Author: Doan Thi Ngoc – Teacher, Hoa Sen University (HSU)

Sex (biological sex)  and gender (social sex or gender) are sometimes used together as gender, although in reality, these two concepts have many different meanings. This article clearly states what the concept of gender is and what are the basic characteristics of gender. 

What is gender? Sex is the biological difference between men and women. In nature, men have a penis and testicles, and women have a clitoris and ovaries. Put another way, gender refers to a set of biological attributes in humans and animals. It is mainly concerned with physical and physiological characteristics including chromosomes, gene expression, hormone levels and function, and reproductive and sexual anatomy. Gender is typically classified as female or male but there are differences in biological attributes including sex and how those attributes are expressed. 

According to a biological lens, there are  three basic gender differences:

First, the difference in appearance. Certainly, with the naked eye, we see the physical difference between men and women. From a biological point of view, this difference is, in general, due to natural genetics. Men often have more testosterone than women. Combined with other sex hormones, men’s bodies are often larger, taller, have heavier bones, have more muscle, and are physically stronger than women. gender. 

In contrast, women often produce a lot of the sex hormone estrogen. Due to the estrogen hormone and some other hormones, women’s bodies are often smaller, softer, less muscular, and often have less physical strength than men. 

Next, the difference in chromosome structure: When born, if we are male, we will carry a pair of XY chromosomes and if we are female, we will carry a pair of XX chromosomes.

Finally, there are differences in the reproductive system between men and women. The reproductive system is the only system that differs between men and women. The reproductive system only becomes active when we are in puberty. During puberty, women begin to have eggs, menstruation, breasts begin to develop, and men begin to have sperm and wet dreams appear. 

The difference in REPRODUCTIVE FUNCTION that men can NEVER do biologically is their vocation: pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. However, men can do it and even do it very well and are not inferior to any women in the ability to breastfeed, take care of their children, educate and educate them. As you know, our children only develop well when they receive nurturing, teaching, and love from both parents and other loved ones. Recently we have finished learning the concept of gender and basic gender differences. 

The next content we present is  the three basic characteristics of gender 

First, gender characteristics are innate. This means that at birth, all men have common gender characteristics and all women have common gender characteristics as mentioned above. 

The second characteristic of gender is universality. That means women in Vietnam are the same as women in the United States or anywhere else in the world. All women have the same reproductive function.

The final characteristic of gender is that it does not change in space and time. From ancient times until now, women have had a clitoris and ovaries, and men have had a penis and testicles.

In short, in terms of reproduction, only women have the functions of pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding. In terms of physical strength, men and women often have some differences, men often have an advantage over women in terms of physical strength (this does not mean that all men are in good health and not all women are always in good health) also have poor health some women have very strong and very good physical health). The good news is that to improve physical health for both men and women, we should change our thinking by continuously encouraging exercise, eating properly, changing a healthy lifestyle, and educating, nurturing, and taking care of good emotional and social health… from childhood and continuing throughout life. However, biological or physical differences between men and women do not lead to differences in flexibility, intelligence, capacity, and ability at work, as well as the roles and positions of men and women. women in society.

Source: //gendertalkviet.blogspot.com/2021/10/gioi-tinh-la-gi-what-is-sex.html

Author: Sue Williamson, Senior Lecturer, Human Resource Management, UNSW Canberra,  UNSW

Translator:  Phan Thi Dong Hoai – Teacher of Hoa Sen University (HSU)

When members of the Federal Parliament were repeatedly accused of harassment and abuse, one of the responses from our most senior leaders was empathy training.

These programs aim to help people understand the worldview of others.

Over the weekend, Prime Minister Scott Morrison ordered currently accused Federal MP Andrew Laming to undertake a private course in empathy. Morrison told reporters

I hope that […] will notice a positive change in his behavior.

The move follows Laming’s apology for harassing two women online and then admitting that he didn’t know what to apologize for. Immediately after Morrison’s announcement, Deputy Prime Minister Michael McCormack said he would require his Party to also undertake empathy training.

If we can […] learn some advice that not only guides us to be better at ourselves but also inspires others to do that, so I think that’s one thing. good.

