Preferences dictating gender roles

Just noticed you say it's based on the Kinsey reports... surely that's not right? Those are from about 70 years ago, ffs!

That book blurb doesn't seem to have anything about 'women becoming housewives', or 'sexual preferences' in the way that term is normally meant.

It sounds as though it's about differences in what men and women may typically want from sexual relationships which is an entirely different matter.

It's also based on a very small survey, in statistical terms.

If you think in stereotypes, stereotypes are all you see.

Just start treating people like people with dignity, and respect

Only ever treat people as a group when it's totally necessary to do so. It is necessary at times to distinguish Male from female. Getting correct health care, watching out for negative stereotyping,

Are gender roles necessary ? Not in the slightest. So stop assigning gender roles based on sex. Treat people as individuals because treatment based on sex is not necessary.

Someone needs to read up on little social history too - the fact that women were lawfully excluded from many occupations for years: medicine, law, finance, many professional sports, university education etc - which led to male domination in these areas - is seemingly utterly irrelevant??!!!

The fact that many women were forced to give up their jobs once married - again - utterly irrelevant to them becoming housewives??!!

Why on earth would anyone think that what jobs people do should be dictated by sexual preference? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

So I should choose my career based on whether a man would consider me attractive for doing it, rather than because it's a job I'd be good at?! That's a spectacularly stupud concept.

I meant to add - if you've not already read it, I'd recommend you read Cordelia Fine's 'Delusions of Gender', OP.

Anyway - I can't imagine any conceivable reason why personal preference , in conjunction with individual aptitudes and interests could be seen to be inferior to imposing roles based on some sort of average preference, regardless of aptitudes.

Also, if population preferences are deemed by these people to be relevant, they will have to do a survey on whether the population wants their choices to be dictated in this sort of manner, won't they? Oh, and last time I looked at statistics the majority in the U.K. didn't consider themselves religious so we'd better be doing away with that too hadn't we?

I guess I should be paid to move to the Bahamas or somewhere nice where gender roles are somewhat different to the uk and being a female physicist is the norm not the exception

My nationality identity is clearly different from the one assumed in law

Apple31419 - I find that fascinating too. As an Indian woman I was surprised to see how much effort is put into encouraging British women into STEM areas (and after all that, apparently the numbers are still low) when it is fairly common for Indian women to get into these fields without a second thought and zero publicly funded encouragement.

I think it's the result of lots of factors as you mention. In countries with high inequality and little to no government safety net in terms of benefits, there is immense cultural significance placed on education, as it's one of the few avenues to get into secure and well paid jobs, especially if you want to emigrate somewhere else.

When I started high school, I had to choose a 'stream' that would apparently set me on my future career path. We all had to choose from Science, Commerce or Arts.
The vast majority went for Science. Lots of parental pressure involved as well because it's viewed as prestigious. (Everyone wants to eventually boast that their son or daughter is a doctor or something.)
If you're not cut out for the high grades needed for Science, but you're still clever, you went into Commerce. It's not as prestigious, but if you eventually got into senior management roles or qualified as a charted accountant that was acceptable to parents as well.
Going into Arts was considered disappointing to parents. There's a perception that if you're not smart enough to qualify for Science or Commerce, you end up in Arts. I guess because the kind of jobs in these fields tend not to pay well or be stable unless you are really lucky and have outstanding flair/talent and end up a really famous fashion designer or make it big in the film industry.

So yes, I think the economic pressures in poorer countries lead women to make different career choices compared to wealthy countries where women have more choice and freedom to work in whatever field they like and still have (overall) a relatively good standard of living.

Although it's important to remember that lots of people in India still follow their dreams and might not get into STEM fields, however, they will be less likely to be able to emigrate as non-STEM qualifications are not in demand by wealthier countries. So there's international economic influences as well. If you want to eventually move elsewhere for a better life, then you're better off going into a STEM field as that's what US, UK etc are looking for - more immigrants in these areas to fill the gaps.

You're being ridiculously simplistic.

This sounds like a group who are both homophobic and misogynistic - I doubt there is much point trying to engage seriously with them.

Do you have links for the studies they are talking about? Impossible to discuss properly without those really.

Theres a reason why some occupations are dominated by males and others dominated by females. I think nature and not nurture. Think about how many men want to work in early childcare settings and how many women want to work on a construction site.

Men are object focused and women are people focused. On average.

Heterosexual behaviour is a sexuality. Whether its nature or nurture, fact is males are better at object rotation and navigation compared to women.

Is sexuality being bundled with other behaviours here? Not sure I am comfortable with that

What is an evolutionary psychologist?

Theres even stuff on sexuality and these kinds of behaviour and how it's all predetermined before birth etc. etc.

Have they done tests on embryos and foetuses in utero and could predict not that they were going to be Lesbians, but masculine Lesbians to boot? Wonders will never cease.

They should have do predictive tests for other things as well. Then I wouldn't have wasted a fortune on piano lessons for a child who then gave it up. It would have saved me a bit if hey could have predicted that for me.

It's a really interesting area. I'm afraid I can't help, but I've always been interested in getting more women into STEM. I'm in a very technical area and noticed that a lot of my fellow female co workers are from countries with poorer outcomes for women than the UK (majority are from India) or they were heavily sheltered and religious when younger (like me!).
Studies have shown that women from socially liberal countries, are more likely to go on into "womens professions" such as nursing.
Here's a link to one if you are interested eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/4753/6/symplectic-version.pdf
It depends how you interpret it. Perhaps it's good that women have the choice.
It could be gender inequality is linked to highest economic disparity, and in those countries there's more pressure to go into a stable well earning job. If you do go to uni, better make it worth it!
It could also be that obedient women bright to traditionally might find it harder to say no to their parents, and rather than go into something creative and caring they do as they're told and follow their test scores.
Perhaps STEM is a sensible choice for those wishing to gain independemce - again because it leads to a sensible job.
Like others have said, maybe the same gender roles just aren't in place.
I think it's interesting and it would be valuable to find out why.

Women are better at social cues, men have better spatial ability (object rotation). So they've proved empirically for decades.
No they aren't. It's impossible to do a scientifically correct study on it because that would require a sample of people with either no socialization or exactly the same one between men and women which obviously doesn't exist. The studies can only talk about differences between men and women under current socialization/life conditions. That tells you absolutely nothing about any innate abilities.

*But if we are hard-wired for our gender roles, wouldn't every culture have the same gender roles?

And wouldn't I be good at housework and childcare?*

Women are better at social cues, men have better spatial ability (object rotation). So they've proved empirically for decades.

Theres even stuff on sexuality and these kinds of behaviour and how it's all predetermined before birth. E.g., lesbians more masculine, gay men more feminine. Stereotypes come from somewhere don't they?

But if we are hard-wired for our gender roles, wouldn't every culture have the same gender roles?

And wouldn't I be good at housework and childcare?