Feminization is, absolutely, the problem here. It seems that we have collectively realized it, even if not ready to state it out loud (though I've been pointing it out for quite some time now.) One of the biggest vectors is the childless women who've made proxy children of black criminals and immigrants.
At a recent faculty meeting (English Language Learning) our "there's no difference between men and women" star millennial passed out orange tags with instructions on how to prevent ICE from kidnapping our students. No discernment between international students and illegal immigrants. You could see the expansive pride she took in this mamma bear bullshit. In union meetings, she wasn't addressing the policies, but the emotions, e.g. "we're family and they can't treat family that way!" Hearts flew out of the chat. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. It was she who also was tasked with informing us ignorant Boomers on things we can no longer say in class, such as "Where are you from?" No cognizance of the consequences of enabling feeling offended by such a benign question.
This week, one of the female faculty (she's Gen X, or maybe even a Boomer) pled with the director to hold class online because the 90-degree temperature in the forecast came with an air quality warning. So the director gave us the option to hold class online because 'coming to school in the heat will be challenging.'
This irritated me to no end. It caused some chaos, as well. I kept my irritation to myself in my response, saying, "I'll hold class in person as usual." Then the students emailed me because 'all the other teachers were holding class online." I responded, No sorry we are having class in person no matter what the other teachers are doing (as I had told them the day before).
"Challenging." My own commute involved walking four blocks in a temperature of 82 degrees to the air conditioned subway. Then another four blocks in 84 degrees to the air conditioned school.
Imagine encouraging students to feel that they shouldn't have to go outside of their homes on a hot day. It's beyond ridiculous -- and so -- FEMININE.
I have also seen, time and again, emotional assertions replacing evidence in research papers, with no intervention by the (female) professor.
You hear a lot about ideological indoctrination on Substack, and there’s definitely some of that. The bigger problem is a kind of temperamental shift: discomfort and challenges are bad, competition is toxic, everyone deserves great things and should be affirmed. These aren’t just wrong… they’re the direct opposite of what I believe is actually true.
If you try to protect people from the world you end up with weak and grasping people, and the world eventually collapses. Life is work and pain. If you do it right you can wrest some connection and fulfillment from it, but denying that just results in misery for the individual and for society. We used to understand this intuitively.
A few years back, I had a student who was fully into genderwoo garbage and was actively recruiting peers to join her. It was a mess. The parents of the other kids were very reasonably upset, and I talked with all of them.
I only talked with one father, and he said, in blunt and no uncertain terms, that he didn't want his child hanging around the other kid ever. And if his child did, let the dad know and he'd take care of it.
All the mothers on the other hand—I'm talking 100% of them—were very concerned but spent most of their time talking about how they try to teach their kids to be nice, to include everyone, etc. They could not say: "I don't want my child around this creep" even though that's what they felt. They had to be nice. They had to be kind. They had to be gentle.
This seems similar to what you write about—masculinity is traditionally associated with drawing the hard lines, enforcing the rules even when it makes a person cry. Femininity is traditionally associated with being soft, with showing empathy.
The problem is we can't have rules based on softness. Rules have to be hard. When we create soft "rules" that nurture dysfunction, we only get more dysfunction!
And just like in the case of my students, nobody is protected or helped by trying to be nice. Only the father who came at the situation with hardness, unconcerned with the feelings of the dysfunctional—only he did anything to protect his child.
I really hesitated before I started using the word ‘feminization’ but I can’t escape my own suspicions - these are problems originally rooted in female psychology. Unfortunately, we’ve got bigger issues now, though. Who’s doing most of the parenting? Teaching? Hiring? Cultural creation?
Men didn’t build and maintain social systems for the good of society, primarily. They did it to enhance their own status and fulfill senses of duty and usefulness, etc. Once that reward mechanism (female attention in reward for male social production) is broken it might be very difficult to reassemble.
