You make an interesting point that I haven't seen elsewhere: "that Rob Henderson’s ‘luxury beliefs’ concept is better described as ‘luxury feminism’". (He linked this article, by the way).
There might be something to that, and although I haven't surveyed all possible permutations, surely defund the police, devaluing the traditional family, and the white guilt translation into status and power seeking maneuvers you describe all fit. Even the more abstract intersectional viewpoint epistemology, and its assignment of stratified 'truth privileges', has had that function as well, in that you achieve status by mastering the coded language. Of course, there are the additional benefits of providing an easy to download simulation of understanding everything, and directing frustration and anger about an imperfect world towards a simplistic external target, or inward, in purification rituals. You have to give some credit for the comprehensiveness of the approach.
Now that the fissures and negative consequences of these beliefs become more obvious, thanks to people like you, their ability to confer status isolated from negative consequences will hopefully be diminished.
Wow thanks for the heads up, I hadn’t even gotten a notification. That’s gratifying. Take for example the use of disabilities and diagnoses as social capital; that attitude not only reduces people to diagnoses, it also erodes empathy for people who are genuinely debilitated. Another one is the devaluation of discipline in general, which leads to all sorts of terrible outcomes for women, stemming from a resistance to accountability.
'Reality's Last Stand' just had a nice article about "the casualties of concept creep' along these lines. Nice to see so much strong dialogue here on Substack!
Irrationality used to constantly infuriate me. Have worked very hard to let people be people and not waste my energy wishing for an idealized humanity. I still get a little bitchy about how terrible people are at driving, and walking on the sidewalk (outside of NYC, I miss the city), but I often remind myself that I cant change any of it and waste as little energy as possible on these problems.
Your articles always show me a world I've never really encountered before, female professional aggression. I can't think of a single woman I've ever worked with or for who I felt held me back, although there were a few who took a real dislike to me for no good reason. I suspect the problem may have been the pentacle jewelry I wore as a Pagan. It really weird some people out and I found out one of the ones who disliked me made nasty remarks about Paganism when a woman joined her department who was also Pagan. But, I've been in IT/tech for the last thirty years and the first half of that was spent in mostly-male organizations. I've also never been as professionally ambitious as you, consciously choosing work/life balance. That's not a criticism of you, merely an observation. Sometimes I feel bad about not doing better professionally but then I remind myself of the choice *I* made. And I don't regret it, because no one ever lay on their deathbed wishing they'd spent more time at the office.
I think you're well-positioned with these female-critical articles as there's a growing awareness in the media world that toxic femininity - or toxic feminism - is a very real thing. There's an article Wilfred Reilly, the black political scientist who wrote a stellar book several years ago on race hate crime hoaxes, who wrote about what he sees as the elements of female psychology that correlate to toxic femininity, the counterpart to toxic masculinity. I saved it, if you want me to send it to you. I already have on my 2-write list something about toxic femininity.
I do often think about how divergent our experiences are, and I am going to chalk it up to there simply being more women in the workforce now, which increases the competition. You are right though, I am more ambitious than a lot of people, though if I had kids I would 100% have chosen balance. That's the thing, when women comment on the lack of women at the top, they seldom account for different choices made. And yes, please do email me that research when you get a chance. Separately, you should read Warriors and Worriers; it opened my eyes to a whole set of biological imperatives that seem to have determined how we compete and how we see ourselves. The craziest fact was that apparently we've actually evolved to not even realize we're competing, or to do it unconsciously while pledging fealty to the sisterhood. Obviously, we have to compete for resources, but burying that knowledge in the unconscious actually served to minimize risk of retaliation from other women. Suddenly the political self deception started to make sense, and I realized that feminism, in that case, is a cultural adaptation of the same principle of competing covertly while saying you're not.
Thanks for putting another layer of your onion out in a space where we can empathize and recount similiar sitations and experiences. Your self-awareness is perfectly adjusted and well set. Bravo for getting to this point and seeing accurately what most never see. That is liberating in and of itself.
I had a father who acted simililarly and frankly, scared the hell out of me on many occasions. He and my mom's relationship was dysfunctional at best, and his behavior most damaging to those closest to him. He later divorced my mom, unsurprisingly, and the whole thing left scars and tears in its wake. It's a cycle that predates myself and them, but the cycle was only slightly modified, but largely unbroken.
I did, however, break the cycle into many pieces as I got older, at least for myself and my own relationships. My spouse, who is definitely my better half, had a similar upbringing, like you where achievement was the 'crown', and everything hid behind it, until the 'invisibility cloak' started to fail in strange ways. Her younger brother, who was the 'golden child', was always given accolades for the same types of achievements of my spouse, and was usually treated with an 'atta girl' and quickly moved on. She's reached the top in tech marketing, but her father barley acknowledges it. Her mother, who has been supportive, has had to battle her dad and has mostly lost. She's been unable to stand up to him mostly due to fear and his abusive nature. He's never graduated past age five. There are usually multiple battle-fronts in the relationship wars that complicate family matters.
For me, the truth of a situation, which takes time and patience to dig into and uncover, is the ultimate. You have identified the word for this: "discernment". This also comes into play into relationships with people, work, and processes. It's helped us go forward, strongly, and sometimes, holding back, at least until we can confirm we're doing the right things for the right reasons. Life is strange, complicated and messy, but being honest and accountable in our intentions, we can work it all out. Thanks again for your sharing your thoughts and helping us straighten our life's crooked roads.
I really appreciate reading this and that you shared your experience. It's truly impressive that you managed to break the cycle yourself. Your spouse sounds like she suffered under a similar regime, and my heart breaks for her. You'd think they would become less spiteful in their old age, but apparently not. "For me, the truth of a situation, which takes time and patience to dig into and uncover, is the ultimate." - if I didn't have this, I would have nothing. I'm very grateful for people like you who frequently visit these pages and truly grapple with what I say. I thank my stars daily for you all, actually. I've never felt as vindicated as I do when I read these sorts of thoughtful comments. But, bravo to you and your spouse for breaking the cycle. It takes a herculean amount of inner work to do so.
"it was a 3.8, which for an Indian kid is a C-". LOL.
I feel as if I know you much better after reading this. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to deal with the manipulations and evasions and disingenuous maneuverings of certain women.
As to the woman who said that you're probably the asshole... perhaps. In many cases, if you keep running into extreme or unreasonable behavior on the part of others, you might be the asshole. However, this doesn't apply when we're talking about REAL psychological tendencies or beliefs common within groups - it only applies for normal behavior in normal circumstances. If a person in the 1950's South was arguing regularly for integration they would meet many hostile reactions. They wouldn't be an asshole. The real question is whether groups of women do perform this kind of bullying and manipulation, or whether you're imagining it. I think the fact that people react angrily when you question them or try to illuminate their machinations kind of says it all. That's not the reaction of a person who's innocent. It might be possible that this woman had a slight emotional reaction at your explanation of female tendencies. Women don't usually like to talk about this, which-again-lends some weight to the idea that it's not all nonsense. If someone told me that I was being manipulative or exclusionary or disingenuous and I wasn't (I'm almost never consciously doing those types of things) I would calmly disagree. Nothing about that would make me angry - the person is simply mistaken. I would actually want them to tell me MORE, to see how they'd arrived at their impression.
Do the women accused of feminine social aggression react with neutral curiosity? Do they earnestly want to hear your thoughts, and explain themselves? Or do they react with emotion, evasions, and reputation destruction? If it's the latter, the problem isn't you.
You could STILL be an asshole, of course. I doubt it, but maybe there's something about your words or affect that makes these people prone to hostility or defensiveness... but that probably wouldn't be the case with only women. I imagine that it's really the content of your communications that's arousing these reactions, and it's arousing them in people because it conflicts with their self-image and their social strategies and that can be very uncomfortable.
The real question isn't: are you the asshole? The real question is: is there something to these ideas of yours? If there wasn't, then professional women should be interested, and willing to discuss them fully. They're certainly interesting, after all!
Sometimes the problem really does lie with most of the people around you. Middle schoolers bullying each other, immigrants harboring unfashionable (to Americans) racial attitudes, prisoners initiating aggression and dominance contests... human culture is full of examples of entire huge groups of people who are exhibiting pathological or cryptic behaviors. Anyone pointing these things out threatens the stability of the social status quo, and so EVERYONE is liable to respond poorly, like a cytokine response or something. Even other social primates exhibit these kinds of behaviors. When we observe these patterns, we notice that status or the personal desire for security are nearly always involved... just as they are with high-status women and their
I typed out a response to this three times but lost it every time. First, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you here as well and am very glad we ran into each other. First, thank you for walking me through that logically; you are correct, I think, that if there was nothing to it there wouldn’t be such an impassioned need to tell me how wrong I am and that I’m actually a bad person for thinking so.
You know something fucking nuts I read this week? According to Warriors and Worriers, women not only evolved to compete covertly, but we also evolved to actually ardently believe we’re not competitive with each other for fear of losing our place in society and help rearing children. Once I saw that the self deception is actually innate so much made sense: corporate life, politics, intrasexual dynamics, hostility to debate and the rejection of truth. Women’s biological incentives hard wired us to subordinate truth to social harmony, and the ancients seemed to understand this. It’s why maya, or the concept of worldly illusion, is feminine in Hindu metaphysics. I once thought that this was a sexist way to think of women, but now I see that the Bhagavad Gita was essentially correct in its assertion that women are further from enlightenment than men. It’s a shame, because I now see so clearly that my own enlightenment path requires me to cast off female socialization and the base instincts born of biology.
You’ve been through hell and somehow came out wiser instead of bitter, which is basically a spiritual superpower. You rebuilt yourself on solid ground and earned your place as a trailblazer.
I had a similar thing happen in feminist circles. At first, it felt like, “Yay! Sisterhood! Girl power! Spice Girls!” But behind the scenes it was more like a sorority full of deeply insecure women all quietly trying to out-hot, out-smart, or out-trauma each other. It was exhausting.
Now when I think about those old friends, it’s like…yeah, I wouldn’t touch that dynamic with a ten-foot pole. Not even with gloves on.
I get it. I want to help too. And honestly, I think as those groups keep imploding, one by one they’ll end up walking through their own fire. And when they do and when the illusions fall apart—they’ll find us. They’ll stumble across our Substacks like a little refuge in the wreckage and maybe then they’ll finally be ready to hear the truth.
You’re absolutely right - they have to want to change. They have to rise from the ashes of social death first; there’s no other way. I think you and I turned out this way precisely because we went through social death first. It helped us see clearly in a way we may never otherwise have. And it indicates a strong inner orientation toward truth, which many of our compatriots have forgotten and refuse to chase. Thank you, and I’m grateful to have met you.
This is very well done and very interesting reading and caused my mind to pop with the realization that males might very well be privileged over females ironically because males don't suffer being pulled, pushed, controlled and mangled by the female hive and its evolutionary tendency to play perpetual status politics and demand conformity.
Not only is it easier within the male hive to be independent, it is generally a celebrated path. Yes, other insecure males will attempt to pull the independent seeker back down, but the status opportunity is for the hero and not the compliant follower... and most males understand this.
Females, probably because they are generally significantly physically weaker than males, have evolved backroom strategies for competing for needed resources, and then when that is achieved, competing for status as that bodes well for acquiring even more resources. And those strategies generally support covert agency and demonstrated fealty to expected decorum to support the covert agency. That demonstrated fealty to expected decorum derives the collectivist tendency of female politics. For males, the lone wolf warrior overtly striking out with entrepreneurial zeal and transparent intent, is more likely accepted and even celebrated.
Females tend to be more collectivist. Males tend to be more independent.
