The pros of cons of feminization

[DrZoidberg]

I just listened to a great podcast. It's Swedish. Sorry about that.

https://poddtoppen.se/podcast/14476...9-vi-har-blivit-for-radda-for-allt-obehagligt

The interview is the result of a lecturer in organizational psychology (Johan Grant) being fired from his position because he was saying things that didn't conform to the post modernist woke feminist narrative.

But that wasn't the interesting part of the interview. The interesting part was where he talked about the differences between a masculinized vs femininized organizational model.

The woke organizational model is that the more feminized the better. Johan Grant's organizational model is that there's pros and cons of both. And we need to be aware of them. It's also well supported by data. He was fired simply for teaching that there are differences. He was teaching this to psychology students at university. So just the kind of people who we should be exposing to all manner of ideas and beliefs.

He works primarily with coaching company leaders to create more effective organizations. Ie, he cares about company productivity.

So what are the differences:

Overly feminized organizations:

negatives: we care more about not hurting people's feelings, than saying what people need to hear. Pretending to care means more than actually caring. Causing offence is worse than saying what is true. So people walk on egg shells to avoid hurting each others feelings. This causes stress and has the opposite end result. Organizational dysfunctions are hard to fix.

positives: people in personal difficulties are helped and supported. Conflicts are handled by listening to all parties and validating them. Nobody feels left out. Inclusive.

Overly masculine organizations:

Negatives: They are unnecessarily competitive, ruthless, uncaring, blunt and direct. People who aren't peak performers are cut to shreds until they are bullied out of the company. Making it difficult for people having temporary problems to ever lift themselves out of it. People pretend to be strong even when they're not. Excluding. Very stressful.

Positives: Shit gets done. People call each other's bullshit. Problems are honestly faced and addressed. Necessary but painful changes are easier to do.

The fact that there's differences should be obvious to anyone. The acceptance that there's positives and negatives of both, should also be damned obvious.

His argument is that a balance is to be preferred.

It's hard to overstate just how this extreme version of the woke ideology has completely taken over the Swedish universities to the point where dissenters are now fired from their jobs.

Also worth noting, masculinization and feminization doesn't mean men and women. It means that women and men have different behavioral tendencies that in big organizations tend to push in different directions. It's, effect over time. These models of organizational cultures can be copied to other companies. It's perfectly possible to have a company with 100% men with an extremely feminized company culture. It's culture. Culture spreads by copying and mimicking what other people do.

The lecturer (Johan Grant) worries that Swedish companies have become feminized to the point where they now are dysfunctional. This is certainly something I can relate to. I've worked as a senior manager in both Denmark and Sweden. And boy is it way easier to get shit done in Sweden. Swedes need less micro managing. But they are a hell of a lot more anxious and sensitive. And being an employee I prefer the direct and brutal Danish culture way over the Swedish, where nobody is ever told what they need to hear.

 

[bigfield]

I'm automatically suspicious of this kind of gendered analysis, so it would be nice to see the evidence that supports this model. If there's some science behind this, lets discuss it. I'm not interested in that "wokeness ruined Sweden" narrative.

I'm suspicious of this kind of gendered analysis because it reads like the pseudoscientific bullshit I used to read on PUA forums over a decade ago. Usually some version of "men are uncompromising/fair/rational/effective, women are compassionate/arbitrary/irrational/weak".

A quick search on Google Scholar didn't yield any papers on the subject by Grant, although I don't exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johan+Grant+feminization

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm automatically suspicious of this kind of gendered analysis, so it would be nice to see the evidence that supports this model. If there's some science behind this, lets discuss it. I'm not interested in that "wokeness ruined Sweden" narrative.

The fact that women and men are behaviorally biologically different is so well supported by research that I hardly think it's worth discussing (again)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

I'm suspicious of this kind of gendered analysis because it reads like the pseudoscientific bullshit I used to read on PUA forums over a decade ago. Usually some version of "men are uncompromising/fair/rational/effective, women are compassionate/arbitrary/irrational/weak".

