The term "Karen" is a racist, sexist slur against white women. Apparently both the left and the right now think that white women are fair game for sexist, racist treatment. I am appalled by how many white men and white women are perpetrating this abusive, discriminatory behavior.
White women are the primary drivers of all of this nonsense and the primary benefactors of affirmative action. They somehow manage to be minorities and yet also the most privileged demographic.
It’s natural they would be criticized by both sides. They have their cake and eat it too.
Or white-looking. Many of the most influential and outspoken women leftists /subversives belong to a different ethny but can pass for white. They are good at leveraging the ambiguity and hiding in plain sight.
A key component of the Longhouse theory is that including women into public spaces leads to them policing language, the ultimate expression of which is censorship. And here you are, Sandra, doing that very thing. Assuming your definition of the epithet of Karen is the right one and therefore ought to be policed because you associate it with race or discrimination.
Most people's understanding of the label is an inappropriately officious lady who demeans customer service staff and demands someone higher up the food chain as both a way to assert dominance and to humiliate the (often helpful) member of staff.
You see the problem society has? Women instinctively act in this way, which has repercussions for the rest of us, male and female. Men rarely do as a rule.
Did you not read the article? Cluster B behaviour is characterized by emotional outbursts and demands that must be met. Its antithesis is the kind of calm discussion where both parties try to understand the other point of view. A rarity nowadays.
"Women instinctively act in this way," and "Men rarely do as a rule."
This woman does not and while I've seen the crap all over the internet I do not have a single woman friend who behaves in the manner you describe. On the other hand all but one of the men I have known will use intimidation and other expressions of wounded ego as "a way to assert dominance and to humiliate".
Here is an example that is fresh in my mind: A couple of days ago I was shoveling snow at the end of my driveway on a bend in the small, rural road. The road was iced up real bad and I've seen people lose control on enough occasions over the past 30 years to be concerned. A week or so ago my neighbor was nearly hit by someone and when there is snow there are often as many as five cars parked at the end of the driveways. An out of control driver could do a lot of damage. So I used the hand signal to slow down. Yup. The maybe 30 something male driver who seemed to be in such a hurry stopped in order to defend himself (lie about how fast he was going) call me a fucking bitch and then punch it, skidding his rear wheels on the ice and eventually tearing off up the road to skid around the next bend I wanted to take my dog for a walk a little later but I was genuinely concerned I would encounter this ass again. Yes. I felt threatened. And I could tell at least another half dozen stories just like this one and I haven't even touched upon the cluster b boy I was married to.
I don't know how you could know what is instinctive for women unless you are one but I do realize that men believing they know what it is like to be a woman is all the rage lately so I'll just leave this here:
"Most women have experienced enough dominance from men—control, violence, insult, contempt—that no threat seems empty." - Andrea Dworkin
The comment was about women policing language, not physical intimidation. Perhaps you wish to read up on the Longhouse theory before commenting?
Your rambling story was completely irrelevant to anything I wrote. You are not doing much of a job showing the sisterhood in a good light, lol.
You'll note I didn't say women are parochial thinkers who use irrelevant personal anecdotes to ineptly counter points based on observation and data, but many do just this. 😜
My story was a demonstration of how men use threatening behavior in order to police/control language and other forms of communication. Policing language is policing language is policing language etc and you have failed to consider the wider context* that does include physical intimidation - almost always men intimidating and limiting the ability of women to advocate for themselves. It is unfortunate that you have responded exactly as I thought you would.
* failing to consider the wider context IS the definition of parochialism so good job on a nearly perfect example of projection.
That’s what I was thinking too. I saw a research study a while ago that looked at what demographics were most hated by male narcissists. The men in the study admitted to hating heterosexual women the most. I’ll dig up that reference, since it appears to be a unifying attitude among so many men online. Not to mention a significant number of presumably heterosexual women online.
The term ‘Karen’ did originate as a racist epithet because it was a name typical of white American women, but it has changed its meaning in the light of those overbearing, officious individuals who took it upon themselves to issue orders during the Covid scam.
I recognize that there is a type of judge mental controlling busybody that the term refers to. I read that there were similar people hundreds of years ago in Europe, and they could be charged with the crime of being “common scolds.”
Here in my city most people were strictly compliant with lockdowns and masks, and scolding was approved. At the same time, the Karen slur continued to be used by the mostly leftist population against white women who did not sustain perfect performances of “anti racism.” Many women around here censor themselves about any criticism of gang activity, for example, “because I don’t want to be a Karen.”
I looked up the term "common scold." Their punishment was either the dunking stool, or being made to wear a grotesque mask, or the scold's bridle, which has a harness which covered the mouth.
It’s ridiculous to cry misogyny to exempt women from criticism and ridicule. Grow a pair (of breasts). Toxic women exist. Feminism shouldn’t confer sainthood on an entire group.
I don not see where calling a spade a spade "exempts" women from criticism. On the other hand - where are the social limits on male violence and intimidation? Once again - I'll leave this here:
"Most women have experienced enough dominance from men—control, violence, insult, contempt—that no threat seems empty." - Andrea Dworkin
I agree that Karen is an anti-White slur usually used by Swarthoids after they are told to stop some sort of bad behavior. There are an unfortunate number of White women siding with non-Whites and assorted freaks against their men and children, though, and they do deserve shame. AWFL is a better slur for them.
In the matriarchal society of old, (the longhouse) women ran things in a smart, thoughtful way and hysteria was most likely frowned upon. Women in this society were too darn busy just doing what needed to be done in order to survive and had no time for histrionics. (IMHO)
Nope, it's a description of a certain type of women (the "I'd like to speak to the manager" histrionic type).
And even though most Karens are white (because they get to have and excibit that level of entitltement more), the term is applied to the same type regardless of color, and there's also the assosiated male behavior, a "Male Karen" or "Ken" in meme-speak.
Nice try to make it about women and race in general though, and play the outrage card.
Yes, let's reduce fundamental arguments about social organization to pith and stale memes. That will make it clear that we're the enlightened & reasonable side, and that we value discourse and sound logic. Good work, Yuri, clever & original as ever!
Funny that just this week a photograph depicting just that has made its way around X and has been featured in a substack discussing the reign of bat-sh*t crazy.
"In 2017, at Evergreen State College, a biology professor had his class invaded by a frenzied mob hurling ‘Fuck you, you piece of shit’ type abuse. The professor, ironically a lifelong progressive, “had refused to obey an edict from Evergreen’s Director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services that all white faculty cancel their courses for a day and…white students were also ordered to absent themselves from the school to show ‘solidarity’.” Evergreen’s president expressed his “gratitude” for the mob’s “passion and courage”".
You can’t deviate in the slightest from a cult. The cult always becomes more and more extreme too. Eventually you drink the Kool Aid, or you escape. There is no good ending.
Great article Chris. Precisely explains our moment. I am a woman surgeon and business owner and tend to be reserved and stoic. I thought it was just my perception, but everyone especially my younger employees and patients are drowning in their own unregulated emotions.
My number one reason for early retirement is to run away from this insane asylum.
It is more like toddler tantrums, where the child is overwhelmed by frustration, and not actually in control. These skraelings are not self-possessed enough to be manipulative, as that would require goal-directed planning.
