Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Getty
Speaker 1: and he Armstrong and Getty. We'll get this.
Speaker 2: Wikipedia said that traffic to their site is falling because
Speaker 2: people are using AI instead. That AI said the same
Speaker 2: thing slightly reworded it inside of them as the sourse.
Speaker 1: It's pretty clever. Actually, that's pretty clever. Yeah.
Speaker 3: So the way we see our jobs around here, speak
Speaker 3: for myself is yeah, we bring you news of the
Speaker 3: day and our thoughts, but we're also curators of, you know, ideas.
Speaker 3: That's the most fun part of the job for me
Speaker 3: is reading all day long and trying to find the
Speaker 3: best ideas and bring them to you. Sometimes there are
Speaker 3: sometimes they're not. And I came across you describe our jobs.
Speaker 4: I'm more of a lavishly paid to blather on barely
Speaker 4: knowing what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3: Oh, that's your special charm. I came across this great
Speaker 3: piece by author Helen Andrews, and a number of our
Speaker 3: Morris student listeners have centered along saying in SNMG, have
Speaker 3: you guys seen this? And it's a little longer than
Speaker 3: something we would generally read to you. But it is
Speaker 3: so good and I think so important, it's worth it.
Speaker 3: It's entitled The Great Feminization. And here's a disclaimer real quickly, because,
Speaker 3: as you know, a happily married guy who I love
Speaker 3: and respect, my wife, I have two daughters, my mom
Speaker 3: is a saint.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah.
Speaker 3: Women and women womanhood are essential to the functioning of mankind.
Speaker 3: I am a great believer in balance. People who ask
Speaker 3: me about politics, I always tell them, Look, I'm a
Speaker 3: really conservative conservative, but I believe we need navy seals
Speaker 3: and poets for society to work, for the world to work,
Speaker 3: we need men and women, the masculine, the effeminate. That's
Speaker 3: the way we're made by God or creation or whatever.
Speaker 1: Anyway.
Speaker 3: Having said that, The Great Feminization, Helen Andrews and Jack
Speaker 3: obviously dive in whenever you want. In twenty nineteen, she writes,
Speaker 3: I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that
Speaker 3: changed the way I.
Speaker 1: Look at the world.
Speaker 3: The author argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as
Speaker 3: president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture.
Speaker 3: We talked a lot at the time. Oh yeah, the
Speaker 3: entire and she explains exactly what happened. If you're trying
Speaker 3: to remember what happened, the entire woke era could be
Speaker 3: extrapolated from that moment. From the details of how Summers
Speaker 3: was canceled and most of all, who did the canceling women,
Speaker 3: The basic facts of the Summer's case are familiar. January fourteenth,
Speaker 3: twenty oh five, at a conference on diversifying the science
Speaker 3: and engineering workforce, Larry Summers gave a talk that was
Speaker 3: supposed to be off the record. In it, he said
Speaker 3: that female under representation and hard sciences was partly due
Speaker 3: to quote different availability of aptitude at the high end,
Speaker 3: as well as taste difference as preferences between men and
Speaker 3: women not attributable to socialization, meaning dudes just tend to xxct.
Speaker 3: Some female professors and attendants were offended and sent his
Speaker 3: remarks to a reporter in defiance of the off the
Speaker 3: record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no confidence
Speaker 3: vote by the Harvard faculty and eventually Summer's resignation. The
Speaker 3: essay argued that it wasn't just that women had canceled
Speaker 3: the president of Harvard, it was that they'd canceled him
Speaker 3: in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather
Speaker 3: than logical arguments.
Speaker 1: Quote.
Speaker 3: When he started talking about innate differences and aptitudes between
Speaker 3: men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind
Speaker 3: of bias makes me physically ill. Oh my God, said
Speaker 3: Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 3: Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another,
Speaker 3: and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time.
Speaker 3: Experts chimed in to declare that everything Somers had said
Speaker 3: about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational
Speaker 3: appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria. This cancelation
Speaker 3: was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancelations are feminine.
Speaker 3: Cancel culture is simply what women do when there are
Speaker 3: enough of them in a given organization or field. That
Speaker 3: is the great feminization thesis, which the same author later
Speaker 3: elaborated on at book length. Everything you think of as
Speaker 3: wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
Speaker 1: Like where this is I? Like where this is going?
Speaker 3: The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It
Speaker 3: really did unlock the secrets of the era we were
Speaker 3: living in now. Here's the point I disagree with. Wokeness
Speaker 3: is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or
Speaker 3: a result of post Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine
Speaker 3: patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few
Speaker 3: in number until recently.
Speaker 1: How did I not see it before?