Many people – including opposition MPs, women’s advocates, and psychologists – immediately reacted with skepticism. In short, if someone needs to take a course to learn how to empathize, they will miss a few basic things that are unclear whether they can be fixed within the program’s salary or not.

Issues in empathy training

People have every right to be skeptical about empathy training programs �?which have all the trappings of human resources short-term activism.

The same can be noted with the introduction of unconscious bias training a few years ago. There is no easy or quick solution �?or even a significant relief �?when it comes to discrimination and harassment.

Requiring all employees to take mandatory training such as diversity training or sexual harassment training can be counterproductive, researchers found. When beliefs are “forced”, people will tend to resist and what they believe in will become even stronger.

Additionally, training programs aimed at raising awareness about gender equality and discrimination are often seen by employers as the best improvement measures. More seriously, there is punishment, which can also lead to resistance from participants. Laming’s empathy training will certainly be carried out in this building �?he has been caught harassing women, so now he must be punished by taking a course.

Similarly, studies have shown that sexual harassment training done just once is ineffective and may make the problem worse. American researchers found that men forced to participate in sexual harassment training became defensive and resisted learning. But worse than that, men’s resistance results in them blaming the victim and assuming that all women are making false accusations of sexual harassment.

Thereby, the research results were clearly shown. One-time, mandatory sexual harassment and diversity training programs are ineffective. Meanwhile, there is little data on the success of empathy programs to date, and previous studies have not indicated that the training programs have been effective.

What works?

However, it’s not all bad news for the organizers of the empathy course. Voluntary training is more successful because these people are truly willing to learn and care about gender equality and eliminating sexual harassment. Research also shows that we do have empathy education, but those taking the course must be willing to change.

What leads to the elimination of sexual harassment when mandatory training programs have limited effectiveness? Surely we do not need any more proposals that force the Federal Parliament and our entire society to change.

Earlier this month, tens of thousands of Australians took to the streets, calling for change in parliament and beyond. James Ross/AAP

As Dr. Meraiah Foley and I have argued in the past, what needs to be done to make training effective?

First, it is necessary to add clear actionable solutions such as setting goals to increase women’s participation in leadership roles. This is why returning to the quota debate within the Liberal Party is so important.

Second, training should lead to new structures and new accountability for conduct. This can be achieved by course participants as they identify the necessary behaviors that can increase equality in the workplace. For example, simple actions like ensuring women participate equally in meetings and always valuing their opinions.

Course participants then noted when they performed those behaviors and discussed progress with the facilitators. They continue to reflect, act, and then share experiences and identify successful strategies.

Third, to develop gender equality in the workplace, ongoing behavioral change needs to be complemented with systemic organizational change. As I have written elsewhere, researchers recommend that organizations adopt short- and long-term agendas that can achieve small, immediate successes, while profound transformations still happen. Structural change starts with examining human resources policies and processes to uncover gender stereotypes and gender discrimination. Kate Jenkins will no doubt undertake such a task in her review of working culture in the Houses of Parliament.

We need more tangible change

However, checking processes and policies is not enough. Changing language and other symbols within organizations is also an important part of changing culture to align with the image of gender equality. For example, ensure meeting rooms are named and portraits of women �?as well as men �?adorn the walls to send a subtle yet powerful message that the space belongs to women too.

Changing the way of working, the rituals, and the objects of the Parliament House will contribute to cultural change.

Structural and systemic change to achieve gender equality is slow. Although requiring politicians who are currently unprepared to attend training courses seems an inevitable first step, it is not the primary issue we should focus on. heart.

Source:  //gendertalkviet.blogspot.com/2021/09/andrew-laming-tai-sao-ao-tao�?/a>

Source:  Andrew Laming: why empathy training is unlikely to work (theconversation.com)

This article is republished from  The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

Author: PhD. Beatrice Alba  �?nbsp; La Trobe University

Translator:  Doan Thi Ngoc  – Teacher of Hoa Sen University 

It is often assumed that most Western societies have achieved gender equality because women have all the same legal rights as men and sex discrimination in the workplace is illegal. However, feminists continue to argue that the battle for gender equality is not yet won.

