Women are driving America into the future

Summary: The Left has worked long and smart, and now harvests their gains. They are running the largest social engineering project ever –  on us. See the changes in gender relations! This shows how much they have accomplished – and the magnitude of more radical changes that lie ahead.

Stiletto stepping on a person - Dreamstime-8889235
ID 8889235 © Andrey Sukhachev | Dreamstime.

The Left is winning, marching to victory under a host of banners. People are fooled by the number of Republicans in office. But the GOP’s interests are those of the 1%: cutting taxes for the rich, breaking unions, deregulating corporations from environmental and workers’ protection laws (and allowing them to form cartels), and subsidies (e.g., for defense contractors). They have no more interest in fighting the Left’s social programs than cats have in fighting NYC’s rats (Norwegian rats, which weigh 5 – 7 ozs).

Should the Left gain power in an election, the rate of change will accelerate to warp speed.

A stunning example of the Left’s victory march is the blitzkrieg campaign to restructure American society for the transgendered. Big changes taking place across America, without the tiresome bother of elections. The massive campaign for policy action to fight climate change is another demonstration of their power – see here and here. On almost every front they are either winning, or chasing their broken foes.

The progress of feminism is the chief manifestation of the Left’s power. It is one of the largest social engineering experiments in history (e.g., see this and this). The first three waves of feminism obtained increasingly broad forms of equality, each facing weaker opposition. Now we have fourth-wave feminism – the quest for superiority. It abandons any pretense of society as a joint endeavor of men and women. It is about organizing women to work for their own benefit.

For example, see “Women Driving the Future 2030” – a report by the World Women’s Foundation. “The focus of the conference: ensuring the wellbeing of women and their economic futures.” Many of its claims are wrong; some are inversions of the truth.

“91% of women do not believe that corporations, investors and advertisers understand us.” How many men feel the same way? They don’t ask.

“Despite the fact that food is relatively cheap in the U.S., more than 40% of Americans said they did not have as much money as they needed to buy food.” Two-thirds of Americans are over-weight or obese, especially among the poor.

“The effects of women entrepreneurs on the global economy are amazing, but it concerns me that their success is predicated on someone else consuming a product or service.” This is the most bizarre thing I’ve read in a long time.

“It’s shocking how many companies don’t think about marketing to women.” That is bizarrely false. For example, look at the representation of men and women in consumer products. How often do you see pairings of a bufoon man and awesome woman (frequent) – vs. vice-versa (almost never).

But none of that chatter matters. This is about smart well-funded organizing. It is about power. It is why they are winning. Always believe the victim, #MeToo, the fake wage gap, endless waves of regulation (e.g., of how men look at women, of dating) – they have won these and many other campaigns. But their quest for supremacy has just begun. The entertainment industry, the Greater Hollywood, shows us what lies ahead. Here are two examples.

Women are better than men

Men-women buddy teams consist of equals, unless the woman is better. From Antman and the Wasp and Long Shot to The Aeronauts, teams increasingly often pair dufus-like guy and a brave, beautiful, brilliant woman. That makes sense to people who read the massive and growing body of articles in the “women are better than men” genre (and the similar “women are superior” genre).

Romance in the 21st century

Hollywood promotes a radical revision of romance. Some changes are small, such as women almost always initiate the first kiss. The biggest change from older films is the absence of romance. The leads often par up, but with little romance. If there was a another act to most films, it might have hot sex but little else. The guy-girl work-only buddies are popular, such as Pacific Rim (they wrote out the romance), the TV show Forever, and The Great Wall.

Some have romance leading to marriages – such as in Blue Bloods, NCIS-LA and Castle. When watching these I want to shout “Don’t do it!” at the screen. The women in them seem as certain to divorce their husbands as a Black Widow spider is to eat hers. These women first break their men into pitiful betas, unless they already were pitiful betas. Even many conservative Christian pastors see this as the model of modern marriage.

Extreme examples of this are the films and TV shows with women hitting their boyfriends. Casually hitting them, inflicting pain and humiliation in public. Here are examples from two long-running romances on TV: Castle (2009 – 2016) and NCIS LA (2009 – now). Both ended in marriages after the women break their men from strong alphas into a pitiful beta. These scenes are early steps in the process.  In second- and third-wave feminism, reversing the genders is a test for sexism. In fourth-wave feminism, switching the gender shows either toxic masculinity (if he did this to her) or grrl-power (as in these, she does it to him). Separate but not equal standards for a new world!

Castle S01E01
From Castle S01E01: Flowers for Your Grave..
From Castle S03E01
From Castle S03E01: “A Deadly Affair.”

See Kensie smile with pleasure as she abuses Deeks. This is one of several such scenes.

From NCIS: LA S03E05: “Unwritten Rule.”

Young men and women watch these scenes and learn about romance. What do they learn? We learn the answer on social media, in the flood of posts by women (and, pitifully, by men) describing how they humiliate their boyfriends and husbands. See some examples here.

For more about Hollywood normalizing women hitting men, see A new hot trend from Hollywood: women hitting men. See these posts for more about romance in our new world.

Young woman scientist at work.
Photo 17739747 © Avesun – Dreamstime.


This post discusses a few aspects of the gender revolution. I doubt we can see beyond the next of the many more steps that lie ahead. I cannot predict the effects of this experiment in social engineering (run on us without our consent), other than that unintended consequences will rule. The results might be beyond anything I can imagine.

For More Information

Ideas! For Holiday shopping ideas see my recommended books and films at Amazon. Also, see Chapter One of a story about our future: “Ultra Violence: Tales from Venus.

See the invaluable Dalrock draw larger connections from this to deep trends in western history – especially the chimera that chivalry has become.

If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about women and gender issues, especially these about the coming reversal of roles.

  1. Women are moving on top of men in America.
  2. The Economist proclaims that men are “The Weaker Sex”.
  3. Women on Top, chapter 10: the growing gender gap in education.
  4. Victims no more: the revolution puts women on top of men.
  5. Fake news about the “wage gap”, and the real gender gap.

Books about fourth-wave feminism

Why Women Should Rule the World by Dee Dee Myers (2008).

The End of Men and the Rise of Women by Hanna Rosin (2012).

Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women’s Anger by Rebecca Traister (2018).

Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly (2019).

Why Women Should Rule the World
Available at Amazon.
The End of Men: And the Rise of Women
Available at Amazon.


57 thoughts on “Women are driving America into the future”

  1. The inevitable collapse is going to be breath taking, though I don’t expect to still be around to experience it.

      1. I don’t agree. I think that people refuse to see what is coming because it is unpleasant. So instead we drive our SUV’s through the Starbucks drive thru and pretend everything is OK, ignoring the real problems that can destroy this country. And let there be no doubt about it: America isn’t immortal or too big to fail. And given its current path and the lack of collective will to change course, I don’t see how it could not fail.

      2. Frank,

        “I don’t agree.”

        So you think you can accurately make such big-scale predictions? I don’t believe that you or anyone can do so. Look at the confident predictions made at the start of each decade. A mere ten years later are wrong, or even look ludicrous.

        “I think that people refuse to see what is coming ”

        I suggest using your unique vision to play the stock market. Vast fortunes await!

      3. That’s about how I see it too Frank. You can’t see the future, but unless you die, you have to live in it. And, like winter in Minnesota, preparations can make a huge difference. Elizabeth Warren introduced a bill I guess to ban fracing and natural gas exports.They’ll ban fossil fuels and I can’t imagine what winter here would be like without heating.

        What I’ve been trying to understand for a long time is how there is no opposition. So we have Trump. The conservatives I know are just unwilling to put there values into action in the world. They retreat to themselves, their family, church, arguments and risk nothing. So the left takes over endlessly. At some point, you might quit blaming the left and build alternatives, fight back, engage but you really don’t stand a chance alone.

      4. kingfisher,

        “They’ll ban fossil fuels and I can’t imagine what winter here would be like without heating.”

        Please, no hysteria based on making stuff up. No major politicians are proposing “banning fossil fuels” or that people do “without heating.” Sensible people read such claims and think “loon.”

        If the greens get their way, we will have expensive energy. If their plans prove impractical, they will be changed.

