I think we should stop describing human traits as feminine or masculine and accept that they are human.
We need both "masculine" and "feminine" traits, but for laypeople they tend to be connected to sex and thus people are mocked, insulted, discouraged if they show traits that is connected to the opposite sex.
The people who run organizations where this feminized type of management is allowed, where feelings are more important than getting the job done, know nothing whatever about industrial workplaces. Like electrical power generation plants, oil refineries, factories, oilfields, mines, anywhere that builds or operates heavy equipment. In these places, safety doesn't mean protection from hurt feelings, it means damage to multi-million dollar equipment, critical infrastructure fails and harms a large community, or somebody dies, if all of the correct procedures, without exception, are not performed perfectly. It does not matter how anyone feels about it, that is the way it is. No exceptions. Whoever does not follow the procedures is out, period. It doesn't matter about his or her kids, having a bad day, or if someone else said something mean. Women and men both can work in many of these jobs but the women have to accept and live by values and norms that are not typically "feminine". That was my career in the oil business, and I rapidly learned to think rationally and not emotionally. Not that it was difficult for me. Life as a whole has been much better because I approach it rationally. It's not that I don't have feelings and care about others, certainly I do, but those feeling do not override reality. I have no "feminine" friends and never have, I don't understand that kind of woman and I don't even know how to find whatever wavelength they are on. My friends are women who are can-do and approach life in a similar rational way.
Another observation, the meltdown over returning the military to fitness and readiness standards, appears to me based in the feminine fairness and compassion principles you describe. Much of the wailing is over the "harms" done to those poor women, transgender, obese, unfit people in the military and how hard it will be for them to meet the requirements for fitness, behavior, and readiness that have been military culture forever. No one is pointing out that the military is unlike any other institution, and that only the best can serve, if you can't make the cut you are out. Period, no discussion. It has to be that way because the defense of our country is at stake.
I wrote in a now-deleted post that bullshitting to oneself is only possible in the most privileged of circumstances, and your comment illustrates that beautifully. The intellectual sphere loooves to harp on about female inclusivity in military roles, PD, firefighting. Simple common sense would warn them against it. They don't stop to consider whether it's a good thing to weaken their country's protection measures, and if a government really working for the good of its people would encourage it. They wouldn't recognize threat or deception if it punched them in the face.
If “ When survival is no longer the goal of social organization, the management of feelings becomes the aim. The regulation of tone, comfort, and belonging flows from this” then how is not feminization a marker of progress?
I don’t understand why it is presented as problematic. Not having to make efforts towards day to day survival is a wonderful thing for humanity! Are we not striving as a species to eliminate for good material risks and focus on our relations with each other?
As a young woman I was constantly reminded through media and those around me that “women are shallow and materialistic” and that’s why men don’t really like us.
But the argument against feminization seems to be that feminization concerns itself too much with the immaterial- ie feelings, emotions and interpersonal relations.
It seems like a set up where women cannot win. We have to make sure we show no signs of being shallow, yet avoiding dealings with the material is also somehow wrong.
As I describe in a previous comment, there are large parts of the producer side of the economy, invisible to most urbanized people, where feelings do not enter into the matter at all and safe operation of critical equipment is essential. Actual physical safety is above all other considerations, how someone feels could be dangerous. What I am talking about are workplaces for essential infrastructure. "Masculine" rationality is the way these operations are managed and it must be that way. Women can have these jobs but must conform to this management style.
There is no way to eliminate material risks in the production of electricity, fuel, food, manufacturing, mining, water management and treatment, and many other functions essential to the operation of society. You don't notice these things because the people who make them run are so good at what they do, and almost all of the time they all operate quietly in the background, providing you with a comfortable life.
You don't need to be part of that shallow feminized culture if you don't want to be, it's a choice. You can seek out your own way. It might mean a job outside an office and in a different social system, but you might find that you like it. I was never part of it and I am quite happy not to be.
Thank you for your response and I did read the comment you referenced. I think you have missed my point- however. The employment you discuss I am well aware of- but that is what I am describing as shallow. If an individual has to be present with the task at hand- perhaps to avoid lobbing off a hand- they are kept in a shallow state. Their mind is not free to focus on deeper philosophical issues- turning them over and over like a rock tumbler until we find gems of truth and meaning revealed. The sort of “salt of the earth” mentality is how animals function. A shallow focus on what’s right in front of them. If humanity is to evolve into a fully enlightened species we need everyone on board. The “don’t lob your hand off” work is the whole purpose of technology/robotics/AI- to remove obstacles to human intellectual flourishing.
