tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/gender-differences-18477/articlesGender differences – The Conversation2024-03-05T20:57:58Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2246912024-03-05T20:57:58Z2024-03-05T20:57:58ZWomen want to climb the corporate ladder — but not at any price<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/578677/original/file-20240115-27-31qawf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women are just as interested in opportunities for advancement as men are. However, they find them less attainable because of their busy schedules.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The consulting firm <a href="https://www.spencerstuart.com/">Spencer Stuart</a> recently published a study <a href="https://www.spencerstuart.com/-/media/2023/december/f500-profiles/fortune-500-csuite-snapshot-profiles-in-functional-leadership.pdf">of top management at Fortune 500 companies</a>, the 500 richest companies in the United States.</p>
<p>The analysis focused specifically on the gender of the people in these positions, their functions and the source of their appointments, whether they came from inside or outside the organization.</p>
<p>Studying the composition of top management, often referred to as the C-Suite, is particularly important since it allows us to see how many women make it to the position of CEO in an organization.</p>
<p>Respectively Dean of the John Molson School of Business, and an expert for several decades on the place of women in the upper echelons of the business world, we will discuss the main findings of the Spencer Stuart study.</p>
<h2>Starting points</h2>
<p>Three conclusions in particular caught our attention:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Men represent 60 per cent of the select group that constitutes top management. Men principally occupy the positions that offer the greatest potential for appointment as CEO, <a href="https://www.spencerstuart.com/-/media/2021/december/lastmile/the-last-mile-to-the-top-future-ceos-who-beat-the-odds.pdf">according to the history of appointments to such positions</a>. These include, for example, Chief Operating Officer, Head of Division and Chief Financial Officer;</p></li>
<li><p>Although women are increasingly present in top management positions (40 per cent), they are still found in the positions of Head of Human Resources, Head of Communications, Head of Diversity and Inclusion and Head of Sustainable Development. In other words, women are in so-called support functions that, while important for organizations, are unfortunately perceived as having little impact on shareholder equity and financial performance;</p></li>
<li><p>Appointments to top management positions that lead to the position of CEO come mainly from within the company. What does this mean? That an intimate knowledge of the organization gained over a long period is valued and that there is generally a promotion process in place to feed the succession pool.</p></li>
</ul>
<h2>Global overview of the situation</h2>
<p>Our experience over the last few decades allows us to draw similar conclusions about Canada. So we wanted to check whether this situation was similar in other countries.</p>
<p>A report by the International Labour Organization called <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_700953.pdf">“The Business Case for Change”</a> provides an overview of the position of women in the upper echelons of power in 13,000 companies operating on every continent.</p>
<p>As in the United States and Canada, the gender divide between positions that could be called support jobs, and those that contribute directly to an organization’s profitability, appears to be widespread. According to the authors of this study, it is also referred to as a “glass wall,” since it limits the pool of potential female candidates for the position of CEO.</p>
<p>But how can this phenomenon be explained?</p>
<h2>Stereotypes, biases and prejudices</h2>
<p>First of all, gender stereotypes and prejudices come into play from childhood.</p>
<p>They have an impact on the toys children play with, the subjects they study, their lives and their future careers.</p>
<p>Girls — generally speaking — aspire to become doctors, teachers, nurses, psychologists and veterinary surgeons. As for boys, they want to become engineers and <a href="https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/smashing-gender-stereotypes-and-bias-and-through-education">work in IT and mechanical fields</a>.</p>
<h2>Organizational culture</h2>
<p>Secondly, organizational culture is a <a href="https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_700953.pdf">mirror of our society and its traditions</a>.</p>
<p>It therefore conveys biases regarding the leadership potential of women compared to men.</p>
<p>According to the International Labour Organization survey cited above, 91 per cent of the women questioned agreed or strongly agreed that women lead as effectively as men. However, only 77 per cent of men agreed with this statement.</p>
<p>Arguably, this leadership bias has an impact on the recruitment, appointment, talent development and “stretch assignment” processes that pave the way for career progression.</p>
<p>There is also reason to believe that these biases are equally present on boards of directors, which are responsible for appointing CEOs and which are still predominantly composed of men.</p>
<h2>Different life goals</h2>
<p>Finally, women and men have different preferences and career goals.</p>
<p>According to a study by Harvard Business School professors Francesca Gino and Alison Wood Brooks entitled <a href="https://hbr.org/2015/09/explaining-gender-differences-at-the-top">“Explaining the Gender Differences at the Top,”</a> women are just as interested in opportunities for advancement as men are. However, they find them less attainable because of their busy schedules. As a result, women have to more seriously take into account the compromises and sacrifices they will have to make to occupy positions of high responsibility and power.</p>
<p>The authors are careful to point out that these results do not mean that women are less ambitious, but that career success means different things to different people. For some, it takes the form of power. For others, it can mean making colleagues happy and helping to make the world a better place in a collaborative and supportive environment.</p>
<p>This research is in line with that of Viviane de Beaufort, a professor at the École supérieure des sciences économiques et commerciales (ESSEC). In a survey of the career aspirations of 295 French women managers, she found that women do want to rise to the highest positions. <a href="https://www.academia.edu/80171918/WP_CERESSEC_CEDE_ESSEC_Viviane_de_Beaufort_2022_avec_le_collectif_WOMEN_BOARD_READY_ESSEC">But not at any price</a>.</p>
<h2>What determines career paths?</h2>
<p>This article therefore raises the following question:</p>
<p>Can we, as women, one day hope to be CEOs or fulfill our professional dreams despite the biases, prejudices, stereotypes and barriers we have to overcome?</p>
<p>Simone de Beauvoir wrote in 1949 in her essay “The Second Sex”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Women determine and differentiate themselves in relation to men, not men in relation to women: they are inessential in relation to what is essential. He is the subject, he is the absolute, she is the other.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This excerpt reminds us that the skills and knowledge required to perform strategic functions have always been defined in terms of the male exercise of power in an environment where the organization’s performance is judged almost exclusively by financial success and growth of shareholder value.</p>
<p>It’s time to think about new career paths and skills that are not defined by gender, but rather, by an organization’s mission and objectives. These goals must take into account <a href="https://hbr.org/2022/07/the-c-suite-skills-that-matter-most">how they contribute to creating a better world</a>, as much as ensuring the financial success of organizations.</p>
<p>Functional skills must be valued as much as softer skills such as emotional intelligence, empathy, a sense of community and boldness.</p>
<p>Breaking down glass walls also means that organizations and their boards have a responsibility to identify and encourage women to take up positions where they can gain experience and develop their leadership skills in front line rather than support roles.</p>
<p>In such a context, women, as much as men, will have a better chance of reaching the highest positions in a company while remaining true to themselves — and doing so on equal terms.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/224691/count.gif" alt="La Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Les auteurs ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d'une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n'ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur organisme de recherche.</span></em></p>Women are increasingly present in top management positions, but they end up in so-called support functions, which rarely lead to CEO positions.Louise Champoux-Paillé, Cadre en exercice, John Molson School of Business, Concordia UniversityAnne-Marie Croteau, Dean, John Molson School of Business, Concordia UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1956202023-01-02T12:40:36Z2023-01-02T12:40:36ZGender diversity on corporate boards can improve organizational performance<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502010/original/file-20221219-12-lzseww.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=180%2C253%2C5242%2C3374&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gender diversity on company boards of directors has been improving over the years, but it still has a long way to go.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gender inequality on corporate boards of directors is still an issue in Canada, despite diversity disclosure rules. Since 2014, business regulators in Canada have <a href="https://www.osc.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/irps/csa_20141014_58-101_noa-national-instrument.pdf">required companies to disclose the number of women on their boards</a> in an effort to increase gender diversity. </p>
<p>Despite this, <a href="https://www.ctvnews.ca/business/women-still-underrepresented-in-boardrooms-despite-comply-or-explain-rule-study-1.5387519">women continue to be underrepresented on Canadian boards</a>. Recent data from Statistics Canada shows that <a href="https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220518/dq220518c-eng.htm?CMP=mstatcan">female representation on boards is only at about 19 per cent</a>. The share of women on boards of directors has increased by about 2.5 per cent every year since 2016.</p>
<p>This low representation is surprising, given the research that shows <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2007.00554.x">that gender diversity on boards helps organizations perform better</a>. For example, gender diverse boards have a greater understanding of consumer behaviour and are better at meeting consumer needs.</p>
<p>In an effort to better understand the influence of gender diversity on the functioning of the board, and how these differences can be leveraged, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-07-2021-0178">our research team interviewed 29 female and male directors</a> on Canadian boards.</p>
<h2>Gender differences</h2>
<p>Both women and men perceived the role of the board in a similar way. This was an important finding — it meant that the board members did not perceive their job as a gendered role. In other words, they did not believe that being a board member was more suitable for men than women.</p>
<p>We did, however, find differences in how the women and men performed their role.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A woman stands with her back to the camera facing a conference table full of people" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502240/original/file-20221220-18-hcon45.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=467&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women were more likely than men to ask difficult questions and challenge decisions in board meetings.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Women were more prepared for board meetings and follow-up more with management. Women also asked more questions and were more likely to ask difficult questions. One of the female board member told us: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Women are less shy about asking questions… Women are much more ready than male colleagues [for a meeting]… They read the material, they are serious and prepared and they have the capacity to have the courage of their opinions.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Women also sought out consensus more often and thought more about other stakeholders, including employees and clients, than men did. One female board member said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“There is a sensitivity at the level of women, they will be [more sensitive] to subjects more than men, like the concerns of employees, users of services, single-parent families.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>The boys’ club</h2>
<p>Both genders believed that the “boys’ club” explained why men and women performed their roles on the board differently. The term <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindsaykohler/2021/04/22/new-research-finds-the-old-boys-club-at-work-is-real---and-contributing-to-the-gender-pay-gap/?sh=1b3903214101">boys’ club refers to an informal network of men</a> with common interests and friendships — in this case, business-related interests. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/article-in-the-business-world-the-old-boys-club-appears-to-be-alive-and-well/">Women are often excluded from these groups</a>, as highlighted by one of the male board members we interviewed: “With women on the board there is no friendship, no affinity with other men around the table.” </p>
<p>Because women were not part of the boys’ club and were unable to rely on support from the men on the board, they needed more courage to express their opinions and be more prepared for meetings.</p>
<p>One woman said, “women are more direct in their expression… They are generally ready to challenge because they are a little bit outside the boys’ club, protecting each other.”</p>
<p>While being excluded from the boys’ club does add an additional challenge for the women, they were still capable of performing their jobs well, with the added bonus of being able to offer a new perspective.</p>
<p>Being excluded from the boys’ club meant that the women had an outsider perspective. They were more likely to challenge ideas and opinions in a way the men were not.</p>
<h2>Genetics and social roles</h2>
<p>Each gender had different explanations as to why they believed women and men performed their board role differently.</p>
<p>The men claimed that women were genetically and socially different than them. More precisely, they believed women had a genetic predisposition and were socialized to be more caring and more collaborative. They believed these differences followed women to the board. One man said: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“It is much more at the level of the social skills as we quickly learn as boys and girls… Social roles are determined by the fact that we are men or women and it means that men and women will perform differently and will perceive things differently… When we are on the board of directors, we reproduce the same patterns.”</p>
</blockquote>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A diverse group of people having a discussion around a table. They are gesturing to a report lying in the middle of the table" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/502239/original/file-20221220-6047-j6seqi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The differences that men and women bring to the table should be embraced and promoted by organizations, not judged or condemned.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Interestingly, women did not explain their differences in behaviour with genetics or socialization. Instead, they believed their intuition, communication style and unique perspective explained the differences. </p>
<p>One woman said: “Women have a different way of looking at things… an approach with more conciliation and less confrontation, which improves the quality of the debates.”</p>
<p>The responses of both groups of participants in our study were <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wendy-Wood-7/publication/285179532_Social_role_theory/links/58b8dbd4a6fdcc2d14d9a7ea/Social-role-theory.pdf">consistent with social role theory</a> that explains the different types of social roles women and men are expected to perform. While women <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/feeling-it/201306/are-women-really-more-compassionate">might not be genetically pre-dispositioned to be more caring</a>, they are expected to be unselfish and nurturing while men are expected to behave more competitively.</p>
<h2>Benefiting from differences</h2>
<p>The differences between how men and women perform their board role could explain why gender diversity improves corporate performance. By asking more difficult questions and challenging management and the other board members, for example, women looked out for the best interests of various stakeholders and improved organizational performance. </p>
<p>One man took note of this, saying:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I would tell you that those who question more, who challenge more are women… They are the ones who are going to be the most outraged by, I would tell you, failures of functioning [of the organization].”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The differences that men and women bring to the table should be embraced and promoted by organizations, not judged or condemned. By welcoming difference, companies could help promote an inclusive environment that encourages women to continue to perform their jobs in their own unique way.</p>
<p>It’s clear that both men and women offer unique and valuable contributions to company boards. To reap these benefits, organizations should continue to increase gender diversity — <a href="https://www.advisor.ca/news/industry-news/board-diversity-is-improving-but-still-has-a-long-way-to-go/">while diversity has been improving over the years</a>, it still has some way to go. Going forward, organizations have the opportunity to show leadership in gender diversity and improve in the process.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/195620/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Men and women both offer unique, valuable contributions to company boards. To reap these benefits, organizations should continue to increase gender diversity.Hanen Khemakhem, Professor, Department of Accounting Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)Manel Maalej, Associate professor of Psychiatry, Université de SfaxRichard Fontaine, Professor, Department of Accounting Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1916782022-10-12T04:13:31Z2022-10-12T04:13:31ZMind the gap: gender differences in time use narrowing, but slowly<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/488699/original/file-20221007-14-ed0ihw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C91%2C3597%2C1801&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released its first <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/people-and-communities/how-australians-use-their-time/2020-21#key-statistic">time-use survey</a> in 15 years. The last time it collected such data, in 2006, Apple was yet to release the iPhone and Facebook was a start-up. </p>
<p>So much has changed, though the differences in time use between men and women have not changed as much as many might like.</p>
<p>The new survey suggests we’re spending an average of 4 hours 23 minutes a day watching video, listening to audio or some other activity involving a computer or handheld device. </p>
<p>The average full-time worker spent 8 hours 44 minutes a day on employment-related activities. But we’re getting pretty much the same amount of sleep – about 8½ hours on average for both men and women.</p>
<p>The survey suggests a slight narrowing in gender differences – but with domestic and caring responsibilities still principally undertaken by women. </p>
<p>Caution, however, is needed in interpreting these new results. The data was collected from <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/how-australians-use-their-time-methodology/2020-21#about-this-survey">2,000 households</a> between November 2020 and July 2021. So the times reported reflect the COVID-19 pandemic, with closed borders, restrictions and lockdowns. These were not ‘normal’ times.</p>
<p>Comparisons with the past data (from 2006, <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4153.0Main+Features11997?OpenDocument=">1997</a>, <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4153.0Main+Features11992?OpenDocument=">1992</a> and the <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10301763.2002.10722021">1987 pilot study</a>) are further complicated by the bureau <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/methodologies/how-australians-use-their-time-methodology/2020-21#comparing-the-data">warning</a> the new figures “are not fully comparable with previous collections due to changes in methodology”. </p>
<p>With this in mind, let’s take a look.</p>
<h2>How we use our time</h2>
<p>Our first graph shows how men and women, on average, spend their days.</p>
<p>Necessary activities are things like sleeping, eating and personal care.