You can see that conflict within the history of your mother and you yourself. Desiring independence, but then struggling with the anxiety it causes because of the conflict with the collectivist female hive and probably your own evolutionary wiring that keeps telling you that something is wrong or off because of that feedback loop.
I am fiercely independent... so much so that it has been the source of my own relationship problems... primarily from those either wired to want to see demonstrated fealty to their expected decorum, or because they themselves are insecure and my independence threatens their own sense of security with our relationship. They worry that I don't NEED them. The fact is that I don't really need them. Needing someone is toxic to a relationship... it causes abusive behavior that is often just a tantrum of those feeling anxiety over a looming separation, and attempts to thwart a seek of independence.
Here is how I deal with this challenge. First, I accept that being independent requires that I accept having fewer friends and only those that are completely secure in their own sense of self. I have to exit any and all toxic relationships of people trying to pull me back into their clutch of need. The exception to this is family... we have to take what we are given there. Second, I take the long road to "teach" my other relationships that my independence is not any indication of me not caring about them of for them. This second part takes me some effort. I have to remember to reach out and remind the people I have relationships with that I am thinking about them and care about them. This is what I have done with my step-father and some other family members. That is what I have to do with my board of directors. That is what I do with my employees and my clients.
That is what you do with your subscribers by writing great pieces like this!
Frank, I always appreciate your comments and your enduring support. I have often wondered lately as twitter migrates to substack if there's a point, and I conclude every time that there is because you and others leave such thoughtful and encouraging comments. That makes all of it worth the effort.
I've always thought that men just have an easier time asserting their independence from a group, but I also learned recently that men actually are better at forming cooperative groups for a shared goal, making men overall more collaborative than women unlike the narrative (this was from reading Warriors and Worriers). I totally agree that needing someone who's unable to hold that need can be toxic; I had a hard time letting go of the idea that my mother will see me as myself and not try to change me or otherwise control me through guilt. I've often wondered how I came out with a male-typical set of inclinations and thinking ability because you can imagine it makes me wonder what femininity even is. In fact, I don't think I had access to my own before casting off feminism, which tracks. Honestly, I felt like no one got it until I came here and I found so many people who do.
This is where metaphysics is helpful, though I know people consider dualities simplistic. I think that's a mistake because they explain so much about how people behave and how things turn out. Shakti and Shiva represent nature and consciousness/emotion and logic/entropy and void. Either without the other is either destructive or unable to generate life; Shiva only became the lord of dance after he was reunited with Shakti, from which Indian aesthetic theory is said to have been born. I think we've tilted too much toward entropy at the expense of order and structure, which is why I generally feel like a fish out of water in female society. I so ardently wish I was a man sometimes, truly.
This is so intelligently and beautifully written that I almost don’t know what to say.
I wish that every feminist and every white woman would read this.
I have had similar experiences when I was younger. Being bullied by the girls, but because they were the cool ones I was “allowed” to call them friends.
It wasn’t until recent years when I began to process trauma that I realize they only kept me around to abuse me.
Once I left conservative Christian circles as I healed (and was outcast) I began to find a sense of community in the liberal feminist community.
Until I began to challenge them and really require them to take accountability. They would not- as you know.
I was ousted from feminist blogger zawn’s private fb group because I refused to follow group think and zawn’s demands that I respond a certain way.
Then I began to see the similarities in cults, religions, the conservative movement and the liberal feminists, as well as new age spirituality and some of the yoga community that I had connections in.
I had worldview collapse this past winter and it was the best thing that ever happened to me.
I really hate that you experienced all this at the hands of women, and girls, and whiteness and feminist ideology, and especially your own mother.
I really enjoy your work and I admire and appreciate you.
I appreciate reading this very much and your support. I’m struck by how common cultish behavior is, and I think it’s because truth is nowhere to be found inside people. They don’t reach for it if it means losing social approval, which makes me wonder what was different before that people did have some grasp on reality. You may enjoy this book Strange rites on this topic - it was formative for me
That does sound like an interesting read. I’ll check it out thanks.
And you’re welcome.
What you wrote added something to what was stirring in my own soul this afternoon, regarding my own mother. I ended up writing about it and publishing.
You’re very welcome. Yes, so many issues within Indian culture, if I was living there, I’d be involved with some sort of social commentary and justice I think..perhaps to my detriment!
Thank you. Yes, the grooming gang assaults of the most horrific kind are our biggest scandal in Britain, I believe. It’s a topic we British public won’t let die.
Good, keep hammering at it. You all have different issues to deal with because of the sheer diversity of the immigrant population, esp in terms of class.
Yes, certainly. We did that for about 30 years. Older men did it since 1970. We gave up. There was never a time it was received or appreciated without violent reprisals. Note for 30 years we did it anyway, despite every reprisal, because it was the right thing to do. Reminds me of a comment I was going to make, but lost the Note, that "Just ask men." That's it. They're just waiting for your permission to protect and defend you again. Including in things like this.
Actually, at work you already note men have your back. So you could already name it specifically, ask, and have them take extra measures to ring fence you wherever possible.
This isn't a gender thing, or that anyone even needs help: it's merely that this kind of female behavior is unjust, unproductive bulls--t and shouldn't be tolerated, but they'll all be fired if they get involved. So they need to know this will be backed up and have a purpose, and you won't make them swing just to re-ally with the women tormentors.
Can add, I appreciate you being careful in working not to make this the man's fault again. Just had a Note where the phrasing was weak and she came off as "Yes the women misbehave, but isn't that really the man's fault?" I don' think it was intended, it's just so ingrained as to be unthinking, habitual. There is nothing, not even defending women from other women's injustice, that isn't the man's fault.
So yes, that's why: 30, 40, 50 years in a row? They gave up. They clocked out. That whole generation has passed on to the choir invisible.
It is their greatest wish to be a hero and defend you. Anyone. But how can that ever be counted safe again?
