I disagreed with: "I think this is correct -- there's very little that's necessarily masculine or feminine,..." I think this is at best oversimplifying and at worst just wrong. Even if there is no current reason for any gender norm, they are rooted in human psychology because they were part of our evolution. For instance, testosterone levels and lack of pregnancy make it much easier for them to get managerial positions (more likely). Technically, there is no reason for a gender adapted for hunting to be running businesses, but that doesn't mean that they lose the aggressive hormones associated with hunting. They just repurpose them. Am I saying this is "proper?" No. I made no moral judgments. I (edit) agree that some men would find the described behavior attractive, but I do think it would be an individual attraction not connected to what all or most males would find attractive.
I said, No. This is just wrong. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, including a history of discrimination. It's way beyond simple testosterone. I'm not entirely clear on what you're saying here -- you seem to be saying that you don't think any men would find this attractive. I've talked with some men who have found some things such as this attractive, so it's simply not correct to say that no men would. Might they want that all the time? I'd say no. But some men find it refreshing to have a woman do that initially, and like to trade off the planning, and the paying. Certainly not all men. I wouldn't even say most men. But some men, in varying degrees would. I agree that it's not likely that there would be a lot of men who would desire that all the time. They're probably more likely to want an even split (or even a 60-40 or 75-25 in his favor -- that is where he plans and pays more frequently), rather than all the time.
Oops, the last part had an added don't. I'll edit. As for the managerial positions, I'm going to have to have some evidence for your blanket statements. The fact that every man I've ever met is very open-minded about women, I find the biological explanations more reasonable. For instance, it is a fact that having children and working a full time job is harder than just having a full time job. It is a fact that women often (think statistics, not stereotypes) value other things more than financial success -- or in other words, more men care about that sort of thing than women. It is a fact that higher testosterone makes men more aggressive in pursuit of goals. It is a fact that men's brains have evolved to value achievement over other men as more important than social relationships (again, thing statistics). Women can detect emotions better than men and talk a lot more daily. Why? Primal man needed to be more accomplished than his peers to mate. Primal woman needed to raise children (and incidentally pick berries, which equals more nuanced perception of color). So no, I don't think that eliminating all discrimination would put men and women into difficult positions equally. It's not because men are smarter than women (they aren't). In any population, there are only a certain percentage that can do a particular job. Now, in those select groups, imagine a percentage of women being whittled away by priorities that men don't have (wanting to stay with their children), and then whittle down more because while able to do the job, they simply don't have the drive to outdo everyone (believe me, this drive is pretty natural in men). The end result is that more men end up in these positions. From everything I've heard, it's really hard to be a mom working in a demanding job -- much harder than a man with children in the same spot(since men don't have the same type of connection to their children).
Given that the reasons are varied and complex, I can't provide a single link to simply say your analysis is vapid and incorrect. But below are a few that back up the point that there are numerous factors, some of which actually favor women. Your observation that the men you know are "open minded" is all well and good, but nevertheless anecdotal, and not relevant in a scientific or statistically valid sense. Your statements about women having far more responsibilities than men overall, and that everything is more difficult for working mothers than for working fathers are correct, but your interpretation for the underlying reasons -- that women simply are not biologically disposed to succeed in demanding work conditions isn't correct. Also, many men would argue with the assertion that they don't have a similar connection to their children. Just as women are not confined to the home, men are no longer confined to the workplace, and many men are seeking a work life balance just as are women. For some background on these issues overall, see the below-cited sources. I'm sure you can find more if you look. Here's one article dealing with the stereotypes you cite actually being a major cause of women's lack of representation in upper management http://www.uky.edu/Centers/iwin/RTOCT12/HooblerWomeninManagement.pdf One showing the more women in upper management the more profitable the company (and even addresses the testosterone point about perhaps making men more competitive, but that women are better collaborators and better managers in the long run.) http://womeninbusiness.about.com/od/womeninbusinessnew1/a/women-profits.htm Another issue with testosterone is that: "When patients are injected with testosterone, Fisher says, it heightens their thinking about “here and now,” and lessens long-term vision. Testosterone also heightens sex drive and a tendency towards narcissism, which goes a long way to explain the thought process that could lead, say, a senator to post crotch-shots to the web. Short-term thinking plus narcissism equals a public relations disaster.If testosterone is an indicator, does it stand to reason that women make better cheaters, or, at the very least, the fairer sex’s brain is more equipped to not get caught? “You often don’t catch the women,” she agrees, “Because women naturally think more contextually. They consider long term vision and potential consequences much more thoroughly before acting.” See http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2012/03/15/helen-fisher-sxsw-why-women-make-better-cheaters/ Women also make better bosses. See: http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/2241-women-bosses.html For a mention that testosterone actually makes men worse bosses, along with an outline of why women are better managers, and a dash of some discrimination that still exists, see http://leshayman.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/do-women-make-better-managers/ And yet another mention that testosterone is actually a drawback for men: http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/28/why-women-are-better-at-everything/ There is also, of course Sheryl Sandberg's new book, Lean In, which is generating a lot of talk and discusses a myriad of reasons for women's underrepresentation in leadership positions, which includes the existence of sterotypes and societal/social expectations. See, e.g. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22931510/facebook-ceo-sheryl-sandbergs-manifesto-receives-praise-at For a good analysis of this book, with positive and negative points, see http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_03/review_sheryl_sandbergs_lean_i043902.php
