Good post. The discussion of elite women before industrialization is good. I just read Lord David Cecil's life of Lord Melbourne, the British Prime Minister when Victoria acceded to the throne in 1837. The depiction of his early life, and his mother's role in running the family enterprise, engaging in status competitions, placing her sons on the path to success, and her daughters in good marriages, is exactly as you describe here. A very good book generally as well.
"There is a certain kind of woman who will never be satisfied with this, and it’s just as necessary they have a role."
Perhaps in the here and now, in the sense of not wanting to exclude anybody. But in the long-term... why? I mean, if these women choose to not reproduce, then that's their choice. If they choose to not reproduce, there will likely be fewer women like them in the future.
What you wrote here is good, and provides good reason to not be hateful towards "girl-bosses". You've made it clear that they're victims themselves to some degree.
But... let's look at it from two perspectives. Evolutionary and Christian. I'd guess almost everybody here believes in at least one of the two, some might believe in both.
From an evolutionary perspective, it's all about reproduction and ensuring your children likewise reproduce. If certain traits cause you to not reproduce, then that means they're not well-adapted to the current environment. We might like some of these traits, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in the process of becoming obsolete (or at least less common). Which means that Nature itself is saying that these traits typically don't work any more.
From a Christian perspective... is it better to seek status, or to seek honor? In my reading of the Gospels, Christ didn't encourage His disciples to seek status for its own sake. Christ was also quite critical of the high-status Pharisees. At the same time, Christ's teachings could be seen as encouraging people to live highly honorable lives, to care about the less fortunate, to never make false promises, to put others before yourself. I think this would include putting the well-being of your own children ahead of your career or job.
So if the modern girlboss is at odds with both (current) Nature and Nature's God, then perhaps we should calmly accept what is to come?
Also, the Genghis Khan comparison... I mean, there's a certain compelling logic there. It makes sense. But... do we want more or fewer *Genghis Khans* in our world?
I think an argument can be made that too many people in our society value status over everything else. To be clear, this is certainly not just an issue for women, it's also an issue for men. Also, status by itself is morally neutral. It's like a tool, whether it's good or bad depends entirely on what it's used for. Honor, on the other hand, is inherently good. If the vast majority of people live in an honorable way it creates high-trust societies that are better for all of us.
In elite society, one's position in employment gives access to people who can give their child a leg-up in life. Seeking status is not a vice in itself, but one of the easiest things that can turn into one. The problem is, because of the change in the structure of work, status has been transferred from the family to the individual, and has created all sorts of perverse incentives.
I'm not an elite myself, but have relations in those spheres. It's a very different world, with different vices and virtues.
Replying here to correct something I wrote. There was no Genghis Khan comparison... it was a generic warlord comparison. The term "warlord" instantly made me think of Genghis Khan, and that got stuck in my mind. Apologies for the mistake.
This is one of the most insightful things I have read on Substack. I have known of the dynamics you speak of for a long time, but I never quite put together the consequences of them.
I will say this: what if the current corporate structure we have was either deliberately set up like this, or upon discovering this side effect, those at the top did everything possible to expand it?
I believe that the modern public corporation has its purposes. It has advantages, it is one of the most important and useful social technologies to ever exist. It answered for the problem of how to socialize resources without destroying incentives.
But it is only really useful in that context. In the modern economy of financial sleight of hand and pressing up stock prices just to hit the ejection button in an IPO, it is detrimental.
I never previously thought of the detriment to women, or even conceived of the boss lady as aristocracy now forced into the trenches. But it makes a whole lot of sense.
"These women tended to be intelligent, shrewd, and have a deep instinct that complemented their powerful husbands well, and are only a genetic dead-end now because of the perverse incentives of the corporate world."
It's bureaucratic Darwinism - only those who thrive in modern corporations will reproduce and those traits that led to success in earlier periods are now bred out of existence. Soon the world will be filled with just the automatons.
I would disagree. Corporations are either a fertility sink or neutral. I've never seen a company where executives consistently have more kids than the lower levels of the organization.
Good post. The discussion of elite women before industrialization is good. I just read Lord David Cecil's life of Lord Melbourne, the British Prime Minister when Victoria acceded to the throne in 1837. The depiction of his early life, and his mother's role in running the family enterprise, engaging in status competitions, placing her sons on the path to success, and her daughters in good marriages, is exactly as you describe here. A very good book generally as well.
"There is a certain kind of woman who will never be satisfied with this, and it’s just as necessary they have a role."
Perhaps in the here and now, in the sense of not wanting to exclude anybody. But in the long-term... why? I mean, if these women choose to not reproduce, then that's their choice. If they choose to not reproduce, there will likely be fewer women like them in the future.
What you wrote here is good, and provides good reason to not be hateful towards "girl-bosses". You've made it clear that they're victims themselves to some degree.
But... let's look at it from two perspectives. Evolutionary and Christian. I'd guess almost everybody here believes in at least one of the two, some might believe in both.
From an evolutionary perspective, it's all about reproduction and ensuring your children likewise reproduce. If certain traits cause you to not reproduce, then that means they're not well-adapted to the current environment. We might like some of these traits, but that doesn't change the fact that they're in the process of becoming obsolete (or at least less common). Which means that Nature itself is saying that these traits typically don't work any more.
From a Christian perspective... is it better to seek status, or to seek honor? In my reading of the Gospels, Christ didn't encourage His disciples to seek status for its own sake. Christ was also quite critical of the high-status Pharisees. At the same time, Christ's teachings could be seen as encouraging people to live highly honorable lives, to care about the less fortunate, to never make false promises, to put others before yourself. I think this would include putting the well-being of your own children ahead of your career or job.
So if the modern girlboss is at odds with both (current) Nature and Nature's God, then perhaps we should calmly accept what is to come?
Also, the Genghis Khan comparison... I mean, there's a certain compelling logic there. It makes sense. But... do we want more or fewer *Genghis Khans* in our world?
I think an argument can be made that too many people in our society value status over everything else. To be clear, this is certainly not just an issue for women, it's also an issue for men. Also, status by itself is morally neutral. It's like a tool, whether it's good or bad depends entirely on what it's used for. Honor, on the other hand, is inherently good. If the vast majority of people live in an honorable way it creates high-trust societies that are better for all of us.
In elite society, one's position in employment gives access to people who can give their child a leg-up in life. Seeking status is not a vice in itself, but one of the easiest things that can turn into one. The problem is, because of the change in the structure of work, status has been transferred from the family to the individual, and has created all sorts of perverse incentives.
I'm not an elite myself, but have relations in those spheres. It's a very different world, with different vices and virtues.
Replying here to correct something I wrote. There was no Genghis Khan comparison... it was a generic warlord comparison. The term "warlord" instantly made me think of Genghis Khan, and that got stuck in my mind. Apologies for the mistake.
This is one of the most insightful things I have read on Substack. I have known of the dynamics you speak of for a long time, but I never quite put together the consequences of them.
I will say this: what if the current corporate structure we have was either deliberately set up like this, or upon discovering this side effect, those at the top did everything possible to expand it?
I believe that the modern public corporation has its purposes. It has advantages, it is one of the most important and useful social technologies to ever exist. It answered for the problem of how to socialize resources without destroying incentives.
But it is only really useful in that context. In the modern economy of financial sleight of hand and pressing up stock prices just to hit the ejection button in an IPO, it is detrimental.
I never previously thought of the detriment to women, or even conceived of the boss lady as aristocracy now forced into the trenches. But it makes a whole lot of sense.
Yet another reason to dislike the current system
"These women tended to be intelligent, shrewd, and have a deep instinct that complemented their powerful husbands well, and are only a genetic dead-end now because of the perverse incentives of the corporate world."
It's bureaucratic Darwinism - only those who thrive in modern corporations will reproduce and those traits that led to success in earlier periods are now bred out of existence. Soon the world will be filled with just the automatons.
I would disagree. Corporations are either a fertility sink or neutral. I've never seen a company where executives consistently have more kids than the lower levels of the organization.
there will be fewer and fewer execs too, only room for an oligopoly. (All of this is tongue in cheek)
There was probably a moment in time, between Mad Men and Roe v Wade, when executives had illegitimate children.
The more things change the more they stay the same