Women competing in a male-dominated environment may try to adopt male behavior, or rather their stylized, negative version of male behavior. Being tough and pragmatic, I guess. Meanwhile, it seems, you, as a professional, tend to exemplify what I consider ideal male behavior. And the irony of course is that you are punished for it. Real men are crass and love horseplay, both physically and intellectually, but we don’t bully. That’s one of the things professional women might not quite get. Do they think bullying is tough? There’s no greater coward than a bully!
There is a deeply feminine personal responsibility that doesn’t indulge in competition. It’s traditional, it’s natural. You don’t see a lot of it but it is feminine. A woman who is the foundation of her home, who lifts up everyone she comes into contact with, supports them, inspires them, rejoices in their victories more than her own. It’s not masculine and it’s not fake.
"Women both punish and constantly demand excellence. As a child, I used excellence as a shield and a coping mechanism. If I did well enough in school and went to college, I’d escape my house and make my parents proud (which I still perversely wanted to do even after it all)."
When Carol Gilligan's "In A Different Voice" came out, I mentioned this to a human woman who had been a teacher.
Her response was "No duh, boys get more attention from teachers! They are harder to keep on-task, more unruly, more attention-seeking and less validation-seeking, more eager to please."
Funnily enough I did attend to the boys more because they were incredibly difficult and because unruly boys in a classroom reflected poorly on me as a teacher. We were taught to both exert control on boys and not appear to be pathologizing them for being poor or black, but that nevertheless was the case - they were dehumanized for simply being boys. There was nothing more problematic in that school than boys being raucous in the hallways. Girls were simply obedient, and it’s to our detriment.
Thanks for the post. One of the suppressed truths is that many working women that were surveyed preferred to work under a male boss, than a female boss.
" I often wonder if I’m crazy because most people don’t see what I see. Maybe I am."
I think men see it all the time. The problem is, what's the point in saying anything about it? To take the heat from speaking, you'd have to have good odds of a productive outcome.
I want to push you a bit here because we’ve interacted so much and I’ve been appreciative of your support. Someone like me is going to be rare among women not because I’m special but because the social penalty for saying what I do is so high. I honestly can’t blame women for just going along with it to some degree because life has been socially difficult for me in the past five years (even more than childhood in a way).
So if women like me are rare because of the collective action problem, does it not become important for men to push back despite the fact that you’ll be berated by women? It’s crucial that men speak up in support instead of letting someone like me take all the heat for it. You’ll not be surprised to know that several men have said they use my words to make their arguments to me or otherwise used me as a shield. Still others say they appreciate everything I say because they can’t say it, or simply indicate tacit agreement with me in private and never speak up. But if men don’t speak up and against the insane culture in which we find ourselves, nothing will change. This is because women like me will appear to be in the extreme minority when I know for a fact that legions of men agree with what I say. Men not speaking up isn’t much different from preference falsification. Men have to be willing to tell women no if anything is going to change.
Would you castigate a woman for failing to intervene in a physical confrontation between men? You are asking something similar of us here. Men are not any better equipped to confront women socially than women are to confront men physically. We lack the social tools to build and manage a relational coalition in order to prevail. And women generally don’t take kindly to men who get involved in their internal conflicts, any more than men take kindly to women who try to involve themselves in conflicts between men that are occurring on male terms.
I'm not talking about conflicts, but about the defense of truth. Those are different things. If you see women out in the wild denying truth in the name of ideology, I don't think you as a man should be silent, because then women like me are always fighting a losing battle. I need men on my side simply because more of you see it than women do. I need actual support, not just being used as a rhetorical shield.
I should add that the more masculine thing to do would be to do what you’re suggesting and call out untruths without fear or favor. And some men can even do that and get away with it. It’s something that should be admired, but as ever in human endeavors, you can’t analyze behavior without including the social component. People want to be liked, they care about their social status and other people’s good opinions of them, and many if not most are perfectly willing to sacrifice the truth on the altar of social acceptability unless there’s something larger at stake than abstract principles. That’s as true of men as women, though men (being more disagreeable and less social on average) are somewhat more likely to be iconoclasts. Just not very many of them.
Stating unpopular truths is always a difficult proposition. It’s admirable, but it’s also the case that the people who do almost invariably pay a price for it, even if they’re later vindicated.
It’s always going to be difficult but this thing you’re naming is the very reason Biden was allowed to run again. We either defend truth and pay the cost or our society continues going to shit.
A “defense” of anything entails conflict by its nature. If another woman asserts something crazy, *and especially if that thing is being asserted with the unstated expectation that everyone will agree*, and you respond that she is wrong, you are initiating a conflict. Not without a justifiable reason, perhaps, but it’s still a conflict. And any man who backs you up becomes a party to it.
Also, there is crazy (“I think New Coke was better than Classic”) and then there is crazy (“It’s OK for thousands of people to congregate outside to protest racism in the middle of a respiratory pandemic, even though we literally banned people from standing closer to each other than six feet in other contexts, because racism is a disease that’s even worse than COVID!”). One of these things is an idle conversational gambit that may well be inviting disagreement. The other is being stated as a social and moral test, which you will fail by disagreeing. When a grenade like that gets tossed out, nobody wants to jump on it.
My basic contention is that men are as ill-equipped and vulnerable in facing social aggression as women are in facing physical aggression. That is why the strong inclination of most men is to avoid social conflict with women at all costs. It’s a lose-lose proposition for them.
You make an interesting point that I haven't seen elsewhere: "that Rob Henderson’s ‘luxury beliefs’ concept is better described as ‘luxury feminism’". (He linked this article, by the way).
There might be something to that, and although I haven't surveyed all possible permutations, surely defund the police, devaluing the traditional family, and the white guilt translation into status and power seeking maneuvers you describe all fit. Even the more abstract intersectional viewpoint epistemology, and its assignment of stratified 'truth privileges', has had that function as well, in that you achieve status by mastering the coded language. Of course, there are the additional benefits of providing an easy to download simulation of understanding everything, and directing frustration and anger about an imperfect world towards a simplistic external target, or inward, in purification rituals. You have to give some credit for the comprehensiveness of the approach.
Now that the fissures and negative consequences of these beliefs become more obvious, thanks to people like you, their ability to confer status isolated from negative consequences will hopefully be diminished.
Wow thanks for the heads up, I hadn’t even gotten a notification. That’s gratifying. Take for example the use of disabilities and diagnoses as social capital; that attitude not only reduces people to diagnoses, it also erodes empathy for people who are genuinely debilitated. Another one is the devaluation of discipline in general, which leads to all sorts of terrible outcomes for women, stemming from a resistance to accountability.
'Reality's Last Stand' just had a nice article about "the casualties of concept creep' along these lines. Nice to see so much strong dialogue here on Substack!
The destabilization of truth in favor of discourses and the rejection of grand narratives definitely eroded social trust and shared reality.
I had somewhat similar experiences as a child.
Irrationality used to constantly infuriate me. Have worked very hard to let people be people and not waste my energy wishing for an idealized humanity. I still get a little bitchy about how terrible people are at driving, and walking on the sidewalk (outside of NYC, I miss the city), but I often remind myself that I cant change any of it and waste as little energy as possible on these problems.
Your articles always show me a world I've never really encountered before, female professional aggression. I can't think of a single woman I've ever worked with or for who I felt held me back, although there were a few who took a real dislike to me for no good reason. I suspect the problem may have been the pentacle jewelry I wore as a Pagan. It really weird some people out and I found out one of the ones who disliked me made nasty remarks about Paganism when a woman joined her department who was also Pagan. But, I've been in IT/tech for the last thirty years and the first half of that was spent in mostly-male organizations. I've also never been as professionally ambitious as you, consciously choosing work/life balance. That's not a criticism of you, merely an observation. Sometimes I feel bad about not doing better professionally but then I remind myself of the choice *I* made. And I don't regret it, because no one ever lay on their deathbed wishing they'd spent more time at the office.
I think you're well-positioned with these female-critical articles as there's a growing awareness in the media world that toxic femininity - or toxic feminism - is a very real thing. There's an article Wilfred Reilly, the black political scientist who wrote a stellar book several years ago on race hate crime hoaxes, who wrote about what he sees as the elements of female psychology that correlate to toxic femininity, the counterpart to toxic masculinity. I saved it, if you want me to send it to you. I already have on my 2-write list something about toxic femininity.
I do often think about how divergent our experiences are, and I am going to chalk it up to there simply being more women in the workforce now, which increases the competition. You are right though, I am more ambitious than a lot of people, though if I had kids I would 100% have chosen balance. That's the thing, when women comment on the lack of women at the top, they seldom account for different choices made. And yes, please do email me that research when you get a chance. Separately, you should read Warriors and Worriers; it opened my eyes to a whole set of biological imperatives that seem to have determined how we compete and how we see ourselves. The craziest fact was that apparently we've actually evolved to not even realize we're competing, or to do it unconsciously while pledging fealty to the sisterhood. Obviously, we have to compete for resources, but burying that knowledge in the unconscious actually served to minimize risk of retaliation from other women. Suddenly the political self deception started to make sense, and I realized that feminism, in that case, is a cultural adaptation of the same principle of competing covertly while saying you're not.
I'm not finding it on Amazon (Warriors & Worriers)...who wrote it?
Joyce Benenson
Found it! Added to wish list.
Thanks for putting another layer of your onion out in a space where we can empathize and recount similiar sitations and experiences. Your self-awareness is perfectly adjusted and well set. Bravo for getting to this point and seeing accurately what most never see. That is liberating in and of itself.
I had a father who acted simililarly and frankly, scared the hell out of me on many occasions. He and my mom's relationship was dysfunctional at best, and his behavior most damaging to those closest to him. He later divorced my mom, unsurprisingly, and the whole thing left scars and tears in its wake. It's a cycle that predates myself and them, but the cycle was only slightly modified, but largely unbroken.
I did, however, break the cycle into many pieces as I got older, at least for myself and my own relationships. My spouse, who is definitely my better half, had a similar upbringing, like you where achievement was the 'crown', and everything hid behind it, until the 'invisibility cloak' started to fail in strange ways. Her younger brother, who was the 'golden child', was always given accolades for the same types of achievements of my spouse, and was usually treated with an 'atta girl' and quickly moved on. She's reached the top in tech marketing, but her father barley acknowledges it. Her mother, who has been supportive, has had to battle her dad and has mostly lost. She's been unable to stand up to him mostly due to fear and his abusive nature. He's never graduated past age five. There are usually multiple battle-fronts in the relationship wars that complicate family matters.
For me, the truth of a situation, which takes time and patience to dig into and uncover, is the ultimate. You have identified the word for this: "discernment". This also comes into play into relationships with people, work, and processes. It's helped us go forward, strongly, and sometimes, holding back, at least until we can confirm we're doing the right things for the right reasons. Life is strange, complicated and messy, but being honest and accountable in our intentions, we can work it all out. Thanks again for your sharing your thoughts and helping us straighten our life's crooked roads.
I really appreciate reading this and that you shared your experience. It's truly impressive that you managed to break the cycle yourself. Your spouse sounds like she suffered under a similar regime, and my heart breaks for her. You'd think they would become less spiteful in their old age, but apparently not. "For me, the truth of a situation, which takes time and patience to dig into and uncover, is the ultimate." - if I didn't have this, I would have nothing. I'm very grateful for people like you who frequently visit these pages and truly grapple with what I say. I thank my stars daily for you all, actually. I've never felt as vindicated as I do when I read these sorts of thoughtful comments. But, bravo to you and your spouse for breaking the cycle. It takes a herculean amount of inner work to do so.
"it was a 3.8, which for an Indian kid is a C-". LOL.
I feel as if I know you much better after reading this. I can't imagine how frustrating it must be to deal with the manipulations and evasions and disingenuous maneuverings of certain women.
As to the woman who said that you're probably the asshole... perhaps. In many cases, if you keep running into extreme or unreasonable behavior on the part of others, you might be the asshole. However, this doesn't apply when we're talking about REAL psychological tendencies or beliefs common within groups - it only applies for normal behavior in normal circumstances. If a person in the 1950's South was arguing regularly for integration they would meet many hostile reactions. They wouldn't be an asshole. The real question is whether groups of women do perform this kind of bullying and manipulation, or whether you're imagining it. I think the fact that people react angrily when you question them or try to illuminate their machinations kind of says it all. That's not the reaction of a person who's innocent. It might be possible that this woman had a slight emotional reaction at your explanation of female tendencies. Women don't usually like to talk about this, which-again-lends some weight to the idea that it's not all nonsense. If someone told me that I was being manipulative or exclusionary or disingenuous and I wasn't (I'm almost never consciously doing those types of things) I would calmly disagree. Nothing about that would make me angry - the person is simply mistaken. I would actually want them to tell me MORE, to see how they'd arrived at their impression.
Do the women accused of feminine social aggression react with neutral curiosity? Do they earnestly want to hear your thoughts, and explain themselves? Or do they react with emotion, evasions, and reputation destruction? If it's the latter, the problem isn't you.
You could STILL be an asshole, of course. I doubt it, but maybe there's something about your words or affect that makes these people prone to hostility or defensiveness... but that probably wouldn't be the case with only women. I imagine that it's really the content of your communications that's arousing these reactions, and it's arousing them in people because it conflicts with their self-image and their social strategies and that can be very uncomfortable.
The real question isn't: are you the asshole? The real question is: is there something to these ideas of yours? If there wasn't, then professional women should be interested, and willing to discuss them fully. They're certainly interesting, after all!
Sometimes the problem really does lie with most of the people around you. Middle schoolers bullying each other, immigrants harboring unfashionable (to Americans) racial attitudes, prisoners initiating aggression and dominance contests... human culture is full of examples of entire huge groups of people who are exhibiting pathological or cryptic behaviors. Anyone pointing these things out threatens the stability of the social status quo, and so EVERYONE is liable to respond poorly, like a cytokine response or something. Even other social primates exhibit these kinds of behaviors. When we observe these patterns, we notice that status or the personal desire for security are nearly always involved... just as they are with high-status women and their
relations with other high-status women.
verdict: YANTA (you're not the asshole)
I typed out a response to this three times but lost it every time. First, I’ve enjoyed getting to know you here as well and am very glad we ran into each other. First, thank you for walking me through that logically; you are correct, I think, that if there was nothing to it there wouldn’t be such an impassioned need to tell me how wrong I am and that I’m actually a bad person for thinking so.
You know something fucking nuts I read this week? According to Warriors and Worriers, women not only evolved to compete covertly, but we also evolved to actually ardently believe we’re not competitive with each other for fear of losing our place in society and help rearing children. Once I saw that the self deception is actually innate so much made sense: corporate life, politics, intrasexual dynamics, hostility to debate and the rejection of truth. Women’s biological incentives hard wired us to subordinate truth to social harmony, and the ancients seemed to understand this. It’s why maya, or the concept of worldly illusion, is feminine in Hindu metaphysics. I once thought that this was a sexist way to think of women, but now I see that the Bhagavad Gita was essentially correct in its assertion that women are further from enlightenment than men. It’s a shame, because I now see so clearly that my own enlightenment path requires me to cast off female socialization and the base instincts born of biology.
You’ve been through hell and somehow came out wiser instead of bitter, which is basically a spiritual superpower. You rebuilt yourself on solid ground and earned your place as a trailblazer.
I had a similar thing happen in feminist circles. At first, it felt like, “Yay! Sisterhood! Girl power! Spice Girls!” But behind the scenes it was more like a sorority full of deeply insecure women all quietly trying to out-hot, out-smart, or out-trauma each other. It was exhausting.
Now when I think about those old friends, it’s like…yeah, I wouldn’t touch that dynamic with a ten-foot pole. Not even with gloves on.
I get it. I want to help too. And honestly, I think as those groups keep imploding, one by one they’ll end up walking through their own fire. And when they do and when the illusions fall apart—they’ll find us. They’ll stumble across our Substacks like a little refuge in the wreckage and maybe then they’ll finally be ready to hear the truth.
You’re absolutely right - they have to want to change. They have to rise from the ashes of social death first; there’s no other way. I think you and I turned out this way precisely because we went through social death first. It helped us see clearly in a way we may never otherwise have. And it indicates a strong inner orientation toward truth, which many of our compatriots have forgotten and refuse to chase. Thank you, and I’m grateful to have met you.
Likewise! ☺️
This is very well done and very interesting reading and caused my mind to pop with the realization that males might very well be privileged over females ironically because males don't suffer being pulled, pushed, controlled and mangled by the female hive and its evolutionary tendency to play perpetual status politics and demand conformity.
Not only is it easier within the male hive to be independent, it is generally a celebrated path. Yes, other insecure males will attempt to pull the independent seeker back down, but the status opportunity is for the hero and not the compliant follower... and most males understand this.
Females, probably because they are generally significantly physically weaker than males, have evolved backroom strategies for competing for needed resources, and then when that is achieved, competing for status as that bodes well for acquiring even more resources. And those strategies generally support covert agency and demonstrated fealty to expected decorum to support the covert agency. That demonstrated fealty to expected decorum derives the collectivist tendency of female politics. For males, the lone wolf warrior overtly striking out with entrepreneurial zeal and transparent intent, is more likely accepted and even celebrated.
Females tend to be more collectivist. Males tend to be more independent.
You can see that conflict within the history of your mother and you yourself. Desiring independence, but then struggling with the anxiety it causes because of the conflict with the collectivist female hive and probably your own evolutionary wiring that keeps telling you that something is wrong or off because of that feedback loop.
