30 June 2020

Fall of the Empire, Thy Name is... Woman?

[This is our first new content in over a year... Thanks for your patience!]

This past March, as the coronavirus raged, 'International Women's Day' would be the last major public gathering for many months. The UN's Antonio Gutierrez remarked:
Men have used and abused power to control women and prevent them from achieving their potential for millennia. Deep-rooted patriarchy and misogyny have created a yawning gender power gap in our economies, our political systems, our corporations, our societies and our culture.
Women are still very frequently denied a voice; their opinions are ignored and their experience discounted. There is no justification for women’s continued exclusion. 

It's true that for most of human history, women and their way of seeing the world have been shut out from the halls of power. In the late 18th century, antiquarian Thomas Amyot summed up the spirit of the age by claiming that women were
‘formed for the lighter duties of Life,’ because of the ‘delicacy of their Frames, the Sensibility of their Dispositions, and, above all the Caprice of their Tempers.’ He proclaimed: ‘A virtuous wife and an affectionate Mother are perhaps the most amiable Characters in the Universe. To these Characters let every female aspire and let us hear no more of the Rights of Woman.’ 

In 1871 Madeleine Dahlgren, writer, poet, and founder of the Literary Society of Washington, led a petition before Congress asking them not to give women the vote:
The advocates of female suffrage claim that if women had the right to vote they would purify legislation of many abuses. But, on the other hand, we hold that the new status will prove to be the worst kind of communism. 
… The mothers, sisters, and daughters of our glorious past will exist no more and the female gender will vanish into the epicene. Involved in one common ruin from our present proud preeminence, we shall become a laughing-stock and a by-word to the nations of the world. 
The special advantage as a safe advisor to man that woman holds at present arises entirely from the neutral ground she occupies in the political world. … The fact is, women reason less and feel more deeply than men. … Take woman out of her proper sphere, and in place of man's precious and true guide and best coadjutor she becomes his worst antagonist and enemy. (1)

But the sufragettes fought hard. At the height of the debates in 1917, feminist Olive Schreiner laid out their plans:
'For the present we take all labor for our provinceFrom the judge's seat to the legislator's chair; from the stateman's closet to the merchant's desk; from the chemist's laboratory to the astronomer's tower, there is no post or form of toil for which it is not our intention to fit ourselves. There is no closed door we do not intend to force open, no fruit in the garden of knowledge it is not our determination to eat.' (2)
In the ensuing century, not only has all this come to pass, but the feminine spirit has seeped into every nook and cranny of Western society. Have the results been to our benefit?

I. Feminization: A Character Sketch

1) When Did It Start?

Our 100,000-year hunter-gatherer past, some say, was the apex of brute manliness, replaced by a more feminine spirit when we began farming around ten thousand years ago.

William Alexander in 1779 claimed that the most primitive peoples are those who oppress their women the most:
It appears from history, that every savage people either have it from nature or from imitation; and thence undoubtedly arose at first the barbarous custom of enslaving and treating with the utmost severity that sex which nature had formed, not to force, but to charm us into a proper behaviour towards them.

 While primitive people subjugate their women, the civilized do just the opposite:
But though among people of savage and uncultivated manners, this natural weakness of the sex, has subjected them to almost every species of indignity and ill usage; among the civil and polite, it has had a very different effect: these, disdaining to take the advantage of weakness, and rather considering it as intitled to their protection and indulgence, have, from generosity of principle, raised women to a rank and condition, in many cases superior even to that enjoyed by themselves; and this merely in condescension to their weakness. (3)

Enlightenment thinkers agreed:
Diderot and Montesquieu, though ambivalent about the benefits of civilization, believed the status of women to be a barometer of historical progress. The more barbarous or despotic a nation or a people, they argued, the more tyrannized and oppressed were their women. (4)

The mists of time keep their mysteries, but what is sure is that until very recently, all societies on earth were male-run and masculine in spirit.

So when did things start to change?

2) Timeline of Women's Rights

Some say feminism started in the salons of 1660s France under Louis XIV:
Critics of the salon bemoaned the influence exercised by women, which they condemned as a feminizing force antithetical to the masculine and martial virtues on which nobility had once rested. ... Not only did it give women access to the literary and philosophical culture of the day, but the preeminent position of women in the salon served as a benign and civilizing influence, for it softened and domesticated the violent behavior that the military role of the nobility had sanctioned. (4)

A century later, the notion of ‘sensibility’ led to the first major wave of feminization:
In the 18th century, sensibility was a physical phenomenon that came to be attached to a specific set of moral beliefs. Physicians and anatomists believed that the more sensitive people's nerves, the more emotionally affected they would be by their surroundings. Since women were thought to have keener nerves than men, it was also believed that women were more emotional than men. 
The emotional excess associated with sensibility also theoretically produced an ethic of compassion: those with sensibility could easily sympathise with people in pain. Thus historians have credited the discourse of sensibility and those who promoted it with the increased humanitarian efforts, such as the movement to abolish the slave trade. But sensibility also paralysed those who had too much of it; as scholar G. J. Barker-Benfield explains, "an innate refinement of nerves was also identifiable with greater suffering, with weakness, and a susceptibility to disorder". 

By the time Mary Wollstonecraft was writing the Rights of Woman, sensibility had already been under sustained attack for a number of years. ... As Janet Todd, another scholar of sensibility, argues, "to many in Britain the cult of sensibility seemed to have feminized the nation, given women undue prominence, and emasculated men."

The first feminist writings date back to late 17th century France:
François Poulain de La Barre (1647–1723) published three major Cartesian feminist treatises, in Paris, in the years 1673–5, commencing with his De l'égalité des deux sexes (1673), path-breaking texts asserting the fundamental equality of women
Descartes's emancipating impact, his dissolving traditional structures of thought, and his radical scepticism concerning received ideas, together with his claim that there is no natural hierarchy of human intellects and that human reason is autonomous and, in principle, equal, in this way fused with his substance dualism to provide a basis for wholly new arguments about the character of the female mind. (6)
Only when the Industrial Revolution hit full tilt, well into the 19th century, did women's rights explode on the scene:

  • 1848 - The Seneca Falls (New York) Convention kicks off the modern women's rights movement.
  • 1860s-90s - Provinces and states around the world begin giving women the right to vote in local elections.
  • 1869 - Wyoming Territory becomes the first modern polity to give women full suffrage.
  • 1893 - New Zealand becomes the first country to do the same.
  • 1920 - United States gives full female suffrage by constitutional amendment.

3) Feminization: What is it?

So what is the so-called ‘feminization of society’? Giving women the vote? Women in government? Female judges, doctors, police? No, there are highly masculine countries today which have all of these. 

'Feminization' is not a series of rights or institutions, but a state of mind.

Of all the various causes which tend to influence our conduct and form our manners, none operate so powerfully as the society of the other sex. If perpetually confined to their company, they infallibly stamp upon us effeminacy, and some other of the signatures of their nature; if constantly excluded from it, we contract a roughness of behaviour, and slovenliness of person, sufficient to point out to us the loss we have sustained. 
He felt that civilized society walked a fine line between 'too male' and 'too female':
If we spend a reasonable portion of our time in the company of women, and another in the company of our own sex, it is then only that we imbibe a proper share of the softness of the female, and at the same time retain the firmness and constancy of the male. (3)
Feminization is a sort of flavor, then, which permeates a people, softening everything it touches--even the men.

 Gray Matters outlines the major traits of a feminizing society:

  • Conflict is resolved increasingly through the means of dialogue and diplomacy, and less by means of violence and war.
  • Political argument increasingly relies on emotional appeal, and less on logic and rhetoric.
  • The functions of government focus less on enforcing order and more on ensuring equality and care for underprivileged classes.
  • Feminine virtues such as self-esteem, caring, and love are emphasized, while masculine virtues such as honor, dignity, and courage are deemphasized.
  • Women increasingly hold the balance of power in society and are treated as the superior gender.
  • Men lose their place in society and are treated as the inferior gender.

But all this is just theory. What is the evidence that we are, in fact, undergoing such a process?

We propose a tour d'horizon showing that the feminine ethos has, like a virus, permeated Western society at every level, and in doing so threatens to destroy it from within.

Those are strong words--so where's the proof?

II. Immigration

Perhaps conditioned by millennia of watching their men killed by invaders while they were stolen as wives, women are clearly the more out-group welcoming sex.

East Asians have a masculine ethos in this domain: Their stance is ‘No immigration is good immigration.’ But feminized societies such as ours simply cannot get enough of outsiders.

1) Welfare Use

But even in the U.S., Ellis Island once turned away boatloads of Europeans every day for being too poor or too sick—i.e., a ‘public charge.’

In masculine countries, immigrants—if they are allowed at all—are expected to earn their keep. In the modern West, however, they are encouraged to pump as much as possible from the welfare state.

