I am surprised that men are not more subject to anger, personally. One of the reasons I find the "Agreeableness" wording matching my own experience better than "more emotional/less logical" is that I think it is more that men are prone to different emotions, not less emotion overall. But I could be wrong.
I can’t find it at the moment, but I’ve read that both men and women don’t read questions about “being emotional” to include anger. It might be more accurate to ask a series of questions that name specific emotions.
Well, the point is that men “think” less with emotions (including anger) than women. Men could well be more angry than women but still less likely to “think” with it
Not sure, but probably depends on how logical the person is. If my logic is a 10 and my emotional intensity is a 7, isn’t it possible that my decisions would be less influenced by emotion that someone whose logic was a 2 and emotional intensity was a 6?
Not saying that’s a perfect model, just that it’s not clear to me that men potentially being more angry (if that’s true, not sure it is) can’t be reconciled with them also being less emotional thinkers
The older I get, the less I am convinced that people actually make choices based on logic and reasoning alone. The social factors, particularly, which are emotionally driven, seem much more predictive and explanatory than the reasoning given. So that's kind of why I'm questioning the whole "men make decisions based on logic, women on emotion" thing so much.
I can. I’d guess that I get angry more often than the average person, but I’ve never been in a fight in my life. Partly because for physical reasons in a fight against nearly any other male I’d lose. Confrontation isn’t a viable strategy for me. I’d bet for women the calculus is similar. Even non-physically, confrontational behavior arguably doesn’t serve as much of a social purpose for women as it does for men; so differences in how the sexes act on anger may explain greater male aggression than difference in actual emotional experience of anger.
Sorry, not quite. It’s when you specify the opposite sex vs the same sex as the reference class. But still, the interesting result is that when you don’t specify the reference class, people’s responses are pretty much the same as when you specify a same-sex reference class.
Hmm... This whole thing seems wierd to me. The OCEAN model has a neurotisicm metric which closer to emotionality than Agreeableness.
Also most of these tests aren't please report your level of agreeableness. They are like How often do you agree with a group decision..and then measured in a scale like, never, occasionally, sometimes, often, always.... Not sure if the effect you mention will be that strong
Even a question like “How often do you agree with a group decision” has some measure of relativity. E.g. “I disagree with group decisions often (compared to other women)”, “I never disagree with group decisions (compared to other men)”.
certainly! I just felt like this post seemed removed from both the actual OCEAN model and what measurement actually looks like. Mixing up N & A is just a really bad error, and although undermeasurment is possible, my guess is that it's smaller than Brian thinks, and that I'm not confident in the direction. Actual measuement shows very little overlap between male and female personalities, so I don't think the field is underselling it.
I strongly suspect it's much more complicated. Lots of our self-assessment is really remembered feedback from others. So suppose women tend to have less of X property than men. In most interactions a woman who simply has more X than the average woman will be told she's very X and will report as such. And that's probably an increase in underreporting in terms of actual behavioral incidence but that's different than disposition (eg suppose your a woman who would be very aggressive if that was judged as praiseworthy but instead you learn to act very passively to avoid violating female norms). And just changing the comparison class isn't likely to help (few experience both so can't compare and it's likely confounded by stereotypes and desire not to use them).
This is why the reports from trans-individuals reporting much greater differences in expectations and behaviors than they expected are so fascinating.
What we want to know is the actual personality base rates. I think a study that involved totally gender blinded discussions online with personality ratings would be fascinating!
Imagine that Bob is listening to a person tell him something. He is trying to decide how much weight to give that person's testimony. Do you think Bob would be advised to think, "well, she is a woman, so she is probably being emotional," or "he's a man, so I guess I can trust what he saying"? Obviously not. Obviously making decisions on those grounds is unthinkable. (Not that plenty of people in history haven't done so.) As to your example, I actually often am in exactly the position you paint and I know from experience that a person who makes relationship decisions on the basis of gender is going to be wrong a ridiculous number of times.
I don't understand the point of this essay. Obviously any given feature exists in a spectrum -- especially features like being "emotional" or "logical" -- and the distribution of men and women over these spectra overlap. I understand when the overlap is marginal or absent it makes sense to assume an identity but we all have known men who "acted like women" and women who "acted like men". So why is knowing a purely statistical distribution interesting? Again, what does it tell you?
