The General State of America

Matt5 said:

Why are we here?

Helen Andrews wrote an interesting article about this: The Great Feminization | Compact.

Here is a video of her talking about this: Helen Andrews | Overcoming the Feminization of Culture | NatCon 5 - YouTube

Short answer: Women brought us here.

Women gradually reached a tipping point in many of America's great institutions. Then they started throwing their weight around. I asked Grok AI, based on the NatCon 5 transcript, what is the difference in thinking between women and men?

-----
Grok AI: According to the transcript of Helen Andrews' speech at NatCon 5, women and men tend to think and approach moral reasoning differently in general (on average, with overlaps and exceptions for individuals), drawing on established psychological distinctions:

• Women tend toward an "ethics of caring":
  In moral judgments, women are more focused on context, relationships, empathy, and how decisions affect people emotionally or interpersonally. They prioritize preventing harm, maintaining cohesion, preserving feelings, and responding to subjective experiences (e.g., "How can you talk about rules of evidence? Can't you see she's crying?" in the Kavanaugh hearings example). This leads to greater emphasis on inclusion, safety, non-judgmentalism, and protecting others from emotional distress.
• Men tend toward an "ethics of justice":
  Men are more oriented toward abstract rules, facts, objectivity, impartiality, and universal principles. They ask, "What are the rules and what are the facts?" even if the outcome is harsh or hurts feelings. This favors rationality, competition, hierarchy, risk-taking, and enforcement of laws/principles regardless of emotional impact.

Key examples from the transcript illustrating these differences:

• Free speech vs. inclusion — Surveys cited show ~2/3 of men prioritize protecting free speech, while ~2/3 of women prioritize preserving an inclusive society (avoiding harm to feelings or groups).
• Google memo (James Damore) — No one disputed the facts, but he was fired because his words might make female coworkers "feel bad" (empathy/relationships over objective accuracy).
• Kavanaugh hearings — Masculine view: Lack of evidence means no career ruin; feminine view: Emotional testimony (crying) outweighs strict evidentiary rules.
• Broader "wokeness" traits — Valuing empathy over rationality, safety over risk, conformity/cohesion over competition/hierarchy — all framed as privileging the feminine over the masculine.

Andrews notes these are aggregate tendencies (not absolute — many women align with justice-oriented thinking, and vice versa), but as institutions become more female-dominated, they shift predictably toward caring/relational priorities. This draws from Carol Gilligan's influential work contrasting "ethics of care" (more common in women) with "ethics of justice" (more common in men), though Andrews applies it critically to cultural/institutional changes.

In short: Women generally think more relationally and empathetically (people/context-focused), while men think more rule- and principle-based (facts/objectivity-focused).
-----

Why the priorities of women rise to the top.

Women dominate voting because there are more women and men's voting is split. More men at the top and bottom of society splits their vote a little bit. Like at a casino, a small edge over time means dominance. The priorities of women rise to the top.

What's wrong with dominance by women? Because national security is #20 on their list of priorities. Hence, millions cross the borders without a thought about national security issues. Currently, Germany can't even raise an army because Muslim men would be too great. Again, no thought about national security when letting millions of Muslim men enter.

IMO, because women dominate voting there is no undoing of the great feminization short of a big war.

Here is a concise summary of Helen Andrews' speech "Overcoming the Feminization of Culture" at NatCon 5, presented as key points:

• Introduction to the "Great Feminization": Economist Tyler Cowen listed major revolutions in his lifetime (e.g., moon landing, fall of communism, internet, AI), placing the "great feminization" between the fall of communism and the internet — potentially more significant than others, though not widely recognized.
• Definition: The increasing representation of women in societal institutions (political, professional, educational), unprecedented in human history — no prior society had women holding as much political and institutional power (e.g., parliaments never one-third female before; today, women lead major police departments, dominate law/medical schools, earn most bachelor's/PhDs, etc.).
• Recency and scale: Often misdated to the 1970s; actual tipping points (from token to majority/parity representation) occurred in the last 5–10 years in many fields. Trajectories show steady increases from the 1970s pioneers to 20–30% by 2000, now often 40–50% or more (e.g., Supreme Court from 0% to near-majority female judges; Biden appointees 63% female).
• Feminization dynamics: As women enter fields in large numbers, institutions reorient toward feminine preferences (empathy, caring, non-judgmentalism, safety, conformity over competition/hierarchy/risk). Examples: Psychology shifted from 70% male to youngest cohort 20% male as it became more "caring"-focused; literary fiction/publishing (80% female) produces novels men no longer read; men exit susceptible fields.
• Link to wokeness: "Feminization equals wokeness" — wokeness as epiphenomenon of demographic feminization; prioritizes empathy over rationality, safety over risk, inclusion/cohesion over free speech/competition. Women less supportive of free speech (surveys: ~2/3 prefer inclusive society vs. men's free speech); ethics of caring (context/relationships) vs. justice (rules/facts). Examples: Google memo firing (hurt feelings > facts); Kavanaugh hearings (emotions > evidence/rules).
• Controversial claims: Feminization not neutral — bad for key institutions (threatens rule of law via less objective judges; truth-seeking in academia via censorship; innovation/business via HR conformity; borders/immigration via emotional over legal enforcement). Thorough feminization risks civilizational collapse without rule of law, truth pursuit, borders, innovation.
• Demographic vs. substantive feminization: Inevitable link — cannot have majority-female institutions without substantive shift to feminine norms/priorities (not enough women align with old masculine standards to preserve them fully).
• Solutions proposed: No bans/discouragement of women in fields; instead, remove "thumb on the scale" favoring women — repeal anti-discrimination laws pressuring hiring/promotions/diversity (leading to unnecessary jobs/HR dominance, feminized "welcoming" cultures hostile to masculine traits); address two-income trap (economic pressures forcing dual earners) via policies enabling single-earner families, allowing natural choices to reduce feminization.
• Conclusion: As a woman who values her career and disagreeable opinions, Andrews urges unselfish consideration — prioritize society's (and future generations') good over individual advantage, as excessive conformism/emotionalism harms open discourse and civilization.

Click to expand...

Matt5 said:

Why are we here?

Helen Andrews wrote an interesting article about this: The Great Feminization | Compact.

Here is a video of her talking about this: Helen Andrews | Overcoming the Feminization of Culture | NatCon 5 - YouTube

Short answer: Women brought us here.

Click to expand...

Matt5 said:

Women gradually reached a tipping point in many of America's great institutions. Then they started throwing their weight around. I asked Grok AI, based on the NatCon 5 transcript, what is the difference in thinking between women and men?

Click to expand...

Matt5 said:

-----
Grok AI: According to the transcript of Helen Andrews' speech at NatCon 5, women and men tend to think and approach moral reasoning differently in general (on average, with overlaps and exceptions for individuals), drawing on established psychological distinctions:

• Women tend toward an "ethics of caring":
  In moral judgments, women are more focused on context, relationships, empathy, and how decisions affect people emotionally or interpersonally. They prioritize preventing harm, maintaining cohesion, preserving feelings, and responding to subjective experiences (e.g., "How can you talk about rules of evidence? Can't you see she's crying?" in the Kavanaugh hearings example). This leads to greater emphasis on inclusion, safety, non-judgmentalism, and protecting others from emotional distress.
• Men tend toward an "ethics of justice":
  Men are more oriented toward abstract rules, facts, objectivity, impartiality, and universal principles. They ask, "What are the rules and what are the facts?" even if the outcome is harsh or hurts feelings. This favors rationality, competition, hierarchy, risk-taking, and enforcement of laws/principles regardless of emotional impact.

Key examples from the transcript illustrating these differences:

• Free speech vs. inclusion — Surveys cited show ~2/3 of men prioritize protecting free speech, while ~2/3 of women prioritize preserving an inclusive society (avoiding harm to feelings or groups).
• Google memo (James Damore) — No one disputed the facts, but he was fired because his words might make female coworkers "feel bad" (empathy/relationships over objective accuracy).
• Kavanaugh hearings — Masculine view: Lack of evidence means no career ruin; feminine view: Emotional testimony (crying) outweighs strict evidentiary rules.
• Broader "wokeness" traits — Valuing empathy over rationality, safety over risk, conformity/cohesion over competition/hierarchy — all framed as privileging the feminine over the masculine.

Andrews notes these are aggregate tendencies (not absolute — many women align with justice-oriented thinking, and vice versa), but as institutions become more female-dominated, they shift predictably toward caring/relational priorities. This draws from Carol Gilligan's influential work contrasting "ethics of care" (more common in women) with "ethics of justice" (more common in men), though Andrews applies it critically to cultural/institutional changes.

In short: Women generally think more relationally and empathetically (people/context-focused), while men think more rule- and principle-based (facts/objectivity-focused).
-----

Why the priorities of women rise to the top.

Women dominate voting because there are more women and men's voting is split. More men at the top and bottom of society splits their vote a little bit. Like at a casino, a small edge over time means dominance. The priorities of women rise to the top.

What's wrong with dominance by women? Because national security is #20 on their list of priorities. Hence, millions cross the borders without a thought about national security issues. Currently, Germany can't even raise an army because Muslim men would be too great. Again, no thought about national security when letting millions of Muslim men enter.

IMO, because women dominate voting there is no undoing of the great feminization short of a big war.

Here is a concise summary of Helen Andrews' speech "Overcoming the Feminization of Culture" at NatCon 5, presented as key points:

• Introduction to the "Great Feminization": Economist Tyler Cowen listed major revolutions in his lifetime (e.g., moon landing, fall of communism, internet, AI), placing the "great feminization" between the fall of communism and the internet — potentially more significant than others, though not widely recognized.
• Definition: The increasing representation of women in societal institutions (political, professional, educational), unprecedented in human history — no prior society had women holding as much political and institutional power (e.g., parliaments never one-third female before; today, women lead major police departments, dominate law/medical schools, earn most bachelor's/PhDs, etc.).
• Recency and scale: Often misdated to the 1970s; actual tipping points (from token to majority/parity representation) occurred in the last 5–10 years in many fields. Trajectories show steady increases from the 1970s pioneers to 20–30% by 2000, now often 40–50% or more (e.g., Supreme Court from 0% to near-majority female judges; Biden appointees 63% female).
• Feminization dynamics: As women enter fields in large numbers, institutions reorient toward feminine preferences (empathy, caring, non-judgmentalism, safety, conformity over competition/hierarchy/risk). Examples: Psychology shifted from 70% male to youngest cohort 20% male as it became more "caring"-focused; literary fiction/publishing (80% female) produces novels men no longer read; men exit susceptible fields.
• Link to wokeness: "Feminization equals wokeness" — wokeness as epiphenomenon of demographic feminization; prioritizes empathy over rationality, safety over risk, inclusion/cohesion over free speech/competition. Women less supportive of free speech (surveys: ~2/3 prefer inclusive society vs. men's free speech); ethics of caring (context/relationships) vs. justice (rules/facts). Examples: Google memo firing (hurt feelings > facts); Kavanaugh hearings (emotions > evidence/rules).
• Controversial claims: Feminization not neutral — bad for key institutions (threatens rule of law via less objective judges; truth-seeking in academia via censorship; innovation/business via HR conformity; borders/immigration via emotional over legal enforcement). Thorough feminization risks civilizational collapse without rule of law, truth pursuit, borders, innovation.
• Demographic vs. substantive feminization: Inevitable link — cannot have majority-female institutions without substantive shift to feminine norms/priorities (not enough women align with old masculine standards to preserve them fully).
• Solutions proposed: No bans/discouragement of women in fields; instead, remove "thumb on the scale" favoring women — repeal anti-discrimination laws pressuring hiring/promotions/diversity (leading to unnecessary jobs/HR dominance, feminized "welcoming" cultures hostile to masculine traits); address two-income trap (economic pressures forcing dual earners) via policies enabling single-earner families, allowing natural choices to reduce feminization.
• Conclusion: As a woman who values her career and disagreeable opinions, Andrews urges unselfish consideration — prioritize society's (and future generations') good over individual advantage, as excessive conformism/emotionalism harms open discourse and civilization.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

You're going to trust a *woman* to tell you that?

So their calling it "conservativism" this time? Last time it was "socialism". Go figure.

According to Ms. Andrews, which is less reliable: The woman or the AI rewriting her words? That's a tough one.

Click to expand...

Elon Musk’s new AI company is staffed entirely by men

There's not much information about xAI, but diversity is already an issue

qz.com