Saturday, May 31, 2008

What I Learned From Hillary Clinton

Guest post by The CandyMan

כִּי-בָרָא יְהוָה חֲדָשָׁה בָּאָרֶץ, נְקֵבָה תְּסוֹבֵב גָּבֶר
For god has created something new in the world, the woman turns the man. (Jer. 31:21)

My female friends are feeling a little blue these days, and I think it has something to do with Hillary Clinton. These women, highly educated, highly effective, were excited about the possibility of a woman President. Now they're left with just one more disappointment, one more reminder of the glass ceiling.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I think Hillary's runner-up has less to do with gender and more to do with bad luck. Hillary lost some muscle in MI and FL, the primaries were not winner-take-all, and she had to compete against the Obama juggernaut. She also made a few mistakes. Despite all these obstacles, she could easily have been the nominee, had the wind blown just slightly the other way.

I suspect, however, that my female friends are unlikely to share this view. In my experience, women in general have lower self-esteem than men and are more likely to blame themselves for a disappointing outcome. My female friends will identify with Hillary, and they will feel her pain, but they will not blame luck or even sexism. Instead, they will wonder where they went wrong. When Hillary is forced out, they will pocket the insult, and mourn it in their own way.

I always thought I was a feminist, but the Clinton candidacy (and the talk of sexism that it has sparked) has helped open my eyes to the plight of women in the professional world. I also recently read a wonderful short story about this, entitled Horseman. The story is about a young female academic. Early in her career, a male role model criticizes her writing, saying it was technically immaculate but lacked spunk. "You'll succeed just fine," he tells her, "you'll just never be any good." The comment undermines her confidence and haunts her for the next ten years. Reading this story, I thought of my female colleagues, and wondered whether I treat them as equals or as something else.

The story, together with Hillary's campaign, has forced me to look at the world through a working woman's eyes. And as they say in the Talmud, it's an upside-down world. I believe women in our society are still highly sexualized, much more so than men. My workplace is mostly male, and although we are all nice, modern guys, we often talk about women and bandy about terms like "chick" without thinking how the women in the lab might feel. I work in one of the most liberal universities in the world, but the higher-ups in my department are all fifty-something white men. The other day, I saw them standing around outside the building, in a huddle, joking around, discussing something important (probably who should be the next department chair). There were no women present -- it was the good old boys club!

Things are changing, of course. And it's only a matter of time until we have a woman President. If she's anything like Laura Roslin, she'll bring to the table some elements that are lacking in our politics: grace, pragmatism, a willingness to compromise, and empathy, all layered over an inner core of steel. But for now, women all over the country have been dealt a defeat, and the ladies in your life may be feeling a little down. Try to cheer them up if you can, and definitely tread lightly at the workplace.

60 comments:

Holy Hyrax said...

Good post.

The comment regarding the men calling woman a chick and that some woman might get offended is interesting.

I think on the one hand, a woman wants to be treated with respect (obviously), but on the other she still wants to feel like others are attracted to her. That attraction, today comes in how we describe woman. So for example, when I was in Israel, a girl asked me if I thought she was a "koosit." I said NO, because I find the word vulger, but to her, it was an insult that I did not consider her to be a sexy girl. Now, had I just yelled out from a car window that same word, she WOULD most likely consider me to be an ass and vulger. So from what aspect, a woman can feel demeaned, and from the other, she will feel insulted or frustrated if not felt wanted by the opposite sex, no matter how bad it may sound. Thats one.

The other interesting thing is that I found Wendy Shalits book rather good in that she discusses that women themselves are partly responsible for how society now look at them. Since woman are responsible just as much as men for over sexualizing themselves in many aspects of life, it goes that men will acknowledge them that way.

realistic viewer said...

Just to let you know. As a women who talks to women. Most of us are not feminists. Most of us want men to hold doors open and give us seats on trains. Oh, and in case you feel guilty about calling women chicks with your co-workers - don't. We have our own way of referring to men, specifically the more pleasant to look at ones. :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this post. And please don't believe anyone who claims to speak for "most of us". There is no "most of us", women are different.

The Candy Man said...

@HH,
a girl asked me if I thought she was a "koosit." I said NO, because I find the word vulger, but to her, it was an insult that I did not consider her to be a sexy girl.

You should have made a borai minai m'zonos.

@realistic,
As a women who talks to women. Most of us are not feminists.

Interesting POV. Is it possible that women say different things amongst themselves than they do among men? If so, how are the statements to be reconciled? I think you are assuming that women are more honest when talking with other women.

@polish,
There is no "most of us", women are different.

Absolutely, good point. I know the post was also full of generalities. In the real world, every situation is different.

@un-holy,
I guess you can take the schvartze out of the ghetto .... I'd rather vote for Hitler than either one of these ass*oles.

Oh snap! This sounds like the ramblings of an angry, racist high schooler... sdr, is that you?

Anonymous said...

