Women’s demands on how society should be run have been over-voiced and over-served. They couldn’t care less if their utopia works for men. Leeching masculinity from humanity, to optimize for females, has been the political and cultural project of our time. Of course feminists want more. What narcissistic, self-indulgent power group doesn’t?
As a feminist, I have to disagree. The feminization described by Andrews is real - and pernicious. It may be true that it is the result of cultural processes rather than any inherent biological characteristics of males and females but it does not change the fact that it has gone too far. Barclay actually contradicts herself, claiming on the one hand that women behave differently in groups from men, and yet insisting that a huge influx of women and of feminine-style behavior into workplace does not change anything. Yes, it does. The most important aspect of this change is the privileging of empathy and moral intuition over logic and ethical reasoning. This behavior is culturally gendered as feminine, and women are socialized to embrace it, to our own detriment. When you are told that "being kind" is more important that being right, you are pushed into an insincere performative ethics that is damaging to society and to your own integrity. Women are not a problem. Femininity is.
This is how we get stupidity in our culture. The womanization of all at the expense of reason.
Take pronouns. You can almost hear the elementary school teacher: “you can be anything you want to be”. “Don’t let anyone tell you who you are”. “If you can dream it, you can be it!”.
Feminization has fundamentally destroyed reasonable fairness. Take trans - the hot button of our time (which is absurd given they are well beneath 1% our population yet we give the issue so much undeserved weight): the female value of egalitarianism - belonging for all - metastasizes from good to ludicrous when fused with policy and institutional power allowing biological men to smash biological women in contests of speed and strength. It’s feminism run amok because it’s fused to power. And any “ism” fused to power (Islamism, globalism) becomes predatory and self preserving.
This is why Women are good and Feminism is bad.
And lest any feminists take offense - ask honestly: how do you feel about the Manosphere? Hmmm? Do you think the inverse is a good thing? Would you, in your abundance of moral superiority, advocate for “Masculinism”? Would you ever be so fair?
No. You wouldn’t. Because it stands in opposition to feminist goals and demands.
it's ok for little kids to be told "you can be everything/anything you want to be". They still might. By high school time they will know that is no longer true, though they will still be told this by a lot of over-idealistic teachers.
"First, the Great Feminization hypothesis relies on the sweeping assumption that men are rational, while women are emotional. Of course, anger—the emotion most associated with men—is excluded from this analysis, which is strange given that it guides so much of a certain president’s behavior."
The fantastic inference here is that women don't have anger issues... that anger is a uniquely male emotion. Yeah, right. Tell my wife that.
We are talking about evolutionary biology related to gender and associated tendencies and behaviors.
The first concept we have to accept is egoism. There is no real egalitarianism. Those claims are just "good person" virtue signaling backing self-pursuit of ego fulfillment. So, we are all selfish and narcissistic. It is human nature.
Males demonstrate overt narcissism. The reason is that males have the strength and size to kill each other in man-to-man combat. Men signal their anger by thumping their chest, but most also learn that uncontrolled anger results in risk that some other man will take them out in defense of their out-of-control anger. Men often show their anger as a message to other men to leave them alone, but they generally know better than to act on it immediately. They are overt in their display, but they compartmentalize the feelings, so they don't make mistakes in behavior that pose a risk. Their anger might influence their behavior later (like going to war to protect females), but generally in their strategy to win. Men that lack immediate emotional regulation capability are often those in prison or dead from conflict with other men.
Conversely, individual women are less dangerous and more at risk for being killed by men. Women don't display their anger, because it would cause stronger men to respond of the perceived threat. Women hold it in for immediate defense, but they don't generally compartmentalize... it continues to burn and generate a big pile of resentment.
This translates into females having a hidden emotional agenda different from the one they display. Contrast that to males that tend to have one face to make sure others know where they stand at all times.
Females are also less independent and more likely to collect together in a group. Again, this is largely evolutionary as stronger males tended to be the hunter-gather and warrior while the women stayed back with other women to tend the village and raise the children.
Because they are less likely to prevail in direct overt conflict, females have developed other strategies to win. This is where the vulnerable narcissism play of modern feminism has come into play... and along with the tendency of hidden agendas, frankly, has made a big fucking mess of everything.
The key traits are hypersensitivity to criticism (and I expect in response to my comment), victim mentality, entitlement, social anxiety, envy and resentment.
