Great essay! It's funny that there actually has been some pushback to tears in public discourse, and it came from the woke left themselves. They frame it as "white women's tears" because appending "white" to "women" is a loophole that makes them a valid target.
I think 'white womens tears' is not about opposition to the tears themselves but that they want THEIR tears to be the ones that society cares about instead.
Same goes for straight men, worse, straight white men. These get zero victim cards in the victim olympics of Emotionalism/Leftism/Wokeism. Not a "marginaliized community" so sit down, shut up, apologize for being a problem to the world and do as you are told.
Straight white men have a saviour- conservatives. Conservatives have launched campaign after campaign whining about it. They’re busy pretending that affirmative action at college destroys white men so much, or white people, when it’s now becoming clear at hyper competitive colleges Asians have to score higher to be even considered. We also don’t get to cry and complain. It’s shut up and work - for us. Conservatives frequently point to Indian Americans and the median salary to claim there is zero racism. Liberals say any disparity is 100% explained by racism. Conservatives use asian Americans to claim no racism, all 100% of issues with other minorities are explainable by culture .
"...when it’s now becoming clear at hyper competitive colleges Asians have to score higher to be even considered"
This is only true because Jews are lumped into the category of "white" which covers up their vast over representation in Ivy League schools. If you were to look white Gentiles (the largest racial group in the country), I think that it would look completely different.
Say what you will about Ron Unz, but I think he is probably right on this.
This is a good observation. I’ve noticed this on the Ovarit site too- some of the women pointed out how sometimes violence by trans activists is ignored because the victims are white women. I’ve seen this being used to downplay real sexual assault, and in the case of UK the grooming gangs, one of the most ugly stories to ever come out. Though that is about serious crime, putting white in front of it is definitely a get out of jail free card. The woke shamed those claims as white woman problems.
Oh boy, I'm a chick and couldn't agree with this fascinating essay more. Look at the crazy and obscure corners of the 'female-dominated' world - yarn & hand knitting, children's literature, etc. They've all become woke and if you do not abide by their orthodoxy you are mobbed into non-existence. Moreover, as a New Yorker of 35 years, I've been ghosted by most left-leaning pals in the name of whatever I don't know. And although I was born and raised a Massachusetts Democrat, at this point I am much more comfortable on the right, where folks just seem more fair, even-handed and just plain sane. Studies have shown that women tend to be 'neurotic' more than men and if this period doesn't display that in its full glory no other time will. We are experiencing 'Victorian-Woke-Vapors'. I used to be very open about making friends with whomever I met, but now I find myself not so open and I absolutely do not want to befriend Jewish women in New York who are the worst - very intolerant and even psychologically abusive (disclosure: my husband is Jewish and I raised my daughters Jewish - I have discussed this intent with them). I just won't deal anymore.
An aside about 'crying': A male friend, an admitting physician at a local hospital, recalled that during the height of the Covid pandemic, female personnel were so over-wrought with the carnage that a room had to be set aside for them to cry in. Some were even capacitated to the point where they couldn't calm down enough to work. He's been on the hospital floor for decades and was rather appalled by what he considered a lack of professionalism. However, when I discussed this with other female friends, some politically conservative, they thought this was okay under the circumstances. I am not so sure. Both of my grandmothers were nurses and they were professional and no-nonsense. There seemed to be an understanding back then, that you had to keep your shit together and just get on with the job, male or female.
My daughter was assigned to read the book "Masculine Toxicity' at graduate school (Columbia U). So, I asked her if she'd be reading about 'Feminine Toxicity'. She looked at me as if there could ever be such a thing. Women are not in a good place and need to rethink what 'being female' is all about at this juncture.
Indeed, this old guy was trained out in psych/substance/phys rehab, by three older female mentors, tough old boots all of them, generational veterans of WWII and the depression. They taught me: 1) the most incapacitating disability is self-pity; 2) tears are the last resort of a player; 3) don't be manipulated into making your clients weaker, and more dependant on your help.
Then, over a couple of decades a generation of narcissistic female managers ('master's social workers' who'd never managed a case, mainly) began appearing and ascending the old greasy pole; not equipped with, nor interested in learning, the most basic principles and practice of management but very skilled in 'political' cunning and the arts of manipulation and plain old bullying - but with a guilt tripping and tang of mawkishness ('this hurts me more than it does you, but it's for your own good').
They were not hesitant to turn on the waterworks with the old guys who'd been running the show and waiting to retire - who just couldn't deal with it. and gave in.
Up and up they went, ignoring anti-nepotism policies because they wanted their friends around them to bolster their self-esteem, as they issued crazy PC directives having nothing to do with service or organizational mission; eventually, they needed a 'team' to carry out their latest inspiration, and competent professionals found themselves reporting to quasi-manager administrators making more money than them, with less resources and ever-more senseless data-gathering and dealing with PC rigamarole.
The worst of these toxic narcissists that I knew went on to academia to teach management (of all things), or to become deputy commissioners, then commissioners for state agencies where they could wield the ultimate in power, the almighty purse - wasting oodles upon oodles of taxpayer money. The worst of the worst (a younger woman who was always lecturing everyone around her about their need for humility) ascended to fed bureaucrat heaven in DC, where her self-righteous blithering would finally be appreciated.
As the author of this article notes, this phenomenon has been at work everywhere, spreading upwards in organizations to the levers of real power. Nowhere has it caused more damage than in our political 'leadership', giving us AOC and the squad, and quite a few 'men' like Adam Kinsinger and Justin Trudeau, who just love a good sob session.
Re the crying bit - I always thought it was just a product of sex differences. In retrospect, that seems like a premature conclusion for me to have draw without understanding how this varies across time and space. We all know the "Russian women are tough " stereotype but probably not as "tough" as Russian men. Even if we imagine a culture that doesn't explicitly mollycoddle women at all, I wonder if we'll still get some version of this phenomenon, given its natural for parents and people to treat different personalities differently - as you do with friends that have different temperaments. But yes, you might just put up with less of it.
QOTD: "Crying during a political debate should be just as stigmatized as throwing a punch, as both make open discourse impossible." This should literally be a rule. People chairing meetings should announce it in advance. "Anyone crying or becoming overly emotional while speaking at this meeting yields their right to speak and the chair will recognize another speaker. Emotional demonstrations do not lead to productive use of time or coherent deliberations and will not be tolerated by the chair."
Crying should be accepted, under some circumstances. When someone who knew the deceased speaks at a funeral, and starts crying, we politely give the person a moment or two, and wait to see if they "collect themselves" and carry on. Male or female. If they cannot carry on, we accept the depth of their emotion as an expression in lieu of what words they might have said. But people often overcome these moments well enough to wrap up their time at the podium.
