I recognize that this is probably a very confusing piece - I think necessarily because a lot of it falls outside of our standard frames of discourse and reference - so here's a summary of my claims:
1.The 'war of the sexes' is a real thing and pervades our social interactions. I think anybody who's reached adulthood would have to recogniz…
I recognize that this is probably a very confusing piece - I think necessarily because a lot of it falls outside of our standard frames of discourse and reference - so here's a summary of my claims:
1.The 'war of the sexes' is a real thing and pervades our social interactions. I think anybody who's reached adulthood would have to recognize that there's some truth in this statement.
2.Feminism, in its totality, represents a move in the 'war of the sexes' - i.e. a rebalancing of power, a rewriting of the social contract. This is not at all a values statement - just a description. Certainly, that's not what the majority of feminist talking points are, but this point has been made explicitly by radical feminists, and I would happily argue this description out.
3.In female-led institutions, some different patterns of leadership are apparent. This shouldn't be a particularly controversial statement. A great selling point of the feminist revolution was that female leadership would result in very different social structures (e.g. 'the future is female'). We can - at least haltingly, anecdotally - talk about what some of those patterns look like.
4.The trajectory of feminism is cross-hatched with American electoral politics, with voters often in a position of making gendered decisions (e.g. voting for a man vs. voting for a woman) and with gendered characterizations now a pervasive part of the political rhetoric.
5.The two major American political parties have to a great extent differentiated themselves along gendered lines - the numbers are unequivocal about this - and it seems more than likely that the key determinant in the election will have to do with voters' conceptions of gendered leadership, which is as much a culture question as it is about specific 'issues.'
The only normative claim I'm making anywhere in here is that, in our roles as journalists, chatterers, free-thinkers, etc, we should be capable of openly discussing what is obviously a fraught and complicated subject. Everything else is a descriptive statement.
Thanks Sam. I entirely agree that our war of the sexes and therein contested sexualities needs to be more openly recognised and discussed in the public arena. I understand the philosophical history and cultural development of Feminism to run parallel to and interweave with that of Capitalism. Any attempts to analyse or critique aspects of its unintended social consequences quickly end up in similar my way or the highway conflicts. Conflict being at root the cultural dynamo that still informs all of our political nation state structures. Protestant or Catholic, Democrat or Monarchist, Southerner or Northerner, Red or Blue, Rich v Poor, Man v Woman etc… Conflict that is both exacerbated and further embedded by an unthinking feedback loop within our mass education, social media and advertising industries. I live in eternal hope that when enough of us perceive this historical philosophical faultline that continues to mess with all of us in our daily lives in hidden and nasty ways, that we may come up with a way to untie this Gordian Knot 🐈⬛
I really don’t think “war of the sexes” is a useful framing for what I think is a very persuasive argument. I also think that debating what feminism is and isn’t is a distraction here.
I think female and male styles of leadership/ decision making is the key point.
I found this persuasive, especially in the light of recently reading Joyce Benenson’s “Warriors and Worriers.” (But that is a controversial book which one wouldn’t have to agree with to find this essay persuasive.)
I recognize that this is probably a very confusing piece - I think necessarily because a lot of it falls outside of our standard frames of discourse and reference - so here's a summary of my claims:
1.The 'war of the sexes' is a real thing and pervades our social interactions. I think anybody who's reached adulthood would have to recognize that there's some truth in this statement.
2.Feminism, in its totality, represents a move in the 'war of the sexes' - i.e. a rebalancing of power, a rewriting of the social contract. This is not at all a values statement - just a description. Certainly, that's not what the majority of feminist talking points are, but this point has been made explicitly by radical feminists, and I would happily argue this description out.
3.In female-led institutions, some different patterns of leadership are apparent. This shouldn't be a particularly controversial statement. A great selling point of the feminist revolution was that female leadership would result in very different social structures (e.g. 'the future is female'). We can - at least haltingly, anecdotally - talk about what some of those patterns look like.
4.The trajectory of feminism is cross-hatched with American electoral politics, with voters often in a position of making gendered decisions (e.g. voting for a man vs. voting for a woman) and with gendered characterizations now a pervasive part of the political rhetoric.
5.The two major American political parties have to a great extent differentiated themselves along gendered lines - the numbers are unequivocal about this - and it seems more than likely that the key determinant in the election will have to do with voters' conceptions of gendered leadership, which is as much a culture question as it is about specific 'issues.'
The only normative claim I'm making anywhere in here is that, in our roles as journalists, chatterers, free-thinkers, etc, we should be capable of openly discussing what is obviously a fraught and complicated subject. Everything else is a descriptive statement.
- Sam
Thanks Sam. I entirely agree that our war of the sexes and therein contested sexualities needs to be more openly recognised and discussed in the public arena. I understand the philosophical history and cultural development of Feminism to run parallel to and interweave with that of Capitalism. Any attempts to analyse or critique aspects of its unintended social consequences quickly end up in similar my way or the highway conflicts. Conflict being at root the cultural dynamo that still informs all of our political nation state structures. Protestant or Catholic, Democrat or Monarchist, Southerner or Northerner, Red or Blue, Rich v Poor, Man v Woman etc… Conflict that is both exacerbated and further embedded by an unthinking feedback loop within our mass education, social media and advertising industries. I live in eternal hope that when enough of us perceive this historical philosophical faultline that continues to mess with all of us in our daily lives in hidden and nasty ways, that we may come up with a way to untie this Gordian Knot 🐈⬛
Very interesting. Thanks Monnina.
I really don’t think “war of the sexes” is a useful framing for what I think is a very persuasive argument. I also think that debating what feminism is and isn’t is a distraction here.
I think female and male styles of leadership/ decision making is the key point.
I found this persuasive, especially in the light of recently reading Joyce Benenson’s “Warriors and Worriers.” (But that is a controversial book which one wouldn’t have to agree with to find this essay persuasive.)
Thanks Jeremy. You're right that this essay maybe tries to bite off more than it should.