The West Continues To Lie About Women (and Men)
On the mass integration of women into the global workforce and political apparatus
Alright, so over the last week, I have seen an influx of new free subscribers to this Substack.
This followed a series of comments and replies I made on the recent Mary Harrington piece "Everything Can Stay The Same, Except What Women Do: Against Matt Walshism," which essentially argues that a segment of the online Right, most embodied by Matt Walsh, has deteriorated into an anti-woman hatefest with no helpful discourse to be made.
To flesh out her point, Harrington uses a recent controversial episode in a years-long series:
Single Western women on TikTok celebrating the freedom and supposed 'living-my-best-life' ideology that comes with not doing "what society tells you to do."
In this particular case, the TikTokker-in-question says she can spend all Saturday hungover and learn how to make shakshuka instead of dealing with ‘society’s expectations’.
Now, I have already made my thoughts on that particular episode—and Matt Walsh as an archetype—known in the comments of that piece, so go check it out if you'd like.
However, as a form of introduction to my new subscribers—and so they can gauge if these new readers will even enjoy my thoughts—I wish to expand on themes we explored in the Mary Harrington piece.
This is because, in the formative stages of this Substack endeavor, there's a balance I am striving to achieve.
On one hand, my background in the business sphere compels me to focus on the interests of my audience—which means primarily tackling subjects they're inclined to engage with.
On the other hand, anyone who has read even one other piece of mine on this site will see that I'm deeply invested in more esoteric topics like cultural contrasts between "The West and The Rest," the biological and sociopolitical effects of ethnic difference, geopolitics, and the like.
However, for now, we'll venture into the waters that brought some new attention and begin by building on the topic of women and men.
1. Every Identity Group Has A Mafia Code
Now, at the heart of my points made in the Harrington comments is that the most seismic shift of our modern epoch is the mass integration of Western women into both the globalized workforce and planet-spanning power structures.
Any discourse that fails to account for this is fundamentally incomplete and devoid of the seriousness required for substantial sociopolitical analysis.
Indeed, the ripple effects of this shift in human power between genders affect practically every world event, either directly or indirectly.
While many people are happy to applaud the positive—or self-affirming—aspects of this development, it seems that any non-congratulatory analysis, or any discussion of the second-order effects that can be seen as "critical" or "concerned," is explained away or outright ignored.
And sure, other noteworthy developments have shaped our global landscape over the past half-century—the advent of social media, globalization, the dissolution of the Cold War, among others.
Yet, if we consider the impact on the developed world at large—irrespective of individual societies—the ascendance of Western women into global positions of economic and political influence is the paramount game-changer since World War II, other than most notably the invention of the atom bomb, along with the subsequent doctrine of mutually assured destruction.
However, as a form of historical shorthand, I consider these developments part of the World War II continuum.
With that said, the next question becomes:
WHY do people seemingly explain away or disregard the negative second-order effects of Western women's mass integration into the workforce and/or the heights of global political power?
In the case of 21st-century Western women, the tendency to sidestep critique-based discussion of their global rise to workforce integration and power seems driven by an immediate societal reflex—especially prevalent in Western discourse—to affirm that "anything a man can do, a woman can do (and often better).”
In this paradigm, the intrinsic "sameness" of men and women is emphasized, leaving little room for nuanced exploration of the far-reaching second-order effects stemming from Western women's mass entry into the workforce and politics.
To expand upon this idea, I'm talking about the inherent difficulty for women (or anyone for that matter) to argue against something that benefits you directly—especially if it benefits your self-identified in-group.
To truly fathom this is a Sisyphean task, and the best of us (including myself) fail at it consistently over the course of a lifetime.
It requires a level of constant vigilant humility and self-forgetting that few people in an entire generation can reach.
Thus, the implications of such a stance are thorny, to say the least.
Now, one aim I hold for this platform is to bring you some absolutely paradigm-shifting insights I've found in my journey that have so fundamentally altered my worldview that they become inescapable -
As the kids would say, these are things you "can't unsee" once you notice them—they cast shadows that you can't ignore.