The general problem is the erosion of trust. Female dominated structures and institutions tend to demonstrate this hidden agenda. Female workgroups tend to include much more drama than do male workgroups. Hidden resentments, back-stabbing, character assassination, etc., they are all common behaviors with the female hive. I have been a corporate manager for over 45 years and I have observed this over and over again. The female tendency is to act cooperative but burn with resentment over the slightest slight or criticism and work covertly to undermine the target of their resentment. I can mediate a conflict with female workers and see it keep boiling back up again over and over again. For males, often they slug it out and go get a beer after work.
This difference in emotive behavior that seems to be explained by gender evolutionary biology is why history does not hold a single example of any long-running and significant societal and governmental female dominance.
We are playing with a once in history test to promote females to socioeconomic dominance, and it is not working well at all. Maybe someday in the future our human nature will evolve to accommodate the changes, but today almost everything wrong... this note of so much social and economic chaos... is because we blew through the reasonable goal of early feminism to secure choice for women, to this 3rd wave postmodernist critical theory woke bullshit that is pushed by malcontents to put females in a position of socioeconomic power.
Hey girls, go get married, have babies and make some sandwiches. Or if that does not sound good, go to school, get some professional credential and be a girlboss career woman.
But stop this man-hating, girl-power, raging lunatic, movement to redesign society to fit your lack of emotional regulation capability. It sucks.
Ms. Barclay completely fails to address the "feelings over facts" dichotomy that is at the heart of the issue. Of course women CAN be rational and most are, but given the different personality traits, women will be more emotional under certain circumstance than men (and it's proven they broadly are.. all the psych literature confirms it) LOOK IT UP. the Somme example is silly. Generals always draw lessons from such events and they are rarely repeated (though may be mirrored under different circumstances) Ms. Barclay also doesn't adequately address how the Title IX "guidelines" completely upended the innocent prior to proven guilty part. She conveniently fails to address how the "Me Too" movement went way too far the other way, and this was observed by a large group of French women who raised their eyebrows and even wrote about it. Does Ms. Barclay believe that that the feminists in the Anglosphere (US/UK/Australia) are "better educated" about such things than women elsewhere? Ms. Barclay's final claim about "undervalued" occupations is more trope nonsense which avoids the key economic question of supply and demand. "Undervalued" jobs are jobs where supply outstrips demand, and clearly there is a paucity of a particular skillset which drives the supply/demand equation. We're back to the old canard that "teachers are more valuable" than professional athletes or that female pro athletes "deserve" the exact same pay as male pro athletes. Not in the economic sense they don't, and simple economics is what drives salaries and earnings and out entire lives in almost every society. And now we are again BACK to the "feelings over facts" where Ms Barclay proves the point by suggesting that certain (female dominated) jobs are "undervalued". In market economics, thing which are overvalued or undervalued rarely stay that way for any prolonged length of time as entrepreneurs (or simple arbitrage in financial markets) will "fix" the valuation. Her claim isn't underwritten by any facts, it's simply her 'feeling(s)".
To Ms. Barclay's counter-argument in this column, I offer up one example of the differing core principles by sex that can be openly observed: SCOTUS. So many cases decided on a 6-3 vote with the same 3 women in the minority making arguments too often based in 'fairness' and 'feelings', but offering little that is based on the constitution and/or law. And for those who would point out the short record to date of ACB's votes, she is the exception that proves the rule.
I agree that Andrew's article is facile, Malcolm Gladwell style - get a clever insight and flog it for all its worth. And of course, it has an element of truth. I have always felt that Wokeism has a religious dimension as well as a propaganda dimension.
Religious in that it offers people ethical framework, absolution from original sin, a feeling of virtue. The propaganda dimension is related. You can be highly privileged, and working for the Man ( and earning good money doing it) but if you are woke enough you can somehow feel absolved. We see that the elites of society, the global CEO's, the bankers, their corporations, are some of the most happy to profess woke values.
It looks to me as though you are arguing against a straw man.
Any serious student of human sexual dimorphism understands that these differences are _on average_. Almost everyone uses a blend of these strategies. The particular blend any individual employs will vary over time.
I agree with you about blend, but how much blend of male dynamics do you see in many of these workplaces? how much blend was there in the roll out of Title IX sexual assault allegations? (and then add on things like racial dynamics, remember the Duke lacrosse team? I also agree with you on the fact that the differences are fairly minute. say 10%, but if you go to the extremes of the distribution curve, those differences are massive , hence 99% of violent criminals are male . What percentage of men are running around social media talking about their "trauma"???? (from the most insignificant nonsense") How many men do you know that need to feel 'safe" (and consider the varying interpretations of "safety" by gender at school work, etc???