This is an unhelpful attitude to have. I have the same suspicion. But the fact that there exists sexists out there who peddle retarded misogynistic ideas doesn't mean that the genders are psychologically equivalent. You've created a dichotomy where picking either team will lead you astray.

A quick search on Google Scholar didn't yield any papers on the subject by Grant, although I don't exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johan+Grant+feminization

https://www.johangrant.se/

But you can just read the wikipedia article I posted above. There's nothing on his homepage that argues for any position.

He's not a psychological researcher. He's a lecturer who was invited because he's one of Sweden's leading psychology consultants for creating functional business environments. Mostly in the private sector. He's a guy invited to give students a much needed reality check how it works in the real world.

He's also not a lecturer/consultant on gender differences. That's just a small part of what he does. He's a consultant on anything that can cause dysfunctions in an organization.

He also doesn't use pseudoscientific theories. He's quite rigorous in the scientific basis for his work. But he himself has nothing published in his own name.

He's also not that interesting. I added the background story for flavour. You can ignore all that. What I wrote in the summary what he said in the interview. That stands on it's own. I think it sounds like it makes perfect sense. There's no need to lean on any arguments from authority. No need for pseudoscience.

But funny you have a problem with the peddlers of pseudoscience. You know... like... the woke are.

 

[bigfield]

The fact that women and men are behaviorally biologically different is so well supported by research that I hardly think it's worth discussing (again)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology

I'm not calling into question the fact that there are sex differences in psychology.

This is an unhelpful attitude to have. I have the same suspicion. But the fact that there exists sexists out there who peddle retarded misogynistic ideas doesn't mean that the genders are psychologically equivalent. You've created a dichotomy where picking either team will lead you astray.

How about we imagine we're both on a team that is interested in what the science has to say, and we'll forgot about your false dichotomy.

A quick search on Google Scholar didn't yield any papers on the subject by Grant, although I don't exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johan+Grant+feminization

https://www.johangrant.se/

But you can just read the wikipedia article I posted above. There's nothing on his homepage that argues for any position.

He's not a psychological researcher. He's a lecturer who was invited because he's one of Sweden's leading psychology consultants for creating functional business environments. Mostly in the private sector. He's a guy invited to give students a much needed reality check how it works in the real world.

He's also not a lecturer/consultant on gender differences. That's just a small part of what he does. He's a consultant on anything that can cause dysfunctions in an organization.

He also doesn't use pseudoscientific theories. He's quite rigorous in the scientific basis for his work. But he himself has nothing published in his own name.

He's also not that interesting. I added the background story for flavour. You can ignore all that. What I wrote in the summary what he said in the interview. That stands on it's own. I think it sounds like it makes perfect sense. There's no need to lean on any arguments from authority. No need for pseudoscience.

But funny you have a problem with the peddlers of pseudoscience. You know... like... the woke are.

OK, cool, can we talk about the scientific basis?

I'd be interested to see what kind of work went into observing these feminine and masculine organisations, how they were identified as such. In particular it would be interesting to see if too much sensitivity has been observed to prevent organisations from solving problems.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I'm not calling into question the fact that there are sex differences in psychology.



How about we imagine we're both on a team that is interested in what the science has to say, and we'll forgot about your false dichotomy.

A quick search on Google Scholar didn't yield any papers on the subject by Grant, although I don't exactly what I'm supposed to be looking for.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Johan+Grant+feminization

https://www.johangrant.se/

But you can just read the wikipedia article I posted above. There's nothing on his homepage that argues for any position.

He's not a psychological researcher. He's a lecturer who was invited because he's one of Sweden's leading psychology consultants for creating functional business environments. Mostly in the private sector. He's a guy invited to give students a much needed reality check how it works in the real world.

He's also not a lecturer/consultant on gender differences. That's just a small part of what he does. He's a consultant on anything that can cause dysfunctions in an organization.

He also doesn't use pseudoscientific theories. He's quite rigorous in the scientific basis for his work. But he himself has nothing published in his own name.

