The abstract in the paper is very manipulative. I didn’t read it in full, but I did skim through some of the paragraphs to focus on the language itself. I could bring in my behavioral science background, but you did a great job assessing the assessors and nailed the smoke-and-mirrors beautifully.
Is society obsessed with women? If so, I’d like to know why and when it all began. There is so little feedback on men, and when there is feedback, it’s usually looped in with males being problematic. I’ve yet to come across a single paper on human behavior that explains, in simple terms, that women’s ability to move ahead is often based on physiological estimations, such as estrogen levels, and their frequently overzealous need to compete through covert maneuvers. We are animals, not Tinkerbell with a wand and magical powers.
It’s exhausting to watch this “cult,” as you often say, worship women.
I imagine that we had the same reaction reading the abstract - disbelief, unsurprised, eye rolling. I think society is obsessed with men and finding many ways to imply and suggest that they're holding society back. Academia is feminised so it makes sense that there's a disproportion of 'women can do no wrong' research studies.
This is why I am a feminist who does not like most women. Feminism for me has always meant women becoming more like men - agentic, self-actualizing, and individualistic. A great (and unjustly forgotten) classic of feminist SF is Joanna Russ’ The Female Man which basically claims that women can be better men than men themselves. Whether this is true (probably not), there is no question that women can be just as violent, narcissistic and manipulative as men, though expressing these traits in somewhat different ways, due to our socialization and lesser physical strength. The idea that “feminine” traits, such as empathy or agreeableness, are a net gain to society or to women themselves is bonkers.
As I read this I kept thinking about my childhood interactions with other boys. We would often meet at the school yard on a Saturday and play baseball. 20 boys would show up and we would pick teams. We played a game and everyone followed the rules. Sometimes there was a dispute. We would argue and the and resolve it and play on. Usually the oldest or the biggest boys would be the captain but it was never to dominate. It was simply because we needed a leader to organize and facilitate the game. Sometimes we picked one at random by drawing straws or something. Everyone understood that and it worked. This is an organic example of social interaction, no adults, no politics, just kids who wanted to have fun.
Do girls do this? I don’t know I have never seen it.
That cannot be. What did girls do before cell phones? When I was a child we played many games (mostly baseball and American football), until I became enamored with skateboarding. Once we all started skating, it was like a global collective. Any where we went we were all on the same team. I have not skated since the 1990's, but I still regularly will give a ride or buy drinks for skateboarders. It sounds silly, but I kind of see them as family, a first-rate family with no BS regarding gender/race/income/LGBT status, just people having a good time and finding cool terrane.
So, what did girls do before cell phones? I do not know, despite having three older sisters. When I think back to my childhood, I never paid attention to girls until they were the only thing I paid attention to. Even then, I have no clue what they did in their free time.
A brilliant takedown of the false framing around women’s behavior. As I’ve gone deeper into the research myself I can’t help but notice which questions are never asked, and this is a comprehensive list. I’ve never been more determined to continue as I am today in examining the unnameable constraints around the acceptable conversation. One thing I’d add is the inability to confront the moral self concept of women as a group, something men and women do.
Thank you Anuradha! Your response means a lot. The gaps in the literature become more striking the deeper you look, and you’re right to highlight the moral self-concept women hold collectively. Their/our unexamined identity shapes what’s permissible to discuss or not. It’s one of the constraints I keep returning to because it governs the entire conversation before the research even begins.
It's also a good thing that you and I are not constrained by mainstream peer review journals or magazine. I can guarantee lurking academics will take our perspectives, sanitise them, reframe them, and present them as breakthroughs so the field can inch from palatable to subversive without ever admitting where the shift came from.
does this moral self-concept you refer to cause the behavior that I have had so much concern about, where a woman appropriates the suffering of other women and will not let go of it even though it clearly harms her? maybe concern is it wrong word I just struggle with this situation so much where I can see this is bad for her (and thus also bad for me but that is not the point here) but I can't get her to stop hurting herself
As long as any woman believes that her behaviour is morally guided and just, you can't say or do anything to change that. We can't stop people from hurting themselves if they're not ready to see their own behaviour as self-destructive.
I used to read the regular social sciences roundup from Psypost until I noticed that the entire field appeared to be a political manifesto. So none of this surprised me.
Brilliant. I'm just imagining the look on my supervisor's face if I referenced Forbes magazine and Barack Obama as the datapoints for one of the key assumptions I'm about to base the whole paper around...
My heartfelt apologies Fulton. My algorithm shows you’re neither a free nor paid sub so my assumption was to take your comment in bad faith. I saw it as sarcastic and mocking because you disagreed with my perspectives, rather than complimentary and sincere.
I want to delete my previous response but it’s also good for readers to see what unfolds when we trust assumptions instead of checking our understanding first.
Thank you for being gracious and for your kind words about my work, and for this lesson.
I don't think it's an issue from your end. It's the system. Usually it shows who subscribes with an icon. I assumed it was automatic but perhaps there are settings that turn certain bits of info off to the public ie subscription status.
I should have followed up because I did recall seeing your name pop up in the past or that I've messaged you, but I didn't. This is unusual for me because I don't want to assume the worst of anyone unless they are showing textbook speech patterns that I've written about (which you didn't). I know my response/assumption/lens is influenced by what happened last night in Australia. I am still shaken by the antisemitic mass murder as people are checking in on me from all over the world (I'm in Melbourne). It's not an excuse for my behaviour but is behind my unusual reaction. This shows me how anyone of reasonable mind can falter. Again, thank you so much for being generous Fulton.
the comment was perfectly easy to read as both the interpretations you have had. I certainly am not blaming him for this because when you are writing you have your intention in in mind and that interferes with noticing other possibilities. I suspect you may have an unwillingness to let yourself off the hook. please do though. this was nobody's fault.
Thank you for your insights on the assumptions of gender differences in leadership. My personal experiences in workplaces over 25 years align with your observations. The literature on bullying actually is very relevant here in that it points out that girls use relational aggression - spreading rumors and lies, excluding girls who are perceived as threats or who are simply non-conforming - often with fake smiles and claiming a moral high ground. I wish leadership studies would dip more into this literature in their studies of women leaders. Thank you for offering your insights and critique.
It’s heartening to read that this resonates with your experiences in workplaces. You’re correct about relational aggression and female behaviour that express it from adolescence and beyond. Leadership won’t go there because it exposes their tactics for getting where they are and those who do get ostracised. The research is already out there! Thank you Verna for your perspectives!
Nathalie, there must be some mistake. I am VERY appreciative of your work. I thought I was making that clear. Something in my manner of expression here must have misfired. If I were to express better what I meant, it would be this. " It is just for this type of incisive analysis that I am paying for this subscription. I do NOT pay for many, but this one "works" for me. As a matter of fact, I am able almost weekly to use the insights I find here to analyze the odd characteristics of the system in which I work." Please trust me that I am not being coy, ironic, or dismissive. I truly value your work and will continue to maintain this subscription! Please forgive any misunderstanding or infelicity of phrasing. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. --Fulton
Empathy can turn toxic when misapplied. The poison is in the dose and method of administration.
--Women are safer than men and can be trusted with power.
The paradox of safety is that it can be quite dangerous. This also includes the hazards of a bias for inaction, or the desire to "do something" that can introduce its own risks and costs.
--Men’s ambition is self serving while women’s ambition serves the collective.
There are many mental models that challenge those based around 'women are wholesome and fabulous leaders' beliefs. Empathy, safety, compassion can each be weaponised but that doesn't seem to come up in research papers.
The fact that the blank slate narrative is still taken as gospel in many academic spaces, or that any frank examination of innate biological or social differences between human men and women is effectively discouraged or forbidden - these realities make the social sciences less than worthless as truth-finding vehicles. They are actively sustaining anti-truth.
Just on the outside, all Science must do a "back of the envelope" check. When you do a math problem like 2x9, is your answer 26, 984? That seems wrong, and you know to look again.
Here, you can easily check: if women are so superior in every way, do workplaces run entirely or almost entirely by women have more and better output production? And within the structure itself, is everything smoother, easier, and happier, or less?
Having worked in all-female and all-male workplaces, this paper would need to be thrown in the trash for a conclusion so wrong it can be seen from orbit. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, Mr. Sciency-man.
Then they wonder why when they establish conclusions reliably 180 counter to all human experience, from 5 year olds to 55 year olds, they seem to be losing credibility, and people are so furious now they are not just defunding them, not just colleges that contain the billions while we have no drinking water, but almost down to the educational and authority system itself, so firmly are they opposed to cleaning up their act and taking very obvious criticism.
Suit yourself, y'all. But isn't Science 1) Having public data and 2) Discussing it openly? You guys have neither now, so what do we pay you for?
The abstract in the paper is very manipulative. I didn’t read it in full, but I did skim through some of the paragraphs to focus on the language itself. I could bring in my behavioral science background, but you did a great job assessing the assessors and nailed the smoke-and-mirrors beautifully.
Is society obsessed with women? If so, I’d like to know why and when it all began. There is so little feedback on men, and when there is feedback, it’s usually looped in with males being problematic. I’ve yet to come across a single paper on human behavior that explains, in simple terms, that women’s ability to move ahead is often based on physiological estimations, such as estrogen levels, and their frequently overzealous need to compete through covert maneuvers. We are animals, not Tinkerbell with a wand and magical powers.
It’s exhausting to watch this “cult,” as you often say, worship women.
I imagine that we had the same reaction reading the abstract - disbelief, unsurprised, eye rolling. I think society is obsessed with men and finding many ways to imply and suggest that they're holding society back. Academia is feminised so it makes sense that there's a disproportion of 'women can do no wrong' research studies.
This is why I am a feminist who does not like most women. Feminism for me has always meant women becoming more like men - agentic, self-actualizing, and individualistic. A great (and unjustly forgotten) classic of feminist SF is Joanna Russ’ The Female Man which basically claims that women can be better men than men themselves. Whether this is true (probably not), there is no question that women can be just as violent, narcissistic and manipulative as men, though expressing these traits in somewhat different ways, due to our socialization and lesser physical strength. The idea that “feminine” traits, such as empathy or agreeableness, are a net gain to society or to women themselves is bonkers.
As I read this I kept thinking about my childhood interactions with other boys. We would often meet at the school yard on a Saturday and play baseball. 20 boys would show up and we would pick teams. We played a game and everyone followed the rules. Sometimes there was a dispute. We would argue and the and resolve it and play on. Usually the oldest or the biggest boys would be the captain but it was never to dominate. It was simply because we needed a leader to organize and facilitate the game. Sometimes we picked one at random by drawing straws or something. Everyone understood that and it worked. This is an organic example of social interaction, no adults, no politics, just kids who wanted to have fun.
Do girls do this? I don’t know I have never seen it.
Sounds like a good childhood, if girls do this, I haven’t seen it.
That cannot be. What did girls do before cell phones? When I was a child we played many games (mostly baseball and American football), until I became enamored with skateboarding. Once we all started skating, it was like a global collective. Any where we went we were all on the same team. I have not skated since the 1990's, but I still regularly will give a ride or buy drinks for skateboarders. It sounds silly, but I kind of see them as family, a first-rate family with no BS regarding gender/race/income/LGBT status, just people having a good time and finding cool terrane.
So, what did girls do before cell phones? I do not know, despite having three older sisters. When I think back to my childhood, I never paid attention to girls until they were the only thing I paid attention to. Even then, I have no clue what they did in their free time.
What a fascinating, intellectual, bold, balanced and honest dissection, with a solution in response. I was engrossed.
I'm so happy to read this! I'm glad it hit the right balance. Thank you for letting me know!
A brilliant takedown of the false framing around women’s behavior. As I’ve gone deeper into the research myself I can’t help but notice which questions are never asked, and this is a comprehensive list. I’ve never been more determined to continue as I am today in examining the unnameable constraints around the acceptable conversation. One thing I’d add is the inability to confront the moral self concept of women as a group, something men and women do.
Thank you Anuradha! Your response means a lot. The gaps in the literature become more striking the deeper you look, and you’re right to highlight the moral self-concept women hold collectively. Their/our unexamined identity shapes what’s permissible to discuss or not. It’s one of the constraints I keep returning to because it governs the entire conversation before the research even begins.
It's also a good thing that you and I are not constrained by mainstream peer review journals or magazine. I can guarantee lurking academics will take our perspectives, sanitise them, reframe them, and present them as breakthroughs so the field can inch from palatable to subversive without ever admitting where the shift came from.
Just wait!
does this moral self-concept you refer to cause the behavior that I have had so much concern about, where a woman appropriates the suffering of other women and will not let go of it even though it clearly harms her? maybe concern is it wrong word I just struggle with this situation so much where I can see this is bad for her (and thus also bad for me but that is not the point here) but I can't get her to stop hurting herself
As long as any woman believes that her behaviour is morally guided and just, you can't say or do anything to change that. We can't stop people from hurting themselves if they're not ready to see their own behaviour as self-destructive.
so I perhaps need to appreciate what I cannot get her to see. my self concept may be hurting me here
I used to read the regular social sciences roundup from Psypost until I noticed that the entire field appeared to be a political manifesto. So none of this surprised me.
I'm glad I'm not alone in seeing the farce for what it is.
Brilliant. I'm just imagining the look on my supervisor's face if I referenced Forbes magazine and Barack Obama as the datapoints for one of the key assumptions I'm about to base the whole paper around...
Well, if you're trying to get your work into Forbes, HBR, and other VIP mags...quality doesn't matter, only clout!
Yeah. This paid subscription is worth it. No mistake.
My heartfelt apologies Fulton. My algorithm shows you’re neither a free nor paid sub so my assumption was to take your comment in bad faith. I saw it as sarcastic and mocking because you disagreed with my perspectives, rather than complimentary and sincere.
I want to delete my previous response but it’s also good for readers to see what unfolds when we trust assumptions instead of checking our understanding first.
Thank you for being gracious and for your kind words about my work, and for this lesson.
I need to make double sure I'm on the paid list. I did a purge a few months ago. Hope I did not mess up here.
I don't think it's an issue from your end. It's the system. Usually it shows who subscribes with an icon. I assumed it was automatic but perhaps there are settings that turn certain bits of info off to the public ie subscription status.
I should have followed up because I did recall seeing your name pop up in the past or that I've messaged you, but I didn't. This is unusual for me because I don't want to assume the worst of anyone unless they are showing textbook speech patterns that I've written about (which you didn't). I know my response/assumption/lens is influenced by what happened last night in Australia. I am still shaken by the antisemitic mass murder as people are checking in on me from all over the world (I'm in Melbourne). It's not an excuse for my behaviour but is behind my unusual reaction. This shows me how anyone of reasonable mind can falter. Again, thank you so much for being generous Fulton.
the comment was perfectly easy to read as both the interpretations you have had. I certainly am not blaming him for this because when you are writing you have your intention in in mind and that interferes with noticing other possibilities. I suspect you may have an unwillingness to let yourself off the hook. please do though. this was nobody's fault.
this is bad, isnt it. i am trying to find someone to help, because i cant help the person i want to. ok. well i will move forward, not back.
Thank you for your insights on the assumptions of gender differences in leadership. My personal experiences in workplaces over 25 years align with your observations. The literature on bullying actually is very relevant here in that it points out that girls use relational aggression - spreading rumors and lies, excluding girls who are perceived as threats or who are simply non-conforming - often with fake smiles and claiming a moral high ground. I wish leadership studies would dip more into this literature in their studies of women leaders. Thank you for offering your insights and critique.
It’s heartening to read that this resonates with your experiences in workplaces. You’re correct about relational aggression and female behaviour that express it from adolescence and beyond. Leadership won’t go there because it exposes their tactics for getting where they are and those who do get ostracised. The research is already out there! Thank you Verna for your perspectives!
Yes! It is a good case study in internet confusion. Again, thank you for your gracious response, and all of your work.
I thought you looked familiar: https://www.hackingnarcissism.com/p/trolls
Yes, I am horrified that I left the impression that I was not fully in accord with what you were saying.
Nathalie, there must be some mistake. I am VERY appreciative of your work. I thought I was making that clear. Something in my manner of expression here must have misfired. If I were to express better what I meant, it would be this. " It is just for this type of incisive analysis that I am paying for this subscription. I do NOT pay for many, but this one "works" for me. As a matter of fact, I am able almost weekly to use the insights I find here to analyze the odd characteristics of the system in which I work." Please trust me that I am not being coy, ironic, or dismissive. I truly value your work and will continue to maintain this subscription! Please forgive any misunderstanding or infelicity of phrasing. I hope this clarifies matters somewhat. --Fulton
--Women led through empathy and harmony.
Empathy can turn toxic when misapplied. The poison is in the dose and method of administration.
--Women are safer than men and can be trusted with power.
The paradox of safety is that it can be quite dangerous. This also includes the hazards of a bias for inaction, or the desire to "do something" that can introduce its own risks and costs.
--Men’s ambition is self serving while women’s ambition serves the collective.
A guy won a Nobel Prize for proving that action with an other-directed veneer or purpose can actually be quite self-serving. It's a subset of the principal-agent problem, where the agent never acts totally in accord with the principal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem
Much more to unpack...be back later.
There are many mental models that challenge those based around 'women are wholesome and fabulous leaders' beliefs. Empathy, safety, compassion can each be weaponised but that doesn't seem to come up in research papers.
The fact that the blank slate narrative is still taken as gospel in many academic spaces, or that any frank examination of innate biological or social differences between human men and women is effectively discouraged or forbidden - these realities make the social sciences less than worthless as truth-finding vehicles. They are actively sustaining anti-truth.
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/feminism-as-entitlement-pt-5
Great piece, as always James.
And, don't you know, gender is just a construct?
Just on the outside, all Science must do a "back of the envelope" check. When you do a math problem like 2x9, is your answer 26, 984? That seems wrong, and you know to look again.
Here, you can easily check: if women are so superior in every way, do workplaces run entirely or almost entirely by women have more and better output production? And within the structure itself, is everything smoother, easier, and happier, or less?
Having worked in all-female and all-male workplaces, this paper would need to be thrown in the trash for a conclusion so wrong it can be seen from orbit. Check yourself before you wreck yourself, Mr. Sciency-man.
Then they wonder why when they establish conclusions reliably 180 counter to all human experience, from 5 year olds to 55 year olds, they seem to be losing credibility, and people are so furious now they are not just defunding them, not just colleges that contain the billions while we have no drinking water, but almost down to the educational and authority system itself, so firmly are they opposed to cleaning up their act and taking very obvious criticism.
Suit yourself, y'all. But isn't Science 1) Having public data and 2) Discussing it openly? You guys have neither now, so what do we pay you for?