Author Topic: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles  (Read 49502 times)

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« on: November 05, 2014, 12:22:19 PM »
Those two concepts are probably far more entangled than your statement implies. I think it's one of the reasons promoting gender equality is harder in traditional societies. Very few girls grow up in a culture that teaches them the domestic arts and decide that they want to be fighter pilots. They are brought up to WANT to have 20 children, and that is the most insidious thing.

I'm a traditional religious person (a male) and I think the domestic arts are a lot more meaningful and fulfilling than being a fighter pilot. Should I share this preference with my children (of both sexes)? Is it only insidious when I share it with daughters?  If so, why?
You can share it all you want, but if you judge or harm your children for thinking you are nuts and wanting/enjoying a career,  or if you or actively harm your children's chances then I am going to feel bad for your kids.
Fine.  That's not the proposition I was responding to.
Then  I am confused because that is what the poster was referring to.  Raising a child in a way that actively pushes a certain gender towards the domestic arts and actively harms their chances by raising them to believe that can't or should not want it.
You keep moving the goal posts and blurring the lines.  There is nothing wrong with giving your child a push in the direction you think they need to go.  That's called parenting.  That's not the same as telling them that they can't or shouldn't consider something as broad as "having a career".

Let's go back and read what I am responding to:
Quote
Very few girls grow up in a culture that teaches them the domestic arts and decide that they want to be fighter pilots. They are brought up to WANT to have 20 children, and that is the most insidious thing.
I'm taking this comment at face value.  If they are brought up to "WANT" a big family, then we are supposing that a big family is what they want, aren't we?  We're not talking about a girl brought up in a traditional religious family who wants to do something different.  This commenter is saying it is evil when traditional religious families successfully pass on their values to the next generation, because those values are traditional religious ones.

Look, regardless of what your worldview or values are, you are going to do some sharing and guidance with your children.  And for everyone, regardless of their worldview, there's a point where you take it too far and you're trying to control the choices that rightly belong to your child alone.  All I'm pointing out is that, taken at face value, the original comment was calling it insidious that in families with values he or she disagrees with, many of the children also have those values.  The equivalent statement from a religious standpoint would be something like this:

Quote
Very few girls grow up in a culture that teaches them careerism and decide that they want to be stay-at-home moms. They are brought up to WANT to be too busy for a big family, and that is the most insidious thing.

If I wrote that, am I accusing secular parents of being controlling?  No.  What I'm accusing them of is successfully transmitting their worldview to their children.  How silly is it to call that "insidious"?

First of all, insidious doesn't mean evil. It can mean underhanded, deceitful, treacherous. The meaning I was going for was "operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect" (from dictionary.com)

On the surface, who cares if we as a society raise our girl children primarily to be mothers and homemakers? It's an important job. They end up happy (because they are good at what they do, and aren't necessarily prepared to do much else). But historically we see that this kind of thinking kept women from voting, inheriting property, or even reading; it allowed men to beat their wives and gave women little recourse in these relationships; it allowed women to be paid less than men for the same work if they did (by desire or necessity) go into the workforce. I hold these "traditional values" responsible, to this day, for a lack of decent guaranteed maternity leave in the US, for the wage gap (yeah, I know there's some debate about its causes), for women being GROSSLY underrepresented in legislature and at the executive level, and for my field (mechanical engineering) awarding less than 12% degrees to women (and it's <20% across all engineering specialties). There is nothing fundamentally true about women that prevents them from doing these things. It is all about how the system is set up. Based, in distant history, on "traditional values."

Mind you, I have no problem with stay at home mothers or the "domestic arts" as we called them. My mom, although college educated, stayed home with us. And I appreciated every moment of it (well, at least in retrospect). However, she repeatedly took certification classes, read prolifically, and sometimes took odd jobs. She set an example and encouraged us to get an education and find work to support ourselves, not just good husbands. I don't think she'd bat an eye if any of us (me & 2 sisters) chose to stay home with kids. Or if our future husbands did. But, she gave us the opportunity for a different life by encouraging academic success. She helped me with trig and calculus. She also taught me to cook and clean and sew and knit. Hence, I reiterate: I'm for teaching one's kids everything.

Maybe being trained for one role in life makes one happier. But I, for one, do not find such happiness genuine. If you are never shown other options, it is not teaching, it is brainwashing. And that is insidious.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2014, 12:23:36 PM »
By the by, a fantastic post by a favorite author of mine on difficulty and success in ungendered parenting: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2014/09/a-guy-game/

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1692
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2014, 12:26:56 PM »
I decided to move mine too.

If I wrote that, am I accusing secular parents of being controlling?  No.  What I'm accusing them of is successfully transmitting their worldview to their children.  How silly is it to call that "insidious"?

Just as a counter-example: My Canadian mother was/is an insane feminist with a PhD. To her, there are only two things that are fulfilling: 1) Insane feminism and 2) Advanced university degrees and career academia. She was fond of communicating Marxist philosophies (and just so you know, that made her hate America). She also likes cats.

You know what made me happy and fulfilled? Being a married (hetero), rich, fat cat conservative and spending the least amount of time possible in university institutions. I also like living in America. In fact, I prefer it to Canada.

Pretty much the only thing we agree on is liking cats. At every turn, I have failed to find her worldview fulfilling. All she really managed to do was make me feel confused and guilty about living my life the way I wanted to live. The truth is that transmitting her worldview really didn't help me at all - it just muddied the water and made it harder for me to figure out how to live a fulfilled life.

But I don't have a solution or suggestion. Parents are insidious and human. Try going through life without communicating a strong preference for your worldview to your kids. It's not really possible. Besides, some of them will grow up and agree with you.

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2014, 12:56:49 PM »
By the by, a fantastic post by a favorite author of mine on difficulty and success in ungendered parenting: http://blog.patrickrothfuss.com/2014/09/a-guy-game/

This was fantastic.  Thanks!  As someone trying to parent a daughter without traditional gender expectations, it's rather difficult.  Even just in the realm of clothing.  Strangers get so OFFENDED when I don't have her in pink.  Apparently, dressing her in blue and "making" them think that she's a boy instead is a horrible, horrible thing to do.  Even if the blue brings out her stunning eyes.
There's only so much a parent can do to fight back against cultural stereotypes.  But as this guy is doing, my parents did this for me (I can swing a hammer as well as any man I know, and I actually enjoy physical labor) I'll do it for her, in the hope that one day (soon) there won't need to be gender neutral parenting, it will just be parenting.
It really, really helps that my husband and I don't stick to traditional roles, and neither do many other couples we're friends with.  Many of our male friends with babies can be seen wearing them and changing diapers.  Many women we know are the "breadwinners", including me.  My BIL knits, amazingly well.  We have lady friends who are doctors, scientists, and engineers.  That will help so much when it comes time to push back against "traditional" gender roles.

This isn't to say that I don't want my daughter embracing girly things, either, as some people seem to think gender neutral parenting means eschewing traditionally feminine things.  I do her hair, and I'm looking forward to mommy-daughter dates in which we can watch girly movies (or action movies, if she prefers) and eat cookie dough.  I think that there's a happy medium in which we can allow our sons/daughters to break out of traditional gender roles while, at the same time, embracing their femininity or masculinity.  So, I will teach my daughter how to fix a bicycle just as I'll show her how to do her hair, and I won't press the issue on either of those.  If fixing mechanical stuff bores her, I can't blame her because I feel the same way.  If she wants to chop her hair short so that she never has to do up-dos, I'll gladly cut it for her.  The option to say "I don't like that/am not good at that/am not interested in that" is just as important as showing her that there are options.  Just as galliver says, I'm for teaching one's children everything and letting them decide what their interests are from there.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2014, 12:59:14 PM »
On the surface, who cares if we as a society raise our girl children primarily to be mothers and homemakers? It's an important job. They end up happy (because they are good at what they do, and aren't necessarily prepared to do much else). But historically we see that this kind of thinking kept women from voting, inheriting property, or even reading; it allowed men to beat their wives and gave women little recourse in these relationships; it allowed women to be paid less than men for the same work if they did (by desire or necessity) go into the workforce. I hold these "traditional values" responsible, to this day, for a lack of decent guaranteed maternity leave in the US, for the wage gap (yeah, I know there's some debate about its causes), for women being GROSSLY underrepresented in legislature and at the executive level, and for my field (mechanical engineering) awarding less than 12% degrees to women (and it's <20% across all engineering specialties). There is nothing fundamentally true about women that prevents them from doing these things. It is all about how the system is set up. Based, in distant history, on "traditional values."

I'm not going to have a wide-ranging discussion about Every Bad Thing in history.  Suffice to say, partnership between spouses creates huge advantages over single parenthood, and up until very recently (historically speaking) the extreme physical demands of labor made a very strong argument for the traditional arrangement between the genders.

But to me this conversation is about how we view dedicated motherhood as a lifestyle choice.  You say you're fine with it, but you have deep reservations about too many women actually choosing it.  I think it's a choice that should be uncritically celebrated.  I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce because they have much more important things to do.

In the past, men might have said that property and politics and career are the important things in life, while women might have said that the atmosphere of the home and the proper raising of the next generation are the important things in life.  It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.  So I guess we have both capitulated.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2014, 01:29:51 PM »
On the surface, who cares if we as a society raise our girl children primarily to be mothers and homemakers? It's an important job. They end up happy (because they are good at what they do, and aren't necessarily prepared to do much else). But historically we see that this kind of thinking kept women from voting, inheriting property, or even reading; it allowed men to beat their wives and gave women little recourse in these relationships; it allowed women to be paid less than men for the same work if they did (by desire or necessity) go into the workforce. I hold these "traditional values" responsible, to this day, for a lack of decent guaranteed maternity leave in the US, for the wage gap (yeah, I know there's some debate about its causes), for women being GROSSLY underrepresented in legislature and at the executive level, and for my field (mechanical engineering) awarding less than 12% degrees to women (and it's <20% across all engineering specialties). There is nothing fundamentally true about women that prevents them from doing these things. It is all about how the system is set up. Based, in distant history, on "traditional values."

I'm not going to have a wide-ranging discussion about Every Bad Thing in history.  Suffice to say, partnership between spouses creates huge advantages over single parenthood, and up until very recently (historically speaking) the extreme physical demands of labor made a very strong argument for the traditional arrangement between the genders.

But to me this conversation is about how we view dedicated motherhood as a lifestyle choice.  You say you're fine with it, but you have deep reservations about too many women actually choosing it.  I think it's a choice that should be uncritically celebrated.  I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce because they have much more important things to do.

In the past, men might have said that property and politics and career are the important things in life, while women might have said that the atmosphere of the home and the proper raising of the next generation are the important things in life.  It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.  So I guess we have both capitulated.

No, you've changed your argument. We were talking about raising children to assume traditional gender roles; that's not giving them a choice. You're right that I take issue with the demographics...because I don't believe them to reflect real choice rather than internalized stereotypes and pipelines/roadblocks in the system.

I am not arguing that the public sphere is more important than the private sphere. I am arguing that both are equally important, that men and women are equally capable of succeeding in either or both, given a flexible upbringing that prepares them for it.

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8826
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2014, 02:21:40 PM »
I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce
You don't mind because 1) it reinforces your existing world view and 2) it is complacently in line with what you have been told all your life.   Let's try a little substitution shall we?  How does "I don't mind if people of colour are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?  How does "I don't mind if disabled people are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?   Let me make it even clearer: your statement is a statement of your happiness in your prejudice, nothing more or less.

because they have much more important things to do
What are these "more important things"?  Pregnancy and child birth in good health require a minimum of time off from many jobs.  Breastfeeding can be managed through pumping.  No reason these days why the man can't equally be the one to stay at home doing the childrearing.  You have come up with the standard patronising "pat the little woman on the head and tell her she is doing the more important work by staying at home" without giving her a realistic option of going out to work.   As in: in your case, you justify her staying at home because you can earn more.  But you earn more because the patriarchy makes it easier for you to earn more, just as the patriarchy makes it easier for a white person to earn more than a person of colour, and for an able-bodied person to earn more than a disabled person - even where the disability makes no difference to the ability to do the job.  What you are doing is using the effects of existing prejudice to justify the continuation of that prejudice.

It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.
No.  Really, no.  You are either deliberately or obtusely creating a false premise and drawing an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion from that false premise.

It appears to me that you are happily and uncritically settled into the world view you have been taught, and nothing said here is going to change that.   Fine.  But please don't disrespect the views of others by twisting their statements just so that you don't have to deal with the fact that there are valid intellectual challenges to your world view.


galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2014, 03:00:39 PM »
I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce
You don't mind because 1) it reinforces your existing world view and 2) it is complacently in line with what you have been told all your life.   Let's try a little substitution shall we?  How does "I don't mind if people of colour are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?  How does "I don't mind if disabled people are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?   Let me make it even clearer: your statement is a statement of your happiness in your prejudice, nothing more or less.

because they have much more important things to do
What are these "more important things"?  Pregnancy and child birth in good health require a minimum of time off from many jobs.  Breastfeeding can be managed through pumping.  No reason these days why the man can't equally be the one to stay at home doing the childrearing.  You have come up with the standard patronising "pat the little woman on the head and tell her she is doing the more important work by staying at home" without giving her a realistic option of going out to work.   As in: in your case, you justify her staying at home because you can earn more.  But you earn more because the patriarchy makes it easier for you to earn more, just as the patriarchy makes it easier for a white person to earn more than a person of colour, and for an able-bodied person to earn more than a disabled person - even where the disability makes no difference to the ability to do the job.  What you are doing is using the effects of existing prejudice to justify the continuation of that prejudice.

It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.
No.  Really, no.  You are either deliberately or obtusely creating a false premise and drawing an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion from that false premise.

It appears to me that you are happily and uncritically settled into the world view you have been taught, and nothing said here is going to change that.   Fine.  But please don't disrespect the views of others by twisting their statements just so that you don't have to deal with the fact that there are valid intellectual challenges to your world view.

Thank you for eloquently stating my opinions (more eloquently than I could).

SisterX

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3035
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2014, 04:20:20 PM »
I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce
You don't mind because 1) it reinforces your existing world view and 2) it is complacently in line with what you have been told all your life.   Let's try a little substitution shall we?  How does "I don't mind if people of colour are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?  How does "I don't mind if disabled people are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?   Let me make it even clearer: your statement is a statement of your happiness in your prejudice, nothing more or less.

because they have much more important things to do
What are these "more important things"?  Pregnancy and child birth in good health require a minimum of time off from many jobs.  Breastfeeding can be managed through pumping.  No reason these days why the man can't equally be the one to stay at home doing the childrearing.  You have come up with the standard patronising "pat the little woman on the head and tell her she is doing the more important work by staying at home" without giving her a realistic option of going out to work.   As in: in your case, you justify her staying at home because you can earn more.  But you earn more because the patriarchy makes it easier for you to earn more, just as the patriarchy makes it easier for a white person to earn more than a person of colour, and for an able-bodied person to earn more than a disabled person - even where the disability makes no difference to the ability to do the job.  What you are doing is using the effects of existing prejudice to justify the continuation of that prejudice.

It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.
No.  Really, no.  You are either deliberately or obtusely creating a false premise and drawing an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion from that false premise.

It appears to me that you are happily and uncritically settled into the world view you have been taught, and nothing said here is going to change that.   Fine.  But please don't disrespect the views of others by twisting their statements just so that you don't have to deal with the fact that there are valid intellectual challenges to your world view.

+1, well said!

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2014, 04:52:03 PM »
I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce
You don't mind because 1) it reinforces your existing world view and 2) it is complacently in line with what you have been told all your life.   Let's try a little substitution shall we?  How does "I don't mind if people of colour are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?  How does "I don't mind if disabled people are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?   Let me make it even clearer: your statement is a statement of your happiness in your prejudice, nothing more or less.

because they have much more important things to do
What are these "more important things"?  Pregnancy and child birth in good health require a minimum of time off from many jobs.  Breastfeeding can be managed through pumping.  No reason these days why the man can't equally be the one to stay at home doing the childrearing.  You have come up with the standard patronising "pat the little woman on the head and tell her she is doing the more important work by staying at home" without giving her a realistic option of going out to work.   As in: in your case, you justify her staying at home because you can earn more.  But you earn more because the patriarchy makes it easier for you to earn more, just as the patriarchy makes it easier for a white person to earn more than a person of colour, and for an able-bodied person to earn more than a disabled person - even where the disability makes no difference to the ability to do the job.  What you are doing is using the effects of existing prejudice to justify the continuation of that prejudice.

It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.
No.  Really, no.  You are either deliberately or obtusely creating a false premise and drawing an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion from that false premise.

It appears to me that you are happily and uncritically settled into the world view you have been taught, and nothing said here is going to change that.   Fine.  But please don't disrespect the views of others by twisting their statements just so that you don't have to deal with the fact that there are valid intellectual challenges to your world view.

+1, well said!
+2

iris lily

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5672
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2014, 05:03:32 PM »
...

You know what made me happy and fulfilled? Being a married (hetero), rich, fat cat conservative and spending the least amount of time possible in university institutions. I also like living in America. In fact, I prefer it to Canada...

OMG, I love you!

I had liberal parents (although if truth be told, they were more like "moderate Republicans" today. The way out chit of today lefties wouldn't cut it with them. )

But my brother and I--politically conservative. Well, actually, I've always been sympathetic to the libertarian message, now it's just popular. But my brother is hard wired for conservatism. When my  mother refused to every buy him a toy gun, he saved his allowance for more than a year and bought the most realistic toy gun you've ever seen. When they sent him off to private school she heavily favored the Quaker school but he loved the military school. etc.

The genes skip generations, haha.


« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 05:08:28 PM by iris lily »

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2014, 05:31:06 PM »
...

You know what made me happy and fulfilled? Being a married (hetero), rich, fat cat conservative and spending the least amount of time possible in university institutions. I also like living in America. In fact, I prefer it to Canada...

OMG, I love you!

I had liberal parents (although if truth be told, they were more like "moderate Republicans" today. The way out chit of today lefties wouldn't cut it with them. )

But my brother and I--politically conservative. Well, actually, I've always been sympathetic to the libertarian message, now it's just popular. But my brother is hard wired for conservatism. When my  mother refused to every buy him a toy gun, he saved his allowance for more than a year and bought the most realistic toy gun you've ever seen. When they sent him off to private school she heavily favored the Quaker school but he loved the military school. etc.

The genes skip generations, haha.

Several years ago, after a trip to Portland, my bff's family found themselves wondering, what happens when the kids of the punk-dressed parents grow up and decide to be less radical. Later they found a comic of a kid in a suit standing before his spiky-haired parents in a suit with a briefcase and the parents wailing (in the classic way) "where did we go wrong!?" Unfortunately I have never been able to find it again...

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #12 on: November 06, 2014, 05:38:05 AM »
I'm not going to have a wide-ranging discussion about Every Bad Thing in history.  Suffice to say, partnership between spouses creates huge advantages over single parenthood, and up until very recently (historically speaking) the extreme physical demands of labor made a very strong argument for the traditional arrangement between the genders.

But to me this conversation is about how we view dedicated motherhood as a lifestyle choice.  You say you're fine with it, but you have deep reservations about too many women actually choosing it.  I think it's a choice that should be uncritically celebrated.  I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce because they have much more important things to do.

In the past, men might have said that property and politics and career are the important things in life, while women might have said that the atmosphere of the home and the proper raising of the next generation are the important things in life.  It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.  So I guess we have both capitulated.

No, you've changed your argument. We were talking about raising children to assume traditional gender roles; that's not giving them a choice.
I make a distinction between promoting a certain outcome and removing choices.  For example: I will promote getting a college degree, but I will not force my kids to get one.  I will promote choosing a useful major, but if one of my kids wants to do art history, that is their choice.  These are bad examples actually, because I would promote those things a lot harder than I would ever promote motherhood to my daughters.  I'm happy if my daughters know that I think being a mom is an admirable choice.  I'm not going to get upset or disappointed if they don't choose that route.  You may think I'm back-tracking here, but if you read closely, I'm not.  Your original comment that set this thing off was a complaint that little girls raised in traditional religious society would WANT to have big families, remember?
Quote
You're right that I take issue with the demographics...because I don't believe them to reflect real choice rather than internalized stereotypes and pipelines/roadblocks in the system.
I'm not saying it's 100% one or the other, but I think it's important that we make the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.  To be clear, I am against all forms of discrimination.  But I don't think it's a slam dunk to say every demographic skew is due to discrimination.  To cite some of the more obvious examples:
  • Women are over-represented in kindergarten teach roles.
  • Young men are over-represented in high-pressure wall street jobs
  • A certain small geographic area in Africa is massively over-represented in marathon winners
And that is just the examples that are clearly due to inherent unchangeable characteristics.  What about the differences that are just due to culture?  Is it really the end of the world if African Americans predominate in basketball because they play a lot more basketball as kids?  It's a cultural thing.  Granted I would view it as a bad thing if white guys were actively discriminated against in the NBA (and maybe they are, I wouldn't know), but why should I be bothered if white kids are just more interested in other sports due to their culture?

To bring it back around, suppose we stipulate that women are not discriminated against.  Maybe you think they are, (and in some cases you would be right) but I'm against discrimination so we don't need to argue that point.  Let's assume for a second that they are not.  Suppose in a fictional society with no discrimination, some percentage of women freely choose to forgo a career in order to be home-makers, at a higher rate than men, with the result that women are under-represented in the public sphere.  Do we need to be upset about that?  The sense I get is that those women would be a disappointment to feminists, because they embrace the positive values of the home and family.  If you wouldn't be upset by their choices, then maybe we agree on more than we realize.

