Are gender roles a marker of true equality? | FACTUAL FEMINIST
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- Men and women, taken as groups, are different in important respects. The differences appear to be based on some combination of biological and cultural forces. But is gender role differentiation a sign of well-being and freedom? Christina Hoff Sommers explains how prosperity and equality may bring greater opportunities for self-actualization.
Watch more of the Factual Feminist
czcams.com/users/playlist?list=...
Subscribe to AEI's CZcams Channel
/ aeivideo. .
Like us on Facebook
/ aeionline
Follow us on Twitter
/ aei
For more Information
goo.gl/ChiQYD
Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.
In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset.
The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials.
© American Enterprise Institute
Partial transcript:
In January 2015, I spoke at Yale University. I was the guest of the Buckley program. I had a wonderful time and was dazzled by a group of students who joined me for dinner. But a few days later the Yale Women’s Center issued an “official statement” about my lecture. What did it say? That’s coming up next on the Factual Feminist. The morning after my talk, the Women’s Center held a special event to evaluate my presentation. I would have been happy to attend but was not invited. In their “official statement” they say, “As an organization we took issue with several of Dr. Sommers’ key tenets. Sommers describes gender roles as biologically innate, rather than also constructed through culture and socialization.” They deemed my position “potentially dangerous” and even “xenophobic.” Dangerous? Xenophobic-Moi? As if. So here is the Factual Feminist’s “official reply.” Men and women, taken as groups, are different in important respects. And the differences appear to be based on some yet to be understood combination of biological and cultural forces. I know of no one who denies the role of culture-but many campus feminists seem to want to rule biology out of order. I said in my lecture that we have to be vigilant about expanding gender roles and allowing people to defect from the conventions of masculinity or femininity-on the other hand, I said we should also be tolerant of those who embody them. A few years ago I came across an academic study in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology about differences between men and women that I think the Yale Women’s Center should take seriously. The researchers looked at gender and personality norms across 55 nations. Throughout the world, women tend to be more nurturing, risk averse, and emotionally expressive, while men are tend to be more competitive, risk taking, and emotionally flat-(oh dear, that sounds pejorative-I prefer to say stoical.) But the most fascinating finding is this: They found that personality differences between men and women are the largest and most robust in the more prosperous, advanced industrial societies-like the US, Canada, and France. According to the authors, nations with high social development-long life expectancy, high levels of literacy, education, and income-are likely to have the largest sex differences in personality. Why should that be? The authors hypothesize that prosperity and equality bring greater opportunities for self-actualization-men and women are empowered to be who they most truly are. For example, it is conspicuously the case that gay liberation is a feature of advanced, prosperous societies: such societies afford almost everyone on the gender spectrum more opportunities to embrace their gender identities. This cross-cultural research is far from conclusive, but it is intriguing. Just think: What if gender differentiation can be a sign not of oppression but of well-being-of freedom and genuine equality? Let me give an example. I recently saw an article on the Wharton School website that laments the dearth of women engineers and holds up China and Russia as superior examples of equity. More women in those countries are engineers than in the US, and the author blames this on workplace biases and stereotypes. But perhaps American women earn fewer degrees in engineering because, compared to their Russian and Chinese counterparts, they have more opportunities to pursue careers that interest them more. It appears that in the pursuit of happiness, men and women take somewhat different paths. The Yale Women’s center critics seem to think this view is reactionary and harmful to women.
#aei #news #politics #government #education #feminism #feminist
As always, if people aren't willing to confront you in person, it's because they are afraid of debating knowing that they could be proven wrong.
Banging pots and setting fire alarms is another way to go for them.
Joe Joeseph lol, that too :p
their standard , rehearsed argument of calling people they debate with women hating misogynist sexist privileged white man wouldnt work on her, so they wouldnt know what to say. lol.
I tried referring to the study you mentioned about prosperous western nations and workplace segregation. He's a bureaucrat in the medical field, and countered my point with an anecdote about a female friend of his who is an ER doctor, along with a pompous "Well, I'd have to see those studies" as if he couldn't go find them himself like I've been doing for the past 5 years. They're not under lock and key, for crying out loud.
The narrative has been swallowed whole by some people. They've internalized it to the point where they'll say "women used to be owned like chattel", and you give the definition of chattel (movable property that a person could sell, trade, give away, throw away or destroy as he wished), and list off the laws that dictated how men were obligated to their wives and daughters (and sisters, and mothers) and that put limits on how men were allowed to treat them and say, "clearly women were not chattel", they call you an extremist.
Heck, I got Cenk Uygar to almost blow a gasket today by saying that women had a voice in society before feminism, and that women were allowed to own property and run businesses and enter into trades long before feminism, etc. When I brought up how the left wing icon Mother Jones asserted that women didn't need the vote to raise hell, he almost had an aneurysm.
Just like the moderate position on innate differences between the genders (that it's a combination of nature and nurture) is seen by these nutcases as the extremist position.
First sentence is missing a clause--"with a relative my bf."
I love what you do. Keep up the line of questioning, we need people that will :)
I would've loved to have seen Cenk lose his shit like that. God, he's such an ass.
Keep fighting the good fight, Karen.
wow, based mom and based aunt both have people avoiding direct discussion with them? i'm so damned surprised by this. it's almost as if people have something to lose through fair discourse and debate
"Safe space" was the last square on my social justice bingo.
Good one! Lmao. XD
Congratulations! You now lose!
now now you know you only win at SJ bingo if you agree without question.
I think safe spaces for women are insulting. I am not so weak that I can't deal with being in public and being uncomfortable at times.
They're also only a "safe space" for women who completely agree with the group's views. Otherwise it's the furthest thing from a safe place. lol
Really Mean Girls isn't it? :p
blueboi05 Its also BS in general, how does living in a confirmation bias bubble make you safer?
It truly isn't a safe haven for Sommers even though she's a woman, because she doesn't agree with them.
