Any woman who accepts the concept of ‘gender’, or pretends that mammals can change sex, or who uses the absurd terminology (‘cis’, ‘trans’, ‘non-binary’, ‘my pronouns are’),or who accepts the presence of males in female lavatories and changing rooms, is colluding with her own erasure.
Psychologically men and women are measurably different on certain key measures. If job performance is correlated with any of these key measures, then it would be rational to choose one gender over another for a particular job.
For instance, if empathy is more strongly female associated, and more important for jobs like healthcare or teaching, then you would naturally expect employers to show a bias towards female applicants based on inate gender characteristics – based on the evidence of their own experiences dealing with people.
That men and women have different characteristics that are orthogonal to intelligence or ability thus affects ‘fit’ in a broader sense. An important measurable one is risk aversion. Men are less risk averse overall than women. This has a negative that men are more likely to foul up big, but the converse is they are also more likely to win big by trying something new – they win more by entering more lotteries, not by being more lucky.
No, but in times and cultures where the life of the sexes were very different and the traditions were largely invariable, there was no reason to allocate higher status to what the men did. However, at some time that is what happened and it was accepted.
I think men and women are complementary but should also have chices regarding their roles.
There are innate differences between the sexes obvious at an early age. Different career choices follow. I’ve learned that female stock brokers are better because they aren’t in risk competition with my money. But some individuals are not trapped by their apparent identity, good for them.
I agree; neither is called ‘the opposite sex’ was no reason.
Peter LR
2 years ago
“ female volunteers from the Women’s Royal Naval Service: in essence the first programmers” – they were data inputers, Turing et al were the programmers. I hope the other books mentioned have more accurate accreditation of facts than this.
I think I preferred Jordan Peterson’s analysis of the “gender wars” than those offered here: women making decisions based on quality of life rather than desires for power.
But do women do themselves mischief by submitting to the role of glamorous appearance? At the risk of sounding patronising, let me suggest that women find a loving and doting husband. Far from becoming invisible, my wife became increasingly gorgeous in her fifties. Beauty is in the heart of the beholder and the character of the beheld!
No. I have always made decisions based on a desire for personal power.
Fredrick Urbanelli
2 years ago
This article, though well-written and well-“reasoned”, falls into the usual feminist boilerplate claims that only women are undervalued, underestimated and underpaid in the workplace. It is these very claims and the blindered insistence with which they are made that cause men to turn their attention elsewhere. How can you explain that being passed over, ignored and underappreciated in the professional world is standard operating procedure? Especially to a woman who is convinced that she has a sexist grievance and whose “sisters” nearly always agree with her. The two books cited here, though based on “a wealth of research” ( ahem), and filled with “sharp insights and illustrative stories” apparently do nothing to illustrate or attempt insight into the working lives of men. And why on earth should they? It would defeat the authors’ purpose. The anecdotes about female computer programmers being responsible for giving birth to cyber technology and auto mechanics are cute if fatuous. And ” welcome to the club” is just about the only reply one can give to the complaints about one’s supposed authority not being taken seriously. Anything else while we’re at it?
David Nebeský
2 years ago
IT history described in the article is extremely inaccurate and misleading.
Yup. The author would have been better off mentioning Ada Lovelace who actually was a programmer, rather than the data entry clerks at Bletchley Park she falsely elevates to the ‘first programmers’.
Tom Lewis
2 years ago
“Women are being erased”
I supposed you think you are special ? Join the queue. We were here first (White, cis, males, British history/culture etc etc) and maybe, just maybe, feminists lead the charge ! What’s that old saying, about playing with a tiger’s tail !
Jon Redman
2 years ago
men who make similar points are generally left alone
Agree – that was the weakest point in the article. No one who says those things is left alone.
Chris Wheatley
2 years ago
If the name of the review above was changed to “People Are Being Erased” it would then be useful and interesting to read.
