X Close

The sexual holy war is coming for you Our therapeutic state smothers the human spirit

Is the PMC pushing back?


July 24, 2023   9 mins

“Children in their games are wont to submit to rules which they have themselves established, and to punish misdemeanours which they have themselves defined.” Thus did Tocqueville marvel at Americans’ habit of self-government, and the temperament it both required and encouraged from a young age. “The same spirit,” he said, “pervades every act of social life.” The unsupervised games and rituals of children in the 19th century were nicely depicted (with comic exaggeration) in Mark Twain’s novels The Adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn.

In his review of a 1993 book on the history of masculinity by one E. Anthony Rotundo, Christopher Lasch writes that boys “challenged each other to spontaneous feats of daring and agility, acted out stories of heroic adventure and collaborated in the enforcement of an informal code of honour that stressed courage, loyalty and stoic endurance of pain”.

Such patterns of self-directed activity persisted into young adulthood in informal associations such as debate societies. “The clash of wits between friends recalled the physical combat of loyal playfellows in boyhood… mixing affection with attack.” Such associations could serve as a substitute for college. “We educated each other by criticising and laughing at each other,” one informant recalled.

But by the end of the 19th century, such autonomous organisations of young men were fading away. “Education was increasingly confined to the classroom, agonistic rivalry to the playing field. Formal pedagogy replaced spontaneous play and self-culture.”

Lasch continues: “The expansion of extracurricular activities, at every level of the school system, reflected the expansion of pedagogical authority over young people formerly left to their own devices. The dead hand of the educator reached deep into childhood, redesigning life as a “learning experience”.

This was part of a larger pattern in which previously unsupervised domains of life were subject to systematic study and control. The domains of women were no less subject to this process. It was an era that saw the birth of home economics, sexology, the academic study of childhood development, social work, and professionalised training in the new sciences of pedagogy. The intimate and the spontaneous became subject to therapeutic mediation in the service of various social goods.

If the “life-world” means the background patterns of life that are taken for granted, within which one can dwell unmolested, here was a new determination to leave nothing taken for granted, nothing unstudied. What this meant in practice was the colonisation of the life-world by organised expertise, corresponding to institutional money and power.

Life under these conditions feels a bit off — like the opposite of vitality. One’s own powers of making sense of the world are somehow disqualified. These are powers that develop naturally through action in the world. As the legitimacy and confidence of common sense is eroded, the field of meaningful action that is open to an individual seems also to shrink. Action is reduced to making choices from a menu of presented options, as in shopping, as opposed to a generative activity by which some mental conception of one’s own is brought forward into the shared world. The shared world is already saturated. It is fully known and mastered; your task is merely to get yourself properly aligned to it.

Some of us chafe against this, and I believe this is the subterranean source of an ornery political energy that we call populism. Populism often states its opposition to power in epistemic terms, as sceptical hostility to experts. What gets lost in all the screeching is that the basic impulse at work here is a positive one.

Lasch writes that the new patterns of administered life at the turn of the century were experienced by many as “subjection to routines that drained the joy out of work and play and wrapped everything in a smothering self-consciousness”.

Taking issue with the interpretation offered by Rotundo, Lasch wrote: “Surely it was this feeling of suffocation, much more than the need to prove something about masculinity, that explains the idealisation of the strenuous life at the turn of the century: the attraction of imperialism and war, the longing for wide open spaces, the new interest in the primitive and exotic, the nostalgia for simplicity and lost innocence.”

Those restless adventurers of Teddy Roosevelt’s time had no idea how far the colonisation of the lifeworld had yet to progress. With Covid, we acquiesced to an extraordinary extension of expert-like supervision into every domain of life.

But I think it would be a mistake to focus only on such episodes of heavy-handedness. In his book, Little Platoons, Matt Feeney details the workings of institutions that cluster around the family and feed off it, turning our most intimate loyalties to bureaucratic purposes while reshaping parents and children alike into compliant drones. To take one example, the college admissions process in America has extended its poisonous reach deep into childhood (apparently it starts with getting into the right pre-school) for the upper-middle class, requiring children and parents to collaborate in the crafting of a particular kind of self — one that will appeal to admission officers.

“Holistic admissions” downplay grades and test scores to make room for intangibles, so it is the whole person that is laid bare to the scrutiny of bureaucrats steeped in the moral vapours of their own professional formation. They sift through stacks of applications seeking people who have demonstrated… what, exactly? To begin with, a willingness to shape themselves to send whatever signals are wanted by those with power over them. To know what is wanted takes a certain intelligence. At stake is the question of whether Johnny will be able to afford his own house one day. Thus is the professional managerial class (PMC) formed into a posture of complaisance.

But nobody likes to think of himself as a cipher. The young man’s (or woman’s) complaisance is overlaid with a compensating view of himself, made available to him by the simple fact of his having passed the gatekeeping: he adopts an identity centred on his smartness or knowledgeableness. The content of the knowledge that marks one as part of the PMC consists of the organised expertise through which money and power extend their dominion. They do so by seeking out those remaining pockets of the lifeworld where unselfconscious, vernacular practices may persist. Such un-mined pockets offer opportunity for further systemisation and profit — if they can be brought into the fold of expert-like supervision. “There’s an app for that.”

In certain red-pillish-tending pockets of the PMC, there seems to be a growing awareness of and unease with their role as agents of this push. The shakiness of various systems of organised expertise, and the enforced character of the “consensus” that they are used to anchor, has grown more apparent as the system flails against populist challenge. This can lead to nagging questions of a cui bono nature, which may reflect on the young man’s identity as a “knowledge worker” (to use a term from a more innocent time when these ideological structures were more secure). If we may put this in the vernacular: the young man may begin to feel that his bullshit job is not only parasitical on the real economy, it is part of a system of social control that is basically anti-human. In retrospect, the long process of sitting in school (against his own nature), forming himself into something pleasing to those college admissions officers, may take on a different look: it was a process of paying for the privilege of making himself an instrument of power. This is serious alienation.

Lasch rebuked Rotundo for injecting the question of gender into his discussion of vitalism, which Lasch insisted was a unisex, human response to the over-administration of every aspect of life. “The rationalisation of daily life had similarly depressing effects on women, even though it was often held up as the means of their emancipation from domestic drudgery.” (For a compelling brain-centred account of why this emancipation from household labour can induce depression, see the psychologist Kelly Lambert’s work on “effort-driven rewards”.)

The imperial presumptions of moral-therapeutic supervision are more advanced today than they were in Roosevelt’s time, and Lasch is surely right that you don’t need to look on the contemporary landscape with a hyper-vigilant concern for emasculation to see that the human spirit is in danger of being smothered to death, for men and women both.

