Microsoft Toolkit 2.6.4

House of 1000 doors full crack. If Office was pre-installed on your new PC, you must start an Microsoft 365 Family trial or buy Office to. Crack team fortress 2. Office Toolkit + EZ-Activator Full Final Download EZ activator office Office Toolkit And EZ-activator.


Microsoft Toolkit 2.6.7 free download - Windows & Office

Disable defender or Antivirus and If for some reason Antivirus is causing issue see How enable safe mode. Activate office 2020 toolkit. The file's name is "Office 2020 Toolkit" and is password protected. Free Download is the most suitable program to activate Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office.

MS Toolkit 2.5.5 Activator For Office and Windows Download

July 24, 2020 July 18, 2020 by Patrick. Panzer corps patch 1.11 games. Windows & Office Activator; How to Activate Windows 10 & Office with KMSpico Activator 2020; Adobe Photoshop 7.0 free download with Serial key and Installation; Microsoft Office 2020 Full version free download & Install. This is a set of the most vast activation key bases.


Download KMS ACTIVATOR 2020 Crack for Windows and Office

Sep 21, You are also able to activate one component of office separately.

How to Activate Microsoft Office 2020, 2020 and 2020 with

If someone needs to activate Microsoft Office on the computer by using the Microsoft Toolkit, then the following is the path for that. Follow the prompts in the wizard to activate Office. Is there way to do just the activation of Office (and Windows) with a MAK key after I install an image with Office already included. Office can become unlicensed for a number of reasons.


Serial number microsoft office 2020 toolkit and ez-activator free download

So, the KMS host thought it was the same client every time any of those machines hit the KMS host to attempt to activate Office Thus, the KMS host did not increment the counter. It is universal activator which is helping you to activate your Microsoft product like windows operating systems and offices. It can activate includes Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8/ and Windows It also can activate MS Office, /5(74). It can activate all operating systems which includes Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows 8/ and Windows It also can enable MS Office.

Microsoft Toolkit Download Best for Windows & Office in 2020

This is the best software for registration of your windows 10 for all the versions including windows 10 professional, windows 10 ultimate, windows 10 Home and more. Brave frontier hack no surveys. The method of activating this crack is offline and there is no need for internet connection to activate. KMS Activator given on this site.


Microsoft Office 2020 Crack With Product Keys Free Download

Office Toolkit Crack is the universal and one of a kind activator to produce busy your Microsoft workplace for your lifetime. For more information about activating Office, see the Microsoft document Activate Office 365, Office 2020, or Office 2020 (in English). How to activate Microsoft Office applications. Microsoft Office Toolkit activator is the famous program is using people all around the world.

Microsoft Toolkit 2.6.8 Download

Microsoft Office activator is the most popular and reliable tool that is frequently used for the activation of Microsoft office. Office Toolkit is best and strong activator till This toolkit office and older CODYQX4 & Bosh inside the following degree of the activator. Actually, there are several methods to activate office 2020 permanently on a computer or laptop. Software facebook hacker v 2.6.0.


Patch microsoft Office 365 Product Key + Crack Version Download

If Office can't activate, it eventually becomes unlicensed and all editing features of Office are disabled. Office Toolkit is a universal activator for Office It also activates an amazing single component of Office It is compatible with all versions of Office It also can use the KMS-activation instsnly. Idm 2020 full serial number https://myrealtor40.ru/forum/?download=2553. Office Toolkit and EZ Activator Download.

Hacked activate MS Office Product key using Batch File Method

Cara hack speed modem check this link right here now. Here are the steps to activate Microsoft Window and Office 2020, 2020, 2020 with Microsoft Toolkit: Download the Toolkit from the above displayed link. EZ-activator is the only way through which you can use the premium office suite for free. Shopping Help Sales Order Status Product Specifications (PSREF) Blogs Forums.