There is a very strong idea that youth is the most important thing today and people reach the age of 50 feeling that they are past it and that it is only important to try to be youthful. They have surgical processes to rebuild youth (women more than men because when they were young they might have tried to use beauty to attract men but men are catching up fast with the surgery). Some women I know get together at weekends away from their families and get blind drunk for 48 hours because this is how they view the image of ‘youth’ today.
To me, young people are shallow and worthless and are lacking in character. Most just copy each other because it is the ‘cool’ thing to do. People, as they get older, develop characters and become worth knowing, especially if they don’t waste their time chasing the idea of youth. They become interesting when they get older.
interesting. I think it largely depends on your currency. If you have used your beauty to attain this, then of course you will feel aggrieved when it is lost and you will do whatever it takes to maintain a youthful appearance.
If, however, you wanted to be taken seriously for your brain and not your looks, then the loss of objectification is a blessed relief.
You might wish otherwise but very attractive women can find stupid, rich men and have a good life. Some may not want to do this but it is interesting that nearly all footballers have very attractive wives/girlfriends.
You could despise me for saying this. You could ignore me or call me sexist but you could not deny the truth of the matter. Does this mean that footballers wives/girlfriends come from extreme poverty? No. It just makes men stupid.
Why stupid? Some might have chosen a nice, beautiful woman, over a nice, plain woman. Others might simply have different priorities.
From a published interview:
“Would you have married you husband, Mrs. Trump, if he had not been rich?”
“Do you think my husband would have married me if I had not been beautiful”?
I don’t have an issue with why people choose to get married: I was trying to make the point that if it’s mostly due to the beauty of youth and not character, you are expected to stay that way. Otherwise you may find you’re traded in for a younger model.
It is a fact that both men (and many women) respond more favourably to a woman (including in the workplace) who is attractive and presents well. I did the experiment and got immediate results. I’m not saying that that says the right thing about society, it just is what it is.
That said you should not go too far and I think things have gone too far…. If I watch American TV, many women are coiffed and made up and stretched and injected to within an inch of their lives …. and all look the same. I find this offputting.
Hey Lesley, does “I did the experiment” mean you spent some time in the morning going to work as you usually do, then some time going to work after spending more time on your appearance than normal and you noticed an uplift in positive interactions with colleagues (and especially senior colleagues) than normal?
I did an extreme makeover at some cost and effort. I looked the same but better and updated my wardrobe more aggressively (I was in fashion aligned business so it counts). It changed interactions with colleagues and seniors and it also changed interactions with men and women.
I am not saying this is the only factor at play as I had done very well prior to this, but outward appearance definitely had an influence. As I became older and colleagues were then younger in relation to me, it became even more beneficial. I remained relevant and was never invisible right up until I retired. I worked in an ageist corporate.
Last edited 2 years ago by Lesley van Reenen
Rasmus Fogh
2 years ago
Insightful and thought-provoking article.
On just one subpoint – status and authority:
Without denying the existance of stereotypes etc. etc. how much of that could be linked to presentation? Personally I tend to have a continuous, almost subconscious thread running, of who respects who, who is where in the hierarchy. As my favourite psycholinguist, Deborah Tannen, describes it, respect and status is the currency and main topic that runs through all male interactions, whereas female interactions are more focused around togetherness and intimacy*. Anyway, the upshot is that as a man you are used to challenging and being challenged, used to signal how much space you intend to claim – and be ready to back it up or pipe down, depending on how the world pushes back. I wonder if many who have not practiced this continuously since kindergarten (i.e. women) do not send out the signals that claim authority, and so discover that they do not get it. At the very top your role is enough. I clearly noted the nice chatty grandmother where I had to remind myself that she was the leader of an international standards body, or the gentle, soft-spoken man where it took a conscious effort to remember he was a top practicioner and owner and CEO of a company. But outside these extreme examples you might well go with your instinctual reactions. It is quite likely more complex for women, but for all the female lawyers who are mistaken for defendants or MPs who are mistaken for cleaners – how clearly do they signal to their surroundings which group they belong to?
*) This is deduced from observations – in the modern western world. There is no claim of this being based on biology.
