The Feminization Fallacy
Abandoning Collectivist Labels
On November 6th, the New York Times ran an Opinion piece titled, “Did Women Ruin the Workplace – And if so, can conservative feminism fix it?” It seems their provocation worked too well, so they toned it down to: “Did Liberal Feminism Ruin the Workplace?” But it had to be diluted again to: “Have ‘Feminine Vices’ Taken Over the Workplace?”
The genus of this article was the NYT podcast titled Interesting Times, and this episode was a debate between two conservative female authors. In the wake of it all, The Times now has women, liberal feminism, feminine vices and conservative feminism wrecking things in office buildings everywhere. Nice job. Presumably, the victims are men and women who rightfully mind the business of business.
So, what is this all about? According to one of the debaters, Helen Andrews, it is about redefining “wokeism” as merely the latest incarnation of “feminism.” But to me, it’s about determinists and collectivists accusing determinists and collectivists of determinism and collectivism. Or a circular food fight of “left” and “right” partisans.
Determinism
Implied by Andrews’ article written in Compact, primitive instincts override free will, “women’s conflicts were traditionally within the tribe over scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict but by covert competition with rivals, with no clear terminus.” But is this is not an injustice to female leaders with explicitly defined goals, the resolve to succeed, and the character to lead?
To find the motivation that favors women getting jobs and promotions for genetic reasons, Andrews cites the theories of authors like Dahlia Lithwick, “The American legal system was fundamentally a machine built to privilege propertied white men.” And because Lithwick’s analysis is grounded in historicism (brute power replacing great ideas as the basis of history), Andrews was able to identify the general effect of that, “Those who view the law as a patriarchal relic can be expected to treat it instrumentally.” That’s how the weaponization of the legal system gets started.
In this case, subjective law that enforces identity group activism replaces objective law that defends economic freedom. Or as Andrews claims, “Feminization is not an organic result of women outcompeting men. It is an artificial result of social engineering.”
Yet the social engineering goes both ways. While Lithwick demonizes “white men” and denigrates property rights, Andrews replies with: “The problem is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.”
But is “feminization” a real thing? Have significant increases in female employment and executive positions had negative effects on productivity? Has that impaired the career advancement for people with proven ability and desire? For an objective answer to these questions, a female running a start-up technology company and self-published on Substack may be a good place to start:
There are problems affecting business in America, mainly laws that serve nobody, but that’s not feminisation — it’s the forever push and pull between left/right populism and business interests.
Collectivism
Yet nearly all commentary about “feminization” evades the essential characteristic of ethical behavior: character. What you do - and to a lesser extent, what you say, are dependent on the moral values you adopt. You have free will, but that is under attack by the forces of determinism. But by adopting deterministic values (genetics, culture, God’s will), you have no choice - and it then becomes easy to accept group identity and victimhood status.
Naturally, the subject of women becoming dominant in work cultures is inherently collectivist. The concept of “women” is a collective. It does not differentiate them as individuals with their own abilities and desires, but that is useful or imperative in certain contexts - such as only women born as women participating in women’s only sports. Duh.
But in social settings with collective goals that are value creating and revenue generating, the “women” label fails not only women, but everyone else. As does Andrew’s thesis equating cultural Marxism with “feminization,”
Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.
True, there is nothing new about “wokeness.” It is deterministic, it is collectivist, it is victimhood, and it is a malevolent rewriting of history. But if the “feminine patterns of behavior” rhetoric is behind “conservative feminism,” that is also deterministic and collectivist, but not “wokeism.”
Capitalism
We are all influenced by biological endowments, cultural traditions, and family obligations - and social pressure is powerful, especially for people indoctrinated by nothing is certain, no one is perfect, just be kind. Yet, in that culture, the effect is to withhold judgment (especially recognition for those who have earned it) and then get run over by the mediocrities who deserve no kindness.
In contrast, independent minds who exercise judgment grounded in reality and good character will be rewarded for their productive virtues by the justice of earned profit, and hopefully recognition. Or as The Cultural Romantic above puts it,
True capitalism doesn’t give you “belonging” via acceptance of your unique qualities. A mature workplace is indifferent — it pays you for competence . . . And no, women are not stealing jobs from men, just like immigrants are not stealing jobs from natives, AI isn’t stealing jobs from humans, electricity did not once steal jobs from lamplighters.
In summary, “feminization” is behaviorist psychology that undermines the talented and dedicated women who have led and managed institutions of all kinds. And regardless of sex, Julian Simon has instructed the world that talented people are The Ultimate Resource. Accordingly, the tools of capitalism are individualism, independence and economic power through voluntary production and trade.
In contrast, the tools of collectivist systems are envy, guilt, conformity and political power through the regulatory State. To her credit, Andrews is on to it, “I am not just a woman. I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven.” Amen to that.