Listened to it this morning. Good debate! The handshake comment strikes me as odd — has she never watched a women’s soccer match? We always shake hands at the end. We respect our “enemies”. Same in the workplace: I have female “rivals” and that are also dear friends. Their excellence inspires me to be excellent. No simmering distaste here. I both compete with them and totally admire them.
Oooh! I watched from the section where you asked her about female virtue & stayed through the end -- definitely would like to watch/listen to the rest when I get a chance. I have to say I particularly loved this comment of the moderator's" "We're in a society where men & women are not relating successfully." Simple, succinct, and packed w a lot to ponder. (Obviously not true in every case, but broadly? Yeah, I think he has a point.) I love that you made this point: "I think many employers and workplaces are not interested in the reality of the materials of the human beings they work with." This, I think, is a core truth of our society right now and one that is directly contributing to a lot of the discontent, malaise, & anger that we see, and your call to recognize that each of us, as humans, rotates in & out of states of dependence is one we've too long ignored.
It was fascinating listening, and I loved how you didn't let her off the hook on female virtue. Tough and gracious. I enjoyed reading her long piece, but I wish I could avoid wondering what it is that motivates her frustration, which seems to be present in much of her work and untethered to the basic arguments she is making.
Your comment about the system being unfair ultimately to both women and men because humans must die made me cry. Thank you for this. That's the heart of it.
It was a tremendous counterexample. I’m not well versed in your work, so I’m not as famiiar with your overall feminism, but I’m glad you wrote this.
I don’t necessarily believe that virtues and vices can be either masculine or feminine. But what I did notice is that when you demonstrated the (as defined within the conversation) masculine virtue of directness and clarity, neither Helen nor Ross was comfortable with you stepping into that role.
I think the problem I encountered and that I have seen is that when some people in the workplace encounter a colleague who displays virtues they culturally associate with another gender, those virtues are taken as vice. Voilà the shining armor.
I believe Ross and Helen are both missing the fact that virtues and vices are customary, not inherent. Their concept of virtue is tied to their Roman Catholic descendency which ascribes these virtues by sex, with a focus on childbearing driven by merit of the same expansionist attitudes.
What they are reacting to is, in my opinion, an apparently newly-found need to adapt one’s personal cultural perspectives to suit an increasingly multicultural workplace. Sometimes referred to as white backlash, but it maps to cultural gender norms as well.
Honestly, all respect to Helen, but her aim here seems to be to simply genderize certain cultural phenomenon ("triumph of the therapeutic" so to speak) that have been observed for decades long before women started making up large percentages of the professional workplace. Christopher Lasch's writings had a moment with conservatives from like 2017-2019 but it went away, largely I think, because when you really dive into his thinking and writings he is very critical of how conservatives have responded to these trends. Feels like Helen is re-packaging similar thoughts, but flattening them into a women vs men lens which is easier to digest for the more cultural warrior oriented wing of today's conservative movement.
Ah, so there's a reasonable minimum case: there are certain vices the women tend to, which are not the same that men tend to, and that hegemonic numbers of women in certain traditionally male-dominated fields undermines the integrity of those fields because the vices women tend to undermine those fields.
However, Helen is making the much more extreme claim that virtues and vices are themselves gendered.
The unstated implication is that men ought only to pursue manly virtue and woman only to pursue womanly virtue. Your pushback is to interrogate if Helen has a fully realized account of gendered virtue, or whether she believes the old idea that the virtuous woman is a masculine woman.
The Great Feminization is a concept that needs to be dealt with, because - at least in terms of numbers - is true.
But while I think that empathy is the enemy of justice - and sometimes even of charity - I think that the most severe damage of the Great Feminization has been in education.
Since 25 years, K-12 children of the different sexes have been exposed to radically different messages by the education system.
The message to boys has been overwhelmingly corrective/devaluing/chastising. Boys were told they were undisciplined, disrespectful, unintelligent, insensitive, abusive. They were told that male were the cause of all societal ills and a danger to girls, they were told that they had to put their act together and that everything bad that happened to them was only their own fault.
On the other hand, the message to girls has been overwhelmingly empowering/affirming/validating. Girls were told that they could do whatever they wanted, that they would save the world, that everything they did and felt, no matter what, was good and beautiful, that any failure or setback was never their fault, but of the patriarchy and of toxic masculinity. They were taught to hate, fear and despise boys.
The boys heard from the people in authority and in the know, those who were trusted with their care, those who were supposed to act according to science, overwhelmingly women, that they were worthless and evil, and that the world
would have been better without them.
Then, they did what everyone who's utterly shamed, humiliated and despised do. They withdrew from
human interaction, they got alienated, they committed suicide in unprecedented numbers (the suicide rate of boys increased by 50% in the last few years). Many sought community and validation in extremists and misogynist internet groups. They turned shame and resentment into rage and vengefulness: an obvious coping mechanism. At the same time, gender ideology implictly celebrated lust. All sexualities were good, but the one of boys. Pornography use was part of this vicious cycle, and a means to seek revenge on women. In fact, how it could be that those superior beings could degrade themselves to that point? Nothing as pornography to fuel misogyny. And then, we have the shooter of Charlie Kirk and the school shootings, the extreme product of the war on boys waged by the Great Feminization since 25 years. Those educators, psychologists, pedagogists, almost all of them women, and their feminized male enablers, pushed those boys into the hands of the Andrew Tates and Nick Fuentes of this world. They acted not from a position of science and charity, but from a position of fear and irrationality. Gender theory, the ideology of the Great Feminization, transformed those professions into a Dyonisian cult. Men gave up their responsibility to moderate women, who, when left to their own devices, drift into emotionalism and sentimentalism. Which, to paraphrase a great woman, leads to the gas chambers.
Helen did not acquit herself well. She could not for the life of her answer your very simple question. And bobbed and weaved when you rightfully pressed her. Very revealing!
Skimmed article. Is "what about female virtue" whataboutism? When you guys talk about this it very clearly feels like it is. Trying to carve out a special niche for women and their biology, and then the male niche becomes 'sacrificing for women' and also male-oriented virtues are still considered gender neutral. It's always founded on defining women without constraining them. Get the male stuff if you want it but also have a special female-exclusive world to fall back on to when you get sick of playing man.
CS Lewis thought women should not be priests or politicians because he thought women would favor their own family or group, however they defined it -- with men being more objective. This corresponds to the much later Kohlberg scale of moral development, with some researchers (perhaps he himself -- don't remember ) -- saying women got stuck at level 3. This is the level where what's good is what benefits one's own family or group. Carol Gilligan challenged this, and some research points out that as they develop, men's and women's ideas about mortality gradually converge. So that in maturity, they're basically the same.
I've thought a lot about this because God has told me that my main issue is wanting to be male. That makes perfect sense given my being brought up in the fifties. Alice Walker thought the same, and in one book, said married or "together" couples should live mainly separately so the man couldn't be dominant. Novelist Robert Parker and is wife put this into action, which saved their marriage.
As for me, I think there's an important psychological difference. Men thrust, penetrate, are naturally assertive and can easily slide over into aggression. (Of course Margaret Thatcher springs immediately to mind as a counter argument.) Women can choose to open, or choose to stay closed. If the choice to open is made, it becomes a feminine virtue and a huge advantage is the woman realizes this and uses it in whatever vocation she's called to do.
It's this choice to say yes or no, that's important. In several Native American tribes, the tribe could not go to war unless the elder woman the tribe appointed to decide, said yes. If she said no, the men deferred to her decision -- despite the reasons they wished to fight another tribe.
So choosing to be neither victim nor martyr is important for women. Instead, we can embrace our choices: open or closed, yes or no. We can bring this capacity to any relationship -- among persons, with plants and animals and all of nature, with a house, with a community of any size.
I think it goes beyond that; Helen Andrews treats feminization as a kind of deadly disease carried by women, who must be held back from most organized activities for the good of civilization.
I’m curious if you and Helen disagree on the policies that you each are advocating for, despite your stark differences on points of theory.
Especially wondering if you agree with Helen on removing some gendered legal protections in the workplace and/or making it more difficult to sue on the grounds of gender discrimination. I appreciate the way you pushed her on this, but also I think you agree with her that people should be comfortable having workplace conversations about what role is the best fit for a young mother?
And you seem to advocate for banning pornography and dating apps in the interview. Wouldn’t be surprised if Helen agrees with you there as well.
I also think you both agree on banning contraception, and also generally agree that that ban will almost certainly lead to fewer women working. Helen might say that is a vital shift in order to save society, and you might say that is an expression of genuine preference. But I’d see it as state coercion…
Listened to it this morning. Good debate! The handshake comment strikes me as odd — has she never watched a women’s soccer match? We always shake hands at the end. We respect our “enemies”. Same in the workplace: I have female “rivals” and that are also dear friends. Their excellence inspires me to be excellent. No simmering distaste here. I both compete with them and totally admire them.
Oooh! I watched from the section where you asked her about female virtue & stayed through the end -- definitely would like to watch/listen to the rest when I get a chance. I have to say I particularly loved this comment of the moderator's" "We're in a society where men & women are not relating successfully." Simple, succinct, and packed w a lot to ponder. (Obviously not true in every case, but broadly? Yeah, I think he has a point.) I love that you made this point: "I think many employers and workplaces are not interested in the reality of the materials of the human beings they work with." This, I think, is a core truth of our society right now and one that is directly contributing to a lot of the discontent, malaise, & anger that we see, and your call to recognize that each of us, as humans, rotates in & out of states of dependence is one we've too long ignored.
Leah you’re so great—thank you! I wanna grow up and be you someday (though I think you’re younger 😜)
It was fascinating listening, and I loved how you didn't let her off the hook on female virtue. Tough and gracious. I enjoyed reading her long piece, but I wish I could avoid wondering what it is that motivates her frustration, which seems to be present in much of her work and untethered to the basic arguments she is making.
Your comment about the system being unfair ultimately to both women and men because humans must die made me cry. Thank you for this. That's the heart of it.
This is why I was so glad to do this in person, not on twitter.
It was a tremendous counterexample. I’m not well versed in your work, so I’m not as famiiar with your overall feminism, but I’m glad you wrote this.
I don’t necessarily believe that virtues and vices can be either masculine or feminine. But what I did notice is that when you demonstrated the (as defined within the conversation) masculine virtue of directness and clarity, neither Helen nor Ross was comfortable with you stepping into that role.
I think the problem I encountered and that I have seen is that when some people in the workplace encounter a colleague who displays virtues they culturally associate with another gender, those virtues are taken as vice. Voilà the shining armor.
I believe Ross and Helen are both missing the fact that virtues and vices are customary, not inherent. Their concept of virtue is tied to their Roman Catholic descendency which ascribes these virtues by sex, with a focus on childbearing driven by merit of the same expansionist attitudes.
What they are reacting to is, in my opinion, an apparently newly-found need to adapt one’s personal cultural perspectives to suit an increasingly multicultural workplace. Sometimes referred to as white backlash, but it maps to cultural gender norms as well.
Honestly, all respect to Helen, but her aim here seems to be to simply genderize certain cultural phenomenon ("triumph of the therapeutic" so to speak) that have been observed for decades long before women started making up large percentages of the professional workplace. Christopher Lasch's writings had a moment with conservatives from like 2017-2019 but it went away, largely I think, because when you really dive into his thinking and writings he is very critical of how conservatives have responded to these trends. Feels like Helen is re-packaging similar thoughts, but flattening them into a women vs men lens which is easier to digest for the more cultural warrior oriented wing of today's conservative movement.
Ah, so there's a reasonable minimum case: there are certain vices the women tend to, which are not the same that men tend to, and that hegemonic numbers of women in certain traditionally male-dominated fields undermines the integrity of those fields because the vices women tend to undermine those fields.
However, Helen is making the much more extreme claim that virtues and vices are themselves gendered.
The unstated implication is that men ought only to pursue manly virtue and woman only to pursue womanly virtue. Your pushback is to interrogate if Helen has a fully realized account of gendered virtue, or whether she believes the old idea that the virtuous woman is a masculine woman.
Is that an accurate summary?
Yep, that’s one of the main threads!
The Great Feminization is a concept that needs to be dealt with, because - at least in terms of numbers - is true.
But while I think that empathy is the enemy of justice - and sometimes even of charity - I think that the most severe damage of the Great Feminization has been in education.
Since 25 years, K-12 children of the different sexes have been exposed to radically different messages by the education system.
The message to boys has been overwhelmingly corrective/devaluing/chastising. Boys were told they were undisciplined, disrespectful, unintelligent, insensitive, abusive. They were told that male were the cause of all societal ills and a danger to girls, they were told that they had to put their act together and that everything bad that happened to them was only their own fault.
On the other hand, the message to girls has been overwhelmingly empowering/affirming/validating. Girls were told that they could do whatever they wanted, that they would save the world, that everything they did and felt, no matter what, was good and beautiful, that any failure or setback was never their fault, but of the patriarchy and of toxic masculinity. They were taught to hate, fear and despise boys.
The boys heard from the people in authority and in the know, those who were trusted with their care, those who were supposed to act according to science, overwhelmingly women, that they were worthless and evil, and that the world
would have been better without them.
Then, they did what everyone who's utterly shamed, humiliated and despised do. They withdrew from
human interaction, they got alienated, they committed suicide in unprecedented numbers (the suicide rate of boys increased by 50% in the last few years). Many sought community and validation in extremists and misogynist internet groups. They turned shame and resentment into rage and vengefulness: an obvious coping mechanism. At the same time, gender ideology implictly celebrated lust. All sexualities were good, but the one of boys. Pornography use was part of this vicious cycle, and a means to seek revenge on women. In fact, how it could be that those superior beings could degrade themselves to that point? Nothing as pornography to fuel misogyny. And then, we have the shooter of Charlie Kirk and the school shootings, the extreme product of the war on boys waged by the Great Feminization since 25 years. Those educators, psychologists, pedagogists, almost all of them women, and their feminized male enablers, pushed those boys into the hands of the Andrew Tates and Nick Fuentes of this world. They acted not from a position of science and charity, but from a position of fear and irrationality. Gender theory, the ideology of the Great Feminization, transformed those professions into a Dyonisian cult. Men gave up their responsibility to moderate women, who, when left to their own devices, drift into emotionalism and sentimentalism. Which, to paraphrase a great woman, leads to the gas chambers.
Helen did not acquit herself well. She could not for the life of her answer your very simple question. And bobbed and weaved when you rightfully pressed her. Very revealing!
Skimmed article. Is "what about female virtue" whataboutism? When you guys talk about this it very clearly feels like it is. Trying to carve out a special niche for women and their biology, and then the male niche becomes 'sacrificing for women' and also male-oriented virtues are still considered gender neutral. It's always founded on defining women without constraining them. Get the male stuff if you want it but also have a special female-exclusive world to fall back on to when you get sick of playing man.
Ross did do you a bit dirty (unintentionally) by embracing the "like" framework, when that was in fact not what you were asking.
Happily I am very comfortable clarifying aggressively.
Oh boy, I will have to listen to this one!
CS Lewis thought women should not be priests or politicians because he thought women would favor their own family or group, however they defined it -- with men being more objective. This corresponds to the much later Kohlberg scale of moral development, with some researchers (perhaps he himself -- don't remember ) -- saying women got stuck at level 3. This is the level where what's good is what benefits one's own family or group. Carol Gilligan challenged this, and some research points out that as they develop, men's and women's ideas about mortality gradually converge. So that in maturity, they're basically the same.
I've thought a lot about this because God has told me that my main issue is wanting to be male. That makes perfect sense given my being brought up in the fifties. Alice Walker thought the same, and in one book, said married or "together" couples should live mainly separately so the man couldn't be dominant. Novelist Robert Parker and is wife put this into action, which saved their marriage.
As for me, I think there's an important psychological difference. Men thrust, penetrate, are naturally assertive and can easily slide over into aggression. (Of course Margaret Thatcher springs immediately to mind as a counter argument.) Women can choose to open, or choose to stay closed. If the choice to open is made, it becomes a feminine virtue and a huge advantage is the woman realizes this and uses it in whatever vocation she's called to do.
It's this choice to say yes or no, that's important. In several Native American tribes, the tribe could not go to war unless the elder woman the tribe appointed to decide, said yes. If she said no, the men deferred to her decision -- despite the reasons they wished to fight another tribe.
So choosing to be neither victim nor martyr is important for women. Instead, we can embrace our choices: open or closed, yes or no. We can bring this capacity to any relationship -- among persons, with plants and animals and all of nature, with a house, with a community of any size.
I think it goes beyond that; Helen Andrews treats feminization as a kind of deadly disease carried by women, who must be held back from most organized activities for the good of civilization.
I’m curious if you and Helen disagree on the policies that you each are advocating for, despite your stark differences on points of theory.
Especially wondering if you agree with Helen on removing some gendered legal protections in the workplace and/or making it more difficult to sue on the grounds of gender discrimination. I appreciate the way you pushed her on this, but also I think you agree with her that people should be comfortable having workplace conversations about what role is the best fit for a young mother?
And you seem to advocate for banning pornography and dating apps in the interview. Wouldn’t be surprised if Helen agrees with you there as well.
I also think you both agree on banning contraception, and also generally agree that that ban will almost certainly lead to fewer women working. Helen might say that is a vital shift in order to save society, and you might say that is an expression of genuine preference. But I’d see it as state coercion…
I strongly disagree with her on rolling back antidiscrimination law.
I oppose contraception but I don’t think it should be banned in a democracy where people don’t agree with me. It’s my job to persuade.
You killed it and are killing it.