Last edited 2 years ago by Rasmus Fogh
Alka Hughes-Hallett
2 years ago
Extremely important, interesting & thoughtfully compiled article.
However there are no solutions. Our species (every culture, every country), male are the dominant sex & sexual equality cannot be achieved in the biological sphere. I feel we are hard wired to be at this position playing the roles we are currently playing. The society has also separated jobs as paid & unpaid. All the domestic unpaid soft skilled jobs, since there is no monetary value attached, it has a less respectable tag. Since women have been doing these jobs unasked & forever due to our biology , inadvertently women= less respect whatever their job. It boils down to respect, whatever job you are in, corporate or domestic, is key to self worth. I agree that both men & women failed to respect women whatever job they may be doing.
Maybe if we respected the domestic jobs more, made them valuable (well paid) ? I don’t have a definitive answer but I do see the point the author is trying to make.
Some women don’t want ‘the domestic sphere’ and have no desire to live with a man or anyone else, so need to earn enough to stay free of that nonsense. Most women only live with men and accept ‘the domestic sphere’ because they can’t afford the alternative.
That is simply not true of ‘most’ women. I contribute equally to our household – in fact often inject more capital, but I was determined to find my match and set out to do so with focus. Although it took me a very long time, I succeeded.
How do you earn the right to speak for most women? I will tell you.
You have an opinion and you feel bitter about life. You get onto the internet and you look for articles which support your views. You make friends and acquaintances who think the same. Then ‘most women’ will think like you. Easy.
That sounds dismal if it is true (which it is not), what about companionship, friendship, shared interests, and if it still exists, Love?
Stephen Rose
2 years ago
There is a “Herr Merkel”, he is a professor,very unassuming fellow.She loves cooking and they both love music, a quiet couple.
A very thoughtful article, but I think feminism may have met its intersectional Waterloo.
I would hope that female competence and authority could be acknowledged in whatever professional sphere it chooses to operate in. However I find the expectation of an extension of status outside the IMF, Tate gallery, fortune 100 repellent. Losing yourself in the crowd is liberating,it also gives you a lesson in humility. Excuse me now, I have to go change the sheets.
Jacob Mason
2 years ago
It is unclear to me what Ms. McCartney and/or Ms. Criado Perez actually want for women.
I think most of us would grant that there are aspects of our society that are oppressive towards women (just as there are aspects that “oppress” any other group you might choose).
I appreciate some of the data points in the article, but would have appreciated some possible solutions.
—
The author notes (1) that women do not typically hold certain forms of social power or authority that men do, also (2) that women are not given the same opportunities for success in certain areas.
But (1) success and happiness in life is not a matter of power dynamics (unless you are a Marxist). Perhaps we should have more women in places men have traditionally held authority, but I would need to see actual reasons for pursuing that.
Additionally, (2) indicating that women lack the opportunities which men have to succeed in certain things is not necessarily a bad thing. (The same can be said for men – look at educational success, incarceration, job injuries.) We shouldn’t try to measure a woman’s worth by the same criteria men judge each other’s successes. That’s chauvinism.
—
I would appreciate more thought on what women contribute to society and how to leverage those things more effectively.
If we are going to be thoughtful about women in the modern social order, we would do well to look beyond the traditional ideas of social values thought up by a bunch of men. 😉
Alan Hawkes
2 years ago
It was many years ago, but I recall a suggestion, I think by Elizabeth Badinter, that the big change in women’s status came in pre-history with the invention of the heavy plough for clay soils. Women could guide ploughs on sandy soils, but not the new ones. At the same time goddesses began to lose status v gods.
Maureen Miller
2 years ago
Kuow in Seattle aired a program on responses to the leaked Roe document. Throughout the program the host referred to “pregnant women”. This linguistic erasure of women is another assault to the threat to abortion rights.
