As discussed in April ("Getting what you deserve", 4/13/07), men are repeatedly shown to negotiate for higher pay more often than women. Linda C. Babcock and Hannah Riley Bowles think this isn't just about getting women to speak up: "This isn't about fixing the women... [women] are responding to incentives within the social environment." Bowles told The Washington Post (2007). What Bowles and Babcock have found is that women are more penalized for negotiations than men. Babcock, Bowles, and Lai (2004) found that women who negotiated for higher salary were judged more harshly than men who did. Babcock, Bowles, and Lai (2005) further determined that men only penalized women for negotiating, while women penalized both sexes. Bowles, Babcock, and Lai (2004) also suggest that there's a link between how ambitious a negotiator's goals are and how disliked they become during the course of negotiation.
Not that Bowles is against teaching negotiation to women; her book Women Don't Ask (2003) with Sara Laschever released a new edition earlier this year. Bowles, Babcock, and McGinn (2005) suggest some mediating and moderating factors for the gender effect on salary negotiation such as "the degree of uncertainty in parties’ understanding of the economic structure of the negotiation" makes a huge difference. Where uncertainty is low, women do nearly as well as men in negotiating. Training may be able to reduce the ambiguity for women.
So. How do we fix it? Funny that we were just talking about self-perpetuating differences yesterday in the comments. Women don't ask for more money, so it stands out more when they do. A woman asking for more money is rare; a man asking for more money is normal. So when a woman asks for more money, she's "unpleasant", and she doesn't get the job, or deals with resentment. Next time she doesn't ask. The man asks for more money, gets more money, and next time he asks again. How does this tie in with structural ambiguity? Perhaps it is just that when negotiations are understood to be part of the culture, women do it more often, and the rarity factor declines.
(comments are enabled at the livejournal version of this post)
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Monday, July 30, 2007
Internet access rates: A global perspective
Denise Tanton's liveblog of a "Women across the world" session at the 2007 BlogHer conferences discusses political, cultural, and gender divides in internet usage globally. The figures quoted in Tanton's post are similar to those presented by Internet World Stats (2007). Globally, according to Internet World Stats, Asia is the continent with the most internet users, despite lower internet usage rates in most Asian countries (see Kwintessential's map based on IWS data).
The size of the gender difference in internet usage between cultures is less easy to find. Teo and Lim (2000) got responses from 88% men when attempting to profile internet use in Singapore. Ono and Zovodny (2005) found that gender differences in internet use in the U.S. had declined to negligible levels by 2001, but persisted in Japan, which they attribute to differences in types of employment. The Oxford Internet Surveys (2007) report released last week) found that 70% of British men reported using the internet vs. 65% of British women, and that age was a greater predictor of internet use than gender.
While the differences found in "activity type" by the Oxford Internet Survey report seem to reflect patterns of behavior that appear in many facets of gender difference, it seems that most of the digital divide in gender usage of the internet is just masking other factors, like access to/comfort with computers, income, job segregation, and discretionary time. In fact, I honestly believe that most gender differences that are discussed here are oversimplified models of these kinds of factors. I think what I find most interesting is why these factors appear to cluster around gender lines, and how committed people become to maintaining those lines once observed.
livejournal version: for links and comments
The size of the gender difference in internet usage between cultures is less easy to find. Teo and Lim (2000) got responses from 88% men when attempting to profile internet use in Singapore. Ono and Zovodny (2005) found that gender differences in internet use in the U.S. had declined to negligible levels by 2001, but persisted in Japan, which they attribute to differences in types of employment. The Oxford Internet Surveys (2007) report released last week) found that 70% of British men reported using the internet vs. 65% of British women, and that age was a greater predictor of internet use than gender.
While the differences found in "activity type" by the Oxford Internet Survey report seem to reflect patterns of behavior that appear in many facets of gender difference, it seems that most of the digital divide in gender usage of the internet is just masking other factors, like access to/comfort with computers, income, job segregation, and discretionary time. In fact, I honestly believe that most gender differences that are discussed here are oversimplified models of these kinds of factors. I think what I find most interesting is why these factors appear to cluster around gender lines, and how committed people become to maintaining those lines once observed.
livejournal version: for links and comments
Friday, July 27, 2007
Stalking
A University of Florida press release (phys.org, 2006) summarizes the results of a University of Florida/University of South Carolina study by Angela Gover, Kate Fox, and Catherine Kaukinen (under review) which found that women reported being the perpetrators of stalking, physical, and emotional abuse more often than men. Davis and Frieze (2000, review) points out that while most "legally defined" stalking cases are men stalking women, other definitions find a female majority or no gender differences. Davis and Frieze attribute this to "victim fear" being a main component of the legal definition of stalking. StalkMeNot.org defines stalking behaviors as "unwanted pursuit" that causes "fear, discomfort or emotional harm to the victim."
The "Stalking and Domestic Violence" report to Congress (2001, opens pdf) states that 1 in 12 American women have been stalked in their lifetimes, compared to 1 in 45 men. Women were twice as likely to be stalked by strangers, and eight times as likely to be stalked by someone they knew, according to the report.
I think I'm prepared to say that I stalked someone. I don't think they would say that I stalked them, however, so does that count? I think we're running into two major reporting problems here. First, I think women are more likely to be willing to admit, to themselves and others, that they've stalked or abused someone, or at least have a lower threshold of behavior to label as stalking or abuse. Secondly, there's the role that "victim fear" plays, which would prevent many men from considering unwanted pursuit as "stalking", because they would have a hard time taking the threat seriously. One thing that's been consistently true for me before and after transition is the fact that I am a completely non-threatening presence. Threats I make have more humor value than intimidation, and it's always been the case. I have no idea what it would be like to cause fear in someone - but maybe that's just my male self-justification talking.
links and comments at livejournal version
The "Stalking and Domestic Violence" report to Congress (2001, opens pdf) states that 1 in 12 American women have been stalked in their lifetimes, compared to 1 in 45 men. Women were twice as likely to be stalked by strangers, and eight times as likely to be stalked by someone they knew, according to the report.