So what is gender equality? And how and when do we know we have achieved gender equality?

What evidence is there for gender equality?

Evidence from many years of psychological research shows that bias against women and girls is widespread. For example, an experiment was conducted in which test participants were shown a promotional video about a business pitch with images related to a new business venture, narrated by the voice of a businessman. Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group in which a male or female voice narrated a fairly similar pitch. When listening to and watching a male voice introducing the project, 68% of participants said that this project deserved to be funded, compared to only 32% of the participants when a female voice introduced the project.

Such gender effects occur even when they are only present on paper. This was demonstrated in another experiment where participants were asked to evaluate the same candidate for a laboratory manager position. This candidate’s profile was identical and tested under two different conditions based on whether the name was male or female. In each condition, the app randomly assigned whether this position belonged to “�?strong>John  �?A first name for  men �?or to “�?strong>Jennifer –�?/strong> A first name for  women .” Participants were led to believe that this male candidate was considered more competent than the female candidate, was likely to be hired, and was offered a higher starting salary and more career counseling. more professional than female candidates.

Even children show gender stereotypes. Another study talked about a main character who was “really smart�?and asked children to guess whether this main character was a man or a woman. At age six, girls were less likely to guess that the main character was a woman, compared to boys who guessed that the main character was a man.

This scientific evidence demonstrates that people do discriminate based on gender, even when they deny that gender inequality exists in modern societies. This research also demonstrates that even when we are all equal, women are still disadvantaged compared to men in many areas. This may be because men are generally considered more capable, even when there is no evidence of superior skills.

Equality does not mean identical

One might object that there are meaningful differences between men and women and that this in turn is a source of gender inequality. Some people believe that equality is a misnomer, because men and women cannot be equal if they are different.

But when feminists talk about gender equality, they do NOT assume that men and women are IDENTICAL  or indistinguishable in all behaviors, interests, and abilities. It also doesn’t mean that all gender differences must be eliminated, or that we must have equal gender representation in all areas.

For example, there are more male firefighters than female firefighters. Part of it may be due to gender differences in job preferences, or it may be partly due to the physical strength tests used in firefighter recruitment. Requirements such as the ability to lift a 72kg dummy and drag it for 45 meters. Many men can achieve this requirement, but essentially only a small number of physically fit women can do this.

Even without gender discrimination, we can expect to see fewer female firefighters simply because of such physical demands. But as long as these requirements are reasonable for the job and no woman is excluded because she is female, sexism is not an issue. Gender equality does NOT mean we have to have a 50/50  balance between men and women in every profession.

Equality or fairness?

Gender equality does not mean that men and women must always be treated the same. Due to certain differences in biological sex, the law provides different rights for men and women in some cases. For example, only women can request maternity leave, especially during pregnancy and childbirth.

In such cases, what is needed is not equal treatment but fair treatment. Fairness means recognizing that there are differences in abilities, which means that fairness often requires treating people differently so that they can achieve the same outcome. Sometimes fairness is necessary to achieve gender equality, but in reality, there are many cases where such differential treatment is not warranted.

Most women and girls have not been and will not be inherently disadvantaged by lack of ability, but they are unfairly disadvantaged by the failure to warrant differential treatment.  It is not okay to assume that gender equality can be achieved by holding everyone to the same standards. This is highlighted in the evidence above, which is the unjustified gender bias that women and girls are constantly subjected to.

Priority policies aim to increase female representation and to combat systemic discrimination against women. Policy and action prioritize creating gender equity by overcoming the barriers that women face, simply because of their gender. If we could eliminate this gender-based discrimination, there would be no need for such preferential policies or actions.

Achieve gender equality

So, if gender equality does not mean that men and women must be the same or always require the same treatment to achieve fairness, then what does gender equality mean?

Gender equality is about treating men and women as having equal status and value. It is about judging a person based on their achievements, not viewing them as inferior or superior purely based on their gender.

