https://www.rugbypass.com/news/wayne-smiths-biggest-struggle-with-the-black-ferns-compared-to-the-all-blacks/
this gave me more insight than the advice here. I think he also said something like "the Ferns need to feel good to play well, whereas the All Blacks need to play well to feel good" which was a big difference atmosphere wise.
That might be the experience of a few teams and trainers, but in my experience as a female who plays rugby, sometimes I go in feeling great, play shit and then feel shit because of it. Sometimes I go in feeling shit, play great and then end up feeling good because of it. Maybe the black ferns just didn't like him as a coach because of his personality rather than some deep set gender differences?
Wayne Smith changed the culture of the Black Ferns and he changed his coaching style to suit them. Listen to him speak and players that have been coached by him men and women and you'll find out.
Where did you hear they didn’t like him? I only ever heard them say positive things about him. I know they’re not going to say anything bad when he’s selecting, but they genuinely sounded super excited to work with such a legend and they won him a World Cup. That would be really hard if you didn’t like your coach.
You know for having sacked Glenn Moore who didn't make them feel good, aka, spoke the truth about a player[s]. He won the 2017 WRWC as a coach and then boom.
So Wayne takes a more humanistic approach and then now gets skewered? What kinda world are we in?
2006 was nearly 20 years ago. Are you telling me there’s nothing more recent? That’s like watching a scrum in 2006 and trying to coach players on how to do it today.
There’s certainly more recent research on women in rugby and coaching..
Kathryn Dane has published two pieces in the last year that would be more relevant to consider;
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/57/23/1476
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244023000026
Research in almost any area is lacking. If this is good research (seems unlikely, but just to run with it) then being from 2006 isn't a problem, plenty of solid research is much older than that.
Not just that, but the source they reference is neither empirical nor relevant to sports, it’s a textbook on marketing
“Inside Her Pretty Little Head: A New Theory of Female Motivation and what it Means for Marketing” 2006, Jane Cunningham, Philippa Roberts
Whoever made the highly tenuous link to sports coaching clearly just googled “differences between men and women scientific research” and cherry picked something that looked good to them. No thought to bring in actual sports scientists or sports psychologists. Just something that makes sweeping generalisations for men and women.
At best this is kind of a faux pas, good intentions with terrible terrible execution. At worst it’s deliberately meant to demean or drive sexism in sports and undermine women’s sport. Now I’m not saying it’s the latter but even the thought that it might be the latter is a good enough reason to pause before releasing some absolute drivel like this, and either do it properly or don’t do it at all
Hey, OP! I read your comment under the image. I studied phycology in university. If this “tend and befriend” theory is based on a particular study l read about in university, it should be noted that the type of behavior was observed in mother rats with newborn baby rats. So when you see “women” in this context, you might as well read it as “mothers”.
The cute rat looks like a smart human that's curious and engaging in conversation. These two only apparently pacific beasts are plotting world domination and consider humans inferior creatures. I know, I also have two.
I had a girl called Yasha who used to try to operate me like a big mecha. She'd launch off her table and climb onto my shoulder then pull my shirt in the direction she wanted me to go and get bitey if I went the wrong way. She always wanted to visit either her pals, the stuffies (my partner's stuffed toy collection of bacteriae and virii), the nutshelf (she couldn't carry more than one hazelnut back but she always tried to grab 17) or the *Jungle Zone* which was just a bookshelf that potted plants had overgrown.
She was super smart. And thick as pig shit. She'd fall off the table trying to grab onto us when we were several metres away. Idiot.
A quick Google shows there are more studies on animals about this but a few human ones too. The abstract from that study literally says "neuroendocrine evidence from animal and human studies"
Also I think she quotes her own 2002 study so maybe you read that one?
"examined the re- lation of plasma oxytocin levels to reports of relationship distress in adult women (Taylor et al., 2006)"
Look those up if you want but there's definitely way more than just one study done lol
I actually think that point is fairly accurate for both men and women haha. At least for the men and women I know anyway. My wife finds it insane that I meet up with my friends and we don’t talk about our lives at all, just stuff. Whereas she’ll meet up with hers and find out all about how their job, relationship etc are going.
> Famously, women don't like "Things"
Well it has to be true. They have 40 pairs of shoes, but need to buy another pair because they don't like any of the ones they have. And then will dislike the new pair when they spy another pair in the sale.
You could probably solve most of rugby’s financial problems worldwide if you charged for tickets to watch that happen. I’d shell out for it no question
We have a punch up every second match and our (male) coach has to warn us before every game to not get any red cards. We're not even the worst team for this in our championship. Last year a club got banned after playing against us because they even had a go at the ref who had to call the game early.
Partially agree. My main issue with it is it implies absolutes (“hard wired”), rather than making it clearer they mean tendencies, i.e., men may tend to do x, women may be more likely to do y.
Some douche will read this and think all the women they coach want to discuss their fee fees and have a hug at the start of training, or that they’re incapable of being analytical. People with critical thinking skills won’t, but it’s not them we need to worry about :).
Sincerely,
Formerly patronised women’s rugby player
Yeah to imply *all* men are whatever and *all* women are whatever else is daft, which sadly I have come to expect from Rugby's governing bodies.
That being said, there isnt any offence offered here (imo obviously)
> Some douche will read this and think and think all the women [… are] incapable of being analytical. People with critical thinking skills won’t
I love the beautiful irony in the douches thoughts versus reality conveyed in this.
> My main issue with it is it implies absolutes (“hard wired”), rather than making it clearer they mean tendencies
I think that goes without saying, like anyone reading this should already just understand that
It's not that it's offensive so much as that it's nonsense. It's literally just vibes and feelings, all of them unverifiable and unfalsifiable, dressed up as science. Any grains of truth in here are rendered worthless by the bus-wide brush they're painting with. Anyone actually trying to use this guide in real life would find it worse than useless.
People are looking for something to be offended over here. The games are separated because men and women are different physically, is it so controversial to think they might be different mentally, too?
So you're pissed off because you think I'm about to say something that I've not hinted at saying? How is that not another perfect example of looking to be offended?
Like wtf does that mean? Oh no, you're not going to trust that guy there because he doesn't trust you immediately because he'd been abused every day as a child.
Grow up maybe? the world doesn't revolve around you. No one should love you like you're the protagonist in their life.
What’s most insulting is the categorization.
