Previous studies suggested that women are less competitive and more empathic as a result of evolutionary rhythms, household responsibilities, and the patriarchal social structure. However, science is a dynamic field. According to recent research by a Harvard evolutionary scientist, women are sometimes more competitive than men.
Source: Cosmos Magazine
The motivation for this competitive nature, however, is different. Evidently, women do not have the right to catch the proverbial worm; rather, the lack of resources drives women to compete. This may help to explain why female competition is so intense because everyone is competing with one another for the meagre resources that have been set aside for them.
Thus, the new Harvard study offers proof positive of the origins of women’s exclusion. Additionally, it agrees with earlier discoveries. For instance, a previous study conducted at Harvard found that the idea of one seat at the table\u2014the practice of providing women a token presence in the name of equalityu2014is the strongest motivator of female rivalry.
The difficulties faced by women lower in the food chain are significantly exacerbated by this intersex rivalry; according to one study, the gender wage disparity in favour of males widened under female managers in 59% of cases. Not only that.
Aggression and ambition in women are frowned upon; as a result, humiliating and vilifying ambitious women is not unheard of in cultures all over the world. Women who are compelled to compete due to unfair structural constraints pay a concomitant cultural price. It seems sense, then, that young female professionals tend to downplay their objectives around men, according to National Bureau of Economic Research experts. However, this taming is insufficient to end the cycle because women are still passed over for leadership positions because they are viewed as soft beings who dislike competition.
Source: Alex.datepsych
So, women also participate in the rat race. However, they continue to struggle to place on the podium. It is endearingly nau00efve, if not slightly shallow, to think that men, who created this unfair playing field, will one day change their ways and make life simpler for women in all areas, including employment, rewards, and social security. To make sure that the competition is at least equitable, women have fought and will continue to fight. This is an area where liberal political project’s state policy has to be more accommodative.
Could the definition of affirmative action and the scope of reservation be expanded to give women better access to resources in both the public and private spheres? Why should the menfolku2014the early birdsu2014get the worms first?
What do you think about this? Comment below.
