*The Fate of Gender*

A key theme of the book is how the increased acceptance of gender fluidity and industrialization – which brought men out of the fields and into offices, where they have no inherent strengths compared to women – has destabilized traditional power structures.

[Frank] Browning said the gender revolution can help explain the resurgence of rightwing extremism in Europe and why it is possible for a former reality television show host to become the presumptive Republican nominee for US president – even though he has made racist, sexist and xenophobic comments.

“We’re going to see in a decade what we’ve seen in the last five years, a movement for which Trump happened to be the dandy on hand,” Browning said. “And gender is a big piece of that”. Browning said that today, men hold fewer positions of power and are being demoted in society. Simultaneously, people are exploring gender more openly and have easier access to online forums through which to explore differing types of gender and sexual expression.

Here is the article, I just ordered the book here.  Here is my earlier post on this topic.  File under speculative.


How much of these posts is TC's mood affiliation with the 'women do better than angry young men in tomorrow's Average Is Over world' theme? Well, he's explicitly said this is his theme, so it's not so much mood affiliation as variations on a theme. First?

"brought men out of the fields and into offices, where they have no inherent strengths compared to women": except for being better with numbers?

Though even that advantage is being undermined by spreadsheets.

And how many office workers do anything beyond the most basic arithmetic in their jobs?

I think it has to do with relative hand size, as discussed in the debate.

Some women have bigger hands than men.

Now that is a righteous comeback, dude! Well done.

You have good taste.

What is the evidence that men don't do better in offices? Take away government interference and see who comes out on top.

Better at what? Women are probably better in general at coloring inside the lines which is what most employers are looking for. Most jobs are no more creative or fulfilling than old assembly line jobs. I wonder if people in the future will be much more amused/appalled by our insistence that helping some rich guy get richer is somehow the most important part of life, that our parents supposed backwardness about The plethora of recognized genders.

coloring inside the lines which is what most employers are looking for. Most jobs are no more creative or fulfilling than old assembly line jobs. I wonder if people in the future will be much more amused/appalled by our insistence that helping some rich guy get richer is somehow the most important part of life


"Helping some rich guy get richer" translates to "Doing something that people need done."

in the absence of marketing and advertising departments at Fortune 100 companies, society would surely collapse.

That was my first thought too, but in the context of competitive ability, the women can put up a good fight one to another. I particular they are fully skilled at competitive mate selection which gives them an advantage in certain mixed gender line-ups.

Women commit far fewer violent crimes than men, far less sexual harrassment in the work place than men- so there are two ways women are do better in offices than men.

Amusing. I'm assuming that this insight comes not from experience.

It depends on how you call sexual harassment.

Are women particularly happy with this social arrangement? Depression, anxiety, and self reported happiness are all getting worse for women. Evo Psych.suggests hetero women are wired to gain the affection of men with status, strength and resources . But the current social structure has them gaining status and resources(+debt) during their peak fertility years. Meanwhile, men are gaining status and resources at a rate that doesn't compare to previous generations.

Then, to compensate for lowered childbirth, immigration is thought to be necessary. But the academic literature doesn't suggest this leads to social stability, trust, or well being either.

Lastly, a degree of racism and xenophobia was thought to be justified by just about every culture that exists. Japan doesn't really take refugees. Mexico has a wall to keep out the Guatemalans. Black South Africans are trying to prevent immigration from other Africans and middle easterners. It's shocking that anyone thought a "racist" candidate wouldn't be popular here of all places.

Good points. Dawkins "Selfish Gene" meme noted. But civilization means putting aside your prejudices. Farming is more boring than hunting, but in the end, economics wins, and Cain killed Abel (who deserved it: slash and burn nomadic hunter existence is so wasteful, supports only a small population, albeit a healthy one).

Put another way: if I was King/Trump for a day, I would give tax credits for interracial marriages, which have been proven, scientifically, to produce more robust offspring. Animal husbandry teaches you that much, not to mention the numerous domestic dog breeds that arose from the natural dog, said domestic pets superior in many ways to the original (the borzoi can hunt a wolf for example).