Quote
I am not arguing that the public sphere is more important than the private sphere. I am arguing that both are equally important, that men and women are equally capable of succeeding in either or both, given a flexible upbringing that prepares them for it.

In my view of things, the private sphere is actually more important, and in fact the whole purpose of the public sphere is to create the conditions under which the private sphere can succeed and thrive.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2014, 05:49:35 AM »
I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce
You don't mind because 1) it reinforces your existing world view and 2) it is complacently in line with what you have been told all your life.   Let's try a little substitution shall we?  How does "I don't mind if people of colour are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?  How does "I don't mind if disabled people are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?   Let me make it even clearer: your statement is a statement of your happiness in your prejudice, nothing more or less.
I'm very sorry that you have misunderstood my comments.
Quote
because they have much more important things to do
What are these "more important things"?  Pregnancy and child birth in good health require a minimum of time off from many jobs.  Breastfeeding can be managed through pumping.  No reason these days why the man can't equally be the one to stay at home doing the childrearing.
I agree that men can do a great job with older kids, but if you're talking about a breastfeeding infant, I think you're nuts.  Actually it's not that men can't do the job -- it's that women have a greater desire to do it, and feel a great pain of separation if they can't take care of the baby they carried for nine months and gave birth to.
Quote
  You have come up with the standard patronising "pat the little woman on the head and tell her she is doing the more important work by staying at home" without giving her a realistic option of going out to work.   As in: in your case, you justify her staying at home because you can earn more.  But you earn more because the patriarchy makes it easier for you to earn more, just as the patriarchy makes it easier for a white person to earn more than a person of colour, and for an able-bodied person to earn more than a disabled person - even where the disability makes no difference to the ability to do the job.  What you are doing is using the effects of existing prejudice to justify the continuation of that prejudice.
You are putting words into my mouth that directly contradict the things I'm actually saying.  What do you want me to do, retype my comments?

I'm sure it felt very cathartic to play the hero and pound the table a bit here, but I can't really respond unless you're actually grappling with ideas I'm communicating, instead of the evil cartoon villain version.
Quote
It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.
No.  Really, no.  You are either deliberately or obtusely creating a false premise and drawing an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion from that false premise.

It appears to me that you are happily and uncritically settled into the world view you have been taught, and nothing said here is going to change that.   Fine.  But please don't disrespect the views of others by twisting their statements just so that you don't have to deal with the fact that there are valid intellectual challenges to your world view.
You should be aware that some significant studies have been done on people's ability to understand other people's worldviews and motivations.  The outcomes show that conservatives understand liberals a lot better than liberals understand conservatives.  If you think you understand exactly where I'm coming from, but I just don't get you, you might not be reading carefully enough.

BreakingtheCycle

  • Guest
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2014, 07:17:23 AM »
I haven't had the chance to read all the replies but wanted to share.  I worked in corporate international marketing for a few years (bachelor's degree in business), and then became a stay at home mom.

I will do everything in my power to avoid having to go back to the corporate world!  My marketing degree has enabled me to make some extra cash selling handmade items on etsy, and maybe with the organization and coordination skills needed to care for a family of 5, but overall the domestic life really resonates with me over pursuing a career.

The book Radical Homemakers gives really great historical insight into this conversation.  Before the industrial revolution, men and women both were "producers" with men pursuing leatherworking, brewing, farming, etc. and women pursuing sewing, cooking, etc.  Then the industrial revolution came, and men went to work in factories leaving women to manage everything in the household alone. 

This transformed the family into "consumers" instead of "producers."  Men worked to make money, which women used to buy convenience items because it was almost impossible to do all the domestic work alone.  This created a culture of spending and convenience.  Men worked low-skill labor in the factories, women spent their time shopping, and everyone became a little less fulfilled in their daily activities.

My point is, back in the day, men and women were BOTH domestic, and possibly more fulfilled as they worked together to provide for their families.

It's sort of the concept behind homesteading, and in a way is quite mustachian.

And as a child of two full-time working parents who spent most of her childhood in before school/after school care and with babysitters and daycare providers, I will say I'm so thankful my children have a different kind of life.

Edited to add:  My great grandmother remembers her father leaving the farm to go work in the factory, and said he was hardly ever home at that point.  Her mother raised chickens (500 a year!) which she sold and traded with Native Americans for fresh fish.  She said her mother was constantly working to compensate for her father not being home anymore.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 07:19:43 AM by BreakingtheCycle »

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2014, 08:00:06 AM »
I haven't had the chance to read all the replies but wanted to share.  I worked in corporate international marketing for a few years (bachelor's degree in business), and then became a stay at home mom.

I will do everything in my power to avoid having to go back to the corporate world!  My marketing degree has enabled me to make some extra cash selling handmade items on etsy, and maybe with the organization and coordination skills needed to care for a family of 5, but overall the domestic life really resonates with me over pursuing a career.

The book Radical Homemakers gives really great historical insight into this conversation.  Before the industrial revolution, men and women both were "producers" with men pursuing leatherworking, brewing, farming, etc. and women pursuing sewing, cooking, etc.  Then the industrial revolution came, and men went to work in factories leaving women to manage everything in the household alone. 

This transformed the family into "consumers" instead of "producers."  Men worked to make money, which women used to buy convenience items because it was almost impossible to do all the domestic work alone.  This created a culture of spending and convenience.  Men worked low-skill labor in the factories, women spent their time shopping, and everyone became a little less fulfilled in their daily activities.

My point is, back in the day, men and women were BOTH domestic, and possibly more fulfilled as they worked together to provide for their families.

It's sort of the concept behind homesteading, and in a way is quite mustachian.

And as a child of two full-time working parents who spent most of her childhood in before school/after school care and with babysitters and daycare providers, I will say I'm so thankful my children have a different kind of life.

Edited to add:  My great grandmother remembers her father leaving the farm to go work in the factory, and said he was hardly ever home at that point.  Her mother raised chickens (500 a year!) which she sold and traded with Native Americans for fresh fish.  She said her mother was constantly working to compensate for her father not being home anymore.
This is a neat post and the historical perspective is appreciated.  Thanks!

I want to underline that "Dad brings home the bacon and Mom scrubs the floors" is not the goal of traditional religious societies, although it is often the means to an end.  I happen to be Catholic and I can tell you that within the most conservative Catholic circles there is a strong theme of rejecting (at least aspirationally if not in practice) the corporate employee model in favor of micro-sized (ie family) businesses.  My economic views are a bit more conventional than the dogmatic "Distributists" but the underlying values are much the same:  That the home be a warm and human place where parents actually do the work of raising their (numerous, heh) children.  The father being away at work for 50+ hours a week is seen as unfortunate.  Both parents being thusly employed is exponentially worse, a tragedy.

BreakingtheCycle

  • Guest
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2014, 08:28:44 AM »
The father being away at work for 50+ hours a week is seen as unfortunate.  Both parents being thusly employed is exponentially worse, a tragedy.

I love this.  I think it's interesting that this thread is mainly arguing the case for men and women working outside the home.  Whether the opportunities for working outside the home are fair, whether the money women earn outside the home is fair compared to what men earn, etc.

But it seems to me a lot of the mustachian philosophy is the opposite - finding ways for both men and women to stop having to work outside the home, to make a life for themselves in other ways.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2014, 09:58:26 AM »
I don't mind if women are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce
You don't mind because 1) it reinforces your existing world view and 2) it is complacently in line with what you have been told all your life.   Let's try a little substitution shall we?  How does "I don't mind if people of colour are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?  How does "I don't mind if disabled people are less-than-proportionally represented in the workforce" work for you?   Let me make it even clearer: your statement is a statement of your happiness in your prejudice, nothing more or less.
I'm very sorry that you have misunderstood my comments.
Quote
because they have much more important things to do
What are these "more important things"?  Pregnancy and child birth in good health require a minimum of time off from many jobs.  Breastfeeding can be managed through pumping.  No reason these days why the man can't equally be the one to stay at home doing the childrearing.
I agree that men can do a great job with older kids, but if you're talking about a breastfeeding infant, I think you're nuts.  Actually it's not that men can't do the job -- it's that women have a greater desire to do it, and feel a great pain of separation if they can't take care of the baby they carried for nine months and gave birth to.
Quote
  You have come up with the standard patronising "pat the little woman on the head and tell her she is doing the more important work by staying at home" without giving her a realistic option of going out to work.   As in: in your case, you justify her staying at home because you can earn more.  But you earn more because the patriarchy makes it easier for you to earn more, just as the patriarchy makes it easier for a white person to earn more than a person of colour, and for an able-bodied person to earn more than a disabled person - even where the disability makes no difference to the ability to do the job.  What you are doing is using the effects of existing prejudice to justify the continuation of that prejudice.
You are putting words into my mouth that directly contradict the things I'm actually saying.  What do you want me to do, retype my comments?

I'm sure it felt very cathartic to play the hero and pound the table a bit here, but I can't really respond unless you're actually grappling with ideas I'm communicating, instead of the evil cartoon villain version.
Quote
It seems to me that you are siding with the men while I am siding with the women.
No.  Really, no.  You are either deliberately or obtusely creating a false premise and drawing an unsupported and unsupportable conclusion from that false premise.

It appears to me that you are happily and uncritically settled into the world view you have been taught, and nothing said here is going to change that.   Fine.  But please don't disrespect the views of others by twisting their statements just so that you don't have to deal with the fact that there are valid intellectual challenges to your world view.
You should be aware that some significant studies have been done on people's ability to understand other people's worldviews and motivations. The outcomes show that conservatives understand liberals a lot better than liberals understand conservatives.  If you think you understand exactly where I'm coming from, but I just don't get you, you might not be reading carefully enough.
I was happy that my husband was willing to step up and take care of our daughter.  Please refrain from deciding that women feel a certain way.  Some may, just as some may like working.
And I like to see those studies.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2014, 10:27:34 AM »
I was happy that my husband was willing to step up and take care of our daughter.  Please refrain from deciding that women feel a certain way.  Some may, just as some may like working.
oh come ON.  Do you really have any doubt as to where the majority lies?
Quote
And I like to see those studies.
It's called an ideological turing test:  Conservatives try to answer questions in the way they think liberals would, and vice versa.  I've definitely come across it in a couple different places, and I've never heard anything other than conservatives coming out on top, meaning they can convincingly express the liberal viewpoint, while liberals have trouble accurately answering as conservatives.  Jonathan Haidt wrote about this in a book, which is reviewed here:

http://jasoncollins.org/2012/09/26/haidts-the-righteous-mind/

Quote
Liberal morality tends to rest on the care/harm and to a lesser extent on the fairness/cheating (equality) and liberty/oppression dimensions. Conservative morality tends to rely on all six, with an emphasis on proportionality for the fairness/cheating dimension. ... Haidt suggests that the broader moral foundation of conservatives gives them an edge in understanding the concerns of the full political spectrum. It is not that conservatives don’t care about harm. They simply weight it differently. When conservatives and liberals undertake an ideological Turing test, where they had to answer questions as though they were the other, conservatives and moderates do better than liberals. Haidt does not delve into the consequences of the narrow libertarian moral foundations in detail, but it raises the question of libertarian’s ability to understand and communicate with other audiences.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #19 on: November 06, 2014, 11:07:02 AM »
I was happy that my husband was willing to step up and take care of our daughter.  Please refrain from deciding that women feel a certain way.  Some may, just as some may like working.
oh come ON.  Do you really have any doubt as to where the majority lies?
Quote
And I like to see those studies.
It's called an ideological turing test:  Conservatives try to answer questions in the way they think liberals would, and vice versa.  I've definitely come across it in a couple different places, and I've never heard anything other than conservatives coming out on top, meaning they can convincingly express the liberal viewpoint, while liberals have trouble accurately answering as conservatives.  Jonathan Haidt wrote about this in a book, which is reviewed here:

http://jasoncollins.org/2012/09/26/haidts-the-righteous-mind/

Quote
Liberal morality tends to rest on the care/harm and to a lesser extent on the fairness/cheating (equality) and liberty/oppression dimensions. Conservative morality tends to rely on all six, with an emphasis on proportionality for the fairness/cheating dimension. ... Haidt suggests that the broader moral foundation of conservatives gives them an edge in understanding the concerns of the full political spectrum. It is not that conservatives don’t care about harm. They simply weight it differently. When conservatives and liberals undertake an ideological Turing test, where they had to answer questions as though they were the other, conservatives and moderates do better than liberals. Haidt does not delve into the consequences of the narrow libertarian moral foundations in detail, but it raises the question of libertarian’s ability to understand and communicate with other audiences.
First, no the majority of my peers are happy that their husband's are equal partners in raising their children and basically you are just assuming that your belief is the majority.  And second, that link is not a link to peer reviewed studies.

Cpa Cat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1692
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #20 on: November 06, 2014, 11:13:54 AM »
Quote
And I like to see those studies.
It's called an ideological turing test:  Conservatives try to answer questions in the way they think liberals would, and vice versa.  I've definitely come across it in a couple different places, and I've never heard anything other than conservatives coming out on top, meaning they can convincingly express the liberal viewpoint, while liberals have trouble accurately answering as conservatives.  Jonathan Haidt wrote about this in a book, which is reviewed here: ...

It makes intuitive sense, and I'm not sure anyone needs to read too deeply into it. On the whole, most people will be exposed to (and possibly espouse) the liberal viewpoint as young people - teenagers in particular. As we grow older, we tend to mature in our political views, as life experience changes our outlook.

But we can still remember how we felt (or how our friends felt, if we were the rare conservative teenager) during our youthful forays into the liberal viewpoint. I also think that we tend to be exposed to more books/teachers/professors with liberal viewpoints throughout (public) high school and college than we are to conservative viewpoints (with the exception of Business Schools).

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #21 on: November 06, 2014, 11:28:53 AM »
I was happy that my husband was willing to step up and take care of our daughter.  Please refrain from deciding that women feel a certain way.  Some may, just as some may like working.
oh come ON.  Do you really have any doubt as to where the majority lies?

I think you are maybe being biased by the people you associate with. I actually do have a bit of doubt, just based on my friends and acquaintances, but without data you and I are both just extrapolating from anecdotes.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #22 on: November 06, 2014, 11:39:49 AM »
First, no the majority of my peers are happy that their husband's are equal partners in raising their children and basically you are just assuming that your belief is the majority.
I really am getting the impression that you have recurring amnesia or something.  Every comment you make ignores the context of whatever we were discussing previously.

For the record, if you back up and read how we got here, this is what I'm saying that you appear to maybe be disagreeing with: 
  • All other things being equal, if a couple is going to chose either the father or the mother to stay home with an infant while the other works, I think most couples would choose for the mother to stay home, in large part because the mother has a greater desire to be with the baby at that time.

To me, that proposition is pretty obviously true and not worth arguing about.  If that's not what you disagree with, you might want to reread your comments before posting, or maybe write at greater length so people can make the connection between what you're saying and what you're quoting just before you say it.

BTW here's some things I haven't said, because they would be stupid:
  • All women want to stay home with their babies rather than work. No exceptions.
  • All women should want to stay home with their babies.
  • All women should stay home with their babies whether they want to or not.
  • Women that choose not to stay home with their babies should feel guilty about it.
  • A majority of Gin1984's friends want to stay home with their babies.
  • A majority of Gin1984's friends don't want their husbands to be "equal partners" in parenting.

Quote
And second, that link is not a link to peer reviewed studies.
Yeah, it's only original research described in a NYT bestselling book by a psychology PhD with three TED talks.  Dismiss!

Odds are he DID put it in a research paper that was peer reviewed before it ended up in his book, but I'm not going to check or track it down for you because I have better things to do.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #23 on: November 06, 2014, 11:44:19 AM »
I was happy that my husband was willing to step up and take care of our daughter.  Please refrain from deciding that women feel a certain way.  Some may, just as some may like working.
oh come ON.  Do you really have any doubt as to where the majority lies?

I think you are maybe being biased by the people you associate with. I actually do have a bit of doubt, just based on my friends and acquaintances, but without data you and I are both just extrapolating from anecdotes.

Fair enough.  I would be very surprised if a well-designed study on this matter was even slightly ambiguous in the outcome.

(Caveat:  See my previous comment for a clearer statement of what I think is being disputed in this conversation.)

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #24 on: November 06, 2014, 11:47:22 AM »
If anybody is looking for a quick excuse to dismiss all my ideas out of hand, I freely admit that I reject the blank slate hypothesis and I believe men and women are inherently different in their personalities in a large variety of ways -- with the caveat that we're talking about men "on average" and women "on average" and obviously there will be a lot of overlap of the distributions, so exceptions abound.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #25 on: November 06, 2014, 11:57:27 AM »
Quote
And I like to see those studies.
It's called an ideological turing test:  Conservatives try to answer questions in the way they think liberals would, and vice versa.  I've definitely come across it in a couple different places, and I've never heard anything other than conservatives coming out on top, meaning they can convincingly express the liberal viewpoint, while liberals have trouble accurately answering as conservatives.  Jonathan Haidt wrote about this in a book, which is reviewed here: ...

It makes intuitive sense, and I'm not sure anyone needs to read too deeply into it. On the whole, most people will be exposed to (and possibly espouse) the liberal viewpoint as young people - teenagers in particular. As we grow older, we tend to mature in our political views, as life experience changes our outlook.

But we can still remember how we felt (or how our friends felt, if we were the rare conservative teenager) during our youthful forays into the liberal viewpoint. I also think that we tend to be exposed to more books/teachers/professors with liberal viewpoints throughout (public) high school and college than we are to conservative viewpoints (with the exception of Business Schools).
Agreed that there are some more conventional explanations for the phenomenon than the 6 dimensional model of values proposed by Haidt.

But I don't think that invalidates my original admonition.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #26 on: November 06, 2014, 12:45:31 PM »
First, no the majority of my peers are happy that their husband's are equal partners in raising their children and basically you are just assuming that your belief is the majority.
I really am getting the impression that you have recurring amnesia or something.  Every comment you make ignores the context of whatever we were discussing previously.

For the record, if you back up and read how we got here, this is what I'm saying that you appear to maybe be disagreeing with: 
  • All other things being equal, if a couple is going to chose either the father or the mother to stay home with an infant while the other works, I think most couples would choose for the mother to stay home, in large part because the mother has a greater desire to be with the baby at that time.

To me, that proposition is pretty obviously true and not worth arguing about.  If that's not what you disagree with, you might want to reread your comments before posting, or maybe write at greater length so people can make the connection between what you're saying and what you're quoting just before you say it.

BTW here's some things I haven't said, because they would be stupid:
  • All women want to stay home with their babies rather than work. No exceptions.
  • All women should want to stay home with their babies.
  • All women should stay home with their babies whether they want to or not.
  • Women that choose not to stay home with their babies should feel guilty about it.
  • A majority of Gin1984's friends want to stay home with their babies.
  • A majority of Gin1984's friends don't want their husbands to be "equal partners" in parenting.

Quote
And second, that link is not a link to peer reviewed studies.
Yeah, it's only original research described in a NYT bestselling book by a psychology PhD with three TED talks.  Dismiss!

Odds are he DID put it in a research paper that was peer reviewed before it ended up in his book, but I'm not going to check or track it down for you because I have better things to do.
You are assuming evidence not given.  You have not posted anything that shows women want to stay home with an infant than men.  Women saying home can be explained by simple economics. 
And you want me to search through a person's CV because he wrote a book to find the research you say exists, but don't want to put in the work to show. It sounds like you think we should just take your statements as fact.  Why is that?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #27 on: November 06, 2014, 01:01:46 PM »
So let's look at research: "The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender differences can vary substantially in magnitude at different ages and depend on the context in which measurement occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and relationships." 
Or
"Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a construct is dimensional or taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender differences have not been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below a cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether gender is taxonic or dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies and physiological characteristics (physical strength, anthropometric measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex. Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to Spence’s (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex."

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #28 on: November 06, 2014, 01:12:55 PM »
You are assuming evidence not given.  You have not posted anything that shows women want to stay home with an infant than men.  Women saying home can be explained by simple economics.
I want to be the first to welcome you to our little blue planet.  Have you met many human beings yet?  How long are you staying?
Quote
And you want me to search through a person's CV because he wrote a book to find the research you say exists, but don't want to put in the work to show. It sounds like you think we should just take your statements as fact.  Why is that?
I would respond to that but the problem is I don't care.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2014, 01:17:22 PM »
So let's look at research: "The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender differences can vary substantially in magnitude at different ages and depend on the context in which measurement occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and relationships." 
Or
"Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a construct is dimensional or taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender differences have not been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below a cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether gender is taxonic or dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies and physiological characteristics (physical strength, anthropometric measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex. Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to Spence’s (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex."

Does that boldfaced bit mean what I think it means?

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2014, 01:25:03 PM »
So let's look at research: "The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender differences can vary substantially in magnitude at different ages and depend on the context in which measurement occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and relationships." 
Or
"Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a construct is dimensional or taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender differences have not been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below a cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether gender is taxonic or dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies and physiological characteristics (physical strength, anthropometric measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex. Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to Spence’s (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex."

Does that boldfaced bit mean what I think it means?
Well if you finish the whole sentence not just the bolded it means that the average difference is there but there is so much internal variability that it is not significant. 

