I agree with your argument that increased female influence has, among other consequences, made culture more attuned to and focused on emotion. What I’m trying to understand is why, at the same time, we often fail to name the emotional forces driving much of male behavior — loneliness, humiliation, status anxiety, anger, rage. These shape politics and public life dramatically, yet we rarely describe them as “emotional.” If the culture really is more emotional now, why do we still treat male emotion as something else — as politics, ideology, or crisis — rather than acknowledging it as emotion too?
There is no question that some of the behaviors for enforcing norms that are used in organizations today are more typically female--they do not use violence or the threat of violence to keep people in line, as that is more typically male. Even police forces are being dissuaded from using force in this paradigm. What the feminization thesis doesn't address is how we got here. It's not that women were so powerful that they beat men into submission but the result of social, political and demographic changes that both men and women were swept up in. Why does Ms. Andrews think we can reverse that--and at what cost--and, even if we could, that we wouldn't just drift back in this direction all over again?
Police are discouraged from violence because it looks bad; for the governors of society, it is preferable that people be controlled without overt oppression or brutality and instead only simple, subtle manipulations to keep people obedient, docile, and compliant: sedatives of some form (all the drugs, yes, but also "bread & circuses") can be deployed, and self-policing can be instilled.
When you can be seen and tracked and traced anywhere, at all times, and cannot keep even your thoughts private - or if you simply believe this is possible, and indeed it is becoming technically possible - you won't dare to dissent (Thoughtcrime), let alone rebel.
Agree that all those strategies are used to control people, but violence is celebrated in some societies, and we only think it “looks bad” because of this shift that Andrews calls “feminization” (which people might previously have called “civilization”).
I think civilization is distinct from (and far older than) the pretty recent feminization shift of the WEIRD nations, and that police violence looks bad not because of feminine priorities but because it indicates discord in society. Most of our violence should be directed outward, against other people rather than against our own people. Police brutality looks too much like "the rabble aren't happy, they're making noise again and will need another beating to quiet down."
"What the feminization thesis doesn't address is how we got here. It's not that women were so powerful that they beat men into submission but the result of social, political and demographic changes that both men and women were swept up in. Why does Ms. Andrews think we can reverse that--and at what cost"
How do you distinguish feminization of the workplace by social engineering from entry en masse of women into the workplace because contraception freed them to do so and work became less physical and easy for women to do?
The mythic male hero — from Odysseus to Indiana Jones and James Bond — once embodied confrontation with chaos. In contemporary cinema, those figures are often deconstructed or replaced by heroines. Does this indicate a civilizational loss of the masculine principle you discuss, and could this be part of the reason why cinema has declined in public support?
I wrote this after an all day workshop with the Norwegian film Institute and 80% female participants. After 8 hours of forming circles and dispelling "male" myths of culture, I felt that I had visited a dying loved one. This will produce 0 interest in any audience outside that circle and further weaken film as both art and entertainment.
You’ve awoken “the Brats” –by that I mean, the GenXer women that were raised by hippies with lots of ‘live and let live’ talk around the house. You know the gals, the liberals that are proud to announce they are an atheist at every social event; and say things sarcastically such as, ‘I’m so sorry that it is so hard for a man to be good without a good job’. I’m talking about the “progressives” that defensively state that Mrs. Andrews is trying to ‘insinuate that women are by their nature unfit for the kinds of leadership roles they’ve assumed’, and that ‘this is why things have gotten so bad’.-- totally missing your point about GROUPS. QUESTION to Helen: what do we do about these Brats? Is this denial of The Great Feminization just another form of derangement syndrome?
Given recent backlashes against feminisation (particularly from men) throughout entertainment as well as in the social and political sphere, is the cultural pendulum changing direction, or will institutions that pushed this narrative double down?
Young boys need reading materials which engage them- how much does the false belief that aggression is socially constructed, limiting selection, reduce boys appetite and inclination to read?
Hi Helen, will a “winding back” of the last few decades ever take place with modern women CHOOSING to marry young, stay home and raise children? Ie to levels similar to 50 or 70 years ago?
In your view, which countries have most successfully advanced women’s progress and protected their interests while avoiding the pitfalls you’ve so brilliantly articulated? And here in America, was there a time when the pace and culture of change was about right......where, if we’d just stayed that course, we might have gotten it right in the end?
It often seems that modern democracies naturally favor the rise of egoistic personalities — those most driven by self-promotion, dominance, and manipulation of public image — rather than genuinely public-spirited individuals. As a result, the proportion of narcissists and opportunists among elected officials appears far higher than in the general population.
Do you think this is an unavoidable feature of democratic competition — that the system itself rewards egoism — or could it be mitigated by alternative models, like sortition, where representatives are chosen by lottery rather than election? Would such a system produce leaders with more authentic social responsibility?
Clearly evolutionary psychology speaks to this issue. In terms of dealing with it, do you see aspects of the inherent nature women evolved with, such as plausible deniability (a survival tool) and targeted complaining (a tool to get men to do for them what they couldn't do themselves for social or physical reasons) as barriers to a solution?
If women in positions of influence and power act as though they don't actually have it and continue to present women in general as victims of men or male culture, is there any way they'll be able to take responsibility for their choices and actions? Or are we stuck in a hall of mirrors indefinitely?
I agree with your argument that increased female influence has, among other consequences, made culture more attuned to and focused on emotion. What I’m trying to understand is why, at the same time, we often fail to name the emotional forces driving much of male behavior — loneliness, humiliation, status anxiety, anger, rage. These shape politics and public life dramatically, yet we rarely describe them as “emotional.” If the culture really is more emotional now, why do we still treat male emotion as something else — as politics, ideology, or crisis — rather than acknowledging it as emotion too?
There is no question that some of the behaviors for enforcing norms that are used in organizations today are more typically female--they do not use violence or the threat of violence to keep people in line, as that is more typically male. Even police forces are being dissuaded from using force in this paradigm. What the feminization thesis doesn't address is how we got here. It's not that women were so powerful that they beat men into submission but the result of social, political and demographic changes that both men and women were swept up in. Why does Ms. Andrews think we can reverse that--and at what cost--and, even if we could, that we wouldn't just drift back in this direction all over again?
Police are discouraged from violence because it looks bad; for the governors of society, it is preferable that people be controlled without overt oppression or brutality and instead only simple, subtle manipulations to keep people obedient, docile, and compliant: sedatives of some form (all the drugs, yes, but also "bread & circuses") can be deployed, and self-policing can be instilled.
When you can be seen and tracked and traced anywhere, at all times, and cannot keep even your thoughts private - or if you simply believe this is possible, and indeed it is becoming technically possible - you won't dare to dissent (Thoughtcrime), let alone rebel.
Agree that all those strategies are used to control people, but violence is celebrated in some societies, and we only think it “looks bad” because of this shift that Andrews calls “feminization” (which people might previously have called “civilization”).
I think civilization is distinct from (and far older than) the pretty recent feminization shift of the WEIRD nations, and that police violence looks bad not because of feminine priorities but because it indicates discord in society. Most of our violence should be directed outward, against other people rather than against our own people. Police brutality looks too much like "the rabble aren't happy, they're making noise again and will need another beating to quiet down."
"What the feminization thesis doesn't address is how we got here. It's not that women were so powerful that they beat men into submission but the result of social, political and demographic changes that both men and women were swept up in. Why does Ms. Andrews think we can reverse that--and at what cost"
Very thoughtful question.
What happens when a feminised society comes into conflict with a masculinised one?
It's outraged and talks and wheedles and pleads and denies, as in Ukraine.
How do you distinguish feminization of the workplace by social engineering from entry en masse of women into the workplace because contraception freed them to do so and work became less physical and easy for women to do?
The mythic male hero — from Odysseus to Indiana Jones and James Bond — once embodied confrontation with chaos. In contemporary cinema, those figures are often deconstructed or replaced by heroines. Does this indicate a civilizational loss of the masculine principle you discuss, and could this be part of the reason why cinema has declined in public support?
Good question. I'd say it's why cinema, and literature in general, is no longer interesting to most men. There's no sharp edged power in them anymore.
I wrote this after an all day workshop with the Norwegian film Institute and 80% female participants. After 8 hours of forming circles and dispelling "male" myths of culture, I felt that I had visited a dying loved one. This will produce 0 interest in any audience outside that circle and further weaken film as both art and entertainment.
Good God man, that sounds like at least the 6th circle of hell.
Dante would’ve needed a new circle for that workshop.
You’ve awoken “the Brats” –by that I mean, the GenXer women that were raised by hippies with lots of ‘live and let live’ talk around the house. You know the gals, the liberals that are proud to announce they are an atheist at every social event; and say things sarcastically such as, ‘I’m so sorry that it is so hard for a man to be good without a good job’. I’m talking about the “progressives” that defensively state that Mrs. Andrews is trying to ‘insinuate that women are by their nature unfit for the kinds of leadership roles they’ve assumed’, and that ‘this is why things have gotten so bad’.-- totally missing your point about GROUPS. QUESTION to Helen: what do we do about these Brats? Is this denial of The Great Feminization just another form of derangement syndrome?
Please thank her for her article and tell her I think she is spot on! Kind regards, Magnus
Given recent backlashes against feminisation (particularly from men) throughout entertainment as well as in the social and political sphere, is the cultural pendulum changing direction, or will institutions that pushed this narrative double down?
Young boys need reading materials which engage them- how much does the false belief that aggression is socially constructed, limiting selection, reduce boys appetite and inclination to read?
How do we let women have the same (or similar) opportunities as men, without them being required to abandon their femininity?
How do we let men have the same opportunities as women, without them being required to abandon their masculinity?
Hi Helen, will a “winding back” of the last few decades ever take place with modern women CHOOSING to marry young, stay home and raise children? Ie to levels similar to 50 or 70 years ago?
In your view, which countries have most successfully advanced women’s progress and protected their interests while avoiding the pitfalls you’ve so brilliantly articulated? And here in America, was there a time when the pace and culture of change was about right......where, if we’d just stayed that course, we might have gotten it right in the end?
Guys, this is a solid question; please use it.
It often seems that modern democracies naturally favor the rise of egoistic personalities — those most driven by self-promotion, dominance, and manipulation of public image — rather than genuinely public-spirited individuals. As a result, the proportion of narcissists and opportunists among elected officials appears far higher than in the general population.
Do you think this is an unavoidable feature of democratic competition — that the system itself rewards egoism — or could it be mitigated by alternative models, like sortition, where representatives are chosen by lottery rather than election? Would such a system produce leaders with more authentic social responsibility?
probably more obvious/acute with populism (or corrupted democracy)
Has the feminisation of society meant that we no longer see the flaws in women?
Has the feminisation of society gone hand in hand with the infantalisation of society? Does one lead to the other?
Clearly evolutionary psychology speaks to this issue. In terms of dealing with it, do you see aspects of the inherent nature women evolved with, such as plausible deniability (a survival tool) and targeted complaining (a tool to get men to do for them what they couldn't do themselves for social or physical reasons) as barriers to a solution?
If women in positions of influence and power act as though they don't actually have it and continue to present women in general as victims of men or male culture, is there any way they'll be able to take responsibility for their choices and actions? Or are we stuck in a hall of mirrors indefinitely?