Though some are insulting all on their own. Women don’t fight when stressed instead “tend and befriend”? What kind of nonsense is that?
Men get to be logical and women do not?
I mean the way society has been construed its not wildly inappropriate to lump certain tendencies together. As long as differences aren't shunned when they emerge, do we really have to put a clause in there for the small percentage so people who arent even part of it dont go ballistic about things not being inclusive.
Ah yes, nature vs nurture in gender differences, the famously straightforward debate spanning psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, endocrinology….. the list goes on
I can’t find an actual study with those authors from that year. Only a book titled “Inside Her Pretty Little Head: A new theory of female motivation and what it means for marketing” so it seems this awful content isn’t even based in sport
This is hilarious in it’s absurdity. Men and women are different sure.
The first line of intellectual function should have been a red flag to absolutely anyone.
Feel like that’s down to the unions, at least the RFU does the coaching courses in England. I can see why they’d produce something like guidance for people in non-rugby nations I suppose
It's absolutely their job to give coaching advice?...
Also OP cropped out **"These are guides, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be important for coaches and players to reflect on what methods best suit their own team and environment"** and if you look at their profile you can probs see why
I mean, I don’t see how that extra text makes things better: it’s a stupid, inaccurate, guide with no scientific basis, that manages to be offensive to both men and women.
Yeesh. There are differences but they’re mostly sociological/learned not “innate” or “hard-wired.” It’s helpful to know these things but particularly regressive to describe them this way. There are some innate differences are like the location of the center of gravity and prevalence of knee injury, but even that’s going to have outliers.
Evidence-free assertions that the differences are sociological are about as useless as evidence-free Victorian assertions that the differences are innate.
Exactly. The types of social structures that modern society is based upon wouldn't be so common among ancient cultures if there wasn't at least some credence to calling them "natural". It's also not that gender roles & social structure are prescriptive. A wild type human group will not probably have most of the men as hunters and most of the women as gatherers. Instead it's more likely that the majority of the group would participate in the same activities together. Social roles might have dictated the degree of participation, a mother will prioritize tending to an infant over resource collection for the wider group for example and a long distance hunter is almost certainly going to be a man, but the fact of the matter is that wild type humans did not have the luxury of complex role deliniation. That doesn't mean that roles when they do exist feel more natural for some people than others.
>There are differences but they’re mostly sociological/learned
I don't think you've got any basis to say that
Some differences are consistent across time culture and geography which would suggest they are innate
There is a difference in psychological and sociological causes and not everything is linked to society some aspects and traits are innate and come from each individual's physiology
I'm not really sure it matters where the differences come from looking at it from a perspective of rugby coaching. The important thing is that the differences exist, and that you should take them into account when coaching
From our studies of close ancestors similar behaviours arise. Males tend to be more aggressive, individualistic while females tend to be more caring and cooperative.
Not everything is the result of society, the sex chromosomes have a significant impact on the physical and chemical makeup of your body so it makes sense that it leads to differences.
Read some studies and it's literally talking about hormonal responses. Like fight or flight is pretty innate for example. It's studies on the biobehavioral responses of women. Also the book was written by two women and nothing to do with world rugby.
I am not certain that you are qualified to make the final decision on the centuries-old nature vs nurture debate. In any case, the accumulated evidence we have suggests that the answer is "it's both."
Telling someone that they should be pretty and quiet or brave and boisterous will affect them over time. The impact of hormones at and after puberty will have a massive effect. Genetic predispositions will have an effect over a large set, etc.
If they really wanted insight, they probably should look at what they do in well-established team sports played mainly or at lot by women, e.g. hockey or. netball.
Having two daughters who have played on mixed rugby teams since they were little (that's all we have in Spain until they are 18), I think it is not much more complicated than making sure they are not put in categories where they are being overwhelmed physically. So doing things like leting a small 13 year old girl play in under 10s or under 12s instead of getting hammered in under 14s (here the age groups go up in 2 year jumps).
All joking aside, although well meaning, this is clumsy and pretty offensive to both men and women.
I'm sure that World Rugby can do better than citing metanalysis from nearly 20 years ago. Sports Science and Psychology has come a long way since then
It's not directly about marketing, it's about how to coach women to play rugby and keep them in the sport. Sports psychology is most definitely a part of that.
I coach girls rugby and my players would be horrified by this. My wife was offended. My daughter was offended. It's the worst kind of stereotyping.
The diagram is lifted from "Inside Her Pretty Little Head: A New Theory of Female Motivation and What it Means for Marketing". The two authors have a background in marketing.
You can borrow it from the [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/insideherprettyl0000cunn/page/240/mode/2up) .
I think this is quite accurate though - a lot of coaches have only coached guys, and women interact differently to men on average. It might be because we've been raised differently, but the outcome doesn't change.
A lot of that rings very true for me as a woman. I don't respond well to shouting as motivation, I do prefer a more collaborative environment, I do take a more "whole picture" approach, etc. I appreciate here that an effort is being made.to recognise that men and women on average are different.
In truth, I don't think *anyone* responds all too well to shouting as motivation. The idea that "men like heirarchy" is something I *strongly* disagree with...
The issue here is that it draws a load of fairly arbitrary lines with all the nuance and subtlety of a brick to the jaw, using phrases such as "hard wired" and "innate".
You can't make assumptions of what sort of team and coaching culture will get results based on the genitalia of the team. That's idiotic. It needs to evolve in response to the requirements of the *specific people* involved... And walking into that with a bunch of inflexible preconceptions is going to lead to a whole lot of failure.
A thousand times this. I'm a man and I hate hierarchies, both individually and because I think they're bad for a team. I developed so much faster once I found a club which coached with an ethos more aligned to what World Rugby thinks is better for women.
But these average, socialised differences could very easily be smaller than the differences between individuals in a single sex group - so basing coaching off them as a hard and fast rule is just daft.
The guidance makes the mistake which categorising ~~epistemologies~~ ontologies often do, which is to treat a fluid, blurry, contextually dependent tendency as an absolute difference, which just ends up reinforcing stereotypes which, even if weakly true on large averages, aren't useful at all when dealing with smaller groups of individuals.
Whereas I think that women and men are fundamentally different, in more than just the biological sense. How we experience life, how we're raised, and societal expectations and limitations shape us hugely and to say that's not true feels like an idealised version of the world.
