4 ms·

Strong username for this reply. If you don't think women are socialized to be accommodating you have your head in the sand. Look at profession choices, look at

Strong username for this reply. If you don't think women are socialized to be accommodating you have your head in the sand. Look at profession choices, look at the plethora of anecdotal stories, and look at how parents interact with their daughters.

towlejunior 11y ago
> look at the plethora of anecdotal stories Early frontrunner, Least Persuasive Rhetoric of the Year
- nostrebored 11y ago
  When you ignore that nearly the entirety of the experiences that people share you're probably filtering out signal. But knowing HN some people won't be satisfied until we do a double blind study over the entirety of someone's life until they're an adult. Ooh and don't forget n must be ge 1000
  - towlejunior 11y ago
    All well and good. No one will read "look at the plethora of anecdotal stories" and think, "Oh, now I see." It's a bit like saying, "There are convincing things out there. I don't have time to get into it, but the point is, you're wrong. Please accept this."
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
azernik 11y ago
And, you know, the multitude of peer-reviewed studies on the effects of this conditioning (causation is harder to measure, of course).
- facepalm 11y ago
  Links?
  - azernik 11y ago
    Less likely to interrupt others: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1018802521676#page-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1018802521676#p... Less likely to negotiate for higher pay (HBR summary of several studies, rather than studies themselves): https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/ https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/ And an old, but seminal, look at the ways this is reflected in the way women express themselves: http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf
    - facepalm 11y ago
      The claim in question was "societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency". It seems to me the links you provide are only marginally related. The first is also paywalled, and the last does seem to be an opinion piece. Or does it include some actual data later on (I only looked at the first quarter or so, as it is rather long)? It proposes some experiments, but then goes on with "it is safe to expect result x" - so why even bother proposing experiments? One example they provide is (a) "Oh dear, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again." vs (b) "Shit, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again." And we are meant to decide which one was said by a woman. Then it goes on "It is safe to predict that people would classify the first sentence as part of 'women's language', the second as 'men's language'" Really??? Because women don't say shit (even in 1973)? And men don't say "oh dear"? If that is seminal and what the modern opinion is based on, excuse me for not being impressed. Edit: just read more of the second link about negotiations. What I see is them just making another unsubstantiated claim ("it's because of socialisation"). But they asked people over the internet when they last negotiated. Have they taken into account that many women perhaps don't even have a job where they get a salary (ie they are house wives)? Or maybe they are more likely to take on jobs that are unionized (teachers, for example), so that the salary is fixed anyway? And so on. Surely there are reasons - maybe it even is socialization, but there is nothing in the articles to substantiate that claim. It is just the author's bias.
wutbrodo 11y ago
I don't understand how people are always so shocked that some people are unaware of these issues. For a related example, I didn't know catcalling was that prevalent (outside of the assumedly anachronistic stereotype of construction workers I'd seen in movies) until shortly after college. I'd never witnessed it happen, and none of my female friends had ever mentioned it happening to them, so why would I assume that it happened super often? It was only after we all graduated and moved to denser cities that female friends started experiencing it and mentioning it (and since then I've read plenty of articles about it). Since none of my friends are assholes, my initial "wow it's really that universal an experience?" was met with affirmation instead of "you really are a pervy creeper with your head in the sand". Your specific example about socializing women to be accommodating is also not something I knew existed until a couple years out of college. I didn't see how my friends' parents raised them firsthand and my sister was/is a holy terror, by far the least polite and accommodating of our otherwise fairly reserved family (myself included). The girls in our friend group tended to be less demure and more confident. Again, I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't read so much about it, and there are plenty of people who haven't been exposed to articles about it.

towlejunior 11y ago

> look at the plethora of anecdotal stories Early frontrunner, Least Persuasive Rhetoric of the Year

nostrebored 11y ago
When you ignore that nearly the entirety of the experiences that people share you're probably filtering out signal. But knowing HN some people won't be satisfied until we do a double blind study over the entirety of someone's life until they're an adult. Ooh and don't forget n must be ge 1000
- towlejunior 11y ago
  All well and good. No one will read "look at the plethora of anecdotal stories" and think, "Oh, now I see." It's a bit like saying, "There are convincing things out there. I don't have time to get into it, but the point is, you're wrong. Please accept this."
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

azernik 11y ago

And, you know, the multitude of peer-reviewed studies on the effects of this conditioning (causation is harder to measure, of course).

facepalm 11y ago
Links?
- azernik 11y ago
  Less likely to interrupt others: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1018802521676#page-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A%3A1018802521676#p... Less likely to negotiate for higher pay (HBR summary of several studies, rather than studies themselves): https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/ https://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-girls-dont-ask/ And an old, but seminal, look at the ways this is reflected in the way women express themselves: http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist156/Lakoff_1973.pdf
  - facepalm 11y ago
    The claim in question was "societal pressure placed on women to be accommodating and not be rude and how this can be manipulated to constrain female agency". It seems to me the links you provide are only marginally related. The first is also paywalled, and the last does seem to be an opinion piece. Or does it include some actual data later on (I only looked at the first quarter or so, as it is rather long)? It proposes some experiments, but then goes on with "it is safe to expect result x" - so why even bother proposing experiments? One example they provide is (a) "Oh dear, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again." vs (b) "Shit, you've put the peanut butter in the refrigerator again." And we are meant to decide which one was said by a woman. Then it goes on "It is safe to predict that people would classify the first sentence as part of 'women's language', the second as 'men's language'" Really??? Because women don't say shit (even in 1973)? And men don't say "oh dear"? If that is seminal and what the modern opinion is based on, excuse me for not being impressed. Edit: just read more of the second link about negotiations. What I see is them just making another unsubstantiated claim ("it's because of socialisation"). But they asked people over the internet when they last negotiated. Have they taken into account that many women perhaps don't even have a job where they get a salary (ie they are house wives)? Or maybe they are more likely to take on jobs that are unionized (teachers, for example), so that the salary is fixed anyway? And so on. Surely there are reasons - maybe it even is socialization, but there is nothing in the articles to substantiate that claim. It is just the author's bias.

wutbrodo 11y ago

I don't understand how people are always so shocked that some people are unaware of these issues. For a related example, I didn't know catcalling was that prevalent (outside of the assumedly anachronistic stereotype of construction workers I'd seen in movies) until shortly after college. I'd never witnessed it happen, and none of my female friends had ever mentioned it happening to them, so why would I assume that it happened super often? It was only after we all graduated and moved to denser cities that female friends started experiencing it and mentioning it (and since then I've read plenty of articles about it). Since none of my friends are assholes, my initial "wow it's really that universal an experience?" was met with affirmation instead of "you really are a pervy creeper with your head in the sand". Your specific example about socializing women to be accommodating is also not something I knew existed until a couple years out of college. I didn't see how my friends' parents raised them firsthand and my sister was/is a holy terror, by far the least polite and accommodating of our otherwise fairly reserved family (myself included). The girls in our friend group tended to be less demure and more confident. Again, I wouldn't know about it if I hadn't read so much about it, and there are plenty of people who haven't been exposed to articles about it.