Contracted activities are things such as paid work and education. Committed activities cover unpaid domestic chores, child care, adult care and voluntary work. Free time means exactly that.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/11423713/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:300px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/11423713/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/11423713" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<p>These times add up to over 24 hours. This is because many people spend part of their day doing two things at once. For example, while at work or driving or having breakfast (what the bureau terms a “primary” activity), they may be listening to the radio (a “secondary” activity). </p>
<p>Nonetheless they provide a useful snapshot – with men spending more time on paid work, and women more time on unpaid work. </p>
<h2>When we’re working</h2>
<p>Most of us who work do so during standard office or trading hours. But about a tenth of all workers were working between 8 pm and 10 pm at the time of the survey – either because they were shift workers or due to (paid or unpaid) overtime. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/11399003/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:500px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/11399003/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/11399003" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<h2>Time on domestic chores</h2>
<p>On average women spent 3 hours 22 minutes a day on domestic responsibilities, compared with 2 hours 19 minutes for men. (Child-care responsibilities were on top of this – an average of 1 hour 26 minutes for women, 40 minutes for men.)</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/11399247/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:800px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/11399247/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/11399247" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<p>The time-use survey also reports these activities by participation rate and by average time spent by those who undertake such activities. </p>
<p>The percentage of men reporting doing any domestic activities was 84%, compared with 94% of women. Participation differences were particularly pronounced in housework (72% of women compared with 44% of men) and cooking (77% of women compared with 56% of men). </p>
<p>Among those who reported doing these activities, women spent an average 3 hours 36 minutes compared with an average 2 hours 46 minutes for men. </p>
<h2>How we use our leisure time</h2>
<p>In its 2006 survey the ABS reported five main categories for how people spent their leisure time: sport and other outdoor activities; games, hobbies, arts and crafts; talking, writing or reading correspondence; using audiovisual media; and “other” activities.</p>
<p>This survey has updated procedures to ensure greater clarity around our burgeoning consumption of various types of media – recording times for listening to music and podcasts; games and puzzles; video games; and general internet and device use. </p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/11422831/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:900px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/11422831/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/11422831" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<h2>Feeling under pressure</h2>
<p>Perhaps not surprisingly, more women than men reported feeling “rushed or pressed for time”. These stresses were particularly prevalent among parents with children at home.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/11398928/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:500px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/11398928/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/11398928" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<h2>Are gender differences narrowing?</h2>
<p>While comparison with past surveys is complicated for the reasons mentioned, gender differences do appear to have narrowed, with men doing a little more housework.</p>
<hr>
<iframe src="https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/11398113/embed" title="Interactive or visual content" class="flourish-embed-iframe" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="width:100%;height:600px;" sandbox="allow-same-origin allow-forms allow-scripts allow-downloads allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox allow-top-navigation-by-user-activation" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<div style="width:100%!;margin-top:4px!important;text-align:right!important;"><a class="flourish-credit" href="https://public.flourish.studio/visualisation/11398113/?utm_source=embed&utm_campaign=visualisation/11398113" target="_top"><img alt="Made with Flourish" src="https://public.flourish.studio/resources/made_with_flourish.svg"> </a></div>
<hr>
<p>This is consistent with international studies <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-soc-073018-022416">suggesting</a> “some signs of gender convergence, with a widespread decrease in women’s housework … and increases in men’s housework and childcare”.</p>
<p>However, with comparisons with earlier years being muddied by the pandemic and changes to coding procedures, we will have to wait for the next time-use survey for a clearer picture. </p>
<p>Hopefully it won’t be 15 years.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/191678/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael Walsh worked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) between 2011 and 2015. Michael has no ongoing employment or financial links with the ABS.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John Hawkins does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia’s first major time-use survey since 2006 shows unpaid domestic and caring responsibilities are still principally done by women.John Hawkins, Senior Lecturer, Canberra School of Politics, Economics and Society, University of CanberraMichael James Walsh, Associate Professor in Social Sciences, University of CanberraLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1772402022-04-28T17:00:17Z2022-04-28T17:00:17ZSex matters in biomedical research: Many conditions affect men and women differently<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460120/original/file-20220427-14-wpobmy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=268%2C391%2C4358%2C2813&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Until recently, most biomedical studies did not consider sex or gender.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Pexels/Magda Ehlers)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/sex-matters-in-biomedical-research--many-conditions-affect-men-and-women-differently" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p><a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48804.html">Biomedical research</a> — a broad term covering studies on subjects ranging from cells to experimental animal models — is the starting point for understanding how diseases develop and how we might prevent or treat them. Once such studies have been performed successfully, similar tests can be carried out in humans. These clinical trials form the highest branch of biomedical research. </p>
<p>Biomedical studies have traditionally used <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/51310.html#a1">male animals and men as research subjects</a>, and the knowledge we have obtained from this research has been applied to both sexes on the assumption that what works for males must also work for females. </p>
<p>Until recently, these studies hardly ever <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/heath-portfolio-sex-gender-based-analysis-policy.html">considered sex — the biological attributes of humans and animals</a> — or gender, the socially constructed characteristics of men, women and gender-diverse people. </p>
<p>That is a problem for everyone, because there are <a href="https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50833.html">sex differences in how many diseases affect people</a>.</p>
<h2>Sex differences in health conditions</h2>
<p>Pre-menopausal women are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjd.2020.01.003">less likely to develop diabetes than men or post-menopausal women</a>. Differences like these are critical, given that the elevated levels of blood glucose that define diabetes can lead to life-threatening stroke and heart attacks. </p>
<p>Another significant difference is that women don’t necessarily experience the symptoms of a heart attack that are typical in men — like chest pain — but could <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/heart-disease/in-depth/heart-disease/art-20046167#:%7E:text=Women%20are%20more%20likely%20than,in%20one%20or%20both%20arms">instead feel nauseated, light-headed or unusually tired</a>. Without studying women and men, we wouldn’t know about these differences and understand what to look for when diagnosing patients. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Nine hands, each presenting a wooden puzzle piece" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=300&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460121/original/file-20220427-12-wbxr01.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=377&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers are taking significant steps to ensure biomedical research is more authentic and complete.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Canva)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers still haven’t figured out exactly how pre-menopausal women are protected from diabetes and how this illness increases the risk of stroke and heart attacks. This is the main focus of <a href="https://fhs.mcmaster.ca/medsci/faculty/werstuck_geoff.html">research carried out in our lab</a>, where we actively study the mechanisms of this protection and how these diseases develop and progress using male and female animal models. </p>
<p>On average, <a href="https://elifesciences.org/articles/63425">women live longer than men</a>. That seems to suggest women have some kind of health advantage, which is not necessarily accurate.</p>
<p>Although it’s true <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpath.2021.05.011">women are less prone to diabetes, heart attack, stroke and infection</a>, they are likely to face other kinds of illness. Most <a href="https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.8094">individuals with autoimmune diseases, for example, are women</a>, as we see with arthritis and multiple sclerosis. In these disorders, the immune system, which is supposed to protect us against external invaders such as viruses and bacteria, attacks the body.</p>
<p>It’s clear that research that only looks at male subjects is not telling the whole story. There is a need to evaluate research by how — and on whom — studies are carried out. Can we really generalize a finding when 50 per cent of the population isn’t represented in the study?</p>
<h2>Including both sexes in research</h2>
<figure class="align-right ">
<img alt="A male and female icon against a jigsaw puzzle, with a not equals sign on the missing piece" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/460122/original/file-20220427-21-amt7q3.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=628&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research that only looks at male subjects is not telling the whole story.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Canva)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The good news is that in recent years, and in light of the observations of sex differences in the development of diseases, researchers are taking significant steps to ensure biomedical research is more authentic and complete.</p>
<p>In fact, the major research funding agencies in North America now <a href="https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2017-03019">require that studies in humans include female subjects</a>, and that in scientific research using cells and animals, the results should feature both sexes.</p>
<p>Such steps are enormously important because they help researchers better understand the mechanisms and trends they observe and the influence that sex and gender can have on everyone’s health. A more inclusive approach to research will lead to better preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic strategies and fewer health risks.</p>
<p>Though men, women and gender-diverse people share many similarities, understanding how sex differences are expressed through physical health is paramount to improving everyone’s quality of life.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/177240/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Monica De Paoli does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Biomedical studies have traditionally used male animals and men as research subjects. That is a problem for everyone because for many diseases, there are sex differences in how they affect people.Monica De Paoli, Postdoctoral Fellow, Medical Sciences, McMaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1750242022-02-17T13:12:54Z2022-02-17T13:12:54ZFemale business travelers pay less than their male colleagues because they tend to book earlier<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443068/original/file-20220127-8422-4ituzw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C65%2C5420%2C3673&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women tend to book business travel earlier than men.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/silhouette-of-travelers-in-airport-royalty-free-image/949324400">Michael Duva/Stone via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/research-brief-83231">Research Brief</a> is a short take about interesting academic work.</em> </p>
<h2>The big idea</h2>
<p>Female employees consistently pay lower airfares than men do for the same flights because they tend to book earlier, according to a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3368/jhr.58.2.0818-9664R2">new peer-reviewed article</a> I co-authored. </p>
<p>To reach these conclusions, fellow economist <a href="https://gregveramendi.github.io/index.html">Gregory F. Veramendi</a> and <a href="https://www.jdonna.org">I analyzed</a> 7.4 million business trips taken in 2014 by about 2 million workers from 8,000 companies in 60 countries. The dataset included dozens of details such as price paid, origin, destination and how many days in advance of the trip the ticket was purchased, as well as demographics on the purchaser, such as employer, job, age and gender. </p>
<p>We compared the airfare paid by employees in the same position within a company for the same class of travel. For example, if a male manager at a specific company booked a business class flight from New York’s JFK airport to Los Angeles International Airport, we compared the price he paid with the one paid by a female manager at the same company for the same trip. </p>
<p>We used a common statistical technique known as <a href="https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/fixed-effects-regression">multiple regression analysis with fixed effects</a> to account for other factors that might affect differences in airfares, such as the influence of frequent flyers and holiday bookings. We included over 40,000 of these variables.</p>
<p>We found that women paid on average US$18 less per ticket than their male colleagues. The airfare gender gap was highest in the U.S. and Europe. In Asia, we found that men paid less for airfares. </p>
<p>Further investigation allowed us to conclude that this gap is largely explained by the fact that women tended to book earlier than men, 1.8 days on average.</p>
<p>We wanted to determine what was causing these gender differences in booking business trips so we tested a variety of possible explanations, such as women choosing to plan ahead during their childbearing years or male frequent travelers being inclined to book late. None of these explained away the gender gap, so we applied data collected from surveys that express consumer preferences that play a central role in economic decisions, such as patience and risk aversion. </p>
<p>We found that only the concept of “<a href="http://www.doi.org/10.1257/jep.14.3.159">negative reciprocity</a>” – in which an employee who feels unfairly treated engages in negative behaviors, such as spending their company’s money less carefully – explains these differences. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjy013">surveys showed</a> that men tend to exhibit more of these negative behaviors than women. </p>
<p>This isn’t to say that all men engage in these behaviors – or that booking relatively late is a sign of deviant behavior. It only means that the gender gap disappears when we plugged in the negative reciprocity variable. </p>
<h2>Why it matters</h2>
<p>Prior research on negative reciprocity among workers found that it can result in lower <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2157">employee motivation</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/job.243">business performance</a> and <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/apl0000396.supp">workplace morale and culture</a>. </p>
<p>Our results show another way these negative behaviors can manifest themselves, airline bookings, and add to evidence that women are less likely to engage in them. </p>
<p>Companies spend significant sums of money on business travel. In 2019, total spending <a href="https://www.aircraftinteriorsinternational.com/features/why-business-travel-is-expected-to-recover-fully-by-2024.html">reached a record $1.4 trillion</a>, with a big chunk of that going toward airplane flights. </p>
<p>While that $18 difference per ticket may seem small, it adds up. Our analysis suggests early booking by women can translate into savings of $1 million a year for a large multinational company with 20,000 regular travelers. </p>
<h2>What still isn’t known</h2>
<p>While our findings support the hypothesis that negative reciprocity is an important factor associated with the gender gap in airfares, one big unanswered question is what triggers these differences inside a company. Designing experiments to isolate these mechanisms is an avenue of future research. </p>
<p>[<em>Over 140,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletters to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://memberservices.theconversation.com/newsletters/?source=inline-140ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/175024/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Javier D. Donna is a fellow of the Rimini Center for Economic Analysis, Italy.</span></em></p>New research shows women paid an average of $18 less per flight than men in the same position at the same company, mainly because they consistently booked earlier.Javier D. Donna, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of FloridaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1668942021-10-06T02:22:39Z2021-10-06T02:22:39ZWe analysed 100 million bike trips to reveal where in the world cyclists are most likely to brave rain and cold<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424891/original/file-20211006-17-tdtswq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5716%2C3819&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Hopping on your bike when it’s raining, or snowing, might seem unappealing. But our research has found inclement weather conditions deter some cyclists more than others. </p>
<p>In the first <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2021.103155">analysis</a> of its kind, we captured eight years of data from 40 bike-sharing schemes around the world, across a range of climate zones, totalling 100 million trips. We then linked this data to fine-grained historical weather information. </p>
<p>We found weather patterns affect people’s willingness to cycle in different ways. For example, people in Melbourne are more likely to avoid cycling in the rain or snow than people in Dublin. And female cyclists are more put off by rain and snow than male cyclists.</p>
<p>These differences are important. Personal decisions on how and when to travel can affect overall traffic congestion, environmental pollution and travel experience. So understanding how outdoor conditions affect cycling is crucial to effective transport planning and more sustainable cities.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="cyclist rides past row of cars" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424886/original/file-20211006-21-1o5v0e2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cycling can ease traffic congestion.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Insights from ‘big data’</h2>
<p>Obviously, cycling behaviour is more affected by bad weather than most other forms of transport. Previous research has confirmed this; however, the data has been patchy and limited. Bike-share schemes, which digitally record every trip taken, mean excellent “big data” is now available. </p>
<p>We used data from 40 public bike sharing programs in 40 cities across 16 countries. The programs spanned five climate zones, ranging from hot to frosty. </p>
<p>The cycling habits of people who own their bike may differ from those who use bike-sharing schemes. But bad weather can cause all cyclists to delay trips or change transport modes, so most of our findings are likely to apply broadly.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/australian-cycling-boom-nope-its-a-myth-8020">Australian cycling boom? Nope - it's a myth</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/418653/original/file-20210831-29-ke1jxs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Bad weather can cause all cyclists to delay trips.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>Prior studies have shown rain and snow are among the worst deterrents for cycling. But our analysis reveals a more nuanced picture. </p>
<p>In cities such as Melbourne (Australia), Chicago (the United States) and Vancouver (Canada), people are more likely to avoid cycling when it rains or snows.</p>
<p>In the top 5% rainiest hours of the year in Dublin (Ireland), people use bike share at 81% of the average usage rate. In Seville and Valencia these figures are 79% and 74%, respectively. </p>
<p>In Brisbane this figure drops to 68%, while in Melbourne it’s 46%. </p>
<p>Past research has assumed this trend is due to people in cooler cities being more accustomed to rain and snow, while people in hot climes are <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2019.1665857">accustomed to the sun</a>. But while Dublin is notoriously rainy, Seville and Valencia are rather dry.</p>
<p>Various factors may affect willingness to cycle in the rain. For example, high-quality <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100541">cycling infrastructure</a> may spur people to get on their bikes even in inclement weather. Seville and Valencia have large bike-share systems and safe cycling networks, whereas Melbourne’s was small and not particularly <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.015">useful</a> for commuting.</p>
<p>Other factors can push bike-share use up or down. They include <a href="https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/citycycles-available-around-the-clock-20131023-2w1el.html">lengthening</a> opening hours, <a href="https://skift.com/2014/10/28/nyc-bike-share-program-to-expand-increase-prices-under-new-owner/">increasing prices</a> or changing public transport arrangements – for example, Melbourne’s <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/state-government-plans-overhaul-to-melbourne-public-transport-zones-ticketing-20140326-35h2o.html">free tram zone</a>.</p>
<p>We found female cyclists are put off by rain and snow more than male cyclists. Not all bike-share systems record the gender of subscribers, and so this effect could only be studied in New York City and Chicago.</p>
<p>This may suggest a greater risk aversion among women, often the product of <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/116/14/6713">socialisation</a> in patriarchal cultures where women are taught from childhood to take fewer risks.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/too-wet-too-cold-too-hot-this-is-how-weather-affects-the-trips-we-make-93724">Too wet? Too cold? Too hot? This is how weather affects the trips we make</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="woman rides bike near water" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424872/original/file-20211005-24-2j54nw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The research found female cyclists were more deterred by inclement weather than male cyclists.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">James Ross/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Goldilocks temperatures</h2>
<p>Unsurprisingly, people cycle when it’s not too hot or too cold. We found the sweet spot is around 27-28°C, and bike usage declines when it gets hotter or colder.</p>
<p>But what’s considered too hot or too cold to cycle is not closely connected to the climate zone. </p>
<p>For example, cyclists in Trondheim (Norway) and Ljubljana (Slovenia) are sensitive to lower temperatures even though the first is a cold city and the second is less so. And cyclists in chilly Dublin (Ireland) and tropical Kaohsiung (Taiwan) are less sensitive to lower temperatures, even though these two cities also have vastly different climates.</p>
<p>This finding is surprising because, as with rain and snow, it was previously assumed people in the tropics could <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/25741292.2019.1665857">tolerate more heat</a> while people in temperate climates were more tolerant of cooler temperatures. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/cycling-and-walking-are-short-changed-when-it-comes-to-transport-funding-in-australia-92574">Cycling and walking are short-changed when it comes to transport funding in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Silhouette of cyclists against sun and water" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/424873/original/file-20211005-13-diuvw6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=494&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What’s considered too hot or cold to cycle is not closely connected to the climate zone.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Steen Saphore/AAP</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>On your bike</h2>
<p>In Australia, bicycle travel accounts for only about 1% of journeys. Obviously, we can’t control the weather – but we can <a href="http://www.istiee.unict.it/europeantransport/papers/N69/P04_69_2018.pdf">transform</a> our institutional and political environments to remove barriers to cycling. </p>
