I have long thought that this forum could be put to better use. We could be having more discussions by many more people. There are many communities with a great deal of experience that many folks could benefit from. But we don’t often share (or ask).
I saw this online, and thought it was interesting. I make no claim to its efficacy. ~~
"In her much-discussed essay a few months ago, Helen Andrews argued that American institutions have been feminized. Talking about tendencies and averages — “feminine patterns of behavior” — rather than all men and all women, Andrews argued that a transition from masculine control to feminine control produces radical changes in our shared culture:
“Everything you think of as wokeness involves prioritizing the feminine over the masculine: empathy over rationality, safety over risk, cohesion over competition….
Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it must be expressed at all, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that it was held and that everyone participated. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is the attitude toward conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.”
I am not sure what Andrew’s point was in her entire article.
When she refers to “Institutions” I assume she is referring to work environments for pay, which means there is a command hierarchy.
When I was designing a cooperative environment I saw that environment with very little leadership hierarchy. Work-groups would be based on being small cooperatives in themselves, with a rotating leadership.
People would be free to come or go in that work-group; they were not forced by circumstance to be there.
In that situation I don’t see where a persons sex would have anything to do with it. It is simply a small group doing what needs to be done and deciding things among themselves. If a leader in that situation is overbearing they would lose volunteer motivation and help, and quickly be voted out of the position.
The world as we currently know it can change drastically if you pull money out of the equation.
I don’t understand what conversation OP was trying to promote with this. I will say that this is obviously a minefield, and that the 1st reply to the thread was flagged by the community and hidden seems to confirm this.
Andrews’s arguments deal with masculine and feminine archetypes, and discussions about that in the current political climate are inherently dangerous because so many people lack the capacity to think statistically.
So, @ohiofarmmuseum , I would ask, are you looking for a conversation around this? And how do you think it relates to community formation and maintenance?
I just like conversation. I’m not advocating any particular point of view. I just like talking. That is part of why I was surprised someone flagged that one post. I really don’t care what they might have said. No matter how good or bad it was, it was just talk. ~That seems to be something we have so lost in the last several years. People being unable to just talk, so they get offended instead and demand silence from those with other ideas. --And that’s the point of why I posted. Something that was possibly controversial, creating a space to express alternative beliefs/ideas. ~~We are one of the oldest IC’s in the U.S. We started just weeks after Twin Oaks, sometime before The Farm. We just never “advertised” like they did. We have had probably thousands come here over the many decades. There is very little we have not seem and experienced in alternative ways and beliefs. And something we have learned is to talk. ~The point being, why is there now so little talk of IC Forums? We have this terrific place to “gather”, and it goes little used.