What a shame. All that skill and ambition. Yet I am like-minded at this time. I will make my own way unencumbered by other's baggage, to the extent that I can do so. This will require no small amount of prayer!
Sure buddy, have fun pointing fingers and laughing at those terrible maga people while drinking your DEI beer and enjoying your non-denominational holiday. Now please don't loose your composure as I'm watching Redskins football game while eating Aunt Jemima pancakes with Mrs Butterworth syrup and Chiquita bananas on it.
People know how to stand up to male bullies. We as a society haven’t figured out how to deal with female bullies, yet. For one thing women bully in groups, one alpha mare with three or four sycophants.
Yep. Societies have been fine tuning their responses to socially hostile males for thousands of years.
"Patriarchy" largely kept female pathology localized within the family and between women in the community. Where if course it has always affected women domestically, but not our institutions.
And women know it. There is a reason we prefer male bosses.
Women like to brag about how organized and amazing we moms are, but seriously, have you ever sat in on a PTA committee trying to plan something? The time that gets wasted on discussing the most trivial stupidities while not hurting anyone's feeling to their face is insane. But as soon as the meeting is over the backstabbing begins. Women will go full emotional Caligula to insure that the balloon arch for a middle school dance is the color they want.
PTA and mom politics rivals academia for both the lowness of the stakes, the mind boggling pettiness and the scale of the interpersonal brutality.
But we can't talk about that because the feminist powers that be would scream "Internalized Misogyny!"
Which is of course another example of female bullying meant to silence other females.
Other cultures recognize these tendencies, sometimes they archetype them, sometimes they Goddess them. We have Madonna and Marilyn as our only two archetypes. We don’t know, (we do as we live it, but we don’t see it), the Shrew, Medea, Kali, Durga, and others. They are there though in society.
This is true. The Christian tradition gives so much dignity to women compared to other cultures, and the shadow side of this is that it also tends to romanticize and sentimentalize women in ways other cultures don't.
Which makes any Christian culture, or any culture still living off the fumes of Christendom, very vulnerable to female bullying.
And that vulnerability has been exploited like crazy over the last 60 years.
Heck, all of "wokeness" could easily be seen as the exploitation of Christian sentiment for the most vulnerable by the enemies of actual Christian teaching.
You make some superb points. It is refreshing to see in a member of the fairer sex. Emotional Caligulas, interpersonal brutality and the trivialities to maintain fake niceness. All spot on.
I think the worst from a male perspective is, as you say, us living in European cultures where women are given every advantage, yet the discussion is about patriarchy and the sins we must atone for.
That said, the backlash is here. Very young men are not buying it. The collapse of marriage is primarily men walking away from a bad deal, not women. Tik tok has countless videos of women complaining about where have all the good men gone. So perhaps things will be reset to something more sensible.
Rules for radicals is worse than that. It depends on exploiting other people's kindness and trust by manipulating a mob of useful, but expendable idiots.
How is it that EVERYONE understands, that in order to successfully make a cake, all ingredients are required - in precise amounts. Otherwise the outcome is a disaster - But - when it come to the TWO ingredient (males/females) humanity cake - that built in understanding is tossed out the window?
The skewing of those two ingredients and amounts of them, is at the root of all the chaos you see in the world today (and in the past) and easily explains the rise of the Cluster B Society, as many have alluded to here.
This is an excellent point. My experience with female bullies is always in a group setting. An incompetent leader will do everything they can to keep their power, they just use different tactics based on their skill set, which differs between men and women.
It’s more important for a female to “fit in” with the group because we aren’t as physically capable and therefore more dependent on others. Using psychological manipulation/lying is how a female becomes a tyrant.
A female who is competent and secure in herself, does not need to sacrifice anything or take anything from anyone, especially not in order to “fit in”. It always comes down to the strength of the individual.
I wish I had the answers. I just walk away which is helpful to me but not to society as a whole. I’m not interested in participating in groups or relationships with adult children/victims, male or female. Our society is being led by children.
I disagree with this premise. Feminine beings have important values to contribute. So do masculine ones. Both styles have downsides. Neither need be condemned out of hand. We need to figure out how to incorporate both approaches to life in our public sphere.
Amazing how a progressive man can lecture a woman criticizing other women as "self loathing" and he thinks this gets him Sensitive Good Guy Points.
You know what is "self loathing?" Putting up with the toxic sh*t some women give each other because you are afraid of being called a "misogynist" for breaking Girl Boss Omerta.
Women are human beings. We are not pure and infallible talismans of intersectional grace. We can be nice. We can be not nice. We can be downright nasty, and no, not in just the sexy or "empowering" way.
And real liberation is being able to SAY SO out loud.
Fetishizing feminism and females as beyond criticism is dehumanizing to women, who possess the full range of human potential for good and evil, competence and incompetence, and everything in between as men.
I'll freely speak my mind about my "lived experience," thank you very much.
“We must find a way to restore balance, order, discipline, sanity.”
Our society has turned its back on God. There is no return to normality, Mr Rufo, unless we repent. Perhaps, the further descent into madness and war, with all the tribulation involved, will bring about conversion.
I agree with you, but to avoid the "you want to make a theocracy" problem, I would suggest you go back to Aristotle or John Adams, both of whom believed that personal virtue was a precondition to collective self-government.
Nice to see someone else who has read her ancient philosophy. :-) I'm sitting in a Panera right now writing up my lesson plan for 2 weeks from now on the overlap between Plato and Augustine.
Well, different time frames but definitely both rooted in Socrates. I'm guilty of being a bit like Augustine in my past and working on trying to walk it like I talk it. I have to go back to school and finish. I had great philosophy and ethics teachers is all. I am also trying to be more stoic. Happy planning. Inspire them and I hope they remember you fondly as I do for those I've been lucky enough to learn from.
My students hate when I point out that Jefferson was using Aristotle's definition of "happiness", which as you probably know, is "living a full life in accordance with virtue". When I tell them that the most famous sentence in America should probably read "life, liberty, and the pursuit of virtue" they get really mad. It's cute... in an annoyingly ignorant sort of way.
We have had plenty of madness and war before we turned our back on God, so I have my doubts. We turned our back on God because of our fixations on physical pleasure, and so (it seems to me) that repentance will not come until we are allowed to oppose all the evils that whirlwind has sown.
What you have stated makes perfect sense and can functionall restore those who have lost their war, and parted from the truth or those who never knew what the truth was/is, however we are dealing with Satanic Demons who serve their god.
This is more likely the case than the whole “feminized” rationalization. Marxism has seen that pitting groups of people against each other based on fundamental and/or immutable differences as a real viable leverage point. I had a young Marxist sincerely (?) and with flaring nostrils tell me that “Marx supported people’s right to baer arms and that anyone who says otherwise is just regurgitating (Cold War) propaganda. Go look up what Marx actually said“ I didn’t say out loud: ”yeah kid, but I lived through that Cold War era. Marx only believed people should have guns long enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie/current government, then strip them of them.” Which they did and then killed millions of their own people and others in neighboring countries they overran and subsumed. So much for freedom. No, I agree that women aren’t perfect and some, perhaps many are catty and conniving (although that has been traditionally attributed to having to be the (more subtle) power behind the throne. But not all. And plenty of us don’t hate men, don’t over emotionalize (?), believe in standards and competency, logic and reason, truth and facts. I think that Marxism has intersected (using the word ironically) with immaturity, dysfunction & dishonesty in all of it’s excesses and here we are. Sigh. I don’t want to go back to the old days where I had to fend off my lecherous teacher with one hand while trying to type with the other as he pet my neck. Ick. And when I complained about it to the school counselor he told me to stay after school with him alone to get a better grade. It takes all kinds to make a world. Here is one more point to consider: when rat (and other) animal populations overpopulate and overcrowd they can exhibit abnormal, dysfunctional, and even violent and canabalistic behaviors. This may be at the root of not only far left extremism but also far right extremism and other extremism behaviors. In point of fact that theory fits in better than any patriarchal or matriarchal masculine/feminine model.