But in fact, the therapeutic para-state is today staffed disproportionately by women and routinely addresses its expectations to us in gendered terms, sometimes casting dissent from the programme as an expression of toxic masculinity. So it is to be expected that such dissent will likewise make the legitimacy of the male a thematic concern. To paraphrase Trotsky, you may not be interested in a sexual holy war, but the sexual holy war is interested in you.

Daily life is shot through with an ambient pedagogical project that works to create the modern subject, a creature who internalises the social discipline required by the modern state. In one of his choicest formulations, Michel Foucault referred to “the minor civil servants of moral orthopaedics”. They are found in corporate HR, the Office of Student Life in universities, mandatory “Relationships and Sexual Health Education” in schools, lifestyle magazines and countless other sites of adjustment. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 71% of human resources managers are women. In the University of California system, to take one example, 70% of non-academic staff are women, and in American universities generally, the ratio of administrators to faculty has nearly doubled since 1990. Sixty-seven percent of those who hold a journalism degree are women. In psychology, female graduate students outnumber males by about three to one, and have done so for more than a decade. Seventy-seven percent of sociology majors are women, and women have received about two-thirds of all masters degrees since the early Eighties. If the norm-setting, psyche-tending, world-describing, and narrative-generating professions are staffed predominantly by women, does anything follow from this fact?

It does if you grant that there are such things as male norms and female norms, as social psychology indicates there are, and if you further grant that this difference must show up in the flavour of institutional life. Jonathan Haidt says that among women you get “a different kind of conflict. There is a greater emphasis on what someone said which hurt someone else, even if unintentionally. There is a greater tendency to respond to an offence by mobilising social resources to ostracise the alleged offender.” This concern with offence, which tends to maintain social cohesion, also tends to come detached from the question whether the hurtful thing said was true or not.

This introduces an element of arbitrariness, an invitation to caprice. Notice that in this dynamic, a “hurt” may be attributed, a victim identified, as an act of aggression against the putative offender. The great majority of women do not seek power within an institution under the banner of woke activism. But most of those who do seek power in this way are women, Richard Hanania observes. More broadly, due to important asymmetries between male and female modes of conflict, “women’s tears win in the marketplace of ideas”. Such winning often results in the further extension of bureaucratic supervision into realms where harms might be found.

I believe one reason the feminine mode of competition has become so prominent in institutions is that it is in harmony with our overarching political frame. Earlier I referred to a particular kind of “modern subject” that is required by the modern state. Who is this character? We get some insight from a recent article by the political theorist Mark Shiffman. He offers a re-interpretation of the “state of nature” myths that ground the liberal doctrine of rights, turning its basic logic upside down. In doing so, he casts a clarifying light on the present: “It is not the case that because [by nature] we have rights to protect we are potential victims of their violation. Rather, the myths cast human beings in the position of victims and deploy the rhetoric of rights to capture this sense of violation in a way that simultaneously points to what we ought to hope for from the modern state…. Liberalism is premised from its mythic beginnings upon victimhood.”

If I may extrapolate from Shiffman’s argument: unless you can identify with some “vulnerable population”, you are not a full citizen. (Allyship would seem to express an anxious recognition of this fact.) That is, you are not the type of subject upon whom the authority of the state rests. Such is the underlying logic of Leviathan, fully realised only with the advent of the civil rights regime of protected classes. This logic has lately achieved a kind of totality in its reach, precisely because it has devolved from the state proper. It is expressed in the vigilance in detecting harm that holds sway in the public and private bureaucracies that make up a kind of sprawling para-state. These take on the task of cultivating and managing the “identities” that serve as markers of oppression in designated client groups, requiring moral orthopaedics for all.

Today’s Leviathan conceives its subjects as fragile beings afloat in a field of incipient traumas. Such a governing entity will look with suspicion on the unsupervised play of boys who “challenged each other to spontaneous feats of daring and agility, acted out stories of heroic adventure and collaborated in the enforcement of an informal code of honour that stressed courage, loyalty and stoic endurance of pain”.

That is not at all what is wanted.

What is at stake here is the conditions for the possibility of achieving adulthood, for men and women both. The process of development from childhood to adulthood requires departure from the safety of parental protection and affirmation, through confrontation with hard reality. It is through such confrontation that a person escapes the solipsism of unearned self-esteem, enters the world of objective standards, and begins to develop competence in some field of endeavour.

If it is to be an adequate response to the forces of infantilisation, today’s vitalism will have to go beyond the boyish rebellion of the online Right and articulate a positive picture of what it means to be an adult. Even, dare we say, what it means to be a man.

Whatever else it means, being a responsible man today would seem to involve a tricky double task: to be respectful and protective of women in private, and to confidently disregard women’s tears in public. This would be made easier if women — the silent majority of them who probably value self-reliance — did likewise, forming an alliance with men against a metastasising force of moral orthopaedics that diminishes us all.


Matthew B Crawford writes the substack Archedelia


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

87 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago

I noticed this when my son first started school. The entire system appeared to be run by and for females. Male behaviour was ‘problematic’ and boys, ideally, would behave like girls.
It’s why I broadly support single-sex schools.

Peter Strider
Peter Strider
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Totally agree. Strangely while top private boys schools are being pressured to go “co-ed”, I don’t see any pressure on girls schools to do the same.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Strider

It’s because, I suspect girls are (rather patronisingly) seen as a ‘civilizing’ influence on boys but not vice versa. I also note most iterations of Feminism are a one-way street.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

The only problem affecting boys and young men is one of perception.
If young men need help it is in realizing the huge benefits that decades of feminism have created for them. They only need to wake up to these benefits to take advantage of them. Mindset is the problem and the solution.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

How so?

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

I’ll give you five obvious ones. There are plenty more.
Men are no longer expected to be the family breadwinner because feminism says that women should be self sufficient and not rely on a man.
Men have been freed from the mandatory commitment of marriage because feminism advocates for its abolition.
Being forced to marry due to an unwanted pregnancy is rare because feminism tells women they should delay having children so they can concentrate on their career and abortion is readily available for those who don’t want an unplanned pregnancy to interfere with their career.
Men find it easy to have one night stands without obligation because feminism tells women that it is acceptable to hookup and have casual sex with as many men as they want.
A man with money can legally buy whatever pleasures he wants because the sexual liberation of young women has made it perfectly acceptable for them to make their living on OnlyFans or be a sugar baby to pay off student loans.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I don’t think any of those things are benefits for men.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

The role of women in society was to help (force) men to grow up and be responsible. They did this by expecting their suitors and then husbands to demonstrate their worthiness as mates. Now women don’t want to grow up and be responsible either. It isn’t a win for either sex.