A lot of people forget that benevolent sexism is still sexism. I'm seriously bothered by how feminists claim women ate just as strong as men, and then go and make laws that benefit women over men as if women need that advantage to be equal. The irony is astounding
I do love how they boast about women being equal to men in every way, then propose laws and special benefits that treat women as weak victims that need to be protected (contrary to everything else they say).
Christina Hoff Summers is sharing her nuanced and reasoned views on the Internet... and we all know that the Internet doesn't deal in nuance. Kudos.
... nor respect or being polite; a feminist and I got berated for the respect and polite tone we used in our disagreement .... was pretty funny though.
LOL You're being coy. The internet deals with nuance very well - by stomping it into the ground with bigotry and trolling. It's reason and logic that the internet struggles with. (PS sorry for trampling on your nuance)
Carl M the Internet doesn't deal in intelligence
I don't mind it when people fit a gender fit, I do mind when they judge me for not fitting it. The norm's aren't for everyone, and I'm glad you touched on that as well.
Women's studies 101: “why it's someone else's fault you picked this major over Engineering"
It's a damn shame that the Yale Women's Center didn't invite you Sommers. It would have been a great way of exchanging ideas and learning from one another. But instead, I'm sure it was just an echo chamber of things that they already believe in. That's why it's always important to hear various sides of an argument, and not just one and solely believing in that one. Rarely is anything a black & white situation.
It's a replay of the 70s - Steinem and her cohort froze out CHS back then...
leftists are not interested in exchanging ideas or searching for truth. theyre interested in engineering ideas into the minds of groups of people.
Because it's all the popular girls getting together and talking about her behind her back. I'm sure the main topics of discussion were about how Dr. Sommers is sucha bitch ohmahgawd she should just STFU, we're all better than her.
Jeb Rothberg I know, I'm just disappointed is all. :(
I doubt Sommers could learn anything from them. It would be like trying to learn advanced hydrology from a pre-schooler. No offence to pre-schoolers intended, and every offence intended to annoying SJs!
Thank you for including the entire gender spectrum in your talk here! As someone who is "in the middle" so to speak, and feels like neither, it's very nice to hear that the gender and feminism debate doesn't have to exclude me entirely. Personally I feel most comfortable when rejecting gender roles, or "embodying" both sides at the same time. I know people that feel most comfortable when doing something considered naturally "feminine" or "masculine", and that's fine too! I feel that the new wave of feminism ignores these people, while simultaneously telling people like me that because we're outside of the gender spectrum we're just "victims of internalized misogyny", and because gender roles don't exist that I MUST feel like a woman. Frustrating!
At the same time, cultural aspects of gender roles tend to shame people in a similar way that the completely "equal" new wave of feminism does, too. If a man wants to raise kids or a woman WANTS to be an engineer, he or she is often shamed. I think there are natural differences but like many things, it just isn't that simple. There are biological predispositions, but not biological, hard-set rules. Of course biology is fairly straight-forward, but the brain is a little more tricky! Because of "nature vs nurture", and the development of sex and even personality in the brain, it's much more complicated than black and white!
There's a push back to differences being anything to do with biology because it's a dead end for them. You can try and push people into carrier paths as much as you like, but you're doomed in the end because when left up to our own devices, men will choose what makes them happy, and women too.
The example you gave of China and Russia is similar to the high degree of women in India that are in IT. I think it wasn't some sign of equality, more scarcity of any other job.
It's interesting that with more opportunities to do _whatever_ you want, instead of there being no difference in gender representation in certain feilds, the divide becomes even greater.
This will be the fuel that will power debates around workplace discrimination and sexism forever, because gender ideologues will _never_ just accept there's any innate difference between men and women. Women will forever be pushed into more STEM fields and men will always be at fault for why they don't chose those careers.
The funny thing is, it occasionally leads to hilarious blunders from naive feminists/SJWs where they cite a country as progressive, that most definitely isn't! China and Russia are pretty good examples.
***** A good recent example is Russia's new driving laws iirc
I think one of the problems though is that while women may have a choice, men are more or less told to swim or die. Women can choose STEM fields, or they can try to find a successful man and raise a family, but men have to choose those tougher fields if they want to get ahead, and even more so if they want to start a family. Maybe if becoming a trophy husband were possible, there would be a lot more equality in our society.
Maybe slightly off topic, but here's what gets me: people who argue these things are usually supporters of transgender issues as well, and the argument I hear concerning the transgendered is that they have male, or female, brains in the opposite gender's body. This goes beyond just differences in genitalia by assuming men and women, fundamentally, have different minds. But then..... how can gender roles be purely a product of nurture? Maybe it's me, but I see these positions taken by the same people and their own arguments seem to conflict with each other sometimes.
These gender-Feminists do accept differences in biology if it makes women look smarter or superior to men, think of the countless of scientifict publications, to quote from an article I read by Angry Harry
''You just cannot get away from it, can you? It's like having to live in a nightmare world wherein, it seems, even those who are ostensibly intelligent and honest are debilitated by some frightening mystery virus which completely shatters their ability to link one thought with another.
In the third part of an excellent science series called "How To Build A Human" last Sunday, the BBC again ruined much of its credibility by injecting more man-hating politically-correct mumbo jumbo into the narrative via the mouths of the scientific 'experts' themselves.
Here is what we had.
1. A brain-scanning experiment was performed which showed that when men were trying to interpret the emotions of people from photographs, more areas of their brains were active than was the case with women.
The professor concluded that this showed that men required 'more effort' (more of the brain) to do the task than did women, because men, he argued, found it much harder to interpret emotions.
Oh really?
Well. As most of my readers will already know, when men and women process LANGUAGE, it is women, not men, who have more regions of their brains activated.
And from this, it is NOT usually concluded that women require more effort to cope with language than do men. On the contrary, it is argued that this (OF COURSE) is further evidence of their innate superiority with language.
In other words, if men's brains are more active than women's for the task in question, then this is touted as evidence that the task is more difficult for men. The men just cannot do the task as well as can the women.
But if women's brains are more active than men's for the task in question, then this is further evidence of women's superiority!''
These people deny any biological differences between men and women (although men and women are far more alike than different as we tend to share the same genes except one, and I think that circumstances mostly shape the different personalities as people tend to act more caring towards women women tend to be more outgoing and social, while men are met with indifference and apathy from birth so men tend to be more shy and reserved, while the men who are praised, thus those born with high testosterone shall live a life of being accepted by everyone, while the 90% waddles as being hated by *everyone* around them, women want them to die in concentration camps for being shy, men hate them for not being liked by women... oké maybe that was an over-statement, I just heard a couple dozen Tumblr nutjobs say that shy men deserve to be rounded up in concentration camps, but in all seriousness...) unless those differences between men and women benefit women, so in their eyes men and women are physically equal, but women are better at language *&* body language (despite the article above stating that it's either one way or the other).
My God! I didn't think it was possible but it was true. There is a a Feminist that MAKES SENSE!!!I finally found her!
When someone says gender roles come from societal/cultural expectations, I just ask, "Where did those come from then?" Because I highly doubt some random person just started throwing around random expectations and roles. But, then again, they usually just go in circles.
Even if it did work by someone throwing roles around, why did they do that?
Biology.
Free will is garbage.
The same reason societies had different religions, beliefs, ethics, morals, etc. Traditions evolve. They branch off and change over time. Because of biology, gender roles, are/were mostly the same throughout every society. The differences come from the changes in the environment: from the advancements in science to the changes in peoples viewpoint.
As an example, women and rulers/leaders are usually the most protect groups in a society, but *how* they are protected is what changes.
Our biology tells us to protect women, but it doesn't say how.
+Neonic 0 Well, homophobia is a result of culture, which in turn is a result of biology. That doesn't change the fact that homophobia is a "social construct" that we can and should eliminate. The same isn't necessarily true for gender roles, thus the point of this discussion.
Women are the custodians of a powerful hormone called oestrogen. It has the disadvantages of causing PMT but motivates women to protectively care for their children. Men are custodians of testosterone. It motivates them to face dangers, fight to protect the community and to explore science and engineering. It is also a volatile hormone to manage, giving rise to a tendency to fight which can be very helpful in wars but also cause violence when it's not needed. Managing their respective hormones is the responsibility of each sex. They can do this better in cooperation with each other and with support from each other.
Obviously for the world we lived in then a lot of the norms made sense. Some of them have zero relevance tho. Like colors and clothing being gender assigned. There is no valid reason men can't wear pink and women can't wear blue. No valid reason women couldn't have nay sort of say in voting. No valid reason for women to be the legal property of men.
One thing I believe is also worth taking into account is that while america and europe are the most developed countries. We also get the most reinforcement of gender rolls as children. from the toys we use to commercials we see on TV.
I think it's pretty obvious that gender roles and gender differentiation is a normal and natural thing, based both in biology and social structures. It's easy enough to acknowledge this as true.
However, I still believe it's very harmful to be staunch in these roles and expect everyone to fit into them. Just because gender roles exist doesn't mean everyone has to conform to one or the other, depending on what genitalia they have.
The whole, "Men should be strong and manly and aggressive! Women should be caring and motherly!" mindset really bothers me.
There are plenty of men and women who don't fit into our norms and roles, and we should be able to accept that.
It's a weird sort of topic when you actually think about it. People will yell at the top of their lungs that gender roles are entirely based off of social structures but where did those social structures actually come from? Even in hunter gatherer societies (which are widely regarded as being extremely egalitarian for both men and women) the gender roles were pretty staunch; men were the hunters, women were the nurturers. Hunter gatherers were the first humans to develop a real social system, so to say that gender roles are completely based off culture is ridiculous. Women freely CHOSE to spend a majority of their lives as being caretakers for children, only difference is that the domestic sphere wasn't privatized.
Nowadays women receive help taking care of children all the time, it's both a collective and private effort in raising kids. Not to mention that women can essentially do whatever they want without fitting into this role of a caretaker, collective or not.
If nobody is hurting anyone, who cares if they act feminine or masculine?
Ikr
Ignorant fuckboys
And heaven forbid that women act masculine - because we know that masculine behaviour is the cause of the world's problems. Wait or is it just men, even if they act feminine?
Can women act with 'toxic masculinity' and be accepted while men can be chastised, even when they adopt behaviours of 'virtuous femininity'? I think the men are probably just wrong anyway, because that's how life is :)
Demonsplaining everyone does son
The fact that they didn't invite you to discuss your own lecture tells it all. They didn't want discussion, they wanted to push propaganda.
The reason I enjoy your videos so much is because you never state whether something is "right" or "wrong". You state a problem then a handful of possible reasons/solutions for those problems while also giving some form of evidence for your claims. I watch other videos on feminism and the whole time its just a lecture on why you're wrong if you don't agree with said feminist. I just don't understand how anyone, not just feminists, can believe so wholeheartedly in their way of thinking that they just believe it is fact and everyone else needs to believe them. How anyone can feel good about them self while trying to force their social beliefs, or beliefs of any kind, on someone else is just beyond me. what makes you "right"?
Very simply point she makes, but a VERY good point and something that is HIGHLY important and should not be overlooked. Just because a woman in a more gender "free" country like china works as an engineer, that does not mean she actually wants to be an engineer. If she lived in the UK, US, etc she may want to be something completely different. Just because a woman or a man has chose to study a genericly "womanly or manly" job that does not mean it wasn't through actual choice.
The femanists really need to realise how daft they sound, to suggest that because a woman that is being oppressed because they work in nursing rather then a "manly" job like engineering is very daft. Have they ever considered this, and this isn't statement is not sexist, that most women simply prefer caring more nuturing jobs rather then competitve "manly" jobs.
The same way I would never want to work as a nurse, not because my "manliness" would be called into question or I was "oppressed" into it, but simply I do not enjoy it.
Basically the only modern feminist to argue her points based on logic and not passive-aggressive buzzwords and 'fainting couch' ideologies. Keep it up!!
