Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Men Become Sexist After Children

bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

https://www.yahoo.com...
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2015 2:12:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

https://www.yahoo.com...

I think you would see a similar trend in women as well.

I don't think sexist is the right term, as you alluded to. Traditional or non-traditional doesn't really matter as long as both people in the relationship are happy with the roles they create for themselves. Its a personal decision between a couple.

Its only sexist if choice is limited or taken out of the equation by the man without regard for other factors.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 12:37:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

Thank you for posting, Bsh.

I'd like to point out an element of the report that concerns me:

For the study, Baxter asked men and women to rate the strength of their agreement about various statements regarding parenthood before the birth of their child and then again after they"d welcomed the child. "Women showed a 4 percent increase in how supportive they were of the idea that "a working mother can establish just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work for pay,"" according to The Independent [broken link], which reports that on the flip side, men in Baxter"s study "became on average 0.1 percent less supportive of that idea."

So this is essentially a blogsite reporting on a broken link to a newspaper article reporting on a scientific report, reporting that a 0.1% shift in surveyed male attitudes post marriage is statistically and socially significant.

After a bit of digging, I found the newspaper link: http://www.independent.co.uk...

And a link to the papers published by the scientist: https://scholar.google.com...

But I couldn't find a link to the original report, or why the researcher felt that a 0.1% shift on a reported sample size of only 1,800 is worthy of reporting or conjecturing about.

There are more questions to be answered, I think, before considering the study's conjectures legitimate.

The first being: where's the study please, and where was it published? :)
August_Burns_Red
Posts: 1,253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 9:53:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

https://www.yahoo.com...

What you're calling "sexist" I think sounds more like "maturation." Men learning to take care of their family. Contributing to society. Maybe serving God. Growing up. Putting away Childish things. This is what we were Created for. Evolved to be. Our Nature. Not that different from that of other males of different species.
Tomorrow's forecast: God reigns and the Son shines!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 10:59:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 12:37:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
But I couldn't find a link to the original report, or why the researcher felt that a 0.1% shift on a reported sample size of only 1,800 is worthy of reporting or conjecturing about.


Lol, ikr. 1800/2 = 900. A 0.1 percent shift in opinion basically means that one guy changed his mind. Clearly that reveals something important about the male gender.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:01:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And considering that people generally grow more conservative with age on all issues, especially after starting a family, the result is even more meaningless.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:15:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

https://www.yahoo.com...

This certainly does make sense from an evolutionary perspective. But there's also a growing trend of stay-at-home fathers and working mothers, in the struggle to carefully raise children.

As one poster already explained, as along as both parents realize that this arrangement is voluntary, all is well. Historically, parents have also adopted nannies to raise children. There's all sorts of methods parents can use to raise children.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:17:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 9:53:47 PM, August_Burns_Red wrote:
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

https://www.yahoo.com...

What you're calling "sexist" I think sounds more like "maturation." Men learning to take care of their family. Contributing to society. Maybe serving God. Growing up. Putting away Childish things. This is what we were Created for. Evolved to be. Our Nature. Not that different from that of other males of different species.

Well, I do point out that "sexist" wasn't really the right term. But, I wouldn't call it maturation either. I don't think that having traditional views on gender roles (e.g. being less supportive of women in the workplace) is particularly mature. I think it makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, but I don't find it to be necessarily a great thing or a bad thing. It's just an interesting fact.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:20:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Whatever your views, American life has become more expensive over the decades, pushing both parents to work to support families. There are real financial pressures at work today forcing families to find new parenting methods.

We should not exclude the modern financial facts of life in these types of discussions.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:28:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 10:59:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:37:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
But I couldn't find a link to the original report, or why the researcher felt that a 0.1% shift on a reported sample size of only 1,800 is worthy of reporting or conjecturing about.


Lol, ikr. 1800/2 = 900. A 0.1 percent shift in opinion basically means that one guy changed his mind. Clearly that reveals something important about the male gender.

Heh. Exactly, Dylan. :)

We don't know the survey methodology, but for argument's sake, suppose the questions were about sharing housework equally, and answered on a 0 .. 5 score, with 0 meaning 'strongly disagree' and 5 meaning 'strongly agree', and that's mapped to 0 .. 100 through multiplying by 20.

