Bloke writes careful, competent, book about the real differences between men and women.
To be clear, when Stewart-Williams argues that there are innate differences between men and women, he is quick to add that this doesn’t imply that one sex is better than the other, that we have a moral imperative to uphold or enforce sex differences, or that they are completely fixed. What he does believe is that if you give people freedom to choose their jobs and lifestyle, men and women tend to gravitate in different directions. Men tend to prefer working with things, women with people, for instance. Men are more motivated by status, women by relationships. Various studies add weight to Stewart-Williams’s claim by finding that many sex differences – from occupational preference to personality traits – are more pronounced in more gender-equal countries.
Very grudging, the Lassie is.
So, she’s got to find something to disagree with:
Stewart-Williams believes an underacknowledged contributor to women’s under-representation in Stem, or in leadership roles more generally, is innate differences in professional ambition and interests. Which I suppose is a more convenient response to the problem of unequal representation than trying to understand how offices, research institutions and leadership roles would be structured if women hadn’t been excluded for much of human history. (I note for example that men’s apparently weaker verbal abilities haven’t held them back in literature.) It’s important to understand the role that nature plays in making us who we are and shaping relations between the sexes – but it’s a small part of a big, complicated story.
Phew! She manages to find something to disagree with!