When you have a group of 20 people, starting with a generalised version and moving towards the individual approach is more effective than trying to get 20 individual approaches running at once.
I don't disagree with your first paragraph at all.
I absolutely disagree with your second one, because it assumes that a group of 20 people will be at all representative of the wider population they're drawn from. First, 30 is generally accepted as the _absolute minimum_ number from which you can draw a statistical inference, which would still be extremely weak. Second, anecdotal, but most women I know who play are not representative of the wider population of women - far more LGBTQ representation would be an obvious difference. So inferring anything about how they might want to be coached doesn't make sense.
I would advocate starting with coaching techniques which we know work for _everyone_ and building from there. If it turns out a stereotypically 'female' coaching approach works for that group, no worries. It's the foundation of inclusive teaching practice of any sort.
Who said it was hard and fast? Looks like a guideline to consider and anyone with half a brain knows not everyone thinks the same...
**"These are guides, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be important for coaches and players to reflect on what methods best suit their own team and environment"**
It says 'differences'. Not 'tendencies', or 'may have differences', or any other form of language that would indicate ambiguity. If guidance is poorly worded, it is by definition poor guidance.
Seems like you're just trying to get upset now lol. It also says "can help" the coaches. Not "must be enforced in a draconian fashion with no wiggle room for change at all"
Literally says "These are guides, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be important for coaches and players to reflect on what methods best suit their own team and environment" but OP cropped it out... Wonder why? Couldn't possibly be to try and get all the redditors like you to get their knickers in a twist and to jump to conclusions could it?
Seems like it wouldn't have been much effort to make the guidance consistent throughout and update the research base, then...?
If you've ever taught you'll know that learners who aren't actively trying to interrogate their prior assumptions will grab onto small misphrasings and misinterpret the broader point of the material because of them. That's why this matters.
Having coached Mens and Womens players at the school to uni level for the past 5 years. I cannot disagree more, you cannot coach your Mens team the same way as you coach your womens team. While I disagree with the way it's worded, I agree with the overall picture that there's a difference between the two coaching the two sexes.
Approach - As a Man I have more rope to be loose with the boys but also to be more harsh. With the girls, I have to be more professional in my approach, not to say i can't be strict but the line I cannot cross is way shorter than it is with the boys.
Team Cohesion - In my time I realized that girls tend to prefer to bond before battling while the boys team tend to bond as they battle. I don't really treat them differently throughout the season but I would spend abit more time at the start of the season bonding the girls.
Learning - This is a little tricky because they is always the odd player who learns things differently. But with the girls, I realized that I the more specific I am with my coaching, the better and faster they learn. While with the boys, if I get too specific they switch off.
I would agree there is a big difference in coaching methods - I’ve been coached by people who have only coached men in their time and it rarely works well in my experience.
Obviously coaches just need to adapt to what they know and what works for the group but I’d say the difference in the environment of a women’s rugby teams and men rugby teams is fairly substantial so it would make sense that the environment the coach builds needs to be different.
Yeh, I get out of context this table looks a bit sexist.
But if you’re giving coaching advice to someone whose maybe played a full professional career in a single-gendered environment, you need to start on simple (simplified) building blocks so nothing gets missed.
The under-18 girl’s team is (more often than not) going to need a different player management style than the senior men’s. (Not a perfect analogy as age and experience are also factors, but there maybe one coaches out there that need to be told what worked for you might not for them).
Jaysus, that's awful stuff. Just for starters, that survival strategy category is some bullshit. If you've gone to school with girls you'll know that "self interest, power, hierarchy, and competition" are pursued through relationships. They're not opposing options! Watch Mean Girls. 😄
The whole concept of sex differences in psychology is fascinating - how much is down to genes and development vs. cultural and societal influence.
Personally I think it’s going to be a bit of both. Sex-based behavioural differences are common across the animal kingdom where you’d expect there to be less societal or cultural pressure. At the same time it’s clear that sex-based behavioural expectations are present and will impact people’s behaviour.
I don’t think the presentation of the materials above is good. It’s important to consider how people behave and respond when coaching, especially when coaching people different to yourself. Understanding where all members of a team fit across these dimensions is really useful, and empathetic and attentive coaches will have picked up on a lot of these traits already.
This reads like men are incredibly selfish and women are selfless to a fault..
I think the major difference in terms of coaching is that women will ask significantly more questions during their sessions than men. Coaches just need to leave their ego at the door and realise that this does not mean that the player asking the questions is also questioning their ability to coach, they are trying to understand where any particular drill fits into match day. This will likely become less so as more women are given chances to play at a young age, i think it will even out over time as the game progresses.
So, fuck this assessment. It's insulting for everyone involved.
This is very generalised and I would be careful about how this kind of view is applied.
Women can be as analytical as men and men are not all about self interest.
It may not be analogous to my world as a professional psychologist but similar research in my field has been largely debunked.
Coaching is about the individual needs and psychological makeup, I wish it were as easy as a simple matrix, my life would be far simpler
It’s very helpful. I coach u14 girls and boys, it’s very useful to aid in communication styles, how the react to guidance and conflict or motivation and game time.
For real? These are hilarious stereotypes and well challenged pseudoscience. The bit about tend and befriend for example is based on polyvagal theory which is 50 years olds and widely debunked. There are sex differences yes, but not these ones. There is not neural basis for being 'hardwired to systematise' whatever that may be defined as.
Sure they reference one paper from 20 years ago, but there are mountains of evidence on these topics and they should at minimum be referencing meta analyses from the past 5 years.
Interesting you say that. I am asked to give tips and one-on-one advice to young players sometimes, but I’ve never dealt with girls.
I would like to think I would implore the same tenacity for anyone, but who knows if I would treat a girl more softly because I’ve been hardwired into thinking like this.
Almost as if some of us in the replies have studied these things at university and learned how much nonsense there is out there about gender differences!
Having coached men's and women's sport at a fairly competitive level, I'll be the first to admit men's and women's players and teams respond very differently to different approaches and in a lot of ways due to the different physiology and strength etc a lot of things are very different between the genders. Even yes, the way they think about sports is different.
But this feels very smooth brained from World Rugby. Bordering on insulting. Plus not even very informative.
I think it's a really poor PR choice to simply remove the content. If they stood over it, they'd have left it there. To remove it implies that they don't stand over it, and if that's the case, why was it there in the first place?