Then one guy swinging his over-all views from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree', plus his buddy swinging from 'strongly agree' to 'disagree' would account for a 0.1% swing in a sample of 1,800. Or maybe nine cooled off, and went from 'agree' to 'undecided' -- that'd do it too.

But since we don't know the questions asked, or when they were asked, or even if the same guys were asked, we can't tell whether two guys in 1,800 became more sexist, or nine guys in 1,800 were under financial strain from suddenly living in a single income household, and working two jobs, or were just tired and cranky from lack of sleep, or even if the same guys weren't asked a second time, so that the response is a sampling error issue.

But a shift like 0.1% smells awfully suspect, so I'd like to see the methodology and know where the paper was published. :)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:31:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 2:12:36 PM, JMcKinley wrote:

Its only sexist if choice is limited or taken out of the equation by the man without regard for other factors.

I think the more concerning thing is how you view sexism as being only a male-perpetuated thing in regards to gender roles.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:33:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 11:28:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/30/2015 10:59:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/30/2015 12:37:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
But I couldn't find a link to the original report, or why the researcher felt that a 0.1% shift on a reported sample size of only 1,800 is worthy of reporting or conjecturing about.


Lol, ikr. 1800/2 = 900. A 0.1 percent shift in opinion basically means that one guy changed his mind. Clearly that reveals something important about the male gender.

Heh. Exactly, Dylan. :)

We don't know the survey methodology, but for argument's sake, suppose the questions were about sharing housework equally, and answered on a 0 .. 5 score, with 0 meaning 'strongly disagree' and 5 meaning 'strongly agree', and that's mapped to 0 .. 100 through multiplying by 20.

Then one guy swinging his over-all views from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree', plus his buddy swinging from 'strongly agree' to 'disagree' would account for a 0.1% swing in a sample of 1,800. Or maybe nine cooled off, and went from 'agree' to 'undecided' -- that'd do it too.

But since we don't know the questions asked, or when they were asked, or even if the same guys were asked, we can't tell whether two guys in 1,800 became more sexist, or nine guys in 1,800 were under financial strain from suddenly living in a single income household, and working two jobs, or were just tired and cranky from lack of sleep, or even if the same guys weren't asked a second time, so that the response is a sampling error issue.

But a shift like 0.1% smells awfully suspect, so I'd like to see the methodology and know where the paper was published. :)

Well yeah. I don't actually think that only one guy changed his mind. My guess is that many people changed their minds in both directions, so that the total sum was a .1% shift in the negative direction.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/30/2015 11:46:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 11:33:07 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/30/2015 11:28:50 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Since we don't know the questions asked, or when they were asked, or even if the same guys were asked, we can't tell whether two guys in 1,800 became more sexist, or nine guys in 1,800 were under financial strain from suddenly living in a single income household, and working two jobs, or were just tired and cranky from lack of sleep, or even if the same guys weren't asked a second time, so that the response is a sampling error issue.

But a shift like 0.1% smells awfully suspect, so I'd like to see the methodology and know where the paper was published. :)

Well yeah. I don't actually think that only one guy changed his mind. My guess is that many people changed their minds in both directions, so that the total sum was a .1% shift in the negative direction.

That's very plausible, Dylan... and one must also ask whether sentiments might vary back and forth over time anyway, depending on (say) the day you're having, or how stressful things are for you. If they do, then 0.1% shift becomes sampling error again. We can't tell whether sentiment has really shifted over-all, or we just picked a different day.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:13:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
In evolutionary terms, it's absurd to think that females would not be better at raising children than males, considering that's mainly what they did throughout evolutionary history (certainly to a greater extent than males). Why wouldn't they be selected for more nurturing qualities? Even though the differences between the genders are probably quite small in this regard, it is nevertheless more efficient, on average, for men to work while women stay home to care for the children since (1) they enjoy/can tolerate it more and (2) they are better at it. There's nothing sexist about this. Of course, things don't always turn out the way evolution would predict (sometimes the mother should work), which is fine, but that doesn't mean the traditional family paradigm has no biological basis.

