Do you still consider James Lindsey an average, middle of the road centrist?
All the talk about a neferious "global elite,..." and seeing groomers everywhere is more and more convincing me that he has gone down a bit of a conspiracy route.
Good summary. Mutilating children, universities with 2/3 women, openly racist/sexist policies/justice-system, feelings over facts, Scientific American becoming dribble, and so much more often make me bewildered and wanting to stop the world and get off. If a science fiction writer had described this world a mere two decades ago I would've claimed it as laughable unrealistic.
But what is the root cause? How did we get here?
I think your diagnosis that Summers was the canary in the mine is very true. However, how could a handful of unknown and in all regards mediocre female professors in women studies et alea get Summers fired so quickly? Summers was famous, came from the Clinton administration, and had done wonders for the coffers of Harvard. If he wasn't close to the top of the Patriarchy, who was? Haidt and Pinker are clearly also high up in the Patriarchy but they seem to bow to what is often a small minority of women. How did this swarm of mostly anonymous women get so powerful?
The theory I came up with is that we're seeing an evolutionary anomaly play out. Over the eons, women were powerful in the private sphere but relied on men to compete in the public sphere for their protection and well being. The strength imbalance evolved women to develop sex based coalitions to oppose male domineering. E.g.. Madeline Albright's "There is a special place in hell for women that do not help other women."
Women domineered the private space and developed traits like more empathy, higher levels of anxiety, more altruism. Since they had to collaborate with kin and neighbors, her competence was not that important for the position in the hierarchy. Intra-female conflicts are rarely heads on addressed but handled through gossip and female coalitions. A woman's safety (and thus the safety of her children) is more important to her than group loyalty.
Men evolved fluid competence hierarchies to forage food and build cathedrals. This made snitching a deadly sin; bullying and testing was used to get rid of the weak and useless men. Intra-male conflicts were directly addressed, if necessary physically as a last resort. There is usually a very strong group bonding creating an intra-group loyalty.
In the private sphere, women could dominate using coalitions and a strong normative modus of operation. Most feminist stories about oppression are laughable, they do not match human nature. Actually, most of the oppressive stories have a background of protection in a cruel nature with predators. Male traits are not that useful in the private sphere. Conflicts with your wife generally end up with the woman winning. Being the gatekeeper to sex is a very strong force. I.e. when a men asks "Do I look fat in these trousers" he will get a very different answer from a man than if a woman asks. Men tend to be fundamentally dishonest with women's praise because he will lose any conflicts and when she is very attractive, his blood is not in his brains. This made happy women in the private sphere.
In the public sphere, the masculine traits competence is paramount. However, feminists (a female coalition if there is one) used an appeal to fairness, and blackmail with victim hood, to make the public space less competitive to give women a bigger chance.
Once such a woman was inside, she immediately started to work on getting more women to create a female coalition. When you have only 20-30% women, they effectively take over the organization for anything related to their interest. Men have no immune system against women and therefore do not know how to oppose. This generally changes to organization to have more services, arrangements, and facilities for women. The mission then often changes to become more feminised. E.g. Scientific American. In the long run, the organization dies.
Men never developed an immune system for some of the female traits when applied at scale in the public sphere. To all our detriment, for the female traits that do their wondrous work in the private sphere turn toxic in the public sphere.
Do you still consider James Lindsey an average, middle of the road centrist?
All the talk about a neferious "global elite,..." and seeing groomers everywhere is more and more convincing me that he has gone down a bit of a conspiracy route.
Good summary. Mutilating children, universities with 2/3 women, openly racist/sexist policies/justice-system, feelings over facts, Scientific American becoming dribble, and so much more often make me bewildered and wanting to stop the world and get off. If a science fiction writer had described this world a mere two decades ago I would've claimed it as laughable unrealistic.
But what is the root cause? How did we get here?
I think your diagnosis that Summers was the canary in the mine is very true. However, how could a handful of unknown and in all regards mediocre female professors in women studies et alea get Summers fired so quickly? Summers was famous, came from the Clinton administration, and had done wonders for the coffers of Harvard. If he wasn't close to the top of the Patriarchy, who was? Haidt and Pinker are clearly also high up in the Patriarchy but they seem to bow to what is often a small minority of women. How did this swarm of mostly anonymous women get so powerful?
The theory I came up with is that we're seeing an evolutionary anomaly play out. Over the eons, women were powerful in the private sphere but relied on men to compete in the public sphere for their protection and well being. The strength imbalance evolved women to develop sex based coalitions to oppose male domineering. E.g.. Madeline Albright's "There is a special place in hell for women that do not help other women."
Women domineered the private space and developed traits like more empathy, higher levels of anxiety, more altruism. Since they had to collaborate with kin and neighbors, her competence was not that important for the position in the hierarchy. Intra-female conflicts are rarely heads on addressed but handled through gossip and female coalitions. A woman's safety (and thus the safety of her children) is more important to her than group loyalty.
Men evolved fluid competence hierarchies to forage food and build cathedrals. This made snitching a deadly sin; bullying and testing was used to get rid of the weak and useless men. Intra-male conflicts were directly addressed, if necessary physically as a last resort. There is usually a very strong group bonding creating an intra-group loyalty.
In the private sphere, women could dominate using coalitions and a strong normative modus of operation. Most feminist stories about oppression are laughable, they do not match human nature. Actually, most of the oppressive stories have a background of protection in a cruel nature with predators. Male traits are not that useful in the private sphere. Conflicts with your wife generally end up with the woman winning. Being the gatekeeper to sex is a very strong force. I.e. when a men asks "Do I look fat in these trousers" he will get a very different answer from a man than if a woman asks. Men tend to be fundamentally dishonest with women's praise because he will lose any conflicts and when she is very attractive, his blood is not in his brains. This made happy women in the private sphere.
In the public sphere, the masculine traits competence is paramount. However, feminists (a female coalition if there is one) used an appeal to fairness, and blackmail with victim hood, to make the public space less competitive to give women a bigger chance.
Once such a woman was inside, she immediately started to work on getting more women to create a female coalition. When you have only 20-30% women, they effectively take over the organization for anything related to their interest. Men have no immune system against women and therefore do not know how to oppose. This generally changes to organization to have more services, arrangements, and facilities for women. The mission then often changes to become more feminised. E.g. Scientific American. In the long run, the organization dies.
Men never developed an immune system for some of the female traits when applied at scale in the public sphere. To all our detriment, for the female traits that do their wondrous work in the private sphere turn toxic in the public sphere.