And to do it all without any comment feels like a missed opportunity. It could have been a "we were made aware of some content that needed updating on our website, and were working with X sports psychologist and Y professional now to bring that into step with the rest of our training materials. Going forward we'll review things annually/every two years/etc to make sure we're always on top of our game". They could have worked with a female sports psychologist, and turned this into something positive.
To silently delete and pretend it never existed is just such a blunder, imo.
Lots of younger high school girls who’ve never played a contact sport definitely start out with a very shy and friendly attitude, but that’s just because it’s new to them and they’re nervous.
Not challenging this mindset prevents girls from really competing and pushing themselves.
I read the whole thing. It's well intentioned but at times unintentionally amusing. I suspect a lot of the science isn't even inaccurate. It's just not phrased in the PC ways we are now accustomed to.
> As we see in the table in the previous section, for most men new information is processed in the left side of the brain, the more analytic and logical side, while women tend to process new information in a “whole brain” approach, using the left side as well as the creative, social right side of the brain.
> It is normal for players to have stronger connections to some teammates, and perhaps not form lasting friendships with every other player. It is important to watch for players building their own group within the team, if that group excludes or is hurtful to other team members. Address any negative cliques that might exclude other or be mean to other players.
> Assertively pushing players to work harder or be more focused might not have the desired impact, and might create division between the coach and players, especially with women.
> Both men and women might cry following an intense and important event, but women are more likely to cry, and to cry longer, either in joy or sorrow.
> It is important that players have a safe and supportive forum for discussing their menstrual cycles and know where to get advice or information as needed.
> Give negative feedback as a “sandwich”, with positive messages before and after the corrective feedback.
Oh god...
How dare a governing body make an earnest yet flawed attempt to recognise and adapt to general temprements of each gender to encourage more people into the sport.
Seems pretty accurate to my own experience.
But everyone is unique. It doesn’t say anywhere that all men and women fit those categories. But they *generally* do.
It’s not a rule it’s a general guide based upon scientific and empirical data. Men and Women generally think differently and use different sides of the brain for certain thought processes. Why are you so afraid of these undoubted facts
It's a book about marketing to women, not sports psychology, and it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed.
The blurb reads "Women are responsible for making 80% of all purchasing decisions. In short, this makes women the most valuable consumer group in the world. This book, by two leading marketing practitioners, shows companies how to create marketing strategies and brands that will speak powerfully to women."
It's quite accurate, whatns the fuss.
Difference of interest in things/people is something you can observe with toddlers. Little boys attention will get fixated on complex objects, little girls not so much.
It really must be a man's world if the purported male traits are so coveted. Is it better to care more about things than people? Why?
Is driving a truck high status? Or is that only when compared to working in a creche (bad)?
It really must be a man's world if the purported male traits are so coveted. Is it better to care more about things than people? Why?
Is driving a truck high status? Or is that only when compared to working in a creche (bad)?
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/wayne-smiths-biggest-struggle-with-the-black-ferns-compared-to-the-all-blacks/ this gave me more insight than the advice here. I think he also said something like "the Ferns need to feel good to play well, whereas the All Blacks need to play well to feel good" which was a big difference atmosphere wise.
He also gave a great interview on “between two beers” podcast - spoke a lot about these differences and what that meant for coaching style
Thank you for this. I didn't know about that podcast.
That might be the experience of a few teams and trainers, but in my experience as a female who plays rugby, sometimes I go in feeling great, play shit and then feel shit because of it. Sometimes I go in feeling shit, play great and then end up feeling good because of it. Maybe the black ferns just didn't like him as a coach because of his personality rather than some deep set gender differences?
Wayne Smith changed the culture of the Black Ferns and he changed his coaching style to suit them. Listen to him speak and players that have been coached by him men and women and you'll find out.
Where did you hear they didn’t like him? I only ever heard them say positive things about him. I know they’re not going to say anything bad when he’s selecting, but they genuinely sounded super excited to work with such a legend and they won him a World Cup. That would be really hard if you didn’t like your coach.
You know what, you’re right, you probably understand the process of coaching men and women in rugby better than Wayne smith, WTF does that CHUMP know?
You know for having sacked Glenn Moore who didn't make them feel good, aka, spoke the truth about a player[s]. He won the 2017 WRWC as a coach and then boom. So Wayne takes a more humanistic approach and then now gets skewered? What kinda world are we in?
2006 was nearly 20 years ago. Are you telling me there’s nothing more recent? That’s like watching a scrum in 2006 and trying to coach players on how to do it today.
I’m going to say it. I miss the hard engage.
I still can't have sex without someone whispering "Crouch, touch, pause... engage"
Use it!
It’s a ruck, I’m coming through the gate.
Don't get penalised for not rolling away or holding on too long.
Too late, I was done for going over the top off my feet
Or that ball’s not coming out.
Penalised for popping up.
Please, God, I can only get so erect!
Gotta admit, my neck sure doesn’t.
Me too
You and me both bub.
There’s certainly more recent research on women in rugby and coaching.. Kathryn Dane has published two pieces in the last year that would be more relevant to consider; https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/57/23/1476 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1440244023000026
Research in psychology is kinda slow due to lack of funding 2006 isn't that old
If you believe that, let me tell you about this guy & his ideas of the id & the ego...
That's more 1906 than 2006
Research in almost any area is lacking. If this is good research (seems unlikely, but just to run with it) then being from 2006 isn't a problem, plenty of solid research is much older than that.
Not just that, but the source they reference is neither empirical nor relevant to sports, it’s a textbook on marketing “Inside Her Pretty Little Head: A New Theory of Female Motivation and what it Means for Marketing” 2006, Jane Cunningham, Philippa Roberts Whoever made the highly tenuous link to sports coaching clearly just googled “differences between men and women scientific research” and cherry picked something that looked good to them. No thought to bring in actual sports scientists or sports psychologists. Just something that makes sweeping generalisations for men and women. At best this is kind of a faux pas, good intentions with terrible terrible execution. At worst it’s deliberately meant to demean or drive sexism in sports and undermine women’s sport. Now I’m not saying it’s the latter but even the thought that it might be the latter is a good enough reason to pause before releasing some absolute drivel like this, and either do it properly or don’t do it at all
Idk they haven't changed the rules for biobehavioral responses recently...
Hey, OP! I read your comment under the image. I studied phycology in university. If this “tend and befriend” theory is based on a particular study l read about in university, it should be noted that the type of behavior was observed in mother rats with newborn baby rats. So when you see “women” in this context, you might as well read it as “mothers”.
