There is controversy regarding whether gender differences are smaller or larger in societies that promote gender equality highlighting the need for an integrated analysis. This review examines literature correlating, on a national level, gender differences in basic skills—mathematics, science (including attitudes and anxiety), and reading—as well as personality, to gender equality indicators. The aim is to assess the cross-national pattern of these differences when linked to measures of gender equality and explore new explanatory variables that can shed light on this linkage. The review was based on quantitative research relating country-level measures of gender differences to gender equality composite indices and specific indicators. The findings show that the mathematics gender gap from the PISA and TIMMS assessments, is not linked to composite indices and specific indicators, but gender differences are larger in gender-equal countries for reading, mathematics attitudes, and personality (Big Five, HEXACO, Basic Human Values, and Vocational Interests). Research on science and overall scores (mathematics, science, and reading considered together) is inconclusive. It is proposed that the paradox in reading results from the interrelation between basic skills and the attempt to increase girls’ mathematics abilities both acting simultaneously while the paradox in mathematics attitudes might be explained by girls being less exposed to mathematics than boys. On the other hand, a more nuanced understanding of the gender equality paradox in personality is advanced, in which a gene–environment-cultural interplay accounts for the phenomenon. Challenges for future cross-national research are discussed.
The contributions of evolutionary processes to human sex differences are vigorously debated. One counterargument is that the magnitude of many sex differences fluctuates from one context to the next, implying an environment origin. Sexual selection provides a framework for integrating evolutionary processes and environmental influences on the origin and magnitude of sex differences. The dynamics of sexual selection involve competition for mates and discriminative mate choices. The associated traits are typically exaggerated and condition-dependent, that is, their development and expression are very sensitive to social and ecological conditions. The magnitude of sex differences in sexually selected traits should then be largest under optimal social and ecological conditions and shrink as conditions deteriorate. The basics of this framework are described, and its utility is illustrated with discussion of fluctuations in the magnitude of human physical, behavioral, and cognitive sex differences.
==
It's almost as if sex-based differences aren't a myth of "tEh PaTrIaRcHy." and when people have the luxury of not having to prioritize basic survival, they can instead prioritize other values, such as emotional reward or personal fulfilment, over money or status.
"If we are assuming that the choices that men make are the ultimate, absolute best choices, we are making men the default humans. The only reason women aren't doing exactly what men are doing, in exactly the same way is because they're doing something wrong or they're being conditioned into not thinking the right way. Because really, they should be just like men. But, in fact, the areas where women dominate - healthcare, education, psychology, publishing - these are all hugely influential areas on society. They are important."
-- Helen Pluckrose
Disparity or inequity is not inherently the result of unfairness. It can be the result of freedom, liberty and remarkable people being able to flourish. A completely equitable society looks like North Korea.
I am very skeptical this theory. Many groups of people (doubly so in the West) can't replicate the kind of sexual and natural selection that was happening hundreds or thousands of years ago. I have heard conservative men say that women can essentially be cowed into doing what you want & that basically sums up human history right there. In populations where women weren't married early, they were pressured into marriage or male partnership regardless. often because that's what they had to do to survive. most of women's choices are/have been coerced or the result of pressure, moreso if the woman or girl in question is involved with a male.
and people (men) have always prioritized money and status regardless of what the current conditions are. It doesn't make sense for rich powerful men to be greedy and to choose to destroy the planet so they keep themselves obscenely rich but they're still doing it.
Of course you're skeptical, because you've invested your entire being in the delusion that you're oppressed, instead of the reality of being one of the most privileged people to ever walk the face of the planet at any time ever.
Along with the sociopathic disregard for the ways that you are more fortunate than men - lifespan, education, suicide rate, workplace deaths, violent crime, homelessness. Because to recognize that reality would shatter this whole shitty, sexist, fragile victimhood persona you've invented and invested yourself in.
"Men have to be the only oppressor class in history who are less educated, more victimized, and have shorter lives than those they oppress. They must be the only oppressor class who have claimed society's gritty, dangerous jobs as their exclusive preserve.
Well, the Factual Feminist verdict: modern life is a complicated mix of burdens and benefits, for each sex. Men and women enjoy distinctive advantages and face distinctive challenges.
So, if men have to check their privilege, then so do women.
Men and women are not two opposing teams competing for some trophy. We are in this together. Our fates are intimately connected."
And you can only sustain this delusion by pretending that all the differences between men and women are a giant, stupid brainwashing conspiracy theory. One that apparently doesn't even work.
So instead of being grateful for how fortunate you are, for what men and women do for each other, instead of thinking of ways to help people less fortunate than you, such as women in an actually oppressive regime such as Iran, or women and men in your own country who need help -- you've chosen to fixate entirely on you.
Because you don't know the first thing about science. Or biology. Or anthropology. When you take ideology classes like "Gender Studies" and "Women's Studies" you adopt a religious faith that eschews and denies evidence. Nothing can convince you otherwise.
Your beliefs are an overt denial of evolution, because you're saying that the sex differences we can trivially observe in other animals - without a plausible method of social constructivism - somehow just don't apply to us. Every animal species we can find has sex-based differences in behavior. Yet somehow, humans are immune to this. Somehow, these magically vanished along our evolutionary path. But were then recapitulated, exactly the same, as social constructs, to be brainwashed through the population. Because magic is real. And recognizing biological reality is offensive.
You are an evolution denier. Think about that. You're on the same side as the conservative Xians in saying evolution is false. The Xian is offended by the reality of being descended from apes, and it likewise offends you to consider the reality that sex differences are not a lie concocted by an unseen cabal to oppress.
Many groups of people (doubly so in the West) can't replicate the kind of sexual and natural selection that was happening hundreds or thousands of years ago.
If you did understand evolution, then you wouldn't say anything as comically silly as this. This is the "why haven't monkeys evolved into humans?" argument. This is not how evolution works. It may surprise you to learn that we don't live hundreds or thousands of years ago.
people (men) have always prioritized money and status regardless of what the current conditions are
You mean like the men who dig the sewers your poop gets flushed down into? Or the men who dig out the metals to make your phone? Or the men who built the building you sleep in? Or the men who collect your garbage? Or the men who maintain the air conditioning and heating system at your office or school? What status did they gain from doing that? What riches did they get? They probably received hazard pay, but that's because they're more likely to die or be seriously injured on the job. What the hell is wrong with you?
conservative men say that women can essentially be cowed into doing what you want & that basically sums up human history right there.
Firstly, you seem like the kind of person who never listens to conservative men ever. Even if they told you to look out for that bus, you'd be like, fuck you, you right-wing misogynist, my relationship with buses is my own business. Just because "fUcK tHe pAtRiArChY."
Suffice to say, I don't believe for one moment that this actually happened. But regardless of the dubiousness of this story, this is what you choose to cling to, to seize upon unquestioningly. Not only that, but you thought, wow, minimizing - or never knowing - women and all their contributions throughout all of history sounds like a great approach to life and my own mental health.
I miss empowerment.
I miss when being called a victim made people feel uncomfortable, not validated. I miss when being told you're not oppressed was liberating, not something people got angry and offended about.
You claimed men "always" (your word) prioritize money and status. Okay, let's discuss "influencer" culture. They must all be men, right? Because women never pursue money and status, right? I'm sure you've never seen any female influencers anywhere on social media, much less any with their own reality shows, right?
"Well, they're just after men's approval," you might say. Riiight. Men are the audience for the Kardashians, the Real Housewives, and the influencer ads all over Instagram. Men are the ones, sure.
But, okay, obviously false, but we can run with this. Why on Earth would you think this was unique to women? Why wouldn't you also presume that all that money and status men "always" pursue is to obtain the approval of women? Just as women pursue the approval of men? You think in all this evolution, men never figured out that money and status are themselves useless if they don't increase the chances of attracting a desirable mate? Remember, women are the limiting factor in human reproduction.
If you did understand evolution, you'd understand why males and females of every species drove each other's development. Why peacocks have that plumage. Why spiders dance and frogs sing.
But you don't care about knowing anything real like that.
The truth is, one sex cannot be understood except in the light of the other. Men and women have co-evolved, each shaping the other both physically and psychologically via sexual selection. Men desire power and resources because women desire men who have power and resources. And female conflict, well that doesn’t look like male conflict, and so often goes unseen, especially by feminists.
Stop getting your information from ignorant, hateful anti-science cultists. Because it just makes you one too.