Unfortunately, the evidence reviewed above shows that unconscious bias is still widespread and that we are often unaware of our own bias. We cannot say that we have achieved gender equality until this bias is overcome and we have eliminated the irrational prejudice that people have against someone just because they are female.

Equal rights are not enough. Inequality exists in our minds, in our biases and prejudices, and that needs to be changed.

The Conversation newspaper and author Beatrice Alba allowed Gendertalkviet to translate into Vietnamese and post the full text. On behalf of the Gender Talk Editorial Board, we would like to send our sincere thanks to the Author and The Conversation Newspaper for allowing us to republish the full text. The contributions of The Conversation Newspaper and the author are very valuable and meaningful. 

Vietnamese Link: //gendertalkviet.blogspot.com/2021/10/e-at-uoc-binh-ang-gioi-truoc�?/a>

Original link: //theconversation.com/to-achieve-gender-equality-we-must-first-tackle-our-unconscious-biases-92848

This article is republished from  The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

 Author  Kevin Shafer �?nbsp;Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of Canadian Studies, Brigham Young University

Translator: Doan Thi Ngoc – Teacher – Hoa Sen University (HSU)

Thirty-five years ago, Canadian and American fathers did some of the same parenting work as mothers. Surveys from the mid-1980s showed that Canadian men spent 38% of the time and American men spent 35% of the time that women spent on child care.

Today, there are significant gaps in fatherhood between Canadian and American fathers. Canadian fathers spend more time taking care of their children than American fathers. For example, Canadian fathers spend an average of 14 hours, while American fathers spend about 8 hours, on child care each week.

As a sociologist and Canadian research scholar, I am interested in how social policies affect fatherhood in different countries. I collected data on more than 5,000 men in these two countries from 2016 to 2018 for my upcoming book on the similarities and differences between American and Canadian fathers. This data looks at how fathers interact with their children �?whether they show warmth and affection towards their children, whether they provide emotional and mental support to their children, and how they discipline their children.

Research data shows that Canadian fathers demonstrate greater emotional warmth when caring for their children, are more emotionally and mentally supportive, are more involved in caregiving, and use more positive discipline. with their children. And American fathers, according to the survey, are better at using spanking and strict discipline with their children.

Why do Canadian fathers outperform American fathers in caring for and showing affection for their children? I believe the answer is partly because Canada has for types of social policies to help them become more connected in their families.

Percent of dads who are highly involved

A survey of over 5,000 North American fathers found that Canadian dads were much more likely to be warm and emotionally supportive, and less likely to use harsh discipline.

Chart: The Conversation/CC-BY-ND Source:  Kevin Shafer, Brigham Young University   Get the data

1. Family leave policy

There are big differences between the United States and Canada when it comes to family policy.

Canada has a policy that ensures paid family leave. As part of the employment insurance program, Canadian parents are entitled to 35 weeks of benefits and when fathers choose to take five weeks of family leave, they are paid 55% of their regular salary. 

Meanwhile, the United States is the only wealthy country in the world that does not guarantee maternity leave and is one of three wealthy countries �?along with Oman and the United Arab Emirates �?without one. maternity leave options.

Studies from around the world consistently show that men who take paternity leave tend to be more involved in their children’s lives, have better relationships with family members, and help Their partners recover more quickly from giving birth.

2. Policy on social inequality

Falling incomes, high levels of economic inequality, and financial instability have led many American men to work longer hours. In my survey, 1/3 of Americans were asked to work more than 50 hours per week, compared to only 1/10 of Canadian respondents.

Financial worries have greatly affected the parenting of American parents.  The rise in intensive parenting methods  – that is, parents who try to provide a more nurturing environment for their children with all the difficult extracurricular activities, advanced learning difficulties, and rewards – is the best effort of the student’s middle-income families to keep up with the child-rearing methods of well-off families.

Such parenting models are less common in Canada—a country with more accessible, elite educational institutions, and less income inequality.

Canada Child Benefit helps reduce financial worries for parents. Unlike child taxes in the United States that are paid with a traditional tax return, Canada provides a tax credit in monthly payments to low- and middle-income families when they have a baby. The program has cut child poverty by 40% since it was introduced in 2017. The United States just rolled out a similar temporary program in July 2021.

