Reminds me of an old This American Life story where the staff all have their testosterone levels measured and then compare the results in the so-called Contest-osterone. It’s a weird little intersection of science/biology and culture, but it’s striking how much the cultural aspects stand out.
For folks who enjoy Ira Glass et. al. it’s worth the thirteen minutes or so to listen to act three of this episode. But if you don’t, here’s the bit that’s stuck with me since I first heard it however many years ago:
Ira Glass
One notable difference between the men and the women. Although none of the women wanted to have much testosterone, Alex, Todd, and I very, very much wanted to win. Jonathan claimed he did not want to win, but none of us believe him. And Rakoff also said that he had no interest in winning at all, but then proceeded immediately-- I mean immediately-- to talk smack about his opponents in a very competitive way.[…]
Ira Glass
I have to say, Wendy and Todd, the lowest-scoring woman and man on the staff, really did not seem very happy about this whole thing by the end.[…]
Todd Bachmann
–someone would be girlier than I. If I can’t be the most manly in public radio, where the hell can I be the most manly? I kind of wish this was SportsCenter because then I’d be OK. Out of all my fellow staff members at SportsCenter, OK, I could be the one with the least testosterone. But in public radio.David Rakoff
We should get them to spit. Is it a real place, SportsCenter? Is that a thing?Todd Bachmann
Now, see? That’s not fair. How can he have the most testosterone and not know what SportsCenter is? I know what SportsCenter is!
off-topic aside: I kind of miss David Rakoff. I don’t know much about what he did outside of TAL, but his radio stuff often impressed me; it was just so human (for lack of a better word).
https://scifiinterfaces.com/category/meta/gendered-ai/
Unfortunately, the only summary post is on imgur, and the others often refer to earlier posts. But it’s interesting.
I saw this clip earlier and it is unreal how sophomoric he is. The only way to cope with this presidency is to disassociate. I’m so motivated to vote him out of office. I’m planning to vote early and often.
Fun with rich white people talking about home economics and the diff between men and women:
What’s funny is the son, portrayed by Jimmy Lydon in the film (he’s still with us at age 96!), grew up to be pretty liberal, maybe even “radical”:
Somehow i knew it would be something by Amanda before I even clicked.
Okay. sorry I posted, then? Is that bad somehow?
Isn’t it just Amanda? I mean, who else could it be at this moment in pop music?
Typing that, it occurred to me that on the 70s there could have been multiple possibilities, although they all would have just been mentioning abortion in passing.
And one of them would have been Paul Anka. There’s a thought.
Ew, Paul Anka… even my conservative mom was totally skeeved out by that song. So much wrong with it…
Thanks for the ear worm. And by thanks, I mean:
I think this is a useful case study to show the subtle aspects of sexism:
The editors have a married woman write the piece (to suggest no bias in the reporting, I assume) where supposedly – repeated over and over again – women don’t want to marry available single men because they’re “unsuitable”, which is defined as having lower formal education attainment and lower salary/wage earning, both real and potential, by the three MALE researchers of the study.
Buried in the middle of the article:
We don’t actually know whether American women are holding out for more-likely-to-be-employed, better-educated, higher-earning men than are available on the dating market today. The researchers just constructed a “synthetic husband” they believe single women were seeking; they didn’t actually ask any single women for their views.
So, they start with stereotypical patriarchal assumptions and use those assumptions to come up with a sweeping claim.
In addition, they don’t isolate the variable. When they look at men who are already married, they don’t know the reason those men make – on average – more money. For example, it is a well-known issue that men are promoted and rewarded specifically for being married and having children. They also don’t know if there’s a factor that causes men with other attributes to also happen to do better in their careers, and thus end up making more money.
And then the married woman reveals that her husband has a lower academic achievement than she does, and makes less money, and they’re so much happier than the friend who married a highly paid executive who then divorced her. She promotes the very stereotypes she came so close to recognizing as foolish in the middle, when she mentioned that no women were actually considered in coming up with the ‘explanation’ for what women think about single men. Here’s how she ends the piece, wrapping up the sexism in a nice pink bow, putting the onus on women:
I don’t claim to have all the answers about what makes a good marriage, but it does seem to me that basing a relationship even partly on economic expectations can be a bad idea, because things change. Industries shift, companies fail, and a spouse with a high-paying job could decide one day that he (or she) doesn’t want to do that job anymore. That actually happened to the wife of a lawyer I know.
In any case, as these statistics clearly show, if you’re a woman holding out for a husband who matches your education level and earns a lot more than you do, you could wind up staying single forever. Is that a better choice than broadening your idea of what an acceptable husband is? Only you can decide.
That last paragraph:
(and really Miss Piggy is the perfect icon to star in this GIF)
I don’t suppose anyone bothered to take into account how many men refuse to date women who make more than them?
Having grown up with a mother who supported an addict man who worked sometimes has colored my view of this. Honestly, who the fuck wants another mouth to feed and extra work to do? Is being married supposed to be such a great goal in the first place? Just so much WTF with even the question being asked. When I met my partner I out-earned him by a long shot. Then things reversed and now I’ve lost my job. Honestly, not much has changed between us as a result of any of that because the foundations of our relationship were already there. We share housework based on time, availability, and physical strength, with a little nod to personal preference. We share expenses based on who can afford what and whether the purchase has mutual benefit or not. We just discuss it beforehand and come to an agreement about it. It’s almost like looking at marriage in terms of “men” and “women” in general is pointless in the first place. IMO regardless of gender, if you have to lower your standard of living to be married… DON’T GET MARRIED. If marriage offers no clear strategic, emotional, or material benefit to you, then it isn’t worth it. If discussing expenses with a partner and making most financial decisions a joint venture seems unpleasant to you or is met with resistance from the potential spouse, then for the love of all that is holy don’t get married. It’s not like you can’t date or have friends as a single person after all.