Remember the story of - I think a basketball player? Who posted a cute video of his little boy toddler wearing a dress and he chuckled and lovingly told his boy that boys don’t wear dresses? The poor guy was decimated on social media and IMO when he apologized 🤦♀️ I knew they’d won.
One of the comments in your linked article is hilarious:
“It seems that as gender equality increases, as countries become more progressive, men and women gravitate towards traditional gender norms,” Dr Mac Giolla said. “Why is this happening? I really don’t know.”
This poor guy has drunk so much Kool-Aid that even when his data is screaming "there are real and enduring evolutionary and psychological differences between the sexes", he simply can't hear it. All he hears instead is the postmodernist mantra: "gender is a social construction... gender is a social construction..."
In the "treating men and women differently makes them the same" vein though... historically, I suspect women generally adapted their personalities to men. I could be wrong; adaptation may have been more equal, but I just suspect that. However, today, it's clear men are being asked to adapt to women. I wonder which is more stable long term? Considering women's higher levels both agreeableness and neuroticism (both of which are well documented), I suspect the former. But I could be wrong.
I definitely see the signs of men adapting to women, and not just to women themselves, but the way they think about things. I think this is why the overall feminization of society is so pronounced and also explains why we deal with a lot of the ills we do. Almost every major social issue we have now is because of feminine, not masculine, thinking. Abortion, homosexuality, the White replacement, softness on crime, breakdown of the rule of Law, the destruction of our military, DEI and the overall reduction of quality of things... the list goes on. Having said this, I would argue that this is actually not mostly the fault of actual women. This is just how they tend to think and is naturally why they are not predisposed to leadership and other positions that we've pushed them into for the sake of "equality". The weak men who have adopted this style of thinking is more at issue, in my opinion. If all men collectively stopped this nonsense at once and took the levers of power back, things would immediately get better.
I suspect it's also the fault of our technology. The industrial revolution began the decoupling of economic utility from physical strength. This was a huge boon women and weaker men. The 20th century management revolution cemented that completely: economic rewards shall go not to the strongest but to the most intelligent, socially adept, and organized. Men have no advantage in any of those, and women likely lead in the latter 2. In other words, men did this to ourselves by creating an economic world in which we do not compete well.
More and more, I suspect we're living through one of the largest social and economic bubbles in human history, spanning the entire 20th century and perhaps even back to the Enlightenment.
I mostly agree with you but only believe this is a very narrow subset of career paths where women actually dominate naturally. I still think men naturally outperform in most of of the career spheres you describe when they are allowed to compete. Despite the levelling of the playing field in careers that involve more social and organizations skills, men still have an advantage as we tend to work more hours, are more competitive, and are generally less agreeable than women (and more feminine men). The only reason I believe women have gained real advantages even in these areas are biases, both (mostly) unconscious (women tend to favor hiring other women) and systemic (DEI). I imagine there are roles, probably care-centered ones, that women genuinely find more success in than men. In most other areas I think it's just more "even" between women and men rather than they actually outperform men.
Regarding the fellow who was killed in the Philippines, one thing I’ve noticed is that often it is the longer term stays who get targeted in these developing countries. If you’re there as a tourist, you’re in and out and there’s no time for anything other than an opportunistic crime.
People who stay and think they are fitting in are increasing their exposure and giving time for locals to get envious and cook up a plan. Often it’s someone like a housekeeper’s brother or boyfriend who hears about the rich foreigner and decides to grab the opportunity.
So this guy might have been ok for short visits, but actually staying there long term was a horrible idea.
Even a short-term visit is ill-advised, not without lots of protection. The U.S. State Department even says to reconsider travel to other areas of Mindanao due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and kidnapping. Guess where Sibuco, the town where Eastman was living in, was located? Not only that, State very explicitly says not to travel to anywhere in the southern Sulu Sea! Even U.S. government employees are restricted in their movements while working in the Philippines.
There was no big mystery about the trouble Eastman was getting into. Even short-term visits, while less likely to result to catastrophe, were pushing it. This isn't even a young person underestimating risks; this is a young person straight-up saying "It won't happen to me."
This is in response to young people's responses to the Sydney Sweeney ad, but I've thought about writing something like this on several of your posts. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "If man destroys God, then the government will become God." Once Christianity declined (to a degree) in America it was only a matter of time before a replacement religion would replace it.
At heart, a religion should tell you how the world works and also right from wrong. I've seen attempts (of varying worth) to explain how Wokeism does the former, but it's easy to see how its morals have taken hold of both the elites and young people. And why they want to defend and spread these beliefs as fiercely as any religion of the past.
It was understood (until maybe the last 70 or so years) that a religion should be the central guiding principle of a person's life (hence why everything has to be about politics now). I say this as a lifelong Catholic but a lot of times people on the far left embody the worst religious stereotypes. When confronted with facts that refute or contradict their beliefs, they double down because what good is "faith" if you start doubting it? People who express their doubts too loudly are labelled "heretics" and kicked out of the group. And of course, you can't compromise on a dogma like you can and usually need to with politics to make the system work.