I have no doubt it was part of the mix. Even the campaign to allow women to vote was opposed by the majority of women who predicted women would ask for more welfare and increase taxes on working men. All of this is absent from the history books but is easy to find. Then there is a rogues gallery of absolute cranks who made up the early feminists. Some were legitimately crazy. The biggest lie is that previous iterations of feminism were about equality but it was never about that.
Interesting. And if women had not been voting, we would have has only 2-3 Democratic presidents in the past 100 years (all else being equal). No JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama, or Biden. Unsure about Truman. That would make an interesting alternative history.
Women seek security and they'll take it from wherever they can get it.
The stability of previous generations was basically men and women being codependent on each other. He brings home the bacon, she gives him kids and takes care of the house
Other cultures avoid welfare for this reason. It is female nature to be indifferent to the source of their support. Government money is easy as you don't have to provide anything in return. It is an avoidance of responsibility, which is understood by almost 80 percent of the world's population.
Some - not all - upper class women opposed votes for women. These women understood that entering the public sphere meant - in the long run - less protection for them in private life. They preferred to rule the private sphere under the financial protection of men. It was a deal that benefited them. Women who did not get such protection through marriage were out in the cold. No wonder some women understood they needed political power to have any other sort.
"everything I don't like is Marxism" amazing how guys like Rufo get people to catch on to their little buzz phrases and clap like circus seals every time they're uttered
No I’ve just been taking a good look at things, that’s all. We can agree to disagree, but I would prefer you actually address the subject matter, after all I will ignore you after this if you cannot come up with an alternative explanation.
An imbalance between men and women is definitely present in society.
The whole of the trans movement is based on feelings. The guilt trip manipulation used on parents to buy into affirmation or their child will commit suicide is a tool. Any mother has used the guilt trip tool to get their child to behave.
Logic and critical thinking seems to have been lost in this age. Social educational learning tools should be outlawed. Logic, critical thinking and civics should be required.
Your post implies that men are all about logic and critical thinking and women are all about feeling. Histrionic behavior is also not about "feelings," it is about manipulation and acting out of personal conflicts at the expense of others. It has nothing to do with so-called "women's values" of care and compassion. Men also are capable of care and compassion. Do you see any increase in care and compassion among leftists? I don't. Cluster B disorders are not about femininity, although borderline personality disorder has historically been more prevalent in women. Narcissism and sociopathy are both much more prevalent in men.
Hi Sandra. I don’t intend to imply that I could address with any expertise or conclusions about cluster b, histrionics, narcissism or sociopathy.
I have observed empirically that logic and critical thinking are often missing in our society as a whole. Admittedly, I have no formal education on those subjects either. Other than my sister/best friend has taught both subjects in college for forty years. She has schooled me for that same period, and has never let me get by with any generalizations.
I do believe that the feminists of the last twenty plus years have distorted, lost the plot so to speak, of the women’s rights movement.
They have gained a loud voice, educational monopoly of sorts and in general made a mess of things. The result is an imbalance between the male and the female. Balance being the key word.
Female narcissists manifest differently, with 'covert narcissism' being more common. Same disorder, different manifestation. More focus on gaslighting and manipulation rather than bombast. It's like claiming autism is a male-only disorder, females on the spectrum are just different.
Completely agree. Plus all women are narcissistic to a degree anyway, which is not the case with men. Women are comfortable presenting a false image to puff themselves up which we consider vanity but is in fact narcissism, albeit often quite mild. But the manifestation of aggression is what differs. Men are direct, women indirect. Your dinner's in the dog etc.
Clinical narcissism is a matter of degree and hitting the 5 out of 9 criteria. A lot of people manifest narcissistic traits. I personally think the Venn diagram of salespeople and narcissists is a circle. Lots of men in that group too.
If I felt like my future depended on my appearance and ability to attract mates, vanity would be a feature, i'm sure. I actually feel sorry for women. They get the red carpet early in life and then the raspberry later on. I don't know how I would handle that. I might have agreed fully with you pre-recovery, but the whole being a better person thing means being self-aware and acknowledging the limits of that, where I just don't know how it would feel. And realizing I have my own inventory of issues...I shouldn't take others'
I am not so sure narcissism and sociopathy are more prevalent in men. We hold male examples of narcissism and sociopathy as THE definitions. Most guys have had to endure more than one female narcissist in their lives. It is different though. It is quiet entitlement, with passive aggressive punishments when the demand is not met. As opposed to overt. Same as sociopathy. Think of how many women marry for money. That is female sociopathy.
Yep I’ve seen histrionic men. They are less common though than overly emotional women. Both sexes can exhibit toxic traits. Why does this even need to be said?
You will not make real progress - none at all - while you still uphold the validity of Psychology-based reasoning. For someone who calls for a return to classical values, it shocks me that you continue to reference & to rely on this ideological, numenizing, postmodernist pseudoscience as if it derives from ancient & classical values. It does not & it is in fact inimical to classical values in the most basic of ways.
Psychology is the very framework which has led current-year progressives to derangement & distraction. It is through Psychology that perceived emotional harm is transmuted into physical danger, which is then used to justify calls for forcible "protective" action. Arguing through each particular situation is merely the cutting off of hydra heads - futile, even if successful. From the dark & swirling morass of Psychology, more ideological offspring will emerge by fiat, as long as its priests remain considered "professors," and as long as its churches remain considered "academic departments."
This no-evidence-needed, unglued-from-science "discipline" is now the most popular college major in America. Consider what, aside from its precepts, a student of Psychology learns, as he purportedly studies how to treat complex biological-behavioral difficulties. He learns not statistics, nor anatomy, nor neurochemistry, nor logic, nor history, nor argumentation, nor art. In none of these does he learn more than the very basics. Rather, he learns, studies & regurgitates pure dogma, which has been laid down by the pure fiat of the clergy of Psychology.
That this dogma has now grown - in official catechism - to include the idea that some men are women, if they are "womanly" enough, and that some women are men, if they are "manly" enough, is all the evidence needed to show that this is not a scientific, rational, sensible, or decent framework - it is a religion, and a dark & disturbed one. Get it out of your thinking and out of your language. or you will remain trapped in their world forever, and forever confused as to how they've trapped you so.
Sit down a minute. Many psychologists are just trying to describe what they see. Are they often wrong? Should it not devolve into dogma? Yes to both. But dismissing the entire field isn’t helpful.
