The height of MeToo being in the rearview has not erased a reflexive need to blame men for individual problems which is psychologically harmful for everyone.
I'd like to challenge your presumption that men had it easier throughout history.
What about hard physical labour, natural dangers, forced military conscription, lower life expectancy sounds easy to you?
I hope you can look past your Apex fallacy; the vast majority of men weren't rich nobility and even they were usually subject to military work. Democratic nations are young and universal male suffrage was followed immediately by universal female suffrage soon after
Ok this is a very fair criticism, and I didn’t realize I had engaged in that fallacy. In fact, I have something have written about this because I just finished reading Richard Reeves’s Of Boys and Men, in which he makes this exact point as a departure for why we should care about the rest of men who don’t control all the wealth. In fact, the fallacy I engaged in obfuscates that the major conflict has always been along class lines than anything else. Also I will admit, I couched my argument with that admission because I was trying to grant the opposing argument some legitimacy, and because when I wrote this one I hadn’t yet read that book. You are correct.
Okay, I appreciate the focus on holding ourselves accountable. But as a guy trying to do the right thing, I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. I mean, one day holding the door open is chivalrous; the next day, it's undermining feminism. Is there, like, an updated handbook for this stuff?
Seriously, it's a minefield! Can I pay a woman a genuine compliment without getting the side-eye? Is it okay to offer a hand with something heavy, or is assuming she needs help offensive? When's initiating a conversation friendly, and when is it creepy? Seems like every time I think I've got the hang of being a decent, respectful guy, someone moves the goalposts.
I want to be an ally, but it'd be great if there were some clear guidelines. Are there support groups for bewildered men or something? Maybe a hotline I can call? "Hello, 911? I accidentally committed a microaggression, and I need to turn myself in."
Let's be real, sometimes I just want to curl up on the couch with a pizza and not worry if my very existence is perpetuating systemic inequality.
I hear you, trust me. I’ve been having the same conversation with man friends for the last four years. Your existence is not doing so, and your asking these questions proves it. Imo, if a woman gets offended at these very reasonable acts of kindness, she isn’t worth your time. It’s her, not you. I used to be like that, and it was silly. Though, you’ve now given me the idea to write such a set of guidelines. Do you think that would be remotely helpful? I’m seeing that my audience is starting to skew male, which was unintentional, but makes sense.
The questions you raise is why dating is so difficult, if I had to guess based on zero data. The secondary problem is that there are plenty of women out there who think like me and are reasonable but aren’t the vocal majority. IMO, things like asking for permission for flirting undermines it, which is how we decide if we want to proceed. And another thing I suggest is to not stand for it when the goal posts are moved. The next time you get accused of something, try pushing back against the illlogic of it all and asking these very questions.
Thanks so much, I genuinely appreciate the support and validation. Sorry for being an uninvited guest to the party. It certainly feels like a confusing maze for everyone involved! I'd be really interested in seeing those guidelines you mentioned – it could definitely spark a much-needed, broader discussion.
While finding frustrating situations easier to deal with is great, I'm cautious about completely dismissing a woman's reaction to even well-intentioned actions. Sometimes deeper insecurities might be at play, and understanding those reactions could be a learning experience for everyone.
Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the balance between asking for permission before flirting and maintaining a sense of playful spontaneity. That's honestly a big part of why dating feels so tricky.
You're not an uninvited guest, first of all. Please feel like you can comment because I'm fairly certain that the people who should read this wouldn't want to because it goes against orthodoxy. I write, in part, because I want men to have some ammunition from a person who's lived it, even though I am persona non grata.
" Sometimes deeper insecurities might be at play, and understanding those reactions could be a learning experience for everyone."
I think here you are onto a lot. Maybe an approach might be to just ask the question if it's someone you can converse with versus a person who was offended that you held the door for her. One of the many problems with feminism is that it makes us think we want something when we don't actually want that thing, as I learned. In fact, I had to deprogram from it to understand what I wanted in a partner, and he helped me see some things about aggregate feminine behavior that I hadn't seen.
I have a feeling the dating issue you mention about flirting is a big reason women can't actually find the kind of man they'd be attracted to, because we are attracted to confidence perhaps more than we realize, and the feminist concept of consent has affected men's ability to perhaps confidently flirt. Many women who adhere to this still want the man to make the first move, which makes no sense to me (as did I, btw). Spontaneity is crucial for building the attraction in the first place; I find the whole asking permission to kiss me thing to be contrived, and it almost entirely erases the heat of the moment. But, "affirmative consent" (a redundant term) would have you believe otherwise. I will take this as an assignment, and I appreciate your thoughtful comment and engagement, as well as the idea. Please keep doing what you're doing in questioning it. The vast majority of us don't think this way, either, but in the urban areas, highly feminist women are overrepresented.
This is less about who is trash and more about the need to stop blaming other people for your own behavior. I also think that critiquing a generalization is a straw man argument - that is how we make sense of the world, and the scientific method tests hypotheses and draws conclusions off a population, but it is still a tested generalization because it is a conclusion extrapolated to a population. Humans can't test their hypotheses constantly. We should be on guard for dismissing people and treating them badly according to stereotypes, but at the same time I will stand by my assertion that on average, I meet women like I've described in the professional managerial class.
"Haidt and others also argued that more liberal girls and women are depressed or have a mental illness than conservative women. I surmise this is because political conservatism correlates with values coded as personally conservative: hard work, discipline, community, and family. "
--- Maybe it has something to do with culture/country because here in the States conservative politics does not automatically translate into these values. Conversely I see the oppoiste. Progressive politics type people seem to hold these values more. Something you mention just a few sentences later; "Ironically, liberal elites can only get to an elite rung of society through discipline, hard work, and delaying gratification, which denotes an internal locus of control. College-educated women are also far likelier than those without degrees to be married and raise children with their fathers despite valorizing single motherhood as a feminist choice." So that means this; "But because the values themselves are politicized as patriarchal and oppressive, liberals abandoned them entirely as part of their moral frame." .... doesn't actually happen. And I don't think it's a socio-economic phenomena either, as you imply.