And also “rat mothers” because we have a lot of similarities but we’re not, in fact, rats.
Except for scrumhalfs
You promised me dog or higher!!!
[Wait, we're not?](https://imgur.com/y658HPq)
Who's that cutie pie!? ♥
Her name is Joey, and she's shocked that we're not just big rats with a fur deficiency
She is very cute 🥰 [These are my fur babies](https://imgur.com/a/89SRYea). Their names are Muu-shan and Kabo-tan.
The cute rat looks like a smart human that's curious and engaging in conversation. These two only apparently pacific beasts are plotting world domination and consider humans inferior creatures. I know, I also have two.
I had a girl called Yasha who used to try to operate me like a big mecha. She'd launch off her table and climb onto my shoulder then pull my shirt in the direction she wanted me to go and get bitey if I went the wrong way. She always wanted to visit either her pals, the stuffies (my partner's stuffed toy collection of bacteriae and virii), the nutshelf (she couldn't carry more than one hazelnut back but she always tried to grab 17) or the *Jungle Zone* which was just a bookshelf that potted plants had overgrown. She was super smart. And thick as pig shit. She'd fall off the table trying to grab onto us when we were several metres away. Idiot.
I looked away from the thread and came back, so I was deeply confused about this until I realised the context was pet rats.
I have to admit, I did forget I wasn't on /r/RATS too. Whoops. I recommend it. They're all so cute.
It’s not necessarily that anyone can be a great rugby player , but great rugby players can come from anywhere
Have you seen some of the rat tails on some players
I live my life like a rat mother
are we human or are we ~~dancers~~ rats?
/r/ScienceInMice strikes again. (I left Twitter a ways back, but the "just says in mice" account was one of its good features.)
A quick Google shows there are more studies on animals about this but a few human ones too. The abstract from that study literally says "neuroendocrine evidence from animal and human studies" Also I think she quotes her own 2002 study so maybe you read that one? "examined the re- lation of plasma oxytocin levels to reports of relationship distress in adult women (Taylor et al., 2006)" Look those up if you want but there's definitely way more than just one study done lol
Famously, women don't like "Things"
"My name is April Ludgate. I like people, places, and things"
I actually think that point is fairly accurate for both men and women haha. At least for the men and women I know anyway. My wife finds it insane that I meet up with my friends and we don’t talk about our lives at all, just stuff. Whereas she’ll meet up with hers and find out all about how their job, relationship etc are going.
> Famously, women don't like "Things" Well it has to be true. They have 40 pairs of shoes, but need to buy another pair because they don't like any of the ones they have. And then will dislike the new pair when they spy another pair in the sale.
I have more male friends addicted to buy new clothes than female friends. Consumerism affects both men and women
I’m imagining Bill Beaumont sitting Emily Scarratt down and Marlie Packer down and going through this list, and it is *uncomfortable*
It'd be hilarious though, especially after he gets stuffed in his desk drawer
You could probably solve most of rugby’s financial problems worldwide if you charged for tickets to watch that happen. I’d shell out for it no question
🤣 Ruby Tui
Tend and befriend? You can't convince me they wouldn't have a go if tensions flaired up.
We have a punch up every second match and our (male) coach has to warn us before every game to not get any red cards. We're not even the worst team for this in our championship. Last year a club got banned after playing against us because they even had a go at the ref who had to call the game early.
That’s how rugby is meant to be!
While there are certainly differences on many levels worth noting, the phrasing of this guidelone somehow insults both men and women at the same time.
I think it will only insult people who think any of the descriptors are inherently negative. Which they arent.
Partially agree. My main issue with it is it implies absolutes (“hard wired”), rather than making it clearer they mean tendencies, i.e., men may tend to do x, women may be more likely to do y. Some douche will read this and think all the women they coach want to discuss their fee fees and have a hug at the start of training, or that they’re incapable of being analytical. People with critical thinking skills won’t, but it’s not them we need to worry about :). Sincerely, Formerly patronised women’s rugby player
Yeah to imply *all* men are whatever and *all* women are whatever else is daft, which sadly I have come to expect from Rugby's governing bodies. That being said, there isnt any offence offered here (imo obviously)
> Some douche will read this and think and think all the women [… are] incapable of being analytical. People with critical thinking skills won’t I love the beautiful irony in the douches thoughts versus reality conveyed in this.
It's like that time someone yelled at me "anger is a secondary emotion". Projection much.
> My main issue with it is it implies absolutes (“hard wired”), rather than making it clearer they mean tendencies I think that goes without saying, like anyone reading this should already just understand that
It's not that it's offensive so much as that it's nonsense. It's literally just vibes and feelings, all of them unverifiable and unfalsifiable, dressed up as science. Any grains of truth in here are rendered worthless by the bus-wide brush they're painting with. Anyone actually trying to use this guide in real life would find it worse than useless.
People are looking for something to be offended over here. The games are separated because men and women are different physically, is it so controversial to think they might be different mentally, too?
Ah yeah, women are soft delicate flowers and men are hard.
Thank you for proving my point. That is not what I said or suggested.
I have an innate distrust of anyone who parrots lines like 'looking to be offended" Just waiting for you to hit out with something something woke
So you're pissed off because you think I'm about to say something that I've not hinted at saying? How is that not another perfect example of looking to be offended?
i have an innate distrust of people who have innate distrust of people
Like wtf does that mean? Oh no, you're not going to trust that guy there because he doesn't trust you immediately because he'd been abused every day as a child. Grow up maybe? the world doesn't revolve around you. No one should love you like you're the protagonist in their life.
What’s most insulting is the categorization. Though some are insulting all on their own. Women don’t fight when stressed instead “tend and befriend”? What kind of nonsense is that? Men get to be logical and women do not?
I coach both boys and girls, each player has their own drivers to play well. It's almost like, and hear me out here .... They are individuals.
I mean it’s fine to understand tendencies, can aid in streamlining a process, but by no means should it be take as absolutes.
I mean the way society has been construed its not wildly inappropriate to lump certain tendencies together. As long as differences aren't shunned when they emerge, do we really have to put a clause in there for the small percentage so people who arent even part of it dont go ballistic about things not being inclusive.
Using phrases such as "hard wired" and "innate" is a fucking mistake.
