Thank you Steve. I look forward to reading this. Agree with what I've read above totally. I definitely swallowed the feminism bait hook, line and sinker and only now in mid-life am waking up. I am very disturbed by it all, not least at how easily I allowed myself to be manipulated. My life would look very different had I had more backbone when I was younger.
Is this another instance of the gender equality paradox? While the speed of the shift may differ between the sexes, men have been moving to the right and women have been moving to the left. I do find it quite interesting that the embrace of extreme ideologies that identify with the dispossessed seem to be an expression of the leveling instinct women have: equality, or the illusion of it, must be maintained (see Warriors and Worriers): if you are struggling, you must be helped, and if you are above others, you must be brought down. If you look at the extreme ideologies that men embrace, they seem to involve the establishing of hierarchies.
Hey Will, some interesting points there. I think the growing political gender gap probably is an example of the gender-equality paradox, and that the sexual differentiation does reflect average sex differences in the preference for equity vs. hierarchy.
The only thing I'd add is that I've sometimes heard people talking about the extreme right as a male position and the extreme left as a female one - but that framing exaggerates the magnitude of the sex differences. Some people on the far right are women and plenty of people on the far left are men.
I completely agree. I do have an important question though about sex differences. I have heard other thinkers say that mean sex differences are small (e.g. it’s a 60/40 difference in agreeableness between men/women). However, I read another post from you that showed that sex differences are largest in early adulthood and the gap lessens overtime. My question is at what developmental point are sex differences measured? For example, is the 60/40 difference in agreeableness measured among a population of men and women in early adulthood? Later adulthood? Or is it an aggregate measure?
I think this is important because it suggests that how egalitarian a society is is not the only driving force behind the gender equality paradox. The age structure would also matter (e.g. if hypothetically a country has a disproportionate number of young people, then the sex differences would be larger than if the population consisted of mostly older people, all other things equal). Since people are having fewer children in developed countries, maybe sex differences would shrink somewhat as older people make up a larger proportion of the population.
Most research on personality sex differences measures the differences in early adulthood.
Interesting point about the age distribution as a possible contributor to the gender-equality paradox. It might not apply to personality, as that's usually measured in young adults only. But it could apply to other traits where the data come from the whole population - e.g., data on accidental fatalities or crime statistics.
Notice, though, that this would probably weaken the gender-equality paradox, rather than contributing to it. Countries with worse indicators - lower wealth, health, gender equality etc. - tend to have younger populations. That would mean that, for traits that are larger in early adulthood, the sex differences would be larger in those nations. But with the gender-equality paradox, countries with worse indicators have smaller differences, rather than larger ones.
That’s a great and interesting Dispatch article. It reminds me of the questions asked at the end of WWII. I want to say they studied women’s adherence to National socialism and their participation in the holocaust. At the time many were confused as to how females - the motherly, loving and nurturing sex - could possible participate in atrocities alongside men.
I want to say that those study results also showed that women tended to support national socialism for social reasons - not wanting to be outcast, a desire to be in-group etc.
I’m going off memory here so likely not super accurate. But I think those studies could be revisited or found helpful in our current situation.
Yes. Apparently there was a concerted effort after the war to try and find out what drove humans to rationalize and be involved in the holocaust and/or join the Nazi party. Essentially those studies were studies in radicalization.
National Socialism took full advantage of their time in German history and they engineered that country into willful compliance.
This subject isn’t my thing but WWII is. And whenever i read a book about Hitler or Hitlers national machine there’s always some quick mention of a post war study of radicalization or violence mentioned.
Thank you Steve. I look forward to reading this. Agree with what I've read above totally. I definitely swallowed the feminism bait hook, line and sinker and only now in mid-life am waking up. I am very disturbed by it all, not least at how easily I allowed myself to be manipulated. My life would look very different had I had more backbone when I was younger.
Is this another instance of the gender equality paradox? While the speed of the shift may differ between the sexes, men have been moving to the right and women have been moving to the left. I do find it quite interesting that the embrace of extreme ideologies that identify with the dispossessed seem to be an expression of the leveling instinct women have: equality, or the illusion of it, must be maintained (see Warriors and Worriers): if you are struggling, you must be helped, and if you are above others, you must be brought down. If you look at the extreme ideologies that men embrace, they seem to involve the establishing of hierarchies.
Hey Will, some interesting points there. I think the growing political gender gap probably is an example of the gender-equality paradox, and that the sexual differentiation does reflect average sex differences in the preference for equity vs. hierarchy.
The only thing I'd add is that I've sometimes heard people talking about the extreme right as a male position and the extreme left as a female one - but that framing exaggerates the magnitude of the sex differences. Some people on the far right are women and plenty of people on the far left are men.
I completely agree. I do have an important question though about sex differences. I have heard other thinkers say that mean sex differences are small (e.g. it’s a 60/40 difference in agreeableness between men/women). However, I read another post from you that showed that sex differences are largest in early adulthood and the gap lessens overtime. My question is at what developmental point are sex differences measured? For example, is the 60/40 difference in agreeableness measured among a population of men and women in early adulthood? Later adulthood? Or is it an aggregate measure?
I think this is important because it suggests that how egalitarian a society is is not the only driving force behind the gender equality paradox. The age structure would also matter (e.g. if hypothetically a country has a disproportionate number of young people, then the sex differences would be larger than if the population consisted of mostly older people, all other things equal). Since people are having fewer children in developed countries, maybe sex differences would shrink somewhat as older people make up a larger proportion of the population.
Sex differences in personality are indeed fairly modest. Although many sex differences are larger in early adulthood, the only Big Five trait where this is clearly the case is neuroticism (see https://www.stevestewartwilliams.com/p/sex-differences-in-personality).
Most research on personality sex differences measures the differences in early adulthood.
Interesting point about the age distribution as a possible contributor to the gender-equality paradox. It might not apply to personality, as that's usually measured in young adults only. But it could apply to other traits where the data come from the whole population - e.g., data on accidental fatalities or crime statistics.
Notice, though, that this would probably weaken the gender-equality paradox, rather than contributing to it. Countries with worse indicators - lower wealth, health, gender equality etc. - tend to have younger populations. That would mean that, for traits that are larger in early adulthood, the sex differences would be larger in those nations. But with the gender-equality paradox, countries with worse indicators have smaller differences, rather than larger ones.
That’s a great and interesting Dispatch article. It reminds me of the questions asked at the end of WWII. I want to say they studied women’s adherence to National socialism and their participation in the holocaust. At the time many were confused as to how females - the motherly, loving and nurturing sex - could possible participate in atrocities alongside men.
I want to say that those study results also showed that women tended to support national socialism for social reasons - not wanting to be outcast, a desire to be in-group etc.
I’m going off memory here so likely not super accurate. But I think those studies could be revisited or found helpful in our current situation.
Interesting!
Yes. Apparently there was a concerted effort after the war to try and find out what drove humans to rationalize and be involved in the holocaust and/or join the Nazi party. Essentially those studies were studies in radicalization.
National Socialism took full advantage of their time in German history and they engineered that country into willful compliance.
This subject isn’t my thing but WWII is. And whenever i read a book about Hitler or Hitlers national machine there’s always some quick mention of a post war study of radicalization or violence mentioned.