Law of Markets

Dedicated to the economics and politics of the free market

Law of Markets

Madness and politics

From The Other McCain and in full.

Study: 56% of Liberal Women Under Age 30 Have Been Diagnosed as Mentally Ill

Posted on | April 22, 2020 | 42 Comments

Trump Derangement Syndrome is real:

Zach Goldberg . . . has analysed the latest dataset released by the reputable Pew Research Center. This is the Pew Research Panel, Wave 64, which interviewed a representative sample of 11,537 American adults between March 19th and March 24th. . . .

Among those aged 18 to 29, some 20.9% of those who described themselves as “Conservative” answered “Yes” to the question “Has a doctor or healthcare provider ever told you that you have a mental health condition?” For those in this age group who were political “Moderates,” 26.3% answered “Yes.” But among those who self-classified as “Liberal” those answering “Yes” jumped up to an astonishing 45.9%.

So, to be clear, almost half of young white American Leftists have been diagnosed with a mental illness. . . .

In general, females are more likely to suffer from mental health conditions than males, because one of the most common of these conditions is depression. According to psychologist Daniel Nettle in his 2007 book Personality: What Makes You the Way You Are, females, being more prone to worry and anxiety, are more prone to depression than males. So Jonathan Haidt, known for his Moral Foundations Theory of political preferences whereby Liberals and Conservatives have a fundamentally different system of morality, asked Goldberg if he had broken down the data by sex.

And Goldberg — who is doing a PhD in Political Science at Georgia State University — analysed the data again, breaking it down by gender. The results were as predicted and were all the more striking for it. According to Pew Research Center data, 56% of Liberal females aged 18 to 29 have been diagnosed with a mental health condition . . .


The obvious question is, “Why?” And the most obvious answer, supplied by Emily Ekins of the Cato Institute, is “locus of control”:


Part of the reason liberals and conservatives disagree about the causes of poverty and wealth is that they disagree about the extent to which personal choices or external forces directs people’s lives. In other words: they disagree about the role of personal agency.
This idea is related to a concept in psychology called the locus of control. People who tend to believe events in their lives are within the control of the individual are described as having an internal locus of control. Those who tend to believe events in their lives are outside of a person’s control are described as having an external locus of control. While in reality both external forces and personal choices play a role, the question is what individuals emphasize. . . .
The [2019 Cato] survey finds that liberals emphasize external forces and that conservatives emphasize personal choices in explaining personal outcomes in their own lives. . . .

These data demonstrate that liberals and conservatives emphasize the impact of personal agency on outcomes differently. Conservatives are more likely to believe that people are responsible for their situations and use their agency to direct their lives, and liberals are more likely to believe that people’s situations are shaped by their environment and other external factors.

Modern liberalism (or “progressivism”) is obsessed with inequality, claiming that all disparities in outcomes are a result of systemic oppression, which must be ended in the name of “social justice.” Everything is interpreted through the lenses of identity politics, where racism, sexism, homophobia and other biases are believed to define the axes of oppression. Because vast social and historic forces are involved in this worldview, it is easy to see why it tends to breed an attitude of helplessness. If the “patriarchy” has been oppressing all women for the past 6,000 years — a core claim of feminist ideology — a young woman who buys into this worldview must see herself engaged in a desperate struggle, even though she herself might be highly privileged, by any objective standard. Feminist activism, I would argue, is a chief cause of the epidemic of insanity that prevails among girls at elite universities.


Think about this: You’re an upper-middle-class suburban white girl whose parents can afford the tuition at Oberlin, Stanford or Yale. Given your advantageous socioeconomic background, your success in life is almost guaranteed — or it would be, were it not for a curriculum that teaches you deranged nonsense, e.g., “gender is a social construct,” in a campus climate where becoming an “activist” is considered a smart career move. The path of progressive activism is unlikely to lead to personal happiness in life, because this sort of activism is all about grievance-mongering around claims of oppression.


Correlation should not be confused with causation, of course. Does liberalism create insanity, or does it merely attract insane people? A political movement based upon policy ideas that are obsolete, discredited and harmful will not attract the best people to its banner. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the core belief of leftism — equality through economic redistribution imposed by an all-powerful government — has been entirely discredited. No honest and intelligent person could endorse the crypto-Marxist policy agenda of the Democratic Party, which is why Democrats attract so many stupid and dishonest people.