I don't mean to sound racist and please forgive me if I'm overstepping boundaries, but how much of your ages 13-30 "men are trash" phase is perhaps related to Desi men? Conversely, how much of your men-seem-to-be-better-than-women phase is perhaps related to Desi men? How much of your previous unhinged drama queen antics in relationship could be related to DAP/Desi American Princess syndrome?
I can’t say you’re wrong. The princess syndrome is real but I don’t want to comment publicly on the other thing. You can speculate and will probably land on something mostly correct.
Couldn’t care less about those people, but this topic invites ire from the left. Fundamentally I think people raised in the diaspora should marry out because the blueprint of a relationship between a Hindu woman and man is unequal. I have gotten more respect from non Indians romantically and it has been noticed anecdotally that Hindu men respect non Indian women more. There’s a lot of cultural baggage. Not to say that people marrying in can’t be happy; I just never would have been because I’m too western.
I've seen to second gen desis marry and get along because they are both raised here and "westernized". I do agree that desi men from India respect non-desi women more and that has to do with the perceived financial and opportunity "upgrade" that marrying her represents (even though she won't be giving dowry to her Indian groom and his parents), as well as the fact that non-desi women just aren't going to put up with what desi women will. Indian men see non-desi women tourists or some culturaly appropriating yoga girl on Youtube, wearing Indian clothes, bindi, etc and doing some cultural things and they will say, "Thanks maam, you are more Indian than our own Indian women." But these same women would majorly clash with these men and their mothers (ha!) if they had to live in an Indian home for more than a few weeks.
"Couldn’t care less about those people, but this topic invites ire from the left."
Who cares? The lid blew off the pot almost 20 years ago with the "gori blogs". Did you ever read those? Hilarious accounts of goris dating or married to desi guys. No Himalayan stone was left unturned.
I’ve never seen a gori blog but I will; sounds “enlightening”. You are correct that desi women are not treated well by desi men in my experience. Men outside the community have always respected me more. It’s pretty verboten to say though. Western values make a difference in how people relate to each other. Everyone puts Indians in the one box, but those of us raised here versus those who emigrated are fundamentally different in our personalities and approach to everything.
"Everyone puts Indians in the one box, but those of us raised here versus those who emigrated are fundamentally different in our personalities and approach to everything."
What about the current view that Indians in the diaspora tend to be "behind" Indians in India? They say a 50 year diasporic desi is more old-school and traditional or "backwards" than a desi in India because the former's concept of "Indian culture" is based on 30 years ago, the way India was just before they left. In the meantime "Indian culture" in India has evolved.
And now ultra-right wing Islam is "having a moment" amongst Manosphere and "red pill" men. They think as soon as they convert to Islam some imam somewhere will hand them 4 wives.
Anuradha, I enjoyed reading this piece. It left me with much to mull over, so I wasn't ready to comment immediately after reading. I agree with Jen below about your courage to write so transparently about yourself, your relationship with men and women, and how you've evolved along with the culture around you.
I relate to much of what you write. I worked on the Gender Equity & Governance team at a large, California-based private foundation. The team was made up of mostly feminist activists who share many of the traits you describe above. Ironically, they would come to me regularly to vent about how they were bullied and subjected to purity tests in feminist spaces. (And, generally, they were into astrology and fortune-telling — the kind of lack of agency/control you describe well.) Their default was indeed to point to systemic oppression (capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy) to explain every perceived injustice, inequity, and obstacle to well-being. Any mention of agency, personal growth, or meritocracy was maligned as capitalist/patriarchal/white supremacist. And yet, as you'd surmise, they generally went to the most expensive liberal arts and Ivy League universities.
Reading your piece was cathartic, and that you're a woman probably helped me absorb the arguments without the male progressive's knee-jerk shame when reading critiques of feminism. At the same time, I'd like to push back against some of your claims in the spirit of good old-fashioned Substack dialectics. You write that:
"Liberal elites can only get to an elite rung of society through discipline, hard work, and delaying gratification, which denotes an internal locus of control."
I agree, and being raised by Tiger Parents is perhaps the ultimate privilege. (At least for accumulating status and retirement savings, though perhaps not for happiness and life-enjoyment!) But isn't it also true that liberal elites often get to the elite rung of society through legacy admissions, SAT tutors, implicit knowledge of social protocol, not having to work in high school, and hundreds of other little advantages that my former colleagues perhaps would have dubbed "systemic oppression?"
You describe eloquently the way you coped with the anxiety from your perfectionism by blaming men as untrustworthy, uncaring, and oppressive. I am glad that you know longer feel this way and that you've found a partner who supports your emotional well-being and your intellect. I also sense that you're realization that men are not trash has allowed you to explore parts of yourself that you describe as more masculine, parts that perhaps weren't valued when you identified as a feminist.
I wonder, though, how are you guarding against a reactionary turn? It seems that you're tapping into some anger and discomfort against women that you had suppressed. Do you feel that there's a risk that the pendulum might swing too far, that you might preclude yourself from healthy friendships with someone and even parts of your own femininity by turning away from the less-healthy aspects of your feminist past?
I ask you these questions because I ask them of myself as well. I find myself drawn to smart, disaffected liberals who want to reclaim an internal locus of control, but I'm weary of blaming wokeness for all of society's ills in the same way I'm skeptical of blaming systemic oppression for our personal problems. I'm worried that in turning so sharply toward individual agency, we'll lose sight of the importance of addressing real injustices passed down across generations through class, caste, race, gender, sexuality, attractiveness, and more.