He's also not that interesting. I added the background story for flavour. You can ignore all that. What I wrote in the summary what he said in the interview. That stands on it's own. I think it sounds like it makes perfect sense. There's no need to lean on any arguments from authority. No need for pseudoscience.

But funny you have a problem with the peddlers of pseudoscience. You know... like... the woke are.

OK, cool, can we talk about the scientific basis?

I'd be interested to see what kind of work went into observing these feminine and masculine organisations, how they were identified as such. In particular it would be interesting to see if too much sensitivity has been observed to prevent organisations from solving problems.

I'd also like to see that data. It was just an interview on a podcast. So not the place to get hard evidence.

My only point is that there's a point where defeating the patriarchy does more damage than good. The patriarchy can be both a force for good or evil. As is the matriarchy.

And its good to be aware of the costs and benefits of either choice

 

[bigfield]

I'm not calling into question the fact that there are sex differences in psychology.



How about we imagine we're both on a team that is interested in what the science has to say, and we'll forgot about your false dichotomy.



OK, cool, can we talk about the scientific basis?

I'd be interested to see what kind of work went into observing these feminine and masculine organisations, how they were identified as such. In particular it would be interesting to see if too much sensitivity has been observed to prevent organisations from solving problems.

I'd also like to see that data. It was just an interview on a podcast. So not the place to get hard evidence.

My only point is that there's a point where defeating the patriarchy does more damage than good. The patriarchy can be both a force for good or evil. As is the matriarchy.

And its good to be aware of the costs and benefits of either choice

I see. I do understand that the entry point for this conversation was a podcast, but it's pretty hard to follow up on that when I don't understand Swedish and I don't actually know what "data" and "scientific basis" Grant's model is based on. You've linked to some general information on sex differences in psychology but that doesn't actually support this model of gendered organisations. I wouldn't even know where to start on Grant's website, even if I get my browser to translate it into English.

As to your point: I doubt that "defeating the patriarchy" doesn't mean that we turn the situation around entirely and turn it into a "matriarchy" where men are the disempowered gender. Perhaps you could find some radical types who believe it should, but who cares what they think?

Besides, I was under the impression that the OP was about organisational psychology, like within a company or a government ministry. But now I get the impression you're trying to make a more vague ideological argument?

 

[DrZoidberg]

As to your point: I doubt that "defeating the patriarchy" doesn't mean that we turn the situation around entirely and turn it into a "matriarchy" where men are the disempowered gender. Perhaps you could find some radical types who believe it should, but who cares what they think?

Hm. Patriarchy isn't necessarily about who has power. It's about how power is wielded. Elizabeth I was an absolute reigning monarch. But she did it in a patriarchal power structure. The fact that she was a woman doesn't make England under her a matriarchy. Our sources seem to indicate she wielded power as a man would.

Both men and women can adapt to a patriarchal or matriarchal power structure. It's just that, on average, men tend to function better in a patriarchal power structure, while women in a matriarchal structure. Simply based on that gendered biological differences will push or behaviours in various directions.

A bit like people who are overweight usually have the same biological ability to burn fat as fit people. But they prefer to eat and do different things. Which pushes them towards gaining weight, while the fit people have brains that leads them to do healthy things.

I think the lack of status of patriarchal power structures has do to with WWI, WW2 and then the Cold War. The rise of feminism became, not only, about female empowerment, but also an attack on men and masculinity in general. Which is understandable, and good. But I don't think we're doing ourselves (or womankind) any favours. If we just lie down flat and dismantle the organisational power structures that have worked to organise society the last 10 000 years. The fact that it has problems. Doesn't mean the opposite is better. Perhaps a combination?

Besides, I was under the impression that the OP was about organisational psychology, like within a company or a government ministry. But now I get the impression you're trying to make a more vague ideological argument?

Yes. I dislike the leftist narrative of men/masculine = bad. Women/Feminine good. As if a world run by women will be paradise. No, it won't. It'll most likely be just as awful. But awful in a different way. That's my (vague) ideological argument.

