We are constantly hearing about how women are becoming ‘more masculine’---that their personalities are increasingly more like those of men. But when this said, what is meant is not that women are becoming self-reliant or courageous or enterprising or willing to break from the herd in order to do what is right or otherwise wiling to endure adversity to stand for a principle.
When is it said that women are ‘becoming more masculine’, what is said is not that women are acquiring any distinctively masculine virtues, but rather that women are becoming bossier and less empathic and less stereotypically feminine.
In other words, what is meant is that women are losing female virtues, not gaining masculine virtues.
And this is indeed the case.
So-called ‘masculine women’ are incredibly bitchy, but they are not strong. They all are arch conformists and always toe the line. In fact, they are incredibly aggressive enforcers of the status quo.
So-called ‘masculine women’ almost never start businesses of scale. When they ‘rise in the business world’, it is only because the company in question has become a giant bureaucracy which is replete with so-called management positions that involve doing nothing and to which, thanks to affirmative action, women are automatically promoted. Today’s “she e o’s” are just bureaucrats; they are not company builders.
Even the most masculine women always end up working for bureaucracies, usually social service or educational bureaucracies. They never start businesses, apart mickey mouse ones that involve selling hand-made hats or quilts or whatnot.
The proverbial ‘bull dyke’ is very likely to work for child protective services, but the likelihood that she is doing something entrepreneurial or otherwise not totally bureaucratic is pretty much zero.
By contrast, flamboyantly gay men are often brilliant entrepreneurs
So-called ‘masculine women’ are bitchy and bossy, and therefore depart from some or other of femininity. But to say of such women that the are genuinely masculine is deeply misleading. They are not masculine. They are actually hyper-feminine, except that their femininity is what femininity becomes when drained of feminine virtues. Bitchiness and bossiness are self-indulgent and emotional; they embody a need to be accepted. Yes, they involve a desire to dominate, but the end-game of bitchy bossiness is moving up a hierarchy of social acceptance. When men attempt to dominate, it is so that they no longer have to accepted; their objective is to be the ones who make the rules, so that they it doesn’t matter whether they are square with the rules. With women, dominance is about occupying a top-positoin in a pre-existing hierarchy and, on the basis, having universal acceptance.
The reason ambitious men are often difficult and abrasive is precisely that their objective is to not have to be accepted. But when women are bitchy and snippy and petty, it is precisely because their objective is to be accepted; they are trying to jockey their up an approval totem-pole. So while there may be superficially masculine character to female bitchiness, the latter is in actuality the antithesis of masculinity.
No, women are not becoming more masculine. They are becoming more amoral and therefore more devoid of virtue and therefore more devoid of feminine virtues. But they are not acquiring masculine virtues. And they aren’t even acquiring masculine vices. When a man has vices, those vices involve his trying to achieve dominance in the wrong ways---through crime, delinquency, an anti-social conduct. Male viciousness is not about wanting to be accepted; it is about wanting to have power, but going about it in an unprincipled way. Female viciousness---what is now referred to as ‘masculinity in women’—is about being accepted. It is about showing up to Bernie rallies and virtue signaling, and being more ‘acceptable’ than other women and being petty and underhanded in pursuit of acceptance from others.
And that is why the masculinization of women is no solution to the problems created by the feminization of men. When women are ‘masculinized’, they are not really being masculinized; they are just being very petty and amoral in their pursuit of thoroughly feminine objectives.
Flamboyantly gay men are often extremely successful entrepreneurs, but the most extreme bull dyke absolutely never engages in entrepreneurship of any kind. She is always a bureaucrat of some kind, and her ‘activism’ is the antithesis of actual rebellion, as it involves her being part of giant collectives of people who are there to engage in non-stop mutual virtue signaling and are therefore totally non-and therefore the opposite of masculine.
Feminism didn’t make women stronger; it made them more amoral. Which they seem to think made them stronger, the idea being that conscience restricts. But even this sort of female amorality is different from the amorality of the male criminal. In a man, criminality is about creating new opportunities for oneself. In a woman, amorality in women doesn’t create new opportunities for oneself. All the new opportunities that women have are due, not to their amorality or to their having shucked off conventional feminine identities; those opportunities are simply given to them by the government and aggressively enforced by the police. So whereas male amorality is about opening opportunities outside of the system, female amorality is a form of dependence on the system, showing how categorically incapable women are of assuming male roles.