I am fiercely independent... so much so that it has been the source of my own relationship problems... primarily from those either wired to want to see demonstrated fealty to their expected decorum, or because they themselves are insecure and my independence threatens their own sense of security with our relationship. They worry that I don't NEED them. The fact is that I don't really need them. Needing someone is toxic to a relationship... it causes abusive behavior that is often just a tantrum of those feeling anxiety over a looming separation, and attempts to thwart a seek of independence.
Here is how I deal with this challenge. First, I accept that being independent requires that I accept having fewer friends and only those that are completely secure in their own sense of self. I have to exit any and all toxic relationships of people trying to pull me back into their clutch of need. The exception to this is family... we have to take what we are given there. Second, I take the long road to "teach" my other relationships that my independence is not any indication of me not caring about them of for them. This second part takes me some effort. I have to remember to reach out and remind the people I have relationships with that I am thinking about them and care about them. This is what I have done with my step-father and some other family members. That is what I have to do with my board of directors. That is what I do with my employees and my clients.
That is what you do with your subscribers by writing great pieces like this!
Frank, I always appreciate your comments and your enduring support. I have often wondered lately as twitter migrates to substack if there's a point, and I conclude every time that there is because you and others leave such thoughtful and encouraging comments. That makes all of it worth the effort.
I've always thought that men just have an easier time asserting their independence from a group, but I also learned recently that men actually are better at forming cooperative groups for a shared goal, making men overall more collaborative than women unlike the narrative (this was from reading Warriors and Worriers). I totally agree that needing someone who's unable to hold that need can be toxic; I had a hard time letting go of the idea that my mother will see me as myself and not try to change me or otherwise control me through guilt. I've often wondered how I came out with a male-typical set of inclinations and thinking ability because you can imagine it makes me wonder what femininity even is. In fact, I don't think I had access to my own before casting off feminism, which tracks. Honestly, I felt like no one got it until I came here and I found so many people who do.
This is where metaphysics is helpful, though I know people consider dualities simplistic. I think that's a mistake because they explain so much about how people behave and how things turn out. Shakti and Shiva represent nature and consciousness/emotion and logic/entropy and void. Either without the other is either destructive or unable to generate life; Shiva only became the lord of dance after he was reunited with Shakti, from which Indian aesthetic theory is said to have been born. I think we've tilted too much toward entropy at the expense of order and structure, which is why I generally feel like a fish out of water in female society. I so ardently wish I was a man sometimes, truly.
This is so intelligently and beautifully written that I almost don’t know what to say.
I wish that every feminist and every white woman would read this.
I have had similar experiences when I was younger. Being bullied by the girls, but because they were the cool ones I was “allowed” to call them friends.
It wasn’t until recent years when I began to process trauma that I realize they only kept me around to abuse me.
Once I left conservative Christian circles as I healed (and was outcast) I began to find a sense of community in the liberal feminist community.
Until I began to challenge them and really require them to take accountability. They would not- as you know.
I was ousted from feminist blogger zawn’s private fb group because I refused to follow group think and zawn’s demands that I respond a certain way.
Then I began to see the similarities in cults, religions, the conservative movement and the liberal feminists, as well as new age spirituality and some of the yoga community that I had connections in.
I had worldview collapse this past winter and it was the best thing that ever happened to me.
I really hate that you experienced all this at the hands of women, and girls, and whiteness and feminist ideology, and especially your own mother.
I really enjoy your work and I admire and appreciate you.
I appreciate reading this very much and your support. I’m struck by how common cultish behavior is, and I think it’s because truth is nowhere to be found inside people. They don’t reach for it if it means losing social approval, which makes me wonder what was different before that people did have some grasp on reality. You may enjoy this book Strange rites on this topic - it was formative for me
That does sound like an interesting read. I’ll check it out thanks.
And you’re welcome.
What you wrote added something to what was stirring in my own soul this afternoon, regarding my own mother. I ended up writing about it and publishing.
I really appreciate knowing this and look forward to reading it - turns out I wasn't subscribed to you but now I am!
Such a brilliant article. Still processing it but I found it to be stunningly raw and relatable.
Really appreciate this Pallavi. Indian culture is such a doozy.
Really appreciate this Pallavi. Indian culture is such a doozy.
You’re very welcome. Yes, so many issues within Indian culture, if I was living there, I’d be involved with some sort of social commentary and justice I think..perhaps to my detriment!
You totally should write more about south asian culture in Britain - I was horrified learning from your writing about the assaults.
Thank you. Yes, the grooming gang assaults of the most horrific kind are our biggest scandal in Britain, I believe. It’s a topic we British public won’t let die.
Good, keep hammering at it. You all have different issues to deal with because of the sheer diversity of the immigrant population, esp in terms of class.
Very much. It makes it even more worthwhile when people outside of Britain take an interest too so thank you.
Yes, certainly. We did that for about 30 years. Older men did it since 1970. We gave up. There was never a time it was received or appreciated without violent reprisals. Note for 30 years we did it anyway, despite every reprisal, because it was the right thing to do. Reminds me of a comment I was going to make, but lost the Note, that "Just ask men." That's it. They're just waiting for your permission to protect and defend you again. Including in things like this.
Actually, at work you already note men have your back. So you could already name it specifically, ask, and have them take extra measures to ring fence you wherever possible.
This isn't a gender thing, or that anyone even needs help: it's merely that this kind of female behavior is unjust, unproductive bulls--t and shouldn't be tolerated, but they'll all be fired if they get involved. So they need to know this will be backed up and have a purpose, and you won't make them swing just to re-ally with the women tormentors.
Can add, I appreciate you being careful in working not to make this the man's fault again. Just had a Note where the phrasing was weak and she came off as "Yes the women misbehave, but isn't that really the man's fault?" I don' think it was intended, it's just so ingrained as to be unthinking, habitual. There is nothing, not even defending women from other women's injustice, that isn't the man's fault.
So yes, that's why: 30, 40, 50 years in a row? They gave up. They clocked out. That whole generation has passed on to the choir invisible.