Alan Hawkes
2 years ago
I was struck by the suggestion that trans-women suddenly discover that there are downsides to identifying as a woman. Could it be that those who are most militant are in fact presenting with that easy, facile label, so routinely attached to protesting women: hysteria?
mike otter
2 years ago
There could actually be a way out of this: In economies where women nearly all decide how to spend what they get they do a sort of “keep it pink” thing. That was a big thing in the 80s in USA and it got a bit of traction here too but fizzled out because the pink pound bought what all men buy with disposable income. Mens golf equipment design time far exceeds women’s as does their spending power. Harley Davidson had models with 26-28″ seat until the late 60s and bikes seem to have got worse not better. If the women who have a choice buy goods better designed for them that will begin with expense like organic food did and will settle down. Then the cheap knock off brigade that supplys the areas of the world where virtually no women get to choose what to spend on will be dragged along in their wake.
Julie Kemp
2 years ago
Any alteration to the created is abuse even ‘vanity’. Female majesty is something earned or ‘realised’; its a spiritual and psychological journey for each truly biological Woman, just as it is for each biological Man. Both meet at that elevated but deeply central place within each person and hopefully gracing their interpersonal ‘vesica pisces’. A quintessential hermaphroditic unified field.
Pete Marsh
2 years ago
“and, if unlucky enough to be involved in a car crash, are 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 17% more likely to die.”
I’m pretty sure women are less likely to be in a car crash in the first place, so I’m not sure what such stats are meant to prove. And are they 47% less likely to wear a seat belt, and hence 17% more likely to die?
Be IN a car crash, or cause it?
Insurance premiums for women rose as part of an equalising EU idiotic initiative to bring them in line with the much-higher rates demanded of men.Which, in turn, was due to the fact more men cause accidents through road rage aggression.
99% of tail-gaters I encounter are male.Country lanes, dual carriageways and motorways- it makes no difference.Usually in vehicles that are souped-up (young), status ( middle aged), or White Van Man style artisans.
They all see a woman in a small car (apparently) easy enough to intimidate.
Until opportunity dictates I can stop, get out and beckon them over.From that moment their testicles visibly disappear up and in…
That’s the down side.
The upside is men’s willingness to take more risks, thus protecting families and willingly taking on very dangerous, heavy duty roles such as firefighting, SWAT police, SOE counter-terrorism frontline, road and bin workers, mining, coastguard rescue and construction.
Few of which totally exclude women but are generally populated by men.
Who, incidently, tend to treat me as I allow them.
Tread quietly whilst carrying a big stick works well.
There are arseholes in both genders. What tips the balance are archaic religious demands and physical strength being misused, out of which grew a sense of male entitlement over space, resources and prestige.
I have to fall back on my own ìnner strength, boundaries and self worth to recharge.Dealing with the world is hard for us all.Gratitude and kindness oil the wheels as does the word, or thought,’ No’.
Charles Hedges
2 years ago
The author ignores subjects taken at 16 years plus. The top 8 to 10 enginering, maths and physics degrees recruit students with grade A Further Maths A Level. How many women achieve Grade A in Further Maths A level ?
As a women with an engineering degree, I can tell you. Math is easy for girls! We love it. My male friends would not have passed calc 3 if not for me! However, I still think men are more logical, most of them can program circles around me.
Gordon Black
2 years ago
Biology has evolved the following demarcations: visionaries who tend to be male and invent stuff, functionaries who tend to be female and maintain stuff. Take the example of Music. People invented – the tunes, the notation to write them down, the instruments, the methods to mass produce the instruments at a reasonable cost, the buildings to host the performances, the ability to record/play and sell the tunes – these people were mostly male. Then we need the skilled players, ideally suited for females.
Functionaries are vital for society in roles such as – project management (or any kind of management really), GP, solicitor, parliamentarian, musician, teacher, child rearing and a host of other maintenance jobs.
Nonsense. The origins of choral music were in monasteries and convents. The male protocols for recording that music; four part notation, with the treble clef at the pitch of a boy with an unbroken voice, have come down the centuries, whilst female-created music; probably in three parts (soprano, mezzo and contralto) have not survived because men controlled the means of production. That doesn’t mean that nuns didn’t sing or create music; it just means that modern choral music is still written in a way that excludes the pitch and timbre of adult women’s voices.
