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.

Is gender insulting to women leaders?

Sadly, gender denial by women in power seems to be seems to all too common in 21st century America. Responding to a question about her gender, Drew Faust, Harvard’s first female president, replied, "I’m not the woman president of Harvard, I’m the president of Harvard." N.Y. Times blogger Judith Warner agreed, arguing that attributing the newly appointed Faust’s notoriety as "a people person" to her gender "is to cut Faust off at the knees." A N.Y. Times reporter researching an article recently found very few female CEO's willing to say anything about gender. Could it be that women executives still regard their gender as a professional liability?

Yet gender is clearly an issue surrounding Dr. Faust’s appointment. It brings the number of female Ivy League Presidents to 50% - nearly to the percentage of women in the general population. Dr. Faust replaced a man who alienated many with his imperious style and his comments about gender differences. Dr. Faust, it is said, listens and makes people feel heard and included. Doesn’t it make sense that Harvard might want to bring on a woman as president at this time?

It’s time for female academic and business leaders to stop pretending that gender is irrelevant or unimportant. An increasing volume of scientific studies show that women and men’s brain structures, motivations and styles of interaction are, on average, a bit different. Yet many people, and especially feminists, remain convinced that if there are any behavioral differences between women and men, they are entirely due to socialization. The problem with continuing this difference denial is that it distracts us from the critical issue of what we do about differences.

It is time to explicitly recognize that we need more women leaders, and to take more steps to create opportunities for women at the top. This is not, as Judith Warner implies, insulting to women. We need to do this for the good of humanity.

No women leaders in the U.S. seemed insulted by a recent UNICEF report calling for more opportunities for women in developing countries. The report gave numerous examples of how with a greater role in family decision-making and with independent access to income, women make better choices for their children than men do. The same is true when women attain more influence in local or national policymaking: the people in their regions and nations are better off for the choices women make. To name just a few of the public policy consequences of placing greater emphasis on the welfare of children: economies are stronger, health care and schools are better, and wars are less likely. We could use more of this good judgment in the U.S.

Children of Men

If you like or can tolerate great war and spy films, but worry they encourage the nationalsim and paranoia that encourages support for some of the more disturbing aspects of the present War on Terror, see Children of Men, currently in theaters. Set in 2027, it’s a pity this film was not made before the Iraq war began, given how much of the film feels like the mess we're in now. The dystopian P.D. James book on which the film was based was published in 1992. As usual, Michael Caine is charming and Julianne Moore is radiant. The sound track is great.

What follows is plot spoiler, so if you have not seen the film, but plan to, read the rest of this later. The premise of the film is that humans can no longer reproduce, and though never explained, it is presumably due to some environmental catastrophe. A scene in which hundreds of people, including soldiers in mid-battle, show sheer joy and utter admiration for a baby girl is not to be missed. It serves in stark contrast to the fate that awaits some female fetuses in cultures inhabited by a majority of the world's people in the present day.