Gregory Cochran told me that he and University of Utah population geneticist Henry Harpending once scanned the medical literature to see if interracial mating increased human fertility (due to hybrid vigor) or decreased it (due to genetic incompatibilities). They concluded that whatever net effect might exist was smaller than the statistical margin of error in the studies.

More research needs to be done. But my best guess at present is that interracial individuals typically turn out to resemble the averages of their racial backgrounds. Not supermen nor defectives—just average (on average).


@SS - the relevant metric is not the mean, but the variance. I posit interracial types give greater variance, more extremes. Google any sports figure or model that's attractive: all interracial. click this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Bautista and note Bautista, who's now into acting (just saw him as the villain in the latest James Bond film), is a product of Greek and Philippine genes. Freaks of nature are from mixed marriages. The 'mean' means nothing. TC also had a post on this a while ago, that's more current than your cite.

@Ray The variance increase may be a good thing, but the lowering of the mean isn't. If you want tall people marrying a bunch of them with a bunch of short people won't help you get there , similarly with IQ.

Racism always loops in on itself. Greeks and Filipinos have been seafaring for thousands of years. But let's look for "hybrid vigor" when mixing continues, as it always has ... Modern day indigenous populations around the world carry particular blends of nine regional affiliations. No one is a pure 1-of-9. Racists aren't even right on the types. Their "races" don't match the genes.


Is this your oblique way of saying you finally knocked her up?


If the concept of race were not meaningful, it would go away. Google "the unbearable accuracy of stereotypes"


The amount of genetic variability among human populations is extremely tiny. I would not expect much in the way of a hybridization benefit in our species.

Wasn't Abel a pastoralist rather than a slash-and-burn agriculturalist?

Apart from not existing, you mean?

@y81 - It's the parable that counts, not the details. Yes I suppose so, but same difference. Also see the 'fencing' controversy in the UK and the USA's Old West.

"slash and burn nomadic hunter existence is so wasteful, supports only a small population, albeit a healthy one"

That describes the fossil fuel industry....

Wind and solar with storage is simply farming.

re Borzoi: Had never heard of that history of wolf hunting. +1 for learning something new.

But fifty or sixty women get to be big important people in business and politics, so we really don't need to worry about all of the millions old maids who spend their lives making power points in cubicles for somebody who doesn't love them.

Or about the millions of men who also slog away at deadening jobs for the same reason people have since time immemorial: To feed, house and clothe themselves and their families.

I wonder how many such men -- and women -- are comforted to know that they share chromosomal makeup (XY or XX) with a few individuals at the top.;

Right. Except, at present, nobody is trying to sell male solidarity with the CEOs.

People who use "gender" when they mean "sex" tend to be ones who did well in French class in school.


Traditionally "sex" refers to a biological category. There are two sexes and almost everybody fits unambiguously into one or the other. Caitlyn Jenner is biologically male and will always be so until he can change his chromosones).

"Gender" is more about subjective ideas about appropriate behavior for those of either sex at the social level (and these ideas differ to some degree by society).

In modern usage, subjective individual ideas about what sex one belongs to are considered far more important than the mere biological reality.

This is not historically true. The usurpation of the meaning of "gender" is a perversion of the language foisted on us by the Left, and the purpose of this is nefarious. If you were to go up to any person throughout the ages and in all civilizations prior to the last 40 years or so and ask them what the word "gender" means you get back that is is a synonym for "sex".

You are just regurgitate what you have been told, and, comically, think that you are "educating" people. It is you that is confused and in the dark. you are pompously mouthing the propaganda of those who would destroy you. It should your complete ignorance of history, civilization and mankind--indeed, reality itself. You should free yourself from the manipulations of the Left, but it is most likely to late for you.

