Sunday, December 4, 2016

The social constructionism hypothesis is wrong

One of the (many) core tenets of modern feminist social justice ideology is the social constructionism hypothesis. This is the claim that all behavioral and social differences between genders, in personalities, in attitudes, in preferences, in societal roles etc. are a pure construction the environment, of the society that we live in. In other words, for example, some professions are very male-dominated because we have been raised to think of them as being manly jobs, and vice-versa. Likewise men are more stoic and aggressive because of upbringing, and so on and so forth.

The opposite of this hypothesis is the view that, while upbringing obviously does have some effect on behavior, personality and preferences, much of it is nevertheless biological, rather than cultural. Men prefer certain jobs, and certain activities, and have certain types of personalities, on average, because they are naturally inclined to it, rather than having been "taught" to be like that.

Studies have been made to try to corroborate either view. And the results are not surprising (except to the feminists, who of course absolutely refuse to accept them, of course.) The fact is that the freer, more egalitarian, and more equal a country is, the more pronounced the differences in career preferences appear to be.

When, for example, Norway (one of the most egalitarian countries in existence) was compared to a country like India, it turned out that in the former gender differences in stereotypically "male" and "female" jobs were more pronounced than in the latter. For example, there are actually proportionally more female nurses in Norway than there are in India. And the same is true pretty much all across the board, with many other countries being compared (such as Sweden), with both stereotypically male and stereotypically female jobs.

There's a rather simple explanation given by sociologists and psychologists (who are not social justice ideologues) to this: In an utterly free and rich society, where there is no pressure on anybody to follow a given career (eg. because of poverty or other such reasons), people on average tend to choose the career they are innately most inclined to. Women, on average, tend to seek careers that are empathetic, such as nurses and kindergarten teachers, while men tend to seek careers that are more technical. When in such an utterly free society there is no particular pressure on choosing one or the other, they tend to follow their own innate inclinations.

In contrast, in poorer countries people take by necessity the jobs that are available, rather than the job they would like. If there is, for example, a demand for nurses, that's what people will do, regardless of gender or societal norms.

But of course feminists do not accept this, and will never accept this. They will bend over backwards in order to try to find a cultural explanation for it. Even if it means going to conspiracy theory territory.

No comments:

Post a Comment