In the U.S., a report from 2016 unveiled some well-hidden secrets:
Immigrants are supposed to be beneficial to the U.S.–so much so that federal law requires them to prove they won’t end up on the public dole if they are legally admitted. But it’s a stricture honored more in the breach than in compliance. ... Only a single person was kicked out of the country over the last three years for becoming a public burden. 
More than half of immigrant-led households use at least one welfare program, according to research by the Center for Immigration Studies. By comparison, 30 percent of households led by native-born U.S. citizens take welfare. Immigrants from Mexico and Central America have the highest rate, with nearly 75% using at least one program. The Caribbean is second, with a 51% use rate.

2) Can't Deport Criminals

Until recently, expelling illegal aliens was as mainstream an idea as one could find. Bill Clinton gave what was then the typical leftist stance in his 1996 State of the Union address:

'After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. … We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. And tonight I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.'

At the time, illegal immigration was seen as harmful to the American worker. Famous labor activists, even Hispanic ones, worked tirelessly against it.

Fast forward to 2018: As womanly feeling has taken over the halls of power, we now see these invaders as put-upon children whom we must welcome into our bosom. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in her 8-hour filibuster speech before Congress defending 'DACA', a law giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens:
My grandson… had a very close friend whose name is Antonio, he’s from Guatemala. And he has beautiful tan skinned, beautiful brown eyes, and this was a proud day for me, because when my grandson blew out the candles on his [birthday] cake, they said, ‘did you make a wish?’ He said, yes, he made a wish. What is your wish? I wish I had brown skin and brown eyes like Antonio.’

This impossibly insipid level of discourse was, we recall, exactly the sort of thing anti-suffragette activists (including female ones) warned would come to pass.

As for the E.U., since Merkel's Boner in 2015, it has turned itself into a giant open-air buffet for any young, fighting-age man on the planet calling himself a 'refugee' who would like welfare benefits for life.

The Council of Europe in Brussels has forbidden any public or private actor from denouncing the presence of illegal aliens on the continent, as it would violate their ‘human rights.’

And in France, border-jumping is a de facto free pass to live there permanently. Anyone who wanders into the country, legally or illegally, has the right to ask for asylum. If it’s denied, he should technically be deported—but he isn't nearly 90% of the time. And if the alien in question has chucked his papers or his home country refuses to claim him, the French government simply throws up its hands.

As for uber-feminized Sweden, once you’ve obtained residency, it is nearly impossible to be kicked out:

  • An Afghan refugee raped an 11-year-old girl at a swimming pool. But because he had obtained Swedish residency, the country refused to deport him for his crime.
  • Syrian refugee dragged a mailman into his home and tortured him with knives for five hours. But Sweden refuse to deport because the man is 'wanted' in Syria, whose justice system is not as lenient as Sweden's.
  • Somalian refugee tried to rape a girl in the street, though she fought him off. Because he’s acquired residency, and the crime 'isn’t serious enough,' Sweden won't deport him.
  • An Ethiopian refugee in Sweden knew he was HIV positive, but raped a woman anyway. Locked up for 15 years, he wants to be deported to Ethiopia, but Sweden refuses to do so because they don't think he'll get the same first-class AIDS drugs there that he gets in Sweden.
'They can't help themselves'

European women in particular are welcoming in the world’s ‘refugees’ and excusing their every misbehavior.

At a ‘refugee’ housing center in Belgium:
Workers at the center have denounced the lax attitude of the volunteers. One revealed that “Any time the refugees act up, their behavior is excused due to their ‘difficult past.’ They insult and threaten the staff, but no one says a word about it. They vomit and defecate in the showers, they throw a fit when they can’t eat a meal immediately. They don’t even make their beds in the mornings, the volunteers do it.’ Another worker: ‘They have no respect for the volunteers… these women work like dogs to take care of them.’”

III. Criminal Justice

In primitive societies, punishment for crime tends to be swift: execution, torture, exile. The more feminized a society, the softer a stance it seems to take towards delinquents.  And today, the softest stance of all is taken towards foreign delinquents.

1) Lax Justice

Evolution of crime and punishment

In Antiquity, justice was swift and merciless. Exile, corporal punishment, and death were common penalties, the latter carried out in as lengthy and gruesome a way as possible. (Crucifixion being one such example.)
Over time, these methods were seen as too brutal. America’s founders had such gore in mind when they forbade punishments that were ‘cruel and unusual.' Instant death, such as hanging or beheading, was seen as the humane alternative. Firing squad, electrocution, and lethal injection have each been considered ‘humane’ (because quick) in their turn.

Today, as the feminine spirit overtakes us, we have drifted ever further from these brutal and virile sentences. Cesare Beccaria in 1767 was the first jurist to publicly call for an end to the death penalty. In 1846 Michigan was the first polity to completely abolish it, followed by Venezuela as the first nation to do so in 1863. But they were far outliers—the vast majority of countries that ended capital punishment did so after the 1960s.

And in Western Europe, where the 'Bloody Code' once meant pickpockets were put to death, one can today commit murder in cold blood and serve only a few years idling in comfort.

He didn’t know what he was doing’:
In Ireland, a Japanese tourist was murdered by an Egyptian vagrant who was then found not guilty by reason of insanity. Japan being a country that has retained a masculine justice system, it is of interest to read the reactions of this young man's family:
Following the verdict, the deceased's older sister Shiori Sasaki in a written statement said she cannot understand, "why a mentally unstable foreign national, whose origin was unknown, was allowed to be in the town." 
His father said: "I cry so much the tears blind my vision, making work impossible. I cannot continue to feel like this. Yosuke would not want it, he would scold me for doing so." He begged to see his son again, adding: "I want to meet him and feel his warmth and see his smiling face. All I want is to meet my Yosuke."

In Paris, an Arab  beat and threw his elderly Jewish neighbor to her death from a window while screaming ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Since he’d been smoking pot, he was declared not guilty by reason of 'cannabis-induced insanity.' He is now in a mental hospital from which he may be released.

He didn’t mean to’:

In Germany, three foreign youths threw two German teens in front of an oncoming train, killing them. They were sentenced to only 3 years in prison, as the judge felt that they didn’t show 'intent' to kill.

In Switzerland, a Syrian teen refugee broke his teacher’s jaw and in return was given boxing lessons to 'work out his anger.'

In the U.S., we remember the famous 'three strikes you're out' law. In France, a country whose justice system is especially softened, the number of strikes appears to be unlimited:

  • Two youths arrested for inciting riot against the police turn out to have 74 convictions between them, yet still walking free.
  • A homeless man set a trash can on fire and physically attacked the police. Only 25 years old, he’d been walking the streets freely with 101 criminal charges under his belt.
  • A woman collecting money for a recently widowed neighbor has it stolen by two young thugs, who between them have 56 criminal charges.
  • A 40-year-old was convicted with stealing video projectors from a vocational college, his 135th criminal charge.
  • A 43-year-old with 100 convictions under his belt was walking free and able to beat a teenaged boy and sexually assault a woman at a tram stop, all in one afternoon.
  • In Belgium, committing 500 burglaries of houses whose families are away at funerals is apparently not enough to get you locked up for any serious length of time.

Criminals Have More Rights than Victims
Womanly compassion for wrongdoers can lead to a justice system that gives more rights to criminals than to their victims.

In the UK, one local council brought the hammer down on a gardener who fenced off his allotment with barbed wire after being targeted by thieves; he was ordered to take it down lest an intruder scratch himself on it.

Taggers who had completely defaced the French town of Rosny-sur-Seine were let off by the judge with an ‘official warning,’ to the stupefaction of the mayor who was left to clean up the mess.

A group of Romanian gypsies were found with €1600 of stolen Champagne in their trunk—but since no Romanian translator could be found, they were simply let go on the spot, champagne in tow. Par for the course in France, where four Iraqi human traffickers, three Romanians caught smuggling cocaine, or a Brazilian drug smuggler in Brussels were all let go after no interpreters could be found.
Feminized justice means ceding the public space to criminals. In Berlin, one public park decided to solve their drug-dealing problem by marking out designated spaces  on the ground where dealers are officially allowed to park their cars to do business.

In France, Gypsies are free to roam the land, park their caravans illegally in any field, and leave mountains of (often toxic) trash in their wake--all cleaned up on the taxpayers’ dime. Fearing this violent, clannish people, France’s emasculated government simply looks the other way.

Teens aren't responsible for their acts

A country’s attitude towards youth crime also betrays its degree of feminization. Children over the age of seven were once punished like adults:

'In 1690 [in Britain], a 14-year-old boy, found guilty of picking pockets and of robbery, was sentenced to die and was hanged. In 1735, a 10-year-old girl, an apprentice who stole some money from her master’s house, was killed.'