Young people have no memory of the Cold War. They do not remember the failure of LBJ’s “Great Society” programs (about which Amity Schlaes has written a new book). Academia is now so dominated by the Democratic Party that Republicans can never be hired to the faculty at elite universities. Students thus never encounter a professor who will explain them that “progressive” policies are doomed to failure, and are instead encouraged to devote themselves to the politics of futility.

The Invisible Woman

The first thing you have to know about the film is that the star of this latest version of The Invisible Man is a woman, Elizabeth Moss. I might also mention this from her Wikipedia entry.

Moss identifies as a… feminist. After a fan questioned whether her role in the Hulu series The Handmaid’s Tale etc etc etc.”

Starred in The Handmaid’s Tale and is personally a committed feminist. OK, could happen to anyone. And this, in a nut shell, is the way the story opens.

The Invisible Man is a 2020 science fiction horror film written and directed by Leigh Whannell. A contemporary adaptation of the novel of the same name by H. G. Wells and a reboot of The Invisible Man film series, it follows a woman who believes she is being stalked by her abusive partner, despite him apparently having died.

Now for the spoilers so back off unless you’ve seen the film or don’t care.

Let me first go through the plot outlined at the link with my own additions:

Trapped [in what way exactly?] in a violent, controlling relationship [asserted but at no stage demonstrated] with wealthy scientist Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen), Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) escapes in the dead of night and disappears into hiding, aided by her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer), their childhood friend James, a police detective, (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Adrian later commits suicide and leaves her a generous portion of his vast fortune, but a series of bizarre events leads Cecilia to suspect his death was a hoax. As these eerie coincidences turn lethal, threatening the lives of those she loves, Cecilia’s sanity begins to unravel as she desperately tries to prove that she is being hunted by someone nobody can see [are we to assume that each of the visits by an invisible presence are merely a manifestation of her madness or are they genuine events? Either Adrian has an invisibility machine, in which case she can use it herself later on, or he doesn’t. Which is it?]. She visits Adrian’s home to investigate and discovers a suit that uses cameras to render the wearer invisible [which somehow is able to be assembled elsewhere, such as in the parking lot of a hospital]. She takes it and hides it in the house before escaping as she continues to be followed by who she believes to be Adrian. When Cecilia attempts to tell her sister about the suit, Adrian cuts Emily’s throat in a packed restaurant [who is completely invisible to everyone else in that packed restaurant], making it look like Cecilia committed the crime.

Remanded to a treatment center while she awaits trial, Cecilia is informed by the medical staff that she is pregnant. Adrian’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman) visits her and offers to help her if she agrees to return to Adrian and raise their child together [an obvious sign of a brutal hateful nature], acknowledging that he helped his brother stage his suicide. Cecilia refuses his offer but manages to steal a pen from his briefcase, which she uses later to stab Adrian while he is lurking in her room. This causes his suit to malfunction and flicker in and out of visibility, drawing the attention of security. Adrian is able to violently incapacitate the security staff as he flees the building, but Cecilia follows him and attempts to kill him with a security guard’s gun [The invisibility suit nevertheless continues to work well enough most of the time]. Adrian subdues her and admits that he won’t harm her while she is pregnant, but makes clear he plans to kill Sydney instead.

Cecilia races to James’ house and ends up shooting and killing an invisible intruder [it really works], although she unmasks him and finds Tom in the suit. When police find Adrian alive at his house, claiming that he was his brother’s captive all along, Cecilia realizes that Adrian sent Tom to James’ house in his place, knowing what would happen. In an attempt to get Adrian to admit to his role, she meets him for dinner at his home to discuss her pregnancy, but Adrian denies any involvement [presumably lying if the plot is to work, but what evidence is there?]  Knowing she’ll never be safe as long as he is alive, Cecilia equips herself with a spare invisible suit and cuts Adrian’s throat in full view of a security camera, making it seem as if he committed suicide [in which case she must, while invisible, put a knife into his hand and then have him draw the blade across his throat].