These days, I am asking myself: How can men and women best understand and accept one another? How can we best support each other, including when we want to explore our masculine and feminine energies? How can we develop an internal locus of control that rejects knee-jerk victimization while recognizing and address true injustices, new and old?
I have a feeling you'll enjoy Emma Green's newest piece about the Classical Education movement as a response to the rise of woke ideology in education. Again, I find myself thinking, as does Emma, don't we want the best of both?
I feel sheepish about leaving such a long comment. I hope you take it as a compliment for giving me so much to think about. I look forward to reading more of your writing.
I've tried to type this out several times because it's a lot but:
Tiger parents, imo, are not a privilege. It's a cultural thing, and so if one says it's a privilege then they're also admitting that certain cultural inclinations produce superior outcomes, of which many are unwilling to speak. I also reject the concept of privilege itself, because it doesn't recognize the extent to which material deprivation cancels out every single other privilege. If you're a white man without a degree and job prospects, or a white woman struggling to make ends meet, you don't have white privilege, full stop. The only source of privilege to me is that of capital ownership - there is no power in this world without money backing it, but people don't like to talk about that.
"But isn't it also true that liberal elites often get to the elite rung of society through legacy admissions, SAT tutors, implicit knowledge of social protocol, not having to work in high school, and hundreds of other little advantages that my former colleagues perhaps would have dubbed "systemic oppression?"
Your former colleagues are also wrong about this, because doing all of this requires an internal locus of control. They're also probably saying it because they feel an amount of guilt over their access to it. Not working during high school is a function of material privilege, as is the access to SAT tutors, etc. The implicit knowledge of social protocol is another one that grates on me, because it's again related to a lack of mixing across classes, not races or genders. POC who are upper class in this group of people know the protocols; they're not systematically oppressed in that way, unless your colleagues are accounting for class privilege and not just race. They also had to have an internal locus of control to even take the SAT prep classes, so this is another example of a luxury belief Rob Henderson has talked about in his book and substack. You might also check out the Tyranny of Merit by Michael Sandel; he dives into this question.
"I wonder, though, how are you guarding against a reactionary turn?"
I've been asked this by male friends and my partner. I know many women who aren't enamored by the cultural turn. I mostly keep my distance and don't talk when the people around me talk about these things because it is never taken well, out of self protection. I also would never politically advocate conservatism in the way it manifests in the US. I might be misunderstanding what you mean by reactionary, though. I still value my friendships with women, but I've learned to be wary of organizations that are primarily women. I've just never fit.
"How can men and women best understand and accept one another? How can we best support each other, including when we want to explore our masculine and feminine energies? How can we develop an internal locus of control that rejects knee-jerk victimization while recognizing and address true injustices, new and old?"
1. Acceptance and understanding come from resisting the urge to form social hierarchies and the urge to shut down conversation in which fundamental disagreements are aired. Until we stop acquiescing to these anti-social tendencies, understanding doesn't happen.
2. About energies, people are simultaneously aware of gender performance but unwilling to grant that a person might just have some tendencies coded as masculine or feminine that should be accepted and considered normal. I could say I'm a trans man, but that wouldn't be true. On the other hand, if I said that, would I have more acceptance among my peers? I'm going to speculate that I would.
3. "How can we develop an internal locus of control that rejects knee-jerk victimization while recognizing and address true injustices, new and old?"
This requires getting off Tik Tok and social media in general. People don't read books, and that's part of the problem. After I got off SM and read heavily, I changed my mindset. Jonathan Haidt sparked the turning with Coddling. It also requires recognizing class privilege as the ultimate one and focusing on the lack of access to capital for most people to truly self-determine. We have too many injustices about which we care, from emojis to race (I kid you not about the emojis). Attention is finite, and we're just giving it away to these ad platforms while forming our identities on them.
This was a thoughtful and complex response. I relate to and agree with almost all of it. In a way, your politics strikes me as Marxist — focusing on class as the key driver of alienation and social division — even if it aligns with more recent conservative rhetoric.
By “reactionary,” I suppose I sense that you used to unfairly blame men for your unhappiness and social ills broadly. Your more recent writing blames feminists. I’d like to see more writing on Substack that points to a positive vision we can aspire to. Less “how feminists are ruining the world” and more “the value of friendships/collaborations between men and women.” I suppose I should take my own advice. Time to start drafting this week’s newsletter!
And thanks for the thoughtful engagement. It’s rare for me to come across this level of intellectual honesty. I value it.
I do plan to articulate something positive, thanks for that suggestion. I think I’m working through a lot of anger through my writing at the moment because which I want to tear down the entire ideological edifice, but I think I’m getting to what you’re saying through close readings of certain texts. I just wrote 2k words on yoga of knowledge of and action from the Bhagavad Gita and how they apply to modern life. As a woman I think I got ideas about virtue from philosophy that I can’t find elsewhere, and realized I used the chase the illusion of virtue as depicted by outward tribal affiliations based on physical appearance and social expectations. I also have read a few platonic dialogues but don’t yet feel qualified to comment upon them. Maybe once I get through Nicomachean Ethics. I can state unequivocally that philosophy was the light at the end of the feminist tunnel for me.
"(And, generally, they were into astrology and fortune-telling — the kind of lack of agency/control you describe well.)"
That's a strange cultural perspective. In the cultural heritage from which Anuradha comes, astrology is very much a patriarchal and male dominated field. And it has nothing to with "lack of agency or control".
It's interesting how the same activities get gendered differently in different cultures. Yoga is another one. There are so many.
You’re right about Indian astrology but western astrology is largely the domain of women who’ve discarded religion. There’s a great book about this, Strange Rites
I haven't met anyone who is into Indian astro because it's actually quite intellectually involved to understand. I personally found western astro far easier. That's probably part of it.