The author makes some great points...and some not so great ones.
I hope everyone can acknowledge the great points, which I will not address, other than to say some of Andrews’ arguments are a little OTT.
I think a major part of the problem, not just here but in many discussions, is the improper use of what I’ll call categoricals. Using Women for not all women, or using Men for not all men is a problem. In the current case, the argument that most of the wokeness in our society has been driven by females, does not mean that Women (all women) or even most women are woke, and that there aren’t plenty of competent, rational women who we should be listening to about societal issues. Once again, language matters.
Having said that, I do have to start by recognizing that it must be a tough go to live one’s life with Simone de Beauvior whispering in your ear (can you believe that was 75 years ago?). The world has changed and really bears no resemblance to the past. Anecdotes about endometriosis notwithstanding, women are more than fairly treated today. In fact, for upper middle class / professional women I would argue they are literally treated more than fairly. So, please enough of the victimhood, it is not part of a broader trend. I can assure you that men also have their medical complaints dismissed and if they went to doctors as often as the average woman, I bet it would occur just as often.
Yes, social media has had an impact, but this has affected women more than men, a point I think Jonathan Haidt makes also. I believe women, on average, are inherently more social and heed the opinions of others more strongly than men do, and are therefore more susceptible to persuasion (the world of course would be a better place if we were all more susceptible to "Persuasion"). Social media is therefore a more effective broadcast system for disseminating views to women than men.
The reversal or slowing of woke is a result of pushback, not that it isn’t aligned with “the expression of typically female behavior”.
It’s true that more men than women are CEOs (I’m not sure this is true broadly about managers in general, I suspect it depends with the industry) but HR departments are almost entirely led and staffed by women, and HR departments now set the rules for office behavior. CEOs have less power here (depends on the organization) certainly than they used to.
As far as industries being paid less because they are female dominated, I believe this argument to be a case of “wet roads cause rain” or a reversal of cause and effect. Men are driven to higher paid industries because their mate value increases when they can collect more resources (ie more women value men in these positions). This is not so for women – fewer men value their partner’s earnings or work status. This also explains why more men will continue to be CEOs, because you have to be specially motivated to devote your life exclusively to your work. In general, men will do whatever job pays them the most money.
Now are women on average inherently more aligned with woke principles? In looking around my social circle it is undoubtedly so. But leaving anecdotal evidence aside, most woke institutions or organizations I see are led by women. It’s not even close. Maybe we should make a list and see.
Yes. Enough victim whining feminists. You aren’t victims. The world throws rose petals at your feet. Just say thank you. Just adopt gratitude. Drop the exhausting, gaslighting victimhood scam. You’re so used to the narrative that you didn’t notice it stopped being true LONG AGO.
Imagine if men acted this way. Complained incessantly this way. Played the weak, put upon victim this way. We would be disgusted with ourselves.
If you think those "sweeping assumptions" are suspect, then maybe take men and women at their own word.
A 2021 survey of top psychology professors found that then men were significantly more likely to prioritize the pursuit of truth as the main purpose of science, while women were more committed to advancing what is morally desirable, such as equity, inclusion, and protecting the vulnerable.
It's hard to look at the recent era as anything other than the systemic shifting of institutional priorities away from the former and towards the latter.
If you don't think women are still judged unfairly in some ways, if a woman candidate for President had five children with three different husbands, do you think she'd be judged by the same standard as Donald Trump?
If she ran a real estate empire for 50 years, and had a celebrity reality show for 10, and was a billionaire, and told the faltering lower socio-economic classes that she would stand for them, then the answer is yes for most people. Try and ask fully relevant questions instead of cherry picking straw-people.
I came into the legal profession just as women were beginning (in a VERY SMALL WAY) to make headway in admission to law school. Within a couple of years, the editor-in-chief of the law review was a woman, and the women graduates in my class went on to have productive (and in some cases, distinguished) careers. As a man, I have benefited greatly from the friendship, mentorship, and general advice of the women in my two careers (law and ministry). We men need to get over the idea that the differences between men and women (social, biological, historical) are antagonistic to a better functioning social and political environment.
I am sure this is absolutely correct. I feel the very same way. Some of my best bosses in my 2nd career have been women. But I think the point that was made that these dynamics change when a field/area becomes dominated by group women dynamics, and/or when the general culture accepts the group female dynamics. I'm not suggesting the prior male dynamics were the best outcome, I agree it should be a blend. so what you've seen is what always happens . There is a problem, there is movement to address the problem, and in the process they swing completely the other way and throw out the baby with the bathwater (happens with almost every "progressive" issue)
I’m not sure which “baby” is being thrown out (a metaphor I dislike), but yes, there can be extremists who try to take over a field. I wouldn’t restrict this dynamic to “progressive” issues. The current MAGA movement is populated by those who have taken the rightful grievances of those whose lives and whose viewpoints have been obscured (some would say obliterated) by the elites and turned it into an exercise in nihilism.
indeed. that's why the obsession with identitarianism on the left was such a stupid idea to begin with. Plenty of people foresaw precisely the effect you describe
Nursing and primary education have long been female-dominated professions. I haven’t heard any reports of some analog of cancel culture having been prominent in them.
From what I can tell, Nursing is not very woke. I put this down to the fact it is very hands on and practical. The disctinction between "physicals" and "virtuals" comes to mind, ie Nursing is more akin to blue collar work, although I'm sure it depends on the type of nursing.
On the other hand, Education is one of the primary repositories of wokism. Replete with Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux, and social emotional learning, many primary school educators and administrators are adament critical theorists, although not all. What better way to effect the revolution than to get them when they are young.
Women’s demands on how society should be run have been over-voiced and over-served. They couldn’t care less if their utopia works for men. Leeching masculinity from humanity, to optimize for females, has been the political and cultural project of our time. Of course feminists want more. What narcissistic, self-indulgent power group doesn’t?
Barclay makes a rational argument, you respond with hysteria and name-calling. A master class in how to undermine your own case.
Wrong
what a fantastic reply that perfectly illustrates the awesome power of male rationality!
Read everything else I wrote here. Comment on that.
there is little that is "rational" about her argument. See my comments below
As a feminist, I have to disagree. The feminization described by Andrews is real - and pernicious. It may be true that it is the result of cultural processes rather than any inherent biological characteristics of males and females but it does not change the fact that it has gone too far. Barclay actually contradicts herself, claiming on the one hand that women behave differently in groups from men, and yet insisting that a huge influx of women and of feminine-style behavior into workplace does not change anything. Yes, it does. The most important aspect of this change is the privileging of empathy and moral intuition over logic and ethical reasoning. This behavior is culturally gendered as feminine, and women are socialized to embrace it, to our own detriment. When you are told that "being kind" is more important that being right, you are pushed into an insincere performative ethics that is damaging to society and to your own integrity. Women are not a problem. Femininity is.
This is how we get stupidity in our culture. The womanization of all at the expense of reason.
Take pronouns. You can almost hear the elementary school teacher: “you can be anything you want to be”. “Don’t let anyone tell you who you are”. “If you can dream it, you can be it!”.
Feminization has fundamentally destroyed reasonable fairness. Take trans - the hot button of our time (which is absurd given they are well beneath 1% our population yet we give the issue so much undeserved weight): the female value of egalitarianism - belonging for all - metastasizes from good to ludicrous when fused with policy and institutional power allowing biological men to smash biological women in contests of speed and strength. It’s feminism run amok because it’s fused to power. And any “ism” fused to power (Islamism, globalism) becomes predatory and self preserving.
This is why Women are good and Feminism is bad.
And lest any feminists take offense - ask honestly: how do you feel about the Manosphere? Hmmm? Do you think the inverse is a good thing? Would you, in your abundance of moral superiority, advocate for “Masculinism”? Would you ever be so fair?
No. You wouldn’t. Because it stands in opposition to feminist goals and demands.
it's ok for little kids to be told "you can be everything/anything you want to be". They still might. By high school time they will know that is no longer true, though they will still be told this by a lot of over-idealistic teachers.
Amen. Very well said. Bravo.
This is a swing and a miss.
"First, the Great Feminization hypothesis relies on the sweeping assumption that men are rational, while women are emotional. Of course, anger—the emotion most associated with men—is excluded from this analysis, which is strange given that it guides so much of a certain president’s behavior."
The fantastic inference here is that women don't have anger issues... that anger is a uniquely male emotion. Yeah, right. Tell my wife that.
We are talking about evolutionary biology related to gender and associated tendencies and behaviors.
The first concept we have to accept is egoism. There is no real egalitarianism. Those claims are just "good person" virtue signaling backing self-pursuit of ego fulfillment. So, we are all selfish and narcissistic. It is human nature.
Males demonstrate overt narcissism. The reason is that males have the strength and size to kill each other in man-to-man combat. Men signal their anger by thumping their chest, but most also learn that uncontrolled anger results in risk that some other man will take them out in defense of their out-of-control anger. Men often show their anger as a message to other men to leave them alone, but they generally know better than to act on it immediately. They are overt in their display, but they compartmentalize the feelings, so they don't make mistakes in behavior that pose a risk. Their anger might influence their behavior later (like going to war to protect females), but generally in their strategy to win. Men that lack immediate emotional regulation capability are often those in prison or dead from conflict with other men.
Conversely, individual women are less dangerous and more at risk for being killed by men. Women don't display their anger, because it would cause stronger men to respond of the perceived threat. Women hold it in for immediate defense, but they don't generally compartmentalize... it continues to burn and generate a big pile of resentment.
This translates into females having a hidden emotional agenda different from the one they display. Contrast that to males that tend to have one face to make sure others know where they stand at all times.
Females are also less independent and more likely to collect together in a group. Again, this is largely evolutionary as stronger males tended to be the hunter-gather and warrior while the women stayed back with other women to tend the village and raise the children.
Because they are less likely to prevail in direct overt conflict, females have developed other strategies to win. This is where the vulnerable narcissism play of modern feminism has come into play... and along with the tendency of hidden agendas, frankly, has made a big fucking mess of everything.
The key traits are hypersensitivity to criticism (and I expect in response to my comment), victim mentality, entitlement, social anxiety, envy and resentment.
The general problem is the erosion of trust. Female dominated structures and institutions tend to demonstrate this hidden agenda. Female workgroups tend to include much more drama than do male workgroups. Hidden resentments, back-stabbing, character assassination, etc., they are all common behaviors with the female hive. I have been a corporate manager for over 45 years and I have observed this over and over again. The female tendency is to act cooperative but burn with resentment over the slightest slight or criticism and work covertly to undermine the target of their resentment. I can mediate a conflict with female workers and see it keep boiling back up again over and over again. For males, often they slug it out and go get a beer after work.
This difference in emotive behavior that seems to be explained by gender evolutionary biology is why history does not hold a single example of any long-running and significant societal and governmental female dominance.
We are playing with a once in history test to promote females to socioeconomic dominance, and it is not working well at all. Maybe someday in the future our human nature will evolve to accommodate the changes, but today almost everything wrong... this note of so much social and economic chaos... is because we blew through the reasonable goal of early feminism to secure choice for women, to this 3rd wave postmodernist critical theory woke bullshit that is pushed by malcontents to put females in a position of socioeconomic power.
Hey girls, go get married, have babies and make some sandwiches. Or if that does not sound good, go to school, get some professional credential and be a girlboss career woman.
But stop this man-hating, girl-power, raging lunatic, movement to redesign society to fit your lack of emotional regulation capability. It sucks.
I concur.
Ms. Barclay completely fails to address the "feelings over facts" dichotomy that is at the heart of the issue. Of course women CAN be rational and most are, but given the different personality traits, women will be more emotional under certain circumstance than men (and it's proven they broadly are.. all the psych literature confirms it) LOOK IT UP. the Somme example is silly. Generals always draw lessons from such events and they are rarely repeated (though may be mirrored under different circumstances) Ms. Barclay also doesn't adequately address how the Title IX "guidelines" completely upended the innocent prior to proven guilty part. She conveniently fails to address how the "Me Too" movement went way too far the other way, and this was observed by a large group of French women who raised their eyebrows and even wrote about it. Does Ms. Barclay believe that that the feminists in the Anglosphere (US/UK/Australia) are "better educated" about such things than women elsewhere? Ms. Barclay's final claim about "undervalued" occupations is more trope nonsense which avoids the key economic question of supply and demand. "Undervalued" jobs are jobs where supply outstrips demand, and clearly there is a paucity of a particular skillset which drives the supply/demand equation. We're back to the old canard that "teachers are more valuable" than professional athletes or that female pro athletes "deserve" the exact same pay as male pro athletes. Not in the economic sense they don't, and simple economics is what drives salaries and earnings and out entire lives in almost every society. And now we are again BACK to the "feelings over facts" where Ms Barclay proves the point by suggesting that certain (female dominated) jobs are "undervalued". In market economics, thing which are overvalued or undervalued rarely stay that way for any prolonged length of time as entrepreneurs (or simple arbitrage in financial markets) will "fix" the valuation. Her claim isn't underwritten by any facts, it's simply her 'feeling(s)".
To Ms. Barclay's counter-argument in this column, I offer up one example of the differing core principles by sex that can be openly observed: SCOTUS. So many cases decided on a 6-3 vote with the same 3 women in the minority making arguments too often based in 'fairness' and 'feelings', but offering little that is based on the constitution and/or law. And for those who would point out the short record to date of ACB's votes, she is the exception that proves the rule.
I agree that Andrew's article is facile, Malcolm Gladwell style - get a clever insight and flog it for all its worth. And of course, it has an element of truth. I have always felt that Wokeism has a religious dimension as well as a propaganda dimension.
Religious in that it offers people ethical framework, absolution from original sin, a feeling of virtue. The propaganda dimension is related. You can be highly privileged, and working for the Man ( and earning good money doing it) but if you are woke enough you can somehow feel absolved. We see that the elites of society, the global CEO's, the bankers, their corporations, are some of the most happy to profess woke values.
It looks to me as though you are arguing against a straw man.
Any serious student of human sexual dimorphism understands that these differences are _on average_. Almost everyone uses a blend of these strategies. The particular blend any individual employs will vary over time.
I agree with you about blend, but how much blend of male dynamics do you see in many of these workplaces? how much blend was there in the roll out of Title IX sexual assault allegations? (and then add on things like racial dynamics, remember the Duke lacrosse team? I also agree with you on the fact that the differences are fairly minute. say 10%, but if you go to the extremes of the distribution curve, those differences are massive , hence 99% of violent criminals are male . What percentage of men are running around social media talking about their "trauma"???? (from the most insignificant nonsense") How many men do you know that need to feel 'safe" (and consider the varying interpretations of "safety" by gender at school work, etc???
The author makes some great points...and some not so great ones.
I hope everyone can acknowledge the great points, which I will not address, other than to say some of Andrews’ arguments are a little OTT.
I think a major part of the problem, not just here but in many discussions, is the improper use of what I’ll call categoricals. Using Women for not all women, or using Men for not all men is a problem. In the current case, the argument that most of the wokeness in our society has been driven by females, does not mean that Women (all women) or even most women are woke, and that there aren’t plenty of competent, rational women who we should be listening to about societal issues. Once again, language matters.
Having said that, I do have to start by recognizing that it must be a tough go to live one’s life with Simone de Beauvior whispering in your ear (can you believe that was 75 years ago?). The world has changed and really bears no resemblance to the past. Anecdotes about endometriosis notwithstanding, women are more than fairly treated today. In fact, for upper middle class / professional women I would argue they are literally treated more than fairly. So, please enough of the victimhood, it is not part of a broader trend. I can assure you that men also have their medical complaints dismissed and if they went to doctors as often as the average woman, I bet it would occur just as often.
Yes, social media has had an impact, but this has affected women more than men, a point I think Jonathan Haidt makes also. I believe women, on average, are inherently more social and heed the opinions of others more strongly than men do, and are therefore more susceptible to persuasion (the world of course would be a better place if we were all more susceptible to "Persuasion"). Social media is therefore a more effective broadcast system for disseminating views to women than men.
The reversal or slowing of woke is a result of pushback, not that it isn’t aligned with “the expression of typically female behavior”.
It’s true that more men than women are CEOs (I’m not sure this is true broadly about managers in general, I suspect it depends with the industry) but HR departments are almost entirely led and staffed by women, and HR departments now set the rules for office behavior. CEOs have less power here (depends on the organization) certainly than they used to.
As far as industries being paid less because they are female dominated, I believe this argument to be a case of “wet roads cause rain” or a reversal of cause and effect. Men are driven to higher paid industries because their mate value increases when they can collect more resources (ie more women value men in these positions). This is not so for women – fewer men value their partner’s earnings or work status. This also explains why more men will continue to be CEOs, because you have to be specially motivated to devote your life exclusively to your work. In general, men will do whatever job pays them the most money.
Now are women on average inherently more aligned with woke principles? In looking around my social circle it is undoubtedly so. But leaving anecdotal evidence aside, most woke institutions or organizations I see are led by women. It’s not even close. Maybe we should make a list and see.
Yes. Enough victim whining feminists. You aren’t victims. The world throws rose petals at your feet. Just say thank you. Just adopt gratitude. Drop the exhausting, gaslighting victimhood scam. You’re so used to the narrative that you didn’t notice it stopped being true LONG AGO.
Imagine if men acted this way. Complained incessantly this way. Played the weak, put upon victim this way. We would be disgusted with ourselves.
There are two “Women” in this world. Diametrically opposed:
NATURAL WOMAN
1) understands the predatory nature of males
2) uses charm, beauty, kindness, and care as her wiles
3) understands this is her unique power
4) respects “good masculinity” - powerful men of honor and principle who guard women from predatory danger
5) the truth of our species for tens of thousands of years
POLITICAL WOMAN
1) lives in a developed state with no natural predators
2) takes for granted the state provided security for safety
3) sneers at those rough men in police and military as toxic and problematic
4) until, of course, they are needed
5) does nothing to encourage or even recognize “good masculinity” - who needs it?
6) forms political activist groups to pass laws fully in their favor
7) uses “Equality” long past its shelf life. Even when abundant evidence to the contrary - they refuse to abandon this once true claim
8) the truth of our species for the last ten thousand minutes
Natural Woman = good. Even great. Let us praise and honor them as the queens they are.
Political Woman = bad. Let us end their long overdue and rancid effect on our culture and politics now.
If you think those "sweeping assumptions" are suspect, then maybe take men and women at their own word.
A 2021 survey of top psychology professors found that then men were significantly more likely to prioritize the pursuit of truth as the main purpose of science, while women were more committed to advancing what is morally desirable, such as equity, inclusion, and protecting the vulnerable.
It's hard to look at the recent era as anything other than the systemic shifting of institutional priorities away from the former and towards the latter.
https://quillette.com/2022/10/08/sex-and-the-academy/
If you don't think women are still judged unfairly in some ways, if a woman candidate for President had five children with three different husbands, do you think she'd be judged by the same standard as Donald Trump?
If she ran a real estate empire for 50 years, and had a celebrity reality show for 10, and was a billionaire, and told the faltering lower socio-economic classes that she would stand for them, then the answer is yes for most people. Try and ask fully relevant questions instead of cherry picking straw-people.
I came into the legal profession just as women were beginning (in a VERY SMALL WAY) to make headway in admission to law school. Within a couple of years, the editor-in-chief of the law review was a woman, and the women graduates in my class went on to have productive (and in some cases, distinguished) careers. As a man, I have benefited greatly from the friendship, mentorship, and general advice of the women in my two careers (law and ministry). We men need to get over the idea that the differences between men and women (social, biological, historical) are antagonistic to a better functioning social and political environment.
I am sure this is absolutely correct. I feel the very same way. Some of my best bosses in my 2nd career have been women. But I think the point that was made that these dynamics change when a field/area becomes dominated by group women dynamics, and/or when the general culture accepts the group female dynamics. I'm not suggesting the prior male dynamics were the best outcome, I agree it should be a blend. so what you've seen is what always happens . There is a problem, there is movement to address the problem, and in the process they swing completely the other way and throw out the baby with the bathwater (happens with almost every "progressive" issue)
I’m not sure which “baby” is being thrown out (a metaphor I dislike), but yes, there can be extremists who try to take over a field. I wouldn’t restrict this dynamic to “progressive” issues. The current MAGA movement is populated by those who have taken the rightful grievances of those whose lives and whose viewpoints have been obscured (some would say obliterated) by the elites and turned it into an exercise in nihilism.
indeed. that's why the obsession with identitarianism on the left was such a stupid idea to begin with. Plenty of people foresaw precisely the effect you describe
Nursing and primary education have long been female-dominated professions. I haven’t heard any reports of some analog of cancel culture having been prominent in them.
From what I can tell, Nursing is not very woke. I put this down to the fact it is very hands on and practical. The disctinction between "physicals" and "virtuals" comes to mind, ie Nursing is more akin to blue collar work, although I'm sure it depends on the type of nursing.
On the other hand, Education is one of the primary repositories of wokism. Replete with Paulo Freire and Henry Giroux, and social emotional learning, many primary school educators and administrators are adament critical theorists, although not all. What better way to effect the revolution than to get them when they are young.