I’m fascinated by the emerging discourse around feminization and workplace sexual dynamics and the possibility of male/female traits. It’s probably still not wise for many men to openly participate but I think it’s healthy that women are.
There is one sharp difference between men and women: women (and not men) can give birth. Ultimately this is their most important function (to society, collectively) and it’s an open question whether the current cultural values that are dear to women can functionally coexist with that important role. In other words, if the modern emphasis on career and education inexorably leads to a situation in which women aren’t maintaining population levels then those values will organically fade away (the society will die)… and be replaced by societies with different (more historically typical) values.
Norms and values don’t exist to maximize the freedom and happiness of the individual. They exist to promote the health and order of the society which cultivates them. We seem to have forgotten that.
I’m not convinced by the claim that being less friendly to women’s participation in the workplace will lead to higher birth rates. In particular, I would argue that it’s vital NOT to have a society that is specifically hostile to the participation of mothers in the workplace, as this can create a powerful incentive for women not to reproduce. We see this in places like Japan and South Korea where employers will specifically ask their female employees not to get married or pregnant, and where working hours are so punishing that it’s hard to combine a job with parenting.
There may well be a place for more recognition of the contribution to society that parents make, alongside encouragement for people to make sacrifices in order to serve their society in this way. But I think you have to be realistic about this: just gesturing at the “Omelas hole” and asking women to climb in is likely to be ineffective, no matter how much you denounce women’s selfishness for not sacrificing their entire sense of happiness, fulfilment and meaning in life to your one preferred cause.
“Ice blonde valkries” oh, god, I lived for those moments as a grad student for when the senior women would take someone down. So, so satisfying. We were all thinking it and there’d be moments when she’d stiffen during the talk, and you knew what the Q&A was going to be. Often the speaker would fob off the question, but the questions were for us, the audience and students. I had one professor in a male dominated department say, you just say the same idea for years and eventually they’ll pick it up. the shit they had to wade through… and many still do to be heard. None of that, none of that is natural or a universal order.
Totally! My (badass) female advisor used to call the super-senior guys in our department the "silverback gorillas" who thought they were in charge even though the ladies were frequently running the show behind the scenes.
You knocked it out of the park with that Argument piece IMO. I was also particularly into the early neuroscience lore. (Hopefully Wernicke was a bit more sympathetic…)
‘You could also use this dataset to test Andrews’s claim that “men developed methods for reconciling with opponents” by coding floor debates and measuring how differences are resolved.’
My first thought when I read this claim of hers was to think about uhhhh all of human history. But I didn’t want to indulge Andrews’s gallery of vice at the time, and that’ll be the end of my own indulgence of the urge to spew venom. I was very satisfied by David French’s and Sarah Isgur’s responses to Andrews’s thing though. Few better to respond to it than Isgur, in particular, who did not pull punches.
Thanks as always for your thoughtful writing. I think you make a lot of good points.
I will say I have a little pause on the appeal to authority here. Given the replicability crisis and the overwhelming dominance of left of center perspectives in sociology and psychology I think there is real reason to be cautious about the conclusions.
Just as the science that you sight justified institutional misogyny 50 or 100 years ago must have seemed very convincing but came out of political prejudices, I think that we haven’t moved as from that as we might hope.
Not saying we should disregard the evidence we have, but we shouldn’t treat it as conclusive, or expect it to be very convincing to people from the right.
A very helpful roadmap article mapping the sex differences literature terrain and specifically looking at the opposing results arrived at by Eliot et al and Williams et al.:
I’m fascinated by the emerging discourse around feminization and workplace sexual dynamics and the possibility of male/female traits. It’s probably still not wise for many men to openly participate but I think it’s healthy that women are.
There is one sharp difference between men and women: women (and not men) can give birth. Ultimately this is their most important function (to society, collectively) and it’s an open question whether the current cultural values that are dear to women can functionally coexist with that important role. In other words, if the modern emphasis on career and education inexorably leads to a situation in which women aren’t maintaining population levels then those values will organically fade away (the society will die)… and be replaced by societies with different (more historically typical) values.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/civilizational-darwinism
Norms and values don’t exist to maximize the freedom and happiness of the individual. They exist to promote the health and order of the society which cultivates them. We seem to have forgotten that.
I’m not convinced by the claim that being less friendly to women’s participation in the workplace will lead to higher birth rates. In particular, I would argue that it’s vital NOT to have a society that is specifically hostile to the participation of mothers in the workplace, as this can create a powerful incentive for women not to reproduce. We see this in places like Japan and South Korea where employers will specifically ask their female employees not to get married or pregnant, and where working hours are so punishing that it’s hard to combine a job with parenting.
There may well be a place for more recognition of the contribution to society that parents make, alongside encouragement for people to make sacrifices in order to serve their society in this way. But I think you have to be realistic about this: just gesturing at the “Omelas hole” and asking women to climb in is likely to be ineffective, no matter how much you denounce women’s selfishness for not sacrificing their entire sense of happiness, fulfilment and meaning in life to your one preferred cause.
Here for the Dad Brain Mugs 😏
Yay! I'll put you on the swag list :)
I am here for it.
“Ice blonde valkries” oh, god, I lived for those moments as a grad student for when the senior women would take someone down. So, so satisfying. We were all thinking it and there’d be moments when she’d stiffen during the talk, and you knew what the Q&A was going to be. Often the speaker would fob off the question, but the questions were for us, the audience and students. I had one professor in a male dominated department say, you just say the same idea for years and eventually they’ll pick it up. the shit they had to wade through… and many still do to be heard. None of that, none of that is natural or a universal order.
Totally! My (badass) female advisor used to call the super-senior guys in our department the "silverback gorillas" who thought they were in charge even though the ladies were frequently running the show behind the scenes.
You knocked it out of the park with that Argument piece IMO. I was also particularly into the early neuroscience lore. (Hopefully Wernicke was a bit more sympathetic…)
Thank you! I'm not sure if Wernicke was knocking it out of the park on feminism, either, unfortunately
I responded to Andrews, as summarized by Unbekoming, along with Janice Fiamengo here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-feminization-psyop. The comment thread is very telling.
And yes, amazing cookies! I just read a refrigerator magnet that said 'Married guy pro-tip: replace quickie with cookie.' Hahaha!
‘You could also use this dataset to test Andrews’s claim that “men developed methods for reconciling with opponents” by coding floor debates and measuring how differences are resolved.’
My first thought when I read this claim of hers was to think about uhhhh all of human history. But I didn’t want to indulge Andrews’s gallery of vice at the time, and that’ll be the end of my own indulgence of the urge to spew venom. I was very satisfied by David French’s and Sarah Isgur’s responses to Andrews’s thing though. Few better to respond to it than Isgur, in particular, who did not pull punches.
The cookies look awesome!
They were!
Well, one thing we know: there are studies showing that boys are graded unfairly when evaluated by female (feminist?) teachers.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/jhriss/v48y2013i1p236-264.html
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/the-abc-of-gender-equality-in-education_9789264229945-en.html
https://docs.iza.org/dp10343.pdf
https://www.nber.org/papers/w20909
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942
I’m going to write about this next week!
Wow! Can't wait!
Thanks as always for your thoughtful writing. I think you make a lot of good points.
I will say I have a little pause on the appeal to authority here. Given the replicability crisis and the overwhelming dominance of left of center perspectives in sociology and psychology I think there is real reason to be cautious about the conclusions.
Just as the science that you sight justified institutional misogyny 50 or 100 years ago must have seemed very convincing but came out of political prejudices, I think that we haven’t moved as from that as we might hope.
Not saying we should disregard the evidence we have, but we shouldn’t treat it as conclusive, or expect it to be very convincing to people from the right.
I gave a like to the Agrument piece so here i will pick up where ur son left and state that you provided the wrong Diana link
Oh shoot, good catch! Just fixed it. Sorry Diana!
In the 'Argument' piece, you cited the 2021, Eliot et al review on brain differences that argues for the "brains are essentially the same..." view.
However, here are some other recent studies with slightly different perspectives:
2021 paper directly responding to Eliot et al finding that differences - both size and structure - exist even after controlling for male body size:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34520800/
2024 paper studying newborns and also finding differences that go beyond just size:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13293-024-00657-5
A very helpful roadmap article mapping the sex differences literature terrain and specifically looking at the opposing results arrived at by Eliot et al and Williams et al.:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9327177/
Different (but related) topic. GMV for brain structure:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8675415/
Thank you! I'll read through these and circle back.