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

I don’t think any of those things are benefits for men.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

The role of women in society was to help (force) men to grow up and be responsible. They did this by expecting their suitors and then husbands to demonstrate their worthiness as mates. Now women don’t want to grow up and be responsible either. It isn’t a win for either sex.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

I’ll give you five obvious ones. There are plenty more.
Men are no longer expected to be the family breadwinner because feminism says that women should be self sufficient and not rely on a man.
Men have been freed from the mandatory commitment of marriage because feminism advocates for its abolition.
Being forced to marry due to an unwanted pregnancy is rare because feminism tells women they should delay having children so they can concentrate on their career and abortion is readily available for those who don’t want an unplanned pregnancy to interfere with their career.
Men find it easy to have one night stands without obligation because feminism tells women that it is acceptable to hookup and have casual sex with as many men as they want.
A man with money can legally buy whatever pleasures he wants because the sexual liberation of young women has made it perfectly acceptable for them to make their living on OnlyFans or be a sugar baby to pay off student loans.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

What decade were you born in?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

What mindset though? What works for women does not work well for men. The mantle of victimhood not only doesn’t look very good on men, but many men just simply don’t or won’t see themselves as victims. Unfortunately, in our feminized milieu this strength is also our weakness. Perhaps this is the reason that some men are abandoning their sex for the ‘privileges’ of transgenderism?

Last edited 11 months ago by Julian Farrows
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

You’re still going on about the ease of getting lucky, aren’t you?

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

How so?

Albert McGloan
Albert McGloan
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

What decade were you born in?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

What mindset though? What works for women does not work well for men. The mantle of victimhood not only doesn’t look very good on men, but many men just simply don’t or won’t see themselves as victims. Unfortunately, in our feminized milieu this strength is also our weakness. Perhaps this is the reason that some men are abandoning their sex for the ‘privileges’ of transgenderism?

Last edited 11 months ago by Julian Farrows
laurence scaduto
laurence scaduto
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

You’re still going on about the ease of getting lucky, aren’t you?

RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Yes: beat me to it.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

The only problem affecting boys and young men is one of perception.
If young men need help it is in realizing the huge benefits that decades of feminism have created for them. They only need to wake up to these benefits to take advantage of them. Mindset is the problem and the solution.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Yes: beat me to it.

Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Strider

After years of hearing from our kids’ schools how great single sex schooling was and how they had no plans to merge they suddenly decided (possibly for reasons of student numbers but they said it was just to improve the ‘offering’) to merge the 2 schools.
It might be partly due to numbers/finances but it felt much more that the Powers felt that single sex is nasty and wrong etc. Pity as they had been great schools but getting steadily worse until we have now left.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Strider

It’s because, I suspect girls are (rather patronisingly) seen as a ‘civilizing’ influence on boys but not vice versa. I also note most iterations of Feminism are a one-way street.

Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Strider

After years of hearing from our kids’ schools how great single sex schooling was and how they had no plans to merge they suddenly decided (possibly for reasons of student numbers but they said it was just to improve the ‘offering’) to merge the 2 schools.
It might be partly due to numbers/finances but it felt much more that the Powers felt that single sex is nasty and wrong etc. Pity as they had been great schools but getting steadily worse until we have now left.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Agreed. The older I get the more convinced I am that single sex schools (among the students, not the teachers) were a mistake to get rid of. “Separate but equal” is inappropriate for whites and blacks since there are no inherent differences in thought processes by race, but it is entirely appropriate for boys and girls.

Peter Strider
Peter Strider
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Totally agree. Strangely while top private boys schools are being pressured to go “co-ed”, I don’t see any pressure on girls schools to do the same.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Agreed. The older I get the more convinced I am that single sex schools (among the students, not the teachers) were a mistake to get rid of. “Separate but equal” is inappropriate for whites and blacks since there are no inherent differences in thought processes by race, but it is entirely appropriate for boys and girls.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago

I noticed this when my son first started school. The entire system appeared to be run by and for females. Male behaviour was ‘problematic’ and boys, ideally, would behave like girls.
It’s why I broadly support single-sex schools.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago

Worrying stuff. The myth that a world run by women would be better for everyone is rapidly being debunked. Turns out women can be just as nasty and brutish as men.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Worse. Men have a transparency of intent which women lack. With men you can see the stiletto coming. Lacking physical superiority women found other ways that wd give Machiavelli a run for his money … expect to look down and see the stilleto coming out of your chest.

John Solomon
John Solomon
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Indeed. Just as nasty and brutish. Often shorter, as well…………

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

The perfect example of which is the state of women’s public toilets.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

Lavatories please!

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
11 months ago

I wouldn’t know about that. Is there a correlation with the state of unisex toilets?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

Lavatories please!

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
11 months ago

I wouldn’t know about that. Is there a correlation with the state of unisex toilets?

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

In my experience women suffer more from this in large organizations. Men will react to attacks with open aggression and hostility – which women – even female bullies – don’t like and find harder to deal with. So they are more likely to target other women who are less inclined to engage in an open fight.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

No, it’s because men generally don’t care if women disapprove of them or not, but women care greatly what other women think of them, much more so than what men think.
I have also never in my life witnessed any man in a professional work environment react with aggression to a woman. That would almost certainly be tantamount to a firing offense. In my experience when a woman acts with hostility toward them, men are more likely to respond with dead calm for fear of the police being called in.

RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

I’m a male in a female dominated workplace and unfortunately, I can strongly relate to that point (on a near daily basis).

Last edited 11 months ago by RM Parker
RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

I’m a male in a female dominated workplace and unfortunately, I can strongly relate to that point (on a near daily basis).

Last edited 11 months ago by RM Parker
Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

No, it’s because men generally don’t care if women disapprove of them or not, but women care greatly what other women think of them, much more so than what men think.
I have also never in my life witnessed any man in a professional work environment react with aggression to a woman. That would almost certainly be tantamount to a firing offense. In my experience when a woman acts with hostility toward them, men are more likely to respond with dead calm for fear of the police being called in.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Certainly, the kind of woman who would seek the kind of power it takes to run the world, would probably be as ruthles as a man. Nurturing or artistic women like their male counterparts would have no desire for that kind of power.

Susan Grabston
Susan Grabston
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Worse. Men have a transparency of intent which women lack. With men you can see the stiletto coming. Lacking physical superiority women found other ways that wd give Machiavelli a run for his money … expect to look down and see the stilleto coming out of your chest.

John Solomon
John Solomon
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Indeed. Just as nasty and brutish. Often shorter, as well…………

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

The perfect example of which is the state of women’s public toilets.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

In my experience women suffer more from this in large organizations. Men will react to attacks with open aggression and hostility – which women – even female bullies – don’t like and find harder to deal with. So they are more likely to target other women who are less inclined to engage in an open fight.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Certainly, the kind of woman who would seek the kind of power it takes to run the world, would probably be as ruthles as a man. Nurturing or artistic women like their male counterparts would have no desire for that kind of power.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
11 months ago

Worrying stuff. The myth that a world run by women would be better for everyone is rapidly being debunked. Turns out women can be just as nasty and brutish as men.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
11 months ago

Excellent essay with which I whole-heartedly concur. I’ve long suspected that the problems in our society have been caused by feminisation but as it was only a hunch, have been reluctant to state it. The characterisation of ‘women’s tears’ as the source of offence-culture is spot on. ‘As a woman’ (!) I recognise the behaviours described.

RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Fair enough – it’s behaviour which diminishes us all.

RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago
Reply to  Judy Englander

Fair enough – it’s behaviour which diminishes us all.

Judy Englander
Judy Englander
11 months ago

Excellent essay with which I whole-heartedly concur. I’ve long suspected that the problems in our society have been caused by feminisation but as it was only a hunch, have been reluctant to state it. The characterisation of ‘women’s tears’ as the source of offence-culture is spot on. ‘As a woman’ (!) I recognise the behaviours described.

Glyn R
Glyn R
11 months ago

The theory of toxic masculinity has been indoctrinated – like so much else – that it has now become a creed and must not be questioned. This is what disturbs me. Obviously the narrative governs only the Western Patriarchy and somehow, as in so much else, the far more entrenched patriarchal systems of much of Africa, Asia and the Middle East get a free pass. It is this that should make us all very suspicious and wary. It is a similar story with racism, slavery and imperialism. All faults exclusive, so they would have us believe, of the white man.
It is clear what all this is about and it has little or nothing to do with equality or equity come to that.

Last edited 11 months ago by Glyn R
Paul Curtin
Paul Curtin
11 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

Completely nailed that Glyn.
In my late fifties, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not going to blow with the ever changing winds of fashion and just be a reasonable fella, warts and all.
As a bloke, the relief of not playing this crazy game led by neurotics in the West makes life so much less stressful.
Better to be 100% yourself than various bits of whatever is imposed on you by various others. Dangerous stuff this authenticity thing. I recommend it, though I’ll probably get fired for not getting someone’s pro-noun right.

Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Curtin
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago
Reply to  Paul Curtin

I’m glad to hear you’ve decided to become authentic in your fifties. Better late than never. The more of us the merrier.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago
Reply to  Paul Curtin

I’m glad to hear you’ve decided to become authentic in your fifties. Better late than never. The more of us the merrier.

Paul Curtin
Paul Curtin
11 months ago
Reply to  Glyn R

Completely nailed that Glyn.
In my late fifties, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m not going to blow with the ever changing winds of fashion and just be a reasonable fella, warts and all.
As a bloke, the relief of not playing this crazy game led by neurotics in the West makes life so much less stressful.
Better to be 100% yourself than various bits of whatever is imposed on you by various others. Dangerous stuff this authenticity thing. I recommend it, though I’ll probably get fired for not getting someone’s pro-noun right.

Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Curtin
Glyn R
Glyn R
11 months ago

The theory of toxic masculinity has been indoctrinated – like so much else – that it has now become a creed and must not be questioned. This is what disturbs me. Obviously the narrative governs only the Western Patriarchy and somehow, as in so much else, the far more entrenched patriarchal systems of much of Africa, Asia and the Middle East get a free pass. It is this that should make us all very suspicious and wary. It is a similar story with racism, slavery and imperialism. All faults exclusive, so they would have us believe, of the white man.
It is clear what all this is about and it has little or nothing to do with equality or equity come to that.

Last edited 11 months ago by Glyn R
Cam Marsh
Cam Marsh
11 months ago

Beautifully written and evoking some of the hard to nail down ‘vibe shift’ i am seeing referred to these days on social media.

Cam Marsh
Cam Marsh
11 months ago

Beautifully written and evoking some of the hard to nail down ‘vibe shift’ i am seeing referred to these days on social media.

N Satori
N Satori
11 months ago

Mr Crawford quotes Christopher Lasch:

 [boys] challenged each other to spontaneous feats of daring and agility, acted out stories of heroic adventure and collaborated in the enforcement of an informal code of honour that stressed courage, loyalty and stoic endurance of pain.

Something similar prevails today in the form of gang culture – surely a natural (perhaps default) mode of social structure that arises when ‘organised expertise’ fails through lack of power and influence.

Last edited 11 months ago by N Satori
Anthony Roe
Anthony Roe
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

Exactly, power ultimately resides in the ability and willingness to use violence. As our enforcement agencies are feminised, police, army, security services, prisons, justice system, tax enforcement etc they lose the element of fear that was vital (also depriving the white working class of employment where standards of natural justice could be applied). I remember in the riots of 2011 the sight of fat, female and unfit police officers barely able to stagger when clothed in riot gear (the French have retained an unashamedly male CRS to mete out state violence when required).
Islam unfortunately is the only organisation still happy to use violence to enforce its rules in particular against women.

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
11 months ago
Reply to  Anthony Roe

Violence and Fear won’t save the West.

They certainly won’t save the French.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago
Reply to  Tony Buck

Violence and fear saved the West twice in just the 20th century.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago
Reply to  Tony Buck

Violence and fear saved the West twice in just the 20th century.

Tony Buck
Tony Buck
11 months ago
Reply to  Anthony Roe

Violence and Fear won’t save the West.

They certainly won’t save the French.

Anthony Roe
Anthony Roe
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

Exactly, power ultimately resides in the ability and willingness to use violence. As our enforcement agencies are feminised, police, army, security services, prisons, justice system, tax enforcement etc they lose the element of fear that was vital (also depriving the white working class of employment where standards of natural justice could be applied). I remember in the riots of 2011 the sight of fat, female and unfit police officers barely able to stagger when clothed in riot gear (the French have retained an unashamedly male CRS to mete out state violence when required).
Islam unfortunately is the only organisation still happy to use violence to enforce its rules in particular against women.

N Satori
N Satori
11 months ago

Mr Crawford quotes Christopher Lasch:

 [boys] challenged each other to spontaneous feats of daring and agility, acted out stories of heroic adventure and collaborated in the enforcement of an informal code of honour that stressed courage, loyalty and stoic endurance of pain.

Something similar prevails today in the form of gang culture – surely a natural (perhaps default) mode of social structure that arises when ‘organised expertise’ fails through lack of power and influence.

Last edited 11 months ago by N Satori
Max Price
Max Price
11 months ago

Wonderful essay. Thanks Mathew.

Max Price
Max Price
11 months ago

Wonderful essay. Thanks Mathew.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

Gorgons, Clytemnestra, Messalina, Lucretia Borgia, Hilary Clinton.
We have been warned!

Bruce V
Bruce V
11 months ago

Don’t forget Mr. Markle’s wife.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Bruce V

Yes indeed, how remiss of me, and my sincere apologies.

RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago

Although she is better ignored, to be fair…

RM Parker
RM Parker
11 months ago

Although she is better ignored, to be fair…

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Bruce V

Yes indeed, how remiss of me, and my sincere apologies.

Bruce V
Bruce V
11 months ago

Don’t forget Mr. Markle’s wife.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

Gorgons, Clytemnestra, Messalina, Lucretia Borgia, Hilary Clinton.
We have been warned!

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

Women have achieved what they thought they wanted.
Men are starting to see this and are going their own way.
Scientific and technological progress will feed this trend.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

Women have achieved what they thought they wanted.
Men are starting to see this and are going their own way.
Scientific and technological progress will feed this trend.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

The British Army has recently started recruiting women into the Infantry.
Despite the experience of the Israelis, Americans and others this will only end in tears!

Incidentally the experience of HM Submarines has been equally appalling, and has been characterised by elements of the tabloid press as a bad case of “Up Periscope “. The mind boggles!

Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago

It will end badly for many of those women, all of our infantry and probably for our entire country. ‘They’ must know this but virtue signalling beats logic and sense.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

I trust ‘they’ will recall what happened to the Indian Squaws in “Soldier Blue”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

I trust ‘they’ will recall what happened to the Indian Squaws in “Soldier Blue”.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

More than enough men have died fighting for their country. It’s way beyond time that women took their place. In an equal society there’s no justification for preventing women fighting on the front lines.
An argument is often made that women don’t have the strength to rescue a wounded comrade, a non-issue that can easily be solved by the establishment of all-women regiments.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

God help us!

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

He’ll have to help the women.
The men will be fine.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
11 months ago

God help them! Can you imagine the culture of the battalion? There’s a sitcom in there somewhere, in the alternative reality where it gets made.

Last edited 11 months ago by Phil Mac
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Instead of “pull up a sandbag” it’ll be “pass the tampax”.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Instead of “pull up a sandbag” it’ll be “pass the tampax”.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

He’ll have to help the women.
The men will be fine.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
11 months ago

God help them! Can you imagine the culture of the battalion? There’s a sitcom in there somewhere, in the alternative reality where it gets made.

Last edited 11 months ago by Phil Mac
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

God help us!

Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago

It will end badly for many of those women, all of our infantry and probably for our entire country. ‘They’ must know this but virtue signalling beats logic and sense.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

More than enough men have died fighting for their country. It’s way beyond time that women took their place. In an equal society there’s no justification for preventing women fighting on the front lines.
An argument is often made that women don’t have the strength to rescue a wounded comrade, a non-issue that can easily be solved by the establishment of all-women regiments.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

The British Army has recently started recruiting women into the Infantry.
Despite the experience of the Israelis, Americans and others this will only end in tears!

Incidentally the experience of HM Submarines has been equally appalling, and has been characterised by elements of the tabloid press as a bad case of “Up Periscope “. The mind boggles!

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

How extraordinary that this essay makes absolutely NO mention of the behaviour of one Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of NatWest/Coutts and the subject of perhaps the most toxic story in Britain today.

Perhaps it was written a month ago?

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
11 months ago

How extraordinary that this essay makes absolutely NO mention of the behaviour of one Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of NatWest/Coutts and the subject of perhaps the most toxic story in Britain today.

Perhaps it was written a month ago?

Michel Starenky
Michel Starenky
11 months ago

Silly as it may seem I have always held to the notion that the emasculation of men began with the deindustrialazation of the west.

N Satori
N Satori
11 months ago

Oddly enough, I’ve always thought that the urge to deindustrialise the West was a symptom of the “eternal feminine”, anti-patriarchal drive as seen in the rise of the Romantic movement and its many (too many) modern iterations. The denunciation of “dark satanic mills” already heard in the early industrial age is waxing full in our own era.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago

My brilliantly reactionary old History lecturer, when discussing the Suffragettes, would drily comment “I notice none of them hurled themselves beneath race horses to win the right to go down the mines or toil in the shipyards.” It was the mid-1980s, when educators were allowed to make such observations.

N Satori
N Satori
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Simon Webb, in his dissident take on the movement The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists gives some revealing background to that famous scene where Emily Wilding Davison threw herself in front of the King’s horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby.
Not only was the injury and subsequent death the result of a bungled protest attempt but Davison herself was emotionally disturbed and up to that point had been effectively disowned by the Suffragettes as something of an embarrassment. Her death suddenly made her useful to the movement who were able to claim that she actually threw herself under the horse as a desperate and heroic act.
By the way, don’t push that “right to toil in the mines and shipyards” line too hard – feminists will wheel out Rosie the Riveter and the story of women who had to give up their new found industrial roles when the men returned from war.

Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

Fair to point out that factory conditions for Rosie were very different to being in the mines or shipyards during the suffragettes’ time.

Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
11 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

Fair also to point out that while women were winning independence on the homefront by working in wartime factories, men were being killed on battlefronts–and therefore deserved, at the very least, to get back jobs that the state had been taken from them.

Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
Paul Nathanson
11 months ago
Reply to  Rob N

Fair also to point out that while women were winning independence on the homefront by working in wartime factories, men were being killed on battlefronts–and therefore deserved, at the very least, to get back jobs that the state had been taken from them.

Last edited 11 months ago by Paul Nathanson
Rob N
Rob N
11 months ago
Reply to  N Satori

Fair to point out that factory conditions for Rosie were very different to being in the mines or shipyards during the suffragettes’ time.

N Satori
N Satori
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

Simon Webb, in his dissident take on the movement The Suffragette Bombers: Britain’s Forgotten Terrorists gives some revealing background to that famous scene where Emily Wilding Davison threw herself in front of the King’s horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby.
Not only was the injury and subsequent death the result of a bungled protest attempt but Davison herself was emotionally disturbed and up to that point had been effectively disowned by the Suffragettes as something of an embarrassment. Her death suddenly made her useful to the movement who were able to claim that she actually threw herself under the horse as a desperate and heroic act.
By the way, don’t push that “right to toil in the mines and shipyards” line too hard – feminists will wheel out Rosie the Riveter and the story of women who had to give up their new found industrial roles when the men returned from war.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago

AI is most likely going to replace a lot of the middle and lower tier of office jobs that are disproportionately held by women. Think HR departments. So it may be that the world of dealing with actual objects may be in the ascendancy – which will benefit men. The value of university degrees will likely plummet. We are in for interesting times.

James P
James P
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

The value of degrees is already plummeting as you are suggesting. Sooner or later, the price of degrees will follow. That may provoke some sense.

James P
James P
11 months ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

The value of degrees is already plummeting as you are suggesting. Sooner or later, the price of degrees will follow. That may provoke some sense.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago

I suspect the emasculation of man began with the industrialization of the West. It was coal powered industry that decoupled physical strength from economic success and made it possible for nerds like me to become rich. But the biggest beneficiaries (economically) were women. Jobs that previously required hard physical labor could now be done by machines with a 120 lb woman at the controls.
The adage, “God created men and women; Smith and Wesson made them equal.” is relatively accurate.
Interestingly, the fact that the industrial revolution made economic success possible for women and physically weaker men has resulted in the overall decline of human physical strength. This is well documented; many researchers believe the average pioneer woman could probably arm wrestle the average urban man to the floor. This has implications for who will benefit from the coming AI revolution and its long term effects on human cognitive ability.

N Satori
N Satori
11 months ago

Oddly enough, I’ve always thought that the urge to deindustrialise the West was a symptom of the “eternal feminine”, anti-patriarchal drive as seen in the rise of the Romantic movement and its many (too many) modern iterations. The denunciation of “dark satanic mills” already heard in the early industrial age is waxing full in our own era.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago

My brilliantly reactionary old History lecturer, when discussing the Suffragettes, would drily comment “I notice none of them hurled themselves beneath race horses to win the right to go down the mines or toil in the shipyards.” It was the mid-1980s, when educators were allowed to make such observations.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago

AI is most likely going to replace a lot of the middle and lower tier of office jobs that are disproportionately held by women. Think HR departments. So it may be that the world of dealing with actual objects may be in the ascendancy – which will benefit men. The value of university degrees will likely plummet. We are in for interesting times.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago

I suspect the emasculation of man began with the industrialization of the West. It was coal powered industry that decoupled physical strength from economic success and made it possible for nerds like me to become rich. But the biggest beneficiaries (economically) were women. Jobs that previously required hard physical labor could now be done by machines with a 120 lb woman at the controls.
The adage, “God created men and women; Smith and Wesson made them equal.” is relatively accurate.
Interestingly, the fact that the industrial revolution made economic success possible for women and physically weaker men has resulted in the overall decline of human physical strength. This is well documented; many researchers believe the average pioneer woman could probably arm wrestle the average urban man to the floor. This has implications for who will benefit from the coming AI revolution and its long term effects on human cognitive ability.

Michel Starenky
Michel Starenky
11 months ago

Silly as it may seem I have always held to the notion that the emasculation of men began with the deindustrialazation of the west.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
11 months ago

A vivid example of the feminisation of which the author speaks is the recent case of the woman who procured for herself a very late term abortion – in circumstances which were close to infanticide – by lying about the stage of her pregnancy to abortion services in order to obtain the relevant drugs. Her motive was her fear that her current partner would not accept a child by her former partner in the household. The trial judge (a man) sentenced her to about two and a half years prison with immediate custody – a sentence which, if anything, seemed rather lenient. The Court of Appeal (two women and a man) halved the sentence, and suspended it – thus in effect removing all penal element. The CA said that the case cried out for “compassion”; I think it cried out for justice.

Jonathan Nash
Jonathan Nash
11 months ago

A vivid example of the feminisation of which the author speaks is the recent case of the woman who procured for herself a very late term abortion – in circumstances which were close to infanticide – by lying about the stage of her pregnancy to abortion services in order to obtain the relevant drugs. Her motive was her fear that her current partner would not accept a child by her former partner in the household. The trial judge (a man) sentenced her to about two and a half years prison with immediate custody – a sentence which, if anything, seemed rather lenient. The Court of Appeal (two women and a man) halved the sentence, and suspended it – thus in effect removing all penal element. The CA said that the case cried out for “compassion”; I think it cried out for justice.

m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
11 months ago

It would be very odd if the rise of female dominated industries (academia, publishing, HR, etc) did not change the way they operated in some ways but I have yet to see any systematic research on the topic. This is a very interesting and probably perceptive essay but it rests inevitably on anecdote, personal experience and intuition. There is something very real happening but I am not sure anyone has a grip on quite what is going on let alone what should be done about it. Meanwhile perhaps the Yale video says more than anything else.

Alex Carnegie

Last edited 11 months ago by m3pc7q3ixe
Edmund Paul
Edmund Paul
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Perhaps we need some experts to tell us what’s going on.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

The problem being, of course, any such research would not be funded. Academic enquiry shouldn’t upset the apple-cart, should it? Unless it’s a patriarchal apple-cart.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

The career of any academic finding any fault with women would be very short.

Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
11 months ago
Reply to  Ben Jones

The career of any academic finding any fault with women would be very short.

Kat L
Kat L
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Yale video?

m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
11 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

The 2015 confrontation between Professor Christakis and assorted students. Click on the link marked “important asymmetries” in the article.

Last edited 11 months ago by m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
11 months ago
Reply to  Kat L

The 2015 confrontation between Professor Christakis and assorted students. Click on the link marked “important asymmetries” in the article.

Last edited 11 months ago by m3pc7q3ixe
Terry Raby
Terry Raby
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

embedded in an excellent essay by Richard Hanania. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace

Alan B
Alan B
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

You have the burden of proof backwards here. As in: “The beatings will not stop until morale improves”

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

“This is a very interesting and probably perceptive essay but it rests inevitably on anecdote, personal experience and intuition.”
In many respects your comment embodies the article’s critique… as if one form of persuasive evidence (statistics, data, the hegemony of the ‘expert’) is to be trusted, but not something so variable and unquantifiable as personal experience. Now imagine an entire society and pedagogical system reorienting itself to this perspective over a couple hundred years.
The problem, obviously, is that while maths are better than intuition at deciding how thick to make the steel girders in your bridge, intuition may be better than maths at deciding how to manage the different sexes in your employ (for example).

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Considering the very fields that would do such research (sociology, psych, etc…) are now dominated by progressive women, the lack of data isn’t surprising. White supremacists weren’t big on cross-racial research either.

Edmund Paul
Edmund Paul
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Perhaps we need some experts to tell us what’s going on.

Ben Jones
Ben Jones
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

The problem being, of course, any such research would not be funded. Academic enquiry shouldn’t upset the apple-cart, should it? Unless it’s a patriarchal apple-cart.

Kat L
Kat L
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Yale video?

Terry Raby
Terry Raby
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

embedded in an excellent essay by Richard Hanania. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace

Alan B
Alan B
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

You have the burden of proof backwards here. As in: “The beatings will not stop until morale improves”

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

“This is a very interesting and probably perceptive essay but it rests inevitably on anecdote, personal experience and intuition.”
In many respects your comment embodies the article’s critique… as if one form of persuasive evidence (statistics, data, the hegemony of the ‘expert’) is to be trusted, but not something so variable and unquantifiable as personal experience. Now imagine an entire society and pedagogical system reorienting itself to this perspective over a couple hundred years.
The problem, obviously, is that while maths are better than intuition at deciding how thick to make the steel girders in your bridge, intuition may be better than maths at deciding how to manage the different sexes in your employ (for example).

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago
Reply to  m3pc7q3ixe

Considering the very fields that would do such research (sociology, psych, etc…) are now dominated by progressive women, the lack of data isn’t surprising. White supremacists weren’t big on cross-racial research either.

m3pc7q3ixe
m3pc7q3ixe
11 months ago

It would be very odd if the rise of female dominated industries (academia, publishing, HR, etc) did not change the way they operated in some ways but I have yet to see any systematic research on the topic. This is a very interesting and probably perceptive essay but it rests inevitably on anecdote, personal experience and intuition. There is something very real happening but I am not sure anyone has a grip on quite what is going on let alone what should be done about it. Meanwhile perhaps the Yale video says more than anything else.

Alex Carnegie

Last edited 11 months ago by m3pc7q3ixe
Phil Mac
Phil Mac
11 months ago

Great article, captures far more eloquently than I ever could how I see what’s happening. I just tell my wife “this is what you get for giving women the vote” in a mostly-joking summary. She happens to agree in the same spirit.
The only bit I’d add is that if you do happen to be a man formed significantly through the competitive rivalry process that you have one Hell of an advantage in whatever field you operate. The feminised vessels around you are simply no kind of decent competition; they seek approval and acceptance while those of us formed otherwise really couldn’t care less and are open to whatever gets us what we’re after. The only thing to recognise is that this isn’t really a male supremacy thing; there’s plenty of women – I could call them “Margaret Thatchers” – out there who have all the successful attributes and they have the added advantage of a great disguise.

Last edited 11 months ago by Phil Mac
Phil Mac
Phil Mac
11 months ago

Great article, captures far more eloquently than I ever could how I see what’s happening. I just tell my wife “this is what you get for giving women the vote” in a mostly-joking summary. She happens to agree in the same spirit.
The only bit I’d add is that if you do happen to be a man formed significantly through the competitive rivalry process that you have one Hell of an advantage in whatever field you operate. The feminised vessels around you are simply no kind of decent competition; they seek approval and acceptance while those of us formed otherwise really couldn’t care less and are open to whatever gets us what we’re after. The only thing to recognise is that this isn’t really a male supremacy thing; there’s plenty of women – I could call them “Margaret Thatchers” – out there who have all the successful attributes and they have the added advantage of a great disguise.

Last edited 11 months ago by Phil Mac
Terry Raby
Terry Raby
11 months ago

Women’s tears in Australia are succeeding in producing a toxic environment for men. For example, rape cases must go to trial even if police decide that there is no case to answer. Justice does not apply in sexual matters – tears overrule. https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/feminist-capture-of-justice-system

Terry Raby
Terry Raby
11 months ago

Women’s tears in Australia are succeeding in producing a toxic environment for men. For example, rape cases must go to trial even if police decide that there is no case to answer. Justice does not apply in sexual matters – tears overrule. https://bettinaarndt.substack.com/p/feminist-capture-of-justice-system

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
11 months ago

In the linked article about how women’s tears “win”, this phrase stands out:
“our culture treats violence, incivility, and aggression towards women much more seriously than the same towards men.”.
And that’s the crux of it. Women increasingly dominate western society, not by performing (most vital industries, infrastructure, inventions, military, businesses – mostly men) but by endless victimhood and manipulation of societal weakness towards women.

In cultures like African American or Islam, or communist cultures even such as China / USSR (which nominally are more pro women in workplaces), women lose. Because they don’t care as much for women’s tears. Keep in mind, women are nowhere near power in China or USSR, despite arguably contributing more to the economy and being more participating in the “hard” economy, as opposed to endless admin jobs

The crucial question is, are the softer western cultures likely to be weakened enough by the corrosion of their structures by victim groups who undermine merit, performance, rule of law, so that they are overcome by other cultures that are more ruthless?
In which case, there is likely to be a pretty severe repurcussion for exactly those groups that are responsible, in the name of “equity” and “fighting patriarchy”, for bringing about it’s decline in the first place.

Last edited 11 months ago by Samir Iker
Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

If you believe in sex difference (as I think most commenters here do) then you would agree that violence toward women *should* be treated differently than violence toward men – for obvious reasons of differences in strength, aggression, etc.
That said, we should also acknowledge that these sex differences affect other parts of the equation – for example, men are prone to under-reporting their victimhood, but women to over-reporting. All these subtle differences in understanding how the sexes are different have been washed away in the rising tide of modernism, with all its various developments – not just the pill and Freud and suffrage but also the issues raised with such subtlety in this article.

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  Samir Iker

If you believe in sex difference (as I think most commenters here do) then you would agree that violence toward women *should* be treated differently than violence toward men – for obvious reasons of differences in strength, aggression, etc.
That said, we should also acknowledge that these sex differences affect other parts of the equation – for example, men are prone to under-reporting their victimhood, but women to over-reporting. All these subtle differences in understanding how the sexes are different have been washed away in the rising tide of modernism, with all its various developments – not just the pill and Freud and suffrage but also the issues raised with such subtlety in this article.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
11 months ago

In the linked article about how women’s tears “win”, this phrase stands out:
“our culture treats violence, incivility, and aggression towards women much more seriously than the same towards men.”.
And that’s the crux of it. Women increasingly dominate western society, not by performing (most vital industries, infrastructure, inventions, military, businesses – mostly men) but by endless victimhood and manipulation of societal weakness towards women.

In cultures like African American or Islam, or communist cultures even such as China / USSR (which nominally are more pro women in workplaces), women lose. Because they don’t care as much for women’s tears. Keep in mind, women are nowhere near power in China or USSR, despite arguably contributing more to the economy and being more participating in the “hard” economy, as opposed to endless admin jobs

The crucial question is, are the softer western cultures likely to be weakened enough by the corrosion of their structures by victim groups who undermine merit, performance, rule of law, so that they are overcome by other cultures that are more ruthless?
In which case, there is likely to be a pretty severe repurcussion for exactly those groups that are responsible, in the name of “equity” and “fighting patriarchy”, for bringing about it’s decline in the first place.

Last edited 11 months ago by Samir Iker
Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
11 months ago

For sure, Western culture has become too feminised. I dare say it is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in compensation. I expect it will find its balance in time.

Victoria Cooper
Victoria Cooper
11 months ago

For sure, Western culture has become too feminised. I dare say it is a case of the pendulum swinging too far in compensation. I expect it will find its balance in time.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago

Having read all the comments. thus far, I’m genuinly shocked at how bitter men are about women. I find it disturbing that intelligent, educated men are so misogynistic and resentful towards women. What happened to make you feel this way? I certainly don’t feel that I have done anything to earn this kind ire, on the contrary I’ve been kind towards men despite being raped as a child and battered as a domestic partner.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I don’t know if it’s women they don’t like, or feminisation. Women aren’t to blame for winning and bringing their evolutionarily formed imperatives into play. I still hang onto the ideal that a well brought up man sees no greater cause than to care for women generally, and particularly the one who chooses to share her life and genes with him.
It sure is a mess though. Building big things requires almost exclusively masculine traits of overt competitiveness, urges to acquire resources, forming sustainable alliances, and while women sure as Hell hold things together while they’re doing it their imperatives don’t work so well if they grab the reins.

Last edited 11 months ago by Phil Mac
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Thank you for the explaination. I found the “I still hang onto the ideal that a a well brought up man sees no greater cause than to care for women generally” quite touching.

Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago
Reply to  Phil Mac

Thank you for the explaination. I found the “I still hang onto the ideal that a a well brought up man sees no greater cause than to care for women generally” quite touching.

Phil Mac
Phil Mac
11 months ago
Reply to  Clare Knight

I don’t know if it’s women they don’t like, or feminisation. Women aren’t to blame for winning and bringing their evolutionarily formed imperatives into play. I still hang onto the ideal that a well brought up man sees no greater cause than to care for women generally, and particularly the one who chooses to share her life and genes with him.
It sure is a mess though. Building big things requires almost exclusively masculine traits of overt competitiveness, urges to acquire resources, forming sustainable alliances, and while women sure as Hell hold things together while they’re doing it their imperatives don’t work so well if they grab the reins.

Last edited 11 months ago by Phil Mac
Clare Knight
Clare Knight
11 months ago

Having read all the comments. thus far, I’m genuinly shocked at how bitter men are about women. I find it disturbing that intelligent, educated men are so misogynistic and resentful towards women. What happened to make you feel this way? I certainly don’t feel that I have done anything to earn this kind ire, on the contrary I’ve been kind towards men despite being raped as a child and battered as a domestic partner.

Matt Sylvestre
Matt Sylvestre
11 months ago

Here Here!

Ps: Im an American.

Matt Sylvestre
Matt Sylvestre
11 months ago

Here Here!

Ps: Im an American.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago

What a wonderful article. This is why Unherd is worth paying for, even tough it regularly platforms a commie like Freddie. 🙂
“women’s tears win in the marketplace of ideas”
And for this exact reason, women’s tears also stoke the fires of populism among men. The ruling all the traits of one sex as antisocial will not end well. For women or men.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
11 months ago

What a wonderful article. This is why Unherd is worth paying for, even tough it regularly platforms a commie like Freddie. 🙂
“women’s tears win in the marketplace of ideas”
And for this exact reason, women’s tears also stoke the fires of populism among men. The ruling all the traits of one sex as antisocial will not end well. For women or men.

CF Hankinson
CF Hankinson
11 months ago

Mmmm this is the kind of argument that fuelled women’s liberation, latterly called second wave feminism: Precisely dealing with gender behaviours as being seen for what they were, when necessary and valuable or when crippling, and for whom they served. It strived for equality of respect and rights.
Since then of course there has been a massive reaction, towards extremes of gender expression which has cartoonishly separated the sexes to the detriment of both.
But the further it goes the more rapid a counter reaction will emerge and sense will prevail. Because neither sex is winning here and neither sex is stupid.
In the real world women are still paid less, have very small representation in the halls of power and men are weeping copiously over their over representation in teaching infants? Women willingly allow men power in the public sphere when they are respected for the greater physical burdens of the female sex, openly and honestly and fairly when necessary. Sex is real and to be accepted, gender is mutable and definitely able to change to be more equally human.
You can’t have power without responsibility and both sexes fail if they don’t pick up all of the tab.

Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
11 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

Could someone parse this for me, I didn’t understand it. It seems to refute the excellent article but what is the point?

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

Women earn more than men right up to the point where they have their first child. After which women’s earning decline, usually due to reduced hours and part time work. This is common knowledge.

Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

No.
See The gender pay gap (December 2022) from the ONS :
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07068/
This research briefing indicates that there are 6 identifiable elements contributing to the 8.3% median hourly gender pay gap for full time employees. (Age, Occupation, Industry, Public/Private sector, Region and Nation, Pay).
The one factor you picked out – Age shows that : “There is little difference in median hourly pay for male and female full-time employees aged in their 20s and 30s, but a substantial gap emerges among full-time employees aged 40 and over.”
As always, these things are way more nuanced than the MSM and consumers of said outlets would like to believe.

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

After children, women’s earning drop. Until then they earn as much or more than men. Even the report admits this basic fact.
“The gender pay gap varies markedly by age. The gap is small or negative for full-time and part-time employees in their 20s or 30s. Among full-time employees aged 40 and over, the gap widens considerably.”
There is no pay gap, there is an earnings gap as a result of motherhood.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago

After children, women’s earning drop. Until then they earn as much or more than men. Even the report admits this basic fact.
“The gender pay gap varies markedly by age. The gap is small or negative for full-time and part-time employees in their 20s or 30s. Among full-time employees aged 40 and over, the gap widens considerably.”
There is no pay gap, there is an earnings gap as a result of motherhood.

Last edited 11 months ago by William Shaw
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
Elaine Giedrys-Leeper
11 months ago
Reply to  William Shaw

No.
See The gender pay gap (December 2022) from the ONS :
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn07068/
This research briefing indicates that there are 6 identifiable elements contributing to the 8.3% median hourly gender pay gap for full time employees. (Age, Occupation, Industry, Public/Private sector, Region and Nation, Pay).
The one factor you picked out – Age shows that : “There is little difference in median hourly pay for male and female full-time employees aged in their 20s and 30s, but a substantial gap emerges among full-time employees aged 40 and over.”
As always, these things are way more nuanced than the MSM and consumers of said outlets would like to believe.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
11 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

In the real world, men are paid more, for working longer and more flexible hours, travelling further, doing jobs that require being outside and manual labour, or simply involve more dying.

And the reason they do so, is because they have to provide for their families – which very few women do, even those in high earning jobs.

Scrap alimony, and see how much the “pay gap” reduces.

Kirk Susong
Kirk Susong
11 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

“Sex is real and to be accepted, gender is mutable and definitely able to change to be more equally human.”
What does this mean: ‘unequally human’? For every man who has exercised some kind of unwanted authority over a woman, you can find a man who has unwillingly sacrificed his safety to protect a woman, and you can find a woman who has exercised impressive persuasive power over those levers of authority.
One of the most fascinating things to read these days are the arguments and writings of the independent, strong-willed, politically active women… who opposed suffrage.

Suzanne C.
Suzanne C.
11 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

Could someone parse this for me, I didn’t understand it. It seems to refute the excellent article but what is the point?

William Shaw
William Shaw
11 months ago
Reply to  CF Hankinson

Women earn more than men right up to the point where they have their first child. After which women’s earning decline, usually due to reduced hours and part time work. This is common knowledge.