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2014, 01:37:26 PM »
So let's look at research: "The differences model, which argues that males and females are vastly different psychologically, dominates the popular media. Here, the author advances a very different view, the gender similarities hypothesis, which holds that males and females are similar on most, but not all, psychological variables. Results from a review of 46 meta-analyses support the gender similarities hypothesis. Gender differences can vary substantially in magnitude at different ages and depend on the context in which measurement occurs. Overinflated claims of gender differences carry substantial costs in areas such as the workplace and relationships." 
Or
"Taxometric methods enable determination of whether the latent structure of a construct is dimensional or taxonic (nonarbitrary categories). Although sex as a biological category is taxonic, psychological gender differences have not been examined in this way. The taxometric methods of mean above minus below a cut, maximum eigenvalue, and latent mode were used to investigate whether gender is taxonic or dimensional. Behavioral measures of stereotyped hobbies and physiological characteristics (physical strength, anthropometric measurements) were examined for validation purposes, and were taxonic by sex. Psychological indicators included sexuality and mating (sexual attitudes and behaviors, mate selectivity, sociosexual orientation), interpersonal orientation (empathy, relational-interdependent self-construal), gender-related dispositions (masculinity, femininity, care orientation, unmitigated communion, fear of success, science inclination, Big Five personality), and intimacy (intimacy prototypes and stages, social provisions, intimacy with best friend). Constructs were with few exceptions dimensional, speaking to Spence’s (1993) gender identity theory. Average differences between men and women are not under dispute, but the dimensionality of gender indicates that these differences are inappropriate for diagnosing gender-typical psychological variables on the basis of sex."

Does that boldfaced bit mean what I think it means?
Well if you finish the whole sentence not just the bolded it means that the average difference is there but there is so much internal variability that it is not significant.

This article contains some interview with the author of that study.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/study-debunks-notion-that-men-and-women-are-psychologically-distinct/

Once it has been translated out of jargon and into everyday language, it's pretty obvious that this guy is beating up a ludicrous strawman.

Quote
If men and women were psychologically distinct from one another, then their scores on psychological measures should form large clusters at either end of a spectrum with little overlap between the two groups.

This is the case for physical characteristics such as height, shoulder breadth, arm circumference, and waist-to-hip ratio. Men tend to be tall, have broad shoulders, large arm circumference, and a small waist-to-hip ratio, while the inverse is true for women. A man is extremely unlikely to be taller than a woman, yet have narrower shoulders, for instance.

Yet the same could not be said for the myriad of psychological characteristics examined by the two researchers, including fear of success, sexual attitudes, mate selection criteria, sexual behaviors, empathy, and personality. A man could be aggressive, but verbally skilled and poor at math, for example, combining stereotypical masculine and feminine traits.

“It’s not enough that men, on average, score higher than women on a scale of masculinity,” Carothers told Raw Story. “Nearly all of the men would have to score higher than nearly all of the women on nearly every item of the scale. We did not see that level of consistency with the psychological variables we had.”


PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2014, 01:44:21 PM »
Just as an example of how silly this is, it is well documented that men's IQ, while having approximately the same mean, has a higher variance than women's.  That's a gender difference, and it doesn't even have anything to do with the averages.  It certainly doesn't exhibit as two distinct clusters on the spectrum.

But the result is that there are (high) thresholds of IQ above which men are heavily over-represented.  The higher the cut-off, the more extreme the effect becomes.  If you're talking about a group of people whose membership requirements include unusually high IQ, men are going to be over-represented.  For instance, recipients of the fields medal.  Things like that.  Similarly, more men have extremely low IQs and that's part of the reason men are over-represented in special ed classes.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2014, 07:44:12 PM »
I make a distinction between promoting a certain outcome and removing choices.  For example: I will promote getting a college degree, but I will not force my kids to get one.  I will promote choosing a useful major, but if one of my kids wants to do art history, that is their choice.  These are bad examples actually, because I would promote those things a lot harder than I would ever promote motherhood to my daughters.  I'm happy if my daughters know that I think being a mom is an admirable choice.  I'm not going to get upset or disappointed if they don't choose that route.  You may think I'm back-tracking here, but if you read closely, I'm not.  Your original comment that set this thing off was a complaint that little girls raised in traditional religious society would WANT to have big families, remember?

Yes, my comment was that girls raised in traditional religious societies are taught/trained/brainwashed into wanting motherhood (above all else, implied by all caps). I stand by that. What you describe is not the traditional society I was talking about, if you are promoting education and independence to your female children as well as your male children, without focusing on "feminine" and "unfeminine" pursuits. I was talking about societies that really do raise their daughters primarily for marriage and childbearing: think the Middle East, India, Quiverfull. As well as most societies across Europe and Asia until approximately the last century.

Quote
You're right that I take issue with the demographics...because I don't believe them to reflect real choice rather than internalized stereotypes and pipelines/roadblocks in the system.
I'm not saying it's 100% one or the other, but I think it's important that we make the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.  To be clear, I am against all forms of discrimination.  But I don't think it's a slam dunk to say every demographic skew is due to discrimination.  To cite some of the more obvious examples:
  • Women are over-represented in kindergarten teach roles.
  • Young men are over-represented in high-pressure wall street jobs
  • A certain small geographic area in Africa is massively over-represented in marathon winners
And that is just the examples that are clearly due to inherent unchangeable characteristics.  What about the differences that are just due to culture?

It shocks me how close you can be to "getting it" and still turn away. There is absolutely no reason to believe any of those 3 are due to "unchangeable characteristics." There was a fascinating story (I think NPR) about why marathon winners are predominantly from a specific village in Africa. It was a little to do with genetics, but also largely due to cultural practices. The way boys and girls are socialized from a young age can also explain why in our society men don't become teachers (although the ones that do are *awesome*, in my experience, including kindergarten teachers) and women don't make it to the upper echelons of high-stakes professions. I'm actually going to give you an inch: there MIGHT be a fundamental, genetic, population-scale difference between men and women and their suitability for various jobs. Maybe we'll only ever have 10% female truckers and construction workers. Or 30% engineers and financiers. HOWEVER, until stories like this stop happening, we really can't say we're there yet:

 
Quote
I am a newly graduated mechanical engineer. I got a job with a large energy company. The job demands weren't explained fully until I started training. When I expressed some concerns about the amount of hours I would be working, my manager made the assumption that it had something to do with my being a female. He asked me things like;

"Am I worried that I won't be able to get regular manicures and pedicures?"

"Am I worried that my biological clock will run out if I dedicate the next few years to my career?"

And finally, he outright said that because I was a good looking woman with pretty eyes and a great body and good GPA that there was no reason I wouldn't be successful in the company if I stick with it.

I have no idea what to do. I can't be the first to deal with attitudes like this, I'd love some advice from women who have been there.

I'll let Neil Degrasse Tyson back me up, too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7ihNLEDiuM

To bring it back around, suppose we stipulate that women are not discriminated against.  Maybe you think they are, (and in some cases you would be right) but I'm against discrimination so we don't need to argue that point.  Let's assume for a second that they are not.  Suppose in a fictional society with no discrimination, some percentage of women freely choose to forgo a career in order to be home-makers, at a higher rate than men, with the result that women are under-represented in the public sphere.  Do we need to be upset about that?  The sense I get is that those women would be a disappointment to feminists, because they embrace the positive values of the home and family.  If you wouldn't be upset by their choices, then maybe we agree on more than we realize.

I think women, in the so called "developed nations," specifically the USA and Europe, are MUCH better off today than they were 50 years ago. Or 100 years ago. And I think there are reasons for that, reasons that "traditional society" and conservatives have generally opposed. Things like education, contraception, representation in government. But there are still societies where this is not the case; a friend of mine was the only woman in her (engineering) program in India; and although her parents are VERY progressive for that country and encouraged her in that pursuit, and in going to graduate school abroad, she is still afraid to tell them that she has been dating a guy she met in college for years now (they relocated together). Too many women in her country still are not taught even to *read*. That is the product of traditional values, taken to their conclusion.

I'm going to reiterate again: there is NOTHING wrong with a woman choosing to stay home to raise her children. There IS something wrong with considering that in any way the default, preferred, expected, or natural choice for a woman to make. Because then you're saying that a woman who chooses differently is doing something wrong in following her natural inclinations. When many people ("society") hold this belief, it makes it very, very difficult to change the status quo, for everyone to do what they CHOOSE.
---

One other thing we have veered away from: large families. I see nothing wrong with some people doing that because they want to. I do see a problem with promoting it on a societal level. Simply because, right now, at this moment in time, our planet cannot support this. If the Quiverfull movement were also staunch supporters of the space program, I would have no qualms. But the fact is if everyone has 7 children, with modern medicine to keep them all alive...we'll run out of space very, very fast.

--

Just as an example of how silly this is, it is well documented that men's IQ, while having approximately the same mean, has a higher variance than women's.  That's a gender difference, and it doesn't even have anything to do with the averages.  It certainly doesn't exhibit as two distinct clusters on the spectrum.

But the result is that there are (high) thresholds of IQ above which men are heavily over-represented.  The higher the cut-off, the more extreme the effect becomes.  If you're talking about a group of people whose membership requirements include unusually high IQ, men are going to be over-represented.  For instance, recipients of the fields medal.  Things like that.  Similarly, more men have extremely low IQs and that's part of the reason men are over-represented in special ed classes.

IQ tests were created by men. White men. IIRC there has been some question about their validity across the population spectrum. I'm not sure though. But I take your argument with a grain of salt.

I know for sure that there was a study done on the spatial reasoning tests (you know, the ones that determined that boys typically had better spacial reasoning than girls?) Turned out that when the spatial reasoning concepts were put in more "girl-friendly" terms, relating to fashion or home decorating instead of conglomerations of blocks, girls did better. Again going back to how the most unexpected things are social constructs rather than biological fact.

JoanOfSnark

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2014, 06:26:30 AM »
I had this conversation recently in a "Girls in Technology" seminar, and the conclusion I came to was that IF all things were equal and women and girls faced no substantial barrier to employment and success in the technology industry and STILL trended in higher proportions to caretaking and homemaking, then there would be no problem.

This is, however NOT AT ALL THE CASE. Women and girls still face massive barriers to access to these things, just as men face barriers to access to the more caretaking fields. The unequal access is the problem here- and traditional gendered upbringing is part of the societal and cultural background that creates that problem.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #35 on: November 07, 2014, 07:03:08 AM »
Yes, my comment was that girls raised in traditional religious societies are taught/trained/brainwashed into wanting motherhood (above all else, implied by all caps). I stand by that. What you describe is not the traditional society I was talking about, if you are promoting education and independence to your female children as well as your male children, without focusing on "feminine" and "unfeminine" pursuits. I was talking about societies that really do raise their daughters primarily for marriage and childbearing: think the Middle East, India, Quiverfull. As well as most societies across Europe and Asia until approximately the last century.

...


I'm going to reiterate again: there is NOTHING wrong with a woman choosing to stay home to raise her children. There IS something wrong with considering that in any way the default, preferred, expected, or natural choice for a woman to make. Because then you're saying that a woman who chooses differently is doing something wrong in following her natural inclinations. When many people ("society") hold this belief, it makes it very, very difficult to change the status quo, for everyone to do what they CHOOSE.

