Joseph
Joseph
Jul 25, 2017 · 2 min read

You got a couple things wrong. Firstly women *ARE* largely represented as a political majority because they are the majority the electorate — the key word being “represented.” Women don’t have to hold a majority of seats in parliament in order to have their proclivities represented by their (drum-roll) “representatives.”

Secondly these are “proclivities” not absolutes, meaning that both men and women may exhibit them and they may vary cross-culturally. Neither is the exhibition of a feminine tendency toward “trait agreeableness” *in itself* pathological although it might manifest itself in that way in certain individuals. Either men OR women can exhibit trait agreeableness and either group can manifest it in a pathological way.

Furthermore the cross-cultural variation in these traits doesn’t logically suggest that the expression of these traits is culturally derived — at least not any more than it suggests their expression is culturally *suppressed,* in some cases.

The fact that gender differences are greater in “supposedly” more egalitarian countries also doesn’t logically suggest the conclusion that those countries are less egalitarian than we presume. It might just as plausibly mean that in more free and egalitarian countries women and men feel more free to express their gender stereotypical tendencies.

Thirdly you *completely* gloss over the idea that Sweden is in any way flawed and that that might have anything to do with pathological femininity. You don’t even argue the point, you just kind of uggest that it couldn’t possibly be true.

What Peterson and Molyneux are stating is simply that feminine behaviour can express itself pathologically and when it does so it’s along the axis of compassion and all you’ve done is the typical feminist dance routine which muddies the waters on sex differences and uses that to obfuscate and deny any negative impact of the stereotypically female/feminine engagement with the world.

    Joseph

    Written by

    Joseph