57:05 Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job: Daughter. Wife. Mother. :-) Now go and serve your MASTERS like a good wife and daughter! The consequences for disobeying one's superiors can be VERY severe.😨
Her summarization at 4:02 is exactly what I have been thinking. The prioritization of inclusion, fairness and avoiding offence that women favour over the pursuit of truth is the triumph of the kindergarten way of doing things over what had been carved out by adults for the pursuit of goals beyond the classroom. It is a disaster.
This is why the academic quality has been devalued drastically. I had a professor 20 years ago that already stated the downwards spiral. When education is no longer about (scientific) facts, and it no longer teaches skills that are in line with what the many industries require from new employees....then the academic facilities no longer have any value and purpose. This is also why more and more people no longer care about a degree and instead just go find a job. Since the colleges and universities are failing society will go back to a master/apprentice situation. Women can claim to be educated and intelligent, but reality constantly proofs otherwise.
I see this in primary and secondary education too. However, primary and secondary education has always been female dominated (except for school administrators) so I’m not sure how much gender plays a role.
@@DELLRS2012when I was at high school in 1960s London we had a lot more male than female teachers. Even in primary school it was about 50:50. Not dominated by women.
If Prof. Wax would question her own understanding of Evolution, which seems a controlling idea in her thinking, would help her argument. Otherwise her opponents will just say "society is evolving..." Genetic scientists now understand that blind evolution, life from non life, order from randomness is impossible, and every experimental attempt to allow an evolutionary outcome has failed. Better to understand simply that we are male and female as we were created to be, and as every successful society has always understood. To force men and women to be contrary to nature causes the dysfunction we are experiencing. Male and female differences when accepted lead to harmony and population growth. It is that simple. I am married to a female sociologist and she has seen that disaster of throwing away Emile Durkheims' founding work in the field.
Most of us had no idea that there was a downside to the feminization of the universities. It took us a long time to realize that we would have to deal with the inter-personal gossip, the tears to get one’s own way, the warnings not to be cruel by criticizing incoherent thought, the pressure to praise the mediocre because of its gender and so on.
I did my doctorate in the 1990s, If you were there, you definitely saw that tsunami coming...and you didn't have to be doctoral candidate to figure out the amount of destruction it was going to cause.
the feminization of anything is a recipe for disaster through all of human history. its just that people don't learn from history since they're unable to recognize what is happening. and also like to downplay situations.
Having studied at and graduated from a very liberal university then moderately liberal seminary, values like Fairness, Equality and Tolerance through simple observation and "lived experience" didn't add up. The problem was: If you weren't the right color or sex, then you were inherently pressured to internalize shame over your immutable characteristics. Lesser-than. For those who were lonely, didn't want to push back and argue for one's dignity under "Equality", denied any self-awareness on being mistreated, they just shut up and went along with things in the name of Comfort. Well, to those of us who were more about Freedom, true Equality and Dignity, it has meant people "unfriending" us, calling us racist or sexist, or fewer invitations to parties and social gatherings. One broken friendship in my life was over my finally not taking any more of my friend's wife's bullying attitude, her name-calling me a misandrist & sexist over a silly disagreement, and my DARING to push back on her intimidation tactics. ( Mind you, my patience towards her mouth had been tested for years prior to this point-in-reference. ) Well, she and her husband, under her Feminist control of the marriage, severed ties with me. After years of friendship with him, birthday and Christmas parties, funerals. The fallout from the Feminization of universities on down has had untold horrible ripple effects. P.S. - FWIW: The couple are Christians, the wife mentioned at one point threatened to divorce her husband if he wasn't going to vote for her presidential choice. Yes, Feminism, in its worst forms, can produce such extremism.
I wish there was a discussion on the effects of feminism on the measures of happiness in women and why there is now a pronounced underrepresentation of male students in higher education.
From a Harvard Business Review article "Further, many women discover in their internships that the engineering profession is not as open to being socially responsible or as dedicated to tackling pressing national and global problems as they had hoped. This is a result of the assignments they are given, the values that are supported, and the messages that are communicated to them. "Our recent work helps explain why some women who go to college intending to be engineers end up leaving the profession before even starting their careers. Of course, not all of the men we studied decided to pursue engineering careers, but they wrote that they appreciated the tools that their education gave them." Men and women leave engineering when they realize that they are most likely to work on a sub-assembly of a sub-assembly of product that will likely be discarded before going to market. The college's sell the delusion that you'll change the world, when at best, you'll make a tiny efficiency that reduces the price of some throwaway product.