(1) "a working mother can establish just as good a relationship with her children as a mother who does not work for pay"

This question is scientifically meaningless because it does not specify who we're talking about, and under what conditions the woman is working. A woman who works three jobs and barely sees her child obviously cannot form equally strong bonds as a mother who spends all day with the child. Even a mother who works normal hours might work an exhausting job and come home drained and without the energy to interact with her child. So the answer is that it depends.

(2) "New fathers " were less likely than before to agree that men and women in dual-earner couples should share housework and childcare equally." (Baxter did not respond to Yahoo Parenting"s request for comment.)

Is it reasonable to expect that a man who has a full-time job do just as much of the household chores as a woman who works part-time? I don't think so. Men work full-time rather than part-time more often than women. Before getting married, people are idealistic about how things will play out. For more women than men, the notion that household chores should be divided equally means that they would end up doing less work. Who wouldn't want that? And for more men than women, the notion that household chores should be divided equally means that they would end up doing more work. This inevitably follows from the fact that men already do less than half of the household chores, partly because they work more.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:35:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/30/2015 11:20:03 PM, Juan_Pablo wrote:
Whatever your views, American life has become more expensive over the decades, pushing both parents to work to support families. There are real financial pressures at work today forcing families to find new parenting methods.

We should not exclude the modern financial facts of life in these types of discussions.

In the final analysis, parents utilize approaches that are practical in light of the burdens forced upon them.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 12:37:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don't know of very many households anymore where the mother exclusively stays at home to raise children while the father works a full-time job, except within rich communities.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 10:02:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 12:13:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In evolutionary terms, it's absurd to think that females would not be better at raising children than males

What criteria would you use, D? And can you find us some peer-reviewed data?

Cos I think you just argued that every child should be raised by a mother; therefore fathers shouldn't normally have custody, and gay fathers shouldn't raise kids at all. :)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 5:04:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 10:02:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:13:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In evolutionary terms, it's absurd to think that females would not be better at raising children than males

What criteria would you use, D? And can you find us some peer-reviewed data?

There's a mountain of evidence which suggests that females are better at detecting emotions, are more interested in forming social bonds and working with people, better multitaskers, etc. which are all crucial when it comes to child-rearing. There's no known society (to my knowledge) in which young girls did not take an interest in playing with dolls.

There are countless studies I could choose from, but here's one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...


Cos I think you just argued that every child should be raised by a mother; therefore fathers shouldn't normally have custody, and gay fathers shouldn't raise kids at all. :)

Even assuming that females are, on average, better equipped for child-rearing (which is hardly a stretch) that tells us nothing about individual cases. There are many times in which the mother is financially incompetent or abusive, and the father is the far better candidate. That's what court is for. It would be incredibly inefficient to just assume that all females are the better choice than all males, because many times it's not true.

Gay fathers who take an interest in adopting children have demonstrated that they possess at least one of the qualities that go to making a good parent: an eagerness to raise children - and probably others as well. Unless someone is completely clueless, it's rare that someone who wants to raise children is ill-equipped to do so. In other words, men opting for adoption aren't representative of the gender as a whole.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 9:32:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 5:04:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2015 10:02:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:13:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In evolutionary terms, it's absurd to think that females would not be better at raising children than males

What criteria would you use, D? And can you find us some peer-reviewed data?

There's a mountain of evidence which suggests that females are better at detecting emotions, are more interested in forming social bonds and working with people, better multitaskers, etc. which are all crucial when it comes to child-rearing.

But are you picking the criteria based on what you know women are good at, or are you picking the criteria critical for the child's welfare?

It would seem to me that choice of criteria are important. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm aware for example, of a two-axis model based on how responsive parents are to a child's demands, and how demanding parents are that a child integrate with the family and adhere to structure. [http://www.parentingscience.com...]. On that axis, an authoritarian parent tends to be demanding but not responsive, a permissive parent ends to be responsive but not demanding, an uninvolved parent is neither responsive nor demanding, while an authoritative parent is both demanding and responsive. [http://www.parentingscience.com...]. In this taxonomy, studies of child outcomes show that:

* Kids from authoritarian parents tend to be well-behaved, but with poor social skills and higher anxiety disorders and depression;
* Kids from permissive families have higher self self-esteem and lower depression, but often get involved in problem behaviour like drug use, and achieve less at school;
* Kids from uninvolved parents develop very little; and most juvenile offenders have uninvolved parents; while
* Kids from authoritative families are well-behaved and accomplished at school. They tend to be emotionally healthy, resourceful and socially adept.

Is it possible then, that many parents combine their skills to produce a better environment?

It may be. Studies of teens show that a kid is better off with even one authoritative parent, even if the other is authoritarian or permissive.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2015 10:39:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/31/2015 9:32:49 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 5:04:39 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 7/31/2015 10:02:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/31/2015 12:13:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
In evolutionary terms, it's absurd to think that females would not be better at raising children than males

What criteria would you use, D? And can you find us some peer-reviewed data?

There's a mountain of evidence which suggests that females are better at detecting emotions, are more interested in forming social bonds and working with people, better multitaskers, etc. which are all crucial when it comes to child-rearing.

But are you picking the criteria based on what you know women are good at, or are you picking the criteria critical for the child's welfare?

It would seem to me that choice of criteria are important. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'm aware for example, of a two-axis model based on how responsive parents are to a child's demands, and how demanding parents are that a child integrate with the family and adhere to structure. [http://www.parentingscience.com...]. On that axis, an authoritarian parent tends to be demanding but not responsive, a permissive parent ends to be responsive but not demanding, an uninvolved parent is neither responsive nor demanding, while an authoritative parent is both demanding and responsive. [http://www.parentingscience.com...]. In this taxonomy, studies of child outcomes show that:

* Kids from authoritarian parents tend to be well-behaved, but with poor social skills and higher anxiety disorders and depression;
* Kids from permissive families have higher self self-esteem and lower depression, but often get involved in problem behaviour like drug use, and achieve less at school;
* Kids from uninvolved parents develop very little; and most juvenile offenders have uninvolved parents; while
* Kids from authoritative families are well-behaved and accomplished at school. They tend to be emotionally healthy, resourceful and socially adept.

Is it possible then, that many parents combine their skills to produce a better environment?

It may be. Studies of teens show that a kid is better off with even one authoritative parent, even if the other is authoritarian or permissive.

Yes, I think the best setup is one in which different parenting styles complement each other, such as is the case with authoritarian vs nurturing approaches. Ordinarily this means an authoritarian father and a nurturing mother, although much of the time it's reversed (they don't call them "tiger moms" for nothing). Nevertheless, I don't think the authoritarian role that so many fathers play requires (or even supports the idea of) them staying at home to take care of the kids. Discipline is not something that needs to be handed down around the clock. I think the best scenario is one where the nurturing parent stays home with the children, while the authoritarian parent sets boundaries when necessary (assuming they can't both stay home). Furthermore, I think females enjoy child-rearing more than males, which on its own usually suffices to decide who should stay home. It's hard to do something well all day long if you don't enjoy it.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/4/2015 7:27:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/29/2015 8:14:32 AM, bsh1 wrote:
Sexist really isn't the right term, but new studies suggest men view gender roles more traditionally after having kids. Evolutionarily, I think this makes sense, but it's interesting nonetheless. Thoughts? Any implications of this?

https://www.yahoo.com...

I wouldn't touch it, or its conclusions as proof, or evidence of anything. The study consisted of a sample size of 1800 which seems fairly large. If they has a larger effect size like 10 percent I'd buy the argument. However, for men the effect was 0.1 percent, and which a study as small as 1800 you're looking at a margin of error of plus or minus 3 to 5 percent. A change of 0.1 percent is meaningless. Perhaps the 4 percent increase in the women maybe significant, but only if their margin of error supported a 3 percent error which at that size its doubtful, but maybe possible in the most edge possibility.

The article is an unfortunate example of scientists too willing to report statistically insignificant findings, and reporters to jump on the most tiny of meaningless effect sizes because it supports a narrative they want to push. In this case the narrative that men are sexist, and against women.