A one-time friend of mine has for decades been jabbering about "the goddess" and the lost "feminine" in spiritual circles. We now have a society that worships Baphomet and the punishment is coming unless Trump can turn things around.
I think that a lot of the religious developments in the past decade (the rise of unchallenging "spirituality", the very similar promotion of self-indulgent "therapy culture", the resurgence of paganism) are reflections of a new social order. In the old one, men earned money and built things, women supported them and raised children and married those men to gain access to resources and status. Families and communities were the natural social units.
In the new social order women are to be the earners and the status-setters. The state takes the place of men in providing services and offering validation and support and raising children. Men will continue to do what they're always done but they'll be heavily taxed, neutered, controlled, and available for association if the women want it and only for as long as they want it. This is a novel social order, and if you believe that religion is a reflection of society's values you would expect novel religious developments to appear.
If you confront progressives with this vision they will strenuously deny that anything like that is happening... but ask them: do you WANT it to happen? You'll get your answer.
Good differentiation between masculine and feminine tendencies. Obviously at present our society has swung too far to the feminine ones. Both perspectives are necessary but there can't be an imbalance in either direction or society won't function well.
I think it's interesting that people refuse to consider the mid- and longterm implications. If our society becomes too feminized it will become unsatisfactory to men and therefore unstable OR its birthrate will drop below a feasible level and it will collapse or be overwhelmed. "Weak men create hard times..." and so forth.
I can't find ANY discussions of these claims on the left. They seem to want to believe that because their values are progressive, everything will just somehow work out. They HATE discussing the demographic issue because it so obviously conflicts with the self-indulgent tendencies of modern women (and it sounds suspiciously racist to their captured ears) but even if I grant both of those (sexist & racist-which I don't). What then? It's STILL a looming problem. What's more important? Fighting misogyny or ensuring or civilization's survival/ For them it's obviously fighting misogyny, but they're ignoring the fact that all of their non-profits and colleges and podcasts are LUXURIES. They disappear pretty quickly if the basics aren't attended to. It's ultimately a mindset of pure naivete and entitlement.
Great piece! The military example is interesting to me. The military requires full on assimilation. Recruits who require special/different treatment are already assimilation averse, and pose a risk to the hierarchy and the purpose of the military. These judges are putting feelings above purpose and security.
The “judges” also resemble referees who, during the course of an athletic event, decide against sworn impartiality and choose a particular team to win.
They’re like referees whose self-image and worldview is completely based around supporting a certain team and who assume that history has fated their team to win. These refs have wide latitude to call plays and determine the score… and they even have limited power to rewrite the rules.
The important thing to realize about these "feminine" traits is that they are not principles. At all. Their "sympathy" requires cruelty to the victims of the "sympathetic". Their "love" requires hate. Their "tolerance" requires suppression.
This perfectly encapsulates this dangerous situation that we're in. I'm writing about matriarchal dominance as well.
About twelve years ago -- I'll never forget -- in a faculty meeting, the Golden Millennial Female who told me with a straight face that 'there is no difference between men and women' was assigned the task of informing the rest of us what we can and cannot say to students. "Where are you from?" had been deemed "offensive." There seemed to be no awareness whatsoever of how stupid it is to suck up to any student feeling offended by such a question, in a university with a high percentage of international students. Even more to the point, this is an English as a Second Language department, where the student's native language and country are endemic to determining language and educational quirks.
There were other absolutely petty concerns that would actually undermine the primary goal: making sure that students are learning, and grading them accordingly.
Case in point, a woman (I used to like) who said in a recent faculty meeting that she allows the students in her ENGLISH READING COURSE DESIGNED TO PREPARE NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH TO READ AT COLLEGE LEVEL -- to read in their native language. Why? Because "All Languages Matter."
She said in the next meeting that she gives AI-generated essays a C because "the student did something."
In the next meeting, I am going to have to demand that we all collectively give these AI essays an F, or I'm going to stand in front of the room all semester talking about social justice and pass the students who make it look like they are listening.
I can't stomach much more of this -- and make no mistake -- the matriarchal incursion into what was once the dominion of men WILL DESTROY US.
