After reading Mona's piece on Toxic Femininity this morning, I needed to respond more.
Response to Prof. Higgins (indeed the epitome of mansplaining/correctile dysfunction):
"Why can’t a woman be more like a man?"
*Because we birth all human beings and have no true choice in the matter
"Men are so honest, so thoroughly square"
*lol...Trump, Epstein, Speaker Johnson, tens of thousands of convicted male pedophiles, I could go on…
"Eternally noble, historically fair"
*Maybe while admiring self in mirror but colonization refutes this trope
"Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat"
*Not in America where second place is equal to first loser
"Why can’t a woman be like that?"
*Because we have inherent empathy when not drowned by toxic masculinity
"One man in a million may shout a bit"
*Statistically wildly inaccurate as approximately 1 in 3 men have used some form of intimate partner violence
"Now and then there’s one with slight defects"
*Again….huh?
"One, perhaps, whose truthfulness you doubt a bit"
*One study cited that men lie an average of six times per day, while women lie about three times per day
"But by and large we are a marvelous sex"
*Weird opinion…but only that.
To Andrews notations about war…to quote MLK Jr…."That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind". Andrews is lacking in EVERY area. To use the measuring stick of successful warfare oxymoronically, makes no sense. War is never a success as it keeps our species stagnating. She alleges that cancel culture is a female but influencing and effecting change in culture requires consensus which can only be reach collaboratively. Andrews clearly does not understand that a rising tide raises all boats, unless you drown from anchoring yourself in the mud in your rigidity, of course.
The lack of balance, nuance, and self-awareness in Andrew’s essay proves these points. Studies are showing more and more that empathetic leaders are better for their teams. Being able to understand that two or more concepts can be true at the same time undermines the naïve sophomoric and binary conservative narrative to keep their herd under control.
Mona is dead right when she says “caricature is not argument”. Andrews needs to do better.
I find it strange that empathy is under direct attack from so many angles. Someone could make a decent argument that, in many cases, the characteristics we associate with masculinity are more effective to avhieve a set of goals. But carrying this forward to saying that empathy is a negative is wrong headed. Empathy allows one to see and properly consider other perspectives and avoid tunnel vision; I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation where this is not a positive.
We are also seeing a rise in people claiming that empathy clouds one's moral judgments. The truth is the opposite; empathy is a fundamental building block to morality and moral action. A lot of religions have a "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethos, which can be a sensible way to sort out the difference between explanation and justification of immoral actions. But anyone saying that empathy is itself a moral weakness is telling on themselves as a champion of immorality.
The country is, just now, suffering from being subject to a President who is (likely sociopathically) devoid of empathy and endlessly focussed on his unquenchable thirst for self-satisfaction. The result playing out before us is a succession of poorly-conceived and insufficiently-evaluated decisions and a high-speed deterioration of morality in our public institutions.
Finland, by most accepted measures, is the most feminist country. It has ranked as the happiest country for 8 years running. Finnish citizens can expect to live, on average, at least 4 years longer than Americans. Its incarceration rate is about 10 times lower than the US’s. In sum, the most feminist country way outperforms the US in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
Which one is the gender that regards Andrews's motivated reasoning, cherry-picked anecdotes, and misrepresentation of facts as unhelpful claptrap? I'm for that one. The fact that this has been taken seriously in male-dominated "intellectual" circles is not a good sign for them.
Cathy Young is a very precise writer. Having read her recent summary on Bari Weiss, I read the Andrews piece before reading this. The Andrews Compact article is so boiled down and reductive. I appreciate Young's assessment here.
So Phyllis Schlafly 2.0. Of course, one shouldn't be bothered at all by the contradiction of a women playing a leading political role while calling such a role for women a "potential threat to civilization"
I looked through the comments to see if anyone had already posted this vintage clip of Andrews (formerly Rittelmeyer) and I didn't see it, so here you go. The good part starts around 1:35. Enjoy.
Yes, I think those two probably deserved each other. Andrews specializes in bigotry dressed up as "intellectual" contrarianism. Her misogyny is matched by her racism. Just a delightful character.