Thus, our first major waypoint is recognizing that…
In a pluralistic, "equality for all" society, most in-group participants simply cannot—or will not—rigorously critique the second-order effects of their community’s behaviors.
In this case, we're discussing why Western women struggle with grappling with the changes in the modern world at the hands of increasing gender parity in positions of power.
But pivoting to a similar example of this dynamic, consider leading black intellectuals like Ta-Nehisi Coates or Cornel West—or even prominent figures in entertainment and sports, such as LeBron James and Jay-Z.
You seldom hear them engaging in a detailed critique of their racial in-group.
You are unlikely to hear them talk about the negative aspects of "The Great Migration" in the 20th-century United States, wherein millions of Black people from the South migrated into Northern and Western cities, thus profoundly reshaping the sociopolitical landscape of these metropolises.
Their discourse is rarely peppered with statements reflecting on the privileges of being born in the United States—especially when compared to the situations faced by Black people in other parts of the world.
Similarly, if we look at the global arena of Muslim intellectuals and activists, the picture is almost congruent.
You will scarcely hear them tackling issues or casting doubts that are not in favor of their community's standing in global or domestic politics.
You're not likely to hear them discuss if Muslim mass migration into Europe has any negative second-order effects.
In the same vein, you'd be hard-pressed to find 21st-century Western women—particularly those wielding influence—openly discussing the negative consequences or even acknowledging the intricate, long-range effects of their recent widespread political and economic integration.
And to be clear—none of this is an indictment of character for women, Blacks, Muslims, etc.
It's simply an observation rooted in the complex dynamics of human behavior and identity politics.
However, we need to confront these often uncomfortable truths if we're ever to clear the next obstacle that stands before us, whatever that might be.
2. Western Men Will (Still) Fall On Their Sword For A Woman’s Approval
Now, when it comes to the subject of how Western men interact with the mass integration of women into the global workforce and political power apparatus, there are additional layers to peel back.
For starters, it's pivotal to recognize that many 21st-Century Western men (including those with conservative leanings) are often genuinely pleased to see women becoming more involved in the workforce and the broader socio-political arena.
They see it as beneficial, not just on an individual level but for society as a whole.
Contrary to the stereotype that Western men fear women's ascent, a significant number actually welcome it—eager, in fact, for the partnership and economic balance it brings.
For better or worse, modern Western men often prefer not to have to "pay for everything," "open doors," "decide where to go on vacation," or fulfill any other number of stereotypes of traditional life.
But diving deeper into this Western male perspective - we find a profound mix of adoration, reverence, and borderline obsession that your average man has for women that is perhaps still not fully grasped by women themselves.
This point is wonderfully elucidated in several passages in Douglas Murray’s The Madness of Crowds where he points out that heterosexual men, in many cases, are willing to upend their entire lives for a woman they find captivating.
They could spend 20, 30, or even 40 years completely invested in building up a financial or professional empire, and if the right woman comes along at the right time…
They'll throw it all away on what could be described as the roll of the romantic dice - jeopardizing their whole life's work for a woman they might find physically attractive but otherwise, for lack of a better term, "unqualified" in terms of long-term suitability.
It's even more intriguing to consider that a homosexual man (Murray is gay) may have unique insight into this pattern of behavior among straight men.
While understanding the male drive to "flirt with everything that walks," a gay man is not entangled in the same emotional intricacies that can complicate a heterosexual man's feelings toward women.
This perspective perhaps offers a more objective lens through which to view these seemingly irrational choices.
This point is profoundly intricate, and reveals an aspect of heterosexual male psychology that many women still seem not to understand.
Expanding to the broader view on why Western men struggle to deal with the ascendance of Western women, it's crucial to note that men often struggle with their own internal dichotomies when evaluating women.
These men are ensnared by an almost insidious need for female validation.
In an age where Western women are not just participants but competitors in every societal domain, Western men are increasingly willing to forfeit their own group interests for female approval.