James, who was nearby overviewing the scene with a radio, asks Cecilia what happened. She assures him that Adrian indeed committed suicide. Despite spotting the invisible suit in her handbag, he accepts her story [not even a bit sceptical?].

Let me add a little to fill in some of the gaps.

First, the abusive relationship has to be taken on trust. The film opens with Ms Moss in the most astonishing palatial home, overlooking the ocean, as they lie in bed with her husband reaching across his sleeping wife in a night-time embrace. She, however, removes his hand, slips out of the bed, gets past all of the security devices that exist throughout the house on the way to the exit, and once free is almost overtaken by her husband who breaks the glass of the car in his rage as she is driving off. Since she was completely able to walk out of the house in the middle of the night, there was no need for this melodramatic 3:00 am escape. Why not? Could be.

Next we see her living in terror of her husband at the home of a policeman friend and his daughter (who by the way sleeps with Moss to help relieve her anxiety). Moss is totally in fear that her husband will come back and in some way harm her. She is then informed that her husband had died by his own hand, and not only that, had left her something absurd like $10,000,000. Why not? Could be.

But as the plot moves along we find Ms Moss being terrorised by some invisible person. We see these events on the screen. There really is an invisible person, who has a reality for her but whose existence is known to others only because she keeps telling everyone that she is being stalked by her dead husband, who so far as everyone else is concerned is dead. Indeed we even see photos of the scene of the husband’s quite gory death although apparently staged but so well that even the coroner is taken in. She nevertheless insists that her dead husband is stalking her, and there are numerous scenes where Ms Moss is just there when this invisible presence forces her to do evil things, such as cut her own sister’s throat while they are sitting together in a restaurant, or perhaps it was The Invisible Male who had done it while she just sat there. Either way, ridiculous.

Thus, as you are watching the film, you can take Ms Moss’s side and believe that her husband is such an incredible genius, has invented some means to make himself invisible that absolutely no one has ever heard of before and is using this device to stalk his wife through all kinds of menacing moments which occur before us right through the film. Or we can believe her husband really is dead, and that she is completely nuts and the moving is allowing us to experience her hallucinations. To the audience, the plot depends on the existence of an invisibility machine. Why not? Could be. Actually, couldn’t be, but let us go on.

There is then one plot device after another, which at one stage takes her back to her matrimonial home. There she discovers, inside this mansion, the invisibility device after yet again getting into a fight with her invisible husband. How she knows it is what it is who can explain, but she does. Personally, why he doesn’t just despatch her I could not work out. For my taste, she wasn’t worth the effort to keep the marriage together, but that’s just me. Nor once she had left was there much reason either to have her back or to seek such an elaborate revenge. Still, it was handy for him to have invented this invisibility machine but never have mentioned it to his wife, nor anyone else.

Then there is a fight in the madhouse hospital Ms. Moss has been taken to after murdering her sister in which Mr Invisible Man shoots a number of people to death, but then inexplicably to me, does not shoot others to death that he might have, and more stupidly still, allows others to discover that there really is someone with a device that really can make themselves invisible.

Finale, her husband turns out to be alive after all but had been locked away in some storage shack. It tuns out that the man who has been invisible is her husband’s brother, the lawyer. We find this out because when Mr Invisible is shot and killed, that is who has died. Ms Moss then has a dinner with her husband for whom there is no now no evidence whatsoever that he has done anything wrong at any stage. While sitting down to dinner, she is wired for sound with her policeman friend listening in. Throughout the dinner her husband continually insists that he loves her. He never says otherwise, nor is there any reason for the audience to think otherwise. In the midst of dinner she excuses herself to go the the ladies, and while she is out of the room, for reasons unknown, the husband grabs a knife and slashes his own throat and dies. The policeman friend is listening in to all this while the events are being videoed on the security camera – a clear suicide so far as the camera can see. Hearing all of the commotion through the wire, the policeman rushes into the house, meeting as she is on her way out, a very self-satisfied, smiling and much contented Ms Moss who walks past him, and mirabile dictu, she is carrying an invisibility device in her bag. The policeman friend is puzzled, but we in the audience can see that she has been at the centre of a very successful murder plot to kill her husband. By film end, there is not a shred of evidence that her husband was in any way a villain who has ever been out to kill her. She, of course, is a few million dollars richer and is free of her husband and his terrible control over her life.

