A writing teacher used to claim that “if you can say it in 10 words, you can say it in five.” And a new book seems likely to prove his case.
There would seem to be no need to read the book, “The Confidence Code,” by Claire Shipman and Katty Kay. And there would seem to be no need to read their 6,500-word article in The Atlantic, drawn from that book, since their thesis can be summed up in five words: “Women and men are different.”
Of course, you’re not allowed to say that in 2014. It wouldn’t be P.C. So the authors spend their entire Atlantic piece (and presumably their entire book; I admit I won’t read it to find out) dancing around that obvious conclusion.
“Compared with men, women don’t consider themselves as ready for promotions, they predict they’ll do worse on tests, and they generally underestimate their abilities,” Shipman and Kay write. “This disparity stems from factors ranging from upbringing to biology.”
Their research highlights that, for good or for ill, men tend to have more confidence in their abilities than women do.
They cite reams of proof, including a study that asked men and women whether they were skilled in science. Men were more likely to say “yes.” Everyone was then given a science quiz, on which men and women scored roughly the same. The most interesting aspect of this study may be the fact that both women and men scored better on the quiz than they had predicted they would. Maybe underconfidence is the real problem for both sexes.
“To show the real-world impact of self-perception, the students were then invited—having no knowledge of how they’d performed—to participate in a science competition for prizes. The women were much more likely to turn down the opportunity: only 49 percent of them signed up for the competition, compared with 71 percent of the men,” Shipman and Kay write. Well, of course. Since nobody had been told how well they’d done on the quiz, everyone assumed their original perception had been correct. That’s nothing more than human nature.
And speaking of human nature, let’s go back to the original thesis: woman and men are different. How might this have developed?
To take a Rousseauian approach, let’s imagine ourselves back in a world where humans are just beginning to evolve from hunter-gathers to sedentary farmers. In such a world, men would trend toward providing food, whether through hunting or farming or, ideally, both. Women would trend toward domestic tasks.
Ginsburg: Fellow Justices Don’t Understand Hobby Lobby Case Since They’re Male, or Something | Kara Jones
Abandoned Baby With Downs Syndrome Highlights Dark Side of Surrogacy in Thailand | Christine Rousselle
Suites, Hair Salons, All-You-Can-Eat Meals: Illegal Immigrants Get Top-Notch Treatment at Texas Detention Center | Leah Barkoukis