The drive to be accepted, respected, and yes, even loved by modern women can often outweigh other considerations, including self-interest and even basic logic.
So what I'm fundamentally getting at here is that we often underestimate the lengths Western men are willing to go to accommodate women, particularly now, when the gender dynamics have shifted so dramatically.
This isn't just about men being pleased that women have joined the workforce or have a voice in politics—
It's about a more profound, maybe even primordial, underestimation of just how much men seek and will act upon the need for female approval.
3. Westerners Still Think They Know Everything
Before diving into our final point, a bit of context on my personal background seems warranted.
While I don't intend to reveal too much, I am an American by birth, hailing from generations rooted in the country.
However, these days, you might categorize me as a "cultural refugee"—someone who has deliberately opted out of living in the United States due to my disgust with the current zeitgeist of the country.
The typical trope, of course, is that the America of today is fundamentally "not the nation I grew up in," but it's not merely the contentious discourse around gender or race that unnerves me.
It's also the country's obsessive materialism, career-driven mentality, and moral ambivalence.
For these reasons, I've elected to reside outside not just the U.S., but the entire Anglosphere.
I happily live in a primarily non-English-speaking setting, which has consequently furnished me with a unique vantage point to dissect the cognitive patterns of both the U.S. and the Anglosphere at large.
Why does this matter?
Well, it serves as the backdrop to my next major point—
There is an insidious cognitive bias around gender deeply rooted in the Anglosphere, especially its current post-1960s socio-cultural ideology.
When people from this region discuss "men and women," they are inadvertently narrowing their discourse to men and women who are primarily middle to upper-class, post-1960s "liberal Western schools”-educated, and most often of European descent.
This designation, while tacit, reveals itself as particularly myopic when you consider that these Anglosphere-centric viewpoints are not universally applicable.
It's crucial to add that this "men and women think/act like this" often does not include immigrants hailing from non-European or non-Western nations who have relocated to the West post-puberty, around the age of 12 or 13.
Strikingly, this limitation in perspective even occasionally sidesteps "Westernized minorities"—those who may have been raised in these predominantly English-speaking countries but maintain traditional familial structures…
Referring to communities like those practicing Islam, as well as individuals of Han Chinese, Indian, and sometimes Latino descent—not to forget groups like Nigerians in the UK.
The reason these caveats are important is because whenever you hear a Westerner analyze "men and women," it’s often riddled with laughable pedantic analyses of how the genders think, that only work in a post-1960s "Anglospheric" context.
This distinction is far from trivial.
These arguments often operate in a vacuum, ignoring the fact that they are usually representative of a narrow slice of Western, primarily European-descended, multi-generational populations.
Within this narrow framework, critiques emerge, perpetuating certain notions about what "women want" or "men believe," which are not only potentially misleading but also ahistorical and culturally uninformed.
Even within our parents' lifetimes, these perceived norms have undergone significant transformation.
The values and beliefs about gender roles held by our parents and grandparents were often markedly different from those championed by contemporary writers—be they feminist or reactionary.
Thus, when writers expound on what "men are like" or "women can do," they are not referring to universal behaviors but rather to traits cultivated within this specific cultural milieu.
Moreover, it's worth noting that the umbrella of what constitutes 'men' or 'women' in these discussions often fails to account for men who don't subscribe to the prevailing liberalized, Western feminist ideologies.
If we examine societies outside the Anglosphere or even look at historical norms, we find that beliefs about men and women diverge dramatically from modern Western paradigms.
Most women around the world—and certainly through history—would shudder at defending a lonely life lived of hungover Sundays making TikTok videos about learning unique dishes by themselves.
Conclusion
So, in essence, my three major points from those comments hinge on acknowledging these gaps in our discourse.
First, we must acknowledge that the mass integration of Western women into the global workforce and the heights of political power is the largest societal shift since the World War II era.
Second, we must understand that in the West, both men and women are woefully underrepresenting and understudying the effects of this shift.
And lastly, Westerners appear to still laughably think that what applies to them applies to everybody.