And feminization affects us all. The father in your example might have stood strong, but when such people represent 5-10% of a society, and the pressures (conformity, status, money, romantic) are constantly pushing those people to accommodate and change, can they be sufficient to turn the tide? For now they’ll have to be content with doing so in their own lives, but that increasingly means: NO COMPROMISE. As a principled person (man or woman) you can’t give in to the tide of ‘nice’. It’s only when you start to see it that you realize how strong the cultural current really is.
This is why the combination of a devoted mother and father is the best arrangement for parenting. Each sex brings different attributes, and together they make the whole. When one side of the equation is eliminated, disfunction often results.
I think it’s a critical mass question. How many women in positions of power and influence begin to negatively affect the system? It’s below the 50/50 split that (more reasonable) feminists argue for. Far below the number that radical feminists believe will lead to utopia.
If you think women can’t be hard ass and draw lines you don’t know enough women. In spite of acknowledging emotion. What is emotion but a guide to value? It’s the incorrect use of emotion, not emotions themselves that are the problem. After all, we can see what rule by psychopaths is like - people who cannot feel emotion have no capacity for empathy. And here’s another thing - empathy gets a bad name too because it’s applied incorrectly, not because it’s bad in and of itself. Other so-called female traits can be a boon and not a problem in their proper place. For example, the idea that the value of an individual goes beyond their ability to generate profits. There’s no shame in profit, it’s just that we’ve seen a culture where human values and human traits like emotion and empathy were severely undervalued in favor of competition and a winner take all mentality. That is toxic masculinity, not the drive to make things and do great deeds. I don’t deny that at the present moment there is a case for over feminization. Perhaps this is what happens when the pendulum swings- it always goes too far. Somehow getting rid of feminine values and going back to a male centric public culture doesn’t solve this. Let’s recognize what both the masculine and feminine bring to the table.
Psychopaths do have emotions. They lack remorse and empathy. Very often, they are masters of emotional manipulation.
"toxic masculinity"
Flat earth. Lizard people. Martian canals. Cthulu. Those are some other things that don't exist.
Male power was better for everyone. It was more rational, fairer, less divisive, more productive and far more stable. Women were happier before being given everything they thought they wanted, and their influence on culture and politics has been disastrous.
You first argument is merely a matter of semantics. There are a subset of people who do not experience emotion or empathy. They may still be able to manipulate people who do, using observation. One of the current problems in the field of psychology is the variety of definitions for the same words. Someone else might describe a person who feels emotion but uses it to manipulate others as narcissistic. As for your other assertion, I’m not going to argue with using historical examples and evidence because your conclusion is obviously based on an emotional decision. It’s kind of obvious that you argue backwards from the conclusion you prefer. No one interested in reality makes such sweeping generalizations. But lots of people who have an emotional investment in feeling superior to others do.
IF both act in the roles GOD created them for then the world is balanced. I see it too often in people of both genders (there are ONLY 2) that one of the underlying issues is no father in the house and a mother working outside the home. This is a plan put in place many years ago to 1-destroy the black family which would eventually destroy white families and 2-destroy America itself. There is a book written I think in 1964 that lays this out. Who Killed the American Family...
Well children do need mothers. But not all women become mothers, and some have enough energy and drive to accomplish things while their children are growing up. I would like to see a world where women can choose to make home and children a priority without penalty.
Since Hollywood no longer ever tries to entertain us, Washington, DC has provided us with unlimited Political Theater. The clowns we elect prefer to perform for their partners in crime. If the Dems get more ridiculous, the party should be renamed the Dada Party.
The UK's new abortion law is a perfect example. A mother who aborts her child after the (very generous) term limits can no longer be prosecuted. We've decriminalised murder, but only for women who kill their unborn children. This was done due to an emotional appeal by feminists with the support of spineless male politicians who were afraid to stand against them. Their argument was that the suffering of a tiny number of women who were investigated for procuring abortions after the term limits, after actually having had miscarriages, was unacceptable. The law is irrational as such concerns have never been applied to any other serious crime, and it's selective as the suffering and right to life of the babies was never considered.
It's an absolutely terrible law and will no doubt one day be replaced when the mangled bodies of a few late-term viable babies are found in woodland or rubbish bins and their mothers walk free.
It amazes me how much feeling they have for foreigners and criminals, but less than zero for a child in their own womb. Add to this the lack of responsibility for getting an abortion before the term limit.
One realization that has me reeling, is that putting women in charge is basically destroying our civilization. Killing off children. Wailing that taking care of children is too much work. I posted an article with a headline "I'm 47 and childless. Who will take care of me when I'm old?" and got some woman about my age (60s) going on about how she had two kids, wound up a single mother, it was so hard, therefore it's better to not have children and besides, we shouldn't have them "just" so we have someone to look after us when we're old? She then "argued" that the "trend is to live as far away from family as possible" -- as if that's an argument?
Which is the other issue. Less than zero cognizance of logic. Irrational, petty thinking. No foresight.
And so here we are.
Oh and let's not forget the table of lesbians in their 50s I ran into the other night, one of them proudly chirping: The world doesn't need any more white people!
The Trump administration got in office and did exactly what they were blaming the OBiden and pasted Leftist administration for. DEI Hiring of women in government and political official positions. Right or Left. Women do not belong in official positions in government office or power where critical and logical, reasonably sound thinking decisions need to be made without emotional interference or obstruction and enforced with and by testicular fortitude.
That's absolutely true. The problem is fourfold: women are on average more emotional than men, even if not all of them are; the types of women who get into positions of power are very often self-righteous feminists; the culture itself becomes feminised, affecting men, women and institutions; we are a gynocentric species, so appeals to emotion only work when they come from women or benefit women.
Sure. However your argument is a fallacy. And exceptions do not make the rule. My statement is a generalization. And Generally women make horrible critical decisions based off of emotions. Statistics back this generalization up including women themselves.
No. Your argument is a fallacy. You can go from the specific to the general ie you can make a statement that women (in general) do not make judgements based on solid reason, but you cannot go the other direction and say therefore women (all) do not belong in official positions, which is what you've done. It's a basic sophomoric mistake but don't worry, many people do it and we should all call them out when they do.
First off, do not try and attempt to strawman me here. Your argument is a complete fabricated fallacy. Not mine.
WHERE in my initial statement did I say ALL women? Please, provide proof, evidence and concrete detail. Otherwise stop before you make a fool of yourself. What’s sophomoric is coming into my comment section accusing me a specific statement when I clearly made a generalization. What’s also sophomoric is while you’re so indulged in accusing me of such fallacy you, yourself forgot to read and comprehend my comment. I did say women. However, never did I say all women. There’s a difference. The only specificity is gender itself. Not the inclusion of all gender per based off of merit. This is where the line in the sand is drawn and you are wrong. You can’t attempt to try and sway this argument in your favor by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating my argument. Because you are wrong so you are attempting to make it easier to present your own position as being reasonable by being deceitful. However, this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest and rational debate. You are being deliberately disingenuous. The only person here that needs to be called out here is you and your personal incredulity.
I stand by my original statement. Which is a generalization. “Women do not belong in official positions in government office or power where critical and logical, reasonably sound thinking decisions need to be made without emotional interference or obstruction and enforced with and by testicular fortitude.” There is no “All women” to be found. Furthermore if I were to say: “Men do not belong at all girl schools and or summer camps”.
Is this a specificity or generalization on men? Rhetorical. Because clearly any rational human being would know that there are many men who are employed at all girl schools and summer camps. So exceptions don’t make the rules here either even though it’s still a generalized statement.
Some advice for you? Arguing is not your thing. Stick to ogling your “Girl Insides” substack page.
That issue lies with you. Not me. You’re the one here accusing me of something that does not exist. Supporting it with false accusations. Once you remove your blinding emotions you will clearly see the unadulterated truth.
Feminization is, absolutely, the problem here. It seems that we have collectively realized it, even if not ready to state it out loud (though I've been pointing it out for quite some time now.) One of the biggest vectors is the childless women who've made proxy children of black criminals and immigrants.
At a recent faculty meeting (English Language Learning) our "there's no difference between men and women" star millennial passed out orange tags with instructions on how to prevent ICE from kidnapping our students. No discernment between international students and illegal immigrants. You could see the expansive pride she took in this mamma bear bullshit. In union meetings, she wasn't addressing the policies, but the emotions, e.g. "we're family and they can't treat family that way!" Hearts flew out of the chat. I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. It was she who also was tasked with informing us ignorant Boomers on things we can no longer say in class, such as "Where are you from?" No cognizance of the consequences of enabling feeling offended by such a benign question.
This week, one of the female faculty (she's Gen X, or maybe even a Boomer) pled with the director to hold class online because the 90-degree temperature in the forecast came with an air quality warning. So the director gave us the option to hold class online because 'coming to school in the heat will be challenging.'
This irritated me to no end. It caused some chaos, as well. I kept my irritation to myself in my response, saying, "I'll hold class in person as usual." Then the students emailed me because 'all the other teachers were holding class online." I responded, No sorry we are having class in person no matter what the other teachers are doing (as I had told them the day before).
"Challenging." My own commute involved walking four blocks in a temperature of 82 degrees to the air conditioned subway. Then another four blocks in 84 degrees to the air conditioned school.
Imagine encouraging students to feel that they shouldn't have to go outside of their homes on a hot day. It's beyond ridiculous -- and so -- FEMININE.
I have also seen, time and again, emotional assertions replacing evidence in research papers, with no intervention by the (female) professor.
I'm a woman and I approve this message.
You hear a lot about ideological indoctrination on Substack, and there’s definitely some of that. The bigger problem is a kind of temperamental shift: discomfort and challenges are bad, competition is toxic, everyone deserves great things and should be affirmed. These aren’t just wrong… they’re the direct opposite of what I believe is actually true.
If you try to protect people from the world you end up with weak and grasping people, and the world eventually collapses. Life is work and pain. If you do it right you can wrest some connection and fulfillment from it, but denying that just results in misery for the individual and for society. We used to understand this intuitively.
A few years back, I had a student who was fully into genderwoo garbage and was actively recruiting peers to join her. It was a mess. The parents of the other kids were very reasonably upset, and I talked with all of them.
I only talked with one father, and he said, in blunt and no uncertain terms, that he didn't want his child hanging around the other kid ever. And if his child did, let the dad know and he'd take care of it.
All the mothers on the other hand—I'm talking 100% of them—were very concerned but spent most of their time talking about how they try to teach their kids to be nice, to include everyone, etc. They could not say: "I don't want my child around this creep" even though that's what they felt. They had to be nice. They had to be kind. They had to be gentle.
This seems similar to what you write about—masculinity is traditionally associated with drawing the hard lines, enforcing the rules even when it makes a person cry. Femininity is traditionally associated with being soft, with showing empathy.
The problem is we can't have rules based on softness. Rules have to be hard. When we create soft "rules" that nurture dysfunction, we only get more dysfunction!
And just like in the case of my students, nobody is protected or helped by trying to be nice. Only the father who came at the situation with hardness, unconcerned with the feelings of the dysfunctional—only he did anything to protect his child.
I really hesitated before I started using the word ‘feminization’ but I can’t escape my own suspicions - these are problems originally rooted in female psychology. Unfortunately, we’ve got bigger issues now, though. Who’s doing most of the parenting? Teaching? Hiring? Cultural creation?
Men didn’t build and maintain social systems for the good of society, primarily. They did it to enhance their own status and fulfill senses of duty and usefulness, etc. Once that reward mechanism (female attention in reward for male social production) is broken it might be very difficult to reassemble.
And feminization affects us all. The father in your example might have stood strong, but when such people represent 5-10% of a society, and the pressures (conformity, status, money, romantic) are constantly pushing those people to accommodate and change, can they be sufficient to turn the tide? For now they’ll have to be content with doing so in their own lives, but that increasingly means: NO COMPROMISE. As a principled person (man or woman) you can’t give in to the tide of ‘nice’. It’s only when you start to see it that you realize how strong the cultural current really is.