<p>This includes creating safe, <a href="https://en.reset.org/blog/worlds-first-covered-bike-path-berlins-latest-arrival-12092015">weatherproof</a> infrastructure separated from high-speed motor vehicles. And cycling should become an integral part of transport planning and receive a fair share of funding.</p>
<p>Such changes will <a href="http://www.istiee.unict.it/europeantransport/papers/N69/P04_69_2018.pdf">require</a> public support to implement. Planning officials and cycling advocates must do better at motivating people to cycle. This might include positioning cycling as a “normal” pursuit, or framing it as a source of pleasure and well-being. </p>
<p>Improving cycling rates offers huge <a href="http://www.istiee.unict.it/europeantransport/papers/N69/P04_69_2018.pdf">potential benefits</a>. It would lower health-care costs, ease traffic congestion, lower greenhouse gas emissions and, importantly, make our cities more liveable places.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166894/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Cyclists in Melbourne are less likely than those in Dublin or Seville to ride in the rain. Understanding why is crucial.Richard Bean, Research Fellow, The University of QueenslandDorina Pojani, Senior Lecturer in Urban Planning, The University of QueenslandJonathan Corcoran, Professor, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of QueenslandLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1656602021-08-15T19:52:39Z2021-08-15T19:52:39Z1 in 2 primary-aged kids have strong connections to nature, but this drops off in teenage years. Here’s how to reverse the trend<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415985/original/file-20210813-23-1tn2x9v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1250%2C832&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption"></span> <span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Parents and researchers have <a href="https://theconversation.com/off-the-couch-and-out-the-door-getting-your-kids-into-nature-4284">long</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/being-in-nature-is-good-for-learning-heres-how-to-get-kids-off-screens-and-outside-104935">suspected</a> city kids are disconnecting from nature due to technological distractions, indoor lifestyles and increased urban density. Limited access to nature during COVID-19 lockdowns has <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/parenting/nature-health-benefits-coronavirus-outdoors.html">heightened</a> such fears.</p>
<p>In fact, “<a href="http://richardlouv.com/blog/what-is-nature-deficit-disorder">nature-deficit disorder</a>” has become a buzzword, driving concerns about <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2020.102296">children’s well-being</a> and their ability to <a href="https://theconversation.com/does-your-child-know-more-about-dinosaurs-than-dugongs-perhaps-theyre-reading-the-wrong-books-126841">understand</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/time-to-make-nature-studies-a-compulsory-school-subject-before-its-too-late-157491">care for</a> the natural world.</p>
<p>Yet, there’s been surprisingly little investigation to directly test whether a disconnect exists between children and nature – and if it does, how this might affect their environmental behaviours. Our recent <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255421">research</a>, focused on Australian children in urban areas, sought to address this knowledge gap.</p>
<p>We found most younger children, especially girls, reported strong connections to nature and commitment to pro-environmental behaviours. But by their teenage years, many children have fallen out of love with nature. Understanding and reversing this trend is vital to tackling climate change, species loss and other grave environmental problems.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="A phalanx of chanting students march toward the camera flanked by placards and flags." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415251/original/file-20210809-13-1jdo7nt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Young people are key to addressing environmental problems.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Henry Lydecker</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What we did</h2>
<p>Our research involved more than 1,000 students aged 8-14 years, attending 16 public schools across Sydney. </p>
<p>We measured the students’ connections to nature using a questionnaire which asked about their:</p>
<ul>
<li>enjoyment of nature</li>
<li>empathy for creatures</li>
<li>sense of oneness with nature</li>
<li>sense of responsibility towards nature.</li>
</ul>
<p>The survey also canvassed students’ current environmental behaviours, such as whether they recycled waste and conserved water and energy, as well as their willingness to:</p>
<ul>
<li>volunteer to help protect nature</li>
<li>donate money to nature charities</li>
<li>talk to friends and family about protecting nature.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/being-in-nature-is-good-for-learning-heres-how-to-get-kids-off-screens-and-outside-104935">Being in nature is good for learning, here's how to get kids off screens and outside</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Children sitting in a circle on the grass, having a discussion." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415247/original/file-20210809-25-1kfdl2z.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A girl volunteers her opinion in a group discussion at Sydney’s Royal Botanic Gardens.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ryan Keith</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What we found</h2>
<p>Contrary to the conventional wisdom about nature-deficit disorder, we found one in two children aged 8 to 11 felt <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnc.2018.07.004">strongly connected</a> to nature, despite living in the city. However, only one in five teens reported strong nature connections.</p>
<p>Children in the younger age group were also more likely to engage in pro-environmental behaviours. For example, one in two were committed to saving water and energy on a daily basis, and two in three recycled each day.</p>
<p>Girls generally formed closer emotional connections to nature than boys did – a difference especially apparent in the final stage of primary school.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=689&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415992/original/file-20210813-25-13lhcle.PNG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=866&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Connection to nature by age and gender. CNI = Connection to Nature Index.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Importantly, girls differed from boys in their responses to questions about sensory stimulation. Girls particularly liked to see wildflowers, hear nature sounds and touch animals and plants. This finding echoes <a href="https://doi.org/10.1089/eco.2010.0025">previous research</a> which found motivation for sensory pleasure is greater in women than men. </p>
<p>Girls also felt greater empathy for nonhuman animals than did boys, even after accounting for differences in sensory experience.</p>
<p>Children with strong nature connections were much more likely to demonstrate pro-environmental behaviours. This helps explain why girls were more willing than boys to volunteer for nature conservation. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/nature-doesnt-judge-you-how-young-people-in-cities-feel-about-the-natural-world-148848">'Nature doesn't judge you': how young people in cities feel about the natural world</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Butterfly on a girl's hand." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415273/original/file-20210809-23-13hkk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Girls felt greater empathy for nonhuman animals than boys did.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">www.pisquels.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does all this mean?</h2>
<p>These findings suggest parents, educators, and <a href="https://www.nwf.org/Home/Kids-and-Family/Connecting-Kids-and-Nature/Kids-and-Nature-Policy">others</a> seeking to “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2019.126573">reconnect</a>” youth with nature should focus on the transition between childhood and the teenage years.</p>
<p>Adolescence is a period of great change. Children move from primary to high school, switching <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9152-0">peer groups</a> and struggling through <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315124841">puberty</a>. They gain <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/s1138741600001487">independence</a> and must adapt to a <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-64123-6.00003%E2%80%935">maturing brain</a>. </p>
<p>Relationships with nature easily fall by the wayside when teens <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2017.1415195">prioritise</a> other aspects of their busy lives. In fact, evidence of the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2015.1075464">adolescent dip</a> in nature connection is emerging across <a href="https://findingnature.org.uk/2019/06/12/teenage-dip/">different</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.14349/rlp.v45i3.1477">cultures</a>.</p>
<p>Educators and parents hoping to engage girls with nature might give them activities focused on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1250149">sensory stimuli</a>. </p>
<p>Girls’ greater empathy for nonhuman animals may result from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177">societal norms</a> that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.00239.x">socialise</a> girls to be more caring, cooperative, and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.12.003">empathetic</a> than boys. Boys can be encouraged to have more empathy for nonhuman animals through <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2016.1178198">activities</a> focused on perspective-taking and role-playing. </p>
<p>Even when locked down at home, both girls and boys can cultivate empathy for animals and nourish their connections to nature by taking <a href="https://www.urbanfieldnaturalist.org/resources/a-few-simple-steps">mindful note</a> of their surroundings. Though cities can appear to be concrete jungles, they still contain urban wildlife, parks and other green elements.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/look-up-a-powerful-owl-could-be-sleeping-in-your-backyard-after-a-night-surveying-kilometres-of-territory-155479">Look up! A powerful owl could be sleeping in your backyard after a night surveying kilometres of territory</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="girl rides bike through park" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/415988/original/file-20210813-21-1yqxfx8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Children mindful of their surroundings can foster connections to nature in urban areas.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Children are the future</h2>
<p>Recent research has demonstrated that stronger nature connections are associated with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10128">improved health and wellbeing</a> in children. </p>
<p>The benefits of connecting to nature should be distributed among youth in a <a href="https://theconversation.com/6-ways-to-approach-urban-green-spaces-in-the-push-for-racial-justice-and-health-equity-160227">just</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-equity-got-to-do-with-health-in-a-higher-density-city-82071">equitable</a> way. That means working with groups <a href="https://theconversation.com/nature-doesnt-judge-you-how-young-people-in-cities-feel-about-the-natural-world-148848">often marginalised</a> in discussions about nature, such as ethnic minorities.</p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00533.x">Conservation</a> is increasingly reliant on young citizens forming meaningful connections with urban nature. Many environmental leaders, such as Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, are <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2019/09/24/teen-girls-are-leading-climate-strikes-helping-change-face-environmentalism/">teenage girls</a>. </p>
<p>Ensuring urban children maintain nature connections through adolescence is crucial to tackling Earth’s serious environmental problems. But it will also require more young people to confront the difficult realisation that the world’s climate is <a href="https://theconversation.com/this-is-the-most-sobering-report-card-yet-on-climate-change-and-earths-future-heres-what-you-need-to-know-165395">in crisis</a>. For this, we need to develop better ways to help them <a href="https://theconversation.com/connecting-to-nature-is-good-for-kids-but-they-may-need-help-coping-with-a-planet-in-peril-148162">cope</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/how-covid-19-has-affected-overnight-school-trips-and-why-this-matters-159300">How COVID-19 has affected overnight school trips, and why this matters</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/165660/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ryan Keith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond his academic appointment.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dieter Hochuli receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the City of Sydney and the Inner West Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>John M. Martin receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lisa M. Given receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p>New research found girls particularly liked to see wildflowers, hear nature sounds and touch animals and plants.Ryan Keith, PhD Candidate, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of SydneyDieter Hochuli, Professor, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of SydneyJohn Martin, Research Scientist, Taronga Conservation Society Australia & Adjunct lecturer, University of SydneyLisa M. Given, Professor of Information Science, Centre for Design Innovation, Swinburne University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1610812021-05-19T19:57:31Z2021-05-19T19:57:31ZMen are from Mars, women are from… Mars? How people choose partners is surprisingly similar (but depends on age)<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401542/original/file-20210519-19-1psbexl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=41%2C17%2C3952%2C1479&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>As behavioural scientists, we have a keen interest in how people make decisions, and particularly how these decisions incorporate a range of emotional, cognitive and psychological factors.</p>
<p>Choosing a life partner is arguably one of the most important decisions a person can make. And <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-26/australia-talks-national-survey-where-to-find-a-partner/11692170">research</a> <a href="https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/21/online-dating-popular-way-u-s-couples-meet/">has shown</a> the most common way to do this these days is to go online.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=951&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1195&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1195&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401526/original/file-20210519-21-kk0ghq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1195&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">John Gray’s famous 1992 book purports that men and women have innately different natures.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Wiki</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As increasing numbers of people wade cautiously through the digital dating market, many still subscribe to stereotypical ideas about what men and women find attractive in a partner.</p>
<p>Our latest research, <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250151">published</a> today in PLOS One shows the truth, as ever, is more nuanced. </p>
<p>Using survey data from 7,325 heterosexual users of dating websites, aged 18 to 65, we show there is no absolute difference between the preferences of men and women when it comes to choosing a mate. Both essentially desire the same qualities, but prioritise them slightly differently.</p>
<h2>The democratisation of dating?</h2>
<p>Dating in the 21st century is <a href="https://theconversation.com/sex-bots-virtual-friends-vr-lovers-tech-is-changing-the-way-we-interact-and-not-always-for-the-better-159427">a truly unique experience</a>. For millennia, the human search for companionship had been constrained by access, distance and resources. Most people had to find a partner through close or extended family, or religious, cultural or social organisations.</p>
<p>Today, online dating allows seemingly unrestrained and “<a href="https://www.cs.ubc.ca/%7Ekevinlb/teaching/cs322%20-%202005-6/Lectures/lect32.pdf">nonsequential</a>” decision-making.</p>
<p>Imagine if you met someone at a bar and told them to wait around for two hours, just in case you managed to find someone better. It sounds bizarre, but that’s what <a href="https://medium.com/@therealnair/tinder-and-cognitive-overload-5c7650f5fe00">online dating allows</a>. You can search through thousands of people and never have to make a decision. </p>
<p>This is good news for researchers of human behaviour. With such a vast and growing pool of data, we can study mating choices in a way we never could before.</p>
<h2>Pressure to play the evolutionary game</h2>
<p>Obviously, a huge part of sexual attraction comes down to personal preference regarding what makes someone “sexy”. That said, there are many stereotypes relating to what heterosexual men and women find sexy. </p>
<p>It’s often assumed women favour more emotional, personality, intelligence and commitment-based traits in men, while men are often said to prefer physical attractiveness. </p>
<p>From an evolutionary psychology angle, these stereotypes aren’t unfounded. In the game of life, the main aim is to pass on your genes — and once you do, to ensure your offspring achieve the same success. </p>
<p>Naturally, men and women play different roles in the reproduction process. From an evolutionary standpoint, it makes sense for women to seek a man with traits that will benefit her offspring in both the short and long term, as women bear a bigger reproductive cost than men. </p>
<p>They have internal gestation for nine months and then must successfully give birth, all while facing discomfort and risk. They will then continue to nurse and care for the child. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Mother and child place their hands atop each other's" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401522/original/file-20210519-21-1bi2qzi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Throughout the evolution of our species, mothers on average have had a far greater parenting responsibility across their offspring’s lives.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Men, at its simplest, need only to invest time into copulation to have offspring. Theoretically, then, the specific selection pressures on men and women to pass on their genes should be observable in the characteristics of the mates they choose.</p>
<p>Many of these assumptions fall under a school of thought called “<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/parental-investment">parental investment theory</a>”, developed in the early 1970s by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. </p>
<p>More recent theories in gender studies and social and evolutionary psychology have countered the notion of absolute differences. They demonstrate men and women are far more similar in their preferences than previously thought.</p>
<p>Our research reinforces one such theory, referred to as “<a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/106/Supplement_1/10001">mutual mate choice</a>”. We found both men and women essentially desire the same qualities in a partner, differing only in the relative emphasis placed on each trait at different life stages.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-i-stay-or-should-i-go-here-are-the-relationship-factors-people-ponder-when-deciding-whether-to-break-up-153707">Should I stay or should I go? Here are the relationship factors people ponder when deciding whether to break up</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>If men are from Mars, women are too</h2>
<p>We asked survey participants to rate from 0 to 100 the importance they placed on nine traits when looking for a mate. They fell into three categories: </p>
<ul>
<li><strong>aesthetics</strong>, such as age, attractiveness and physical features</li>
<li><strong>resources</strong>, such as intelligence, education and income</li>
<li>and <strong>personality</strong>, such as trust, openness and emotional connection.</li>
</ul>
<p>Both genders rated aesthetics as highly important, along with all three personality traits, while income was much less important. </p>
<hr>
<p><iframe id="ScLiU" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ScLiU/2/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<hr>
<p>Women, however, rated factors including age, education, intelligence, income, trust and emotional connection about 9 to 14 points higher than men. Men placed relatively more emphasis on attractiveness and physical build.</p>
<p>Importantly, the way both genders prioritised traits changed with age. Both cared less about physical attractiveness as they got older, whereas emphasis on personality increased. This makes sense, considering we require different things from a partner at different life stages. </p>
<p>Our findings reinforce that both men and women tend to give similar emphasis to certain traits, depending on their individual needs at a particular stage in life.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Older couple" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/401520/original/file-20210519-13-ebp1j4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On dating apps, users can at times be spoilt for choice. This may result in us not placing as much emphasis on the actual search for a partner that older generations historically did.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Men and women can both be very picky</h2>
<p>One interesting revelation came when we grouped participants’ preference data together. </p>
<p>Of those individuals who said one specific trait was very important to them, it turned out the majority of traits were very important to them. On the other hand were respondents who said they didn’t have a strong preference for any particular trait at all. </p>
<p>So while some people were happy to go with the flow, many of the participants actually cared <em>a lot</em> about <em>a lot</em> of different factors. For men, the likelihood of having such stringent preferences was most common between ages 20 and 40. Among women it was more likely between the ages of 35 and 50. </p>
<h2>Personal circumstance and preference is key</h2>
<p>The bottom line is there is no single unified theory of mate choice. Attractiveness matters to everyone to some extent. Resources and intelligence matter to everyone to some extent. </p>
<p>Beyond human biology and evolution, it’s likely our individual personal constraints — such as employment, education, family and social circle — still have a huge impact on how we choose a mate, even if we are dating online.</p>
<p>While dating apps and websites may come with an element of “cognitive overload”, they are ultimately just conduits for human communication. They let people search far and wide for a mate who will help them achieve their own relationship goals.</p>
<p>And our relationship goals, just as is the case with the importance we place on our preferences, change over time.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-one-could-dna-tests-find-our-soulmate-we-study-sex-and-sexuality-and-think-the-idea-is-ridiculous-158533">The One: could DNA tests find our soulmate? We study sex and sexuality — and think the idea is ridiculous</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161081/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rob Brooks receives funding from the Australian Research Council.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Benno Torgler, Ho Fai Chan, and Stephen Whyte do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Each year, more and more people are looking to dating apps to find a partner. And a trove of data from these users is finally revealing what men and women really want.Stephen Whyte, Deputy Director, Centre for Behavioural Economics, Society and Technology, Queensland University of TechnologyBenno Torgler, Professor, Business School, Queensland University of TechnologyHo Fai Chan, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Queensland University of TechnologyRob Brooks, Scientia Professor of Evolutionary Ecology; Academic Lead of UNSW's Grand Challenges Program, UNSW SydneyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1590232021-04-28T12:16:10Z2021-04-28T12:16:10ZFeminism’s legacy sees college women embracing more diverse sexuality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/397159/original/file-20210426-15-u7y7bf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=50%2C0%2C5615%2C3741&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How women describe themselves, and whom they engage romantically with, is changing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/urban-female-couple-enjoy-royalty-free-image/800390692">serts/E+ via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Most adults identify themselves as heterosexual, meaning they report being attracted to, and engaging in sex with, only members of the other sex. However, women ages 18 to 29 are increasingly rejecting exclusive heterosexuality and describing their sexual orientation in other ways. These changes in women’s sexuality are not mirrored by their male peers.</p>
<p>That’s the primary finding in our most recent report on nine years of surveys at the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/lab/Binghamton-Human-Sexualities-Lab-Sean-Massey">Binghamton Human Sexualities Research Lab</a>, just published in “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/sexuality-in-emerging-adulthood-9780190057008">Sexuality in Emerging Adulthood</a>.” Together with our Binghamton University colleagues Richard E. Mattson, Melissa Hardesty, Ann Merriwether and Maggie M. Parker, we conclude that changes in young adults’ sexual orientation are not just as a result of increased social acceptance of LGBT people – but also are related to feminism and the women’s movement.</p>
<iframe src="https://public.tableau.com/views/ABITrend_16194527000960/Sheet1?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<h2>LGBT progress</h2>