My generation (boomers) was reared with the "comfort" and companionship of a television always on in the background. I have friends who still need this sound, this voice. They still watch, and, unfortunately, believe network news talking heads and opinion. Their lack of a moral center or ground from which to operate in the world is based on bad intel in spy-lingo. We abandoned our traditional religious upbringing as both a means of tribal (youth) affiliation and a need to be fully "modern". It took an out-in-the-open PSYOP to bring many of us back to a more traditional center, to restore a balance that we had earlier abandoned. I would add that having a life-partner whom one can trust may also be a crucial part of the solution to our societal ills.
Great article, as most of the sane people in our society wonder ‘ what in the world, how in the world’ did all the insanity we see daily occur? Initially, I wanted to attribute it to a natural progression the culture of narcissism makes possible, but then recalled early Kabbalah teachings broke down God‘s attributes and the ones we mere mortals are meant to emulate by showing the balance inherit in the tree of life . A lightbulb went on when I realized where we are today can be directly linked to the feminist movement begun in the 70s that has now permeated most (all) of our institutions and created the current dysfunctional, totally out of balance, wacko world.
As the inestimable Michael Walsh points out in ref the attack on Israel:
"The feminine desire for peace has just been trumped by the masculine understanding that war is the natural state of man, and peace the aberration."
We know what the Romans would have done in this situation, as should the Israelis since the Jews were on the receiving end of the Roman way of total war under Titus and Hadrian. Alas for the Israelis and the rest of the world -- we're looking at you, Iran -- that will be affected by how the dominoes now fall, the Western political class of gay men and childless women is the worst since the run-up to World War I, and we all know how that ended. Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings must and will out, and when reality bites, it doesn't much care who gets it first, or whom it hurts the most.
There are aphorisms that distill reality and ones that oversimplify it to the point of absurdity. This quote from Walsh is in the absurdity column. Although I do think he’s trying to do good work bringing sanity back to gender relations. Men and women are different, on average, and it’s equally absurd to deny that. So I take his statement as an exaggeration of that insight. But it’s not really descriptive.
Michael malice is right: Roll the tanks into Harvard Yard.
Your efforts at the New College in FL show a path to reform, but I'm afraid the number of institutional tentacles will be hard to sever without them growing back.
Some sort of scorched earth plan is required. A completely separate institution would need to grow alongside what's left behind after the purge.
My utopian fantasy includes the destruction of universities, replacing them with guilds/trade associations and dedicated academies for the hard and applied sciences. Study of arts and letters--including political science and philosophy--would once again become an amateur pursuit. Former university properties would be converted into reasonably priced housing, with their libraries retained and made common resources. Imagine such a community on the beautiful landscape of someplace like UC Santa Cruz.
I can’t believe you are seriously describing “utopia”. What I see is tyranny and utter disregard for our Constitution and rule of law. Rufo is right, but you are insane.
While everything you say is true, I was chagrined by an earlier piece of yours that appeared to discount external influence, and with that point of view I completely disagree. All of these issues have been raised, enlarged, enhanced and spread through corporate media to exacerbate division, which specifically suits the ends of people who wish to disarm, control and conquer this nation.
The question no longer is how we got here - to the feminized society about which a quickly-increasing number of columns being written by both male and female writers attests, but where do we go from here?
With cross-spectrum commentary about the results of social media inculcating Cluster-B pathologies in - especially - young women and girls, what do thinking people expect of an already over-feminized society mainlining pathological personality disorders via social media into the next generation of these women as they graduate college and move into HR departments, classrooms, Boards of Education and politics?
How we got here began with 19A and the overturning of millennia of gender roles that allowed and assisted the rise of the West, what we rightly call “civilization,” and quickly accelerated to the abject failure to society that is todays feminism as it destroys peace, prosperity and borders.
If we again want civilization to progress, to get past homelessness, decarceration, open borders, maligning the men who built the modern world to favor women who refuse to populate the future, women are going to have to be disenfranchised. They’ve had over a century to show their value to the political world and that value turns out to be negative to civil society, law & order, the future of mankind.
That is where it will go if for no other reason society will collapse. As Camille Paglia says, men and women are different. If women had ran society as the feminists want we'd still be living in mud huts.
The growing legion of former feminists who have left the coven tend to coalesce around one singular point that is aggressively rejected by the mainstream, namely female nature. These ladies do not say women are morally inferior, simply different. One way they differ is their inability to build things, especially complex things like societies that actually function. Their second point is that women excel at creating babies and rearing them, an irreplaceable function. Slowly dying in a cubicle to increase shareholder value is hardly a substitute.
Women have been sold the lie that they can be exactly like men. The catch is they have to be men and perform under masculine rules. I actually don’t believe toxic femininity rules the entire culture. I think there’s still plenty of toxic masculinity around (the one who dies with the most toys wins; a little or a lot of killing solves problems; caring for others makes you a fool) and women who are trying to play by masculine rules.
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a Karen shrieking at a human face—for ever.” Mx. George Orwell (they/them)
The term "Karen" is a racist, sexist slur against white women. Apparently both the left and the right now think that white women are fair game for sexist, racist treatment. I am appalled by how many white men and white women are perpetrating this abusive, discriminatory behavior.
White women are the primary drivers of all of this nonsense and the primary benefactors of affirmative action. They somehow manage to be minorities and yet also the most privileged demographic.
It’s natural they would be criticized by both sides. They have their cake and eat it too.
*liberal white women, but yes.
Or white-looking. Many of the most influential and outspoken women leftists /subversives belong to a different ethny but can pass for white. They are good at leveraging the ambiguity and hiding in plain sight.
A key component of the Longhouse theory is that including women into public spaces leads to them policing language, the ultimate expression of which is censorship. And here you are, Sandra, doing that very thing. Assuming your definition of the epithet of Karen is the right one and therefore ought to be policed because you associate it with race or discrimination.
Most people's understanding of the label is an inappropriately officious lady who demeans customer service staff and demands someone higher up the food chain as both a way to assert dominance and to humiliate the (often helpful) member of staff.
You see the problem society has? Women instinctively act in this way, which has repercussions for the rest of us, male and female. Men rarely do as a rule.
Did you not read the article? Cluster B behaviour is characterized by emotional outbursts and demands that must be met. Its antithesis is the kind of calm discussion where both parties try to understand the other point of view. A rarity nowadays.
Food for thought.
🛎️🔨
"Women instinctively act in this way," and "Men rarely do as a rule."
This woman does not and while I've seen the crap all over the internet I do not have a single woman friend who behaves in the manner you describe. On the other hand all but one of the men I have known will use intimidation and other expressions of wounded ego as "a way to assert dominance and to humiliate".
Here is an example that is fresh in my mind: A couple of days ago I was shoveling snow at the end of my driveway on a bend in the small, rural road. The road was iced up real bad and I've seen people lose control on enough occasions over the past 30 years to be concerned. A week or so ago my neighbor was nearly hit by someone and when there is snow there are often as many as five cars parked at the end of the driveways. An out of control driver could do a lot of damage. So I used the hand signal to slow down. Yup. The maybe 30 something male driver who seemed to be in such a hurry stopped in order to defend himself (lie about how fast he was going) call me a fucking bitch and then punch it, skidding his rear wheels on the ice and eventually tearing off up the road to skid around the next bend I wanted to take my dog for a walk a little later but I was genuinely concerned I would encounter this ass again. Yes. I felt threatened. And I could tell at least another half dozen stories just like this one and I haven't even touched upon the cluster b boy I was married to.
