CAT Exam  >  CAT Questions  >  Gender is not an easy conversation to have. I... Start Learning for Free
Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.
Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.
Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.
We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.
We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.
In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundred years, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.
 
Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that: 
  • a)
    Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.
  • b)
    Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.
  • c)
    Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.
  • d)
    There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.
Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Verified Answer
Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomforta...
Option 1 is not apt as the passage states that both boys and girls receive a meagre amount as pocket money. Even if girls receive a meagre amount of pocket money it does not hold any ground for the boys’ stealing behaviour.
Option 3 is an incorrect assumption. If both boys and girls are socialized to have the same value, then the quoted text would not hold true.
Option 4 with “social situations” is not apt. Stealing is an anti-social behaviour. If the quoted text were about “dating”, then option 4 would be apt.
The quoted text is talking about stealing and how more boys (than girls) are engaging in this behaviour. Thus, it is safe to assume that society expects boys to pay the bills because of which there is an increased pressure on them to obtain money by alternative means.
Hence, the correct answer is option 2.
This question is part of UPSC exam. View all CAT courses
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that? Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not naturally in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speaka hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not the boy has to pay, but rather, whoever has more should pay. Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.The statement Boys will no longer have the pressure ofproving their masculinity by material means.- implies

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that? Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not naturally in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speaka hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not the boy has to pay, but rather, whoever has more should pay. Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.Which of these statements weakens the authors views on gender in the passage?

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers "Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s]he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)".A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do “strategically” lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counter-act the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations.Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e.,consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more dissatisfied when products perform worse than expecte d) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture-specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation Sensitivity on consumerConsider the following assertion and conclusion: Assertion: The meaning of karma in the above passage (refer to first two lines of the paragraph in italics.)Conclusion: Belief that long term consequences are important.Now read the following statements carefully.1. The conclusion will always follow the assertion.2. The conclusion may follow the assertion.3. The conclusion may follow the assertion only if an individual lives long enough.4. The conclusion cannot follow the assertion.Q. Which of the following statement (s) is correct?

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers "Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s]he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)".A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do “strategically” lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counter-act the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations.Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e.,consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more dissatisfied when products perform worse than expecte d) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture-specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation Sensitivity on consumerQ. Which of the following statements, if true, would contradict the first of the three premises mentioned in the first paragraph?

Directions: Analyse the following passage and provide appropriate answers "Whatever actions are done by an individual in different embodiments, [s]he reaps the fruit of those actions in those very bodies or embodiments (in future existences)".A belief in karma entails, among other things, a focus on long run consequences, i.e., a long term orientation. Such an orientation implies that people who believe in karma may be more honest with themselves in general and in setting expectations in particular-a hypothesis we examine here. This research is based on three simple premises. First, because lower expectations often lead to greater satisfaction, individuals in general, and especially those who are sensitive to the gap between performance and expectations, have the incentive to and actually do “strategically” lower their expectations. Second, individuals with a long term orientation are likely to be less inclined to lower expectations in the hope of temporarily feeling better. Third, long term orientation and the tendency to lower expectations are at least partially driven by cultural factors. In India, belief in karma, with its emphasis on a longer term orientation, will therefore to some extent counter-act the tendency to lower expectations. The empirical results support our logic; those who believe more strongly in karma are less influenced by disconfirmation sensitivity and therefore have higher expectations.Consumers make choices based on expectations of how alternative options will perform (i.e., expected utility). Expectations about the quality of a product also play a central role in subsequent satisfaction. These expectations may be based on a number of factors including the quality of a typical brand in a category, advertised quality, and disconfirmation sensitivity. Recent evidence suggests that consumers, who are more disconfirmation sensitive (i.e.,consumers who are more satisfied when products perform better than expected or more dissatisfied when products perform worse than expecte d) have lower expectations. However, there is little research concerning the role of culture-specific variables in expectation formation, particularly how they relate to the impact of disconfirmation Sensitivity on consumerRead the following statements carefully:1. Temporary feelings and law of karma are independent2. As per theory of karma, temporary feelings would not lower the expectation.3. Temporary feelings and law of karma are contradictory.Q. Which of the following combination of statements is consistent with the second premise?

Top Courses for CAT

Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Gender is not an easy conversation to have. It makes people uncomfortable, sometimes even irritable. Both men and women are resistant to talk about gender, or are quick to dismiss the problems of gender. Because thinking of changing the status quo is always uncomfortable.Some people ask: "Why the word feminist? Why not just say you are a believer in human rights, or something like that?" Because that would be dishonest. Feminism is, of course, part of human rights in general - but to choose to use the vague expression human rights is to deny the specific and particular problem of gender. It would be a way of pretending that it was not women who have, for centuries, been excluded. It would be a way of denying that the problem of gender targets women. That the problem was not about being human, but specifically about being a female human. For centuries, the world divided human beings into two groups and then proceeded to exclude and oppress one group. It is only fair that the solution to the problem acknowledge that.Some men feel threatened by the idea of feminism. This comes, I think, from the insecurity triggered by how boys are brought up, how their sense of self-worth is diminished if they are not "naturally" in charge as men.We do a great disservice to boys in how we raise them. We stifle the humanity of boys. We define masculinity in a very narrow way. Masculinity is a hard, small cage, and we put boys inside this cage.We teach boys to be afraid of fear, of weakness, of vulnerability. We teach them to mask their true selves, because they have to be, in Nigerian-speak—a hard man.In secondary school, a boy and a girl go out, both of them teenagers with meager pocket money. Yet the boy is expected to pay the bills, always, to prove his masculinity. (And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.) What if both boys and girls were raised not to link masculinity and money? What if their attitude was not "the boy has to pay," but rather, "whoever has more should pay." Of course, because of their historical advantage, it is mostly men who will have more today. But if we start raising children differently, then in fifty years, in a hundredyears, boys will no longer have the pressure of proving their masculinity by material means.Q.“And we wonder why boys are more likely to steal money from their parents.” We can assume from the quoted text that:a)Girls receive a meagre sum of pockect money.b)Societal expectations for boys and girls differ.c)Boys and girls are socialized to respect money.d)There is increased pressure on boys to perform in social situations.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.
Explore Courses for CAT exam

Top Courses for CAT

Explore Courses
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev