Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy How to discuss gender inequalities

Be aware, also, that this sort of discussion can quite easily morph into larger issues of gender inequality and even into discussions about the reasons for affirmative action-- and it's dark side.

15,000 years of evolution (which cares about absolutely nothing except making babies) vs. 50 years of relatively-reliable contraception.

So, perhaps we should frame it in terms of gender distinctions instead of gender inequalities.

I think we're looking for the biological/evolutionary psychology answers to the OP's questions.

Maybe, but that isn't always the direction that kids go in with this kind of thing.

My statement was just a head's up that this can turn into a discussion which asks some really challenging things about income disparity along gender lines, and how much bias/stereotype is somewhat permissible in some contexts.

Because biology really doesn't care about humanitarian ideals or higher-order thinking. It's our civilized construct that forces us to consider others and live as though we were all equals. Underneath that construct, we are still animals, in spite of our idealism. Sometimes the two things are not good roommates, to say the least. Makes for interesting rationalizations to listen to a hard-core misogynist explain why women SHOULD be paid less than men.

Bottom line-- gender distinctions at the very least inform/rationalize stereotype-driven biases.

Maybe it's just that my kid in particular goes after the ethically sticky, social-justice stuff like a truffle-sniffing dog. Could be that's it.

(She's the one that concluded, as a very serious 4yo, that the answer to rule-breakers who were endangering her with their behavior needed... improved adult literacy efforts-- or pictograph signage-- since naturally nobody would be ignoring a rule unless... um.. they were reading-impaired for one reason or another... )

Did anyone on this forum ever say that? Has any prominent politician said that in recent times? What I have said is that in a free market, almost all of the observed pay differentials between men and women are likely to result from factors other than discrimination.

No personal jab intended. Though now I feel compelled to now tease you about self-identifying as a "hard core misogynist" voluntarily.

I've personally had to listen to colleagues speculate that a woman is 'worth' less because she'll eventually want to have maternity leave, and therefore that it is perfectly legitimate to ask candidates deeply personal questions about their desire for children, and to use gender as a sort of unofficial 'preferred qualification' in screening applicants. Oh, sure-- they knew it was technically illegal to do that. They just didn't think that it was "wrong" for them personally to do so, so they figured what HR didn't know wouldn't hurt them.

(No, not kidding.)

I'm also aware that some disparity in some disciplines/fields can be explained by other factors, but this is not necessarily so in all fields or professions.

Point being-- this entire line of thought makes for some interesting thought problems.

Hey, everyone,
Thanks for the thoughts and discussion. It's been very helpful, although (I guess I should have expected this) I'm still not sure what might come up with DD in the future. And I honestly didn't mean to start something that might tick anybody off, although I guess that's pretty much inevitable given the subject. However, I bet that there are other kids who are like DD who are going to think through these things themselves, so it is good to be prepared!! Or at least try to be.
Here are the 'talking points' I think I have:
1) There are gender inequalities in part because we are mammals, and still in some parts of our brains are driven to act like animals in the wild (or Victorians, who were in some ways strikingly similar, but with manners ). Thus we as a society are concerned with (for women) fostering maternal behavior and (for men) ensuring that the children whom we treat as our own actually are genetically our own, lest we waste effort on the progeny of another man. (Caveat--because I bet it will come up--the latter does not apply to adoption! But that's because it's knowingly taken on as a labor of love, rather than a deception)
2) OTOH, given the availability in the present time of presumptively reliable birth control and paternity tests (pardon--assuming for the sake of this discussion that birth control is 'perfect', because the alternative is not the point here), and the fact that women can now work and earn as much as or more than men in many jobs, why can't we as thinking humans reason through these things and overcome our 'base' animal instincts to behave rationally? (i.e., aren't the perceived risks of unmarried, protected sex due to some artefact of evolution or social constructs that are now obsolete, rather than being a rational concern??)
3) On the [third] hand, this gets me back to the original question because if one accepts (2) above then the reason for teens not to have sex is because 'I told you not to', right?? (DD and I have not gotten all the way to this point yet, but were on that path this AM and I imagine I will be faced with it soon). This does NOT work to convince DD in almost every context. And I am old enough that I still share some of the biases against girls (or boys, for that matter) having sex when they are not 'ready', whatever that might mean. But I am still stuck without an answer that I can really get behind philosophically, because 'I told you not to' doesn't cut it for me, either.
4) Re gender inequalities, a) there are studies that show average pay for women is less than for men, but OTOH I think usually there is an argument that at least many of those studies are comparing apples and oranges (like different level jobs, or part time versus full time), but then again it can be very hard for working moms or dads to find jobs that allow them the flexibility to care for their kids, and how is that good for society?? and b) (sorry--new to the thread, but has been raised by DD before) no, you are a girl so you can't go topless (except in certain places like some beaches usually outside the US) whereas boys and men can because...(generally see (1), NOT that I am arguing in favor of this, just--how does one distinguish in a principled manner between requiring women to wear some kind of top (even a bikini top or sports bra) versus having to wear a head scarf or body covering in other societies)?
I should probably just shut up, because I'm not trying to start or encourage a political or philosophical argument, it's just that the more I think about DD's questions (and likely future questions) the more I am wondering, do these rules really make sense, and if not, why can't we as a society think through them and change them at least going forward?? Maybe that is already happening and I just don't realize it because we are pretty 'mature' parents and really only know DD. So hopefully all will work out for the best.
Thanks very much for all the thoughtful comments,
Dbat

Far before the Victorian era, a woman /girl was valued for her virginity above all other things. I believe there is a deeply rooted cultural and biological component to this. Did society first impose this bias or did the it first arise from instinct? We are not so far removed from our primitive beginnings.

Practically speaking, I would tell you DD that kids start to experiment sexually (even if just by rumor) because they have sexual feelings, because they want to act older, because it is forbiddden, because they think that is how you show love....and because they think it's cool.

I would let her argue against going topless. I wouldn't let her do it because breaking the law is a fine or jail time. I would encourage her to argue against it because I thi k it's A few cities that women have fought this law and got it changed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=citi...ss&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

I've heard that its legal in NYC and Boulder Co, this google search says Washington DC too.