#egalitarianism | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 month

Text

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2021.2474

Men are less religious in more gender-equal countries

By: Jordan W. Moon, Adam E. Tratner and Melissa M. McDonald

Published: Feb 2, 2022

Abstract

Sex differences in religiosity are cross-culturally common and robust, yet it is unclear why sex differences in some cultures are larger than in others. Although women are more religious than men in most countries, religions frequently provide asymmetrical benefits to men at the expense of women. Two global analyses (51 countries and 74 countries) found that country-level gender equality was consistently and negatively associated with religiousness (i.e. religious attendance, reported importance of God and frequency of prayer) for men, more than for women, leading to a larger sex difference in religiousness in more gender-equal countries. Results were especially robust for religious attendance, and hold accounting for country-level wealth, as well as individuals' religious affiliation, the moralization of sexuality, age and education level. We interpret results through a rational choice lens, which assumes that people are more drawn to religion when it is consistent with their reproductive goals.

Men are less religious in more gender-equal countries

Sex differences in religiosity represent one of the most consistent findings in the psychology of religion, and are often described as nearly universal [1,2]. Some researchers have suggested that women (versus men) are more prone to religious beliefs because they have a greater propensity for mentalizing (the ability to reason about and represent others' minds) [3], decreased risk tolerance [4] and greater empathic concern [5]—all of which are associated with greater religious belief. Yet women are not always more religious—in some cultures, these differences are minimal or even reversed [6–8]. As of yet, it is unclear why there is cultural variation in sex differences in religiosity.

We draw on the rational choice model of religious engagement, which suggests that people adopt religious beliefs and practices depending on whether their goals are congruent with religious lifestyles [9,10]. We also take a functional approach, based on the premises that religious beliefs and practices are sensitive to context or ‘facts on the ground’ [11,12]. That is, rather than providing only symbolic benefits or comfort, many religious beliefs and rituals may be tools that developed through cultural evolution because they promote reproductive success.

In particular, religions seem closely linked to the control of reproductive behaviour. Most religions impose rules about sexuality and sex roles—who can have sex and with whom, who cares for children and how families are structured [12]. One of the most consistent correlates of religiousness worldwide is an opposition to sexual promiscuity (i.e. restricted sociosexuality [13,14]). A rational choice approach might predict that people who prefer high-investment, long-term, monogamous mating strategies will be drawn to religion precisely because it seeks to make sexual promiscuity more costly though anti-promiscuity norms and punishment [9,15,16]. None of this is to suggest that religion is necessary to control others' sexual behaviour, but that supernatural enforcement is one of several cultural tools of social control—one that is particularly powerful [17].

There is indeed evidence that religious norms and practices can affect several life-history trade-offs [18]. All organisms must choose how to allocate energy into growth, somatic maintenance and reproduction—taken holistically, there is a fitness trade-off between future and current reproduction [19]. This can be conceptualized as spanning three fundamental trade-offs: current versus future reproduction, quality versus quantity of offspring and mating versus parenting effort [20]. To the extent that religions increase paternal certainty [21,22], they can increase the incentives for men to invest in parenting [23,24]. There is also a trade-off between offspring quality and quantity, such that greater numbers of offspring are generally associated with less investment in each child [25]. This trade-off seems to be less steep among religious individuals, however, probably as a result of increased biparental care and alloparenting, in which parents, extended relatives and non-relatives provide care and resources for offspring [26,27]. Thus, religion can be especially appealing to individuals following these high-investment mating strategies, whereas people who seek sexual promiscuity may benefit more from eschewing religion.

What are the benefits of religion for women? Women invest more in offspring than men (e.g. nine months of pregnancy as well as time spent in child care), and are more discriminating in selecting mates [28,29]. Mate choice is the best way for women to advance their reproductive fitness; the regulation of monogamy that religion often affords protects that choice by incentivizing their partner to invest in their relationship and offspring. Indeed, because some males are more sought after as mates than others, these high-quality males have higher reproductive rates than females, and benefit from minimizing their investment across many offspring [30]. One straightforward benefit of religion for women, then, is it can prevent the desertion of high-value mates. That is, religious norms make it more costly for men to abandon their current mates or offspring by imposing sanctions or social pressure. This is especially true for religions that promote normative monogamy, which causes a more equitable distribution of mates [31]. In sum, women tend to be more interested in long-term exclusive relationships than men [28], and religion might appeal to them for this reason. This seems to partially explain sex differences in religiosity: some analyses have found that sex differences in religiosity disappear or are reduced when accounting for sociosexual attitudes [16].