"Matronizing"--I love it! CHS, you are doing more good than just getting your reasoned, reasonable points across. You are doing it in a calm, respectful, and lucid way that really appeals to a lot of people, especially the types of people who do not feel comfortable engaging in the hurly burly mess of Internet message boards. Thank you so much for what you do.
As usual, so refreshing to hear this woman talk.
Not everything in the world is black and white, not every problem is caused by patriarchy and not every difference that we see is a problem.
Sounds almost ridiculous that people want to be inclusive and pro differences and yet men and women have to be equal in every aspect. Can we please be more friendly to each other?
You were not invited cuz they wanted an echo chamber and its difficult to have one if they have someone there that does not mindlessly agree to what they say and think.
Great points. The very idea of a "Safe Space" precludes any kind of free speech or exploration of truth. There is simply no such thing as a safe space where free speech or truth are important.
Dr Summers someone needs to clone you. Your short présentations actually give me hope for an improvement in male-female relationships. Keep up the great work
"Well what did it say?"
Coming from Yale university, I was able to make a semi-educated guess about what the "official position" on your lecture would be, Dr. Sommers. And sure enough, the response did not disappoint. It was kind of obvious from the get-go that they would have "issues" with any scientific or objective statements.
Once again brilliant video :)
What the hell is up with this modern fashion of calling out people as "phobic" and implying irrational fear/hatred with zero evidence? There's literally no difference from calling someone "xenophobic" or "homophobic" or whatever-phobic than it is to call someone a faggot or a pussy or a dick. It's like you stepped on a toe and they resort to name-calling.
That's part of the reason I hate modern feminism. Many resort to categorizing as if that's some kind of argument. When people were discussing a recent tournament ruling for a popular online game, someone pointed out that certain arguments "are indicative of straight privilege." And? So what? Do you have a point or do you just want to show off your sorting skills?
Hey don't forget islamophobia! You racists!
As helpful as always, thank you!
Men tend to APPEAR more emotionally flat. They have and are able to express their emotions not any worse than women. But they are trying much harder to control their emotions rather than being under control of them because it's a key element of mental health.
+AgressoR_V Very well said
Fantastic, thanks for posting.
thanks! great video :) love what you do.
this is a very thought provoking argument. i've never thought of differences as a sign of greater freedom and equality for all genders
links to the mentioned articles please?
Hear hear. I request supplemental reading.
Sourcing would be really helpful. I'd really like to read more.
Thank you for these, Christina.
I greatly appreciate that you are not afraid address your critics with reasoned, respectful and tolerant responses. On this merit alone, you are leaps and bounds better than other feminist broadcasts of late *coughFeministFrequencycough*
That is a fascinating idea and worth further consideration. Diversity, including gender diversity, is a marker of social prosperity, well being and the opportunities available to citizens. The debate is always framed "The outcomes are not the same because this group does not have the opportunities" but I can see a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest "The outcomes are not the same because there are opportunities".
Well said. I've always believed that our differences are our strengths and that embracing diversity means we can be more self actualized in our choices. Men and women are different but equal: this means we weren't born the same and we don't act the same, but we are both capable of equally important and wonderful things. I don't get why people can't see that. We shouldn't force any group of human beings into being what they're not, or doing what they don't want. Simple as that.
Honestly, I was surprised by some of the things you said in your Yale lecture. However, after listening to your ideas and thinking them through I found them logical and enlightening. The ladies at Yale seem to only wish to hear what they expect to hear.
Dear Christina: this video is amazing and I love how you think :)
I love this one. It’s unbelievable how people can respond with such “concern” to such a rationale person like yourself. Even in the Christian Church where scripture encourages women to raise children there is still a lot of disdain for the traditional sahm and hyper-protection of working moms. I’ve come across so many things that basically say “women fought for your choice to work, so don’t waste their efforts by choosing to be a mom or pursuing a lower paying job that you enjoy more!”
I think the victim mentality and the eagerness to dismiss different views are far more misogynist than an actual discrimination in society against women. It creates a paranoid view on the world that is in the end disempowering and thus does exactly the opposite from what feminism is supposed to do. Empowerment and the freedoms to pursue whatever we want cannot grow on this fear based approach, since leads only even less women trying because they think they would not be welcome, when in reality the men would love to have us around.
Drudenfusz i agree
Wrong, men don't want us around. They really don't now with mgtow and metoo guys are getting paranoid about women. I would prefer walking on eggshells and respecting women to being catcalled and disrespected but guys are becoming very very paranoid, at least on some youtube videos that I have seen the comments they post.
modern feminism is already the most hypocritical movement before you even
add how victim mentality becomes more misogynist than actual discrimination.
O have no words to express my admiration toward Christina Hoff Sommers.
I enjoy your work.
Great video.
Your videos are amazing! So inspiring and logical! This is true feminism! Not a bunch of hysteria but actual facts. Thank you for making them :)
You are the most brilliant voice I’ve heard lately.
It's quite interesting that gender identity and gender expression seem to only be protected and valued by gender activists if those identities and expressions don't conform to societal norms. What many of these gender activists seem to forget is that if dressing up in a pink wig and stockings is valid for of gender expression for a man then wearing jeans and a t-shirt with a typical haircut is also a valid form of expression for a man. Same for women.
They've built an ideology around actual sound research on human sexuality. This is what happens when unscientific and uncritical minds get their hands on science they aren't capable of understanding.
For as much as they talk about the importance of gender identity and gender expression they seem to not find it very valuable to anyone outside of their cult.
Gender identity and expression doesn't belong to the gender activists. It belongs to everyone.
I am looking for serious studies and analysis about housework chores between men and women.
Can somebody tell me where I can find that ?
I would like to understand why the differences and if they come for a real discrimination/patriarchy or not…
This is a fascinating thesis
Always good to hear your thoughts, I found out that my fiancee who I have been with for four year 2 online 2 living together. As time went on she moved from wanting to be a neurosurgeon to a home maker so she can focus on her passion, art. She originally did not mind the idea of being in college and losing a social life because she felt she would be single forever, now that she sees me working she sees a new path to do something she is more passionate about.
Maybe this is nothing in the grand scheme of things but keep in mind this. She is an independent woman who is not looking to change on my account. She is looking to change to do what she prefers, does this mean I am a negative influence or does that mean I helped her do something greater?
I went from physics to education for the same reason as your girlfriend. I was told in high school that since I was so good in math and physics it was what I should pursue. Seeing how just because I was a woman I could receive extra scholarships and benefits to enter the field, I did it. The advice came from a fellow female teacher. But, to everyone's surprise I was miserable because even though I like science and I love taking part of investigations, I cannot imprint my emotions with mathematical numbers. I like to draw and paint, traditionally or digitally to vent out my feelings and inspire other people. Also, I have a need of helping people, which is why I'm becoming a teacher. I love it because I can express both my need for helping others and my need for expressing creativity. I can be active, creative and happy all at the same time. So yeah of course you did a great job, supporting your gf is something you must do no matter what, and she should as well.
Society taught her to go lone ranger through life. With you she has realized both a level of trust and security, both emotional and financial. Like in the study, she realizes she has the opportunity to explore and actualize herself. And she probably realizes her identity isn't the prescribed identity feminists promote. That is my take. Happy to hear you are in a great relationship.
Mako Mankanshoku
"Huh. Huuuh. Well you must have some sort of internalized Misogynist" - A Radical Feminist Thought
*Snort* Now onto my opinion on your thoughts to Avarith . The fellow female teacher that gave you that advice thought that money = happiness. So when she saw what you did, she thinks you are an idiot. Now why doesn't she do it herself? Oh she'll give the old excuses "I'm not good at math" "It doesn't click for me" "I don't like math" etc. But when she sees that you are good at math she thinks that you should pursue it even if it isn't exactly what you want to do. Well that is my outsiders opinion on your thought.
Thank you both, Virgil Warren and Mako Mankanshoku for the kind words on the relationship. I just want her to do what she believes in, and thanks to me being out of the military I can do what I love and support her in what she is passionate about.
I will not lie this video came out right in time for me too, I was feeling like I was holding her back because I was told this by people I used to think were my friends.
Bob Wicktown Yes that is why she recommended it. However, me being a year younger than people in my class, was ignorant of what I liked, what I wanted to do or who I even was. Once I figured everything out I was able to come in acceptance with myself. It wasn't a bad field to be in, I did exceptionally well but it was deteriorating my health and my emotional well being. I came to both choices by myself, nobody forced me into them. It just sorta clicked, and everything else fell into place. I learned so many more things than when I was in physics. Learned about the world, about people and so much about myself that I didn't know. Learned so much from my own environment. I regret nothing.
Also, the teacher who advised me towards physics, she was a physics teacher with a masters. Fun fact is, fellow classmates at my university were close to 67% female. They graduated, they're pursuing their own masters or doctorates at prestigious universities with paid scholarships. Some of these scholarships are female oriented ones, like the ones they offered me.
Wow, you're just so insanely reasonable. The biggest breath of fresh air in gender related topics I've ever heard.
Yeah, you'd THINK feminists would realize this is the way to go.
All of us anti-feminists here listening to her and mostly if not entirely agreeing.
But who am I kidding? They couldn't play victim and get money and attention to pay for their useless women's studies degrees if they were reasonable.
The response and manner of the Yale Women’s Center was totally not surprising. A video-response from professor Christina Hoff Sommers is more than they deserved.
I've only been dealing with this for a few months. You've been dealing with this for years. Damn. I feel so bad for you
I'm just sitting here nodding my head with a huge smile. I never thought I'd find someone who parallels how I feel about gender equality in this sea of sexists and radical feminists.
please do a video review of the video - What about the Gender Work Place Hours Gap?
Good video!
Not only do I think you are right that gender roles are biologically innate but I feel we hurt society by pretending it is all a social construct. It isn't. Part of it might be, yes, but you cannot deny physiology. The whole point of the "nature over nurture" argument is that you can seldom chalk it up to one over the other - they are both important. Gender roles are ingrained in the vast majority of people because it has been necessary for our species' survival.
Dear Dr. Sommers,
I am a great fan of your work and admire all the effort that you devote to actual equality. There is a question that I would like to ask you, and you are probably one of the most qualified people to answer it.
Isn't it about time that we update the dictionaries and change the meaning of the word "feminism" (as wells the word "feminist" and any other related words) to describe what modern feminism has actually become? In a sense, a movement for female supremacy, discrimination of men, and oppression of free speech.
I direct this question to you since it would be actual feminists such as yourself, who embody the present dictionary definition of the word, who would become misrepresented by continuing to identify with the word "feminist" after such an update.
I love Fem-fact. Her videos are great, and really, truly, informative.
Good points as usual.
One thing feminists often fail to account for is what if women simply don't want to take engineering jobs? Learning copious amounts of math and science is only for those truly dedicated, and in America you have the freedom to choose what you want to do. You don't have to be an engineer to make enough money to support your family.
Men and women are different, regardless of what anyone says. That means different likes, cares, thoughts, etc. That much is undeniable. So it should be expected that women take different job careers than men. That includes more dangerous jobs, like underwater welding and hazardous waste disposal (which are dominated by men). I don't see any feminists complaining about the lack of female underwater welders, yet they have the audacity to claim the lack of female scientists is due to sexism.
Hi, Christina Hoff Somers.
I am an older Australian male, probably 'over the hill' by some people's standards, and I could care less about that but I'd hafta work at it and I don't care enough to make the extra effort - if you get my drift.
Thank you for this series of videos outlining your views, and apparently the views of some others also, on feminism and various gender issues. MANY of the views that you are expressing have been part of my thinking for between 30 and 40 years now.
I have long believed that men and women, generally speaking, were and are designed to be COMPLEMENTARY, NOT competitive. By and large the two (main) genders have different innate abilities and skill sets that complement each other - - - - IF a man and a woman CHOOSE to work together harmoniously and LISTEN to each other.
I had that balance to a large extent in my last relationship, a 10-year de facto relationship, which I eventually broke off because she was manipulative in some ways that I was not prepared to live with any longer. (Part of my evolvement.)
Title IX - getting gender equality in sports, etc? ON a slightly different note but I feel very related, is the current push to try to get equal numbers of men and women into our Australian federal and state parliaments. I think the people behind this movement are totally missing the point of the issue. I think the real push, the best for the country as a whole, would be to get the BEST people in our parliaments, REGARDLESS of gender and based ENTIRELY on capability and enthusiasm.
I also believe that capability and enthusiasm ought to be the ONLY criteria in almost any employee selection process.
Does any or all of this make me a 'dinosaur'? I don't think so. I think it makes me a practical realist.
I have been a heavy equipment operator for over 55 years now and have only seen about a dozen women working in the same line of work on all the jobs that I have worked on in all that time. WHY? I think the main reason is that most women just don't want be there. For the few whom I have seen and worked with, I have always tried to encourage them and teach them.
Their numbers still remain very low.
Just my 0.02. Thanks again.
You have a wonderful day. Best wishes. Deas Plant.
Could someone tell me where the clip at 1:51 is from?
can you provide link to that research paper
Indeed. Do I like things like math and physics and other science related subjects? Certainly, but as a side hobby of obsession with language and general curiosity with how things work.
I would never wish to be an engineer or whatnot. I don't even like playing games that involve math too much, why would I want to do it for a living?
Not that there shouldn't a deep math in how it all works, I just don't necessarily want to know it because I've found from experience that it takes away from the game. Especially if you don't plan to play it competitively where you basically need to know how it all works.
It's why I only play one game competitively. I can't help but want to know everything about it (and do knowing everything about it with having played it nearing 60,000 hours minimum), so I put that knowledge to use.
But I digress somewhat.
What other people expect of me means absolutely nothing to me. At best, if I know they expect it of me, I want to do it even less, even if I really want to do it.
So feminists come at me in just the wrong way. Even if I wanted to be an engineer, them basically demanding I be one would only get them a "Fuck you.". Though, if I REALLY wanted to do it, I'd make damn sure they and everyone else know I'm not doing it because of them.
As every woman of sound mind would.
Can someone help me finding the link to the article about gender differences in developed countries, thank you.
Sometimes I wonder why you call yourself a Feminist. Since you go so much against the norm in Feminism these days.
Why not just call yourself egalitarian?
Wonder no more! Christina answers the question here:
czcams.com/video/8XAftrligcc/video.html
Kolsyrad Mcluvin Because egalitarianism by itself sounds vague. Feminism focuses on a specific form of egalitarianism.
+Armindo Ribeiro
if "egalitarian" is vague that's ok: it's a general approach.
But it's less vague then "feminist", the word alone could mean anything: which flavour of feminism, nazi-, difference, equality etc...or "factual"...?
The word gives no information at all.
I think it's up to the minority, that is the sensible, rational people such as Christina Hoff Sommers, to drop the label, so that at least it means "nuts"! (with other prefixes and adjectives you could just narrow down the scope of the patology..)
I can see some value in the provocative oximoron of the phrase "factual feminist" , but I don't think it's enough to balance the fact that it really helps reducing the explanatory power of such a common word to zero.
+Kolsyrad Mcluvin She hates third wave feminism, I'm guessing.
+Kolsyrad Mcluvin She repeatedly refers to herself as an equality feminist. Have your hearing checked.
Brilliant!!!
You rock Christina!
Christina I love you lol. You're so smart and level headed!!
Something I've never understood is why people (like the ones that she is being accused by) don't want to acknowledge the fact that men and women are innately different thanks to biological differences. Sure, there are people that stray from the norm, but by in large men and women are both physically and mentally different. It's what balances each other out. They're so willing to blindly challenge facts because they want to fight for this silly dream that both men and women are exactly alike. We're different, we should celebrate and embrace it.
Are women's places a safe spaces for new ideas?
I think the reception of your speech at Yale answers that question rather well.
the stupid hurts my head, How do you deal with the stupid Sommers, seriously you are a hero
Are you calling Sommers stupid, or the people who hate her stupid?
TechnoJoe Clearly he is asking how Sommers deals with stupid people.
***** *clear
+Bren Tenkage "stupid" and "Sommers" shouldn't be used in concatenation like that. :P
Thank you Christina Hoff Sommers for this logical insight to sex differences. Let's respect those who display typical male and female traits, and those who display traits of the opposite sex, etc. Let's simply respect healthy differences. It's not a tall order.
I am an otaku gamer, I may not be into the shooting games but I am a gamer who loves to date female characters in my games.
My self actualisation is that I am happy to me myself.
Gender feminists may try to twist my love for female game characters into something that makes people think I am sexist or misogynist, yet I don't care what they say.
I am happy to be myself, and I know that because I live in a country that is lucky to have access to gaming.
Compared to other nations and even other time periods where you had to work when you turned 12 or 15, I am lucky that I am not forced into child labour during my teenage years just to feed my family.
And I am so lucky to have a chance to go to university, so I can study to try and get myself a job in the industry that I love.
To me, that is what self actualisation is, to understand that no matter what others say about gamers or otaku or anything that may try to belittle me, I am happy to be myself and I am happy with my life.
Dr Sommers, you may just save the world.
The Yale Women's Center's response to Dr. Sommers' work reminds me of when biologist Edward O. Wilson turned psychology on its ear (and pissed a whole lot of people off) by introducing sociobiology as a means of explaining what we see in human society. Apparently any time one tries to bring biology into the mix many in the Humanities crowd get personally offended.
Some interesting thoughts discussed, but the title of this vid (plus some of the text description) is a misnomer. This is more discussing gender DISPARITIES than gender ROLES. The latter tends to imply a prescribed social role into which people are expected to be pigeonholed, based on societal expectations.
The speaker is addressing not roles, but the population disparities, in terms of numbers, which arise from the different genders following their proclivities. That is far more benign than the presence of gender roles, which have caused much angst, especially to women, in years past.
Another small issue I'd love to hear addressed, mentioned in this video, is that of more prosperous societies showing greater gender disparity than lesser ones. By what metric are they determining this? Many of the Muslim-controlled countries have very explicit gender roles, even laws in place prohibiting women from certain tasks (even driving, and in some, even reading). Many tribal communities in Africa and South America are quite delineated based on gender. I'd love to know how this study was conducted.
"According to the authors, nations with high social development-long life expectancy, high levels of literacy, education, and income-are likely to have the largest sex differences in personality. Why should that be? The authors hypothesize that prosperity and equality bring greater opportunities for self-actualization-men and women are empowered to be who they most truly are."
It's interesting because there are many almost-or-actually 3rd world countries with massive gender differences, and then there's the Nordic countries that I was under the impression have far less gender differences... I'd really like to see the whole study. Do you have a link to the research you're citing?
Why is it so rare for an academic to, as Dr Sommers has, gather relevant data, make correlative conjecture and form an argument to be tested against competing ideas? This has moved society forward for millennia. The Yale Women's centre should be ashamed to turn it's back to this kind of discourse. Keep on bearing the torch, Based Mom.
I do not disagree with this video. But I just want to add - on differences about career choices: the "engineer" degree may vary between different nations; the cultural and societal expectation from women are different.
And to say that it's "discrimination" is a bit of the stretch here.
Having spoken to a college student from China, I've learned that their government pushes engineering aggressively, for EVERYONE. He said it's essentially free to study engineering, while cost-prohibitive to do other things. It's definitely a politically-motivated push, but that doesn't make China a feminist society. In fact, they're scared if the idea of sexual equality since Jiang Ching made it oppressive during the Cultural Revolution.
I'm an incredibly stereotypical 40's housewife. I find joy in making dinner for my boyfriend when he gets home from work, and housecleaning, and eventually child rearing. Does it work for me? Yes, does it work for everyone? No. Everyone should just be able to do what makes them comfortable without criticism, end of story.
Thank you for bringing us facts. We just want to not fight anymore.
I find the findings of the study Doctor Sommers mentions quite obvious. My personal and social experience tell me exactly this. I live in Czech Republic, where there is a difference in the standard of living between large cities and rural border areas.
In CZE you can find almost a subculture of "pink" people (mainly girls, but some men too). They try to present themselves as "cute" in their work, home and social environments - dress sexy, act sexy or cute, even immature in extreme cases. In other words they try to emulate a certain aspect of feminine behaviour much strongly than others.
If one were to start counting, one would find many more of these pink folks in cities rather than rural areas. It is time and money consuming, thus you need to have at least middle-class family or partner to afford such lifestyle.
What I am describing may be a bit pushing it, but I think it is a symptom of what the study has shown. Better standard of living gives more freedom to express gender behaviour.
It may be confirmation bias, but I like the way she thinks.
"Modern western feminism describes gender roles as constructed through culture and socialization rather than also biologically innate. I hold that such assertions are potentialy dangerous tools for justifying social engineering and cultural marxism"
fits pretty well.
There's part of this that has me confused and curious.
How are gender roles a sign of more advanced nations?
I mean aren't gender roles essentially a generalized role/position expected of someone purely on their sex?
Why would more advanced/free countries have people more likely to put themselves within such boundaries/limitations?
Now note this is purely curiosity. I am genuinely confused by this notion and would rather have a better understanding of this, cause if it is in fact true then it would be some very good information to know and possess.
In my East European country there was a recent and sudden increase in women in tech because good paying jobs became available when foreign investors came. When all pay was equal (say communist times) women went more towards architecture, physics or theoretical science than any form of engineering. When I was young, and things were barely starting transitioning, programming was considered the bad kind of nerdy and unpopular. Now I suppose it gets some respect because people know you'll eventually get money.
Hello Factual Feminist Sommers,
You're not the first to point this thing out. A man from norway in a documentary travels across the world finding the reasons why in a prosperous nr1 equality country like Norway (dunno if still nr1, but doesn't really matter) there was still such a huge difference in amount of men and women in certain areas like engineering, nursing etc.
he went to some academics in his own country to get answers, then flew across the world to find actual scientific answers to this very question.
From day 1 that we are born we're predisposed to range from preferring social interaction over understanding how the world works and vice versa, extreme on both side to the very in the middle. They tested it on the newborn, factoring out any influence by culture or other constructs. They did some more in-depth research on how this came to be and found that testosterone is a factor. high testosterone during pregnancy has a direct relation to future interests.
If they test the fluids around a baby girl during pregnancy and it has relatively high testosterone, she will be more likely to favor the more traditional male interests.
just some food for thought, the video if you're interested: /watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70&user=Hoodlab
I'm Russian-Canadian. Any time this matter has brought up, Russians would argue and say their education system is different (in their words - better).
They've got a point. They don't value somebody who studies literature. Example, literature is taught to children from a young age - EVERYBODY is expected to know it. Its not a valued major for the Russian-lit inclined people. The same goes for social sciences. Its not taken as a serious major. And because CCCR valued maths and sciences to advance [its competition with the states], everybody who is growing up today has the same expectations from their parents as their parents had from the state. But as the video states, its the lack of the idea of personal choice. You would be frowned upon as a loser if you went to a good school and chose dance as your major. My Russian friends would call a person like that "slow" because that's just what the society believes. There's no choice or freedom. Yes, you choose what you want to do, but its heavily influenced by the idea that you don't want to shame your parents, or have people think you're less academically inclined, or have people think you're only looking for a husband (if you're a woman.)
Speaking as someone who grew up very near Yale, I am wondering where you went to dinner after the talk. I know it's not THE most important thing or even a very important thing to ask about, but still I am curious. There's some great pizza in Southern Connecticut, you know.
Honestly, I think this has been a bit of a correlation-causation mix up. Just because it happens in propsperous countries, doesn't mean it was caused by the prosperity. Honestly, the first thought that came to my head was "European cultures tend to be the ones that have gained the wealth, and they're also the ones with pronounced gender roles." It seems more of a coincidence to me.
in countries that are increibly weathy and have very good living you'd be mor einclined to do work that you like rather than what earns the most. and apparently men and women like very diferent things.
Valosken Except that you'd have to prove that gender roles are more pronounced in Europe than in China (Russia is a European country btw). I'd like to see that. My prediction is that the more you look into it the more you'll see that China - and also the Middle East, where there are plenty of female engineers as well (*) - is at least just as patriarchal as the West, and probably a lot more.
(*) The comparison I knew of before watching this video was between the Middle East and Scandinavia - the stereotypical misogynistic culture on one side and the poster child of liberal flower-power values and feminism on the other.
revilo178
I'd say Russia is an asian country because it is mostly on the continent of Asia. I guess Eurasian is also exceptiable.
Culturally it's European, though (Christian heritage, learned to write and civilization in general from the Byzantine empire and so on).
Sommers explicitly said that htis study was not definitive.
I love this woman!
After listening and reading some of the comments, I'm a bit in doubt. As a (soon to be) scientist, I honestly rejoice the fact that you use ACTUAL science to accompany your claims. However, what I wonder.. Are there any data that actually do speak for those differences? I can't imagine that there isn't an other side to this.
As a female studying both science, medicine, and health science in general, I'm one of the growing lot of 'technical' women. Because of that, I'm seriously doubting the thin line between 'self-actualization' and 'gender roles'. Sure, I like science. I like medicine, too. But I'm about 99% sure that I do so because of my dad, who is also a doctor ánd a scientist.
I think it's a bold claim that workplace division is only situated in developed countries because men and women have more choice. I honestly think that, because of the choice, women (and men!) are influenced to pursue a field of work that 'fits' them.
My most important point for that is this: the choices one makes are based on interests that develop BEFORE you actually know what you like. And with that, I think it's a major problem that, both boys and girls, are 'brainwashed', as to call it, by media and culture into what boys and girls respectively should like. Of course, there are biological differences between the sexes that surely make up for some of the differences in a later choice of work. But I also think that culture, for this part, is the major influence in this matter - though the presence of choice in first/third world countries will surely play a role, I wonder to what extend this really matters.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on all of this!
Christina Hoff Sommers: You sound like a kind and reasonable person and I'm sorry that they didn't engage with you. There are some important nuances to add to the discussion. You noted that the personality study you cited is inconclusive, but it's problematically used by some as though it is conclusive. It's important to ask, is there causation? It would also be really great if there were reliable data to compare personality differences across many decades within each of those countries.
You're definitely right that gender differences are from a combination of biology and cultural norms. Different people emphasize one or the other.
One important marker you miss is the role each gender plays in marriage. Unequal gender roles often lead to unequal effort. This is denied by some who are "traditionalists," although it's always unclear exactly what traditionalism is and what it looks like in all the nuanced areas of life. What are "traditional roles" exactly, and how would they differ with different circumatances (such as different kinds of jobs, families, or government policies)?
Not very surprising that those people didn't invite Mrs. Sommers to discuss or debate the issue; they knew they could be proven wrong.
People who've decided to believe that women of the 21st century western world are somehow oppressed don't want to be proven wrong.
I'd really like to know if she'll ever come speak down at the University of Alabama. I'd love to attend one of her lectures.
I know that there are differences between men and women which are biological. I also know that the 'men' and 'women' division is utter nonsense. It's one of those 'I don't think you know what that means' kind of things.
My body is that of a hermaphrodite: partially female, partially male. I feel more comfortable in a 'female' gender role, however, as this also fits my outward appearance. As I have made clear in many media interviews over the past years, however, I cannot possibly point to anything in specific that's more 'masculine' or more 'feminine'. Even things like body strength is nonsense, as there's plenty of overlap between 'men' and 'women' there.
In the end it all comes down to the obsolete binary gender/sex model limiting one's thoughts and realizing that both gender and physical sex exist on a sliding scale: a spectrum, if you wish. The longer we keep waffling on about 'men' and 'women' and how different/similar they are, the further we get away from the reality of the matter. It's also why I refuse to call myself a 'feminist'. Only 'humanist' truly covers the desire to wish equality for all humans, regardless of their body or mental configuration.
Everyone is an individual, or only the ones who choose to be individuals. I only identify by my first name (real name) and my feelings. I only know my male body, since I started practising martial arts I've grown to like it, a lot. Rugged, easy to train and adapt.
I'm curious, by what basis can you say that "female" and "male" exist as categories at all?
Gabe Canaan Reproductive capabilities, I'd say, as this has to meet certain biological prerequisites. Beyond this it's a wash.
Beyond that there's 'looking like' a male/female. Despite having been born infertile and possessing (partial) reproductive organs of both sexes, my body's overall looks are those of a female, so that's how people identify me and those are the clothes I prefer to wear.
Of course that moves far beyond physical sex into the 'gender' area, which is far more fluid than a mere two base quantifiers.
So you belive that humans have distinct male and female physiologies but didn't evolve with the district neurologies to use those different physiologies.
Gabe Canaan Traits, more like it. And that our brains are a lot less rigid when it comes to gender than our bodies with physical sex.
I'll tell you why more women are engineers in developing countries: All the arts/literature/humanities courses are:
1. Stigmatized and looked down upon by society
2. Insufficiently compensated. While in developed nations, people actually have money to spend on the finer things in life, that is not really a priority when your primary concern is getting food to the table. Most female STEM graduates never actually enter serious fields here. They work for a few years in a low paying tech consultancy firm, drop out and get married.
I feel like I need a crew, so I can have people match my hype when a new FF video comes out.