I don't think we can know for sure.
In which case, your complaints seem rather overstated.
But I think when it comes to individual talent and gifts I think this is when the individual and not the identity group is most important. The opportunity for individuals to display their talents and gifts. I think western nations are best at this. Imagine all the talent and individual gifts in all the nations that supress people going to waste.
I'm just going to raise my eyebrows at the idea that western nations are somehow stellar at nurturing individual talents.
The literact gap between males and females is only around 6%.
That there is a literacy gap at all demonstrates the disadvantage women face.
But how about lets clean up our own backyards first where the gap is way bigger against males.
By all means. Have a look here:
https://www.education.vic.gov.au/Documents/school/principals/transition/GenderPerformance.pdf Seems we have work to do around attitude formation, in particular:
"the evidence is clear that gender disparities in performance do not stem from innate differences in aptitude but rather from students’ attitudes to learning, their behaviours for learning, how they spend their leisure time and the confidence they have in their abilities as students. "
Maybe that type of work is what it is and is not a family friendly industry no matter what they can do.
Funny how you were asking why more women weren't clamouring for the roles, and then when I point out the significant barriers we face, suddenly there's nothing that can be done about them.
But that is not males fault.
No, but we can look at employers and how they set up conditions, too. Once upon a time mining was not so much FIFO and mining companies provided housing and so forth for the families of their employees. I'm sure FIFO is cheaper for them, but who is paying the price for that company efficiency?
But if there was a dirty and hard job industry close by and family friendly I don't think most women would choose this.
I don't think most
people would choose this, given reasonable alternatives. (Which is why we often rely on overseas workers to fill jobs locals deem undesirable). But women will do them if they're the best option, just like men will. I had a bit of a search, and in terms of dirty and hard jobs with reasonably family friendly conditions, things like working in recycling centres came up. Now, there's still more men than women in those jobs, but there's a significant proportion of women.
Its not a slightly higher % but its even more substancial than the gap men had over women in the 70's. If that gap was deemed bad back then surely an even worse gap is a disadvantage now compared to women.
The numbers you cite are for America; the gap is smaller here. I think the reasons why are pertinent, though. The reasons why there are fewer men today, are very different to the reasons why there were fewer women in the past.
So when do we treat this disadvantage in the same way we treated that disadvantage for women in the 70's and onwards.
It's not the same, though. The causes are different. So the response will have to be different.
Men certainly didn't make up the idea of Toxic mascullinity.
Actually, they did. The term originated in the mythopoetic men's movement. They coined the phrase to describe "the social pressures placed upon men to be violent, competitive, independent, and unfeeling as a "toxic" form of masculinity, in contrast to a "real" or "deep" masculinity that they say men have lost touch within modern society." (I've lifted that quote from Wikipedia, but they cite the original sources).
So your saying that feminist, women and/or society has not contributed to degrading men with their language, and narratives.
I'm not saying there's no degrading language or narrative out there. But I'm saying specifically that the idea of "toxic masculinity," firstly, was developed by men working on self-help and therapeutic resources for men (not by women or feminists), and secondly, was not intended, and is largely not used, to degrade men. It is used to describe social pressures which are unhealthy and unhelpful, primarily for men, and secondarily for those with whom those men interact.
In that sense there can be a large difference between the most extreme and agressive or competitive males and the most anxious and neurotic females who fear agression and competition.
For most of us, though, there's very little meaningful difference attributable to gender. We're under that large middle part of the curve, where the normal distributions for the sexes overlap.
It is these differences that are most important as these are seen in situations such as abuse
No, I wouldn't agree with that. Abusers are not only people with extremely gendered personality traits.
So we have to sort out what is unjustified or not.
I'd argue that penalising women for behaviour which is perceived to be "like men," or which would be rewarded in men, is pretty darned unjustified.
What do you mean by gendered pressure.
I mean that from the very earliest ages, boys and girls are socialised differently, have different stereotypes and expectations placed upon them, are guided and advised differently, and so on. And part of this is being rewarded or penalised for pursuing what are perceived to be suitable or unsuitable interests, depending on gender.
There may still be some gendered social pressure but its not enough to negate the natural behaviours and choices coming out.
It's certainly enough to discourage people from pursuing their real interests, in many cases.
Certainly as far as work choices Scandinavian nations have no barriers and if anything more in favour of women as they are more feminised nations with high support for feminism.
And yet even so, women still face barriers to fulfilling their potential. This is about Iceland, but it's instructive:
https://research-api.cbs.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/58442105/ragnhildur_erna_Arnorsdottir.pdf
"Moreover, the social construction of gender can act as a hindrance for women aspiring for board positions. Pande and Ford (2011) claim that traditional social norms postulate that leadership is associated with male qualities and that women should not be leaders. As this view can be deeply rooted in people, men are often preferred over women based on personal taste. Similarly, Acker (2000) argues that organizational change in this regard is slow and difficult because of deeply embedded and gendered assumptions about organizational structures and processes."
We see it everywhere, males working in construction, into cars, things, building, tool sheds in backyards, the majority taking risks, advanture, 10 times as many men have climbed Mt Everest, choosing things rather than social aspects in just about everything they do.
Then we see women naturally forming social cliches, dominating social jobs, always being better at social aspects, getting together socially while males are in the tool shed lol. This is not all socially constructed. They actually relate and like doing it.
I read this, and I look around at my own context in the church, where men dominate a "social" job, and women are often excluded, and I think, this narrative of yours is very highly selective.