<p>These findings align with recent polling by the Gallup Organization, which found that <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx">American adults are increasingly identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or more than one of those</a>. The Gallup report attributed these changes to increasing public awareness and acceptance of people who identify as LGBT, as well as the influence of a 2015 U.S. Supreme Court case <a href="https://www.britannica.com/event/Obergefell-v-Hodges">legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide</a>. Another potential factor was proposed federal legislation <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-passes-bill-to-ban-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity/2019/05/17/aed18a16-78a3-11e9-b3f5-5673edf2d127_story.html">banning discrimination on the basis of gender identity</a> or sexual orientation.</p>
<iframe src="https://public.tableau.com/views/ABIBehavior_16195521680720/Sheet1?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>But our study goes beyond those poll results, showing that young American adults are shifting away from heterosexuality not just in how they identify themselves when asked about their identities, but also how they describe whom they are attracted to and with whom they have sex. That indicates something more is happening than an increasing willingness to “come out” and identify as LGBT.</p>
<p>The fact that these differences are larger among women than men indicates, we believe, that feminism and the women’s movement have, in fact, begun to change female sex and gender roles.</p>
<h2>Compulsory heterosexuality</h2>
<p>In the early 1980s, lesbian feminist Adrienne Rich argued that what she called “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1086/493756">compulsory heterosexuality</a>” was the primary cause of gender inequality. She said that because social pressures and threats of violence – as well as actual violence – force heterosexuality on women, that made women dependent on and subservient to men in all areas of life, including gender roles and sexual expression. </p>
<p>Our research indicates that one outcome of <a href="https://www.vox.com/2018/3/20/16955588/feminism-waves-explained-first-second-third-fourth">more than a century of feminist activism and progress</a> may be women’s increasing resistance to compulsory heterosexuality and its consequences. As a result, more women under 30 are moving away from exclusive heterosexuality than men in the same age group.</p>
<iframe src="https://public.tableau.com/views/SOITrend_16194543753150/Sheet1?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>In a related development, we found that women in this age group are also reporting more open attitudes toward sex than previous generations of women. They are separating sex from traditional love relationships, describing themselves as enjoying casual sex with different partners and more likely to have sex with a person before being sure the relationship would become serious or long term. These attitudes are more akin to those of their male peers.</p>
<p>The shift is more pronounced among women who are moving away from exclusive heterosexuality, and less obvious among women who report they are exclusively heterosexual.</p>
<h2>There’s much more to learn</h2>
<p>We still have a lot of questions about these trends. We wonder how they affect the ways that these young adults engage in sex and relationships. We also don’t know how women who identify themselves as not exclusively heterosexual negotiate and navigate sexual relationships with men – or whether these trends will continue as they age. </p>
<iframe src="https://public.tableau.com/views/SOICasualSex_16195524649830/Sheet1?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link" width="100%" height="500"></iframe>
<p>We are also interested in why men in this age group are less likely than women to reject exclusive heterosexuality – but are more likely to report exclusive homosexuality. And we’d like to know whether, or at what point, those who are not exclusively heterosexual might come out to family and friends – and if they deal with things like anti-LGBT prejudice. </p>
<p>As human sexuality becomes increasingly diverse, it remains unclear whether the political and social landscape will affirm these changes or threaten those who are expressing that diversity. We are hopeful that the continued success of the LGBT and feminist movements will push society toward an affirming future.</p>
<p>[<em>Over 100,000 readers rely on The Conversation’s newsletter to understand the world.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters/the-daily-3?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=100Ksignup">Sign up today</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/159023/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Women’s sexual identities and behaviors are changing in ways men’s are not.Sean G. Massey, Associate Professor of Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkMei-Hsiu Chen, Director of Statistical Consulting Services, Lecturer, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkSarah Young, BSW Program Director, Assistant Professor of Social Work, Binghamton University, State University of New YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1552412021-02-17T11:45:39Z2021-02-17T11:45:39ZThe science of ‘mind-reading’: our new test reveals how well we understand others<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384708/original/file-20210217-17-duai5b.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=47%2C36%2C3447%2C1928&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Nope, we are not talking about telepathy.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/illustration-communication-between-two-humans-brains-1188354919"> Sanja Karin Music/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Mind-reading sounds like science fiction. But the term, also referred to as “mentalising”, is a psychological concept used to describe the process of understanding what other people are thinking. We may not be aware of it, but we use mind-reading every day when we interact with each other. It helps us to understand another person’s viewpoint or know when someone is saying something that they do not mean, such as being sarcastic or lying.</p>
<p>Mind-reading is different from the psychological process of empathy. It involves understanding other people’s thoughts or knowledge (“Sarah knows where the biscuits are kept”), whereas empathy involves understanding other people’s emotions (“Sarah would feel sad if her biscuits were taken”). Traditionally, scientists have not properly distinguished mind-reading from empathy, so most psychological tests mix up the two concepts. </p>
<p>To improve the science of mind-reading, we have developed a <a href="http://www.bitly.com/mindreadingquestions">questionnaire</a>, <a href="https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpas0001004">published in <em>Psychological Assessment</em></a>, that carefully separates mind-reading from empathy. </p>
<p>Although the processes are related, it is important to differentiate them to understand how people operate in social situations. It is also important for understanding psychopathy, for example. Psychopaths <a href="https://www.pnas.org/content/115/13/3302">are often good at mind-reading</a>, but bad at empathy. This means they can manipulate others while remaining emotionally detached from their actions.</p>
<p>Differentiating between mind-reading and empathy also helps us to understand conditions like autism, which are linked to social differences. People with autism often have <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-018-3823-3">major difficulties with mind-reading</a> and more minor difficulties in empathising with people. Having slightly lower empathy <a href="https://theconversation.com/autism-is-linked-to-lower-levels-of-empathy-but-that-may-not-be-a-bad-thing-118359">is not always a bad thing</a>, potentially helping people to make more logical rather than emotional decisions. On the other hand, poor mind-reading is linked to problems such as difficulty making friends and mental health issues. </p>
<p>Surprisingly, nobody has attempted to create a questionnaire on mind-reading until now. Using data from over 4,000 people in the UK and US, including autistic and non-autistic people, we found that just four questions should be used to measure mind-reading. These include how easy or difficult you find it to see things from other people’s perspective. This may sound simplistic, but by developing such a short test we could collect data from very large samples. Want to know how good your mind-reading ability is? You can complete the test <a href="http://www.bitly.com/mindreadingquestions">here</a>. </p>
<p>We also used our data to perform advanced statistical analyses that have never been performed before on human mind-reading. Our results showed that the test was reliable and that males and females, as well as autistic and non-autistic people, interpreted the questions in the same way. This meant that it could be used to accurately compare these groups on their mind-reading skills.</p>
<p>Questionnaires can of course be inaccurate because participants sometimes answer questions in a way that make themselves look more desirable to other people. Fortunately, this is less of a concern with this questionnaire. In one of our studies, we discovered that scores on self-reported mind-reading were linked to performance on objective tests of mind-reading. </p>
<h2>Women beat men</h2>
<p>We found that women were better at mind-reading than men. Women’s scores were only slightly, but very consistently higher than men throughout the sample. The reason for sex differences in mind-reading are a matter of debate, however. Some argue they are mainly due to genetics or hormones, while others believe they are the result of <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-male-and-female-brains-really-different-54092">environmental factors</a>, such as our upbringing. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Image of a female investigation officer showing murder suspect victim photo." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/384721/original/file-20210217-17-1f65f0x.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Women are good at mind-reading.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/investigation-officer-showing-murder-suspect-victim-1169300518">Motortion Films/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our research also showed that people with autism reported substantially more mind-reading difficulties than people without autism. The average score of an autistic person would fall within the lowest 25% of non-autistic scores. This might not seem like a new finding, but it is one of the first studies in which autistic people were actually asked about their mind-reading experiences rather than being subjected to computerised experiments to infer their difficulties. </p>
<p>Of course, just because certain people find mind-reading difficult, this does not mean that they are not motivated to engage with others. Many people with autism, for example, work incredibly hard to “<a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010945220304044?via%3Dihub">compensate</a>” for their mind-reading difficulties, indicating that they have intact or even heightened <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/compensation-in-autism-is-not-consistent-with-social-motivation-theory/B7B462996932D2BD19B65A2473606381#metrics">social motivation</a>.</p>
<p>Overall, the development of our short and carefully devised questionnaire will enable quicker and more accurate measurement of mind-reading by clinicians, researchers, businesses and even the general public. It will help to fully understand why humans differ in their mind-reading skills, for example due to genes or environmental factors, as it is suitable for use in large-scale studies involving genetic and brain-imaging data.</p>
<p>It will also be useful to understand and tailor support for people with clinical conditions, such as autism. And it may even be used to help select personnel for job roles requiring good understanding of people. There are many other uses and several lines of further research, particularly as the measure is <a href="http://supp.apa.org/psycarticles/supplemental/pas0001004/FIMI.pdf">freely available to download</a>.</p>
<p>Longer term, research on mind-reading could help people to develop technology <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-robots-ever-have-a-true-sense-of-self-scientists-are-making-progress-112315">for non-human agents</a>, such as “social robots”, to predict what we are thinking and assist us in our daily lives. Without more psychological research on how we understand each other as humans, it is unlikely that we will ever develop artificial intelligence that can understand itself or what we are thinking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/155241/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Clutterbuck receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucy Anne Livingston has received funding from the UKRI Medical Research Council. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Mitchell Callan has received funding from the Economic and Social Research Council, British Academy, and Leverhulme Trust.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Punit Shah receives or has received funding from the UKRI Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council.</span></em></p>Scientists have not properly distinguished mind-reading from empathy - until now.Rachel Clutterbuck, PhD Researcher in Psychology, University of BathLucy Anne Livingston, Lecturer in Psychology, Cardiff UniversityMitchell Callan, Professor of Social Psychology, University of BathPunit Shah, Associate Professor in Psychology, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1522332021-01-27T01:10:59Z2021-01-27T01:10:59ZDo men really take longer to poo?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/377953/original/file-20210111-15-ruzndd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C1000%2C667&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/close-man-toilet-using-phone-619346291">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There’s a common assumption men take longer than women to poo. People say so on <a href="https://twitter.com/trenduso/status/1100968885203931136">Twitter</a>, in <a href="https://www.sammichespsychmeds.com/men-bathroom-memes/">memes</a>, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLcEU6ahlOI">elsewhere</a> <a href="https://www.livescience.com/why-men-take-longer-to-poop.html">online</a>. But is that right? What could explain it? And if some people are really taking longer, is that a problem?</p>
<p>As we sift through the evidence, it’s important to remember pooing may involve time spent sitting on the toilet and the defaecation process itself.</p>
<p>And there may be differences between men and women in these separate aspects of going to the toilet. But the evidence for these differences isn’t always as strong as we’d like.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/do-we-have-to-poo-every-day-we-asked-five-experts-98701">Do we have to poo every day? We asked five experts</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Men may spend longer sitting on the toilet</h2>
<p>Men do appear to spend more time sitting on the toilet. An <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2641550/Britons-favourite-loo-terature-revealed-Sports-biographies-erotic-magazines-bathroom-reading-material-poll.html">online survey</a> by a bathroom retailer suggested men spend up to 14 minutes a day compared with women, who spend almost eight minutes a day. But this survey doesn’t have the rigour of a well-designed scientific study.</p>
<p>Would there be any physiological reason to explain why men spend longer on the toilet? Well, the evidence actually suggests the opposite.</p>
<p>We know it <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00365520310000410">takes longer</a> for food to travel through the intestines in women than in men. Women are also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175559/">more likely to suffer</a> from constipation related to irritable bowel syndrome than men. So, you’d expect women to take longer to defaecate, from the start of the bowel motion to expulsion.</p>
<p>But this is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12870773/">not the case</a> even if you take into account differences in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5986479/">fibre intake</a> between men and women.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-irritable-bowel-syndrome-and-what-can-i-do-about-it-102579">Explainer: what is irritable bowel syndrome and what can I do about it?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Instead, how long it takes someone to poo (the defaecation time) is <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28470247/">heavily influenced</a> by the mucus lining the large bowel. This mucus makes the bowel slippery and easier for the stools to be expelled. But there’s no evidence this mucus lining is different in men and women. </p>
<p>One thing we do know, however, is mammals from elephants to mice have a similar defaecation time, <a href="https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2017/sm/c6sm02795d#!divAbstract">around 12 seconds</a>. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1100968885203931136"}"></div></p>
<p>For humans, it’s slightly longer, but still quick. In <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12870773/">one study</a> it took healthy adults an average two minutes when sitting, but only 51 seconds when squatting. Again, there were no differences in defaecation time between men and women, whether sitting or squatting. </p>
<p>If there’s no strong evidence one way or the other to explain any gender differences in how long it takes to poo, what’s going on? For that, we need to look at the total time spent on the toilet.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-the-best-way-to-go-to-the-toilet-squatting-or-sitting-63991">What's the best way to go to the toilet – squatting or sitting?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why do people spend so long on the toilet?</h2>
<p>What I call the “toilet sitting time” is the time of defaecation itself and the time allocated to other activities sitting on the toilet. For most people, the time spent just sitting, aside from defaecating, accounts for most of their time there.</p>
<p>So what are people doing? Mainly reading. And it seems men are <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1230115.stm">more likely</a> to read on the toilet than women.</p>
<p>For instance, a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19019015/">study</a> of almost 500 adults in Israel found almost two-thirds (64%) of men regularly read on the toilet compared with 41% of women. The longer people spent on the toilet, the more likely they were to be reading. However, in the decade or more since this study was conducted, you’d expect adults would be more likely to be reading or playing games on their mobile phones rather than reading paper books.</p>
<p>People might also be sitting longer on the toilet for some temporary relief from the stresses of life.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Meme about men avoiding parenting responsibilities by sitting on the toilet for longer" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=417&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/380091/original/file-20210121-19-q4weg1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=524&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sometimes, people just need time to themselves.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.sammichespsychmeds.com/men-bathroom-memes/">Ramblin Mama</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2641550/Britons-favourite-loo-terature-revealed-Sports-biographies-erotic-magazines-bathroom-reading-material-poll.html">poll</a> found 56% of people find sitting on the toilet relaxing, and 39% a good opportunity to have “some time alone”. Another <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/bathrooms-shower-washing-habits-poll-a8988626.html">online survey</a> revealed one in six people reported going to the toilet for “peace and quiet”. Although these are not scientific studies, they offer useful insights into a social phenomenon.</p>
<p>Then there can be medical reasons for a prolonged defaecation time, and consequently a lengthier time sitting on the toilet. </p>
<p>An anal fissure (a tear or crack in the lining of the anus) can make defaecation a painful and lengthy process. These fissures are <a href="http://eknygos.lsmuni.lt/springer/526/178-191.pdf">just as common</a> in men as in women. </p>
<p>And <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306148/">obstructive defaecation</a>, where people cannot empty the rectum properly, is a common cause of chronic constipation. This is <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3030249/">more common</a> in middle-aged women. </p>
<h2>Are there any harms from spending too long on the loo?</h2>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7236649/">Turkish study</a>, spending more than five minutes on the toilet was associated with haemorrhoids and anal fissures. Another study from <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31996480/">Italy</a> noted the longer the time people spent on the toilet, the more severe their haemorrhoids.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.annalsgastro.gr/files/journals/1/earlyview/2019/ev-01-2019-19-AG4360-0355.pdf">One theory</a> behind this is prolonged sitting increases pressure inside the abdomen. This leads to less blood flow into the veins of the rectum when passing a bowel motion, and ultimately to blood pooling in the vascular cushions of the anus. This makes haemorrhoids more likely to develop. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-do-people-get-haemorrhoids-and-how-do-you-get-rid-of-them-94820">Explainer: why do people get haemorrhoids and how do you get rid of them?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What can we do about this?</h2>
<p>In addition to the usual advice about increasing the amount of fibre in your diet and ensuring you drink enough water, it would be sensible to limit the amount of time spent on the toilet.</p>
<p>Different researchers recommend a <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28150480/">different</a> <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27723447/">upper limit</a>. But I <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30346317/">and others</a> recommend the SEN approach:</p>
<ul>
<li><p><strong>S</strong>ix minute toilet sitting time maximum</p></li>
<li><p><strong>E</strong>nough fibre (eating more fruit and vegetables, and eating wholegrains)</p></li>
<li><p><strong>N</strong>o straining during defaecation. </p></li>
</ul>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/health-check-what-causes-constipation-114290">Health Check: what causes constipation?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/152233/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Vincent Ho does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>If you believe the memes, men spend ages in the toilet. But they’re not always pooing. Here’s what they’re really doing.Vincent Ho, Senior Lecturer and clinical academic gastroenterologist, Western Sydney UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1247652019-10-08T01:23:54Z2019-10-08T01:23:54ZHow women’s life-long experiences of being judged by their appearance affect how they feel in open-plan offices<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/296129/original/file-20191009-3872-wg8w5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C376%2C5472%2C3260&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Women are more likely to feel watched, exposed or more accountable in open-plan offices.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A key reason many organisations want to move their employees to open-plan workspaces is to <a href="https://theconversation.com/open-plan-offices-can-actually-work-under-certain-conditions-89452">encourage collaboration and improve communication</a>. The assumption is that the increased visibility and access workers have to one another will ease the flow of information and enhance learning, well-being, and collegiality. </p>
<p><a href="https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:401844">Research</a> suggests that, in some circumstances, this can indeed be the outcome. But another <a href="https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239">study</a> recently found exactly the opposite, with workers engaging in 73% fewer face-to-face interactions, along with a 67% increase in electronic communication.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/a-new-study-should-be-the-final-nail-for-open-plan-offices-99756">A new study should be the final nail for open-plan offices</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>It is not just face-to-face communication that becomes worse in open-plan offices. There are findings that <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494413000340">satisfaction decreases</a>, <a href="http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2017/vol-130-no-1467-15-december-2017/7443">well-being is impacted</a>, <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494413000340">privacy decreases</a>, and people become less friendly.</p>
<p>One undeniable aspect of open-plan offices is the increased exposure and access to others they offer. This is sometimes deemed a benefit - particularly because it increases opportunities to learn from, and network with, high-status colleagues. But our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687018303466?dgcid=rss_sd_all">research</a> suggests that being more visible may not be good for everyone.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/get-out-of-my-face-were-more-antisocial-in-a-shared-office-space-64734">Get out of my face! We're more antisocial in a shared office space</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Gender differences</h2>
<p>Our <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003687018303466?dgcid=rss_sd_all">study</a> in a large open-plan law firm in Auckland found that, although occupants generally liked this well designed work environment, there was a gender difference in the responses. Every survey respondent who specifically mentioned being visible, watched, observed, exposed or more accountable was a woman. The male occupants, it seems, were oblivious to their increased exposure. This difference in responses was especially striking since we did not set out to explore the gender effects of open-plan work spaces. </p>