This absurd inversion of gender--this deep confusion about sex, identity" and the nature of the sexes, and thus the world--is a sign of deep decadence, and it cannot for long obtain. The question is: can the West through off the cutrual Marxism that infects it in time, or will it be replaced by another civilization.

a perversion of the language foisted on us by the Left

Because language remained unchanged since the year 50 when Jesus spoke English until, say, 1970?

"prior to the last 40 years or so ... “gender” ... is a synonym for “sex”": nope. "Gender" was a grammatical term, as in 'he' being a masculine pronoun and 'she' a feminine. For English speakers the topic hardly arose because it's such a small matter in English. You'd find French or German rather confusing if you didn't understand the idea of the gender of a noun, and the distinction that sometimes exists between the sex of the object referred to, and the gender of the noun.

None of which much matters since the whole point of the modern use of gender is simply to emphasise who's got the upper hand.

"Because language remained unchanged since the year 50 when Jesus spoke English": no, because there is a difference between the evolution of a language as a consequence of ignorance, error, laziness, fashion, the influence of other languages, and so forth, and the change imposed upon it as an exercise of political power.

"Cultural Marxism", "manipulations of the left", "propaganda of those who would destroy you"... the crackpot is strong in this one.

What I learned, about 50 years ago, is that people are of the male or female sex while words have gender. People having a gender is, as far as I know, also a perversion of the language.

What categories? Genetic, genitalia, or brain?

It appears you think sex == chromosomes, which would lead one to wonder about people who have chromosomes of sex X, but a brain of !X.

You've got XX people and XY people, in addition to some other funky categories and yet others which are not categorized easily at all.

Since socially the options are black and white identification as male/female, you might just get an XX person who identifies more strongly with the socially determined category of woman instead of man. No matter that this seems strange to me, I think the basic issue in the way that you misunderstand the situation is by first assuming that there is a black and white male/female social categorization.

Give the existence of stereotypes of various sorts, it should not be surprising that some XX people will identify more strongly with the stereotypical opposite gender, and vice versa.

I.e., it's incorrect to say XX chromosomes but XY-style brain. Rather, XX chromosomes, but has a personality or character which fits more strongly with the stereotypes of what someone with XY chromosomes would have. (Although I don't have the personal experience needed to understand those people whose gender identity issues might extend to feeling that they need a surgical procedure to reinforce their gender identity according to the stereotypical group they identify with more readily.)

I've made the point before that patriarchy has been the traditional structure since ancient Greece and Rome (the "household" being the social structure, with the patriarch at the top), with Church hierarchy modeled after it. Indeed, today's fundamentalist and (to an extent) evangelical Christians celebrate a patriarchal family structure, the wife expected to be in a subservient role. Cowen's blog post suggests that the erosion of the patriarchy was the result of the male's loss of status and authority (and a job), that gender fluidity followed the male's loss of status and authority (not the other way round). Maybe. I would point out that the wife wasn't part of her husband's household (she was part of her father's household), the concept of "household" being much broader than what we consider "family". In other words, male status and authority has eroded well beyond the family unit. As for gender fluidity, I suppose a case could be made that it is a challenge to patriarchy: neither male nor female, status and authority as fluid as gender. Living in the South, where patriarchy (and fundamentalism and evangelism) is the norm, I'm not surprised by Trump's popularity. It has little if anything to do with policy but lots to do with gender roles. Trump may be vacuous when it comes to policy issues, but there's no doubt where he stands with regard to patriarchy: he's the boss.

So did men have "inherent strengths" in the pre-industrial system? Female centered farming systems never noticed it, nor did the amount of home and garden labour women did.

My impression would be seems like the gender balance of labour power probably stayed the same through the industrial transition, until such time as of the egalitarian revolutions of the 20th midcentury, when men and women, earning enough to buy homes and subsist on single incomes, opted for women to opt out of factory and servant labour. No longer true (possibly because of the counter egalitarian economic reforms), although somewhat cloaked as an expansion of female participation in white collar labour (which cloaking continues under debates around female representation at "the top" in a increasingly less credible form).

Perhaps I am wrong and cited would be appreciated. It would be slightly ridiculous to propose that industrialisation itself was a trend that reduced the relative labour power and participation of males, and no one has ever noticed it until now.

File under: "Tyler is smoking too much weed" or "He has no idea what he is talking about". I give you another explanation: Maybe the ressurgence of far right of far left is just a natural consequence of the overwhelming dishonesty and corruption of establishment politicians both in the left and the right.

Occam's Razor suggests some mighty fine weed.

I'd laugh at the sexism of the gender-studies people, if it weren't for the fact that they hold enough sway to cause severe generational damage. Actually, no, I think giving them the mockery they deserve might help return them to reality. Poor Browning, I can only guess he never got The Talk when he was young!

Yeah, I'm getting to the point where I don't feel like logical refutations of utter nonsense are needed.

If the most obvious explanation for a position that you don't understand is that the person is on drugs, then where on earth do you get the idea that you understand that position well enough to refute it?

You could just as well be saying "I have so little understanding of gender studies that I prefer to call it illogical and dumb than to address it directly." Anyways, what little exposure I've had to the field suggests to me that the field does not tend to be a slave to logic and therefore may be conducive to new forms of understanding that would be unavailable to an excessively "logical" thinker. The problem with logic is this: It presupposes that terms are defined perfectly and that everything can be posed in easily quantified black/white sorts of categories.

I award you 3 Dunning-Krugerrands.

If it ain't logical and doesn't explain physical reality, reality doesn't have much use for it beyond a good laugh. Greenly fleeb norps ying moopishly. Don't understand that? Clearly the fault is yours, not the fact it's utter nonsense.

Seriously, listen to what you just said - you just said don't worry about logic, just BELIEVE. I'm religious and even that sounds cultish to me. Heck, you even botched your 'problem with logic'. Let's look at some more Serious Gender Studies Thinking!

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html Ok, Nathan, if you are honestly arguing in good faith (which is becoming harder to believe), answer me this. The Sokal affair - if gender studies cannot differentiate between ACTUAL NONSENSE and the 'real deal', does that not say volumes about gender studies?

Logic can lead you to some really stupid places if you define questions poorly, or assume that you're dealing with black and white categories when you are not.

I will now assume that Nathan is no longer arguing in good faith. Shame, because he's intelligent and we need good devil's advocates... but he's defending gibberish with gibberish.

The article makes Browning sound like just another lefty pseudo-scientist. Consider this: "Catholicism, in particular, gets significant attention for its institutionalized repression of women and sexual minorities by – among other things – opposing birth control, abortion and same-sex marriage."

I am not an expert, or a Catholic, but it seems to me that there are other religions that do not treat women well. Islam and adultery. Orthodox Judaism and divorce.

One way to interpret the goal of Catholic teaching on these topics is to see it as opposing practices that reduce the number of children. One can disagree with the goal of encouraging families to have children, or choose to give it a lower priority, but only someone whose religion is progressivism would describe these beliefs as deliberate repression.

Also, right or wrong, the reasons behind the Catholic prohibition on birth control have nothing to do with oppressing women and more that prohibitions on pornography or masturbation are about oppressing men. You may not like natural law ethics, but certain things are implied by a fairly simple philosophy of the good regardless of who holds power. Not everything is a Marxist superstructure conspiracy.

In the ancient world, from which patriarchy rose, in order just to maintain the population, every woman was required to have at least six or seven childbirths. Since so many mothers died during childbirth and the infant mortality rate was so high, biblical scholars describe the life cycle of a woman as sex, birth, death, and decay. The Church orthodoxy developed in that world, so it's not surprising that the Church would would encourage pregnancies and patriarchy. This may come as a surprise, but the way out of that cycle was to nip it in the bud, at sex. Asceticism was a woman's means of not only escaping the cycle (of sex, birth, death, and decay) but the inferior status of women. The Acts of Paul and Thecla is an inspiration for escaping the cycle and inferior status, and not surprising, it's not in the canon.