I am an astrologer who has lived in liberal western Oregon for her entire life. I often say Oregon is the best place on Earth to learn astrology and the worst place on Earth to be any good at it. It's the best place to learn astrology because our kneejerk hostility toward norms and authority makes room for quirks like astrology -- at least that's not any worse than the World Naked Bike Ride, right? The surface-level understanding that one does whatever obnoxious thing on account of their Sun sign also integrates well enough with a culture that seeks to pin blame on anything imaginable but the individual.
Once you get deeper into astrology, though, you learn about Saturn -- personal responsibility. When the ongoing cycles of Saturn interact with your birth chart, you are often shown the consequences, bad or good, of whatever choices you have made. See enough of that, and you start to have trouble fitting in here.
I'm not an expert on Anuradha's heritage, and I only have a basic idea of Vedic astrology. I think the tendency to grab the nearest straw to justify whatever one wanted to do anyway is pretty universal, though — regardless of whether other cultural factors push you toward strict patriarchy or irresponsible puerarchy. It is remarkable that truth ever gets past any of our biases, but looking at actual astrological transits and watching how they manifest in people's lives can help.
Eva, I'm really torn on astrology. On the one hand, the effects of planets have correlated with certain events/tendencies, but on the other...it still is 'intuitional', and, as you said, gives one a reason to to anything as long as the planets indicate it. I don't know if you were heading down this path but I've come to see astrology as part of the 'new spirituality' that women in particular here are cobbling together to counter the oppressive structures of organized religion (particularly exacerbated by the sexual revolution). I still dabble in western astrology (Eastern requires actual study) and things like tarot, but I've come to see them as a distraction from actual spirituality.
What motivated me to go into astrology was family conflict. My family was split between conservative Christians and materialist atheists. When I came of age, I was expected to pick a side, and I didn't want to do that. Both sides were right about some things and wrong about some things. The conservative Christians were right about the idea that there is more than the physical world and wrong about gay marriage. The materialist atheists were right about gay marriage and wrong about the idea that there is not more than the physical world. I therefore set out on my own path that was neither of theirs.
I suppose you could say that the sexual revolution played a part in me leaving the oppressive structures of organized religion. I can see what you are potentially hinting at, that the new spirituality that has replaced organized religion is in many cases uncomfortably loosey-goosey.
I think we will never get rid of Saturn, the force of limits and reality — and it often takes people new to the new spirituality a while to figure this out. I don't want conservative religions and social structures to impose their vision of Saturn on everyone else. I do want people to freely make their own decisions and also accept the consequences of those decisions. In terms of the sexual revolution, I would say people should have the right to try different things, and whether or not they have a happy outcome should then be between them and reality, not between them and society.
I think getting in the middle of someone else's war on reality is like getting in the middle of a married couple's fight with each other — it only ends with both sides mad at you. Let people fight their own battles and learn their own lessons.
The author of that book I was talking about points out that in place of Christianity, and religion in general, they’ve created bespoke religions to have a sense of community and meaning, of which social justice and things like yoga and astrology are part. I think western educated people are wrong to abandon religion overall, and there’s the additional phenomenon of many being attracted to eastern religions and taking what they like from there. I suppose it’s not different than what I did. I found that when I had zero focus on something outside myself, I was miserable. When I started listening to what Saturn was telling me (because I do think he’s representative of real phenomena and this is the same concept of Saturn in Hindu astrology) my life got on the right track. It was about temperance. I kept ignoring it.
"I don't know if you were heading down this path but I've come to see astrology as part of the 'new spirituality' that women in particular here are cobbling together to counter the oppressive structures of organized religion (particularly exacerbated by the sexual revolution). "
--- The way this is worded I don't understand what it is that was exacerbated by the SR.
The sexual revolution exacerbated the move away from Christianity because of its conservatism re: sex and gender. The christianity-shaped hole was filled by alternative, bespoke religions and communities. Religion in the west is generally seen as oppressive and patriarchal.
I deeply appreciate the depth of this comment, and I will respond at length in a little bit, and please don't feel sheepish. It is a high compliment that people want to engage on a deep level, and it's why I write! You've given me a lot to think about. In short though, I agree that I should address what you bring up, and I've also been thinking a lot about how this worldview is essentially conservative. I don't want to become a reactionary, though.
Interesting — parts of this, especially the part about always having to be right, remind me of the Jungian psychology concept of the "animus-possessed woman." The animus is a woman's inner masculine side (the equivalent for a man is the anima, his inner feminine side). If she doesn't deal with masculine qualities in a conscious way, they don't disappear; they just come out of her in a weird and distorted way, sometimes to the extent that they could be said to possess her.
Emo guys, hysterical style of argument, misunderstood artist types. Pre-Substack, I used to participate in a regular email exchange with my father, his brothers, and their father. They were definitely an example of men with anima energy way out of control -- I felt like they were looking to me, a much younger woman, to stabilize them emotionally, and it was scary for me to feel that much responsibility.
Thank you Jen, that means so much coming from a woman writer I admire! And I appreciate the validation of these things because I was the most afraid to post this of all I have so far. People irl just don’t want to hear it so I’m happy to have found women who think similarly.
I truly appreciate you! I look forward to reading more of your work.
Political activism is a topic I know little about (having not lived it) and I find it fascinating. I do believe the root cause of many of societal issues today is mental health and I think its important to call it out when you see it.
I'd like to challenge your presumption that men had it easier throughout history.
What about hard physical labour, natural dangers, forced military conscription, lower life expectancy sounds easy to you?
I hope you can look past your Apex fallacy; the vast majority of men weren't rich nobility and even they were usually subject to military work. Democratic nations are young and universal male suffrage was followed immediately by universal female suffrage soon after
Ok this is a very fair criticism, and I didn’t realize I had engaged in that fallacy. In fact, I have something have written about this because I just finished reading Richard Reeves’s Of Boys and Men, in which he makes this exact point as a departure for why we should care about the rest of men who don’t control all the wealth. In fact, the fallacy I engaged in obfuscates that the major conflict has always been along class lines than anything else. Also I will admit, I couched my argument with that admission because I was trying to grant the opposing argument some legitimacy, and because when I wrote this one I hadn’t yet read that book. You are correct.