Steven Pinker, in Better Angels of our Nature, argues that feminization of society is good, and that matriarchal power structures are preferable. Since there's a strong correlation between female empowerment and the chance of a violent death.

But to his credit, he also acknowledges that their are differences, and that there's a cost. He acknowledges that we will lose something by weakening male domination.

I see few feminists on the left talk about the cost of a female run world.

 

[bigfield]

As to your point: I doubt that "defeating the patriarchy" doesn't mean that we turn the situation around entirely and turn it into a "matriarchy" where men are the disempowered gender. Perhaps you could find some radical types who believe it should, but who cares what they think?

Hm. Patriarchy isn't necessarily about who has power. It's about how power is wielded. Elizabeth I was an absolute reigning monarch. But she did it in a patriarchal power structure. The fact that she was a woman doesn't make England under her a matriarchy. Our sources seem to indicate she wielded power as a man would.

Elizabeth 1 was the one woman in a feudal system where every other position was filled by men, and the only reason she got the job was because she had no surviving brothers. She also governed according to her advisers, who were also men.

Steven Pinker, in Better Angels of our Nature, argues that feminization of society is good, and that matriarchal power structures are preferable. Since there's a strong correlation between female empowerment and the chance of a violent death.

But to his credit, he also acknowledges that their are differences, and that there's a cost. He acknowledges that we will lose something by weakening male domination.

Compared to, say, a hundred years ago, it appears that men have become less dominant if we judge it based on the greater number of women in positions of power. So what have we lost along with that loss of dominance?

 

[WAB]

Elizabeth 1 was the one woman in a feudal system where every other position was filled by men, and the only reason she got the job was because she had no surviving brothers. She also governed according to her advisers, who were also men.

Steven Pinker, in Better Angels of our Nature, argues that feminization of society is good, and that matriarchal power structures are preferable. Since there's a strong correlation between female empowerment and the chance of a violent death.

But to his credit, he also acknowledges that their are differences, and that there's a cost. He acknowledges that we will lose something by weakening male domination.

Compared to, say, a hundred years ago, it appears that men have become less dominant if we judge it based on the greater number of women in positions of power. So what have we lost along with that loss of dominance?

Could it only boil down to the frightening possibility (for sex-mad cisgender alphas anyway) that cisgender beta males *might* have access to more sex with women? Presuming a lot of cisgender males are also (maybe) highly intelligent and have commendable characteristics (maybe) that would be for the ultimate betterment of a civil society (meaning obedient, at least to a degree*)?


*This feminist (of the not-so-far-left variety) would most certainly be an obedient part of a feminized society, presuming that meant that it would be matriarchal from top to bottom, i.e. individually, constitutionally, ideally, and systemically.

And I mean "obedient" ONLY in the sense of...well, one could PM me for the silly and utterly naughty and selfishly-filthy erotic details... ( on the other hand, and I mention this only in passing, please make nothing of it, it's strictly observational, not...uh...not personal...| )

Show

...m'eeeeeeaahhh...what's up D...|

... uhh...b'diiiyeeeeeeeah b'diiieeeeeeeeeah, uh... that's all folks! ]

 

[DrZoidberg]

Elizabeth 1 was the one woman in a feudal system where every other position was filled by men, and the only reason she got the job was because she had no surviving brothers. She also governed according to her advisers, who were also men.

Not sure what your point is, since you just seem to be agreeing with me. But sure. Yes, that's what I was saying.

Steven Pinker, in Better Angels of our Nature, argues that feminization of society is good, and that matriarchal power structures are preferable. Since there's a strong correlation between female empowerment and the chance of a violent death.

But to his credit, he also acknowledges that their are differences, and that there's a cost. He acknowledges that we will lose something by weakening male domination.

Compared to, say, a hundred years ago, it appears that men have become less dominant if we judge it based on the greater number of women in positions of power. So what have we lost along with that loss of dominance?

To quote the OP:

negatives: we care more about not hurting people's feelings, than saying what people need to hear. Pretending to care means more than actually caring. Causing offence is worse than saying what is true. So people walk on egg shells to avoid hurting each others feelings. This causes stress and has the opposite end result. Organizational dysfunctions are hard to fix.