I'm not angry, I'm not a racist, I'm way past high school, I'm not un-holy hyrax and I don't appreciate your accusations. Oh yeah, I can't stand that picture of Osama Hussein every time you post. You're such a good PC liberal. You're all symbolism over substance.

BTW what are your views on the Rev. Wright? I'm sure you empathize with him because you're so in tune with the black experience. The only connection you have to the brothers is your cleaning lady you fraud.

Jessica said...

realistic viewer took the word right out of my mouth, er... keyboard.

Abandoning Eden said...

Why do you assume all women (or even all feminists) are hillary supporters? I'm a feminist, a woman, I study workplace inequality for a living, and I am also an Obama supporter.

To me feminism means that I don't have to do anything in particular because of the gender I was born in. I don't have to act a certain way, do more or less of the housework, choose a certain profession, or support a specific political candidate because I happened to be born a woman. Feminism to me means the freedom to choose Obama, as I don't have to vote for a woman just because i am one.

Oh and don't believe all this rhetoric about "hillary breaking the glass ceiling" that that media has been spewing. Just because one (highly connected) woman makes it almost to the top doesn't mean gender inequality has magically disappeared, and when Obama makes it to the top that won't mean racism has disappeared either.

Miri said...

LNM-
A very interesting post. I think probably Hillary's chief mistake was focusing on taking Obama down. The mudslinging really had an effect on my respect for her, as well as on my opinion of how effective a politician she would be. Also, I'm sorry to say it, but the idea of Israel in her hands terrifies me, and as awesome as it would be for womenkind to have one of our own in the oval office, I'm really happy she wasn't the one to do it.

Lubab No More said...

miri,

It was an interesting post, but I'm afraid TheCandyMan gets the credit for it.

HRC's latest comments about the RFK assassination were pretty despicable. If she quit the race today and something horrible happened to Obama she would still be the party nominee.

What is your fear regarding Israel in Hillary's hands? (Or for that matter, the probable next president, Obama)?

Baal Devarim said...

Wow, a post ostensibly proclaiming your feminism yet practically spilling over with, dare I say, barely concealed chauvinistic superiority and offensive stereotypes. Count 'em:

"women in general have lower self-esteem" (read: women need emotional support from us mighty men);

"more likely to blame themselves" (women are weak);

"My female friends will identify with Hillary" (women will always identify with Hillary);

"we often talk about women and bandy about terms like "chick"" (because we know women, unlike men, can't stomach the slightest hint of sexuality);

"she'll [a woman president] bring to the table some elements that are lacking in our politics: grace," (Grace??? Read: I hope she's pleasant to look at);

"a willingness to compromise," (because women are weak: see above);

"and empathy," (just like mommy);

"all layered over an inner core of steel." (because a woman with charisma is just too much to ask for).

"Reading this story, I thought of my female colleagues, and wondered whether I treat them as equals or as something else."

You can stop wondering.

Holy Hyrax said...

>Obama makes it to the top that won't mean racism has disappeared either.

Breaking News:

Racism will never disappear, but it sure is an AMAZING sign of how so much has changed

Miri said...

LNM-
you're right, I just saw that. My apologies to the Candyman for not giving him his due.

As to mistrusting Hillary with Israel; I don't really trust Obama that much either. The truth is, I don't really trust Democrats with Israel at all. They believe far too strongly and far too naively in the value of a good chat. Yet another politician whose position on the Middle East principally involves dialogue above everything else? Excuse me for being a realist. The situation calls for a little something more. I know Republicans don't offer much more in theory, but the fact is they understand the nature of the conflict a little better, as far as I can tell. And as I said, I don't trust Obama much either, but he does strike me as a man of principle. If Hillary ever had principles that transcended politics, she has certainly gone out of her way to hide them.

Baal Devarim-
I take issue with some of your interpretations.

""women in general have lower self-esteem" (read: women need emotional support from us mighty men);"

No, I'm pretty sure that that's a statistical fact based on lots of psychological research.

""more likely to blame themselves" (women are weak);"

There are those who would consider a sense of responsibility a sign of strength.

""we often talk about women and bandy about terms like "chick"" (because we know women, unlike men, can't stomach the slightest hint of sexuality);"

This is just a point of curiosity. A chick is a baby chicken. Now I know that colloquially the term is supposed to be offensive, but please explain the sexual connotation to me. I have never known anyone who was aroused by the sight of a baby chicken.

""a willingness to compromise," (because women are weak: see above);"

Again, there are those who see the ability to compromise as a sign of strength.

While I guess I appreciate your theoretical defense of the female mentality, you're still approaching it from the mindset of a man. And while it's nice that you're trying, your arrogance in assuming the interpretations you have are kind of exactly the thing we're fighting against.

Baal Devarim said...

Miri:
""women in general have lower self-esteem"

No, I'm pretty sure that that's a statistical fact based on lots of psychological research.
"

I don't buy that. That is an astounding claim you'll need to back up with something more than just "I'm pretty sure." And please don't link to studies on depressed patients, which prove nothing for the general case.