These were extreme examples—like adults, most child criminals received corporal punishment or exile to the colonies. As prisons grew more widespread in the 19th century, children were locked up with adults:

'In New York in 1820, an eight-year-old boy was convicted of burglarizing a jewelry store, and the judge sentenced him to three years in the state prison.'

But today the pendulum has swung all the way back, particularly in Western Europe. Minors there are very often freed from any criminal liability at all.

In France, Gypsy and Arab children are today allowed to pickpocket tourists in Paris with near total impunity.
“56% of those arrested are [foreign] minors,” said the police commissioner. “The courts can’t do much because they’re so young. We can’t deport them either.  As a result, a few hours after being arrested, these gangs go right back to the train station to start stealing again. “In 90% of cases, the thieves come from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, and especially [Gypsies from] Eastern Europe.”
Since the Million Refugee March began in 2015, families in Africa and the Maghreb have been taking their most dysfunctional, violent children and sending them off on dinghies to Europe to become someone else's problem:
Police have created a special task force to address the crimes committed by [foreign] "parent-less minors," or "PLM." It's an acronym that's synomynous with trouble. This new type of criminal first appeared in Pars. Mugging old ladies for their jewelry and squatting in abandoned houses, these youngsters refuse any housing or schooling, wandering the streets with no family, on drugs, violent,...
Their asylum claims refused, these kids cannot be housed with adult refugees, deported, or imprisoned. The poor, plucky Gavroches are simply allowed to run riot. In Lyon:
In Lyon, France, from 2017 to 2018, thefts in a public place increased by 27%. Of those thefts, 65% were committed by [foreign] “parent-less minors.”
 In Paris:
This year 1552 Moroccan youth have been arrested in the Goutte d'Or district in Paris, mainly for muggings and burglaries. Only 21 have been placed in detention.
In the south:
In Montpellier, the Charles de Gaulle Esplanade has become the turf of groups of "parent-less minors." There's no counting the muggings, thefts and assaults committed by these young people from North Africa.

These lovable ruffians don't limit themselves to theft; they have also dabbled in arsonriotingshootings, carjacking, heroin trafficking, running over pedestrians, running over café patrons, beating up schoolteachersfrottage, raping the elderly, raping the middle-aged, raping the younglynching, attempted murder, and successful murder--to the apparent indifference of the French justice system (which is 66% female).

2) De-Policing

Lax justice is one symptom of a feminized society, another is de-policing.

Due to so-called budget cuts, UK authorities recently announced their new kinder, gentler de-policing stance:
The new guidelines detailed that crimes involving a loss of under £50 wouldn’t be investigated along with offenses where there wasn’t a “realistic chance officers [would] be able to solve it”. Among the lower level offenses downgraded by the guidelines were shoplifting, car crimes, and criminal damage.
As a reminder, in the 18th century theft of over £22 (12 pence at the time) was punishable by death or exile to a penal colony.

Other locales have jumped on de-policing, such as Dallas, Texas...
Following his November 2018 election win, Dallas County Criminal District Attorney John Creuzot, a Democrat, announced that he will no longer prosecute certain low-level crimes, including thefts of personal items worth less than $750 as long as it isn't for economic gain, according to CBS DFW.

... or California, whose Proposition 47 led shoplifting, grand theft [less than $950], receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks to be downgraded from 'felony' to 'misdemeanor.' The result? Property crime has gone through the roof--as has public drug use, also de-criminalized.

Many have stopped believing that city leaders will ever come to their rescue. A type of vigilantism is emerging. Neighbors are posting on social sites such as Nextdoor, and monitoring crime with apps such as Citizen. Residents film perpetrators, then post photos and videos online with messages such as: “Be on the lookout for this man. He stole packages from my door-stoop last night.” and “This woman is selling Fentanyl-dipped cigarettes in front of a preschool. I’ve told her to leave and she did, but if you see her; do the same.”
In San Francisco, shoplifting no longer leads to arrest, with predictable results:

De-funding the police

The current ‘de-fund the police’ movement in the U.S. is of course the logical culmination of this long road to feminization. Mass hysteria over the recent death of a black man in police custody has led to serious calls to 'de-fund' or 'abolish' traditional police forces, with Minneapolis the first city to vote formally to do so.

Infantilizing the Population

Where womanliness reigns, citizens are often considered to be children. In the UK, in order to fight knife crime, rather than putting knife criminals in prison, some bright lights have proposed… removing the points from knives. (As is so often the case with Britain: No, this is not a joke.)

IV. Education

1) Best friends are bad

In the land of the feminized, there is no evil greater than hurt feelings. Thus, the new trend of ‘banning best friends’ in elementary schools has taken the UK, Canda, and Australia by storm:
This all started when school officials began to worry that children who established close friendships might also be disruptive to the culture of the classroom. With a propensity to share secrets and have adventures, they feared these same children might also exclude other kids both in and beyond the playground. It was believed that by discouraging “best friends”, the formation of cliques and bullying would lessen. 
2) Victim Worship

A nation in the grip of rising womanliness is one that will inevitably embrace victimhood as its highest value. Western academia is flush with seemingly endless examples. To wit: Microaggression training at Purdue.
A business class at Purdue University teaches students the phrase “America is a melting pot” is a microaggression, according to class handouts obtained by The College Fix. That phrase is among at least a dozen examples students were recently instructed on in the Management 301 course. 
 From feminist icon to micro-aggressor

Additional microaggressions listed on the worksheet include: “Where are you from,” “There is only one race, the human race,” “Everyone can succeed in society if they work hard enough” and “I believe the most qualified person should get the job.” These phrases are problematic because they promote the “myth of meritocracy,” or represent “statements which assert that race or gender does not play a role in life successes.”
Female squeamishness has also reared its head in the form of  trigger warnings:
Colleges across the country this spring have been wrestling with student requests for what are known as “trigger warnings,” explicit alerts that the material they are about to read or see in a classroom might upset them or, as some students assert, cause symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder in victims of rape or in war veterans. 
The debate has left many academics fuming, saying that professors should be trusted to use common sense and that being provocative is part of their mandate. Trigger warnings, they say, suggest a certain fragility of mind that higher learning is meant to challenge, not embrace.
Jonathan Haidt on this phenomenon:
When I was at Yale in the 1980s, I was given so many tools for understanding the world. By the time I graduated, I could think about things as a Utilitarian or a Kantian, as a Freudian or a behaviorist, as a computer scientist or a humanist. I was given many lenses to apply to any one situation. 
But nowadays, students who major in departments that prioritize social justice over the disinterested pursuit of truth are given just one lens—power—and told to apply it to all situations. Everything is about power. Every situation is to be analyzed in terms of the bad people acting to preserve their power and privilege over the good people. This is not an education. This is induction into a cult, a fundamentalist religion, a paranoid worldview that separates people from each other and sends them down the road to alienation, anxiety, and intellectual impotence. 

3) Rape: Feelings over Facts

Since law is less important than feelings, when it comes to rape or sex harassment, due process has also gone the way of the dodo on college campuses
Last Thursday, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos made a speech announcing the reversal of Obama-era policies on campus sexual assault under Title IX, the federal law on gender equity in education. This was met with a wave of outrage on social media and in progressive publications. There were angry accusations that the move would harm women and protect rapists; a #StopBetsy hashtag sprang up on Twitter.
What was DeVos reacting to?
… Haidt and Lukianoff report on one example of how the White House helped unleash the demons lurking within diversity worship: “In 2013, the Departments of Education and Justice issued a sweeping new definition of harassment…. By eliminating the reasonable person standard, harassment was left to be defined by the self-reported subjective experience of every member of the university community. It was, in effect, emotional reasoning turned into federal regulation.”

4) Discipline

If the male spirit is law and order, the female spirit is indulgence. When it takes over school systems, watch out.

St. Paul, Minnesota, that denizen of descendants of Scandinavians (the most feminized people in the world), has taken a novel approach. In order to ‘close the gap’ between black and white discipline numbers, they’ve decided to simply stop disciplining at all:

Students run up and down the hallways, slamming lockers and tearing posters off the walls. They hit and swear at each other, upend garbage cans under teachers' noses. … In March, when a student barged into her class, McQueen happened to be standing in the doorway and got crushed into a shelf. The following week, two boys came storming in, hit a girl in the head, then skipped back out. One of them had already been written up more than 30 times. 
Yet another student who repeatedly drops into her class has hit kids and cursed at an aide, once telling McQueen he would "fry" her ass. She tried to make a joke of it — "Ooh, I could use a little weight loss." Her students interjected: "No, that means he's gonna kill you." 
"There are those that believe that by suspending kids we are building a pipeline to prison. I think that by not, we are," McQueen says. "I think we're telling these kids you don't have to be on time for anything, we're just going to talk to you. You can assault somebody and we're gonna let you come back here."

