Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Tim Helm's avatar

I enjoyed this. Why bother tut-tutting? Just move on.

(Disclaimer: I write for this Substack, but I've never met the author of this post).

Yes from me on knowledge exclusivity.

Yes from me on integrity.

No on feminisation - the causal link was hinted at but not fleshed out.

Reverse causality is very plausible ("feminisation is the canary of devaluation").

University jobs became commoditised and lower status, so men left for other pursuits. This is perfectly compatible with a feminist critique: "regardless of merit, men get more high-status jobs, and male-dominated fields secure higher pay".

Alternatively, administrative bloat is an omitted variable explaining both (a) feminisation of uni workforces and (b) devaluation of the uni product. Again: feminisation as canary.

I wanted to see the other causal claim explored ("feminisation contributes to devaluation").

Not because I have priors. But because the question is worth asking, even if just to reject the claim. No scientific question is off-limits, no matter the perceived offense.

Starting point: men and women are different (with wide distributions around the average). Men are confrontational; women conciliatory. Men focus outward ("understand my world"); women focus inward ("understand myself"). Men rotate shapes (fight the other tribe) and women intuit emotions (avoid fights in theirs). Men make war, women make peace. Etcetera. There are numerous such differences.

Therefore, as sex composition shifts, workplace culture and output will naturally shift. Often this is for the better (I'm glad my 7-year old goes to primary school in 2025, not 1925).

I can think of a few angles to explore vis-a-vis university education. No doubt there are many others.

Here are a handful.

1. Science demands confrontation between people. You do not sharpen ideas by appeasing the ego of the top dog. Agreeing to disagree does not help push along knowledge. Men should do better at science (they do). Making the emotional environment kinder for people with dumb ideas will not help science. Feminising uni employment might dull the culture of confrontation in universities as places of research.

2. Learning demands confrontation with oneself. You must whack your prior beliefs with new ideas that might prevail. Handling confusion, failure, and shame constructively is helpful. Women should do better at learning (they do). Making the emotional environment kinder for people with dumb ideas will help learning. Feminising uni employment will improve the culture of humility in universities as places of learning.

3. Teaching demands confrontation with the student while empathising with their emotional challenge. The best teachers break you, like men do best, but care for you, like women do best. So does feminisation per se help or hinder university teaching? It's not clear.

The claim that university feminisation is bad is far from self evident. For every man prepared to put a pointed, ego-destroying question to an eminent scholar I've seen another pose a flabby, ego-serving one to bignote himself. For every woman humbly acknowledging the limits of our collective wisdom, I've seen another unwilling to call bullshit on the man pretending to know it all.

Nice column. Thanks.

Expand full comment
James's avatar

The post makes valid points about the state of the university sector and the tertiary education industry, in how many Australian universities function as glorified degree mills, tolerate poor academic standards and treat foreign students as bags of money to be looted.

But the rambling about 'feminisation' is frankly just bizarre. To be fair to the guest author, he does states that he views feminisation as "the canary in the coal mine, a harbinger of devaluation" rather than feminisation being the cause of devaluation.

But his assertion that 'feminisation of male spaces is associated with devaluation' is based off selective evidence, and contradicted by other examples. He points to certain industries where the growth of female employment coincided with a devaluation of quality and prestige, but it's just as easy to point to other industries where growth in female employment didn't lead to a devaluation of quality and prestige.

Did the growth of female employment in the healthcare sector coincide with a decline in the quality and standards of doctors and surgeons? Did the growth of female employment in STEM related research fields coincide with a decline in the quality of research relating to the natural sciences and high technology?

I think most people would agree with the view that there hasn't been a devaluation of quality and prestige in these professions as these professions became more feminized.

And besides that, his ramblings about 'feminisation' don't really seem to have any logical link to the other main themes of the essay, the impacts of technology and immigration on the university sector. It seems like some unusual side tangent that could have been cut out completely, and the rest of the essay still would have made all of its relevant points. Completely irrelevant in relation to the rest of the essay

Oh, and some of his remarks and notions about what he refers to as 'Indians' are bizarre and crude.

Emphasis on the point of what he views as 'Indians' because he's sort of made an assumption that the people he's referring to are all from India, rather than any of the other countries of the Indian Subcontinent, whether they be Bangladeshi, Nepalese, Sri Lankan or Pakistani.

He didn't really know for certain where these people were from, he just made an assumption based off conjecture. 'They have brown skin, oh they must all be 'Indians'

This habit of making assumptions without evidence wouldn't be particularly important if it didn't bleed out into his ramblings, such as his off-handed remark that "Indians often have a different cultural value on cheating, coming from a highly competitive society with limited resources, cheating is a means to an end".

It's a crude assertion, based more off vulgar stereotypes than actual sociological or anthropological evidence.

Expand full comment
16 more comments...

No posts