Women have been trained to be a timid, subservient partner to men for a millennia, and it's hard to get away from. The answer is the same for women and men: know your value, constantly strive to improve your value, and command that you get paid your value. Also, know your interaction with business is just that, business. Be more willing to cut a business relationship than a personal one. Don't blame yourself if someone doesn't see your value, just find someone who does.
I'd say that the "timid, subservient" bit is mostly an illusion and male fantasy ;) It is true that women, in many cultures, were trained to focus on family and reproduction. And men were encouraged to "do great things". And to die in wars :(
Maybe there's some biological basis for that. But mostly, I think, it was just historical accident. Driven by technological limitations, perhaps. And for sure, it's all in flux now :)
I don't think it's a male fantasy. I also don't think it's biological. Just look at how women and men are socialized from a young age.
Example: up until recently, many young girls in the west grew up on Disney princesses. Rewatch the movies, and pay attention to the female protagonists in those movies being active vs passive agents. Most are passive -- they're simply dealt a series of events (which generally happen only because they are beautiful or otherwise intrinsically valuable, not because of how they act).
Being exposed to those narratives from a very young age surely has an effect on identity, personality formation, etc.
I was arguing that how societies got to that point, over the past few millennia, was an historical accident. Or a series of accidents. There have been matriarchal cultures, for sure. With modern military technology, there's arguably no reason why they couldn't become dominant. But just a few decades ago, there was.
Not only that, but her mother was brought up that way, and her mother, and her mother, etc. The Civil War in the US broke that mold without a doubt, as certainly did WWII, but the people who make the rules and make the propaganda love inertia and keep trying to push women back into that traditional role, even though it is unhealthy in today's knowledge economy.
As I say above, it depends what you are optimising for. Not that long ago, a typical single-income household could afford a house, a car, a couple of vacations a year and to send the kids to college and to save some. Now a typical dual-income household is struggling to make ends meet. I don't have any strong feelings either way on whether the man or the woman should be the breadwinner; that's up to each individual couple to decide between them. But it's unclear how making dual-income the norm is "healthy" for anyone.
>But it's unclear how making dual-income the norm is "healthy" for anyone.
It's already the norm and has been for quite a while now. I'm specifically speaking on women getting paid their value. I mean if both partners have to work 40s, then might as well maximize profit on that labor.
It may be the "norm," but their point was whether the dual earner approach is optimal. I.e., whether it "should" be the norm. Truth is dual earner started as a way to try and vastly increase the household income. Unfortunately all it did was double the supply of labor and drive down real wages. This isn't a gendered argument. We would all likely be better off if every couple chose one of them to work the 9 to 5, and the other one to manage the home and finances (and pursue side ventures). If this happened we'd hope to see real wages increase for those left in the labor market. To some degree we're already seeing this. Labor participation among males is at its lowest point in decades and still falling. Though it's still early days so real wages haven't yet increased to compensate. Unfortunately this may not happen because corporate America is used to plentiful cheap labor, and as the labor supply diminishes they're pursuing automation strategies. In other words, corporate America has options for adjusting to the ebbs and flows of labor supply which they used to lack.
Even now the dual earner household exists because many people believe it improves their lifestyle. But let's be honest, most people wouldn't want to work if they didn't have to. Sure, in the absence of the need to make a paycheck they'd likely still do productive, valuable activities, but very few like to work for corporate America. Most jobs suck. Most managers suck. Most of the time pay sucks. Having a job isn't (or shouldn't be) special for either gender, it's a necessity to whatever point it takes to keep a roof over your head.
Maybe when the robots take all our jobs we'll finally find a better way of living.
In my job I sometimes conduct software usability research. One of the first things you notice when you do this is that without connection to demography, and almost without exception, men will blame the system under test when they can't use it, while women will blame themselves. There are deep-seated issues in gender identity that I think are implied by this, and which this "Acting Wife" study is consistent with.
