Writing an article about governance and sensemaking, and I'm curious about what folks, especially women, in the DAO/governance space think/feel about this section, namely this distinction between systematic and empathic thinking, and how our collective discourse around governance is skewed to the former.

Head of Community at Fuel | Founding member @journodao | 500RYT Yogi | Former Consensys & @unlockprotocol 

Wild West Native, building Chones.xyz and nurturing the Infinite Garden  /chones 

Organization services: www.clinamenic.com
 // 
Newsletter: solosalon.clinamenic.com // @journodao @opencivics // /journalism /philanthropy

@cstreet @borrowlucid.eth @lizzybeth does any of this track?

Ah thanks for correcting the yin/yang confusion! I also like the idea of using terms like masculine/feminine, or anima/animus like @morereese suggests.

Actually— the yang is the masculine, so it would be that the systematic and binary nature of DAO governance is more yang, where as the empathetic tendencies that are necessary to create balanced governance are more feminine, the yin. I think this is pretty accurate, the binary, more logical and masculine nature of most DAOs makes it hard for women to find their space and make their voices heard. I personally am more comfortable in masculine settings because of my upbringing in sports at a time where women’s sports weren’t a thing. I do believe that the balance of masculine/feminine— and not attached to gender— is necessary for a healthy organizational structure.

With governance? Yeah... one can only take so much arguing from dudes online haha

i think i might be too disillusioned to contribute anything useful