I’m Haley. Book midwife (editor), author, and single mom of four. Consider upgrading to a paid subscription to support my family and gain access to exclusive content:
I have been so wrapped up trying to keep my head above water in my personal life (today is actually the one year anniversary of my divorce) that it’s been ages since I wrote about anything related to The Discourse. You know, the current chatter on the internet.
There’s a lot to catch up on if you didn’t follow the whole Did Women Ruin the Workplace kerfuffle from Helen Andrews as she critiques what she calls “the Great Feminization” of the workplace. I admit to rolling my eyes initially, but my interest was piqued by Leah Libresco Sargeant ‘s response on Ross Douthat’s podcast.
Photo by Brooke Cagle on Unsplas
Andrews claim seems to be that wokeness and cancel culture are the result of women taking over certain fields (primarily because of their tendency to be emotionally-driven). I’m a little bit allergic to anyone whose shtick centers around critiquing “wokeness” simply because it becomes a bogeyman representing anything and everything. And I’m not very interested in that portion of the Discourse. I’m more interested in solutions to the war between the sexes that can point both men and women to greatness, virtue, and the embrace of a narrative about gender that is compelling, inspiring, and leads to the good.
There is so much nonsense about masculinity vs. femininity these days. But what I’ve always found most distasteful is when women build their brand around claiming that women are deficient/inferior. There’s a bizarre “pick me! I hate women, too!” vibe there from the likes of women like Hannah Pearl Davis, for example. It becomes more absurd when women launch careers over the idea that other women shouldn’t have careers (a la the Online Trad Wives).
Something that characterizes both women and men who speak of women with a misogynistic bent is the use of “feminine” or “feminization” as a pejorative. When the “feminization” of an institution or culture is viewed as wholly negative, that’s always going to set off alarm bells for me.
I’m not really interested in dissecting Helen Andrews’ argument or all the rebuttals to her claims (and hey, this is just my personal Substack, so I don’t have to and many others have done that thoroughly already!) but I am interested in something that Leah Libresco Sargeant tried to discuss with Andrews on these issues. And that was: is virtue and vice gendered? If so, what are the masculine and feminine vices and virtues?
Andrews claims that there are certain male vices that can poison a work environment. She offers the example of men having “pin-ups” on the wall that female co-workers object to. (Sargeant noted that the situation she was citing was actually photographs of completely nude women that the male workers would make suggestive gestures with—a far cry from how Andrews described it.) Women on the other hand, Andrews claims, poison workplaces with their feminine vices such as their propensity to gossip.
But workplaces also benefit from masculine virtues, says Andrews. She enumerates these but refuses to respond when Sargeant pushes back to inquire about female virtues. This was actually such an odd moment that I felt embarrassed by Andrews hissy fit at Leah’s request.
Sargeant was not focusing on Andrews’ likes and dislikes, but on what her claims were regarding feminine virtue. Andrews’ response is akin to saying, “You want to know what I think about women? Sounds like something a WOMAN would ask. (Ewww).”
But Sargeant’s question is a fascinating one. Are virtues and vices gender coded? Is gossip a “feminine” vice while lust is “male”? Is courage a masculine virtue and meekness a feminine one? St. Joan of Arc and St. Maximilian Kolbe both exhibit the virtue of courage. St. Francis de Sales and St. Therese of Lisieux both exhibit the virtue of meekness. So these virtues are clearly not the possession of one sex or the other.
Abigail Favale wrote a fantastic piece on St. Hildegard of Bingen, Doctor of the Church’s theology of virtue and vice regarding gender. Rather than coding individual virtues as exclusively masculine or feminine, St. Hildegard envisions a theology of harmony.
On the level of virtue, Hildegard connects certain virtues to women, but unlike Aristotle, there is not a corresponding devaluation of those virtues in relation to masculine virtues. And, as Allen point out, in Hildegard’s thought, men and women are encouraged to develop in all the virtues:
Hildegard frequently argues that men ought to develop the feminine qualities of mercy and grace, while women ought to develop the corresponding masculine qualities of courage and strength. In this way, even though she designated particular qualities as masculine or feminine, a wholly integrated woman or man would have both aspects of their nature developed.[11]
In all the categories of ontology, generation, wisdom and virtue, Hildegard stands apart from her male predecessors in her ability to uphold the two principles of difference and equal dignity. Plato dissolves difference into masculine unity, while holding onto at least a basic equality; Aristotle conceives of difference as hierarchical polarity. Hildegard’s complementarity affirms difference as a balanced, integrated harmony.
I once interviewed Abigail about gender and virtue and she offered such a helpful (and beautiful) image to explain a perspective that virtue is only coded either masculine or feminine depending on the human being exhibiting that virtue. She described one virtuous action: a parent tenderly cradling an infant. If a woman is holding her child this way, it is a motherly action. If a father is holding his child this way, it is a fatherly action. The action of gentle love, tenderness, protection, care is the same. It is the person exhibiting the virtue that codes it according to gender.
So when St. Joan of Arc leads armies, she is being courageous. When St. Maximilian Kolbe offers his life for another prisoner in Auschwitz, he is being courageous. The virtue is not coded, but the action becomes either feminine or masculine depending on who is acting.
This is important because we are all called to virtue and called to flee from vice. But we are also all susceptible to vices: women can fall into lust as well as men. Men can gossip just as easily as women can. And I find such stereotypes about male and female coded vice and virtue a little hard to swallow.
If we are talking merely of certain common behavioral patterns in certain societies, that’s a different conversation than vices and virtues. Men are as a rule more violent than women. Women are typically more collaborative and skilled at building community support. These behavioral traits are interesting to consider in the workplace. And I think considering these patterns actually can be helpful. Because acknowledging that there are biological differences between men and women is simply an acknowledgement of reality. But that’s not at all the same as viewing the world through lens that devalues women as deficient versions of men.
Leah Libresco Sargeant’s work in her new book The Dignity of Dependence is far more compelling to me than Andrews views because Leah offers a reality-based work that diagnoses real problems but offers a vision for dignity, flourishing, and respect between the sexes rather than trying to scapegoat women for not being men. If Sargeant’s measured, thoroughly-researched, logical analysis is a result of her feminine genius, then I think Andrews would really benefit from a little bit more of the “feminization” she so dreads.
(Consider supporting this single mom’s Substack by becoming a paid subscriber. It really does make a huge difference for my family.)
Yours,
Haley
My observation about society today is that we have lost the art of true debate. A back and forth dialogue that allows for nuance and thoughtful rebuttal. Instead there is this staunch black and white defense, like toddlers sticking their fingers in their ears chanting "la la la la la". I appreciate your insightful perspective in your blog that addresses the nuances between the sexes and that we can exhibit perceived masculine or feminine qualities, but also possess and enhance both within ourselves.
That last line was chef's kiss.