V. Science
1) Men's and Women's Brains

Where feminization takes over, the plainly obvious differences between men’s and women’s brains become a taboo subject.

Harvard president Larry Summers mentioned this difference, and was not only forced to step down, but years later activists urged Barack Obama to avoid choosing him to chair the Fed due to his 'misogyny':
At the 2005 National Bureau of Economic Research luncheon, Summers responded to reports that Harvard offered only four women tenure in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in 2004, compared to 28 men. He offered possible explanations for this ratio and similar trends in academia,... noting that more men than women rank at the extremes of achievement and belong to the pool of truly exceptional academics. 
Summers drew the harshest criticism for asserting that male intelligence shows more variability than female intelligence, resulting in larger numbers of men at both extremes. This statement was not based on personal observation but relied on objective research on the distribution of aptitude. We can argue about whether this phenomenon is fair or unfair or whether we wish that the data showed something different, but we shouldn’t fault Summers for merely citing a scientific theory that’s backed by research.

Italian physicist Alessandro Strumia, in a speech at the CERN particle physics lab in Geneva, went down the same path as Larry Summers:

During the presentation, he asserted that physics was built and invented by men, and stated on a slide that “Physics is not sexist against women.” Thousands of physicists signed a letter voicing concerns about Strumia’s views […] Both CERN and Strumia’s employer, the University of Pisa in Italy, launched investigations. Earlier this year, CERN cut all ties with Strumia and the university released a statement condemning his comments.

2) Make Science more Squishy

Archaeology is a classic example of a feminized field. Conquest and domination were once assumed to be the rule, but then the female ethos took over. Steve Sailer:

"Pots Not Peoples" orthodoxy of later 20th Century academia: if, say, England of about 4,500 years ago suddenly had an all-new material culture — what old archaeologists called the Battle-Axe Culture but new ones renamed as the Corded Ware Culture in order to discourage heterosexual boys from taking an interest in their field — that must have been because a new interior decorating fad had swept Europe. Heaven forbid that anybody think that a bunch of battle-axe wielding barbarians had conquered England. That would be barbaric!
DNA researcher David Reich has recently taken the field by storm by proving, at the genetic level, that the old-school "battle-axe" scientists had it right. The world of archaeology has replied with a collective hissy-fit, chronicled in this sinister -looking byline from the New York Times:

Feminization inevitably leads to calls for fewer men in the domains to which they are best-suited, like physics (above) or paleontology. See for example ‘It’s Time for the Heroic Male Paleontologist Trope to Go Extinct’:
… Instead, we got the same sexist schtick about one guy at one fossil site who’s going to figure it all out. … Not only does this perpetuate the lone genius trope that’s demonstrably false, but it underscores paleontology’s deeply rooted problem with male privilege. The search and study of extinct life has persistently been depicted as a man’s science.

As everyone knows, little girls' passion for dinosaurs far oustrips boys'.

Science should be taught totally separately from religion. Unless of course it’s aboriginal religion, which supersedes science:
University science lecturers have been warned off making the familiar statement in class that “Aboriginal people have been in Australia for 40,000 years”. It “puts a limit on the occupation of Australia” and many ­indigenous Australians see this as “inappropriate”, according to the University of NSW language advice for staff. 
The document suggests it is “more appropriate” to say Aborigines have been here “since the beginning of the Dreaming/s” ­because this “reflects the beliefs of many Indigenous Australians that they have always been in Australia, from the beginning of time, and came from the land’’. 

VI. Military

That most primally male activity, war, is one that even the most effete societies have kept barred to women. Not anymore:

I remember hearing in 2010 from a buddy at the Pentagon that the combat exclusion policy for women in combat arms would be overturned no matter what “about a year from the President’s last year.” At the time I thought he was crazy… 
This, of course, matches what every Army Command Sergeant Major in 2011-2013 told me was said to them by high-level CSMs and General Officers while attending their pre-command courses: “women will be in combat arms and women will graduate Ranger School, if any of you has a problem with that, you need to get out of the military.” 

Their objective was never about making the military “more effective.” In fact, some advocates I have talked to are actually anti-war and anti-military! What this change is really about for many is changing the “hyper macho” male culture of the military and the country as a whole. The advocates do not believe, or do not care, that this could potentially negatively affect combat effectiveness.
And as myriad studies have shown, it does damage combat effectiveness:
A 2014-2015 experiment by the Marine Corps with a gender-integrated combat unit found that women were twice as likely to suffer injuries significant enough to remove them from duty, and that women's shooting accuracy was much less than that of men in simulated combat situations. Female soldiers were also found to have lower performance in the basic combat tasks like negotiating obstacles and removing wounded troops from the battlefield. 
Female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948, due to the behavior of male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an instinctual protective aggression that was uncontrollable, severely degrading the unit's combat effectiveness. 

Women in combat is effectively the third rail, as once it is allowed, women can presumably be drafted. Which countries have crossed the Rubicon?

A few suprises here, but mostly it appears to be, once again, Anglos and Europeans leading the way into the feminized breach. And remember that in Europe, this immense weakening of the armed forces (and thus of national security) is a point of pride:
Defense minister Florence Parly affirmed that the French army is one of “the most feminized in the world,” but she emphasized that we have to “do more.”

Suffragette-era cartoonist (left) no doubt thought his prediction was pure comedy

VII. Popular Culture

1) Art

Great art has always been a man’s world. As Camille Paglia  put it:
As I demonstrated in my first book, Sexual Personae, the impulse or compulsion toward art making is often grounded in ruthless aggression and combat — which is partly why there have been so few great women artists.
In the absence of being able to innovate, some women believe 'art' is simply inserting themselves into what someone else has created.

Harmonia Rosales has gone one better, adding both ovaries and melanin:

2) Advertising and Lad Mags

Popular culture in a feminized society begins to take on a strange aspect. In Great Britain:
Adverts showing a woman struggling to park a car or a man refusing to do housework while his wife cooks dinner will be banned from next year as part of an industry-wide crackdown on sexist stereotypes. 

Under the new rules, British companies will no longer be able to create promotions that depict men and women engaged in gender-stereotypical activities, amid fears that such depictions are contributing to pay inequality and causing psychological harm. Adverts will no longer be able to show a person failing to achieve a task specifically because of their gender, such as a man unable to change a nappy or a woman unable to do DIY.

Advertising seems hell-bent on emasculating itself to the furthest reaches imaginable. Men grow beards; women don't. Yet at some point Gillette razors stopped talking facial hair and started flagellating its customers for their ’toxic masculinity.’

Budweiser, a beer once associated with all things manly, has now become the foremost celebrator of the 31 flavors of homosexuality:

Feminization reaches its peak when the most manly arenas suddenly become womanly. To wit, a magazine known as Gentlemen's Quartely deciding its market isn't necessarily men:

How do you make a so-called men’s magazine in the thick of what has justifiably become the Shut Up and Listen moment? One way we’ve addressed it is by making a magazine that isn’t really trying to be exclusively for or about men at all. In fact, for many years now, one of the key principles at GQ is that if we tell stories that excite our own smart, voracious, politically and socially engaged team, we will connect with a smart, engaged, diverse, and gender-nonspecific audience. Which means GQ isn’t targeting a conventional demographic at all; we’re just doing our own specific GQ thing our own specific GQ way—and we trust that all kinds of people will relate and engage.

3) Books and Movies

Fiction was once a window into other worlds; today it is a closed circle patrolled by a volunteer auxiliary army of the female id:
And so before her manuscript went to print, she reached out to a group of “sensitivity readers.” These advising angels—part fact-checkers, part cultural ambassadors—are new additions to the book publishing ecosystem. Either hired by individual authors or by publishing houses, sensitivity readers are members of a minority group tasked specifically with examining manuscripts for hurtful, inaccurate, or inappropriate depictions of that group.

The zeitgeist in popular entertainment has so radically swung around these last 30 years that we now have actors publicly repenting for harmless comedy films they made in their youth. John Hughes’ muse Molly Ringwald:

How are we meant to feel about art that we both love and oppose?” Ringwald writes. “What if we are in the unusual position of having helped create it?” Over the course of the essay, she interviews her former co-stars, John Hughes’s collaborators, and even revisits his much more explicitly racist, homophobic, and misogynistic writing for National Lampoon.
People who grew up in that era may not realize that the films of their childhood are now considered beyond the pale by the new prohibitionists:

4) Journalism

Over the last half-century, journalism has morphed from a masculine, blue-collar beat into a hive of effete coastal elites. In the U.S.:

The U.K. tells a similar story:

Leftism is deeply entwined with femininity, so no surprise at the change in tone:

As Steve Sailer reports, the once-masculine world of journalism is now drowning in school-marmism:
When did we start seeing this kind of headline in magazines? I can imagine a 1940 Methodist publication using the same “How Should We Think About …” formula. The Daily Worker, too. I can even imagine the 1930 New Yorker running a Robert Benchley parody of a Sunday sermon with this kind of headline.
From chain-smoking Edward R. Murrow who grew up without running water or electricity, to a flock of Manhattan trust fund babies: What has this transformation wrought?

