The women-men divide in college degrees is oneof the worst trends we have, and goes with the woke emotional women safety ism dominance over rational in politics, and also the drop in birth rates.
I will be dead, but we are looking at a population of old miserable childless cat ladies in the future. The one that trans themselves even more miserable ...
The Longhouse: "More than anything, the Longhouse refers to the remarkable overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior."
Thanks for the link. I've never heard this term before, but this is exactly what I meant. Not sure what this becomes? At some point, even women (some of them, anyone) will have had enough. But, in the meantime, we have two old while male geezers to chose from for US president. I suppose we are really choosing between Trump's VP (whoever that is) and Kamala Harris. Harris does not seem to be the best choice for women, other than she checks a skin color identity box. She's hardly a Den Mother type, despite that actress gushing over "Momala". At least, not to me. Den Mother stereotype (to me) is the governor of Michigan.
I keep repeating that for the first time in human history, society is attempting a massive experiment shifting from male to female domination... and from just about every perspective it is succeeding in making everyone more miserable.
Christopher Rufo wrote last year that it's turning America into a "Cluster B society":
"But while some celebrate this shift, our 'female future' has a darker side. Contrary to the messages one gets from elites, biological sex differences are real, and a societal imbalance between the two has negative effects for everyone. Taken too far, overly feminized leadership produces exactly the kind of Cluster B society we observe today: one in which identity is rewarded over merit, victimhood is prized over competence, and antisocial behavior goes unchecked. Moral narcissism becomes the coin of the realm, and political conflicts are settled through blackmail and manipulation."
Yes. The tendency toward covert or vulnerable narcissism vs overt narcissism. Trust evaporates when the culture is backroom character assassination from a virtue signaling crybully... vs the direct warrior that is says what he means and means what he says, and offers a hand to pick you up after knocking you down... and then buys the first round of drinks at the bar.
I'm not generally one for optimism but there are signs of some sanity returning to parts of the feminist intelligentsia - a "dissident feminism" that I picked up on in this essay: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance
..."acknowledgements that Masculinity and Femininity are complementary polarities in any sane conception of The Good Life". My favorite quote was this one from ex-radical feminist Kathleen Stock: "Sometimes, talking about your feelings makes them worse and sometimes responding empathically to other people’s feelings only makes them more histrionic and attention-seeking. It can be very good to talk, but it can also be very good to shut the hell up and stamp off to dig the garden."
I guess I don't understand why Cluster B is uniquely feminine. I get that we are over-valorizing woman but why is that a pathology and not just a bad idea?
I wouldn't say that it's uniquely feminine, but Cluster B personality disorders are more common in women than men (though I couldn't give you a detailed answer as to why).
I think this idea that we're becoming a "Cluster B society," and that it's because we're transitioning from a male-dominated to a female-dominated country (meaning women have more elite influence), has to do with what Gad Saad calls "suicidal empathy." Basically, there's this relatively new, unconstrained impulse - largely driven by progressives - to practice radical tolerance and kindness. Tolerance and kindness are obviously good things, but when taken to the extreme, they are not.
I'm kind of writing about this in a post I've been working on, but examples include "restorative justice," which has led to progressive prosecutors refusing to jail criminals (especially minorities), resulting in recidivists terrorizing society; the border invasion, and the notion that "we're a kind and caring country, so we should welcome those less fortunate with open arms, no matter how many people that may be"; and the transgender craze, which has led to a total rewriting of societal rules and the legitimization of a regressive set of beliefs that forces a subjective and manipulable view of one person’s self to become a defining reality for everyone else.
I'm afraid I think, also without proof, that these things are being framed as 'kindness' when their goals are much more nefarious. Their goals are to destroy societies that are successful and start conflicts that will accrue power to those who are directing these actions.
I'm not sure it's the goal but the consequences can be dire. One example would be giving homeless people free alcohol, it's mostly about looking kind in the short-term but also seems to be designed to keep people in perpetual dependence. I think that's a bit of a manifestation of some people's need to care (or to look to be caring) for others, even if that care is counter-productive or unwelcome, and they do it more out of virtue-signaling narcissism than genuine care.
Could this have something to do with the metastasis of bureaucracies at the federal, state, local and school board levels? These jobs are less demanding (and, in my experience, involve bossing around non-government proles). These job-holders' contributions to citizens' lives deserve a look.
It does seem like a matriarchy that's run by unfit mothers (think Cartman's mother on South Park). Any detrimental behavior is excused or explained away, narcissism has to be fed with unearned praise, and at the same it's overbearing and overprotective and any risk (and by extension opportunity) has to be removed. Conversely no actual achievement can be praised lest the underachievers are made to feel bad. Nothing is ever your fault, nothing is ever your accomplishment.
There is a need to consider them equals with respect to justice, but the biological, psychological and social differences should not be ignored. We have thousands of years of human history that demonstrate cultural accommodations for those differences.
Agreed. And yet, when you read the Biden administration DEI plan for Education, the only imbalance noted is that males are more represented in STEM than females.
Which they intend to "remedy" at all necessary costs. This is on top of race and other identity group quotas. Tough task ahead. If only they could just have intersectional something or other degrees, this would be a lot easier.
You don’t need to be so concerned about this imbalance. AI will take a huge swatch of the jobs that traditionally went to the college educated, whatever gender. Men are increasingly pursuing trade jobs that do pay well & are not going to be replaced easily. As for families, wives & children, the largest growing group of children in this country are multiracial. Men are marrying foreigners. The college educated insular & unmatched women will not become part of the future. Life goes on.
The Nikole Hannah-Jones "how" post seems ludicrous but for my own extensive observational research that proves economic illiteracy is a symptom of a personality disorder known as leftism.
The dismal economic performance of Joe Biden isn't just evidence that Joe Biden isn't capable... which is certainly true. Biden is in a basket of liberal political leaders... all that have a similar story attached to them. From Gavin Newsom to Justin Trudeau... to Alexander De Croo of Belgium, Mark Rutte of The Netherlands... the list goes on. All of them are seeing massive budget deficits and debt, and moribund economic circumstances for the general population. I think the reason is clear. Instead of working to recover from the pandemic, these leaders attempted to leverage authoritarian power to try and transform to the WEF and Wall Street favored globalist collectivist corporatist model. Just like Obama, instead of focusing on economic recovery from the Great Recession, passes Obamacare as the liberal dream toward government run Healthcare.
Biden is incompetent, but also part of a global failure of liberal leadership.
It's not a failure, it's intentional. And if the goal is, as the Lightworker said, to fundamentally change these countries, the agenda has been resoundingly successful.
The question I have yet to find an answer to is why.
The Black Violent Crime omerta - that you graphics make so clear and so stark - is underplayed even by the conservative commentariat that we are all part of. The fear of seeming "racist" extends right across the mainstream political spectrum. (it's akin to that other great omerta whereby one is not allowed to express anything other that wholehearted enthusiasm for homosexuality.)
It would be great to see a politician with the balls to campaign with some real hard truths:
"There is a lot of racism in the Western world and most of it is directed against white people."
"Very few people - black, white or brown - are murderers or cop killers. But our biggest problem with this by far occurs in the Black gangland subculture."
The lefty establishment hyper- ventilating reaction would almost be fun to see....and who knows, this hypothetical truth-teller might even get elected.
I've noticed something lately about trying to explain murders and violent crimes to black people who seem to have a hard time with per capita (I'm sure there's plenty of all races, but this has been happening specifically with balck people on my feeds) If you tell them they commit 50% of the crime, they will tell you that's only half of them and that since they only make up 13% of the population, 50% of their 13% is way under white people!!!!! I am not kidding. This is how they see statistics. This is a major problem if we are trying to fix anything or get a message out.
My liberal friend did not believe me when I mentioned the statistics on black violent crime. I had to send her a link to the official FBI site.