<p>It wasn’t that all the women especially disliked being so exposed. In fact, being visible came up several times when they were describing positive aspects of the space, outlining how the open office improved their productivity. One lawyer said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Overall the effect on my productivity is positive - can always be seen, so always working unless nobody is around.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another woman commented:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Knowing that other people can see what I am doing also motivates me to be productive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But this female lawyer was keenly aware of the downside of being so visible:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I don’t like that sometimes it feels like people are judging you for not giving enough face time as everything is so visible. Back at [previous office] there was more of a motto of getting the work done in the time needed and then go home. Now, with open space, it feels more like a fish bowl and I have noticed more subtle pressure to stay later even if you don’t technically need to - based on looks some seniors, even from entirely different teams, give you.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Other <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gwao.12200">research</a> looking at the effect of working in a glass open-plan, largely transparent office, revealed the unexpected outcome of <a href="https://www.fastcompany.com/90170941/the-subtle-sexism-of-your-open-plan-office">women becoming hyper-aware of being continually observed</a> and evaluated, just as we found. Women (but not men) in this study reported becoming more image conscious, <a href="https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/aru-nom050118.php">changing the way they dressed</a>, how and where they walked, and feeling exposed.</p>
<p>Why is this? Are women really being looked at more than their male colleagues? </p>
<p>Research into the <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-013-0316-x">male gaze</a> and surveillance behaviour on nudist beaches suggests they are. But, whether they are or not, women are socialised, practically from birth, to believe they are being looked at. </p>
<h2>Evaluated on appearance</h2>
<p>Through their life experiences and their <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00433.x">exposure to media</a>, women and girls learn that they are almost constantly being <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x">evaluated and appraised</a>. Women are aware of being observed in a way that men are not, simply because their life experiences have <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x">routinely included instances of being looked at</a>. </p>
<p>Every time a girl is told she is cute or pretty, or even described in gender-neutral, objective terms such as being tall, she is actually being told she is being looked at and assessed on her appearance. Boys are far more likely to have their behaviour or personality commented on by adults, rather than their appearance - being brave, adventurous or clever.</p>
<p>Even more insidious is the notion that appearance evaluations genuinely matter in numerous situations. The <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x">benefits that attractive women receive</a> include everything from social mobility and college admissions to educational attainment and job offers. Women rated as being unattractive or unfeminine are <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/40326127?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">more negatively evaluated than comparably unattractive men</a>. </p>
<h2>Better office designs</h2>
<p>Given that women’s outcomes are, at least in part, determined by their appearance, it is not surprising that, compared to their male colleagues, female workers are comparatively more aware of their visibility.</p>
<p>Research suggests we should question the notion that, just because we can see and hear our colleagues, we will have more and better in-person conversations. The communication benefits of increased exposure to others afforded by open-plan space may be overstated, and the downside of being so visible may disproportionately impact women in the workplace. </p>
<p>The idea that female and male employees differ in their perceptions of being observed should be acknowledged and incorporated into office design. </p>
<p>How? By ensuring that, within open-plan environments, female workers are afforded opportunities for privacy. This includes allowing them to work with their backs to the wall or to be seated away from busy thoroughfares, and by positioning desks so that women are not forced to walk past numerous colleagues on their way to amenities such as the kitchen or the bathroom. </p>
<p>Or, best of all, allowing people to work remotely (and in total privacy) for at least part of the week.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/124765/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Morrison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Some of the latest findings about open-plan offices suggest that staff satisfaction and privacy decrease, people become less friendly and women feel watched and appraised on appearance.Rachel Morrison, Senior Lecturer, Business School, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1005872018-08-10T02:03:35Z2018-08-10T02:03:35ZGender differences at work: relishing competence or seeking a challenge?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/229747/original/file-20180730-106505-gy6eng.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=389%2C285%2C3492%2C2299&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">People who love their jobs get different things out of it - and there's a difference between women and men when it comes to job satisfaction.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5LoVcVsiSQ">Oceans 8</a>, when Debbie Ocean is asked why she felt the need to organise a multi-million-dollar jewellery heist, she replies: “Because it’s what I’m good at.” </p>
<p>Within the workplace, deriving genuine enjoyment from being skilled at something, and using those skills and abilities to succeed, is a very rewarding experience. This feeling, along with the jewels, is what Debbie was after. </p>
<p>On the other hand, risking failure with unfamiliar tasks, or when taking on new and difficult assignments, can be a terrifying experience, even though ultimately rewarding if we succeed. </p>
<p>Both experiences relate to “self-efficacy beliefs” – workers’ <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001879108000973">perceptions about their competence or ability</a>. Our <a href="http://www.nzjhrm.org.nz/Site/Articles/2018_folder/2018_issue.aspx">research</a> shows interesting gender differences in whether people prefer feeling either truly capable or else challenged to stretch their abilities. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/happiness-at-work-doesnt-just-depend-on-your-employer-97036">Happiness at work doesn't just depend on your employer</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Imposter phenomenon</h2>
<p>High self-efficacy beliefs (“I can do this”) predict both enjoyment and success at work. Low self-efficacy beliefs (feeling incompetent) characterise what has become known as the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hrdq.21304">imposter phenomenon</a>.</p>
<p>The imposter phenomenon is characterised by feelings of inadequacy or being a fake. It implies self-doubt and is usually associated with a level of anxiety. The phrase was coined by the feminist psychotherapist <a href="http://www.paulineroseclance.com/">Dr Pauline Clance</a>, who described it as an “internal experience of intellectual phoniness” and “<a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-26502-001">feeling like a fraud</a>”. </p>
<p>Not only is this very unpleasant, it is also extraordinarily common, both anecdotally and in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/nha3.20098">research findings</a>. <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1979-26502-001">High-achieving women</a> (but far fewer men) often retrospectively report feeling anxious and expecting people to notice they had been hired “by accident” into senior roles. </p>
<p>Even Facebook COO <a href="https://www.facebook.com/sheryl">Sheryl Sandberg</a>, in her 2013 book <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/03/04/10-things-sheryl-sandberg-gets-exactly-right-in-lean-in/#61d9ba167ada">Lean In</a>, admits to feeling like an imposter as a young woman. She states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I was sure that I was about to embarrass myself … And, every time I didn’t embarrass myself – or even excelled – I believed that I had fooled everyone yet again and that one day the jig would be up.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>A hard job, done well</h2>
<p>Relating to both of these constructs – the high self-efficacy driving Debbie Ocean and the imposter phenomenon experienced by the young Sheryl Sandberg – our <a href="http://www.nzjhrm.org.nz/Site/Articles/2018_folder/2018_issue.aspx">recent research</a> on a particular subset of workers who report “loving” their jobs, has revealed an intriguing gender difference in how employees describe these loved jobs. Those who reported loving jobs that gave them a feeling of competence were almost all women. Those reporting gaining enjoyment from work that challenged and stretched them were mainly men. </p>
<p>It is important to note here that the women in the study were not describing “easy” work, nor did they have stress-free roles. They included international aid workers, lawyers, doctors, academics and senior administrators. It was not that they weren’t challenged in their jobs, but it was not the challenge, specifically, that they enjoyed.</p>
<p>Instead there was a sense of intrinsic satisfaction and enjoyment from a hard job done well. In other words, they loved their work and gained enjoyment because they had the skill, capacity and ability to do their jobs – and were using these to the fullest.</p>
<p>Many of the women wrote about the sense of satisfaction that came from knowing their skills were a good fit for the role and helped them to make a meaningful contribution. They said things like:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[This job demonstrates my] … ability to argue and use my legal knowledge and research skills.</p>
<p>A patient came in with an injury that was misdiagnosed. After assessing the patient I referred them on for specialist care and further X-rays – correct diagnosis was then established which led to a much better functional outcome for the patient.</p>
<p>Commercial invoices and proforma invoices must match letters of credits exactly. I never had an invoice returned by the bank because it did not match the requisitions. This proved to me that I knew my job very well.</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Biting off more than you can chew</h2>
<p>Male respondents, on the other hand, when describing their “most loved job” tended to talk about deriving pleasure from being stretched or tested in some way, and of overcoming seemingly insurmountable challenges. Stating for example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As [a small New Zealand business], working with the team to win a large contract with one of the world’s biggest companies, headquartered in the USA. Up against large and sophisticated competition, but winning the work – David and Goliath stuff!</p>
<p>We get challenges that haven’t been solved before. We get asked to work on things that haven’t been worked on before.</p>
<p>Preparing an athlete to compete for a game they did not think they would be able to compete in due to an injury; satisfaction with beating the odds and being behind the scenes in important sport history.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Organisations are often very ready to praise the adventurous risk-takers and go-getters who are willing to <a href="https://businessblueprint.com.au/tips-to-be-a-great-entrepreneur/">push themselves</a> and their team to (and perhaps beyond) the limits of their ability. Advice such as “bite off more than you can chew, and then chew like crazy” exists throughout practitioner literature and the internet.</p>
<p>While there is little doubt these over-confident workers can be beneficial to organisations, especially small and entrepreneurial ones so common in Australasia, perhaps more attention and appreciation should be awarded to those who do excellent work within their capabilities. </p>
<p>We should be just as quick to recognise that a skilled worker who is keenly aware of her abilities and competence, and who takes on tasks they know they can excel in, is as, or more, valuable than someone who opens themselves to ruin by being willing to “give it a go”, perhaps refusing to admit to being out of their depth. </p>
<p>It is those adventurous, but potentially reckless, daredevils who may risk not only their own career, but potentially the safely and well-being of their team, or the organisation they work for, in the quest for opportunities to stretch themselves.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/100587/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachel Morrison does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>New research reveals gender differences in what we most enjoy in a job: women enjoy being competent while men are more likely to seek a challenge.Rachel Morrison, Senior Lecturer, Business School, Auckland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/887032017-12-19T23:08:40Z2017-12-19T23:08:40ZThe evolutionary history of men and women should not prevent us from seeking gender equality<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199580/original/file-20171217-29331-ioilxl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Studies of twins let us see the contributions that genes, upbringing and culture make to behaviour. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/outdoor-portrait-young-happy-smiling-mother-660724375?src=8kYBRyDELVep-i71oHm-rg-1-82">from www.shutterstock.com </a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Compared to women, men are more aggressive and enjoy being promiscuous. </p>
<p>These are just two examples of the sorts of statements that are linked to research findings from evolutionary psychologists. </p>
<p>If such conclusions are accurate, it raises concerns that our biology might prevent us from progressing towards gender equality. But I argue this is not the case, and that we need to understand our evolutionary history in order to overcome gender inequality.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/can-a-four-year-old-be-sexist-75547">Can a four-year-old be sexist?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is evolutionary psychology?</h2>
<p>Research shows that females and males – including girls and boys, as well as women and men – have many psychological differences. The field of evolutionary psychology attempts to explain these differences in terms of biological adaptations. In essence, this means examining the differing reproductive challenges faced by the sexes throughout our species’ history, and linking these with psychological and behavioural characteristics. </p>
<p>For instance, evolutionary psychologists claim that <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2004-21519-006">males are more aggressive</a> than females because they can gain greater access to females by competing violently with other males. Males are thought to be <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/27491.The_Evolution_Of_Desire">more willing to engage in casual sex</a> because they can greatly increase their reproductive output by doing so, whereas females benefit more from being choosy due to the demands of pregnancy and breastfeeding. </p>
<p>Females are more likely to prefer a <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000020#b0010">partner who is taller</a> and of <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02942-006">higher status</a>, because such males are better protectors and providers. Males are more likely to prefer a <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-02942-006">physically attractive partner</a>, where the features considered most attractive in females are signals of higher fertility, such as youth and physical health.</p>
<p>It is quite possible that psychological, behavioural, and physical sex differences make men more likely to dominate women, and women less likely to resist domination from men.</p>
<p>Sex differences are, of course, a matter of degree rather than kind. For example: yes, <a href="http://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal">more men than women are tall</a>, but that’s not to say that women can’t be tall, and men can’t be short. It’s just that when calculated as an average, men are taller and women are shorter. The same principle applies to the differences described above.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=160&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=160&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=160&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199852/original/file-20171219-27554-wp0qc8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=201&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Not all men and women fit the average characteristics of men and women.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/group-people-602783837?src=S_J9ojPvKLOaIbs0JQ_cXg-1-49">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Nature or nurture?</h2>
<p>Many people reject explanations for sex differences based on evolutionary biology, preferring to attribute such differences to culture and social context.</p>
<p>However, we find evidence of such sex differences <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-19165-013">all over the world</a>. Furthermore, explaining something as “just culture” doesn’t explain why a given cultural norm exists in the first place. It also fails to explain why we find sex differences in behaviour in many <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17130509-odd-couples">non-human animals</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/its-not-just-women-at-the-top-who-are-paid-less-than-men-88474">It's not just women at the top who are paid less than men</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There is no reason to think that the ape <em>Homo sapiens</em> is a special case, where everything can be explained by culture and nothing by biology. Finally, twin studies suggest that a large degree of individual differences <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1012294324713">can be explained by genetics</a> – and not solely by the circumstances in which you are raised, and live. </p>
<p>The rejection of evolutionary explanations for sex differences may often be an emotional response: people feel hostile toward these ideas because the picture they paint of human nature isn’t a pretty one. But the fact that something is unappealing doesn’t make it false. Some feminists might worry that such explanations imply that if gender inequality is natural then it is inevitable, and perhaps even justifiable.</p>
<h2>Natural = necessary?</h2>
<p>Regardless of whether you find evolutionary explanations of sex differences convincing, is there reason to be concerned that they might be true? Does a biological basis for sex differences imply that gender inequality is “determined” by our biology?</p>
<p>If you accept the evolutionary explanation for these sex differences, then you might be inclined to conclude that gender inequality has a biological basis. If this is your view, then perhaps you could accept that male domination of females is in some sense “natural” for humans, as it is for many other species, including our <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32281.Demonic_Males">closest living relatives</a>.</p>
<p>But just because male domination may be in some sense natural for our species does not make it necessary. This is a classic case of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem">“is-ought” fallacy</a> — the false conclusion that what is obligatory and even “right” is determined by what is natural.</p>
<p>Evolution is a mindless process that does not obey principles of morality. The “survival of the fittest” simply describes the process of getting genes successfully into the gene pool. It operates regardless of what is right or wrong, or what makes us happy. The fact that something might be human nature doesn’t mean it is good, and <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309583900274">in many cases</a>, it is clearly the contrary. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199854/original/file-20171219-27547-1hjeo27.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Sugar and fat taste so good - but that doesn’t make it ‘right’ to eat them.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/picture-assorted-donuts-box-chocolate-frosted-295159058?src=AUjdgYuTjSiY3pNZUrVcSA-1-29">from www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Understanding human nature</h2>
<p>It is a mistake to assume that an evolutionary explanation of gender inequality is bad news for feminism. Explaining human behaviour does not equate to justifying it or defending it. But if we want to change our society for the better, we probably need an accurate understanding of human nature.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/medicines-gender-revolution-how-women-stopped-being-treated-as-small-men-77171">Medicine's gender revolution: how women stopped being treated as 'small men'</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Importantly, evolutionary explanations do not imply that human behaviour is “determined” by our genes, and therefore inflexible. Evolution has given us a preference for foods that are <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17736859-the-story-of-the-human-body">high in sugar</a>, which were rare in the environments in which our species evolved. But this doesn’t mean we can’t exercise self-control and avoid those foods in the modern environments where they are in ready supply. Our desires for such foods are also flexible; <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149763407000589">the extent</a> to which we crave them depends on how much of them we are accustomed to consuming.</p>
<p>We could approach gender inequality in much the same frame of mind. Perhaps our evolutionary past inclines males to dominate females, and females to be deferential to males. But recognising our history as the source of these gender differences is not to accept them as our future. We are not mindless automata, doomed to slavishly oblige our instincts and impulses. </p>
<p>Many societies have made progress toward gender equality, despite having to work hard to achieve it. If we want to continue that progress, we must understand the origins of the inequality we wish to fight. It’s much harder to change our behaviour if we are not aware of why we do it. This idea was perhaps expressed best by the evolutionary psychologist Robert Wright, in his book <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/681941.The_Moral_Animal">The Moral Animal</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Understanding the often unconscious nature of genetic control is the first step towards understanding that – in many realms, not just sex – we’re all puppets, and our best hope for even partial liberation is to try to decipher the logic of the puppeteer…</p>
<p>I don’t think I’m spoiling the end of the movie by noting here that the puppeteer seems to have exactly zero regard for the happiness of the puppets. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Our quest towards progress and justice in all areas, including gender equality, requires awareness and understanding of the forces that have made us who we are.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/88703/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beatrice Alba does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Evolution has shaped gender differences, but we don’t have to be bound to this history. We are not mindless automata, doomed to slavishly oblige our instincts and impulses.Beatrice Alba, Research fellow, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/861072017-10-25T12:55:28Z2017-10-25T12:55:28ZThe world speaks the language of men, but after #MeToo women must find their voice<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191821/original/file-20171025-25502-1ma0opp.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mary_Pickford-desk.jpg">Hartsook Photo/Library of Congress</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>It will be gratifying to many women to see the spread of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/20/women-worldwide-use-hashtag-metoo-against-sexual-harassment">#MeToo campaign</a>, prompted by the revelations from dozens of women who have accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of acts of sexual assault since the 1980s. Millions of women across the world have joined the campaign, breaking their silence on a shared experience of sexual harassment and assault. </p>
<p>The fact that it took a shared, global, voice to begin talking about the sexism that still underpins our society shows how difficult it is for lone voices to stand against abuses of male power and privilege. This is not just about Weinstein or the film industry. If some of Hollywood’s most influential women – among them Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie, Ashley Judd, Reese Witherspoon – were compelled to stay silent for so long, what chance do most women have to speak truth to power?</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-must-do-better-to-protect-whistleblowers-and-investigators-like-daphne-caruana-galizia-85914">recent murder</a> of the Maltese journalist and blogger Daphne Caruana Galizia, killed by a car bomb near her home, is another example of the difficulty and danger involved in pursuing the truth. Caruana Galizia was an outspoken critic on her native island of Malta, using her <a href="https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com">blog</a> to expose what she saw as the corruption all around her.</p>
<p>Caruana Galizia also often drew attention to the <a href="https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2017/09/double-dose-silliness-bad-rep-women">problematic representation of women in Malta</a> and the government’s inability to endorse positive female role models, levelling criticism at a society in which women should be seen and not heard. In 2014 she drew attention to how <a href="https://daphnecaruanagalizia.com/2014/10/maltas-slips-down-to-99th-place-in-the-gender-rankings-under-the-most-feminist-government-in-history">Malta had slipped to 99th place</a> out of 142 in global rankings on gender equality, placing it below Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and Kazakhstan. Now Malta has lost the one woman, and according to many, the only person, who <a href="http://manueldelia.com/2017/09/problem-daphne-caruana-galizia/">dared to speak truth to power</a>.</p>
