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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
9 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
9 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
9 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
9 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.
Fair enough – it’s behaviour which diminishes us all.
Judy Englander
9 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
9 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.
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.
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 9 months ago by Paul Curtin
Glyn R
9 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 9 months ago by Glyn R
Cam Marsh
9 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
9 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
9 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.
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.
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
9 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 9 months ago by N Satori
Max Price
9 months ago
Wonderful essay. Thanks Mathew.
Max Price
9 months ago
Wonderful essay. Thanks Mathew.
Charles Stanhope
9 months ago
Gorgons, Clytemnestra, Messalina, Lucretia Borgia, Hilary Clinton.
We have been warned!
Gorgons, Clytemnestra, Messalina, Lucretia Borgia, Hilary Clinton.
We have been warned!
William Shaw
9 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
9 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
9 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!
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.
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.
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.
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 9 months ago by William Shaw
Charles Stanhope
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
9 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
9 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
9 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
9 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.
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.
“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).
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.
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.
“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).
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
9 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 9 months ago by m3pc7q3ixe
Terry Raby
9 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
9 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
Phil Mac
9 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 9 months ago by Phil Mac
Phil Mac
9 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 9 months ago by Phil Mac
Samir Iker
9 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.
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.
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
9 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 9 months ago by Samir Iker
Victoria Cooper
9 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
9 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
9 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.
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.
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.
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.
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 9 months ago by Phil Mac
Clare Knight
9 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
9 months ago
Here Here!
Ps: Im an American.
Matt Sylvestre
9 months ago
Here Here!
Ps: Im an American.
Brian Villanueva
9 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
9 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
9 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
CF Hankinson
9 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.
CF Hankinson
9 months ago
Or as Germaine Greer pertinently said ‘women have no idea how much men hate them’ …
CF Hankinson
9 months ago
Or as Germaine Greer pertinently said ‘women have no idea how much men hate them’ …
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.
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.
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.
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.
How so?
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.
I don’t think any of those things are benefits for men.
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.
I don’t think any of those things are benefits for men.
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.
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.
What decade were you born in?
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?
You’re still going on about the ease of getting lucky, aren’t you?
How so?
What decade were you born in?
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?
You’re still going on about the ease of getting lucky, aren’t you?
Yes: beat me to it.
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.
Yes: beat me to it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. Just as nasty and brutish. Often shorter, as well…………
The perfect example of which is the state of women’s public toilets.
Lavatories please!
I wouldn’t know about that. Is there a correlation with the state of unisex toilets?
Lavatories please!
I wouldn’t know about that. Is there a correlation with the state of unisex toilets?
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.
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.
I’m a male in a female dominated workplace and unfortunately, I can strongly relate to that point (on a near daily basis).
I’m a male in a female dominated workplace and unfortunately, I can strongly relate to that point (on a near daily basis).
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.
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.
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.
Indeed. Just as nasty and brutish. Often shorter, as well…………
The perfect example of which is the state of women’s public toilets.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Fair enough – it’s behaviour which diminishes us all.
Fair enough – it’s behaviour which diminishes us all.
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.
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.
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.
I’m glad to hear you’ve decided to become authentic in your fifties. Better late than never. The more of us the merrier.
I’m glad to hear you’ve decided to become authentic in your fifties. Better late than never. The more of us the merrier.
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.
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.
Beautifully written and evoking some of the hard to nail down ‘vibe shift’ i am seeing referred to these days on social media.
Beautifully written and evoking some of the hard to nail down ‘vibe shift’ i am seeing referred to these days on social media.
Mr Crawford quotes Christopher Lasch:
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.
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.
Violence and Fear won’t save the West.
They certainly won’t save the French.
Violence and fear saved the West twice in just the 20th century.
Violence and fear saved the West twice in just the 20th century.
Violence and Fear won’t save the West.
They certainly won’t save the French.
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.
Mr Crawford quotes Christopher Lasch:
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.
Wonderful essay. Thanks Mathew.
Wonderful essay. Thanks Mathew.
Gorgons, Clytemnestra, Messalina, Lucretia Borgia, Hilary Clinton.
We have been warned!
Don’t forget Mr. Markle’s wife.
Yes indeed, how remiss of me, and my sincere apologies.
Although she is better ignored, to be fair…
Although she is better ignored, to be fair…
Yes indeed, how remiss of me, and my sincere apologies.
Don’t forget Mr. Markle’s wife.
Gorgons, Clytemnestra, Messalina, Lucretia Borgia, Hilary Clinton.
We have been warned!
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.
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.
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!
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.
I trust ‘they’ will recall what happened to the Indian Squaws in “Soldier Blue”.
I trust ‘they’ will recall what happened to the Indian Squaws in “Soldier Blue”.
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.
God help us!
He’ll have to help the women.
The men will be fine.
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.
Instead of “pull up a sandbag” it’ll be “pass the tampax”.
Instead of “pull up a sandbag” it’ll be “pass the tampax”.
He’ll have to help the women.
The men will be fine.
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.
God help us!
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.
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.
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!
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?
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?
Silly as it may seem I have always held to the notion that the emasculation of men began with the deindustrialazation of the west.
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.
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.
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.
Fair to point out that factory conditions for Rosie were very different to being in the mines or shipyards during the suffragettes’ time.
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.
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.
Fair to point out that factory conditions for Rosie were very different to being in the mines or shipyards during the suffragettes’ time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Silly as it may seem I have always held to the notion that the emasculation of men began with the deindustrialazation of the west.
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.
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.
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
Perhaps we need some experts to tell us what’s going on.
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.
The career of any academic finding any fault with women would be very short.
The career of any academic finding any fault with women would be very short.
Yale video?
The 2015 confrontation between Professor Christakis and assorted students. Click on the link marked “important asymmetries” in the article.
The 2015 confrontation between Professor Christakis and assorted students. Click on the link marked “important asymmetries” in the article.
embedded in an excellent essay by Richard Hanania. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace
You have the burden of proof backwards here. As in: “The beatings will not stop until morale improves”
“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).
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.
Perhaps we need some experts to tell us what’s going on.
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.
Yale video?
embedded in an excellent essay by Richard Hanania. https://www.richardhanania.com/p/womens-tears-win-in-the-marketplace
You have the burden of proof backwards here. As in: “The beatings will not stop until morale improves”
“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).
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here Here!
Ps: Im an American.
Here Here!
Ps: Im an American.
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.
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.
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.
Could someone parse this for me, I didn’t understand it. It seems to refute the excellent article but what is the point?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Could someone parse this for me, I didn’t understand it. It seems to refute the excellent article but what is the point?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
Or as Germaine Greer pertinently said ‘women have no idea how much men hate them’ …
Or as Germaine Greer pertinently said ‘women have no idea how much men hate them’ …