“Why Can’t a Woman Be More Like a Man?” — Henry Higgins

Those are the words librettist Alan Jay Lerner penned for the fictional professor Henry Higgins in the 1956 musical “My Fair Lady,” and honestly, it could have been the title of Helen Andrews’ much-discussed recent essay in Compact. She called it “The Great Feminization” but her screed is very much a hymn to men.

Andrews’ essay has received applause from the right, where caveman masculinity is making a comeback, but she has fallen into the trap of black-and-white thinking.

Andrews has discovered that men and women are different. A random woman may be taller than a random man, she notes, but on average, most men are taller than most women. I’m not entirely mocking her for this observation. For decades, there were academics and others who denied that sex differences were innate, arguing instead that nearly everything was “socially constructed.” But even with this seemingly anodyne observation, Andrews sails over the top.

Andrews argues that because women are more oriented toward cooperation than competition, they will undermine high standards, striving and excellence in favor of a “workplace (that) feels like a Montessori kindergarten.” Caricature is not argument.

Labeling traits as “toxic,” whether it’s the progressives saying as much about male aggression or the right saying it about female cooperation, is reductionist and simpleminded. All human beings have some mix of these traits, and wisdom comes from recognizing how to appreciate difference without judgment, how to modify innate traits for social good and how to mine what is best in all. Yes, boys must be taught to curb their natural aggression and channel their energy toward protecting rather than dominating those who are weaker. And yes, girls have to be socialized to curb their cliquishness and include rather than exclude. And if some boys have more female qualities and some girls have more masculine traits, that’s fine, too.

On average, women do tend to prefer work that is interpersonal to work that is solitary. In my 2018 book, “Sex Matters,” I quoted social scientist Patti Hausman on the question of why more women don’t pursue careers in engineering: “Wherever you go, you will find females far less likely than males to see what is so fascinating about ohms, carburetors, or quarks. Reinventing the curriculum will not make me more interested in learning how my dishwasher works.” That, and not “social engineering” as Andrews argues, largely accounts for why women now dominate the fields of psychology and human resources. These are free choices of free people.

Men do tend to be more comfortable with risk-taking, less aware of social cues and less averse to open conflict than women. But noticing these differences should be intriguing, not an opportunity to weaponize.

Andrews and the right are painting a cartoonish image of men and women. And they’re playing a dangerous game. Alienating 51% of the population is unlikely to go well for them.