Modernity increases gender differences.

(Fifth post in a series on the book Matrocracy. Link to first post.)
As gendered cultural influences lessen, innate differences between men and women influence personality to a greater extent, concludes a 2008 global study spanning fifty-five cultures. It confirms previous findings based on multiple studies that gender differences in personality are smallest in the most traditional cultures and greatest in those that are the most modern, affluent and progressive. These conclusions are "counterintuitive" to the socialization (blank slate) theory of gender differences long favored by most feminists, which has presumed that boys and girls enter the world with similar cognitive and behavioral tendencies and that subsequent personality differences are attributable to the rigid gender roles found in more traditional cultures. The concerns of traditionalists who predicted that equal rights for women would homogenize the genders now seem unfounded.

For those whose blood pressure has been raised by this framing of the nature/nurture debate, please note the following: First, personality differences between men and women are not only caused by genes. The current scientific consensus is that nature and nurture have roughly equal influences on the behavioral tendencies that define personality. Second, the 2008 study and its forebears are not arguing that efforts to achieve equality alone create greater personality differences, but that prosperity also plays a huge role. Fortunately, we live in a world in which progressive societies prosper and prosperous societies – excepting a few oil rich nations – are progressive. We’ll be more effective in pursuing both gender quality and prosperity with greater awareness of the various ways each affects the other.

Eliminating cultures’ assignment of gender roles is a worthy goal, but not because of an expectation that gender sameness likely will emerge. Rather, the resulting greater range of working styles and perspectives should increase productivity and improve policy making. While the nature/nurture question is an important one, the more urgent need is to focus on the potential societal benefits of gender differences whatever their source. Women’s particular abilities to perceive, analyze, ideate, connect and act are not the same as men’s. Women’s decision making strategies and choices are different from those of the men historically and currently in power, and we need women’s wisdom.

A bombshell contained in the 2008 study: modern cultures are mostly changing and benefiting men’s personalities, not women’s. One theory offered to explain this finding is that industrialization has increased the relative power of men and acted to enhance male personality traits – in part because the benefits of industrialization do not flow as much to women, who are more restrained by the responsibilities of child rearing. The authors’ alternative explanation is that the struggle just to survive in non-industrialized societies suppresses gender differences in personality. Where advances in civilization have made life easier, innately influenced male personality traits such as assertiveness, dominance, risk taking and affinity for innovation have flourished. Where progressive governments have broadened opportunities, environmental effects matter less in success and inherited traits matter more. An analogous physical phenomenon is the greater differences in height between men and women in more affluent cultures due to better nutrition and medical care. (But progress is not uniformly advantageous for men. Gender differences in blood pressure, non-existent is some agrarian economies, are highest where modernity has liberated men’s personalities to focus on career competition.)

The rise of more egalitarian societies and the decline of institutional and cultural barriers to opportunity are forces that should eventually equalize the relative opportunity each gender has for power and wealth. But the resulting changes in men’s personalities are creating new advantages for them that seem to be acting as a counterweight to the societal forces of equalization. To cite another analogy, in spite of laws equalizing opportunities in competitive track and field in the U.S., studies find a far greater percentage of men are close to the best runners of their gender than are women. Men seem to respond to greater opportunity by becoming more competitive, and the result is greater clustering at the top. This is part of the reason why simply putting more women into managerial and leadership positions has not made our political and economic vectors change quickly enough, and in the future may not be sufficient to steer us around the various catastrophes we face. As Harvard Law Professor Lani Guinier said, "it is not enough to just add women and stir." We have to do more to help women be more effective in creating social change.

Link to sixth post in the series.