<h2>Shared pain, shared silence</h2>
<p>Should we be surprised by the murder of a leading journalist, described by her family as the outcome of a “long witch hunt”? Or to learn that dozens of Hollywood celebrities, and those they confided in, felt compelled to keep secret the sexual predations of a Hollywood producer? </p>
<p>Female voice has long been seen as dangerous, deviant, and untrustworthy. My own work is often concerned with the careers of the first women in Britain who made writing their profession, and who sought to make their voices heard in a male-dominated world. </p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/191807/original/file-20171025-25497-p8e8e1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A portrait of Aphra Behn, who ‘earned women the right to speak their minds’.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aphra_Behn_by_Peter_Lely_ca._1670.jpg">Peter Lely/Yale Center for British Art</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Women like <a href="https://writersinspire.org/content/aphra-behn">Aphra Behn</a>, <a href="http://www.notablebiographies.com/supp/Supplement-Fl-Ka/Haywood-Eliza.html">Eliza Haywood</a>, <a href="http://www.juggernaut-theatre.org/first-100-years-the-professional-female-playwright/susanna-centlivre/">Susannah Centlivre</a> and <a href="http://www.hertsmemories.org.uk/content/herts-history/people/delarivier-manley">Delarivier Manley</a> wrote some of the first novels in England, Britain’s first journalism, and the most popular plays of the century. Their work was widely read and hugely influential. But they were sneered at in their age on account of their gender. Women, many claimed, shouldn’t write, and certainly shouldn’t write for the public.</p>
<p>Virginia Woolf famously <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2007/nov/13/aphrabehnstillaradicalexa">wrote</a> that “all women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn, for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds”. But Behn herself conceded that the voice of professional writers was gendered male. </p>
<p>In the preface to her play, The Luckey Chance (1687), she requested “the Priviledge for my Masculine Part the Poet in me … to tread in those successful Paths my Predecessors have so long thriv’d in”, before going on to <a href="https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A27303.0001.001/1:3?rgn=div1;view=toc">note that</a>: “If I must not, because of my Sex, have this Freedom, … I lay down my Quill, and you shall hear no more of me … because I will be kinder to my brothers of the Pen, than they have been to a defenceless Woman.” Behn’s words speak clearly to the gendered inequalities of the professional literary marketplace.</p>
<p>In almost every work written by a woman that I read, the author is forced to publicly negotiate her relationship to ideas of truth. This is especially the case when that woman writes about her life, and comments directly on the effects of the society in which she lives. One example is found in the memoirs written by the Duchess of Mazarin in the 1670s. Even though she was a powerfully-connected aristocrat, Mazarin addresses her reader directly to <a href="https://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n24/elisabeth-ladenson/the-virgin-and-i">acknowledge the expectation that women remain silent</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I know the chief Glory of a Woman ought to consist in not making her self to be publicly talked of. And those that know me, know like-wise, that I never too much pleasure in things that make too much Noise. But it is not always in our choice to live our own way.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Do women have any more public credibility now than when Mazarin wrote these words? A survey of US university undergraduates by Benjamin Schmidt suggests not. Schmidt’s <a href="http://benschmidt.org/2015/02/06/rate-my-professor/">database of responses</a> draws upon 14m reviews from the <a href="http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/">Rate My Professors</a> website to show the differing usage of words according to the gender of the academic reviewed. Positive terms like “smart”, “intellect”, “genius” are far more widely used to describe male academics, while negative terms like “bossy”, “shrill”, “strict” and “demanding” are far more often applied to those that are women.</p>
<h2>Tackling the cause, not the symptom</h2>
<p>Earlier this year the UN launched a major campaign, <a href="https://www.23percentrobbery.com/#about">#stoptherobbery</a>, to address the issue of gender inequality expressed in the pay gap that leads women to be underpaid – robbed – on average 23% of their income compared to men performing the same work. It was an inequality that was also exposed with the recent publication of the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/sep/06/bbc-chief-unveils-plans-to-tackle-gender-pay-gap-and-pay-inequality">salaries of the BBC’s highest earners</a>. Inequality is most visible when it can be measured in easily quantifiable ways, like the pay cheques people take home. Yet while the UN’s campaign is laudable, it addresses a symptom of gender inequality rather than its cause.</p>
<p>The pioneering work of Australian feminist Dale Spender in the 1970s and 80s showeded how the world we live in is one <a href="https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ot/spender.htm">described and negotiated through a male-centred language</a>. This is a language in which “man comes to stand in for humanity”, “words reserved for women are derivations/deviations from the word for men (actress, woman)” and in which we can immediately perceive sexual double standards in attitudes towards the same behaviour across the genders (for example in the linguistic equivalence of “stud” and “slut”).</p>
<p>How do women find equality in a world governed by a male-centred language, and the male-centred structures it upholds? Equal pay would help, but that won’t change the root of the problem. The most important step is to find a voice. But that, it seems, is still proving hard, and history is set against us. How many more women will lose jobs, reputations, and even their lives in the struggle to make themselves heard?</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86107/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claudine van Hensbergen has received funding from: Arts Council England; Arts and Humanities Research Council; British Academy; Chawton House Library; School of Advanced Study, University of London; University of Oxford. She is an Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and a member of the University and College Union.</span></em></p>Women’s voices have been seen as unwanted or untruthful, but the snowballing sexual assault revelations from the #MeToo campaign show that women must find their voices.Claudine van Hensbergen, Senior Lecturer in 18th Century English Literature, Northumbria University, NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/755472017-04-05T19:28:31Z2017-04-05T19:28:31ZCan a four-year-old be sexist?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163776/original/image-20170404-21950-mhrx96.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Children are exposed to gender differences and expectations from the moment they are born.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Victorian government <a href="http://www.education.vic.gov.au/about/programs/health/Pages/respectfulrelationships.aspx">has announced</a> it plans to teach its <a href="https://theconversation.com/respectful-relationships-education-isnt-about-activating-a-gender-war-67296">Respectful Relationship program</a> to preschoolers as a way to target and prevent sexist behaviour among children aged three and four years old.</p>
<p>The program – which is taught to teenagers in schools – more broadly aims to tackle issues around family violence, and also to develop young people’s social skills and promote respectful relationships.</p>
<p>The justification for extending this program into preschool settings, according to the <a href="https://www.tenders.vic.gov.au/tenders/tender/display/tender-details.do?id=8677&action=display-tender-details">document</a> released by the state government, is that </p>
<blockquote>
<p>as young children learn about gender, they may also begin to enact sexist values, beliefs and attitudes that may contribute to disrespect and gender inequality.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But can children at that age be sexist? When is it that children are aware of gender differences – and what makes them act on it?</p>
<h2>When do children become aware of their gender?</h2>
<p>Researchers have shown that <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230810604_Early_androgens_activity_levels_and_toy_choices_of_children_in_the_second_year_of_life">by age one</a> (and in some studies, <a href="http://infantcognition.tamu.edu/files/2013/10/Alexander-G.M.-Wilcox-T.-Woods-R.-2009.pdf">as early as three months old</a>), children show clear preferences for gender-consistent toys (eg trucks for boys, dolls for girls). This occurs even if they have only been exposed to gender-neutral toys, or had equal access to both “boys” and “girls” toys. </p>
<p>So, does this mean that kids as young as three months are aware of their gender? </p>
<p>No. It’s not until about age three that children have a basic understanding of gender identity – but even then, it’s pretty tenuous. </p>
<p>At this age, it’s not uncommon for kids to still be confused regarding gender – for example, a girl thinking she will grow up to be a man, or a boy referring to his mum as “him”. </p>
<p>However, the emergence of basic gender identity helps us to explain why by age three children prefer to play with same-sex peers and engage in gender-stereotyped play. </p>
<p>Researchers have suggested that <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247638676_The_Emergence_of_Same-Sex_Affiliative_Preferences_among_Preschool_Peers_A_DevelopmentalEthological_Perspective">this shows children understand the differences between genders</a> and are aware that they “fit” better with one gender than the other. </p>
<p>Gender constancy – that is understanding that being male or female is a fixed personal attribute – does not develop completely until around age six to seven. </p>
<p>Gender constancy develops as a result of cognitive development (so children are able to understand more abstract concepts like gender), as well as learning about social expectations for their behaviour. Psychologists refer to this as <a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131650?journalCode=psych">“socialisation</a>”. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163774/original/image-20170404-21933-kryys7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">By age three, children prefer to play with same-sex peers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>…and of gender differences and expectations?</h2>
<p>Few people would think they encouraged gender-stereotyped play and behaviours in children. But remember the old saying “do as I say, not as I do”? It’s pretty apt here. </p>
<p>Kids imitate the behaviours of important role models in their lives: parents, caregivers and teachers alike. </p>
<p>This is particularly strong when the role model is of the same sex – girls are more likely to model the behaviours of adult females and boys of adult males. </p>
<p>So, even if we tell them that “girls can do anything boys can do”, if they only ever see dad but never mum doing vehicle maintenance, the words may not have much impact.</p>
<p>It’s not like parents wake up one day and decide “today is the day I make my gender expectations clear to my child”. It’s much less dramatic than that. </p>
<p>The reality is that we reinforce gender differences and expectations every day without even meaning to, through observational learning processes. </p>
<p>Think about your own life. Are there chores and activities that seem to fall along gender lines? Taking the bins out, doing the ironing and cooking, for example.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5SVm6Ooz5iI?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>I doubt there was a discussion in which you divided up the chores based on gender. It probably just “became habit”. As such you never really questioned it – much like gender expectations in children. </p>
<p>Children are exposed to gender differences and expectations from the moment they are born. Over time this information is internalised to inform their understanding of how the world works – with early understandings about gender differences and expectations emerging by age three. </p>
<p>Helping this process along is the way we (often indadvertently) reinforce gendered behaviours, by providing approval for those behaviours that are gender-consistent (eg, praising a boy for not crying when he is hurt), and disapproval for those that are not (eg, discouraging rough-and-tumble play for a girl). </p>
<p>This means that by the time they achieve the concept of gender constancy by around age six to seven, their understanding of gender differences and expectations are also well established. </p>
<p>Kids are incredibly fast learners – even when we don’t realise that teaching has taken place. </p>
<p>Complicating this is that children filter information according to what their brain can make sense of. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/163972/original/image-20170404-14594-15k2xql.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Pink bike = girl’s toy?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">from www.shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>At age three to four, children demonstrate very “black-and-white” thinking – things are good or bad, right or wrong. What this means about gender is that they think in terms of “girl or boy”, and categorise their world (eg toys, clothes, activities) accordingly. </p>
<p>If this type of thinking was shown in an adult, who has more flexible thinking patterns – they can see shades of grey – it would be considered sexist. In kids of this age, it’s normal.</p>
<p>In and of itself, this is not a problem. It’s a normal developmental process. The problem arises when expectations about gender and gender differences lead to <a href="http://genderequality.ie/en/GE/Pages/WhatisGE">gender inequality</a>.</p>
<p>Gender inequality has been <a href="https://aifs.gov.au/publications/gender-equality-and-violence-against-women/introduction">shown</a> to increase the risk of gender-based violence.</p>
<p>Proponents argue that this is where the Respectful Relationship program comes into play. </p>
<p>By providing an environment in which gender equality is both taught and modelled, it is argued that beliefs about gender and gender differences can be changed to support more respectful relationships with others from a young age, and decrease the risk of sexist and violent behaviour in the future. </p>
<p>If we’re talking about educating four-year-olds about this issue, it’s really more about what they see than what we say. </p>
<p>They don’t need to know what sexism is – the fact is, they won’t understand it if you try. </p>
<p>What is important is that we promote respect for all, without pathologising normal developmental processes. It’s okay that young boys like to play with boys, and girls like to play with girls; that boys like to play with trucks, and girls like to play with dolls. It’s not sexist, it’s a normal part of growing up.</p>
<h2>So, can young children knowingly be sexist?</h2>
<p>The fact that a four-year-old has a basic understanding of gender differences and expectations, and behaves according to this knowledge, is not the same as deliberately engaging in sexist behaviour. It simply reflects what they have seen, and what they are able to understand.</p>
<p>Their intention is to make sense of their world and how they fit in it – not to hurt or disempower others.</p>
<p>In a world where actions speak louder than words, it is not what you say but what you do that will shape your child’s gender expectations. Model and promote gender equality. </p>
<p>They may not know what sexist behaviour is at four, but this way they’ll be less likely to demonstrate it at 14.</p>
<p><em>Have a question about this piece? The author will be available for a Q&A today from 1pm to 2pm. Post your questions in the comments below.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75547/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kimberley Norris does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>At the age of four, children have a basic understanding of gender differences and expectations. But it is unlikely they would knowingly be sexist.Kimberley Norris, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/735352017-03-09T12:22:53Z2017-03-09T12:22:53ZWhy women and men too easily accept the gender pay gap<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159596/original/image-20170306-20759-1oyjsv5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money matters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/gender-pay-gap-488107402?src=87F5WHCYyIwP8lZX6XUQHw-1-2">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Large employers in the UK <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35553573">will have to publish</a> from April annual data on their gender pay and bonuses gaps. While under the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/equality-act-guidance">Equal Pay Act</a> it is illegal to pay men and women differently for doing the same job, <a href="http://visual.ons.gov.uk/the-gender-pay-gap-what-is-it-and-what-affects-it/">figures from</a> the <a href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/">Office for National Statistics</a> puts the gender pay gap for full-time employees in 2016 at 9.4% in the UK. The reasons for this substantial difference in earnings are often attributed to occupational segregation by gender, driven by differences in education, accumulated experience and discrimination. </p>
<p>But <a href="http://www.fiwi.uni-jena.de/wfwmedia/Lehre/GenderEconomics/Bertrand+2011+New+Perspectives+on+Gender+In+Handbook+of+Labor+Economics+4+B-p-454.pdf">recent research</a> has instead focused on underlying gender differences in preferences and psychological attributes which may affect choice of work, and therefore help to explain the gender pay gap. </p>
<p>For instance, women may seek different career paths and value aspects of employment such as flexibility and a pleasant working environment instead of focusing directly on pay. On the whole, women tend also to be more <a href="http://www.mbs.ac.uk/news/research/study-finds-women-more-risk-averse-in-the-boardroom/">risk averse than men</a> and have lower preferences for <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jel.47.2.448">competitive situations</a> which can both lead to career choices with lower earnings than men. </p>
<p>So psychology seems to provide a fruitful area for explaining the gender pay gap. The focus of my <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268117300379">own research</a> into this subject is a particularly pertinent psychological trait, that of optimism. By optimism, I specifically mean systematically biased beliefs in the probability of doing well. </p>
<p>Psychologists <a href="http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.535.9244&rep=rep1&type=pdf">have documented</a> our tendency to view ourselves in implausibly positive ways and our absurd belief that our future will be better than the evidence of the present can possibly justify. However, when it comes to assessing our competence, our ability and our future prosperity, men really do overestimate themselves while <a href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/2118063?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents">women are typically more pessimistic</a>. I found that this difference between men and women can really matter in matters of employment. </p>
<p>Optimism affects the satisfaction we get from our pay. While we know that women face a substantial wage penalty compared to men, they <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537197000109">also tend</a> to be more generally satisfied with their work and income. This is a counter-intuitive situation. We would expect those who get paid the most (men) to be the most satisfied. Here is where optimism, our biased perception of the future comes into play. The satisfaction we gain from our wages is to some extent based upon our expectations. Receiving £10 when you are expecting £5 feels pleasing. But receiving £10 when you are expecting £20 feels disappointing. </p>
<p>If women are predisposed to underestimating themselves and their labour market prospects, as <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268117300379">my study</a> finds, they will continue, on the whole, to be satisfied with such pay inequality. This is a worrying state of affairs. We tend to search for new jobs when we feel that some aspect of our current occupation, such as pay, can be improved upon. But if we are satisfied, we stay in that job, we don’t negotiate and we don’t ask for that promotion. </p>
<h2>Battle of the sexes</h2>
<p>For men it’s the opposite story. They constantly overestimate themselves, widening their vulnerability to inevitable disappointment. Disappointed workers negotiate, they always ask for promotions and are happy to switch employers to improve upon aspects of their jobs which they feel can be bettered. </p>
<p>So optimism pays off in the labour market – it drives the pursuit of employment with better wages. Optimism may also be beneficial in other ways. Psychologists have <a href="http://humancond.org/_media/papers/taylor_brown_88_illusion_and_well_being.pdf">often linked</a> optimism with motivation and our ability to cope with stress. Believing in ourselves and in our abilities may also help us to convince others, especially our boss, that we are brilliant. </p>
<p>After all, to convince others of your competence, you really need to believe it yourself. If psychology is the problem – even in labour markets with no discrimination – women will continue to earn less, simply because they are too easily satisfied with lower pay. </p>
<p>It is difficult to know how laws and policy makers can solve this pessimistic female outlook, since personality traits tend to be established and fixed early on in pre-adult life. But perhaps one step in the right direction would be for employers to adjust their recruitment and promotion policies, by pulling up women with potential instead of waiting for them to come knocking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73535/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Chris Dawson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A difference in psychology could explain the difference in rewards.Chris Dawson, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Business Economics, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/720352017-02-02T02:58:11Z2017-02-02T02:58:11ZStereotypes can hold boys back in school, too<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155271/original/image-20170201-22566-1z11q1v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=396%2C336%2C4363%2C3190&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Students of both genders carry around stereotypes about school achievement.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/kids-go-school-little-boy-girl-478964521">Children image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>By age six, girls are less likely than boys to view their own gender as brilliant and express interest in activities described as for “really, really smart” children, according to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524">2017 research</a> published in Science. </p>
<p>Many <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38717926">major</a> <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/girls-young-six-think-brilliance-boys-study-549034">media</a> <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2017/01/26/research-shows-young-girls-are-less-likely-to-think-of-women-as-really-really-smart/">outlets</a> reported these findings. Most of the coverage, however, overlooked another key finding from the same study: Boys were less likely to say their own gender gets top grades in school. </p>
<p>The beliefs of children matter because they could shape students’ interests and achievement over time, other research suggests. For instance, one 2013 experiment found that telling elementary school children “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12079">girls do better than boys</a>” in school made boys – but not girls – perform worse on a series of academic tests. These expectations can work both ways: When researchers told children that boys and girls would perform the same, boys’ academic performance improved.</p>
<p>There are real and persistent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011">gender achievement gaps</a> in the U.S. For instance, boys tend to get <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036620">worse grades</a> than girls, but girls are few among top scorers on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006">standardized math tests</a>. While much research <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2014.10.002">has studied</a> how stereotypes about achievement can make girls underperform, the gaps where boys do worse have often been <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/">historically overlooked</a>. But stereotypes can harm boys too – just in different ways.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155248/original/image-20170201-29893-10ailxb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even young students hold beliefs about which gender is better at what.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usagrc/8402390855">U.S. Army Garrison Red Cloud</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h1>Who gets the grades, who’s super smart?</h1>
<p>In the Science study on children’s views about brilliance, developmental psychologists asked 144 children aged five to seven years a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aah6524">series of questions</a> about school achievement. For instance, children had to guess which of two unfamiliar boys and two unfamiliar girls “gets the best grades in school.” </p>
<p>Children tended to favor their own gender, but boys did so to a lesser extent. Among seven-year-olds, 79 percent of girls selected girls as the better student, but 55 percent of boys selected boys.</p>
<p>These results sharply contrasted with those about brilliance. When asked to guess who was “really, really smart,” girls instead expressed less confidence in their gender. Among seven-year-olds, 55 percent of girls selected girls as being super smart, but 66 percent of boys selected boys.</p>