I'm not saying this is true. I'm paraphrasing Johan Grant from an interview. Firstly, it is refreshing to hear somebody talk about it in these terms. Until I see or hear anything more convincing arguing against this, I will believe him on this. I think it's convincing. And there's obviously positives and negatives with whatever we do. If somebody isn't willing to admit or talk about costs, then I get suspicious. The patriarchy couldn't have stayed in power for as long as it did if it doesn't have a lot going for it. There has to be plenty of positives with patriarchal power, or there's no chance in hell (IMHO) could have survived for as long as it did.

For example, the Spartans had a society where 1/3 of the population were slaves. The positives = a strong defence since the large number of slaves meant a relatively greater need for more well trained soldiers. Negatives = slaves. There's positives and negatives with anything.

Having lived and worked in two different countries that are culturally similar but which in the 70'ies split and went down different roads. Sweden going down a quite radical feminist road and Denmark staying as a pretty standard continental view on gender.

I have been a manager in both. And it's interesting to see how this has permeated work culture and to compare the two systems. Sweden does have a lot more talking and a lot less just getting shit done. In Sweden it's hard as a manager to tell your team "look guys, I heard what you're saying. but in spite of your opinions on this, this is where we're going now". In Sweden, as a manager, it's a hell of a lot more politics. In Sweden firing someone for being incompetent is very hard. In Denmark it's easy.

For me, hearing a management psychologists talk about the differences of feminine vs masculine office cultures was eye opening. I've never heard anybody talk about it in these terms or as clearly.

 

[bigfield]

Not sure what your point is, since you just seem to be agreeing with me. But sure. Yes, that's what I was saying.

Compared to, say, a hundred years ago, it appears that men have become less dominant if we judge it based on the greater number of women in positions of power. So what have we lost along with that loss of dominance?

To quote the OP:

negatives: we care more about not hurting people's feelings, than saying what people need to hear. Pretending to care means more than actually caring. Causing offence is worse than saying what is true. So people walk on egg shells to avoid hurting each others feelings. This causes stress and has the opposite end result. Organizational dysfunctions are hard to fix.

I'm not saying this is true. I'm paraphrasing Johan Grant from an interview. Firstly, it is refreshing to hear somebody talk about it in these terms. Until I see or hear anything more convincing arguing against this, I will believe him on this. I think it's convincing. And there's obviously positives and negatives with whatever we do. If somebody isn't willing to admit or talk about costs, then I get suspicious. The patriarchy couldn't have stayed in power for as long as it did if it doesn't have a lot going for it. There has to be plenty of positives with patriarchal power, or there's no chance in hell (IMHO) could have survived for as long as it did.

For example, the Spartans had a society where 1/3 of the population were slaves. The positives = a strong defence since the large number of slaves meant a relatively greater need for more well trained soldiers. Negatives = slaves. There's positives and negatives with anything.

Having lived and worked in two different countries that are culturally similar but which in the 70'ies split and went down different roads. Sweden going down a quite radical feminist road and Denmark staying as a pretty standard continental view on gender.

I have been a manager in both. And it's interesting to see how this has permeated work culture and to compare the two systems. Sweden does have a lot more talking and a lot less just getting shit done. In Sweden it's hard as a manager to tell your team "look guys, I heard what you're saying. but in spite of your opinions on this, this is where we're going now". In Sweden, as a manager, it's a hell of a lot more politics. In Sweden firing someone for being incompetent is very hard. In Denmark it's easy.

For me, hearing a management psychologists talk about the differences of feminine vs masculine office cultures was eye opening. I've never heard anybody talk about it in these terms or as clearly.

You believe Grant, I don't, and we don't have any ability to actually get into the science. This thread's a fizzer.

The patriarchy couldn't have stayed in power for as long as it did if it doesn't have a lot going for it.