Any woman who accepts the concept of ‘gender’, or pretends that mammals can change sex, or who uses the absurd terminology (‘cis’, ‘trans’, ‘non-binary’, ‘my pronouns are’),or who accepts the presence of males in female lavatories and changing rooms, is colluding with her own erasure.
I agree.
Psychologically men and women are measurably different on certain key measures. If job performance is correlated with any of these key measures, then it would be rational to choose one gender over another for a particular job.
For instance, if empathy is more strongly female associated, and more important for jobs like healthcare or teaching, then you would naturally expect employers to show a bias towards female applicants based on inate gender characteristics – based on the evidence of their own experiences dealing with people.
That men and women have different characteristics that are orthogonal to intelligence or ability thus affects ‘fit’ in a broader sense. An important measurable one is risk aversion. Men are less risk averse overall than women. This has a negative that men are more likely to foul up big, but the converse is they are also more likely to win big by trying something new – they win more by entering more lotteries, not by being more lucky.
I have no empathy whatsoever, including towards pathetic women who live off men.
Isn’t that most women historically? Are those women necessarily pathetic?
No, but in times and cultures where the life of the sexes were very different and the traditions were largely invariable, there was no reason to allocate higher status to what the men did. However, at some time that is what happened and it was accepted.
I think men and women are complementary but should also have chices regarding their roles.
Historically women did work on the farm. And housework was real drudgery. Of course much of this was outsourced to other women ie servants.
There are innate differences between the sexes obvious at an early age. Different career choices follow. I’ve learned that female stock brokers are better because they aren’t in risk competition with my money. But some individuals are not trapped by their apparent identity, good for them.
I agree; neither is called ‘the opposite sex’ was no reason.
“ female volunteers from the Women’s Royal Naval Service: in essence the first programmers” – they were data inputers, Turing et al were the programmers. I hope the other books mentioned have more accurate accreditation of facts than this.
I think I preferred Jordan Peterson’s analysis of the “gender wars” than those offered here: women making decisions based on quality of life rather than desires for power.
But do women do themselves mischief by submitting to the role of glamorous appearance? At the risk of sounding patronising, let me suggest that women find a loving and doting husband. Far from becoming invisible, my wife became increasingly gorgeous in her fifties. Beauty is in the heart of the beholder and the character of the beheld!
No. I have always made decisions based on a desire for personal power.
This article, though well-written and well-“reasoned”, falls into the usual feminist boilerplate claims that only women are undervalued, underestimated and underpaid in the workplace. It is these very claims and the blindered insistence with which they are made that cause men to turn their attention elsewhere. How can you explain that being passed over, ignored and underappreciated in the professional world is standard operating procedure? Especially to a woman who is convinced that she has a sexist grievance and whose “sisters” nearly always agree with her. The two books cited here, though based on “a wealth of research” ( ahem), and filled with “sharp insights and illustrative stories” apparently do nothing to illustrate or attempt insight into the working lives of men. And why on earth should they? It would defeat the authors’ purpose. The anecdotes about female computer programmers being responsible for giving birth to cyber technology and auto mechanics are cute if fatuous. And ” welcome to the club” is just about the only reply one can give to the complaints about one’s supposed authority not being taken seriously. Anything else while we’re at it?
IT history described in the article is extremely inaccurate and misleading.
Yup. The author would have been better off mentioning Ada Lovelace who actually was a programmer, rather than the data entry clerks at Bletchley Park she falsely elevates to the ‘first programmers’.
“Women are being erased”
I supposed you think you are special ? Join the queue. We were here first (White, cis, males, British history/culture etc etc) and maybe, just maybe, feminists lead the charge ! What’s that old saying, about playing with a tiger’s tail !
Rubbish.
Agree – that was the weakest point in the article. No one who says those things is left alone.
If the name of the review above was changed to “People Are Being Erased” it would then be useful and interesting to read.