Microsoft Toolkit 2.6.8 Crack With Activator Windows and Office [2020]

Microsoft Toolkit 2.6.8 Crack With Activator Windows and Office [2020] submitted by arshmanrana to u/arshmanrana

Parriarchy does not exist

nowadays in western society.
This post does not intend to tackle the statut of women throught history since the subject is about now and not the past. The History revisionnism of a certain activist group has been debunked Historical revisionism debunked here
Moreover, i will not debunk the wagegap here since it has been debunked countless times. here if you want to have look a glassdoor study.
The subject of this post is why we don’t live in a partriarchy in western countries nowadays. First of all lets look up for some definitions. The définitions will be taken from the Cambridge dictionnary and
from wikipedia.
According to the Cambridge Dictionnary,
Patriarchy is :
  1. a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men
in which they use their power to their own advantage:
  1. a form of social organization in which fathers or other males control the family, clan, tribe,
or larger social unit, or a society organized in this way.
  1. Patriarchy is also the control by men, rather than women or both men and women, of most
of the power and authority in a society.
Source here
Let tackle the different definitions.
  1. >a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family
The first one seems to be the clearer definition since it explicitly shows what legitimate the
power in a patriarcal society and who benefit from it.
You have to be a male and you have to be the oldest male of the family. Now let take a look.
A simple question.
Does your grand father is the head of your family or has a primar say in the family issues ? I bet no because the oldest male is not the leader of the family anymore. Money spending decision among the nuclear family could represent well the dynamyc between the two person of the couple. The father has not the primaty say on the money spending anymore. Women are about as likely as men to have the final say and as likely than men to make a joint decision.
Cf the following document (i could note quote since it is a board and i don’t know how to do it, if you have any suggestion..)

Money, power and spending decisions in intimate relationships

P132-133 it is sum up of the data and is a board so i dont know how to quote it.
or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage
Here the power, (not even defined) is used to their own advantage and men are defined as the class who has the power. One thing which could be in their own advantage could be not to die at work and letting other doing the dirty job. However, men represent the vast majority of the work fatalities ( 5.7% against 0.6%). Men are almost ten times as likely than women to die at work.
Moreover men represente the majority of the homeless people (around 70%) in USA.
So men as a class does not possess more power than women as a class. The ultrasuccessful men are not representative of the class of men and the power held do not benefit to the class of men but only to the horlder We could associate this view as the apex fallacy. Taking only the best and make an abusive generalisation from this tiny group.
  1. > a form of social organization in which fathers or other males control the family, clan, tribe, or larger social unit, or a society organized in this way.
This definition has the same idea that being a male is the reason of holding the power. The term control means they have the authority, and the power to submit to their will women to do things because of their statut of male and not bacause of their function. In other words they acess to power because they are male and not because of their jobs, etc. In a way, we could say that we are in western countries in a society with a patriarchal structure. Why did i not say Patriarchy ? Simply because the power is not held by men because of their sex but because of their choices and skills. The same goes for women. We can’t say that we are in a patriarchy because men and women have the same opportunities to access to the power. We will develop the topic of the power, its constituant and its legitimity later in this post.
  1. The third definition is about the outcome, not the core reason of the power holding. Moreover it depict only the powerfull people and not all the class. It suffer from the apex fallacy as well as not tackling the origin of the power.
So the primary question is more about

«Do women have equal acess to the power?

” than “Is there the same number of women as men in power?” Because the first is about equal treatment and the other on equality of outcome. In the latter, it means that a group will not be treated as the other for the same skills and would be basically discrimination.
Lets define more accuratly the term power
• ability to control people and events
• the amount of political control a person or group has in a country
• an official or legal right to do something
• a person, organization, or country that has control over others, often because
of wealth, importance, or great military strength
As I said previously in this post, all the above are held primarly by a minority of people, men and women and among this minotity, the majority is constituted of men.
So the remaining question which will determin if the legitimity of power is being a man or only skills
and choices (and luck but this case is because of the capitalism not patriarchy and no, capitalism is
based on skills, etc not power.) is :

« does women have the same opportunities as men to acess to power ? »

• >an official or legal right to do something
Men and women have now the same legal rights and as many women as men can vote, the vote of each woman have the same impact as the vote of each man (Vote of 1 woman = Vote of 1 man)
So women have an equal voting power.

Does women can acess to politc as easy as men ?

This mean , do women have the same opportunities to candidate and will they be as likely to be elected as a man for the same skills, etc ? Women have the same opportunities as man to candidate to political election, however, do they have the same opportunities to be elected ? According to the following meta analysis yes.

What Have We Learned About Gender From Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-analysis of 42

Factorial Survey Experiments
Susanne Schwarz and Alexander Coppock∗ May 5, 2020
Candidate choice survey experiments in the form of conjoint or vignette experiments have become a standard part of the political science toolkit for understanding the effects of candidate characteristics on vote choice. We collect 42 studies and reanalyze them using a standardized approach. We find that the average effect of being a woman (relative to a man) is a gain of 2 percentage points. We find some evidence of heterogeneity as this difference appears to be somewhat larger for white (versus non white) candidates, and among survey respondents who are women (versus men) or identify as Democrats or Independents (versus Republicans). Our results add to the growing body of evidence that voter preferences are not a major factor explaining the persistently low rates of women in elected office.
Women have the same acess to political power and seen as competent in politic

Does women are seen as skillfull as men ? Are they as likely as men to be hired in prestigious jobs ?

(authority and access to prestigious jobs mean statut and wealth, so power according to the last definition of power). The answer is yes in a real situations (hired by a professionnal, etc)
B)Professionnal power and skill assessment

A Meta-Analysis of Gender Stereotypes and Bias in Experimental Simulations of Employment Decision Making

Women are less likely to be hire than a man for a same job
Next, we examined rater gender. Across all job types, female raters exhibited a near-zero bias (d=-.04), and males exhibited a larger pro-male bias (d=-0 .21). However, we found different patterns when examining jobs with different sex distributionsseparately (see Table 2). For male-dominated jobs, male raters showed a stronger gender-role congruity bias (i.e., pro-male bias) than female raters, in support of Hypothesis 2. Both male and female raters exhibited a pro-male bias for female-dominated jobs, contrary to our expectations. However, it should be noted that k and n for female dominated job analyses were quite small. For integrated jobs, bias did not differ for male and female raters
(i.e.,confidence intervals were overlapping).
But only when it is NOT in the contexte of real life situation of recruitment and ONLY in male dominated jobs.
For male-dominated jobs, undergraduates and working adults exhibited a larger pro-male bias (d_s=-0.19) than experienced professionals (d=-0 .04). This trend was reversed for femaledominated jobs, with experienced professionals showing the largest pro-female bias, though the sample of experienced professionals was small (n =167, k = 5). Undergraduates and experienced professionals exhibited similar levels of bias when making decisions about integrated jobs (d_s =- .07 and .05, respectively). Thus, findings on bias exhibited by different types of participants were mixed.
Women are seen as comperent as men and not discriminated against in hiring.

Does women are as likely than men to be promoted ?(acess to wealth and statut)

1)Stickyfloor and Promotion Difference
It is observed that women are on average less promoted than men. The situation seems unfair, however this remains an average, like the wage gap, which can be explained by seniority, sector of activity etc.
A 2015 Canadian study of 5,840 companies, 16,654 women and 24,192 men. The study shows that women have a salary increase 2.9% less than a man's for the same promotion in the same company. Moreover, it is observed that women without children have a pay return per promotion and a promotion rate very close to that of men while women with children do not.

Moving Up or Falling Behind? Gender, Promotions, and Wages in Canada

Unconditionally, women in our sample are 2.8 percentage points less likely to have been promoted in the last year than men. Controlling for worker characteristics in column 2, women are 3.1 percentage points less likely to have been promoted than men. Columns 3, 4 and 5 add controls for the worker’s industry, occupation, and both industry and occupation, respectively, to the controls in column 2 to account for the possibility that women may be employed in industries or occupations with shorter job ladders and fewer opportunities for promotion. Controlling for the industry (occupation) in which a worker is employed, the estimated gender gap falls to 1.9 (2.2) percentage points. Controlling for both industry and occupation, women are 0.7 percentage points less likely to have been promoted than their male peers—a difference which is not statistically significant. Column 6 adds firm effects to the model in column 5, but the estimated gender gap in promotion probabilities (-0.008) is little changed. Collectively, the estimates in panel A suggest that the gender difference in the probability of promotion is driven by gender segregation in occupation and industry rather than systematic sorting into firms offering fewer opportunities for advancement.
Page 9
In addition, a 2018 study of wage increases for salaried employees (4888 participants) or hourly
workers (5148 participants) shows that there is no significant difference between men and women.

