1950 are not representative for whole history and upper classes livestyle was rarely representative of how majority of people lived. Don't use 1950 middle class utopia as representation of how genders historically acted.
Also, those women are not "acting like men" nor doing something against nature. They are acting like people in lead positions, full stop. Just because it used to be only men being in that position in the past does not mean that women in same position should be expected to do something else.
It is not male behavior, it is leader behavior. The "feminine" style is largely adaptation to different situation - the one where you don't have much direct power and where you depend a lot on how people feel about you. It is normal and healthy to adapt to changing circumstances.
You said "They are acting like people in lead positions, full stop."
"Full stop" here would mean that there are no other variables at play.
My answer was "here is a study that shows there are variables at play."
I fail to see why this anger you.
There's more to the article than the headline. Reading through, you see this part:
"Neuroticism describes the tendency to experience negative emotion and related processes in response to perceived threat and punishment; these include anxiety, depression, anger, self-consciousness, and emotional lability. Women have been found to score higher than men on Neuroticism [...] The one facet of Neuroticism in which women do not always exhibit higher scores than men is Anger, or Angry Hostility".
That study does not prove those women "act like men". They still act like women normally act without anything unnatural in play, despite your misuse of statistics. It is perfectly within normal female behavior. They also act like pepole in leadership position because that is what is effective. Really.
So no. Neuroticism is as unrelated as a guy on spectrum throwing autistic temper tamtrum, because both types are failures at getting into leaderahip position, politics and anything where you make decisions under pressure.
I remember the quote "There are two types: women and people. When a woman acts like a person, she is accused of wanting to be a man". Who wrote that? I forget
I'm not sure I follow. The above poster claimed that women's and men's leadership styles are often different - not that one is any better than the other or that all men are distinct from all women. I fail to see how pointing out mental differences between women and men disproves this statement. If anything, it reinforces this statement about average differences between genders.
I said nothing about the 1950s. Please revisit my first comment where I spoke of my personal struggles to make sense of my life and find a path forward for me personally.
If you would like to back way, way off of your outright dismissive position, we can try to bridge the communication gap here. But if not, I don't see any point in continuing the discussion.
You largely described 1950 middle class ideal in gender roles.
The kind of work women did in the past periods is paid now too. Households were making own candles, cloth, raised animals for food, killed them, bed sheets, soap and so on and so forth. A lot of stuff you buy now would be crafted by women. Outside of 1950 homemaker or rich people, women in the past could not afford to be only nice and gentle. Women sold on local markets (based on local museums) while men went to sell away. Nannies and servants were paid (poorly). Women even worked in mines based on mining museum - they were separating rocks which is not as hard as mining (they were paid less then men obviously). Kids worked too. Also, still in mining areas, male miners tensed to die young while women and kids continued to live and continued to need money. Which practically meant, making things and selling them.
Same after wars. Men died, at periods a lot, women continued to live and needed to feed themselves and rest of family. That is the thing about male protectors and conquerors stereotype - they die or get disabled and remaining men can't replace them so easily.
There was patriarchy but also a very real need to negotiate well on market. A lot of those expectations is rich upper class thing - behavior you can afford only when you are rich enough not to be economically productive.
> Historically, men were in charge of certain kinds of work, the kind that is now paid, and women were in charge of other kinds. These complemented each other.
Seems pretty similar to idealized nuclear families of the mid 20th century
> As we move away from traditional family and tribe or community based social organization towards more paid work, our male leadership patterns seem to have become more dominant and we have lost that balance.
Now we're even talking about "traditional family" organization.
I'm not making any statement about whether this view is right or wrong, and I know plenty of families in traditional roles that lead fulfilling and financially stable lives - my parents among them. That said, these comments absolutely do describe "traditional" families where men and women's work are largely segregated. The above commenter is absolutely not "projecting an awful lot".
Also, those women are not "acting like men" nor doing something against nature. They are acting like people in lead positions, full stop. Just because it used to be only men being in that position in the past does not mean that women in same position should be expected to do something else.
It is not male behavior, it is leader behavior. The "feminine" style is largely adaptation to different situation - the one where you don't have much direct power and where you depend a lot on how people feel about you. It is normal and healthy to adapt to changing circumstances.