3. Policy on gender equality _ _  _ _ _

Fathers tend to be more involved in child care in countries with higher levels of gender equality. As women enter the political and economic spheres, fathers provide more physical care for their children, are warmer parents, and more emotionally and mentally supportive, and are less abusive. Use harsher discipline. This may be because expectations are clearer and easier to enforce when parents co-parent their children using an equal partnership mindset.

Canada is a more gender-equal country than the United States. In 2019, the United Nations listed Canada as the 19th most equal country in the world. The United States ranks 46th. Canada surpasses the United States on measures of women’s health, political power, education, and economic empowerment. Reinforcing the expectation that fathers are co-parents, this higher level of gender equality may be an important reason why Canadian fathers do better than their American counterparts.

4. Health care policy

Even policies that seem to have little to do with parenting have a big impact on how fathers interact with their children. This includes a single-payer Canadian universal health care system managed by the province.

For example, analyses in my forthcoming book show that poor physical health reduces parenting efforts less for Canadian fathers than for American fathers. This shows that America’s expensive health care system, combined with its bureaucracy and inefficiency, drains American fathers of their time, energy, and money and makes them more vulnerable. their fatherhood becomes more difficult. This problem is further complicated when children also have health problems.

As society suffers from the COVID-19 pandemic, research data shows that more comprehensive family policies will benefit American fathers, mothers, and children. Doing so can alleviate the particularly difficult burdens mothers face and help remove structural barriers that make it difficult for fathers to participate and engage in parenting. Canada can provide the United States with a useful model of how to implement pro-family policies.

Source:  //theconversation.com/why-canadian-dads-are-more-involved-in-raising-their-kids-than-american-fathers-162977

Source: //gendertalkviet.blogspot.com/2021/10/tai-sao-cac-ong-bo-canada-th�?/a>

This article is republished from  The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

The Conversation newspaper and author  Kevin Shafer allowed Gendertalkviet to translate into Vietnamese and post the full text. On behalf of the Gender Talk Editorial Board, we would like to send our sincere thanks to the Author and The Conversation Newspaper for allowing us to republish the full text. The contributions of The Conversation Newspaper and the author are very valuable and meaningful. 

Author:  Cath Sleeman �?Quantitative Research Fellow, Nesta

Translator:  Phan Thi Dong Hoai – Teacher of Hoa Sen University (HSU)

The term “big data�?may bring to mind the vast array of personal information kept confidential by technology companies. But in reality, everyone sees a lot of different “big data”, we just don’t think of it as “data”.

Recently, if you go to the movies, you will see data listing the cast and crew along with the roles they play in the film. While a list of any one movie may not yield the necessary information, a list of movies does constitute “big data.�?nbsp;At Nesta and PEC ( a new evidence and policy center for the creative industries ), we have been exploring how this type of unsecured “big data�?can inform Gender representation in the creative industry.

Traditionally, gender representation has been assessed using employee surveys. But most surveys have not been around for a long time and it may take several years before we know how gender groups are changing. Additionally, surveys often do not go beyond counting the numbers of women and men �?so they cannot help clarify the prominence of each group in the creative process. or how they are depicted in a particular art form.

Dig deeper into the problem

We recently looked at media reporting on women in the creative industry, using over half a million articles from across the categories ( Books, Movies, Fashion, and Games ) related to the creative industry of The Guardian newspaper from 2000 to 2018.

Over the past five years, there has been a significant increase in references to women. From 2000 to 2013, gender-specific pronouns associated with women in news articles (e.g., “he�?and “she�? dropped by less than a third. But this changed between 2014 and 2018, reaching 40%. In contrast, the gender profile of workers in creative industries in the UK has remained flat and has remained at around 37% in recent years.

We also researched the words that follow the pronouns “he�?and “she,�?to better understand the portrayal of creative people in the media. This shows us that, compared to men, people focus more on specific sounds made by women, such as “laughing,�?“crying,�?“giggling,�?and “the whispers�?and nonverbal responses, such as “smile,�?“grin,�?and “nod.�?nbsp;These words are never used very often, but when they are used, they are more likely to refer to women than men (compared to other words).

In contrast, words related to past creative achievements and leadership activities often refer to men. For example, you might see “he directs�?more than “she directs�? or similarly other words “he does�? “he designs�? “he manages �?and “he founded�? This finding shows a persistent gender imbalance in the creative industries.

In another study, we used data from the British Film Institute (BFI) containing crew lists from released feature films.

After the BFI inferred gender from their names, we found that gender categories on screen haven’t changed significantly since the end of World War II �?and in 2017, women still only account for about 30% of the cast list and 34% of the crew list.

This data also shows gender discrimination in the casting of on-screen characters. For example, since 2005, only 16% of “doctor�?characters (in unnamed roles) on screen have been played by women, a fact that shows that the proportion of female doctors in the UK is 46%.

Fairness in the creative industry

We are by no means the only researchers showing the potential of unsecured big data sources to inform gender indicators in creative industries. Researchers at Google, in collaboration with the Geena Davis Institute, used facial and voice recognition technology to show that in the 100 highest-grossing live-action movies in the US, from 2014 to 2016, women only accounted for 36% of screen time and 35% of speaking time.

While “big data�?studies can enrich diversity measures, there are two important sources of potential biases. First, we almost always infer gender �?from a face, a given name, or a pronoun �?and so we can misunderstand a person’s gender. Second, these inference methods typically only detect “male�?or “female�?gender, but exclude or misclassify anyone who falls into the nonbinary category. For these reasons, “big data�?methods are no substitute for surveys �?because surveys allow people to self-identify their gender identity and decide not to participate.

Despite potential biases, there are many sources of “big data�?that could shed light on gender imbalances, if these data were made available to researchers. For example, they have access to stills and subtitles of films and television programs to be able to appreciate diverse images and information, as well as having access to the content of many More newspapers would allow for broader research and reporting related to creative workers in the media.

To realize the potential of these new approaches, we encourage and support innovative organizations to securely share their unsecured data. It will hopefully allow researchers to be more creative about measuring gender equality in Britain’s creative industries.

The Conversation newspaper and author  Cath Sleeman allowed Gendertalkviet to translate into Vietnamese and post the full text. On behalf of the Gender Talk Editorial Board, we would like to send our sincere thanks to the Author and The Conversation Newspaper for allowing us to republish the full text. The contributions of The Conversation Newspaper and the author are very valuable and meaningful. 

Source: //gendertalkviet.blogspot.com/2021/10/phan-tich-du-lieu-lon-big-da�?/a>

Source: Big data analysis staggering reveals the extent of gender inequality in creative industries //theconversation.com/big-data-analysis-reveals-staggering-extent-of-gender-inequality-in-creative-industries-121482

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.

ANNOUNCEMENT REGARDING REGISTRATION

STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROJECT

The Faculty of Social Sciences announces the acceptance of registration to conduct student scientific research projects for this school year.

Number of participants for each topic: maximum 5 students.

Each student is allowed to participate in a maximum of 2 topics per academic year.

Application timelines for the Faculty of Social Sciences:

• Sunday, May 31: Deadline to register for the project (submit registration form in Vietnamese / English )
• Monday, June 1: The Faculty Council approves round 1 and announces the results. Eligible topics will receive a 30% advance payment. 
• Thursday, July 16: Groups present their topics to the Faculty Council. Projects that produce complete results will be granted 70% of the remaining funding.

Faculty of Social Sciences

Author: Ph.D. Beatrice Alba – La Trobe University

Translator: Phan Thi Dong Hoai – Teacher, Hoa Sen University (HSU)

The saying we often hear is that the most attractive men are “tall, dark, and handsome�?and research proves that straight women tend to prefer partners who are taller than them.

One study found that, on average, women were most satisfied with the height of their male partners who were 21cm taller than them. On the contrary, men are most satisfied with the height of their female partners who are 8 cm shorter than them. Not only do women want men who are taller than them, but they also seem to want taller male partners.

