This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
We absolutely don’t have to establish any kind of natural level. We know for a fact that the national government of the United States is putting a thumb on the scale by creating laws mandating female-friendly workplaces, benefits for woman-owned businesses, encouraging STEM and leadership programs that are open only to women, lighter sentencing, family law preference, Title IX tribunals, maternity policies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And that’s just the Feds.
In the same way, we know for a fact that the Federal government is putting its thumb on the scales for farmers by providing farming subsidies. The present level of farmers and farming done in America is higher than it would be in the absence of those subsidies. I don’t need to tell you that America requires a natural level of precisely 1,348,756 farmers before we can agree on the number of farmers being kept artificially high for policy reasons.
Now, in both these cases, the government of the nation is pursuing policies it, at least nominally, believes to be in its strategic interest. They might be wrong, but those are understandable goals.
Andrew’s argument is simply that, in the specific case of women in the workforce, the thumb of the government should be taken off the scale. Men should be allowed to have frat house workplaces as women are allowed to have longhouse workplaces. Men should be allowed to only hire other men, as women are allowed to hire all-female workplaces without concerns of successful diversity lawsuits. The Federal government shouldn’t prioritize woman-owned businesses in its contracting rules. Just let nature take its course, and the winners will win and the losers will lose. It may be that the losers are all the pro-men men on “my side.” But then at least we’d know and that would be quite interesting.
It seems like a very simple argument to me.
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".
Does she? Why? This seems like an isolated demand for pointless rigor.
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:
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!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the argument #1 for unregulated meritocracy being better for institutional health and productivity, as made by Andrews, and the argument #2 for women in general but especially intelligent women to stay at home and focus on their biological role, as made by some commentors here, are separate, and it takes conflating them to reach the conclusion that Andrews is requesting that intelligent women focus on breeding the next generation. I think Andrews is only making argument #1, not #2.
And, full disclosure, I think both arguments are valid.
Also, what do you mean by
At risk of what?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link