However, religious norms often go beyond simply prohibiting promiscuity, and many religious practices seem to benefit men at the expense of women. This asymmetry can take several forms. Women may be blamed for their own rape [32] and held responsible for the sexual misconduct of men (e.g. through rules about modesty). Specific religious rituals or taboos may also benefit men at the expense of women—several scholars have outlined how veiling seems more consistent with male (versus female) interests, for instance as a tool for mate guarding [33–36]. Further, some rituals seem designed specifically to suppress female sexuality. Among the Dogon of Mali, the indigenous religion promotes menstrual taboos, which includes women being exiled in uncomfortable menstrual huts. Use of these huts (e.g. after a woman's most recent childbirth) sends an honest signal that a woman is fertile, leading husbands and their families to engage in precautions to avoid cuckoldry (e.g. postmenstrual copulation). Genetic data reveal that men who practice the traditional religion, as opposed to other religions (e.g. Christianity), have significantly lower risk of cuckoldry [21].1

For men in particular, these religious benefits might depend on context. The extent to which women and men share equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities in society (i.e. gender equality) may alter the incentives for men and women to engage with religious beliefs and practices. In cultures with less gender equality, the subjugation of women to advance men's interests might be more acceptable—and women may also be less empowered to prevent their oppression. Thus, in these countries, religion might be more useful to men as a tool of social influence. By contrast, in more gender-equal cultures that discourage restrictive religious practices for women, religion may afford fewer reproductive benefits to men because they cannot impose social control over women, and thus religion is less appealing.

Consistent with this notion, we hypothesized that gender equality would interact with sex, such that sex differences in religiousness (i.e. women being more religious than men) would be larger in more gender-equal countries. We were agnostic about what would drive this effect, only that the relationship between gender-equity and religiousness would be more negative for men than it is for women. We note, however, that many wealthy countries tend to have greater gender equality and are often more secular [41], so it would be surprising to find a positive slope for either men or women.

Our hypothesis was derived by considering several recent findings documenting a ‘gender equality paradox’—in more egalitarian societies, sex differences are often larger. This pattern has been found with sex differences in personality [42,43], moral judgements [44], career choice [45,46] and a variety of aesthetic preferences [47]. This pattern is perceived as paradoxical, as many people would intuit that gender equality would reduce inequalities or allow boys and girls to be socialized in ways that result in greater similarity. A common explanation is that egalitarian societies allow individuals to make their own decisions with fewer institutional barriers and less regard for what others might think. Rather than leading to the same outcomes for men and women, it allows them to express their diverging preferences, thereby resulting in greater sex differences [47–49].

Sex differences in religiousness may follow a similar pattern. In societies with less gender equality, men may be better able to derive reproductive benefits from religion, resulting in higher religiousness among men. For women, however, the benefits of religious behaviour may be less dependent on the cultural context; for instance, religious groups tend to provide more frequent alloparenting, and this might be the case regardless of a society's gender equality; in fact, the benefits of alloparenting could be even larger in more egalitarian societies, where people are less embedded in kin networks that might otherwise engage in alloparenting [26]. That is to say, because women can acquire substantial reproductive benefits from religious involvement, there may be greater incentive for women (compared to men) to be religious, particularly in societies that have achieved greater gender equality (figure 1).

[ Figure 1. Global Gender Gap Index (2018) scores by country [50]. Higher scores (darker colours) indicate greater gender equality. Countries with no data are in grey. Figure created using the rworldmap package [51]. (Online version in colour.) ]

[..]

Discussion

These data show that gender equality across cultures consistently and negatively predicts religious belief and behaviour among men, but the effect is small and inconsistent for women. This interaction between gender equality and participant sex holds in most of the models we ran, even when accounting for the clustering of countries within sub-regions, the religious denominations of participants, sociosexuality, age, education and country-level wealth.

The results were particularly strong with religious attendance as an outcome; in all such models there was a consistent negative relationship between gender equality and religious attendance for men, but no effect for women. We suggest that religious attendance (versus private religious behaviour or belief) is the outcome most relevant to our hypothesis. That is, it is attendance and overt participation that we would expect to be associated with the reproductive outcomes of interest. Overt religious participation may allow men to more easily monitor women, police sexual behaviour or to signal their value as a mate via religious commitment.

In addition, the focal results were driven by gender equality in education and economic participation, but not political power or health/survival. These results could be consistent with the view of religion as a ‘costly signal’ to indicate qualities such as trustworthiness, dedication to one's family or even simply dedication to one's group [7,37–39,62–64]; gender equality might also influence the payoffs of using religion as a costly signal. For instance, there is some evidence that women's economic dependence on men—which makes paternal certainty more critical—facilitates moralization of promiscuity [65]. It follows, then, that women who are dependent on men (i.e. when gender equality is low) may prioritize signals of paternal investment and long-term commitment; this could, in turn, incentivise men in these societies to use religion as a signal of their willingness to invest in their offspring [7,39].

One could also predict the same pattern by considering other functions of religion. For example, religion fosters cooperation and ingroup cohesion [66,67] and can help people manage their existential insecurities [41]. Indeed, religions are especially attractive to people after facing mortal threats, such as intergroup conflict [68]. One alternative explanation, then, could be that countries that have achieved greater gender equality face fewer threats that require male coalitional coordination (e.g. warfare); therefore, people (particularly men) in these countries are less likely to view religion as necessary. We reiterate, however, that our analyses are unable to reveal the mechanism behind the observed effects, or to adjudicate between alternative explanations.

Our hypothesis stems from a rational choice perspective on religion [9], suggesting that engagement in religious behaviours and beliefs might stem partly from the reproductive benefits people acquire from them [9,16,18]. Because religions often involve costly behaviour [69,70], one should expect religious engagement to be more likely when the benefits outweigh the costs. If indeed one of the functions of religion is reproductive support that often favours men over women, and if the manipulation of women in such ways (e.g. through modesty norms or proscribing sexual promiscuity) is less accepted in more gender-equal societies, the costs may outweigh the benefits for men in these societies, resulting in lower religiousness among men.

#religiosity #religion #egalitarianism #religion is a mental illness

16 notes · View notes

haggishlyhagging · 8 months

Text

We know that art, particularly religious or mythical art, reflects not only peoples' attitudes but also their particular form of culture and social organization. The Goddess-centered art we have been examining, with its striking absence of images of male domination or warfare, seems to have reflected a social order in which women, first as heads of clans and priestesses and later on in other important roles, played a central part, and in which both men and women worked together in equal partnership for the common good. If there was here no glorification of wrathful male deities or rulers carrying thunderbolts or arms, or of great conquerors dragging abject slaves about in chains, it is not unreasonable to infer it was because there were no counterparts for those images in real life. And if the central religious image was a woman giving birth and not, as in our time, a man dying on a cross, it would not be unreasonable to infer that life and the love of life—rather than death and the fear of death—were dominant in society as well as art.

-Riane Eisler, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future

#riane eisler #neolithic #goddess culture #egalitarianism

28 notes · View notes

driathunderwolf · 2 years

Text

Hey everyone with a uterus on my friends list. With the current bs events taken place in this horrific time line, I just wanna give ya a PSA. Join the Satanic Temple, Islam, or convert to Judaism. Those religions have a religious and holy book right to grantee the life of the mother. Abortions are mandatory when the life of the mother is stressed or threatened. Don't let the zealot Christians in our government control you. Take a stand and secure the rights they are trying to take from you. You have options. Don't let them tell you otherwise.

#abortionrights #abortionisawomansright #abortionisahumanright #abortionistransmensright

#egalitarian #AbortionIsHealthcare #christianity #satanism #TheSatanicTemple #judaism #islam #christians #christianzealots

545 notes · View notes

dimsilver · 8 months

Text

hey do y’all have advice for me about egalitarianism/complementarianism? and before you get too excited here’s what I mean:

I think Scripture clearly shows that God intends specific and different roles for men and women in particular contexts. I think that Scripture also says men and women are inherently different. I do not, however, think it says that the differences in nature and the differences in role can be directly mapped onto each other.

For instance, I believe Scripture says a man should be the head and leader of his household. But I don’t think that therefore leadership is not in a woman’s nature. I believe men should exclusively pastor churches. But I don’t think that therefore women should not teach Scripture.

I don’t know if I’m expressing this correctly. As this is a nonessential issue of doctrine to me, I’m okay with not knowing exactly where I stand in all cases. But I’m wondering, do any of y’all also fall kind of in the middle on these things, and do you have theological resources you’d recommend?

#theology #oh and btw I know this is such a Protestant question #egalitarianism #complementarianism

32 notes · View notes

pastelicide · 9 months

Text

⛔️//BARBIE SPOLIERS//⛔️ (btw if y’all don’t wanna see spoilers of the film I highly recommend to mute Barbie so your tl is not invaded)

Idk if this is an unpopular opinion but I kinda like how Barbie shows some grace to the Kens/men in the film instead of completely demonizing them for following patriarchy? They didn’t go about it perfectly though so this is my semi-analysis to work out my feelings.

Basically, Kens were treated lesser than Barbies, and Barbie was not kind towards Ken. Obviously, he’s not owed nor entitled to Barbie’s attention at all times of the day, or her affection, and it’s understandable why she didn’t find it comfortable to be around him. However, Barbie did treat Ken as her accessory, and that dynamic resulted in Ken relying on her as his sole purpose (which reflects in Barbie and Ken marketing in the real world). His arc was to figure out that it’s okay to be alone because he is Kenough as is. Ken doesn’t need Barbie, and Barbie doesn’t need Ken. They are enough as individuals instead of a doll and her male accessory.

Another unique take on patriarchy hurting men is how the Barbie CEO (the guy Will Ferrell plays) is depicted. He’s obviously a greedy buisnessman, but unlike the other guys in office, he actually has a passion for Barbie, even if misguided. He’s the only man to wear pink accessories in the real world and talks about Barbieland like it’s a real alternate universe, and actually cares about what little girls look up to. He also admits at the end that he always wanted to be comfortable enough to want to tickle and be tickled by other men in a platonic manner. To me at least, he reminds me of boys who had an interest in playing with dolls but were denied it because it wasn’t “manly” and it was “gay”.

Finally, the biggest thing that stuck out was Allan and how he was the only guy to not fall for patriarchy. On my first viewing I did wonder why Allan specifically disliked the way Kens were handling things but it stuck out that Allan is Allan. He doesn’t have identity issues bc he’s not a Ken. He never has to question his worth bc his story doesn’t involve being tied to Barbie (instead being considered in a marriage with Midge/a gay counterpart to Ken). His doll line was discontinued and for the most part was it’s own thing. Narratively, it makes sense why he would dislike how the Kens were beginning to run things.

The way Ken’s turn to being an “antagonist” was fueled by his desire to be accepted by Barbie romantically (or even platonically) and not because he genuinely believed that women are lesser. It reminds me of boys who never worried about girls and women until men in higher positions (podcast dudes, “alpha males” etc.) tell them that they should view women as lesser. Then, these boys change, and begin to categorize women which in turn, influences them to view women as lesser. They may have been good guys, but unfortunately, it’s up to them to find out who they really are and if they still remain misogynists, then they’re no longer good.

Really hoping this film inspires guys that women isn’t an end goal and that they are good enough as is. They don’t need to base their self worth on anything except themselves and only then, they will begin to respect women bc they too, are also victims of patriarchy.

With that said, the one legit criticism I have (not including minor nitpicks) is that Ken should have apologized to Barbie like she did to him. Ken obviously was hurting, but he raided her house and tried to change the constitution in favor of Kens while hurting the Barbies. And again, it was all for her validation. He still hurt Barbie by doing something that was horrible to her and never said sorry once. I do feel Barbie should have apologized regardless, but Ken should’ve also said something because lashing out is different than changing Barbieland into his own thing. I get it was a subtle criticism that total matriarchy wasn’t the move either, but Ken still damaged Barbie’s things and changed her friends because he felt hurt.

Anyways, this movie is great and a 10/10. Greta Gerwig is up there as one of my favorite directors.

{TL;DR}: Barbie is a pretty great view on how patriarchy hurts both men and women by trying to impose impossible standards on both genders. While it does have some problems, it does criticize both patriarchy and, more subtly, matriarchy while promoting equality because we are all equal and we are Kenough. Also it’s a great film.

#barbie #barbie analysis #ken barbie #character analysis #film analysis #patriarchy #matriarchy #egalitarianism #equality

27 notes · View notes

melisssg99 · 1 year

Text

Guys need just as much love, appreciation and attention as ladies!

#egalitarian #egalitarianism #anti hate #anti misandry #misandry #male positivity #male appreciation #positivity

68 notes · View notes

frenstimulator · 13 days

Text

Yet another study has found that premarital sex leads to higher rates of divorce. This study shows that premarital sex increases risk of divorce regardless of religiosity, traditional values, and upbringing, with risk of divorce increasing with the number of premarital sexual partners. The study also shows this effect to be equally true for both men and women.

#no fault divorce #traditionalism #tradblr #feminism #liberalism #egalitarianism #woke #degeneracy #marriage #social science

3 notes · View notes

i-is-surrounded-by-idjits · 9 months

Text

Barbie: An Essay

Introduction:

Having watched Barbie, directed by Greta Gerwig and staring Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, which was released in Cinemas 21st July 2023, although enjoyed initially, it became apparent that it contained very damaging views and messages regarding social structure and social norms which many in the audience may have misinterpreted as cheap jokes. In this essay, we shall discuss and evaluate these messages and the potential damage they can cause to the audiences.

Chapter 1: The Patriarchy

A key plot during the film is that of Ken (Ryan Gosling) follows Barbie (Margot Robbie) to the real world only to be enlightened to the sociological concept of Patriarchy. Having existed until now in a Matriarchal society, it not entirely surprising that the superfluous doll was drawn to the idea of an alternative method of societal structure whereby they would have purpose and meaning based on their own gender rather than their relationship with a person of the opposite sex. He then returns to enlighten the other Kens regarding this newfound power balance structure, and within hours, sews chaos into the land of Barbie. However, a key point is made as soon as both Barbie and Ken enter the real world; it is the opposite of Barbieland.

Western European culture (I will not speak for cultures that are not my own, nor have I extensively studied history outside of western European cultures), has been led by a patriarchal society system. Be it monarchy, empire, or republic. So, if Barbieland is the opposite and always maintained a matriarchy, then Barbies represent the dominant male governance, and the Kens represent the oppressed women within our world. This is exemplified when Barbie meets the Board of Mattel, who govern and shape Barbieland from behind the scenes in the real world, which only has men on the board.

Therefore, Barbie world equals patriarchy, Kendom equals matriarchy as this is our reality reversed.

This makes the jokes much more troublesome. As Ken is made a laughingstock for attempting overthrow the oppressing social system which has no men in power… or profession at all beyond lifeguard and cheerleader. However, we are supposed to laugh as it is the men of that world, and we are meant to view this as laughing at the patriarchy of our world as they are the male characters; rather than realising that this is a reverse of our social systems. This is not how this works as matriarchy and patriarchy are both the same system, with simply the genders reversed. If one can be oppressive and abused, then both can, as governance and social structure should not be valued on one’s genitals or gender identification.

Once one understands that Ken’s actions reflect the feminist struggle to establish a matriarchy, then the downfall of Ken’s endeavours become that more troubling. As Ken’s plan is unravelled simply by pitting the Kens against one another only to distract them from what is important. Furthermore, the way they established this control is by brainwashing the Barbies to become obedient and docile in accordance with extreme patriarchal ideals; women becoming sexy maids and docile girlfriends without a personality. If one views is as a straightforward reflection of reality, this becomes the patriarchy brainwashing women into docility, but with the established reversal of social structure, they are actually perpetuating that matriarchy is a form of brainwashing. Either way, this shows that both patriarchy and matriarchy are unequal and oppressive social structure with which to use as a foundation for society.

Additionally, Ken’s motivations are made a mockery of as well, as it is played out that he is simply trying to gain Barbie’s attentions and is upset that after trying and failing, she remains asexual and thus uninterested in a romantic relationship for which is Ken’s entire purpose; the doll “Ken” was simply invented to be Barbie’s boyfriend and nothing more.

Chapter 2: Tha Matriarchy

We now move into the worrisome matriarchy of Barbieland which is far more severe than most 21st century patriarchal societies. They focus on the key roles of society being filled only with women, which matches the dolls released; president, doctor, author, Nobel prize winner, veterinarian, astronaut, pilot, builder, etc. However, to see abuse of power, one must always look to the oppressed.

The Kens in Barbieland do not appear to have jobs, this is event as Ken is a Beach Ken and believes that this is somehow a job. Additionally, the Kens do not own property and it becomes apparent later that they do not have a vote within their society. This is further extenuated as by the Barbies re-establishing their order to society, they quickly pit the Kens against one another so that they are fighting on the beach while missing their chance to vote, at which point all the Barbies (and Allen) vote to return to their previously oppressive society and thus denying the Kens rights to careers and home ownership. Although this has been historically true during the suffragette movements of the early 20th century, this reversal and representation makes an overt mockery of these struggles in society divisions.

Allen within the Barbie World could represent the women of reality who support the patriarchy, after all, society has always been this way and as they do not view this as an issue, this should not change.

Once the Mattel board finally catch up, the President Barbie states that things are wrong in their society, however, proposes nothing to change it. When the Kens ask for high ranking positions such as senator, the President Barbie overtly states that only low-ranking jobs within the government will be open to them. Although, this could be interpreted to allow for growth, after all, none of the Kens are educated for high-ranking roles. This would most likely become the foundation for their societies ‘glass ceiling’ whereby they are told that they can achieve high positions but will never be able to obtain them.

While Ken in the real world suddenly assumed he could do anything because he was male, including becoming a high-ranking businessman, doctor, or lifeguard, the same can be said of Barbie who assumed that the Mattel Board would be headed by a woman. Bothe Barbie and Ken in these instances make the same assumption based on their ideal social structure type, however, both are viewed very differently. The audience is to laugh at Ken who is demanding high-ranking jobs (or even mundane jobs) without the appropriate qualifications. However, Barbie’s scene with the Mattel board is far more sombre as she realises the brutal reality of a patriarchal society… despite Ken suffering the same issue the entire time while back in Barbieland.

Chapter 3: Social Roles, Values, and Inclusion

The most obvious social role reversal is with the Barbies who are woman in power and respectable jobs. As mentioned before, the Kens are seen as only working as a lifeguard and being cheerleaders. However, a more poignant issue is the gender view reversal of the individuals. Although the Barbies still have the trademark outfits including the high heels and short skirts, the Kens seem to exit only for eye candy to the Barbies; laying about with exposed chests hoping a Barbie will show them any attention. This is ironic as the moment Barbie is in the real world, she is instantly objectified and dislikes it. While Ken (Ryan Gosling), who has only craved Barbie’s (Margot Robbie) attention has also always felt outshined by Ken (Simu Liu) and thus relishes the undivided attention caused by his own insecurities and lack of objectified validation. In other words, Barbie is unaccustomed to objectification, while Ken up until this scene has always felt like a wallflower and thinks he lacks value due to a lack of objectification which his has been indoctrinated to believe is his purpose in existing.

To think of this in terms of reality; a man will almost always feel uncomfortable once objectified, but a woman who has always bought into fashion ideals but has always been surrounded by apparently “prettier” friends will suddenly feel validation. Ken’s reaction is the result of social stereotyping from his world, while for Barbie as someone naturally respected simply for being a woman is unaccustomed to such primitive behaviour; despite perpetuating or ignoring this behaviour herself and from her peers.

To add a small morsal regarding inclusion, a small aspect which has likely been missed is that the “inclusion” of disabled, transgender, and non-cis individuals are reserved only for the Barbies of Barbieland. Their only wheelchair user is female, they only represent transwomen with one character (Hari Nef), and Barbie (Margot Robbie) is presumably asexual due to her uninterest in a romantic relationship. This is made apparent with Mermaid Barbie (John Cena) which is an overt mockery of transvestites and non-passing trans individuals. There are no transmen in the movie and all men, with the exception of Allen, are depicted at modern metrosexual males who only care about their appearance and how they are viewed.

Chapter 4: Missing the Big Problem

Interestingly, the pain plot of the movie is almost forgotten as soon as it is discovered. The Film begins with Barbie (Margot Robbie) experiencing unusual thoughts such as anxiety and depression which are uncharacteristic in the smiling blonde. Therefore, Barbie must travel to the “real world” to find the child who is suffering and make their life better; very typical children’s toy movie plot. However, it later becomes clear that it is not the child, Sasha (Ariana Greenblatt), but the mother, Gloria (America Ferrera), who is experiencing these emotions due to work-life pressure, a distancing tween daughter, and an apparently unhappy love-life.

To over come this, she and daughter travel to Barbieland, restore an oppressive regime and somehow go back to their everyday life… without directly addressing anxiety and depression. In fact, the mother spends the last part of the movie removing patriarchal brainwashing from the other Barbies but brutally telling them how hard life can be. This therefore negates the need for psychiatric support and the need to adjust societies unrealistic expectations on a work-life balance which is almost impossible to maintain without suffering effects such as anxiety and depression as very broad terms.

The unrealistic representation of a struggling woman in an oppressive patriarchal society. Sure, Gloria is in a stereotypical job as a receptionist, however, this is a high-ranking position as the receptionist to the CEO of Mattel Inc which is clearly well paid given her expensive car. Her issues seem to include a dead-end job (that pays well) and an apparently useless husband; who is only shown as useless as he struggles to learn a foreign language in later life. Meanwhile actual problems women face are issues such as assault, abuse, abandonment from a spouse, racial/class/gender/sexuality divides. When it comes to Gloria’s issues that somehow break the fabric of reality, her issues are not only mundane, but offensive to persons who have suffered abuse and trauma throughout their lives.

Additionally, although statistically speaking, woman are more likely to be diagnosed with depression and anxiety, men are twice as likely to commit suicide suggesting a fault in the gender divide of diagnosis. Which could have something to do with society creating emotional male characters, such as Ken, for comedic entertainment.

Furthermore, the movie ends with Barbie (Margot Robbie) becoming human and living a mundane life in the real world. All issues regarding social inequalities and mental health are forgotten.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Barbie movie does bring to light the issue of social inequality based on gender, however, it completely fails to address that this is a problem that requires amending within society. Gender divisions in the home, work, or greater sociological structure is wrong and this is amplified by reversing the gender roles to show that a matriarchal society as depicted in Barbieland is just as damaging as a patriarchy as seen in the real world, yet the film fails to focus on the oppression caused, instead, it seeks laughs from the audience as our apparent “superior gender” is reduced to the oppressed. Gender oppression is not a joke and needs to be irradicated, not simply reversed.

Finally, the main premise of the plot, the inequalities and suffering of women in society leading to depression and anxiety, is utterly ignored and made out to be something one must accept rather than something society as a whole needs to address. Once one realises that the societal views depicted are simply a reversal of our current societal structure, the lack of attention granted to challenging these views becomes dangerously apparent. As these messages will likely be ignored for the sake of entertainment, so shall the issues within our own society be ignored and oppression shall continue. Especially as the audiences will neither realise these messages are there while subconsciously being told that this is normal and somehow ideal.

The concluding messages of this movie are that “life sucks” and that society should remain as it is. Two very dangerous statements, which if ignored will only perpetuate the continuation of a society divided by gender.

#Barbie #Greta Gerwig #Margot Robbie #Ryan Gosling #Matriarchy #Patriarchy #Egalitarianism #Gender Inequality #Gender Inequality Works Both Ways #Inequality #Social Stereotypes #Glass Ceiling

8 notes · View notes

she-is-ovarit · 1 year

Text

Relevant.

Source: "Leading With Communication: A Practical Approach to Leadership Communication", Textbook by Michael Gamble and Teri Gamble, 2012

#power #oppression #feminism #feminist #intersectional feminism #egalitarianism #LGBT #LGBTQ #racism #colonialism #ableism #class

12 notes · View notes

religion-is-a-mental-illness · 1 year

Text

Abstract

Previous research suggested that sex differences in personality traits are larger in prosperous, healthy, and egalitarian cultures in which women have more opportunities equal with those of men. In this article, the authors report cross-cultural findings in which this unintuitive result was replicated across samples from 55 nations (N = 17,637). On responses to the Big Five Inventory, women reported higher levels of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness than did men across most nations. These findings converge with previous studies in which different Big Five measures and more limited samples of nations were used. Overall, higher levels of human development--including long and healthy life, equal access to knowledge and education, and economic wealth--were the main nation-level predictors of larger sex differences in personality. Changes in men's personality traits appeared to be the primary cause of sex difference variation across cultures. It is proposed that heightened levels of sexual dimorphism result from personality traits of men and women being less constrained and more able to naturally diverge in developed nations. In less fortunate social and economic conditions, innate personality differences between men and women may be attenuated.

Continued: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1037/0022-3514.94.1.168

Abstract

Using data from over 200,000 participants from 53 nations, I examined the cross-cultural consistency of sex differences for four traits: extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and male-versus-female-typical occupational preferences. Across nations, men and women differed significantly on all four traits (mean ds = -.15, -.56, -.41, and 1.40, respectively, with negative values indicating women scoring higher). The strongest evidence for sex differences in SDs was for extraversion (women more variable) and for agreeableness (men more variable). United Nations indices of gender equality and economic development were associated with larger sex differences in agreeableness, but not with sex differences in other traits. Gender equality and economic development were negatively associated with mean national levels of neuroticism, suggesting that economic stress was associated with higher neuroticism. Regression analyses explored the power of sex, gender equality, and their interaction to predict men's and women's 106 national trait means for each of the four traits. Only sex predicted means for all four traits, and sex predicted trait means much more strongly than did gender equality or the interaction between sex and gender equality. These results suggest that biological factors may contribute to sex differences in personality and that culture plays a negligible to small role in moderating sex differences in personality.

Continued: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1007/s10508-008-9380-7

Abstract

Men's and women's personalities appear to differ in several respects. Social role theories of development assume gender differences result primarily from perceived gender roles, gender socialization and sociostructural power differentials. As a consequence, social role theorists expect gender differences in personality to be smaller in cultures with more gender egalitarianism. Several large cross-cultural studies have generated sufficient data for evaluating these global personality predictions. Empirically, evidence suggests gender differences in most aspects of personality-Big Five traits, Dark Triad traits, self esteem, subjective well-being, depression and values-are conspicuously larger in cultures with more egalitarian gender roles, gender socialization and sociopolitical gender equity. Similar patterns are evident when examining objectively measured attributes such as tested cognitive abilities and physical traits such as height and blood pressure. Social role theory appears inadequate for explaining some of the observed cultural variations in men's and women's personalities. Evolutionary theories regarding ecologically-evoked gender differences are described that may prove more useful in explaining global variation in human personality.

Continued: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1002/ijop.12265

In the world of Blank Slatism, men and women are regarded as essentially interchangeable. Their desires, preferences, ambitions, and differences are only artificially imposed through socialization and "oppression" (i.e. tEh pAtRiArChY). Women aren't actually more maternal because it makes sense evolutionarily, but because they've been tricked into it. The differences between men and women are given as prima facie proof of "oppression." Or, more specifically, the oppression by men of women. This necessarily means that the more egalitarian a society, the more "the same" men and women should be.

Except, the exact opposite is true. In reality, the more freedom, the more equality is available, the more opportunity for sex-based differences to significantly diverge and magnify. When subsistence pressures are alleviated, other diverging priorities and motivations such as personal fulfilment or upward mobility can be pursued instead. Sex-differences attenuate (narrow) in less egalitarian societies. And this is replicated again and again and again.

To people who recognize humans as a species of the animal kingdom and who don't deny evolution, this is obvious and uncontroversial.

However, to people who adhere to evolution- and biology-denying ideologies, such as PaTrIaRcHy Theory, this is inconvenient and blasphemous. More to the point, not only should they reevaluate these creationist beliefs, but perhaps it's time they questioned the bogus theology ideologies that fabricated the entire idea into existence in the first place, and why they let baseless assertions of faith take priority over the merest shred of rigor and integrity.

#sex differences #biology #biological dimorphism #dimorphism #sex based differences #the patriarchy #patriarchy theory #patriarchy #biology denial #evolution denial #sex denialism #academic fraud #gender studies #egalitarianism #egalitarian #social constructivism #feminist theory #religion is a mental illness

12 notes · View notes