I don't understand your lack of understanding. If there are systematic differences between groups of people, how is it not obviously useful to know?
For example, aggressiveness of cancers exists on a spectrum. Some types of cancer have a tendency to be fall on one side or the other of the spectrum. Every oncologist has known tumors that are in a typically aggressive category but which behave indolently, and vice versa. But we don't then say, "it's not useful to know which tumor types tend to be aggressive." Despite many exceptions it remains one of the most useful things that you can know about a tumor.
I see what you mean but of course the context here is not health but sex and features like "Feeling" and "Thinking". Can you think of a proposition that uses these associations in a way that is not -- um, what shall I say, -- "questionable" . I can't.
Knowing these differences may not always be of great use when talking about individuals, but they can be quite useful when trying to explain society-wide phenomena. For example, explaining why a large percentage of the prison population is male becomes easier when you acknowledge that men are on average more physically aggressive.
I don't feel that any further propositions need to be made. If there are large gender differences on things like tendency to feel strong negative emotion, I can think of many practical applications. For example, if you're working in some high-skill customer service field (e.g. law, medicine, consulting), then you will find it necessary to establish rapport and communicate effectively with people about whom you know relatively little. If, by simply noting that the person is a man or woman, you can know that they are significantly more or less likely to have a negative emotional reaction to a certain style of communication, you can increase your chances of a successful outcome.
In other words, generalizations like these are useful when it's not feasible to obtain detailed information about the subject. Conversely they are no help at all when it's easy to obtain. The generalization becomes useless once you are well acquainted with the specific case. Knowing that women tend to be more emotional doesn't help you when dealing with your wife. You already know exactly to what degree she tends to emotion. When buying a car, it's useful to know that Hondas are generally reliable, but when you're standing next to your Accord broken down on the side of the road, this ceases to be a useful piece of knowledge.
There was at least one empirical test of the reference group hypothesis:
Lukaszewski, A. W., Roney, J. R., Mills, M. E., & Bernard, L. C. (2013). At the interface of social cognition and psychometrics: Manipulating the sex of the reference class modulates sex differences in personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 953-957.
Common human experience, identified by philosophy, is the context of science. Public opinion polls are not science. Arbitrarily selected and interpreted statistics are not science. Every single time that men and women interact, sexual difference is clear. Try telling a woman that you dont recall her name.
Gender differences in FFM self-reports of personality are directionally consistent across cultures. Additionally, gender differences in personality tend to be larger in more gender-egalitarian societies, so that does undermine the hypothesis that gender differences are driven by socialization.
I'm intrigued by Bryan's post and how that might relate to differences between cultures, however. Are people in more gender-egalitarian societies more/less likely to use a different reference group when answering self-report questionnaires? Could that explain some/all of the observed gaps? I've never seen any research looking into this, but now I'm very curious.
I don't think you can, at least not easily. But it's not really plausible that it's all one or the other. In this case nature and nurture are mutually reinforcing. And even if you can quantify the exact contribution of each, that doesn't have any clear normative implication.
The Nazis also had "scientific" experiments in the death camps. Transgender teaching and "therapy" of children should be punished like rape. Transgenderism is the Leftist politics of short-range, mindless pleasure and totalitarian equality. But Leftists are more than communists. They have no social ideal. They are nihilists who destroy for the sake of destruction. They are enraged because the Garden Of Eden is not real. Their attack on fossil fuels shows their desire for mass murder. Pinker's defense of reason is superficial. He evades the common human experience of mans power to focus or evade.
Kids who grew up among wolves behave differently than kids who grew up among humans though. Seems like the broader society is important, not just the household.
It's really ridiculous how one man's hyteria about "Metoo going too far" leads him to use pseudo-intellectual arguments and using junk science like Myers-Briggs (*) to declare one whole gender "too emotional" so that he can defend men from accusations. In fact, it shows the opposite - how can you be so emotionally triggered by Metoo that you go around telling "Women are hypersensititive, illogical, irrational, it's very important to not take their accusations too serious!" This is a very emotional overreaction.
My goodness, every non-autistic man can talk to women without problems, including at work, men are not in danger, and there's no reason to believe that men are less emotional, especially considering how almost all violent crime is committed by men. Anger is an emotion too.
Men are not in danger, not mentoring women because of fear of accusations is like not dating men because of fear of getting raped, it's a ridiculous hysteria. By the way, the numbers you mentioned are kinda meaningless: "In 2018, only a third of U.S. male managers (34%) said they were uncomfortable socializing with a woman outside of work (like in a restaurant). In 2019, that number rises to nearly half of male managers (48%)." So the number of managers who were afraid that someone found out they were dating coworkers went up, that's all?
"Bryan would agree with that."
Bryan would agree that the victims are men, not about men being perpetrators, because he only talks about men being victims. He's obsessed with the male victimhood narrative and male identity politics.
I think the criticisms of Myers Briggs are about its pretension to accurately classify the types of human personalities. I don't think anything Bryan says rests on whether the MTBI typography is a good one. There's really not controversy about whether individual questions on the MTBI are meaningful in themselves. They are pretty much the same kinds of questions you'd find on any psychological questionnaires used by academics and clinicians the world over. If women answer the question "are you often anxious" in the affirmative way more often than men, in what way is that pseudo-intellectual?
I think there is a confusion here because of an ambiguity in how we use the term "emotional". Indeed, I believe there is actually pretty substantial evidence that men are more likely to be overwhelmed by anger (both from studies about effect of testosterone and observational studies).
In this context what's meant is something more like: do you identify with/trust your emotions or do you override them. That is then predicted by the anger difference.
Now I totally agree that the Myers-Briggs tests aren't consistent (retaking yields different results) nor very clinically useful. However, it's measuring something (even if it's nothing but how ppl self-concieve) and the inconsistency is irrelevant for looking at differences between large populations. What it's measuring may be just differences in how men and women think it's desierable to be (eg maybe it's just that men think it's less ok to be feeling).
And this is where I would critique Brian. I mean what exactly follows from some differences on some random test without any clear relation to behaviors in the world.
You're right that most violent crime is committed by men. You're ignoring the fact that men are almost always the victims (whether the criminal is a man or a woman). Yes, men are in danger.
"If everyone rates their personality relative to the average person of their own gender, then researchers will automatically find no gender gaps no matter how large they really are!"
I actually don't understand the reasoning is this statement. Why would this result in no gender gap? For this to be true, the male average and the female average for any given variable would have to be equal. What am I missing here?
Suppose every man answers a question in the form of "I am X cm taller than the average male" (reporting a negative number if shorter)
Suppose every female answers "I am Y cm taller than the average female".
Over the population, X and Y must average 0, by definition. (If people report accurately for this switched question). On average, men are as tall as the average male.
One pretty big caveat. You are comparing averages between sexes. You should overlap their actual distributions to see how many men and women are alike and you might be surprised by the conclusion. Also take into account that male distributions have fatter tails and that this affects average: a real average man might not even exist.
This is fascinating and deserves a good hearing. But you’re going to get more of a hearing from skeptics if you take down the image. The corollary to boys building things isn’t that girls put on make-up.
I am surprised that men are not more subject to anger, personally. One of the reasons I find the "Agreeableness" wording matching my own experience better than "more emotional/less logical" is that I think it is more that men are prone to different emotions, not less emotion overall. But I could be wrong.
I can’t find it at the moment, but I’ve read that both men and women don’t read questions about “being emotional” to include anger. It might be more accurate to ask a series of questions that name specific emotions.
I'd like to see such a study indeed! Anger seems like a very key emotion. Perhaps also shame.
Well, the point is that men “think” less with emotions (including anger) than women. Men could well be more angry than women but still less likely to “think” with it
How does that work? I don't really buy that the emotions people feel don't influence their decisions.
Not sure, but probably depends on how logical the person is. If my logic is a 10 and my emotional intensity is a 7, isn’t it possible that my decisions would be less influenced by emotion that someone whose logic was a 2 and emotional intensity was a 6?
Not saying that’s a perfect model, just that it’s not clear to me that men potentially being more angry (if that’s true, not sure it is) can’t be reconciled with them also being less emotional thinkers
The older I get, the less I am convinced that people actually make choices based on logic and reasoning alone. The social factors, particularly, which are emotionally driven, seem much more predictive and explanatory than the reasoning given. So that's kind of why I'm questioning the whole "men make decisions based on logic, women on emotion" thing so much.
I can. I’d guess that I get angry more often than the average person, but I’ve never been in a fight in my life. Partly because for physical reasons in a fight against nearly any other male I’d lose. Confrontation isn’t a viable strategy for me. I’d bet for women the calculus is similar. Even non-physically, confrontational behavior arguably doesn’t serve as much of a social purpose for women as it does for men; so differences in how the sexes act on anger may explain greater male aggression than difference in actual emotional experience of anger.
But wouldn't fear and desire for self-respect/preservation also be emotions that are playing into this decision?
Somebody has done this exact study! The result is that gender differences become much larger when you specify humans as the reference class: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259096041_At_the_interface_of_social_cognition_and_psychometrics_Manipulating_the_sex_of_the_reference_class_modulates_sex_differences_in_personality_traits
Sorry, not quite. It’s when you specify the opposite sex vs the same sex as the reference class. But still, the interesting result is that when you don’t specify the reference class, people’s responses are pretty much the same as when you specify a same-sex reference class.
Quite a finding!
What this seems to mean is that most women think they are more emotional than the average woman! (which wouldn’t actually be that surprising to me)
Hmm... This whole thing seems wierd to me. The OCEAN model has a neurotisicm metric which closer to emotionality than Agreeableness.
Also most of these tests aren't please report your level of agreeableness. They are like How often do you agree with a group decision..and then measured in a scale like, never, occasionally, sometimes, often, always.... Not sure if the effect you mention will be that strong
Even a question like “How often do you agree with a group decision” has some measure of relativity. E.g. “I disagree with group decisions often (compared to other women)”, “I never disagree with group decisions (compared to other men)”.
Every time that a group decision agrees w/me, I agree w/the group. And when not, not.
Which can happen because you're agreeable, or because people tend to agree with *you*.
certainly! I just felt like this post seemed removed from both the actual OCEAN model and what measurement actually looks like. Mixing up N & A is just a really bad error, and although undermeasurment is possible, my guess is that it's smaller than Brian thinks, and that I'm not confident in the direction. Actual measuement shows very little overlap between male and female personalities, so I don't think the field is underselling it.
It's called the reference group effect and there's a lot of papers on this. https://kirkegaard.substack.com/p/reference-group-effects-shifting-standards
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exaggerated-differences/
I strongly suspect it's much more complicated. Lots of our self-assessment is really remembered feedback from others. So suppose women tend to have less of X property than men. In most interactions a woman who simply has more X than the average woman will be told she's very X and will report as such. And that's probably an increase in underreporting in terms of actual behavioral incidence but that's different than disposition (eg suppose your a woman who would be very aggressive if that was judged as praiseworthy but instead you learn to act very passively to avoid violating female norms). And just changing the comparison class isn't likely to help (few experience both so can't compare and it's likely confounded by stereotypes and desire not to use them).
This is why the reports from trans-individuals reporting much greater differences in expectations and behaviors than they expected are so fascinating.
What we want to know is the actual personality base rates. I think a study that involved totally gender blinded discussions online with personality ratings would be fascinating!
Imagine that Bob is listening to a person tell him something. He is trying to decide how much weight to give that person's testimony. Do you think Bob would be advised to think, "well, she is a woman, so she is probably being emotional," or "he's a man, so I guess I can trust what he saying"? Obviously not. Obviously making decisions on those grounds is unthinkable. (Not that plenty of people in history haven't done so.) As to your example, I actually often am in exactly the position you paint and I know from experience that a person who makes relationship decisions on the basis of gender is going to be wrong a ridiculous number of times.
Why assume this: “respondents rate their personality relative to the average person of their gender” ?
I don't understand the point of this essay. Obviously any given feature exists in a spectrum -- especially features like being "emotional" or "logical" -- and the distribution of men and women over these spectra overlap. I understand when the overlap is marginal or absent it makes sense to assume an identity but we all have known men who "acted like women" and women who "acted like men". So why is knowing a purely statistical distribution interesting? Again, what does it tell you?
I don't understand your lack of understanding. If there are systematic differences between groups of people, how is it not obviously useful to know?
For example, aggressiveness of cancers exists on a spectrum. Some types of cancer have a tendency to be fall on one side or the other of the spectrum. Every oncologist has known tumors that are in a typically aggressive category but which behave indolently, and vice versa. But we don't then say, "it's not useful to know which tumor types tend to be aggressive." Despite many exceptions it remains one of the most useful things that you can know about a tumor.