There is a very strong idea that youth is the most important thing today and people reach the age of 50 feeling that they are past it and that it is only important to try to be youthful. They have surgical processes to rebuild youth (women more than men because when they were young they might have tried to use beauty to attract men but men are catching up fast with the surgery). Some women I know get together at weekends away from their families and get blind drunk for 48 hours because this is how they view the image of ‘youth’ today.
To me, young people are shallow and worthless and are lacking in character. Most just copy each other because it is the ‘cool’ thing to do. People, as they get older, develop characters and become worth knowing, especially if they don’t waste their time chasing the idea of youth. They become interesting when they get older.
interesting. I think it largely depends on your currency. If you have used your beauty to attain this, then of course you will feel aggrieved when it is lost and you will do whatever it takes to maintain a youthful appearance.
If, however, you wanted to be taken seriously for your brain and not your looks, then the loss of objectification is a blessed relief.
You might wish otherwise but very attractive women can find stupid, rich men and have a good life. Some may not want to do this but it is interesting that nearly all footballers have very attractive wives/girlfriends.
You could despise me for saying this. You could ignore me or call me sexist but you could not deny the truth of the matter. Does this mean that footballers wives/girlfriends come from extreme poverty? No. It just makes men stupid.
Why stupid? Some might have chosen a nice, beautiful woman, over a nice, plain woman. Others might simply have different priorities.
From a published interview:
“Would you have married you husband, Mrs. Trump, if he had not been rich?”
“Do you think my husband would have married me if I had not been beautiful”?
I don’t have an issue with why people choose to get married: I was trying to make the point that if it’s mostly due to the beauty of youth and not character, you are expected to stay that way. Otherwise you may find you’re traded in for a younger model.
No disagreement with you – anyway it was Chris Wheatley who talked about ‘stupid men’.
Ah yes, apols. Meant to reply to him not you!
It is a fact that both men (and many women) respond more favourably to a woman (including in the workplace) who is attractive and presents well. I did the experiment and got immediate results. I’m not saying that that says the right thing about society, it just is what it is.
That said you should not go too far and I think things have gone too far…. If I watch American TV, many women are coiffed and made up and stretched and injected to within an inch of their lives …. and all look the same. I find this offputting.
Hey Lesley, does “I did the experiment” mean you spent some time in the morning going to work as you usually do, then some time going to work after spending more time on your appearance than normal and you noticed an uplift in positive interactions with colleagues (and especially senior colleagues) than normal?
I did an extreme makeover at some cost and effort. I looked the same but better and updated my wardrobe more aggressively (I was in fashion aligned business so it counts). It changed interactions with colleagues and seniors and it also changed interactions with men and women.
I am not saying this is the only factor at play as I had done very well prior to this, but outward appearance definitely had an influence. As I became older and colleagues were then younger in relation to me, it became even more beneficial. I remained relevant and was never invisible right up until I retired. I worked in an ageist corporate.
Insightful and thought-provoking article.
On just one subpoint – status and authority:
Without denying the existance of stereotypes etc. etc. how much of that could be linked to presentation? Personally I tend to have a continuous, almost subconscious thread running, of who respects who, who is where in the hierarchy. As my favourite psycholinguist, Deborah Tannen, describes it, respect and status is the currency and main topic that runs through all male interactions, whereas female interactions are more focused around togetherness and intimacy*. Anyway, the upshot is that as a man you are used to challenging and being challenged, used to signal how much space you intend to claim – and be ready to back it up or pipe down, depending on how the world pushes back. I wonder if many who have not practiced this continuously since kindergarten (i.e. women) do not send out the signals that claim authority, and so discover that they do not get it. At the very top your role is enough. I clearly noted the nice chatty grandmother where I had to remind myself that she was the leader of an international standards body, or the gentle, soft-spoken man where it took a conscious effort to remember he was a top practicioner and owner and CEO of a company. But outside these extreme examples you might well go with your instinctual reactions. It is quite likely more complex for women, but for all the female lawyers who are mistaken for defendants or MPs who are mistaken for cleaners – how clearly do they signal to their surroundings which group they belong to?
*) This is deduced from observations – in the modern western world. There is no claim of this being based on biology.
Extremely important, interesting & thoughtfully compiled article.
However there are no solutions. Our species (every culture, every country), male are the dominant sex & sexual equality cannot be achieved in the biological sphere. I feel we are hard wired to be at this position playing the roles we are currently playing. The society has also separated jobs as paid & unpaid. All the domestic unpaid soft skilled jobs, since there is no monetary value attached, it has a less respectable tag. Since women have been doing these jobs unasked & forever due to our biology , inadvertently women= less respect whatever their job. It boils down to respect, whatever job you are in, corporate or domestic, is key to self worth. I agree that both men & women failed to respect women whatever job they may be doing.
Maybe if we respected the domestic jobs more, made them valuable (well paid) ? I don’t have a definitive answer but I do see the point the author is trying to make.
Some women don’t want ‘the domestic sphere’ and have no desire to live with a man or anyone else, so need to earn enough to stay free of that nonsense. Most women only live with men and accept ‘the domestic sphere’ because they can’t afford the alternative.
That is simply not true of ‘most’ women. I contribute equally to our household – in fact often inject more capital, but I was determined to find my match and set out to do so with focus. Although it took me a very long time, I succeeded.
How do you earn the right to speak for most women? I will tell you.
You have an opinion and you feel bitter about life. You get onto the internet and you look for articles which support your views. You make friends and acquaintances who think the same. Then ‘most women’ will think like you. Easy.
That sounds dismal if it is true (which it is not), what about companionship, friendship, shared interests, and if it still exists, Love?
There is a “Herr Merkel”, he is a professor,very unassuming fellow.She loves cooking and they both love music, a quiet couple.
A very thoughtful article, but I think feminism may have met its intersectional Waterloo.
I would hope that female competence and authority could be acknowledged in whatever professional sphere it chooses to operate in. However I find the expectation of an extension of status outside the IMF, Tate gallery, fortune 100 repellent. Losing yourself in the crowd is liberating,it also gives you a lesson in humility. Excuse me now, I have to go change the sheets.
It is unclear to me what Ms. McCartney and/or Ms. Criado Perez actually want for women.
I think most of us would grant that there are aspects of our society that are oppressive towards women (just as there are aspects that “oppress” any other group you might choose).
I appreciate some of the data points in the article, but would have appreciated some possible solutions.
—
The author notes (1) that women do not typically hold certain forms of social power or authority that men do, also (2) that women are not given the same opportunities for success in certain areas.
But (1) success and happiness in life is not a matter of power dynamics (unless you are a Marxist). Perhaps we should have more women in places men have traditionally held authority, but I would need to see actual reasons for pursuing that.
Additionally, (2) indicating that women lack the opportunities which men have to succeed in certain things is not necessarily a bad thing. (The same can be said for men – look at educational success, incarceration, job injuries.) We shouldn’t try to measure a woman’s worth by the same criteria men judge each other’s successes. That’s chauvinism.
—
I would appreciate more thought on what women contribute to society and how to leverage those things more effectively.
If we are going to be thoughtful about women in the modern social order, we would do well to look beyond the traditional ideas of social values thought up by a bunch of men. 😉
It was many years ago, but I recall a suggestion, I think by Elizabeth Badinter, that the big change in women’s status came in pre-history with the invention of the heavy plough for clay soils. Women could guide ploughs on sandy soils, but not the new ones. At the same time goddesses began to lose status v gods.
Kuow in Seattle aired a program on responses to the leaked Roe document. Throughout the program the host referred to “pregnant women”. This linguistic erasure of women is another assault to the threat to abortion rights.
I was struck by the suggestion that trans-women suddenly discover that there are downsides to identifying as a woman. Could it be that those who are most militant are in fact presenting with that easy, facile label, so routinely attached to protesting women: hysteria?
