If you consider 26 percent a majority then ok, nothing’s been disproven.
I find it odd that you can’t find feminine traits admirable.
I also find it odd that you take anything that the general population ascribes to masculine as awesome.
We haven’t even touched on the virtues of different traits.
As far as men being in a position of power, how did they get there in the first place?
As I’ve said I’d ascribe that to overall aggression. There’s no higher authority who just decided that’s where they ought to be.
I’d also say that position was thoroughly abused many times.
I can’t really understand how it would be circular either.
Somebody had to decide at some point based in something that certain traits were masculine and certain ones were feminine. The culture didn’t just make it up out of nowhere and so then boys aspired to it.
While I’m sure that circular bit helps to perpetuate and slow any changes in perspective. I would think that by and large the traits were ascribed to genders in the first place because of observations about how the majority of each gender behaved.
The biggest problem is how we as humans treat anyone who doesn’t fit into those majority categories. Why not let people be whoever they want to be? Why does it need to be an issue?
I couldn’t care less if Billy wants to be a hairdresser or Sally wants to be a football player…if they’re good at it hey, even better, if they are bad it they will probably change their mind anyhow. If not ,oh well, so Billy is a terrible hairdresser, Nobody has to go to him. Doesn’t affect me in any way shape or form.
If Sally is a bad mechanic and I’m a good one hey that works too, just makes my skills more valuable.
And why essentially no cultures with women in power, who forced men to act demure?
I’d guess because it just doesn’t work, you can tell boys they should be demure til you’re blue in the face and most aren’t going to change much.
You can encourage agression in girls all you want, they will still only generally get so aggressive.
Nevermind that it is wrong to force anyone to act a certain way, whether it’s to exaggerate a quality they have or not. Spartans forced their boys to be stone cold killers, I’m sure they didn’t all want to be anywhere near that aggressive.
If men didn’t consider masculine traits to be more awesome than feminine traits they wouldn’t have a history of getting offended by being described as insufficiently masculine or overly feminine. Meaning it has nothing to do with what I find admirable - it has to do with the toxic shit that people who think of traits as being masculine or feminine think.
Myself I don’t think of traits as being masculine or feminine at all. I recognize that there are basic differences in male and female physiology that result in tendencies for men to be somewhat stronger and taller (on average) among other various physical differences, but that’s as far as it goes.
Raw physical force and the ability to employ it, more than aggression, defined men and women’s relative roles in society back in the day. It put people in different jobs, and people defined themselves based on those jobs, and things escalated from there.
Raw physical strength and power isn’t as important anymore.
Actually yes, culture just makes this sort of thing up.
I agree that we shouldn’t pigeonhole people. I simply consider the perpetuation of the myth that huge swaths of traits, interests, and properties are inherently masculine or feminine to be the way society pigeonholes people.
Why has it been men beating the women down, rather than the men? Because while I’m utterly unconvinced about this bullshit about men being naturally uncontrollable monsters and women being naturally sheeplike prey, one thing that’s not bullshit is that men tend to be physically stronger and more muscular than women, on average. Back in ancient times that mattered a lot - it put men in the roles of hunters and bacon-bringers, and it put them in a better position to force others into roles of submission by physically punishing those they wished to be submissive.
Nowadays muscle matters much, much less - much to the chagrin of those who like the idea of getting away with being uncontrollable monsters.
I could see a lot of your viewpoints.
Though the perception of traits is a problem for both.
Why is it offensive to be called an actress and women insist on actor?
Or a great many other examples of such.
Seems women are largely offended by not being considered masculine enough also.
What’s wrong with femininity?
There are a great many awesome feminine traits too IMO
Just as there are undesirable masculine traits, especially if they are out if proportion.
As a male I’m not in a great position to speak about why women do what they do, but I have this thought that one reason to dislike the gendered naming of professions is that -esses of all careers tend to get paid less than -ors. It’s an uphill battle to be treated as equal, and having a segregated job name probably isn’t seen as helping.
So I don’t really think of that as an example of women being offended as not being considered masculine enough.