You posted evidence that women make better bosses. That makes sense to me. You're actually arguing against a strawman. I did not say that men are biologically predisposed to be better bosses. I said men are biologically predisposed to want to be bosses more. Moreover, it seems rather hypocritical to counter any argument against stereotypes with a plethora of stereotypes about men. You have to admit that women's underrepresentation is not entirely due to discrimination. Many people mix the statement, "Women are less likely to be managers," with, "Women are less likely to be managers because they're inferior." Look up the words spoken by men and women daily. Women speak a great deal more, and women base their self-value more on their social success than on financial success. Men do the opposite. This is not to say that women don't care about succeeding financially, or that men don't care about relationships -- this is speaking in general. All of that is a natural result of the balance of testosterone and estrogen respectively.
Please direct me to the stereotypes about men that I used. You brought up testosterone, claiming it was responsible for men being in management positions. I cited articles that talked about testosterone, showing that essentially the same effects you mentioned actually were in many cases, drawbacks. I never said it was due entirely to discrimination. On the contrary, I said the reasons were numerous and complex. Even discrimination itself is nuanced and complicated and can't just be easily dismissed as one problem that if solved, would make everything 50-50. Yes, it is well-established that in general, men and women communicate differently and tend to think differently on many subjects. Could you please cite an authority that indicates this is all due solely to the balance of testosterone and estrogen? I'm not sure why you focus so much on this one issue, almost exclusively.
I said testoserone was responsible for making men want to be managers. Then you came back with cases where a man already in management could be negatively affected by testosterone -- that has nothing to do with how men and women get into those positions (yet). Also, don't you think, "Men are bad at thinking ahead," is a stereotype? You said: I'm not saying this is wrong. All stereotypes come from somewhere. (Stereotype: Jews are rich. Source: It was considered sinful in the middle ages for a christian to lend money at interest, so Jews in europe often became bankers.) The balance of testosterone and estrogen are the primary causes of general gender differences (shape, general attitude.) There is a great deal going on in the brain that is nigh impossible to explain the cause totally, and male brain vs. female brain falls under that category. I think we agree on the concepts, and just differ on the degree to which any particular cause is responsible. I would say the glass ceiling is 70% due to natural differences betwixt genders and 30% discrimination. You'll see that I took issue with your initial statement: I think this mischaracterizes the dynamic and varied differences in the way men and women process and express information; much of these differences are not directly related to reproduction (a great deal is indirectly related). The seemingly one-sided focus I had was a result of me trying to respond to that statement. Take eyesight for example. Women are much better at percieving color gradiations. This is not directly related to reproduction, and it is only one of a multitude of such differences. I think it's silly to ignore how humans began. We are still very connected to our primal past. Psychology and biology continually discover threads linking back to our evolution; these threads are often very powerful and instinctual.
I didn't say men are bad at thinking ahead. I cited a study that showed higher levels of testosterone injected into men caused them to think about the here and now, instead of thinking ahead. That's not the same thing. Also, it's not a stereotype, because I have not heard this as a general consensus out in the populous. I also personally have never thought it. When I read the article, pretty much my only thought was "huh, interesting." Not, "Aha! That explains it." Did you mean to write "All stereotypes come from somewhere?" I'm not sure where you're going with this. Yes, most stereotypes have some kernel of underlying truth, but they're not always applicable and the fact that they exist doesn't say anything about the underlying cause. It's a big cause, but not the only one. And yes, the brain is extremely complex, and what we know about it is so miniscule compared to what we don't know about it. Physiological, biological, and psychological factors interplay in many ways for so many factors involved in personality that we don't yet understand. Your estimated percentages are pseudo-scientifical. There's way more to it than "natural differences" and discrimination, which as I said earlier, is itself complex and nuanced. There also exist enough "outliers" to your premise about the way the different genders think, act, and communicate that biological factors alone cannot explain it. If the levels of testosterone and estrogen alone explained these differences, there would be far fewer people who think more similarly to the opposite gender. Also, what of successful gay men? Humans have built complex societies, and while biological aspects do play a role, humans have also been able to overcome or deal with various aspects of biology when necessary. A lot of pseudo-scientific arguments were also used to discriminate against, segregate, or even kill people who were of different races and ethnicities, as well as against people who had different ways of thinking or processing information. I do believe there is a huge biological basis for personality, but they are susceptible to some molding through the society in which one lives and experiences one has, and I wonder how much of it is gender-specific hormonally based, because there many men and women do have similar aspects to their personalities.
