The alchemist
VIP
Is the working woman masculine? Not necessarily. However, what is pushed in this current capitalistic market framework is a strong bias toward professional male-trait human capital and the reason is it drives higher economic gain. You see especially with high positioned workers, male characteristics are what prevails, and yes, female executives, to give an example, on average, got way more masculine traits than a teacher or a nurse, and there are good reasons for this.
Females with managerial aspirations are selected and self-select for agentic qualities, i.e. masculine traits like assertiveness, dominance, high-level strategic thinking, and decisiveness, with low in communal traits which is normally much higher amongst women in non-high rank roles -- generally what is required of ascending males. This means there is a homogenizing selection pressure regardless of gender that makes women conform to what is considered stereotypical archetypical male leadership traits as those qualities in an organizational context are considered to cover the strong role demands to deliver effective performance. So, a woman has to move a lot more from the normal disposition toward this ideal leadership profile than men.
With this in the background, of course, it will play out in a relationship. Imagine a woman primed, and somewhat maybe carry some psychological pre-requisites to be better susceptible to work and fill those conditions, bossing other men around using dominant characteristics, and then coming home to a man expecting a wife, preferring feminine traits, not a domineering woman. This does not need to be reduced to "the man is insecure" but actually the average man would see an issue with the fact that such a woman would take up a portion of his role in the marriage, and that just facilitates too much potential for a lot of issues and contentions down the line.
You might say, 'yeah, true, but the average woman is not an executive so this is not universal'. That is correct, but all jobs have an inherent hierarchy. And going further, the average woman -- even the whole of Western civil culture -- tries to advertise this executive woman as the ideal progressive form of womanhood (when in fact it is just conforming to what men naturally do), so you have a lot of women looking up to or emulating these executives as some role models without assessing if that lifestyle is healthy for the average woman, or at least be looked at from a realistic holistic lens; how what makes a woman successful at work does not translate to a being a good partner or nurturing relationships. I'm, of course, generalizing here. Yet, there is a reason high-achieving women in a very high percentile reaching maybe 50% never get children even though they want to, and end up regretting that later on. While it is the opposite for men, their high-achieving peers. Furthermore, men don't need to sacrifice childbearing and childrearing years also depresses earning power (this is where the economic inequality comes from. In truth, this issue stem from biological and parenthood differences between sexes than discrimination).
I'm not making a case for women not working or the average working woman being a bad thing as a whole, that is crazy. But I think what I specifically addressed is very much real and it permeates in the public conscience to the general population which creates a lot of unnecessary discussions like these. All in all, the woman the guy on TikTok talked about, might have indeed been masculine and dominant. To each his own, but I don't think that is the average man's choice for mate selection. Similar to how men should be expected to be men, I think women should sometimes have self-awareness and also cater to what is expected of them on the feminine side. There is nothing unhealthy about this, and you will probably increase for potential suitors. Like a man acting like a woman will surely struggle to find a woman, and I don't see men cry on their behalf. No, we say the same thing to them; be a man.
Females with managerial aspirations are selected and self-select for agentic qualities, i.e. masculine traits like assertiveness, dominance, high-level strategic thinking, and decisiveness, with low in communal traits which is normally much higher amongst women in non-high rank roles -- generally what is required of ascending males. This means there is a homogenizing selection pressure regardless of gender that makes women conform to what is considered stereotypical archetypical male leadership traits as those qualities in an organizational context are considered to cover the strong role demands to deliver effective performance. So, a woman has to move a lot more from the normal disposition toward this ideal leadership profile than men.
With this in the background, of course, it will play out in a relationship. Imagine a woman primed, and somewhat maybe carry some psychological pre-requisites to be better susceptible to work and fill those conditions, bossing other men around using dominant characteristics, and then coming home to a man expecting a wife, preferring feminine traits, not a domineering woman. This does not need to be reduced to "the man is insecure" but actually the average man would see an issue with the fact that such a woman would take up a portion of his role in the marriage, and that just facilitates too much potential for a lot of issues and contentions down the line.
You might say, 'yeah, true, but the average woman is not an executive so this is not universal'. That is correct, but all jobs have an inherent hierarchy. And going further, the average woman -- even the whole of Western civil culture -- tries to advertise this executive woman as the ideal progressive form of womanhood (when in fact it is just conforming to what men naturally do), so you have a lot of women looking up to or emulating these executives as some role models without assessing if that lifestyle is healthy for the average woman, or at least be looked at from a realistic holistic lens; how what makes a woman successful at work does not translate to a being a good partner or nurturing relationships. I'm, of course, generalizing here. Yet, there is a reason high-achieving women in a very high percentile reaching maybe 50% never get children even though they want to, and end up regretting that later on. While it is the opposite for men, their high-achieving peers. Furthermore, men don't need to sacrifice childbearing and childrearing years also depresses earning power (this is where the economic inequality comes from. In truth, this issue stem from biological and parenthood differences between sexes than discrimination).
I'm not making a case for women not working or the average working woman being a bad thing as a whole, that is crazy. But I think what I specifically addressed is very much real and it permeates in the public conscience to the general population which creates a lot of unnecessary discussions like these. All in all, the woman the guy on TikTok talked about, might have indeed been masculine and dominant. To each his own, but I don't think that is the average man's choice for mate selection. Similar to how men should be expected to be men, I think women should sometimes have self-awareness and also cater to what is expected of them on the feminine side. There is nothing unhealthy about this, and you will probably increase for potential suitors. Like a man acting like a woman will surely struggle to find a woman, and I don't see men cry on their behalf. No, we say the same thing to them; be a man.