I think I'm prepared to say that I stalked someone. I don't think they would say that I stalked them, however, so does that count? I think we're running into two major reporting problems here. First, I think women are more likely to be willing to admit, to themselves and others, that they've stalked or abused someone, or at least have a lower threshold of behavior to label as stalking or abuse. Secondly, there's the role that "victim fear" plays, which would prevent many men from considering unwanted pursuit as "stalking", because they would have a hard time taking the threat seriously. One thing that's been consistently true for me before and after transition is the fact that I am a completely non-threatening presence. Threats I make have more humor value than intimidation, and it's always been the case. I have no idea what it would be like to cause fear in someone - but maybe that's just my male self-justification talking.
links and comments at livejournal version
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Explaining the depression shift
As previously discussed (see "Boys don't cry" 8/30/06), before puberty, boys are more likely to be depressed than girls. Interestingly, Broderick and Korteland (2004) found that the highest depression scores in their sample of 4th through 6th graders were in the most masculine and feminine groups, and lower in the more androgynous children. Around age 11-13, the balance shifts dramatically and women's greater risk of depression persists through much of adulthood (although some claim the gap disappears in older adults). Several theories attempt to explain this situation.
Cyranowski et al (2000) suggest that hormonal changes that come with adolescence cause greater affiliative needs in girls. Born et al (2002) go as far as to claim that the onset of menstruation may be directly linked to the onset of depressive symptoms. Hankin et al (2007) suggest that girls are subjected to more interpersonal stressors than boys, building on Hankin and Abramson (2001), where he suggests that girls are more vulnerable to interpersonal stress. Hank's 2007 study used a diary-keeping method to measure stressors, which could reflect a difference in the way girls and boys talk about their stressors, rather than what they are experiencing. However, Hankin does point out that boys and girls did report similar numbers of events, and a similar proportion of boys' and girls' events were coded as "minimally threatening."
I don't know about anyone else, but I was depressed well before the onset of my period. Then again, as I think I've mentioned before, I was a very late bloomer. Or perhaps I was just precociously depressed. In any case, it is unclear to me how boys and girls would be under significantly different levels of interpersonal stress, but I'm open to suggestions. Any situation with other people in it contains the potential for interpersonal stress, and I'd be prepared to argue that a lot of interpersonal stress comes up when we're alone. I can partially accept a "girls are socialized to be more vulnerable to interpersonal stress" explanation, but I have a hard time understanding how different their social environments could be, under normal conditions.
(comments enabled on livejournal)
Cyranowski et al (2000) suggest that hormonal changes that come with adolescence cause greater affiliative needs in girls. Born et al (2002) go as far as to claim that the onset of menstruation may be directly linked to the onset of depressive symptoms. Hankin et al (2007) suggest that girls are subjected to more interpersonal stressors than boys, building on Hankin and Abramson (2001), where he suggests that girls are more vulnerable to interpersonal stress. Hank's 2007 study used a diary-keeping method to measure stressors, which could reflect a difference in the way girls and boys talk about their stressors, rather than what they are experiencing. However, Hankin does point out that boys and girls did report similar numbers of events, and a similar proportion of boys' and girls' events were coded as "minimally threatening."
I don't know about anyone else, but I was depressed well before the onset of my period. Then again, as I think I've mentioned before, I was a very late bloomer. Or perhaps I was just precociously depressed. In any case, it is unclear to me how boys and girls would be under significantly different levels of interpersonal stress, but I'm open to suggestions. Any situation with other people in it contains the potential for interpersonal stress, and I'd be prepared to argue that a lot of interpersonal stress comes up when we're alone. I can partially accept a "girls are socialized to be more vulnerable to interpersonal stress" explanation, but I have a hard time understanding how different their social environments could be, under normal conditions.
(comments enabled on livejournal)
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
False Idols
The Chronicle of Higher Education blog reports that James David Lieber has been barred from work on federally funded research for a period of three years due to falsifying data in a study of gender differences in opiate users at UCLA. A notice in the Federal Register (7/23/07) confirms that Lieber was found to have falsified interviews, urine samples, and stolen US$5,180 in incentive payments and travel expenses intended for study subjects. Jia-Rui Chong writing for the L.A. Times reports that UCLA learned of the data tampering (which took place over 6 months in 2005) in early 2006, and removed the compromised data from the study, as well as convening an investigation and discharging Lieber. It does not appear from the lead researcher's webpage (Christine Grella) that the findings from this study have yet been published.
In December, we looked at gender patterns in suspected and actual student cheating ("Academic Cheating" (12/19/06), but not at academic misconduct on the research or faculty level. Korenman et al's (1998) survey did not find that sex or age had any influence on attitudes about research ethics among either researchers or members of Internal Review boards at research institutions. Martinson et al (2006) report that a feeling of unfair treatment predicts academic "misbehavior." In another field, Ismael Akaah (1989) reported stricter research ethics among female than male marketing executives.
I occasionally use non-scientific sources, such as yesterday's post (based on news items) or the time I cited Joyce Brothers (and was rightly called out on it by). However, the vast majority of my sources for this blog are scientific studies, and so charges of research misconduct tend to get my attention. A friend of mine pointed out that "mistakes are printed on page one; retractions are printed on page 14." There's only a certain degree to which you can put the cat back in the bag with reported research, especially on subjects like gender differences, when people are so invested in their beliefs. After all, J. Michael Bailey can still get cited as an "expert", regardless of investigations into his research methods.
livejournal version
In December, we looked at gender patterns in suspected and actual student cheating ("Academic Cheating" (12/19/06), but not at academic misconduct on the research or faculty level. Korenman et al's (1998) survey did not find that sex or age had any influence on attitudes about research ethics among either researchers or members of Internal Review boards at research institutions. Martinson et al (2006) report that a feeling of unfair treatment predicts academic "misbehavior." In another field, Ismael Akaah (1989) reported stricter research ethics among female than male marketing executives.