I see what you mean but of course the context here is not health but sex and features like "Feeling" and "Thinking". Can you think of a proposition that uses these associations in a way that is not -- um, what shall I say, -- "questionable" . I can't.
Knowing these differences may not always be of great use when talking about individuals, but they can be quite useful when trying to explain society-wide phenomena. For example, explaining why a large percentage of the prison population is male becomes easier when you acknowledge that men are on average more physically aggressive.
A useful example. I appreciate it.
I don't feel that any further propositions need to be made. If there are large gender differences on things like tendency to feel strong negative emotion, I can think of many practical applications. For example, if you're working in some high-skill customer service field (e.g. law, medicine, consulting), then you will find it necessary to establish rapport and communicate effectively with people about whom you know relatively little. If, by simply noting that the person is a man or woman, you can know that they are significantly more or less likely to have a negative emotional reaction to a certain style of communication, you can increase your chances of a successful outcome.
In other words, generalizations like these are useful when it's not feasible to obtain detailed information about the subject. Conversely they are no help at all when it's easy to obtain. The generalization becomes useless once you are well acquainted with the specific case. Knowing that women tend to be more emotional doesn't help you when dealing with your wife. You already know exactly to what degree she tends to emotion. When buying a car, it's useful to know that Hondas are generally reliable, but when you're standing next to your Accord broken down on the side of the road, this ceases to be a useful piece of knowledge.
There was at least one empirical test of the reference group hypothesis:
Lukaszewski, A. W., Roney, J. R., Mills, M. E., & Bernard, L. C. (2013). At the interface of social cognition and psychometrics: Manipulating the sex of the reference class modulates sex differences in personality traits. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(6), 953-957.
Common human experience, identified by philosophy, is the context of science. Public opinion polls are not science. Arbitrarily selected and interpreted statistics are not science. Every single time that men and women interact, sexual difference is clear. Try telling a woman that you dont recall her name.
I am not a blank-slater by any stretch. But how can you tease our nature/nurture? Is this true in every culture?
Gender differences in FFM self-reports of personality are directionally consistent across cultures. Additionally, gender differences in personality tend to be larger in more gender-egalitarian societies, so that does undermine the hypothesis that gender differences are driven by socialization.
I'm intrigued by Bryan's post and how that might relate to differences between cultures, however. Are people in more gender-egalitarian societies more/less likely to use a different reference group when answering self-report questionnaires? Could that explain some/all of the observed gaps? I've never seen any research looking into this, but now I'm very curious.
For Leftists, gender is a product of social approval. Its not a fact of reality for them.
"Additionally, gender differences in personality tend to be larger in more gender-egalitarian societies"
I hear that often, but rarely does anyone show evidence for this. Is it really only about STEM in Scandinavia? Is this all there is?
I don't think you can, at least not easily. But it's not really plausible that it's all one or the other. In this case nature and nurture are mutually reinforcing. And even if you can quantify the exact contribution of each, that doesn't have any clear normative implication.
> But how can you tease our nature/nurture?
By having a boy raised as a girl, which is discussed in Pinker's "The Blank Slate".
The Nazis also had "scientific" experiments in the death camps. Transgender teaching and "therapy" of children should be punished like rape. Transgenderism is the Leftist politics of short-range, mindless pleasure and totalitarian equality. But Leftists are more than communists. They have no social ideal. They are nihilists who destroy for the sake of destruction. They are enraged because the Garden Of Eden is not real. Their attack on fossil fuels shows their desire for mass murder. Pinker's defense of reason is superficial. He evades the common human experience of mans power to focus or evade.
Kids who grew up among wolves behave differently than kids who grew up among humans though. Seems like the broader society is important, not just the household.
So tell us how man knows reality prior to knowing reality.
It's really ridiculous how one man's hyteria about "Metoo going too far" leads him to use pseudo-intellectual arguments and using junk science like Myers-Briggs (*) to declare one whole gender "too emotional" so that he can defend men from accusations. In fact, it shows the opposite - how can you be so emotionally triggered by Metoo that you go around telling "Women are hypersensititive, illogical, irrational, it's very important to not take their accusations too serious!" This is a very emotional overreaction.
My goodness, every non-autistic man can talk to women without problems, including at work, men are not in danger, and there's no reason to believe that men are less emotional, especially considering how almost all violent crime is committed by men. Anger is an emotion too.
