What is/are the cause(s) of gender disparity?

[rousseau]

I feel like I have a pretty good understanding of the disparity between the lives of people of each gender around the world. The understanding is basically this:

• Averaged out, women and men have inherent genetic differences
• Those genetic differences have largely created a patriarchal dynamic
• The genetic differences have also caused a certain type of society to form, most of the time
• Those societies then go on to reinforce social norms
• Gender disparity, then, can almost always be reduced to a combination of the statistics of genetic disparity, as well as social norms which arise from genetic disparity
• Neither social norms, or genetic differences alone can completely account for gender realities in a society, they are both intertwined, strong forces

Thought?

 

[dx713]

On an historical (or even pre-historical) point of view, I agree with your analysis.
Differences in upper body strength, in muscle development in general, historically favored boys being the "stronger sex" and girls the "weaker sex".
Add to that the fact that women were restricted in their endeavours by having little birth control. Add that strange urge that a lot of men get to make sure they don't provide for the genetic offspring of another man, and you get a feedback loop where men are encouraged to think of women like "baby making property" and have the physical strength to impose it, and a society where social norms end being based on this view.

But this is the twenty-first century.
Most jobs can now be done adequately by both sexes, despite strength differences. (Plus, this has always been a mean strength difference - individual variability is greater than this difference).
We also have plenty of options for birth control, or to help a man take care of a toddler.
We are enlightened enough to, most of us at least, have shed the belief that women are innately less smart or something like that (300 years at least since the emergence of the first wave of feminist during the enlightenment, shouldn't that be enough? Apparently not if we're having this discussion)

All that is left to explain the differences are social norms that still assme women are the "weaker sex" and / or "less productive because kids", or "men like to provide and women like to nurture" (and woe to who doesn't fit the model, social isolation isn't for the faint of heart).
All of it reinforced by religions wanting to control sexuality (and as men are leaders so more difficult to control and most people are heterosexual, female sexuality is the most obvious target).

So, while I agree with your analysis, my answer to your poll is definetly "social norms".

 

[Tigers!]

I do like the o/p reasoning except to comment do the genetic differences explain differences in thinking, emotions etc?
The nature vs. nurture argument is still going on.

 

[rousseau]

On an historical (or even pre-historical) point of view, I agree with your analysis.
Differences in upper body strength, in muscle development in general, historically favored boys being the "stronger sex" and girls the "weaker sex".
Add to that the fact that women were restricted in their endeavours by having little birth control. Add that strange urge that a lot of men get to make sure they don't provide for the genetic offspring of another man, and you get a feedback loop where men are encouraged to think of women like "baby making property" and have the physical strength to impose it, and a society where social norms end being based on this view.

But this is the twenty-first century.
Most jobs can now be done adequately by both sexes, despite strength differences. (Plus, this has always been a mean strength difference - individual variability is greater than this difference).
We also have plenty of options for birth control, or to help a man take care of a toddler.
We are enlightened enough to, most of us at least, have shed the belief that women are innately less smart or something like that (300 years at least since the emergence of the first wave of feminist during the enlightenment, shouldn't that be enough? Apparently not if we're having this discussion)

All that is left to explain the differences are social norms that still assme women are the "weaker sex" and / or "less productive because kids", or "men like to provide and women like to nurture" (and woe to who doesn't fit the model, social isolation isn't for the faint of heart).
All of it reinforced by religions wanting to control sexuality (and as men are leaders so more difficult to control and most people are heterosexual, female sexuality is the most obvious target).

So, while I agree with your analysis, my answer to your poll is definetly "social norms".

I'm going to largely stay out of this conversation but I want to add one point re: the 'less smart' comment you've made.

If you do a quick search on google images for 'gender iq distribution' you will find hordes of graphs that look something like this:

This graph doesn't tell us that men are smarter, or that women are dumber, it tells us that men are statistically more likely to have both a higher and lower iq, and women are statistically more likely to have a pretty strong iq.

