I agree. I should have said that I think there is disutility in the "feminization" meme.
Let's suppose I think that CCDC is to cautious in a status quo way. And let's stipulate even if I'm not sure it is true that attitude is more common among women than men. Does the criticism of the CDC caution gain anything by being labeled "feminine?
There is disutility in disingenuousness. My observation, and that is all it is, is that people who won't name things by what they really are really don't object to them in the first place. Indeed, when they call out others for doing so, it is usually a clear sign that they disagreed with the critique itself, not how it was done.
"the older culture was consistent with male tendencies (what Benenson calls “warriors”); the newer culture is consistent with female tendencies (what she calls “worriers”)."
All of the changes noted seem to be "feminine". With good points and bad points.
The bad points of femininity seem to be increasing in the culture and the institutions - and is correlated with an increase in women in executive decision making roles at those institutions.
Listing all 7, or any group of 4,5, or 6 of the traits, and talking about them, is more awkward than categorizing them as "feminine" and discussing the group. That's big utility.
Unless ... you disagree with the list. And your own unwillingness to list the traits and why you disagree is part of why general categories of feminine and masculine are useful.
I don't think I was 'unwilling" to list traits. I thought that labeling a set of traits as "feminine" does not add anything to their criticism and labeling them that way seems pejorative.
And this leads to another point that I'd like Arnold to consider.
When does the behavior of Arnold's FIT lurch over the line from provocative to inappropriate.
Richard H. has a bizarre obsession with being masculine. Ok, that's fine. Live your own life.
But this morning he wrote
"Hardware stores are the least likely to care, probably because they are filled with high testosterone men. Target puts up LGBT posters everywhere, so I had to stop shopping there."
That is homophobic. I cannot imagine other members of your FIT writing that second sentence.
Please consider whether you are promoting a bigot.
I agree that Hanania has his obsession (elsewhere I saw him worried about one of his children being turned trans by school), but I don't mind seeing him on the platform.
Concerning his take on masking, if one wears a mask to protect others (and however little good they do, they protect others more than they protect the wearer) -- as some people, mainly men, carry guns -- isn't that stereotypically "masculine," behavior?
No. Stereotypically masculine behavior is what men actually do. It is not whatever comes out when you take one quality that correlates with what men actually do and then select actions which have that quality. Here are a couple slightly exaggerated examples showing how silly it is:
It is indubitable that men cause more traffic casualties per mile driven than women. Ergo, stereotypically masculine behavior would would be for men to stay at home, use public transport or go by taxi with female drivers, because this way they protect others.
One can also go around in handcuffs to protect others (and however little good handcuffs do, they protect others more than they protect the wearer). Isn't that stereotypically "masculine" behavior?
Yes, but this is a novel situation. Neither men nor women typically wear masks. Given a new situation in which a mask-less person is (slightly) more likely to make others sick, isn't it the more masculine/gallant/heroic thing to undergo some inconvenience to avoid harming others? Or maybe its just common sense, neither "masculine" or feminine." But I do push back at calling mask-wearing "feminine."
It is no longer a novel situation. The pandemic has been around for 2.5 years already and publicity around it has not been lacking, to put it mildly.
> isn't it the more masculine
You can spin it that way, but it is also masculine/heroic (who cares about gallant? women sure don't, not where it matters) to tell annoying schoolmarms insisting on picayune obedience-building exercises to go soak their heads. Good heavens, just think of what the world would be like if you gave those people the run of the ward and there were no men to say (at least implicitly, by their actions) "screw it, this is retarded".
As for relative risk, I bet you dollars to donuts that, based on statistics, a man is *way* more likely to kill somebody on a given day by driving his usual commute than by happening to be sick with corona, transmitting it to somebody outdoors while not wearing a mask, and that somebody subsequently dying from this infection. But try telling some people (tm) that and they'll chew your head off, just as they did the other day when somebody mentioned on TV that people are way more likely to get their kids killed by driving them to school than by leaving them at school where school shooters can happen to shoot them.
A striking part of Zvi’s review was when he talked about how he liked to hire high-IQ gamers he knew without traditional education credentials. I suspect there are many opportunities like this to find talented men.
School seem to place an increasing emphasis on conformity and a certain type of conscientiousness over intelligence and creativity, and in addition school keeps getting longer. At a certain point the signal becomes too costly to send, and I suspect that this is true of men especially.
I think there might be a good market niche for male focused schooling. The public schools seem optimized for indoctrination of females, but even without the indoctrination part still are female focused in the conformity, conscientiousness and general non competitive nature of the process. There could be enough differences between how the sexes grow and learn to make focused schools valuable, at least for the outliers.
Yes- you could try doing by offering a kind of content that males would jump at, but females wouldn't, but, again, if it turned out that even just 60+% of the students were male, the program would come under attack for bias and likely be shut down, especially if any public funds of any kind were attached.
I think the value of charisma as a character trait has declined over time under the cultural transition you point out. There are many jobs where charisma was considered to be a positive differentiator. I wonder if it will now be perceived negatively...
I really don't see the utility of calling certain cultural attitudes, "feminine."
There is utility in honesty.
I agree. I should have said that I think there is disutility in the "feminization" meme.
Let's suppose I think that CCDC is to cautious in a status quo way. And let's stipulate even if I'm not sure it is true that attitude is more common among women than men. Does the criticism of the CDC caution gain anything by being labeled "feminine?
There is disutility in disingenuousness. My observation, and that is all it is, is that people who won't name things by what they really are really don't object to them in the first place. Indeed, when they call out others for doing so, it is usually a clear sign that they disagreed with the critique itself, not how it was done.
This presumes that a particular attitude that we want to criticize 'really is" "feminine" (or "racist" or "unpatriotic.")
https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/feminized-culture/
Yes, this was not my first encounter with the idea.
Arnold's earlier post lists 7 changes and notes:
"the older culture was consistent with male tendencies (what Benenson calls “warriors”); the newer culture is consistent with female tendencies (what she calls “worriers”)."
All of the changes noted seem to be "feminine". With good points and bad points.
The bad points of femininity seem to be increasing in the culture and the institutions - and is correlated with an increase in women in executive decision making roles at those institutions.
Listing all 7, or any group of 4,5, or 6 of the traits, and talking about them, is more awkward than categorizing them as "feminine" and discussing the group. That's big utility.
Unless ... you disagree with the list. And your own unwillingness to list the traits and why you disagree is part of why general categories of feminine and masculine are useful.
I don't think I was 'unwilling" to list traits. I thought that labeling a set of traits as "feminine" does not add anything to their criticism and labeling them that way seems pejorative.
I agree with you, Thomas.
And this leads to another point that I'd like Arnold to consider.
When does the behavior of Arnold's FIT lurch over the line from provocative to inappropriate.
Richard H. has a bizarre obsession with being masculine. Ok, that's fine. Live your own life.
But this morning he wrote
"Hardware stores are the least likely to care, probably because they are filled with high testosterone men. Target puts up LGBT posters everywhere, so I had to stop shopping there."
That is homophobic. I cannot imagine other members of your FIT writing that second sentence.
Please consider whether you are promoting a bigot.
https://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/feminized-culture/
Not a fan of warrior culture
I think you can be manly and non violent
I think as well the ideal is between Rachett and the psycho
I agree that Hanania has his obsession (elsewhere I saw him worried about one of his children being turned trans by school), but I don't mind seeing him on the platform.
Concerning his take on masking, if one wears a mask to protect others (and however little good they do, they protect others more than they protect the wearer) -- as some people, mainly men, carry guns -- isn't that stereotypically "masculine," behavior?
No. Stereotypically masculine behavior is what men actually do. It is not whatever comes out when you take one quality that correlates with what men actually do and then select actions which have that quality. Here are a couple slightly exaggerated examples showing how silly it is:
It is indubitable that men cause more traffic casualties per mile driven than women. Ergo, stereotypically masculine behavior would would be for men to stay at home, use public transport or go by taxi with female drivers, because this way they protect others.
One can also go around in handcuffs to protect others (and however little good handcuffs do, they protect others more than they protect the wearer). Isn't that stereotypically "masculine" behavior?
Yes, but this is a novel situation. Neither men nor women typically wear masks. Given a new situation in which a mask-less person is (slightly) more likely to make others sick, isn't it the more masculine/gallant/heroic thing to undergo some inconvenience to avoid harming others? Or maybe its just common sense, neither "masculine" or feminine." But I do push back at calling mask-wearing "feminine."
> Yes, but this is a novel situation.
It is no longer a novel situation. The pandemic has been around for 2.5 years already and publicity around it has not been lacking, to put it mildly.
> isn't it the more masculine
You can spin it that way, but it is also masculine/heroic (who cares about gallant? women sure don't, not where it matters) to tell annoying schoolmarms insisting on picayune obedience-building exercises to go soak their heads. Good heavens, just think of what the world would be like if you gave those people the run of the ward and there were no men to say (at least implicitly, by their actions) "screw it, this is retarded".
As for relative risk, I bet you dollars to donuts that, based on statistics, a man is *way* more likely to kill somebody on a given day by driving his usual commute than by happening to be sick with corona, transmitting it to somebody outdoors while not wearing a mask, and that somebody subsequently dying from this infection. But try telling some people (tm) that and they'll chew your head off, just as they did the other day when somebody mentioned on TV that people are way more likely to get their kids killed by driving them to school than by leaving them at school where school shooters can happen to shoot them.
A striking part of Zvi’s review was when he talked about how he liked to hire high-IQ gamers he knew without traditional education credentials. I suspect there are many opportunities like this to find talented men.
School seem to place an increasing emphasis on conformity and a certain type of conscientiousness over intelligence and creativity, and in addition school keeps getting longer. At a certain point the signal becomes too costly to send, and I suspect that this is true of men especially.
I think there might be a good market niche for male focused schooling. The public schools seem optimized for indoctrination of females, but even without the indoctrination part still are female focused in the conformity, conscientiousness and general non competitive nature of the process. There could be enough differences between how the sexes grow and learn to make focused schools valuable, at least for the outliers.
I agree it would likely be a great product and eagerly adopted by some parents, but legally it would never be allowed to get off the ground.
I guess I haven't been paying attention. Are boys' schools and girls' schools really not allowed anymore?
Not with any government connection, however tenuous.
Jefferson County (Colorado) School District offers a "technical" school that is so popular that they use a lottery to winnow down the applicants.
https://warrentech.org/
Yes- you could try doing by offering a kind of content that males would jump at, but females wouldn't, but, again, if it turned out that even just 60+% of the students were male, the program would come under attack for bias and likely be shut down, especially if any public funds of any kind were attached.
"the Culture of Nurse Ratched"
TikTok of an HR worker. Hard to believe it's real and that this person chose to broadcast her views. (SIAP, I didn't see it in other threads here.)
https://twitter.com/stillgray/status/1533672826905174017
I think the value of charisma as a character trait has declined over time under the cultural transition you point out. There are many jobs where charisma was considered to be a positive differentiator. I wonder if it will now be perceived negatively...