I get that you had something different in mind when you used the phrase "traditional religious".  But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.  I kinda get the impression you are assuming it's an unlikely path.  What if a little positive reinforcement of the value of motherhood is all it takes for a significant portion of women to choose that path?  What if it's not necessary to discriminate to get wildly different outcomes for men and women?  If you live in a society where a large percentage of women do choose to be homemakers, at what point does it simply become rational parenting to prepare them to succeed in the vocation they're probably going to choose, without putting up barriers in front of women that want to take the non-traditional route?  There's nothing inherently wrong, in my opinion, with preparing your kids for the kind of life you generally expect they're going to have. 

For comparison:  I could do a lot more -- a LOT more -- to develop my son's athletic skills.  He likes sports a lot and seems to have some talent in that area.  But I think the odds are pretty slim that athletics will be a main part of his life.  I'm much more interested in his academic progress.  OK maybe that's because of where my interests lie.  But it's not as if I'm discouraging him.  It's not as if I'd be upset if he turns out to be a big athlete.  I'd be happy for him.  I'd come to his games and cheer him on, just like I do today.  Am I a bad parent because I'm not taking him outside every day and making sure he gets the practice he needs to compete with the kids whose parents are gung-ho about sports?  In my house, the default, expected, natural choice is academics over sports.  (Preferred might be overstating it.)  I don't think that is unfair.  It's an expression of who I am.

Where our differences lie is that it seems completely benign to me to look at motherhood as something that many/most women should consider a "primary" priority in the arc of their life.  I'm not going to get upset if my daughter doesn't choose the most likely path -- maybe she stays single and devotes herself to her art.  Maybe she becomes a nun.  But those are the more unusual choices.  Why pretend that an unlikely alternative is actually the default and the most common choice is an unlikely alternative?

Consistent with that, I think the "normal" thing for my son to do is to become a father, and the odds are if he does that he will need to make enough money to support a family, so he needs to be equipped for that.  But if he ends up being a priest or a stay-at-home dad, I would celebrate those choices as well.

Quote
Quote
You're right that I take issue with the demographics...because I don't believe them to reflect real choice rather than internalized stereotypes and pipelines/roadblocks in the system.
I'm not saying it's 100% one or the other, but I think it's important that we make the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.  To be clear, I am against all forms of discrimination.  But I don't think it's a slam dunk to say every demographic skew is due to discrimination.  To cite some of the more obvious examples:
  • Women are over-represented in kindergarten teach roles.
  • Young men are over-represented in high-pressure wall street jobs
  • A certain small geographic area in Africa is massively over-represented in marathon winners
And that is just the examples that are clearly due to inherent unchangeable characteristics.  What about the differences that are just due to culture?

It shocks me how close you can be to "getting it" and still turn away. There is absolutely no reason to believe any of those 3 are due to "unchangeable characteristics." There was a fascinating story (I think NPR) about why marathon winners are predominantly from a specific village in Africa. It was a little to do with genetics, but also largely due to cultural practices. The way boys and girls are socialized from a young age can also explain why in our society men don't become teachers (although the ones that do are *awesome*, in my experience, including kindergarten teachers) and women don't make it to the upper echelons of high-stakes professions. I'm actually going to give you an inch: there MIGHT be a fundamental, genetic, population-scale difference between men and women and their suitability for various jobs. Maybe we'll only ever have 10% female truckers and construction workers. Or 30% engineers and financiers. HOWEVER...

Wait wait wait.  Let's be clear about why we disagree.  You are starting from the assumption that all human beings are identical, and then acknowledging their differences only when incontrovertible evidence proves that they are different.

For instance, suppose you examine the evidence of whether those African marathoners have a different skin color, on average, than their American counterparts.  You could test that by measuring the exact shade of each runner's skin and prove that the difference is statistically significant.  What that means is that in a universe where each runner's skin color was completely random draw from the same distribution, the odds that the average of the African runners' skins would be that much darker than the American runners' skin is so small that the results basically rule out the assumption (that each runner's skin is a random draw).  But even that wouldn't actually prove anything until you also showed that there was no other cause of the difference (for instance it isn't caused by the Africans spending more time in the sun, or American use of a certain brand of soap that lightens the skin.)  If you want to have the highest standard of evidence, you could basically never conclude that the Africans' skin was inherently darker, because there would always be more stones to overturn.  If you had a vested interest in denying the skin color difference, you could basically deny it forever.  Even if scientists were showing you the underlying cause of the difference (I want to say melatonin but that's the sleep aid.  The name escapes me.) you could then say that we don't know the cause of that, whether it was influenced by diet, temperature, and so on.  You could do the same with height difference by gender and so on ad nauseum.

But why bother?  Skin tone is morally neutral.  If we don't politically and culturally benefit from believing that everybody has the same skin tone, it's actually pretty sensible to say "Eh.  It's a difference."

That's where I am with gender.  Men and women aren't proportionally represented in Engineering degrees?  Probably an inherent difference.  Who cares.

That's not to say I don't think discrimination happens.  Obviously some women are discriminated against.  Obviously upbringing counts for something. But... er... last I checked women were getting more than 50% of the degrees in Biology.  In fact women represent more than half the undergraduate degrees awarded in total.  I don't have any vested political interest in women being just as interested in every academic topic as men, so why should I get worked up about men being over-represented in Engineering (or women being over-represented in Biology?)

The key thing I'm saying here is that even though I'm against discrimination, I have an underlying assumption that if you group human beings by any characteristic, you'll probably find inherent differences in any other characteristics that you care to measure.  I expect everything to be correlated, because in my view, everything measurable is safely assumed to be due to both nature and nurture, in varying proportions, unless and until it is proven that it is strictly one or the other.



Quote
... until stories like this stop happening, we really can't say we're there yet:

 
Quote
I am a newly graduated mechanical engineer. I got a job with a large energy company. The job demands weren't explained fully until I started training. When I expressed some concerns about the amount of hours I would be working, my manager made the assumption that it had something to do with my being a female. He asked me things like;

"Am I worried that I won't be able to get regular manicures and pedicures?"

"Am I worried that my biological clock will run out if I dedicate the next few years to my career?"

And finally, he outright said that because I was a good looking woman with pretty eyes and a great body and good GPA that there was no reason I wouldn't be successful in the company if I stick with it.

I have no idea what to do. I can't be the first to deal with attitudes like this, I'd love some advice from women who have been there.

This is, frankly, insane.  She should hire a lawyer and sue, yesterday.  She'd be doing everybody at the company (including men) a favor by getting that guy fired.

Quote
To bring it back around, suppose we stipulate that women are not discriminated against.  Maybe you think they are, (and in some cases you would be right) but I'm against discrimination so we don't need to argue that point.  Let's assume for a second that they are not.  Suppose in a fictional society with no discrimination, some percentage of women freely choose to forgo a career in order to be home-makers, at a higher rate than men, with the result that women are under-represented in the public sphere.  Do we need to be upset about that?  The sense I get is that those women would be a disappointment to feminists, because they embrace the positive values of the home and family.  If you wouldn't be upset by their choices, then maybe we agree on more than we realize.

I think women, in the so called "developed nations," specifically the USA and Europe, are MUCH better off today than they were 50 years ago. Or 100 years ago. And I think there are reasons for that, reasons that "traditional society" and conservatives have generally opposed. Things like education, contraception, representation in government. But there are still societies where this is not the case; a friend of mine was the only woman in her (engineering) program in India; and although her parents are VERY progressive for that country and encouraged her in that pursuit, and in going to graduate school abroad, she is still afraid to tell them that she has been dating a guy she met in college for years now (they relocated together). Too many women in her country still are not taught even to *read*. That is the product of traditional values, taken to their conclusion.

Ultimately I can't defend every single thing people do in the name of "tradition", for reasons beginning with the fact that many "traditions" contradict one another.  I can respond briefly that men are also much better off than they were 50 or 100 years ago, and girls not learning how to read is not the worst thing about Indian society, by a long shot.  I'm not generally moved when people say that something I disagree with completely is where my ideas are "leading".

Quote
One other thing we have veered away from: large families. I see nothing wrong with some people doing that because they want to. I do see a problem with promoting it on a societal level. Simply because, right now, at this moment in time, our planet cannot support this. If the Quiverfull movement were also staunch supporters of the space program, I would have no qualms. But the fact is if everyone has 7 children, with modern medicine to keep them all alive...we'll run out of space very, very fast.
We'll cross that bridge when we come to it.  Right now the major danger to western society is catastrophically low birth rates, and third world country birth rates are rapidly following us down.  And doomsday malthusian predictions have a long, long history of not panning out, whether you're talking about population growth or peak oil and resource use.

Quote
Just as an example of how silly this is, it is well documented that men's IQ, while having approximately the same mean, has a higher variance than women's.  That's a gender difference, and it doesn't even have anything to do with the averages.  It certainly doesn't exhibit as two distinct clusters on the spectrum.

But the result is that there are (high) thresholds of IQ above which men are heavily over-represented.  The higher the cut-off, the more extreme the effect becomes.  If you're talking about a group of people whose membership requirements include unusually high IQ, men are going to be over-represented.  For instance, recipients of the fields medal.  Things like that.  Similarly, more men have extremely low IQs and that's part of the reason men are over-represented in special ed classes.

IQ tests were created by men. White men.
.  I'm at a loss for words here.
Quote
IIRC there has been some question about their validity across the population spectrum. I'm not sure though. But I take your argument with a grain of salt.
IQ is a better outcome predictor than pretty much any other measure.
Quote
I know for sure that there was a study done on the spatial reasoning tests (you know, the ones that determined that boys typically had better spacial reasoning than girls?) Turned out that when the spatial reasoning concepts were put in more "girl-friendly" terms, relating to fashion or home decorating instead of conglomerations of blocks, girls did better. Again going back to how the most unexpected things are social constructs rather than biological fact.
I am pondering the nuclear rage that would occur among feminists if you rewrote math and engineering textbooks so that there was a girly version where all the questions were related to fashion and home-decorating... wowzers.  I'm not sure this anecdote supports your broader argument.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #36 on: November 07, 2014, 07:07:24 AM »
I had this conversation recently in a "Girls in Technology" seminar, and the conclusion I came to was that IF all things were equal and women and girls faced no substantial barrier to employment and success in the technology industry and STILL trended in higher proportions to caretaking and homemaking, then there would be no problem.

This is, however NOT AT ALL THE CASE. Women and girls still face massive barriers to access to these things, just as men face barriers to access to the more caretaking fields. The unequal access is the problem here- and traditional gendered upbringing is part of the societal and cultural background that creates that problem.
If the barriers to access are so massive, why don't they prevent girls from achieving greater-than-50% representation in the other sciences, like Biology?  Or college degrees generally?

JoanOfSnark

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 68
  • Location: Berlin, Germany
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #37 on: November 07, 2014, 07:23:10 AM »
If the barriers to access are so massive, why don't they prevent girls from achieving greater-than-50% representation in the other sciences, like Biology?  Or college degrees generally?

Because, as I'm pretty sure you're aware, barriers to access aren't applied with that broad of a brush. If it is more societally acceptable for a woman to become a biologist, she's going to have an easier time because there will be less dickheads at the top thinking "oh but that's not how it's DONE" or worrying about her competency, because they will have already SEEN many competent women biologists. Same logic applies to male teachers- there are a whole lot more at the high-school level than the preschool level.