The feminiziation of society brings on more of the latter.
The NIMBY game is to block YIMBYs... those that better compete in a dynamic economy that rewards demonstrated productive merit, so that those with lower capability can either maintain or advance their relative social status from results of the blocking.
Thus feminization is about the meek inheriting the earth. It is a manifestation of the principle of hard times resulting in strong people that make good times. And good times creating weak people that cause hard times.
But we are making a mistake here. The current political shift to punch down those responsible for the Critical Theory and woke backed project that was do destructive to existing socioeconomic structures... it is increasing the psychological basis the fueled the original attempt.
These are people lacking confidence to achieve the social status they crave or feel they deserve. They don't see a clear enough path in the regular, normal system of merit and reward... so they attempted to transform it. The retribution against their project is justified, but it is resulting in even fewer opportunities for these people... and now they are turning toward even more drastic ideas like socialism.
What is needed is more assistance in helping them achieve. Otherwise they are going to keep collecting to destroy everything.
I hate to say it, but there is truth to the "happy wife, happy life" principle.
I see your point and to some extent agree with it, but what can we possibly find for these over-credentialed, uneducated people to do that suits their wildly inflated view of their own status in life? They are not capable of doing anything that society actually needs except menial work that they despise. There are no jobs that add value for Gender Studies, Womens Studies, Critical Theory Studies, or any of the other useless degrees that so many unqualified people have been given in recent years.
This came as a breath of fresh air. I argue with people to the right of me less often than the left, but I've gotten into it recently with people arguing that we need active discrimination to keep the ratio of women in institutions below the threshold where feminization seems to kick in and half the people I'm arguing with cannot seem to grasp that 1) sex is only a proxy indicator for predicting individual level traits that exist on mostly overlapping curves, so it's foolish and counterproductive to exclude logical truth-seeking women while ignoring consensus focused offense avoidant men, and 2) status preservation, consensus seeking, and offense avoidant institutional cultures long predate either modern technology or the entrance of women into the institutions, they are AFAICT the historical norm throughout most of history and cultures, the default state of affairs. Women tend to navigate these cultures better than many men, but women are not a necessary precondition for these institutional cultures to arise or sustain themselves
"This turn toward emotion management was inevitable once material scarcity was resolved through efficient resource allocation in the age of managerial capitalism."
While not objecting to the assertion of inevitability, I'd like to see the above assertion supported in more detail, specifically with regard to scarcity being "resolved." Allocation (rationing) of resources is, indeed, more efficient than formerly, bt I'm reading this as scarcity itself having been overcome by means of targeted rationing.
Am I misreading it?
The essay is insightful on several levels and thought-provoking in many dimensions. I've been in management positions often, over nearly fifty years, managing both men and women. Resolving secondary emotional response as it inhibits productivity and increases staff turnover, has always been one of those responsibilities too urgent to ignore. Resentment unaddressed, tears organizations apart. The praxis of interest alignment is variable by sex, to a degree, but the necessity for constant realignment and adjustment, is not.
I'm looking forward to more from this author. Her willingness and ability to look beneath superficialities, is a breath of fresh air within an otherwise stultified analytic framework.
1."...it should be noted that HR is effective because women are better at enforcing these regimes than men."
The other reason HR departments tend to be staffed by women is to head off sexual harassment claims against (male) upper management.
Same reason a defendant in a sexual assault or a Menendez Brother may want a female defense attorney.
2. "The prohibition in the academy against even discussing sex differences in several disciplines..."
But only sometimes. You can talk all you want about "women's ways of knowing" or that science and math are white male tools designed to oppress women. But at the same time, you can complain about women being underrepresented in STEM.
3. Is it just me, or on some level are women naturally conservative, favoring group dynamics over breaking loose?
At least that's how it works for cats. Toms roam, fight and fornication. Queens focus on the rearing and instruction of kittens and often cooperate in these tasks.
1. Crucial point; I've been emotionally managed into silence around both female and male bullying.
2. Also true, and they complain about the latter because STEM is prestigious, not because they think women should be agents in building society, because that requires admitting analytical ability is superior intelligence (I will die on this hill)
3. And yes, women tend to be more collectivist, which I think explains our affinity for collectivist ideologies. Feminism was also intended to be collectivist.