      5. Oh yes we can. For one thing, all the “you go girl” types to which you refer in your post have few or no kids, while conservative and religious women have far more than their share.

        Of course, not all their kids will stick with the program, but it’s more than likely that they will, because, as Philip Longman wrote in his noteworthy essay on the subject (The Return of Patriarchy, 2009):

        “To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents’ values, as always happens. But when they look around for fellow secularists and counterculturalists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.”

        So we CAN predict the future in this regard because we have locked into it over two generations now.

      6. 370H55v,

        “Oh yes we can.”

        Can do what?

        “all the “you go girl” types to which you refer in your post have few or no kids, while conservative and religious women have far more than their share.”

        What difference does that make? Is Leftism inherited? How strongly are people’s political beliefs correlated with those of their parents?

        “So we CAN predict the future in this regard because we have locked into it over two generations now.”

        So far that looks like guessing. It’s that kind of guessed at assumptions that makes most people’s forecasts of the far future inferior to astrology.

      7. Larry,

        “Please, no hysteria based on making stuff up. No major politicians are proposing “banning fossil fuels” or that people do “without heating.” Sensible people read such claims and think “loon.”

        If the greens get their way, we will have expensive energy. If their plans prove impractical, they will be changed.”

        I don’t get why you attack your supporters Larry. And, calling people names like “loons” is silly.

        Now granted there’s a lot of noise in the signal, but .i.e. Berkeley has banned natural gas feeds in new buildings, the Warren bill,… the left starts in strongholds and such sweeping changes would be progressive….

        But a google search reveals, Democratic Presidential Debate – June 27, Biden said:

        BASH: Thank you, Mr. Vice President. Just to clarify, would there be any place for fossil fuels, including coal and fracking, in a Biden administration?

        BIDEN: No, we would — we would work it out. We would make sure it’s eliminated and no more subsidies for either one of those, either — any fossil fuel.

        There you go. “fossil fuels eliminated”. Said by a leading candidate. Of course, wind electric heating here may just be a little more expensive, I’m a hysterical loon to be concerned, lol.

        As Dalrock says, tradcons reliably run interference for the hard left. Strange times.

        I won’t bother replying to you again.

      8. kingfisher,

        Biden’s strategy does not call for “banning fossil fuels.” That’s not what he meant by “working it out.” He has been quite explicit about his proposals. This kind of tribalism – attributing crazy things to political foes – has poisoned US politics. It must be vigorously called out, irrespective of who says it.

        “Biden touts a $1.7 trillion plan to set the United States on a course to achieve 100% clean energy and net-zero emissions by 2050. The plan calls for the installation of 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations by 2030, rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement and boosting targets, and offers $400 billion for research and development in clean technology. The plan did not call for quitting fossil fuels – instead investing money in carbon capture and sequestration that could give a lifeline to coal and gas plants. Biden’s rivals accused him of offering a “middle-ground” plan that would not achieve decarbonization goals. ” {From Reuters.}

        Biden’s website sets forth a detailed energy agenda. It is 10,500 words long – with nothing about “banning fossil fuels.” It calls for a wide range of measures to increase their price and hence “encourage” a shift to new sources.

  2. Pingback: Pictures of chivalry. | Dalrock

    1. henrik,

      Thank you for the link to a report from the front lines!

      “more gender insanity.”

      What a nice demo of “Why We Lose.” It’s not insanity. This is a deliberate and well-organized movement to radically change our society. They’re winning. The insane people are those that oppose it, but do nothing.

      1. I do see a lot of activity all going in the same direction. Not sure of its nature. It looks more like a flock of birds or a herd of cattle all assembling and then all heading off in the same direction than it does an organised movement. But maybe it is more organised than I realize. Perhaps there are herdsmen?

        But is there gender insanity? Yes, that I am quite sure of. The idea that one is a man or woman regardless of physical being, regardless of what is usually called ones sex, and solely a function of what one says they are?

        That does strike me as insane. When as many people start parroting this stuff as are doing now, we have to speak of collective insanity.

        I do agree with you, it is futile and wrong, don’t know about mad, but certainly futile and misguided, to oppose it and do nothing.