I don't know how you could know what is instinctive for women unless you are one but I do realize that men believing they know what it is like to be a woman is all the rage lately so I'll just leave this here:
"Most women have experienced enough dominance from men—control, violence, insult, contempt—that no threat seems empty." - Andrea Dworkin
The comment was about women policing language, not physical intimidation. Perhaps you wish to read up on the Longhouse theory before commenting?
Your rambling story was completely irrelevant to anything I wrote. You are not doing much of a job showing the sisterhood in a good light, lol.
You'll note I didn't say women are parochial thinkers who use irrelevant personal anecdotes to ineptly counter points based on observation and data, but many do just this. 😜
My story was a demonstration of how men use threatening behavior in order to police/control language and other forms of communication. Policing language is policing language is policing language etc and you have failed to consider the wider context* that does include physical intimidation - almost always men intimidating and limiting the ability of women to advocate for themselves. It is unfortunate that you have responded exactly as I thought you would.
* failing to consider the wider context IS the definition of parochialism so good job on a nearly perfect example of projection.
We are not talking about men. My comment was about women policing language. Please keep focused on the topic at hand.
Online losers of the left & right are more similar than different - their most hated enemy is their mother.
That’s what I was thinking too. I saw a research study a while ago that looked at what demographics were most hated by male narcissists. The men in the study admitted to hating heterosexual women the most. I’ll dig up that reference, since it appears to be a unifying attitude among so many men online. Not to mention a significant number of presumably heterosexual women online.
The term ‘Karen’ did originate as a racist epithet because it was a name typical of white American women, but it has changed its meaning in the light of those overbearing, officious individuals who took it upon themselves to issue orders during the Covid scam.
I recognize that there is a type of judge mental controlling busybody that the term refers to. I read that there were similar people hundreds of years ago in Europe, and they could be charged with the crime of being “common scolds.”
Here in my city most people were strictly compliant with lockdowns and masks, and scolding was approved. At the same time, the Karen slur continued to be used by the mostly leftist population against white women who did not sustain perfect performances of “anti racism.” Many women around here censor themselves about any criticism of gang activity, for example, “because I don’t want to be a Karen.”
> they could be charged with the crime of being “common scolds.”
We should consider bringing it back.
I looked up the term "common scold." Their punishment was either the dunking stool, or being made to wear a grotesque mask, or the scold's bridle, which has a harness which covered the mouth.
Fair point. The term still has its original usage among those who coined it.
While there is punishment, there is no cure for the common scold.
LIBERAL WHITE WOMEN basically condoned and allowed everything you see today to happen...may want to look in the mirror.
It’s ridiculous to cry misogyny to exempt women from criticism and ridicule. Grow a pair (of breasts). Toxic women exist. Feminism shouldn’t confer sainthood on an entire group.
I don not see where calling a spade a spade "exempts" women from criticism. On the other hand - where are the social limits on male violence and intimidation? Once again - I'll leave this here:
"Most women have experienced enough dominance from men—control, violence, insult, contempt—that no threat seems empty." - Andrea Dworkin
Hmm. Be careful with the grow a pair please. Many MANY woman have, and lost them (and quite possibly their life) to cancer.
I prefer Betty Whites approach:
"Grow a vagina"
If you don't know the context, Google it.
:)
I agree that Karen is an anti-White slur usually used by Swarthoids after they are told to stop some sort of bad behavior. There are an unfortunate number of White women siding with non-Whites and assorted freaks against their men and children, though, and they do deserve shame. AWFL is a better slur for them.
I call anyone, either sex, any colour, a Karen. If they are one. Lots of male Karens. But quite a bit more female ones.
This confirming this article by your sense of victimhood etc
Let's see the appalling stats.
American white women. I travel a lot overseas, there are few people as entitled or righteous as American white women.
You're the only one thinking it means all white women. Instead of entitled white women who use their status to hurt people lower in status than them.
In the matriarchal society of old, (the longhouse) women ran things in a smart, thoughtful way and hysteria was most likely frowned upon. Women in this society were too darn busy just doing what needed to be done in order to survive and had no time for histrionics. (IMHO)
Nope, it's a description of a certain type of women (the "I'd like to speak to the manager" histrionic type).
And even though most Karens are white (because they get to have and excibit that level of entitltement more), the term is applied to the same type regardless of color, and there's also the assosiated male behavior, a "Male Karen" or "Ken" in meme-speak.
Nice try to make it about women and race in general though, and play the outrage card.
Sandra, please reflect on how circular your post is.
Found the Karen!
You will love big brother or else
I always remember to last words of “1984”, “he loved Big Brother “.
Yes, let's reduce fundamental arguments about social organization to pith and stale memes. That will make it clear that we're the enlightened & reasonable side, and that we value discourse and sound logic. Good work, Yuri, clever & original as ever!
Funny that just this week a photograph depicting just that has made its way around X and has been featured in a substack discussing the reign of bat-sh*t crazy.
"The goal is not to arrive at answers but to browbeat opponents and make them feel remorseful for denying left-wing orthodoxy."
That's Leftism 2023 in a nutshell. A great essay, Mr Rufo.
Yes true and "college students screaming and chanting their demands" in a nutshell...... This from Heather Mac Donald's forensic survey of campus culture The Diversity Delusion (which I reviewed here): https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/how-diversity-narrows-the-mind
"In 2017, at Evergreen State College, a biology professor had his class invaded by a frenzied mob hurling ‘Fuck you, you piece of shit’ type abuse. The professor, ironically a lifelong progressive, “had refused to obey an edict from Evergreen’s Director of First Peoples Multicultural Advising Services that all white faculty cancel their courses for a day and…white students were also ordered to absent themselves from the school to show ‘solidarity’.” Evergreen’s president expressed his “gratitude” for the mob’s “passion and courage”".
You can’t deviate in the slightest from a cult. The cult always becomes more and more extreme too. Eventually you drink the Kool Aid, or you escape. There is no good ending.
Good grief. Nuke them from space, it is the only way.
This needs an update for all that has occurred since October, 2023. In a nutshell: hoo-boy! Were you ever right!
Great article Chris. Precisely explains our moment. I am a woman surgeon and business owner and tend to be reserved and stoic. I thought it was just my perception, but everyone especially my younger employees and patients are drowning in their own unregulated emotions.
My number one reason for early retirement is to run away from this insane asylum.
I will second this motion. And it is difficult to escape the feeling much of it is a performance and not even sincere.
I’m not sure they even know how to be sincere anymore.
In that case it’s probably manipulation. It’s like the kid that learns screaming will get mommy to give the lollipop.
It is more like toddler tantrums, where the child is overwhelmed by frustration, and not actually in control. These skraelings are not self-possessed enough to be manipulative, as that would require goal-directed planning.
Being a stoic woman is its own special challenge in a world where you're expected to constantly baby and nurture the plebs around you
What a shame. All that skill and ambition. Yet I am like-minded at this time. I will make my own way unencumbered by other's baggage, to the extent that I can do so. This will require no small amount of prayer!
No kidding, look at all these fragile MAGAs getting triggered over stuff like beer cans and "happy holidays"
Sure buddy, have fun pointing fingers and laughing at those terrible maga people while drinking your DEI beer and enjoying your non-denominational holiday. Now please don't loose your composure as I'm watching Redskins football game while eating Aunt Jemima pancakes with Mrs Butterworth syrup and Chiquita bananas on it.