A request… Please contemplate the motivation to separate female from feminization. Why the two are naturally, intuitively correlated by experts in evolutionary biology and sexual competition? What would motivate such a nuance argument seeking to separate a female identity from associated feminine behavior? Yes, I'm asking you to lookly deeply into the mirror and see your own ego, as best you can.
My point… You're not a credible missionary to deliver this message, even if it might hold any merit. Is this fair? No, but that does not mean your audience would be incorrect in assuming your ego has something to gain by severing (your) accountability with feminization.
My bias is clear here, to be forthright. I believe men, like me, have zero preference for feminized institutions, but women have historical political power and they are, ultimately, responsible for the social changes to our institutions over the last 100 years. So, I'll hold females accountable, even if some naive males played along. I acknowledge that men voted for the 19th amendment, etc.
I should say, it’s superior because it’s required to build something new, though interpersonal skills do matter. But without analytical ability, you’re not creating something with just interpersonal skills.
This is EXACTLY right. I made a similar comment on Nathalie's recent podcast interview. I even hesitated to use the word 'feminization' when I began thinking about this, because I thought it would imply blame and make people (women) feel defensive.
Nevertheless, it's apt and it broadly describes what's happening. Women didn't feminize our institutions... we ALL did (although women have benefitted disproportionately). Many women are dismayed at the loss of rigor and accountability and merit-based selection that has become common. And many men have enthusiastically feminized themselves and their organizations. Most of them, in fact. This is a much larger cultural and organizational trend, and you've laid out the constituents perfectly.
We must have mind-melded — I posted something similar earlier today on feminisation in institutions and the imbalance between masculine and feminine principles. It’s reassuring to read your piece interwoven with Indian cosmology; it adds a layer of metaphysical depth that complements the institutional analysis beautifully.
I think we should stop describing human traits as feminine or masculine and accept that they are human.
We need both "masculine" and "feminine" traits, but for laypeople they tend to be connected to sex and thus people are mocked, insulted, discouraged if they show traits that is connected to the opposite sex.
"Comfort over truth" -- you must be reading your Nietzsche.
The people who run organizations where this feminized type of management is allowed, where feelings are more important than getting the job done, know nothing whatever about industrial workplaces. Like electrical power generation plants, oil refineries, factories, oilfields, mines, anywhere that builds or operates heavy equipment. In these places, safety doesn't mean protection from hurt feelings, it means damage to multi-million dollar equipment, critical infrastructure fails and harms a large community, or somebody dies, if all of the correct procedures, without exception, are not performed perfectly. It does not matter how anyone feels about it, that is the way it is. No exceptions. Whoever does not follow the procedures is out, period. It doesn't matter about his or her kids, having a bad day, or if someone else said something mean. Women and men both can work in many of these jobs but the women have to accept and live by values and norms that are not typically "feminine". That was my career in the oil business, and I rapidly learned to think rationally and not emotionally. Not that it was difficult for me. Life as a whole has been much better because I approach it rationally. It's not that I don't have feelings and care about others, certainly I do, but those feeling do not override reality. I have no "feminine" friends and never have, I don't understand that kind of woman and I don't even know how to find whatever wavelength they are on. My friends are women who are can-do and approach life in a similar rational way.
Another observation, the meltdown over returning the military to fitness and readiness standards, appears to me based in the feminine fairness and compassion principles you describe. Much of the wailing is over the "harms" done to those poor women, transgender, obese, unfit people in the military and how hard it will be for them to meet the requirements for fitness, behavior, and readiness that have been military culture forever. No one is pointing out that the military is unlike any other institution, and that only the best can serve, if you can't make the cut you are out. Period, no discussion. It has to be that way because the defense of our country is at stake.
I wrote in a now-deleted post that bullshitting to oneself is only possible in the most privileged of circumstances, and your comment illustrates that beautifully. The intellectual sphere loooves to harp on about female inclusivity in military roles, PD, firefighting. Simple common sense would warn them against it. They don't stop to consider whether it's a good thing to weaken their country's protection measures, and if a government really working for the good of its people would encourage it. They wouldn't recognize threat or deception if it punched them in the face.
If “ When survival is no longer the goal of social organization, the management of feelings becomes the aim. The regulation of tone, comfort, and belonging flows from this” then how is not feminization a marker of progress?
I don’t understand why it is presented as problematic. Not having to make efforts towards day to day survival is a wonderful thing for humanity! Are we not striving as a species to eliminate for good material risks and focus on our relations with each other?
