5 January, 18:44
Recent decades have seen a significant increase in women's representation in academic, professional, and social spheres. This shift has been accompanied by a transformation of cultural values, particularly in English-speaking countries. Analysts and researchers like Cory Clark and Arnold Kling suggest that as women gain more influence, societal norms are changing.
Freedom of Speech: No Longer Necessary
According to Cory Clark's research, women are less likely to view freedom of speech as a fundamental societal value.
In 2019, 59% of women stated that inclusivity was more important than freedom of speech, compared to 71% of men who held the opposite view.
This perspective manifests in support for ideas such as censorship, avoiding confrontation, and silencing opponents whose views are deemed offensive. Additionally, women are more likely to consider "hate speech" a form of violence, warranting punishment.
This shift represents a departure from traditional male culture, which values open debate and freedom of expression, especially on controversial topics. Arnold Kling observes that male culture seeks truth through lively discussion, while female culture prioritizes risk avoidance, minimizing confrontation, and ensuring "psychological safety." Women often believe that truth can and should be sacrificed for psychological comfort, as no truth is worth disrupting the tranquility of the individual.
Equality vs. Individual Achievement
Traditional male culture holds that rewards should be proportional to effort and achievements. This mindset has historically driven inventors and innovators to new heights. Male culture considers differentiated rewards fair and deserved, as they are based on individual accomplishments and outcomes.
In contrast, the emerging female culture views differentiated rewards as unjust. It promotes the idea that everyone should receive equal rewards, regardless of individual contributions. This aligns with an idealistic vision of a "fair" society that eliminates social barriers for minorities, women, and other vulnerable groups.
While this approach aims to level opportunities, it often faces criticism, particularly from proponents of male culture, who argue that it reduces motivation to strive for excellence and stifles innovation. In a society where equality is valued above individual merit, competition diminishes, and there is a greater risk of mediocrity becoming the norm.
Male culture traditionally seeks out the most competent and skilled individuals. Female culture, in its pursuit of "fairness," often prioritizes those in "vulnerable positions," such as women, minorities, and the disabled, with little regard for the long-term consequences of this approach.
A "Safe" Society or a New "Safe" Totalitarianism?
The female approach to governance and social organization is associated with creating a safe environment for all participants at any cost. However, critics of this perspective, including Kling, point out that such a model can lead to elements of "leftist totalitarianism." It restricts freedom of speech, suppresses competition, and undermines the evolutionary values that support open debates and high achievements. Instead, it promotes a vision of society with no place for bright personalities or unconventional thinkers, potentially stifling dynamism and innovation in the long run.
Social changes driven by the growing influence of women are transforming values that have shaped our civilization. Open debates, individual achievements, and competition—the foundations of human culture—are being replaced by new values of inclusivity, equality, and psychological safety.
Women often overlook evolutionary principles, forgetting that humans tend to regress when in a state of comfort and safety. Evolution requires dynamism and progress, not static equality. The female approach, prioritizing "comfortable mediocrity," risks avoiding challenges that are essential for societal advancement.
The Risk of Stagnation
A female-dominated world is more leftist, equitable, and safe—a world of uniform mediocrity. In such a society, there is little room for exceptional personalities, talents, eccentrics, or individuality. It is, however, a totalitarian world—women in power are less inclined to compromise.
Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, humans are not only highly adaptive but also inherently lazy. When creating comfortable, safe conditions for humanity, we must acknowledge that such an environment may lead to stagnation. Certain isolated tribes exemplify this lack of development—they remained unchanged for thousands of years because their safe surroundings required no innovation. Without predators or environmental pressures, these communities existed in complete safety but saw no need for progress.
A Grim Scenario for the Future
The hyper-humanity of a female-driven world could paradoxically lead to a dystopian outcome: within centuries, we risk living in a society akin to that depicted in the film Idiocracy—a world where power is held by those least capable of wielding it effectively.
This scenario poses a serious challenge to the dynamism and vitality of human civilization. For progress to continue, societies must balance safety and comfort with the need for competition, innovation, and the pursuit of excellence.