The ancient world you mention is actually located on the northern fringe of the Mediterranean and encompassed a minuscule portion of the earth's surface and population. There were other ways of looking at things and approaching social relations on the rest of the planet but maybe they don't count.

Fair point. But that miniscule portion of the Earth's surface and the culture that inhabited it at the time he spoke of was one of several precursors to the most dominant grouping of cultural and political entitities in the present day (namely, European Christian empires and now nations).

There were women's only colleges in the 1950s. Stop lying. If women are incapable of honoring contracts concerning marriage and student debt then they shouldn't be demanding equality in other spheres. The safest place for a woman is in a married relation in her first marriage not becoming a lesbian, prostitute or staying single forever.

Are modern people capable of thinking about anything in terms other than "power" analysis?

Men still seem to be doing fine. Trump's nomination is much more about white anxieties than male ones. Demographics are not trending against men, but they are against whites. All of these new voter restriction measures in southern states and states with conservative dominated legislatures passed since the de-fanging of the Voting Rights Act are not aimed at men.

All of these new voter restriction measures in southern states and states with conservative dominated legislatures passed since the de-fanging of the Voting Rights Act are not aimed at men.

Sure, but they're not aimed at non-whites either, at least in the sense of motives. These measures tend to be as strict than the long-standing voter measures held in states outside the south that were never VRA covered (and also less strict than the laws used in most other countries.) To understand the motives of the Republican legislatures passing the laws, you also have to understand that many of them have only recently changed parties for the first time in a hundred years and-- as was well documented by those like VO Key in Southern Politics in State and Nation, there was a long history of voting fraud in the South on behalf of the one-party (Democratic) state.

While I realize that among modern liberals and Democrats the current Southern Republicans are the obvious heirs of those white Democrats of 50-100 years ago, the Republicans themselves have a strong current of resentment for the Democratic Party and blames the current party for its excesses and corruption of those days as well. This is also seen in things like gerrymandering, where while the NC map map is an impressive gerrymander, it is no more of one than the Democratic-favoring North Carolina map from 2000-2010 (which also allowed the Democrats to have a 8-5 lead in Congressional seats in a year where the aggregated vote went 58% to Republicans.) Texas's history is similar; when the Democratic Party grip started to weaken, the gerrymandering got more and more outrageous to maintain a majority. When the Republicans finally took over, they were in no mood to compromise.

As a result of all this talking past each other, when Democrats insist that stricter voter ID laws help Republicans win, Republicans just take that as proof of attempted cheating (intentional or not, where unintentional can include voting in two states accidentally.) Both sides greatly overestimate the impact and impugn each others' motives.

There's been an extremely difficult time finding people actually harmed by these laws enough to serve as plaintiffs; at the same time there's been an extremely difficult time finding fraud actually prevented. In the big Indiana voting ID case, neither side could present witnesses prevented from voting illegitimately, nor evidence of any fraud prevented. The entire debate is an enormous waste of time and effort on both sides.

If the laws are neither effective or harmful, then why are they being passed? I thought these legislatures are supposed to be conservative? I would also disagree as to the motives. Revenge against long gone Democrats is not as likely to me as simply making it somewhat more difficult to vote for groups that are more likely to vote against the interests of the creators of these laws.

At the end of the day. 'do not cheat' is not a bad default policy. There have been districts in recent years who have had more votes cast than there are registered voters. I think it would be reasonable to say there is cheating going on.

Really? You would think that would be big news. Large scale voter fraud would likely sell a lot of newspapers and advertising time. Why aren't we hearing more about these cases? Seems odd.


Why bother cheating in an overwhelmingly red district? It's not like the general elections there are red vs blue nail biters. If you want to make an impact by cheating, the time to do it is in the Republican primary.

It's possible to not register to vote, but then show up with IS, proof of residence, etc., and vote on the day of.