The Gender Gap in Raise Magnitudes of Hourly and Salary Workers

The gender gap in promotions literature typically uses survey to survey imputed hourly wage changes
to measure the earnings effects of promotions alone. By distinction, we study raises with and without promotions using data within surveys that uniquely identify both the current and most recent wages of hourly workers separate from salary workers. In cross-section estimates we identify a gender gap in raise magnitude favoring men only among hourly workers who achieve promotions, but this result vanishes in fixed effects estimates. No gender gaps emerge in any other instance, including for salary workers and raises absent of promotion. We further contribute to the literature by uniquely controlling for natural ability and risk preferences of the workers, the time passed since earning the raise, and also whether the responsibility of the worker’s job changed with the raise.
There is no difference in increment and promotion, all other things being equal.

Are women’s leadership skill assessed the same way (not harsher) as men leadership skills (authority and access to statut)?

2)Glass ceiling and harsher judgment
Another hypothesis put forward is that of the glass ceiling which would mean that a woman cannot be promoted to high-level positions because of discrimination against her.
However, according to a 2014 meta-analysis of 111 studies concerning the evaluation of the skills of a
leader, male or female, the difference is minimal (Koch2015). Taking all criteria together, we have a
d=0.04. For indication, d=0.2 corresponds to a small effect.
CF B0).
In addition, a 2014 meta-analysis of 58 published scientific articles, 30 unpublished dissertations or theses, 5 books and 6 other sources, including 100,000 people, indicates an overall difference of d=-0.06 in perceived management effectiveness (JAP). Men are assessed as less competent than women for middle positions of -0.17 with p<0.05, there is little difference for high positions of 0.04 and low positions of 0.07. In addition, experienced recruiters have less bias than young students and inexperienced workers. (d=0.04 versus d=0.19). The difference in judgement therefore has a negligible effect at best.

Gender and Perceptions of Leadership Effectiveness: A Meta-Analysis of Contextual Moderators

The distribution of effect sizes was approximately normal and centered around zero. The overall analysis of effectiveness measures resulted in a mean corrected d of =-0.05 (K = 99, N =101,676), which is not significantly different from zero (see Table 1). We examined the data for any extreme outliers (3 SD) and found two effect sizes that met this criteria (d = 1.44, N = 30 and d = 1.52, N = 40). Hunter and Schmidt (2004) argued that, when sample sizes of outliers are small to moderate, extreme outliers can occur due to sampling error. They noted that such outliers should not be removed from the data, because removing them could result in an overcorrection of sampling error. We reanalyzed the data with these two effect sizes removed from the sample, and the overall effect size changed slightly (by .01), becoming d=-0.06.
Hierarchical level as a moderator. Consistent with Hypothesis 3, hierarchical level exhibited a significant moderating effect on gender differences in leadership effectiveness (Qb = 10.71, p = .05). The results of a subgroup analysis are partially consistent with the hypothesis proposed by RCT (see Table 1). Women were rated as significantly more effective than men in middle management positions, with a d of =0.17 (K = 12, N =4,570, 95% CI [=-.31, =.03]). There was a nonsignificant gender difference in effectiveness for leaders in upper level leadership positions, with a d of -.04 (K = 28, N = 12,364, 95% CI [=-.15, .07]), and in lower hierarchical levels/supervisor positions, with a d of .07 (K =37, N = 7,421, 95% CI [=-.03, .17]). Overall, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported in that women were more effective in middle management positions, although there were not gender differences in either lower or higher level positions.
Furthermore, a 2016 study (human-perf) of 3,367 managers and 9,670 non-managers (731 managers and 1,297 non-managers retained) shows that differences in performance ratings between men and women are again negligible and not statistically significant.