Crying should not be a tactic. My argument should not trump yours because my pain or sincerity drives me to tears. We should have a rational decision to not club baby seals, if not-clubbing them is the right thing to do.
It is not: "hey, is clubbing baby seals OK?"
"I don't know! Let's ask a few people."
Person #1: "yes, it looks bad, but the furs are valuable."
Person #2: "no, it is cruel for what? just a fur? we can make artificial fur. Plus, their population will go down."
Person #3: "Just look at these babies! (starts crying)."
Well, I see the point of person #1, but Person #2 makes a good point.
Now, Person #3 cried, therefore I am against clubbing baby seals.
You know this is not about crying at funerals. And emoting in public is used as a tactic, to silence disagreement. Richard's article is correct about that. What should the response be? For political or legal matters, where the coercive power of the state is being invoked, a cold analysis without permitting weeping, and attempting to shame those who disagree with the weeping people, should be imposed.
This is the type of crap I believe this author is talking about. Clearly, this is not a funeral we're talking about, yet you have to take it a step beyond the clear, delineated subject matter and then screw it up with a moronic comment about funerals. Sigh... I really, really wish you were indeed the last Democrat, that would make life sooooo much easier and simpler. Not that the right is perfect by any means, but holy shit, at least you can follow the thought process behind them. I never know what screwball, moronic, illogical bag of steaming HS is popping outta the left side's fiction playbook at any moment. Next I won't be able to eat a ribeye because they claim the cattle now all identify as people, and that would be murder, or some stupid other thing. Anyways, if this comment made you cry, reread the above article, take notes, and for some help, if you're a dude - quit being a wus, if you're a chick - cut the crap, this was the pg version of what I wanted to say. 🤧 And if you're just a troll, lose weight, get off your computer, try to pretty yourself up, and if old enough, go out and find a guy to give you a good, hard poking.
Author, you seem generally fairly decent. Don't know that I agree with everything you say, but hell, I don't agree with everything I always say, so there's that. Keep up the good work. Thanks for the testicular fortitude to speak up.
The article was pointing out a problem: having political life suffer from "feminization," such as a person being moved to tears trumping most everything else. Or, asI think of it: we have to engineer all of society to accommodate someone's feelings, wishes, plans, or ideas.
The essay said, "Crying during a political debate should be just as stigmatized as throwing a punch, as both make open discourse impossible." This should literally be a rule. People chairing meetings should announce it in advance. "Anyone crying or becoming overly emotional while speaking at this meeting yields their right to speak and the chair will recognize another speaker. Emotional demonstrations do not lead to productive use of time or coherent deliberations and will not be tolerated by the chair."
I think the essay has great points, and helps illuminate how discourse has changed in the last couple of decades. (The Marxists have been at this social change heartily I say back to Frankfurt School.)
I said, "Crying should be accepted, under some circumstances."
I gave a circumstance.
I said nothing about not generally agreeing with the general idea of the essay. I do think we, generally, in our political discourse, should be able to handle someone who gets moved to tears. I agree with the essay that we should not take "I am moved to tears" as the rhetorical proof that the Town Cryer gets to win the day.
This is pretty clear. You have read a lot more into my point. And made a bunch of assumptions about me which are pretty far off base - because you were moved by your emotions, rather than the actual context and content.
But you win. You know better, because your emotions have been so moved. Not due to the words on the page, but due to your outrage.
Briefly, cause giving more time to this than necessary makes no sense. I have no emotion to what I wrote, wrong or right, my point is why. What point are you making to the actual context of what was written - political debate - not funerals. So why dirty the meaning of what was authored with some weird, irrelevant subject that has nothing to do with political debate. And even if it were relevant, why does a 0.01% of cases of where emotions may actually make sense in actual political debate get any time. It's the graying of what should be a clean and clear issue that I see as being the problem with what you wrote as well as generally everything out in the world. Why do we need some sideshow low percentage issue to be brought up at all? We should speak in generalities because that is where we accomplish the meaningful. F the rest of it, no reason to bring it up or give it time or effort, it detracts and confuses the actual issue at hand.
I am not outraged, writing what I did or writing this either. I think both side of politics are dumb and created so we stay divided. I do happen to see that the left causes a lot more issues. What you wrote is a seed to exactly that, the beginning of the sideshow of meaningless crap to confuse the validity of what is written. My point, stay on topic - funerals have nothing to do with political debate as a generality. Simple. This isn't about winning. The "winning" that happens isn't by me, it's by those who use irrelevant points to confuse the main point, to get those vocal people in the social media mob outraged at some irrelevant crap, rather than seeing the benefit of a generally sound approach. What you wrote, this is how it happens and why I take issue. So no, I don't win and haven't won in quite some time observing this happening time and time again. Look at the history of events and you'll see this same thing replay again and again. Take some extremely low (or basically no) percent occurrence and prop it up and focus on it as if it's the main event. And watch it get twisted in the wrong hands. Headline: Conservatives say you can't cry at funerals. And then it devolves from there... So no, I do not think what you wrote is relevant, I think it is stupid, I think you're trying to make me appear to be outraged rather then admit you are projecting your own feelings.
And I wrote a lot more than I planned. Good luck, agree or disagree, I really don't care, and if you want the final word in this, go ahead and respond, I see no point in responding back, I've made the point I'm going to make. You either get it or you don't, that's totally up to you.
Of course, instead of the constant battles between one slightly better option over another, there is always returning to them land and soil jurisdiction as a State National... If you look up on Dun and Bradstreet your State of _____ (state), the federal govt, or any of the other countless government entities, you'll be shocked to find that they are all CORPORATIONS. So, yeah... You can stay in the divide and conquer ocean with the sharks as your own corporate entity (look at your license, all CAPA), or declare you a living man or woman born on America, and start the journey of really fixing this country... As I have done. Stope being a slave and indentured servant, start living free.
Good luck to those who actually read enough through the history to figure out that what we have now is all a farce, a front, and find out how you and your ancestors have been used and abused for nearly 150 years.
If you think "gulag" is an exaggeration: you haven't lost a job, housing, enrollment at school, custody rights, been unable to report an assault, been prosecuted for hate speech, or had a criminal charge "enhanced" by the addition of "alleged hate beliefs". If you've experienced any of these, the comparison isn't an "insult to people living under totalitarianism" -- it's a collision warning.
