Elsewhere (317)
Heather Mac Donald on the feminised university and its pathologies:
Female dominance of the campus population is intimately tied to the rhetoric of unsafety and victimhood. Females on average score higher than males on the personality trait of neuroticism, defined as anxiety, emotional volatility, and susceptibility to depression. (Mentioning this long-accepted psychological fact got James Damore fired from Google.) Victorian neurasthenia has been reborn on campuses today as alleged trauma inflicted by such monuments of Western literature as Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Hearing an argument that chromosomes, not whim, make males male and females female is another source of alleged existential threat.
When students claim to be felled by ideas that they disagree with, the feminised bureaucracy does not tell them to grow up and get a grip. It validates their self-pity… The most far-reaching effects of the feminised university are the intolerance of dissent from political orthodoxy and the attempt to require conformity to that orthodoxy. This intolerance is justified in the name of safety and “inclusivity.”
Christopher Rufo has some related thoughts:
Apparently, the way to entrance others and to suddenly become fascinating is to make yourself your own go-to subject.
And Anna Slatz on “inclusivity” and questionable role models:
Helms once admitted to wearing his mother’s underwear as a youth and stated that he “studied” girls at his school with an obsession that slowly turned to “lust.” While serving with the US Navy during the 1970s, Helms began stealing the undergarments of female neighbours living in his apartment complex in South Carolina after seeing a bra in the washing machine of the laundry room… “As I stood watching the bra swirl around in the dryer, I sensed a growing desire to dress as a woman and to see the hidden woman within me.”
The recap of Mr Helms’ adventures in bra-thievery and fetishistic cross-dressing starts as merely farcical, but it does venture into territory that, shall we say, casts doubt on his selection as an inspirational figure, a person to emulate.
Feel free to share your own links and snippets, on any subject, in the comments.
The Smithsonian needs telling creepy paedophile men aren’t women.
As so often with these things, one might easily mistake it for an exercise in trolling.
Presumably, ladies visiting the Smithsonian Women’s Museum are expected to feel uplifted and inspired by a mentally ill man whose kinks include parodying their sex, and who ruined the lives of his wife and children, reducing them to poverty and losing them their home, by spending their savings on hormones, dresses, and lessons in walking “like a woman.” A man who seems to have a, shall we say, unsavoury interest in sexualised children.
It would be wrong of me to comment. Wrong in so, so many ways. Wrong. Just. Plain. Wrong.
Lol. Boom.
Title of Side Two of an obscure ProgRock LP?
Well, there’s no lash nor rum in the USN, so they’re stuck with… nevermind.
“Woman of the year”… is a man who’s only served 3 months in office.
Speaking of dietary horror stories:
During the COVID lockdown Gwyneth Paltrow broke down and ate bread! Bread!
(via Critical Drinker)
The message seems to be that, basically, in law and sports and pretty much every sphere of human activity, men are just better at being women than women are.
Am I getting that right, ladies?
I only skimmed that piece, but oh … my … God.
walking “like a woman.”
Hahahaha the reason women have that sexy walk is their hips. If you fake it you (as a guy) you look absurd.
I came along at the tail end of the hippies. That mass movement, among whites, was crazy but mostly harmless. It was about being stoned and hip (whatever that meant). Most hippies nevertheless ended up employed and sober as reality overtook them. In the inner city the hippie urge did not have such mild impact and turned into a hard drug epidemic. The current mass psychosis/new religion is not harmless (though masqueraded as such at first) but is turning into censorship of an extreme form. You cannot get a gov research grant, university job, medical degree, etc without pledging fealty to DEI. Books are being sanitized. Social media censored. Banks are choking off credit for gun dealers, pot shops, and conservative politicians. DOJ (US) is after catholics, right to lifers, maga repubs, and others.
Next thing you know they’ll be posing by for official US government photos looking like a slimmed down version of Matt Lucas as “unconvincing transvestite Florence Rose” (complete with moustache) and stealing suitcases from airport carousels.
https://youtu.be/RxmPlkazy7k
But serious mental illness is such fun – something to be affirmed and framed as aspirational, an example to women. Didn’t you get the memo?
The most far-reaching effects of the feminised university are the intolerance of dissent from political orthodoxy and the attempt to require conformity to that orthodoxy.
High school mean girls. Sooner or later, everyone comes around to the idea of patriarchy.
Individual pathology is valorised as a form of marginalised identity
Was it not the feminists who assured us that the personal was political?
As I’ve said before – civilizational shit test. And we’re failing.
However, in news regarding more positive social progress…the horror, the horror.
I think this is apropos. Helen Andrews wrote a brief 3 tweet thread on Dahlia Lithwick’s Lady Justice. Apparently women becoming a majority of the legal profession in the U.S. is not going to go well. It contains the wonderful quote – “I didn’t go to law school because I had a deep respect for the rule of law.” How refreshing.
Positive social progress: the lady rightly emphasizes that feminism has undermined the true strength of women and that hookup culture has harmed them. The true strength of women requires that they put others (mainly their husband and children) ahead of their own wishes (ie, nurturing). The true strength of men is to put the needs of their family and friends ahead of their own (ie provisioning and protecting). These are similar but not identical. Feminists do not like the idea of being subjugated (ok fine) but this is taken to the extreme of even resenting the needs of children and denying that a husband needs nurturing and loving. The genes of women do not relate to the provisioning and protecting role as much as for men. For example, most women I know who work put their money in the bank and are not generous with it. Small sample I know.
It is.
Helen Andrews, by the way, has been mentioned here before. Or rather, the reactions of ‘progressives’ to her observations.
Well, I have to say I thought I had, yes.
But I guess it’s big like someone telling you “The Empire State is a big building”.
You believe them – but then when you actually see it for yourself the effect is quite sublime.
In other news:
And hey, that air of unrealism and pretence – one might say farce – is sure to help. As someone tweeted in reply, “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but…”
I think this is apropos, in any discussion of the current plague of arrogant fools.
The Tweet is now gone. I’m not sure which side of reality this quote is from but in my limited experience with that ass known as the ‘law’ I definitely feel this. I don’t believe lawyers respect the idea of the rule of law any longer, assuming they once did. Hell, I don’t even think most lawyers respect the dictionary definition of the words through which those laws are written.
Related.
Related.
WTH? Women don’t need men or masculinity? And what’s with equating Andrew Tate to Jordan Peterson?
I couldn’t make it through the whole video with such a dishonest person.
I only made it to the end on my second attempt.
Which given it’s a 4-minute video is really saying something.
Even for something apparently aimed at the general public, it’s quite amazing how she just merrily piles one begged question on top of another without even the tiniest sliver of a morsel of a hint as to what she’s actually basing anything she says on.
And are they not high-IQ people who know a lot about their specific area of expertise? Yet who would you trust to make virtually any other decision outside of their area of expertise? People like that or someone less knowledgeable regarding their specific area of expertise but with a wider view of the world? If you follow me.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y
It should help to watch this after the video from the dreary Professor woman.
It should help to watch this after the video from the dreary Professor woman.
Hahaha – yes! It seems the last two generations never heard those words, and look where that got us.
Indeed. Education seems to ruin a lot of people, instilling in an arrogance and ambition that morally disqualifies them.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
“Experts should be on tap, not on top.”
Ah, the menace (cue Psycho shower scene soundtrack) of Jordan Peterson.
Most of the female university professors that I have known were foolish, ideological…twats. Ditto the schoolteachers.
To be fair, a lot of the male professors were also twats, just not as large a percentage.
Heh.
Incisive and easily absorbed!
Not sure, but it looks like a substantial majority of these
protestersmorons are women.Now this is funny.
That.
As Mr Rufo says, the inevitable result is incentivised dysfunction. Which would explain much of the material featured here over the years with the tag academia.
On a more mundane level, seeking some kind of transformative validation in one’s skin colour or sexuality or fatness or whatever seems likely to disappoint – and to inflict on others a generic and tedious narcissism. As if one might suddenly become fascinating because of who you shag, or how brown you are, or how much you overeat. As if one could become less boring by banging on endlessly about how brown or fat or “queer” you are.
By making yourself your own go-to subject.
As I said recently,
At which point, all those ‘non-binary’ TikTok videos begin to make a kind of sense.
Well, it seems I just added another name to my Brusters List. Brusters is a chain of ice cream stores that make some absolutely delightful flavors. As certain people, such as David Miscavige or Nancy Pelosi, join the Choir Invisible, I shall celebrate their lives with a trip to Brusters, to eat ice cream and cackle with delight.
Congratulations, Monica Helms!
Rest easy. ‘Tis done.
My Brusters List grows.
What an evil cvnt.
Related.
“Why have Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson gained traction lately? Instead of looking at those as individuals…”
“…why there is been this gap…”
I listened several times to see if YouTube was responsible for turning a phrase into Linear B as it often does, but no, that’s what someone with a doctorate actually said on a professionally produced video from an institute of higher learning. I assume, God help me, that there was actually a script.
I’d like to think I’m not a snob. Had I heard that during a ‘woman on the street’ interview I’d have not thought the lesser of her but as a lecturer with a doctorate at a university? No, sorry, everything out of her mouth is automatically discounted. Okay, perhaps I am a snob.
I made it to the 2:40 mark before bailing out. How anyone with functioning braincells could listen to anything Peterson has said about the crisis of masculinity facing young boys and men, and then conflate him with an odious turd like Andrew Tate is beyond reason. Although given her lack of ability with English grammar perhaps I’m being too hard, she may actually not be able to understand what Peterson has said, he does use a rather large amount of big words and complex sentence structures. Yes, definitely a snob.
That.
How? Malevolent dishonesty.
I have to say the last couple of lines in this article amused me greatly.
A comparison of Venn diagrams ensues.
By making yourself your own go-to subject.
The problem facing the person who wants attention is that there are billions of humans and we as individuals are simply not that interesting. To stand out by your appearance/attributes, you must go to extremes of racial division, sexual weirdness, blue hair, mental illness. You must insist that others affirm your uniqueness. My boss loves to hunt, including big game. He really stands out for this ability. He has hunting dogs. He rarely mentions it. He does not expect praise for it. My neighbor rebuilds classic cars with his dad. He doesn’t brag about it or expect anyone to even notice. He does it for fun. My friend’s wife will bring food to anyone who is sick and has created beautiful landscaping at their house. All of these are distinguished by what they did. Of course, actually doing something is way too much work. These twits want praise and attention for simply existing.
This argument that the “feminization” of universities is everything to blame for the woes of academia…I’m not convinced. The article I read cited a lot of statistics and not much else – “hey I noticed there’s a lot of women in universities and this is how women think according to statistics and obviously that’s ruining everything and if it were men here we wouldn’t be in this mess.” I guess it’s about as serious as any other journalism I’ve seen lately…
I’m sorry, but as explained by Kamala Harris – international Venn Diagram expert and answer to the question “What do you call a person who gets promoted for providing sexual services” – Venn Diagrams have three circles.
Odelay and feminization of universities: I believe you are right that feminization is only a piece of the puzzle. I think the bigger problem is capture by deconstructionism (from France) starting back in the 60s by literary criticism and quickly picked up by feminists. By this theory, everything is tainted by power, there is no “truth”, all is merely “discourses” to support the status quo and there is no objective way to decide between discourses (science being merely a discourse). It then merged with marxism (which had heavily influenced the original) and spread to the new “studies” departments and the social sciences. It was very congenial for lazy people or those promoted beyond their IQ because standards of proof and the very idea of rigor were tossed overboard. The more convoluted and tendentious your argument, the better. Judith Butler for example. The Marxism thing makes it all easy–all humans are either oppressors or victims. If you are successful you are evil. See? Easy. Feelings grew in importance. Finding racism/patriarchy/capitalism under every bed was in. But since it is all based on bullshit, the defense response has become shouting down speakers at universities, deplatforming, and censorship. And here we are.
Agreed. And of course cultural problems rarely have simple causes.
Agree. Though as pst also says, there causes are multiple and rarely simple. Sociology and such are obviously not the hard sciences yet conclusions are reached, agreed upon, etc. as if they reached some QED proof level. Yet pointing out the absurdity of this level of acceptance is met with indifference and active, even performative ignorance.
This isn’t a direct follow on but the temptation in the modern sense is to trace these things back to Marx. A friend posted something about Marx recently that got me to thinking. Imagine if Marx, Engles, and their immediate cohorts never existed. This general mentality still existed in society. The French constantly fall for it because it was thick in their revolution. I think there is a danger in attributing too much to these personalities. At base, it’s a envy thing and I wonder if the right would focus more on addressing envy, excessive envy anyway, would not be more productive than the Marx thing. Take the capitalism/proletariat/labor/class factors, all concepts so labeled by Marx, out of the argument and focus more on the root of the problem.
WTP: yes indeed, envy combined with laziness give rise to victim culture etc.–Marx just gives a nice simple rationale for the crazy. I am surrounded by legal immigrants who are willing to work hard and they are successful, happy, and not envious. We have fun. Envy is a terrible drug.
From the Wayback Machine
I think the envy drives some of the laziness. I believe both are heavily driven by hopelessness and ignorance. I truly, truly believe that if the right would just put 10% of the time, money, and effort that they put into politics they instead put into a campaign to help vulnerable people understand that economics is not a zero-sum game that would help tremendously in this regard. Yet often when I suggest this I catch a lot of crap, especially from the libertarian types but also the establishment types, who for whatever reason, I would guess ego or something similar, just don’t want to hear it.
I blame the Romans.
I got sick from drinking from an aqueduct once. True story.
The one you said was full of glitter and tinsel, right?
I have to say the last couple of lines in this article amused me greatly.
Tate and Peterson are two sides of the same coin. They’re both right about women; they just use that information to different ends.
There are certainly those who will claim that everyone in prison is a victim, but when news of a physically weaker man getting raped in prison finds its way into casual conversation, the response is much more likely to be along the lines of “Ha ha, don’t commit crimes then” than pearl-clutching and disclaimers of accountability.
Envy…
Recently I remarked (elsewhere) that the root cause of such philosophies and cultures is simple: it’s easier to steal than to make.
Dressing this up with rationalizations may win you academia-cred, but doesn’t change the underlying reality.
This makes me remember the trope that people are drawn to study and work in psychology because of their own mental issues.
It is obvious trans people are dealing with mental issues – except the kids who have parents and/or teachers dealing with mental issues. How could anyone not expect high profile trans activists to have correspondingly significant mental issues?
Yes, but never forget: Another strong motive is the opportunity to bully with impunity.