All the women I have spoken to about the story are completely satisfied with the story, how it evolves and how it ends. On no evidence whatsoever shown in the film, she was escaping from an abusive “controlling” relationship, the film even using the word. If there is evidence of bad intentions towards his wife, they occur only after she has left and he starts his ultra-ultra-high-tech revenge which in any case seems to have been undertaken by the brother. Having now discovered the technology, she has commandeered the device which she uses on her husband who continually insists that he loves her, and will say nothing else while they are having dinner together, although they, so far as he is aware, are absolutely alone and no one can hear what is being said.

For myself, this was a film I was not able to see its moral centre until it turned out that Ms. Moss was a vengeful murderess but only I seem to think this is what takes place. But that would be completely against the spirit of our times, I thought, to make a woman a villain. But all the women I have since spoken to loved the film, since they found the murder of her husband by his wife completely satisfying and justified. He got what he deserved. As explained to me, don’t I think there are such things as oppressive husbands? Of course there are, but why do they think this one in the film is one such husband? That is a complete unknown to me.

If you ask me we live in a very emotionally damaged society, with this one of the most depraved films I have ever seen. This is modern feminist literature, as with The Handmaiden’s Tale, where women are portrayed as living in a world of control and repression when in fact, as in the film, they live the freest most luxurious lives, and as in this case, a life entirely financed by her husband, since once she is on her own, she just sits around the house, and in the only activity we actually see her involved with, in the kitchen, cooking. She apparently does nothing on her own to finance her life style.

A very political film, absolutely crazy to its very core. No man can take it seriously, and given how sparse the audience was, not all that many women can either. Or perhaps they do. Rotten Tomatoes gave it 90% from Critics and 89% from the audience. IMDb gave it a more sane 7.7. Will just finish with the last para of this review by someone named Jennifer Heaton.

The Invisible Man is a perfect blend of high-concept and grounded horror, tapping into the zeitgeist and delivering a haunting parable about psychological abuse. Whilst undeniably a horror film at its core, it also transcends the genre to the point where non-horror fans will find something to enjoy. Whilst it certainly doesn’t linger on Universal’s past mistakes, its success proves that you don’t need gigantic budgets, a shared universe or celebrity stunt casting to reinvent the Universal Monsters brand. Though perhaps not as ingenious or revolutionary a take as, say, Jordan Peele’s recent output, it is still a brilliant testament to how the best horror takes our real-life anxieties and warps them into debilitating nightmares. Heed the trigger warnings beforehand, but absolutely go see it if you can!

The Universal Monsters brand! We live in such idiotic times. Are married women everywhere really plotting to get out?

The Sheryl Sanders role model meets Captain Capitalism

Feminism has its mighty grip on our culture and will not let go any time soon. This began from an Instapundit post on Sheryl Sandberg gives awful advice to women. Follow it at your peril and the following, from Captain Capitalism, was quoted in one of the comments.

Dear Ms. Venker,

I skimmed your piece in the Washington Examiner because I already knew what it was going to say; just wanted to make sure.  And sure enough it said what I thought it would.

Women are not men.
We’re supposed to compliment each other.
We are not adversaries.
Leave the proposing to men.
Feminism has ruined women and made them miserable.
Insert examples of miserable women here.

Blah blah blah.

But may I ask you to entertain a new approach?  One that might be more effective in convincing future women that feminism is not the way?  And one that will be less frustrating than merely saying “Sheryl Sandberg bad.”

Leave Sheryl Sandberg alone.
Leave the women who follow her advice alone.
Matter of fact encourage them, or just not bother with them at all.

And the reasons for this approach are many.

First, you are not going to convince any woman today to abandon feminism and go with traditionalism.  You yourself provided several examples of what I can only imagine to be middle aged women with children and careers who are facing problems in their marriages.  Do you think at that age and with that much infrastructure invested in a non-traditional life they can just uproot all of that midstride and in a flip of a switch go to a traditional 1950’s nuclear family?  Additionally, it doesn’t sound like they’re abandoning their roles, just complaining about them.  And these are women who have a receptive ear to traditionalism.  Traditionalism just not powerful enough to override their entire life’s investment they’ve made in feminism or the buyer’s remorse they most certainly have.  You’ve cured no one (or at least very few).