Joking about gulags was saying the quiet part out-loud ten years ago, but leftoids unironically call for gulags today, and Western governments have built the legal, ideological, and physical framework for actual gulags. Leftoids want the government to make it impossible for people they don't like to live, not just be silenced or "de-platformed". Governments, banks, and academia want this too. All that's left is filling actual prisons with those who won't get jabbed, or participate in various other rituals of fealty to state ideology.
Totalitarianism isn't a discrete category: it exists to various degrees. It's progressive, it advances over time. To paraphrase Michael Burry, we may be early saying "gulag", but we aren't wrong.
My favorite double standard is the endless "studies" which show women make better CEOs, board members, national leaders, etc. which would obviously never be published if the finding was the opposite.
I am a female as well and couldn't agree more. Not only are female histrionics obnoxious but there always seems to be another agenda in the background as well. Spare me.
meh. seems like men and women can suck for different, but also overlapping reasons. For example, I don't really see a base rate difference in men versus women sycophants.
Notions of equality are (or at least should be) notions of political equality, not evaluations of literal sameness. The classically liberal sense in which people are equal just means that they should be held to the same legal standards. It is conceivable (and I think likely) that people will be different across many different dimensions, but political equality should still hold.
I'll also point out that the heart of the case against racism has traditionally been that whatever across-group differences there may be between two groups, we should still endeavor to judge people as individuals. If we instead evaluate people based on what group they belong to (race, gender, sex, etc.) we ignore the person.
One great example of the latter - even if on average, black people may not be as educated as white people, you would never want to discard a resume from a black person based on these average differences. If you did, it could lock black people into a cycle of poverty wherein it would never make sense to get a college education, knowing you'd be treated not as a college graduate, but instead an average non-college-educated black person. This would obviously lead to no black people getting college degrees, reinforcing the stereotype.
Sorry Michael but you are living in the past, through Affirmative Action and equity, colleges, corporations, and government now hold whites and Asians to a much higher standard morally and legally than Blacks.
The idea of political equality is laughable. Throughout much of human history, access to new women was a primary reason for conquering a rivaling tribe's territory. Women had to discard any loyalties to their own tribe and quickly adopt their conquerors' identities as their own if they wanted to survive. This is firmly encoded into their genetics. Why would any logical society give them the right to vote, when disloyalty is encoded into their DNA?
Hansen: partly accurate, in the world of biology. But here is a more correct view.
Mammal populations (I really just know about mammals) need to have some mechanism or system for genetic diversity. If you stay in your tribe / family and reproduce, you die out.
The typical pattern is not for males to go invade a neighboring tribe and steal their women.
The typical pattern is for males, as they get to the end of adolescence, to get kicked out of their home tribe, and become "peripheral males." You can actually do a websearch on "peripheral male" and see this phenomenon.
i recall reading about this with many primate species, as well as horses and elephants. Not sure how broad the pattern is across species, but it is recognizable.
The peripheral male drifts around until he finds another tribe. He hangs out on the periphery, close enough to begin acceptance, but far enough to not be attacked by dominant males in this new group.
Eventually, he gets tolerated, and gets adopted into the new tribe or troop. He can then have a chance at continuing his particular set of genetics (wink, wink).
One explanation of the time frame for being so adopted is that this serves as a quarantine period. A stranger wanting to join a new tribe cannot just walk up and sneeze his germs on the new tribe. If he has a disease, he often will succumb before negotiating this slow acceptance process.
There are plenty of things required by civil society that aren't necessarily human nature. Plus, I wasn't committing to any particular level of equality, only pointing out that when we talk about 'equality' we are often talking about a very particular type, not suggesting that people are identical to one another.
The govt pushed college degrees on every job. That went well. We have a saying when looking at a horse (which will offend someone today) you cant ride color. Instead of the shiny pretty horse look for the one you can work with, rely on, turn your back on etc. Same for hiring look past color, sorry but some education is absolutely required for skilled positions, but attitude, decency willingness to learn, ego control etc. Offer the position to the person fits best in your organization. Its a global market you cant afford to turn down or promote talent. You cant afford token employees either
That's a great point Michael, perfectly worded. It's important with these sort of issues fraught with disagreement that we don't forget what's at the centre of it all which is basic human decency and dignity.
As a woman I am sick to death of the crying or nasty bitch controlling everything. Cancel culture can shrivel up and die. I feel that way about the gay/lesbian community using their sexual preferences to get away with jerk behavior in the workplace too. GROW UP PEOPLE. All for civility in the workplace, equal pay for equal work in that industry but thats it. I want the firefighter strong enough to carry me out of danger even if they are trans-Martian. You want to play with the big dogs in the military than meet the physical & mental requirements. Carry your own backpack. And all you pig boys out there talk us with sexual overtones when we told you to stop and you will find your fanny & checkbook in court. We have too much fake estrogen in the media and govt. Way too much unreality about physical differences including spatial vision in the military to be safe. Education is so female based it bores boys and men to death. Just do your job and treat others like you want to be treated and the world is a better place. And from the deepest part of my heart all you self absorbed 'Karens' out there SHUT UP
"And all you pig boys out there talk us with sexual overtones when we told you to stop and you will find your fanny & checkbook in court."
Thanks for providing yet another example of female hysteria. You used the courts to force your way into male spaces where men talk as men, and then whine incessantly about it once you're there. Go back to your sewing circles.
What do you mean by men talking as men? There’s men everywhere in the world, yet only in the western world is it acceptable to go talk about sex openly in the workplace. My grandfather was in the military and they were not allowed to demand sex in their workplace . What is it that you’re talking about?
This is so good. You do a really good job of analyzing wokeness.
Do you extend this analysis to the COVID response? We weren't allowed to do cost benefit analysis because we weren't allowed to admit we would allow even one person to die. This is classic female emotional thinking. And then of course the whole view of Science as being an "in group" where you pretend to agree to be part of the clique and then you attack people in the outgroup.
In covid I find the whole idea that the govt who cant even balance its checkbook is going to save us ridiculous. I have seen Covid its real, it exists but the idea that people would not die from it was nuts from the beginning. Still waiting for stats that compare the same things not cherry picked govt lies with different criteria. The increase in death stats right now appears to be when the vax mandate was enforced
Thanks for this piece - very interesting. Your point about the right side of the culture war wishing it were in a contest with a more male-oriented left is compelling.
More optimistically, I think this asymmetric dynamic of female hysteria routing male-oriented norms of debate will turn out to be self-limiting. While men may be at a loss as to how to respond to this phenomenon, I think that _other women intuitively understand it much more clearly._
Most women would also like to live in a society ordered by male norms. For instance, women by and large don't enjoy all-female workplaces for basically the same reasons as you've described here. Even in a perfectly self-centered model, a woman is better off being the only woman in the room (and therefore excepted from some norms of behavior). If everyone is a woman, no one gets special privileges.
I think that off-camera at Yale, you would see a lot of other young women rolling their eyes at the mob or griping about their motives. But we don't see them because they don't provide grist for the culture war.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the role that women play in reigning in the excesses of femininity. Those dynamics are just as complex and omnipresent as those that men use to reign in each other.
Im somewhat skeptical that you would see "a lot of other young women rolling their eyes."
I do think that women generally—even career women—benefit from a more male-normed society. I recall seeing a study which concluded that women are less likely to receive mentorship from female superiors.
But that doesn't mean that any more than a negligible number of women are cognizant of this reality, or would advocate against feminist norms so thoroughly instilled into our culture over decades
It's true that men aren't allowed to get angry at women - but they are allowed to get angry at all, which women aren't. If a woman starts crying in a debate, the man who caused that will be shamed - but she will as well, for being too emotional and incoherent. Women who act angry are "shrill" and "irrational", while Trump and Bernie alike can rant at their respective bogeymen and their respective supporters cheer them on for "speaking truth to power" and "telling it the way it is". It's equally hard to imagine a female Trump and a female Bernie having had the supporters they did. Elizabeth Warren is sort of a female Bernie, but there were big and relevant differences in her supporters' demographics, as well as her tone.
Maybe I notice the difference because I have a different view of rational vs. emotional debate as connected to gender. Yes, women are less likely to be assertive in debate at the expense of feelings, but men go to the opposite extreme more than women: they identify themselves with their positions and consider winning the argument more important than getting at the truth, so as to preserve their dominance of the group. In other words, where some women assign a negative value to hurting people's feelings in an argument, men are more likely to assign a positive value to it - and both come at the expense of actually getting the right answer. Women getting emotional when yelled at is actually a good circuit breaker for this: if people are yelling at each other, it has already happened in that particular argument and everyone needs to stop and cool down for anything useful to be accomplished. Going back to politicians, Trump is a good example: I have literally never heard or seen him admit he was wrong about anything.
This article reinforces the very same fantasy that abets the "female emotionalism" currently infecting public institutions, because its supposedly 'women's nature after all.'
The author refers to "male rules" & "female rules" as if they were insoluble biological givens but then, stupidly, refutes that idea too. Ultimately that renders this article an inconsistent mess of base premises..... leading to a clueless paralysis on how to move forward. Don Quixote to the rescue.
Pro tip: To defeat institutional gynocentrism (the word you are looking for in this article), you need to encourage the coping class to give up the pretentious "male rules" and "female rules" as (false) articles of biological dogma that gave birth to gynocentric culture in the first place. That means stopping the pretense that romantic chivalry is biological (and not an idiosyncratic convention from European Middle Ages), the belief that men are always rational stalwarts, and the belief that those Ladies who dominate public discourse are weeping morons who can only ever participate in public life on the basis of feelz.
Awarding one star to the author for tying himself into ideological knots and not providing any way forward.
If we as a society want to learn how to deal with female tears, there is no better teacher than this video of Norman Finkelstein's reaction to a crying woman. Watch and learn, it's a thing of beauty (and put aside what you might dislike about Finkelstein's politics):
"But there’s also a hypocrisy of the right. Actually, it’s more a hypocrisy of centrists, who will present studies showing that, believe it or not, men and women are different, but then argue that we should “treat everyone as an individual.”"
How is this hypocrisy? It's the difference between a population average and an individual. You don't treat a woman who is stronger than you (as a man) as weaker than you just because the average woman is weaker than you.
Because treating people as individuals becomes a dogma which obscures situations where the gender differences themselves are key to understanding the conflict- hence Richard's example of the college campus struggle session where female tears driven by female neuroses get in the way of truth. Women's physical inability to fight back, and our resulting compulsion to protect vulnerable-seeming women, is the root cause of why a minority of females have so much success in shutting down the speech of others. Assigning equal blame to liberal men and women, as centrists do by ignoring the gender question, prevents us from ever truly diagnosing this common issue.
I don't think its untenable. It's basically the fact that many stereotypes are correct based on sub-population means, but we should still be expected not to discriminate at the individual level. We shouldn't deny the most qualified applicant a job because they're from the least qualified sub-population based on sub-population averages (i.e. stereotypes).
I agree with that in theory. But in practice I think we've seen that applying that individualist ethos to gender relations is an unstable equilibrium. For ideologically motivated activists it was just a stalking horse for the regime that we currently live under (what Richard identifies as regime number (3)).
Ask conservative women, as I often do, if they would sacrifice their vote to return to a more "male" society based on rules, and that values security, family and prosperity. Nearly all say they would. Then repeal 19A, as women's suffrage really is the root of the decline of Western life, liberty and property (and education, fertility, family formation, etc.).
It would be great to repeal the 19th Amendment, but it's impossible to do. What Republicans *should* do is modify the Civil Rights Act to make it clear that it does not include sexual deviants (As that traitor Gorsuch ruled), as well as modify Title IX to stop the federal-enforced promotion of women's "sports" and the removal of men's sports at colleges. Now will they do it anytime soon? No, but that has to be the ultimate goal, if not removing these ridiculous law entirely.
Great essay! It's funny that there actually has been some pushback to tears in public discourse, and it came from the woke left themselves. They frame it as "white women's tears" because appending "white" to "women" is a loophole that makes them a valid target.
Had the exact same thought. Actually thought about it including that point but decided not to.
I think 'white womens tears' is not about opposition to the tears themselves but that they want THEIR tears to be the ones that society cares about instead.
(while conveniently omitting that wokeness is just about the whitest, woman thing you can do in the States)
Exactly.
I'd suggest it's all part of toxic femininity.
Same goes for straight men, worse, straight white men. These get zero victim cards in the victim olympics of Emotionalism/Leftism/Wokeism. Not a "marginaliized community" so sit down, shut up, apologize for being a problem to the world and do as you are told.
The victim olympics is actually a power grab.
I think it is an attempt to invert the ways status is allocated, which is similar to power
Victimhood is the currency of socialism.
Straight white men have a saviour- conservatives. Conservatives have launched campaign after campaign whining about it. They’re busy pretending that affirmative action at college destroys white men so much, or white people, when it’s now becoming clear at hyper competitive colleges Asians have to score higher to be even considered. We also don’t get to cry and complain. It’s shut up and work - for us. Conservatives frequently point to Indian Americans and the median salary to claim there is zero racism. Liberals say any disparity is 100% explained by racism. Conservatives use asian Americans to claim no racism, all 100% of issues with other minorities are explainable by culture .
