An Unleashed Feminine Mystique Is Destroying Higher Education

[Michie]

The general feminization of Western society has had many negative effects, not least of which is the poisoning of intellectual discourse. Research shows that men tend to act as warriors, who emphasize winning and proving points; women tend to be empathetic, and place far greater value on people’s feelings.

But feelings have no business in academia. Intellectuals should be primarily interested in the acquisition of truth, and truth is usually offensive. For ages universities allowed the sharpest minds to debate controversial ideas to uncover truth. Today, however, the quest for truth has been replaced by wanton conformity. And unlike the medieval Inquisition, modern gatekeepers are uninterested in committing murder in the name of ideology. Instead, they merely seek to expel victims from polite society.

If masculine values were still dominant in academia, the personal views of eccentric professors would be irrelevant, only the quality of their research would matter. For example, hunting down and exposing some professor for holding wrong views, or engaging in controversial research, or simply making a student “feel” uncomfortable or “triggering them” during a lecture, would not be done in the masculine academic culture of the past, as it is done routinely in the feminine academic culture of today.

A masculine academic culture expects students to be able to handle difficult ideas. Disinformation and contentious research do not pose as much of a problem in this environment, since the flaws of these ideas are exposed in open debates that do not spare anyone’s feelings. Although our present culture is aware that debates help to undermine bad ideas, our femininized society is now critical of fiery discourse—merely having the wrong “tone” during debate can get one canceled.

Continued below.
An Unleashed Feminine Mystique Is Destroying Higher Education

 

[Carl Emerson]

Interesting article...

The challenge is how can we, in christian circles, draw out the God given femininity among us without creating a monster?

Truth was never about what feels right, but both sexes have equal access to the inspiration of God.

There are oppressions to be untangled and put right that have suppressed the feminine contribution to sensibility but this journey has become a power game.

 

[cow451]

The general feminization of Western society has had many negative effects, not least of which is the poisoning of intellectual discourse. Research shows that men tend to act as warriors, who emphasize winning and proving points; women tend to be empathetic, and place far greater value on people’s feelings.

But feelings have no business in academia. Intellectuals should be primarily interested in the acquisition of truth, and truth is usually offensive. For ages universities allowed the sharpest minds to debate controversial ideas to uncover truth. Today, however, the quest for truth has been replaced by wanton conformity. And unlike the medieval Inquisition, modern gatekeepers are uninterested in committing murder in the name of ideology. Instead, they merely seek to expel victims from polite society.

If masculine values were still dominant in academia, the personal views of eccentric professors would be irrelevant, only the quality of their research would matter. For example, hunting down and exposing some professor for holding wrong views, or engaging in controversial research, or simply making a student “feel” uncomfortable or “triggering them” during a lecture, would not be done in the masculine academic culture of the past, as it is done routinely in the feminine academic culture of today.

A masculine academic culture expects students to be able to handle difficult ideas. Disinformation and contentious research do not pose as much of a problem in this environment, since the flaws of these ideas are exposed in open debates that do not spare anyone’s feelings. Although our present culture is aware that debates help to undermine bad ideas, our femininized society is now critical of fiery discourse—merely having the wrong “tone” during debate can get one canceled.

Continued below.
An Unleashed Feminine Mystique Is Destroying Higher Education

Is it still 1921?

 

[iluvatar5150]

Wow, this is just straight up misogynistic garbage.

 

[cow451]

 

[PloverWing]

I see the article addressing two different questions, and offering multiple possible answers to each.

1. To what extent should scholars be allowed to express a wide variety of views during academic debate and discussion?

The author contrasts the approaches of a) "open debates that do not spare anyone’s feelings" and b) an environment in which people with power use that power to silence the voices of certain other people, so that offensive views are not expressed during the debate.

The author characterizes (a) as a masculine approach and (b) as a feminine approach, and laments the latter.

To the contrary, I see both men and women using approach (b) at different times, as the balance of power shifts at different points in history. Historically, women and some ethnic groups were excluded from elite higher education -- or even from all higher education. Now we're starting to see power used in the opposite direction, with some scholars beginning to use their power to silence voices that are perceived as sexist or racist.

I think (b) is a problematic approach, regardless of which group is being silenced. I also think that the author is mistaken to characterize it as a uniquely "feminine" approach. People with power are often tempted to misuse their power, regardless of gender.

2. With what level of courtesy should scholars treat each other in academia?

The author offers the options of a) robust debate that spares no one's feelings and b) debate in which the opponent in silenced. In both scenarios, there is a disregard for the feelings of the opponent.

I offer that there is a third option, in which we express our views, but at the same time are sensitive to the emotional impact that our views may have on other people. In this approach, debate is direct, but conducted with courtesy, civility, and, where possible, kindness. The aim in this kind of debate is not to conquer the opponent, but to persuade the opponent. I believe that this kind of debate can be more fruitful in the long run, if our goal is to attain knowledge of the truth.

As a final note, I disagree with the claim that "truth is usually offensive". In my field, the truth claims are things like "There exist languages that cannot be described by Finite Automata" or "In the Go programming language, semicolons at the ends of statements are optional." We verify the first by a proof, and the second by running sample programs through a compiler. Very little emotion is involved. Mathematics and the natural sciences are similar. Maybe things get more offensive over in the humanities or social sciences, where proofs are harder to come by.

 

[Ringo84]

But feelings have no business in academia.

Experience tells me that the people who squawk the loudest about "facts over feelings" or things like that are usually people with the thinnest skin imaginable.

Seems like this OP invents a problem: the alleged "feminization" of society - and then uses that as a cudgel to use against women. It's all women's fault that we can't say the n-word anymore without facing consequences for what we say.

My sympathy for OP's point couldn't be measured with an electron microscope. Real men are secure in their identities enough not to whine about "cancel culture" or "feminization".
Ringo