So I would argue that this tells us a couple of things:

• No man or woman is precluded from any intellectual strength
• Statistically speaking, there are more genius level men than women
• Statistically speaking, there are more (for lack of a better term) brain-dead men than women
• Statistically speaking, women are more likely to be of a *strong* intelligence than men

So the truth is not that one is smarter than the other, it's that the probabilities look different for each gender, and that, along with social norms, creates professional disparity.

When you put this reality in an evolutionary context it makes a lot of sense given that women are predominantly the sole care-taker for children, and the majority of them would need at least a minimum level of intelligence.

[ducks and hides]

 

[dx713]

Your analysis is sound if you at least moderately trust IQ tests.
I'm very wary of IQ applicability (what does it really measure), and of the social norms and former education / social interactions effects on IQ test results. i.e. are there less "genius" women because an innate difference, or because investment in the type of thinking required to score "genius" has been discouraged for them?

I'd also like to note that even if I'm wrong, as you noted, all level of intelligence and abilities are open to both sexes. So, the only constructive attitude a citizen can have is to assume equality and try to reform social norms. Assuming a part of the current differences is caused by genetics risks to get us to stop trying.

To get back to a personal level, I'm having a hard enough time trying to get my daughter to see her value beyond her appearance, realize that she could be playing rugby, or realize she doesn't have to choose the harp as her preferred musical instrument, or accept that being good at math doesn't make her less of a girl (luckily, she got this one), despite peer and adult pressure, I don't want someone to undermine that because "it's because you're a girl".
(some have tried near me, their ears are still ringing, but I still worry about the ones I don't hear. And so yes, I admit this is a sensitive subject for me)

tl;dr summary: I don't trust IQ tests. Let's get rid of the outdated social norms first, and then, we'll see if there's really a reason for the differences.

 

[Rhea]

On an historical (or even pre-historical) point of view, I agree with your analysis.
Differences in upper body strength, in muscle development in general, historically favored boys being the "stronger sex" and girls the "weaker sex".
Add to that the fact that women were restricted in their endeavours by having little birth control. Add that strange urge that a lot of men get to make sure they don't provide for the genetic offspring of another man, and you get a feedback loop where men are encouraged to think of women like "baby making property" and have the physical strength to impose it, and a society where social norms end being based on this view.

But this is the twenty-first century.
Most jobs can now be done adequately by both sexes, despite strength differences. (Plus, this has always been a mean strength difference - individual variability is greater than this difference).
We also have plenty of options for birth control, or to help a man take care of a toddler.
We are enlightened enough to, most of us at least, have shed the belief that women are innately less smart or something like that (300 years at least since the emergence of the first wave of feminist during the enlightenment, shouldn't that be enough? Apparently not if we're having this discussion)

All that is left to explain the differences are social norms that still assme women are the "weaker sex" and / or "less productive because kids", or "men like to provide and women like to nurture" (and woe to who doesn't fit the model, social isolation isn't for the faint of heart).
All of it reinforced by religions wanting to control sexuality (and as men are leaders so more difficult to control and most people are heterosexual, female sexuality is the most obvious target).

So, while I agree with your analysis, my answer to your poll is definetly "social norms".

This, exactly. As I was reading the question I was thinking that time has changed the answer to this question dramatically. I agree with "social norms" being the current answer.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I said both. Men and women are different (generally) and social norms are a huge player in behavior and expectations.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Biology still plays a major role here. The maternal instinct and drive to have and raise children is stronger than the paternal one. And this takes many women out of the workforce for big chunks of time, hindering careers. This further creates a perception of same, leading to a social preference for men in the workplace.

I was in law school over ten years ago, and there were more female students than male. Now about sixty percent of my colleagues from my year of call are male. And more of the women are part time and ib every case I know this is by choice.

 

[barbos]

On an historical (or even pre-historical) point of view, I agree with your analysis.
Differences in upper body strength, in muscle development in general, historically favored boys being the "stronger sex" and girls the "weaker sex".
Add to that the fact that women were restricted in their endeavours by having little birth control. Add that strange urge that a lot of men get to make sure they don't provide for the genetic offspring of another man, and you get a feedback loop where men are encouraged to think of women like "baby making property" and have the physical strength to impose it, and a society where social norms end being based on this view.

