by nis0s | 2025-10-17 11:37:15+00:00
I can’t take this author seriously for a number of reasons, but the main one being that she assumes groups of men are more likely to behave rationally. Anyone who has experience with teenage boys should know better than to say that, but even if you take that out of consideration life is just not that simple. Similarly for truth-seeking, men and women lie the same amount if their incentives are the same. Most people default to lying to achieve political aims because they assume moral superiority in positive outcomes for their group.

A majority women group may be more rational, competitive, or risk-seeking (all values she attributes as more likely to appear in groups of men), but it depends on the women in the group. She already admits that individual characteristics are variable across sexes or genders.

There’s also an implicit assumption that masculine traits are de facto optimal for making an organization fit or successful. They can be, but so are the feminine traits which she would like to see less of. Feminine traits evolved in the first place to provide a necessary counterbalance to problem-solving without a myopic and invariable approach. If a team member is sick, you take care of them so they can contribute again (their domain knowledge and inherent capabilities are their main contributions), instead of chucking them over the side of a hill.

Successful populations in nature have thrived because of adaption, flexibility, and variability. It doesn’t make sense to say that any aspect of society achieved the success that it did because of the presence of masculine traits alone. I think masculine traits are important, but a monoculture approach has almost always lead to the downfall of an empire. Great ideas have come from all sorts of people (and cultures), and we do humanity a disservice by reducing ourselves down to what may essentially be skin deep (literally). The goal should be to enable individuals to reach whatever level of excellence that they’re capable of achieving, regardless of sex or gender. That’s feminism as I remember it, that’s the core of egalitarianism.

There are a lot of factors which are polarizing American society, and other places, but it’s more geopolitical than sociocultural, due to the connected nature of the world now. I could be wrong, but the main thrust of wokeness is restorative justice, and it’s not centered around feminization, necessarily. I think people who advocate for restorative justice need to exercise some caution because I don’t think they fully appreciate the constancy of human nature across different dimensions of being human. If you change the positions of a mean rich person and meek poor person, don’t expect that only the rich/poor parts of those labels will change. People will make the same terrible decisions that you hate the current dominant groups for, that’s just who we are. It’s better to create systems which enable egalitarian self-actualization of individuals than ones which optimize for tribal success.

Last point on the counterbalance of feminine and masculine traits—I like this metaphor from a Samurai film (I forget which): a sword dulls faster if it is never sheathed. Taking Joan of Arc as an example, her literal sword was sheathed by her faith, in many ways.