Which is both why I'm skeptical whenever someone says "Wokeism is dead" or something to that effect (what other religion/belief system is going to fill the void left by Christianity?) and that America's culture war is ever going to end in the immediate future. When you have two rival religions (Wokeism and the right's various Christian-influenced beliefs) in one country it never stays peaceful unless you have something else to fill the role of religion in people's lives or a strong government willing to use violence to suppress religious conflict. Or one religion subjugates the other (which kind of sounds like what the far left has been trying to do to the right for a decade or so now).
It’s discouraging how none of the people in that Sidney Sweeney YT video responded with comments about free market capitalism. Who sews the jeans, who built the sewing machine, factories, trucks that transport them, etc. All of these people’s race means NOTHING. Sweeney and AE went into an agreeable contract. If one doesn’t like her, the ads, the jeans, the brand, guess what? Move on and spend your money somewhere else. Your point about the politicization of right and wrong is spot on.
I recently started following Swoll as I’m a gym goer. I’ve never followed influencers, but loved how he called out bad gym etiquette, and went to bat for those bullied by the bad actors. I’ve seen some really bad behavior in the gym, and have used common sense when to intervene myself. My code for FB and IG before posting is ‘will I stand by this no matter what’. I’m Christian Conservative. I have friends and family from all different backgrounds, political leanings, religions, ideologies. You’re DEFINITELY RIGHT. Don’t ever give into the cowardly keyboard warriors. NEVER apologize, and never respond to midwit ideology. I’ve went on the offensive with some posts in the past, with facts, evidence, and truth, and moved on, without a care in the world.
I think the phrase "bad faith actor" is largely important here and was used in the original article and you hit that concept on the head. I argued about race and crime statistics one time with a former friend (you know, the 6% representing the 50% of violent crime topic) and his brain just fizzled. I sent him FBI statistics. He would not open the link. Refused outright. They are not critical thinkers, and are more dogmatic than the most dedicated follower of any faith, and you can't argue with people like that. You can't apologize either unless you convert to their faith.
The midwit, fully indoctrinated brain is super hard to break through. My sister has been a leftist for a long time. Trumps a fascist, cops actively hunt down and murder black men, etc. Anytime I show statistics and factually based evidence, it only makes her mad. It’s the mind of a low IQ person or midwit. Really strange to me how someone can get like that.
Remember the story of - I think a basketball player? Who posted a cute video of his little boy toddler wearing a dress and he chuckled and lovingly told his boy that boys don’t wear dresses? The poor guy was decimated on social media and IMO when he apologized 🤦♀️ I knew they’d won.
One of the comments in your linked article is hilarious:
“It seems that as gender equality increases, as countries become more progressive, men and women gravitate towards traditional gender norms,” Dr Mac Giolla said. “Why is this happening? I really don’t know.”
This poor guy has drunk so much Kool-Aid that even when his data is screaming "there are real and enduring evolutionary and psychological differences between the sexes", he simply can't hear it. All he hears instead is the postmodernist mantra: "gender is a social construction... gender is a social construction..."
In the "treating men and women differently makes them the same" vein though... historically, I suspect women generally adapted their personalities to men. I could be wrong; adaptation may have been more equal, but I just suspect that. However, today, it's clear men are being asked to adapt to women. I wonder which is more stable long term? Considering women's higher levels both agreeableness and neuroticism (both of which are well documented), I suspect the former. But I could be wrong.
I definitely see the signs of men adapting to women, and not just to women themselves, but the way they think about things. I think this is why the overall feminization of society is so pronounced and also explains why we deal with a lot of the ills we do. Almost every major social issue we have now is because of feminine, not masculine, thinking. Abortion, homosexuality, the White replacement, softness on crime, breakdown of the rule of Law, the destruction of our military, DEI and the overall reduction of quality of things... the list goes on. Having said this, I would argue that this is actually not mostly the fault of actual women. This is just how they tend to think and is naturally why they are not predisposed to leadership and other positions that we've pushed them into for the sake of "equality". The weak men who have adopted this style of thinking is more at issue, in my opinion. If all men collectively stopped this nonsense at once and took the levers of power back, things would immediately get better.
I suspect it's also the fault of our technology. The industrial revolution began the decoupling of economic utility from physical strength. This was a huge boon women and weaker men. The 20th century management revolution cemented that completely: economic rewards shall go not to the strongest but to the most intelligent, socially adept, and organized. Men have no advantage in any of those, and women likely lead in the latter 2. In other words, men did this to ourselves by creating an economic world in which we do not compete well.
More and more, I suspect we're living through one of the largest social and economic bubbles in human history, spanning the entire 20th century and perhaps even back to the Enlightenment.
I mostly agree with you but only believe this is a very narrow subset of career paths where women actually dominate naturally. I still think men naturally outperform in most of of the career spheres you describe when they are allowed to compete. Despite the levelling of the playing field in careers that involve more social and organizations skills, men still have an advantage as we tend to work more hours, are more competitive, and are generally less agreeable than women (and more feminine men). The only reason I believe women have gained real advantages even in these areas are biases, both (mostly) unconscious (women tend to favor hiring other women) and systemic (DEI). I imagine there are roles, probably care-centered ones, that women genuinely find more success in than men. In most other areas I think it's just more "even" between women and men rather than they actually outperform men.
Regarding the fellow who was killed in the Philippines, one thing I’ve noticed is that often it is the longer term stays who get targeted in these developing countries. If you’re there as a tourist, you’re in and out and there’s no time for anything other than an opportunistic crime.
People who stay and think they are fitting in are increasing their exposure and giving time for locals to get envious and cook up a plan. Often it’s someone like a housekeeper’s brother or boyfriend who hears about the rich foreigner and decides to grab the opportunity.
So this guy might have been ok for short visits, but actually staying there long term was a horrible idea.
Even a short-term visit is ill-advised, not without lots of protection. The U.S. State Department even says to reconsider travel to other areas of Mindanao due to crime, terrorism, civil unrest, and kidnapping. Guess where Sibuco, the town where Eastman was living in, was located? Not only that, State very explicitly says not to travel to anywhere in the southern Sulu Sea! Even U.S. government employees are restricted in their movements while working in the Philippines.
There was no big mystery about the trouble Eastman was getting into. Even short-term visits, while less likely to result to catastrophe, were pushing it. This isn't even a young person underestimating risks; this is a young person straight-up saying "It won't happen to me."
This is in response to young people's responses to the Sydney Sweeney ad, but I've thought about writing something like this on several of your posts. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "If man destroys God, then the government will become God." Once Christianity declined (to a degree) in America it was only a matter of time before a replacement religion would replace it.
At heart, a religion should tell you how the world works and also right from wrong. I've seen attempts (of varying worth) to explain how Wokeism does the former, but it's easy to see how its morals have taken hold of both the elites and young people. And why they want to defend and spread these beliefs as fiercely as any religion of the past.
It was understood (until maybe the last 70 or so years) that a religion should be the central guiding principle of a person's life (hence why everything has to be about politics now). I say this as a lifelong Catholic but a lot of times people on the far left embody the worst religious stereotypes. When confronted with facts that refute or contradict their beliefs, they double down because what good is "faith" if you start doubting it? People who express their doubts too loudly are labelled "heretics" and kicked out of the group. And of course, you can't compromise on a dogma like you can and usually need to with politics to make the system work.
Which is both why I'm skeptical whenever someone says "Wokeism is dead" or something to that effect (what other religion/belief system is going to fill the void left by Christianity?) and that America's culture war is ever going to end in the immediate future. When you have two rival religions (Wokeism and the right's various Christian-influenced beliefs) in one country it never stays peaceful unless you have something else to fill the role of religion in people's lives or a strong government willing to use violence to suppress religious conflict. Or one religion subjugates the other (which kind of sounds like what the far left has been trying to do to the right for a decade or so now).
It’s discouraging how none of the people in that Sidney Sweeney YT video responded with comments about free market capitalism. Who sews the jeans, who built the sewing machine, factories, trucks that transport them, etc. All of these people’s race means NOTHING. Sweeney and AE went into an agreeable contract. If one doesn’t like her, the ads, the jeans, the brand, guess what? Move on and spend your money somewhere else. Your point about the politicization of right and wrong is spot on.
I recently started following Swoll as I’m a gym goer. I’ve never followed influencers, but loved how he called out bad gym etiquette, and went to bat for those bullied by the bad actors. I’ve seen some really bad behavior in the gym, and have used common sense when to intervene myself. My code for FB and IG before posting is ‘will I stand by this no matter what’. I’m Christian Conservative. I have friends and family from all different backgrounds, political leanings, religions, ideologies. You’re DEFINITELY RIGHT. Don’t ever give into the cowardly keyboard warriors. NEVER apologize, and never respond to midwit ideology. I’ve went on the offensive with some posts in the past, with facts, evidence, and truth, and moved on, without a care in the world.
I think the phrase "bad faith actor" is largely important here and was used in the original article and you hit that concept on the head. I argued about race and crime statistics one time with a former friend (you know, the 6% representing the 50% of violent crime topic) and his brain just fizzled. I sent him FBI statistics. He would not open the link. Refused outright. They are not critical thinkers, and are more dogmatic than the most dedicated follower of any faith, and you can't argue with people like that. You can't apologize either unless you convert to their faith.
The midwit, fully indoctrinated brain is super hard to break through. My sister has been a leftist for a long time. Trumps a fascist, cops actively hunt down and murder black men, etc. Anytime I show statistics and factually based evidence, it only makes her mad. It’s the mind of a low IQ person or midwit. Really strange to me how someone can get like that.