        What to do is less clear.

        The thing that baffles me is how the concerns of this tiny minority, those who feel misgendered, can have come to dominate policy and discussion to this extent. Surely the number of people in this situation are a fraction of one percent? Why on earth are so many people not in this situation so obsessed by the subject? Obviously such people should be treated well and fairly.

        But the idea that we should change rules regarding provision of all toilet and changing facilities for the entire population on their account? When it is not even clear why doing that is in their interest?

        Well, it strikes me as completely mad.

      2. Henrik,

        “That does strike me as insane.”

        They have equally nasty names to call you. SO there. Have either of you accomplished anything? This isn’t grade school, where the teacher is pleased when you show your feelings for the class.

      3. I think its important to classify the phenomenon properly. It matters if you think its a sort of mass hysteria, or if you think its a ‘deliberate and well-organised movement’. It wilI make a difference to what you think will work. I am inclined to the first.

        I guess if it is the latter, an organized counter movement is the way to go.

        If the first, then patiently rebutting the irrational arguments wherever you find them may help and if enough do it, it may work in the end.

        I am conscious of not having found anything adequately effective to do, both on this and on some other important cultural and social issues. I’m thinking of finally joining a political party here. It will not be much but it will be something and it will give a forum for contributing to others efforts.

        Your question is basically, but what are you doing? Its the right question to me and to all of us.

      4. Henrik,

        “It matters if you think its a sort of mass hysteria, or if you think its a ‘deliberate and well-organised movement’”

        It is both, as is often the case. A movement that produces a mass hysteria, which allows the Left to implement their policies. That’s their intent with the Climate Emergency, for example.

  3. While making grand predictions is a fool’s errand (see the book, “Future Babble” for several documented examples), there are some older works that may provide a hint of what our future may hold by looking at our past.

    Specifically, I would draw your reader attention to “Decline of the West” (1918) by Oswald Spengler and “Sex and Culture” (1954) by anthropologist JD Unwin. In both cases, the authors studied past civilizations and cultures to discern patterns of birth, growth, stagnation and collapse.

    According to these two works, based on an examination of prior civilization and tribal life-cycles, our civilization is currently in its proverbial winter.

  4. The more women take over the less happy they become. Let them have it.

    Most men today are in love with strong women. Here’s how to make it work” by Suzanne Venker, 21 Nov 2019

    “For years now, American men have been groomed to take a step back and to let women take the wheel—not just in school and at work but in their relationships as well. In doing so, men have abdicated their masculine leadership. When men surrender their manhood in their relationships with women, it causes women to step up and take control. Some women enjoy this role, but most do not.”

    1. Sven,

      Thank you for posting that. It is hilarious. I added a full citation and quote. Whatever the problem, we can count on modern women to explain that it is all men’s fault.

      This specimen is the equivalent of the commonplace but bizarro claims of some conservatives that “women must join the Army and fight because America’s men won’t do so.” It is, of course, fiction.

      1. @Larry Kummer

        “Whatever the problem, we can count on modern women to explain that it is all men’s fault.”

        Proverbs 21:19
        Better to live in the desert than with a contentious and ill-tempered wife.

        Proverbs 25:24
        Better to live on a corner of the roof than to share a house with a quarrelsome wife.

        If that’s what they want to do. Then whatever let them enjoy their own company.

    2. Oh no, please stop torturing me with all this dignity and freedom! It’s making me so unhappy!!!

      Of course, the argument that feminism makes women unhappy is just another way of condescending to women – as if feminism were just a personal happiness project, rather than a civil rights and cultural movement. No other group is asked whether the rights they are fighting for will make them happy.

      1. Margaret,

        “the argument that feminism makes women unhappy”

        There is a large body of research showing that women have become more unhappy (or less happy) while feminism has reshaped America. The first major study showing that was “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness” by Betsey Stevenson (Wharton) and Justin Wolfers (U PA), NBER Working Paper No. 14969, May 2009.

        “By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging — one with higher subjective well-being for men.”