(*) Myers-Briggs is bullshit:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/toddessig/2014/09/29/the-mysterious-popularity-of-the-meaningless-myers-briggs-mbti/?sh=4ad370bd1c79
Myers-Briggs is indeed without scientific validity, but Bryan cited both popular kinds of personality tests.
> men are not in danger
Tell that to the actual men who have reduced their mentoring of women & co-authorship with them, as Bryan has discussed:
https://www.econlib.org/social-anxiety-metoo-and-disaster/
> especially considering how almost all violent crime is committed by men
Bryan would agree with that.
Men are not in danger, not mentoring women because of fear of accusations is like not dating men because of fear of getting raped, it's a ridiculous hysteria. By the way, the numbers you mentioned are kinda meaningless: "In 2018, only a third of U.S. male managers (34%) said they were uncomfortable socializing with a woman outside of work (like in a restaurant). In 2019, that number rises to nearly half of male managers (48%)." So the number of managers who were afraid that someone found out they were dating coworkers went up, that's all?
"Bryan would agree with that."
Bryan would agree that the victims are men, not about men being perpetrators, because he only talks about men being victims. He's obsessed with the male victimhood narrative and male identity politics.
That's a lot of projection of motive instead of actually listening to why Bryan says he's written the essay. Pretty gross.
Bryan has written about crime, and he's quite aware that it's mostly committed by men.
https://www.econlib.org/archives/2014/12/who_to_fear.html
How do you know these are his motives?
It seems like you interpret too much into his posts.
I think the criticisms of Myers Briggs are about its pretension to accurately classify the types of human personalities. I don't think anything Bryan says rests on whether the MTBI typography is a good one. There's really not controversy about whether individual questions on the MTBI are meaningful in themselves. They are pretty much the same kinds of questions you'd find on any psychological questionnaires used by academics and clinicians the world over. If women answer the question "are you often anxious" in the affirmative way more often than men, in what way is that pseudo-intellectual?
I think there is a confusion here because of an ambiguity in how we use the term "emotional". Indeed, I believe there is actually pretty substantial evidence that men are more likely to be overwhelmed by anger (both from studies about effect of testosterone and observational studies).
In this context what's meant is something more like: do you identify with/trust your emotions or do you override them. That is then predicted by the anger difference.
Now I totally agree that the Myers-Briggs tests aren't consistent (retaking yields different results) nor very clinically useful. However, it's measuring something (even if it's nothing but how ppl self-concieve) and the inconsistency is irrelevant for looking at differences between large populations. What it's measuring may be just differences in how men and women think it's desierable to be (eg maybe it's just that men think it's less ok to be feeling).
And this is where I would critique Brian. I mean what exactly follows from some differences on some random test without any clear relation to behaviors in the world.
"Men are not in danger"
You're right that most violent crime is committed by men. You're ignoring the fact that men are almost always the victims (whether the criminal is a man or a woman). Yes, men are in danger.
If you want to make it an oppression olympics, well, women are just as likely to be victims of violent crime:
https://www.crimeinamerica.net/women-have-higher-or-equal-rates-of-violent-criminal-victimization/
And no, generally speaking, men are not in danger.
"If everyone rates their personality relative to the average person of their own gender, then researchers will automatically find no gender gaps no matter how large they really are!"
I actually don't understand the reasoning is this statement. Why would this result in no gender gap? For this to be true, the male average and the female average for any given variable would have to be equal. What am I missing here?
Consider height.
Suppose every man answers a question in the form of "I am X cm taller than the average male" (reporting a negative number if shorter)
Suppose every female answers "I am Y cm taller than the average female".
Over the population, X and Y must average 0, by definition. (If people report accurately for this switched question). On average, men are as tall as the average male.
One pretty big caveat. You are comparing averages between sexes. You should overlap their actual distributions to see how many men and women are alike and you might be surprised by the conclusion. Also take into account that male distributions have fatter tails and that this affects average: a real average man might not even exist.
This is fascinating and deserves a good hearing. But you’re going to get more of a hearing from skeptics if you take down the image. The corollary to boys building things isn’t that girls put on make-up.
Im sad to report that I recently saw makup for men. In an ad, of course, not in the waterfront bar that I frequent.