Second, do you think your article, along with every traditionalist argument made in the past 30 years even holds a candle to the trillions of dollars and billions of human hours that have been invested in now-three generations of women to follow a feminist life philosophy?  This isn’t to say you’re wrong.  You are factually right.  But did you have all young women’s ears from K-thru-college?  Did you control the media?  Do you have a best selling book like Ms. Sandberg?  And do you control academia?  For every hour (if an hour at all) a mom taught her daughter about being a good mother or wife, supporting her man, staying svelte and beautiful, etc., there were at least a thousand hours of feminist counter-propaganda installed in young women’s minds.  And to give you an example of how out gunned and out-spent traditionalists are compared to feminists I’ve provided an infographic below.

Third, do you really think women are going to listen to you?  I can completely sympathize with you and your goal to offer women an alternative to the feminist lifestyle they’ve had forced on them.  I understand the moral, noble intention you have to provide a solution or at least an option to women who are not happy with their love lives.  But take it from me dear, they won’t listen.  Humans are programmable automatons, not the “independent minded” sentient beings they fancy themselves to be.  And though I’m willing (and hopeful) to be proven wrong, I’m going to guess the success rate you’ve had of convincing women to become traditionalists are about the same as mine to get people to spend less than they make, eat less calories than they expend, and get young people to stop majoring in stupid shit.  Zero. Which then behooves the question for you as to whether or not you want to put yourself through this banging-your-head-against-the-wall-torture.

Finally, there is also a nuanced, esoteric argument to be made about balance, karma, and universal equilibrium.  Do these women, after decades of feminism, outsourcing their kids to daycare, putting their careers above humans, things above love, deserve to “be saved?”  Do they deserve to find “happiness” and “love?”  I personally don’t believe any of them will be convinced of the merits of a traditional life/relationship, making this question moot.  But what I am trying to do is make you question your own (albeit moral, noble, and well-intended) incentives.  How many of these women simply loved their careers more than their children or husbands?  How many of these women valued a corner office or a fancy title more than human interaction?  How many of these women in the past probably turned down perfectly good men that would have otherwise made great husbands, all for an unanchored religion like feminism?  And how many of them were just plain mean and unfeminine in the past to men?

Though noble, your goal is not only impractical, but is getting in the way of universal karma that is going to be delivered anyway.  There is nothing you can do to stop it.  The only person you can save is yourself.  So please, let women have what they want.  Let women have what they choose.  Treat women as equals and let them make their own choices in life.  But above all else, truly treat them as equals in letting them reap the costs and consequences of those choices.  And perhaps then you may find some solace in learning to “Enjoy the Decline.”


Aaron Clarey

But they’re nicer so why complain?

From Males Are Faring Much Worse Than Females: Busting the Myth of Male Privilege in a Single Chart.

The chart originates here. These are listed in the post:

4. There are hundreds of single-sex, girl-only summer (and other) STEM programs at universities all over the country that illegally discriminate against boys in violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination, including sex discrimination against males. More than 70 of those programs are currently being challenged for violating Title IX and more than 30 programs are now subject to federal investigations for civil rights violations. At least six of those programs have either been discontinued, supplemented with boy-only programs, or converted to co-ed programs open to students of all gender identities.

5. Multiple single-sex, girl-only computer science and STEM organizations that exclude boys including Girls Who CodeLatina Girls CodeBlack Girls CodeTechbridge Girls, and Project Scientist. Some of those programs are currently being legally challenged with complaints to the Office for Civil Rights when those programs are hosted on the campus of a university that receives federal financial assistance and is therefore required to enforce Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination.

6. There are Women in Science and Engineering (WiSE and similar names) departments or units at most major universities like the University of MichiganRochester Institute of TechnologySyracuse University. and Georgia Tech. There isn’t a single “Men in Science and Engineering” program in the country, and there are no “Men in Nursing” or “Men in Education” programs that address the under-representation of men in those academic fields.

Of course, there’s this as well: Why do women feel horrible about feminism? which comes with the sub-heading: “How did a movement that has achieved so much become so absurd and so vicious?” Here is one of the achievements which will help you gauge where this article is coming from.Greta Thunberg speaks during the UN Climate Action Summit in September. Picture: AFP

This month Time magazine named a 16-year-old girl as its Person of the Year. Again, you don’t have to like her. You may think her misguided. But Greta Thunberg is captain of a movement that seeks to change the whole world. She did not, as many expected, receive the Nobel Peace Prize, but Malala Yousafzai did in 2014 for standing up for girls’ education; and Nadia Murad did last year for her campaign against sexual violence.

Her final para is definitive:

Maybe we disagree now, as women, about the way forward, but do we really? Forward is the way forward. It has ­always been that way.

What could be clearer than that?

The Birth of Feminism

And then there is this to supplement the video: Feminism as Gender Terrorism: The Mortal Vendetta Against the Male Sex. All part of the death of freedom. Here’s the footnote which will have particular relevance to Australians:

Eltahawy might have had a stronger argument against Muslim men, as she did in Headscarves and Hymens, where she went to town against Islamic “personal status laws…where religious and conservative men shore up their control over women’s lives.” In 2011 Eltahawy was savagely beaten by the Egyptian riot police in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, where she was demonstrating against Hosni Mubarak’s autocratic rule. Repressive as it may have been, Mubarak’s government gave women more rights than the Muslim Brotherhood’s regime of Mohamed Morsi that would succeed it. In any event, Eltahawy’s campaign against male brutality in general is blatantly exaggerated; she is, after all, no longer living in an Islamic theocracy.

Here’s all that’s left of that toxic Q&A.

Giving geniuses a place in which they can attempt to solve their problems

Now here’s a question: Are Women Destroying Academia?. In amongst the text we find this as part of the answer:

In order to calmly debate all ideas, you need to put emotion aside. But females are simply less able to do that than males because they are higher in Neuroticism—feeling negative feelings strongly. Thus, they more easily become overwhelmed by negative feelings, precluding them from logical thought. (Data on personality traits is drawn from Personality, by Daniel Nettle, 2007).

Similarly, new ideas, or being contradicted, will likely upset some people. But, in the pursuit of academic debate, you have to ignore this and calmly present both sides. However, this is more difficult for females, because they are more sympathetic, meaning that “not hurting people’s feelings” can become their highest ideal. Higher in Conscientiousness (“rule-following”) and lower in intellectual curiosity than males, females are also more conformist. This means they are less able to understand that, in academia, the truth is ever more closely reached by being non-conformist—by questioning the current “truth.”

Thus, argues DeGroot, female domination of academia will seriously damage academia as a place where ideas can be seriously debated.

Ed Dutton, in a video entitled “Do Female Reduce Male Per Capita Genius?” takes this critique of feminism even further. He argues that geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness. This means they are clever enough to solve a difficult problem, but being low in rule-following, can also “think outside the box,”. And, being low in Agreeableness, they don’t care about offending people, which original ideas always do.

An aspect of Agreeableness is empathy—being concerned with the feelings of others and being able to guess what they might be. Dutton shows that people who are high in “systematizing” (which males typically are compared to females, with systematizing being vital to problem solving) tend to be low in empathy. Thus, Dutton argues, you don’t get many women geniuses because their IQ range is more bunched towards the mean; and also because they are too high in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.

Universities, traditionally dominated by males, have in essence been about giving geniuses a place in which they can attempt to solve their problems, working at their chosen problems for years on end. But Dutton argues that female academics tend to be the “Head Girl Type” (chief prefect at all-girls schools in the UK) with “normal range” high IQ and high in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness—the exact opposite of a typical genius. Accordingly, once you allow females into academia, they will be promoted over genius males because they come across as better people to work with—more conscientious, easier to be around and more socially skilled. But this will tend to deny geniuses the place of nurture they need.

As females come to dominate, the culture of academia will feminize. High in Conscientiousness, women will create a rule-governed bureaucracy where research occurs through incremental steps and a certain number of publications must be presented every few years, rather than through genius breakthroughs. But geniuses typically work on huge problems for years. So this bureaucracy will make it impossible for them to do this and keep their jobs.