As a young woman I was constantly reminded through media and those around me that “women are shallow and materialistic” and that’s why men don’t really like us.
But the argument against feminization seems to be that feminization concerns itself too much with the immaterial- ie feelings, emotions and interpersonal relations.
It seems like a set up where women cannot win. We have to make sure we show no signs of being shallow, yet avoiding dealings with the material is also somehow wrong.
As I describe in a previous comment, there are large parts of the producer side of the economy, invisible to most urbanized people, where feelings do not enter into the matter at all and safe operation of critical equipment is essential. Actual physical safety is above all other considerations, how someone feels could be dangerous. What I am talking about are workplaces for essential infrastructure. "Masculine" rationality is the way these operations are managed and it must be that way. Women can have these jobs but must conform to this management style.
There is no way to eliminate material risks in the production of electricity, fuel, food, manufacturing, mining, water management and treatment, and many other functions essential to the operation of society. You don't notice these things because the people who make them run are so good at what they do, and almost all of the time they all operate quietly in the background, providing you with a comfortable life.
You don't need to be part of that shallow feminized culture if you don't want to be, it's a choice. You can seek out your own way. It might mean a job outside an office and in a different social system, but you might find that you like it. I was never part of it and I am quite happy not to be.
Thank you for your response and I did read the comment you referenced. I think you have missed my point- however. The employment you discuss I am well aware of- but that is what I am describing as shallow. If an individual has to be present with the task at hand- perhaps to avoid lobbing off a hand- they are kept in a shallow state. Their mind is not free to focus on deeper philosophical issues- turning them over and over like a rock tumbler until we find gems of truth and meaning revealed. The sort of “salt of the earth” mentality is how animals function. A shallow focus on what’s right in front of them. If humanity is to evolve into a fully enlightened species we need everyone on board. The “don’t lob your hand off” work is the whole purpose of technology/robotics/AI- to remove obstacles to human intellectual flourishing.
Maybe. But NOT at the expense of competence. Abd also, as we ALL know, a 'happy' wife is fleeting, at best.
YIMBY vs NIMBY
Abundance mindset vs scarcity mindset
Dynamism vs stasis
The former tends to be Republican and male.
The latter tends to be Democrat and female.
The feminiziation of society brings on more of the latter.
The NIMBY game is to block YIMBYs... those that better compete in a dynamic economy that rewards demonstrated productive merit, so that those with lower capability can either maintain or advance their relative social status from results of the blocking.
Thus feminization is about the meek inheriting the earth. It is a manifestation of the principle of hard times resulting in strong people that make good times. And good times creating weak people that cause hard times.
But we are making a mistake here. The current political shift to punch down those responsible for the Critical Theory and woke backed project that was do destructive to existing socioeconomic structures... it is increasing the psychological basis the fueled the original attempt.
These are people lacking confidence to achieve the social status they crave or feel they deserve. They don't see a clear enough path in the regular, normal system of merit and reward... so they attempted to transform it. The retribution against their project is justified, but it is resulting in even fewer opportunities for these people... and now they are turning toward even more drastic ideas like socialism.
What is needed is more assistance in helping them achieve. Otherwise they are going to keep collecting to destroy everything.
I hate to say it, but there is truth to the "happy wife, happy life" principle.
I see your point and to some extent agree with it, but what can we possibly find for these over-credentialed, uneducated people to do that suits their wildly inflated view of their own status in life? They are not capable of doing anything that society actually needs except menial work that they despise. There are no jobs that add value for Gender Studies, Womens Studies, Critical Theory Studies, or any of the other useless degrees that so many unqualified people have been given in recent years.
Teach them all how to make goat cheese. Stop importing so much goat cheese. Something like that.
This came as a breath of fresh air. I argue with people to the right of me less often than the left, but I've gotten into it recently with people arguing that we need active discrimination to keep the ratio of women in institutions below the threshold where feminization seems to kick in and half the people I'm arguing with cannot seem to grasp that 1) sex is only a proxy indicator for predicting individual level traits that exist on mostly overlapping curves, so it's foolish and counterproductive to exclude logical truth-seeking women while ignoring consensus focused offense avoidant men, and 2) status preservation, consensus seeking, and offense avoidant institutional cultures long predate either modern technology or the entrance of women into the institutions, they are AFAICT the historical norm throughout most of history and cultures, the default state of affairs. Women tend to navigate these cultures better than many men, but women are not a necessary precondition for these institutional cultures to arise or sustain themselves
"This turn toward emotion management was inevitable once material scarcity was resolved through efficient resource allocation in the age of managerial capitalism."