So you agree this behavior is bad?
You worked hard for that misrepresentation of reality.
I have long suspected that our social collapse is due to the ever-increasing prominence of women in positions of power. Thanks for saying it out loud.
People know how to stand up to male bullies. We as a society haven’t figured out how to deal with female bullies, yet. For one thing women bully in groups, one alpha mare with three or four sycophants.
Yep. Societies have been fine tuning their responses to socially hostile males for thousands of years.
"Patriarchy" largely kept female pathology localized within the family and between women in the community. Where if course it has always affected women domestically, but not our institutions.
And women know it. There is a reason we prefer male bosses.
Women like to brag about how organized and amazing we moms are, but seriously, have you ever sat in on a PTA committee trying to plan something? The time that gets wasted on discussing the most trivial stupidities while not hurting anyone's feeling to their face is insane. But as soon as the meeting is over the backstabbing begins. Women will go full emotional Caligula to insure that the balloon arch for a middle school dance is the color they want.
PTA and mom politics rivals academia for both the lowness of the stakes, the mind boggling pettiness and the scale of the interpersonal brutality.
But we can't talk about that because the feminist powers that be would scream "Internalized Misogyny!"
Which is of course another example of female bullying meant to silence other females.
Other cultures recognize these tendencies, sometimes they archetype them, sometimes they Goddess them. We have Madonna and Marilyn as our only two archetypes. We don’t know, (we do as we live it, but we don’t see it), the Shrew, Medea, Kali, Durga, and others. They are there though in society.
This is true. The Christian tradition gives so much dignity to women compared to other cultures, and the shadow side of this is that it also tends to romanticize and sentimentalize women in ways other cultures don't.
Which makes any Christian culture, or any culture still living off the fumes of Christendom, very vulnerable to female bullying.
And that vulnerability has been exploited like crazy over the last 60 years.
Heck, all of "wokeness" could easily be seen as the exploitation of Christian sentiment for the most vulnerable by the enemies of actual Christian teaching.
You make some superb points. It is refreshing to see in a member of the fairer sex. Emotional Caligulas, interpersonal brutality and the trivialities to maintain fake niceness. All spot on.
I think the worst from a male perspective is, as you say, us living in European cultures where women are given every advantage, yet the discussion is about patriarchy and the sins we must atone for.
That said, the backlash is here. Very young men are not buying it. The collapse of marriage is primarily men walking away from a bad deal, not women. Tik tok has countless videos of women complaining about where have all the good men gone. So perhaps things will be reset to something more sensible.
Agreed.
It is pure ‘Rules for radicals’. Exploit their weakness using their own Philosophy against them.
Rules for radicals is worse than that. It depends on exploiting other people's kindness and trust by manipulating a mob of useful, but expendable idiots.
Very well said!!
How is it that EVERYONE understands, that in order to successfully make a cake, all ingredients are required - in precise amounts. Otherwise the outcome is a disaster - But - when it come to the TWO ingredient (males/females) humanity cake - that built in understanding is tossed out the window?
The skewing of those two ingredients and amounts of them, is at the root of all the chaos you see in the world today (and in the past) and easily explains the rise of the Cluster B Society, as many have alluded to here.
This is an excellent point. My experience with female bullies is always in a group setting. An incompetent leader will do everything they can to keep their power, they just use different tactics based on their skill set, which differs between men and women.
It’s more important for a female to “fit in” with the group because we aren’t as physically capable and therefore more dependent on others. Using psychological manipulation/lying is how a female becomes a tyrant.
A female who is competent and secure in herself, does not need to sacrifice anything or take anything from anyone, especially not in order to “fit in”. It always comes down to the strength of the individual.
I wish I had the answers. I just walk away which is helpful to me but not to society as a whole. I’m not interested in participating in groups or relationships with adult children/victims, male or female. Our society is being led by children.
My experience as well. Great point. The Queen Bee phenomenon.
I disagree with this premise. Feminine beings have important values to contribute. So do masculine ones. Both styles have downsides. Neither need be condemned out of hand. We need to figure out how to incorporate both approaches to life in our public sphere.
That is dependent on which women are in power. I have worked with and for women who were stable
I'm a woman and if given a blind choice between an average man and an average woman for a boss I would choose the man. Hands down.
I would much rather deal with the occasional mildly annoying flirtation than with the psychological warfare sh*t women deal out to each other.
Amazing how internalize misogyny and self loathing are mandatory for being a conservative woman
Amazing how a progressive man can lecture a woman criticizing other women as "self loathing" and he thinks this gets him Sensitive Good Guy Points.
You know what is "self loathing?" Putting up with the toxic sh*t some women give each other because you are afraid of being called a "misogynist" for breaking Girl Boss Omerta.
Women are human beings. We are not pure and infallible talismans of intersectional grace. We can be nice. We can be not nice. We can be downright nasty, and no, not in just the sexy or "empowering" way.
And real liberation is being able to SAY SO out loud.
Fetishizing feminism and females as beyond criticism is dehumanizing to women, who possess the full range of human potential for good and evil, competence and incompetence, and everything in between as men.
I'll freely speak my mind about my "lived experience," thank you very much.
And that's how you handle the Beta-males of the world, that have been bred for the past 8 decades.
Well done!!!
Good reply.
No it’s just recognition that being a woman doesn’t confer sainthood.
In the US, average height is 5'3.25" and falling. Just for reference.
Interesting, name all the women in power that have led our country to where it is today. Start with the presidents.
“We must find a way to restore balance, order, discipline, sanity.”
Our society has turned its back on God. There is no return to normality, Mr Rufo, unless we repent. Perhaps, the further descent into madness and war, with all the tribulation involved, will bring about conversion.
I agree with you, but to avoid the "you want to make a theocracy" problem, I would suggest you go back to Aristotle or John Adams, both of whom believed that personal virtue was a precondition to collective self-government.
Covid put everyone in a Platos cave of big techs making.
Nice to see someone else who has read her ancient philosophy. :-) I'm sitting in a Panera right now writing up my lesson plan for 2 weeks from now on the overlap between Plato and Augustine.
Well, different time frames but definitely both rooted in Socrates. I'm guilty of being a bit like Augustine in my past and working on trying to walk it like I talk it. I have to go back to school and finish. I had great philosophy and ethics teachers is all. I am also trying to be more stoic. Happy planning. Inspire them and I hope they remember you fondly as I do for those I've been lucky enough to learn from.
In fact, Adams got the idea from Aristotle.
My students hate when I point out that Jefferson was using Aristotle's definition of "happiness", which as you probably know, is "living a full life in accordance with virtue". When I tell them that the most famous sentence in America should probably read "life, liberty, and the pursuit of virtue" they get really mad. It's cute... in an annoyingly ignorant sort of way.
It is a great definition really. Try being consistently happy and not be virtuous. Not possible.
🏆
Ben Franklin, the Wrights, Musk, et al
The whole Enlightenment project deemed men as autonomous with God as merely a watchmaker, if anything. “If there is no God, everything is permitted"
And nothing is forgiven.
We have had plenty of madness and war before we turned our back on God, so I have my doubts. We turned our back on God because of our fixations on physical pleasure, and so (it seems to me) that repentance will not come until we are allowed to oppose all the evils that whirlwind has sown.