Women’s choice of taller men may indicate their preference for men who are more proactive, strong, and dominant. This may be due to the way biological evolution has shaped our brains. And from there, culture and existing norms may have formed that people expect that a man is usually taller than his female partner.

Luckily we can change our culture.

Animal Kingdom

Sexual dimorphism �?where one sex is significantly larger or otherwise different in appearance from the other �?is quite common among animals.

In some species �?such as spiders, including the Australian redback spider �?females are larger than males.

But in mammals, including us humans, males are usually larger.

Among living animals, our close relatives such as chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans �?males are always larger than females. Physically, they are stronger and have larger and sharper canine teeth.

While such traits benefit males in competition with each other, they also allow them to physically and sexually dominate females.

Women’s Preferences Always Favor Dominant Men

Besides height preference, women also tend to prefer outstanding male attributes such as physical strength and masculine facial features. Jordan Peterson, a psychologist who often creates controversial arguments, took the matter further by claiming that women don’t like men who don’t have strong personalities.

Large, strong, dominant males are best able to protect their mates and offspring from other males and are better able to provide food and other resources. throughout our evolutionary history. From an evolutionary perspective, it is thought that women are adaptable and attracted to such men and will choose them as their mates.

Research supporting this argument found that women with a high fear of crime, in comparison, tend to prefer men who are physically stronger, stronger, and more dominant. Additionally, women who scored lower on the dominance of their male partners tended to prefer men who were taller than them.

Unfortunately, the preference for larger and more dominant men often comes with a price. For such men, although they may protect their partners from other men, there is also a risk of aggression towards their partners.

By choosing larger and more dominant men, women are more likely to be physically and sexually dominated by their partners. Crime statistics show that victims killed by intimate partners are mostly female.

Does Biology Predispose Us to Gender Bias

Evolution by natural selection has no predetermined purpose and is not directed towards any goal. That simply describes how physical and psychological traits become more common if they help an organism pass on its genes.

Women’s desire for large, dominant men was likely a successful means of genetic breeding, even before Homo sapiens evolved.

Although we are not blind to the characteristics of size, these sexual and romantic preferences are not determined by conscious choice, nor are they always based on reason or desire. want. We don’t choose what we find attractive, like other animals whose brains are also the result of evolution. 

So the fact that women who like male partners tend to dominate them does not mean that they desire to be dominated. Genetics have rewarded through evolution the aim of creating offspring with male characteristics such as height, but the price to pay comes with the dominance of meninges in the family. Women are at risk of violence from intimate partners as part of a strategy to counter the threat of violence from other men.

Growth

Although biologically based preferences are largely beyond our conscious control, they do not rigidly determine our behavior or make us incapable of taking action. We can resist our instinctive desires and urges, and make rational choices about how we behave.

Biological perspectives shape our culture, and culture serves to reinforce our biology. Even in the modern world, we continue to maintain cultural norms that emphasize larger, stronger, and more proactive characteristics in men and still place a greater emphasis on gentleness and submissiveness in men. female.

But this is not “simply cultural,�?as many might argue. Women’s almost universal preference for large, strong, dominant men suggests that culture is an accompaniment, not a cause, of this process.

And culture is always changing, this change is reflected in the progress society has made in gender equality. We can challenge cultural norms that lead to the destruction of those who dare to change these norms. We can intentionally create and nurture values ​​that compensate for our biological shortcomings. This could lead to a more equal society, where women would no longer feel the need for unnecessary and unwarranted protection.

But we need to take our thoughts seriously to understand ourselves and gain the strength to break free from the biological constraints placed on us. Perhaps then, things that are not useful to us will no longer be attractive.

The Conversation newspaper and author Beatrice Alba allowed Gendertalkviet to translate into Vietnamese and post the full text. On behalf of the Gender Talk Editorial Board, we would like to send our sincere thanks to the Author and The Conversation Newspaper for allowing us to republish the full text. The contributions of The Conversation Newspaper and the author are very valuable and meaningful.

Original link: //theconversation.com/women-show-sexual-preference-for-tall-dominant-men-so-is-gender-inequality-inevitable-98159