Speaker 3: My disagreement with the Marxism point is that Michelle Foucaut,
Speaker 3: who's really the godfather of critical theory and neo Marxism,
Speaker 3: he understood human nature and he understood how making an
Speaker 3: emotional moral argument could get people to ignore facts. That's
Speaker 3: why they're so intent on getting you to say a
Speaker 3: man can give birth to a baby, because if you
Speaker 3: can be pried away from logic and rely on pure
Speaker 3: emotion and what the crowd says you should say, then
Speaker 3: they've gotcha. So this is not divorced from Marxism. It's
Speaker 3: just another layer of it. But anyway, on with the essay.
Speaker 3: Let's see then she mentions a couple of firsts people
Speaker 3: think about the feminization of like the first woman to
Speaker 3: attend law school in eighteen sixty nine, first woman to
Speaker 3: argue before the Supreme Court in eighteen eighty, first female
Speaker 3: Supreme Court Justice nineteen eighty one. But she says a
Speaker 3: much more important tipping point is when law schools became
Speaker 3: majority female, which occurred in twenty sixteen, or when law
Speaker 3: firms associated became majority female, which occurred in twenty twenty three.
Speaker 3: When Sandrade O'Connor was appointed to the High Court, only
Speaker 3: five percent of judges were female. Today, women are thirty
Speaker 3: three percent of the judges in America and sixty three
Speaker 3: percent of the judges appointed by President Biden sixty three percent.
Speaker 3: The same trajectory can be seen in many professions, pioneering
Speaker 3: generations of women in the sixties and seventies, increasing female
Speaker 3: representative representation through the eighties and nineties, and gender par
Speaker 3: parody finally arriving in twenty tens or twenty twenties. For instance,
Speaker 3: in nineteen seventy four, only ten percent of New York
Speaker 3: Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became
Speaker 3: majority female in twenty eighteen, and today the female share
Speaker 3: is fifty five percent. Medical schools became majority female in
Speaker 3: twenty nineteen. Women became a majority of the college educated
Speaker 3: workforce nationwide. In twenty nineteen, women became a majority of
Speaker 3: college instructors. In twenty twenty three. Women are not yet
Speaker 3: a majority of the managers in America, but they might
Speaker 3: be soon. They're now forty six percent. So the timing fits.
Speaker 3: Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions
Speaker 3: tip tip demographically from majority male to majority female. All right,
Speaker 3: so what you're saying, here's here's what she means. The
Speaker 3: substance fits too. Everything you think of wokeness involves prioritizing
Speaker 3: the feminine over the masculine, empathy over rationality, safety over risk,
Speaker 3: cohesion over competition. Give you a second to absorb that.
Speaker 3: One hundred percent right, one hundred percent right, and one
Speaker 3: hundred percent right.
Speaker 1: Those are all real interesting.
Speaker 3: Other writers who proposed their own versions of the great
Speaker 3: feminization thesis she drops a few names, who looked at
Speaker 3: feminization's effect on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences
Speaker 3: in political values. One survey, for instance, found that seventy
Speaker 3: one percent of men said protecting free speech was more
Speaker 3: important than preserving a cohesive society.
Speaker 1: Whatever that means.
Speaker 3: Seventy one percent of men, sixty percent of women said
Speaker 3: the opposite.
Speaker 4: That doesn't surprise me, and as a for some reason
Speaker 4: it popped into my head. You was talking about how
Speaker 4: when women got involved in youth sports, how it changed.
Speaker 4: Then we got uniforms at every age, and lots of
Speaker 4: team pictures, and lots of ceremonies, ceremonies and not yah
Speaker 4: yeah anyway.
Speaker 3: And then she issues a disclaimer which probably isn't necessary.
Speaker 3: But the most relevant differences are not about individuals but
Speaker 3: about groups. Yes, an individual woman might be taller than
Speaker 3: an individual man, but a group of ten random women
Speaker 3: is very unlikely to have an average height greater than
Speaker 3: that of ten men. The larger the group of people,
Speaker 3: the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
Speaker 3: So again, you independent thinking, free speech loving women out there,
Speaker 3: it's not about you. It's not about individuals, it's about
Speaker 3: in large groups, tendencies become more and more true anyway.
Speaker 3: The female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men and
Speaker 3: order each other around, But women can only suggest and persuade.
Speaker 3: Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it is absolutely to
Speaker 3: be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments.
Speaker 3: The outcome of a discussion is less important than the
Speaker 3: fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.
Speaker 3: The most important sex difference. The most important sex difference
Speaker 3: in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men
Speaker 3: wage conflict openly, while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Speaker 3: Any ladies like to disagree with that, Katie, feel free
Speaker 3: to jump in if you like. Okay, do women that
Speaker 3: ostracize their enemies as opposed to confronting them openly and saying, hey,
Speaker 3: we have a problem. We need to settle this.
Speaker 1: Yeah, without a doubt.
Speaker 3: Barry Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New
Speaker 3: York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal
Speaker 3: slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot.
Speaker 3: And this is the most feminine part quote. Colleague perceived
Speaker 3: to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Speaker 1: Oh, she said her resignation.
Speaker 3: Wow, Weiss wants asked to colleague at the Times opinion
Speaker 3: desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial
Speaker 3: woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This
Speaker 3: was a failure to meet the basic standards of professionalism.
Speaker 1: Obviously, it was also very feminine.
Speaker 3: Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women and
Speaker 3: wokeness was in many ways a society wide failure to compartmentalize.
Speaker 1: Listen to this. This is another blockbuster point.
Speaker 3: Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political
Speaker 3: issues of the day, but he would regard it as
Speaker 3: his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the
Speaker 3: examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors
Speaker 3: wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues.
Speaker 1: From gay rights to gaza.
Speaker 3: They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear
Speaker 3: on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter
Speaker 3: protests could continue in violation to COVID lockdowns because racism
Speaker 3: was a public health emergency.
Speaker 1: You're nodding your head, Kati.
Speaker 4: You've been in a hospital situations a lot more than
Speaker 4: us lately.
Speaker 1: You've seen that.
Speaker 6: Oh yeah, I've seen it. You know the little lanyards
Speaker 6: where they it's like their key to the doors. They
Speaker 6: all have the different little trinkets with you know, rainbows,
Speaker 6: and I saw Palestinian flag recently.
Speaker 3: Yeah, dudes wouldn't have done that. Now, one more note
Speaker 3: and then we will take a break. One book that
Speaker 3: helped me put together. The pieces was Warriors and Warriors
Speaker 3: the Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Beninson.
Speaker 3: Practically all of the scientists cited in this article or women.
Speaker 3: By the way, it's worth pointing out. I think she
Speaker 3: theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while
Speaker 3: women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits,
Speaker 3: formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in
Speaker 3: modern psychology labs in a study that Barrison sites, observe
Speaker 3: that a group of men given a task will quote,
Speaker 3: jockey for talking time, disagree loudly, and then cheerfully relate
Speaker 3: a solution to the experimenter. A group of women given
Speaker 3: the same task will quote politely inquire about one another's
Speaker 3: personal background and relationships, accompanied by much eye contact, smiling,
Speaker 3: and turn taking, and pay quote little attention to the
Speaker 3: task that the experimenter presented. The point of war is
Speaker 3: to settle disputes between two tribes, but it only works
Speaker 3: if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men
Speaker 3: therefore develop methods for reconciling with the proment opponents and
Speaker 3: learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females,
Speaker 3: even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males.
Speaker 3: That is because women's conflicts were traditionally within the tribe
Speaker 3: or scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict,
Speaker 3: but by covert competition with rivals with no clear end.
Speaker 3: All of these observations match my observations of wokeness, but
Speaker 3: soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually
Speaker 3: gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is
Speaker 3: the result of the greate feminization, then the eruption of
Speaker 3: insanity in twenty twenty was just a small taste of
Speaker 3: what the future holds. Imagine what will happen is the
Speaker 3: remaining men age out of these society shaping professions and
Speaker 3: the younger, more feminized generations take full control.
Speaker 4: That's what I'm always saying that when we're all dead
Speaker 4: who remember the before times, there won't be anybody around
Speaker 4: to say, hey, it didn't used to be like this.
Speaker 3: Let's take a quick break, then plunge on with this
Speaker 3: because it trusts me, just keeps getting more interesting.
Speaker 1: That is really interesting. Cool.
Speaker 4: I will stay right here, and he thoughts text line
Speaker 4: four one five two nine five kftcarrong. Hey, let's Trump
Speaker 4: doing with that toll ballroom thing he's building there at
Speaker 4: the White House? Is he knocking down parts of the
Speaker 4: White House that are historic? That's a question that's out there,
Speaker 4: and I don't actually know the answer to it. We'll
Speaker 4: dig into that later, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 3: Yep, we're working our way through an unbelievably interesting and
Speaker 3: persuasive thought piece by Helen Andrews, the Great Feminization. If
Speaker 3: you didn't hear the first chunk, circle back, grab the
Speaker 3: podcast Armstrong and Giddy on demand. Our two of today's show,
Speaker 3: plunging on the point being when institutions become unbalanced and
Speaker 3: too heavily feminized, they function in a very woke way.
Speaker 3: And again, if you didn't hear it, circle back. The
Speaker 3: threat posed by wokeness can be large or small, depending
Speaker 3: on the industry. She mentions, if your English department is feminized,
Speaker 3: who cares? But the New York Times, for instance, often
Speaker 3: determines what's publicly accepted as the truth, and that affects
Speaker 3: every citizens agree.
Speaker 4: With that completely Based on things I've read from Harold
Speaker 4: Bloom of Yale about how English departments got so woke
Speaker 4: they no longer teach Shakespeare other than how you know,
Speaker 4: sexist he was and everything like that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I would agree. I think she understates that problem.
Speaker 3: But anyway, she says, the field that frightens me most
Speaker 3: is the law. All of us depend on a functioning
Speaker 3: legal system, and it'd be blunt. The rule of law
Speaker 3: will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The
Speaker 3: rule of laws not just about writing rules down. It
Speaker 3: means following them even they yield an outcome that tugs
Speaker 3: at your heart strings or runs contrary to your gut
Speaker 3: sense of which party is more sympathetic. Then she describes
Speaker 3: the infamous Title nine courts for sexual assault under Obama,
Speaker 3: how you didn't get to confront your accuser. The standard
Speaker 3: rules of evidence were thrown out. It was just if
Speaker 3: the gut feeling was that you were guilty. You were
Speaker 3: thrown out of college as a guy. And she says
Speaker 3: these two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the
Speaker 3: Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that if
Speaker 3: Christine Blasi Ford can't provide any concrete evidence that she
Speaker 3: and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her
Speaker 3: accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life.
Speaker 3: The feminine position was that her self evident emotional response
Speaker 3: was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate Committee
Speaker 3: must respect.
Speaker 1: That's the way it was portrayed.
Speaker 3: Yeah, if the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect
Speaker 3: to see the ethos of the Title nine tribunals. Tribunals
Speaker 3: and the Kavanaugh hearing spread. Judges will bend the rules
Speaker 3: for favored groups, and we're already seeing that forced them
Speaker 3: rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent.
Speaker 3: It was possible to believe back in the nineteen seventy
Speaker 3: that introducing women in the legal profession in large numbers
Speaker 3: would have only a minor effect. That belief is no
Speaker 3: longer sustainable. The changes will be massive. Who Oddly enough,
Speaker 3: both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those
Speaker 3: changes will be. The only disagreement is to whether they'll
Speaker 3: be good or bad. And she cites a left wing
Speaker 3: book about Lady Justice, The Battle to Save America, with
Speaker 3: a scene from the Supreme Court in twenty sixteen during
Speaker 3: oral arguments over Texas abortion law. The three female justices, Ginsburg, Sodoma,
Speaker 3: arnkeg and Quote ignored the formal time limits, talking exuberantly
Speaker 3: over their male colleagues. Lithwick, the author, celebrated this as
Speaker 3: an explosion of bottled up judicial girl power that afforded
Speaker 3: America a glimpse of what genuine gender parody might have
Speaker 3: meant for future women in powerful American legal institutions. She
Speaker 3: lauds the women for their reverend attitude to the laws formalities.
Speaker 5: Wow.
Speaker 1: So the next.
Speaker 3: Part when we come back contains my favorite line. You
Speaker 3: will remember it for the rest of your life, no kidding.
Speaker 3: The feminization of America and what's wrong with it?
Speaker 1: Stay with us Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4: Mass shooting avoided at the busiest import in America.
Speaker 1: Thank god.
Speaker 4: We've got the footage of when police encountered the guy
Speaker 4: before he was able to shoot a bunch of people.
Speaker 1: It's pretty danged interesting. We'll get to that a little later.
Speaker 3: So we've been working our way through an absolutely brilliant
Speaker 3: and eye opening essay by the author Helen Andrews, called
Speaker 3: The Great Feminization. If you are just tuning in, just
Speaker 3: jumping in, I encourage you to grab the podcast Armstrong
Speaker 3: and Getty on demand and circle back to the beginning.
Speaker 3: And again, this is not about what's wrong with women.
Speaker 3: It's about what's so important about balance between men and women,
Speaker 3: because men and women are very different, just speaking in
Speaker 3: general generalities, in ways that she has described. Continuing on
Speaker 3: with the essay, the great feminization is truly unprecedented. Other
Speaker 3: civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights,
Speaker 3: let them inherit the thrones of empires, But no civilization
Speaker 3: in human history has ever experimented with letting women control
Speaker 3: so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties
Speaker 3: to universities to our largest business.
Speaker 1: That's an excellent point.
Speaker 3: Even where women do not hold the top spots, women
Speaker 3: set the tone in these organizations such that a male
Speaker 3: CEO must operate within the limits set by a human
Speaker 3: resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to
Speaker 3: function under these completely novel circumstances.
Speaker 1: But what are our.
Speaker 3: Grounds for that assumption. The problem is not that women
Speaker 3: are less talented than men, or even that female modes
Speaker 3: of interaction are inferior in.
Speaker 1: Any objective sense.
Speaker 3: The problem is that female modes of interaction are not
Speaker 3: well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.
Speaker 3: You can have an academia that is majority female, but
Speaker 3: it will be as majority female departments in today's universities
Speaker 3: already are oriented toward other goals than open debate and
Speaker 3: the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn't
Speaker 3: pursue truth, what good is it? And if your journalists
Speaker 3: aren't prickly individualists who don't mind alienating people, what good
Speaker 3: are they?
Speaker 1: Okay, if a.
Speaker 3: Business one more, If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit
Speaker 3: and becomes a feminized, inward focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
Speaker 4: She doesn't want to say it, You're not gonna say it.
Speaker 4: I'll say it.
Speaker 1: I'm already single, but I can't do myself any harm.
Speaker 1: It's possible.
Speaker 5: You can't run a world where women are in charge
Speaker 5: of any organizations, not any organizations, lots of organizations.
Speaker 1: It's just possible that it will not work.
Speaker 3: Right right, And we're working up to my favorite line
Speaker 3: of all that I will remember for the rest of
Speaker 3: my life. If the great feminization poses a threat to civilization,
Speaker 3: the question becomes whether it's anything we can do about it?
Speaker 3: The answer depends on why you think it occurred in
Speaker 3: the first place. There are many people who think that
Speaker 3: the Great feminization is naturally occurring. Women were finally given
Speaker 3: a chance to compete with men, and it turned out
Speaker 3: they were just That is why there are so many
Speaker 3: women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, et cetera.
Speaker 3: And Ross doth that too. I generally like describe that
Speaker 3: length that sort of thinking. He said, this is just
Speaker 3: a long male wine about a failure to adequately compete.
Speaker 3: Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on
Speaker 3: the ground that we have in twenty first century America.
Speaker 1: Now the ground is shifted, dude.
Speaker 3: Well, yeah, I appreciate the counter argument, because it's always
Speaker 3: handy when you're trying to assess an idea. But that
Speaker 3: is what feminists think is happening, she writes. But they
Speaker 3: are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women
Speaker 3: out competing men. It is an artificial result of social engineering.
Speaker 3: And if we take our thumb off the scale, it
Speaker 3: will collapse within a generation. The most obvious thumb on
Speaker 3: the scale, excuse me, is anti discrimination law. It is
Speaker 3: illegal to employ too few women at your company. If
Speaker 3: women are underrepresented especially in your higher management. That is
Speaker 3: a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give
Speaker 3: women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten,
Speaker 3: simply in order to keep their numbers up.
Speaker 1: It's rational for them to.
Speaker 3: Do this because the consequences for failing to do so
Speaker 3: can be dire. And she mentions a bunch of nine
Speaker 3: figure settlements. That's hundreds of millions of dollars, and how
Speaker 3: no manager wants that to happen on their watch. Anti
Speaker 3: discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. Now Here,
Speaker 3: we're leading up to my favorite line. A landmark case
Speaker 3: in nineteen ninety one found that pin up posters on
Speaker 3: the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women,
Speaker 3: and that principle. That principle has grown to accompass many
Speaker 3: forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have
Speaker 3: been hit with lawsuits alleging quote frat boy culture or
Speaker 3: toxic bro culture, and a law firm specializing in these
Speaker 3: suits brags of settlements ranging from four hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: thousand dollars to eight million dollars.
Speaker 1: Women can here, it is.
Speaker 3: Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that
Speaker 3: feels like a fraternity house, but men cannot sue when
Speaker 3: their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.
Speaker 1: That's really good.
Speaker 4: And you know what, a lot of workplaces do look
Speaker 4: like feel like a Montessori kindergarten.
Speaker 3: Naturally, employers err on the side of making the office softer.
Speaker 3: So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace,
Speaker 3: is that really because they're out competing men?
Speaker 1: Or is it because the rules have been changing to
Speaker 1: favor them?
Speaker 5: That's what I said. The ground is shifted man right, right, yep.
Speaker 3: A lot can be a fur inferred from the way
Speaker 3: that feminizations tend to increase over time. Once institutions reach
Speaker 3: a fifty to fifty split, they tend to blow past
Speaker 3: gender parody and become more and more female. And she
Speaker 3: mentions that in eight years, law schools went from fifty
Speaker 3: to fifty to fifty six percent. Psychology, once predominantly a
Speaker 3: male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with seventy five percent
Speaker 3: of psychology doctorate's going to women. That does not look
Speaker 3: like women out performing men. It looks like women driving
Speaker 3: men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions.