What you have stated makes perfect sense and can functionall restore those who have lost their war, and parted from the truth or those who never knew what the truth was/is, however we are dealing with Satanic Demons who serve their god.
How much of this has been foisted upon us through Marxist ideology and their efforts to destabilize society?
This is more likely the case than the whole “feminized” rationalization. Marxism has seen that pitting groups of people against each other based on fundamental and/or immutable differences as a real viable leverage point. I had a young Marxist sincerely (?) and with flaring nostrils tell me that “Marx supported people’s right to baer arms and that anyone who says otherwise is just regurgitating (Cold War) propaganda. Go look up what Marx actually said“ I didn’t say out loud: ”yeah kid, but I lived through that Cold War era. Marx only believed people should have guns long enough to overthrow the bourgeoisie/current government, then strip them of them.” Which they did and then killed millions of their own people and others in neighboring countries they overran and subsumed. So much for freedom. No, I agree that women aren’t perfect and some, perhaps many are catty and conniving (although that has been traditionally attributed to having to be the (more subtle) power behind the throne. But not all. And plenty of us don’t hate men, don’t over emotionalize (?), believe in standards and competency, logic and reason, truth and facts. I think that Marxism has intersected (using the word ironically) with immaturity, dysfunction & dishonesty in all of it’s excesses and here we are. Sigh. I don’t want to go back to the old days where I had to fend off my lecherous teacher with one hand while trying to type with the other as he pet my neck. Ick. And when I complained about it to the school counselor he told me to stay after school with him alone to get a better grade. It takes all kinds to make a world. Here is one more point to consider: when rat (and other) animal populations overpopulate and overcrowd they can exhibit abnormal, dysfunctional, and even violent and canabalistic behaviors. This may be at the root of not only far left extremism but also far right extremism and other extremism behaviors. In point of fact that theory fits in better than any patriarchal or matriarchal masculine/feminine model.
Well aren’t you a mad hatter! Good day to ‘ya 🤪🥴😬
I have no doubt it was part of the mix. Even the campaign to allow women to vote was opposed by the majority of women who predicted women would ask for more welfare and increase taxes on working men. All of this is absent from the history books but is easy to find. Then there is a rogues gallery of absolute cranks who made up the early feminists. Some were legitimately crazy. The biggest lie is that previous iterations of feminism were about equality but it was never about that.
Interesting. And if women had not been voting, we would have has only 2-3 Democratic presidents in the past 100 years (all else being equal). No JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama, or Biden. Unsure about Truman. That would make an interesting alternative history.
Women seek security and they'll take it from wherever they can get it.
The stability of previous generations was basically men and women being codependent on each other. He brings home the bacon, she gives him kids and takes care of the house
Other cultures avoid welfare for this reason. It is female nature to be indifferent to the source of their support. Government money is easy as you don't have to provide anything in return. It is an avoidance of responsibility, which is understood by almost 80 percent of the world's population.
Wow do you actually know any women?
Some - not all - upper class women opposed votes for women. These women understood that entering the public sphere meant - in the long run - less protection for them in private life. They preferred to rule the private sphere under the financial protection of men. It was a deal that benefited them. Women who did not get such protection through marriage were out in the cold. No wonder some women understood they needed political power to have any other sort.
"everything I don't like is Marxism" amazing how guys like Rufo get people to catch on to their little buzz phrases and clap like circus seals every time they're uttered
Nice try at a deflection. Do you have anything real to contribute?
No I’ve just been taking a good look at things, that’s all. We can agree to disagree, but I would prefer you actually address the subject matter, after all I will ignore you after this if you cannot come up with an alternative explanation.
An imbalance between men and women is definitely present in society.
The whole of the trans movement is based on feelings. The guilt trip manipulation used on parents to buy into affirmation or their child will commit suicide is a tool. Any mother has used the guilt trip tool to get their child to behave.
Logic and critical thinking seems to have been lost in this age. Social educational learning tools should be outlawed. Logic, critical thinking and civics should be required.
Your post implies that men are all about logic and critical thinking and women are all about feeling. Histrionic behavior is also not about "feelings," it is about manipulation and acting out of personal conflicts at the expense of others. It has nothing to do with so-called "women's values" of care and compassion. Men also are capable of care and compassion. Do you see any increase in care and compassion among leftists? I don't. Cluster B disorders are not about femininity, although borderline personality disorder has historically been more prevalent in women. Narcissism and sociopathy are both much more prevalent in men.
Hi Sandra. I don’t intend to imply that I could address with any expertise or conclusions about cluster b, histrionics, narcissism or sociopathy.
I have observed empirically that logic and critical thinking are often missing in our society as a whole. Admittedly, I have no formal education on those subjects either. Other than my sister/best friend has taught both subjects in college for forty years. She has schooled me for that same period, and has never let me get by with any generalizations.
I do believe that the feminists of the last twenty plus years have distorted, lost the plot so to speak, of the women’s rights movement.
They have gained a loud voice, educational monopoly of sorts and in general made a mess of things. The result is an imbalance between the male and the female. Balance being the key word.
I agree that many young feminists have lost the plot.
Female narcissists manifest differently, with 'covert narcissism' being more common. Same disorder, different manifestation. More focus on gaslighting and manipulation rather than bombast. It's like claiming autism is a male-only disorder, females on the spectrum are just different.
My ex-wife was a covert, and 14 years of scars...
Completely agree. Plus all women are narcissistic to a degree anyway, which is not the case with men. Women are comfortable presenting a false image to puff themselves up which we consider vanity but is in fact narcissism, albeit often quite mild. But the manifestation of aggression is what differs. Men are direct, women indirect. Your dinner's in the dog etc.
Clinical narcissism is a matter of degree and hitting the 5 out of 9 criteria. A lot of people manifest narcissistic traits. I personally think the Venn diagram of salespeople and narcissists is a circle. Lots of men in that group too.
I agree. But women definitely display strong narcissistic traits as a matter of routine.
If I felt like my future depended on my appearance and ability to attract mates, vanity would be a feature, i'm sure. I actually feel sorry for women. They get the red carpet early in life and then the raspberry later on. I don't know how I would handle that. I might have agreed fully with you pre-recovery, but the whole being a better person thing means being self-aware and acknowledging the limits of that, where I just don't know how it would feel. And realizing I have my own inventory of issues...I shouldn't take others'
I am not so sure narcissism and sociopathy are more prevalent in men. We hold male examples of narcissism and sociopathy as THE definitions. Most guys have had to endure more than one female narcissist in their lives. It is different though. It is quiet entitlement, with passive aggressive punishments when the demand is not met. As opposed to overt. Same as sociopathy. Think of how many women marry for money. That is female sociopathy.
Yep I’ve seen histrionic men. They are less common though than overly emotional women. Both sexes can exhibit toxic traits. Why does this even need to be said?
You will not make real progress - none at all - while you still uphold the validity of Psychology-based reasoning. For someone who calls for a return to classical values, it shocks me that you continue to reference & to rely on this ideological, numenizing, postmodernist pseudoscience as if it derives from ancient & classical values. It does not & it is in fact inimical to classical values in the most basic of ways.
Psychology is the very framework which has led current-year progressives to derangement & distraction. It is through Psychology that perceived emotional harm is transmuted into physical danger, which is then used to justify calls for forcible "protective" action. Arguing through each particular situation is merely the cutting off of hydra heads - futile, even if successful. From the dark & swirling morass of Psychology, more ideological offspring will emerge by fiat, as long as its priests remain considered "professors," and as long as its churches remain considered "academic departments."
This no-evidence-needed, unglued-from-science "discipline" is now the most popular college major in America. Consider what, aside from its precepts, a student of Psychology learns, as he purportedly studies how to treat complex biological-behavioral difficulties. He learns not statistics, nor anatomy, nor neurochemistry, nor logic, nor history, nor argumentation, nor art. In none of these does he learn more than the very basics. Rather, he learns, studies & regurgitates pure dogma, which has been laid down by the pure fiat of the clergy of Psychology.
That this dogma has now grown - in official catechism - to include the idea that some men are women, if they are "womanly" enough, and that some women are men, if they are "manly" enough, is all the evidence needed to show that this is not a scientific, rational, sensible, or decent framework - it is a religion, and a dark & disturbed one. Get it out of your thinking and out of your language. or you will remain trapped in their world forever, and forever confused as to how they've trapped you so.
Like, Like, Like ..... a thousand times Like!
It is a rare pleasure to come upon a distinctively unique and enlightening way of understanding a phenomenon. Thumbs way up!
Sit down a minute. Many psychologists are just trying to describe what they see. Are they often wrong? Should it not devolve into dogma? Yes to both. But dismissing the entire field isn’t helpful.
My generation (boomers) was reared with the "comfort" and companionship of a television always on in the background. I have friends who still need this sound, this voice. They still watch, and, unfortunately, believe network news talking heads and opinion. Their lack of a moral center or ground from which to operate in the world is based on bad intel in spy-lingo. We abandoned our traditional religious upbringing as both a means of tribal (youth) affiliation and a need to be fully "modern". It took an out-in-the-open PSYOP to bring many of us back to a more traditional center, to restore a balance that we had earlier abandoned. I would add that having a life-partner whom one can trust may also be a crucial part of the solution to our societal ills.
The worst part is that our 'education system' is teaching the students that this Cluster B pathology is a normal and preferred way to live.
Great article, as most of the sane people in our society wonder ‘ what in the world, how in the world’ did all the insanity we see daily occur? Initially, I wanted to attribute it to a natural progression the culture of narcissism makes possible, but then recalled early Kabbalah teachings broke down God‘s attributes and the ones we mere mortals are meant to emulate by showing the balance inherit in the tree of life . A lightbulb went on when I realized where we are today can be directly linked to the feminist movement begun in the 70s that has now permeated most (all) of our institutions and created the current dysfunctional, totally out of balance, wacko world.
It actually started much earlier, in the 1920s. That was when the birthrate began to drop.
As the inestimable Michael Walsh points out in ref the attack on Israel:
"The feminine desire for peace has just been trumped by the masculine understanding that war is the natural state of man, and peace the aberration."
We know what the Romans would have done in this situation, as should the Israelis since the Jews were on the receiving end of the Roman way of total war under Titus and Hadrian. Alas for the Israelis and the rest of the world -- we're looking at you, Iran -- that will be affected by how the dominoes now fall, the Western political class of gay men and childless women is the worst since the run-up to World War I, and we all know how that ended. Kipling's Gods of the Copybook Headings must and will out, and when reality bites, it doesn't much care who gets it first, or whom it hurts the most.
https://the-pipeline.org/the-column-reality-bites/
There are aphorisms that distill reality and ones that oversimplify it to the point of absurdity. This quote from Walsh is in the absurdity column. Although I do think he’s trying to do good work bringing sanity back to gender relations. Men and women are different, on average, and it’s equally absurd to deny that. So I take his statement as an exaggeration of that insight. But it’s not really descriptive.
Michael malice is right: Roll the tanks into Harvard Yard.
Your efforts at the New College in FL show a path to reform, but I'm afraid the number of institutional tentacles will be hard to sever without them growing back.
Some sort of scorched earth plan is required. A completely separate institution would need to grow alongside what's left behind after the purge.
My utopian fantasy includes the destruction of universities, replacing them with guilds/trade associations and dedicated academies for the hard and applied sciences. Study of arts and letters--including political science and philosophy--would once again become an amateur pursuit. Former university properties would be converted into reasonably priced housing, with their libraries retained and made common resources. Imagine such a community on the beautiful landscape of someplace like UC Santa Cruz.
I can’t believe you are seriously describing “utopia”. What I see is tyranny and utter disregard for our Constitution and rule of law. Rufo is right, but you are insane.
Tyranny is what we have now. How do you plan to fix it?
Pretty sure Arabs have the highest rates of incest in the world and the IQs to show for it...
While everything you say is true, I was chagrined by an earlier piece of yours that appeared to discount external influence, and with that point of view I completely disagree. All of these issues have been raised, enlarged, enhanced and spread through corporate media to exacerbate division, which specifically suits the ends of people who wish to disarm, control and conquer this nation.
https://thefederalist.com/2023/07/04/the-u-n-is-planning-to-seize-global-emergency-powers-with-bidens-support/
https://weforum.ent.box.com/s/rdlgipawkjxi2vdaidw8npbtyach2qbt
It seems there is yet a sorely unpopular and thus unattended issue:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5326711/
As you are a distinguished writer it seems potentially important to point out these factors.
Not to be overlooked, an often-legalized and heavily-used drug:
https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/early-intervention-services/cannabis%20use%20and%20psychosis_380524_284_53825_v2.pdf
Got societal decay?
Thank a Democrat. It's their specialty, particularly in the urban miasmas.
The question no longer is how we got here - to the feminized society about which a quickly-increasing number of columns being written by both male and female writers attests, but where do we go from here?
With cross-spectrum commentary about the results of social media inculcating Cluster-B pathologies in - especially - young women and girls, what do thinking people expect of an already over-feminized society mainlining pathological personality disorders via social media into the next generation of these women as they graduate college and move into HR departments, classrooms, Boards of Education and politics?
How we got here began with 19A and the overturning of millennia of gender roles that allowed and assisted the rise of the West, what we rightly call “civilization,” and quickly accelerated to the abject failure to society that is todays feminism as it destroys peace, prosperity and borders.
If we again want civilization to progress, to get past homelessness, decarceration, open borders, maligning the men who built the modern world to favor women who refuse to populate the future, women are going to have to be disenfranchised. They’ve had over a century to show their value to the political world and that value turns out to be negative to civil society, law & order, the future of mankind.
That is where it will go if for no other reason society will collapse. As Camille Paglia says, men and women are different. If women had ran society as the feminists want we'd still be living in mud huts.
The growing legion of former feminists who have left the coven tend to coalesce around one singular point that is aggressively rejected by the mainstream, namely female nature. These ladies do not say women are morally inferior, simply different. One way they differ is their inability to build things, especially complex things like societies that actually function. Their second point is that women excel at creating babies and rearing them, an irreplaceable function. Slowly dying in a cubicle to increase shareholder value is hardly a substitute.
Women have been sold the lie that they can be exactly like men. The catch is they have to be men and perform under masculine rules. I actually don’t believe toxic femininity rules the entire culture. I think there’s still plenty of toxic masculinity around (the one who dies with the most toys wins; a little or a lot of killing solves problems; caring for others makes you a fool) and women who are trying to play by masculine rules.