        There have been numerous studies since then confirming this finding. Determining “why” is, of course, more difficult. One of the best imo is Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy by ​​​​​​Mark Regnerus (Oxford Press, 2017). He is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin and senior fellow at the Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture. The book summarizes this research (based on surveys) and provides interesting supporting quotes from his extensive interviews of young women about their lives.

        See excerpts here. See his article about his book.

        “is just another way of condescending to women”

        Giving derogatory labels to theories that you don’t like tells us more about you than about reality. Once out of high school, it does not work well.

    3. LOL. I came here for the discussion but I stay for the insults!

      You are completely failing to address my main point – which is the condescension inherent in the question of whether feminism makes women unhappy. This question is not even asked of any other group trying to improve its position in society. Again, feminism is NOT a personal happiness project. It is a legal, social and cultural movement. My happiness is no one’s business but my own.

      Of course, I did sarcastically make the point that dignity and freedom don’t actually make people unhappy. (And even if they did, many of us would find dignity and freedom more important than mere happiness.) Perhaps women are less happy today, but it would be impossible to say that is the fault of feminism. Perhaps the problem is that we are living in a time when traditional gender roles and expectations still live side by side with a new reality.

      1. Margaret,

        (1) “I came here for the discussion but I stay for the insults!”

        What insult?

        (2) “You are completely failing to address my main point – which is the condescension”

        “Condescension” is an emotional reaction. Your emotions are your own, not for other people to question or judge.

        (3) “the question of whether feminism makes women unhappy.”

        I addressed that “question” by presenting social science research. It’s the only source of objective answers. Why do you not discuss or even acknowledge that information I took the time to post?

      2. Margaret@gmail.com


        (1) You ask what insult I was referring to. You said, “Giving derogatory labels to theories you don’t like tells us more about you than reality. Once out of high school, it does not work well.” You are not merely addressing my argument. You are putting me down as a person (i.e. it “tells us more about you.”)

        (2) You say that “condescension” is an emotional reaction. Do you really think that it is impossible for someone to condescend? Do you think that the sense of being condescended to is always just a subjective response by the person on the receiving end of a comment or argument? There is no such thing as condescension, only emotionally sensitive people??? And, if condescension is not a motive, how do you explain that this question of personal happiness is never raised with respect to other groups fighting for their rights? Why is this a relevant question? Again, isn’t a happiness a personal or spiritual matter? Why are we asking a social justice movement to ensure personal happiness?

        (3) You clam that I did not address your social science research that you took the time to post. I will have to take a page out of your playbook and urge you to read my response, as I clearly did address it.

      3. Margaret,

        (1) “You are putting me down as a person (i.e. it “tells us more about you.”)”

        Wow. That’s sensitive. Sad.

        (2) “Do you think that the sense of being condescended to is always just a subjective response”


        (3) “as I clearly did address it.”

        I don’t see it. That’s why I reply to direct quotes, as is the practice on many discussion boards (which often have more sophisticated commenting software than WordPress).

      4. It is not “sensitive” to note an objectively obvious derogatory personal comment. If you did not mean to imply some sort of conclusion about who I am as a person, then just say so rather than expressing faux pity for my alleged sensitivity (another personal remark!) Similarly, it is not “sensitive” to note based on evidence someone’s intent to condescend or patronize.

        Of course, I know nothing about you as a person but I suspect this is your game. You lob snarky personal comments at people and then pretend it’s their problem if they notice. You want the freedom to make such comments without taking responsibility for them.

        You asked me to address the social science research you posted. I already did so. You claim that you are not seeing it and need a direct quote from my prior comment, so here ya go: “Perhaps women are less happy today, but it would be impossible to say that is the fault of feminism. Perhaps the problem is that we are living in a time when traditional gender roles and expectations still live side by side with a new reality.” In fact, my whole comment addresses your social science research in that my comment raises the issue of RELEVANCE before going into the substance of your claim. The issue of relevance does not seem to be the conversation you want to have, however.

  5. The more they take over, the less happy they are, agree fully.

    The obvious problem with the woman making the first move and initiating the first kiss, is the way us guys view sex. If a guy (unless just hitting on anyone) initiates conversation he likes the girl, the girl then decides if she likes him, if not she can decline.