Do not underestimate the power of a small percentage of men saying “no.” Other men see it.
Don't hesitate. It's the truth, and feminization is killing us.
It's not the woman, per se. It's the out-of-balance when only one side is present (in this case, the feminine).
A society largely run by single dads would also be dysfunctional, albeit differently.
Women nurture, men prepare.
This is why the combination of a devoted mother and father is the best arrangement for parenting. Each sex brings different attributes, and together they make the whole. When one side of the equation is eliminated, disfunction often results.
I think it’s a critical mass question. How many women in positions of power and influence begin to negatively affect the system? It’s below the 50/50 split that (more reasonable) feminists argue for. Far below the number that radical feminists believe will lead to utopia.
If you think women can’t be hard ass and draw lines you don’t know enough women. In spite of acknowledging emotion. What is emotion but a guide to value? It’s the incorrect use of emotion, not emotions themselves that are the problem. After all, we can see what rule by psychopaths is like - people who cannot feel emotion have no capacity for empathy. And here’s another thing - empathy gets a bad name too because it’s applied incorrectly, not because it’s bad in and of itself. Other so-called female traits can be a boon and not a problem in their proper place. For example, the idea that the value of an individual goes beyond their ability to generate profits. There’s no shame in profit, it’s just that we’ve seen a culture where human values and human traits like emotion and empathy were severely undervalued in favor of competition and a winner take all mentality. That is toxic masculinity, not the drive to make things and do great deeds. I don’t deny that at the present moment there is a case for over feminization. Perhaps this is what happens when the pendulum swings- it always goes too far. Somehow getting rid of feminine values and going back to a male centric public culture doesn’t solve this. Let’s recognize what both the masculine and feminine bring to the table.
Psychopaths do have emotions. They lack remorse and empathy. Very often, they are masters of emotional manipulation.
"toxic masculinity"
Flat earth. Lizard people. Martian canals. Cthulu. Those are some other things that don't exist.
Male power was better for everyone. It was more rational, fairer, less divisive, more productive and far more stable. Women were happier before being given everything they thought they wanted, and their influence on culture and politics has been disastrous.
You first argument is merely a matter of semantics. There are a subset of people who do not experience emotion or empathy. They may still be able to manipulate people who do, using observation. One of the current problems in the field of psychology is the variety of definitions for the same words. Someone else might describe a person who feels emotion but uses it to manipulate others as narcissistic. As for your other assertion, I’m not going to argue with using historical examples and evidence because your conclusion is obviously based on an emotional decision. It’s kind of obvious that you argue backwards from the conclusion you prefer. No one interested in reality makes such sweeping generalizations. But lots of people who have an emotional investment in feeling superior to others do.
IF both act in the roles GOD created them for then the world is balanced. I see it too often in people of both genders (there are ONLY 2) that one of the underlying issues is no father in the house and a mother working outside the home. This is a plan put in place many years ago to 1-destroy the black family which would eventually destroy white families and 2-destroy America itself. There is a book written I think in 1964 that lays this out. Who Killed the American Family...
Well children do need mothers. But not all women become mothers, and some have enough energy and drive to accomplish things while their children are growing up. I would like to see a world where women can choose to make home and children a priority without penalty.
Since Hollywood no longer ever tries to entertain us, Washington, DC has provided us with unlimited Political Theater. The clowns we elect prefer to perform for their partners in crime. If the Dems get more ridiculous, the party should be renamed the Dada Party.
It's the longhouse effect.
When your entire career/power is build on it, there's no wonder one resorts to emotion to defend it. It's what works in the longhouse.
I’m speechless so much your article is good, and needed. THANK YOU. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
The UK's new abortion law is a perfect example. A mother who aborts her child after the (very generous) term limits can no longer be prosecuted. We've decriminalised murder, but only for women who kill their unborn children. This was done due to an emotional appeal by feminists with the support of spineless male politicians who were afraid to stand against them. Their argument was that the suffering of a tiny number of women who were investigated for procuring abortions after the term limits, after actually having had miscarriages, was unacceptable. The law is irrational as such concerns have never been applied to any other serious crime, and it's selective as the suffering and right to life of the babies was never considered.
It's an absolutely terrible law and will no doubt one day be replaced when the mangled bodies of a few late-term viable babies are found in woodland or rubbish bins and their mothers walk free.
It amazes me how much feeling they have for foreigners and criminals, but less than zero for a child in their own womb. Add to this the lack of responsibility for getting an abortion before the term limit.
One realization that has me reeling, is that putting women in charge is basically destroying our civilization. Killing off children. Wailing that taking care of children is too much work. I posted an article with a headline "I'm 47 and childless. Who will take care of me when I'm old?" and got some woman about my age (60s) going on about how she had two kids, wound up a single mother, it was so hard, therefore it's better to not have children and besides, we shouldn't have them "just" so we have someone to look after us when we're old? She then "argued" that the "trend is to live as far away from family as possible" -- as if that's an argument?
Which is the other issue. Less than zero cognizance of logic. Irrational, petty thinking. No foresight.
And so here we are.
Oh and let's not forget the table of lesbians in their 50s I ran into the other night, one of them proudly chirping: The world doesn't need any more white people!
The Trump administration got in office and did exactly what they were blaming the OBiden and pasted Leftist administration for. DEI Hiring of women in government and political official positions. Right or Left. Women do not belong in official positions in government office or power where critical and logical, reasonably sound thinking decisions need to be made without emotional interference or obstruction and enforced with and by testicular fortitude.
There are many women who do not make decsions based on emotions.
That's absolutely true. The problem is fourfold: women are on average more emotional than men, even if not all of them are; the types of women who get into positions of power are very often self-righteous feminists; the culture itself becomes feminised, affecting men, women and institutions; we are a gynocentric species, so appeals to emotion only work when they come from women or benefit women.
Sure. However your argument is a fallacy. And exceptions do not make the rule. My statement is a generalization. And Generally women make horrible critical decisions based off of emotions. Statistics back this generalization up including women themselves.
No. Your argument is a fallacy. You can go from the specific to the general ie you can make a statement that women (in general) do not make judgements based on solid reason, but you cannot go the other direction and say therefore women (all) do not belong in official positions, which is what you've done. It's a basic sophomoric mistake but don't worry, many people do it and we should all call them out when they do.
First off, do not try and attempt to strawman me here. Your argument is a complete fabricated fallacy. Not mine.
WHERE in my initial statement did I say ALL women? Please, provide proof, evidence and concrete detail. Otherwise stop before you make a fool of yourself. What’s sophomoric is coming into my comment section accusing me a specific statement when I clearly made a generalization. What’s also sophomoric is while you’re so indulged in accusing me of such fallacy you, yourself forgot to read and comprehend my comment. I did say women. However, never did I say all women. There’s a difference. The only specificity is gender itself. Not the inclusion of all gender per based off of merit. This is where the line in the sand is drawn and you are wrong. You can’t attempt to try and sway this argument in your favor by exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating my argument. Because you are wrong so you are attempting to make it easier to present your own position as being reasonable by being deceitful. However, this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine honest and rational debate. You are being deliberately disingenuous. The only person here that needs to be called out here is you and your personal incredulity.
I stand by my original statement. Which is a generalization. “Women do not belong in official positions in government office or power where critical and logical, reasonably sound thinking decisions need to be made without emotional interference or obstruction and enforced with and by testicular fortitude.” There is no “All women” to be found. Furthermore if I were to say: “Men do not belong at all girl schools and or summer camps”.
Is this a specificity or generalization on men? Rhetorical. Because clearly any rational human being would know that there are many men who are employed at all girl schools and summer camps. So exceptions don’t make the rules here either even though it’s still a generalized statement.
Some advice for you? Arguing is not your thing. Stick to ogling your “Girl Insides” substack page.
Learn to read.
That issue lies with you. Not me. You’re the one here accusing me of something that does not exist. Supporting it with false accusations. Once you remove your blinding emotions you will clearly see the unadulterated truth.