There could actually be a way out of this: In economies where women nearly all decide how to spend what they get they do a sort of “keep it pink” thing. That was a big thing in the 80s in USA and it got a bit of traction here too but fizzled out because the pink pound bought what all men buy with disposable income. Mens golf equipment design time far exceeds women’s as does their spending power. Harley Davidson had models with 26-28″ seat until the late 60s and bikes seem to have got worse not better. If the women who have a choice buy goods better designed for them that will begin with expense like organic food did and will settle down. Then the cheap knock off brigade that supplys the areas of the world where virtually no women get to choose what to spend on will be dragged along in their wake.
Any alteration to the created is abuse even ‘vanity’. Female majesty is something earned or ‘realised’; its a spiritual and psychological journey for each truly biological Woman, just as it is for each biological Man. Both meet at that elevated but deeply central place within each person and hopefully gracing their interpersonal ‘vesica pisces’. A quintessential hermaphroditic unified field.
“and, if unlucky enough to be involved in a car crash, are 47% more likely to be seriously injured, and 17% more likely to die.”
I’m pretty sure women are less likely to be in a car crash in the first place, so I’m not sure what such stats are meant to prove. And are they 47% less likely to wear a seat belt, and hence 17% more likely to die?
Be IN a car crash, or cause it?
Insurance premiums for women rose as part of an equalising EU idiotic initiative to bring them in line with the much-higher rates demanded of men.Which, in turn, was due to the fact more men cause accidents through road rage aggression.
99% of tail-gaters I encounter are male.Country lanes, dual carriageways and motorways- it makes no difference.Usually in vehicles that are souped-up (young), status ( middle aged), or White Van Man style artisans.
They all see a woman in a small car (apparently) easy enough to intimidate.
Until opportunity dictates I can stop, get out and beckon them over.From that moment their testicles visibly disappear up and in…
That’s the down side.
The upside is men’s willingness to take more risks, thus protecting families and willingly taking on very dangerous, heavy duty roles such as firefighting, SWAT police, SOE counter-terrorism frontline, road and bin workers, mining, coastguard rescue and construction.
Few of which totally exclude women but are generally populated by men.
Who, incidently, tend to treat me as I allow them.
Tread quietly whilst carrying a big stick works well.
There are arseholes in both genders. What tips the balance are archaic religious demands and physical strength being misused, out of which grew a sense of male entitlement over space, resources and prestige.
I have to fall back on my own ìnner strength, boundaries and self worth to recharge.Dealing with the world is hard for us all.Gratitude and kindness oil the wheels as does the word, or thought,’ No’.
The author ignores subjects taken at 16 years plus. The top 8 to 10 enginering, maths and physics degrees recruit students with grade A Further Maths A Level. How many women achieve Grade A in Further Maths A level ?
Girls surpass boys at both Maths and Sciences…I believe at GCSE AND A Level.
As a women with an engineering degree, I can tell you. Math is easy for girls! We love it. My male friends would not have passed calc 3 if not for me! However, I still think men are more logical, most of them can program circles around me.
Biology has evolved the following demarcations: visionaries who tend to be male and invent stuff, functionaries who tend to be female and maintain stuff. Take the example of Music. People invented – the tunes, the notation to write them down, the instruments, the methods to mass produce the instruments at a reasonable cost, the buildings to host the performances, the ability to record/play and sell the tunes – these people were mostly male. Then we need the skilled players, ideally suited for females.
Functionaries are vital for society in roles such as – project management (or any kind of management really), GP, solicitor, parliamentarian, musician, teacher, child rearing and a host of other maintenance jobs.
Nonsense. The origins of choral music were in monasteries and convents. The male protocols for recording that music; four part notation, with the treble clef at the pitch of a boy with an unbroken voice, have come down the centuries, whilst female-created music; probably in three parts (soprano, mezzo and contralto) have not survived because men controlled the means of production. That doesn’t mean that nuns didn’t sing or create music; it just means that modern choral music is still written in a way that excludes the pitch and timbre of adult women’s voices.
Why do certain likes buttons produce up to three increases in the total shown?
This doesn’t seem honest from a
new journal.
NRO.
I think it’s explained by the time taken to read the article and any likes garnered in that time.
I’ve clicked on a few like buttons that have produced as many as, I think, seven. So, yes, I’ve wondered about that too.