While not objecting to the assertion of inevitability, I'd like to see the above assertion supported in more detail, specifically with regard to scarcity being "resolved." Allocation (rationing) of resources is, indeed, more efficient than formerly, bt I'm reading this as scarcity itself having been overcome by means of targeted rationing.
Am I misreading it?
The essay is insightful on several levels and thought-provoking in many dimensions. I've been in management positions often, over nearly fifty years, managing both men and women. Resolving secondary emotional response as it inhibits productivity and increases staff turnover, has always been one of those responsibilities too urgent to ignore. Resentment unaddressed, tears organizations apart. The praxis of interest alignment is variable by sex, to a degree, but the necessity for constant realignment and adjustment, is not.
I'm looking forward to more from this author. Her willingness and ability to look beneath superficialities, is a breath of fresh air within an otherwise stultified analytic framework.
You're in the pocket. I've been waiting for this, thank you.
I apprecicate that
1."...it should be noted that HR is effective because women are better at enforcing these regimes than men."
The other reason HR departments tend to be staffed by women is to head off sexual harassment claims against (male) upper management.
Same reason a defendant in a sexual assault or a Menendez Brother may want a female defense attorney.
2. "The prohibition in the academy against even discussing sex differences in several disciplines..."
But only sometimes. You can talk all you want about "women's ways of knowing" or that science and math are white male tools designed to oppress women. But at the same time, you can complain about women being underrepresented in STEM.
3. Is it just me, or on some level are women naturally conservative, favoring group dynamics over breaking loose?
At least that's how it works for cats. Toms roam, fight and fornication. Queens focus on the rearing and instruction of kittens and often cooperate in these tasks.
1. Crucial point; I've been emotionally managed into silence around both female and male bullying.
2. Also true, and they complain about the latter because STEM is prestigious, not because they think women should be agents in building society, because that requires admitting analytical ability is superior intelligence (I will die on this hill)
3. And yes, women tend to be more collectivist, which I think explains our affinity for collectivist ideologies. Feminism was also intended to be collectivist.
A request… Please contemplate the motivation to separate female from feminization. Why the two are naturally, intuitively correlated by experts in evolutionary biology and sexual competition? What would motivate such a nuance argument seeking to separate a female identity from associated feminine behavior? Yes, I'm asking you to lookly deeply into the mirror and see your own ego, as best you can.
My point… You're not a credible missionary to deliver this message, even if it might hold any merit. Is this fair? No, but that does not mean your audience would be incorrect in assuming your ego has something to gain by severing (your) accountability with feminization.
My bias is clear here, to be forthright. I believe men, like me, have zero preference for feminized institutions, but women have historical political power and they are, ultimately, responsible for the social changes to our institutions over the last 100 years. So, I'll hold females accountable, even if some naive males played along. I acknowledge that men voted for the 19th amendment, etc.
I don't know whether analytic knowledge is "superior". Depends on for what. I don't see many scientists as political leaders, ferinstance.
I should say, it’s superior because it’s required to build something new, though interpersonal skills do matter. But without analytical ability, you’re not creating something with just interpersonal skills.
Depends on what you're building.
Finally! Someone else who sees the economic consequences as the effects, not the causes, of feminization!
This is EXACTLY right. I made a similar comment on Nathalie's recent podcast interview. I even hesitated to use the word 'feminization' when I began thinking about this, because I thought it would imply blame and make people (women) feel defensive.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/job-search-part-4
Nevertheless, it's apt and it broadly describes what's happening. Women didn't feminize our institutions... we ALL did (although women have benefitted disproportionately). Many women are dismayed at the loss of rigor and accountability and merit-based selection that has become common. And many men have enthusiastically feminized themselves and their organizations. Most of them, in fact. This is a much larger cultural and organizational trend, and you've laid out the constituents perfectly.
We must have mind-melded — I posted something similar earlier today on feminisation in institutions and the imbalance between masculine and feminine principles. It’s reassuring to read your piece interwoven with Indian cosmology; it adds a layer of metaphysical depth that complements the institutional analysis beautifully.
Was wondering if the recent H Lewis attention was at least somewhat due to her reading either of you? Any convo with her I wonder?