October 21, 2025 • 35 mins
Hour 2 of A&G features...
- The Great Feminism of America
- The Great Feminism of America continued
- The Great Feminism of America & something you'll remember for life
- Sora AI videos!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Getty
and he Armstrong and Getty. We'll get this.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Wikipedia said that traffic to their site is falling because
people are using AI instead. That AI said the same
thing slightly reworded it inside of them as the sourse.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
It's pretty clever. Actually, that's pretty clever. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
So the way we see our jobs around here, speak
for myself is yeah, we bring you news of the
day and our thoughts, but we're also curators of, you know, ideas.
That's the most fun part of the job for me
is reading all day long and trying to find the
best ideas and bring them to you. Sometimes there are
sometimes they're not. And I came across you describe our jobs.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
I'm more of a lavishly paid to blather on barely
knowing what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Oh, that's your special charm. I came across this great
piece by author Helen Andrews, and a number of our
Morris student listeners have centered along saying in SNMG, have
you guys seen this? And it's a little longer than
something we would generally read to you. But it is
so good and I think so important, it's worth it.
(01:30):
It's entitled The Great Feminization. And here's a disclaimer real quickly, because,
as you know, a happily married guy who I love
and respect, my wife, I have two daughters, my mom
is a saint.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Women and women womanhood are essential to the functioning of mankind.
I am a great believer in balance. People who ask
me about politics, I always tell them, Look, I'm a
really conservative conservative, but I believe we need navy seals
and poets for society to work, for the world to work,
we need men and women, the masculine, the effeminate. That's
(02:05):
the way we're made by God or creation or whatever.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Having said that, The Great Feminization, Helen Andrews and Jack
obviously dive in whenever you want. In twenty nineteen, she writes,
I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that
changed the way I.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Look at the world.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
The author argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as
president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture.
We talked a lot at the time. Oh yeah, the
entire and she explains exactly what happened. If you're trying
to remember what happened, the entire woke era could be
extrapolated from that moment. From the details of how Summers
was canceled and most of all, who did the canceling women,
(02:43):
The basic facts of the Summer's case are familiar. January fourteenth,
twenty oh five, at a conference on diversifying the science
and engineering workforce, Larry Summers gave a talk that was
supposed to be off the record. In it, he said
that female under representation and hard sciences was partly due
to quote different availability of aptitude at the high end,
as well as taste difference as preferences between men and
(03:05):
women not attributable to socialization, meaning dudes just tend to xxct.
Some female professors and attendants were offended and sent his
remarks to a reporter in defiance of the off the
record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no confidence
vote by the Harvard faculty and eventually Summer's resignation. The
essay argued that it wasn't just that women had canceled
(03:27):
the president of Harvard, it was that they'd canceled him
in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather
than logical arguments.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
When he started talking about innate differences and aptitudes between
men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind
of bias makes me physically ill. Oh my God, said
Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another,
and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time.
Experts chimed in to declare that everything Somers had said
about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational
appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria. This cancelation
was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancelations are feminine.
(04:09):
Cancel culture is simply what women do when there are
enough of them in a given organization or field. That
is the great feminization thesis, which the same author later
elaborated on at book length. Everything you think of as
wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Like where this is I? Like where this is going?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It
really did unlock the secrets of the era we were
living in now. Here's the point I disagree with. Wokeness
is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or
a result of post Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine
patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few
in number until recently.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
How did I not see it before?
Speaker 3 (04:54):
My disagreement with the Marxism point is that Michelle Foucaut,
who's really the godfather of critical theory and neo Marxism,
he understood human nature and he understood how making an
emotional moral argument could get people to ignore facts. That's
why they're so intent on getting you to say a
(05:15):
man can give birth to a baby, because if you
can be pried away from logic and rely on pure
emotion and what the crowd says you should say, then
they've gotcha. So this is not divorced from Marxism. It's
just another layer of it. But anyway, on with the essay.
(05:36):
Let's see then she mentions a couple of firsts people
think about the feminization of like the first woman to
attend law school in eighteen sixty nine, first woman to
argue before the Supreme Court in eighteen eighty, first female
Supreme Court Justice nineteen eighty one. But she says a
much more important tipping point is when law schools became
majority female, which occurred in twenty sixteen, or when law
(06:00):
firms associated became majority female, which occurred in twenty twenty three.
When Sandrade O'Connor was appointed to the High Court, only
five percent of judges were female. Today, women are thirty
three percent of the judges in America and sixty three
percent of the judges appointed by President Biden sixty three percent.
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions, pioneering
(06:22):
generations of women in the sixties and seventies, increasing female
representative representation through the eighties and nineties, and gender par
parody finally arriving in twenty tens or twenty twenties. For instance,
in nineteen seventy four, only ten percent of New York
Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became
majority female in twenty eighteen, and today the female share
is fifty five percent. Medical schools became majority female in
(06:46):
twenty nineteen. Women became a majority of the college educated
workforce nationwide. In twenty nineteen, women became a majority of
college instructors. In twenty twenty three. Women are not yet
a majority of the managers in America, but they might
be soon. They're now forty six percent. So the timing fits.
Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions
tip tip demographically from majority male to majority female. All right,
(07:09):
so what you're saying, here's here's what she means. The
substance fits too. Everything you think of wokeness involves prioritizing
the feminine over the masculine, empathy over rationality, safety over risk,
cohesion over competition. Give you a second to absorb that.
(07:30):
One hundred percent right, one hundred percent right, and one
hundred percent right.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Those are all real interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Other writers who proposed their own versions of the great
feminization thesis she drops a few names, who looked at
feminization's effect on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences
in political values. One survey, for instance, found that seventy
one percent of men said protecting free speech was more
important than preserving a cohesive society.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Whatever that means.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Seventy one percent of men, sixty percent of women said
the opposite.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
That doesn't surprise me, and as a for some reason
it popped into my head. You was talking about how
when women got involved in youth sports, how it changed.
Then we got uniforms at every age, and lots of
team pictures, and lots of ceremonies, ceremonies and not yah
yeah anyway.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And then she issues a disclaimer which probably isn't necessary.
But the most relevant differences are not about individuals but
about groups. Yes, an individual woman might be taller than
an individual man, but a group of ten random women
is very unlikely to have an average height greater than
that of ten men. The larger the group of people,
the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
(08:41):
So again, you independent thinking, free speech loving women out there,
it's not about you. It's not about individuals, it's about
in large groups, tendencies become more and more true anyway.
The female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men and
order each other around, But women can only suggest and persuade.
(09:03):
Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it is absolutely to
be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments.
The outcome of a discussion is less important than the
fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.
The most important sex difference. The most important sex difference
in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men
(09:25):
wage conflict openly, while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Any ladies like to disagree with that, Katie, feel free
to jump in if you like. Okay, do women that
ostracize their enemies as opposed to confronting them openly and saying, hey,
we have a problem. We need to settle this.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Yeah, without a doubt.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Barry Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New
York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal
slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot.
And this is the most feminine part quote. Colleague perceived
to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Oh, she said her resignation.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Wow, Weiss wants asked to colleague at the Times opinion
desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial
woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This
was a failure to meet the basic standards of professionalism.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Obviously, it was also very feminine.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women and
wokeness was in many ways a society wide failure to compartmentalize.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Listen to this. This is another blockbuster point.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political
issues of the day, but he would regard it as
his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the
examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors
wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
From gay rights to gaza.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear
on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter
protests could continue in violation to COVID lockdowns because racism
was a public health emergency.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
You're nodding your head, Kati.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
You've been in a hospital situations a lot more than
us lately.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
You've seen that.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
Oh yeah, I've seen it. You know the little lanyards
where they it's like their key to the doors. They
all have the different little trinkets with you know, rainbows,
and I saw Palestinian flag recently.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Yeah, dudes wouldn't have done that. Now, one more note
and then we will take a break. One book that
helped me put together. The pieces was Warriors and Warriors
the Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Beninson.
Practically all of the scientists cited in this article or women.
By the way, it's worth pointing out. I think she
theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while
(11:40):
women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits,
formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in
modern psychology labs in a study that Barrison sites, observe
that a group of men given a task will quote,
jockey for talking time, disagree loudly, and then cheerfully relate
a solution to the experimenter. A group of women given
(12:03):
the same task will quote politely inquire about one another's
personal background and relationships, accompanied by much eye contact, smiling,
and turn taking, and pay quote little attention to the
task that the experimenter presented. The point of war is
to settle disputes between two tribes, but it only works
if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men
(12:26):
therefore develop methods for reconciling with the proment opponents and
learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females,
even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males.
That is because women's conflicts were traditionally within the tribe
or scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict,
but by covert competition with rivals with no clear end.
(12:50):
All of these observations match my observations of wokeness, but
soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually
gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is
the result of the greate feminization, then the eruption of
insanity in twenty twenty was just a small taste of
what the future holds. Imagine what will happen is the
remaining men age out of these society shaping professions and
the younger, more feminized generations take full control.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
That's what I'm always saying that when we're all dead
who remember the before times, there won't be anybody around
to say, hey, it didn't used to be like this.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Let's take a quick break, then plunge on with this
because it trusts me, just keeps getting more interesting.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
That is really interesting. Cool.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
I will stay right here, and he thoughts text line
four one five two nine five kftcarrong. Hey, let's Trump
doing with that toll ballroom thing he's building there at
the White House? Is he knocking down parts of the
White House that are historic? That's a question that's out there,
and I don't actually know the answer to it. We'll
dig into that later, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yep, we're working our way through an unbelievably interesting and
persuasive thought piece by Helen Andrews, the Great Feminization. If
you didn't hear the first chunk, circle back, grab the
podcast Armstrong and Giddy on demand. Our two of today's show,
plunging on the point being when institutions become unbalanced and
(14:08):
too heavily feminized, they function in a very woke way.
And again, if you didn't hear it, circle back. The
threat posed by wokeness can be large or small, depending
on the industry. She mentions, if your English department is feminized,
who cares? But the New York Times, for instance, often
determines what's publicly accepted as the truth, and that affects
(14:30):
every citizens agree.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
With that completely Based on things I've read from Harold
Bloom of Yale about how English departments got so woke
they no longer teach Shakespeare other than how you know,
sexist he was and everything like that.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah, I would agree. I think she understates that problem.
But anyway, she says, the field that frightens me most
is the law. All of us depend on a functioning
legal system, and it'd be blunt. The rule of law
will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The
rule of laws not just about writing rules down. It
means following them even they yield an outcome that tugs
at your heart strings or runs contrary to your gut
(15:04):
sense of which party is more sympathetic. Then she describes
the infamous Title nine courts for sexual assault under Obama,
how you didn't get to confront your accuser. The standard
rules of evidence were thrown out. It was just if
the gut feeling was that you were guilty. You were
thrown out of college as a guy. And she says
these two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the
(15:25):
Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that if
Christine Blasi Ford can't provide any concrete evidence that she
and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her
accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life.
The feminine position was that her self evident emotional response
was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate Committee
must respect.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
That's the way it was portrayed.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Yeah, if the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect
to see the ethos of the Title nine tribunals. Tribunals
and the Kavanaugh hearing spread. Judges will bend the rules
for favored groups, and we're already seeing that forced them
rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent.
It was possible to believe back in the nineteen seventy
that introducing women in the legal profession in large numbers
(16:09):
would have only a minor effect. That belief is no
longer sustainable. The changes will be massive. Who Oddly enough,
both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those
changes will be. The only disagreement is to whether they'll
be good or bad. And she cites a left wing
book about Lady Justice, The Battle to Save America, with
(16:30):
a scene from the Supreme Court in twenty sixteen during
oral arguments over Texas abortion law. The three female justices, Ginsburg, Sodoma,
arnkeg and Quote ignored the formal time limits, talking exuberantly
over their male colleagues. Lithwick, the author, celebrated this as
an explosion of bottled up judicial girl power that afforded
America a glimpse of what genuine gender parody might have
(16:51):
meant for future women in powerful American legal institutions. She
lauds the women for their reverend attitude to the laws formalities.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
So the next.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Part when we come back contains my favorite line. You
will remember it for the rest of your life, no kidding.
The feminization of America and what's wrong with it?
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Stay with us Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Mass shooting avoided at the busiest import in America.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Thank god.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
We've got the footage of when police encountered the guy
before he was able to shoot a bunch of people.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
It's pretty danged interesting. We'll get to that a little later.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
So we've been working our way through an absolutely brilliant
and eye opening essay by the author Helen Andrews, called
The Great Feminization. If you are just tuning in, just
jumping in, I encourage you to grab the podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand and circle back to the beginning.
And again, this is not about what's wrong with women.
It's about what's so important about balance between men and women,
(17:56):
because men and women are very different, just speaking in
general generalities, in ways that she has described. Continuing on
with the essay, the great feminization is truly unprecedented. Other
civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights,
let them inherit the thrones of empires, But no civilization
in human history has ever experimented with letting women control
so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties
(18:19):
to universities to our largest business.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
That's an excellent point.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Even where women do not hold the top spots, women
set the tone in these organizations such that a male
CEO must operate within the limits set by a human
resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to
function under these completely novel circumstances.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
But what are our.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
Grounds for that assumption. The problem is not that women
are less talented than men, or even that female modes
of interaction are inferior in.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Any objective sense.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
The problem is that female modes of interaction are not
well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.
You can have an academia that is majority female, but
it will be as majority female departments in today's universities
already are oriented toward other goals than open debate and
the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn't
pursue truth, what good is it? And if your journalists
(19:08):
aren't prickly individualists who don't mind alienating people, what good
are they?
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Okay, if a.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Business one more, If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit
and becomes a feminized, inward focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
Speaker 4 (19:21):
She doesn't want to say it, You're not gonna say it.
I'll say it.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I'm already single, but I can't do myself any harm.
It's possible.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
You can't run a world where women are in charge
of any organizations, not any organizations, lots of organizations.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
It's just possible that it will not work.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Right right, And we're working up to my favorite line
of all that I will remember for the rest of
my life. If the great feminization poses a threat to civilization,
the question becomes whether it's anything we can do about it?
The answer depends on why you think it occurred in
the first place. There are many people who think that
the Great feminization is naturally occurring. Women were finally given
a chance to compete with men, and it turned out
they were just That is why there are so many
(20:01):
women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, et cetera.
And Ross doth that too. I generally like describe that
length that sort of thinking. He said, this is just
a long male wine about a failure to adequately compete.
Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on
the ground that we have in twenty first century America.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Now the ground is shifted, dude.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, yeah, I appreciate the counter argument, because it's always
handy when you're trying to assess an idea. But that
is what feminists think is happening, she writes. But they
are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women
out competing men. It is an artificial result of social engineering.
And if we take our thumb off the scale, it
will collapse within a generation. The most obvious thumb on
(20:42):
the scale, excuse me, is anti discrimination law. It is
illegal to employ too few women at your company. If
women are underrepresented especially in your higher management. That is
a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give
women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten,
simply in order to keep their numbers up.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
It's rational for them to.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Do this because the consequences for failing to do so
can be dire. And she mentions a bunch of nine
figure settlements. That's hundreds of millions of dollars, and how
no manager wants that to happen on their watch. Anti
discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. Now Here,
we're leading up to my favorite line. A landmark case
in nineteen ninety one found that pin up posters on
(21:23):
the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women,
and that principle. That principle has grown to accompass many
forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have
been hit with lawsuits alleging quote frat boy culture or
toxic bro culture, and a law firm specializing in these
suits brags of settlements ranging from four hundred and fifty
(21:43):
thousand dollars to eight million dollars.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Women can here, it is.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that
feels like a fraternity house, but men cannot sue when
their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
That's really good.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
And you know what, a lot of workplaces do look
like feel like a Montessori kindergarten.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Naturally, employers err on the side of making the office softer.
So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace,
is that really because they're out competing men?
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Or is it because the rules have been changing to
favor them?
Speaker 5 (22:18):
That's what I said. The ground is shifted man right, right, yep.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
A lot can be a fur inferred from the way
that feminizations tend to increase over time. Once institutions reach
a fifty to fifty split, they tend to blow past
gender parody and become more and more female. And she
mentions that in eight years, law schools went from fifty
to fifty to fifty six percent. Psychology, once predominantly a
male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with seventy five percent
(22:44):
of psychology doctorate's going to women. That does not look
like women out performing men. It looks like women driving
men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
I can't.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
By the way, I would never argue that all men
is a good idea.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
No, that's an assilly idea. No, no, no, Uh what man?
One more quick point?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
What man wants to work in a field where his
traits are not welcomed? What self respecting male graduate student
we're pursuit would pursue a career in academia when his
peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly
or espousing a controversial opinion.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
I can't imagine what would be like a dude to
be in psychology grad school. Oh my god, you just
have to keep your mouth shut about everything. But you know,
you can take this down to lower level for boys
in you know, grade school, in high school. You got
to fit in with the Montessori kindergarten attitude.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Right, Acting like a boy is toxic and that's misbehavior.
Having boundless energy and needing to run around is misbehavior
according to our school systems. Don't get me started. I
could go on forever anyway. Final part, Now, it's good
that people. Oh, she mentions the great reception she's gotten
to these ideas, to the point.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
That it's shocked her.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
It's good that people are saying to the argument, because
our window to do something about the great feminization is closing.
There are leading indicators and lagging indicators of feminization. We
are currently at the in between stage where law schools
are majority female but the federal bench is still majority male.
In a few decades, the gender shift will have reached
its natural conclusion. Many people think wokeness is over, slain
by the vibeeshipt shift. But if wokeness is the result
(24:21):
of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as
long as the demographics remain unchanged. And I would say,
you know, young females these days are so radically leftists,
it'll be even worse. We simply have to restore fair rules.
Right now, we have a nominally meritocratic system in which
it is illegal for women to lose. Let's make hiring
(24:42):
meritigratic in substance and not just name. We'll see how
it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine
office culture again. Remove the hr lady's veto power. I
think people will be surprised to discover how much of
our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes. Like the
advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes,
in which legal changes can reverse. I've got an article
(25:03):
about a speaker being disinvited to an HR conference because
he dared challenge the woke conventional wisdom in HR. She writes,
because after all, I am not just a woman. I
am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions who
will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more
conflict averse and consensus driven. I am the mother of
sons who will never reach their full potential if they
(25:26):
have to grow up in a feminized world. I am
We all are dependent on institutions like the legal system,
scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way
of life, and we will all suffer if they cease
to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Yeah, that is really really interesting. I'm not optimistic about
this turning around. And the United States doesn't get to
live in a vacuum either. So you can talk about
just our domestic culture and how it might not be
fair to men or boys in the future and this
and that, but we have to compete with other countries
(26:04):
and China ain't worried about this crap all right, and
the male dominated culture will take over.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Oh yeah, it'll obliterate the female dominated culture. The problem
with all this, and getting back to my point that
it absolutely is tied to neo Marxism, even though Helen
Andrews says she doesn't think it is, is that Marxism
is by its nature like collaborativeness enforced at the point
(26:31):
of a gun, whereas more masculine culture in general is Hey,
if we haven't have a disagreement, we're gonna say so
out loud. We're gonna have it out in public and
figure out whose idea wins, or maybe we'll beat on
each other till one of us submits. That sort of
dissent is utterly forbidden in Marxism, just as in feminized cultures,
(26:56):
standing up and saying, for instance, look, only a woman
can give birth. I mean that is self evidently true.
No one can deny that you would be run out
of a profession for saying that if your professional's academia
or even law schools these days, and that ought to
scare you.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
Yeah, like I said, I'm not optimistic that this will
turn around.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
We will post a link to this The Great Feminization
by Helen Andrews at Armstrong and getty dot com. We'll
get it up in the next half hour or so.
You can grab it, share it, read it, think it,
live it, love it.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
While you were reading all that sort of stuff, I
was thinking of a couple of women I know who
would be they don't listen to this show because they
hate it so much. They would be spitting nails. I mean,
red faced angry about that. But I also know that's fine.
I also know they're wrong, They're completely wrong. I also
know a handful of woman who women women. I know
(27:53):
one woman in particular i'm thinking about. She's a woman
and she's got three daughters. Who agrees one hundred percent
with all that stuff.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Yeah, yeah, it's about balance and the male Sure, I
understand why we got to say that, and you might
be right, but I'm not sure that's true.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Well, no, it's I would.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Argue, I actually agree with you. I might just put
it a little differently. You must have the predominantly. This
is not about individuals. It's just a generalized assessment of
large groups, and the larger the group, the more the
tendency tends to be true. The male tendency is we
have to have rules that we follow even if they
(28:33):
make us sad. We have to allow dissent. We have
to be able to say I think you're wrong and
have it out. Fairness is important, but rules based fairness,
not emotional fairness.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
Well, you got to go back to the beginning of
this thing, and the whole Larry Summers thing, which they
uses the GRAMD zero for this patient zero of this
whole thing starting if you are the sort of person
I don't care if you're a man or a woman,
they would just tend to be a woman who thinks
that made sense. You can't run anything. And if you
believe that that was crazy, that a guy.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Just stating actual fact, demonstratable fact based into decidable, indisputable
facts is somehow wrong because it made people feel bad.
I mean, but if you agree with that, then you
can run things man or woman. You know, Margaret Thatcher,
you could come up with all kinds of examples people.
You know that, you know it wasn't exactly the feminization
(29:31):
problem even though she was a woman. But yeah, I mean,
you could just base it on that. Read every people's story.
People who think that made sense to put him out
of a Harvard I don't want you run in anything.
People who think that was wrong. Man or woman, you
can be in charge of stuff.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
The people who canceled Dry Summers and ran him out
of Harvard, even though what he said was when entirely
scientifically indisputable, would have been the very same people, and
a couple of them are scientists, and this irony is
too much for me. They would have absolutely been in
favor of executing Galileo or Copernicus for daring to make
(30:06):
everybody feel bad in questioning the status quo. And they
call themselves scientists.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Yeah, that is something that you quoted a biologist to
a scientist.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Yeah, you're a biologist.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
You've got a PhD in biology, and you're denying the
science of what Larry Summers said at Harvard, and he
should be fired.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
That's so crazy.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
When he started talking about innate differences between men and women,
I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes
me physically ill. Even though Summers made it utterly clear
what he was trying to say, this is tendencies among groups.
More men than women have this tendency. He was hounded
out of his job for that. That was the opening
(30:47):
battle in the wokeness.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
War or the beginning of the ending it out it
goes I guess, yeah, well I'm going to be the
Japanese soldier in the jungle twenty years after the war ended,
still squeezing off shots.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (31:04):
Oh man, that was really something. Again, you have any
comment on that, you should email. Probably be talking about
this tomorrow or text four one five nine five KFTC email.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
It's that small bag and I'm strong at getty dot com.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
There we go.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
A group of thieves broke into the Louver and sole
priceless Napoleon era jewels in.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
A seven minute daytime heist.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
It's not good when the yodur in that CBS has
better security than the Louver. Can I just get the
deal head to get a key from my manager.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Right now?
Speaker 2 (31:38):
The security guards are like, who forgot your ringdo bell?
Speaker 1 (31:41):
We did? Sometimes it's by that we don't know.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
It's also I'm not a big conspiracy guy, but George
Santos is released from prison on Friday and the Louver.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Gets robbed on Sunday. Coincidence side got so you think
they're going to get away? I don't know. I have
no idea.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
I have read that the most likely thing to happen
is they're going to break everything apart, sell the jewels,
which will be recut. There's a zillion dollar global jewel
theft industry, very well organized, operates in a bunch of
foreign countries.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Yeah, or whoever maybe hired them to.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Do that already had a buyer lined up, you know,
a Saudi prince or somebody who's perfectly fine with owning
something like that.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I mean, why wouldn't you just like rob a handful
of jewelry stores instead of the louver to get like
historical artifacts. What for the diamonds, get other diamonds.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Yeah, because they lose all their historical.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
Value once you start taking it all apart. But the
one piece or something had like two thousand diamonds in it.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Yeah, I know, amazing.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
A real quick note, if I might, The Great Feminization
Essay that we're just going over is under hot links
at Armstrong and getty dot com. Armstrong and getty dot com,
look for hot links the Great Feminization. It's right there,
Read it, share it, love it, shit it.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
So I'm watching this video.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
Have you spent any time on Sora or sending the
highlights from Sora. That's the new social media app that
is all AI. So everybody posts their best AI videos
on there, and then at the end of the day
I see like the top five of the day or whatever,
and they're often very funny. I mean, I realized some
of these would insult some of you. But it's an
Olympic fifty meter swimming race and Jesus is on the
(33:44):
block with all the other swimmers and they fire the
gun and then he just runs across the water and
gets there really quickly and then just stands there and
waits for the rest.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Of them to swim all and you say, that's artificial
intelligence did that.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
But it's so good.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
I was watching one yesterday from last night's Top five
of the day on Sora. It was Tupac and Hitler
caught in a tornado, which is an interesting idea, but
they were just there and like, look at this tornado
and running in the wind and everything like that.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Hitler Toomak and it looked as real as real.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
Also, like the other Olympic event I saw the other
day with these really really giantly obese men, like eight
hundred pound dudes running the four hundred meter around the
track and they're running really fast.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
One guy falls and rolls.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
The one play is this enormous cat rampaging through a
neighborhood and knocking over houses. It's just the sort of
thing that would have cost fifty dollars to make not that.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Many years ago.
Speaker 6 (34:43):
Yes, Katie, the only problem I'm having with it is
I'm seeing like certain animal videos and I'm having to
go back and research if they're real or not.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
Yeah, right, because it's really good, all right, Can we
please set ourselves a limit of I will check this
three times, and then I read books.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
I will read long form think pieces. I will not.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Become an addict to Sora's Top five, although if you
can go through them like five minutes a day, if
you can stop there, though, it's like eating potato chicks.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
See.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
That's the thing. That's the reason I say it. I'm
saying it to me is I'm thinking, oh, I really
want to do that. Wait a minute, Wait a minute,
read a book.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
No you're here, Michael, my kids heard you. Didn't said
the same thing. No, Armstrong and Getty
Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio the George
Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, Armstrong and Getty
and he Armstrong and Getty. We'll get this.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Wikipedia said that traffic to their site is falling because
people are using AI instead. That AI said the same
thing slightly reworded it inside of them as the sourse.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
It's pretty clever. Actually, that's pretty clever. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (00:39):
So the way we see our jobs around here, speak
for myself is yeah, we bring you news of the
day and our thoughts, but we're also curators of, you know, ideas.
That's the most fun part of the job for me
is reading all day long and trying to find the
best ideas and bring them to you. Sometimes there are
sometimes they're not. And I came across you describe our jobs.
Speaker 4 (01:03):
I'm more of a lavishly paid to blather on barely
knowing what I'm talking about.
Speaker 3 (01:09):
Oh, that's your special charm. I came across this great
piece by author Helen Andrews, and a number of our
Morris student listeners have centered along saying in SNMG, have
you guys seen this? And it's a little longer than
something we would generally read to you. But it is
so good and I think so important, it's worth it.
(01:30):
It's entitled The Great Feminization. And here's a disclaimer real quickly, because,
as you know, a happily married guy who I love
and respect, my wife, I have two daughters, my mom
is a saint.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
Blah blah blah.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Women and women womanhood are essential to the functioning of mankind.
I am a great believer in balance. People who ask
me about politics, I always tell them, Look, I'm a
really conservative conservative, but I believe we need navy seals
and poets for society to work, for the world to work,
we need men and women, the masculine, the effeminate. That's
(02:05):
the way we're made by God or creation or whatever.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
Anyway.
Speaker 3 (02:09):
Having said that, The Great Feminization, Helen Andrews and Jack
obviously dive in whenever you want. In twenty nineteen, she writes,
I read an article about Larry Summers and Harvard that
changed the way I.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Look at the world.
Speaker 3 (02:22):
The author argued that the day Larry Summers resigned as
president of Harvard University marked a turning point in our culture.
We talked a lot at the time. Oh yeah, the
entire and she explains exactly what happened. If you're trying
to remember what happened, the entire woke era could be
extrapolated from that moment. From the details of how Summers
was canceled and most of all, who did the canceling women,
(02:43):
The basic facts of the Summer's case are familiar. January fourteenth,
twenty oh five, at a conference on diversifying the science
and engineering workforce, Larry Summers gave a talk that was
supposed to be off the record. In it, he said
that female under representation and hard sciences was partly due
to quote different availability of aptitude at the high end,
as well as taste difference as preferences between men and
(03:05):
women not attributable to socialization, meaning dudes just tend to xxct.
Some female professors and attendants were offended and sent his
remarks to a reporter in defiance of the off the
record rule. The ensuing scandal led to a no confidence
vote by the Harvard faculty and eventually Summer's resignation. The
essay argued that it wasn't just that women had canceled
(03:27):
the president of Harvard, it was that they'd canceled him
in a very feminine way. They made emotional appeals rather
than logical arguments.
Speaker 1 (03:34):
Quote.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
When he started talking about innate differences and aptitudes between
men and women, I just couldn't breathe because this kind
of bias makes me physically ill. Oh my God, said
Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT.
Speaker 5 (03:46):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (03:46):
Summers made a public statement clarifying his remarks, and then another,
and then a third, with the apology more insistent each time.
Experts chimed in to declare that everything Somers had said
about sex differences was within the scientific mainstream. These rational
appeals had no effect on the mob hysteria. This cancelation
was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancelations are feminine.
(04:09):
Cancel culture is simply what women do when there are
enough of them in a given organization or field. That
is the great feminization thesis, which the same author later
elaborated on at book length. Everything you think of as
wokeness is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Like where this is I? Like where this is going?
Speaker 3 (04:31):
The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It
really did unlock the secrets of the era we were
living in now. Here's the point I disagree with. Wokeness
is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or
a result of post Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine
patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few
in number until recently.
Speaker 1 (04:52):
How did I not see it before?
Speaker 3 (04:54):
My disagreement with the Marxism point is that Michelle Foucaut,
who's really the godfather of critical theory and neo Marxism,
he understood human nature and he understood how making an
emotional moral argument could get people to ignore facts. That's
why they're so intent on getting you to say a
(05:15):
man can give birth to a baby, because if you
can be pried away from logic and rely on pure
emotion and what the crowd says you should say, then
they've gotcha. So this is not divorced from Marxism. It's
just another layer of it. But anyway, on with the essay.
(05:36):
Let's see then she mentions a couple of firsts people
think about the feminization of like the first woman to
attend law school in eighteen sixty nine, first woman to
argue before the Supreme Court in eighteen eighty, first female
Supreme Court Justice nineteen eighty one. But she says a
much more important tipping point is when law schools became
majority female, which occurred in twenty sixteen, or when law
(06:00):
firms associated became majority female, which occurred in twenty twenty three.
When Sandrade O'Connor was appointed to the High Court, only
five percent of judges were female. Today, women are thirty
three percent of the judges in America and sixty three
percent of the judges appointed by President Biden sixty three percent.
The same trajectory can be seen in many professions, pioneering
(06:22):
generations of women in the sixties and seventies, increasing female
representative representation through the eighties and nineties, and gender par
parody finally arriving in twenty tens or twenty twenties. For instance,
in nineteen seventy four, only ten percent of New York
Times reporters were female. The New York Times staff became
majority female in twenty eighteen, and today the female share
is fifty five percent. Medical schools became majority female in
(06:46):
twenty nineteen. Women became a majority of the college educated
workforce nationwide. In twenty nineteen, women became a majority of
college instructors. In twenty twenty three. Women are not yet
a majority of the managers in America, but they might
be soon. They're now forty six percent. So the timing fits.
Wokeness arose around the same time that many important institutions
tip tip demographically from majority male to majority female. All right,
(07:09):
so what you're saying, here's here's what she means. The
substance fits too. Everything you think of wokeness involves prioritizing
the feminine over the masculine, empathy over rationality, safety over risk,
cohesion over competition. Give you a second to absorb that.
(07:30):
One hundred percent right, one hundred percent right, and one
hundred percent right.
Speaker 1 (07:33):
Those are all real interesting.
Speaker 3 (07:35):
Other writers who proposed their own versions of the great
feminization thesis she drops a few names, who looked at
feminization's effect on academia, offer survey data showing sex differences
in political values. One survey, for instance, found that seventy
one percent of men said protecting free speech was more
important than preserving a cohesive society.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Whatever that means.
Speaker 3 (07:56):
Seventy one percent of men, sixty percent of women said
the opposite.
Speaker 4 (08:00):
That doesn't surprise me, and as a for some reason
it popped into my head. You was talking about how
when women got involved in youth sports, how it changed.
Then we got uniforms at every age, and lots of
team pictures, and lots of ceremonies, ceremonies and not yah
yeah anyway.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
And then she issues a disclaimer which probably isn't necessary.
But the most relevant differences are not about individuals but
about groups. Yes, an individual woman might be taller than
an individual man, but a group of ten random women
is very unlikely to have an average height greater than
that of ten men. The larger the group of people,
the more likely it is to conform to statistical averages.
(08:41):
So again, you independent thinking, free speech loving women out there,
it's not about you. It's not about individuals, it's about
in large groups, tendencies become more and more true anyway.
The female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men and
order each other around, But women can only suggest and persuade.
(09:03):
Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it is absolutely to
be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments.
The outcome of a discussion is less important than the
fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it.
The most important sex difference. The most important sex difference
in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men
(09:25):
wage conflict openly, while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.
Any ladies like to disagree with that, Katie, feel free
to jump in if you like. Okay, do women that
ostracize their enemies as opposed to confronting them openly and saying, hey,
we have a problem. We need to settle this.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Yeah, without a doubt.
Speaker 3 (09:48):
Barry Weiss, in her letter of resignation from The New
York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal
slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot.
And this is the most feminine part quote. Colleague perceived
to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Speaker 1 (10:03):
Oh, she said her resignation.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Wow, Weiss wants asked to colleague at the Times opinion
desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial
woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This
was a failure to meet the basic standards of professionalism.
Speaker 1 (10:18):
Obviously, it was also very feminine.
Speaker 3 (10:21):
Men tend to be better at compartmentalizing than women and
wokeness was in many ways a society wide failure to compartmentalize.
Speaker 1 (10:29):
Listen to this. This is another blockbuster point.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
Traditionally, an individual doctor might have opinions on the political
issues of the day, but he would regard it as
his professional duty to keep those opinions out of the
examination room. Now that medicine has become more feminized, doctors
wear pins and lanyards expressing views on controversial issues.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
From gay rights to gaza.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
They even bring the credibility of their profession to bear
on political fads, as when doctors said Black Lives Matter
protests could continue in violation to COVID lockdowns because racism
was a public health emergency.
Speaker 1 (11:04):
You're nodding your head, Kati.
Speaker 4 (11:05):
You've been in a hospital situations a lot more than
us lately.
Speaker 1 (11:08):
You've seen that.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
Oh yeah, I've seen it. You know the little lanyards
where they it's like their key to the doors. They
all have the different little trinkets with you know, rainbows,
and I saw Palestinian flag recently.
Speaker 3 (11:19):
Yeah, dudes wouldn't have done that. Now, one more note
and then we will take a break. One book that
helped me put together. The pieces was Warriors and Warriors
the Survival of the Sexes by psychology professor Joyce Beninson.
Practically all of the scientists cited in this article or women.
By the way, it's worth pointing out. I think she
theorizes that men developed group dynamics optimized for war, while
(11:40):
women developed group dynamics optimized for protecting their offspring. These habits,
formed in the mists of prehistory, explain why experimenters in
modern psychology labs in a study that Barrison sites, observe
that a group of men given a task will quote,
jockey for talking time, disagree loudly, and then cheerfully relate
a solution to the experimenter. A group of women given
(12:03):
the same task will quote politely inquire about one another's
personal background and relationships, accompanied by much eye contact, smiling,
and turn taking, and pay quote little attention to the
task that the experimenter presented. The point of war is
to settle disputes between two tribes, but it only works
if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men
(12:26):
therefore develop methods for reconciling with the proment opponents and
learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday. Females,
even in primate species, are slower to reconcile than males.
That is because women's conflicts were traditionally within the tribe
or scarce resources, to be resolved not by open conflict,
but by covert competition with rivals with no clear end.
(12:50):
All of these observations match my observations of wokeness, but
soon the happy thrill of discovering a new theory eventually
gave way to a sinking feeling. If wokeness really is
the result of the greate feminization, then the eruption of
insanity in twenty twenty was just a small taste of
what the future holds. Imagine what will happen is the
remaining men age out of these society shaping professions and
the younger, more feminized generations take full control.
Speaker 4 (13:13):
That's what I'm always saying that when we're all dead
who remember the before times, there won't be anybody around
to say, hey, it didn't used to be like this.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
Let's take a quick break, then plunge on with this
because it trusts me, just keeps getting more interesting.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
That is really interesting. Cool.
Speaker 4 (13:28):
I will stay right here, and he thoughts text line
four one five two nine five kftcarrong. Hey, let's Trump
doing with that toll ballroom thing he's building there at
the White House? Is he knocking down parts of the
White House that are historic? That's a question that's out there,
and I don't actually know the answer to it. We'll
dig into that later, we'll talk about it.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
Yep, we're working our way through an unbelievably interesting and
persuasive thought piece by Helen Andrews, the Great Feminization. If
you didn't hear the first chunk, circle back, grab the
podcast Armstrong and Giddy on demand. Our two of today's show,
plunging on the point being when institutions become unbalanced and
(14:08):
too heavily feminized, they function in a very woke way.
And again, if you didn't hear it, circle back. The
threat posed by wokeness can be large or small, depending
on the industry. She mentions, if your English department is feminized,
who cares? But the New York Times, for instance, often
determines what's publicly accepted as the truth, and that affects
(14:30):
every citizens agree.
Speaker 4 (14:32):
With that completely Based on things I've read from Harold
Bloom of Yale about how English departments got so woke
they no longer teach Shakespeare other than how you know,
sexist he was and everything like that.
Speaker 3 (14:43):
Yeah, I would agree. I think she understates that problem.
But anyway, she says, the field that frightens me most
is the law. All of us depend on a functioning
legal system, and it'd be blunt. The rule of law
will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The
rule of laws not just about writing rules down. It
means following them even they yield an outcome that tugs
at your heart strings or runs contrary to your gut
(15:04):
sense of which party is more sympathetic. Then she describes
the infamous Title nine courts for sexual assault under Obama,
how you didn't get to confront your accuser. The standard
rules of evidence were thrown out. It was just if
the gut feeling was that you were guilty. You were
thrown out of college as a guy. And she says
these two approaches to the law clashed vividly in the
(15:25):
Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings. The masculine position was that if
Christine Blasi Ford can't provide any concrete evidence that she
and Kavanaugh were ever in the same room together, her
accusations of rape cannot be allowed to ruin his life.
The feminine position was that her self evident emotional response
was itself a kind of credibility that the Senate Committee
must respect.
Speaker 1 (15:45):
That's the way it was portrayed.
Speaker 3 (15:47):
Yeah, if the legal profession becomes majority female, I expect
to see the ethos of the Title nine tribunals. Tribunals
and the Kavanaugh hearing spread. Judges will bend the rules
for favored groups, and we're already seeing that forced them
rigorously on disfavored groups, as already occurs to a worrying extent.
It was possible to believe back in the nineteen seventy
that introducing women in the legal profession in large numbers
(16:09):
would have only a minor effect. That belief is no
longer sustainable. The changes will be massive. Who Oddly enough,
both sides of the political spectrum agree on what those
changes will be. The only disagreement is to whether they'll
be good or bad. And she cites a left wing
book about Lady Justice, The Battle to Save America, with
(16:30):
a scene from the Supreme Court in twenty sixteen during
oral arguments over Texas abortion law. The three female justices, Ginsburg, Sodoma,
arnkeg and Quote ignored the formal time limits, talking exuberantly
over their male colleagues. Lithwick, the author, celebrated this as
an explosion of bottled up judicial girl power that afforded
America a glimpse of what genuine gender parody might have
(16:51):
meant for future women in powerful American legal institutions. She
lauds the women for their reverend attitude to the laws formalities.
Speaker 5 (17:00):
Wow.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
So the next.
Speaker 3 (17:03):
Part when we come back contains my favorite line. You
will remember it for the rest of your life, no kidding.
The feminization of America and what's wrong with it?
Speaker 1 (17:13):
Stay with us Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 4 (17:17):
Mass shooting avoided at the busiest import in America.
Speaker 1 (17:20):
Thank god.
Speaker 4 (17:21):
We've got the footage of when police encountered the guy
before he was able to shoot a bunch of people.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
It's pretty danged interesting. We'll get to that a little later.
Speaker 3 (17:31):
So we've been working our way through an absolutely brilliant
and eye opening essay by the author Helen Andrews, called
The Great Feminization. If you are just tuning in, just
jumping in, I encourage you to grab the podcast Armstrong
and Getty on demand and circle back to the beginning.
And again, this is not about what's wrong with women.
It's about what's so important about balance between men and women,
(17:56):
because men and women are very different, just speaking in
general generalities, in ways that she has described. Continuing on
with the essay, the great feminization is truly unprecedented. Other
civilizations have given women the vote, granted them property rights,
let them inherit the thrones of empires, But no civilization
in human history has ever experimented with letting women control
so many vital institutions of our society, from political parties
(18:19):
to universities to our largest business.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
That's an excellent point.
Speaker 3 (18:23):
Even where women do not hold the top spots, women
set the tone in these organizations such that a male
CEO must operate within the limits set by a human
resources VP. We assume that these institutions will continue to
function under these completely novel circumstances.
Speaker 1 (18:37):
But what are our.
Speaker 3 (18:38):
Grounds for that assumption. The problem is not that women
are less talented than men, or even that female modes
of interaction are inferior in.
Speaker 1 (18:44):
Any objective sense.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
The problem is that female modes of interaction are not
well suited to accomplishing the goals of many major institutions.
You can have an academia that is majority female, but
it will be as majority female departments in today's universities
already are oriented toward other goals than open debate and
the unfettered pursuit of truth. And if your academia doesn't
pursue truth, what good is it? And if your journalists
(19:08):
aren't prickly individualists who don't mind alienating people, what good
are they?
Speaker 1 (19:13):
Okay, if a.
Speaker 3 (19:14):
Business one more, If a business loses its swashbuckling spirit
and becomes a feminized, inward focused bureaucracy, will it not stagnate?
Speaker 4 (19:21):
She doesn't want to say it, You're not gonna say it.
I'll say it.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I'm already single, but I can't do myself any harm.
It's possible.
Speaker 5 (19:28):
You can't run a world where women are in charge
of any organizations, not any organizations, lots of organizations.
Speaker 1 (19:36):
It's just possible that it will not work.
Speaker 3 (19:39):
Right right, And we're working up to my favorite line
of all that I will remember for the rest of
my life. If the great feminization poses a threat to civilization,
the question becomes whether it's anything we can do about it?
The answer depends on why you think it occurred in
the first place. There are many people who think that
the Great feminization is naturally occurring. Women were finally given
a chance to compete with men, and it turned out
they were just That is why there are so many
(20:01):
women in our newsrooms, running our political parties, et cetera.
And Ross doth that too. I generally like describe that
length that sort of thinking. He said, this is just
a long male wine about a failure to adequately compete.
Maybe you should suck it up and actually compete on
the ground that we have in twenty first century America.
Speaker 1 (20:18):
Now the ground is shifted, dude.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
Well, yeah, I appreciate the counter argument, because it's always
handy when you're trying to assess an idea. But that
is what feminists think is happening, she writes. But they
are wrong. Feminization is not an organic result of women
out competing men. It is an artificial result of social engineering.
And if we take our thumb off the scale, it
will collapse within a generation. The most obvious thumb on
(20:42):
the scale, excuse me, is anti discrimination law. It is
illegal to employ too few women at your company. If
women are underrepresented especially in your higher management. That is
a lawsuit waiting to happen. As a result, employers give
women jobs and promotions they would not otherwise have gotten,
simply in order to keep their numbers up.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
It's rational for them to.
Speaker 3 (21:01):
Do this because the consequences for failing to do so
can be dire. And she mentions a bunch of nine
figure settlements. That's hundreds of millions of dollars, and how
no manager wants that to happen on their watch. Anti
discrimination law requires that every workplace be feminized. Now Here,
we're leading up to my favorite line. A landmark case
in nineteen ninety one found that pin up posters on
(21:23):
the walls of a shipyard constituted a hostile environment for women,
and that principle. That principle has grown to accompass many
forms of masculine conduct. Dozens of Silicon Valley companies have
been hit with lawsuits alleging quote frat boy culture or
toxic bro culture, and a law firm specializing in these
suits brags of settlements ranging from four hundred and fifty
(21:43):
thousand dollars to eight million dollars.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
Women can here, it is.
Speaker 3 (21:48):
Women can sue their bosses for running a workplace that
feels like a fraternity house, but men cannot sue when
their workplace feels like a Montessori kindergarten.
Speaker 1 (22:01):
That's really good.
Speaker 4 (22:02):
And you know what, a lot of workplaces do look
like feel like a Montessori kindergarten.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Naturally, employers err on the side of making the office softer.
So if women are thriving more in the modern workplace,
is that really because they're out competing men?
Speaker 1 (22:16):
Or is it because the rules have been changing to
favor them?
Speaker 5 (22:18):
That's what I said. The ground is shifted man right, right, yep.
Speaker 3 (22:21):
A lot can be a fur inferred from the way
that feminizations tend to increase over time. Once institutions reach
a fifty to fifty split, they tend to blow past
gender parody and become more and more female. And she
mentions that in eight years, law schools went from fifty
to fifty to fifty six percent. Psychology, once predominantly a
male field, is now overwhelmingly female, with seventy five percent
(22:44):
of psychology doctorate's going to women. That does not look
like women out performing men. It looks like women driving
men away by imposing feminine norms on previously male institutions.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
I can't.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
By the way, I would never argue that all men
is a good idea.
Speaker 1 (22:58):
No, that's an assilly idea. No, no, no, Uh what man?
One more quick point?
Speaker 3 (23:03):
What man wants to work in a field where his
traits are not welcomed? What self respecting male graduate student
we're pursuit would pursue a career in academia when his
peers will ostracize him for stating his disagreements too bluntly
or espousing a controversial opinion.
Speaker 4 (23:17):
I can't imagine what would be like a dude to
be in psychology grad school. Oh my god, you just
have to keep your mouth shut about everything. But you know,
you can take this down to lower level for boys
in you know, grade school, in high school. You got
to fit in with the Montessori kindergarten attitude.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
Right, Acting like a boy is toxic and that's misbehavior.
Having boundless energy and needing to run around is misbehavior
according to our school systems. Don't get me started. I
could go on forever anyway. Final part, Now, it's good
that people. Oh, she mentions the great reception she's gotten
to these ideas, to the point.
Speaker 1 (23:57):
That it's shocked her.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
It's good that people are saying to the argument, because
our window to do something about the great feminization is closing.
There are leading indicators and lagging indicators of feminization. We
are currently at the in between stage where law schools
are majority female but the federal bench is still majority male.
In a few decades, the gender shift will have reached
its natural conclusion. Many people think wokeness is over, slain
by the vibeeshipt shift. But if wokeness is the result
(24:21):
of demographic feminization, then it will never be over as
long as the demographics remain unchanged. And I would say,
you know, young females these days are so radically leftists,
it'll be even worse. We simply have to restore fair rules.
Right now, we have a nominally meritocratic system in which
it is illegal for women to lose. Let's make hiring
(24:42):
meritigratic in substance and not just name. We'll see how
it shakes out. Make it legal to have a masculine
office culture again. Remove the hr lady's veto power. I
think people will be surprised to discover how much of
our current feminization is attributable to institutional changes. Like the
advent of HR, which were brought about by legal changes,
in which legal changes can reverse. I've got an article
(25:03):
about a speaker being disinvited to an HR conference because
he dared challenge the woke conventional wisdom in HR. She writes,
because after all, I am not just a woman. I
am also someone with a lot of disagreeable opinions who
will find it hard to flourish if society becomes more
conflict averse and consensus driven. I am the mother of
sons who will never reach their full potential if they
(25:26):
have to grow up in a feminized world. I am
We all are dependent on institutions like the legal system,
scientific research, and democratic politics that support the American way
of life, and we will all suffer if they cease
to perform the tasks they were designed to do.
Speaker 4 (25:42):
Yeah, that is really really interesting. I'm not optimistic about
this turning around. And the United States doesn't get to
live in a vacuum either. So you can talk about
just our domestic culture and how it might not be
fair to men or boys in the future and this
and that, but we have to compete with other countries
(26:04):
and China ain't worried about this crap all right, and
the male dominated culture will take over.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
Oh yeah, it'll obliterate the female dominated culture. The problem
with all this, and getting back to my point that
it absolutely is tied to neo Marxism, even though Helen
Andrews says she doesn't think it is, is that Marxism
is by its nature like collaborativeness enforced at the point
(26:31):
of a gun, whereas more masculine culture in general is Hey,
if we haven't have a disagreement, we're gonna say so
out loud. We're gonna have it out in public and
figure out whose idea wins, or maybe we'll beat on
each other till one of us submits. That sort of
dissent is utterly forbidden in Marxism, just as in feminized cultures,
(26:56):
standing up and saying, for instance, look, only a woman
can give birth. I mean that is self evidently true.
No one can deny that you would be run out
of a profession for saying that if your professional's academia
or even law schools these days, and that ought to
scare you.
Speaker 4 (27:17):
Yeah, like I said, I'm not optimistic that this will
turn around.
Speaker 3 (27:22):
We will post a link to this The Great Feminization
by Helen Andrews at Armstrong and getty dot com. We'll
get it up in the next half hour or so.
You can grab it, share it, read it, think it,
live it, love it.
Speaker 4 (27:33):
While you were reading all that sort of stuff, I
was thinking of a couple of women I know who
would be they don't listen to this show because they
hate it so much. They would be spitting nails. I mean,
red faced angry about that. But I also know that's fine.
I also know they're wrong, They're completely wrong. I also
know a handful of woman who women women. I know
(27:53):
one woman in particular i'm thinking about. She's a woman
and she's got three daughters. Who agrees one hundred percent
with all that stuff.
Speaker 3 (27:59):
Yeah, yeah, it's about balance and the male Sure, I
understand why we got to say that, and you might
be right, but I'm not sure that's true.
Speaker 1 (28:10):
Well, no, it's I would.
Speaker 3 (28:13):
Argue, I actually agree with you. I might just put
it a little differently. You must have the predominantly. This
is not about individuals. It's just a generalized assessment of
large groups, and the larger the group, the more the
tendency tends to be true. The male tendency is we
have to have rules that we follow even if they
(28:33):
make us sad. We have to allow dissent. We have
to be able to say I think you're wrong and
have it out. Fairness is important, but rules based fairness,
not emotional fairness.
Speaker 4 (28:47):
Well, you got to go back to the beginning of
this thing, and the whole Larry Summers thing, which they
uses the GRAMD zero for this patient zero of this
whole thing starting if you are the sort of person
I don't care if you're a man or a woman,
they would just tend to be a woman who thinks
that made sense. You can't run anything. And if you
believe that that was crazy, that a guy.
Speaker 5 (29:08):
Just stating actual fact, demonstratable fact based into decidable, indisputable
facts is somehow wrong because it made people feel bad.
I mean, but if you agree with that, then you
can run things man or woman. You know, Margaret Thatcher,
you could come up with all kinds of examples people.
You know that, you know it wasn't exactly the feminization
(29:31):
problem even though she was a woman. But yeah, I mean,
you could just base it on that. Read every people's story.
People who think that made sense to put him out
of a Harvard I don't want you run in anything.
People who think that was wrong. Man or woman, you
can be in charge of stuff.
Speaker 3 (29:43):
The people who canceled Dry Summers and ran him out
of Harvard, even though what he said was when entirely
scientifically indisputable, would have been the very same people, and
a couple of them are scientists, and this irony is
too much for me. They would have absolutely been in
favor of executing Galileo or Copernicus for daring to make
(30:06):
everybody feel bad in questioning the status quo. And they
call themselves scientists.
Speaker 4 (30:11):
Yeah, that is something that you quoted a biologist to
a scientist.
Speaker 1 (30:16):
Yeah, you're a biologist.
Speaker 4 (30:18):
You've got a PhD in biology, and you're denying the
science of what Larry Summers said at Harvard, and he
should be fired.
Speaker 1 (30:25):
That's so crazy.
Speaker 3 (30:26):
When he started talking about innate differences between men and women,
I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes
me physically ill. Even though Summers made it utterly clear
what he was trying to say, this is tendencies among groups.
More men than women have this tendency. He was hounded
out of his job for that. That was the opening
(30:47):
battle in the wokeness.
Speaker 4 (30:49):
War or the beginning of the ending it out it
goes I guess, yeah, well I'm going to be the
Japanese soldier in the jungle twenty years after the war ended,
still squeezing off shots.
Speaker 1 (31:01):
Thank you very much.
Speaker 4 (31:04):
Oh man, that was really something. Again, you have any
comment on that, you should email. Probably be talking about
this tomorrow or text four one five nine five KFTC email.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
It's that small bag and I'm strong at getty dot com.
Speaker 5 (31:16):
Thank you.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
There we go.
Speaker 2 (31:19):
A group of thieves broke into the Louver and sole
priceless Napoleon era jewels in.
Speaker 1 (31:24):
A seven minute daytime heist.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
It's not good when the yodur in that CBS has
better security than the Louver. Can I just get the
deal head to get a key from my manager.
Speaker 1 (31:38):
Right now?
Speaker 2 (31:38):
The security guards are like, who forgot your ringdo bell?
Speaker 1 (31:41):
We did? Sometimes it's by that we don't know.
Speaker 2 (31:44):
It's also I'm not a big conspiracy guy, but George
Santos is released from prison on Friday and the Louver.
Speaker 1 (31:51):
Gets robbed on Sunday. Coincidence side got so you think
they're going to get away? I don't know. I have
no idea.
Speaker 3 (32:06):
I have read that the most likely thing to happen
is they're going to break everything apart, sell the jewels,
which will be recut. There's a zillion dollar global jewel
theft industry, very well organized, operates in a bunch of
foreign countries.
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Yeah, or whoever maybe hired them to.
Speaker 4 (32:29):
Do that already had a buyer lined up, you know,
a Saudi prince or somebody who's perfectly fine with owning
something like that.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
I mean, why wouldn't you just like rob a handful
of jewelry stores instead of the louver to get like
historical artifacts. What for the diamonds, get other diamonds.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Yeah, because they lose all their historical.
Speaker 4 (32:50):
Value once you start taking it all apart. But the
one piece or something had like two thousand diamonds in it.
Speaker 1 (32:59):
Yeah, I know, amazing.
Speaker 3 (33:01):
A real quick note, if I might, The Great Feminization
Essay that we're just going over is under hot links
at Armstrong and getty dot com. Armstrong and getty dot com,
look for hot links the Great Feminization. It's right there,
Read it, share it, love it, shit it.
Speaker 1 (33:19):
So I'm watching this video.
Speaker 4 (33:21):
Have you spent any time on Sora or sending the
highlights from Sora. That's the new social media app that
is all AI. So everybody posts their best AI videos
on there, and then at the end of the day
I see like the top five of the day or whatever,
and they're often very funny. I mean, I realized some
of these would insult some of you. But it's an
Olympic fifty meter swimming race and Jesus is on the
(33:44):
block with all the other swimmers and they fire the
gun and then he just runs across the water and
gets there really quickly and then just stands there and
waits for the rest.
Speaker 3 (33:52):
Of them to swim all and you say, that's artificial
intelligence did that.
Speaker 1 (33:56):
But it's so good.
Speaker 4 (33:58):
I was watching one yesterday from last night's Top five
of the day on Sora. It was Tupac and Hitler
caught in a tornado, which is an interesting idea, but
they were just there and like, look at this tornado
and running in the wind and everything like that.
Speaker 1 (34:14):
Hitler Toomak and it looked as real as real.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
Also, like the other Olympic event I saw the other
day with these really really giantly obese men, like eight
hundred pound dudes running the four hundred meter around the
track and they're running really fast.
Speaker 1 (34:29):
One guy falls and rolls.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
The one play is this enormous cat rampaging through a
neighborhood and knocking over houses. It's just the sort of
thing that would have cost fifty dollars to make not that.
Speaker 1 (34:42):
Many years ago.
Speaker 6 (34:43):
Yes, Katie, the only problem I'm having with it is
I'm seeing like certain animal videos and I'm having to
go back and research if they're real or not.
Speaker 3 (34:51):
Yeah, right, because it's really good, all right, Can we
please set ourselves a limit of I will check this
three times, and then I read books.
Speaker 1 (35:01):
I will read long form think pieces. I will not.
Speaker 3 (35:05):
Become an addict to Sora's Top five, although if you
can go through them like five minutes a day, if
you can stop there, though, it's like eating potato chicks.
Speaker 1 (35:13):
See.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
That's the thing. That's the reason I say it. I'm
saying it to me is I'm thinking, oh, I really
want to do that. Wait a minute, Wait a minute,
read a book.
Speaker 1 (35:21):
No you're here, Michael, my kids heard you. Didn't said
the same thing. No, Armstrong and Getty
Hosts And Creators
Joe Getty
Jack Armstrong
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.