At least that's the case in some places.

Also, I'd be interested to see a link to a source corroborating the claim of districts with more votes cast than registered voters.

Todd, which men still seem to be doing fine? The Great Recession is known as a "mancession" for a reason.

"which brought men out of the fields and into offices, where they have no inherent strengths compared to women "

Is this a falsifiable statement? Or an article of dogma?

If men have no inherent strengths viz women in office work, this means hormones are irrelevant.

If this is so, a low-test male performs, on average, just as well as a high-test male.

Somehow this strikes me as patently false. NB: I'm not saying high test HAS to be better, it could actually be the other way around for office work. But "it makes no difference" - THAT strikes me as very odd indeed.

Is there anything wrong with my logic?

High-test males would prefer there be fewer high-test males. Less competition climbing the ladder.

Men have bigger muscles and more stamina. This is an obvious advantage on the fields.

If there is any advantage in the office, it would be very tiny and not obvious in which direction. Especially as compared to, say, a man can move 5000kg of coal a day as compared to a woman can move 3000kg of coal in a day (on average).

Are successful men feminine or hyper-masculine?

Depends on the profession. Also, some professions are increasingly valued, some not.

"where they have no inherent strengths compared to women"

No? Not stronger ambition? Not a greater willingness to work long hours? Not a greater willingness to relocate? Or a reduced tendency to seek part time work, take family leave, or leave the labor force for long periods? Not -- in technical fields -- a much greater level of fascination (so much so that men often do more of it, unpaid, in their spare time). What percent of tech hobbyists (those contributing to open-source software, or flying drones, or messing with 3D printers in their basements, etc) are male? I was going to guess 95%, but that might be too low:

To look at retail drone sales is to see the purchasing habits of thirtyish men. “Only about 1 percent of our sales are to women, and that could be because they might be buying a gift for their husbands

"...No? Not stronger ambition? Not a greater willingness to work long hours? Not a greater willingness to relocate?.."

All self- and community-destructive behaviour models/comparisons - especially in the long-term. It is just as much a mental illness to have too much ambition as not enough. Life is not a pssing contest. It is easy to point to great successes by such a value system until you look at all the losers who attempted such a testosterone-focussed quest and not only failed, but likely became broken and dysfunctional. I wouldn't be surprised if the success to utter-fail-broken ratio being at 1-in-1000. And that is not the many who exited that rat race early and lead productive lives, but those who became so dysfunctional from their great fall (even later in life) that they likely have an overall negative society impact (violence, regular unemployment, used car salesman, libertarians, trump supporters, etc).
Re-directing energy into collaborative efforts and inclusive efforts to get above the good-enough line will lead to greater business relationships with a wider set of partners and embrace a larger set of consumers. Diversity for diversity-sake is not the goal, but widening the net of opportunity. The potential to be unlocked by creating the type of system that encourages a greater range of values to be used at management level and the products/services offered is way above that of the current 'mad men' tv version of upper management/ technical/ entrepreneurial. And it is hard being open, productive, and focussed - most upper management cannot do it and therefore prefer to maximize a thinner, exclusive slice in their comfort zone than the wide potential 'out there' collaboratively - obviously from early-stage, lifelong testosterone damage.

But is that possible? I believe that the 1% of the last 20 years contribute to society way-way-way disproportionately in wealth, innovation, and opportunity risk to that of the 99% (though not as much as the income multiple) - and that if we were to slice off the top 10% of society (with all the engineers, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and business-focus individuals that would be caught in that slice and their corresponding efforts and personalities), society would drift down to a 1940s-50s level of technology with isolated modern sparks, such as some internet connectivity, and a GDP/lifestyle of that of Russia now. The cumulative effort of all the average people acting averagely would create a productivity and innovation plateau that would also lower social/ health/ cultural productivity/levels to that of the rich world's 1940s/50s with little likelihood of long-term improvement. The point? that by maintaining the current testosterone-fueled opportunity inequality, that we are reaching another gently-declining plateau with little chance of hitting the next innovation/productivity upward trajectory - that is maximizing the unused residual productivity in each person that was discarded by not conforming to a rigid macho work ethic/hyper-competitive/take-no-prisoners work existence. Of course, we are not at that stage where we can afford the next up-slope - - let's say that the average residual unused productivity (over-education/ workplace politics, etc) of each person in a rich country is $40k per year -- it is likely a significant factor more of investment by government, business perks, and other re-distribution methods to capture that - a loss. But not always. With cultural shift as outlined, increased (productive) networking, and increased awareness of cultural differences, that residual unused productivity will be cheap to re-capture, even as productivity expectations have increased. But the first step is breaking the narrow and self-destructive definitions of success and embracing more collaboration and less ruthless competition (in limited cases).

That was a very interesting post. I don't know if I agree with it, but you've given me something to think about.

Agreed, good post.

Technology has not been advancing as much as the 1970s. The purpose of diversity is to admit incompetent people. The civil rights leaders are more afraid of standardized testing than racism. If the only thing an employer was interested in was then he would test your blood not your intelligence.

Embracing collaboration as in defering to violent student activism, abandonding freedom of association and using disparate impact lawsuits to shut down the free market? Diversity means defering to civil rights leaders even if they talk out of both sides of their mouths. Thus, for instance gender is a social construct but gays are born that way. Intelligence is mismeasure of man except when accessing social benefits or exempting minorities from capital punishment. Multiculturalism is about equality but Islamic leaders shouldn't be made to make a gay wedding cake. We suffer from a rape culture but the feminists refuse to tell us how it is possible for a man to obtain consent. Men and women are equal but women are not responsible for honoring the marriage contract or managing student debt. The lies never end.

No, new people would simply rise up to take over those roles. Niches do not go unfilled for long. That's true of economic niches as well as ecological niches.

Have you considered that men have more time for "fascination" and hobbies because someone else is managing the bulk of their domestic affairs? I have an unfinished Arduino project sitting on my desk for the past four months, because I keep putting it off to cook and clean. I don't mind the cooking and cleaning; the former is also a hobby, and the latter I do for a variety of reasons, some of them admittedly gendered. I can clean faster and more efficiently, and find it more satisfying; we have mutually decided that this makes the most sense for my household, myself included, and that a different approach would not be worth it. My doing these things is a net gain in terms of time and conservation of stress. But you ought to admit that the trend you're observing has as much to do with pragmatism and the skills we tend to teach boys and girls as it does with aptitude or desire. I have no problem taking on the bulk of household chores, but both of us recognize that the time my husband can allot to hobbies is subsidized with time from my own schedule. I suppose it may also be gendered that my dedication to my hobbies falls below my dedication to not living like a gerbil. But that does not mean that all things being equal I wouldn't rather be flying a drone, and one of these times I'd really like to get back to building that Arduino theramin.

"Have you considered that men have more time for “fascination” and hobbies because someone else is managing the bulk of their domestic affairs?"

Yes -- and rejected it. First, the data suggests the difference in leisure hours for men and women is not that large. And then, where I live, women have a lot more time for hobbies than their husbands. Being an upper-middle-class neighborhood, a number of them left the labor force when they had kids and never went back (or only part-time more for something to do than for the money). So they have lots of hobbies, but no drones. Their hobbies are of a different nature. For my wife, it's dogs and gardening (often at the same time -- the challenge being to keep the dogs from helping out with the digging). You could give her several lifetimes worth of leisure and she'd never buy and fly a drone. There is simply no aptitude or interest. As a women building an Arduino project, you're in the 1%. Check that, you're probably in the 0.1%. I'd say you're in the 1% just by knowing what an Arduino board *is*. And I really don't think it has that much to do with childhood encouragement. For example, I did none of the cooking as a kid and was not taught by my mom (a good thing in retrospect), but I do most of it now.

More of an urban issue where evolution is taking a turn toward the eusocial. Authentic masculinity endures in less densely populated areas. Possibly explains the broad support among urban progressive males for Obama's Islamification program.

"...even though he has made racist, sexist and xenophobic comments."

This is a classic fascist left wing attack. It is akin to falsely accusing someone of child abuse or other horrific crime. Trump isn't sexist, racist or xenophobic. What he does is ignore the phony PC rules and it allows the fascist left wing to attack him with these false attacks. Trump is a typical New Yorker who speaks his mind without caring if you like it or not or have special snowflake tendencies that make you melt when anyone disagrees with you.

Sorry, but there is a difference b/w saying someone has made {x} style comments and saying someone is an {x}. For example, you've made a dumb comment, but I'm not going to claim you are dumb.

First of all GWTW, thank you for repeating and acknowledging that Trump has made racist, sexist and xenophobic comments.

Thanks too for the very weak argument that these say nothing about his character.

You are a gold mine.

Huh? He said nothing of the sort.

BTW, you should appreciate this, much the same logic:


Or how about: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/jul/18/uselections2000.usa

Hillary faces voters' wrath for alleged ethnic slur

And: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/youve-heard-of-trump-university-but-what-about-clinton-university/article/2593571

Bill makes 16 mil off of 'Clinton' University as honorary chancellor.

Forgot extra tidbit about Clinton's university : "Laureate is a for-profit online college that received an unusually large amount of money from the U.S. State Department."

Something someone maybe said 26 years ago, and not just one actual university, eighty of them.

"Laureate International Universities are the for-profit universities and colleges owned and operated by Laureate Education, of Baltimore, Maryland, in the United States. By 2014, the company owned and operated more than 80 institutions, both campus-based and online, in 30 countries, with total student enrollment of more than 800,000 students."

Oh, and in 2015 Laureate Education became a Public Benefit Corporation.

The bastards.

Not convinced at all.
The article conveys an anti-group (gender-related, race-relaetd, etc.) rather than a pro-familiarity slant.
I would argue that most 'white old guy Board of Directors' instances are driven by insiders/incumbents simply wanting to associate with those who share similar views and visions (likely of a business-specific focus and somewhat of a lifestyle similarity focus). A simplistic take on this is that the incumbent old white men aren't anti-women or anti-(not white) or anti-(not old) just that they are pro-similar values. Being pro-men is not the same as being anti-women, though the effects are similar. This is an important distinction. I am certainly not saying that this is a justifiable distinction, but that it will shape how we proceed.

We all say we want equality, but we are all tempted to use culture war to improve our personal position. No "side" in any discussion above is immune. Show me someone who is unhappy about X getting ahead, or not getting ahead, and I'll show you someone trying to improve their position. Sometimes that is OK. Perhaps it depends on your position. If you are above median, stop complaining. If you are a PhD worried that you don't get on enough panel discussions, you should probably count your blessings. Maybe even kick a few bucks to Habitat instead.

I have sympathy for the less fortunate, but much less for the prosperous and self-entitled.

Quite the opposite. Probably only the farthest left/weirdest are really trying to further their own aims. For everyone else they just want what is best for their society.

Cliven Bundy, and Republican fellow travelers.

"...[A]nd why it is possible for a former reality television show host to become the presumptive Republican nominee...."

This like describing Tyler Cowen as a "mere blogger" and ignoring his academic accomplishments and his status in world of Economics.

But but but... he could have magically invested in the S&P 500 20 years before indexes existed and never spent a penny and done almost as well... he inherited millions of dollars from his dad 30 years before his dad died.... uh... Drumpf!

By this reasoning, women before the 19th century should all have been lesbians. What trash.

At some point economics is going to have to grapple with the fact that its primary conceit - that an increase in income or wealth necessarily means an increase in "utility" - has been proven absolutely wrong. Repeatedly, and objectively. Instead they stick their heads in the sands and keep making these "but it makes no sense!" type posts.

Comments for this post are closed