But this is the twenty-first century.
Most jobs can now be done adequately by both sexes, despite strength differences. (Plus, this has always been a mean strength difference - individual variability is greater than this difference).
We also have plenty of options for birth control, or to help a man take care of a toddler.
We are enlightened enough to, most of us at least, have shed the belief that women are innately less smart or something like that (300 years at least since the emergence of the first wave of feminist during the enlightenment, shouldn't that be enough? Apparently not if we're having this discussion)

All that is left to explain the differences are social norms that still assme women are the "weaker sex" and / or "less productive because kids", or "men like to provide and women like to nurture" (and woe to who doesn't fit the model, social isolation isn't for the faint of heart).
All of it reinforced by religions wanting to control sexuality (and as men are leaders so more difficult to control and most people are heterosexual, female sexuality is the most obvious target).

So, while I agree with your analysis, my answer to your poll is definetly "social norms".

I'm going to largely stay out of this conversation but I want to add one point re: the 'less smart' comment you've made.

If you do a quick search on google images for 'gender iq distribution' you will find hordes of graphs that look something like this:

This graph doesn't tell us that men are smarter, or that women are dumber, it tells us that men are statistically more likely to have both a higher and lower iq, and women are statistically more likely to have a pretty strong iq.

So I would argue that this tells us a couple of things:

• No man or woman is precluded from any intellectual strength
• Statistically speaking, there are more genius level men than women
• Statistically speaking, there are more (for lack of a better term) brain-dead men than women
• Statistically speaking, women are more likely to be of a *strong* intelligence than men

So the truth is not that one is smarter than the other, it's that the probabilities look different for each gender, and that, along with social norms, creates professional disparity.

When you put this reality in an evolutionary context it makes a lot of sense given that women are predominantly the sole care-taker for children, and the majority of them would need at least a minimum level of intelligence.

[ducks and hides]

I agree, I remember being trashed for saying the same thing in one of the countless IQ threads.
Nature can't afford dumb women, but nature is not interested in smart women either.
With men, nature can afford dumb and take advantage of smart.
Social norms are mostly result of biology and it will stay that way as long as there is reproductive disparity.
Nature does not care for political correctness.

 

[Rhea]

Nature does not care for political correctness.

The argument is not political correctness, but tools, I think. Tools make the "inherent strength" angle completely moot. Tools make childrearing no longer a full-time job. Tools make communications different. For that matter, cultural norms make "nurturing" business practices marketable.

So I don't think PC is being used by anyone as a reason that genetics is no longer the driving factor.

 

[bigfield]

I voted "Genetics + Social Norms".

Genetics

There is evidence that men and women are, on average, physically different in terms of strength, endurance and agility, and that influences their ability to do physical jobs, play physical sports, pursue physical hobbies etc. Therefore I expect to see gender disparities in those areas.

There is evidence that men and women are, on average, psychologically different in terms of their interests and motivations. Men and women have different sexual goals, and this influences their goal-setting, motivation, and desired life outcomes. Therefore I expect to see differences between the genders with respect to household and parenting roles, and career decisions.

It is also common knowledge that men and women have different hormone cocktails (e.g. testosterone and estrogen levels) and those hormones are known to have an effect on how people think, experience moods and feeling, respond to stimuli, etc. For example, higher testosterone (found mostly in men) causes a more more aggressive disposition.

There is also evidence that, on average, men are naturally more interested in things involving systems, and women are more interested in other people. Therefore I expect to see more men in some fields of interests, namely those involving systems, and more women in fields of interest involving people.

Social Norms

There are identifiable gender stereotypes for both men and women which are sometimes considered the norm for that gender. I expect people will alter their behaviour in order to appear more normal in order to be included in social groups. In this way, the stereotypes and norms are self-sustaining, irrespective of natural tendencies.

The roles that men and women filled in prehistoric times have largely been maintained as the social norms to which people are expected to conform. Those individuals who fell on the ends of the bell curve in terms of physical and psychological traits were either pressured or even forced to conform. Such conformity has even been enforced by law in some cultures.