Speaker 1: I can't.
Speaker 3: By the way, I would never argue that all men
Speaker 3: is a good idea.
Speaker 1: No, that's an assilly idea. No, no, no, Uh what man?
Speaker 1: One more quick point?
Speaker 3: What man wants to work in a field where his
Speaker 3: traits are not welcomed? What self respecting male graduate student
Speaker 3: we're pursuit would pursue a career in academia when his
Speaker 3: peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly
Speaker 3: or espousing a controversial opinion.
Speaker 4: I can't imagine what would be like a dude to
Speaker 4: be in psychology grad school. Oh my god, you just
Speaker 4: have to keep your mouth shut about everything. But you know,
Speaker 4: you can take this down to lower level for boys
Speaker 4: in you know, grade school, in high school. You got
Speaker 4: to fit in with the Montessori kindergarten attitude.
Speaker 3: Right, Acting like a boy is toxic and that's misbehavior.
Speaker 3: Having boundless energy and needing to run around is misbehavior
Speaker 3: according to our school systems. Don't get me started. I
Speaker 3: could go on forever anyway. Final part, Now, it's good
Speaker 3: that people. Oh, she mentions the great reception she's gotten
Speaker 3: to these ideas, to the point.
Speaker 1: That it's shocked her.
Speaker 3: It's good that people are saying to the argument, because
Speaker 3: our window to do something about the great feminization is closing.
Speaker 3: There are leading indicators and lagging indicators of feminization. We
Speaker 3: are currently at the in between stage where law schools
Speaker 3: are majority female but the federal bench is still majority male.
Speaker 3: In a few decades, the gender shift will have reached
Speaker 3: its natural conclusion. Many people think wokeness is over, slain
Speaker 3: by the vibeeshipt shift. But if wokeness is the result
Speaker 3: of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as
Speaker 3: long as the demographics remain unchanged. And I would say,
Speaker 3: you know, young females these days are so radically leftists,
Speaker 3: it'll be even worse. We simply have to restore fair rules.
Speaker 3: Right now, we have a nominally meritocratic system in which
Speaker 3: it is illegal for women to lose. Let's make hiring
Speaker 3: meritigratic in substance and not just name. We'll see how
Speaker 3: it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine
Speaker 3: office culture again. Remove the hr lady's veto power. I
Speaker 3: think people will be surprised to discover how much of
Speaker 3: our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes. Like the
Speaker 3: advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes,
Speaker 3: in which legal changes can reverse. I've got an article
Speaker 3: about a speaker being disinvited to an HR conference because
Speaker 3: he dared challenge the woke conventional wisdom in HR. She writes,
Speaker 3: because after all, I am not just a woman. I
Speaker 3: am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions who
Speaker 3: will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more
Speaker 3: conflict averse and consensus driven. I am the mother of
Speaker 3: sons who will never reach their full potential if they
Speaker 3: have to grow up in a feminized world. I am
Speaker 3: We all are dependent on institutions like the legal system,
Speaker 3: scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way
Speaker 3: of life, and we will all suffer if they cease
Speaker 3: to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that is really really interesting. I'm not optimistic about
Speaker 4: this turning around. And the United States doesn't get to
Speaker 4: live in a vacuum either. So you can talk about
Speaker 4: just our domestic culture and how it might not be
Speaker 4: fair to men or boys in the future and this
Speaker 4: and that, but we have to compete with other countries
Speaker 4: and China ain't worried about this crap all right, and
Speaker 4: the male dominated culture will take over.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, it'll obliterate the female dominated culture. The problem
Speaker 3: with all this, and getting back to my point that
Speaker 3: it absolutely is tied to neo Marxism, even though Helen
Speaker 3: Andrews says she doesn't think it is, is that Marxism
Speaker 3: is by its nature like collaborativeness enforced at the point
Speaker 3: of a gun, whereas more masculine culture in general is Hey,
Speaker 3: if we haven't have a disagreement, we're gonna say so
Speaker 3: out loud. We're gonna have it out in public and
Speaker 3: figure out whose idea wins, or maybe we'll beat on
Speaker 3: each other till one of us submits. That sort of
Speaker 3: dissent is utterly forbidden in Marxism, just as in feminized cultures,
Speaker 3: standing up and saying, for instance, look, only a woman
Speaker 3: can give birth. I mean that is self evidently true.
Speaker 3: No one can deny that you would be run out
Speaker 3: of a profession for saying that if your professional's academia
Speaker 3: or even law schools these days, and that ought to
Speaker 3: scare you.