We both live in suburban Chicago, and it’s impossible not to be aware of murders in the city. It’s clear that the vast majority of victims are black. I wanted to ask her “who do you think are killing blacks in the inner city? Did you think white kids were sneaking in from the suburbs to shoot blacks? An ounce of common sense would tell you that the black murder rate is higher.” But I refrained from pointing out the obvious. Can’t hurt those lefty sensibilities after all.
I know! They will get some kind of mad if you try to show them! Been there before. I don't think the schools are teaching them anything at all about common math, like per capita. They can't read data or refuse to read it.
Even Jimmy Carter was able to do one positive thing. The Israel Egypt Peace Deal. Anwar Sadat paid for it with his life, but that’s on the Muslim Brotherhood, not President Carter.
He also legalized brewing beer at home. And he's the only living president who isn't insanely rich - I'm assuming Bidens net worth is understated and he has another payday coming in.
I can be a contrarian but i am a bigger fan of Jimmy carter in retrospect. (Funny Jimmy carter may disagree with me.)
1. His emphasis on human rights allowed the US to turn the tables on the USSR. It really hurt their credibility.
2. Deregulation. Carter started that getting rid of the archaic CAB and opening up air travel.
3. Appoint Volcker to kill inflation.
You can argue that 1 & 3 cost him reelection (though there were other factors of course) but he did it and probably regrets it, but it the right thing to do.
Even money that is kept in a bank account creates wealth (and jobs). Banks and other financial institutions invest the money that regular people entrust them to take care of.
She doesn't really have a good grasp of economics, that's for sure. Confusing money with wealth is also quite a typical thing with many people. And having no grasp of basic accounting or economics also means a lot of people make financial decisions that are against their own interest, e.g. student loans, credit card debt etc.. Not saying that it's on purpose but if someone where to design a system that enriches rent-seekers they would probably do it that way.
And of course outside of infrastructure government can't really create wealth, only redistribute money.
Saving has gone out of style, you have to "invest", meaning you buying securities from someone else who's selling them. Same when a bank borrows money to buy US debt which it then sells to the Fed. This really only creates more wealth in a completely roundabout way.
Say you have a gardening business, if you buy another truck and hire more gardeners to serve more customers that's investing. If you buy some shares of Tesla instead it doesn't mean that Tesla has more money to build a new factory, it means a former shareholder has more cash that they may or may not invest.
I think there is a big problem that people often confuse asset bubbles with wealth. Ever increasing stock prices only show that people prefer saving over investing in tangible things. It's also to be expected when the stock market seems a safer bet than starting your own business where you get fleeced by the government, insurance, lawyers every steps of the way that there isn't going to be any real growth. The stock market goes up but most people (many of whom have negative net-worth) feel poorer when they have to spend 12$ on a carton of eggs.
I don’t have anything saved. I rely on the same government that I don’t trust. Which is 1 reason why I’m not voting for Trump.
As far as having savings to fall back on,
“When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose
You're invisible now, you've got no secrets to conceal”
Most of Bob Dylan’s song doesn’t apply to me, because I was always pretty good at spotting con artists and other characters. But these lyrics, this part of the song, I can relate to.
The women-men divide in college degrees is oneof the worst trends we have, and goes with the woke emotional women safety ism dominance over rational in politics, and also the drop in birth rates.
I will be dead, but we are looking at a population of old miserable childless cat ladies in the future. The one that trans themselves even more miserable ...
The Longhouse: "More than anything, the Longhouse refers to the remarkable overcorrection of the last two generations toward social norms centering feminine needs and feminine methods for controlling, directing, and modeling behavior."
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/02/what-is-the-longhouse
Thanks for the link. I've never heard this term before, but this is exactly what I meant. Not sure what this becomes? At some point, even women (some of them, anyone) will have had enough. But, in the meantime, we have two old while male geezers to chose from for US president. I suppose we are really choosing between Trump's VP (whoever that is) and Kamala Harris. Harris does not seem to be the best choice for women, other than she checks a skin color identity box. She's hardly a Den Mother type, despite that actress gushing over "Momala". At least, not to me. Den Mother stereotype (to me) is the governor of Michigan.
