According to U.S. News & World Report, two new studies show that people associate anger with male faces and happiness with female ones. When subjects were shown androgynous faces that looked angry, they were more likely to identify them as male. But if the faces looked happy or fearful, people were more likely to label them as female. And in another experiment, subjects were slower to identify faces as female if the faces looked pissed off. Says psychologist Ursula Hess, "The present research shows that the association between anger and men and happiness and women is so strong that it can influence the decisions about the gender of another person when that person is viewed briefly."

In another study, researchers gave women testosterone pills and studied how they played a cooperation-based game. The game involved giving one woman $10 and instructing her to choose an amount to offer her partner. If the partner turned down the offer, neither got money. Women who received testosterone were no less generous than their peers — unless they were told they'd gotten the hormone. Those who knew they'd gotten testosterone "stood out with their conspicuously unfair offers," wrote the study authors. Lead author Ernst Fehr says that when asked about how they thought testosterone would affect them, the subjects said things like, "Oh, testosterone would make me more egotistic, more risk-taking and more aggressive." In other words, they thought testosterone would make them drive a harder bargain, and so they did just that, even though the testosterone alone might have had no effect.

What's interesting about these studies is that they show how deeply ingrained our perceptions of masculinity and femininity are — and, in the case of the bargaining study, how these perceptions may be even stronger than reality. Are women actually happier than men? Are men more angry? Probably not — but we may be socialized to express these emotions more freely, with the result that they become associated with gender. The result looks a lot like a feedback loop: girls are told it's not feminine to get mad, so they avoid making mad faces, and so people begin to think that anger is for men, and the cycle begins all over again. Similarly, if women learn that aggression is "male," they may not behave aggressively (except when hopped up on testosterone), further reinforcing this stereotype. The finding that this stereotype outstrips the actual effects of testosterone underscores the fact that gender differences are problematic, and that we shouldn't be too quick to assume that any difference in behavior has a biological basis. As Michael Naef, co-author of the testosterone study, says, "In a society where qualities and manners of behavior are increasingly traced to biological causes...this should make us sit up and take notice."

Are Angry Women More Like Men? [U.S. News & World Report]
Women On Testosterone Only Think They're Macho [New Scientist]
Testosterone "Prompts Fair Play, Not Aggression" [Reuters]

Car repair? That's for boys. That look on his face says: "I'm thinking about overcharging you."

Cooking and cleaning? That's for girls. The young lady on the left might also be discovering that a frying pan can double as a weapon, but that's for advanced users.

Grilling? That's for boys. Even though cooking on a stove is for girls, if you cook with fire, you're following our ancestor, Homo Erectus. Early Man, not Early Woman!

Playing with your food is something both girls and boys can do; although only girls work at McDonald's.

Related: When I was four, I loved McDonald's intensely and thought it was a burger and shake heaven on earth. So when a teacher asked me — the only black kid in my pre-k class — what I wanted to do when I grew up, I said "work at McDonald's." My mom witnessed this interaction and, I think, almost died of disappointment.

Being a pretty princess, wearing make-up and jewelry? That's for girls.

And just because you're a princess doesn't mean you shouldn't bake, make toast or blend a smoothie. Duh. That's what girls do.

A plush pet condo, for girls ages 2 and up. Because it's never too early to be a crazy cat lady!

Something all girls look forward to: Graduating from a baking princess to a Queen Of Clean. Maybe someday she'll be in one of those sad mop commercials Sarah Haskins is always making fun of.

Don't tell Danica Patrick, but car racing is for boys. Falling in love is for girls.

Sports are for boys.

Except soccer. Girls can play soccer. And whatever that other thing is.

OMG progress: Girls can be doctors! Or star in primetime medical dramas!

But boys can be paleontologists, truckers, law enforcement officials or doctors.

Lilly's Kids [Official Site]

Earlier: All previous catalog posts

Basically, Lange's entire thesis is that since women are, like, all fuzzy and soft and nice and whatnot, the world will be a better place! Because all women are one way and all men are another way, and never should you judge individuals based on their individual merits and talents, you should always stereotype by gender. I mean, Hillary Clinton's a woman, Sarah Palin's a woman, it's all the same.

What's clear is that, on average, men overestimate their IQ while women underestimate theirs. And that may be a clue, in terms of effectiveness: While decisiveness and risk-taking matter, hubris (too often male) creates problems. Humility and collaboration (more often female) solve them. What explains the difference?

It could simply be a matter of emotional need, reinforced by generations of gender stereotyping. Seeking competition and challenge, guys do tend to cast things in shades of conflict: defaulting to a win/lose, right ("my") position versus wrong ("yours").

I mean, he qualifies it, so it must be ok, right?

Oh, and then there is of course the reductive evolutionary argument that one always has to drag out.

The difference could be evolutionary. Primordial hunters (men) had to make rapid decisions and act on them, right or wrong, but quickly. Chase that bunny! Club that rival! Run away! Gatherers (women), meanwhile, needed an awareness of the larger context – knowing which berry bushes would ripen when, how to keep the kids from clonking each other with rocks, and generally holding the tribe together and getting things done.

No matriarchal societies, no male gatherers, no farming communities, we basically all roamed the African plains united in gendered specialization of labor until there were cities.

Oh, and you know it's also 'cause we're all short.

Or, in a world where our reverence for stature remains primitive, it's possible women just have to be more creative, collaborative, and clever when they average five inches shorter and 27 pounds lighter than men.

The next person that suggests that I'm "creative, collaborative and clever" because I'm short is going to get punched in the knees.

And there are, of course, learned male ways of thinking inherent in our male leaders that are in now way taught or learned by female leaders, too.

Male cognitive patterns of linear, command-and-control thinking are no longer optimal – either with Gen-Y talent in the workplace, or with geopolitical conflict around the world.

So, when women take over the world, everything will change and be better! Because women and men are inherently different!

As women ascend as leaders in policy and business, the decisions they make will be more accountable to a wider array of interests, stakeholders, and outcomes. By example, they will teach us to lead less through positional authority and more through positive influence- with more of a bias toward informed action and a clearer connection between everything we know, and all we have to do.

Oh, it's so nice to be the "better" sex sometimes, right? No snakes and snails and puppy-dog tails, it's all sugar and spice and everything nice, with a pink rug in the Oval Office and some prettier camo on the tanks.

What If Women Ran The World? [Christian Science Monitor]

Yes, there is a social expectation that women will be the primary caretaker of children, and it's great that the government takes some small steps to allow women to transition more easily back into the workforce and have flexible hours if they want them. But by putting those responsibilities solely on women, the government is basically saying that it is, in fact, a woman's role to be the primary caregiver. That's not actually a great thing for equality.

Duncan Fisher, who heads the British think tank the Fathers Institute, hits the nail on the head with two points: gender stereotypes in child-rearing are reinforced by unequal pay with which women struggle; and "allowing" women to transfer part of their government-mandated leave to their husbands does nothing to give men equal opportunities and continues to reinforce the idea that it is a woman's role.

Furthermore, both Brewer and Fisher pointed out that while it's great for the government to allow people to take leave, both genders struggle with the fact that actually doing so can cause harm to their careers. Brewer notes that many women are being ignored for positions because of the expectation that they will take their full year and ask for flexible hours, while Fisher notes that men are often looked down upon for taking time away from their careers to help rear their children.

It is great for a government to mandate employer-flexibility for parental leave, but it's crappy for both parents and the society as a whole when doing so continues to reinforce the stereotype that child-rearing is "women's work." It's also worse when it's tied up in issues like pay disparities (which the government is also trying to tackle). Parental leave issues are tied to equality both in the workplace and in society as a whole, and caught up in everything from child care costs and availability to the way "flexible" hours are viewed by employers to pay disparities and gender stereotypes. While the government can't mandate that fathers stay home or put an end to stereotypes about the appropriate gender roles in relationships, it could at least try not to reinforce outdated ideas of gender stereotypes like the idea that a stay-at-home dad is something so unusual.

Equality Laws 'Are Now Holding Women Back' [The Times]
Paid Maternity Leave Does Us No Favours Either, Say Fathers [The Times]