Journalist Helen Andrews created a firestorm last month when she published an essay called “The Great Feminization” in Compact Magazine. In her piece, Andrews argues that what she calls the feminization of the workplace “poses a threat to civilization.”
It’s a bold claim, and one that she is utterly unable to support. In fact, she doesn’t even try. She offers no sources for her broad assertions and instead relies on sweeping generalizations.
Andrews begins with the tired old argument that men are logical while women are emotional, at one point contrasting male “rational appeals” to female “mob hysteria.”
While I do agree with Andrews that in the aggregate, men and women tend to approach things like conflict and problem solving differently, it’s rarely in the ways she suggests. She claims, for example, that women prioritize safety over risk while a study published in the Harvard Business Review in 2021 shows that women are more likely to challenge the status quo than men.
Furthermore, on the whole, I see any differences between men and women as positive and complementary. An abundance of research has established that gender diversity leads to better outcomes for all involved.
Andrews’ central underlying assumption — that masculine ways of doing and being are inherently better for society — is profoundly troubling. “The problem,” Andrews writes, “is that female modes of interaction are not well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.”
Another problematic assumption made by Andrews is that the workplace somehow belonged to men, and women are now taking it over. How dare they? This is cause for great alarm in Andrews’ mind: “Imagine what will happen as the remaining men age out of these society-shaping professions and the younger, more feminized generations take full control.”
She worries especially about the field of law because, in her view: “the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female.”
The silliness of this assertion is dizzying, especially considering the very real attacks on the rule of law during the Jim Crow era, when 97% of all attorneys and judges were male.
Most disturbing of all is Andrews’ argument against anti-discrimination law, which, in her mind, “requires that every workplace be feminized.” Her examples? A court case that determined that “pinup posters on the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women” and dozens of lawsuits levied against Silicon Valley companies “alleging ‘frat boy culture’ or ‘toxic bro culture.’”
“Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that feels like a fraternity house,” Andrews writes, “but men can’t sue when their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.” As if frat houses and kindergartens represent equally inhospitable work environments.
Andrews then warns that “institutions seem to have a tipping point, after which they become more and more feminized” and that “our window to do something about the Great Feminization is closing.”
Heaven forbid that the balance should tip the other direction after literally millennia of male domination of power structures. (Because after all, the men have done such a great job, right?)
“Make it legal to have a masculine office culture again,” Andrews implores. What does this even mean? Allow the frat house culture? Pinups on the walls? How demeaning to both women and men.
Far from being a detriment, the so-called feminization of society has had significant and very real benefits.
From an article published in Forbes in 2021: “The evidence is compelling: when more women sit at decision-making tables, better decisions are made. Companies make more profits. Peace negotiations last longer. And when countries increase the number of women in government by as little as 5%, they’re five times less likely to use violence when faced with an international crisis.”
As she ends her essay, Andrews perhaps reveals more about herself than she intends. She cares about all of this, she writes, because “I am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions, who will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more conflict-averse and consensus-driven.” And then she drives the final nail into the coffin of her whole argument: “I am the mother of sons, who will never reach their full potential if they have to grow up in a feminized world.”
Wait. You mean, like our daughters have never been able to reach their full potential for thousands of years because they have had to grow up in a masculinized patriarchal world?
But it’s not really about feminization or masculinization. Andrews misses the point entirely when she pits men and women against each other in a zero-sum competition. What we really need in order for societies to thrive is partnership, mutualism — men and women working together, each bringing his or her own strengths to the table in a way that benefits all.
Mutualism is the ideal toward which we should be working. Here, we can turn to our own Latter-day Saint doctrine for the divine pattern. Our theology affirms that “all human beings, male and female, are beloved spirit children of heavenly parents, a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother” and that “our heavenly parents work together for the salvation of the human family.”
This is how we build Zion — by working together in partnership. This is how we move toward that beloved community where all of God’s children can flourish.