Men are primitive, stupid, violent and oppressive brutes and females are merely sex objects. There, I've offended everyone. On a serious note, it'd be silly to say there's very little disparity between what's masculine or feminine. Of course there are differences and it'd be wishful thinking to think otherwise. I'm not saying discrimination doesn't exist. I'm saying when you're talking about equality, it refers to how we should treat each other equally as human beings. It shouldn't be some pissing contest about who would do a job better.
Perhaps Chicago is different, but I've heard so many jokes about this. The scene in the car where the wife chastises her husband for forgetting something they'll need on their vacation comes to mind. This sounds familar: "Why'd you do that? What were you thinking?" "I just didn't think!" Yes. (I type fast when posting on forums.) I qualified those percentages as opinion, not science. Because the issue is so complex, I think any statement that discrimination is mostly to blame is also pseudo-scientific. Gay men do not think like women, they think like men who likeother men. I think most of those "outliers" come from subtle and as of yet unexplored neurological differences. As for societal forming, I've heard stories where feminists would give boys dolls and such to prove this point. The boys ended up having the dolls fight eachother. (Not claiming any proof here, just a thought.) I think you can understand my initial disagreement now.
Not thinking is not exactly the same as not thinking ahead. Both genders can do boneheaded things. This exchange sounds like something my husband would say to me and I would say back. Usually my gripe with my husband is that he wasn't listening in the first place. But that's a whole other issue. There's not enough research on this yet to make a definitive statement, but there have been some findings showing that some aspects of gay men's brains are more similar to women's brains. This is a valid point, but it doesn't fully explain workplace issues. Women encounter these issues even if the do not have children. You said, I understand that you think that. Your perception is just not accurate, in that while there is a kernel of validity, the reasons are far more numerous, varied, and complicated than mere hormonal levels and lack of pregnancy. Not every man and woman conforms to this and not every woman experiences pregnancy.
I think hormonal levels and lack of pregnancy play a big part -- the exact size of that part seems rather unknown at this point. Of course not all man and woman conforms to these gender differences, but that doesn't mean that most don't, or that it isn't a valid statistical argument.
Actually, you haven't made a statistical argument. You brought up the underrepresentation of women in management positions and posited your own theory as to the underlying causes. Welcome, Sanco -- thanks for posting. Of course there are differences between what's considered masculine or feminine. That's actually what this thread started out discussing. Before we diverged into the discrimination and workplace issues, the point was made that there are some surface-level and societal expectations as far as dating behavior, and we were exploring that issue. But at some point, these differences do break down, and in some cases, these conventions are disregarded, and some don't exist at all. But also, at some point in M-F relations, these differences are hard to discern as to what, specifically is masculine or feminine and what reactions we would have to certain actions.
I understand and agree with that. I'd also note that it's damn near impossible to get an accurate statistic to determine the part discrimination plays into it. A woman can be turned down for a job purely on the basis that she is not a man, without any explicitly discernible discrimination. It's like bouncers telling guys that they can't come in because they don't have the right shoes on. It's a nicer way of saying, "fuck off, you're drunk and you look like you're gonna be trouble".
What about metrosexual men? Guys who act like steroetypical homosexual men, but they are straight? Would they mostly likey be in the typical woman position? And if they are force to take the typical man's role, would they freak out?
Metrosexual men have an interest in grooming, in clothes, and sometimes things like food. But they don't necessarily act effeminate, and can act very macho. Many of them that I've encountered would absolutely take the "typical man's role," and therefore would in no way "freak out" at doing so. At first glance, it can sometimes be difficult to tell the difference between a metrosexual and a homosexual man. And of course, not all homosexual men are effeminate or do stereotypically women-like things.
So there wouldn't be a point of switching gender roles. Men can act like men or woman, and women can act like men or women. We will still act the same even if we do a man's role, and a woman's role. And sometimes we let someone else do all the work. Anyone can be feminie and mascline.
I think it's a good exercise and a good way to examine the societal expectations of both genders in a dating situation, so I don't agree that there's "no point," but I think in large part, the rest of your statement is true. What do *you* think? You started this thread. Was it what you expected?
I kind of expected how awkard a reversed couple would be. A guy acting like a girl, and a girl acting like a guy.