Check this out for an interesting study into when and why women stopped coding- lack of access to preliminary education and material ended up precluding them in large part from more advanced study in the field, and as such it became even MORE embedded in the culture that it is a man's realm:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #38 on: November 07, 2014, 07:58:41 AM »
Highly Recommended Reading

http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #39 on: November 07, 2014, 08:26:08 AM »
Where our differences lie is that it seems completely benign to me to look at motherhood as something that many/most women should consider a "primary" priority in the arc of their life.

Thank you for distilling this out, because it helps me see that we are probably never going to agree on this issue. That view to me is NOT benign if it is not equally applied to fathers. Personally, I think that parenthood is something that all parents should consider a primary priority in the arc of their life, but I do not think that any human being, male or female, will necessarily lead an unfulfilling life if they DON'T choose to become parents (although for the record, I do want kids). If we only apply this statement to mothers, I think we are potentially holding back women, men, families, and society. Everyone should have an equal chance to do what's best for themselves and their family, not be "guided" or groomed for something that's "more likely." Anecdotally, I make three times as much money as my boyfriend. I find my job interesting and fulfilling and it actually gives me a chance to use both my degrees. At some point he might find a job that he feels more of a calling for, but I'd say right now he does not find his job super interesting. If we had kids right now, do you seriously think it would be better for my family for me to stay home vs. him staying home? How does that even make sense? And what if my parents had worried more about teaching me to be a good homemaker (since I would "probably" end up being one anyway) than encouraging me to excel in school and participate in outdoor activities I was interested in (which eventually got me on the path towards a geology major)? It would have been WAY less likely that I would have ended up where I am now, which is in a really good place. Look at your kids, see what they like and what they're good at, and encourage it. If your daughter expresses an interest in cooking and baking and sewing, AWESOME. Support her and help her learn as much as she can! If she expresses zero interest in those things but happens to love math or bugs or writing, I think it would be really gross if you thought, "well, those things won't help her be a good homemaker, so let's discourage that."

Also, your analogy about encouraging your son's academics vs. athleticism isn't a very good one. The odds of your daughter having enough interest and skill to prefer and excel in a career other than homemaking are exponentially higher than the odds of your son having the athletic ability to become a professional athlete. Come on.

I'm going to reiterate again: there is NOTHING wrong with a woman choosing to stay home to raise her children. There IS something wrong with considering that in any way the default, preferred, expected, or natural choice for a woman to make. Because then you're saying that a woman who chooses differently is doing something wrong in following her natural inclinations. When many people ("society") hold this belief, it makes it very, very difficult to change the status quo, for everyone to do what they CHOOSE.

If the barriers to access are so massive, why don't they prevent girls from achieving greater-than-50% representation in the other sciences, like Biology?  Or college degrees generally?

Because, as I'm pretty sure you're aware, barriers to access aren't applied with that broad of a brush. If it is more societally acceptable for a woman to become a biologist, she's going to have an easier time because there will be less dickheads at the top thinking "oh but that's not how it's DONE" or worrying about her competency, because they will have already SEEN many competent women biologists. Same logic applies to male teachers- there are a whole lot more at the high-school level than the preschool level.

Thank you guys for these very eloquent comments. You basically worded my own views better than I could have!

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #40 on: November 07, 2014, 09:14:32 AM »
Where our differences lie is that it seems completely benign to me to look at motherhood as something that many/most women should consider a "primary" priority in the arc of their life.

Thank you for distilling this out, because it helps me see that we are probably never going to agree on this issue.
You may be right, but I'm not so sure, because you are so off-base in your characterization of my beliefs that almost everything you wrote after this is something I already agree with you about!  No really.  We agree.  The difference between us is that I don't associate my beliefs with mainstream progressivism, so I don't use conventional politically correct formulations when I express them.  You see those verbal markers and associate me with the evil cartoon villain conservative boogeyman of popular thought, and as a consequence you are completely wrong in what you think you heard me say.
Quote
That view to me is NOT benign if it is not equally applied to fathers.
It is equally applied to fathers.
Quote
Personally, I think that parenthood is something that all parents should consider a primary priority in the arc of their life, but I do not think that any human being, male or female, will necessarily lead an unfulfilling life if they DON'T choose to become parents
I don't either.
Quote
(although for the record, I do want kids). If we only apply this statement to mothers, I think we are potentially holding back women, men, families, and society.
Agreed.  Encouraging men to see career and public status as more important than fatherhood is a terrible thing that hurts women, men, families, and society.
Quote
Everyone should have an equal chance to do what's best for themselves and their family, not be "guided" or groomed for something that's "more likely."
It's impossible to raise your children without doing things that are considered guidance and grooming.  It's called education and socialization.  Raising your kids with the expectation that they will have a career is just as much guidance and grooming as being positive about home-making.
Quote
Anecdotally, I make three times as much money as my boyfriend. I find my job interesting and fulfilling and it actually gives me a chance to use both my degrees. At some point he might find a job that he feels more of a calling for, but I'd say right now he does not find his job super interesting. If we had kids right now, do you seriously think it would be better for my family for me to stay home vs. him staying home?
I think him staying home, as I have stated many times already, would be just fine.

I also happen to think there's a decent chance you would change your mind when it came right down to it, but I wouldn't judge you if you really wanted to go back to work after having a baby.
Quote
How does that even make sense? And what if my parents had worried more about teaching me to be a good homemaker (since I would "probably" end up being one anyway) than encouraging me to excel in school and participate in outdoor activities I was interested in (which eventually got me on the path towards a geology major)? It would have been WAY less likely that I would have ended up where I am now, which is in a really good place.
I don't want parents to discourage kids from doing the things they are interested in.
Quote
Look at your kids, see what they like and what they're good at, and encourage it. If your daughter expresses an interest in cooking and baking and sewing, AWESOME. Support her and help her learn as much as she can! If she expresses zero interest in those things but happens to love math or bugs or writing, I think it would be really gross if you thought, "well, those things won't help her be a good homemaker, so let's discourage that."
Sounds like we are in complete agreement.
Quote
Also, your analogy about encouraging your son's academics vs. athleticism isn't a very good one. The odds of your daughter having enough interest and skill to prefer and excel in a career other than homemaking are exponentially higher than the odds of your son having the athletic ability to become a professional athlete. Come on.
I deliberately didn't say anything about him being a professional athlete, because that is very rare.  I'm talking about succeeding in sports generally and sports being a big part of his life.  That's true for large numbers of people that aren't professional athletes.  (That said, as it turns out, my sister is a sponsored athlete and she is closing in on making the olympic trials for the marathon, and she's not the only runner in the family, so even pro level achievements are not all that unlikely for someone with our genes.)  The point is, sports are not my interest, so I focus on other things when I am deliberately developing my children's skills and abilities.  They are welcome to find sports on their own, and I will cheer for them.  I don't think it's unfair that I'm not grooming them for sports.

I made this comment originally in the context of a hypothetical, where most women did not have a career.  In reality, I see that in this society it is likely that my daughters will have careers, so of course I'm supporting that -- because it is likely, not because of some cosmic debt they owe to feminism to go conquer the world in the name of women.  Ironically I would bet -- without knowing for sure -- that I do more to prepare my daughters for academic success than any other parent in their school system.

SweetTPi

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 150
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Greater Philly
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #41 on: November 07, 2014, 09:25:01 AM »
If the barriers to access are so massive, why don't they prevent girls from achieving greater-than-50% representation in the other sciences, like Biology?  Or college degrees generally?

Because, as I'm pretty sure you're aware, barriers to access aren't applied with that broad of a brush. If it is more societally acceptable for a woman to become a biologist, she's going to have an easier time because there will be less dickheads at the top thinking "oh but that's not how it's DONE" or worrying about her competency, because they will have already SEEN many competent women biologists. Same logic applies to male teachers- there are a whole lot more at the high-school level than the preschool level.

Check this out for an interesting study into when and why women stopped coding- lack of access to preliminary education and material ended up precluding them in large part from more advanced study in the field, and as such it became even MORE embedded in the culture that it is a man's realm:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2014/10/21/357629765/when-women-stopped-coding

I graduated in 2006, as part of the 26% of my engineering major that were female.  One of the largest percentages they had had to that point.  When I was a sophomore, we had a project that involved coding, the first one to do so. When asked in a casual conversation how it was going, when I replied that I had finished the coding (way early, and one of the first in the class to do so), a classmate said, in front of professors "That's because you can just get your boyfriend to do it for you."  I kid you not, just because I was doing well coding, I was accused in front of professors of cheating. 

That same year I found out that if I only put my last name on my homework, leaving off my gendered first name, my homework scores improved to match those I worked with.  Prior, even though we had the same work, and the same answers, I would get less partial credit.

There were (male) classmates I refused to work with, because if I suggested something, it would be ignored unless parroted by a male classmate.  Then he would get credit for the 'great idea'.

A different classmate announced to others that I didn't 'deserve' to be ranked #1 in the class (based on GPA) because my electives were bio classes (for bioengineering) and not 'real' classes like math.  (For the record, I consider molecular and developmental biology much harder than linear algebra.)

A professor told me I shouldn't worry about a project so much and should go enjoy the flowers around campus.

I could go on and on.  And this was in the 2000s, remember.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #42 on: November 07, 2014, 09:48:51 AM »
I graduated in 2006, as part of the 26% of my engineering major that were female.  One of the largest percentages they had had to that point.  When I was a sophomore, we had a project that involved coding, the first one to do so. When asked in a casual conversation how it was going, when I replied that I had finished the coding (way early, and one of the first in the class to do so), a classmate said, in front of professors "That's because you can just get your boyfriend to do it for you."  I kid you not, just because I was doing well coding, I was accused in front of professors of cheating. 

That same year I found out that if I only put my last name on my homework, leaving off my gendered first name, my homework scores improved to match those I worked with.  Prior, even though we had the same work, and the same answers, I would get less partial credit.

There were (male) classmates I refused to work with, because if I suggested something, it would be ignored unless parroted by a male classmate.  Then he would get credit for the 'great idea'.

A different classmate announced to others that I didn't 'deserve' to be ranked #1 in the class (based on GPA) because my electives were bio classes (for bioengineering) and not 'real' classes like math.  (For the record, I consider molecular and developmental biology much harder than linear algebra.)

A professor told me I shouldn't worry about a project so much and should go enjoy the flowers around campus.

I could go on and on.  And this was in the 2000s, remember.

I'm really sorry you encountered so much negativity in school.  It's a little baffling because I never witnessed anything like that when I was in school (for mathematics).  I graduated in 2004, so it's a similar timeframe.  I genuinely got the impression that my professors were decent men and women who wanted everybody to succeed, regardless of race or gender.  Some of the teachers where the most wonderful human beings I've ever encountered.  Most of the students were stridently liberal and egalitarian.  The one "bias incident" I remember was a girl in a wheelchair getting super angry because someone used the word "crippled" rather than "handicapped" or whatever the preferred term was at the time.  I thought she was wildly overreacting.

With regard to somebody repeating your idea and getting credit for it, that happens to me too, from time to time, even though I'm a guy.  My voice doesn't carry, and I think sometimes people repeat what I said because not everybody heard it.  I try not to worry about who gets credit for the right ideas.  I'm more concerned that the team is making the right decisions.

I've only witnessed one case of out and out sexual harassment in my career, in my first year on the job, and the perpetrator was not the brightest individual.  He was pretty low class, actually, and he left shortly afterward.  Everyone I work with now is polite and fair-minded as far as I can tell.  It seems really strange to me to think that there might be sexism occurring all around me and I can't see it.  But I can't disregard your personal experience either.  I really don't know what to make of it.  Maybe I've been very lucky to be surrounded by good people.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2014, 09:50:31 AM by PloddingInsight »

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Location: Oklahoma
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #43 on: November 07, 2014, 09:57:23 AM »
I made this comment originally in the context of a hypothetical, where most women did not have a career.  In reality, I see that in this society it is likely that my daughters will have careers, so of course I'm supporting that -- because it is likely, not because of some cosmic debt they owe to feminism to go conquer the world in the name of women.  Ironically I would bet -- without knowing for sure -- that I do more to prepare my daughters for academic success than any other parent in their school system.

Aha. I think I misunderstood your original statements:

I get that you had something different in mind when you used the phrase "traditional religious".  But I see a difference between discrimination, and simply preparing you daughter to be a good stay-at-home mom, with the expectation that she will probably choose that.  I kinda get the impression you are assuming it's an unlikely path.  What if a little positive reinforcement of the value of motherhood is all it takes for a significant portion of women to choose that path?  What if it's not necessary to discriminate to get wildly different outcomes for men and women?  If you live in a society where a large percentage of women do choose to be homemakers, at what point does it simply become rational parenting to prepare them to succeed in the vocation they're probably going to choose, without putting up barriers in front of women that want to take the non-traditional route?  There's nothing inherently wrong, in my opinion, with preparing your kids for the kind of life you generally expect they're going to have.

You're saying that you don't see a problem with parents 60 years ago "preparing" their daughters specifically for motherhood/homemaking, because at that time most women did not work outside the home. Is that correct? I guess I still disagree, but I am relieved that you feel that approach is inappropriate today.

I'm really sorry you encountered so much negativity in school.  It's a little baffling because I never witnessed anything like that when I was in school (for mathematics).  I graduated in 2004, so it's a similar timeframe.

...

I've only witnessed one case of out and out sexual harassment in my career, in my first year on the job, and the perpetrator was not the brightest individual.  He was pretty low class, actually, and he left shortly afterward.  Everyone I work with now is polite and fair-minded as far as I can tell.  It seems really strange to me to think that there might be sexism occurring all around me and I can't see it.

Truthfully, I don't find it "strange" or "baffling" at all. I think it's human nature to not see discrimination that is directed at a group you're not a part of. I guarantee I'm way more oblivious to racism and homophobia than a black person or a gay person would be, because it doesn't affect me. I'm not sure how this is a confusing or non-intuitive concept.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #44 on: November 07, 2014, 09:58:13 AM »
I graduated in 2006, as part of the 26% of my engineering major that were female.  One of the largest percentages they had had to that point.  When I was a sophomore, we had a project that involved coding, the first one to do so. When asked in a casual conversation how it was going, when I replied that I had finished the coding (way early, and one of the first in the class to do so), a classmate said, in front of professors "That's because you can just get your boyfriend to do it for you."  I kid you not, just because I was doing well coding, I was accused in front of professors of cheating. 

That same year I found out that if I only put my last name on my homework, leaving off my gendered first name, my homework scores improved to match those I worked with.  Prior, even though we had the same work, and the same answers, I would get less partial credit.

There were (male) classmates I refused to work with, because if I suggested something, it would be ignored unless parroted by a male classmate.  Then he would get credit for the 'great idea'.

A different classmate announced to others that I didn't 'deserve' to be ranked #1 in the class (based on GPA) because my electives were bio classes (for bioengineering) and not 'real' classes like math.  (For the record, I consider molecular and developmental biology much harder than linear algebra.)

A professor told me I shouldn't worry about a project so much and should go enjoy the flowers around campus.

I could go on and on.  And this was in the 2000s, remember.

I'm really sorry you encountered so much negativity in school.  It's a little baffling because I never witnessed anything like that when I was in school (for mathematics). I graduated in 2004, so it's a similar timeframe.  I genuinely got the impression that my professors were decent men and women who wanted everybody to succeed, regardless of race or gender.  Some of the teachers where the most wonderful human beings I've ever encountered.  Most of the students were stridently liberal and egalitarian.  The one "bias incident" I remember was a girl in a wheelchair getting super angry because someone used the word "crippled" rather than "handicapped" or whatever the preferred term was at the time.  I thought she was wildly overreacting.

With regard to somebody repeating your idea and getting credit for it, that happens to me too, from time to time, even though I'm a guy.  My voice doesn't carry, and I think sometimes people repeat what I said because not everybody heard it.  I try not to worry about who gets credit for the right ideas.  I'm more concerned that the team is making the right decisions.

I've only witnessed one case of out and out sexual harassment in my career, in my first year on the job, and the perpetrator was not the brightest individual.  He was pretty low class, actually, and he left shortly afterward.  Everyone I work with now is polite and fair-minded as far as I can tell.  It seems really strange to me to think that there might be sexism occurring all around me and I can't see it.  But I can't disregard your personal experience either.  I really don't know what to make of it.  Maybe I've been very lucky to be surrounded by good people.
I wonder if it did happen around you, but you were not aware of it.  That is common when you are in the group that is favored.  For example, I have a professor who when the same work was done gave the men higher grades, and it took more work to get equal grades.  The only reason we noticed was a group project in which I worked with a guy.  There were two part, one I did a much longer paper and one that was of the same length.  I received a C on the paper that was equivalent (he received a B) and when I did twice as much work we both got Bs.  Until then, no one notice.  Then the students began to compare.  It took their entire class going to the Dean with copies to get her not hired back, but she was an adjunct.  Also, none of our grades were adjusted. 
If you would like something non-anecdotal, I can send you some abstracts.

Runge

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 220
  • Location: TX
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #45 on: November 07, 2014, 09:59:10 AM »
Instead of trying to prove that females and males are inherently different or inherently the same by whatever metric you choose, how about everyone just ACCEPT that EVERYONE is different in their own right on an individual level. There will always be exceptions to norms, and you will always find an individual who does not meet whatever mold you have in your head.

Accept each and every person for who they are, and meet them where they are in life. Who cares whether or not there's a low percentage of females in one industry or another? What really matters in the relationships each and every one of us have with one another, and that includes people you like, don't like, or are indifferent about. Treat everyone person around you with respect, and allow them to contribute their own personal strengths.

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4929
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #46 on: November 07, 2014, 10:09:35 AM »
Instead of trying to prove that females and males are inherently different or inherently the same by whatever metric you choose, how about everyone just ACCEPT that EVERYONE is different in their own right on an individual level. There will always be exceptions to norms, and you will always find an individual who does not meet whatever mold you have in your head.

Accept each and every person for who they are, and meet them where they are in life. Who cares whether or not there's a low percentage of females in one industry or another? What really matters in the relationships each and every one of us have with one another, and that includes people you like, don't like, or are indifferent about. Treat everyone person around you with respect, and allow them to contribute their own personal strengths.
I care because that means that I and other women like myself are subtly discriminated against when we attempt to succeed in that industry.  When a male boss asks if I think I can succeed as a grad student being a mom, yet I accomplished my Master's as a mom (so he has evidence that I can), he never asked my coworker the same question even though my coworker is also a parent (male though) and my husband was never ask such a question, there is a problem.  And my boss honestly does not believe he is discriminatory so won't do the steps needed to avoid it.  He was happy to invite me into his lab based on my publish research yet hesitant that I could do the job once he found out I had a child, WTF?  Or the fact that the same application with a female name will have a lower chance of funding than a male's which means a woman is less likely to get tenure track.  So basically, the overt evidence of discrimination is not something to ignore.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #47 on: November 07, 2014, 10:38:57 AM »


I've only witnessed one case of out and out sexual harassment in my career, in my first year on the job, and the perpetrator was not the brightest individual.  He was pretty low class, actually, and he left shortly afterward.  Everyone I work with now is polite and fair-minded as far as I can tell.  It seems really strange to me to think that there might be sexism occurring all around me and I can't see it.  But I can't disregard your personal experience either.  I really don't know what to make of it.  Maybe I've been very lucky to be surrounded by good people.

This is more about street/bar harassment, but I think it applies: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/_yesallwomen_in_the_wake_of_elliot_rodger_why_it_s_so_hard_for_men_to_recognize.html

Whether it's your environment or their secrecy our your not recognizing it...You should know it does still happen. All the time. These stories (of overt harrassment or subtle discouragement in the workplace) are not uncommon.

galliver

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1863
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #48 on: November 07, 2014, 10:38:57 AM »


I've only witnessed one case of out and out sexual harassment in my career, in my first year on the job, and the perpetrator was not the brightest individual.  He was pretty low class, actually, and he left shortly afterward.  Everyone I work with now is polite and fair-minded as far as I can tell.  It seems really strange to me to think that there might be sexism occurring all around me and I can't see it.  But I can't disregard your personal experience either.  I really don't know what to make of it.  Maybe I've been very lucky to be surrounded by good people.

This is more about street/bar harassment, but I think it applies: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/05/_yesallwomen_in_the_wake_of_elliot_rodger_why_it_s_so_hard_for_men_to_recognize.html

Whether it's your environment or their secrecy our your not recognizing it...You should know it does still happen. All the time. These stories (of overt harrassment or subtle discouragement in the workplace) are not uncommon.

PloddingInsight

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 320
Re: Traditional vs modern family values and gender roles
« Reply #49 on: November 07, 2014, 11:00:41 AM »
I should have said:  I'm well aware of the research that people have unconscious biases.  (If you grade papers or projects, you need a detailed rubric!!)  What I get confused about is the accounts of blatant, conscious sexism on the part of successful, professional people.  When I have heard something sexist or racist, it's coming from somebody in the approximate bottom 1/5 of society who basically has nothing to lose and holds power over no one.  Or somebody doing a comedy routine, deliberately trying to make us uncomfortable.

It's certainly possible that I just don't notice.  But 50 years ago, most biology undergrads were male.  Today that's not the case.  I find it hard to believe that male domination in STEM is strictly a bias issue.  As I explained before, I don't find it implausible that men and women naturally have different interests, on average, so I don't see under-representation as necessarily evidence of widespread discrimination and acculturation.  I'm not denying that discrimination happens.  But as society becomes more and more egalitarian, my gut feeling for what % of the explanation is due to gender differences grows accordingly.