    But if girls see the new romantic role model, they initiate the friendship with the guy, make the first moves and have sex, guys after climax (or within a few days) moves on, girls programmed to think this new way, think guys can’t commit. No guys like sex, they don’t have to like the girl to have sex, ask any prostitute.

    Many guys will play along if girls initiate, but few girls will just to have sex, this experiment may have to go to extremes to find this out again.

    1. I am a huge believer in women initiating romance when they want to for a few different reasons. I forced myself to do so when I was a teenager and young woman even when it felt nerve wracking and scary.

      First, I think it is important for women to have the nervous experience of approaching someone attractive, the experience of having to plan a date, and also the experience of rejection. Otherwise, the experience of a young woman is of being constantly wanted and having to fend off “annoying” admirers all the time – without knowing what it’s like to walk in the shoes of those admirers. Maybe if we flipped the script more often, men and women would understand each other better. We women might have more compassion for men who approach us and men might better understand that being approached is not always a wonderful experience and that certain approaches are intrusive and undesirable.

      Second, it’s degrading to sit around hoping a man you like contacts you while you do nothing other than perhaps try to get his attention indirectly. There is really no good reason not to be direct in such a situation. Even if rejected, at least the woman has taken action and doesn’t have to waste time helplessly pining away.

      Thirdly, while some approaches can be intrusive and obnoxious, it is often extremely flattering to have someone express romantic interest and sexual attraction. One thing I’ve learned about men in recent years that has surprised me is that men often envy us our constant experiences of being asked out and complimented and hit on. I wish men to have the experience of feeling attractive and desired more frequently.

      1. Margaret,

        “Second, it’s degrading to sit …”

        When someone tells me that part of the usual dating-mating-whatever process is “degrading”, I see a big red flag. This signals someone for whom ideology rules over the natural emotions – complicating the already complex process of building relationships. Best for the other partner to back slowly away, now.

        One man’s opinion.

      2. Larry,

        I grew up in the 70s constantly listening to women in call-in chat shows talking about how hard it is sitting around “waiting for him to call.” It seems like a pretty natural human emotion to feel degraded – or at the least very sad – to sit around looking at the phone, trapped in one’s house (in those days) in the event he might call. What on earth would ideology have to do with it?

        In contrast, the opposing belief is clearly the product of an ideology. The idea that a woman should refrain from the simple, obvious, and natural step of picking up the phone herself requires that she override all natural feeling and common sense.

      3. Margaret,

        (1) “It seems like a pretty natural human emotion to feel degraded”

        I disagree, with respect to such tiny things. There are such people, who evaluate every interaction in such terms. Like tough guys on the ungoverned streets of our inner cities, where being “dissed” can have horrific consequences (ie, marking him as weak, making him a victim or target). In less threatening environments, it’s a rare behavior in my experience.

        (2) “or at the least very sad”

        Again, your emotional reactions to these things are your own. Getting rejected is “sad” also. These are all arbitrary roles, like those in any system. Each with advantages and disadvantages.

        It’s above my pay grade to say if the old regime of “dating” – now pretty much gone – was better than what replaced it. I’m too old to be a participant, so I see these things as an observer. Research like that described in Regnerus’ books says that the replacement system does not work well for most people. That’s also what I hear from the young men I led as a Boy Scout leader (they’re now in their 20s).

        (3) “In contrast, the opposing belief is clearly the product of an ideology.”

        I can’t even guess at what that is supposed to mean. The old system for dating – and whatever we call that has replaced it – are just social systems. They are all ideologies: “a system of ideas and ideals.” All are based on beliefs and values. IMO, the only basis to evaluate them is how well they work.

        (4) “requires that she override all natural feeling and common sense.”

        I doubt that the system that has replaced it shows any more regard for “natural feeling and common sense.” I suspect that much of civilization requires overriding “natural feeling and common sense.” Rule by the strong, as individuals and groups, is natural – and was regarded as common sense since we “came down from the trees.”

      4. Larry,

        My emotional reactions to things such as feeling degraded or very sad at the prospect of having to wait around for a phone call from a guy without being able to take matters into my own hands are CERTAINLY my own, just as you say. Many women feel the same way. I remember the constant frustration and hurt expressed by women in the vein of “Why didn’t he call?” This is precisely why we shouldn’t have a social rule that women shouldn’t make the first move. Such a rule needlessly hobbles women from alleviating their distress with the simple expedient of picking up the phone. Feeling pain at rejection is another potential emotional response in the dating process as you point out – all the more reason for women to share that burden.

        I notice you have changed your tune big-time. You originally said that my view of the old dating rules as degrading “signals someone for whom ideology rules over the natural emotions- complicating the already complex process of building relationships.” Now you are saying that all systems of ideas and ideals are ideologies – which is precisely my point. You are also now saying you suspect that it is a GOOD thing for civilization to override natural feelings etc. So really your first point that someone should back away from me as a partner because I am someone for whom “ideology rules over the natural emotions” was non-sense. It is just that you don’t like my particular ideology – which is fine but a somewhat different statement than what you originally said.

  6. The lizard brain says: OH MY GOD the apocalypse is upon us! But times change and roles with them. A certain realignment is reasonable. Furthermore, if a woman can do a job she ought to have a shot at it. Provided there are no set-asides or lowered standards.

    But there’s a reason males have done almost all the heavy lifting, literally and figuratively, to date. And The Patriarchy, whatever THAT is, ain’t it. There are things women are good at, and things they are not. When people say women should rule the world, I say: Certainly. After all, just look at the wonderful things they did with the public-education system.

    The current humongously rapid rate of change, fueled by grrrl-power gusto, simply cannot be sustained. There will be an eventual correction. Or an implosion.

  7. Another spot on report Fabius.

    As an insight into a particular aspect of social engineering by government I’ll share this. I’m a police officer in Australia…the effort to propel women to the top is herculean. Women only promotional exams and courses, women only SWAT training.

    Yet the results have been lacklustre, so the standards and goal posts get moved to accommodate them. The result, workplace injuries increase, quality of response to public calls for assistance degrades. Yet the brass boast publicly how great female commanders are.

    If you dare criticise female commanders you will be reassigned…

    I am very pessimistic about the destination of the road elites are propelling us down

      1. According to the YouTube summary, “The video shows 3 female cops beaten by 1 male refugee, who went berserk on an asylum seeking center in Sweden. Despite that they got help from one male security guard and from what seem to be another refugee who managed to wrestle down the violent man.”

        As for the opening track shot, I presume the amateur videographer was unsteadily tracking the perpetrator who was ambling around looking for things to vandalize before the police arrived.

      2. Durasim,

        Thank you for the additional color on this.

        Are there comments from police describing how well women work as cops on the street? By now there should be more, other than officials giving the party line.

    1. Allyn,

      “An inevitable collapse is mere speculation and posturing.’

      I agree, and have written many posts about that. We face serious problems, just as every society has since we “came down from the trees” (a fun metaphor). Here are a few of them.

      1. Requiem for fear. Let’s learn from failed predictions to have confidence in ourselves & our future.
      2. Threats come & go, leaving us in perpetual fear & forgetful of the past.
      3. Good news about the fear epidemic: we’re learning!
      4. Stratfor: Debunking the Myth of Total Security.
      5. Our fears make us weak and easily manipulated.
      6. America suffers from the Crisis Crisis, making us weak.
      7. Banish the doomsters. Make Earth Day a celebration!
      8. Rebuttals to the big list of reasons why America will fall.

      My personal guess (guess!) is that we are stronger than in most of our history – by most metrics. It’s just that we are weaker in the spirit or soul, and have lost our willingness to bear the burden of self-government. That is, unfortunately, the foundation stone for the Republic.

      1. A collapse implies a suddenness. The west will experience slow decay. We see it everywhere everyday. National debt, forever wars, marriage and birth rates, homelessness, etc.

      2. Sven,

        The west is not experiencing “slow decay” everywhere. Its economic wealth is growing, albeit unequally distributed. The environment is growing. We’re beginning a new industrial revolution. Many of its metrics are improving. We have problems, just as every generation has had problems since we “came down from the trees.”

