You reference Clark and Winegard's 2022 piece but not Clark's very recent paper in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. I think everyone interested in the feminisation debate should read it, and re-read it. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/5/2/294/pdf
While much of the paper is factual (and enlightening), Clark does make a normative argument/conclusion towards the end. Let me quote her verbatim:
"Some readers may be inclined to deny the existence of sex differences in values and priorities for fear that these differences could be used to justify the oppression and exclusion of women from positions of power. This approach, however, does no favors to womenbybothignoring women’s explicitly stated preferences and implying that women’s values are inherently problematic. On the contrary, women maintain the human species with their vigilance to danger and their drive to help vulnerable others. Humankind would not exist without women behaving as women do. Other readers might conclude from these differences that women ought to be excluded from positions of influence. This, however, would deny institutions access to roughly half the talent pool and thus would undermine meritocracy and human progress. This perspective also drastically oversimplifies the relationship between female priorities and cultural outcomes. Men and women both have values and behavioral proclivities that can be constructive and destructive in different contexts. Men, with their tendencies toward conquest and sexual and physical violence, do not fit perfectly within modern institutions, and societies for millennia have paid enormous costs to tame aggressive male behavior. Cultures and institutions need to find ways of utilizing the positive aspects of male and female psychology while minimizing any antisocial or counterproductive aspects.
A constructive approach for managing the new cultural value-clash requires identification of recent changes, testing their costs and benefits and collecting relevant data, pursuing the maintenance of values and norms that produce positive outcomes, and challenging those that create costs with intellectual persuasion. By examining both the status quo norms and policies that were based on previously shared male values as well as the new norms and policies that have emerged from an increasingly female set of priorities, institutions could benefit from this period of turmoil in the long run. The policies and norms that can be justified with evidence as best advancing shared goals of scientific and human progress should (eventually) emerge victorious. To realize this optimistic outcome, we need only share a respect for and openness to empirical data. This project will be challenging, but in my view, holds the most promise for facilitating long-term human progress and (relative) social harmony."
I think the last three sentences put it perfectly - I endorse them wholeheardtedly - and as far as I can see, they align with your take.
The solution is not to discriminate against women, it’s to STOP DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF WOMEN.
No innately human trait, feminine or masculine, is intrinsically “toxic”… the qualitative effect of such traits will manifest for good or ill depending upon their specific application. The issue isn’t that women have entered into the sciences, Madam Curie was a PERFECTLY COMPETENT SCIENTIST, the issue is that too many women without the disposition to be scientists have been shoe horned into the profession by people intent upon problematizing natural disparities between males and females.
We need to call for an end to ALL forms of essentialist social engineering agendas… allow fields to be defined by the standards of their purpose, and allow individuals to seek those fields out according to their own interests and aptitudes; and when average group differences inevitably emerge in consequence of people’s choices…. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
Superb piece, Helen. (FWIW, a title with "doesn't need re-masculisation or re-feminisation" would have reflected your argument a little more fully. In today's climate, one word more of less can make a big difference.) Also, on Substack, Conor Fitzgerald makes a related point that men and women will have to work together, given their large presence in work, management and leadership which is not going to change. Sadly, the culture warriors are not likely to share, in fact even to know about, your views or his.
I very much appreciate this article, Helen. This is the kind of steadfast sense-making we need right now. I always thought that the people who spout this blanket hatred wrapped in intellectualization have been horribly hurt somewhere in their past by someone and, in their ego defense, have become terrified of the gender that person represents in their mind. I have long noted that this occurs with rabid feminists as well. I think it would be hard to find a misandrist or misogynist who has not been personally hurt or traumatized by that respective sex. Back in circa 2017 to 2020, during the height of woke, I remember watching a video of Fiamengo being verbally abused by a crowd of jeering, hysterical women at a talk she was trying to give at a Canadian university. The way she was treated was terrible and this has probably continued for the past 5 to 8 years. It's sad when people let their personal traumas get so out of control that they can no longer see how much their skewed perceptions of things are interfering with their interpretations of reality. Sadly, this was my understanding of what Fiamengo was initially trying to critique back then and, at the time, I felt she made some good points given the climate of academia at that time. Look at where this has all ended up. The pendulum has swung so far the other way it's hard to feel hopeful about the future. I especially find this tendency horrifying from those who claim they are academics. The sad irony is that the women and men who ascribe to this kind of reasoning seem to be exhibiting the very emotive irrational thinking they are critical of.
And of course it is important to remember that all of this is wrapped up in problems with audience capture and how people are going about making a living on the internet. It would be interesting to consider who makes up the vast majority of the audiences for this nonsense. How much of this is just pandering to what their audience wants to hear? Perhaps all of this is just a symptom of Peter Turchin's idea that we now have an over-production of elites who are just trying to make a living in a tooth and claw media environment i.e. lobsters in a bucket battling for eyeballs. A race to the bottom in difficult economic times.
I am very sympathetic to Andrews' argument as I've seen it play out in my own professional domain over 35 years and how our effectiveness has plummeted as a result. I think your argument the Trump/BroCast/Fox/Congress rise as counter-evidential less compelling because I think the vast majority of damaged is being done, not by conservative social and political institutions - but, rather by historically liberal institutions that have lost their way terribly - enabling the populist right political class. None the less, I got a lot out of this article to improve my approach, and frankly, only got past the headline because you are are credible (my highest compliment 😀).
So desperately, desperately needed. A wonderful response to a real problem distorted and tortured by its various interlocutors. Restored to clarity here. Thank you.
Thank you for writing this! This has been bothering me for quite a while, the tendency for certain writers to label everything they don’t like as “feminine”, and then use it to make generalizations about women, even the individuals like me who also don’t like those things. If cancel culture is feminine, and I’m a woman but I hate cancel culture, what does that say about me?
You articulated what I’ve been thinking far better than I could have, and it badly needed to be said!
I am not convinced that women really are more concerned about “what is best for everyone in society.” I think that women are much more concerned about creating harmony (and sometimes the illusion of harmony) within their specific small-scale group (i.e. family, friends, co-workers) than men are.
Harmony within the small-scale group and what is best for society are two very different things.
A very helpful overview of the debate. Thank you. I particularly like your very clear articulation of just how counterproductive use of the terms ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘toxic femininity’ tends to be. In future, I would love to hear more about your views regarding something else which you mention here a couple of times, namely, meritocracy, perhaps in the light of Michael Sandel’s critique of the concept. Thank you in hope and anticipation.
You reference Clark and Winegard's 2022 piece but not Clark's very recent paper in the Journal of Controversial Ideas. I think everyone interested in the feminisation debate should read it, and re-read it. https://journalofcontroversialideas.org/download/article/5/2/294/pdf
While much of the paper is factual (and enlightening), Clark does make a normative argument/conclusion towards the end. Let me quote her verbatim:
"Some readers may be inclined to deny the existence of sex differences in values and priorities for fear that these differences could be used to justify the oppression and exclusion of women from positions of power. This approach, however, does no favors to womenbybothignoring women’s explicitly stated preferences and implying that women’s values are inherently problematic. On the contrary, women maintain the human species with their vigilance to danger and their drive to help vulnerable others. Humankind would not exist without women behaving as women do. Other readers might conclude from these differences that women ought to be excluded from positions of influence. This, however, would deny institutions access to roughly half the talent pool and thus would undermine meritocracy and human progress. This perspective also drastically oversimplifies the relationship between female priorities and cultural outcomes. Men and women both have values and behavioral proclivities that can be constructive and destructive in different contexts. Men, with their tendencies toward conquest and sexual and physical violence, do not fit perfectly within modern institutions, and societies for millennia have paid enormous costs to tame aggressive male behavior. Cultures and institutions need to find ways of utilizing the positive aspects of male and female psychology while minimizing any antisocial or counterproductive aspects.
A constructive approach for managing the new cultural value-clash requires identification of recent changes, testing their costs and benefits and collecting relevant data, pursuing the maintenance of values and norms that produce positive outcomes, and challenging those that create costs with intellectual persuasion. By examining both the status quo norms and policies that were based on previously shared male values as well as the new norms and policies that have emerged from an increasingly female set of priorities, institutions could benefit from this period of turmoil in the long run. The policies and norms that can be justified with evidence as best advancing shared goals of scientific and human progress should (eventually) emerge victorious. To realize this optimistic outcome, we need only share a respect for and openness to empirical data. This project will be challenging, but in my view, holds the most promise for facilitating long-term human progress and (relative) social harmony."
I think the last three sentences put it perfectly - I endorse them wholeheardtedly - and as far as I can see, they align with your take.
Yes! Thank you!
This is wonderful, thank you for sharing this. This is the type of sense-making we need right now.
This piece was brilliant!
The solution is not to discriminate against women, it’s to STOP DISCRIMINATING IN FAVOR OF WOMEN.
No innately human trait, feminine or masculine, is intrinsically “toxic”… the qualitative effect of such traits will manifest for good or ill depending upon their specific application. The issue isn’t that women have entered into the sciences, Madam Curie was a PERFECTLY COMPETENT SCIENTIST, the issue is that too many women without the disposition to be scientists have been shoe horned into the profession by people intent upon problematizing natural disparities between males and females.
We need to call for an end to ALL forms of essentialist social engineering agendas… allow fields to be defined by the standards of their purpose, and allow individuals to seek those fields out according to their own interests and aptitudes; and when average group differences inevitably emerge in consequence of people’s choices…. GET THE FUCK OVER IT.
Great article Helen!
Just brilliantly on the money. I especially enjoyed and learned from the last third of your essay.
Superb piece, Helen. (FWIW, a title with "doesn't need re-masculisation or re-feminisation" would have reflected your argument a little more fully. In today's climate, one word more of less can make a big difference.) Also, on Substack, Conor Fitzgerald makes a related point that men and women will have to work together, given their large presence in work, management and leadership which is not going to change. Sadly, the culture warriors are not likely to share, in fact even to know about, your views or his.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-176391781
Thank you Helen! Excellent analysis.
I’ve read this article a few times now (it’s that good) and I will consider your reasoned points in my writing also.
I very much appreciate this article, Helen. This is the kind of steadfast sense-making we need right now. I always thought that the people who spout this blanket hatred wrapped in intellectualization have been horribly hurt somewhere in their past by someone and, in their ego defense, have become terrified of the gender that person represents in their mind. I have long noted that this occurs with rabid feminists as well. I think it would be hard to find a misandrist or misogynist who has not been personally hurt or traumatized by that respective sex. Back in circa 2017 to 2020, during the height of woke, I remember watching a video of Fiamengo being verbally abused by a crowd of jeering, hysterical women at a talk she was trying to give at a Canadian university. The way she was treated was terrible and this has probably continued for the past 5 to 8 years. It's sad when people let their personal traumas get so out of control that they can no longer see how much their skewed perceptions of things are interfering with their interpretations of reality. Sadly, this was my understanding of what Fiamengo was initially trying to critique back then and, at the time, I felt she made some good points given the climate of academia at that time. Look at where this has all ended up. The pendulum has swung so far the other way it's hard to feel hopeful about the future. I especially find this tendency horrifying from those who claim they are academics. The sad irony is that the women and men who ascribe to this kind of reasoning seem to be exhibiting the very emotive irrational thinking they are critical of.
And of course it is important to remember that all of this is wrapped up in problems with audience capture and how people are going about making a living on the internet. It would be interesting to consider who makes up the vast majority of the audiences for this nonsense. How much of this is just pandering to what their audience wants to hear? Perhaps all of this is just a symptom of Peter Turchin's idea that we now have an over-production of elites who are just trying to make a living in a tooth and claw media environment i.e. lobsters in a bucket battling for eyeballs. A race to the bottom in difficult economic times.
Excellent, thank you!
Genuinely brilliant - as always!
I am very sympathetic to Andrews' argument as I've seen it play out in my own professional domain over 35 years and how our effectiveness has plummeted as a result. I think your argument the Trump/BroCast/Fox/Congress rise as counter-evidential less compelling because I think the vast majority of damaged is being done, not by conservative social and political institutions - but, rather by historically liberal institutions that have lost their way terribly - enabling the populist right political class. None the less, I got a lot out of this article to improve my approach, and frankly, only got past the headline because you are are credible (my highest compliment 😀).
So desperately, desperately needed. A wonderful response to a real problem distorted and tortured by its various interlocutors. Restored to clarity here. Thank you.
Based
Thank you for writing this! This has been bothering me for quite a while, the tendency for certain writers to label everything they don’t like as “feminine”, and then use it to make generalizations about women, even the individuals like me who also don’t like those things. If cancel culture is feminine, and I’m a woman but I hate cancel culture, what does that say about me?
You articulated what I’ve been thinking far better than I could have, and it badly needed to be said!
I am not convinced that women really are more concerned about “what is best for everyone in society.” I think that women are much more concerned about creating harmony (and sometimes the illusion of harmony) within their specific small-scale group (i.e. family, friends, co-workers) than men are.
Harmony within the small-scale group and what is best for society are two very different things.
A very helpful overview of the debate. Thank you. I particularly like your very clear articulation of just how counterproductive use of the terms ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘toxic femininity’ tends to be. In future, I would love to hear more about your views regarding something else which you mention here a couple of times, namely, meritocracy, perhaps in the light of Michael Sandel’s critique of the concept. Thank you in hope and anticipation.