Physical Vs psychological difference between the sexes

[Bumpitybumper]

So Mumsnet seems a very gender critical place when it comes to physical sex based differences. The majority don't support men competing in the female category in sporting competitions or men being allowed in single sex wards or changing rooms. The reason being men and women are so fundamentally biologically different that an ideology can't just erase these difference.

However I have noticed that the majority do not support the assertion that male and females may be psychologically different and as a class have different inclinations, behaviour and desires. Many reject the idea that girls may be drawn to different toys, subjects or types of play than boys. They reject the idea that women may naturally have predisposition as a class towards certain occupations and hobbies. They simply cannot accept that women have different desires when it comes to having children and also raising them and the role they play in providing care.

I feel like the insistence that men and women want the same things and behave in the same way is because traditional feminine occupations and interests have been so undermined, undervalued and used to repress us in a patriarchal society. Rather than explore the idea of what women have a natural biological propensity towards and seeking equal value for these things, it is easier to suggest our feminine preferences are all a result of socialisation and conditioning and actually our underlying psychology is the same as men's. This seems very dangerous to me and almost playing into the patriarchy's hands.

Am I alone is seeing this distinction in how physical and psychological differences between the sexes are viewed?

The problem (as I see it) is the societal construct of gender & societies management of this issue. The problem is not the individuals struggling through (albeit some people will be problematic as will some in every grouping of people)

Yes. It's only now, 20 years into my career, so in a position to compare my experience at 5, 10, 15 years etc with people at that stage now, that I can see that men were and still are given an easier ride than women (in a nutshell because they are given higher default credibility and therefore had to spend less mental energy and crucially, time in a role, proving their credibility) and how that had a cumulative effect that meant I had to work harder to achieve what I did.

I have seen too many women find themselves reporting to a man who was promoted past them because whoever did the hiring didn't think they had "leadership qualities". But since she knew the domain, built networks etc he ends up relying on her to provide the advice, solutions and delivery that are supposed to be his job. She is actually the real leader and everyone involved with that team goes to her but in the wider org the man gets the visibility and the credit.

And the gender bias is so ingrained he typically doesn't even realise he is out of his depth without her because he's so used to women's social roles being supportive rather than agents in their own right.

onlywhenidream · Today 11:22

To deviate is to depart from a planned or accepted course, from expectations or from accepted behavior. When you have a map all drawn out and you go another way, this is an example of a situation where you deviate from the planned route.

Someone who deviates from the norm/ departs from a planned or accepted course
is not the same as a deviant.

You we never called a deviant.

Sorry that's how it feels

It feels like a bunch of people have decided what they think are "real" norms and decided therefore that I am deviant from made up norms and it's not a huge step up see how that leads to being ostracised because no one trusts a wierdo

If you have never been on the receiving end I can see you won't get it straight away

This is very much my experience, too, and in particular about that default credibility. I have seen women have to prove themselves ever so often in a way men are not required to do.

It's as if those high qualifications or those years of experience somehow become less visible and trustworthy when they are held by a female. And in my experience younger generations are no less likely to do this than older generations.

It's difficult to address, because each individual example could be just a random or personal issue, and the pattern only becomes visible over time.

Also women who want children tend to have to factor that in to any career decisions they make, not just in terms of childminding when the child is actually born but often well in advance - in terms of meeting and keeping a stable partner, and staying healthy enough to have a healthy pregnancy in the first place. Many women feel they have to have one eye on that in a way that I don’t think men are obliged to so much.

FlirtsWithRhinos
Yes. It's only now, 20 years into my career, so in a position to compare my experience at 5, 10, 15 years etc with people at that stage now, that I can see that men were and still are given an easier ride than women (in a nutshell because they are given higher default credibility and therefore had to spend less mental energy and crucially, time in a role, proving their credibility) and how that had a cumulative effect that meant I had to work harder to achieve what I did.

I have seen too many women find themselves reporting to a man who was promoted past them because whoever did the hiring didn't think they had "leadership qualities". But since she knew the domain, built networks etc he ends up relying on her to provide the advice, solutions and delivery that are supposed to be his job. She is actually the real leader and everyone involved with that team goes to her but in the wider org the man gets the visibility and the credit.

Goodness, you have put that well. I have no direct experience of the world of work you are referring to, but recognise this completely just from general life.

If people are saying women have it harder because they birth children that's fair enough, so you're saying women have inherant differences that ale work life harder. That's not the same as saying women have it harder because men are sexist.

No, it’s different, you’re right.

But because of these physical differences many women make choices that may not reflect what they really want or are capable of, and these choices may start very early in life.

And then (especially in some cultures) women as a whole can become bracketed by this and assumptions are made. They can be steered from childhood into having options removed without even being given the choice - sometimes unconsciously or well-meaningly, sometimes less so.

The answer is to treat people, whoever they are, as individuals. I know women who prefer to work part time or not at all (many more so than men, so ime there is a difference) and women who actively prefer to work full time in very challenging jobs and absolutely love it.
I also know many women who work full time who hate it but do what they have to do for financial reasons (men too) - and women who don’t work because they have been coerced or forced into a carer’s role.

So yes, while imo there are definite tendencies, they can be very skewed and the reasons behind them are not always clear.

They are not the same, but both are true.

Although when I agree men are sexist, I am agreeing because society is sexist. It's absolutely not something men deliberately do to women (although some men, of course, do), it's the cumulative outcome of having a society that was shaped by the decisions of, for the benefit of, or at least the empowerment of, men not women.

I'm not sure what people mean when they say 'female roles should be valued more highly. If we're talking about the monetary value of a particular job then I'm afraid the pay that someone receives is related directly to their value in the role. That is just simply what their role is worth whether you like it or agree with it or not.

I also don't think people should get hung up on the widely reported myth of 'the gender pay gap', in which they believe there's some form of conspiracy or inherant sexist ideology that prevents women from earning more. There are many logical and reasonable explanations for men earning more. One of these is that many women drop out of the workforce due to wanting to start a family. And there's nothing wrong with that! So many young girls and women get told they must progress their career and stay in the workforce but it's a perfectly normal and admirable thing for many women not to want that and to instead have the privelage of staying at home bringing up their young families.

I also don't think people should get hung up on the widely reported myth of 'the gender pay gap', in which they believe there's some form of conspiracy or inherant sexist ideology that prevents women from earning more. There are many logical and reasonable explanations for men earning more. One of these is that many women drop out of the workforce due to wanting to start a family. And there's nothing wrong with that! So many young girls and women get told they must progress their career and stay in the workforce but it's a perfectly normal and admirable thing for many women not to want that and to instead have the privelage of staying at home bringing up their young families.

The gender pay gap is almost always calculated for women and men who are working full-time. So women dropping out of labour force has no effect on it as those women are not included in the calculations at all.

Of course it does, why wouldn't women drop out of their full time jobs?
Men also work longer hours ie overtime
Men work in more dangerous occupations, they work further from home, etc etc. All's I'm trying to point out is that a pay gap only matters if its because of unfairness and its not. Its enshrined in UK law that women and men must be given equal pay, so there are legal avenues open to those who may be being treated unfairly.

Shame on you! Did you not get the memo that all women are hapless victims of the patriarchy, with little or no agency?

When economists analyse the gender pay gap they do actually take into account differences in overtime pay etc. and also the industry a person works in, levels of education, experience and so on.

Taking into account all those other things reduces the pay gap, in some cases a lot, but does not entirely erase it.

Ah yes, the simplistic idea that as soon as actively discriminating against women in terms of pay was made illegal, all misogyny and ingrained attitudes about women just disappeared into thin air.

Akin to the simplistic idea that women would CHOOSE work patterns similar to men once monetary discrimination against women ended.

I don't think this is necessarily true? PT employees are counted. All pay is reported as hourly pay. But I don't see why PT work would command a lower hourly pay than FT - in fact you often do "more" than your hours as PT, as you might do some in your 'spare' time. If you're job-sharing, you often get two brains informally tackling the same problem.

I picked a random software company and women were paid 72p for every £1 that men were, on mean hourly pay. Another was 77p/£1.
I follow Gender Pay Gap bot on Twitter. In most companies, women are paid less than men. It's really interesting to pick a type of company and look at the breakdown - in one 'human health and social work activities' company women occupy 81% of the highest paid jobs and 98% of the lowest paid jobs (still being paid 68p per £1 for the men). However, the bonus pay went largely to men.

I think it's a perfectly normal and admirable thing for many men to want to have the privilege of staying at home and bringing up their young families too. It doesn't need to require that their brains are biologically different to want to value that.

Akin to the simplistic idea that women would CHOOSE work patterns similar to men once monetary discrimination against women ended.

No, it isn't 'akin'. One has been shown not to be true. One is a hypothesis that has not been tested, but potentially would be one of the many benefits of monetary discrimination due to sex being eliminated.

I think it's fairly commonly recognised that traditional work patterns aren't suited to modern family life, particularly with both parents working in a two-parent family. I don't think this means 'female people's brains must be different if they don't all want to work FT in a bank'.

Well, this thread isn’t about pay. It’s about psychological differences between men and women. Which I agree exist but there are probably a lot of physical influences at play which cloud the appearances.

Re pay and value, you’re ALMOST right about a job paying more when the person works longer hours, travels further afield and has more competitive qualifications. This applies to sectors which deal with paying customers. Not so much in the caring sectors like nursing, where long, unsocial hours pay less well because the clients are elderly/sick and can’t pay. Women are over represented in these careers….why? Why do women choose a job where they’re on their feet all day, up all night, in at weekends and with lives in their hands - for less pay than they could get doing many other types of job? Is it because they care about society (rather than money) more than men do? Or because they don’t want to travel so much because of pregnancy and child issues and nursing can be a part-time career? Or because women are steered towards these careers from childhood because they are caring roles, and women are carers….aren’t they??? Who don’t expect to be paid well because women despise money….don’t they????

It is of course a mixture of all of the above.

Of course women can choose the better-paid finance or business jobs if they want to, and many do - either because they like the money or they like the job - or because they don’t want to be valued less by society for earning less money.

It’s not men’s fault - unless you spend less time advising and encouraging your daughters than your sons?

I picked a random software company and women were paid 72p for every £1 that men were, on mean hourly pay.

Are you saying men are paid more per hour for the same role in the same company in this example? Surely employment law would address this as flagrant discrimination. Or does it reflect the fact that men in the organisation* *fill more senior roles than women?

Or does it reflect the fact that men in the organisation fill more senior roles than women?

Almost certainly the latter. Which IME is a result of more women of working age having childcare or other obligations AND the default credibility afforded to men facilitating a faster career path.

Although the probability that at least some men are being paid more than women for the same work is high also.

It's also hard, and subjective, to determine the same work in Tech. Same job title? Easy. Same years of experience? Easy. Same value delivered? Very hard. Is the programmer who delivers faster but lower quality better than the one who delivers slower but higher quality? Hard to tell, and probably a different answer on day 1 than day 200. Is the tech lead who hardly codes but develops her team to be good coders better value than the one who reengineers some legacy frameworks to give really performant data structure? Is the product owner who doesn't seem to do anything but chat in meetings and do PowerPoints recognised as the reason his team always seems to get the right focus or does the credit all end up with the tech lead?

Every one of those is an opportunity for pre-existing ideas about what type of people are most effective to creep in.

I don't think this is necessarily true? PT employees are counted. All pay is reported as hourly pay. But I don't see why PT work would command a lower hourly pay than FT - in fact you often do "more" than your hours as PT, as you might do some in your 'spare' time. If you're job-sharing, you often get two brains informally tackling the same problem.

I should have clarified that I meant actual studies of the components of the gender pay gap. Those only look at full-time workers.

Part-time work often does pay less per hour than full-time work, but I haven't looked into the reasons for that. It might be that in some female-dominated industries many mothers apply for part-time positions so it's possible to fill them even when paying less per time unit? In other words, there are fewer part-time openings than people looking for them, compared to full-time openings and job applicants? But that's just a guess.

Nepeta - ah yes, I was looking solely at the new (ish) govt requirements, as they make the metrics public and they are easy to look up.

I think in professional services the gap is bigger than reported and includes a like for like gap. There was some news last year (in Australia anyway) about the womens soft work/office admin- the amount of extra time women spend at work doing things like notes and organising gifts. The article data was from law firms I think, and if you’re in these high expectation jobs that measure billable hours, you don’t report all this non billable stuff. So you’re working longer to get the same evidenceable result. Someone should repeat that study along with an analysis of non billable hours and see if they have the mismatch Id
expect to see!