Okay, I appreciate the focus on holding ourselves accountable. But as a guy trying to do the right thing, I feel like I'm walking on eggshells. I mean, one day holding the door open is chivalrous; the next day, it's undermining feminism. Is there, like, an updated handbook for this stuff?
Seriously, it's a minefield! Can I pay a woman a genuine compliment without getting the side-eye? Is it okay to offer a hand with something heavy, or is assuming she needs help offensive? When's initiating a conversation friendly, and when is it creepy? Seems like every time I think I've got the hang of being a decent, respectful guy, someone moves the goalposts.
I want to be an ally, but it'd be great if there were some clear guidelines. Are there support groups for bewildered men or something? Maybe a hotline I can call? "Hello, 911? I accidentally committed a microaggression, and I need to turn myself in."
Let's be real, sometimes I just want to curl up on the couch with a pizza and not worry if my very existence is perpetuating systemic inequality.
I hear you, trust me. I’ve been having the same conversation with man friends for the last four years. Your existence is not doing so, and your asking these questions proves it. Imo, if a woman gets offended at these very reasonable acts of kindness, she isn’t worth your time. It’s her, not you. I used to be like that, and it was silly. Though, you’ve now given me the idea to write such a set of guidelines. Do you think that would be remotely helpful? I’m seeing that my audience is starting to skew male, which was unintentional, but makes sense.
The questions you raise is why dating is so difficult, if I had to guess based on zero data. The secondary problem is that there are plenty of women out there who think like me and are reasonable but aren’t the vocal majority. IMO, things like asking for permission for flirting undermines it, which is how we decide if we want to proceed. And another thing I suggest is to not stand for it when the goal posts are moved. The next time you get accused of something, try pushing back against the illlogic of it all and asking these very questions.
Thanks so much, I genuinely appreciate the support and validation. Sorry for being an uninvited guest to the party. It certainly feels like a confusing maze for everyone involved! I'd be really interested in seeing those guidelines you mentioned – it could definitely spark a much-needed, broader discussion.
While finding frustrating situations easier to deal with is great, I'm cautious about completely dismissing a woman's reaction to even well-intentioned actions. Sometimes deeper insecurities might be at play, and understanding those reactions could be a learning experience for everyone.
Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on the balance between asking for permission before flirting and maintaining a sense of playful spontaneity. That's honestly a big part of why dating feels so tricky.
You're not an uninvited guest, first of all. Please feel like you can comment because I'm fairly certain that the people who should read this wouldn't want to because it goes against orthodoxy. I write, in part, because I want men to have some ammunition from a person who's lived it, even though I am persona non grata.
" Sometimes deeper insecurities might be at play, and understanding those reactions could be a learning experience for everyone."
I think here you are onto a lot. Maybe an approach might be to just ask the question if it's someone you can converse with versus a person who was offended that you held the door for her. One of the many problems with feminism is that it makes us think we want something when we don't actually want that thing, as I learned. In fact, I had to deprogram from it to understand what I wanted in a partner, and he helped me see some things about aggregate feminine behavior that I hadn't seen.
I have a feeling the dating issue you mention about flirting is a big reason women can't actually find the kind of man they'd be attracted to, because we are attracted to confidence perhaps more than we realize, and the feminist concept of consent has affected men's ability to perhaps confidently flirt. Many women who adhere to this still want the man to make the first move, which makes no sense to me (as did I, btw). Spontaneity is crucial for building the attraction in the first place; I find the whole asking permission to kiss me thing to be contrived, and it almost entirely erases the heat of the moment. But, "affirmative consent" (a redundant term) would have you believe otherwise. I will take this as an assignment, and I appreciate your thoughtful comment and engagement, as well as the idea. Please keep doing what you're doing in questioning it. The vast majority of us don't think this way, either, but in the urban areas, highly feminist women are overrepresented.
But men Are trash. Women too.
This is less about who is trash and more about the need to stop blaming other people for your own behavior. I also think that critiquing a generalization is a straw man argument - that is how we make sense of the world, and the scientific method tests hypotheses and draws conclusions off a population, but it is still a tested generalization because it is a conclusion extrapolated to a population. Humans can't test their hypotheses constantly. We should be on guard for dismissing people and treating them badly according to stereotypes, but at the same time I will stand by my assertion that on average, I meet women like I've described in the professional managerial class.
I love that we live in a world in which “men aren’t trash” is considered a radical viewpoint lol. Carnage.
I am starting to see my audience skew male, is all I can say on that subject. Unintentional, but I suppose unsurprising.
"Haidt and others also argued that more liberal girls and women are depressed or have a mental illness than conservative women. I surmise this is because political conservatism correlates with values coded as personally conservative: hard work, discipline, community, and family. "
--- Maybe it has something to do with culture/country because here in the States conservative politics does not automatically translate into these values. Conversely I see the oppoiste. Progressive politics type people seem to hold these values more. Something you mention just a few sentences later; "Ironically, liberal elites can only get to an elite rung of society through discipline, hard work, and delaying gratification, which denotes an internal locus of control. College-educated women are also far likelier than those without degrees to be married and raise children with their fathers despite valorizing single motherhood as a feminist choice." So that means this; "But because the values themselves are politicized as patriarchal and oppressive, liberals abandoned them entirely as part of their moral frame." .... doesn't actually happen. And I don't think it's a socio-economic phenomena either, as you imply.