I bring these thoughts to the fore not just as a cerebral exercise—
But to challenge my readers, and to perhaps keep those engaged who will follow my other musings on culture, ethnicity, and the future.
After all, a writer must consider the sensibilities of their audience. So there you have it.
There's a lot here to engage with. Firstly, I appreciate looking so broadly at our Western assumptions and attempting some amount of humility about them. An aspect of how upsetting trans activism is for me, in regards to men feeling entitled to access to female spaces, bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, shelters, sports, is what I see when I look in the mirror at my desire for entry to men's spaces. It all makes my heart feel sad. There is a naive place in me who wants us to get along, side by side, different but equal.
My first take-away from your piece is: I did not know men would die by the sword for female approval. I'm 50 years old and I didn't know that. I have noticed middle aged men will throw away their whole life, case in point Johnny Depp. I knew he was in trouble when I watched the movie he did with Amber Heard when they met. I could see it in his gaze. My hypothesis is a young, exciting woman can cause a rise in testosterone which is so exhilarating it's all consuming. I can't tell if you are only talking about that, or also how young men experience whatever mysterious "she's the one" thing. Men's capacity for devotion to a woman is stunningly beautiful. A man inside of that is very, very vulnerable. It's like this window where something in him opens and alters the course of his life. He is still the imperfect creature he is, and the object of his devotion, I hope she is of sufficient character to honor...and I'm risking to say, even obey him. There is something natural and ancient here, which I wonder if you would say that's my western frame, or is it beyond it? I think women long to be chosen, and men long for that woman to be loyal even on his worst broken day, and to rise with him to every height. For that he will give himself to follow her lead on the many insecurities she has and the needs of the family, and her ambitions and visions. I say the word "obey" on the part of the woman because I have an instinct for survival that gives the man I trust the last word if he takes it. At the very core of some few particular things over 25 years with my husband, I have seen that obedience to him was important. But he does his best to do what I want much of the time. And I have seen that is a trait, at least in modern, western men.So those are things I think you mean, but I also think you could say more about this experience of dying by the sword.
And then the discussion the effects of women holding economic power, and decision making power in traditionally male led spaces. I believe the C-Suits are still only 10% female, but am I wrong? Is even 10% enough to control the men in the room if not kept in check? Watching people choose Trump over Hillary, after choosing Obama over Hillary, said a lot about the general public's distrust of female power. It said we want a black man and we want a tacky, flawed man, but we do not want you, woman in a white suit. The white suit she wore when she was nominated was in remembrance of female suffragists and suffragettes who always wore white. Women's suffrage began in the 1860's and we were not successful at entering that space of voting until 1919. Your question goes back to that, really, in essence. I feel myself feeling that familiar anger I work hard to breathe through. The men die on the battle field, take a breath. The men are so devoted, take a breath.
Because I don't want to let go of my naive vision that we could work side by side, different but equal. That requires humility and communication. I appreciate your courage to write about the things you see about the women in power. I care deeply about men.
I also see many men in my life who are better cooks than I am. I see men being free to play with their children. A softness that comes because women hold more economic power in the family. I have been both stay at home mom, and primary breadwinner at different times in my family. Can some of our advances buy us these things for our men? What should men not give up? In what ways should I stay small and not rise? I mean that sincerely. I want a world for our kids and their kids. I want my legacy as matriarch to be the most blessed legacy I can produce.
I too WANTED to be in tune with Mary H's post. But it often seems to me that - paradoxically - despite her loathing-of-cyborg-living shtick, she herself appears to spend too much time in it and talk about it too much. A very lot of people - especially the middle-aged and older - would just have no knowledge of the loathsome cyberspace people talked about in her post as if they were everyone's everyday reality. They would just think What? Who? No never heard of any of this. I think Mary H is a bit too hooked into a kind of click-bait mode (no doubt good for clicks) and finding straw anti-women men to knock down.
And perhaps going off at a tangent slightly there is my own particular bugbear.... journalism that is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones BETWEEN the sexes and entirely oblivious of the huge INTRA-SEXUAL differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired