THE U.S. RIGHT SHOULD STOP FEARING THE FEMALE / THE FINANCIAL TIMES OP EDITORIAL

The US right should stop fearing the female

American conservatives don’t seem to recognise that the world will need more of what women bring

Rana Foroohar

© Matt Kenyon

When you think of the biggest problems facing America today, you might think of geostrategic competition with China, the disruptive power of artificial intelligence, climate change, or polarised politics. 

But to American commentator Helen Andrews, the real problem is women. 

In a much downloaded speech a few weeks ago at the National Conservatism conference in Washington, she argued that the “great feminisation” of American workplaces, colleges, courts and other civic institutions since the 1970s is at the root of everything from the demise of free speech to competitive decline.

As she puts it, “everything you think of as wokeness” is really about the exodus of women from the home and into public life. 

I’ll note here that Webster’s dictionary defines “woke” as being “aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice).” 

Meaning, this isn’t about gender per se. 

Nevertheless, in Andrews’ argument, which is becoming a mainstream conservative argument, liberal “wokeness” is the unfortunate side-effect of female care for people’s feelings.

Women are now better represented in undergraduate education as well as law and medical schools in the US. 

We make up over half of all white-collar managers and professionals and hold more political power than ever before, representing 28 per cent of Congress. 

Women are a mere one judge away from holding a majority on the Supreme Court. 

Now that we have so much power, Andrews argues, our feminine commitment to “empathy over rationality, safety over risk and cohesion over competition” is interfering with due process, the free flow of ideas, and even proper policing of borders (apparently women are slightly more open to allowing unauthorised migrants a path to citizenship than men are).

Of course, one could flip any number of these statements and look at them in a totally different light. 

More openness to migration might mean women have more pro-growth tendencies than men, given immigration’s historic contributions to US GDP. 

The fact that women represent such a large percentage of the workforce while still doing more around the home and the community could mean they are more productive than men. 

Sadly, Andrews chalks it down as an indicator that DEI policies have created a second-class workforce.

I don’t have the column space here to debunk all her arguments (though I will say that anyone who thinks women are more comfortable with covert rather than overt conflict or have problems displaying anger should talk to my husband). 

I do think it’s worth noting that she’s missing the most essential piece of the picture: the world needs more of what women tend to bring, and that’s why they are succeeding in the marketplace of jobs, ideas and politics.

Let’s start with the empathy over rationality point. 

Anyone who’s major skill set is simply marshalling facts and logic is very likely to be displaced in the labour market by a machine sometime soon. 

Artificial intelligence just does pattern recognition and cold data processing better than any human could. 

While there is still a big demand for technological skills in the workplace, the most recent McKinsey future of work report found that the need for social and emotional skills will rise by 11 per cent in Europe and 14 per cent in the US by 2030, given the kinds of jobs that are coming online. 

One Harvard study showed that high social interaction jobs grew by 12 percentage points between 1980 and 2012 as a share of the US labour force, while maths intensive, less social jobs (including many Stem occupations) shrank by 3.3 percentage points. 

The care economy will obviously require empathy, but so does creativity and leadership.

What about the safety over risk issue? 

While there is a large body of research showing that women are more risk averse than men, it depends on what the issue is and how you ask the question. 

But if you assume that they are, as many firms do, that also opens an opportunity. 

Having more women on boards tends to reduce the amount of financial misconduct, for example. 

What’s more, as traders, a male tendency to be more active tends to result in bigger gains but also more epic losses. 

Meanwhile, there is research showing that women outperform over the long term by avoiding the highs and lows.

The issue here isn’t trying to figure out which gender is “better” or “worse” at something (which is such a tired subject of debate). 

It is to point out the obvious, which is that we need balance and diversity in all things. 

This is particularly true when it comes to the need for co-operation and teamwork in a more volatile era. 

On the geopolitical side, I don’t need to point out the problems the world is currently experiencing amid a rise of autocratic male politicians who see geostrategy as a zero-sum competition.

The biggest political and economic challenges of the coming years will require more, not less, co-operation across both countries and companies — I’m talking here about climate change, geopolitical fragmentation, supply chain reorganisation, harnessing the power of artificial intelligence without blowing up the planet or labour markets, and so on. 

The solutions to these problems aren’t gendered. 

Here’s hoping American conservatives stop fearing “feminisation” and start offering up real answers to the big problems.