Men and women are different, in a rudimentary physical sense but also in their psychological tendencies.
In particular, a major psychological distinction presents in the disparate interests of each gender. For the most part, men are interested in ideas and things; whereas women are interested in people.
I have noticed this phenomenon in rather plain sight at work. On Monday mornings, between each other, women go into detail outlining the recent activities of themselves, their friends and family. On the other hand, when social interaction transpires between men, they tend to focus on interests external to people: national sport, local sport, weekend visits to a hobby farm, etc. Further, when the opportunity arises to discuss ideas tangentially related to politics, religion or culture–it is men who display some interest; women show none.
Since Western society recognised the legitimacy of transgenderism in 2015, gender as a ‘social construct’ has been trumpeted to be gospel truth. By describing gender as a social construct, is meant the view “that there is no inherent truth to gender; it is constructed by social expectations and gender performance.”
Yet the above distinction–men being interested in ideas and things, women being interested in people–reveals this concept of gender to be a thinly veiled pretence.
It is instructive to consider the fact of contemporary society uniformly encouraging women to pursue leadership, independence and career, while discouraging them from behaviour associated with traditional expressions of femininity. Evidently, these influences have borne fruit, with women accounting for 58 % of students enrolled in Australian universities. This being the case, how could anyone possibly believe that women are interested in people–due to pressure wrought by the gender construct? In truth, nothing exists in the lives of teenage girls that directs them towards such fancies.
Women are being pressured into emulating male behaviour; quite clearly, this has not even come close to achieving its promised effect. Liberated from prior constraints, women have proven to be far more given to the trivial reaches of human life than the ideas which shape us. A far cry, 48 years after the release of ‘I am Woman’, from being ‘strong’ and ‘invincible’.
Importantly, the preoccupation of women with people is not a bad thing, it supporting their instinct for nurturing children and complementarity in relation to men.
Forty years on from the institutionalisation of feminism, however, men and women continue to be starkly different in this respect. For this reason, it is fair to assume this profound divergence in gender will persist until the end of time itself.
> In particular, a major psychological distinction presents in the disparate interests of each gender. For the most part, men are interested in ideas and things; whereas women are interested in people.
On average this is true.
> Since Western society recognised the legitimacy of transgenderism in 2015, gender as a ‘social construct’ has been trumpeted to be gospel truth. By describing gender as a social construct, is meant the view “that there is no inherent truth to gender; it is constructed by social expectations and gender performance.”
Gender as (purely) a social construct is a post modernist belief that existed long before 2015. The position is not that there is no truth to gender, but that gender is a behaviour that is completely divorced from biological sex. This is blatantly false, but it is fair to say that there is a learned component to gendered behaviour.
> It is instructive to consider the fact of contemporary society uniformly encouraging women to pursue leadership, independence and career, while discouraging them from behaviour associated with traditional expressions of femininity. Evidently, these influences have borne fruit, with women accounting for 58 % of students enrolled in Australian universities. This being the case, how could anyone possibly believe that women are interested in people–due to pressure wrought by the gender construct? In truth, nothing exists in the lives of teenage girls that directs them towards such fancies.
I.e. if gender were a completely learned behaviour, women would today be completely unfeminine.
> Importantly, the preoccupation of women with people is not a bad thing, it supporting their instinct for nurturing children and complementarity in relation to men.
People skills are also useful in business. Being able to read a room, build support for your ideas, and negotiate, are useful regardless of your gender.
> Forty years on from the institutionalisation of feminism, however, men and women continue to be starkly different in this respect. For this reason, it is fair to assume this profound divergence in gender will persist until the end of time itself.
Millions of years of evolution have shaped us. Our hardware (bodies) and firmware (instincts) will change incredibly slowly unless we start genetically altering the species, which does seem likely, and soon. What you do with your body and your brain are up to you. You can push yourself out of your preprogrammed comfort zone with assertiveness or empathy training, but hormones are hormones. Your body will give you the signals that have evolved for the survival of the species. To those who want to make men and women interchangeable, I say you do you, but leave those who don’t want to emulate you free to go our own way.
Thank you for your extended and detailed comment.
I agree with you in the idea of gender being a social construct long predated 2015. However, it was from 2015 that this idea gained broad acceptance.
There is probably a learned component to gender; but this is only truly occurs when men and women are encouraged into certain behaviours that act to fulfil their given natures. So with gender, what is encouraged is only supplementary to and advances what already exists.