Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

I Blame Women!

Entry 2291, on 2023-09-07 at 18:20:36 (Rating 5, Politics)

We all know what clickbait is, don't we? It's when a headline or summary of a bigger story is deliberately confrontational or controversial in an attempt to drive traffic to what might be a fairly mundane story. And yes, this post is an example of that, because I don't really blame women for anything.

The major reason for this is that blaming a demographic for anything bad, or praising them for anything good, is just an example fo one of the modern political trends I dislike the most: identity politics. So I don't blame any demographic group for anything. I don't blame Maori for the silly Treaty laws we have, I don't blame men for violence, I don't blame trans people for the ridiculous gender politics we are currently being afflicted with, and I don't blame women for what I am about to discuss.

I do blame activists at the extremes in all of those groups for pushing irrational and harmful ideologies, allegedly on behalf of the group as a whole, but often without their actual acceptance. For example, I know Maori people who are embarrassed with all the extra handouts they get, I know trans people who don't like the push to allow men into women's sports, where they don't belong, etc.

In fact, it is exactly this political view which I probably find is the worst characteristic of the woke extreme left. Note that by criticising a political group I am not breaking my rule, because I am aiming my criticism at a belief rather than at an immutable characteristic (such as race or sex) a group might have.

But despite these limitations, the title still has some meaning. I mean, I'm not going to use that title, then talk about more geeky computer stuff, like my last post. I am going to discuss some of the issues I have with female characteristics which I think are harmful. So it is the "feminisation" of society which I think is a problem, but both men and women push this agenda, so again, it is the ideology I have problems with, not a particular demographic group.

I think it is well proven that men and women are different, and that a significant part of that difference isn't the result of societal expectations or social programming. Women, for example tend to have better communications skills, but men have better skills in visualising and manipulating the environment. Women are interested in people, and men are interested in things. Women tend to be more likely to be agreeable, and less likely to want to take risks. Men are more confrontational and not as risk averse.

Notice that neither I, nor the studies, are saying one sex is better than the other overall, because both have strengths and weaknesses. We should celebrate these differences and work together to get the best results, but modern woke ideology likes to deny the differences even exist, and when they do acknowledge them, prefer to ascribe them to social influence rather than inherent factors.

As is the case in almost every manifestation of the nature versus nurture debate, there is no doubt that both have an influence, but denying either is both factually wrong and likely to lead to poor societal outcomes.

Finally, in this rather long-winded introduction, I have to emphasise that there is massive overlap in these characteristics in the sexes. There are plenty of women who are good at reading a map, for example, but on average, men are better. And yes, that is a real thing, supported by research! And I can provide citations for all the studies I have mentioned, but this is a blog, not an academic paper, so I'm not going to include them in the post.

I'm going to make a stereotyped observation here, which is undoubtedly controversial. It is that women tend to be more emotional and men more analytical. It is controversial first, because recent research is contradictory; and second, because this could be one place where the result comes from societal expectations and pressures more than from inherent characteristics. However, I believe in general it is true.

A current trend amongst young people is for females to drift to the political left, while males are more likely to prefer the right. Again, this is a gross simplification, and there are plenty of exceptions, but it is a clear tendency.

I would also claim, perhaps also controversially, that the left deals more in emotions and the right is more analytical. For example, the left might say we need to give the poor more money in benefits because that is an example of kindness or fairness, but the right might say fix the economy and that will help everyone. I would say there are problems with both of these approaches, but I think the more analytical one is likely to be better long term than an appeal to emotion resulting in a short term, artificial boost.

At this point, my New Zealand readers might have an image of our ex prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, in their minds with one of her trademark sad faces and saying how we all need to be kind. I apologise for those of you who were trying to move past this unpleasant image from the past! But many people would welcome it, and use it as an example of what a great leader she was. I know this because many people say so, and I even know of one person with a poster in her office showing that exact image and proclaiming that it is an example of "real leadership".

Some other people might have thought of another leader of a similar type: Justin Trudeau, prime minister of Canada. Sure, he's not a woman, but his politics are very feminised, and are remarkably similar to Ardern's. He also is likely to be dismissed from office at the next election and will join Ardern as someone whose "kindness" was exposed as tyranny.

Emotion has its place. You might argue that it was appropriate in crisis situations like the pandemic, the Christchurch shooting, and the White Island eruption. I would suggest it isn't, but I accept there is a fair argument that Ardern's emotional approach (whether genuine or fake) helped a lot of people in those extreme situations.

But emotion can only go so far, because wanting something to be true, because it's kind, is not the same as it actually being true. Taxing the rich might seem fair, but it has unintended consequences; pretending men who transition are women might seem kind, but it isn't kind to some women who are inflicted with unpleasant outcomes; and handing out money to disadvantaged groups might feel like a great solution to inequality, but these things have a tendency to backfire with inflation, increased rents, etc.

Toxic masculinity is a popular phrase amongst members of the woke community. It is often used to suggest all men, and everything male, is toxic, although when challenged on this the person using that insult might backtrack somewhat saying that it is only the extremes of masculinity they have problems with.

I think there is no doubt though, that female culture (yes, I know, another generalisation) is in the ascendency, and some people might celebrate that. But how can one half of the population enjoying that advantage now be any better than the past where the other half were dominant?

For example, is it good that the majority of university students are female now, and that females are doing far better in education as a whole, when in the past when the opposite was true, that was condemned? And why do we celebrate when a woman assumes a leadership role, or there are a majority of women in a political party or other organisation, when we decry the opposite situation?

And why are we surprised when people like Jordan Peterson and Andrew Tate appeal to many men, when they are being denigrated by society in general? By the way, I hesitated to use those two as my examples, because they are so different in style, but they are the two most prominent people with these views at this time.

Of course they are going to gain some following, because they are saying what many of us have been thinking. Again, I have mixed views on both. I think Jordan Peterson is too tied up with mythological metaphors, and Andrew Tate is often extreme to the point of irrationality, but I do think his recent arrest was political rather than genuine.

So apart from fairness, which I reject because it is one of the emotional responses I criticised above, what is my problem here?

Well freedom is curtailed when we have too much caution, and caution is a female characteristic. You might say that was appropriate during COVID, and I can understand that attitude, but we went away too far. Along with the caution were some very unkind actions, such as censorship of opposing views, and compulsion of what should be a personal decision, such as vaccination.

And caution also slows down progress. We need nuclear energy, but many current governments have banned it, and some have even shut down existing plants. The same applies to other new technologies, like artificial intelligence and gene editing. Note that we need some caution here, but not as much as we have. Again, it's balance which is important.

And, as I said above, kindness is often the least kind attitude possible, as well as the least rational. Prentending men who have transitioned, or even say they identify that way, really are women might seem kind, but is it kind to the women who are no longer competitive in their chosen sport, or who feel uncomfortable when a biological male uses their facilities? I think it's neither true, nor kind.

What this is really about is my old friend postmodernism again, but I wanted to try to get through one political post without mentioning that! I will finish by saying one thing though: many of the "thinkers" (and I use that word very loosely here) behind modern postmodernism were and are women. Case closed!

Comment 1 (7486) by Anonymous on 2023-09-08 at 11:20:58:

Seems like you say you blame women, then you say no I didnt mean it, then you blame them anyway, and you blame men (Trudeau) for being women. Very confused effort.

Comment 2 (7487) by OJB on 2023-09-08 at 12:04:48:

Well if you interpreted the post that way, that's unfortunate, because that wasn't really what I was trying to say. Maybe you could read it again, and be a bit more charitable regarding my actual intentions?

Comment 3 (7488) by EK on 2023-09-12 at 11:42:22:

Title is indeed clickbait, but ultimately slightly disappointing. I am reminded of the rantings of Trump supporters. Unfortunately, lots of prejudices dressed up as highfalutin intellectual musings. You set up a proposition only to tear it down in the next sentence, followed by another proposition to be speedily dismissed and so on.

I do agree though that a basic malaise of our times is a preference of categorisation of what divides humankind, instead of finding criteria that unite us as a species - genetic and sexes' differences notwithstanding. (On nature versus nurture issues the jury is still out and it is premature to draw definitive conclusions. The small but vital difference between X and Y chromosomes is still a mystery and phenotypal observations can be very misleading - such as that women have a left-drift and men tend to the right of politics even if it were true, which it isn’t, at least not everywhere and in all contexts.)

In the end I am a bit puzzled that on the one hand you condemn identity politics, but then make a big play on gender/sex differences (which is an ingredient of this typification of the world).

And what is wrong with elevating kindness to a political maxim. I’d take that any time in preference to elevating national pride to a degree that makes it appear justifiable to wage war. (Putin could do with a dose of femininisation.) I know what type of leadership I’d prefer.

By the way, I am surprised that anyone could juxtapose Jordan Peterson and Tate in the same sentence. (I am not a follower of either.)

Having said this, thanks Owen for getting the brain juices flowing.

Comment 4 (7489) by OJB on 2023-09-12 at 15:20:24:

Oh, I guess comparison with the ranting of Trump supporters is about the biggest insult to many. On the other hand, I have heard a lot of fairly reasonable comments from his supporters!

I think the "women left, men right" thing is quite well supported actually, at least in the Western world, which is what I am primarily interested in (although I might not have said that). It has been observed in the US, and look at the demographic breakdown here in NZ (Greens much higher number of women, Act higher numbers of men).

I agree that sometimes my comments are contradictory, but that is because I try to show both sides, and I'm not always convinced by my own arguments anyway! The criticism that this is identity politics is fair, but I did mention several times that I am talking statistically, and that there is a lot of overlap, etc, so maybe that criticism isn't actually valid at all!

I only mentioned Peterson and Tate together because they both appeal to young males, and I commented on how they are very different.

At the very least it got you thinking, and that's the main reason I do these posts. And it's nice to have someone disagree with me in a fairly rational way. I welcome that sort of feedback.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.