HereAndGone
17d ago
There are values in norms, but when one side gets to display a (mock) severed head to great applause, and responds to objections with "What? it's just a joke! why are you lot so sensitive, why are you always over-reacting?" then I think the erosion of norms set in.
Yes, Griffin got consequences for that, but there were defenders for it (and she seemed to learn nothing from "I torpedoed my career with a dumb stunt" by repeating it). I think the problem is that politics is pig-wrestling, and the mud is just getting deeper.
HereAndGone
17d ago
Newsom, for one, seems to have adopted the Trumpian social media posting style, and I see that being praised. So there is precedent for the Democrats to copy what are deemed successful ploys of his, even if formerly they would have held their nose about it. I do dread to think what they might copy from the shit-dumping. Nobody needs this kind of vulgarity.
HereAndGone
17d ago
Yeah, I was hoping that the material being dumped was mud or clay or something, but it looks too much like faeces to be anything else. A shame, this level of crudity is self-defeating (Trump wearing a crown and being a fighter jet pilot was funny enough on its own, doing a Red Arrows style show over the protestors would have been better).
HereAndGone
17d ago
If I truly were arguing for female superiority/supremacy, Nybbler, you would be in no doubt.
HereAndGone
17d ago
It's not that "she should be a secretary if she's not going to advocate for women", it's that this is where her argument breaks down (hopefully, she expands on it elsewhere in a more detailed and considered way). If we want to go back to the days of the masculine office, we go back to the days of "women are secretaries and men are bosses". She's sawing off the branch she is sitting on, without seeming to realise it.
As I have been trying to point out, if her argument is that "society is too feminised, the professions are too feminised", then the natural outcome of that is that, as a woman in the professions, she is part of the problem. Just by being a female presence in a male space, she contributes as part of the mass of women taking over. So she must, by the logic of her own argument, step back and step down if she is serious about solving the problem. Otherwise, it's as pointless as land acknowledgements: "yeah we took your stuff, no we're not giving it back". Yeah, women took over the male domains, no we're not leaving.
HereAndGone
19d ago
You are staking a position of female superiority
Given that I got banned for emoji usage, I'm probably tempting the wrath of the mod gods here, but fuck no.
I don't believe in female superiority any more than I believe in male superiority. I do believe the problem, if it exists, is not "too many women in that job". Men can be bitchy, backstabbing, boot-licking, and players of political games in work every bit as much as women. Every guy who put on a suit and tie for a middle manager job is a bold, truth-seeking, risk-taking innovator? Really, Helen?
How many women is too many women, Nybbler? How many men is too few men? Or too many?
Honestly, Andrews' article reminds me, from the other side, of Houston, Houston, Do You Read? by James Tiptree Jr. where I didn't agree with the position there (women indeed superior) back when I read it as a teen. And I don't agree with the opposite position (men indeed superior).
We have different abilities and different gifts, and we need a mix of both to survive and indeed thrive as a society. No boots on necks, no matter who is wearing the boot; side-by-side into the future!
"Tipping the scales" requires that we know what the endpoint should be. "We'll know it when we see it" is a recipe for disaster, because no matter how you change the ratios, there's always the argument that "no, go lower and then it'll all be great!" So 60% female profession becomes 50/50? Still not good enough, society too female? Go down to 40% female? 30%? 0%?
Because some on this very thread have argued for 0%, that smart women should be having unstressed babies instead of going to work like a man in a man's job. I don't think Andrews would accept that, but she's set up that argument.
Yeah, I'm Catholic and broadly complementarian, but we're equal opportunity for female religious leaders (not priests and deacons, I'm heading that one off before it begins) and saints. One of the big sticking points for the entire Reformation was the veneration of Mary and how her worship was seen to be displacing that of Christ, after all!
EDIT: As I said, I'm an older generation than Andrews. I do think she's unaware of the fruits of the fights won before her which fruits she enjoys; she grew up with "of course I can apply to study this; of course I can enter that career; of course I can go forward for that job" where this is 'fish swimming in the water' for her, but for my generation and the one before, it very much was not "of course you can do that". For example, I bet she has no idea about the marriage ban and that if you told her "Okay, now you're married, time to quit your job!" she'd laugh at you, and coming back with "Nope, sorry Helen, it's law. Now trot off home and look after your husband like a good little woman" would not fit her mental model of "society too female, let's fix that by meritocratic competition".
HereAndGone
19d ago
This entire argument was stated back in 1964 by an eminent professor:
HIGGINS
What in all of heaven could've prompted her to go,
After such a triumph as the ball?
What could've depressed her;
What could've possessed her?
I cannot understand the wretch at all.
Women are irrational, that's all there is to that!
There heads are full of cotton, hay, and rags!
They're nothing but exasperating, irritating,
vacillating, calculating, agitating,
Maddening and infuriating hags!
[To Pickering]
Pickering, why can't a woman be more like a man?
PICKERING
Hmm?
HIGGINS
Yes...
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historic'ly fair;
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Well, why can't a woman be like that?
Why does ev'ryone do what the others do?
Can't a woman learn to use her head?
Why do they do ev'rything their mothers do?
Why don't they grow up- well, like their father instead?
Why can't a woman take after a man?
Men are so pleasant, so easy to please;
Whenever you are with them, you're always at ease.
Would you be slighted if I didn't speak for hours?
PICKERING
Of course not!
HIGGINS
Would you be livid if I had a drink or two?
PICKERING
Nonsense.
HIGGINS
Would you be wounded if I never sent you flowers?
PICKERING
Never.
HIGGINS
Well, why can't a woman be like you?
One man in a million may shout a bit.
Now and then there's one with slight defects;
One, perhaps, whose truthfulness you doubt a bit.
But by and large we are a marvelous sex!
Why can't a woman take after like a man?
Cause men are so friendly, good natured and kind.
A better companion you never will find.
If I were hours late for dinner, would you bellow?
PICKERING
Of course not!
HIGGINS
If I forgot your silly birthday, would you fuss?
PICKERING
Nonsense.
HIGGINS
Would you complain if I took out another fellow?
PICKERING
Never.
HIGGINS
Well, why can't a woman be like us?
[To Mrs. Pearce]
Mrs. Pearce, you're a woman...
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so decent, such regular chaps.
Ready to help you through any mishaps.
Ready to buck you up whenever you are glum.
Why can't a woman be a chum?
Why is thinking something women never do?
Why is logic never even tried?
Straight'ning up their hair is all they ever do.
Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?
Why can't a woman behave like a man?
If I was a woman who'd been to a ball,
Been hailed as a princess by one and by all;
Would I start weeping like a bathtub overflowing?
And carry on as if my home were in a tree?
Would I run off and never tell me where I'm going?
Why can't a woman be like me?
HereAndGone
19d ago
I don't think anyone is going to mind if the majority of nurses or elementary school teachers turn out to be female.
Sure, that's one of the possibilities. But it also means "nurses = women, doctors = men". And, as I suggested rather tongue-in-cheek (sorry, naraburns, that's too emoji-adjacent isn't it?), that she should step back from leadership roles like being the editor and instead take up the traditional support role of secretary.
Didn't she rather write along the lines of "too many of the wrong kinds of girls"?
Did she? Because I didn't get that fine distinction; women en masse have the feminine qualities of x, y and z; a majority female workplace and majority female society will be disadvantaged because of the lack of masculine qualities a, b and c; the solution is more men and more male-values and male-oriented workplaces.
Nothing about "but the right kind of women are this kind". It was "too many women" simpliciter was the problem. I think this must be the part of her piece you have in mind:
As a woman myself, I am grateful for the opportunities I have had to pursue a career in writing and editing. Thankfully, I don’t think solving the feminization problem requires us to shut any doors in women’s faces. We simply have to restore fair rules. Right now we have a nominally meritocratic system in which it is illegal for women to lose. Let’s make hiring meritocratic in substance and not just name, and we will see how it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine office culture again. Remove the HR lady’s veto power. I think people will be surprised to discover how much of our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes like the advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes and which legal changes can reverse.
So her idea there is that by applying "fair rules", the trend will naturally reverse to having more men than women. She doesn't develop the argument about "what sort of women?", presumably she means "judging on male metrics rather than female ones, the best candidates regardless of sex will come to the top".
That does presuppose that some of those best candidates will be women, and that those women will fit in to a "masculine office culture" (so, no more getting offended by "grab 'em by the pussy", then?)
But even the "One of the Guys" gals are at risk, see comments higher up about intelligent women are being wasted by going into the workplace instead of having babies which they breastfeed at home and do the whole skin-to-skin contact thing (very much less frequent in reality than presumed by such comments) because stressed moms are bad for the babies. Take even Helen Andrews out of the workforce so she can prop up the cratering TFR and have smart kids with her (presumably) smart husband, which she raises herself in the perfect domestic environment!
I don't think Andrews wants that, despite her comments about being the mother of sons, but that's where the logic leads if we extend it out: not just too many women in the workplace, there should be no women at all! For the sake of TFR and raising non-neurodivergent kids!
HereAndGone
19d ago
The entire move towards the "feminised workplace" (which is one with a better work-life balance and accommodation for working parents) is because many women are both housewives and working outside the home.
HereAndGone
19d ago
the system would balance itself out naturally. She's not positing an optimal number of women. She's saying that the women who belong would fit in and the ones who don't would fall out as a matter of course
Yes, and what are the qualities of "women who fit in"? What are the number of women who would remain and the number of women who would be pushed out? If I'm planning the office Christmas party, I need to know "how many are coming?" and a vague answer like "the ones who will be fun will come, the wet blankets will stay at home" is no good. She wants to revise the current world of work and indeed society as a whole.
You need a plan for that, not just "oh well the Right People will show up".
(I feel it's particularly ironic that I'm doing the male virtue thing of asking for facts, figures, and concrete plans, while you all are doing the female virtue thing of feelings, relying on coincidence, and 'it'll all work out in the end').
HereAndGone
19d ago
She does seem to be pushing for "merit = maleness", even if she puts in a few quibbles here and there. That's why I think this article is not well thought out or well presented. She may well have a better argument, and perhaps that will be in her book.
Though looking at the blurb about her book, I think a lot of the questions I have are answered by her being a Millennial. I'm (early)Gen X/(late)Boomer, depending where you start counting from, and of course our experiences as women in society/the workplace are different*. Especially if she's complaining about "them rotten Boomers what ruined our futures!" Yes, dear, weren't you the one who wanted the cut-and-thrust of competition and meritocracy? Not to have things handed to you on a plate because of the Nanny State?
With their overthrow of tradition and authority, the Baby Boomers claim to have been humanity’s greatest liberators, but their children would happily trade some of that so-called liberation for a little less debt, the chance to own a home before fifty, and a shot at extracting some commitment from the bosses and romantic partners who view their relationships as temporary. In Boomers: The Men and Women Who Promised Freedom and Delivered Disaster, millennial journalist Helen Andrews calls the Boomers to account. Inspired in part by Lytton Strachey’s Eminent Victorians, she presents profiles of luminaries who promised much but failed to deliver.
Commitment from bosses? What a female-oriented view of the workplace!
*I think Helen would be highly insulted by Inspector Monkfish's view of her place, but that attitude really was around in the 70s. Of course, she wasn't even born then.
HereAndGone
19d ago
So her being part of such an institution is in keeping with her ethos.
She presumes she is the Good Type of Woman, but what if she is not? What if the meritocratic male workplace decides she is a drag on the organisation? It's very easy to plan out the golden age of the future when you imagine you will be one of the rulers, not one of the ruled. Same problem with all the "after the revolution, what will your job on the commune be?" fantasies.
HereAndGone
19d ago
I think Andrews has not thought through what she is proposing. She seems to imagine that "taking the thumb off the scale" will mean ladies like her get to keep the positions they have colonised, because she's just so smart and male-brained. I think it's entirely possible that junking anti-discrimination laws will result in "well it was great knowing you, Helen, but we need new blood and new male blood in particular so say hello to Tim, who will be replacing you".
And again, nobody is answering the real question I am genuinely asking: what is the perfect ratio for society? 50/50 male/female? Majority male? The ladies get to run their little cafés and knitwear shops, bless their hearts, while the men do the real work of the world? Given that Andrews is a political commentator amongst other things, I imagine she feels her views, opinions, and insights are valuable, but in the Men's World Redivivus, is there a place for her?
HereAndGone
19d ago
Okay, that was novel. I don't think I've ever been banned for an hour - it's generally a week or "get the hell outta here, ya bum".
No emojis - gotcha!
HereAndGone
19d ago
Men should be allowed to only hire other men, as women are allowed to hire all-female workplaces without concerns of successful diversity lawsuits.
