Patriarchy has persisted for over ten thousand years. But 20th century skill-biased technological change heralded radical disruption. Women increasingly controlled their fertility, achieved degrees, secured equal rights, raised families and pursued careers. North America’s gender inequalities have been radically reduced. One obstacle remains, however. High-paying jobs are extremely greedy, demanding long hours. Mothers thus tend to pursue jobs with greater flexibility, often paying less. Greater gender equality thus depends on high-paying work becoming more flexible. All this has been amply demonstrated by one pioneering economist: Claudia Goldin.
"These dynamics are not necessarily true worldwide, but Goldin has provided the foundations."
The white picket fence was an american thing. In Europe and Japan women who always worked in the fields, in retail and as servants now started to work in textile factories. To some extent that was true in the US as well but there were less industrialized countries in which women outnumbered men as industrial workers. This economic reality of most women working did not had an important cultural, legal and political impact.
The feminist revolution of the 70's was successful because it was the daughters of the elite who were demanding access to positions of power and prestige. And they got everything they asked for in 5 years. There was no patriarchal reaction and no revolution, women were welcomed in the elite.
Pseudoerasmus attributed part of the greater textile industrialization of Japan vs India to the female workforce being more easily pushed around by thugs: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/
I remember this quote from this wonderful gender-equality scholar:
"We can go back to as early as we have data on high schools and know that girls attended high schools, graduated from high schools at far, far greater numbers than boys. If there is an issue here, it’s certainly not extracurriculars. It may have to do with what’s going on in your cells and this difference between this Y and this double X."
Remember what happened to James Watson when he said similar things about Black people. This tells us a lot about the power structures: which ideological groups are in a position of power, and which are not. Althusser was right about ideological apparatuses, I guess. (Of course, as everyone knows, sexism is prejudice + power!)
Also note that men and women score remarkably close on average on most cognitive test scores, with a few exceptions that go in either direction. Biological determinism is sometimes defensible, but here this is just pseudoscientific bullshit to justify and perpetuate existing inequalities.
Great summary - and I am struck that although many of the findings are for the US they are highly relevant for developing countries - such as the ones in South Asia I cover.
"Before contraception, women's lives were relentlessly interrupted."
I've heard that for some eccentric and tiny minority of women, the children whom they mother constitute more than a mere "interruption" to their otherwise existentially meaningful "lives" of Zoom meetings, Tiktok, shopping and wine. According to the beliefs of this strange cult, mothering one's children can itself constitute a central element of one's life. Members of this strange cult are said to be heavily represented in the vast army of low-paid female labor that makes it possible for professional-class women to "lean in" and "live their lives."
I have always liked her work. However, I think she misses a big part of the story. In conjunction with women working and the pill, sex became cheaper. There was a massive increase in non-marital sex. This had huge class-based impacts. Non-College women went from 7% divorce rates (1960) to over 50%. Overall, the divorce rate went from 5% (1960) to around 42% (estimated). The age of female marriage shifted from 22 to almost 30. Cohabitation increased. Worse out-of-wedlock births went from 6% to 40% (mainly in the lower classes) of live births. Welfare state costs exploded and run almost one trillion per year as family functions were transferred to the state. These changes in childrearing are associated with a large increase in per capita crime. Births rates were reduced from say 3.0 to around 1.6 children (mainly because women marry at 30 and fertility ends around 40). This is below ZPG. In addition, economic productivity growth, which had been 3% in the 1950s collapsed; by 2004 it was LT .4% and in the Biden Regime productivity growth is negative. The growing service sector suffers from stagnant productivity growth. Oddly the growing bureaucracies are trying enforce Gemeinschaft (communal society/identify-based) rules based on sex, orientation, race, and class, by using Gesellschaft (associational society) methods. We are economically must less efficient and effective, the top 1% went from 8% to 22% of GDP, and seemingly the US is losing the ability to reproduce itself (less Autopoiesis).
And surely the answer to this is to have men take an equal share in childrearing/maintaining the home, while women take an equal share in the breadwinning. Rather than how this deluge of statistics comes across to me, where it sounds like you're blaming women wanting equality for these (supposed) deteriorating outcomes. Apologies if that's not your aim, may be me reading between the lines too much.
Great that women are gaining some ground, but there is still a lot of work to do to stamp out sexism and patriarchy, we're only at the beginning
I do not think Patriarchy is a thing, at least since the industrial revolution and the move away from household production. Melania Trump has more income, wealth, free time, and social power than any male cab driver or software engineer. It is her desire for hypergamy that drove her to marry the Donald, not patriarchy. Males tend to share the same means as females, but have wider normal distributions on any given quality. Also, they are more aggressive. Income distribution tends to follow a pareto distribution, selecting the tails of normal distributions for successful individuals. Some very successful males rule, but most males and females do not. Female equality with males is doubtful under these competitive conditions. It appears we are shifting to a different TBD social organization when it comes to raising and having children. The 'ground' women have gained is built on having fewer children, abortion, and spending less time with their children.
Well done. Thanks for this accessible review/summary.
It’s not a Nobel Prize. It’s a fraud cooked by Swedish bankers in the Sixties to elevate the status of neoliberal economists.
https://x.com/MaxCRoser/status/785721974551040004?s=20
Hey, that's you!
Wonderful summary of Goldin’s work. Thank you!
"These dynamics are not necessarily true worldwide, but Goldin has provided the foundations."
The white picket fence was an american thing. In Europe and Japan women who always worked in the fields, in retail and as servants now started to work in textile factories. To some extent that was true in the US as well but there were less industrialized countries in which women outnumbered men as industrial workers. This economic reality of most women working did not had an important cultural, legal and political impact.
The feminist revolution of the 70's was successful because it was the daughters of the elite who were demanding access to positions of power and prestige. And they got everything they asked for in 5 years. There was no patriarchal reaction and no revolution, women were welcomed in the elite.
Pseudoerasmus attributed part of the greater textile industrialization of Japan vs India to the female workforce being more easily pushed around by thugs: https://pseudoerasmus.com/2017/10/02/ijd/
That’s not what he says.
I remember this quote from this wonderful gender-equality scholar:
"We can go back to as early as we have data on high schools and know that girls attended high schools, graduated from high schools at far, far greater numbers than boys. If there is an issue here, it’s certainly not extracurriculars. It may have to do with what’s going on in your cells and this difference between this Y and this double X."
From here: https://conversationswithtyler.com/episodes/claudia-goldin/
Remember what happened to James Watson when he said similar things about Black people. This tells us a lot about the power structures: which ideological groups are in a position of power, and which are not. Althusser was right about ideological apparatuses, I guess. (Of course, as everyone knows, sexism is prejudice + power!)
Also note that men and women score remarkably close on average on most cognitive test scores, with a few exceptions that go in either direction. Biological determinism is sometimes defensible, but here this is just pseudoscientific bullshit to justify and perpetuate existing inequalities.
On the other hand, something that is well supported by evidence is that teachers systematically give lower grades to boys than to girls for the same work (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.07.006, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2020.101981 and many others). Maybe the Nobel Prize should be made aware of this systemic, institutional bias?
Great summary - and I am struck that although many of the findings are for the US they are highly relevant for developing countries - such as the ones in South Asia I cover.
I assumed any reference to a "Quiet Revolution" would be about Quebec: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quiet_Revolution
I’m aware of that, but no Claudia’s paper is on the US
"Before contraception, women's lives were relentlessly interrupted."
I've heard that for some eccentric and tiny minority of women, the children whom they mother constitute more than a mere "interruption" to their otherwise existentially meaningful "lives" of Zoom meetings, Tiktok, shopping and wine. According to the beliefs of this strange cult, mothering one's children can itself constitute a central element of one's life. Members of this strange cult are said to be heavily represented in the vast army of low-paid female labor that makes it possible for professional-class women to "lean in" and "live their lives."
There is a large difference between having 11 births and 7 dying, and really enjoying caring for two kids.
I have always liked her work. However, I think she misses a big part of the story. In conjunction with women working and the pill, sex became cheaper. There was a massive increase in non-marital sex. This had huge class-based impacts. Non-College women went from 7% divorce rates (1960) to over 50%. Overall, the divorce rate went from 5% (1960) to around 42% (estimated). The age of female marriage shifted from 22 to almost 30. Cohabitation increased. Worse out-of-wedlock births went from 6% to 40% (mainly in the lower classes) of live births. Welfare state costs exploded and run almost one trillion per year as family functions were transferred to the state. These changes in childrearing are associated with a large increase in per capita crime. Births rates were reduced from say 3.0 to around 1.6 children (mainly because women marry at 30 and fertility ends around 40). This is below ZPG. In addition, economic productivity growth, which had been 3% in the 1950s collapsed; by 2004 it was LT .4% and in the Biden Regime productivity growth is negative. The growing service sector suffers from stagnant productivity growth. Oddly the growing bureaucracies are trying enforce Gemeinschaft (communal society/identify-based) rules based on sex, orientation, race, and class, by using Gesellschaft (associational society) methods. We are economically must less efficient and effective, the top 1% went from 8% to 22% of GDP, and seemingly the US is losing the ability to reproduce itself (less Autopoiesis).
And surely the answer to this is to have men take an equal share in childrearing/maintaining the home, while women take an equal share in the breadwinning. Rather than how this deluge of statistics comes across to me, where it sounds like you're blaming women wanting equality for these (supposed) deteriorating outcomes. Apologies if that's not your aim, may be me reading between the lines too much.
Great that women are gaining some ground, but there is still a lot of work to do to stamp out sexism and patriarchy, we're only at the beginning
I do not think Patriarchy is a thing, at least since the industrial revolution and the move away from household production. Melania Trump has more income, wealth, free time, and social power than any male cab driver or software engineer. It is her desire for hypergamy that drove her to marry the Donald, not patriarchy. Males tend to share the same means as females, but have wider normal distributions on any given quality. Also, they are more aggressive. Income distribution tends to follow a pareto distribution, selecting the tails of normal distributions for successful individuals. Some very successful males rule, but most males and females do not. Female equality with males is doubtful under these competitive conditions. It appears we are shifting to a different TBD social organization when it comes to raising and having children. The 'ground' women have gained is built on having fewer children, abortion, and spending less time with their children.