As coal miners were losing their jobs during the Obama years, journalists helpfully advised them to 'learn to code.' So when reporters started being laid off en masse in early 2019, this sound advice was given right back to them.

This playful ribbing was taken with manly equanimity by NBC News Senior Business reporter Ben Popken:

Encouragingly, there was testosterone to be found in the replies:

6) Sports

Feminization of sports has been a case study in the road to hell being paved with good intentions:
Title IX was signed into law by President Nixon on June 23, 1972. It applies to all areas of education but is best known for its influence on sports. If a college’s student body is 60% female, then 60% of the athletes should be female — even if far fewer women than men are interested in playing sports at that college. 
Title IX quotas have all but decimated smaller less lucrative [than football] sports such as men’s swimming, diving, gymnastics and wrestling. More than 450 wrestling teams vanished since 1972, with only 328 remaining. 
Is this fixation on equality based on reality?
But there’s overwhelming evidence that women, taken as a group, are less interested than men in competitive sports. In 2012, a group of psychologists found that only 26% of intramural participants are women. They also studied recreational activity in 41 public parks in four different states. Lots of women were exercising, but only 10% of those playing competitive team sports were women. 
A 2013 ESPN report on youth sports found that 34% of girls in grades 3-12 say sports is a big part of who they are; for boys the figure is 61%. Sports Illustrated for Women, first published in 2000, was marketed to females between the ages of 18 and 34 with a “passion for sports.” The magazine lasted less than two years.

Though there are no collegiate sports in France, that hasn't stopped the current 'Equality Minister' from decreeing, in true Title IX fashion, that women shall make up 50% of all televised sports despite an almost complete lack of viewer interest.

No fans? No problem

And in a thoroughly 21st-century example of governance by school-marming, the French sports minister (a lady, natch) wants to shut down pro soccer games mid-match if any homophobic insults are heard in the stands--that is, the whole class gets punished if one person breaks a rule.

VIII. Language Policing

'Feelings over Facts' is the female imperative. Thus, the feminized society becomes fixated on preventing hurt feelings at any price.

1) On the job

The school-marmish way in which our language is now policed calls to mind nothing so much as a kindergarten teacher washing tots' mouth out with soap. In just the last few years, we've had a Marine commander fired in mid-deployment for using the word ‘faggot’, as well as a Netflix executive fired not for saying ‘nigger,’ but for saying 'We shouldn't use the word ‘nigger’'. 

Marine commander, Netflix exec, pro racer: No one is safe from the thought police

Perhaps the height of such policing is the example of  race car driver fired from a juicy sponsorship because his father, also a race car driver, used the word ‘nigger’ in a radio interview... in the 1980s, ten years before he was born.

2) De-Platforming

The slur-filled Usenet brawls of the Wild West internet era are long gone, giving way to the tattle-girl climate of today's social media:
Silicon Valley's efforts to pull the plug on dissenting opinions began with Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, who have proven to be innovators in devising excuses to suspend ideologically disfavored accounts. Until now, the deleted or suspended accounts have mostly been unpaid users of social media—libertarian law professor Glenn Reynolds, actor James Woods, radio talk show host Jesse Kelly, Infowars provocateur Alex Jones. But paying customers may be the next targets for social media "deplatforming."

3) Canceling Words

Abolishing words is the hallmark of the schoolmarm-run society, from suggesting that the word ’black hole’ is racist to attacking physics for using the term 'quantum supremacy’:
We take issue with the use of ‘supremacy’ when referring to quantum computers that can out-calculate even the fastest supercomputers. We consider it irresponsible to override the historical context of this descriptor, which risks sustaining divisions in race, gender and class. We call for the community to use ‘quantum advantage’ instead.

In the same vein, California has officially replaced the term ‘at-risk youth’ with ’at-promise youth’, while the U.S. Justice Department’s estrogenized new chief has advised using ‘person who committed a crime’or ‘person who was incarcerated’ rather than ‘felon’ or ‘offender’.

In France, miffed that their default gender is masculine, feminists have invented a new 'inclusive writing’--here is a sample from the Education Ministry’s website (bolded for the non-francophones; for the francophones, sorry to make your eyes bleed):

Ce dispositif s’adresse à des candidat.e.s au profil très spécifique : géographiquement éloigné.e.s des centres d’examen, handicapé.e.s, hospitalisé.e.s, incarcéré.e.s, et dans l’impossibilité de se déplacer jusqu’au centre d’examen. Ces candidat.e.s sont averti.e.s par la.le recteur.rice de leur académie qui est la.le garant.e du principe d’égalité entre tou.te.s les candidat.e.s à l’examen. La.le recteur.rice s’assure de la qualité, de la sécurité et de la confidentialité des échanges entre la.le candidat.e et l’examinateur.rice. Un.e surveillant.e est présent.e auprès de la.du candidat.e pour contrôler le bon déroulement de l’épreuve.
And in Sweden, horrified at the stigma of being referred to by one's biological sex, they have gone so far as to do away with he and she, inventing a new gender-neutral pronoun (‘hen’).

4) Literal Language Policing

In the feminized U.K., ‘language policing’ is done by the actual police:
 It seems to be a real budget priority to monitor speech:
Figures purportedly show that the British government allocates more money to foreign aid than to police forces in England and Wales. London mayor Sadiq Khan funneled millions into a “hate crime hub” for the Metro Police with over 900 officers deployed to monitor speech and thought.

An example of ‘hate speech’?
A docker from Humberside has been investigated by police over a limerick he posted on Twitter after an officer claimed it constitutes a ‘hate incident’ against transgender people.
The docker in question posted a feminist-penned poem, excerpted here (image added by TWCS):

Our favorite bit of the article (We are assured this is not parody):
PC [Police Constable] Mansoor Gul told Mr Miller: “I’ve been on a course and what you need to understand is that you can have a foetus with a female brain that grows male body parts and that’s what a transgender person is.”
Comment would be superfluous.


1) Dimorphism in Decline?

Femininity in Decline

Anecdotes are all well and good, but what does the research show? In 1974 psychologist Sandra Bem created the ‘Bem Sex-Role Inventory’ (BSRI), which measures an individual’s identification with traditionally masculine and feminine qualities. 

In a cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. college students’ scores on the BSRI, we examined changes in ratings on the Bem masculinity (M) and femininity (F) scales since the early 1990s. 
Our results reveal that women’s femininity scores have decreased significantly (d=.26) between 1993 and 2012, whereas their masculinity remained stable. No significant changes were observed for men. Expanded analyses of data from 1974 to 2012 found that womens M rose significantly (d=.23), with no changes in womens F, mens M, and mens F.  …  Our findings suggest that since the 1990s, U.S. college women have become less likely to endorse feminine traits as self-representative, potentially revealing a devaluation of traditional femininity.

In the above study, men’s “M” (masculinity score) was not seen to fall in the years between 1974 and 2012. This is surprising, because it’s been posited that women cannot become less feminine without men first becoming less masculine.

Testosterone in Decline

Many studies have shown that testosterone levels in the West are, in fact, falling, such as from New England Research Institute:
A new study has found a “substantial” drop in U.S. men’s testosterone levels since the 1980s, but the reasons for the decline remain unclear. This trend also does not appear to be related to age. ... It’s likely that some sort of environmental exposure is responsible for the testosterone decline, Travison said, although he said attempting to explain what this might be based on the current findings would be “pure conjecture.”

 Are men getting less masculine?

2) Victimhood Culture

A society in which femaleness is glorified at the expense of maleness is of course one in which weakness and victimhood are admired.

Via Chateau Heartiste, a sum-up of the 2015 study 'Microaggression and Moral Cultures’:
Victimhood culture is when a culture evolves to handle slights against them through responding to each of them, not directly, but leverage third party intervention. These third parties could be parents, school authority, police, voters, or political donors. What makes victimhood cultures dangerous was that it incentivized “victims” to catalog and broadcast every conceivable slight against them, no matter how trivial or unintentional the insult. 
But victimhood culture does something else to the character of its members. It causes them to value victimhood as a form of virtue itself. That means that those within such cultures seek to gain the short term benefits of being perceived as a victim, such as pity or advocacy, but at the cost of long term appreciation from the culture, as classic (and more healthy) character traits, such as self-reliance and self-respect are ignored and allowed to atrophy.

