"Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined. When women and men are asked to take a single test consisting of "stereotypical" interests of both sexes, the results separate into sex-linked frequency distributions. Very few women score in t…
"Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined. When women and men are asked to take a single test consisting of "stereotypical" interests of both sexes, the results separate into sex-linked frequency distributions. Very few women score in the range of men considered to be high in "masculinity," and conversely, few men score in the range of women considered to be high in "femininity" relative to other members of their own sex.
Sandra: "Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined.
Agree entirely -- more or less in any case 🙂.
But "more" particularly in the case of those frequency distributions. Apropos of which, a pair on "agreeableness" -- one of the "Big Five" personality traits -- on which women tend to score higher:
One might argue that agreeableness is a more feminine trait than a masculine one. But why I and a number of others argue that gender is not just a single dimensional spectrum, but a multi-dimensional one.
For example, any one person might have a more feminine score on agreeableness, but a more masculine score on one or more of the other Big Five traits. Not to mention on many other "sexually dimorphic" ones, many of which might also be included under the rubric of "gender".
Though not sure what particular value there is in that framework. Which bears some resemblance to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator system -- which some have called pseudoscience and no better than a Chinese fortune cookie.
But that multidimensional "framework" may shed some light on a rather toxic and enervating "debate".
Yes, I agree with you about the multidimensionality of feminine vs. masculine. The tests that were developed to sort people on those dimensions are all inadequate. The intent of my comments was just to highlight that differences usually are seen between the men's and women's distributions. There is a lot of variability cross culturally: consider the level of freedom Italy allows for emotional expressivity versus the level that England allows. Italian men might feel much freer to cry in public, for example, than English women do.
Quite agree on the "inadequate" for many reasons. As you suggest or argue, many of those traits have a significant "socially constructed" aspect or contribution. Not all nature, some contributions from nurture.
Though, arguably, that may give some way of comparing different societies on the basis of degrees of "enlightenment" or sexism.
However, there does seem to be some differences that are more or less constant across societies. Maybe some value in understanding the roots of those differences. The "multidimensional masculine-feminine gender spectrum" may be a rather limited tool, but humanity didn't go from making fire by rubbing two sticks together to Bessemer furnaces in a fortnight. So to speak. 🙂
"Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined. When women and men are asked to take a single test consisting of "stereotypical" interests of both sexes, the results separate into sex-linked frequency distributions. Very few women score in the range of men considered to be high in "masculinity," and conversely, few men score in the range of women considered to be high in "femininity" relative to other members of their own sex.
Sandra: "Gender" is probably a continuous rather than a dichotomous variable, but those frequency distributions are once again what needs to be examined.
Agree entirely -- more or less in any case 🙂.
But "more" particularly in the case of those frequency distributions. Apropos of which, a pair on "agreeableness" -- one of the "Big Five" personality traits -- on which women tend to score higher:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Joint_probability_distribution_by_sex_and_agreeablenes.jpg
One might argue that agreeableness is a more feminine trait than a masculine one. But why I and a number of others argue that gender is not just a single dimensional spectrum, but a multi-dimensional one.
For example, any one person might have a more feminine score on agreeableness, but a more masculine score on one or more of the other Big Five traits. Not to mention on many other "sexually dimorphic" ones, many of which might also be included under the rubric of "gender".
Though not sure what particular value there is in that framework. Which bears some resemblance to the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator system -- which some have called pseudoscience and no better than a Chinese fortune cookie.
But that multidimensional "framework" may shed some light on a rather toxic and enervating "debate".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers%E2%80%93Briggs_Type_Indicator
Yes, I agree with you about the multidimensionality of feminine vs. masculine. The tests that were developed to sort people on those dimensions are all inadequate. The intent of my comments was just to highlight that differences usually are seen between the men's and women's distributions. There is a lot of variability cross culturally: consider the level of freedom Italy allows for emotional expressivity versus the level that England allows. Italian men might feel much freer to cry in public, for example, than English women do.
Quite agree on the "inadequate" for many reasons. As you suggest or argue, many of those traits have a significant "socially constructed" aspect or contribution. Not all nature, some contributions from nurture.
Though, arguably, that may give some way of comparing different societies on the basis of degrees of "enlightenment" or sexism.
However, there does seem to be some differences that are more or less constant across societies. Maybe some value in understanding the roots of those differences. The "multidimensional masculine-feminine gender spectrum" may be a rather limited tool, but humanity didn't go from making fire by rubbing two sticks together to Bessemer furnaces in a fortnight. So to speak. 🙂