It is their greatest wish to be a hero and defend you. Anyone. But how can that ever be counted safe again?
I relate to many of your childhood anecdotes and anxieties. For me, it was growing up under the emotional volatility and control of my single mother.
I often think of something Esther Perel said: “We want our children to have better lives than us—and then we resent them when they do.”
Women competing in a male-dominated environment may try to adopt male behavior, or rather their stylized, negative version of male behavior. Being tough and pragmatic, I guess. Meanwhile, it seems, you, as a professional, tend to exemplify what I consider ideal male behavior. And the irony of course is that you are punished for it. Real men are crass and love horseplay, both physically and intellectually, but we don’t bully. That’s one of the things professional women might not quite get. Do they think bullying is tough? There’s no greater coward than a bully!
There is a deeply feminine personal responsibility that doesn’t indulge in competition. It’s traditional, it’s natural. You don’t see a lot of it but it is feminine. A woman who is the foundation of her home, who lifts up everyone she comes into contact with, supports them, inspires them, rejoices in their victories more than her own. It’s not masculine and it’s not fake.
"Women both punish and constantly demand excellence. As a child, I used excellence as a shield and a coping mechanism. If I did well enough in school and went to college, I’d escape my house and make my parents proud (which I still perversely wanted to do even after it all)."
When Carol Gilligan's "In A Different Voice" came out, I mentioned this to a human woman who had been a teacher.
Her response was "No duh, boys get more attention from teachers! They are harder to keep on-task, more unruly, more attention-seeking and less validation-seeking, more eager to please."
Funnily enough I did attend to the boys more because they were incredibly difficult and because unruly boys in a classroom reflected poorly on me as a teacher. We were taught to both exert control on boys and not appear to be pathologizing them for being poor or black, but that nevertheless was the case - they were dehumanized for simply being boys. There was nothing more problematic in that school than boys being raucous in the hallways. Girls were simply obedient, and it’s to our detriment.
Thanks for the post. One of the suppressed truths is that many working women that were surveyed preferred to work under a male boss, than a female boss.
Therein lies the rub. It’s really a wonder the strength with which we cling to social fictions.
" I often wonder if I’m crazy because most people don’t see what I see. Maybe I am."
I think men see it all the time. The problem is, what's the point in saying anything about it? To take the heat from speaking, you'd have to have good odds of a productive outcome.
I want to push you a bit here because we’ve interacted so much and I’ve been appreciative of your support. Someone like me is going to be rare among women not because I’m special but because the social penalty for saying what I do is so high. I honestly can’t blame women for just going along with it to some degree because life has been socially difficult for me in the past five years (even more than childhood in a way).
So if women like me are rare because of the collective action problem, does it not become important for men to push back despite the fact that you’ll be berated by women? It’s crucial that men speak up in support instead of letting someone like me take all the heat for it. You’ll not be surprised to know that several men have said they use my words to make their arguments to me or otherwise used me as a shield. Still others say they appreciate everything I say because they can’t say it, or simply indicate tacit agreement with me in private and never speak up. But if men don’t speak up and against the insane culture in which we find ourselves, nothing will change. This is because women like me will appear to be in the extreme minority when I know for a fact that legions of men agree with what I say. Men not speaking up isn’t much different from preference falsification. Men have to be willing to tell women no if anything is going to change.
Would you castigate a woman for failing to intervene in a physical confrontation between men? You are asking something similar of us here. Men are not any better equipped to confront women socially than women are to confront men physically. We lack the social tools to build and manage a relational coalition in order to prevail. And women generally don’t take kindly to men who get involved in their internal conflicts, any more than men take kindly to women who try to involve themselves in conflicts between men that are occurring on male terms.
I'm not talking about conflicts, but about the defense of truth. Those are different things. If you see women out in the wild denying truth in the name of ideology, I don't think you as a man should be silent, because then women like me are always fighting a losing battle. I need men on my side simply because more of you see it than women do. I need actual support, not just being used as a rhetorical shield.
I should add that the more masculine thing to do would be to do what you’re suggesting and call out untruths without fear or favor. And some men can even do that and get away with it. It’s something that should be admired, but as ever in human endeavors, you can’t analyze behavior without including the social component. People want to be liked, they care about their social status and other people’s good opinions of them, and many if not most are perfectly willing to sacrifice the truth on the altar of social acceptability unless there’s something larger at stake than abstract principles. That’s as true of men as women, though men (being more disagreeable and less social on average) are somewhat more likely to be iconoclasts. Just not very many of them.
Stating unpopular truths is always a difficult proposition. It’s admirable, but it’s also the case that the people who do almost invariably pay a price for it, even if they’re later vindicated.
It’s always going to be difficult but this thing you’re naming is the very reason Biden was allowed to run again. We either defend truth and pay the cost or our society continues going to shit.
A “defense” of anything entails conflict by its nature. If another woman asserts something crazy, *and especially if that thing is being asserted with the unstated expectation that everyone will agree*, and you respond that she is wrong, you are initiating a conflict. Not without a justifiable reason, perhaps, but it’s still a conflict. And any man who backs you up becomes a party to it.
Also, there is crazy (“I think New Coke was better than Classic”) and then there is crazy (“It’s OK for thousands of people to congregate outside to protest racism in the middle of a respiratory pandemic, even though we literally banned people from standing closer to each other than six feet in other contexts, because racism is a disease that’s even worse than COVID!”). One of these things is an idle conversational gambit that may well be inviting disagreement. The other is being stated as a social and moral test, which you will fail by disagreeing. When a grenade like that gets tossed out, nobody wants to jump on it.
My basic contention is that men are as ill-equipped and vulnerable in facing social aggression as women are in facing physical aggression. That is why the strong inclination of most men is to avoid social conflict with women at all costs. It’s a lose-lose proposition for them.
Then, I'm sorry to say, the culture will never change. Because women like me will NEVER be in the majority - there's no incentive for it.
Most humans, male and female, simply want to play their expected roles and be part of the herd.