Hard to summarize, but here are a few key points: ... Things are better than that in the West, sometimes: ... ... But meanwhile: ... ... Similar things are happening in other countries, but...
Hard to summarize, but here are a few key points:
In poorer communities, people lack the security of salaries and social insurance. They are perched on a cliff edge of precarity - ever vulnerable to negative shocks from ill-health, injury, job-loss, and climate breakdown. Where nepotism is rife and rule of law is weak, it’s imperative to have allies. Distrusting outsiders, many prefer to do business with kin. Families stick together - not just in terms of commerce and cooperation, but also leisure and socialising.
If children are socialised to put family first, then remain reliant on close-knit networks, beholden to uniform social policing, there is little scope for polarisation. Deviance is sternly punished, since people either believe it is morally improper or risks social censure. Let me illustrate with examples from Morocco, India, Turkey and Canada.
...
Things are better than that in the West, sometimes:
In the West, I’d credit uniform cultural production and mixed gendered socialising.
...
Everyone has their own personal struggles. Unaware of another person’s trials and tribulations, we may think they have it ‘easier’. Through my research, I’ve learnt how empathy can be fostered by mixed gender friendships.
...
But meanwhile:
Suppose you’re a 30 year old guy in South Korea. You’re working ultra long hours, returning home late, but still low in the company hierarchy, bossed about by demanding superiors. At work, women are servile underlings, expected to pour the tea and act like secretaries. But romantically, women won’t give you a chance. Dating is a nightmare - given male-heavy sex ratios and your middling paycheque. It’s a recipe for frustration. Rationally, you could invest in self-improvement, hit the gym and try to be more charming. But there’s also a supportive fraternal community saying [terrible things].
...
As long as Korean men continue to dominate management and socialise with other men, they are immersed in cultures of self-righteous sexism. 80% of men in their twenties believe there is serious gender discrimination against men. It’s difficult to see what would unseat this antipathy.
South Korean women, meanwhile, are increasingly feminist. Inspired and emboldened, they have shared stories of abuse and publicly supported each other. Together, they chorus “Not your fault”. South Korea has a growing gender divide.
...
Similar things are happening in other countries, but unevenly:
Zero-sum thinking holds on both the left and the right. It is associated with support for redistribution, awareness of racial and gender discrimination, as well as being anti-immigrant. Zero-beliefs are strongly associated with economic immobility. If individuals and their families have not experienced intergenerational upwards mobility, they tend to say that opportunities are scarce and fixed. Under a ‘zero-sum’ mentality, resentful hostility makes sense. Economic stagnation and intense competition foster jealousy.
...
Globally, people who experienced high economic growth in their youth are much more likely to believe that everyone can thrive. Deceleration of economic growth has bred zero-sum mentalities.
...
This is consistent with Gethin et al’s finding that that highly educated people tend to vote for left-wing and democratic parties. Rich and successful men are doing great! Their status is secure and they’re happy to share the pie.
(I suppose I'm conforming to type?)
But she warns against seeing zero-sum thinking as either left or right-wing. It can go either way:
Economic frustrations have clearly fuelled status insecurity and resentment. But as Chinoy and co-authors show, zero sum mentalities have no set direction. They may lean left or right. So economics alone cannot explain why some young men are choosing to be more conservative.
The result of frustration and resentment is that people become susceptible to one-sided messages that emphasize certain kinds of unfairness on social media. And those are everywhere!
What might reverse the growing gap? The available evidence points to:
Economic prosperity
Breaking filter bubbles, regulating algorithms.
Cross-gender friendships.
But I'm pessimistic about breaking filter bubbles. People are unruly. When they latch onto something, they're going to reject attempts to show them content that they don't like.
It seems like the takeaway of the piece is - Women who live in highly socially policed societies, where ostracism is incredibly costly, there is little room for divergent thinking. In more...
It seems like the takeaway of the piece is - Women who live in highly socially policed societies, where ostracism is incredibly costly, there is little room for divergent thinking. In more socially liberal societies men maintain conservative beliefs while women are free to engage in more progressive beliefs.
It doesn't seem that surprising to me that "if allowed" women would choose to engage with politics that allow them freedoms are at least approaching the rights men have.
I don't think that summary captures the variation described in the article. She's tried hard to avoid describing things in binary terms, what men do and what women do.
I don't think that summary captures the variation described in the article. She's tried hard to avoid describing things in binary terms, what men do and what women do.
Hard to summarize, but here are a few key points:
...
Things are better than that in the West, sometimes:
...
...
But meanwhile:
...
...
Similar things are happening in other countries, but unevenly:
...
...
(I suppose I'm conforming to type?)
But she warns against seeing zero-sum thinking as either left or right-wing. It can go either way:
The result of frustration and resentment is that people become susceptible to one-sided messages that emphasize certain kinds of unfairness on social media. And those are everywhere!
But I'm pessimistic about breaking filter bubbles. People are unruly. When they latch onto something, they're going to reject attempts to show them content that they don't like.
It seems like the takeaway of the piece is - Women who live in highly socially policed societies, where ostracism is incredibly costly, there is little room for divergent thinking. In more socially liberal societies men maintain conservative beliefs while women are free to engage in more progressive beliefs.
It doesn't seem that surprising to me that "if allowed" women would choose to engage with politics that allow them freedoms are at least approaching the rights men have.
I don't think that summary captures the variation described in the article. She's tried hard to avoid describing things in binary terms, what men do and what women do.