If that's the case then why do married women not change their responses? If it's just a matter of "training" then why would getting married affect the answers? A simpler explanation is that single women realize that the type of men they would like to attract tend to prefer more feminine women. Married women don't have to care since they're not trying to attract a man.
Now sure, no woman should be forced to care about being feminine. Nor should she be forced to care about beauty or any other traits that the men she wishes to attract like. But at the same time, men shouldn't be forced to like any certain person either and if they happen to favor more feminine women, then that's 100% their choice to make.
Wow, your post was dead (I vouched it), but you are exactly right. Everyone in this thread is missing the point. Shocking to see the one scientifically valid interpretation of the article downvoted below threadshold. I thought we were pro-science on HN?
If women were just "choosing" to approach their career in a different way, or had just been brainwashed, then they would react the same regardless of who is around.
What this study shows is that single women expect single men to react badly to their ambition. Not that the women actually have less ambition. Yet so many in this thread are discussing this as if it's evidence that women have different inclinations. Incredible confirmation bias.
I'm tempted to get this tatoo'd on my arm and bring it out for every personal/societal argument I encounter. It's something that's so easy to forget yet so important.
For the benefit of people who don't have "tsundere" in their daily vocabulary like Chris2048:
"Tsundere (ツンデレ?, pronounced [tsɯndeɽe]) is a Japanese term for a character development process that describes a person who is initially cold and even hostile towards another person before gradually showing a warmer side over time. The word is derived from the terms tsun tsun (ツンツン?), meaning to turn away in disgust, and dere dere (デレデレ?) meaning to become 'lovey dovey'. Originally found in Japanese bishōjo games, the word is now part of the otaku moe phenomenon, reaching into other media such as maid cafes, anime, manga, novels, and even mass media. The term was made popular in the visual novel Kimi ga Nozomu Eien."
In the current climate in western culture, it's more like women know exactly what they want and how to demand it, the problem is more that it is given to them without challenging them enough, thus preventing personal and professional growth. Right now, I get to witness how a coworker has to give private lessons to students in the evenings, beside working 100% as a software engineer, because he is forced to pay for the life of his ex-wife who moved in with her new boyfriend. He is financially ruined and barely able to make ends meet.
This story is not realistic enough to be credible, nor is it reasonable evidence as a counterpoint. "Pay for the life of his ex-wife"? What does that even mean? Is it court-ordered alimony? I can hardly believe a judge would order alimony that is "financially ruinous" for either party, and if it is the case your coworker can appeal the judgement.
Even if your story were true, it has nothing to do with the climate of western culture, nor is it reasonable to extract a broad judgement of women from this anecdote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it also seems from your comment that you don't personally know the woman whose intentions you're inferring (from the evidence of a biased party).
That story is one that sadly happens all too often. It's even worse for the poor, who are not engineers as in parent's story, you will get thrown into a jail or a prison if you are unable to pay because your sources of income are too small or to irregular: https://qz.com/397579/the-divorce-divide-how-the-us-legal-sy...
Do you honestly believe none of these people had not tried to appeal the judgement? And if the appeal court rules that the initial judgment stays then what?
The purpose of alimony is to ensure neither party falls into poverty as a result of the divorce. If your friend is struggling as a software engineer, it's clear he's living above his means.
But that's beside the point. My comment wasn't an attempt to engage in discussion. I was simply explaining why (I thought) your comment was being downvoted: it was vague, not very credible sounding, did not support your claim about women, and didn't contribute to the discussion. From your neighboring comment, it's clear you think you're doing a moral service by writing that comment, when (IMO) it's just a poorly written comment. I would be more specific about what in the comment could be improved, but I think you would just reply with "Wut?"
I can often estimate what HN's reaction will be to my comments and whether or not I get downvoted. However, I think it is of utmost importance not to censor myself and also spell out unpopular things that I am convinced of, even if it means that I am bleeding karma. It means I have challenged someone's opinion and they did not like it. That actually means that my message achieved its goal.
Disclosure: My wife is also a programmer.