4 ms·

There's a fairly simple explanation: in egalitarian societies femininity is socially acceptable even in "traditionally male" occupations. So women don't need to

by pluma 8y ago

There's a fairly simple explanation: in egalitarian societies femininity is socially acceptable even in "traditionally male" occupations. So women don't need to act "masculine" to make progress in those jobs. When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career. There's another fairly simple explanation: "equal opportunity" is not the same as "non-sexist". Without knowing how "gender-egalitarian"-ness is measured (it's suspicious that it uses the phrase "more developed") it's impossible to tell what the societal attitudes actually look like. But it's entirely possible that the countries with the most egalitarian laws still have strict gender roles that are socially reinforced. So either way the lesson isn't "feminism is wrong" or "equal opportunity is meaningless": either equal opportunity allows women to succeed without abandoning their gender role, or egalitarianism masks the harm of socially reinforced gender roles, or maybe even both. Much like "if climate change is wrong", even if "gender disparity is innate and egalitarianism doesn't eliminate the differences" (or whatever one might construe the paper's outcome to mean), the worst case outcome of social justice is that we've made the world a nicer place and "butch" women, "girly" men and non-binary folk face less resistance. Or, y'know, maybe we're right and the changes actually eliminate injustice and help everyone. That said, it's telling that Jordan Peterson and James Damore are mentioned in these HN comments as if they were legitimate authorities (not to mention actual "NPC" throwaways as if this were reddit) and nobody bats an eye. So maybe to those people social progress is bad.

busterarm 8y ago
> When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career. Unfortunately this is probably going to be an unpopular thing to say, but I've seen how much work goes into both being a CEO and being a full-time parent up close. (With the caveat of: in the work culture here in the US...) Running a business that employs a significant number of people and having daily, hands-on parent interaction with your child are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if you are a mother or a father. If you want to change this fact, you'll need to start implementing controls on working hours & days like Germany did. You also have to do that knowing that crunch time is one of the competitive market advantages that the US offers.
- pluma 8y ago
  > With the caveat of: in the work culture here in the US That's the point, though. The work culture in the US is actively hostile towards employees. Sick days usually seem to count towards your vacation days and expecting mothers and young parents barely get any additional time off. As a counter-example, some businesses outside the US have "part-time" CEOs, sometimes with two people sharing the position if a full-time position is unavoidable. This is why I said that "egalitarian" policies make the world a nicer place: a lot of policies necessary to make work culture more egalitarian also improve work culture for everyone else too, like reducing the number of working hours and increasing social welfare (i.e. paid time off for parents, actual paid medical leave instead of "sick days", etc).
chrissam 8y ago
> There's a fairly simple explanation: in egalitarian societies femininity is socially acceptable even in "traditionally male" occupations. So women don't need to act "masculine" to make progress in those jobs. When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. The study doesn't seem to say anything about women "acting masculine" or "acting feminine". It's about gender disparity in careers, and how that disparity is larger in egalitarian soceties and smaller in less egalitarian societies. > There's another fairly simple explanation: "equal opportunity" is not the same as "non-sexist". Without knowing how "gender-egalitarian"-ness is measured (it's suspicious that it uses the phrase "more developed") it's impossible to tell what the societal attitudes actually look like. But it's entirely possible that the countries with the most egalitarian laws still have strict gender roles that are socially reinforced. Are you arguing that that North America, Western Europe, and Scandinivia may actually enforce stricter gender roles than Iraq, Iran, and Kazakhstan? That seems...unlikely. Anyway, the abstract mentions a "Gender Equality Index" that's being discussed here. I imagine they go into more detail in the paper itself if you're curious. > So either way the lesson isn't "feminism is wrong" or "equal opportunity is meaningless": either equal opportunity allows women to succeed without abandoning their gender role, or egalitarianism masks the harm of socially reinforced gender roles, or maybe even both. Again, the abstract doesn't seem to be saying anything about gender roles -- it's purely about male and female representation in various careers. Also, egalitarianism would have to do more than "mask the harm of socially reinforced gender roles," it would have to increase that harm, as less egalitarian countries have less gender disparity.

by pluma 8y ago

busterarm 8y ago

> When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career. Unfortunately this is probably going to be an unpopular thing to say, but I've seen how much work goes into both being a CEO and being a full-time parent up close. (With the caveat of: in the work culture here in the US...) Running a business that employs a significant number of people and having daily, hands-on parent interaction with your child are mutually exclusive. It doesn't matter if you are a mother or a father. If you want to change this fact, you'll need to start implementing controls on working hours & days like Germany did. You also have to do that knowing that crunch time is one of the competitive market advantages that the US offers.

pluma 8y ago
> With the caveat of: in the work culture here in the US That's the point, though. The work culture in the US is actively hostile towards employees. Sick days usually seem to count towards your vacation days and expecting mothers and young parents barely get any additional time off. As a counter-example, some businesses outside the US have "part-time" CEOs, sometimes with two people sharing the position if a full-time position is unavoidable. This is why I said that "egalitarian" policies make the world a nicer place: a lot of policies necessary to make work culture more egalitarian also improve work culture for everyone else too, like reducing the number of working hours and increasing social welfare (i.e. paid time off for parents, actual paid medical leave instead of "sick days", etc).

chrissam 8y ago

> There's a fairly simple explanation: in egalitarian societies femininity is socially acceptable even in "traditionally male" occupations. So women don't need to act "masculine" to make progress in those jobs. When it's socially acceptable for a CEO to be a mother and a woman, more women will feel comfortable pursuing a family in addition (rather than in exclusion) to a career. I don't quite understand what you're saying here. The study doesn't seem to say anything about women "acting masculine" or "acting feminine". It's about gender disparity in careers, and how that disparity is larger in egalitarian soceties and smaller in less egalitarian societies. > There's another fairly simple explanation: "equal opportunity" is not the same as "non-sexist". Without knowing how "gender-egalitarian"-ness is measured (it's suspicious that it uses the phrase "more developed") it's impossible to tell what the societal attitudes actually look like. But it's entirely possible that the countries with the most egalitarian laws still have strict gender roles that are socially reinforced. Are you arguing that that North America, Western Europe, and Scandinivia may actually enforce stricter gender roles than Iraq, Iran, and Kazakhstan? That seems...unlikely. Anyway, the abstract mentions a "Gender Equality Index" that's being discussed here. I imagine they go into more detail in the paper itself if you're curious. > So either way the lesson isn't "feminism is wrong" or "equal opportunity is meaningless": either equal opportunity allows women to succeed without abandoning their gender role, or egalitarianism masks the harm of socially reinforced gender roles, or maybe even both. Again, the abstract doesn't seem to be saying anything about gender roles -- it's purely about male and female representation in various careers. Also, egalitarianism would have to do more than "mask the harm of socially reinforced gender roles," it would have to increase that harm, as less egalitarian countries have less gender disparity.