I don't think that is the argument Andrews is making, because she sticks in some caveats about "I'm not saying women shouldn't work in these fields". She wants meritocracy, which means "if Susie is better than John, then hire Susie". She doesn't want "it doesn't matter if Susie is better than John, John went to the same school as Mike who is doing the hiring".
I do think it would be interesting to roll back society to 1930 or so, before women were in the workplace in the same numbers and the same professions. But I don't think that is what Andrews wants, and she does need to put a number on it rather than just vague handwaving about "too many girls".
HereAndGone
20d ago
the removal of rules and policies that drive artificially higher representation of women in certain roles.
Yeah, but before we can say "artificially high" we have to first establish the "natural level" and if we haven't done that, then we can't talk about "there are too many female lawyers".
HereAndGone
20d ago
The laughable solution to Mrs. Andrews' dilemma is to have only transwomen in those jobs. Like software engineers, best of both worlds: male interests, male socialisation, female presentation!
HereAndGone
20d ago
It's like I said: it's the Land Acknowledgement farrago. "Yes the problem is now women are going for men's jobs and there are too many women in those jobs, but not me! I may be a woman but I'm different! It's okay if I have that male-coded job and my sons see me taking a position from a man!" She could start by giving example by stepping down in favour of a guy, but she likes her career too much. So why should other women not like having a career, as well?
I disagree with her but her argument is sawing off the branch on which she sits: if there are too many women in male professions, she's one of the too many women. So what is she going to do about it, apart from telling other women to quit their jobs or not go into that profession in the first place?
HereAndGone
20d ago
She's one person, but one of the wrong sort of people by her own argument. "I'm not like the other girls" never works. If the problem is "too many women", then you can't take the risk of carving out exceptions for "just this one woman here".
HereAndGone
20d ago
Yeah, but she nowhere gives a solution to the problem. How to prevent a feminised society? Well the simple and quick answer is: bar women from those jobs and those positions. How many women in a profession is "too many"? If the answer is "compete on meritocracy" then let Mrs. Andrews show that she is better than the men she beat out for the job. That there is no man at all in the entire USA better qualified or better at the job than she is.
I do wish there was more respect given to honour, but men have cast that aside just as fast as women did. See how "honour culture" is not a compliment, but has connotations of inequality and fast resort to violence instead of negotiation. Conflict versus mistake, if you will.
HereAndGone
20d ago
Sure, but if the argument is that "society is becoming too feminised", then it doesn't matter if she got her position on merit: she's one of the feminising forces. Her argument rests on "I'm different" which, uh, is not very convincing: the only women who should have male jobs are women who behave like men. Fine, great, but how do we get women who behave like men? Because she starts off with the difference between male qualities and female qualities, which is biological essentialism and which does boil down to "there may be some exceptions in women who behave like men, but in general don't hire women because too many women in the professions spoils the profession".
So again I have to ask: what is the correct ratio of men to women in any job, profession, or field? How many is "too many"? What is the tipping point? And the only way to be sure (maybe the tipping point comes at 51% women to 49% men, but maybe it comes at 33% women to 66% men! we don't know!) is to have no women in the profession, or at least not above a relatively low level. Lots of female secretaries, to lots of male bosses. Lots of nurses, to lots of male doctors. Lots of kindergarten teachers, to lots of male professors.
If she is the mother of sons fearful for them in a feminised world, then she has to give the example of stepping down to be replaced by a man. And if she doesn't do that, then her argument is the old problem that feminism has dealt with before: pulling the ladder up behind you. She's okay, she's One Of The Boys, she values all the male values so it's okay for her to get that senior position, but other women just aren't the right fit, not trustworthy, too... female.
HereAndGone
20d ago
Yes, drinking to excess is bad, which is why the drunk is in the wrong. You can't be both "don't drink" and "I am a drunk", and if the drunk persists in being a drunk, you get rid of them. You don't let the drunk pilot fly the plane or the drunk surgeon operate, and that's the argument she's making: women dominating the professions is harmful, female-values dominating society is harmful.
So the answer is "get the women out of the professions", the same way you would get the drunks out of air traffic control or operating heavy machinery.
The eternal question: Are Traps Gay?
I don't know, but Brigitte Lin was amazing in Swordsman II and The East is Red (which I have only seen in terribly subtitled and even more terribly edited versions ages ago). She's playing a man who was turned into a woman via magical martial arts techniques, so she's attracting both male and female lovers.
More options
Context Copy link