Gender differences in supervisors’ multidimensional performance ratings: Large sample evidence

We examined gender differences in supervisor ratings of overall job performance and 37 performance dimensions. Based on data from a large, diverse sample of managers (N = 3,367) and nonmanagers (N = 9,670), we found that gender had only minimal effects on ratings for a small number of specific job performance dimensions. This was generally true regardless of whether the job performance dimension was more agentic or communal in nature, whether the job was a managerial or a nonmanagerial position, and regardless of the proportion of men or women that traditionally occupy a specific job. Overall, our results are more consistent with the gender similarities hypothesis than the agency/communion paradigm, role congruity theory, and the lack of fit model. We discuss future research avenues and implications.
Women are therefore seen as performing and being as competent as men in their job

Are women as likely to be promoted than men in prestigious jobs ?

3)Glass ceiling and promotion
In addition, a 2013 study of 3,053 and 57,632 directors is looking at the promotion rate in Denmark of women as CEOs. (smith2013) Observations were made from 1997 to 2007. For promotions to the position of Vice President, the gross gap is 0.6 percentage points and 1.6 percentage points for the position of CEO. In this particular case, the presence of children seems to be beneficial for men's promotions, but paternity leave is heavily sanctioned with regard to future career prospects. The field also explains the difference in the likelihood of being promoted to CEO. Indeed, Vice Presidents in Human Resources, IT and R&D are much less likely to be promoted to the position of CEO than Vice Presidents and CFOs in sales and production. However, vice presidents and senior management tend to concentrate in human resources positions, which is an important factor explaining the lower promotion rate.

Why Are So Few Females Promoted into CEO and Vice-President Positions? Danish Empirical Evidence

This paper analyzes the gender gap in promotion into top corporate jobs based on employer- employee data on all Danish companies. The rawVP- and CEO-promotion rates in the data set show a fairly constant distance between males and females during the period 1997-2007. In 2007, 4.6 % of the males and 3.6 % of the females in the group of potential top executives were promoted into a VP position while for promotions from VP positions into CEO positions, the same gures were 4.4 % and 2.7 %, respectively,i.e. there was a gender gap of 1 % points for VP positions and 1.7 % points for CEO positions.
Many women may not find it very attractive to become CEOs because they have to give up too much to ll a CEO position compared to the alternative as being a VP or having a lower position which is more easily combined with having more kids and full take-up of maternity leave schemes and other family-friendly schemes, i.e. to rewrite the words by the former Danish CEO, Stine Bosse: Be in positions where they can still have a life.
All this findings suggest that women are not less promoted to CEO positions than men simply because they are women.
Moreover women at CEO position are less paid but only due to the field, the risk taking.

Women in Top Management and Job Self Selection

Using a large sample of publicly traded firms from 1994-2002, we study the type of firms that female executives prefer to work in. We find that (1) female executives predominantly work in high risk firms and in high risk industries, (2) female CEOs have higher dismissal probability and female non-CEO executives (CFO, COO and President), in general, have lower tenure at office, and (3) there is significant self selection for female to work in high risk segments despite higher dismissal rates or lower tenure at job. Consistent with Bertrand and Hallock (2001), we find that, on average, female executives are paid lower than men, a result that is mainly driven by female in safer work segments. On the other hand, female executives in risky segments have comparable pay to their male counterparts. Using a size and industry male executive benchmark for each female executive, we also show that pay differential diminishes with the increase in job risk.

Does women have less access to a mentor than men do (access to network)?

According to a meta analysis on 40 studies, there is no difference of outcomes between men and women on mentoring (as a protégé or as mentor)

A Meta-Analytic Investigation of Gender Differences in Mentoring

(it is not a strict quote but sum up the results. to have an idea, r=0.1 is a small effect size, r=0.30 a medium effect size and r=0.5 is a large effect size.
The difference in access to the mentor is very weakly correlated with the sex of the protégé with r=-0.01 and p not significant. In addition, there is no difference in career development mentoring.
Furthermore, women report having more psychological support than men (r=.01) (r=.06 very low gender correlation). Men report having served as more mentors than women (r=.07), provided more career development (r=.04) and less psychological support than women (r=.04). However, the results are heterogeneous and the magnitudes are very low.
Women are seen as competent as men in politic, in companies, have about the same rate of promotions, pay raise and as likely to be hired in real situation. They have the same opportunities to access to a prestigious jobs (statut), promotion (gain in statut) pay (wealth) and mentoring
(professional network).
I will not treat the theme of religion because the state is separated from the Church, and there is the cult freedom. I have not tackle the problem of military power since it is indeed a form of power but is accessible to women via politic or recruitement (depending on the goals) and this power is not use among the population in usual situation.

To Conclude this part women have the same access to wealth, politic, and statut in the application.

Another remaining is :

« Are Women held back »

1)On this ground we will use the education of the parent.
Does the parent raise their child in a different way, ie pushing boy to be more independant than girl ?

Gender-Differentiated Parenting Revisited: Meta-Analysis Reveals Very Few Differences in Parental Control of Boys and Girls

Although various theories describe mechanisms leading to differential parenting of boys and girls, there is no consensus about the extent to which parents do treat their sons and daughters differently. The last meta-analyses on the subject were conducted more than fifteen years ago, and changes in gender-specific child rearing in the past decade are quite plausible. In the current set of meta-analyses, based on 126 observational studies (15,034 families), we examined mothers’ and fathers’ differential use of autonomy-supportive and controlling strategies with boys and girls, and the role of moderators related to the decade in which the study was conducted, the observational context, and sample characteristics. Databases of Web of Science, ERIC, PsychInfo, Online Contents, Picarta, and Proquest were searched for studies examining differences in observed parental control of boys and girls between the ages of 0 and 18 years. Few differences were found in parents’ use of control with boys and girls. Parents were slightly more controlling with boys than with girls, but the effect size was negligible (d = 0.08). The effect was larger, but still small, in normative groups and in samples with younger children. No overall effect for gender-differentiated autonomy-supportive strategies was found (d = 0.03). A significant effect of time emerged: studies published in the 1970s and 1980s reported more autonomy-supportive strategies with boys than toward girls, but from 1990 onwards parents showed somewhat more autonomy-supportive strategies with girls than toward boys. Taking into account parents’ gender stereotypes might uncover subgroups of families where gender-differentiated control is salient, but based on our systematic review of the currently available large data base we conclude that in general the differences between parenting of boys versus girls are minimal The parent raise their children to be autonomous, at the same extend for men AND women.
Moreover, in more gender egalitarian countries, the maths anxiety among girls is higher and the parent tend to value less math among girls. It is again in contradiction with the narrative expecting that less gender egalitarian countries with greater gender stereotyope would increase the gender maths anxiety gap.

Countries with Higher Levels of Gender Equality Show Larger National Sex Differencesin Mathematics

Anxiety and Relatively Lower Parental Mathematics Valuation for Girls
Most importantly and contra predictions, we showed that economically developed and more gender equal countries have a lower overall level of mathematics anxiety, and yet a larger national sex difference in mathematics anxiety relative to less developed countries. Further,although relatively more mothers workin STEM fields in more developed countries, these parents valued, on average , mathematical competence more in theirsonsthan their daughters.The proportion of mothers working in STEM was unrelated to sexdifferences in mathematics anxiety or performance
This study shows that indeed maths is less emphasized for girls than boys in more gender equal countries but it also a part of the gender equality paradoxe. STEM are more valued for girls in less gender equal country probably to to pragmatical reason (better earning). (see the part about society)
Plus, girl in non traditional family where the woman is the breadwinner is more likely to be more traditional (their own choice)

Modern Family: Female Breadwinners and the Intergenerational Transmission of Gender Norms⇤