Not really. It only has to have one thing going for it: resilience in the face of change. We're seeing more women in power now because the human environment has changed enough post war that women have a greater ability to challenge men's power.

Now that we have had women's liberation, the constraints imposed on all of us have changed. We have greater reproductive control, we have bigger and more organised government, and much of the work that we once needed people for is either automated or delegated to specialists. Go back in history, pick any society you like, and apply their social structure in a 21st century developed nation, and you will find it to be hopelessly unfit.

Who gives a shit about the fucking Spartans? It doesn't tell us anything useful about how to manage an IT helpdesk, a hospital ward, or the Danish military. Nothing they did is better than the way we do things now. Their system of helots and citizen soldiers is terrible; their agoge is terrible; their diarchy is terrible.

Having lived and worked in two different countries that are culturally similar but which in the 70'ies split and went down different roads. Sweden going down a quite radical feminist road and Denmark staying as a pretty standard continental view on gender.

I have been a manager in both. And it's interesting to see how this has permeated work culture and to compare the two systems. Sweden does have a lot more talking and a lot less just getting shit done. In Sweden it's hard as a manager to tell your team "look guys, I heard what you're saying. but in spite of your opinions on this, this is where we're going now". In Sweden, as a manager, it's a hell of a lot more politics. In Sweden firing someone for being incompetent is very hard. In Denmark it's easy.

This reads like you're generalising your own experience as a manager.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Elizabeth 1 was the one woman in a feudal system where every other position was filled by men, and the only reason she got the job was because she had no surviving brothers. She also governed according to her advisers, who were also men.

Steven Pinker, in Better Angels of our Nature, argues that feminization of society is good, and that matriarchal power structures are preferable. Since there's a strong correlation between female empowerment and the chance of a violent death.

But to his credit, he also acknowledges that their are differences, and that there's a cost. He acknowledges that we will lose something by weakening male domination.

Compared to, say, a hundred years ago, it appears that men have become less dominant if we judge it based on the greater number of women in positions of power. So what have we lost along with that loss of dominance?

Could it only boil down to the frightening possibility (for sex-mad cisgender alphas anyway) that cisgender beta males *might* have access to more sex with women? Presuming a lot of cisgender males are also (maybe) highly intelligent and have commendable characteristics (maybe) that would be for the ultimate betterment of a civil society (meaning obedient, at least to a degree*)?


*This feminist (of the not-so-far-left variety) would most certainly be an obedient part of a feminized society, presuming that meant that it would be matriarchal from top to bottom, i.e. individually, constitutionally, ideally, and systemically.

And I mean "obedient" ONLY in the sense of...well, one could PM me for the silly and utterly naughty and selfishly-filthy erotic details... ( on the other hand, and I mention this only in passing, please make nothing of it, it's strictly observational, not...uh...not personal...| )

Show

...m'eeeeeeaahhh...what's up D...|

... uhh...b'diiiyeeeeeeeah b'diiieeeeeeeeeah, uh... that's all folks! ]

Aren't you seeing this backward. If women are in power, wouldn't they have more sex with the alphas and less sex with the betas? The alphas are only alphas because women make them alphas. Through choosing them for sex. The point of Christian type patriarchal oppression is to allow a greater number of less attractive men to also get laid. Assuming the alpha/beta male dichotomy exists.

I'm just trying to follow your logic

 

[DrZoidberg]

The patriarchy couldn't have stayed in power for as long as it did if it doesn't have a lot going for it.

Not really. It only has to have one thing going for it: resilience in the face of change. We're seeing more women in power now because the human environment has changed enough post war that women have a greater ability to challenge men's power.

Now that we have had women's liberation, the constraints imposed on all of us have changed. We have greater reproductive control, we have bigger and more organised government, and much of the work that we once needed people for is either automated or delegated to specialists. Go back in history, pick any society you like, and apply their social structure in a 21st century developed nation, and you will find it to be hopelessly unfit.

