I suspect that there are arenas where women care more about status and competition that research misses because feminine things are undervalued. Women fought to gain formerly male status markers while men never did the reverse so women have an option of seeking "feminine" or "masculine" status.
But men largely have not fought to be the most beautiful or fashionable or best parent or most in touch with the spirit world or whatever.
I've always found feminine status competition extremely intense, and if women didn't care about it, the momosphere wouldn't be so damn toxic. I usually opt out of that sort of status because I am bad at those things and have a much stronger drive and desire to be good at my job and seem smarter than everyone else.
"I suspect that there are arenas where women care more about status and competition that research misses because feminine things are undervalued." I'm sure that's true, and "best mom" is a great example. I'm not sure it would change the overall picture if researchers did include those areas, however. Maybe I just like women too much to believe we don't care more than men, on average, about absolute gains and positive-sum games vs relative gains and zero- or negative-sum games. What do you think?
I think it's a tendency that is pretty common in people of both genders but idk how to determine who is more like that. Idk how many cattiness units are in a dick-swing .
I do think that the way power and status are fought for and the effects it has has on shaping society are really overlooked though.
Something that this article made me wonder about is the seemingly high prevalence of autism in gender non-conforming people.
The male feminists I’ve met have always struck me as either opportunistic or deeply committed and otherwise quite unusual people who have a collection of eccentric views. (I’m a vegan and a fairly serious atheist and a male bi sexual and have Asperger’s and I could go on) But oh man the number of male feminists who make ladies feel unsafe is a problem for us weirds.
It's a really interesting correlation but I think it makes intuitive sense. The cost of violating gender norms is high, especially for male-gendered people. So it makes sense that someone who's used to violating norms, even expensive ones to violate, because they're weird in several ways would violate gender norms as well.
Yep. As a northerner, I was astonished the first time I visited the South and discovered that for many of them...they were still upset about having lost the Civil War. Still using the iconography, it was still salient to them. In the north, the Civil War was such ancient history it might as well have been Spartans v Athenians. Nothing that took up a second of thought. But the losers always stew and resent and plot for revenge, while the winner have moved on.
I suspect that there are arenas where women care more about status and competition that research misses because feminine things are undervalued. Women fought to gain formerly male status markers while men never did the reverse so women have an option of seeking "feminine" or "masculine" status.
But men largely have not fought to be the most beautiful or fashionable or best parent or most in touch with the spirit world or whatever.
I've always found feminine status competition extremely intense, and if women didn't care about it, the momosphere wouldn't be so damn toxic. I usually opt out of that sort of status because I am bad at those things and have a much stronger drive and desire to be good at my job and seem smarter than everyone else.
"I suspect that there are arenas where women care more about status and competition that research misses because feminine things are undervalued." I'm sure that's true, and "best mom" is a great example. I'm not sure it would change the overall picture if researchers did include those areas, however. Maybe I just like women too much to believe we don't care more than men, on average, about absolute gains and positive-sum games vs relative gains and zero- or negative-sum games. What do you think?
I think it's a tendency that is pretty common in people of both genders but idk how to determine who is more like that. Idk how many cattiness units are in a dick-swing .
I do think that the way power and status are fought for and the effects it has has on shaping society are really overlooked though.
Something that this article made me wonder about is the seemingly high prevalence of autism in gender non-conforming people.
The male feminists I’ve met have always struck me as either opportunistic or deeply committed and otherwise quite unusual people who have a collection of eccentric views. (I’m a vegan and a fairly serious atheist and a male bi sexual and have Asperger’s and I could go on) But oh man the number of male feminists who make ladies feel unsafe is a problem for us weirds.
It's a really interesting correlation but I think it makes intuitive sense. The cost of violating gender norms is high, especially for male-gendered people. So it makes sense that someone who's used to violating norms, even expensive ones to violate, because they're weird in several ways would violate gender norms as well.
Yep. As a northerner, I was astonished the first time I visited the South and discovered that for many of them...they were still upset about having lost the Civil War. Still using the iconography, it was still salient to them. In the north, the Civil War was such ancient history it might as well have been Spartans v Athenians. Nothing that took up a second of thought. But the losers always stew and resent and plot for revenge, while the winner have moved on.
this is so good!
despite the anti-DEI rhetoric the gains since #MeToo are so incredibly incremental and yet men view them as an existential threat
TY! I'm not sure I fully have it, but it's a super interesting question.