Geez. The very first paragraph from her you quoted was breathtaking in its utter lack of historical knowledge. The YouTube algorithm has been feeding me vids on British monarchical history and “logic” and “rationality” are not characteristics of these manly men rulers.
I’ve started thinking a lot about how strongly these right-wing arguments rely on selling a fantasy past that never existed, and how frequently they “hetconn” the past in order to do so. I’ve been mapping different fantasies and feminization theory reads a lot like a restorative past fantasy, but is surprisingly far sloppier intellectually than you’d hear from a Project 2025 or even the average tradwife. Andrews seems out of her depth! Not sure she has the juice.
Hello Samantha, I don't know how much I understood, but It seems to me your main argument is that great feminization is an effect of liberal capitalistic societies, am I right?
If I got it, I agree.
Let's say "the west" even if now includes more and more countries everywhere, pursued equality, democracy, free market, free inquiry, individual freedom, agnosticism of the State... These premises had a lot of effects, overall positive, even if maybe (of course...) not always, like distribution of wealth and rights to general population, tech advancements, multiculturalism and individualism and consumerism... Overall, I personally think is the best way for common citizens and also for humanity, even if there are a lot of corrections and implementations to improve the pillars of liberalism.
But I think you miss to explain what is the great feminization Andrews is talking of.
She considers not just the partecipation of women in the economic and societal life, but the effects of it.
It doesn't seem to me you explain them.
Why, for example, now we destroy the reputation of a physicist for a fancy t-shirt?
Isn't this related to the dogmatic social justice movement that dominates in the Academia?
Isn't the SJ rooted in an censorious extremization of the liberal values that feminism should embrace, or had embraced, but that now it seems not really focus on?
I’m an atheist but it’s clear that secular people have values that they seek to impose on all of us via government (e.g., wokeism). While the idea that male MAGA is the repository of reason and rationality makes me laugh, it may be the case that women are more inclined than men towards egalitarianism, which manifests in voting/pushing for big government and “pathological altruism”.
This is a textbook strawman and a topic shift. I didn’t claim secular people don’t have values, or that women are uniquely virtuous, or that MAGA men are irrational by definition. The issue is whether religious fundamentalism is being used to roll back women’s rights through the state—and it demonstrably is.
Women aren’t more egalitarian because of some natural disposition; they’re more egalitarian because they’re the ones most constrained by hierarchical systems—especially religious ones that explicitly subordinate them. When hierarchy works against you, equality isn’t “pathological altruism,” it’s basic self-interest.
Many women are and have been very religious. Also, as child-bearers, who depend/ed on the community for survival, they likely evolved to be egalitarian. Religion subordinated men, too, most of whom lived at the bottom of the hierarchy.
Geez. The very first paragraph from her you quoted was breathtaking in its utter lack of historical knowledge. The YouTube algorithm has been feeding me vids on British monarchical history and “logic” and “rationality” are not characteristics of these manly men rulers.
The women hurt most by the spread of female group psychology are the non-conformists - women who resist the tribal pull.
Absolutely.
I’ve started thinking a lot about how strongly these right-wing arguments rely on selling a fantasy past that never existed, and how frequently they “hetconn” the past in order to do so. I’ve been mapping different fantasies and feminization theory reads a lot like a restorative past fantasy, but is surprisingly far sloppier intellectually than you’d hear from a Project 2025 or even the average tradwife. Andrews seems out of her depth! Not sure she has the juice.
Hello Samantha, I don't know how much I understood, but It seems to me your main argument is that great feminization is an effect of liberal capitalistic societies, am I right?
If I got it, I agree.
Let's say "the west" even if now includes more and more countries everywhere, pursued equality, democracy, free market, free inquiry, individual freedom, agnosticism of the State... These premises had a lot of effects, overall positive, even if maybe (of course...) not always, like distribution of wealth and rights to general population, tech advancements, multiculturalism and individualism and consumerism... Overall, I personally think is the best way for common citizens and also for humanity, even if there are a lot of corrections and implementations to improve the pillars of liberalism.
But I think you miss to explain what is the great feminization Andrews is talking of.
She considers not just the partecipation of women in the economic and societal life, but the effects of it.
It doesn't seem to me you explain them.
Why, for example, now we destroy the reputation of a physicist for a fancy t-shirt?
Isn't this related to the dogmatic social justice movement that dominates in the Academia?
Isn't the SJ rooted in an censorious extremization of the liberal values that feminism should embrace, or had embraced, but that now it seems not really focus on?
I’m an atheist but it’s clear that secular people have values that they seek to impose on all of us via government (e.g., wokeism). While the idea that male MAGA is the repository of reason and rationality makes me laugh, it may be the case that women are more inclined than men towards egalitarianism, which manifests in voting/pushing for big government and “pathological altruism”.
This is a textbook strawman and a topic shift. I didn’t claim secular people don’t have values, or that women are uniquely virtuous, or that MAGA men are irrational by definition. The issue is whether religious fundamentalism is being used to roll back women’s rights through the state—and it demonstrably is.
Women aren’t more egalitarian because of some natural disposition; they’re more egalitarian because they’re the ones most constrained by hierarchical systems—especially religious ones that explicitly subordinate them. When hierarchy works against you, equality isn’t “pathological altruism,” it’s basic self-interest.
Many women are and have been very religious. Also, as child-bearers, who depend/ed on the community for survival, they likely evolved to be egalitarian. Religion subordinated men, too, most of whom lived at the bottom of the hierarchy.
You might want to study up on logical fallacies.