Contemporary Western society has minimised the laws compelling men and women to conform to different roles, some laws still remain. In some jurisdictions, women are still presumed by the courts to be the primary caregiver. Mass media generally chooses to market its products to those who conform to gender stereotypes, presumably because they are in fact the gender norms and therefore represent the biggest markets.

- - - Updated - - -

• The genetic differences have also caused a certain type of society to form, most of the time

This point is frequently overlooked. If gender differences were in fact an entirely social construct, then they would be arbitrary.

 

[barbos]

Nature does not care for political correctness.

The argument is not political correctness, but tools, I think. Tools make the "inherent strength" angle completely moot. Tools make childrearing no longer a full-time job. Tools make communications different. For that matter, cultural norms make "nurturing" business practices marketable.

So I don't think PC is being used by anyone as a reason that genetics is no longer the driving factor.

And what tools helps with pregnancy?
PC is always used when somebody tries to state the fact that men are inherently overrepresented at the top and there are biological reasons for that.

All this making childrearing easier does not change the biology and thousands of years of evolution.
Truth is, women and men have been and still are under different evolutionary pressure

 

[bigfield]

The argument is not political correctness, but tools, I think. Tools make the "inherent strength" angle completely moot. Tools make childrearing no longer a full-time job. Tools make communications different. For that matter, cultural norms make "nurturing" business practices marketable.

Tools don't change brain chemistry.

 

[Rhea]

The argument is not political correctness, but tools, I think. Tools make the "inherent strength" angle completely moot. Tools make childrearing no longer a full-time job. Tools make communications different. For that matter, cultural norms make "nurturing" business practices marketable.

Tools don't change brain chemistry.

But tools do change the effect of brain chemistry on social status and or obligations or contributions. For example, the cell phone has enable nurturing caregiver types to move further from their charges without feeling anxious. So it is no longer the brain chemistry that dictates whether someone will "tend" to stay home with family, or must. Now tools can enable someone who has that tendency to still be productive and reliable (and happy) at an outside job. That was my point.

 

[bigfield]

Tools don't change brain chemistry.

But tools do change the effect of brain chemistry on social status and or obligations or contributions. For example, the cell phone has enable nurturing caregiver types to move further from their charges without feeling anxious. So it is no longer the brain chemistry that dictates whether someone will "tend" to stay home with family, or must. Now tools can enable someone who has that tendency to still be productive and reliable (and happy) at an outside job. That was my point.

Fair point and thanks for expanding.

Technology gives people more freedom, but that does not mean men and women will use it to become like each other.

 

[barbos]

Tools don't change brain chemistry.

But tools do change the effect of brain chemistry on social status and or obligations or contributions. For example, the cell phone has enable nurturing caregiver types to move further from their charges without feeling anxious. So it is no longer the brain chemistry that dictates whether someone will "tend" to stay home with family, or must. Now tools can enable someone who has that tendency to still be productive and reliable (and happy) at an outside job. That was my point.

You would have had a point if cell phones caused women to develop/grow a dick. Sorry for being rude.

 

[bigfield]

But tools do change the effect of brain chemistry on social status and or obligations or contributions. For example, the cell phone has enable nurturing caregiver types to move further from their charges without feeling anxious. So it is no longer the brain chemistry that dictates whether someone will "tend" to stay home with family, or must. Now tools can enable someone who has that tendency to still be productive and reliable (and happy) at an outside job. That was my point.

You would have had a point if cell phones caused women to develop grow a dick. Sorry for being rude.

*golf clap*

 

[doubtingt]

On an historical (or even pre-historical) point of view, I agree with your analysis.
Differences in upper body strength, in muscle development in general, historically favored boys being the "stronger sex" and girls the "weaker sex".
Add to that the fact that women were restricted in their endeavours by having little birth control. Add that strange urge that a lot of men get to make sure they don't provide for the genetic offspring of another man, and you get a feedback loop where men are encouraged to think of women like "baby making property" and have the physical strength to impose it, and a society where social norms end being based on this view.

But this is the twenty-first century.
Most jobs can now be done adequately by both sexes, despite strength differences. (Plus, this has always been a mean strength difference - individual variability is greater than this difference).
We also have plenty of options for birth control, or to help a man take care of a toddler.
We are enlightened enough to, most of us at least, have shed the belief that women are innately less smart or something like that (300 years at least since the emergence of the first wave of feminist during the enlightenment, shouldn't that be enough? Apparently not if we're having this discussion)

All that is left to explain the differences are social norms that still assme women are the "weaker sex" and / or "less productive because kids", or "men like to provide and women like to nurture" (and woe to who doesn't fit the model, social isolation isn't for the faint of heart).
All of it reinforced by religions wanting to control sexuality (and as men are leaders so more difficult to control and most people are heterosexual, female sexuality is the most obvious target).

So, while I agree with your analysis, my answer to your poll is definetly "social norms".

I'm going to largely stay out of this conversation but I want to add one point re: the 'less smart' comment you've made.

If you do a quick search on google images for 'gender iq distribution' you will find hordes of graphs that look something like this:

This graph doesn't tell us that men are smarter, or that women are dumber, it tells us that men are statistically more likely to have both a higher and lower iq, and women are statistically more likely to have a pretty strong iq.

So I would argue that this tells us a couple of things:

• No man or woman is precluded from any intellectual strength
• Statistically speaking, there are more genius level men than women
• Statistically speaking, there are more (for lack of a better term) brain-dead men than women
• Statistically speaking, women are more likely to be of a *strong* intelligence than men

So the truth is not that one is smarter than the other, it's that the probabilities look different for each gender, and that, along with social norms, creates professional disparity.

When you put this reality in an evolutionary context it makes a lot of sense given that women are predominantly the sole care-taker for children, and the majority of them would need at least a minimum level of intelligence.

[ducks and hides]

But this difference in IQ distribution would, at best, account for a small % of any differences in competence and productivity across various professions. Only about 5% of males fall in that sliver of the curve at the high end that extends beyond the female curve (pun intended). Select a random woman and a random man and compare them, and 95% of the time neither will be in that sliver and of the women will have a higher IQ half the time. In addition, what % of the men in that narrow sliver are actually in jobs where they make full use of that high IQ and do things that 95% of the male population are not intellectually capable of? Most likely its a small % of that 5%, which means we are really only talking about 1% of the male population that do jobs that few men could intellectually do and even fewer women could do. That isn't going to get you very far at all in accounting for differences in profession or success within a profession.

Of the type of biologically influenced factors contributing to gender differences in profession, IQ is likely the least important. Almost no one ever maxes out their IQ capabilities in any task. Far more important in determining what people do and how they use their intellect and other skills is what they want to do, are interested in, have been exposed to as possibilities, etc.. These things have biological and experiential inputs, with "experience" including gender norms.

 

[barbos]

IQ is weighted average of a number of tests measuring different abilities in different tasks.
So effect is diluted. In reality we know that effect is most pronounced in fields like abstract thinking where men on average much better, not just in tails.
Women are much better at "talking" part of the IQ test.
But it is true, IQ is not everything and there is more to it, but it still shows effect.

 

[doubtingt]

IQ is weighted average of a number of tests measuring different abilities in different tasks.
So effect is diluted. In reality we know that effect is most pronounced in fields like abstract thinking where men on average much better, not just in tails.
Women are much better at "talking" part of the IQ test.
But it is true, IQ is not everything and there is more to it, but it still shows effect.

By "talking" part you mean verbal reasoning, which includes forms of abstract thinking. You need to show some evidence that men are better at "abstract thinking" and specify what "much better" means. Generally, the most reliable and sizable differences favoring men are in spatial skills dealing with tracking and anticipating the movement of objects in space and detecting differences in spatial orientation. The Raven's Matrices test does partly measure reasoning, but also depends heavily on these non-abstract spatial tracking skills, which could be the sole source of gender differences on the Raven's test. Note that pigeons are awesome at spatial tracking, yet lack abstract thinking skills. Also, note that gender differences on the Raven's tests only emerge in the mid-teens, and are highly variable from culture to culture, with many showing little to no difference (or even superior scores for women) and others showing larger benefits for men.