I occasionally use non-scientific sources, such as yesterday's post (based on news items) or the time I cited Joyce Brothers (and was rightly called out on it by
livejournal version
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Farewell to the EOC
John Carvel (2007), writing for the Guardian (UK), discusses the final report of the UK's Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). The EOC's latest and last campaign, the "Gender Agenda" includes eyecatching graphics and an online quiz on how sexual inequality affects your life: Sex Equality MOT. (Note: you can not get results without answering that you live in England, Scotland, or Wales.) The EOC's final report "Completing the Revolution" (2007), warns that equality in Scotland is still "generations away", estimating it will take 200 years to close the "power gap" in Parliament. Other "fun facts" provided include:
The Sex Equality MOT is a nice idea, but a brutally bad implementation. All of the questions are based on the taker's subjective feelings about the environment of sexism in their own lives. I'm not immediately thinking of a better way to handle the questions, but the scoring could certainly be improved by providing a scale. I scored a 15, but I don't know if that's out of 15, 20, or 100 points. The questions on the MOT also leave me concerned about the questions used in the EOC's research. For example, the first question and available answers are: "Where you work, do you think women and men have an equal chance of getting the better paid jobs? Yes equal, fairly equal, fairly unequal, very unequal." While I do think that circumstances in which this question could be answered in the opposite manner that it is intended are rare, the phrasing of the question is obviously more of a "consciousness-raising exercise" than a survey.
livejournal version allows comments
- Women do 78% more housework than men.
- Part time female employees earn 34% less than their male counterparts.
- Full time female employees earn 14% less than their male counterparts.
- Men are only 60% as likely as women to have a "flexible" work schedule.
The Sex Equality MOT is a nice idea, but a brutally bad implementation. All of the questions are based on the taker's subjective feelings about the environment of sexism in their own lives. I'm not immediately thinking of a better way to handle the questions, but the scoring could certainly be improved by providing a scale. I scored a 15, but I don't know if that's out of 15, 20, or 100 points. The questions on the MOT also leave me concerned about the questions used in the EOC's research. For example, the first question and available answers are: "Where you work, do you think women and men have an equal chance of getting the better paid jobs? Yes equal, fairly equal, fairly unequal, very unequal." While I do think that circumstances in which this question could be answered in the opposite manner that it is intended are rare, the phrasing of the question is obviously more of a "consciousness-raising exercise" than a survey.
livejournal version allows comments
Monday, July 23, 2007
Sex-specific behaviors and the rat amygdala
Cooke et al (2007) discuss morphological differences in the medial amygdala (MeA) posterodorsal subnucleus (MeApd). The medial amygdala, according to Cooke et al, "is crucial in the expression of sex-specific social behaviors." Using electron microscopy, Cooke et al found that the left MeApd is larger in male rats than in female rats (both prepubescent and adult). This difference is entirely accounted for by greater dendritic branching, not by a greater number of neurons, although male rats do have a greater number of neurons in the right MeApd. Cooke et al suggest that this indicates a difference in not only how the MeA is used between male and female rats, but in the use of the sides of the MeA in individual rats.
The role of the MeA in rat sex-specific behaviors begins with Mizukami et al (1983), who found the size difference between males and females, and found that this could be manipulated through post-natal hormone treatments. Rowe and Erskine (1993) found that input from the pelvic nerve differentially activated MeA cell groups in female rats following mounting. De Vries and Villalba (1997) also suggest lesion studies implicate the amygdala in intermale aggression in rats.
When I was reading Cooke's study, I was fascinated by the structural differences in male and female rat brains, and the suggestion that they were tied to "sex-specific" behavioral differences. Tracing back into older and older studies, I began to be disappointed that the behaviors studied were all mating behaviors: sex as a verb, not as an adjective. It actually took a fair amount of my attention to realize how difficult it would be to identify sex-specific behaviors that were not associated with the mating act (especially in rats, but not insignificantly in humans). I don't think I've ever really considered my bias against identifying mating behaviors with a particular sex, because of my experience as a LGBT activist.
Introspective musing aside, I'm sure that many of my readers will be eager to discuss the role of post-natal hormones on brain development. I'd like to point out that Mizukami's study only examined the application of hormones in prepubertal rats on brain development -- the sexual dimorphism did not seem to appear until puberty.
livejournal version allows comments
The role of the MeA in rat sex-specific behaviors begins with Mizukami et al (1983), who found the size difference between males and females, and found that this could be manipulated through post-natal hormone treatments. Rowe and Erskine (1993) found that input from the pelvic nerve differentially activated MeA cell groups in female rats following mounting. De Vries and Villalba (1997) also suggest lesion studies implicate the amygdala in intermale aggression in rats.
When I was reading Cooke's study, I was fascinated by the structural differences in male and female rat brains, and the suggestion that they were tied to "sex-specific" behavioral differences. Tracing back into older and older studies, I began to be disappointed that the behaviors studied were all mating behaviors: sex as a verb, not as an adjective. It actually took a fair amount of my attention to realize how difficult it would be to identify sex-specific behaviors that were not associated with the mating act (especially in rats, but not insignificantly in humans). I don't think I've ever really considered my bias against identifying mating behaviors with a particular sex, because of my experience as a LGBT activist.
Introspective musing aside, I'm sure that many of my readers will be eager to discuss the role of post-natal hormones on brain development. I'd like to point out that Mizukami's study only examined the application of hormones in prepubertal rats on brain development -- the sexual dimorphism did not seem to appear until puberty.
livejournal version allows comments
Friday, July 20, 2007
Toddler Aggression
Gender differences in physical aggression are thought to appear early, around 2 years old, and further differentiate with socialization. Baillargeon et al (2007) interviewed mothers about their toddlers' behaviour, and concluded that gender differences in aggression exist as early as 17 months, and do not become more differentiated in the following year. Crick et al (2006) suggests that in preschool, boys are more physically aggressive than girls while girls are more relationally aggressive* than boys.
New results are to be presented later this year at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association. Anson et al (2007) found that increased language ability significantly reduced physical aggression in 4-year-old boys, but not girls, . Anson et al (2007) also plan to report that gender differences in physical aggression in their african american sample did not appear until age 6.
*Mounts (1997) gives Crick's definition of relational aggression as "behavior specifically intended to hurt another child's friendships or feelings of inclusion in a peer group."
I am very interested to see more about Anson's study, because it actually appears to rely more on observations of the child than on parent interviews. While I am sympathetic that it is easier to ask the mother (in 99% of cases, the person who spends the most time with the child, according to Baillarger's paper) whether their child manifests certain behaviors, reporting is so clouded with societal expectations of male and female behaviour that I'd be just as pleased with interviews with non-parents. If I hear one more parent say "anyone who doesn't believe in gender differences should meet my children," I may have to punch them. How's that for aggression?
livejournal version allows comments
New results are to be presented later this year at the Annual Meeting of the American Public Health Association. Anson et al (2007) found that increased language ability significantly reduced physical aggression in 4-year-old boys, but not girls, . Anson et al (2007) also plan to report that gender differences in physical aggression in their african american sample did not appear until age 6.
*Mounts (1997) gives Crick's definition of relational aggression as "behavior specifically intended to hurt another child's friendships or feelings of inclusion in a peer group."
I am very interested to see more about Anson's study, because it actually appears to rely more on observations of the child than on parent interviews. While I am sympathetic that it is easier to ask the mother (in 99% of cases, the person who spends the most time with the child, according to Baillarger's paper) whether their child manifests certain behaviors, reporting is so clouded with societal expectations of male and female behaviour that I'd be just as pleased with interviews with non-parents. If I hear one more parent say "anyone who doesn't believe in gender differences should meet my children," I may have to punch them. How's that for aggression?
livejournal version allows comments
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Poor Taste
What factors affect the ability to taste, and do they differ between men and women? Several factors, such as age, dietary habits, and smoking history may be involved. Mojet et al (2001) did not find a significant difference in sensitivity to taste between men and women, but did find significant age and sex interaction. Older men needed far more concentrated solutions of taste stimuli (such as salt, sugar, or vinegar) than young men or women. Mojet et al attributed this difference to overall taste loss. McDaid et al (2007) found that dietary zinc intake had a greater effect on the taste acuity of males than females. Nakazato et al (2002), measuring taste acuity with electrogustometry (EGM), found that in teenagers, females had lower taste thresholds (more sensitive) than males. In adults, however, sex differences in taste sensitivity disappeared when number of cigarettes smoked was taken into account (women in the sample tended to smoke less).
I know I'm personally guilty of associating strong, overpowering flavors (barbecue, curry, chili) with masculinity and more delicate ones (fruits, teas, fish) with femininity. It's a habit I'm trying to kick, but the people in my life aren't making it easy. It's hard for me to kick a stereotype when people live up to it. However, much like in Nakazato's sample, smokers in my sample are predominately male. Vegetarians in my sample are actually fairly evenly split. And now is the time on Difference Blog when we dance, as all my spicy-food-loving female friends take me to task. All I'm asking is that one male speak up for peaches.
livejournal version allows comments
I know I'm personally guilty of associating strong, overpowering flavors (barbecue, curry, chili) with masculinity and more delicate ones (fruits, teas, fish) with femininity. It's a habit I'm trying to kick, but the people in my life aren't making it easy. It's hard for me to kick a stereotype when people live up to it. However, much like in Nakazato's sample, smokers in my sample are predominately male. Vegetarians in my sample are actually fairly evenly split. And now is the time on Difference Blog when we dance, as all my spicy-food-loving female friends take me to task. All I'm asking is that one male speak up for peaches.
livejournal version allows comments
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
People and their cars
According to the BMW survey,
women are more likely to use the word
"idiot" while driving. Dan4th tagged
this Flickr photo "idiots" in May 2006
According to news reports, BMW's research finds that:
- Men consider their cars an extension of themselves, whereas women see it as a separate entity The Electric New Paper (SG)
- Men alone get out of a car in seconds, whereas families with children take several minutes to unpack (no word on how quick women are on their own) The Scotsman (UK)
- Women are more likely to be rude and less likely to apologize while driving RAC Foundation (UK)
- Men are more likely to drive one-handed Telegraph (UK)
- Among one-handed drivers, women were more likely to place their spare hand in their lap, whereas men placed it on the gear shift Daily Mail (UK)
One phrase that keeps being repeated in all these "news" reports (and admittedly, it's pretty soft news) is something along the lines of "researchers confirmed what ___ have long suspected" -- with the blank being women if the reporter focused on a male stereotype, and vice versa. Only the RAC Foundation blog expressed surprise at results, in discussing women's rudeness behind the wheel. Another issue I have with the stories is that only two of the sources linked above mentioned that the study was commissioned by BMW.
livejournal version allows comments
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Knee Surgery
Megan Rauscher (2007), reporting for Reuters, discusses new findings by Yale medical student Peter Fabricant that indicate that women have poorer short-term recovery from "keyhole" knee surgery (arthroscopic partial meniscectomy). Age and body mass index (BMI) were not shown to have any effect on short-term recovery, but gender and arthritis did. Fabricant points out that this does not indicate anything about long-term recovery from this surgery: "the factors associated with a poorer long-term outcome, such as larger tear size, greater amount of tissue removed, advanced patient age, and higher Body Mass Index, are not the same as those we can associate with short-term surgical recovery" (EurekaAlert, 2007).
McDermott and Amis's 2006 review questions the risks of meniscectomy, pointing out that further knee issues often follow this surgery. They also suggest that women have been shown to have poorer odds of recovery from this procedure. Camanho et al (2006) point out that the cause of the knee injury is a major contributing factor to surgical outcomes (traumatic injury has a better prognosis than degenerative injury), and that male patients are more likely than female patients to have trauma (as opposed to degeneration or fatigue) be the source of their injury. Women's knee injuries were evenly distributed between the three etiologies in Camanho's sample.