In fact, I’m under the impression that quite a lot of pressure on females to be feminine comes from other females. This crap is pernicious, and it stains society from top to bottom.
One of the many fields which in Spain used to be taught at a single school is Ingeniería de Organización.
It’s about, well, organizing people.
How to work within a team. How to organize a team. How to manage budgets. Some centers offer a double Degree in Organizational Engineering and Business Administration, a heavily-female field.
That first school? Heavily male. Very, very heavily male.
Organizational Engineering is the only degree granted by the Spanish Military Academy. Does Colonel, soon to be General, Patricia Ortega suffer from a hormonal imbalance? Or do her former, mostly-male classmates, who studied such a people-oriented field?
The linked article mentions that she’s an engineer. It fails to mention so’s every single officer in the Spanish Armed Forces and Guardia Civil.
You think of Engineering as being “object-oriented” and medical fields as being “people-oriented”. So, what about medical engineers? Are women allowed to go into that field? Will you be terribly surprised to hear that a lot of women choose to go into engineering fields partly out of a desire to lead teams, something which is definitely people-oriented? Maybe your concept of engineering and those women’s concept are different. Maybe where you see objects, we see objects used by people. Maybe we think that the goal of engineering is to enhance lifes. Human lifes, mostly. People’s lifes. Maybe we’re misguided, of course, and if the users can’t make heads nor tails of the product well, it’s because the users are stupid and not because the design sucks.
The first women to enter business school in Spain were told all those numbers would make their uteruses dry up. Were female accountants from 110 years ago suffering from a hormonal imbalance that current ones do not suffer from? Is it now male accountants who should check their testosterone? Should male nurses worry?
My point was that men and female can have similar core traits (i.e. strength and athleticism) but still be considered “masculine” and “feminine”.
To your point, Danell Leyva seems to be “masculine” (as far as I can tell from a photo).
Well…for one, gymnastics is rarely “full contact”.
That was a joke in response to Mijin’s asking about being less of a man for allowing a doctor to do his appendectomy.
No. Of course not. It’s about averages. Bell curves. If a field is heavily tilted in terms of interest towards one gender or another, that doesn’t mean that nobody in the other gender is likely to be interested in that field; on the contrary, it means that likely countless people of the other gender will be. Just… less. Not because of sexism, necessarily (although in many cases, particularly if you go back even a few decades, that’s definitely gonna be a thing), but because of biology. There’s just less interest on average.
Let’s dispense with this immediately. Women are “allowed” to do whatever they want. Bell curves are bell curves - they can’t predict individual achievement, only trends. If you’re a woman, and you’re super into computer science: awesome, go do computer science! It’s an awesome field and anything that makes it less of a boys club is more than welcome. But on average, most women just aren’t. And that’s okay too.
Personally: I was not aware that this was a major reason people go into engineering, or that most engineering teams are led by engineers, so thanks for that info. That is kind of surprising to me. I don’t know as much about engineering as I thought I did. 
More generally: it shouldn’t surprise me, it fits the model perfectly.
(As an aside, this is one of the reasons I feel like women being underrepresented in management positions is very likely to be a sexism thing, particularly given the evidence that women are just straight-up better at it - management is absolutely a “person-oriented” thing. It’s all about interpersonal interactions.)
I mean, sure. I can grant that my understanding of engineering, a field I’m not particularly involved in, is flawed. It would be enough for that flaw to be a common stereotype within the population for women to be less interested in engineering. But at the end of the day, most of what qualifies as, say, “computer engineering” (a subfield I’m more familiar with)? It’s not working with people. It’s poking around at your code trying to figure out why it’s throwing a segfault. And the data bears this out - as early as high school, if not earlier. The blog I linked to above contains a lot of similar examples - for example, in medicine, men are overrepresented in radiology, lab work, and surgery, all fields that are very much “thing-oriented”.
I’m quite against that kind of stupid sexist notion. It’s bullshit, and it always was. But the idea that there are, in fact, some significant psychological differences between the average man and the average woman (again, we’re talking bell curves) is extremely well-born-out in psychology. And it’s not even a sexist thing - as I pointed out above, this model would seem to imply that women are far better suited for management roles than we give them credit for, and… it turns out they are. Similarly, psychology is becoming an ever-more-crucial and ever-more-understaffed field, and women are taking over the field - 75% of psychology majors currently in college are women.
Actually, not quite. Or, up to a certain level. Lots of engineers as middle managers: production engineer or manager, maintenance engineer or manager, construction foreman, of course the same construction’s designer… Their subordinates at the lowest levels will not be engineers except maybe in that English-language sense of being “the person who drives the engine”. The people in charge of the engineers are likely to have some sort of business degree, but whether this is undergrad or grad and the specifics of it varies by company and location. For example, my Swedish coworkers/clients almost had a collective headsplode when they found out that there are no Degrees (= US Bachelor’s) called “Finance” in several other EU countries; the closest Degree in Spain (Business Administration) is much more general than the Finance degrees in Sweden.
But the same layering as in engineering happens in pretty much any other field: the head of any Department in any Hospital is likely to be a Doctor (the medical kind). The head of the Hospital… not so much.
That , to me seems like a reason to prefer -or
But not to be offended by ess.
I just imagine if I were a woman I would hope not to be offended by being identified as one.
Idk it’s one of those things that strikes me as
a self esteem issue or is just otherwise baffling.
Maybe it’s a transfer thing. Like a group of women typically aren’t insulted by saying all right guys…
But saying ok girls… To a group of men is typically at least meant to be insulting.
So if men are thinking of women as inferior then women are too subconsciously…?
Or maybe this a case of just being confident enough nit to care if they’re called guys…?
I don’t think the woman who prefers “actor” to “actress” thinks people will mistake her for a man. I think she thinks that “actor” and “actress” aren’t different things, and that the differentiation of them works in ways that aren’t to the women’s favor.
It’s built right into our language that the masculine is the generic - ‘mankind’ is all people, but ‘womankind’ is only the woman people. It’s part of how somehow “maleness” was defined as the default way to be, which makes women The Other. (And you know what we humans do to The Other - use and abuse, baby!)
ETA: Oh, and of course men are offended to be called girls - masculinity is defined as awesome, and femininity is defined as suck, at least as far as men are concerned.
I doubt any single theory is going to be able to predict , everything. It’s like you said, oversimplified.
Any attempt to fit all in a neat little box, even with averages is asking for outliers. Especially with something as complex as career paths, there are so many external factors that could shift a groups natural tendency pretty easily.
But a lot of the person/ object thing makes sense.
Do you have to deal with the Likability Penalty?
Absolutely. Male bosses or anyone in charge deals with a likeability penalty. I think men are just less likely to care or if they do care they voice the opposite. " You guys don’t like me but i’m not here to make friends, I just have to get the job done" is often heard from unlikeable male bosses.
They definitely face pushback.
Especially if you aren’t extra easy on or at least less brash with the women, treating them the same gets the biggest pushback from both men and women.
And the men expect you to be buddy buddy too.
Especially if you aren’t extra easy on or at least less brash with the women, treating them the same gets the biggest pushback from both men and women.
And the men expect you to be buddy buddy too.
Speaking mainly from military experience. Women are actually much harder on other women. They are in a better position to be. If they have certain expectations of their soldiers or one messes up their reactions aren’t automatically sexist or picking on the girl.
Basically you’re expected to act like Daddy, flirty, or best case big brother.
Oops, slow connection double post kinda, not sure what i did there
Um… No. They really don’t. Not in the same way. When a man responds with “You guys don’t like me but I’m not here to make friends”, it makes them look like a badass. It makes them seem strong, commanding, and independent. It strengthens their position, because societally, that is what we expect from men. But in women? They don’t sound strong, they sound shrill. They don’t seem commanding, they seem bossy. These are absolutely gendered problems. I don’t think you understand this concept very well.
This stuff factors in as an underling as well.
If you pushback with a male boss it’s just because he’s a shithead. If you push back with a female boss then you just don’t respect her authority because she’s a woman. Couldn’t have anything to do with typical boss/underling relationship.