""more likely to blame themselves" (women are weak);"

There are those who would consider a sense of responsibility a sign of strength.
"

CandyMan clearly meant it as in irrationally blame themselves (see "lower self-esteem"). That isn't a sign of strength in most people's eyes, and again, I refuse to buy that there's an inherent gender divide on this issue. I find it astonishing for a self-professed feminist to insist that there is one.

""we often talk about women and bandy about terms like "chick" (because we know women, unlike men, can't stomach the slightest hint of sexuality);"

This is just a point of curiosity. A chick is a baby chicken.
"

Spare me. 'Honey' is something we find in beehives and chicken soup is 'hot.' You know as well as I do that 'chick' carries sexual connotations and this is preciously the reason Candyman finds it offensive.

""a willingness to compromise," (because women are weak: see above);

Again, there are those who see the ability to compromise as a sign of strength.
"

You have a point. However, given what was written above, I don't think it was meant quite that way (even if it's true that everyone sees an ability to compromise as a Good Thing).

"you're still approaching it from the mindset of a man."

And again, I don't buy that the "mindset of a man" is inherently different than that of a woman.

The Candy Man said...

@AE,
Why do you assume all women (or even all feminists) are hillary supporters? I'm a feminist... and I am also an Obama supporter.

I don't assume that. In my volunteer efforts for Obama, there were as many women as men -- and a lot of elderly women, as well. Nevertheless, I do know a lot of young, well-educated, feminist women who like Hillary. To them, a woman in the White House would mean a lot... possibly more than Obama would mean to you or me. The post is addressing them.

@Baal devarim,
a post ostensibly proclaiming your feminism yet practically spilling over with, dare I say, barely concealed chauvinistic superiority and offensive stereotypes.

It's a fine line, I admit. But I thought about what I wrote very carefully. In my experience, I wrote -- read: this is only my personal experience, I'm not basing it on facts here, and I might be wrong about this. in general , I wrote -- read: even I admit these are generalities, and cannot be applied on an individual basis.

As for your "readings" of my words, they were never my intent. You should beware of such loose interpretations, be they in my writings or the Pentateuch's. Focus on the author's original intent, and leave your own bias out of it.

tzai ul'mad.

Abandoning Eden said...

"Nevertheless, I do know a lot of young, well-educated, feminist women who like Hillary. To them, a woman in the White House would mean a lot... possibly more than Obama would mean to you or me. The post is addressing them."

Well, I have a masters degree, almost have a Phd, I'm a feminist and I'm a woman. I did just turn 26, but I consider 26 to be fairly 'young' (or at least on the cusp of being young!).

And Obama as president would actually mean quite a lot to me. I was very disappointed when Howard Dean got knocked out of the race in 04, and was devastated when Bush was re-elected. I've spent nearly 8 years constantly pissed off about the people in charge of my country. Having Obama as president would mean (to me) that the majority of (voting) Americans are not completely insane, and can actually vote in their best self interests. It was also mean an administration in this country that I believed had my own interest in mind rather than the interests of oil companies and weapons manufacturers. That would be quite something.

The Candy Man said...

I want to make one more point about this, which is that I believe one can be a feminist while simultaneously recognizing that there are certain differences between the sexes in general. I think Miri is right that a lot of studies have been done on such differences, and this is a good opportunity for us to do some research on this, right here in the comments.

I personally believe such differences do exist, but I don't think women are the weaker sex or anything like that. On the contrary, I think women are on the whole smarter, more honest, less bellicose, and far less selfish than men. I believe it's one of the great failings of the human race that we have put the big decisions in the hands of men, who have led us time and time again into war. When women lead the world, I'll feel much safer -- and I have a feeling a lot more will get done.

Some might even call it "strength."

The Candy Man said...

@AE,
Well, I have a masters degree, almost have a Phd, I'm a feminist and I'm a woman... And Obama as president would actually mean quite a lot to me.

Again, we're on the same page here. I didn't mean to suggest that all female PhD candidates suggest Hillary! On the contrary, the surprise to me was that there were even many elderly women who also supported Obama... younger women a fortiori. I'm not at all surprised that you support Obama. But there are a sizeable number of women who support Hillary, who identify with her, and who have been waiting for a very long time... and those are the friends for whom I wrote the post.

If you want to see Obama elected, my suggestion is to go to his website (barackobama.com) and get involved. It's a real grass-roots movement, and one of the most rewarding things I've ever done.

Holy Hyrax said...

>I believe it's one of the great failings of the human race that we have put the big decisions in the hands of men, who have led us time and time again into war. When women lead the world, I'll feel much safer -- and I have a feeling a lot more will get done.

I don't remember where, but I think someone once wrote that when woman are in power, there has been war. All I can remember is Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir

Holy Hyrax said...

>And again, I don't buy that the "mindset of a man" is inherently different than that of a woman.

How come?