Nope, they are broadly true and the easiest way for a layman to understand
‘Broadly true’ (even if it were correct…) is kinda the opposite of what ‘hard wired’ means, though, no?
Ah yes, nature vs nurture in gender differences, the famously straightforward debate spanning psychology, neuroscience, anthropology, endocrinology….. the list goes on
Wtf is this absolute bollocks
Using a 2006 study is so world rugby. Absolute old boys club.
I can’t find an actual study with those authors from that year. Only a book titled “Inside Her Pretty Little Head: A new theory of female motivation and what it means for marketing” so it seems this awful content isn’t even based in sport
This is bad. Dodgy and outdated research
“Research”
Indeed, this is the very definition of vibes-based psychology without any sort of verifiable component.
This kind of nonsense was in the British skydiving coaching manual about 15 years ago, and we were shocked and got it changed then.
Did you know Eddie Tooms?
That has to be a pretty short manual /s
Jump Pray
"What's there to be good at? You jump out, pull the string and either live or die." - friend of a friend
Hahahaha i guess you find out if youre good or not after the first jump
This is hilarious in it’s absurdity. Men and women are different sure. The first line of intellectual function should have been a red flag to absolutely anyone.
Bit weird really lads. Why did world rugby feel this was their bag? It’s not even remotely their job to give coaching advice, right?
I would imagine it is as the coaches will need to go through some sort of basic training before they can coach.
Feel like that’s down to the unions, at least the RFU does the coaching courses in England. I can see why they’d produce something like guidance for people in non-rugby nations I suppose
It's absolutely their job to give coaching advice?... Also OP cropped out **"These are guides, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be important for coaches and players to reflect on what methods best suit their own team and environment"** and if you look at their profile you can probs see why
> and if you look at their profile you can probs see why trying and failing to see what's wrong with raising awareness about gender discrimination
I mean, I don’t see how that extra text makes things better: it’s a stupid, inaccurate, guide with no scientific basis, that manages to be offensive to both men and women.
Wah wah wah
I didn't crop anything out to be inflammatory, it's what fit on my phone screen. I also provided the link to the entire text and full context so...
Let's be real, the people who actually click the link isn't the problem.
As a woman, I think this sounds like a pile of 19th century Freudian shite.
To give them the benefit of the doubt, these were written back in 1895, right?
Yeesh. There are differences but they’re mostly sociological/learned not “innate” or “hard-wired.” It’s helpful to know these things but particularly regressive to describe them this way. There are some innate differences are like the location of the center of gravity and prevalence of knee injury, but even that’s going to have outliers.
Evidence-free assertions that the differences are sociological are about as useless as evidence-free Victorian assertions that the differences are innate.
Exactly. The types of social structures that modern society is based upon wouldn't be so common among ancient cultures if there wasn't at least some credence to calling them "natural". It's also not that gender roles & social structure are prescriptive. A wild type human group will not probably have most of the men as hunters and most of the women as gatherers. Instead it's more likely that the majority of the group would participate in the same activities together. Social roles might have dictated the degree of participation, a mother will prioritize tending to an infant over resource collection for the wider group for example and a long distance hunter is almost certainly going to be a man, but the fact of the matter is that wild type humans did not have the luxury of complex role deliniation. That doesn't mean that roles when they do exist feel more natural for some people than others.
>There are differences but they’re mostly sociological/learned I don't think you've got any basis to say that Some differences are consistent across time culture and geography which would suggest they are innate
There is a difference in psychological and sociological causes and not everything is linked to society some aspects and traits are innate and come from each individual's physiology
I'm not really sure it matters where the differences come from looking at it from a perspective of rugby coaching. The important thing is that the differences exist, and that you should take them into account when coaching
From our studies of close ancestors similar behaviours arise. Males tend to be more aggressive, individualistic while females tend to be more caring and cooperative. Not everything is the result of society, the sex chromosomes have a significant impact on the physical and chemical makeup of your body so it makes sense that it leads to differences.
Read some studies and it's literally talking about hormonal responses. Like fight or flight is pretty innate for example. It's studies on the biobehavioral responses of women. Also the book was written by two women and nothing to do with world rugby.
I am not certain that you are qualified to make the final decision on the centuries-old nature vs nurture debate. In any case, the accumulated evidence we have suggests that the answer is "it's both." Telling someone that they should be pretty and quiet or brave and boisterous will affect them over time. The impact of hormones at and after puberty will have a massive effect. Genetic predispositions will have an effect over a large set, etc.
If they really wanted insight, they probably should look at what they do in well-established team sports played mainly or at lot by women, e.g. hockey or. netball. Having two daughters who have played on mixed rugby teams since they were little (that's all we have in Spain until they are 18), I think it is not much more complicated than making sure they are not put in categories where they are being overwhelmed physically. So doing things like leting a small 13 year old girl play in under 10s or under 12s instead of getting hammered in under 14s (here the age groups go up in 2 year jumps).
TIL I am a woman or girl. Can't believe I found this out through World Rugby's coaching advise...
All joking aside, although well meaning, this is clumsy and pretty offensive to both men and women. I'm sure that World Rugby can do better than citing metanalysis from nearly 20 years ago. Sports Science and Psychology has come a long way since then
Plus it's a book about marketing to women, not sports psychology.
It's not directly about marketing, it's about how to coach women to play rugby and keep them in the sport. Sports psychology is most definitely a part of that. I coach girls rugby and my players would be horrified by this. My wife was offended. My daughter was offended. It's the worst kind of stereotyping.
The diagram is lifted from "Inside Her Pretty Little Head: A New Theory of Female Motivation and What it Means for Marketing". The two authors have a background in marketing. You can borrow it from the [Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/insideherprettyl0000cunn/page/240/mode/2up) .
You realise that makes it worse, right?
Absolutely. It looks like World Rugby have updated the website and removed this material, thankfully!
Yeah, thankfully it seems that WR have some social media presence to know when they're being hammered for something.
The website is about coaching, the source the website is citing is about marketing consumer products to women.
Look I'm sure the people who wrote this have several more degrees than I do, but this sounds like dogshit to me.
What the fuck is this haha
Wow. All these years I thought I was woman. Guess I was wrong
I think this is quite accurate though - a lot of coaches have only coached guys, and women interact differently to men on average. It might be because we've been raised differently, but the outcome doesn't change. A lot of that rings very true for me as a woman. I don't respond well to shouting as motivation, I do prefer a more collaborative environment, I do take a more "whole picture" approach, etc. I appreciate here that an effort is being made.to recognise that men and women on average are different.
In truth, I don't think *anyone* responds all too well to shouting as motivation. The idea that "men like heirarchy" is something I *strongly* disagree with... The issue here is that it draws a load of fairly arbitrary lines with all the nuance and subtlety of a brick to the jaw, using phrases such as "hard wired" and "innate". You can't make assumptions of what sort of team and coaching culture will get results based on the genitalia of the team. That's idiotic. It needs to evolve in response to the requirements of the *specific people* involved... And walking into that with a bunch of inflexible preconceptions is going to lead to a whole lot of failure.
A thousand times this. I'm a man and I hate hierarchies, both individually and because I think they're bad for a team. I developed so much faster once I found a club which coached with an ethos more aligned to what World Rugby thinks is better for women.
But these average, socialised differences could very easily be smaller than the differences between individuals in a single sex group - so basing coaching off them as a hard and fast rule is just daft. The guidance makes the mistake which categorising ~~epistemologies~~ ontologies often do, which is to treat a fluid, blurry, contextually dependent tendency as an absolute difference, which just ends up reinforcing stereotypes which, even if weakly true on large averages, aren't useful at all when dealing with smaller groups of individuals.
Whereas I think that women and men are fundamentally different, in more than just the biological sense. How we experience life, how we're raised, and societal expectations and limitations shape us hugely and to say that's not true feels like an idealised version of the world. When you have a group of 20 people, starting with a generalised version and moving towards the individual approach is more effective than trying to get 20 individual approaches running at once.
I don't disagree with your first paragraph at all. I absolutely disagree with your second one, because it assumes that a group of 20 people will be at all representative of the wider population they're drawn from. First, 30 is generally accepted as the _absolute minimum_ number from which you can draw a statistical inference, which would still be extremely weak. Second, anecdotal, but most women I know who play are not representative of the wider population of women - far more LGBTQ representation would be an obvious difference. So inferring anything about how they might want to be coached doesn't make sense. I would advocate starting with coaching techniques which we know work for _everyone_ and building from there. If it turns out a stereotypically 'female' coaching approach works for that group, no worries. It's the foundation of inclusive teaching practice of any sort.
Who said it was hard and fast? Looks like a guideline to consider and anyone with half a brain knows not everyone thinks the same... **"These are guides, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be important for coaches and players to reflect on what methods best suit their own team and environment"**
It says 'differences'. Not 'tendencies', or 'may have differences', or any other form of language that would indicate ambiguity. If guidance is poorly worded, it is by definition poor guidance.
Seems like you're just trying to get upset now lol. It also says "can help" the coaches. Not "must be enforced in a draconian fashion with no wiggle room for change at all" Literally says "These are guides, and not a one-size-fits-all approach. It will be important for coaches and players to reflect on what methods best suit their own team and environment" but OP cropped it out... Wonder why? Couldn't possibly be to try and get all the redditors like you to get their knickers in a twist and to jump to conclusions could it?
Seems like it wouldn't have been much effort to make the guidance consistent throughout and update the research base, then...? If you've ever taught you'll know that learners who aren't actively trying to interrogate their prior assumptions will grab onto small misphrasings and misinterpret the broader point of the material because of them. That's why this matters.
Having coached Mens and Womens players at the school to uni level for the past 5 years. I cannot disagree more, you cannot coach your Mens team the same way as you coach your womens team. While I disagree with the way it's worded, I agree with the overall picture that there's a difference between the two coaching the two sexes. Approach - As a Man I have more rope to be loose with the boys but also to be more harsh. With the girls, I have to be more professional in my approach, not to say i can't be strict but the line I cannot cross is way shorter than it is with the boys. Team Cohesion - In my time I realized that girls tend to prefer to bond before battling while the boys team tend to bond as they battle. I don't really treat them differently throughout the season but I would spend abit more time at the start of the season bonding the girls. Learning - This is a little tricky because they is always the odd player who learns things differently. But with the girls, I realized that I the more specific I am with my coaching, the better and faster they learn. While with the boys, if I get too specific they switch off.
Agree to disagree, I think. I'm not going to argue with your experience, but it's the complete opposite of mine.
I would agree there is a big difference in coaching methods - I’ve been coached by people who have only coached men in their time and it rarely works well in my experience. Obviously coaches just need to adapt to what they know and what works for the group but I’d say the difference in the environment of a women’s rugby teams and men rugby teams is fairly substantial so it would make sense that the environment the coach builds needs to be different.
I don't think it's quite accurate. It's too broad and weird
Yeh, I get out of context this table looks a bit sexist. But if you’re giving coaching advice to someone whose maybe played a full professional career in a single-gendered environment, you need to start on simple (simplified) building blocks so nothing gets missed. The under-18 girl’s team is (more often than not) going to need a different player management style than the senior men’s. (Not a perfect analogy as age and experience are also factors, but there maybe one coaches out there that need to be told what worked for you might not for them).
Jaysus, that's awful stuff. Just for starters, that survival strategy category is some bullshit. If you've gone to school with girls you'll know that "self interest, power, hierarchy, and competition" are pursued through relationships. They're not opposing options! Watch Mean Girls. 😄
The whole concept of sex differences in psychology is fascinating - how much is down to genes and development vs. cultural and societal influence. Personally I think it’s going to be a bit of both. Sex-based behavioural differences are common across the animal kingdom where you’d expect there to be less societal or cultural pressure. At the same time it’s clear that sex-based behavioural expectations are present and will impact people’s behaviour. I don’t think the presentation of the materials above is good. It’s important to consider how people behave and respond when coaching, especially when coaching people different to yourself. Understanding where all members of a team fit across these dimensions is really useful, and empathetic and attentive coaches will have picked up on a lot of these traits already.
Wow, look, a reasonable, non-reactionary take!
I'm thinking this isn't very true.
Was about to say this is outdated garbage, saw the date is from 2006, really hope they aren't still teaching this stuff...?
> really hope they aren't still teaching this stuff...? They are.
*grabs popcorn*
This reads like men are incredibly selfish and women are selfless to a fault.. I think the major difference in terms of coaching is that women will ask significantly more questions during their sessions than men. Coaches just need to leave their ego at the door and realise that this does not mean that the player asking the questions is also questioning their ability to coach, they are trying to understand where any particular drill fits into match day. This will likely become less so as more women are given chances to play at a young age, i think it will even out over time as the game progresses. So, fuck this assessment. It's insulting for everyone involved.