Yes, resilience. Isn't that what counts? At no point in history have we seen wars between patriarchally organized societies vs matriarchally organized societies. Assuming we agree with Johan Grant's definition of feminine vs masculine. All we see is patriarchies having a go at one another. Historically societies have had degrees of patriarchal oppression. Matriarchal oppression isn't a thing. Nah, it's more than resilience. It seems to work. It seems to work great. By working I mean, makes the society thrive and generate wealth.

You also seem to agree that there is something called patriarchy, patriarchal oppression and a patriarchally organized society. Which implies that you believe in the possibility of a matriarchally organized society?

All I see is you saying, "no it isn't". But not formulating what you think the alternative is?

Who gives a shit about the fucking Spartans? It doesn't tell us anything useful about how to manage an IT helpdesk, a hospital ward, or the Danish military. Nothing they did is better than the way we do things now. Their system of helots and citizen soldiers is terrible; their agoge is terrible; their diarchy is terrible.

Well.. they did beat the much richer imperial power, Athens. So, it worked. Yes, their system of helots and citizen soldiers was terrible. But it worked. Their agoge was awful, their diarchy was horrible. But it worked.

I think it can teach us a lot about managing an IT helpdesk, hospital wards or the Danish military. All of these are groups of people organized to succeed at tasks to make the sum greater than it's parts.

If the IT helpdesk is badly organized it takes too long to get help. If the hospital is badly organized people die. If the Danish army is badly organized they will lose the next war in 3 hours instead of 6 (WW2 reference).

Having lived and worked in two different countries that are culturally similar but which in the 70'ies split and went down different roads. Sweden going down a quite radical feminist road and Denmark staying as a pretty standard continental view on gender.

I have been a manager in both. And it's interesting to see how this has permeated work culture and to compare the two systems. Sweden does have a lot more talking and a lot less just getting shit done. In Sweden it's hard as a manager to tell your team "look guys, I heard what you're saying. but in spite of your opinions on this, this is where we're going now". In Sweden, as a manager, it's a hell of a lot more politics. In Sweden firing someone for being incompetent is very hard. In Denmark it's easy.

This reads like you're generalising your own experience as a manager.

Sure. But I think it's more like Grant is generalizing. While I'm using my own experience as a way of validating whether Grant is correct in my specific case. There's obvious weakness in this approach. I'm aware of this.

 

[bigfield]

Yes, resilience. Isn't that what counts? At no point in history have we seen wars between patriarchally organized societies vs matriarchally organized societies. Assuming we agree with Johan Grant's definition of feminine vs masculine. All we see is patriarchies having a go at one another. Historically societies have had degrees of patriarchal oppression. Matriarchal oppression isn't a thing. Nah, it's more than resilience. It seems to work. It seems to work great. By working I mean, makes the society thrive and generate wealth.

You also seem to agree that there is something called patriarchy, patriarchal oppression and a patriarchally organized society. Which implies that you believe in the possibility of a matriarchally organized society?

All I see is you saying, "no it isn't". But not formulating what you think the alternative is?

The alternative need not be a patriarchal or matriarchal society, but a social system where the people in power are mix of men and women. Right now, women are gaining political and economic power, and unlike in Elizabeth's time, they make up a significant fraction of the people within the hierarchy of governments (and nowadays, corporations).

I would agree that patriarchal societies have been successful, and for much of human history they've been the only game in town. But that has changed. Women now take part in politics as voters and representatives, they take part in the workforce as workers and bosses at all levels, and people organise their households in a multitude of ways. I would say for certain that our modern way of doing things, where women have more power, is better than the patriarchal systems that have dominated for millennia. Patriarchy is a step backwards.

I don't agree with Grant's feminine and masculine organisations because I don't know how he worked it out, and therefore I don't understand the point of it. On top of that, you've drawn a connection between Grant's masculine organisation and feminism's patriarchy, but it isn't obvious that the former necessitates the latter.

Who gives a shit about the fucking Spartans? It doesn't tell us anything useful about how to manage an IT helpdesk, a hospital ward, or the Danish military. Nothing they did is better than the way we do things now. Their system of helots and citizen soldiers is terrible; their agoge is terrible; their diarchy is terrible.