I don't mean to sound racist and please forgive me if I'm overstepping boundaries, but how much of your ages 13-30 "men are trash" phase is perhaps related to Desi men? Conversely, how much of your men-seem-to-be-better-than-women phase is perhaps related to Desi men? How much of your previous unhinged drama queen antics in relationship could be related to DAP/Desi American Princess syndrome?
Just asking.
I can’t say you’re wrong. The princess syndrome is real but I don’t want to comment publicly on the other thing. You can speculate and will probably land on something mostly correct.
I respect if you don't want to publicly comment on the other thing but just curious - why?
Is it because you don't want to "out" your own in-group and provide fodder for racists and xenophobes?
Couldn’t care less about those people, but this topic invites ire from the left. Fundamentally I think people raised in the diaspora should marry out because the blueprint of a relationship between a Hindu woman and man is unequal. I have gotten more respect from non Indians romantically and it has been noticed anecdotally that Hindu men respect non Indian women more. There’s a lot of cultural baggage. Not to say that people marrying in can’t be happy; I just never would have been because I’m too western.
I've seen to second gen desis marry and get along because they are both raised here and "westernized". I do agree that desi men from India respect non-desi women more and that has to do with the perceived financial and opportunity "upgrade" that marrying her represents (even though she won't be giving dowry to her Indian groom and his parents), as well as the fact that non-desi women just aren't going to put up with what desi women will. Indian men see non-desi women tourists or some culturaly appropriating yoga girl on Youtube, wearing Indian clothes, bindi, etc and doing some cultural things and they will say, "Thanks maam, you are more Indian than our own Indian women." But these same women would majorly clash with these men and their mothers (ha!) if they had to live in an Indian home for more than a few weeks.
"Couldn’t care less about those people, but this topic invites ire from the left."
Who cares? The lid blew off the pot almost 20 years ago with the "gori blogs". Did you ever read those? Hilarious accounts of goris dating or married to desi guys. No Himalayan stone was left unturned.
I’ve never seen a gori blog but I will; sounds “enlightening”. You are correct that desi women are not treated well by desi men in my experience. Men outside the community have always respected me more. It’s pretty verboten to say though. Western values make a difference in how people relate to each other. Everyone puts Indians in the one box, but those of us raised here versus those who emigrated are fundamentally different in our personalities and approach to everything.
"Everyone puts Indians in the one box, but those of us raised here versus those who emigrated are fundamentally different in our personalities and approach to everything."
What about the current view that Indians in the diaspora tend to be "behind" Indians in India? They say a 50 year diasporic desi is more old-school and traditional or "backwards" than a desi in India because the former's concept of "Indian culture" is based on 30 years ago, the way India was just before they left. In the meantime "Indian culture" in India has evolved.
And now ultra-right wing Islam is "having a moment" amongst Manosphere and "red pill" men. They think as soon as they convert to Islam some imam somewhere will hand them 4 wives.
Anuradha, I enjoyed reading this piece. It left me with much to mull over, so I wasn't ready to comment immediately after reading. I agree with Jen below about your courage to write so transparently about yourself, your relationship with men and women, and how you've evolved along with the culture around you.
I relate to much of what you write. I worked on the Gender Equity & Governance team at a large, California-based private foundation. The team was made up of mostly feminist activists who share many of the traits you describe above. Ironically, they would come to me regularly to vent about how they were bullied and subjected to purity tests in feminist spaces. (And, generally, they were into astrology and fortune-telling — the kind of lack of agency/control you describe well.) Their default was indeed to point to systemic oppression (capitalism, patriarchy, white supremacy) to explain every perceived injustice, inequity, and obstacle to well-being. Any mention of agency, personal growth, or meritocracy was maligned as capitalist/patriarchal/white supremacist. And yet, as you'd surmise, they generally went to the most expensive liberal arts and Ivy League universities.
Reading your piece was cathartic, and that you're a woman probably helped me absorb the arguments without the male progressive's knee-jerk shame when reading critiques of feminism. At the same time, I'd like to push back against some of your claims in the spirit of good old-fashioned Substack dialectics. You write that:
"Liberal elites can only get to an elite rung of society through discipline, hard work, and delaying gratification, which denotes an internal locus of control."
I agree, and being raised by Tiger Parents is perhaps the ultimate privilege. (At least for accumulating status and retirement savings, though perhaps not for happiness and life-enjoyment!) But isn't it also true that liberal elites often get to the elite rung of society through legacy admissions, SAT tutors, implicit knowledge of social protocol, not having to work in high school, and hundreds of other little advantages that my former colleagues perhaps would have dubbed "systemic oppression?"
You describe eloquently the way you coped with the anxiety from your perfectionism by blaming men as untrustworthy, uncaring, and oppressive. I am glad that you know longer feel this way and that you've found a partner who supports your emotional well-being and your intellect. I also sense that you're realization that men are not trash has allowed you to explore parts of yourself that you describe as more masculine, parts that perhaps weren't valued when you identified as a feminist.
I wonder, though, how are you guarding against a reactionary turn? It seems that you're tapping into some anger and discomfort against women that you had suppressed. Do you feel that there's a risk that the pendulum might swing too far, that you might preclude yourself from healthy friendships with someone and even parts of your own femininity by turning away from the less-healthy aspects of your feminist past?
I ask you these questions because I ask them of myself as well. I find myself drawn to smart, disaffected liberals who want to reclaim an internal locus of control, but I'm weary of blaming wokeness for all of society's ills in the same way I'm skeptical of blaming systemic oppression for our personal problems. I'm worried that in turning so sharply toward individual agency, we'll lose sight of the importance of addressing real injustices passed down across generations through class, caste, race, gender, sexuality, attractiveness, and more.
These days, I am asking myself: How can men and women best understand and accept one another? How can we best support each other, including when we want to explore our masculine and feminine energies? How can we develop an internal locus of control that rejects knee-jerk victimization while recognizing and address true injustices, new and old?