I don’t know anything about Andrews position outside of what is here. I am intrigued by the position posited by the antagonist. But the author admits as much here, and she is right that a) the differences are really much more at the edges than Andrews posits, and, more importantly, b) recent events and trends make it clear that if there are such gender differences, the female ones are proving to be, at the very least the equivalent in value for guiding many of our institutions including our great ship of state, if not decidedly superior.
I got stuck on this: "Worse, Andrews frets, 'the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.'" Immediately, Marie Henein sprung to mind. You won't be familiar with her unless you followed the trial of alleged sex abuser and journalist Jian Gomeshi in Canada. She got a lot of flak defending him. She is the opposite of cuddly.
"The brisk clip of her black patent stilettos leaves no doubt about her flinty reputation. Without uttering a word, Marie Henein commands the room. ... Even one of her most grateful clients, former attorney general Michael Bryant, has described her as someone who 'seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter,' and another, one-time minor league hockey coach Dave Frost, dubbed her 'my shark.'"
This is the fattest lot of horseshit I have read in, well, forever. I've spent a career of FORTY years engaged with the Rule of Law and I can tell you, unequivocally, that women are far better custodians of it than men. They listen better. They are more attuned to context. And they are better at creating solutions that require setting aside the dick-measuring that besets all males of the species.
Long ago, during my orientation as a clerk on one of the US Courts of Appeals, the chief judge said this: "To understand what we do, you must understand this: The facts are always more important than the law." Which of male or female lawyers do you suppose better appreciates this?
Thanks Cathy. This is an enlightening review.
Excellent work, Cathy! Spot on.......
After reading Mona's piece on Toxic Femininity this morning, I needed to respond more.
Response to Prof. Higgins (indeed the epitome of mansplaining/correctile dysfunction):
"Why can’t a woman be more like a man?"
*Because we birth all human beings and have no true choice in the matter
"Men are so honest, so thoroughly square"
*lol...Trump, Epstein, Speaker Johnson, tens of thousands of convicted male pedophiles, I could go on…
"Eternally noble, historically fair"
*Maybe while admiring self in mirror but colonization refutes this trope
"Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat"
*Not in America where second place is equal to first loser
"Why can’t a woman be like that?"
*Because we have inherent empathy when not drowned by toxic masculinity
"One man in a million may shout a bit"
*Statistically wildly inaccurate as approximately 1 in 3 men have used some form of intimate partner violence
"Now and then there’s one with slight defects"
*Again….huh?
"One, perhaps, whose truthfulness you doubt a bit"
*One study cited that men lie an average of six times per day, while women lie about three times per day
"But by and large we are a marvelous sex"
*Weird opinion…but only that.
To Andrews notations about war…to quote MLK Jr…."That old law about 'an eye for an eye' leaves everybody blind". Andrews is lacking in EVERY area. To use the measuring stick of successful warfare oxymoronically, makes no sense. War is never a success as it keeps our species stagnating. She alleges that cancel culture is a female but influencing and effecting change in culture requires consensus which can only be reach collaboratively. Andrews clearly does not understand that a rising tide raises all boats, unless you drown from anchoring yourself in the mud in your rigidity, of course.
The lack of balance, nuance, and self-awareness in Andrew’s essay proves these points. Studies are showing more and more that empathetic leaders are better for their teams. Being able to understand that two or more concepts can be true at the same time undermines the naïve sophomoric and binary conservative narrative to keep their herd under control.
Mona is dead right when she says “caricature is not argument”. Andrews needs to do better.
I find it strange that empathy is under direct attack from so many angles. Someone could make a decent argument that, in many cases, the characteristics we associate with masculinity are more effective to avhieve a set of goals. But carrying this forward to saying that empathy is a negative is wrong headed. Empathy allows one to see and properly consider other perspectives and avoid tunnel vision; I'm hard-pressed to think of a situation where this is not a positive.
We are also seeing a rise in people claiming that empathy clouds one's moral judgments. The truth is the opposite; empathy is a fundamental building block to morality and moral action. A lot of religions have a "hate the sin, love the sinner" ethos, which can be a sensible way to sort out the difference between explanation and justification of immoral actions. But anyone saying that empathy is itself a moral weakness is telling on themselves as a champion of immorality.
The country is, just now, suffering from being subject to a President who is (likely sociopathically) devoid of empathy and endlessly focussed on his unquenchable thirst for self-satisfaction. The result playing out before us is a succession of poorly-conceived and insufficiently-evaluated decisions and a high-speed deterioration of morality in our public institutions.
Finland, by most accepted measures, is the most feminist country. It has ranked as the happiest country for 8 years running. Finnish citizens can expect to live, on average, at least 4 years longer than Americans. Its incarceration rate is about 10 times lower than the US’s. In sum, the most feminist country way outperforms the US in Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness.
Which one is the gender that regards Andrews's motivated reasoning, cherry-picked anecdotes, and misrepresentation of facts as unhelpful claptrap? I'm for that one. The fact that this has been taken seriously in male-dominated "intellectual" circles is not a good sign for them.
Cathy Young is a very precise writer. Having read her recent summary on Bari Weiss, I read the Andrews piece before reading this. The Andrews Compact article is so boiled down and reductive. I appreciate Young's assessment here.
Link to Cathy Young's Bari Weiss piece https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bari-weiss-cbs-news-free-press-triumph-faux-balance
What a self-loathing, miserable hag. I’d tell her to GFY, but I’m sure she gets a lot of practice with that anyway.
Love it when Cathy starts kneecapping people in her newsletters. Here for it all day.
Same! Super detailed breakdown by Cathy Young of Bari Weiss' faux balance reporting here. Well worth the read. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/bari-weiss-cbs-news-free-press-triumph-faux-balance
Thank you for investing, researching, and writing this piece.
Helen Andrews is the Aunt Lydia of our times.
So Phyllis Schlafly 2.0. Of course, one shouldn't be bothered at all by the contradiction of a women playing a leading political role while calling such a role for women a "potential threat to civilization"
Yes!
I looked through the comments to see if anyone had already posted this vintage clip of Andrews (formerly Rittelmeyer) and I didn't see it, so here you go. The good part starts around 1:35. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/EAITnMv1j8Q?si=GeEG3K4fl0g-SeTX
Holy crap. He was so measured about what he said...and she didn't dispute a word.
Thank you. She seemed pretty angry herself.
Yes, I think those two probably deserved each other. Andrews specializes in bigotry dressed up as "intellectual" contrarianism. Her misogyny is matched by her racism. Just a delightful character.
I don’t know anything about Andrews position outside of what is here. I am intrigued by the position posited by the antagonist. But the author admits as much here, and she is right that a) the differences are really much more at the edges than Andrews posits, and, more importantly, b) recent events and trends make it clear that if there are such gender differences, the female ones are proving to be, at the very least the equivalent in value for guiding many of our institutions including our great ship of state, if not decidedly superior.
I got stuck on this: "Worse, Andrews frets, 'the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.'" Immediately, Marie Henein sprung to mind. You won't be familiar with her unless you followed the trial of alleged sex abuser and journalist Jian Gomeshi in Canada. She got a lot of flak defending him. She is the opposite of cuddly.
"The brisk clip of her black patent stilettos leaves no doubt about her flinty reputation. Without uttering a word, Marie Henein commands the room. ... Even one of her most grateful clients, former attorney general Michael Bryant, has described her as someone who 'seemed to channel Hannibal Lecter,' and another, one-time minor league hockey coach Dave Frost, dubbed her 'my shark.'"
https://torontolife.com/city/marie-henein-jian-ghomeshi-lawyer/
This is the fattest lot of horseshit I have read in, well, forever. I've spent a career of FORTY years engaged with the Rule of Law and I can tell you, unequivocally, that women are far better custodians of it than men. They listen better. They are more attuned to context. And they are better at creating solutions that require setting aside the dick-measuring that besets all males of the species.
Long ago, during my orientation as a clerk on one of the US Courts of Appeals, the chief judge said this: "To understand what we do, you must understand this: The facts are always more important than the law." Which of male or female lawyers do you suppose better appreciates this?
great article Cathy!