You mean no differences?

Miri said...

Baal Devarrim-
"I don't buy that. That is an astounding claim you'll need to back up with something more than just "I'm pretty sure." And please don't link to studies on depressed patients, which prove nothing for the general case."

So at the moment I cannot link you to any specific data. I will look for some and try to get back to you on that. I do believe I have read about this somewhere, however; being an actual female, it happens incidentally that I have done some reading on this topic. This may be responsible for some (but not all) of it.

http://www.amazon.com/Reviving-Ophelia-Adolescent-Ballantine-Readers/dp/0345392825

"I refuse to buy that there's an inherent gender divide on this issue. I find it astonishing for a self-professed feminist to insist that there is one."

Have you done the research? Do you know that to be a fact? Honestly, I think you're at least as responsible as me for bringing in some sources here dude. Oh, and as a "self-professed feminist?" I find your attitude and your ignorance extremely offensive. It's all very well to say "Men and Women are no different from each other." But how many women do you actually know? Really know? Such that you have an insight to the way they think and feel and they're every day experiences? I'm betting I have a little bit over you on that one dude, mainly based on the fact that, oh right I actually AM a woman, which means that while you get to get all up on your high horse about equality, I'm actually DEALING with the kind of shit you profess to know so much about. you might want to check your credentials as regards your feminism and also as regards your perception of reality.

"This is just a point of curiosity. A chick is a baby chicken."

Spare me. 'Honey' is something we find in beehives and chicken soup is 'hot.' You know as well as I do that 'chick' carries sexual connotations and this is preciously the reason Candyman finds it offensive."

I believe my exact phrasing regarded personal curiosity as to the etymology of the phrase. It's like "legs that go all the way down to the floor." I know what it means. But EVERYONE'S legs go down to the floor! That's how we walk! Shouldn't the phrase really be something about where the legs go UP to? cuz, I mean, just, it doesn't say anything in particular about a woman's legs. That's all I'm saying. I'm kind of a language freak.

""you're still approaching it from the mindset of a man."

And again, I don't buy that the "mindset of a man" is inherently different than that of a woman."

You can believe whatever you like, sweetie. The fact is that the minds of men and the minds of women do not work the same way. There's A LOT of literature to back me up on that one, including "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus." I'm all for men and women getting equal rights in the workplace, equal pay for equal quality work etc. I firmly believe that women are capable of doing almost anything a man can do and that she should be allowed to do so. That doesn't mean she was born with a penis, cuz turn the situation any way you like, she wasn't. Plain and simple. This, in case you get confused, is a metaphor. The fact of the matter is that men and women were not built exactly the same way, otherwise there would be only men or only women. And honestly, i very strongly resent people who ignore that fact, bc people who like to distort reality just kind of annoy me. in general/

Baal Devarim said...

HH:
"You mean no differences?"

Depends what you mean by "differences." Obviously, there are physical differences as well as cultural and perhaps sociological differences. On any given day, a man may feel more bellicose due to the effects of testosterone on mood, or a woman may feel empathetic due to the effects of the hormone oxytocin (and vice versa). However, while we -- humans of both genders -- sometimes irrationally let our moods dictate our behavior, that does NOT translate to an inherent difference in mindset. We all share the same general view of rational behavior, and to the extent we do not, the differences between individuals are not inherently gender specific.

To suggest that a woman president is less likely to be involved in wars is not only ahistorical, but also perpetuates the insulting stereotype that women are emotionally fragile (as CandyMan explicitly claimed -- I know, in his experience only) and soft. And to insist on grace (as if that is a leadership quality) in a female president is just flat-out offensive.

Miri:
"http://www.amazon.com/Reviving-Ophelia-Adolescent-Ballantine-Readers/dp/0345392825"

That book is clearly discussing a cultural-based effect. It says nothing about inherent gender differences.

"Honestly, I think you're at least as responsible as me for bringing in some sources here dude."

The claim that all humans are fundamentally the same needs no sources. The burden lies with those who claim Jews, blacks, women, men are inherently different to back up those claims.

"Oh, and as a "self-professed feminist?" I find your attitude and your ignorance extremely offensive."

I'm sorry. I was trying to offend CandyMan with that statement, not you.

"The fact is that the minds of men and the minds of women do not work the same way."

I call bullshit.

"There's A LOT of literature to back me up on that one, including "Men are From Mars, Women are From Venus.""

Did you say "literature?" I'm sorry to see you've been misled by pop-psychology garbage from the likes of John Gray; a man with no credentials and backed by no studies, with only an overdose of new-age mysticism and a fine pen to support his point of view.

Holy Hyrax said...

>I call bullshit.

I can just respond to this: I remember one of the first things I learned in College in our communications course is that infact woman's and men's brains are physically hardwired different. IIRC, there is a different gap in between the brains for men and females. You can call bullshit all you want and play this PC game of we are all the same. Fact is, we are not. Our minds are not.

Baal Devarim said...