A one-time friend of mine has for decades been jabbering about "the goddess" and the lost "feminine" in spiritual circles. We now have a society that worships Baphomet and the punishment is coming unless Trump can turn things around.
I think that a lot of the religious developments in the past decade (the rise of unchallenging "spirituality", the very similar promotion of self-indulgent "therapy culture", the resurgence of paganism) are reflections of a new social order. In the old one, men earned money and built things, women supported them and raised children and married those men to gain access to resources and status. Families and communities were the natural social units.
In the new social order women are to be the earners and the status-setters. The state takes the place of men in providing services and offering validation and support and raising children. Men will continue to do what they're always done but they'll be heavily taxed, neutered, controlled, and available for association if the women want it and only for as long as they want it. This is a novel social order, and if you believe that religion is a reflection of society's values you would expect novel religious developments to appear.
If you confront progressives with this vision they will strenuously deny that anything like that is happening... but ask them: do you WANT it to happen? You'll get your answer.
Good differentiation between masculine and feminine tendencies. Obviously at present our society has swung too far to the feminine ones. Both perspectives are necessary but there can't be an imbalance in either direction or society won't function well.
I think it's interesting that people refuse to consider the mid- and longterm implications. If our society becomes too feminized it will become unsatisfactory to men and therefore unstable OR its birthrate will drop below a feasible level and it will collapse or be overwhelmed. "Weak men create hard times..." and so forth.
I can't find ANY discussions of these claims on the left. They seem to want to believe that because their values are progressive, everything will just somehow work out. They HATE discussing the demographic issue because it so obviously conflicts with the self-indulgent tendencies of modern women (and it sounds suspiciously racist to their captured ears) but even if I grant both of those (sexist & racist-which I don't). What then? It's STILL a looming problem. What's more important? Fighting misogyny or ensuring or civilization's survival/ For them it's obviously fighting misogyny, but they're ignoring the fact that all of their non-profits and colleges and podcasts are LUXURIES. They disappear pretty quickly if the basics aren't attended to. It's ultimately a mindset of pure naivete and entitlement.
Great stuff James
Great piece! The military example is interesting to me. The military requires full on assimilation. Recruits who require special/different treatment are already assimilation averse, and pose a risk to the hierarchy and the purpose of the military. These judges are putting feelings above purpose and security.
The “judges” also resemble referees who, during the course of an athletic event, decide against sworn impartiality and choose a particular team to win.
They’re like referees whose self-image and worldview is completely based around supporting a certain team and who assume that history has fated their team to win. These refs have wide latitude to call plays and determine the score… and they even have limited power to rewrite the rules.
You are right, its everywhere and its a problem.
The important thing to realize about these "feminine" traits is that they are not principles. At all. Their "sympathy" requires cruelty to the victims of the "sympathetic". Their "love" requires hate. Their "tolerance" requires suppression.
This perfectly encapsulates this dangerous situation that we're in. I'm writing about matriarchal dominance as well.
About twelve years ago -- I'll never forget -- in a faculty meeting, the Golden Millennial Female who told me with a straight face that 'there is no difference between men and women' was assigned the task of informing the rest of us what we can and cannot say to students. "Where are you from?" had been deemed "offensive." There seemed to be no awareness whatsoever of how stupid it is to suck up to any student feeling offended by such a question, in a university with a high percentage of international students. Even more to the point, this is an English as a Second Language department, where the student's native language and country are endemic to determining language and educational quirks.
There were other absolutely petty concerns that would actually undermine the primary goal: making sure that students are learning, and grading them accordingly.
Case in point, a woman (I used to like) who said in a recent faculty meeting that she allows the students in her ENGLISH READING COURSE DESIGNED TO PREPARE NON-NATIVE SPEAKERS OF ENGLISH TO READ AT COLLEGE LEVEL -- to read in their native language. Why? Because "All Languages Matter."
She said in the next meeting that she gives AI-generated essays a C because "the student did something."
In the next meeting, I am going to have to demand that we all collectively give these AI essays an F, or I'm going to stand in front of the room all semester talking about social justice and pass the students who make it look like they are listening.
I can't stomach much more of this -- and make no mistake -- the matriarchal incursion into what was once the dominion of men WILL DESTROY US.