Women will also create a culture of co-operative “research groups,” anathema to the kind of anti-social loners who tend towards genius. And females will, of course, tend to create an atmosphere of emotion and empathy, the enemy of the unemotional, coldly systematic style of the genius—and, traditionally, of academia.

In this atmosphere, “not causing offence” will become much more important. But genius breakthroughs are only made, ultimately, by causing offence.

Women’s oppression in the modern West

At the start of the day I came across this: Junk Science and the Feminist Manipulation Agenda: Part 1. This was how the article began:

In his tearjerker Aug. 19 article in The New York Times, “How Sexism Follows Women From the Cradle to the Workplace,” Jim Tankersley provides a rich example of how fake news functions in tandem with junk science to vilify traditional gender norms, which, if only the cultural elite can have their way, shall be unthinkable for all “respectable people.” Both Tankersley himself and the scholars he cites display profound irresponsibility where epistemic rigor and contextual understanding are in order. This, of course, is only to be expected, for the primary goal here is Power—Power culminating in the road to serfdom—not excellent work.

There was then this: Today’s men are paying for the sins of their sexist fathers taken from The Financial Times of all places! The core point, which is the final para:

I suspect the more that is done to make life easier for working women, the better it will be for everyone. Until then, I like to think the only people who should really worry about the push for gender equality are dopey men. They have long been the big winners from discrimination. If a few miss out in future, that is something I will find easy to justify.

Finally I came across this at the end of the day: Doctor Tells Truth About Gender Pay Gap In Medicine. Then He Was Forced To Apologize. And what was this awful truth?

“Female physicians do not work as hard and do not see as many patients as male physicians. This is because they choose to, or they simply don’t want to be rushed, or they don’t want to work the long hours. Most of the time, their priority is something else … family, social, whatever,” Tigges told the Journal. “Nothing needs to be ‘done’ about this unless female physicians actually want to work harder and put in the hours. If not, they should be paid less. That is fair.”

To say that “female doctors work fewer hours because they prioritize their children” is a modern wrong-thought for which recantation and repentance are mandatory, even if it’s true.

AND THIS JUST IN: From The Campus Review:

Julia Gillard with Curtin University vice-chancellor Professor Deborah Terry, who recently awarded the ex-PM an Honorary Doctorate of Letters. Photo: Curtin

Gillard talks ‘glass labyrinth’ at uni lecture

The move towards gender equality in leadership positions is occurring at a “glacial” pace, former prime minister Julia Gillard says.

Gillard says problems remain across politics, business and in the media with women still having to contend with stereotypes that they are less interested or adapted to leadership roles.

She says across the globe women currently account for 23 per of national parliamentarians, 26 per cent of news media leaders, 27 per cent of judges, 15 per cent of corporate board members and 24 per cent of senior managers.

“Now, if we were seeing a fast rate of change in the statistics I cited then there would be nothing wrong with sitting back and waiting to wake up in a more equal world,” Gillard said in a lecture at the University of Adelaide on Tuesday. “But the rate of change is glacial.

“For example, the number of women in senior management globally has risen just one percentage point in 10 years.

“In politics, at the current rate of progress, it will take another half-century to reach parity with men.”

The former PM said it was equally troubling that any gains made could also be reversed, citing the slump in the representation of women in the current US cabinet under President Donald Trump.

And continues thereafter, found at the link.



Men Pay $895 at ‘Male Feminism Camp’ to Cope With Their Own Toxicity

“If manhood was a texture…”

Are you a man? Are you confused by rapidly changing social norms on matters of sexuality and gender? Are you scared you might find yourself on the wrong side of the #MeToo revolution?

Fear not.

For $895 you could have secured yourself a place in this summer’s “Women Teach Men” wellness retreat in the scenically mountainous town of Ojai, California.

“If manhood was a texture,” quizzes an Instagram post by the official event account. “What would it be? How does it feel? Can it change?”

Are 900 bucks (not including travel) more than you can afford to spend on a single weekend  at at the 5-star Ojai Valley Inn, but you are still perturbed by the toxicity of your own masculinity?

Fear not.