Norms matter, but how exactly? What are the precise mechanisms of cultural persistence? Drawing on my qualitative research in India, Mexico, Morocco, Zambia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Italy and Turkey, I suggest 8 ways in which culture perpetuates gender inequalities:

Loving mothers reproduce patriarchal sons

Men amass advantage and expect respect

Concern for social approval

Male-dominated public spaces are seen as lecherous

Dissent is suppressed

Despondency traps

Cultural celebrations naturalise inequalities

Religion

Andrew Tate gained notoriety on social media for espousing sexism. A new public opinion poll by YouGov rocks my priors. Favourability is far higher than I expected. 14% of young British men agree that a wife is her husband’s property.

Does this reflect genuine resentment of women’s education and employment, as well as rejection on dating apps, or should we blame social media?

Determining media impact is challenging, as consumption is driven by demand. But looking back through human history as well as more recent studies on corporate algorithms, we can posit a likely explanation. Rich, successful people are widely revered. Wielding influence and charisma, they can steer public opinion, especially if they’re boosted by corporate algorithms.

Wealthy societies are struggling with twin crises: depression and low fertility. Is this a coincidence?

Happiness and hope for the future may be necessary conditions for voluntary child rearing. If you think society is doomed, you may not wish to bring children into this world. Iranian exiles told me precisely this, in desperation for their country’s future. Whereas if you think life is great and full of promise, you may be more excited to bring up kids.

South Korea has incredibly high rates of male and female suicide. The birth rate, meanwhile, is ultra low: 0.84 births per women. These two facts may be connected.

The future is up for grabs. Nothing is pre-determined. We are all ships navigating through oceans of technological innovations, corporate monopolies, charismatic leaders and reverse dominance coalitions. Automation could be designed in a way to raise workers’ marginal productivity and boost their pay. Recognising that there are many potential outcomes, let me share three major risks:

1) Automation could displace labour in developing countries and slow urbanisation

2) Feeling threatened, societies may ramp up cultural tightening and norm policing

3) Authoritarians may use digital technologies to repress feminist activism

As a social scientist, I see myself as constructing a four-dimensional jigsaw, piecing together little bits of data, identifying patterns and iteratively recalibrating. No methodology is perfect, each has its strengths and limitations.

Google Trends helps us triangulate public opinion polls. It reveals what internet users actually want to see and learn about. So let's run a few searches for the US, Mexico and India.

Share your suggestions!

Donald Trump's and Andrew Tate's sexism may go viral, but such views are vanishing. Although algorithms turbo-charge hate, Europeans and Americans increasingly endorse gender equality. In patrilineal Asia, meanwhile, modernisation has created a real crisis of incels.

This podcast discusses gender in America, Europe, South Korea, China and India.

Top jobs are universally male-dominated. In response, feminists push for state-subsidised childcare, more involved fathers, and greater support for gender equality. But Canada has already embraced these initiatives, women work at very high rates, yet its senior management remains 64% male. So what’s propping up patriarchy?

See my substack for all the graphs https://draliceevans.substack.com/p/why-isnt-canada-a-feminist-utopia

Academia no longer discriminates against women. Controlling for publications, men and women are just as likely to be promoted. But this control neglects an important driver of gender inequality: motherhood.

References:

Ceci, Kahn and Williams 2023 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/15291006231163179

Kim & Moser 2023

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2umv5go9umjdolm/KimMoser.pdf?dl=0

Claudia Goldin 2021

https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691201788/career-and-family

Kleven et al 2019

https://www.henrikkleven.com/uploads/3/7/3/1/37310663/klevenetal_aea-pp_2019.pdf

Small town Alabama rocked my priors. “People here are very judgemental, they look down on you based on wealth, your house, your car or if you’re working in consumer-facing retail”, explained Hannah (a young waitress). Wait a minute. Social judgement based on wealth? I expected social conservativism, not competitive consumerism.

When I went to family barbecues, no one gossiped about impropriety. They were far more interested in prosperity. All the couples were dual earners, driving mighty SUVs. Cars are a major status signal: portable displays of wealth and affluence, often heavily bought on credit, to keep up with the Joneses.

I wonder, does rising income inequality fuel female employment? Might this explain US-European differences?

Prejudice and privilege are self-perpetuating. High-status individuals maintain institutions that serve their interests, enabling them to consolidate economic wealth and political power. Through media domination, they cast themselves as heroes. Low-status individuals seldom get the opportunity to challenge this narrative or demonstrate their equally valuable skills, so are forever denigrated. Bias thus remains entrenched. How might this change?

Moreover, why have gender gaps in education and employment closed rapidly, while intimidate partner violence and unequal divisions of housework remain entrenched?