        What we have are people who see only the bad aspects. My guess (guess) is that this justifies a belief that things are hopeless, so that they can neglect their responsibilities as citizens.

    2. Or pattern recognition.

      That said, sheer inertia of large states is very big, and their decline may take decades and even centuries past the point when negative changes to their social structure make them economically non-viable. One huge crisis is rarely sufficient to destroy them.

  8. “Oh yes we can.”
    Can do what?

    Forecast the future, at least in this case. Note that I don’t suggest that this can be done for 100 years or more out, it can be done for 20-40, as stated below.

    “all the “you go girl” types to which you refer in your post have few or no kids, while conservative and religious women have far more than their share.”
    What difference does that make? Is Leftism inherited? How strongly are people’s political beliefs correlated with those of their parents?

    Maybe not the definitive last word on the subject, but suggests a strong possibility:


    Further info on the subject can be obtained from Chesa Boudin, San Francisco District Attorney.

    “So we CAN predict the future in this regard because we have locked into it over two generations now.”

    So far that looks like guessing. It’s that kind of guessed at assumptions that makes most people’s forecasts of the far future inferior to astrology.

    No it’s not guessing, because the people who’ll be running society in 20-40 years have already been born.

    1. 370,

      “Forecast the future, at least in this case. …it can be done for 20-40, as stated below.”

      There have been many many surveys of predictions over decade-plus horizons. They’re astrology-levels of success. The most common surveys look at predictions made at the start of every decade. You’d be better off with tea leaves.

      “Maybe not the definitive last word on the subject, but suggests a strong possibility:”

      I congratulate your Google skills, surfing to find a paper in an obscure journal that gives a tiny amount of credence to your weird theory. Political Psychology has an impact factor of 2 (Nature is 42).

      “Chesa Boudin, San Francisco District Attorney.”

      I’m uninterested in his theories about genetics.

      “the people who’ll be running society in 20-40 years have already been born.”

      But we don’t know what their politics will be in 20 – 40 years. Glad to point out the obvious to you. But I’m impressed with your self-confidence.

      1. I am astounded that you didn’t get my reference to Chesa Boudin, which was to show his radical roots came from his parents Kathy Boudin and David Gilbert, and his adoptive parents Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Midge Decter wrote a whole book about this back in the 70s: “Liberal Parents, Radical Children”. In this case, radical parents and even more radical children.

        I am impressed with your smugness, which masks an incredible show of ignorance.

        You can ban me now I won’t be back here.

      2. 370,

        “I am astounded that you didn’t get my reference to Chesa Boudin …an incredible show of ignorance.”

        Ches Boudin is the district attorney-elect of San Francisco (taking office in Jan 2020). SF is the 15th largest city in the USA.

        Who is the DA of Columbus Ohio (#14)? Jackson Fl (#12) and Ft. Worth TX (#13)? In a few months, perhaps Coudin will become as well known across America as are the DAs of those larger cities.

        “You can ban me now”

        Why? You didn’t do anything warranting that. Belief that you have super-human abilities (ie, to predict the future 20 – 40 years in the future) is odd, but hardly a problem to others.

        “I won’t be back here.”

        If I could predict the future even one year out (let alone 20 – 40 years), I wouldn’t be writing here either. Fame, fortune, and glory would be more rewarding!

  9. The phenomena that piques my interest the most in all this is the rising number of herbivore/ MGTOW men in both the developed Western and Eastern economies.

    As you yourself noted, Larry, marriage has been a massive contributor to the consumer economy and the upwards mobility of the average family.

    With a growing number of men opting to vote with their feet and wallets against what they see as an increasingly poor deal in both marriage and their treatment by the legal system, I wonder what the critical mass will be that will either force society to reconsider its treatment and continued demonization of men as something that might be detrimental to its overall wellbeing.

    1. Walpurgisnacht,

      You ask what is, imo, one of the big questions – one that I have explored in many posts. To boil it down: women assume that men must accept their new terms, the decisions of Generation Z’s men will determine if they are correct. If not, society will change. That will spark more changes. I suspect we even our wild guesses at the outcome aren’t wild enough.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: