Around 195 B.C., the great Roman statesman Cato the Elder addressed his colleagues concerning a petition sent up by the women of Rome, who wanted the right to ride in carriages.
His opinion was recorded by Livy: “If they win in this, what will they not attempt? Review all the laws with which your forefathers restrained their license and made them subject to their husbands; even with all these bonds you can scarcely control them. What of this? If you suffer them to seize these bonds one by one and wrench themselves free and finally to be placed on a parity with their husbands, do you think that you will be able to endure them? The moment they begin to be your equals, they will be your superiors.”
This same fear echoes down the course of the centuries; the fear felt by men who think that women have, or will have, too much power and this will destroy society. We see this fear even today, with its latest incarnation being the “Great Feminization” thesis. This thesis, which has been written about by Heather Mac Donald and Helen Andrews, among others, has been increasingly talked about in some conservative circles.
The idea is that major social and political institutions are now under the control of women, and that society has changed for the worse as a result. Its adherents point specifically to the news media, to HR departments, to universities, and to the judiciary as institutions captured by women. This is a problem, some say, because women think differently from men.
Essentially — no pun intended — these authors assert that women are more empathetic, less violent, more emotionally sensitive (even to the point of hysteria), and emphasize inclusivity within the group over merit. As a result, says a male writer who goes by the pseudonym J. Stone, we wind up with cancel culture that substitutes for open confrontation, DEI initiatives over meritocracy, the concept of “hate speech” that undercuts free speech, open borders, out-of-control welfare spending, more attention to the environment, less tolerance of death in war and also less tolerance of war in general as an instrument of policy.
Women’s greater voice has also led to an increased emphasis on civil rights, with Stone noting in unironic fashion, “We don’t see these expansions of civil rights to such an extent in countries, such as China, where women are not so influential culturally and politically.”
Because of the “Great Feminization,” it is asserted, our country has become weak, soft and overly compassionate, which will lead to the downfall and collapse of our civilization. Indeed, some have averred that too much empathy is a sin. Women, we are told, are also at their core less patriotic, because throughout history, conquering nations have slaughtered men, but kept women alive. Surrender, therefore, is an option for women in a way that it is not for men, according to this line of thinking, and this affects women’s decision-making in a way that undermines national security.
Andrews further contributes that, “Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.”
And therefore, according to Andrews, Stone and others, free speech is throttled and cancel culture prevails.
I must admit to being gobsmacked by much of what passes for analysis here. The original cancel culture was a male invention. Who, for example, imprisoned Soviet intellectuals and activists in the vast gulag archipelago of the USSR? Who, for example, created the reeducation camps in Maoist China? Who runs North Korea today? The regimes that Orwell and Huxley warned of through their prescient books were all male-run regimes. The greatest, most villainous enemies of free speech in human history have always been male: that’s why he’s called Big Brother.
I also chuckled over the tears concerning meritocracy. I’m all for meritocracy, but that is not what we’ve generally had in our history. What we most often have had was the “old boys’ network,” where men who knew each other from school and sports and country clubs and kin groups promoted each other into positions for which they were woefully unqualified. One could make a very good argument that that explains a number of recent government appointments, so let’s not kid ourselves about male devotion to merit.
These male coalitions are typically effective at combatting external threats, but are not effective at thinking about the broader polity and its needs. The very worst countries to live in on the planet right now — think Afghanistan and Somalia — are run by male coalitions. As long as such coalitions can rule their own piece of turf, they don’t care if the entire country is turned into a smoldering, starving ruin in the process. What is happening in Gaza right now is a superb example of rule by risk-taking, violence-acceptant male coalitions defending their turf.
Indeed, my own research has shown that countries that subordinate women score significantly worse on a wide variety of national outcomes, including indicators measuring security, governance, rule of law, wealth, health, education and many others. What you do to your women, you do to your nation-state. If you curse women, you curse your nation-state. This is the iron law of human societies that the “Great Feminization” theorists seem loathe to acknowledge. Societies that treat women better are the most powerful and most sought-after societies in the world because there is respect for civil rights and human rights. No one is trying to emigrate to male-dominance cultures, because they tend to be hellholes for everyone, men and women alike.
There are many other points to rebut, such as the idea that women are not motivated to protect their homeland (which is frankly farcical — witness the female combat crews in Israel), or that men do not undermine each other through backstabbing and ostracism (men can be masters of those arts), but I will defer a longer discussion to a later time.
All this is to say that the “Great Feminization” theorists are wide of the mark. We don’t need or want a return to male dominance, and we don’t need or want female dominance in its stead. The obvious alternative is a sincere, meaningful, equal partnership between men and women, the two halves of humanity that constitute human societies and literally create the future of the species together. Every major social and political institution, to my mind, should instantiate that partnership, from the family to the seat of national power.
The best decisions are made when men and women deliberate together, as they do within most families, and there is some empirical evidence that mixed-sex groups make significantly better decisions than single-sex groups.
D. Todd Christofferson, of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, spoke this past week of the need within the church to bring male and female perspectives into consideration when making decisions. When “we bring both perspectives together, we get a better perspective. We get closer to the divine perspective,” he said.
I’d say that is exactly the right path, the path that gives us all — men and women — a far better and more secure future.