I have very little patience for the feminization discourse in general, or that specific Helen Andrews piece in particular. But even I have to admit that it has provoked some pretty interesting conversations.
I think there’s a point to it, but the fact that the main idea turned into “women ruin everything” kind of makes me want to dispense with the whole thing. It’s a worthwhile discussion, but seemingly impossible to have due to polarization
Many critics - particularly on the Left - seem to have misread Helen Andrews’s article as a blanket attack on women, reducing it to a caricature so they can dismiss it outright. This is a straw man: no serious observer is calling for women to be expelled from the workforce or public life. What Andrews actually argues is that the feminization of key institutions, in education, media, corporate culture, even politics, has resulted in many changes (e.g., declining risk tolerance, heightened emotionalism in decision-making, and a shift toward consensus over confrontation, sympathy to woke ideas, etc.) that can, and have had, arguably detrimental effects on society. These are empirical claims, not merely moral ones, and they can be debated on evidence without impugning women’s competence or rights. The path forward isn’t a reversal (purging women from the workforce) but a sort of recalibration: recognizing these shifts, measuring their costs, and designing workplaces (in partnership with women, who now dominate many of these fields) that preserve the strengths of both traditionally masculine and feminine approaches. That’s not regression... it’s balance... Again, I suggest you consider having her on the podcast...
Edit: I also think things will improve once the DEI crusade wanes and women aren't encouraged/pushed/bribed to enter fields that they might otherwise choose to avoid. Examples would be physics and engineering where a 90/10 male-female ratio probably accurately represents the relative interests. Attempts to force a 50/50 mix lowers standards and creates problems.... All of that said, we're probably still on course for 90/10 female-male ratio in the legal profession... ;-)
I can't relate to Mr Olney's early life aversion to ever having children. I knew I wanted them for as far back as I can remember. And I was right all along. Having and raising kids was the single most important endeavor that I've undertaken (career being second). Now that we're empty nesters, it's been hard to find that kind of meaning in day-to-day life, and I sometimes find myself longing for "the good old days". It's good hear that, at the end of the day, your guest came to appreciate the central role children play in building a full life.
Re the feminization discussion, I think you should definitely have Helen Andrews on the podcast... there's a lot to discuss, including - and perhaps most importantly - where we as a society go from here...
Really enjoyed this! A lot to digest.
I have very little patience for the feminization discourse in general, or that specific Helen Andrews piece in particular. But even I have to admit that it has provoked some pretty interesting conversations.
I think there’s a point to it, but the fact that the main idea turned into “women ruin everything” kind of makes me want to dispense with the whole thing. It’s a worthwhile discussion, but seemingly impossible to have due to polarization
Many critics - particularly on the Left - seem to have misread Helen Andrews’s article as a blanket attack on women, reducing it to a caricature so they can dismiss it outright. This is a straw man: no serious observer is calling for women to be expelled from the workforce or public life. What Andrews actually argues is that the feminization of key institutions, in education, media, corporate culture, even politics, has resulted in many changes (e.g., declining risk tolerance, heightened emotionalism in decision-making, and a shift toward consensus over confrontation, sympathy to woke ideas, etc.) that can, and have had, arguably detrimental effects on society. These are empirical claims, not merely moral ones, and they can be debated on evidence without impugning women’s competence or rights. The path forward isn’t a reversal (purging women from the workforce) but a sort of recalibration: recognizing these shifts, measuring their costs, and designing workplaces (in partnership with women, who now dominate many of these fields) that preserve the strengths of both traditionally masculine and feminine approaches. That’s not regression... it’s balance... Again, I suggest you consider having her on the podcast...
Edit: I also think things will improve once the DEI crusade wanes and women aren't encouraged/pushed/bribed to enter fields that they might otherwise choose to avoid. Examples would be physics and engineering where a 90/10 male-female ratio probably accurately represents the relative interests. Attempts to force a 50/50 mix lowers standards and creates problems.... All of that said, we're probably still on course for 90/10 female-male ratio in the legal profession... ;-)
I can't relate to Mr Olney's early life aversion to ever having children. I knew I wanted them for as far back as I can remember. And I was right all along. Having and raising kids was the single most important endeavor that I've undertaken (career being second). Now that we're empty nesters, it's been hard to find that kind of meaning in day-to-day life, and I sometimes find myself longing for "the good old days". It's good hear that, at the end of the day, your guest came to appreciate the central role children play in building a full life.
Re the feminization discussion, I think you should definitely have Helen Andrews on the podcast... there's a lot to discuss, including - and perhaps most importantly - where we as a society go from here...