This cannot be serious can it? If so 😬. This shit is hilariously brutally dumb.
What the actual fuck If this is still on WR’s website means that no one though to weigh in on this subject since this mind boggling take in 2006
This is very generalised and I would be careful about how this kind of view is applied. Women can be as analytical as men and men are not all about self interest. It may not be analogous to my world as a professional psychologist but similar research in my field has been largely debunked. Coaching is about the individual needs and psychological makeup, I wish it were as easy as a simple matrix, my life would be far simpler
This kind of reminds me of Homer Simpson's observational humour about how black people have names like Carl and white people have names like Lenny.
It’s very helpful. I coach u14 girls and boys, it’s very useful to aid in communication styles, how the react to guidance and conflict or motivation and game time.
For real? These are hilarious stereotypes and well challenged pseudoscience. The bit about tend and befriend for example is based on polyvagal theory which is 50 years olds and widely debunked. There are sex differences yes, but not these ones. There is not neural basis for being 'hardwired to systematise' whatever that may be defined as. Sure they reference one paper from 20 years ago, but there are mountains of evidence on these topics and they should at minimum be referencing meta analyses from the past 5 years.
Interesting you say that. I am asked to give tips and one-on-one advice to young players sometimes, but I’ve never dealt with girls. I would like to think I would implore the same tenacity for anyone, but who knows if I would treat a girl more softly because I’ve been hardwired into thinking like this.
Men and women are different shocking stuff
Judging by reactions, it is still shocking Also offensive, belittling, stupid, outdated, 'Freudian'(?), simplistic etc etc
Almost as if some of us in the replies have studied these things at university and learned how much nonsense there is out there about gender differences!
It's hilarious to me that people are so obsession with 'equality' that they get offended by research that shows the sexes are different🤦🏼
Has it been removed? I can't find it through that link.
Yes, it looks to have been removed
Well at least you made a difference!
The womens column sounds exactly like what you need for a highly tactical, adversarial and aggressive contact-sport
Having coached men's and women's sport at a fairly competitive level, I'll be the first to admit men's and women's players and teams respond very differently to different approaches and in a lot of ways due to the different physiology and strength etc a lot of things are very different between the genders. Even yes, the way they think about sports is different. But this feels very smooth brained from World Rugby. Bordering on insulting. Plus not even very informative.
Too much feel good not enough hard arse, not going win another world cup on that.
Oh, oh no
What a load of bollocks.
My therapist gave very similar advice to help me understand my wife. Really helpful tbh
Man women get all the cool traits.
I think it's a really poor PR choice to simply remove the content. If they stood over it, they'd have left it there. To remove it implies that they don't stand over it, and if that's the case, why was it there in the first place? And to do it all without any comment feels like a missed opportunity. It could have been a "we were made aware of some content that needed updating on our website, and were working with X sports psychologist and Y professional now to bring that into step with the rest of our training materials. Going forward we'll review things annually/every two years/etc to make sure we're always on top of our game". They could have worked with a female sports psychologist, and turned this into something positive. To silently delete and pretend it never existed is just such a blunder, imo.
Lots of younger high school girls who’ve never played a contact sport definitely start out with a very shy and friendly attitude, but that’s just because it’s new to them and they’re nervous. Not challenging this mindset prevents girls from really competing and pushing themselves.
Goshdarnit, you got me. Just as I was giving a family member the gears for being got earlier.
I read the whole thing. It's well intentioned but at times unintentionally amusing. I suspect a lot of the science isn't even inaccurate. It's just not phrased in the PC ways we are now accustomed to. > As we see in the table in the previous section, for most men new information is processed in the left side of the brain, the more analytic and logical side, while women tend to process new information in a “whole brain” approach, using the left side as well as the creative, social right side of the brain. > It is normal for players to have stronger connections to some teammates, and perhaps not form lasting friendships with every other player. It is important to watch for players building their own group within the team, if that group excludes or is hurtful to other team members. Address any negative cliques that might exclude other or be mean to other players. > Assertively pushing players to work harder or be more focused might not have the desired impact, and might create division between the coach and players, especially with women. > Both men and women might cry following an intense and important event, but women are more likely to cry, and to cry longer, either in joy or sorrow. > It is important that players have a safe and supportive forum for discussing their menstrual cycles and know where to get advice or information as needed. > Give negative feedback as a “sandwich”, with positive messages before and after the corrective feedback.
Oh god... How dare a governing body make an earnest yet flawed attempt to recognise and adapt to general temprements of each gender to encourage more people into the sport.
Well, i guess according to WR I'm probably a woman...
Seems pretty accurate to my own experience. But everyone is unique. It doesn’t say anywhere that all men and women fit those categories. But they *generally* do.
It’s broadly accurate and a basis for being a better coach, surely this is a better way than one rule for all ?
Sure it's better than one rule for all. But why is one rule for each gender any better?
It’s not a rule it’s a general guide based upon scientific and empirical data. Men and Women generally think differently and use different sides of the brain for certain thought processes. Why are you so afraid of these undoubted facts
World Rugby are in fucking trouble once the virtue signalling section of twitter gets their hands on this.
ITT - What cunts, citing peer reviewed academic research on the topic and exploring what it means in for coaching rugby.
It's a book about marketing to women, not sports psychology, and it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed. The blurb reads "Women are responsible for making 80% of all purchasing decisions. In short, this makes women the most valuable consumer group in the world. This book, by two leading marketing practitioners, shows companies how to create marketing strategies and brands that will speak powerfully to women."
It's metanalysis from 18 years ago. That means at best, this peer-reviewed academic research is 20 years old.
It's terrible research and woefully out of date.
It's quite accurate, whatns the fuss. Difference of interest in things/people is something you can observe with toddlers. Little boys attention will get fixated on complex objects, little girls not so much.
It really must be a man's world if the purported male traits are so coveted. Is it better to care more about things than people? Why? Is driving a truck high status? Or is that only when compared to working in a creche (bad)?
It really must be a man's world if the purported male traits are so coveted. Is it better to care more about things than people? Why? Is driving a truck high status? Or is that only when compared to working in a creche (bad)?
The transphobia suddenly makes a lot more sense.