<p>In other words, these young children overall held positive beliefs about their gender. But boys were less certain about their gender getting good grades and girls were less certain about their gender being super smart.</p>
<p>Other research has found that, by fifth grade, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12079">both boys and girls say</a> that girls work harder at school, want to learn more, listen better, follow instructions better, are more polite and – perhaps as a result – perform better in school.</p>
<h1>Reality of gender achievement gaps</h1>
<p>Children’s stereotypes reflect reality to an extent. For instance, girls have gotten <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0036620">better school grades in all subject areas</a> for nearly a century, according to a recent synthesis of 308 studies that included over one million students. This female advantage started in elementary school and continued until college.</p>
<p>Girls get better grades, even in <a href="https://nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_2009/gender_gpa.aspx?tab_id=tab3&subtab_id=Tab_1">math and science</a> – two subject areas often assumed to favor boys. Women also <a href="http://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/webcaspar/EmailedTable?table=0131170122245506081">now earn</a> more bachelor’s degrees, master’s degree and – since 2007 – doctoral degrees than men in the U.S.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=252&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/155074/original/image-20170131-3259-q0hqse.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=317&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Girls get better grades even in math and science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://nationsreportcard.gov/hsts_2009/gender_gpa.aspx?tab_id=tab3&subtab_id=Tab_1">U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, High School Transcript Study (HSTS), various years, 1990-2009</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Despite their advantage in grades and degree attainment, girls are underrepresented among the highest scorers on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.7604277">standardized mathematics and science tests</a>. For instance, boys <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011">typically outnumber</a> girls by between two and four to one among the top 1 percent or higher of math scorers. However, girls tend to slightly outnumber boys among top scorers on <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.04.006">standardized reading and writing tests</a>.</p>
<p>Children’s views about who is “really, really smart” therefore partly match the reality of who gets top scores on mathematics (but not reading or writing) standardized tests.</p>
<h1>Self-fulfilling stereotypes</h1>
<p>But children’s stereotypes may do more than merely reflect reality: They may help create that reality through self-fulfilling prophecies. For instance, if girls doubt their gender can be brilliant, girls might then avoid “super smart” activities like advanced math summer camps and then not <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2332858416673617">develop precocious mathematics talent</a>. In other words, stereotypes and reality could mutually strengthen each other.</p>
<p>Consistent with these hypotheses, the new Science study also found that, by age six, girls expressed less interest than boys in games described as for “children who are really, really smart” (though <a href="https://twitter.com/davidimiller/status/825083343838511105">more research is needed</a> to see if stereotypes directly caused this gap in interests). </p>
<p>Stereotypes could negatively affect boys too. As experiments on elementary school children suggest, beliefs about boys’ <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12079">academic inferiority</a> or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.008">poor reading ability</a> could make boys underperform on evaluative academic tests. </p>
<p>Teachers’ stereotypes also matter. For instance, teachers’ beliefs that girls are better readers <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037107">predict declines</a> from grade five to grade six in boys’ – but not girls’ – confidence in their reading skills. Researchers also find that teachers often view boys as “<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2015.11.001">lazy, disruptive, unfocused, and lacking motivation.</a>” This stereotype about troublesome boys could negatively bias teachers’ perceptions of boys’ learning, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11218-015-9303-0">one experiment</a> found.</p>
<p>These results suggest stereotypes contribute to gender achievement gaps, but they certainly aren’t the only factor at work. For instance, girls’ advantage in grades might also be tied to actual differences in <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2011.09.001">classroom behavior</a> or <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33">activity level</a>.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OFpYj0E-yb4?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Boys’ rowdiness in school — and teachers’ intolerance of it — might also contribute to girls’ advantage in grades, argues philosopher Christina Hoff Sommers.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h1>Maximizing all children’s potential</h1>
<p>Stereotypes could therefore hold back both girls and boys, but in distinct domains. Beliefs about brilliance might deter girls from top intellectual pursuits, but beliefs about grades and classroom behavior might harm boys in school more broadly across the achievement spectrum. </p>
<p>Both sets of findings are important. However, people often appear much less concerned with stereotypes negatively affecting boys than those affecting girls. For instance, <a href="https://www.altmetric.com/details/15836717/twitter">several tweets</a> about this new study described its results about brilliance as “sad” and “depressing,” but its results about grades went largely unnoticed.</p>
<p>Data on boys’ underachievement also have often been <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/">historically overlooked</a> in media attention and <a href="http://educationnext.org/progress-report/">educational policies</a>. Some writers even <a href="https://www.thenation.com/article/real-world-so-called-boy-crisis-disappears/">argue that</a> boys’ educational struggles aren’t “worrisome” because “the workplace is still stacked against [women].”</p>
<p>But it’s not constructive to pit one gender against the other. Recognizing contexts that favor females <a href="https://theconversation.com/some-good-news-about-hiring-women-in-stem-doesnt-erase-sex-bias-issue-40212">doesn’t erase biases</a> against them elsewhere. More importantly, the goal of education should be to maximize all students’ potential and remove obstacles in their way. Regardless of the individual strengths students bring to school, stereotypes shouldn’t determine how far they go. Realizing that goal requires identifying and mitigating how stereotypes can also hold boys back in school.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/72035/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Miller receives funding from National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>Recent research raised concerns about girls’ stereotypes on their gender’s lack of ‘brilliance.’ But an overlooked finding suggests boys also hold hindering stereotypes about themselves in school.David Miller, Ph.D. Candidate in Psychology, Northwestern UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/641182016-08-19T05:14:02Z2016-08-19T05:14:02ZWill women ever be able to compete against men in Olympic events?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134731/original/image-20160819-12312-1kz191.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Predictions that top women athletes will soon be competing with the best men, and may even outperform them someday, have not borne out. </span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tedgoldring/261037574/">Ted Goldring/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If experience teaches us anything, making predictions is a fool’s game. But that doesn’t stop regular predictions that top women athletes will soon be competing with the best men, and may even outperform them someday. </p>
<p>Is there any truth to this idea, and how do intersex athletes, like Caster Semenya, complicate the discussion?</p>
<p>In 1992, two eminent physiologists published a paper in Nature with the provocative title <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1731197">Will women soon outrun men?</a> They concluded that if women’s running performance continued to improve as rapidly as it had since the 1920s, top women athletes would soon be running as quickly as the best men and might even be faster in the future. </p>
<p>The public agreed; <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/305/5684/639">a 1996 poll reported</a> that two-thirds of Americans believed “the day is coming when top female athletes will beat top males.”</p>
<p>Is that day coming and, if not, why not?</p>
<h2>Flawed science</h2>
<p>Let’s start with the original 1992 predictions. The authors of the Nature paper placed a straight line over the past performances of men and women, extended these straight lines into the future, and calculated that the “projected intersection (between male and female records) for the marathon is 1998”. </p>
<p>How did their projection fare?</p>
<p>By the end of 1998, the women’s world record for the marathon was still more than 10 minutes behind the men’s. In 2016, that gap has increased. The record marathon time for the men (2:02:57) is now more than 12 minutes faster than for the women (2:15:25).</p>
<p>So, what went wrong?</p>
<p>The main error stemmed from the assumption that linear improvements in the past would continue into the future. It’s a common mistake. </p>
<p>Using the same flawed method, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/n7008/full/431525a.html">another group of scientists wrote</a> in 2004 that if current trends continued the female winner of the 100m final at the 2156 Olympics would win in a faster time than the men’s event. </p>
<p>They neglected to calculate that, in the same year, linear trends predicted women would be pole-vaulting heights close to 17m!</p>
<p>A simple example may help illustrate the dangers of assuming linear changes will continue into the future. Below is a graph showing changes in height during the teenage years (when growth is most rapid). I’ve then extended this roughly linear improvement in height 50 years into the future. This projection would have the average man more than four metres tall – and still growing – by age 70. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=453&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/134723/original/image-20160819-12315-1cznzgo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=569&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h1>What actually happened</h1>
<p>The rapid improvements in women’s athletic performance we saw in the 1980s haven’t continued for two big reasons. </p>
<p>The first is that discrimination had kept women from competing in many sports; it was entirely predictable that, once the sports were opened up, there would be big improvements. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://sportsscientists.com/2014/01/the-world-record-suspicion-survey-and-some-related-thoughts/">second reason is based on suspicions</a> that many of the records from the 1980s were achieved by doped athletes. We know that the artificial addition of male hormones, such as testosterone, have especially powerful effects on female athletic performance. </p>
<p>This could help explain why nearly all women’s records in Olympic sprint and power events are from the 1980s.</p>
<p>With much greater participation by women in sport, and improved detection of doping with testosterone, there’s now quite a stable 10% to 12% difference between men’s and women’s world records from the 100m to the ultramarathon. This difference tends to be greater in more explosive events (throwing, for instance, and jumping) and less in distance swimming races. </p>
<p>Is there a biological explanation for this persistent difference in performance between men and women? Most scientists believe that testosterone is the most important – but not only – factor distinguishing male and female athletes. </p>
<h2>Testrosterone’s role</h2>
<p>Probably the best illustration of the powerful effects of testosterone is <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25137421">a study that compared</a> the race times of transgender women before and after they undertook testosterone suppression to change from normal male levels to normal female levels (or even below the average).</p>
<p>All eight women in the study were far slower after the change than their former high-testosterone self.</p>
<p>High testosterone levels <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6078171/World-Athletics-Caster-Semenya-tests-show-high-testosterone-levels.html">have also been used to explain</a> the performance of intersex athlete Caster Semenya. But, it’s important to point out that even with elevated testosterone levels, Semenya’s best time for the 800m event (1:55:33) is far behind the men’s world record (1:40:91). And it’s also slower than the first officially recognised men’s 800m world record set in 1912. </p>
<p>There appears little hope of women, regardless of testosterone levels, ever being able to compete with men in most, but maybe not all, Olympic events.</p>
<p>So, in what events might women be able to compete with men? </p>
<p>Men and women currently compete head to head at the Olympics only in equestrian events (there are also some mixed events). Prior to 1992, shooting was also an “open” event, and two women have won Olympic shooting medals competing against men – Margaret Murdoch in 1976 and Zhang Shan in 1992. </p>
<p>In US college sports, women and men still compete against each other in shooting events and women often win. And despite it not being an Olympic event, women can compete with men in open-water swimming events. </p>
<p>The women’s record for swimming from Catalina Island to the California mainland (7:15:55) is more than 30 minutes faster than the male record. But these are rare exceptions to the profound genetic advantage that men have over women in most sports. </p>
<p>If you’re in the prediction game, it’s much safer to say there are very few Olympic events where women will ever be able to compete against men.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64118/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Bishop does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A 1992 paper predicted that if women’s running performance continued to improve as rapidly as it had since the 1920s, top women athletes would soon be running as quickly as the men.David Bishop, Research Leader, Sport, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living, Victoria UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/590052016-05-31T04:17:10Z2016-05-31T04:17:10ZIt’s not just the toy aisles that teach children about gender stereotypes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/124256/original/image-20160527-22050-sugfeq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Are gender differences innate or learned? Or both? </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><em>CHANGING FAMILIES: In this <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">ten-part series</a>, we examine some major changes in family and relationships, and how that might in turn reshape law, policy and our idea of ourselves.</em></p>
<hr>
<p>Children are born into a world of pink or blue. A walk down a department store toy aisle demonstrates a clear gender divide: princesses and dolls for the girls, superheroes and vehicles for the boys.</p>
<p>Does this simply reflect the different interests that boys and girls have? Or are toy manufacturers imposing gender stereotypes on children?</p>
<p>Marketing toys as being either “for girls” or “for boys” has attracted criticism from initiatives such as <a href="http://www.nogenderdecember.com">No Gender December</a> advocating for more gender-neutral toy choices. Objectors to this campaign include the then-prime minister, Tony Abbott, <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-02/katter-hits-back-at-campaign-to-boycott-gender-based-toys/5933308">who responded by saying</a>: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let boys be boys, let girls be girls.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And there is indeed some evidence that boys and girls come into the world with different preferences and interests. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638300000321">For example</a>, newborn girls have been found to have a greater interest in looking at faces, and newborn boys a greater interest in looking at mobiles. As early as infancy, <a href="http://130.179.16.37/%7Edcampb/Campbell.InfantMetaALSexDiffInfantChildDev1999.pdf">boys show greater physical activity</a> than girls.</p>
<p>Gender differences relating to play are not limited to humans. <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001071">A study</a> of vervet monkeys found that, compared to females, males spent more time playing with a toy police car and a ball. On the other hand, female vervet monkeys spent more time playing with a doll and a cooking pot. There were no gender differences in the amount of time spent playing with a picture book and a stuffed dog, similar to what we find in humans.</p>
<p>Such research seems to indicate innate differences between girls and boys that influence their preferences for particular types of toys. Toy manufacturers marketing toys towards either girls or boys might simply be responding to these preferences.</p>
<h2>The ethics of gendered toy marketing</h2>
<p>In a newly published article, <a href="http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10551-016-3080-3">Cordelia Fine and Emma Rush argue</a> that gender differences in toy preferences are misrepresented in gendered toy marketing. The authors argue that these gender preferences in toys are presented as being categorically different, while in fact they are more a matter of degree. </p>
<p>Their review of the evidence suggests that preferences for toys among children under three years of age show a large degree of overlap. For instance, <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638300000321">the study finding that</a> newborn girls preferred to look at a face and newborn boys preferred to look at a mobile only shows average differences in looking time that are less than 10%.</p>
<p>Furthermore, they argue that the gender labelling of toys influences how much interest girls or boys will show in gender-neutral toys. Thus, gendered toy marketing may actually exaggerate the gap in preferences between girls and boys.</p>
<p>Fine and Rush argue that gendered toy marketing perpetuates beliefs about which interests or activities are appropriate for girls or boys. Toys marketed to girls may reinforce them to focus on their physical appearance, and toys marketed to boys may reinforce an interest in violence. Gender-typing of toys can also have a negative impact if there are lesser educational benefits of toys marketed to one or the other gender. </p>
<p>Whether or not gender differences in toy preferences have any innate basis, reinforcing and magnifying those differences and imposing gender stereotypes on children is problematic. Parents who hold such concerns for their children should not overlook other ways in which gender stereotypes affect their children.</p>
<h2>Not just child’s play</h2>
<p>Children are quick to absorb norms and expectations. They pick up information about gender roles from sources other than the toys they are encouraged, or discouraged, to play with. </p>
<p>Adults might reinforce gender stereotypes in children through traditional gender norms that are visible to them. <a href="https://theconversation.com/do-women-take-their-husbands-surname-after-marriage-because-of-biology-56991">Take marriage</a>: typically men make marriage proposals to women through the presentation of an engagement ring. More traditionally, this occurs after he asks permission from the woman’s father. At the wedding ceremony, the father walks the veiled bride down the aisle and hands her over to her husband. </p>
<p>She changes her surname to his, and the children also take his name. The bride, if she chooses, goes from Miss to Mrs. </p>
<p>In fact, the whole wedding is viewed as the woman’s “special day”. It’s her chance to live out her ultimate princess fantasy, for which Disney might have provided some inspiration.</p>
<p>Like toys, these adult customs tell children something about gender. At the very least, they reinforce the existence of distinct gender roles. At worst, they send messages about the unequal status of men and women. They enhance masculine stereotypes of dominance, power and autonomy, and feminine stereotypes of subservience, passivity and dependence. These messages are likely to impact children’s developing notions about gender and status.</p>
<p>The point here is not to place moral condemnation on parents who might inadvertently reinforce gender stereotypes through marriage traditions. Toy companies exploiting gender stereotypes for profit is a different ethical problem to any possible harm caused by individuals choosing to follow particular wedding traditions. </p>
<p>But if we are concerned about the reinforcement of gender stereotypes in the toy aisle, we should be concerned about them elsewhere. We need to think more broadly about how we as adults reinforce these stereotypes. Anyone concerned about the impact of gender stereotyping on children should be willing to critically examine their potential impact in any context.</p>
<p>Of course, one could respond to the rejection of marriage traditions by objecting that it’s not a big deal. Wedding traditions are romantic, and who would deny a girl’s dream to be a princess for a day? “Let men be men, let women be women,” as Abbott might say. </p>
<hr>
<p><strong><em>Read the other instalments in the Changing Families series <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/changing-families">here</a>.</em></strong></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/59005/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Beatrice Alba does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Whether gendered toys are creating stereotypes or just playing to boys’ and girls’ innate differences is a vexed question.Beatrice Alba, Casual Academic, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/457812015-08-31T20:08:09Z2015-08-31T20:08:09ZTalking about our work is important but it can land researchers in trouble<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91553/original/image-20150812-18108-15z00wu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The more academics fear being involved in media storms, the less they feel free to explore topics they consider important.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/tim_ellis/2269499855/">Tim Ellis/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In recent decades, the public engagement of academics has increased enormously: the results of academic research are often shared with the public via the media and blogs; academics are interviewed on radio and television shows; and they publish popular books for non-specialist readers, while social media reaches a wide audience instantly.</p>
<p>Though some old-fashioned academics may still live in an ivory tower, many others are more or less enthusiastic “inhabitants” of the web. But this new level of engagement is producing problems and conflicts for which many academics are ill-prepared.</p>
<h2>Harms of hype</h2>
<p>Some of these problems arise from the communication of research: over-hyped and out-of-context claims may be harmful or misleading. </p>
<p>Claims of sex differences in the brain, for instance, are reported in the media, often in ways that downplay how small the reported effects actually are. And when – as often happens – the effects fail to be replicated, these <a href="http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/the-sage-handbook-of-gender-and-psychology/n4.i495.xml">latest results are not reported</a>. </p>
<p>Many people come to have the impression that “science” has shown the brains of men and women differ in ways that affect cognition, while scientists themselves recognise that any such claim is, at the very least, controversial. They know very well that subsequent research may often reverse the results of a study, but the public may give excessive credence to single studies. And there’s <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat">evidence</a> that the negative stereotypes that are thereby reinforced are harmful to women.</p>
<p>In the age of the internet, negative effects may be greater than ever, because so many people can be reached in such a short time. Even if a research paper receives little or no media coverage, it may be tweeted, linked to on Facebook and come to the attention of thousands. </p>
<p>At the same time, universities are under pressure to show that their research is relevant to a broader public (in fact, funding may depend on showing this) and put pressure on academics to share their research.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91550/original/image-20150812-18085-rxsqmi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many people have the impression that ‘science’ has shown the brains of men and women differ in ways that affect cognition.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/125992663@N02/14599057004/">Allan Ajifo/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Bad research and bad communication of research can cause harms to the broader public and to particular groups (think not only of reporting of spurious gender differences, but of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Wakefield">Andrew Wakefield’s</a> now <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MMR_vaccine_controversy">discredited paper</a> on the supposed link between autism and vaccines). But miscommunication can cause harm to academics, too.</p>
<h2>A case study</h2>
<p>In February 2012, one of us, together with Alberto Giubilini, published the article <a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full">After birth abortion, why should the baby live?</a> in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The paper dealt with the issue of personhood and with what the authors called “after-birth abortion”. </p>