Historian and theologian Andrew Wilson:
What we call victimhood culture combines some aspects of honor and dignity. People in a victimhood culture are like the honorable in having a high sensitivity to slight. They’re quite touchy, and always vigilant for offenses. Insults are serious business, and even unintentional slights might provoke a severe conflict. 
But, as in a dignity culture, people generally eschew violent vengeance in favor of relying on some authority figure or other third party. They complain to the law, to the human resources department at their corporation, to the administration at their university, or — possibly as a strategy of getting attention from one of the former — to the public at large. 
… The result is that this culture also emphasizes a particular source of moral worth: victimhood. Victim identities are deserving of special care and deference.

The Language of Victimization

One way to measure the growth of our feminized victimization culture is by the change in language over time. These graphs from the New York Times are enlightening:

3) Women and Free Speech

The notion of ‘free speech’ is a thoroughly modern one; it does not appear anywhere before roughly the 18th century. And even far into the 20th, between communist totalitarianism and military dictatorships, it was hard to come by.

But in our modern world it is a right many have fought and died for. Some of the freest-speech countries in the world have been Anglo-Germanic ones. But what happens to liberty of expression when feminization takes over?

Social science gives us some clues:
From the New York Times: When forced to choose, a majority of students said that diversity and inclusivity were more important than free speech, though opinions differed widely by demographic. Those who belong to groups historically or currently in positions of power — white students, men or Republicans — tended to favor free speech, while nearly two in three students who were black, women or Democrats favored inclusivity.

From social media studies:
The study shows Democrats were almost three times more likely than Republicans (24% vs. 9%) to have unfriended someone after the election.  ... As this graphic shows, the survey also identified “Democratic women” as the most likely of all groups to block someone on social media.

Another good gauge of feminization is acceptance of homosexuality. Research has shown that women are consistently more accepting of it than are men.

For a glimpse into which European countries are more and less feminized according to this measure, this map gives a good idea:

We have thus seen that from crime and punishment to sports, from the military to pop culture, from anecdotes to studies, there are indeed myriad ways in which feminization has transformed the very fabric of Western society.

*     *     *

Legendary feminist Camille Paglia on the rise of the female:

It was overwhelmingly men who created the machines and ultra-efficient systems of the industrial revolution, which in turn emancipated women. But many women seem surprised and unnerved by the competitive, pitiless forces that drive the modern professions, which were shaped by entrepreneurial male bonding. It remains to be seen whether those deep patterns of mutually bruising male teamwork, which may date from the Stone Age, can be altered to accommodate female sensitivities without reducing productivity and progress. 

Fred Reed puts it in slightly less soothing terms:

Men invented cars, and women learned to drive them, usually without having the foggiest idea of how they work. Men also invented refrigerators, television, aircraft, hair-dryers, and tampons. ...  Men like these have made life comfortable enough that feminists have time to complain. Constantly. 
He sums up the new Western order thusly:
Males value freedom over security; women, security over freedom. Men love venturing into the wild, whether in Silicon Valley or unexplored jungles, if any; women do not. Men are fiercely competitive; women, concerned with order and comity. Men are physical, enjoying, even needing, rough sports; women are not. To a man of my generation the country today is unbearably controlled, restricted, safe, and feminized. ... 

So is it the destiny of every sufficiently industrialized country to give up free speech, law and order, the right to have borders?  To venerate homosexuality and denigrate masculinity? To eagerly replace themselves with foreigners? To become overwhelmingly and irretrievably female?

Poles (left) and South Koreans (right) march against immigration

It would appear not. The rich nations of East Asia, for example, are completely closed to immigration and maintain strict law-and-order. Eastern European countries remain as nationalist as they are wary of homosexuality. The Muslim world continues to keep its women on a very short leash. 

No, it is ethnic Western Euros and they alone who seem destined to succumb to the female id, even to the point of self-destruction.

William Alexander, in his 1779 tome The History of Womennoted that since Antiquity the peoples of Northern Europe had been unusally deferential to the fairer sex:

The inhabitants of the North esteemed and regarded their women, forming, in this particular, a striking contrast to the Asiatics and other southern people. An Asiatic, while he approaches his mistress as if she were a divinity, treats her as a criminal, while the Northerns did not seem to have looked on the sex as destined for their pleasures, so much as for their convenience and assistance: they did not view them as the slaves of their power, and the panders of their lust, but as their friends and companions. (3)
We at TWCS have explored this question before, examining the many ways in which Northwest Europeans have long deferred to their women in ways other peoples have not. Is it possible this ancient germ of egalitarianism has today blossomed into full-blown societal feminization?

In 1983, Wellesley sociologist Brigitte Berger criticized second wave feminism at the Mont Pélerin Society:
The women's agenda was thus transformed into "humanizing" society. In the words of Gloria Steinem " … we can humanize the machinery of politics to make a better society." These pioneer voices of 1970s feminist activists have become familiar bromides today: instead of women having to become more like men, men will have to become more like women. 
This new sentimental imperialism… is a prescription for disaster. For if it should be successful in becoming the new orthodoxy in all Western societies, it would be destructive in either of two ways: if we are not going to be wiped out militarily, we are, for sure, going to be wiped out economically.
Four decades later, her dire prediction has not come to pass... yet.

We close with Sir John Glubb, who wrote in his Fate of Empires:

An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab Empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolised by men. ‘What,’ wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, ‘have the professions of clerk, tax-collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.’  
Many women practised law, while others obtained posts as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. (7)

Which prognosticators were right? Those who saw a future utopia of womanly ethos? Or those who foretold weakening, succumbing to foreign conquest, and destruction from within?

Where indeed is that fine line between a society that is 'too masculine' to be humane and 'too feminine' to survive? Are we treading it? Have we crossed it?

Female influence over society has never in human history been so strong as it is today. Only time will tell where it leads.

Thank you for reading.



(1) Dahlgren, Madeleine, Vinton. Thoughts on female suffrage and in vindication of woman's true rights. Washington, D.C.: Blanchard & Mohun, 1871.

(2) Hale, Annie Riley. Woman suffrage. Article on the biological and sociological acpects of the woman question. Washington, D.C. : Government Printing Office, 1917.

(3) Alexander, William. The history of women, from the earliest antiquity, to the present time. Philadelphia: J.LH Dobelbower, 1796.

(4) Van Horn Melton, James. The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2001. 

(5) Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. London : J. Johnson, 1796.

(6) Israel, Jonathan I. Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man, 1670-1752. NY : Oxford University Press, 2006.

(7) Glubb, John Bagot. The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival. London : Blackwood & Sons, 1978.


Anonymous said...

I wonder what the dangers of an overly masculine society would be. My immediate thoughts go to the middle east or feudal japan. While the drawbacks are different they do not seem to collapse the society entirely.

Anonymous said...

The fact of the matter is that "feminization" refers to the effort of female and their male supporters to secure liberties in institutions for a group of citizens previously denied such freedoms.

Men played an integral role here. In 1848, Frederick Douglass wrote “All that distinguishes man as an intelligent and accountable being, is equally true of woman; and if that government is only just which governs by the free consent of the governed, there can be no reason in the world for denying to woman the exercise of the elective franchise, or a hand in making and administering the laws of the land. Our doctrine is, that ‘Right is of no sex.’” In England, John Stuart Mill’s “The Subjection of Women”. published in 1869, echoed similar sentiments. In the mid-1870's, a Young Men’s Woman Suffrage League met in New York City, fielding pro-suffrage speakers from its membership — physicians, attorneys, and professors among them — at some 80 meetings in the Plimpton Building. The common link between these groups was to settle the question that "Are women persons? And I hardly believe any of our opponents will have the hardihood to say they are not. Being persons, then, women are citizens; and no state has a right to make any law, or to enforce any old law, that shall abridge their privileges or immunities".

As eloquent as that quotation is by Susan B. Anthony (1873), her words blunt the assertion that their inclusion in the body politic would result in a "form of communism"--Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation and social standing, never can bring about a reform. Those who are really in earnest must be willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathy with despised and persecuted ideas and their advocates, and bear the consequences.

We do not live in a feminizing society. Rather, we reside in an evolving one. Self-esteem, caring, and love are not feminine virtues, but derived from civilizations past and present. Greek and Roman male authors in their works had touted those values. Honor, dignity, and courage remain steadfast in the inner psyches and outward behavior of men--they are simply demonstrated in different ways compared to past generations given our technological and ideological growth as a species.

There is observably no such thing as "masculine countries", just countries.

Christian men and women, as well corporations who seek cheap labor, have welcomed refugees and immigrants into their nation.

A "softer stance" on crime and punishment is not the result of a "more feminized society" or a "feminine spirit overtaking us", but rather an effort to maintain law and order in an other than cold, calculated, and brutish manner.

Great art has always been an indicator of the creative spirit of our collective humanity.

Popular culture is not the result of a "feminized society", but rather the genesis of the spread of ideas within and between cultures.

Andy5759 said...

Thank you for this article. As usual this is well researched and well presented.

During the last fifty years I have enjoyed taking today's news into an imagined tomorrow. So much of what I imagined but laughed off as too bizarre has come to pass.

I look forward to your next piece, whatever the subject may be. I will continue popping my head around the door, whether to re-read or to check for new articles.

M.G. said...

Anon 9:54—

I wonder what the dangers of an overly masculine society would be.

I agree that the Middle East, especially the Gulf States, is the best example of the pendulum swung all the way the other way. (Saudi women just got the right to vote in 2015, and to drive cars in 2018!). Afghanistan as well, and mountain peoples in general (think Caucasus).

I agree with you that the uber-masculine ethos, however unpleasant we may find it, doesn’t kill societies. I see conservatism as fundamentally masculine, and progressivism as fundamentally feminine. It seems historically, the ‘default position’ of all primitive societies was conservative. This fortress mentality is how we survived on this planet for so long.

We need complex society and abundant wealth for the progressive (feminine) ethos to flourish, it truly is a luxury of fat and prosperous societies. All through history, the more virile, primitive peoples have swept in and taken over the soft and decadent, and today is no exception. Thanks for your comment.

M.G. said...


So much of what I imagined but laughed off as too bizarre has come to pass.

Indeed, it seems the things many joked about even 5 or 10 years ago are headline news today. Things are snowballing a little too fast though now, the feminine ethos has pushed PC culture to its extreme. There’s finally starting to be a backlash—you may have seen the open letter calling for free speech published in Harper’s and signed by many prominent leftists. These things always turn into circular firing squads in the end.

But I have to wonder, is there any coming back from uber-feminization we’re suffering today? Russia came back from society-wide Communist brainwashing, but it’s a different animal in so many ways. I’m really curious to know where this all ends.

Thanks for stopping by.

americangoy said...

Nauseating. We all know this is happening, but to see it all in one place, category by category. Case by case....

OK, I checked out many links, and the one on reddit you kay got me. It got me good. I... I have no comeback, no response, to the kind of "logic" and lifeview presented here. Let me quote it in full:
"Checking out his Twitter both before and since this incident, it seems that 90% of everything he posts is just straight up complaining about the trans agenda, how trans women aren't women and calling transgender people delusional narcissists.

Doesn't sound like he's been threatened with any kind of arrest or legal persecution. A community cohesion officer basically called him up and said "Hey, we've noticed you spend basically all your time posting hateful stuff about trans people on Twitter and we wanted to check where you're going with this". He, of course, is trying to make this into "THE THOUGHT POLICE ARE AFTER ME!" to get attention."

He wasn't EVEN arrested. He simply got a visit by a COMMUNITY COHESION OFFICER.
He, of course, is trying to make this into "THE THOUGHT POLICE ARE AFTER ME!" to get attention.


poco said...

In response to americangoy,
Community cohesion officer? The fact that there are community cohesion officers isn't proof enough for you of the veracity of the above article?

Anonymous said...

I had lost my access to this site few months back, while things were down. Just stumbled across a mention of fresh content and am so glad to see things happening again.
Welcome back and thanks for your dedication

I. Renarde said...

A few notes here.

Edward Gibbon relied heavily on literary sources, not primary ones, so while his works are considered excellent in terms of getting history across, in terms of heavy-handed data and evidence it's weak. When it comes to 'women in power destroying Rome' it should be mentioned women still did not occupy the same spots as men did. Men, as a sex, procure more power than women - that is true and will always continue to be true. In Ancient Athens, where women held no institutional power, state enforced pederasty was rampant to the point boys had to have bodyguards when walking home from gymnasiums. In Sparta, where sex relations were better, homosexuality was more fiercely condemned.

Another aspect is the invasion tactic of women sympathizing with their invaders so they can hope to survive the genocide. This is the 'well the woman is asking for it and is going to lie down anyways' argument. Right wing conservatives looking back on 1945 Berlin do not view the German women as asking for their systematic rape by the Russians, nor seemingly condemn the slew of abortions afterwards. Mass rape of women is still considered genocide, as the women will never bear the complete people of her tribe, and the men who impregnate her - if she is not killed or made infertile by the rapes - will have won the genetic lottery. In modern Europe's case, there is a fine line between liberal and conservative women, with liberal feminists often mocking conservative women or apolitical women who came out with their rapes by foreign men.

In general, there is a split between liberals and conservatives. I will be referring to whites only here: liberal women vote close to liberal men, and conservative women vote close to conservative men. If women are followers in all things, it must be the men who take charge. It is shown that men will always vote for the more extreme politicians, left or right, and women are the moderators. They will vote for policies that will not leave them broodmares.

There are many on the right who desire to see women's votes revoked because of the current modernist situation. However, they do not see how women vote or whether liberalism or conservatism affects their voting habits in the US and elsewhere. Similarly, very few of these people also want the 14th revoked, as they believe black men getting the vote first was 'a matter of character' and black men are men regardless. Free blacks achieved the vote in 1870, whereas women only in certain states were enfranchised. They surely did not cause the Civil War, and did not create the Federal Reserve or launched the World Wars.

I. Renarde said...

Pt. 2

French women noticed in 1789 and onwards that Jews and blacks in France and her colonies were emancipated, but that they, comprising half of the population, were not. They protested this. There was an attempt to allow them into university, but it fell apart with Jacobin extremism. Still, with public schools becoming more widespread, women became the bulk of public school teachers.

If women are to blame for the fall of the West, then surely the argument that their frail, gentle and easily-swayed nature cannot be simultaneously applied with the argument they are cunning and ruthless. If they are merely following their men, then it is the men who make the examples. Women cannot be seen as those manipulated by the Devil, ruining Eden, but also Lilith.

One last thing: IQ differences between the sexes are swamped by IQ differences between the races. On average, we are looking at 2-3 IQ points. It is clear by women's choices in colleges and universities - from natural sciences to gender studies - reveal that they are capable as men to do them, but that interest more than sexism defines which fields will have more men vs women. Women prefer natural sciences like nursing, medicine or veterinary fields, whereas men prefer particle physics or long winded tasks.

In any case, the Black Pigeon Speaks'/ Way of the World motto that women ruin civilizations has to be based on the premise that women are both intellectually weak and intellectually dominant enough to connive and destroy institutions from the ground up. You cannot have both, because women, as a sex, don't crave power.

If that's the way you want to spin it.

Anonymous said...

How much of this is evolutionary, and how much is cultural? Can there be evolutionary differences between women of different races? Is there a cultural way out of this? All these analyses and debates about the nature of women are centered on Western women, and all conclusions drawn from them are considered universal.

To focus specifically on arts and culture, things have played out very differently in Japan. Women have actually played a large part in the manga and anime industries and their fan communities. They co-exist and co-operate with men in a more or less egalitarian way, and both have interests and mentalities often similar to each other. Japanese women can act independent of men and organize into female groups and still produce quality work that can appeal to anyone. There's nothing like it in America, where women are at war against the male geeks (but also dependent on them), produce nothing of value, and spend all their time on complaining, self-aggrandizement, cooking up #MeToo drama, and demanding changes to everything. Americans are very ignorant and dismissive of Japanese women and their accomplishments because to them it's obvious that they're either incapable of cultural production and participation (the "redpilled" side), or are helpless victims repressed by the patriarchy (the feminist side).

Why the difference? Feminism is one obvious answer. Japan has mostly been spared from it, but America is ground zero. There's a lot of ideological pollution in America, like postmodernism, that has not impacted Japan as much. It's true that a society should not become too feminine (or too masculine), but femininity is a lot less of a problem when it's not packaged with feminism. But it's possible that there are also deeper cultural reasons and perhaps even evolutionary reasons that cause better outcomes in Japan, like women having a higher capacity for cultural production.

Here are some songs composed and arranged (or even written, conducted, programmed and performed) by Japanese women:


Anonymous said...

I thought those links would become automatically clickable.


Marcus Everett said...

Glad that you're back. Clearly the most well researched, thought out, and presented opinion on the Internet. I have neither the time, patience, industriousness nor global knowledge to come close, but here is a much shorter take on the current subject.


Keep up the great work, although being a card carrying pessimist, I am afraid that, as you put it, we have crossed the Rubicon.

Anonymous said...

"There's nothing like it in America, where women are at war against the male geeks (but also dependent on them), produce nothing of value, and spend all their time on complaining, self-aggrandizement, cooking up #MeToo drama, and demanding changes to everything."

To the contrary.





eahilf said...

Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) had a very good video about this topic, then YT deleted his channel -- anyway, you can watch the video on a rather unfortunately named Bitchute channel here:


BPS is back on YT (here); I didn't look for the video there. But in the description of the video when it was on YT before, BPS listed a few sources, among them the work of J D Unwin (link), particularly the book Sex and Culture.

I used to read your blog often some years ago, then it fell off my radar. Glad I happened upon it again.

Anonymous said...

"Black Pigeon Speaks (BPS) had a very good video about this topic"

When BPS offers his premise about the "general characteristics of Western Women" and how these traits have "undermined the West", he steers clear of how the patriarchal system led to a chasm between men. Essentially, the argument was over who were to be the primary beneficiaries of capital, which has resulted in war, religious conflict, and social decay. We, as men, must take ownership of our easily identifiable patterns of behavior that led to current plight, rather than seek a convenient scapegoat. It is a given men have historically been in control of the world's institutions. But it was US who employed the mantra of "invade the world, invite the world" through the capitalist cabal, with its antecedents in mercantilism and colonization in the 1500 and 1600's, that is the primary culprit of our predicament.

Let us be patently honest here--men have not shown to be completely loyal to their tribe. It is not in our nature to do so. We are quick to see the favors of our fellow brethren who are more dominant. Nothing makes a traitor more heinous than collaborating with one's enemy. Vidkun Quisling was the President of Norway from 1942 until the end of WWII. While most heads of state in Europe end their tenure with a wave and a smile, Quisling's ended with a trial and execution. A former Norwegian Army officer, Quisling declared a coup during the Nazi invasion of Norway in 1940. Having already met with Hitler, he was reasonably sure this coup would put him in control. He was wrong. Eventually the Nazis made him "Minister President", subordinate to a Nazi official.

Moreover, what about those men who were not punished for bringing in alien, unassimilable armies of foreigners into the West? Nativists in the mid and late 1800's sounded the alarm, noting how Eastern and Southern Europeans were definitively unfit for inclusion in the American body politic. The Know Nothings in particular believed a “Romanist” conspiracy was afoot to subvert civil and religious liberty in the United States and sought to politically organize native-born Protestants in what they described as a defense of their traditional religious and political values. The nativists did not care the Irish, Italian, Slavic, and Polish men folk were European; the nativists were concerned these groups would forever change their nation’s character for the worse. Yet, the "prodigal sons" from these four groups, deemed to be incapable of comprehending and putting into practice Anglo-Saxon ideals back then, now claim today to possess the inherent qualities required to perpetuate Western Civilization.

I could offer a litany of other examples, but you should get the gist of it. So it begs the question, why have men betrayed their in-group? Well, the extended enfranchisement of men. Rather than maintaining strict property requirements, our political leaders, most notably Andrew Jackson, expanded eligibility to the peasant stock of America. Because of their general lower IQ and rather trusting nature, they were manipulated by "higher status" men. On the surface, their voting behavior seemed to benefit their individual situation. In reality, it further elevated the standing of elitist "gentlemen". As a result, the lower tier of men have been conditioned to believe they lack free will to change their overall lot in life. Research by social psychologist Roy Baumeister has demonstrated this disbelief has led such men to behave in ways detrimental to themselves and society, such as cheating, increased aggression, and decreased helpfulness.

Anonymous said...


The loosening of sexual morality and our dating habits is, unfortunately, the result of decisions made by we men, especially the purveyors of "social sexual hierarchy" and "game". A closer reading of the Bible suggests its heroes are not meant to be models of outward toughness but exemplars of inner fortitude. So why have the Vox Day's of the world, for example, accepted secular standards of masculinity as the basis for biblical manhood? C.S. Lewis warned against this conflation of Western machismo and scriptural precedent in his seminal work, The Screwtape Letters. In it, the eponymous demon advises a devil-in-training to feed his target “the grand lie which we have made the English humans believe, that physical exercise in excess and consequent fatigue are specially favorable” and, therefore, worthy of divine aspiration. Such misguided thinking, Lewis writes, creates “a condition of false spirituality,” in which the object of godly manhood is confused with that which mainstream culture portrays as truly manly. When those Christian men casually throw around loaded terms like “real masculinity” in ways that reinforce—rather than rebut—secular formulas, we oversimplify a nuanced concept best expressed through eternal values, not earthly ambitions. Christians must resist the temptation to lay blame first at our physical conditions before our spiritual ones. We must recover the idea that the marker of a true man is his moral strength, not his muscular fitness.

"among them the work of J D Unwin (link), particularly the book Sex and Culture".

Here is a robust criticism of his work.


Unwin's treatise is basically a restatement of the flawed social evolutionist model where societies move on a line from "primitive" to "civilized". The problem is civilized is really just a way to say "more like us" and primitive "less like us". Nevertheless, Patrick Clarkin has written a solid series of posts on this subject, and the answer is "it's way more complicated than you think".


Anonymous said...

11/8 Anonymous, I was talking about geek/pop culture and those links aren't relevant at all. But even generally speaking, American women are more bark than bite.

eahilf said...

So despite a specific request not to comment as 'Anonymous', 9 of 18 comments (50%) are from 'Anonymous' (no idea how many different commenters are represented, and I don't really care).

That's the internet for you, constantly proving one version of the old adage 'there's one born every minute'.

Anonymous said...

Anony 20/8/20 4:30 PM here. Hey, eahilf, rather than being a scold, offer a cogent rebuttal to your response.

M.G. said...

Anon 30/7—

Thanks for stopping by! It’s been a long hiatus, and I’m trying to slowly get in gear again. I appreciate your comment and well wishes.

M.G. said...

I. Renarde—

Sorry to respond so late.

In any case, the Black Pigeon Speaks'/ Way of the World motto that women ruin civilizations has to be based on the premise that women are both intellectually weak and intellectually dominant enough to connive and destroy institutions from the ground up. You cannot have both, because women, as a sex, don't crave power.

Indeed, I fully agree. Any power women currently enjoy is only theirs because it has been given to them by men. That’s true everywhere.

The argument is not that women ruin civilizations. It is that the feminine spirit ruins civilizations. Somehow, the male / female energy in a society gets out of balance, and the men begin to behave like women. As the men who run the show become more and more possessed by a feminine outlook, any sense of self-preservation begins to erode. Sooner or later more virile peoples from the outside are able to come in and take over.

M.G. said...

Anon 08 Oct.—

Sorry for the late response.

It's true that a society should not become too feminine (or too masculine), but femininity is a lot less of a problem when it's not packaged with feminism. But it's possible that there are also deeper cultural reasons and perhaps even evolutionary reasons that cause better outcomes in Japan, like women having a higher capacity for cultural production.

Very interesting comment about Japan. It is fascinating to see the ways in which societies far removed from our own balance the masculine and the feminine.

From what I’ve read about Japan, it is egalitarian in the sense that women have the same legal rights as men, yet women are still expected to defer to men in the social, work, and family spheres. When a working woman gets pregnant, she is expected to quit her job and go raise her kids. (Don’t know if this is still the case.)

I wonder if this is linked to the fact that hierarchy is so embedded in their culture. While it’s a very high-trust society, there’s a deference and respect for one’s boss / elders / superiors that we don’t have in the West. For the polar opposite, see the super-egalitarian Scandinavian countries, where the very notion of hierarchy or inferior / superior seems to horrify them. (No coincidence that Sweden is ground zero of feminization in the western world.)

Thanks again for your comment and your links.

M.G. said...

Marcus Everett—

Glad to see you here. I’m interested in your link, but it doesn’t seem to work, could you try posting it again?

And yes, I feel the point of no return has likely been crossed, but it’s still interesting to analyze the how and the why. "He who does not know his history is doomed to repeat it."

M.G. said...


Thanks for stopping by! I just came off a long hiatus, happy to see you back.

Your link to the video is posting a "404", do you have another link to it you could post? Thanks in advance. (Sorry about the late reply, real life has been punishingly busy.)

Marcus Everett said...

In reference to my earlier comment with a non-valid link, here is another attempt:


However, links in the comments don't seem to be clickable, so copy and paste into your browser.

My blog is wvhilltop.blogspot.com

Marcus Everett

Anonymous said...

Yea you think it's just women. Funny how only White Men and White Western Civilization are being destroyed.blacks have always lived in a MATRIARCHAL society.This is why Africa is a shithole. And now since America and now Europe worship blacks the same thing is happening to White Western PATRIARCHAL society.I , for one ,am sick of all you cucks using all kinds of other excuses about what is happening,but especially piling on women because women are just following what black men and culture are doing.blacks and their degenerate low iq culture are destroying Western Civilization.I am sick of White historical figures and characters in movies and books being replaced by blacks not just changed to women you F'in idiots.

Anonymous said...

It's not only western society, though they are getting hit the hardest.
Asian society is also troubled: