Gender Norms Are Complex, Opaque

Wondering how to make clear our cultural drift problem, it occurred to me that historical fiction, especially using time travel, could make vivid how key norms and values have actually changed greatly over time, and not always in obviously good ways. But a quick survey of such fiction shows that its most standard trope is this: good men from all times prefer modern-style women, and good women from all times prefer modern-style gender norms and roles. (Though it’s okay for a woman to be attracted to a traditional man, if she teaches him to respect her modern ways.) See this satire.

Fiction is typically open to past worlds maybe having better norms re clothes, capitalism, work, family, trade, entertainment, nations, and death. It is less open to past norms re democracy, law, and war, though not entirely closed to such things. But it is the least open to questioning modern gender norms. This confirms to me that gender norms are central to the ideology of our world’s dominant monoculture.

It isn’t just that we at some point decided to stop enslaving women, and then stuck with that. Today’s gender norms are quite complex and high dimensional, and often embrace gender asymmetries. For example:

• Women are expected to have more animated facial expressions.

• Men, not women, are drafted into war.

• More accepted for women to be less ambitious re career success.

• More acceptable for women to hit men, and to yell, cry, or demand.

• Single fathers are more lauded than single mothers.

• More okay for men to have high body count.

• Men must pay for first dates.

• Men hold doors open for women, walk on dangerous side of sidewalk.

• Men are to carry items for women, escort them if danger.

• Women and children first in disasters.

• Women may retire at younger age, though they live longer.

• We value women more for beauty, men more for personality.

• Schools better match female styles, skills.

• TV ads make men look stupid, but not women.

• Men dress plain, women dress unique striking.

• Shared toilet seats down, not up.

• Men expected to initiate romantic escalations.

• Expected leader personalities better match male personalities.

• Female deficits in high status jobs are presumed due to discrimination.

• Women are more expected to manage emotional health of others.

• Men are expected to take more risks.

• We more easily believe female complaints of male violence.

• Female dress is held to higher standards; men can be functional.

• (This list is far from exhaustive; do suggest more.)

The complexity of our gender norms, their centrality to modern ideology, and their opacity are all illustrated by the fact that my two most controversial writings, which substantially limited my career, were both side-comments not near any of my research agendas, posts that apparently violated gender norms which my then fifty years of life experience had not yet revealed to me.

In 2010, I suggested that a thing (cuckoldry) that women sometimes do to men might be as bad as a thing (rape) men sometimes do to women. This apparently violates gender norms that, no, this thing men do is very bad, while this thing women do is hardly bad at all.

In 2018. I suggested that there are interesting parallels between those who complain about income and sexual inequality. This apparently violates a gender norm that says those who complain about sex inequality are terrible men, about which nothing interesting or positive can be said. Comparing them at all to a group that many admire, folks who complain about income inequality, is seen as saying something positive.

As I was (and remain) cancelled for saying these things, but wouldn’t be for failing to hold a door open for a woman, these are especially strong gender norms. The reaction to my two essays surprised me, and I still find it hard to get people to explain their reactions. This suggests that these gender norms are not only strong, but relatively opaque. And as I expect these norms didn’t exist a half century ago, modern gender norms are complex and change a lot over time.

Another common gender norm is apparently that whenever the subject arises, one must explicitly declare one’s full unreserved support for all current gender norms, even those of which one is unaware. I’m going to violate that norm here, as I’m just unsure.

My main worry is that we see pretty strong patterns and commonalities across pre-modern societies in their gender roles and norms. If those resulted from cultural evolution, they were once robustly adaptive, suggesting that modern updates are maladaptive.

As faster innovation is the main adaptive change of the modern world over the ancients, I’m willing to presume the superiority of any modern innovation-promoting norm. Alas, it's hard to see modern gender norms that way. I guess they are pro-job-work, which increases job-work innovation, but at the expense of other innovation. And rapid modern norm changes that can’t plausibly be attributed to cultural selection processes do seem plausibly maladaptive. So I’m worried.

But as modern gender norms seem pretty central to modern ideology, they seem especially unlikely to be overturned. Plausibly adaptive changes, like increasing fertility, seem especially unlikely to be adopted if they are framed as undermining gender norms. And beware of presuming you know more than you do about what exactly are those norms.