Well.. they did beat the much richer imperial power, Athens. So, it worked. Yes, their system of helots and citizen soldiers was terrible. But it worked. Their agoge was awful, their diarchy was horrible. But it worked.

I think it can teach us a lot about managing an IT helpdesk, hospital wards or the Danish military. All of these are groups of people organized to succeed at tasks to make the sum greater than it's parts.

If the IT helpdesk is badly organized it takes too long to get help. If the hospital is badly organized people die. If the Danish army is badly organized they will lose the next war in 3 hours instead of 6 (WW2 reference).

When I say the Spartan's institutions were terrible, I don't simply mean they were immoral or unpleasant, I mean they outright suck compared to the way we do things now. We are just more effective than them. We can't learn anything from the Spartans that we haven't already implemented. The Spartans had the krypteia to keep the slaves in line, modern nations just outright banned slavery, industrialised, and created a more humane working class. The Spartans drilled extensively in formation fighting, modern nations have mastered peaceful diplomacy because there's enough ICBMs to bomb everyone into a Brian Fargo video game. We sure as hell don't need to look to the Spartans to understand that teamwork makes the dream work.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The alternative need not be a patriarchal or matriarchal society, but a social system where the people in power are mix of men and women. Right now, women are gaining political and economic power, and unlike in Elizabeth's time, they make up a significant fraction of the people within the hierarchy of governments (and nowadays, corporations).

I would agree that patriarchal societies have been successful, and for much of human history they've been the only game in town. But that has changed. Women now take part in politics as voters and representatives, they take part in the workforce as workers and bosses at all levels, and people organise their households in a multitude of ways. I would say for certain that our modern way of doing things, where women have more power, is better than the patriarchal systems that have dominated for millennia. Patriarchy is a step backwards.

I don't agree with Grant's feminine and masculine organisations because I don't know how he worked it out, and therefore I don't understand the point of it. On top of that, you've drawn a connection between Grant's masculine organisation and feminism's patriarchy, but it isn't obvious that the former necessitates the latter.

Word salad. Patriarchy is power structures developed in a way that makes men win. Which is why men do it, regardless of if it makes them happy. Matriarchy is power structures developed in a way that makes women win. That's all these words mean. It's important to accept that we ALL lean towards whatever direction makes us winners. That's just basic human psychology. The fancy word for this is "incentives". If you don't accept this we will live in a patriarchy for the rest of human history.

By saying that you "would prefer a social system where the people in power are mix of men and women" is misunderstanding the entire conversation. YES, OBVIOUSLY. That's the goal. But to do this we need to understand what a matriarchy would look like.

Well.. they did beat the much richer imperial power, Athens. So, it worked. Yes, their system of helots and citizen soldiers was terrible. But it worked. Their agoge was awful, their diarchy was horrible. But it worked.

I think it can teach us a lot about managing an IT helpdesk, hospital wards or the Danish military. All of these are groups of people organized to succeed at tasks to make the sum greater than it's parts.

If the IT helpdesk is badly organized it takes too long to get help. If the hospital is badly organized people die. If the Danish army is badly organized they will lose the next war in 3 hours instead of 6 (WW2 reference).

When I say the Spartan's institutions were terrible, I don't simply mean they were immoral or unpleasant, I mean they outright suck compared to the way we do things now. We are just more effective than them. We can't learn anything from the Spartans that we haven't already implemented. The Spartans had the krypteia to keep the slaves in line, modern nations just outright banned slavery, industrialised, and created a more humane working class. The Spartans drilled extensively in formation fighting, modern nations have mastered peaceful diplomacy because there's enough ICBMs to bomb everyone into a Brian Fargo video game. We sure as hell don't need to look to the Spartans to understand that teamwork makes the dream work.

I disagree. Winning an ancient battle and beating your competition in a capitalist market, or organizing an IT helpdesk are all fundamentally about organizing people. To balance rewards and punishments in such a way that they create a positive and smoothly functioning organization. They're all very similar activities. The contexts are different. But the org charts are the same.