HH:
"I remember one of the first things I learned in College in our communications course is that infact woman's and men's brains are physically hardwired different."

True. Some strokes have a different effect on men than they do on women. (Although you shouldn't learn this in a communications course.)

But from there to the claim that men and women are inherently different in mindset is a HUGE jump; an unscientific (and occasionally dangerous) jump, (usually) backed by nothing more than our prejudices and wishful thinking.

Holy Hyrax said...

>But from there to the claim that men and women are inherently different in mindset is a HUGE jump; an unscientific (and occasionally dangerous) jump, (usually) backed by nothing more than our prejudices and wishful thinking.

What exactly is the jump here???

That women are NOT more emotional then men and often use that more than a man? You really think we look at the world and problem and relationships and many other things in the world the same?

I don't remember what the communication course was about (years ago), but the whole point of it was learning how each sex approach different things in life.

Holy Hyrax said...

Maybe you should define what you mean by mindset.

I don't think Miri or I think that women DON'T think in rational, or right and wrong and stuff like that.

Baal Devarim said...

"You really think we look at the world and problem and relationships and many other things in the world the same?"

Really, I do.

Let me qualify that: I think that in the main, we all look at the world and at relationships the way we were culturally conditioned to look at them (and in many cultures, men and women are conditioned differently). To the extent we do not, I see no reason to suppose there are inherent gender-based differences.

Baal Devarim said...

"Maybe you should define what you mean by mindset."

I don't believe women are inherently more emotionally fragile, for example. Or that they have a different way of understanding relationships or relating to the world.

Holy Hyrax said...

I sent your comments to a female that knows alot about the studies:

take the classic example of a group of 5-year old children.The boys will naturally form themselves into some sort of sport-type game
and the girls will naturally form a circle and start chatting that's been studied

it's too young to be social conditioning.
you see it at a very young age
and even in children who have been taken care to not be socially conditioned.
females are generally more social players and males are generally more parallel players
that has nothing to do with social conditioning

Baal Devarim said...

HH:

Can she point you to that study? I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study of that nature that claims to conclusively rule out social conditioning. I don't believe it exists.

Holy Hyrax said...

It's not my comment, so hopefully that person can get it. But that person said stuff like this all over Psych books that she has studied that you are just being stubborn :)

I'm curious, and I may be wrong, but I wonder if this attitude of yours has anything to do with your personal life. From the little I read, you are a chassid in a chassidic neighborhood obviously married to a chassidic woman. And obviously, in the chassidic world there is a lot of social pressure on how one is supposed to act and think (especially for women). Am I wrong to say that since you see so MUCH social conditioning in your world, you think that is the ONLY reason differences exist?

Baal Devarim said...

To clarify: I do believe it may be possible to show that young boys tend to be more aggressive or that young girls may act more "maternal," as I mentioned above about hormones. But that doesn't speak to an inherently different mindset!

In other words, when adults are considering the rational response to a situation they have to face, they hopefully find a way of overcoming the mood they find themselves in that particular day -- whether that mood is caused by hormones or the lack of sleep or the fact that they stubbed their toe on the furniture that morning. It doesn't cause a difference in mindset or in how we perceive the world.

(By the way, I've seen it claimed that the civil war was caused by Lincoln's chronic toothache.)

Baal Devarim said...

"I'm curious, and I may be wrong, but I wonder if this attitude of yours has anything to do with your personal life.

Impossible! My views, like those of Vulcans, are ALWAYS based on reason and never on my personal circumstance.

-suitepotato- said...

Laura Roslin? You chose to use a character from Battlestar Worst Written Science Fiction Show Ever Taken Seriously By Accident (BSWWSFSETSBA)? And a character that manages to not inspire anything but seething revulsion for lack of competent development and a complete absence of understanding of the words she wields, like democracy, and on top of it is played with all the passion and believability of Ben Stein as Henry V?

Wow. You managed to nail Hillary Clinton so dead on with that. I am in awe. It may have been by accident, but sometimes the dart hits the center of the board.

"she'll bring to the table some elements that are lacking in our politics: grace, pragmatism, a willingness to compromise, and empathy, all layered over an inner core of steel."

Married men know this is naive thinking. The reality is she will bring to the table irrational demands, an unwillingness to bend, and a total lack of sympathy all layered over an inner core of neurotic chaos and coated in aluminum.

I meant Laura Roslin again. A generic woman will bring nothing because we don't elect generic archetypes, we elect individuals who are and will be what they are and will be.

Hillary is not being brought low because of sexism. Hillary is bringing herself low and we're letting her which is a perfect example not of bigotry/sexism, but of equality. Opportunity does not equal success. Everyone has a chance to fail too. She is doing a magnificent job at it, and to the credit of many, being allowed to do it the best way she knows how.

Clearly, the country is giving her the benefit of the doubt and allowing her to completely destroy her chances of ever getting to the White House all on her own lack of merits.

So the sexism is where?

Oh, that picture of Bareback O'Rama on the beach that had women going all Sex in the City gasp and swoon and gossip months back. I almost forgot how the men tried to keep us on the issues while the women chattered about how good he looked for a man his age.

Well, I guess that also shows equality in action. We're not whining and moaning in this country when women get sexist themselves, and get a little hot and flustered for a shirtless presidential contender.

The Candy Man said...

Great discussion! Thanks to all who are contributing their ideas and sources, esp. Miri and HH (who actually asked an expert).

We need our old friend CS Hayden. I'll try to jump on her blog and get her to chime in.

@Baal d,
I'd like to see a peer-reviewed study of that nature that claims to conclusively rule out social conditioning. I don't believe it exists.

I am a molecular biologist and not a psychologist, but it took me about 3 seconds on the web to find the following abstract:

Gender differences in personality: A meta-analysis.
Feingold, Alan
Psychological Bulletin. 1994 Nov Vol 116(3) 429-456

Four meta-analyses were conducted to examine gender differences in personality in the literature (1958-1992) and in normative data for well-known personality inventories (1940-1992). Males were found to be more assertive and had slightly higher self-esteem than females. Females were higher than males in extraversion, anxiety, trust, and, especially, tender-mindedness (e.g., nurturance). There were no noteworthy sex differences in social anxiety, impulsiveness, activity, ideas (e.g., reflectiveness), locus of control, and orderliness. Gender differences in personality traits were generally constant across ages, years of data collection, educational levels, and nations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)


Note that this is not a single study, but a meta-analysis on many different studies. It's only one piece of a much larger body of work.

Miri, funny you should mention it, I read Men are from Mars a while back and I was impressed with it. It's not particularly scientific, but I have found the book's suggestions about how to listen to women to be useful and relevant in my day-to-day life.

The Candy Man said...

Not CS Hayden. CL Hanson. My bad.

The Candy Man said...

@Suitepotato, LOL.

@BD again,
... perpetuates the insulting stereotype that women are emotionally fragile (as CandyMan explicitly claimed -- I know, in his experience only)...

Never claimed anything of the sort.

...and soft. And to insist on grace... in a female president is just flat-out offensive.

Never insisted on it. Hoped for it.

Baal Devarim said...

CandyMan:
"but it took me about 3 seconds on the web to find the following abstract:""

Good for you, but it doesn't address my claim. I don't see the study ruling out social conditioning; I don't see the study addressing the question of nature versus nurture at all, in fact (at least in the abstract).

Lubab No More said...

Baal Devarim,

> it doesn't address my claim. I don't see the study ruling out social conditioning

I'm curious.

On the topic of social conditioning:
Do you believe gay people choose their lifestyle or that their sexuality is inherent? And if you believe being gay is inherent how do you account for the millions of gays who were "raised straight"?

Baal Devarim said...

Lubab:
"Do you believe gay people choose their lifestyle or that their sexuality is inherent?"

I believe sexual proclivity and attraction exists on a spectrum. And where exactly a person falls on that spectrum is probably a complex interaction between innate factors (which may or may not be genetic) and environmental factors. Like many other human traits.

"And if you believe being gay is inherent how do you account for the millions of gays who were "raised straight"?"

I don't understand the question.

Holy Hyrax said...

>I don't understand the question.

He is saying that since so many people that are gay, were raised in a totally straight environment (ie. social conditioning) how do you then account for them being gay?

Holy Hyrax said...

>I believe sexual proclivity and attraction exists on a spectrum. And where exactly a person falls on that spectrum is probably a complex interaction between innate factors (which may or may not be genetic) and environmental factors. Like many other human traits.

That sounded very scientific.......and vague.

Baal Devarim said...

"He is saying that since so many people that are gay, were raised in a totally straight environment (ie. social conditioning) how do you then account for them being gay?"

Okay. I think I answered that.

"That sounded very scientific.......and vague."

I don't think science has better answers for us at this stage. (Another reason to be skeptical of claims of inherent behavioral differences based on race or gender.)

The Candy Man said...

@Baal,
I don't see the study ruling out social conditioning; I don't see the study addressing the question of nature versus nurture at all, in fact (at least in the abstract).

Oh, nature vs. nurture wasn't really what I was getting at. I think the question of nature v. nurture is somewhat irrelevant. I was addressing your previous comment, in which you expressed skepticism about there being differences between male and female personality traits in the first place.

It seems you have now retreated from this position, agree that differences do exist, and are arguing about nature v. nurture.

Miri said...

Baal Devarim-
"http://www.amazon.com/Reviving-Ophelia-Adolescent-Ballantine-Readers/dp/0345392825"

That book is clearly discussing a cultural-based effect. It says nothing about inherent gender differences."

Oh, you've read it? Or you're basing this assumption on the fact that it didn't happen to mention that data in the summary?

"The claim that all humans are fundamentally the same needs no sources. The burden lies with those who claim Jews, blacks, women, men are inherently different to back up those claims."

Wow. I don't even know where to start. First of all, what gives you the authority to say that I need to bring sources and you don't? The fact that you would like it to be true that all man is created equal does not make it so. Let's remember that when the phrase was coined, they were referring to land-owning, white, Christian males, largely of Anglo-Saxon descent. So all man didn't really include all man oh, um, ever. Just saying.

But for the sake of argument, how exactly do you define the phrase "fundamentally the same" in this context?

""The fact is that the minds of men and the minds of women do not work the same way."

I call bullshit."

I've already called you on yours and you haven't exactly stood up to it. What are you basing your information on? Once more I ask you, how well do you really know women that you can claim they think just like you?

"Did you say "literature?" I'm sorry to see you've been misled by pop-psychology garbage"

I did in fact say literature and I will defend vehemently not only my right to use it, but my accuracy in using it. The definition of "literature" is "the written word." And in the context in which it was used, the connotation was "published and available information on a specific topic." So both literally and colloquially I think I'm justified, and if you're trying to increase your street cred as an intellectual I would recommend you not attack my choice of wordage. :)

Holy Hyrax said...

>(Another reason to be skeptical of claims of inherent behavioral differences based on race or gender.)

Then why not be skeptical about claims of social conditioning?

Anonymous said...

"Things are changing, of course. And it's only a matter of time until we have a woman President. If she's anything like Laura Roslin, she'll bring to the table some elements that are lacking in our politics: grace, pragmatism, a willingness to compromise, and empathy, all layered over an inner core of steel."

I know the lady you mean. And if Maggie Thatcher was running I'd vote for her in a heartbeat. Right now I guess we'll have to wait for Condi.

I'm incredulous at how off the mark and patronizing this post is. Women have not been dealt a setback. Hillary has been dealt a setback. Not all women are as wrapped up in identity politics as you make them out to be.

Ichabod Chrain

realistic viewer said...

Frumskeptics (for those who read her blog) little sister (16 years old) gave in an essay on racism for an 11th grade English assignment. Her teacher refused to grade it and basically called her a racist. The girl very bluntly said that all people are racists (in one way or another) blacks, white, Chinese, arabs, etc...

I think some people fight their inner racism so strenuously that they don't even realize when their inner desire for superiority can come out in other forms such as sexism.

The Candy Man said...

Ichabod,
Women have not been dealt a setback. Hillary has been dealt a setback. Not all women are as wrapped up in identity politics as you make them out to be.

I actually *campaigned* for Obama in this last election, if you'll recall So I know how many women wanted him to win.

Nevertheless, it is so rare to see a woman presidential candidate -- indeed, this has never happened before -- that its very existence is a unique accomplishment. I don't think you need to be a Hillary supporter to feel a little bad to see her go.

This is what you (and the media) don't get about the term "identity politics." It doesn't really apply when this is the first time ever that a candidate of a particular demographic comes along. In those cases, you've got to cut people a little more slack.

Right now I guess we'll have to wait for Condi.

Jenna Bush, my friend. I'm calling it right now. Keep an eye on that one.

jewish philosopher said...

I don't think any woman has ever become a popularly elected head of state. If Hillary couldn't do it, no one can.

C. L. Hanson said...

I'm with Abandoning Eden. I'm not quite so young (36), and I already have my Ph.D., and I'm a feminist in favor of Obama. Yes, I'd like to see a woman as president (many women in history have made excellent heads of state), however, I'm not going to vote for a woman for the sake of having a woman as president. I want to see a woman who's the best candidate and then vote for her.

When this race first started I was leaning towards supporting Clinton, but Obama convinced me with his ideas. I agree with the assessment of another friend (female, friend, if that matters...): Clinton is a competent manager, but Obama is a leader. He has a clear and comprehensive vision and strategy, while Clinton is skilled at the politics of holding off the conservative tide while the conservatives set the table of ideas. But it's not time for that type of politics anymore -- it's time to set the ideological table instead of responding.

The fact that the Democratic party is shooting itself in the foot by allowing this to become "Sexism vs. racism -- which is worse?" is driving me insane!!! It's about who would make a better president, or at least it should be. Frankly, since my endorsement of Obama, I've been trying to ignore this whole race, just waiting for the train wreck to end. I'll be honest: I read your post here when it first came up in my RSS reader, and my reaction was "at least the convention will come and this will all be over soon..." ;^)

Now -- since you have flattered me by requesting my comments ;^) -- I'll say the non-P.C. things I was avoiding saying. I hate the way this race has turned, particularly with respect to feminism. Seeing a woman ride into power on the coattails of her powerful husband has nothing to do with breaking the class ceiling. Even if she did amazing things during the ride, it's still traditional -- it's not the same as seeing a woman rise to power on her own. I also hate seeing the cry of sexism when it looks like that's not the root of the problem. Sure, ignorant people on both sides have been making sexist and racist comments, but that doesn't mean that's why Obama is winning. Crying "sexism" every time the woman doesn't win is like the boy who cried wolf -- it doesn't help the cause of women in general, quite the opposite. I hate the fact that simplistic analysis has caused this primary to take this ugly turn which could potentially create long-term bad blood between feminists and civil rights advocates.

Regarding women's mentality:

I think it's probably true that there are real cognitive difference between men and women on average. The evidence is strong enough that it shouldn't be taboo to say it.

That said, I think it's a little like height: the overlap between the sexes is greater than the (statistical average) difference, so one should be very wary of generalizations. Especially considering that every other person on the planet is female. So -- as Polish Woman correctly points out -- there is no "most of us". Trying to reach out to the perspective of "women" (or even "feminists") is dicey at best. I would say you're better off trying to understand the perspective of people (in general), and then just try to keep in mind that when you talk about people's perspective, more than half are women.

Holy Hyrax said...

>Jenna Bush, my friend. I'm calling it right now. Keep an eye on that one

Ya, I wouldn't mind that cupcake in office ;)

Holy Hyrax said...

>Crying "sexism" every time the woman doesn't win is like the boy who cried wolf -- it doesn't help the cause of women in general, quite the opposite. I hate the fact that simplistic analysis has caused this primary to take this ugly turn which could potentially create long-term bad blood between feminists and civil rights advocates.

I agree, but I think this is the left finally lying in their own bed, if you catch my drift.

The Candy Man said...

@JP,
I don't think any woman has ever become a popularly elected head of state. If Hillary couldn't do it, no one can.

This is wrong on so many levels.

CL, glad you chimed in.
Crying "sexism" every time the woman doesn't win is like the boy who cried wolf -- it doesn't help the cause of women in general, quite the opposite.

I agree that Hillary's runner up has very little to do with sexism. On the other hand, as a man, I credit the primary race with opening my eyes to the sexism that is going on every day at my workplace. That was really the point of the post (which has been lost in the long discussion here).

the overlap between the sexes is greater than the (statistical average) difference, so one should be very wary of generalizations.

I appreciate your perspective, and as a scientist I hear where you're coming from. But personality is not a quantitative trait like height. I think the jury is still out here.

I know I'm treading into Larry Summers territory, so maybe I'll just shut up now.

Anonymous said...

"I know I'm treading into Larry Summers territory, so maybe I'll just shut up now."

No, no, no. You have it backwards. If you're heading into Larry Summers territory then you need to go full speed ahead. Otherwise all someone has to do when you say something she doesn't like is to have a fainting spell ala Nancy Hopkins.

". . .but Obama convinced me with his ideas. I agree with the assessment of another friend (female, friend, if that matters...): Clinton is a competent manager, but Obama is a leader. He has a clear and comprehensive vision and strategy."

Clinton managed something? When?

Obama convinced you with his ideas? He has a clear and comprehensive vision and strategy? Yikes.

Obama speaks in platitudes. When he's not reading a prepared speech he's lost. He's the most leftist senator we have. The vision he has is skewed way to the left. He's going to raise our taxes, take away our jobs, defund the military, sell out Israel, surrender to Iran, take away our firearms, make it impossible to get medical treatment, etc. etc. But the European socialists will like him just fine.

Ichabod Chrain

jewish philosopher said...

Can anyone find one level where I'm wrong?

The Candy Man said...

@IC,
He's going to raise our taxes, take away our jobs, defund the military, sell out Israel, surrender to Iran, take away our firearms, make it impossible to get medical treatment, etc. etc.

Chrain, you're a master baiter. But I'm not taking the bait. Let's discuss Obama another time.

Orthoprax said...

"Nevertheless, it is so rare to see a woman presidential candidate -- indeed, this has never happened before"

Not true. Victoria Woodhull, 1872 - Equal Rights Party. Margaret Chase Smith, 1964 - Republican, nominated at convention. Shirley Chisholm, 1972 - Democrat (got 152 delegates).

Clinton is on well tread ground. Naturally she got closer than any woman before her, but she's not the first on any count.

The Candy Man said...

"Nevertheless, it is so rare to see a woman presidential candidate -- indeed, this has never happened before"

Not true. Victoria Woodhull, 1872 - Equal Rights Party...


Obviously women have tried to get the nomination before. I'm not that stupid. What I meant was that no woman (in modern history, at least) has ever won the nomination and become the official candidate.

So this IS new ground, obviously, and very exciting. I personally think people are bored of the old white male in a suit.

Orthoprax said...

"What I meant was that no woman (in modern history, at least) has ever won the nomination and become the official candidate."

And neither has Hillary, so? She's on equal standing with Chisholm (who was black to boot).

"So this IS new ground, obviously, and very exciting."

New ground? It's all retread except for her delegate count.

Anonymous said...

Candy Man,

I wasn't trying to bait you. I was responding to another commenter.

JP
Actually there have been elected female heads of state you count prime ministers.

Ichabod Chrain