A recent Women's eNews essay made a bold claim: menopause isn't decline, it's evolution's design for female leadership… and, the science backs it up more than you might think.
The "grandmother hypothesis." Anthropologist Kristen Hawkes' influential theory holds that women's long post-reproductive lifespan evolved because grandmothers who kept provisioning and caring for grandchildren helped us develop a whole array of social capacities that became the foundation for other distinctly human traits, including pair bonding, bigger brains, learning new skills, and cooperation.
Women survive the worst of it. A landmark PNAS study of famines, epidemics, and enslavement found that even when mortality was very high, women lived longer on average than men, with much of the advantage traceable to infant girls outsurviving infant boys, evidence the edge is biological, not just social.
Stronger immune defenses. Across flu, measles, yellow fever, and hepatitis vaccines, women generally develop stronger innate and adaptive immune responses than men, leading to faster clearance and control of infection.
Reading people better. Multiple meta-analyses, summarized in a PMC review, found a small but significant female advantage in recognizing emotional facial expressions across development, a skillset with obvious value for group cohesion and conflict resolution.
None of this proves women are "better" in some absolute sense, many of these are small average differences with individual variation. But it does suggest the biology behind women's post-reproductive decades, immune resilience, and social attunement isn't incidental. It may be exactly why our species made it this far.
A new study out of UC Santa Barbara found that people recommend lower salaries for the exact same job simply when it's described as employing more women.
Researchers had participants review a management-consulting role, a field generally seen as gender-neutral, with the only variable being the share of women workers (25%, 45%, or 67%). When the job was framed as majority-female, respondents recommended nearly $1,000 less per year in salary, regardless of whether the respondent was a man or a woman.
The effect wasn't gradual. The 45% group drew pay recommendations about level with the 25% group, and devaluation only kicked in once the job read as clearly majority-women. Researchers also tested whether people simply assumed female-dominated fields meant less-skilled or less-committed workers, but ratings of skill, commitment, and value barely budged, suggesting the pay penalty isn't really about perceived competence at all.
The findings back up sociologist Paula England's decades-old "devaluation theory": that work becomes cheaper in people's eyes once it's associated with women, not because the work itself changes.
Author, Catherine Taylor, argues this helps explain part of the persistent gender pay gap, women still earn about 85 cents for every dollar men earn, beyond simply "women choosing lower-paying jobs." Her recommendation for employers: standardize pay based on objective factors like education and experience rather than leaving it to subjective judgment calls.
Middle age women, let’s rave! In NC? Join DanceHer!
Looks like superhero films still have a misogyny problem.
For Gen Z, it’s their parents fault. Are they wrong?
Hack your time. Slow it down when everything feels like it’s speeding up.
Need a fashion transition into fall?
Womenswear, Reformation has a $1 billion valuation target with US IPO.
Did Barbault’s Basket gift you a new era?
Love what you see? Forward to a friend! We'd be forever grateful. 🙏🏼
Wanna partner? Click here.
Other ways to support? Buy our fervent feminist writer a coffee.