I've had enough and arguably I had to put up with alot more sexism in the office and on the streets than any one of these current complainers.
Sorry for this, but every time I see or imagine Whitmer, I see not just a witch, but the Devil himself.
(Shh! I.would never say this to her face...until she revealed the stunning truth... ;-)...)
I keep repeating that for the first time in human history, society is attempting a massive experiment shifting from male to female domination... and from just about every perspective it is succeeding in making everyone more miserable.
Christopher Rufo wrote last year that it's turning America into a "Cluster B society":
"But while some celebrate this shift, our 'female future' has a darker side. Contrary to the messages one gets from elites, biological sex differences are real, and a societal imbalance between the two has negative effects for everyone. Taken too far, overly feminized leadership produces exactly the kind of Cluster B society we observe today: one in which identity is rewarded over merit, victimhood is prized over competence, and antisocial behavior goes unchecked. Moral narcissism becomes the coin of the realm, and political conflicts are settled through blackmail and manipulation."
https://www.city-journal.org/article/the-cluster-b-society
"Moral narcissism becomes the coin of the realm, and political conflicts are settled through blackmail and manipulation."
So "Mean Girls"?
Yes. The tendency toward covert or vulnerable narcissism vs overt narcissism. Trust evaporates when the culture is backroom character assassination from a virtue signaling crybully... vs the direct warrior that is says what he means and means what he says, and offers a hand to pick you up after knocking you down... and then buys the first round of drinks at the bar.
I'm not generally one for optimism but there are signs of some sanity returning to parts of the feminist intelligentsia - a "dissident feminism" that I picked up on in this essay: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance
..."acknowledgements that Masculinity and Femininity are complementary polarities in any sane conception of The Good Life". My favorite quote was this one from ex-radical feminist Kathleen Stock: "Sometimes, talking about your feelings makes them worse and sometimes responding empathically to other people’s feelings only makes them more histrionic and attention-seeking. It can be very good to talk, but it can also be very good to shut the hell up and stamp off to dig the garden."
I guess I don't understand why Cluster B is uniquely feminine. I get that we are over-valorizing woman but why is that a pathology and not just a bad idea?
I wouldn't say that it's uniquely feminine, but Cluster B personality disorders are more common in women than men (though I couldn't give you a detailed answer as to why).
I think this idea that we're becoming a "Cluster B society," and that it's because we're transitioning from a male-dominated to a female-dominated country (meaning women have more elite influence), has to do with what Gad Saad calls "suicidal empathy." Basically, there's this relatively new, unconstrained impulse - largely driven by progressives - to practice radical tolerance and kindness. Tolerance and kindness are obviously good things, but when taken to the extreme, they are not.
I'm kind of writing about this in a post I've been working on, but examples include "restorative justice," which has led to progressive prosecutors refusing to jail criminals (especially minorities), resulting in recidivists terrorizing society; the border invasion, and the notion that "we're a kind and caring country, so we should welcome those less fortunate with open arms, no matter how many people that may be"; and the transgender craze, which has led to a total rewriting of societal rules and the legitimization of a regressive set of beliefs that forces a subjective and manipulable view of one person’s self to become a defining reality for everyone else.
I'm afraid I think, also without proof, that these things are being framed as 'kindness' when their goals are much more nefarious. Their goals are to destroy societies that are successful and start conflicts that will accrue power to those who are directing these actions.
I'm not sure it's the goal but the consequences can be dire. One example would be giving homeless people free alcohol, it's mostly about looking kind in the short-term but also seems to be designed to keep people in perpetual dependence. I think that's a bit of a manifestation of some people's need to care (or to look to be caring) for others, even if that care is counter-productive or unwelcome, and they do it more out of virtue-signaling narcissism than genuine care.