I have a feeling you'll enjoy Emma Green's newest piece about the Classical Education movement as a response to the rise of woke ideology in education. Again, I find myself thinking, as does Emma, don't we want the best of both?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/03/18/have-the-liberal-arts-gone-conservative
I feel sheepish about leaving such a long comment. I hope you take it as a compliment for giving me so much to think about. I look forward to reading more of your writing.
I've tried to type this out several times because it's a lot but:
Tiger parents, imo, are not a privilege. It's a cultural thing, and so if one says it's a privilege then they're also admitting that certain cultural inclinations produce superior outcomes, of which many are unwilling to speak. I also reject the concept of privilege itself, because it doesn't recognize the extent to which material deprivation cancels out every single other privilege. If you're a white man without a degree and job prospects, or a white woman struggling to make ends meet, you don't have white privilege, full stop. The only source of privilege to me is that of capital ownership - there is no power in this world without money backing it, but people don't like to talk about that.
"But isn't it also true that liberal elites often get to the elite rung of society through legacy admissions, SAT tutors, implicit knowledge of social protocol, not having to work in high school, and hundreds of other little advantages that my former colleagues perhaps would have dubbed "systemic oppression?"
Your former colleagues are also wrong about this, because doing all of this requires an internal locus of control. They're also probably saying it because they feel an amount of guilt over their access to it. Not working during high school is a function of material privilege, as is the access to SAT tutors, etc. The implicit knowledge of social protocol is another one that grates on me, because it's again related to a lack of mixing across classes, not races or genders. POC who are upper class in this group of people know the protocols; they're not systematically oppressed in that way, unless your colleagues are accounting for class privilege and not just race. They also had to have an internal locus of control to even take the SAT prep classes, so this is another example of a luxury belief Rob Henderson has talked about in his book and substack. You might also check out the Tyranny of Merit by Michael Sandel; he dives into this question.
"I wonder, though, how are you guarding against a reactionary turn?"
I've been asked this by male friends and my partner. I know many women who aren't enamored by the cultural turn. I mostly keep my distance and don't talk when the people around me talk about these things because it is never taken well, out of self protection. I also would never politically advocate conservatism in the way it manifests in the US. I might be misunderstanding what you mean by reactionary, though. I still value my friendships with women, but I've learned to be wary of organizations that are primarily women. I've just never fit.
"How can men and women best understand and accept one another? How can we best support each other, including when we want to explore our masculine and feminine energies? How can we develop an internal locus of control that rejects knee-jerk victimization while recognizing and address true injustices, new and old?"
1. Acceptance and understanding come from resisting the urge to form social hierarchies and the urge to shut down conversation in which fundamental disagreements are aired. Until we stop acquiescing to these anti-social tendencies, understanding doesn't happen.
2. About energies, people are simultaneously aware of gender performance but unwilling to grant that a person might just have some tendencies coded as masculine or feminine that should be accepted and considered normal. I could say I'm a trans man, but that wouldn't be true. On the other hand, if I said that, would I have more acceptance among my peers? I'm going to speculate that I would.
3. "How can we develop an internal locus of control that rejects knee-jerk victimization while recognizing and address true injustices, new and old?"
This requires getting off Tik Tok and social media in general. People don't read books, and that's part of the problem. After I got off SM and read heavily, I changed my mindset. Jonathan Haidt sparked the turning with Coddling. It also requires recognizing class privilege as the ultimate one and focusing on the lack of access to capital for most people to truly self-determine. We have too many injustices about which we care, from emojis to race (I kid you not about the emojis). Attention is finite, and we're just giving it away to these ad platforms while forming our identities on them.
This was a thoughtful and complex response. I relate to and agree with almost all of it. In a way, your politics strikes me as Marxist — focusing on class as the key driver of alienation and social division — even if it aligns with more recent conservative rhetoric.
By “reactionary,” I suppose I sense that you used to unfairly blame men for your unhappiness and social ills broadly. Your more recent writing blames feminists. I’d like to see more writing on Substack that points to a positive vision we can aspire to. Less “how feminists are ruining the world” and more “the value of friendships/collaborations between men and women.” I suppose I should take my own advice. Time to start drafting this week’s newsletter!
And thanks for the thoughtful engagement. It’s rare for me to come across this level of intellectual honesty. I value it.
I do plan to articulate something positive, thanks for that suggestion. I think I’m working through a lot of anger through my writing at the moment because which I want to tear down the entire ideological edifice, but I think I’m getting to what you’re saying through close readings of certain texts. I just wrote 2k words on yoga of knowledge of and action from the Bhagavad Gita and how they apply to modern life. As a woman I think I got ideas about virtue from philosophy that I can’t find elsewhere, and realized I used the chase the illusion of virtue as depicted by outward tribal affiliations based on physical appearance and social expectations. I also have read a few platonic dialogues but don’t yet feel qualified to comment upon them. Maybe once I get through Nicomachean Ethics. I can state unequivocally that philosophy was the light at the end of the feminist tunnel for me.
"(And, generally, they were into astrology and fortune-telling — the kind of lack of agency/control you describe well.)"
That's a strange cultural perspective. In the cultural heritage from which Anuradha comes, astrology is very much a patriarchal and male dominated field. And it has nothing to with "lack of agency or control".
It's interesting how the same activities get gendered differently in different cultures. Yoga is another one. There are so many.
You’re right about Indian astrology but western astrology is largely the domain of women who’ve discarded religion. There’s a great book about this, Strange Rites
I think westerners into Indian astrology are majority women as well, no?
I haven't met anyone who is into Indian astro because it's actually quite intellectually involved to understand. I personally found western astro far easier. That's probably part of it.
I've met several westerners who study what they call "vedic astrology".