<p>The philosophical core of the arguments was not entirely new as similar views had been expressed by a number of philosophers, including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Tooley">Michael Tooley</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer">Peter Singer</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_McMahan_(philosopher)">Jeff McMahan</a>, among others. The main point developed in the paper was that if killing foetuses may be considered morally permissible because they don’t possess personhood in a morally relevant sense, then killing newborns should be considered morally permissible on the same grounds.</p>
<p>The authors didn’t discuss any difference between infants affected by disease and healthy ones, they just focused on the difference between persons and non-persons. Nevertheless, many people – both in academia and outside academia – took the paper to be an invitation to kill disabled children. </p>
<p>The authors found themselves in a media storm, which was partly due to the fact that the arguments of the paper were <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2108433/Doctors-right-kill-unwanted-disabled-babies-birth-real-person-claims-Oxford-academic.html">not always faithfully reproduced</a> by <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html">newspapers</a>, <a href="http://blog.jonolan.net/ethics-morality/an-ethical-quandary/">blogs</a> and radio and television programs. The reaction of the non-academic public (<a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/299.extract">and of some academics too</a>) was extremely negative, and sometimes literally <a href="http://popehat.com/2012/02/29/should-alberto-giubilini-francesca-minerva-julian-savulescu-and-kenneth-m-boyd-be-summarily-executed-by-the-state-or-by-individual-actors/">violent</a>.</p>
<p>Over the three years after the publication of this paper, the authors received hundreds of insults and death threats via email. Their personal and professional lives were turned upside down, and the negative impact of such bad publicity continues.</p>
<h2>The dangers of academic language</h2>
<p>This example illustrates how misunderstandings can occur when an academic article uses words that have become specialised in a specific discipline. A case in point is the word “person”. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/91556/original/image-20150812-18080-161qrqq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Even if a research paper receives little or no coverage by the media, it may be tweeted, linked to on Facebook and come to the attention of thousands.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/forgottengenius/5273943017/">ForgottenGenius/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A person is, in everyday language, a human being or an individual. But in bioethical debates, “human being” and “person” are not synonymous: “a baby is a human being but not a person” or “a primate is not a human being but is a person” are meaningful – and defensible – claims. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, press releases and articles don’t take into account the different uses of the same words in different contexts. As a result, the public may misunderstand the claims and may turn to email or social media to express their outrage.</p>
<p>Of course, the public funds a great deal of research and has a right to know and to express an opinion on the funded work. And academics and universities want their research more widely known: we think it matters, both because it advances knowledge and critical thinking and because it betters lives. </p>
<p>But the more academics fear being involved in media storms, the less they <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bioe.12066/abstract">feel free to explore topics</a> they consider important. Academics and the public both stand to lose from a kind of preventive censorship that may arise.</p>
<h2>Better ways</h2>
<p>We need better communication, not less communication. And we need academic articles to be accessible to the public while reducing misunderstandings as much as possible. </p>
<p>In an environment where research is more widely available – as journals turn to open-access models, the internet makes pre-prints available to everyone – and in which universities sometimes require academics to engage with the broader public, it’s important to provide a means to head off misinterpretations and distortions, and ensure that researchers are trained to communicate clearly. </p>
<p>We also need journalists to get back to “digesting” scientific articles for the public instead of merely copying and pasting what’s written in press releases or papers abstracts. Researchers have more to gain from this than mere exposure: we might just learn something from the consumers of our research. </p>
<p>The more people read us, understand us and interact with us and evaluate our work, the better our work will be. But we need to ensure the public reads and understands what we actually said and meant.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/45781/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Neil Levy receives funding from the Australian Research Council. In the past he has received funding from the Templeton Foundation and the Wellcome Trust.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Francesca Minerva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Public engagement of academics has increased enormously in recent decades. But this new level of engagement is producing problems and conflicts for which many academics are ill-prepared.Neil Levy, Professor, Macquarie UniversityFrancesca Minerva, Post-doctoral fellow in Bioethics , The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/394902015-07-30T20:15:42Z2015-07-30T20:15:42ZDifferences between men and women are more than the sum of their genes<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89607/original/image-20150724-3647-jx0xfk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's naive to pretend there are no profound genetic and epigenetic differences between the sexes.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/srslymark/3139392279/">Elephant Gun Studios/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Gender differences and sexual preferences are frequently a point of conversation. What produces the differences between men and women? Are they trivial or profound? Are they genetic or environmental, or both? </p>
<p>Some people claim that, genetically, men are <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/14/chimp_genome_y_chromosome_gumble">more closely related to male chimpanzees</a> than to women. Others discount sex differences because they’re determined by a single gene, called SRY, on the Y chromosome. </p>
<p>But the key to difference between men and women – and chimps – lies not just in the number of their differing genes but in what these genes do.</p>
<h2>A little background</h2>
<p>Let me first explain a bit about genes and chromosomes. Mammals (all vertebrates, in fact) share pretty much the same collection of about 20,000 genes. Each of these is a short stretch of DNA whose base sequence is copied into RNA, and then translated into a protein. </p>
<p>Our 20,000 genes are arrayed on about a metre of DNA (the genome), which is cut up into smaller pieces, which we can see down a microscope as chromosomes when they coil up to divide. The base sequence of genes can differ slightly from person to person, and differ a lot from species to species.</p>
<p>We all have two copies of the genome, one from mother and one from father, so there are two copies of each chromosome – except for the sex chromosomes. Women have two X chromosomes. Men have a single X (from their mother) and the male-specific Y (from their father). The genetic differences between men and women lie in these sex chromosomes. </p>
<p>The X bears more than 1,000 genes. But the Y has only 45, which are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16530039">all that are left</a> of a once ordinary pair of chromosomes that differentiated to be the X and the Y. One of these 45 Y-borne genes (SRY) determines that a baby with XY chromosomes will develop as a boy.</p>
<p>But the Y chromosome is not all male-specific; 24 genes in its top little bit are shared with the X. These are unlikely to cause differences because they’re present in both sexes. </p>
<h2>Difference and the Y chromosome</h2>
<p>The rest of <a href="http://theconversation.com/sex-genes-the-y-chromosome-and-the-future-of-men-32893">the Y lost most of its genes</a> over 150 million years of evolution. A few still cling on, but they’re fatally damaged by mutation, so we can’t count these inactive “pseudogenes”. Indeed, there are only 27 active protein-coding genes on the male-specific part of the Y, although several are present in multiple copies (most of which are inactive). </p>
<p>Nor can we count all 27 because at least 17 have copies on the X chromosome too. Most of these 17 <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/full/nature13206.html">remain dedicated</a> to their original purpose, backed up by their X copy. Only three have diverged to <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v346/n6281/abs/346240a0.html">acquire male-specific properties</a>, such as <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10391206">making sperm</a>.</p>
<p>The remaining ten genes on the human Y have no copy on the X. They are specific to males, so could contribute to differences between men and women. Some of them started off as copies of genes on the X but diverged far from their original function and acquired male-specific roles. Three originated as copies of genes on other chromosomes that were important for male functions.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89146/original/image-20150721-24286-16xjfkz.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Many obvious differences between humans and chimps, like hairiness, may result from tiny alterations in one or a few genes.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/slightlyblurred/558000935/in/photolist-RiUeM-6P3si-4uhjG6-52yGZ8-qYjxE-7kWvYp-gLQhtK-9AXm4j-mNxeKR-ekynNF-8VyDXi-qYfNZ-8Go7dD-akAJLD-ekEhjW-9KDnq1-8Eoo8-4J9knx-8VAkLk-akkcax-a7thv8-48H5hV-33oZrf-5KWrJu-eAStQu-7gUS5e-4Q9c8y-zZ1P-5E4jTK-8hcfvW-qCmt4K-e9UKZp-qYfNX-arJixA-9KnNvq-5KSdGp-dKUnC-anFCTb-ed6MrT-rhFPRX-ajHCXZ-8g2VLa-8j31Xb-5KSd3V-rwRaVE-52zhxr-5KWsXC-dKUnP-9Z9bpD-989DZL">Willard Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So the total number of genes possessed by men and completely absent from women may be as low as 13 (and no greater than 27) out of a total of 20,000 human genes. This proportion is clearly <a href="http://genome.cshlp.org/content/15/12/1746.full">not the equivalent to the supposed 4% genomic difference</a> between men and male chimps.</p>
<h2>‘Junk DNA’ on the Y</h2>
<p>A lot of the DNA of the Y chromosome doesn’t code for proteins and has been regarded as junk, sequences that were left over from old viruses and repeated many times. But hidden in this junk are sequences that are <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24296535">copied into long RNA molecules</a> but are not translated into protein. </p>
<p>We’re identifying more and more of these non-coding genes, some of which have remained the same in all vertebrates and presumably have some function. At least some non-coding Y genes may have important roles in regulating sex differentiation genes, though this has not yet been demonstrated.</p>
<p>Even more intriguing is new evidence that among the junk DNA on the Y chromosome of the bull are sequences that work to skew the ratio of sperm that bear the Y chromosome, favouring the birth of male calves. When these sequences are deleted, the skewing goes the opposite way, favouring female calves. </p>
<p>This suggests that the X chromosome, too, has some tricks to get preferentially into sperm. It seems there’s <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-battle-of-the-sexes-is-waged-in-the-genes-of-humans-bulls-and-more/?WT.mc_id=SA_BS_20150703">an arms race in the genome of every mammal</a> as these “sexually antagonistic” genes battle it out. There are many sexually antagonistic genes, <a href="http://theconversation.co.born-this-way-an-evolutionary-view%20of-gay-genes-s6051/">possibly including “gay genes”</a> that influence mate choice.</p>
<h2>X genes and sex differences</h2>
<p>A rarely recognised difference between the genomes of men and women is the different copy number of the more than 1,000 protein-coding genes on the X chromosome. There are two copies of these in women and one in men. </p>
<p>Differences in X gene dosage have been ignored because they were supposedly compensated for by a mechanism that silences all the genes on the whole of the X chromosome in females. Known as <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643983">X chromosome inactivation</a>, this mechanism silences one or other X in the cells of the embryo, and this silencing is passed on into groups of cells in the adult. </p>
<p>This “epigenetic” silencing doesn’t change the base sequence of the DNA. But it changes the way the DNA binds to other molecules so it can’t be copied into RNA, and so produces no protein product.</p>
<p>But now we know that <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2911101">more than 150 genes escape inactivation</a> on the human – but not the mouse – X. And independent of sex, the number of X chromosomes has <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2669494">profound effects on some basic metabolic pathways</a>, such as fat and carbohydrate synthesis, which may underlie sex differences in susceptibility to many diseases. Mice that have two X chromosomes are fatter than mice with only one, for instance, even if they have been altered so that they’re male.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/89147/original/image-20150721-24270-1v3qthd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There’s a supposed 4% genetic difference between chimps and men.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/animalrescueblog/17080088705/in/photolist-daVK98-daV5dJ-daVfVf-daVNEs-daV1HK-daVnwD-daVanz-daVhsW-daV7G5-daV9s7-daVHk2-daVAk1-daVcsF-daVaWL-daVwBB-daVqWT-daVhct-s2iVj2-fDPzfu-oCjMXd-5LFr83-8YJ451-fDPAUQ-fDPCyJ-h9YQx-feYyLJ-6RrB-6AS2xL-nLy7zj-nLJh8F-7emYiv-daVnzd-daVDKS-8e66aV-daVriN-djQ1zk-bpNmoY-hAHFGV-6jZjU-bDDgda-bqJkS3-bq32sq-c6yNs1-c6AjkW-fTxJ4a-s2bgjL-feHPbR-fDPUnf-feJgKV-feY7uS">International Fund for Animal Welfare Animal Rescue Blog/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These 150 “escapee” X genes brings us to about 163 genes that are either male-specific, or are active in different doses in men and women. </p>
<h2>What the different genes do</h2>
<p>It’s naïve to think that these 163 genes will all have the same level of influence. Some will code for proteins that are critical for life, or for sex. Others might have only a minor effect, or no visible effect at all.</p>
<p>In fact, the effects of at least some of these 163 genes are profound. The male-determining SRY gene, for instance, kick-starts a <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17237341">cascade of dozens of genes</a> that are either turned on in male embryos or turned off in female embryos during testis or ovary development. </p>
<p>Most of these genes are not on sex chromosomes, so they are present in both sexes. But they are turned on to different extents – or at different times or in different tissues – in males and females. Counting these brings up the total to over a 1% genomic difference between the sexes.</p>
<p>What’s more, the downstream effects of SRY are much more profound than simply testis determination. Male hormones, such as testosterone, are synthesised by the embryonic testis and have far-flung effects all over the developing body. Androgens <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20399963">turn on hundreds (maybe thousands) of genes</a> that determine male genitalia, male growth, hair, voice and elements of behaviour.</p>
<p>If we count these, we are getting near 800 out of 20,000 human genes, which is closer to the 4% difference of men and male chimpanzees.</p>
<h2>Humans and chimps</h2>
<p>But this often-quoted difference is an average over the whole genome, only a minority of which consists of genes that code for proteins. It tells us little about which genetic differences are important. </p>
<p>Many obvious differences between humans and chimps, such as hairiness and perhaps even speech, may result from tiny alterations in one or a few genes. Differences in timing, or minor regulatory differences, may have massive effects on growth and development. </p>
<p>It’s naive to pretend there are no profound genetic and epigenetic differences between the sexes. But we’re not going to settle issues of how far-reaching the biological differences are just by counting gene differences. How these genes are regulated and their downstream effects are what make the difference between men and chimps, or men and women.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39490/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jenny Graves received funding from ARC and NHMRC for research into sex chromosome evolution.</span></em></p>What produces the differences between men and women? Are they trivial or profound? Are they genetic or environmental, or both? And are men really closer genetically to chimpanzees than to women?Jenny Graves, Distinguished Professor of Genetics, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/383832015-03-08T19:04:00Z2015-03-08T19:04:00ZGender-neutral communication: how to do it<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73774/original/image-20150304-15252-7oiy5h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The English language has a tendency to reinforce patriarchy, but there are ways to stop that.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The English language is loaded in many subtle ways to reflect the dominance of male hierarchies throughout history. Who says so? Well, linguists such as <a href="http://www.universalteacher.org.uk/lang/gender.htm#lakoff">Robyn Lakoff</a> and <a href="http://faculty.georgetown.edu/tannend/sexlies.htm">Deborah Tannen</a>, and feminist writers such as <a href="http://dalespender.com.au">Dale Spender</a> for starters.</p>
<p>As the sexes become more equal, it becomes useful to learn how this occurs, and how to avoid perpetuating this imbalance. It gets a bit monotonous writing he/she and ridiculous saying “he slash she”. But there are much better and more creative solutions to gender-neutral expression, which, in its own small way, helps create a more level playing field for the battle of the sexes.</p>
<p>Let’s be clear: we’re not talking about grammatical gender, where everything takes male, female or neuter inflections, irrespective of whether the thing named is “masculine”, “feminine” or “neuter” in character.</p>
<p>English has ditched <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_English">grammatical gender</a> of words, along with most of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_case">grammatical case</a> (relating to certain nouns and pronouns, and their order in a sentence: if you know “her gave the book to she” is wrong, then you already know about case) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_mood">grammatical mood</a> (the role a verb takes in sentence: compare imperative mood (“type that letter now!”) with subjunctive mood (“if I were you, I would type it up before she arrives”).</p>
<p>These things make it simultaneously easier and harder to learn than other, more “inflected” languages, or languages whose word beginnings and endings change according to grammatical gender, case and mood. Simpler, because there are fewer categories to remember (Russian has six cases, German has six moods); harder, because there are fewer rules to follow and sometimes exceptions outnumber rules.</p>
<p>So in what ways does English err in “loading” meanings more towards the masculine end of the continuum? Consider generic nouns or titles, such as chairman, man-made, manpower, foreman, salesman and so on. Historically, these roles or associations related to men; social changes are not necessarily reflected in title changes. </p>
<p>Here are some other ways the English language reinforces patriarchy:</p>
<p><strong>Spotlighting</strong></p>
<p>Spotlighting occurs when the use of an adjective draws attention to a role adoption that challenges a gender role. For example “male nurse”, “male prostitute” or “career woman”.</p>
<p><strong>Diminutivisation</strong></p>
<p>Diminutivisation is where roles and names are formed by adding lower-status and/or affectionate suffixes to titles and names. For example, “actress” or “waitress”.</p>
<p><strong>Differential naming</strong></p>
<p>Differential naming is a common practice where males are referred to by adults’ titles, while females may be referred to by pre-adult titles. For example:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Mr Smith, the men from accounts and the girls from marketing want to see you.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Featurism</strong></p>
<p>Featurism is where something such as appearance is focused on in women but not in men. This trivialises and demeans the contribution of women.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.theflindersnews.com.au/story/1775194/no-hard-feelings-kevin-rudd-tells-his-colleagues/?cs=6">Outgoing prime minister</a> Kevin Rudd gave his farewell speech as leader of the Australian Labor Party, telling his colleagues there were no hard feelings, even for his enemies.</p>
<p><a href="http://businesschic.com.au/2013/06/the-business-fashion-of-julia-gillard-australias-first-female-prime-minister">In her farewell speech</a>, the Prime Minister (Gillard) wore a little black dress paired with a structure collarless blazer that featured sleeves in olive green – a colour that stylists will tell you is good for her autumn colouring. Her glasses were simple but stylish in graduated tones so as not to appear too harsh. Her hair was cut in a style that suited her face and colouring. She wore statement stud earrings that flashed stylishly from under her bob.
</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>Some strategies to create inclusiveness</h2>
<p>How then can we express ourselves in a more gender-neutral way? Traditional sex and gender roles have undergone dramatic transformation in recent times. This has meant that we need to think more carefully when we use gender-specific language, ensuring we have a language for all people, not just men. Some strategies for using more inclusive language are as follows:</p>
<p>Recast the sentence to omit the gender-specific pronoun/s:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The average student may end up spending too much of his money on software.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The average student may end up spending too much money on software.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Use <a href="http://grammarist.com/grammar/english-moods">imperative mood</a> of verbs - in other words, give an order: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>He or she can load the DVD.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Load the DVD.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Replace third-person pronouns with second-person pronouns:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>He or she must clean up the conference room at the end of each meeting.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>You must clean up the conference room at the end of each meeting.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Use plurals:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The modern plumber knows that he cannot neglect the paperwork if his business is to thrive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Modern plumbers know that they cannot neglect the paperwork if their businesses are to thrive.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Repeat the noun:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The builder will find all the traditional lines of nails and screws, now in metric or SI. In fact, in converting from imperial measures, we have taken the opportunity to expand the product range, giving him or her more, not fewer, resources.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The builder will find all the traditional lines of nails and screws, now in metric or SI. In fact, in converting from imperial measures, we have taken the opportunity to expand the product range, giving the builder more, not fewer, resources.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Replace third-person pronouns with indefinite article (a, an) or definite article (the):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The manager or his assistant …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>The manager or an assistant …</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Change second-person pronouns to generic pronoun (although this can appear somewhat pompous so use sparingly):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>She will need to consider her position on this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>One would need to consider one’s position on this.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Change a nominal to a verbal expression: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person who has in his possession such prohibited substances will in fact have broken the law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Becomes: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>A person who possesses such prohibited substances will in fact have broken the law.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Recast <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Simon-Schuster-Handbook-Writers-10th/dp/0205903606/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425363129&sr=1-2&keywords=troyka">restricting/spotlighting</a> names, titles and roles:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>chairman: chair, chairperson</p></li>
<li><p>man-made: artificial, synthetic, constructed</p></li>
<li><p>manpower: human resources, workforce</p></li>
<li><p>foreman: supervisor, team leader</p></li>
<li><p>salesman: sales person, representative, consultant</p></li>
<li><p>manhole: access hatch</p></li>
<li><p>shopgirl: staff member, salesperson</p></li>
<li><p>actress: actor</p></li>
</ul>
<p>And now you’re a gender-neutral communication expert (I was going to say master but that’s <a href="http://www.dailywritingtips.com/whats-a-male-mistress/">loaded too</a>, due to the sexual loading of the term <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=vN-4ijhzrLcC&q=mistress#v=snippet&q=mistress&f=false">mistress</a>…).</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/38383/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Baden Eunson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The English language reinforces patriarchy, but we can use the language to counter it instead.Baden Eunson, Adjunct Lecturer, School of Languages, Literatures, Cultures and Linguistics , Monash UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.