Could this have something to do with the metastasis of bureaucracies at the federal, state, local and school board levels? These jobs are less demanding (and, in my experience, involve bossing around non-government proles). These job-holders' contributions to citizens' lives deserve a look.
Not just that, the same is happening in the corporate world with for example the HR department and other administrative roles.
It does seem like a matriarchy that's run by unfit mothers (think Cartman's mother on South Park). Any detrimental behavior is excused or explained away, narcissism has to be fed with unearned praise, and at the same it's overbearing and overprotective and any risk (and by extension opportunity) has to be removed. Conversely no actual achievement can be praised lest the underachievers are made to feel bad. Nothing is ever your fault, nothing is ever your accomplishment.
So, meet the new boss, same as the old...?
Maybe, just maybe, in a few years we will have proven that the 2 (two) sexes really are equals.
There is a need to consider them equals with respect to justice, but the biological, psychological and social differences should not be ignored. We have thousands of years of human history that demonstrate cultural accommodations for those differences.
I could not agree more.
Agreed. And yet, when you read the Biden administration DEI plan for Education, the only imbalance noted is that males are more represented in STEM than females.
Which they intend to "remedy" at all necessary costs. This is on top of race and other identity group quotas. Tough task ahead. If only they could just have intersectional something or other degrees, this would be a lot easier.
You don’t need to be so concerned about this imbalance. AI will take a huge swatch of the jobs that traditionally went to the college educated, whatever gender. Men are increasingly pursuing trade jobs that do pay well & are not going to be replaced easily. As for families, wives & children, the largest growing group of children in this country are multiracial. Men are marrying foreigners. The college educated insular & unmatched women will not become part of the future. Life goes on.
The Nikole Hannah-Jones "how" post seems ludicrous but for my own extensive observational research that proves economic illiteracy is a symptom of a personality disorder known as leftism.
it really does explain a lot and not just about leftists.
The dismal economic performance of Joe Biden isn't just evidence that Joe Biden isn't capable... which is certainly true. Biden is in a basket of liberal political leaders... all that have a similar story attached to them. From Gavin Newsom to Justin Trudeau... to Alexander De Croo of Belgium, Mark Rutte of The Netherlands... the list goes on. All of them are seeing massive budget deficits and debt, and moribund economic circumstances for the general population. I think the reason is clear. Instead of working to recover from the pandemic, these leaders attempted to leverage authoritarian power to try and transform to the WEF and Wall Street favored globalist collectivist corporatist model. Just like Obama, instead of focusing on economic recovery from the Great Recession, passes Obamacare as the liberal dream toward government run Healthcare.
Biden is incompetent, but also part of a global failure of liberal leadership.
It's not a failure, it's intentional. And if the goal is, as the Lightworker said, to fundamentally change these countries, the agenda has been resoundingly successful.
The question I have yet to find an answer to is why.
The Black Violent Crime omerta - that you graphics make so clear and so stark - is underplayed even by the conservative commentariat that we are all part of. The fear of seeming "racist" extends right across the mainstream political spectrum. (it's akin to that other great omerta whereby one is not allowed to express anything other that wholehearted enthusiasm for homosexuality.)
It would be great to see a politician with the balls to campaign with some real hard truths:
"There is a lot of racism in the Western world and most of it is directed against white people."
"Very few people - black, white or brown - are murderers or cop killers. But our biggest problem with this by far occurs in the Black gangland subculture."
The lefty establishment hyper- ventilating reaction would almost be fun to see....and who knows, this hypothetical truth-teller might even get elected.
I've noticed something lately about trying to explain murders and violent crimes to black people who seem to have a hard time with per capita (I'm sure there's plenty of all races, but this has been happening specifically with balck people on my feeds) If you tell them they commit 50% of the crime, they will tell you that's only half of them and that since they only make up 13% of the population, 50% of their 13% is way under white people!!!!! I am not kidding. This is how they see statistics. This is a major problem if we are trying to fix anything or get a message out.
My liberal friend did not believe me when I mentioned the statistics on black violent crime. I had to send her a link to the official FBI site.
We both live in suburban Chicago, and it’s impossible not to be aware of murders in the city. It’s clear that the vast majority of victims are black. I wanted to ask her “who do you think are killing blacks in the inner city? Did you think white kids were sneaking in from the suburbs to shoot blacks? An ounce of common sense would tell you that the black murder rate is higher.” But I refrained from pointing out the obvious. Can’t hurt those lefty sensibilities after all.
I know! They will get some kind of mad if you try to show them! Been there before. I don't think the schools are teaching them anything at all about common math, like per capita. They can't read data or refuse to read it.
From one who was there (high school )!At the time. Biden Morehouse speech has a jimmy carteresque “malaise” ring to it.
Even Jimmy Carter was able to do one positive thing. The Israel Egypt Peace Deal. Anwar Sadat paid for it with his life, but that’s on the Muslim Brotherhood, not President Carter.
He also legalized brewing beer at home. And he's the only living president who isn't insanely rich - I'm assuming Bidens net worth is understated and he has another payday coming in.
Too bad he lost his mind at least 4 years ago. He has no idea how much money he has.
Luckily he has a son who is very gifted with money. Or maybe he was gifted money, I'm having a Biden moment on the particulars.
I can be a contrarian but i am a bigger fan of Jimmy carter in retrospect. (Funny Jimmy carter may disagree with me.)
1. His emphasis on human rights allowed the US to turn the tables on the USSR. It really hurt their credibility.
2. Deregulation. Carter started that getting rid of the archaic CAB and opening up air travel.
3. Appoint Volcker to kill inflation.
You can argue that 1 & 3 cost him reelection (though there were other factors of course) but he did it and probably regrets it, but it the right thing to do.
Even money that is kept in a bank account creates wealth (and jobs). Banks and other financial institutions invest the money that regular people entrust them to take care of.
"stored away and used to create wealth", she says. Choose one, Ida Bae Dumdum.
She doesn't really have a good grasp of economics, that's for sure. Confusing money with wealth is also quite a typical thing with many people. And having no grasp of basic accounting or economics also means a lot of people make financial decisions that are against their own interest, e.g. student loans, credit card debt etc.. Not saying that it's on purpose but if someone where to design a system that enriches rent-seekers they would probably do it that way.
And of course outside of infrastructure government can't really create wealth, only redistribute money.
Saving has gone out of style, you have to "invest", meaning you buying securities from someone else who's selling them. Same when a bank borrows money to buy US debt which it then sells to the Fed. This really only creates more wealth in a completely roundabout way.
Say you have a gardening business, if you buy another truck and hire more gardeners to serve more customers that's investing. If you buy some shares of Tesla instead it doesn't mean that Tesla has more money to build a new factory, it means a former shareholder has more cash that they may or may not invest.
I think there is a big problem that people often confuse asset bubbles with wealth. Ever increasing stock prices only show that people prefer saving over investing in tangible things. It's also to be expected when the stock market seems a safer bet than starting your own business where you get fleeced by the government, insurance, lawyers every steps of the way that there isn't going to be any real growth. The stock market goes up but most people (many of whom have negative net-worth) feel poorer when they have to spend 12$ on a carton of eggs.
I don’t have anything saved. I rely on the same government that I don’t trust. Which is 1 reason why I’m not voting for Trump.
As far as having savings to fall back on,
“When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose
You're invisible now, you've got no secrets to conceal”
Most of Bob Dylan’s song doesn’t apply to me, because I was always pretty good at spotting con artists and other characters. But these lyrics, this part of the song, I can relate to.
1) Hmm...4 (years) of treading water.
Is this what Democrats mean by 4 (four) years of "equity"?
That is certainly not very aspirational, Democrats.
It’s kept in a bank. The bank invests it. So it’s both.
Im pretty sure she keeps her money in coffe cans all over the house(s)
Strictly following the Fani Willis guide to personal finance.
you are on to me