7 ms·
And why would a culture habituate to eating termites instead of pop-tarts? Because the pop-tarts are unavailable, or perhaps less nutritious, or perhaps any one
by jjk166 5y ago
And why would a culture habituate to eating termites instead of pop-tarts? Because the pop-tarts are unavailable, or perhaps less nutritious, or perhaps any one of a zillion other reasons. Socialization is a how, not a why.
Squirrel is surprisingly delicious. That said squirrels are impractical to farm, and thus there would be no way to maintain a consistent supply of squirrel meat in a restaurant in a typical city. Thus squirrel is generally unavailable as an option at restaurants, and thus nobody orders it, as it would be dumb to order what they don't have. There is a similar issue with muskrat, which I prefer to squirrel, despite the total absence of any social norms dictating one to be superior to the other.
Getting back to the topic at hand, there is no explanative power to saying women choose a career option because they've been socialized to pursue that career option. They just as easily could have been socialized to pursue something else. For example 73% of US cashiers are women while only 35% of US counter clerks are women. "Because society" simply doesn't answer the question why.
- shadowgovt 5y agoWe can find a why for something like that in history. But note that by your definitions, this experiment is probing how, not why. Its suggested explanatory mechanism of "women in countries with higher incomes are freer to pursue their innate interests" is a how. The paper didn't control for the alternate explanation "people in countries with higher incomes, having their core survival needs more often satisfied, pursue social acceptance via adherence to cultural norms more aggressively."