I am an astrologer who has lived in liberal western Oregon for her entire life. I often say Oregon is the best place on Earth to learn astrology and the worst place on Earth to be any good at it. It's the best place to learn astrology because our kneejerk hostility toward norms and authority makes room for quirks like astrology -- at least that's not any worse than the World Naked Bike Ride, right? The surface-level understanding that one does whatever obnoxious thing on account of their Sun sign also integrates well enough with a culture that seeks to pin blame on anything imaginable but the individual.
Once you get deeper into astrology, though, you learn about Saturn -- personal responsibility. When the ongoing cycles of Saturn interact with your birth chart, you are often shown the consequences, bad or good, of whatever choices you have made. See enough of that, and you start to have trouble fitting in here.
In the civilization from whence Anuradha's heritage comes, astrology is very much a patriarchal, male dominated field.
You're not wrong about this, either.
I'm not an expert on Anuradha's heritage, and I only have a basic idea of Vedic astrology. I think the tendency to grab the nearest straw to justify whatever one wanted to do anyway is pretty universal, though — regardless of whether other cultural factors push you toward strict patriarchy or irresponsible puerarchy. It is remarkable that truth ever gets past any of our biases, but looking at actual astrological transits and watching how they manifest in people's lives can help.
Eva, I'm really torn on astrology. On the one hand, the effects of planets have correlated with certain events/tendencies, but on the other...it still is 'intuitional', and, as you said, gives one a reason to to anything as long as the planets indicate it. I don't know if you were heading down this path but I've come to see astrology as part of the 'new spirituality' that women in particular here are cobbling together to counter the oppressive structures of organized religion (particularly exacerbated by the sexual revolution). I still dabble in western astrology (Eastern requires actual study) and things like tarot, but I've come to see them as a distraction from actual spirituality.
What motivated me to go into astrology was family conflict. My family was split between conservative Christians and materialist atheists. When I came of age, I was expected to pick a side, and I didn't want to do that. Both sides were right about some things and wrong about some things. The conservative Christians were right about the idea that there is more than the physical world and wrong about gay marriage. The materialist atheists were right about gay marriage and wrong about the idea that there is not more than the physical world. I therefore set out on my own path that was neither of theirs.
I suppose you could say that the sexual revolution played a part in me leaving the oppressive structures of organized religion. I can see what you are potentially hinting at, that the new spirituality that has replaced organized religion is in many cases uncomfortably loosey-goosey.
I think we will never get rid of Saturn, the force of limits and reality — and it often takes people new to the new spirituality a while to figure this out. I don't want conservative religions and social structures to impose their vision of Saturn on everyone else. I do want people to freely make their own decisions and also accept the consequences of those decisions. In terms of the sexual revolution, I would say people should have the right to try different things, and whether or not they have a happy outcome should then be between them and reality, not between them and society.
I think getting in the middle of someone else's war on reality is like getting in the middle of a married couple's fight with each other — it only ends with both sides mad at you. Let people fight their own battles and learn their own lessons.
The author of that book I was talking about points out that in place of Christianity, and religion in general, they’ve created bespoke religions to have a sense of community and meaning, of which social justice and things like yoga and astrology are part. I think western educated people are wrong to abandon religion overall, and there’s the additional phenomenon of many being attracted to eastern religions and taking what they like from there. I suppose it’s not different than what I did. I found that when I had zero focus on something outside myself, I was miserable. When I started listening to what Saturn was telling me (because I do think he’s representative of real phenomena and this is the same concept of Saturn in Hindu astrology) my life got on the right track. It was about temperance. I kept ignoring it.
"I don't know if you were heading down this path but I've come to see astrology as part of the 'new spirituality' that women in particular here are cobbling together to counter the oppressive structures of organized religion (particularly exacerbated by the sexual revolution). "
--- The way this is worded I don't understand what it is that was exacerbated by the SR.
The sexual revolution exacerbated the move away from Christianity because of its conservatism re: sex and gender. The christianity-shaped hole was filled by alternative, bespoke religions and communities. Religion in the west is generally seen as oppressive and patriarchal.
I deeply appreciate the depth of this comment, and I will respond at length in a little bit, and please don't feel sheepish. It is a high compliment that people want to engage on a deep level, and it's why I write! You've given me a lot to think about. In short though, I agree that I should address what you bring up, and I've also been thinking a lot about how this worldview is essentially conservative. I don't want to become a reactionary, though.
Interesting — parts of this, especially the part about always having to be right, remind me of the Jungian psychology concept of the "animus-possessed woman." The animus is a woman's inner masculine side (the equivalent for a man is the anima, his inner feminine side). If she doesn't deal with masculine qualities in a conscious way, they don't disappear; they just come out of her in a weird and distorted way, sometimes to the extent that they could be said to possess her.
This intriguing, thanks for the thought; I will have to look further into this. I'm curious then how the feminine parts of men would manifest..
Emo guys, hysterical style of argument, misunderstood artist types. Pre-Substack, I used to participate in a regular email exchange with my father, his brothers, and their father. They were definitely an example of men with anima energy way out of control -- I felt like they were looking to me, a much younger woman, to stabilize them emotionally, and it was scary for me to feel that much responsibility.
Well this explains why my marriage fell apart; too much of the opposing energies in both of us that we couldn’t manage for the other person
To clarify, the family emails were fights about politics and religion.
Super thoughtful and challenging.
I love this. You bring up so many valid points that most people are afraid to touch. (Myself included).
I’m grateful to hearing your perspective on this given your background as a feminist. Thank you 🙏
Thank you Jen, that means so much coming from a woman writer I admire! And I appreciate the validation of these things because I was the most afraid to post this of all I have so far. People irl just don’t want to hear it so I’m happy to have found women who think similarly.
I truly appreciate you! I look forward to reading more of your work.
Political activism is a topic I know little about (having not lived it) and I find it fascinating. I do believe the root cause of many of societal issues today is mental health and I think its important to call it out when you see it.
Thank you for your vulnerability in writing this!