. 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…

Your remarks on the sex thing don't actually fit with what I've read from (people I understand to be) actual scientists specializing in this stuff, which basically boils down to "You know that binary male-female classification? We basically made that up and nature didn't ask our opinion, kind of like how the platypus fails to conveniently fit our made up categories for animals because our made up categories and menta…

I am not sure how you got a binary classification system out of my position. I was fairly sure I was saying that there isn't one.

Re: As women have more equal opportunity, the more their preferences differ from men

#20

Post by watwut »

killjoywashere wrote: post #16
ddingus wrote: post #2

This seems like non-news to me. 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.

> This seems like non-news to me. 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 hav…

> 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.

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.

Post reply on HN