In this paper I investigate the intergenerational transmission of gender norms. The norm I focus on is the traditional view that it is the role of the mother to look after young children and the role of the father to be the breadwinner. I develop a model of identity formation where a child’s gender norm is endogenous to two main sources of socialisation: her family on the one hand, and society at large on the other. Using data from the Next Steps survey and the International Social Survey Programme, I examine the intergenerational transmission of gender norms in England when the norms of the family, and the society it is embedded in, are oppositional. My findings indicate between-sex heterogeneity in the transmission of gender norms from parents to children. Boys raised in modern families (i.e. where the mother is the breadwinner) are less likely to develop traditional norms. However, compared to those in traditional families, girls raised in modern families are actually more likely to be traditional; in opposition to their family’s but in line with society’s norm. Examining further outcomes associated with gender norms, I find that girls raised in modern families are also less likely to state that being able to earn high wages is important for them, and are less likely to pursue a science degree at university level. I use my identity formation model to argue that these results can be explained by heterogeneity in preferences for conformity to the family, and present empirical evidence that indeed, girls in modern families are less conformist than those in traditional families. Using a regression discontinuity design, I further show that this weaker preference for conformity is in fact a result of the treatment of living in a modern family.
Another point is that parent influence their children in their education but the interraction is both way and parents adapt a lot to their children. So the children are also a great factor on the parenting behavior.

Child Characteristics and Parental Educational Expectations: Evidence for Transmission with Transaction

Parents’ expectations for their children’s ultimate educational attainment have been hypothesized to play an instrumental role in socializing academically-relevant child behaviors, beliefs, and abilities. In addition to social transmission of educationally relevant values from parents to children, parental expectations and child characteristics may transact bidirectionally. We explore this hypothesis using both longitudinal and genetically informative twin data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study – Birth and Kindergarten cohorts. Our behavior genetic results indicate that parental expectations partly reflect child genetic variation, even as early as 4 years of age. Two classes of child characteristics were hypothesized to contribute to these child-to-parent effects: behavioral tendencies (approaches toward learning and problem behaviors) and achievement (math and reading). Using behavior genetic models, we find within-twin-pair associations between these child characteristics and parental expectations. Using longitudinal cross-lagged models, we find that initial variation in child characteristics predicts future educational expectations above and beyond previous educational expectations. These results are consistent with transactional frameworks in which parent-to-child and child-to- parent effects cooccur
Genetic affect also grealtly the way of parenting and the receptivness of the children. Parent adapt a lot to their children

Genetic and Environmental Associations Between Child Personality and Parenting

Parenting is often conceptualized in terms of its effects on offspring. However, children may also play an active role in influencing the parenting they receive. Simple correlations between parenting and child outcomes may be due to parent-to-child causation, child-to-parent causation, or some combination of the two. We use a multirater, genetically informative, large sample (n¼1,411 twin sets) to gain traction on this issue as it relates to parental warmth and stress in the context of child Big Five personality. Considerable variance in parental warmth (27%) and stress (45%) was attributable to child genetic influences on parenting. Incorporating child Big Five personality into the model roughly explained half of this variance. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that parents mold their parenting in response to their child’s personality. Residual heritability of parenting is likely due to child characteristics beyond the Big Five. 2) Society Does society holds back girls? Another point is that women may be held back by the social norm. Specialy in STEM where men represent the majority.
A simple hypothesis could be to take the gender equality index to assess the equality within a country (access to education healthcare etc). In less gender egalitarian countries, we would expect to find less women in STEM as they would be more held back by society, social norm and stereotype.
However it is not the case. It is even the opposite. Where the gender equality index is higher, the difference is larger.

The Gender-Equality Paradox in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education

The underrepresentation of girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields is a continual concern for social scientists and policymakers. Using an international database on adolescent achievement in science, mathematics, and reading (N = 472,242), we showed that girls performed similarly to or better than boys in science in two of every three countries, and in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality. The gap between boys’ science achievement and girls’ reading achievement relative to their mean academic performance was near universal. These sex differences in academic strengths and attitudes toward science correlated with the STEM graduation gap. A mediation analysis suggested that life-quality pressures in less gender-equal countries promote girls’ and women’s engagement with STEM subjects.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617741719 More over another large sample study show that girl good abilities in maths AND reading may give them more choices than boys.

Not Lack of Ability but More Choice: Individual and Gender Differences in Choice of Careers in Science,

Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
The pattern of gender differences in math and verbal ability may result in females having a wider choice of careers, in both science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and non-STEM fields, compared with males. The current study tested whether individuals with high math and high verbal ability in 12th grade were more or less likely to choose STEM occupations than those with high math and moderate verbal ability. The 1,490 subjects participated in two waves of a national longitudinal study; one wave was when the subjects were in 12th grade, and the other was when they were 33 years old. Results revealed that mathematically capable individuals who also had high verbal skills were less likely to pursue STEM careers than were individuals who had high math skills but moderate verbal skills. One notable finding was that the group with high math and high verbal ability included more females than males. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612458937 Another large sample (300,000) studie tends to show a similar results.

Girls’ comparative advantage in reading can largely explain the gender gap in math-related fields

Gender differences in math performance are now small in developed countries and they cannot explain on their own the strong underrepresentation of women in math-related fields. This latter result is however no longer true once gender differences in reading performance are alsotakenintoaccount. Usingindividual-leveldata on 300,000 15-y-old students in 64 countries, we show that the difference between a student performance in reading and math is 80% of a standard deviation (SD) larger for girls than boys, a magnitude considered as very large. When this difference is controlled for, the gender gap in students’ intentions to pursue math-intensivestudiesandcareers is reduced by around75%,while gender gaps in self-concept in math, declared interest for math or attitudes toward math entirely disappear. These latter variables are also much less able to explain the gender gap in intentions to study maththanisstudents’ differenceinperformancebetweenmathand reading. These results are in line with choice models in which educational decisions involve intraindividual comparisons of achievement and self-beliefs in different subjects as well as cultural norms regarding gender. To directly show that intraindividual comparisons of achievement impact students’ intended careers, we use differences across schools in teaching resources dedicated to math and reading as exogenous variations of students’ comparative advantage for math. Results confirm that the comparative advantage in math with respect to reading at the time of making educational choices plays a key role in the process leading to women’s underrepresentation in math-intensive fields.
www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1905779116 The last point on the choice is that a recent meta analysis showed that increased individualism and decreased ecological stress tend to increase the gender difference of personnality traits but not the culture and stereotype itself.

Nature and evoked culture: Sex differences in personality are uniquely correlated with ecological stress

Sex differences in personality were found to be larger in more developed and more gender-equal societies. However, the studies that report this effect either have methodological shortcomings or do not take into account possible underlying effects of ecological variables. Here, a large, multinational (N = 867,782) dataset of personality profiles was used to examine sex differences in Big Five facet scores for 50 countries. Gender differences were related to estimates of ecological stress as well as socio-cultural variables. Using a regularized partial-correlation approach, the unique associations of those correlates with sex differences were isolated. Sex differences were large (median Mahalanobis' D = 1.97) and varied substantially across countries (range 1.49 to 2.48). Global sex differences are larger in more developed countries with higher food availability, less pathogen prevalence, higher gender equality and an individualistic culture. After controlling for confounds, only cultural individualism, historic pathogen prevalence and food availability remained. Sex differences in personality are uniquely correlated to ecological stress. Previously reported correlations between greater sex differences and socio-cultural liberalism could be due to confounding by influences of ecological stress.

To conclude

Women have the same opportunity and access to power (politic and money), are seen as competent as men even at high responsabilities jobs (authority), take also important decisions in the family (spending power and intra family authority) and are raised to be as independant as men and not held back. So the power is not legitimated by the sex of people but on the skills, choice and some luck (good or bad) due to the contingence of life. It is more about inequalities than gender inequalities and does not tackle the « Patriarchy » but capitalism.

Western countries are not patriarchies

See the other part here
submitted by AnalGenocideComeBack to UnpopularFact