"...when it’s now becoming clear at hyper competitive colleges Asians have to score higher to be even considered"
This is only true because Jews are lumped into the category of "white" which covers up their vast over representation in Ivy League schools. If you were to look white Gentiles (the largest racial group in the country), I think that it would look completely different.
Say what you will about Ron Unz, but I think he is probably right on this.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/
This is a good observation. I’ve noticed this on the Ovarit site too- some of the women pointed out how sometimes violence by trans activists is ignored because the victims are white women. I’ve seen this being used to downplay real sexual assault, and in the case of UK the grooming gangs, one of the most ugly stories to ever come out. Though that is about serious crime, putting white in front of it is definitely a get out of jail free card. The woke shamed those claims as white woman problems.
And, that's an excellent tactic for dealing with them.
Shut up pussy
Oh boy, I'm a chick and couldn't agree with this fascinating essay more. Look at the crazy and obscure corners of the 'female-dominated' world - yarn & hand knitting, children's literature, etc. They've all become woke and if you do not abide by their orthodoxy you are mobbed into non-existence. Moreover, as a New Yorker of 35 years, I've been ghosted by most left-leaning pals in the name of whatever I don't know. And although I was born and raised a Massachusetts Democrat, at this point I am much more comfortable on the right, where folks just seem more fair, even-handed and just plain sane. Studies have shown that women tend to be 'neurotic' more than men and if this period doesn't display that in its full glory no other time will. We are experiencing 'Victorian-Woke-Vapors'. I used to be very open about making friends with whomever I met, but now I find myself not so open and I absolutely do not want to befriend Jewish women in New York who are the worst - very intolerant and even psychologically abusive (disclosure: my husband is Jewish and I raised my daughters Jewish - I have discussed this intent with them). I just won't deal anymore.
An aside about 'crying': A male friend, an admitting physician at a local hospital, recalled that during the height of the Covid pandemic, female personnel were so over-wrought with the carnage that a room had to be set aside for them to cry in. Some were even capacitated to the point where they couldn't calm down enough to work. He's been on the hospital floor for decades and was rather appalled by what he considered a lack of professionalism. However, when I discussed this with other female friends, some politically conservative, they thought this was okay under the circumstances. I am not so sure. Both of my grandmothers were nurses and they were professional and no-nonsense. There seemed to be an understanding back then, that you had to keep your shit together and just get on with the job, male or female.
My daughter was assigned to read the book "Masculine Toxicity' at graduate school (Columbia U). So, I asked her if she'd be reading about 'Feminine Toxicity'. She looked at me as if there could ever be such a thing. Women are not in a good place and need to rethink what 'being female' is all about at this juncture.
Indeed, this old guy was trained out in psych/substance/phys rehab, by three older female mentors, tough old boots all of them, generational veterans of WWII and the depression. They taught me: 1) the most incapacitating disability is self-pity; 2) tears are the last resort of a player; 3) don't be manipulated into making your clients weaker, and more dependant on your help.
Then, over a couple of decades a generation of narcissistic female managers ('master's social workers' who'd never managed a case, mainly) began appearing and ascending the old greasy pole; not equipped with, nor interested in learning, the most basic principles and practice of management but very skilled in 'political' cunning and the arts of manipulation and plain old bullying - but with a guilt tripping and tang of mawkishness ('this hurts me more than it does you, but it's for your own good').
They were not hesitant to turn on the waterworks with the old guys who'd been running the show and waiting to retire - who just couldn't deal with it. and gave in.
Up and up they went, ignoring anti-nepotism policies because they wanted their friends around them to bolster their self-esteem, as they issued crazy PC directives having nothing to do with service or organizational mission; eventually, they needed a 'team' to carry out their latest inspiration, and competent professionals found themselves reporting to quasi-manager administrators making more money than them, with less resources and ever-more senseless data-gathering and dealing with PC rigamarole.
The worst of these toxic narcissists that I knew went on to academia to teach management (of all things), or to become deputy commissioners, then commissioners for state agencies where they could wield the ultimate in power, the almighty purse - wasting oodles upon oodles of taxpayer money. The worst of the worst (a younger woman who was always lecturing everyone around her about their need for humility) ascended to fed bureaucrat heaven in DC, where her self-righteous blithering would finally be appreciated.
As the author of this article notes, this phenomenon has been at work everywhere, spreading upwards in organizations to the levers of real power. Nowhere has it caused more damage than in our political 'leadership', giving us AOC and the squad, and quite a few 'men' like Adam Kinsinger and Justin Trudeau, who just love a good sob session.
Would these social workers you note be the ones with the shish-kabob necklaces and the flowy clothes?
"There seemed to be an understanding back then, that you had to keep your shit together and just get on with the job, male or female."
I think you just nailed it. Our mettle has turned to crumbs.
all of a piece
https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/youve-been-misinformed/
Oh jeez, the knitting. I've unfollowed so many accounts that post lovely stuff because they were posting the most insane struggle session shit.
They have a new acronym: Angry White Female Liberal
If you add Useless to that acronym - Angry White Female Useless Liberal, the initials will form something interesting.
Re the crying bit - I always thought it was just a product of sex differences. In retrospect, that seems like a premature conclusion for me to have draw without understanding how this varies across time and space. We all know the "Russian women are tough " stereotype but probably not as "tough" as Russian men. Even if we imagine a culture that doesn't explicitly mollycoddle women at all, I wonder if we'll still get some version of this phenomenon, given its natural for parents and people to treat different personalities differently - as you do with friends that have different temperaments. But yes, you might just put up with less of it.
"Oh boy, I'm a chick and..." -- who cares?
QOTD: "Crying during a political debate should be just as stigmatized as throwing a punch, as both make open discourse impossible." This should literally be a rule. People chairing meetings should announce it in advance. "Anyone crying or becoming overly emotional while speaking at this meeting yields their right to speak and the chair will recognize another speaker. Emotional demonstrations do not lead to productive use of time or coherent deliberations and will not be tolerated by the chair."
Crying should be accepted, under some circumstances. When someone who knew the deceased speaks at a funeral, and starts crying, we politely give the person a moment or two, and wait to see if they "collect themselves" and carry on. Male or female. If they cannot carry on, we accept the depth of their emotion as an expression in lieu of what words they might have said. But people often overcome these moments well enough to wrap up their time at the podium.
Crying should not be a tactic. My argument should not trump yours because my pain or sincerity drives me to tears. We should have a rational decision to not club baby seals, if not-clubbing them is the right thing to do.
It is not: "hey, is clubbing baby seals OK?"
"I don't know! Let's ask a few people."
Person #1: "yes, it looks bad, but the furs are valuable."
Person #2: "no, it is cruel for what? just a fur? we can make artificial fur. Plus, their population will go down."
Person #3: "Just look at these babies! (starts crying)."
Well, I see the point of person #1, but Person #2 makes a good point.
Now, Person #3 cried, therefore I am against clubbing baby seals.
You know this is not about crying at funerals. And emoting in public is used as a tactic, to silence disagreement. Richard's article is correct about that. What should the response be? For political or legal matters, where the coercive power of the state is being invoked, a cold analysis without permitting weeping, and attempting to shame those who disagree with the weeping people, should be imposed.
This is the type of crap I believe this author is talking about. Clearly, this is not a funeral we're talking about, yet you have to take it a step beyond the clear, delineated subject matter and then screw it up with a moronic comment about funerals. Sigh... I really, really wish you were indeed the last Democrat, that would make life sooooo much easier and simpler. Not that the right is perfect by any means, but holy shit, at least you can follow the thought process behind them. I never know what screwball, moronic, illogical bag of steaming HS is popping outta the left side's fiction playbook at any moment. Next I won't be able to eat a ribeye because they claim the cattle now all identify as people, and that would be murder, or some stupid other thing. Anyways, if this comment made you cry, reread the above article, take notes, and for some help, if you're a dude - quit being a wus, if you're a chick - cut the crap, this was the pg version of what I wanted to say. 🤧 And if you're just a troll, lose weight, get off your computer, try to pretty yourself up, and if old enough, go out and find a guy to give you a good, hard poking.
Author, you seem generally fairly decent. Don't know that I agree with everything you say, but hell, I don't agree with everything I always say, so there's that. Keep up the good work. Thanks for the testicular fortitude to speak up.
The article was pointing out a problem: having political life suffer from "feminization," such as a person being moved to tears trumping most everything else. Or, asI think of it: we have to engineer all of society to accommodate someone's feelings, wishes, plans, or ideas.
The essay said, "Crying during a political debate should be just as stigmatized as throwing a punch, as both make open discourse impossible." This should literally be a rule. People chairing meetings should announce it in advance. "Anyone crying or becoming overly emotional while speaking at this meeting yields their right to speak and the chair will recognize another speaker. Emotional demonstrations do not lead to productive use of time or coherent deliberations and will not be tolerated by the chair."
I think the essay has great points, and helps illuminate how discourse has changed in the last couple of decades. (The Marxists have been at this social change heartily I say back to Frankfurt School.)
I said, "Crying should be accepted, under some circumstances."
I gave a circumstance.
I said nothing about not generally agreeing with the general idea of the essay. I do think we, generally, in our political discourse, should be able to handle someone who gets moved to tears. I agree with the essay that we should not take "I am moved to tears" as the rhetorical proof that the Town Cryer gets to win the day.
This is pretty clear. You have read a lot more into my point. And made a bunch of assumptions about me which are pretty far off base - because you were moved by your emotions, rather than the actual context and content.
But you win. You know better, because your emotions have been so moved. Not due to the words on the page, but due to your outrage.
Briefly, cause giving more time to this than necessary makes no sense. I have no emotion to what I wrote, wrong or right, my point is why. What point are you making to the actual context of what was written - political debate - not funerals. So why dirty the meaning of what was authored with some weird, irrelevant subject that has nothing to do with political debate. And even if it were relevant, why does a 0.01% of cases of where emotions may actually make sense in actual political debate get any time. It's the graying of what should be a clean and clear issue that I see as being the problem with what you wrote as well as generally everything out in the world. Why do we need some sideshow low percentage issue to be brought up at all? We should speak in generalities because that is where we accomplish the meaningful. F the rest of it, no reason to bring it up or give it time or effort, it detracts and confuses the actual issue at hand.
I am not outraged, writing what I did or writing this either. I think both side of politics are dumb and created so we stay divided. I do happen to see that the left causes a lot more issues. What you wrote is a seed to exactly that, the beginning of the sideshow of meaningless crap to confuse the validity of what is written. My point, stay on topic - funerals have nothing to do with political debate as a generality. Simple. This isn't about winning. The "winning" that happens isn't by me, it's by those who use irrelevant points to confuse the main point, to get those vocal people in the social media mob outraged at some irrelevant crap, rather than seeing the benefit of a generally sound approach. What you wrote, this is how it happens and why I take issue. So no, I don't win and haven't won in quite some time observing this happening time and time again. Look at the history of events and you'll see this same thing replay again and again. Take some extremely low (or basically no) percent occurrence and prop it up and focus on it as if it's the main event. And watch it get twisted in the wrong hands. Headline: Conservatives say you can't cry at funerals. And then it devolves from there... So no, I do not think what you wrote is relevant, I think it is stupid, I think you're trying to make me appear to be outraged rather then admit you are projecting your own feelings.
And I wrote a lot more than I planned. Good luck, agree or disagree, I really don't care, and if you want the final word in this, go ahead and respond, I see no point in responding back, I've made the point I'm going to make. You either get it or you don't, that's totally up to you.
Of course, instead of the constant battles between one slightly better option over another, there is always returning to them land and soil jurisdiction as a State National... If you look up on Dun and Bradstreet your State of _____ (state), the federal govt, or any of the other countless government entities, you'll be shocked to find that they are all CORPORATIONS. So, yeah... You can stay in the divide and conquer ocean with the sharks as your own corporate entity (look at your license, all CAPA), or declare you a living man or woman born on America, and start the journey of really fixing this country... As I have done. Stope being a slave and indentured servant, start living free.
https://tasa.americanstatenationals.org
Good luck to those who actually read enough through the history to figure out that what we have now is all a farce, a front, and find out how you and your ancestors have been used and abused for nearly 150 years.
Crying in a political debate irritates me too
If you think "gulag" is an exaggeration: you haven't lost a job, housing, enrollment at school, custody rights, been unable to report an assault, been prosecuted for hate speech, or had a criminal charge "enhanced" by the addition of "alleged hate beliefs". If you've experienced any of these, the comparison isn't an "insult to people living under totalitarianism" -- it's a collision warning.
Joking about gulags was saying the quiet part out-loud ten years ago, but leftoids unironically call for gulags today, and Western governments have built the legal, ideological, and physical framework for actual gulags. Leftoids want the government to make it impossible for people they don't like to live, not just be silenced or "de-platformed". Governments, banks, and academia want this too. All that's left is filling actual prisons with those who won't get jabbed, or participate in various other rituals of fealty to state ideology.
Totalitarianism isn't a discrete category: it exists to various degrees. It's progressive, it advances over time. To paraphrase Michael Burry, we may be early saying "gulag", but we aren't wrong.
Since this comment was made, we saw the Canada truckers protest. Many got their financial accounts locked up by the government.
This is totally outside of normal "due process." It is the next avenue of the totalitarians.
One side has learned well from their mistakes and is not making them now.
The other side has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. It's not whom you think.
My favorite double standard is the endless "studies" which show women make better CEOs, board members, national leaders, etc. which would obviously never be published if the finding was the opposite.
Remember when we were told that women would be bring collegiality and 'being nice' to the work place? What a crock.
Yes, every time I hear someone say “if women ran the world, there would be no war’ I laugh.
I am a woman and if I had the choice between a woman or a male boss generically I would pick the man because they tend to be more consistent.
I am a female as well and couldn't agree more. Not only are female histrionics obnoxious but there always seems to be another agenda in the background as well. Spare me.
meh. seems like men and women can suck for different, but also overlapping reasons. For example, I don't really see a base rate difference in men versus women sycophants.
I really enjoyed this, but I have one issue.
Notions of equality are (or at least should be) notions of political equality, not evaluations of literal sameness. The classically liberal sense in which people are equal just means that they should be held to the same legal standards. It is conceivable (and I think likely) that people will be different across many different dimensions, but political equality should still hold.
I'll also point out that the heart of the case against racism has traditionally been that whatever across-group differences there may be between two groups, we should still endeavor to judge people as individuals. If we instead evaluate people based on what group they belong to (race, gender, sex, etc.) we ignore the person.
One great example of the latter - even if on average, black people may not be as educated as white people, you would never want to discard a resume from a black person based on these average differences. If you did, it could lock black people into a cycle of poverty wherein it would never make sense to get a college education, knowing you'd be treated not as a college graduate, but instead an average non-college-educated black person. This would obviously lead to no black people getting college degrees, reinforcing the stereotype.
Sorry Michael but you are living in the past, through Affirmative Action and equity, colleges, corporations, and government now hold whites and Asians to a much higher standard morally and legally than Blacks.
The idea of political equality is laughable. Throughout much of human history, access to new women was a primary reason for conquering a rivaling tribe's territory. Women had to discard any loyalties to their own tribe and quickly adopt their conquerors' identities as their own if they wanted to survive. This is firmly encoded into their genetics. Why would any logical society give them the right to vote, when disloyalty is encoded into their DNA?
Hansen: partly accurate, in the world of biology. But here is a more correct view.
Mammal populations (I really just know about mammals) need to have some mechanism or system for genetic diversity. If you stay in your tribe / family and reproduce, you die out.
The typical pattern is not for males to go invade a neighboring tribe and steal their women.
The typical pattern is for males, as they get to the end of adolescence, to get kicked out of their home tribe, and become "peripheral males." You can actually do a websearch on "peripheral male" and see this phenomenon.
i recall reading about this with many primate species, as well as horses and elephants. Not sure how broad the pattern is across species, but it is recognizable.
The peripheral male drifts around until he finds another tribe. He hangs out on the periphery, close enough to begin acceptance, but far enough to not be attacked by dominant males in this new group.
Eventually, he gets tolerated, and gets adopted into the new tribe or troop. He can then have a chance at continuing his particular set of genetics (wink, wink).
One explanation of the time frame for being so adopted is that this serves as a quarantine period. A stranger wanting to join a new tribe cannot just walk up and sneeze his germs on the new tribe. If he has a disease, he often will succumb before negotiating this slow acceptance process.
There are plenty of things required by civil society that aren't necessarily human nature. Plus, I wasn't committing to any particular level of equality, only pointing out that when we talk about 'equality' we are often talking about a very particular type, not suggesting that people are identical to one another.
The govt pushed college degrees on every job. That went well. We have a saying when looking at a horse (which will offend someone today) you cant ride color. Instead of the shiny pretty horse look for the one you can work with, rely on, turn your back on etc. Same for hiring look past color, sorry but some education is absolutely required for skilled positions, but attitude, decency willingness to learn, ego control etc. Offer the position to the person fits best in your organization. Its a global market you cant afford to turn down or promote talent. You cant afford token employees either
That's a great point Michael, perfectly worded. It's important with these sort of issues fraught with disagreement that we don't forget what's at the centre of it all which is basic human decency and dignity.
As a woman I am sick to death of the crying or nasty bitch controlling everything. Cancel culture can shrivel up and die. I feel that way about the gay/lesbian community using their sexual preferences to get away with jerk behavior in the workplace too. GROW UP PEOPLE. All for civility in the workplace, equal pay for equal work in that industry but thats it. I want the firefighter strong enough to carry me out of danger even if they are trans-Martian. You want to play with the big dogs in the military than meet the physical & mental requirements. Carry your own backpack. And all you pig boys out there talk us with sexual overtones when we told you to stop and you will find your fanny & checkbook in court. We have too much fake estrogen in the media and govt. Way too much unreality about physical differences including spatial vision in the military to be safe. Education is so female based it bores boys and men to death. Just do your job and treat others like you want to be treated and the world is a better place. And from the deepest part of my heart all you self absorbed 'Karens' out there SHUT UP
"And all you pig boys out there talk us with sexual overtones when we told you to stop and you will find your fanny & checkbook in court."
Thanks for providing yet another example of female hysteria. You used the courts to force your way into male spaces where men talk as men, and then whine incessantly about it once you're there. Go back to your sewing circles.
What do you mean by men talking as men? There’s men everywhere in the world, yet only in the western world is it acceptable to go talk about sex openly in the workplace. My grandfather was in the military and they were not allowed to demand sex in their workplace . What is it that you’re talking about?
Who is demanding sex in the workplace? Where did I say that? What is it that you're talking about?
"As a woman..." -- who cares?
This is so good. You do a really good job of analyzing wokeness.
Do you extend this analysis to the COVID response? We weren't allowed to do cost benefit analysis because we weren't allowed to admit we would allow even one person to die. This is classic female emotional thinking. And then of course the whole view of Science as being an "in group" where you pretend to agree to be part of the clique and then you attack people in the outgroup.
In covid I find the whole idea that the govt who cant even balance its checkbook is going to save us ridiculous. I have seen Covid its real, it exists but the idea that people would not die from it was nuts from the beginning. Still waiting for stats that compare the same things not cherry picked govt lies with different criteria. The increase in death stats right now appears to be when the vax mandate was enforced
One of the "ballsiest" essays I think I've ever read.
I tried to avoid saying that, so you’re ballsy too 😄
Hi Richard,
Thanks for this piece - very interesting. Your point about the right side of the culture war wishing it were in a contest with a more male-oriented left is compelling.
More optimistically, I think this asymmetric dynamic of female hysteria routing male-oriented norms of debate will turn out to be self-limiting. While men may be at a loss as to how to respond to this phenomenon, I think that _other women intuitively understand it much more clearly._
Most women would also like to live in a society ordered by male norms. For instance, women by and large don't enjoy all-female workplaces for basically the same reasons as you've described here. Even in a perfectly self-centered model, a woman is better off being the only woman in the room (and therefore excepted from some norms of behavior). If everyone is a woman, no one gets special privileges.
I think that off-camera at Yale, you would see a lot of other young women rolling their eyes at the mob or griping about their motives. But we don't see them because they don't provide grist for the culture war.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the role that women play in reigning in the excesses of femininity. Those dynamics are just as complex and omnipresent as those that men use to reign in each other.
Im somewhat skeptical that you would see "a lot of other young women rolling their eyes."
I do think that women generally—even career women—benefit from a more male-normed society. I recall seeing a study which concluded that women are less likely to receive mentorship from female superiors.
But that doesn't mean that any more than a negligible number of women are cognizant of this reality, or would advocate against feminist norms so thoroughly instilled into our culture over decades
It's true that men aren't allowed to get angry at women - but they are allowed to get angry at all, which women aren't. If a woman starts crying in a debate, the man who caused that will be shamed - but she will as well, for being too emotional and incoherent. Women who act angry are "shrill" and "irrational", while Trump and Bernie alike can rant at their respective bogeymen and their respective supporters cheer them on for "speaking truth to power" and "telling it the way it is". It's equally hard to imagine a female Trump and a female Bernie having had the supporters they did. Elizabeth Warren is sort of a female Bernie, but there were big and relevant differences in her supporters' demographics, as well as her tone.
Maybe I notice the difference because I have a different view of rational vs. emotional debate as connected to gender. Yes, women are less likely to be assertive in debate at the expense of feelings, but men go to the opposite extreme more than women: they identify themselves with their positions and consider winning the argument more important than getting at the truth, so as to preserve their dominance of the group. In other words, where some women assign a negative value to hurting people's feelings in an argument, men are more likely to assign a positive value to it - and both come at the expense of actually getting the right answer. Women getting emotional when yelled at is actually a good circuit breaker for this: if people are yelling at each other, it has already happened in that particular argument and everyone needs to stop and cool down for anything useful to be accomplished. Going back to politicians, Trump is a good example: I have literally never heard or seen him admit he was wrong about anything.
I just found this passage from The Corsair, by Lord Byron, which is precisely on point:
Oh! too convincing—dangerously dear—
In woman's eye the unanswerable tear!
That weapon of her weakness she can wield,
To save—subdue—at once her spear and shield—
Avoid it—Virtue ebbs and Wisdom errs,
Too fondly gazing on that grief of hers!
never a bad time for some byron!
and how many female tears did he cause and have to endure?
Crede Byron!
She did the things the girls always do / and it’s gettin’ really old
Then George sobs his way into a marriage extension. Not sure that works unless you have some historical "tragedy" to fall back on.
This article reinforces the very same fantasy that abets the "female emotionalism" currently infecting public institutions, because its supposedly 'women's nature after all.'
The author refers to "male rules" & "female rules" as if they were insoluble biological givens but then, stupidly, refutes that idea too. Ultimately that renders this article an inconsistent mess of base premises..... leading to a clueless paralysis on how to move forward. Don Quixote to the rescue.
Pro tip: To defeat institutional gynocentrism (the word you are looking for in this article), you need to encourage the coping class to give up the pretentious "male rules" and "female rules" as (false) articles of biological dogma that gave birth to gynocentric culture in the first place. That means stopping the pretense that romantic chivalry is biological (and not an idiosyncratic convention from European Middle Ages), the belief that men are always rational stalwarts, and the belief that those Ladies who dominate public discourse are weeping morons who can only ever participate in public life on the basis of feelz.
Awarding one star to the author for tying himself into ideological knots and not providing any way forward.
If we as a society want to learn how to deal with female tears, there is no better teacher than this video of Norman Finkelstein's reaction to a crying woman. Watch and learn, it's a thing of beauty (and put aside what you might dislike about Finkelstein's politics):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kw7FJ9y8m4M
That was one hell of an opener.
"But there’s also a hypocrisy of the right. Actually, it’s more a hypocrisy of centrists, who will present studies showing that, believe it or not, men and women are different, but then argue that we should “treat everyone as an individual.”"
How is this hypocrisy? It's the difference between a population average and an individual. You don't treat a woman who is stronger than you (as a man) as weaker than you just because the average woman is weaker than you.
Because treating people as individuals becomes a dogma which obscures situations where the gender differences themselves are key to understanding the conflict- hence Richard's example of the college campus struggle session where female tears driven by female neuroses get in the way of truth. Women's physical inability to fight back, and our resulting compulsion to protect vulnerable-seeming women, is the root cause of why a minority of females have so much success in shutting down the speech of others. Assigning equal blame to liberal men and women, as centrists do by ignoring the gender question, prevents us from ever truly diagnosing this common issue.
I think it can more aptly be described as an untenable policy. I think the centrists genuinely believe their arguments and act in good faith
I don't think its untenable. It's basically the fact that many stereotypes are correct based on sub-population means, but we should still be expected not to discriminate at the individual level. We shouldn't deny the most qualified applicant a job because they're from the least qualified sub-population based on sub-population averages (i.e. stereotypes).
I agree with that in theory. But in practice I think we've seen that applying that individualist ethos to gender relations is an unstable equilibrium. For ideologically motivated activists it was just a stalking horse for the regime that we currently live under (what Richard identifies as regime number (3)).
Ask conservative women, as I often do, if they would sacrifice their vote to return to a more "male" society based on rules, and that values security, family and prosperity. Nearly all say they would. Then repeal 19A, as women's suffrage really is the root of the decline of Western life, liberty and property (and education, fertility, family formation, etc.).
If I am not mistaken stats show that older, married women tend to vote on the right...as they know what is at stake.
It would be great to repeal the 19th Amendment, but it's impossible to do. What Republicans *should* do is modify the Civil Rights Act to make it clear that it does not include sexual deviants (As that traitor Gorsuch ruled), as well as modify Title IX to stop the federal-enforced promotion of women's "sports" and the removal of men's sports at colleges. Now will they do it anytime soon? No, but that has to be the ultimate goal, if not removing these ridiculous law entirely.