Physical Vs psychological difference between the sexes

But the science shows that women choose those careers because they as a group are innately more caring/empathetic/people focussed? So is it inaccurate to say that, as a group, women are more suited to caring roles?

And we shouldn't worry about disparity in career choices between empathy/caring/people roles and systemising/assertive/object focused roles in the way that we currently do with STEM career schemes for girls. Because overall that's what women are just more likely to choose, especially when their choice is freer in a more egalitarian society.

Google it.

Yes there are critiques, it's far from conclusive, but they are the societies generally considered the most egalitarian, so interesting to consider at least.

Yep, Jordan Peterson’s argument. But in those egalitarian societies (eg Scandinavia) there is also a greater number of women in senior leadership positions than in this country for instance. Reasons? Less sexist bullshit, more material resources like cheap childcare, men take on more of the caring burden. No, not perfect but it’s not the picture Peterson presents. In this country, you have women (very often involuntarily) forced out of work to look after their children and had they access to affordable childcare, that wouldn’t happen. In Scandinavia, there are also initiatives where those who do want to stay at home can claim a basic income to do so (so actually they don’t have to work). Take up of this has always been low, other than in some immigrant communities, suggesting that women prefer to be economically active, even when given the choice.

No one is suggesting women are more suited!!

Just more women may choose this.

But they can and should be encouraged in all the same range of choices as men.

Egalitarian means equal in opportunity not the same.

Do you have links to the studies giving us this evidence? The studies I know have been critiqued for the index they use to define "more equal societies" in that they do not include levels of prejudice/attitudes about which professions are seen as being for men and which for women.

How do we move to a more egalitarian society by discussing how women are more suited to caring roles than stem careers or other masculine coded roles?

I think some posts on this thread would be examples.

Also there is evidence that given more choice in egalitarian societies women choose more caring roles and are more satisfied, so there is some evidence that women are being led towards less fulfilling choices when messages are these are better meaning status and pay.

Depends what you think the point of feminism, or life, is I guess.

How?

Let's say more women would be happier doing people focused work, what would you say we should do @GCAndProud

what do you mean by “do”. Women ARE working in people focused work and care in huge numbers. Relatively few are breaking into male dominated careers and STEM. What you’re proposing is basically to justify the already huge divide in jobs by saying it is biological and inevitable. I think Jordan Peterson argues the same but I’m afraid I’m out. That’s not feminism or anything close.

Oh and feminists have and do argue for care to be valued higher and have done forever.

@RoseslnTheHospital I don't think feminist debate caused a devaluing of caring roles but I think it has bought into that and perpetuated it.

Yes but this relies on men being likely to do this at the same level which in the premise proposed would never be the case.

In which case we continue with women choosing these roles to a greater degree and them remaining undervalued.

Then what? If we've identified (hypothetically) a reason for the differing choices?
How do we help women then?

@MalagaNights do you think it is feminist debate that has led to the devaluing of caring roles? Do you think that feminists think that women who work as carers should "be better"?

In our current society, if there was a job that they'd enjoy 15% less but paid 50% more and had better employment conditions, what would you advise a young woman about to start work to do?

Your list of options is lacking. I would say that there may be a small effect in women being more keen to work in caring roles, whilst alongside that socialisation plays a role. Not direct discrimination. So my option would be to minimise socialisation targeted at girls - it obviously isn't needed as women are innately going to become more interested in caring roles according to the science. Whilst also working on how society values caring roles, both financially and culturally. And also working on the misogyny and sexism that prevents those young women who don't want to be in caring roles from accessing other careers effectively.

Let's say more women would be happier doing people focused work, what would you say we should do @GCAndProud ?

More women than WHAT? What is the test, what are we measuring?

No one anywhere here has suggested women should take care giving roles just that there maybe a general inclination towards this more than men at a group level.

We're back to the fact that we can't discuss it, because people can't understand stats and draw incorrect conclusions on what's being said.

Or change the way we as a society view and value child rearing and care?

Why do you need to prove that women are hardwired to do this work in order to change how it is valued? In fact you’ll have a hell of a better chance of raising its status if you make men do their fair share of it too.

But is it not the lack of research that is contributing to our struggle to define ourselves and feeding misogyny as we speak?

Yes, you’re right. What is really lacking in my life is scientific evidence that actually my male colleagues are right to expect me to make tea at meetings and to deal with all the crying students while they get on with important research. Even better would be solid proof that I probably shouldn’t be at work at all but should be raising children and cooking meals for my husband. Only then can I truly call myself a woman.

Let's say more women would be happier doing people focused work, what would you say we should do @GCAndProud ?

Tell them tough they should do something else as it's low value work and they should be better?

Suppress that fact and say the fact they're choosing it is discrimination?

Ignore the fact they're choosing it anyway and being undervalued?

Or change the way we as a society view and value child rearing and care?

I haven't got lots of time now but I think one example is feminism's refusal to consider the possibility of a more nurturing instinct for women (in general, not everyone, not even in me! My DH is more nurturing!) has led to some women only feeling valued in work outside the home away from their children, and I don't think that value system has necessarily led to more happiness for women.

When women were expected to be housewives and mothers, they weren’t valued either. What good does it do to “prove” that women are inherently suited to care and nurture? You even say that in the case of your relationship it isn’t true! Who does it help? If there was scientific evidence that women were suited to nursing and primary school teaching, would that help a girl who wanted to be a research scientist? I’m thinking a big fat no.

Yeah, I didn't understand that sentence either. Happy to answer any questions about how I define myself, as long as it's clear what you're asking.

What struggle to define ourselves? I'm a woman, it's a sex class. I'm human with gives me human rights and I ought to be treated fairly and not discriminated against because of my sex class (and the physical and reproductive differences that go along with that).

How is the lack (is there a lack?? There always seems to be some new article about "what women are like") of research contributing to misogyny?

People are saying it’s not interesting or useful to discuss because it has been used to harm women in the past. To say that you don’t want to follow something that says some things are off limits is fair enough but most movements don’t like discussions about things that actually harm those they are supposed to be representing. So if someone wanted to discuss phrenology at an anti-racist group, it wouldn’t go down well.

I really wonder what you hope to get out of this. Let’s imagine that women are biologically more inclined to do caregiving work. How do you see this “fact” helping women? It’s already the case that caregiving is devalued and that women do most of it. Do you seriously think its status will be raised in some way if you prove that women are hardwired to do it? The exact opposite is likely to be true. If your main aim is to increase the value of care, you don’t need to prove anything about who is biologically programmed to do it.

Not ban, but there is a desire to suppress the discussion.

I haven't got lots of time now but I think one example is feminism's refusal to consider the possibility of a more nurturing instinct for women (in general, not everyone, not even in me! My DH is more nurturing!) has led to some women only feeling valued in work outside the home away from their children, and I don't think that value system has necessarily led to more happiness for women.

It is hard to discuss and I get the fear but if it might be true it's worth thinking about and what we would do if it were.

But is it not the lack of research that is contributing to our struggle to define ourselves and feeding misogyny as we speak?

Anyone? Beuller? Otherwise we can agree or disagree all we want but we don't really know what about.
(NB I haven't thought through my example particularly well... but we need to put a pin in something so we're not talking in hypothetical circles).

"Differences" is so vague as to be practically meaningless. Although we have covered postpartum women, aggression and touched on systematising and empathy.