Speaker 4: Yeah, like I said, I'm not optimistic that this will
Speaker 4: turn around.
Speaker 3: We will post a link to this The Great Feminization
Speaker 3: by Helen Andrews at Armstrong and getty dot com. We'll
Speaker 3: get it up in the next half hour or so.
Speaker 3: You can grab it, share it, read it, think it,
Speaker 3: live it, love it.
Speaker 4: While you were reading all that sort of stuff, I
Speaker 4: was thinking of a couple of women I know who
Speaker 4: would be they don't listen to this show because they
Speaker 4: hate it so much. They would be spitting nails. I mean,
Speaker 4: red faced angry about that. But I also know that's fine.
Speaker 4: I also know they're wrong, They're completely wrong. I also
Speaker 4: know a handful of woman who women women. I know
Speaker 4: one woman in particular i'm thinking about. She's a woman
Speaker 4: and she's got three daughters. Who agrees one hundred percent
Speaker 4: with all that stuff.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, it's about balance and the male Sure, I
Speaker 3: understand why we got to say that, and you might
Speaker 3: be right, but I'm not sure that's true.
Speaker 1: Well, no, it's I would.
Speaker 3: Argue, I actually agree with you. I might just put
Speaker 3: it a little differently. You must have the predominantly. This
Speaker 3: is not about individuals. It's just a generalized assessment of
Speaker 3: large groups, and the larger the group, the more the
Speaker 3: tendency tends to be true. The male tendency is we
Speaker 3: have to have rules that we follow even if they
Speaker 3: make us sad. We have to allow dissent. We have
Speaker 3: to be able to say I think you're wrong and
Speaker 3: have it out. Fairness is important, but rules based fairness,
Speaker 3: not emotional fairness.
Speaker 4: Well, you got to go back to the beginning of
Speaker 4: this thing, and the whole Larry Summers thing, which they
Speaker 4: uses the GRAMD zero for this patient zero of this
Speaker 4: whole thing starting if you are the sort of person
Speaker 4: I don't care if you're a man or a woman,
Speaker 4: they would just tend to be a woman who thinks
Speaker 4: that made sense. You can't run anything. And if you
Speaker 4: believe that that was crazy, that a guy.
Speaker 5: Just stating actual fact, demonstratable fact based into decidable, indisputable
Speaker 5: facts is somehow wrong because it made people feel bad.
Speaker 5: I mean, but if you agree with that, then you
Speaker 5: can run things man or woman. You know, Margaret Thatcher,
Speaker 5: you could come up with all kinds of examples people.
Speaker 5: You know that, you know it wasn't exactly the feminization
Speaker 5: problem even though she was a woman. But yeah, I mean,
Speaker 5: you could just base it on that. Read every people's story.
Speaker 5: People who think that made sense to put him out
Speaker 5: of a Harvard I don't want you run in anything.
Speaker 5: People who think that was wrong. Man or woman, you
Speaker 5: can be in charge of stuff.
Speaker 3: The people who canceled Dry Summers and ran him out
Speaker 3: of Harvard, even though what he said was when entirely
Speaker 3: scientifically indisputable, would have been the very same people, and
Speaker 3: a couple of them are scientists, and this irony is
Speaker 3: too much for me. They would have absolutely been in
Speaker 3: favor of executing Galileo or Copernicus for daring to make
Speaker 3: everybody feel bad in questioning the status quo. And they
Speaker 3: call themselves scientists.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that is something that you quoted a biologist to
Speaker 4: a scientist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you're a biologist.
Speaker 4: You've got a PhD in biology, and you're denying the
Speaker 4: science of what Larry Summers said at Harvard, and he
Speaker 4: should be fired.
Speaker 1: That's so crazy.
Speaker 3: When he started talking about innate differences between men and women,
Speaker 3: I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes
Speaker 3: me physically ill. Even though Summers made it utterly clear
Speaker 3: what he was trying to say, this is tendencies among groups.
Speaker 3: More men than women have this tendency. He was hounded
Speaker 3: out of his job for that. That was the opening
Speaker 3: battle in the wokeness.
Speaker 4: War or the beginning of the ending it out it
Speaker 4: goes I guess, yeah, well I'm going to be the
Speaker 4: Japanese soldier in the jungle twenty years after the war ended,
Speaker 4: still squeezing off shots.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much.
Speaker 4: Oh man, that was really something. Again, you have any
Speaker 4: comment on that, you should email. Probably be talking about
Speaker 4: this tomorrow or text four one five nine five KFTC email.
Speaker 1: It's that small bag and I'm strong at getty dot com.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 1: There we go.
Speaker 2: A group of thieves broke into the Louver and sole
Speaker 2: priceless Napoleon era jewels in.
Speaker 1: A seven minute daytime heist.
Speaker 2: It's not good when the yodur in that CBS has
Speaker 2: better security than the Louver. Can I just get the
Speaker 2: deal head to get a key from my manager.
Speaker 1: Right now?
Speaker 2: The security guards are like, who forgot your ringdo bell?
Speaker 1: We did? Sometimes it's by that we don't know.
Speaker 2: It's also I'm not a big conspiracy guy, but George
Speaker 2: Santos is released from prison on Friday and the Louver.
Speaker 1: Gets robbed on Sunday. Coincidence side got so you think
Speaker 1: they're going to get away? I don't know. I have
Speaker 1: no idea.
Speaker 3: I have read that the most likely thing to happen
Speaker 3: is they're going to break everything apart, sell the jewels,
Speaker 3: which will be recut. There's a zillion dollar global jewel
Speaker 3: theft industry, very well organized, operates in a bunch of
Speaker 3: foreign countries.
Speaker 1: Yeah, or whoever maybe hired them to.
Speaker 4: Do that already had a buyer lined up, you know,
Speaker 4: a Saudi prince or somebody who's perfectly fine with owning
Speaker 4: something like that.
Speaker 3: I mean, why wouldn't you just like rob a handful
Speaker 3: of jewelry stores instead of the louver to get like
Speaker 3: historical artifacts. What for the diamonds, get other diamonds.
Speaker 1: Yeah, because they lose all their historical.
Speaker 4: Value once you start taking it all apart. But the
Speaker 4: one piece or something had like two thousand diamonds in it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I know, amazing.
Speaker 3: A real quick note, if I might, The Great Feminization
Speaker 3: Essay that we're just going over is under hot links
Speaker 3: at Armstrong and getty dot com. Armstrong and getty dot com,
Speaker 3: look for hot links the Great Feminization. It's right there,
Speaker 3: Read it, share it, love it, shit it.
Speaker 1: So I'm watching this video.
Speaker 4: Have you spent any time on Sora or sending the
Speaker 4: highlights from Sora. That's the new social media app that
Speaker 4: is all AI. So everybody posts their best AI videos
Speaker 4: on there, and then at the end of the day
Speaker 4: I see like the top five of the day or whatever,
Speaker 4: and they're often very funny. I mean, I realized some
Speaker 4: of these would insult some of you. But it's an
Speaker 4: Olympic fifty meter swimming race and Jesus is on the
Speaker 4: block with all the other swimmers and they fire the
Speaker 4: gun and then he just runs across the water and
Speaker 4: gets there really quickly and then just stands there and
Speaker 4: waits for the rest.
Speaker 3: Of them to swim all and you say, that's artificial
Speaker 3: intelligence did that.
Speaker 1: But it's so good.
Speaker 4: I was watching one yesterday from last night's Top five
Speaker 4: of the day on Sora. It was Tupac and Hitler
Speaker 4: caught in a tornado, which is an interesting idea, but
Speaker 4: they were just there and like, look at this tornado
Speaker 4: and running in the wind and everything like that.
Speaker 1: Hitler Toomak and it looked as real as real.
Speaker 4: Also, like the other Olympic event I saw the other
Speaker 4: day with these really really giantly obese men, like eight
Speaker 4: hundred pound dudes running the four hundred meter around the
Speaker 4: track and they're running really fast.
Speaker 1: One guy falls and rolls.
Speaker 4: The one play is this enormous cat rampaging through a
Speaker 4: neighborhood and knocking over houses. It's just the sort of
Speaker 4: thing that would have cost fifty dollars to make not that.
Speaker 1: Many years ago.
Speaker 6: Yes, Katie, the only problem I'm having with it is
Speaker 6: I'm seeing like certain animal videos and I'm having to
Speaker 6: go back and research if they're real or not.
Speaker 3: Yeah, right, because it's really good, all right, Can we
Speaker 3: please set ourselves a limit of I will check this
Speaker 3: three times, and then I read books.
Speaker 1: I will read long form think pieces. I will not.
Speaker 3: Become an addict to Sora's Top five, although if you
Speaker 3: can go through them like five minutes a day, if
Speaker 3: you can stop there, though, it's like eating potato chicks.
Speaker 1: See.
Speaker 3: That's the thing. That's the reason I say it. I'm
Speaker 3: saying it to me is I'm thinking, oh, I really
Speaker 3: want to do that. Wait a minute, Wait a minute,
Speaker 3: read a book.
Speaker 1: No you're here, Michael, my kids heard you. Didn't said
Speaker 1: the same thing. No, Armstrong and Getty