One of the main reasons I gave for leaving show business was a fear that my knees were going. I wasn't honestly too concerned with it at 25, when I started to consider other work. At 31, having a "good knee day" or a "bad knee day" is a major predictor of my mood. In terms of my risk factors, I had always been thinking about my knees to some degree or another, due to family history: my father had surgery on both knees before I was born (in his early twenties). Of course, looking at today's studies, it doesn't seem like that was a factor I needed to consider.
Related articles: "Her First Knee Brace" (10/2/2006)
See comments on livejournal
McDermott and Amis's 2006 review questions the risks of meniscectomy, pointing out that further knee issues often follow this surgery. They also suggest that women have been shown to have poorer odds of recovery from this procedure. Camanho et al (2006) point out that the cause of the knee injury is a major contributing factor to surgical outcomes (traumatic injury has a better prognosis than degenerative injury), and that male patients are more likely than female patients to have trauma (as opposed to degeneration or fatigue) be the source of their injury. Women's knee injuries were evenly distributed between the three etiologies in Camanho's sample.
One of the main reasons I gave for leaving show business was a fear that my knees were going. I wasn't honestly too concerned with it at 25, when I started to consider other work. At 31, having a "good knee day" or a "bad knee day" is a major predictor of my mood. In terms of my risk factors, I had always been thinking about my knees to some degree or another, due to family history: my father had surgery on both knees before I was born (in his early twenties). Of course, looking at today's studies, it doesn't seem like that was a factor I needed to consider.
Related articles: "Her First Knee Brace" (10/2/2006)
See comments on livejournal
Monday, July 16, 2007
Missing Work
As mentioned in December, menstruation is a major cause of absenteeism in women, and some suspect it represents the main cause in the difference between men's and women's attendance in the workplace (in the absence of children). Whitehead et al (1986) suggests that women learn how to handle these symptoms from how their mothers model these behaviors. Forbes et al (2003) examined the differences in stereotypes expressed by men and women about "the menstruating woman."
Speaking of absenteeism, I was trying to be out of work today, since I'm not feeling well. I just got unexpectedly called in for an emergency, and so I didn't have time for a longer post today. Tomorrow I should be back on track.
see comments on livejournal
Speaking of absenteeism, I was trying to be out of work today, since I'm not feeling well. I just got unexpectedly called in for an emergency, and so I didn't have time for a longer post today. Tomorrow I should be back on track.
see comments on livejournal
Friday, July 13, 2007
A word with you
Bellezza et al (1986) had a group of undergraduates rate words for pleasantness, familiarity, and imagery. They found that not only did men and women rate certain words differently, but that women used more extreme ratings in general on the pleasantness scale, and tended to rate words higher on imagery and familiarity. Men rated words including "agility", "breast", and "engine" as more pleasant than women did. Women rated "wedding", "sentimental" and "thoughtful" as more pleasant than men did (p < .05 for all differences). However, among the 36 words included in Bellezza's appendix, "love" and "romantic" were the top two most pleasant for both men and women. All of the specifically female-related words ("breast" "girl" "woman" and "whore") were rated as more pleasant by men than women. However, for "whore", this is confounded by the extremeness of women's ratings, because all unpleasant words were rated as "less unpleasant" by men.
I have to wonder whether the difference in men's ratings as pertains to "breast" "girl" and "woman" would be different now, or different with an older group of students. How much of this is an artifact of the 19-year-old male mind? How much is an artifact of history? I did not find a similar study performed more recently, or on a group of normal adults, probably because it's not a particularly strong experiment. Are the words pleasant in sound or meaning? The imagery and familiarity scales may capture some previous associations the words hold for a particular subject, but this aspect doesn't seem to be deeply explored. One thing I think might be a clue to the differences in ratings extremity is the instruction: "try to use all five points on the rating scale." I know that this is something that my partner does frequently, monitoring his ratings for various things (board games, for example) to make sure he has a reasonable distribution. It seems likely to me that this is a game that men would be more familiar and comfortable with (in general) than men, simply by increased social exposure to statistics and mathematics.
see comments on livejournal
I have to wonder whether the difference in men's ratings as pertains to "breast" "girl" and "woman" would be different now, or different with an older group of students. How much of this is an artifact of the 19-year-old male mind? How much is an artifact of history? I did not find a similar study performed more recently, or on a group of normal adults, probably because it's not a particularly strong experiment. Are the words pleasant in sound or meaning? The imagery and familiarity scales may capture some previous associations the words hold for a particular subject, but this aspect doesn't seem to be deeply explored. One thing I think might be a clue to the differences in ratings extremity is the instruction: "try to use all five points on the rating scale." I know that this is something that my partner does frequently, monitoring his ratings for various things (board games, for example) to make sure he has a reasonable distribution. It seems likely to me that this is a game that men would be more familiar and comfortable with (in general) than men, simply by increased social exposure to statistics and mathematics.
see comments on livejournal
Thursday, July 12, 2007
What women want? When?
Julie Steenhuysen (Reuters, 2007) reported on new research Monday into heterosexual women's selection preferences. The article focuses on UCLA's David Frederick, who made news as a graduate student by suggesting that women did not make long-term partners of the sexiest males (HeathInformation.com, 2005). His presentation as a grad student focused on interviews with undergraduate women. The research currently making news interviewed men, and found that muscular men were likely to have had more dating partners, according the to Reuters report. The study is reported to be in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, but I have not been able to find it in this publication. Li and Kenrick (2006) discuss similarities and differences in what men and women are looking for in a mate, and how the researcher's questions can influence the answers. Li and Kenrick propose that men and women may be looking for different things for short-term partners, but that for long-term partners, they tend to want the same thing.
Back in 1998, a woman I worked with expressed to me that she wasn't interested in dating if it wasn't "going anywhere" -- an attitude that was hard for me to understand, but was recently echoed by former American Idol star Kelly Clarkson in an interview with the Sun (UK): "That's a waste of my kisses and time." I have been turning this idea over in my head ever since, trying to get my mind wrapped around it, and I continually think I've got it, and then realize I haven't. I don't know why this particular statement bothered me so much, but it's really stuck with me.
see comments on livejournal
Back in 1998, a woman I worked with expressed to me that she wasn't interested in dating if it wasn't "going anywhere" -- an attitude that was hard for me to understand, but was recently echoed by former American Idol star Kelly Clarkson in an interview with the Sun (UK): "That's a waste of my kisses and time." I have been turning this idea over in my head ever since, trying to get my mind wrapped around it, and I continually think I've got it, and then realize I haven't. I don't know why this particular statement bothered me so much, but it's really stuck with me.
see comments on livejournal
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Causes of Death
Robert Anderson (2001) (in a CDC Vital Statistics report) gives the leading causes of death in the United States by age, sex, and race for 1999. In 1999, the top three causes for men and women are the same, accounting for similar percentages of deaths: heart disease, cancer, and stroke. By 2001, stroke had dropped to the #4 slot for men in the U.S., but remained the #3 cause of death for women (Anderson and Smith, 2003). The next most common cause of death tells a different story. 5.4% of male deaths in 1999 were caused by unintentional injury (compared to 2.8% of women, making it the 7th most common). In 2001, accidental injury accounted for 5.6% of male deaths and 2.9% of female deaths.
Higher rates of accidental death in men are consistent worldwide, according to Murray and Lopez (1997). Murray and Lopez found that men died of injuries (intentional or accidental) twice as often as women globally. Murray and Lopez also reported that "maternal disorders" were the leading cause of death for women 15-60, accounting for 15.8% of deaths in this group.
I have to admit that I was surprised to see so little difference between men's and women's causes of death in the United States. Sadly, I didn't find the data I was really hoping for, which was a breakdown of causes of death by decade of life. I'd sort of like to see if there's an age after which men's rate of accidental and violent death drops off.
[edit 1pm: Data found. See CDC's WISQRS database for more info]
livejournal version
Higher rates of accidental death in men are consistent worldwide, according to Murray and Lopez (1997). Murray and Lopez found that men died of injuries (intentional or accidental) twice as often as women globally. Murray and Lopez also reported that "maternal disorders" were the leading cause of death for women 15-60, accounting for 15.8% of deaths in this group.
I have to admit that I was surprised to see so little difference between men's and women's causes of death in the United States. Sadly, I didn't find the data I was really hoping for, which was a breakdown of causes of death by decade of life. I'd sort of like to see if there's an age after which men's rate of accidental and violent death drops off.
[edit 1pm: Data found. See CDC's WISQRS database for more info]
livejournal version
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Lip-looking
From Yamada et al (2002): landmarks of
lip measurement. Lb=bottom of Cupid's
bow. Lt=top of Cupid's bow. Ch=Cheilion.
Sto=Stomion
Women are usually portrayed as having fuller lips than men. Are the measurements of women's lips any different? Yamada et al (2002) measured the lips and noses of 247 Japanese children and 37 Japanese adults, and found that gender differences were minor enough to ignore, in terms of corrective surgery. Adult men's mouths were generally larger, but similarly shaped, to women's mouths. Yamada et al did not note if this was proportional to the overall size differences between the men and women.
Jean-Marc Fellous (1997) concludes that mouth size is not a factor generally used to make gender determination of faces, although he cites Meerdink et al (1990) as saying both that mouth size is, and is not, used in gender determinations. Fellous' experiment focuses on nose and eyebrow measurements, determining that the lip measurements used in Meerdink et al and in Brunelli and Poggio (1993) are irrelevant.
I think this is another case of my not knowing what I should be looking for. I'm certain there are better studies out there about gender differences in facial morphology, but I don't feel like I'm finding them. I had initially intended to include lip redness in today's post, but couldn't find any articles discussing the natural tone of lips. However, I do find Fellous' conclusion fascinating: a face's gender can be determined to 95% accuracy by eyebrows, nose, and eye spacing.
livejournal version
Monday, July 9, 2007
Who volunteers?
According to a report released this month by The Corporation for National and Community Service (2007), 31.6% of American women volunteered time in the past three years, compared to 24.3% of men, with median hours per year of 50 and 52 per volunteer, respectively. Factors that the report found tied to volunteer service on the community level were commute time, education, and home ownership. The survey counted only volunteer activities done through an organization. A report released in April by the same organization (National & Community Service, 2007) showed the smallest difference between men's and women's volunteer rates in the Northeast, but this area also had the lowest volunteer rates overall. Regionally, the midwest had the highest volunteer rates for both men and women. According to a Research Triangle Institute (2007) press release, the April report "also discovered that the busier people's lives are the more likely they are to volunteer" (Nathan West, RTI researcher and report author).
Hiromi Taniguchi (2006) found that employment levels had different effects on men's and women's volunteering. Women working part-time were more likely to volunteer than women working full-time, but this did not hold true for men. Unemployment inhibited men's volunteering. Thomas Smith (2005) looked only at working adults, and concluded that women were more likely to volunteer overall.
I stopped doing organized volunteer work last March. Prior to that, I'd been volunteering fairly consistently for a few years (five?) with a single organization. I had planned to get involved in a literacy program, but I kept getting sidetracked, and now it's been over a year and it's looking less and less likely. The group that I volunteered with was focused on men's health, but well over half of my fellow volunteers were women. I'd guess that the breakdown was something like 70%-30%, but I don't have any data to back that up. It strikes me that volunteer numbers don't give you any insight into job choices. How many women vs. men have their main source of employment at a community center, a food kitchen, a library -- or in an ambulance crew, a fire department, or as policemen?
livejournal version
Hiromi Taniguchi (2006) found that employment levels had different effects on men's and women's volunteering. Women working part-time were more likely to volunteer than women working full-time, but this did not hold true for men. Unemployment inhibited men's volunteering. Thomas Smith (2005) looked only at working adults, and concluded that women were more likely to volunteer overall.
I stopped doing organized volunteer work last March. Prior to that, I'd been volunteering fairly consistently for a few years (five?) with a single organization. I had planned to get involved in a literacy program, but I kept getting sidetracked, and now it's been over a year and it's looking less and less likely. The group that I volunteered with was focused on men's health, but well over half of my fellow volunteers were women. I'd guess that the breakdown was something like 70%-30%, but I don't have any data to back that up. It strikes me that volunteer numbers don't give you any insight into job choices. How many women vs. men have their main source of employment at a community center, a food kitchen, a library -- or in an ambulance crew, a fire department, or as policemen?
livejournal version
Friday, July 6, 2007
Something to talk about
In September ("Worth a Thousand Words" 9/6/2006), we discussed the common belief that men use only 7,000 words per day, whereas women use 20,000. According to an AP story by Randolph Schmid (2007) released yesterday, researchers at the University of Arizona have contradicted this claim. Mehl et al (2007) attribute the 7,000-20,000 claim to Louann Brizendine, who used it in her book The Female Brain (2006), but point out that similar claims have appeared (uncited) in the popular media for at least 15 years (see Liberman 2006).
Mehl et al attached microphones to 396 undergraduates (from the U.S. and Mexico) over a period of two to ten days, and found that both men and women averaged around 16,000 words per day. Standard deviations were also fairly similar, at 7,301 daily words for women and 8,633 daily words for men. On the other hand, Leaper and Smith's 2004 meta-analysis found that in childhood, girls were slightly more talkative: "although the average gender difference was statistically significant, it was relatively negligible in magnitude" (p 1012).
As I pointed out in September: "I'm a talker." Except that I realized lately that it's extremely variable by situation, and that I'm reacting more feedback saying I talk too much than to other feedback that I am "quiet" or "a good listener" (statements that never fail to floor me, but come fairly often). I'm definitely shy, and I think I don't talk much around people that I'm not comfortable with. Part of this is that I'm extremely unsure of my self-censoring capabilities. I have no idea how this comes out on average.
livejournal version
Mehl et al attached microphones to 396 undergraduates (from the U.S. and Mexico) over a period of two to ten days, and found that both men and women averaged around 16,000 words per day. Standard deviations were also fairly similar, at 7,301 daily words for women and 8,633 daily words for men. On the other hand, Leaper and Smith's 2004 meta-analysis found that in childhood, girls were slightly more talkative: "although the average gender difference was statistically significant, it was relatively negligible in magnitude" (p 1012).
As I pointed out in September: "I'm a talker." Except that I realized lately that it's extremely variable by situation, and that I'm reacting more feedback saying I talk too much than to other feedback that I am "quiet" or "a good listener" (statements that never fail to floor me, but come fairly often). I'm definitely shy, and I think I don't talk much around people that I'm not comfortable with. Part of this is that I'm extremely unsure of my self-censoring capabilities. I have no idea how this comes out on average.
livejournal version
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Body modification
It's been over 24 years since Neil Buhrich (1983) published his analysis of personal ads in a piercing magazine, finding 25x more ads from men than women, and concluding that an erotic interest in piercing was associated with homosexuality. Buhrich also found that ad-placers were likely to also be interested in tattooing. In the same year, G. W. Grumet (1983) speculated on the psychological reasons why a person would wear tattoos, and suggested that half of the people who got tattoos later regretted them and saw them as a "handicap."
Discourse on body-modification is still evolving. Roberti et al's (2004) survey of a Floridian college population found that women were more likely to have piercings, while men were more likely to have tattoos. A News-Medical.net (2004) story quotes Eric Storch, one of the researchers: "Fifty years ago, generally Americans did not have tattoos or any alternative body modification. Times have really quite quickly changed." Stirn et al (2006) found that women had higher rates of body modification than men in the German population, when both tattoos and piercings were counted. Skegg et al (2007) found that 29% of the females in a New Zealand cohort had piercings, compared to only 9% of the males. Huxley and Grogan (2005) did not find any connection between healthy behaviors and tattoos and piercings, but were quick to point out that their survey found that many people with body modifications "had not considered possible health risks."
I think I'm more used to people being surprised that I don't have any tattoos. As for piercings, I'm never sure how to answer. Piercing scars are still highly visible in my earlobes, and just barely on my nostril, but I don't feel like those piercings "count" when people ask about them. It's not that I'm not fond of piercings and tattoos. I really love the way they look. As a personal gender preference, and apropos of nothing at all, I far prefer nipple piercings on men and navel piercings on women. But I feel like the only ftm bodies I see represented online are already tattooed and pierced. I feel like I'm standing out by abstaining from further modification. After all, from one perspective, I've done enough body modification already.
livejournal version
Discourse on body-modification is still evolving. Roberti et al's (2004) survey of a Floridian college population found that women were more likely to have piercings, while men were more likely to have tattoos. A News-Medical.net (2004) story quotes Eric Storch, one of the researchers: "Fifty years ago, generally Americans did not have tattoos or any alternative body modification. Times have really quite quickly changed." Stirn et al (2006) found that women had higher rates of body modification than men in the German population, when both tattoos and piercings were counted. Skegg et al (2007) found that 29% of the females in a New Zealand cohort had piercings, compared to only 9% of the males. Huxley and Grogan (2005) did not find any connection between healthy behaviors and tattoos and piercings, but were quick to point out that their survey found that many people with body modifications "had not considered possible health risks."
I think I'm more used to people being surprised that I don't have any tattoos. As for piercings, I'm never sure how to answer. Piercing scars are still highly visible in my earlobes, and just barely on my nostril, but I don't feel like those piercings "count" when people ask about them. It's not that I'm not fond of piercings and tattoos. I really love the way they look. As a personal gender preference, and apropos of nothing at all, I far prefer nipple piercings on men and navel piercings on women. But I feel like the only ftm bodies I see represented online are already tattooed and pierced. I feel like I'm standing out by abstaining from further modification. After all, from one perspective, I've done enough body modification already.
livejournal version
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
Video Interlude on Education
I keep forgetting to mention when there's a U.S. Holiday (which is when I tend to take a break). For your entertainment until tomorrow, here's a couple of videos. I despise embedded video, so I'll just provide links:
"Gender in the Classroom." length=4:40 (uploaded 2/20/2007) An interview with two educators. Watching them ignore the interviewer's prodding for "gender difference" generalizations is sort of entertaining.
"Effect of education on men and women." length=2:12 (uploaded 2/4/2007) This is a heavy-handed comedy bit, in the style of the 1950's hygiene propaganda. It appears to be part of a television show, but I don't know which one. There's a web address overlaid on the bottom of the video. I don't recommend going to it, especially if you're at work.
livejournal version
"Gender in the Classroom." length=4:40 (uploaded 2/20/2007) An interview with two educators. Watching them ignore the interviewer's prodding for "gender difference" generalizations is sort of entertaining.
"Effect of education on men and women." length=2:12 (uploaded 2/4/2007) This is a heavy-handed comedy bit, in the style of the 1950's hygiene propaganda. It appears to be part of a television show, but I don't know which one. There's a web address overlaid on the bottom of the video. I don't recommend going to it, especially if you're at work.
livejournal version
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Implicit Attitudes
Rudman and Goodwin (2004) report that women show greater "in-group bias" than men; that is, women like women more than men like men. Rudman and Goodwin's four experiments used implicit association testing (IAT) to assess favorable attitudes towards a particular gender group. Harvard's Project Implicit gives a deeper explanation of IAT and allows people to take implicit association exercises at home. In short, IAT measures response time to associate positive or negative connotations to a particular categorization, with longer response times supposedly representing a less-believed association.
IAT is largely used to determine which is more positively viewed between two options by the subject. These results are often compared against explicit testing, where the subject is asked directly what they believe. Other gender divided uses of IAT have included Andrew Karpinksi's (2004) finding that women had marginally higher implicit self-esteem than men, but that men scored higher on explicit measures of self-esteem (using traditional testing methods). Geer and Robertson (2005) found that women had more negative associations with sex, sexually charged words, and sexuality than men, consistent with explicit measures. Interestingly, Milne and Grafman (2001) found that patients with prefrontal cortex lesions did not show gender-stereotyped implicit associations.
I suspect, although I haven't tested on it, that I have an implicit bias against IAT. It's probably because I don't like what it says about me. I certainly have issues with explicit self-report measures as well, and at least this makes another tool available. Still, as a language-driven, mental flexibility "game", it seems as though there would be a difference in how men and women scored on the tests in general. However, I've seen no studies examining between-subject differences in reponse latency.
livejournal version
IAT is largely used to determine which is more positively viewed between two options by the subject. These results are often compared against explicit testing, where the subject is asked directly what they believe. Other gender divided uses of IAT have included Andrew Karpinksi's (2004) finding that women had marginally higher implicit self-esteem than men, but that men scored higher on explicit measures of self-esteem (using traditional testing methods). Geer and Robertson (2005) found that women had more negative associations with sex, sexually charged words, and sexuality than men, consistent with explicit measures. Interestingly, Milne and Grafman (2001) found that patients with prefrontal cortex lesions did not show gender-stereotyped implicit associations.
I suspect, although I haven't tested on it, that I have an implicit bias against IAT. It's probably because I don't like what it says about me. I certainly have issues with explicit self-report measures as well, and at least this makes another tool available. Still, as a language-driven, mental flexibility "game", it seems as though there would be a difference in how men and women scored on the tests in general. However, I've seen no studies examining between-subject differences in reponse latency.
livejournal version
Monday, July 2, 2007
Changing Face of Marriage
In a Pew Research Report released yesterday, over two thousand Americans were asked about their views on marriage and parenting. Men and women's opinions ran in close accordance, according to the 91-page report: "the group differences in public opinion on these matters tend to be correlated with age, religion, race and ethnicity, as well as with the choices that people have made in their own marital and parenting lives. There are some, but not many, differences by gender" (p 10). Two possible keys to a successful marriage have starkly changed in respondents' ratings since similar questions on the 1990 World Values Survey (1990): "children" have dropped from 65% to 41% whereas "sharing household chores" has jumped from 47% to 62%. The group described by the Pew report as "the Ozzie and Harriets" (married, never-divorced parents) was more likely to be white, educated, well-off, and Catholic than other parents -- and made up only 35% of the parents surveyed.
Gender differences did appear on a couple of questions in the Pew Survey. Slightly more men than women reported ever cohabitating without marriage (39% to 33%). Men were more likely to think it was bad for children to not have a father involved in their lives. Women were more likely to think divorce was preferable to an unhappy marriage. Both men and women gave women a slight edge over men in the likelihood of being happy without marriage.
My parents were "Ozzie and Harriets", and honestly, I'm more surprised by how common it is than by how rare. I've mentioned more than once the "liberal bubble" that I'm usually quite happy to operate in. It does, however, leave me extremely out of touch with the way things actually work on most of the planet. For example, my immediate interpretation of the "unmarried women have a better chance at happiness" result is that people are reluctant to admit the politically incorrect view that women might want to get married. However, the longer I think about it, the less likely that interpretation seems.
livejournal version
Gender differences did appear on a couple of questions in the Pew Survey. Slightly more men than women reported ever cohabitating without marriage (39% to 33%). Men were more likely to think it was bad for children to not have a father involved in their lives. Women were more likely to think divorce was preferable to an unhappy marriage. Both men and women gave women a slight edge over men in the likelihood of being happy without marriage.
My parents were "Ozzie and Harriets", and honestly, I'm more surprised by how common it is than by how rare. I've mentioned more than once the "liberal bubble" that I'm usually quite happy to operate in. It does, however, leave me extremely out of touch with the way things actually work on most of the planet. For example, my immediate interpretation of the "unmarried women have a better chance at happiness" result is that people are reluctant to admit the politically incorrect view that women might want to get married. However, the longer I think about it, the less likely that interpretation seems.
livejournal version
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
