Have just finished reading the Spectator article by Liza Mundy on the imminence of a truly feminized society in the UK, following the lead from the US. It's caused quite a stir, apparently.

There’s some discussion on it here: http://www.periscope...ders-terrified/

The fact is that girls in the UK are doing better than boys in senior secondary and higher education, are the majority at universities, including medical schools, graduate with better results and have higher expectations after graduating. These expectations are being increasingly met. In the US, among 20 somethings it is more frequently the case that women are in better paid jobs than men, and, as a result, women are now more often the primary providers for the family. Men who work part-time and carry the brunt of the housework and child-raising are a growing phenomenon, though still, in Britain at least, regarded as semi-comic figures, "purse-whipped" by their domineering wives.

To me, the feminization of society is a natural development for societies like the US, UK and Australia, enhanced by the absence of large-scale wars (of the WWI and WW2 kind) on or off our shores and the participation of only a very small number of men in any kind of military combat. Peace and security in general have reduced the status of men as protectors, while access to higher education, equal pay (made possible by the abandonment of the "family wage") and the decline in manufacturing have reduced men's status as providers. The earlier maturity of girls and young women has assisted them to do better in formal education, a quintessentially feminine process for all except, perhaps, apprentices.

I don't begrudge the growing influence of women as leaders, nor fear it, except in one respect. I fear that women are less likely to be adventurous and take entrepreneurial risks and are more likely to look to an authority figure or institution for security and protection, even before the need for it has become clear. They are also given to complain to an authority, and this is seen as quite acceptable, whereas boys have been socialized, at least in the past to fight their own battles and keep their conflicts among themselves. Boys have also been socialized to put these conflicts aside; girls have nursed their grievances.

You can see where I'm going with this: women are much more disposed towards a legislative and welfare state. There will be little space for classical liberal or libertarian ideas. I'll go a step further: I suspect women are more inclined to have strong opinions, to be categorical and to dismiss alternative views. This worries me. A future under the control of a highly regulatory system of governance with little consideration for liberal or libertarian thinking does not seem ideal to me.

I only hope, though, that as fewer and fewer men are found in board rooms and in senior positions, no one starts agitating for gender-based quotas and targets for males. Hopefully, before too long, this ghastly mechanism ("affirmative action") for replacing the individual person by category membership will be no longer be with us for women. It would be a travesty of all justice if it were reinvented for men.

I would be very pleased to be proven wrong or shown that my concerns about potential feminine authoritarianism are groundless. Perhaps someone knows of research that shows many women to hold classical liberal or libertarian views; that they really don't like big government and active central control. The women in my extended family seem to vary in temperament and my daughters have led and still lead comfortable lives. I can't generalize from them. Women I've worked with have also varied widely in temperament, but I think they've all supported interventionist government, especially in "social justice " areas.

Wow

this is a seriously wild generalization and one I can tell you is not true of women I know in the US. In fact the grievance thing seems to be extremely common among our Thaivisa members....the majority of whom, are of course, men.

I don't begrudge the growing influence of women as leaders, nor fear it, except in one respect. I fear that women are less likely to be adventurous and take entrepreneurial risks and are more likely to look to an authority figure or institution for security and protection, even before the need for it has become clear. They are also given to complain to an authority, and this is seen as quite acceptable, whereas boys have been socialized, at least in the past to fight their own battles and keep their conflicts among themselves. Boys have also been socialized to put these conflicts aside; girls have nursed their grievances.

Well, something is going on. In the U.S. with the worst unemployment crisis since the great depression, females are doing quite a bit better than males. That might be alarming. On the other hand college educated people are doing a lot better than those lacking that. That seems normal except for the fact that the structural inequality in the U.S. anyway is so severe that fewer and fewer poor people have the opportunity to finish college.

Wow

this is a seriously wild generalization and one I can tell you is not true of women I know in the US. In fact the grievance thing seems to be extremely common among our Thaivisa members....the majority of whom, are of course, men.

I don't begrudge the growing influence of women as leaders, nor fear it, except in one respect. I fear that women are less likely to be adventurous and take entrepreneurial risks and are more likely to look to an authority figure or institution for security and protection, even before the need for it has become clear. They are also given to complain to an authority, and this is seen as quite acceptable, whereas boys have been socialized, at least in the past to fight their own battles and keep their conflicts among themselves. Boys have also been socialized to put these conflicts aside; girls have nursed their grievances.

Yes, I think the whole paragraph is an exercise in kite-flying (hopefully constructive), though the perceptions must come from somewhere. On reflection, I agree the last sentence is pretty questionable. I might be confusing gender with culture on that one. Where I'm on surer ground is in my statement further down that, in my experience of working with women, generalizations are difficult, as my female colleagues were all different. And my wife is different from my daughters. My fundamental concern is that women leaders may be less sympathetic than men to a less regulated and less welfarist society. Of course, for many or most people that may not be an issue (though I think it will become one before long).

I once taught English to a class of university engineering students. 23 were boys, 7 were girls. They were all smart kids. The boys were lively, laid-back, and generally rather idle. But the girls... I've rarely seen kids in Thailand work so hard. They were determined to do better than the boys, and I think most of them did.

Doesn't that suggest an answer as to why girls are tending to do better than boys these days? They try harder because they've been the underdogs, intellectually, for so long.

I found Thai women to be much better students that the men (in general) and often the prettiest ones were the best students, which is not typical in the US - at least in my experience.

I think that women are much more likely to do better than men in a peaceful society, but I am not sure how long the world will cooperate on that.

Hmmm.

Periscope claims that the original article was in the Spectator, and that the readers comments are also there.

Please tell me where? I have checked the last couple of weeks and cannot find any such text.

Men in charge. Women in charge. It makes no real difference in the end.

You will still have good things, bad things, corruptions, power struggles, conflicts and wars. Only the sex of those 'giving the orders' will change.

A future under the control of a highly regulatory system of governance with little consideration for liberal or libertarian thinking does not seem ideal to me.

This is how government is going now all over the world. Highly regulatory systems with little regards for personal liberties. patriot style acts that erode years of hard won democratic freedoms: and most of these governments are headed by men.

I don't think women in charge will make this any worse or any less worse

Hmmm.

Periscope claims that the original article was in the Spectator, and that the readers comments are also there.

Please tell me where? I have checked the last couple of weeks and cannot find any such text.

The article appears in today's (8 September) issue. http://www.exactedit...2012-33195/1/2/

It looks like you have to subscribe to read it. I think Spectator articles become openly accessible after a time, but I don't know how long that is.

I read it on Kindle, as I have a subscription.

Well I like women...and I like sleeping late too.

No problem with this development....have a lovely day ladies!

Zzzzzzzzzz.......