Kinda reflects the narcissism of our day. Go back to 1960s and men knew that a job was just a job. It wasn't going to change the world. Their world was their family and their accomplishment and purpose was to support them. Now? Everyone thinks they are special and should be over turning thousands years of human endeavour by their trade as cook, editor, or social media influencer.
@@TheWhitehiker I know. I guess women are put off, or disillusioned or whatever by the more grim, unrewarding reality of day to day life as an 'engineer' than men are. So there's that. I'll make a mental note. I guess they're just not cut out for it. Even though they can learn the principles. But more importantly I feel like know a little bit more about practical engineering employment, and what unspectacular, unsatisfying work it is. Nobody really knows or cares where gizmos and assorted mechanical crap comes from. But it doesn't design itself. It ain't just about building the hoover dam!
We're not even trying to be successful, what's the point? In the past, men had a huge incentive to be successful, because it greatly increased their chances of marriage and having children; now, no matter how hard we try, our jobs will be given to DEI hires, even if we get a decent job we run the risk of false allegations, and even if we get married and have children, we will be divorced and left with NOTHING.
Men struggle in any female environment. We have to watch what we say, where we look, what we do, etc. to minimize harassment accusations. We cannot stand out in any way without becoming a target.
Can you talk about feminism, about women, without addressing fatherlessness, about a 50% divorce rate, about obliterating the past, about the destruction of education, about the things that have mattered for millennia? We are literally blowing up civilization. At some point even the upper classes must take note.
@@wyleecoyotee4252 And you live in an American snow globe secure from facts that might have triggered your conscience. BTW how are things on Manhattan's Upper East Side, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Bloomfield Hills, Rodeo Drive, Aspen, Martha's Vineyard (where Barack Obama owns just one of his five multimillion dollar homes)...? My real offense is that my conclusions come from a Judeo-Christian conscience which can be painful but useful, perhaps necessary, to be humane or at least try to be. The wealthy and influential and, yes, powerful, used to build libraries (Andrew Carnegie in white AND black neighborhoods), schools for black children (Julian Rosenwald), health care facilities (John Cardinal O'Connor. Archbishop of New York during the AIDS epidemic) and so many more. That chip on my shoulder has ancestral roots that reach back to Jamestown and Devon and I'm fortunate to have them.
John Silber was president of Boston University, then ran for governor of the state of Massachusetts. He was quoted - decades ago - as referring to some of the departments as 'a damned matriarchy.' I believe that would have been in the 1980s. He was a man who did not suffer fools, and never feared controversy. Given what we've seen since then, its' obvious that he was ahead of his time - at least in speaking out. We were told that when women got power, things would be much better. How has that worked out, given the women running Harvard and Columbia?
I’ve been a business school professor for 22 years. I have seen this accelerate over the course of the past 5 to 8 years such that even my male undergrad students are noticing what is happening! I’m also an African American who is absolutely not a leftist. I have also been an academic administrator. I can say that there was a push back. But, the wave of feminization at my institution has been so broad and synchronized that the wave just rolled over dissenters who quickly left. They were replaced by adherents. I suspect this process is playing out everywhere. The male dissenters that have left my institution also left academia as I will do shortly. The rational decision has been that the fight is simply not worth the aggravation, demonization, and potential legal jeopardy. Meanwhile, there is much talk about fairness. Yet, we push our male students to take women’s studies classes. Yet, no men’s studies courses exist. Worse still, attempting to address this apparent hypocrisy rarely engenders a rational discussion about educational objectives or pedagogy.
Perhaps rather than leaving academia, the displaced dissenters should join or create an competing institution (such as Hillsdale) which adheres to the old masculine values and thus will inevitably outshine crumbling institutions which have to replace their diversity hire presidents for academic fraud.
Quotas in professions such as the police force have been in force in our state for the last 5 to 10 years. First they can't recruit enough females without dropping the standards significantly. Second, the females don't last. They either retire to have families or they burn out. My daughter was one who made it in on merit, she did a great job (of which i am very proud), but she resigned after about 3 years. The cost of quotas is a drain on the taxpayers who need to continue to hire and train while at the same time excluding males who would be better for the job in the first place. I am absolutely in favour of women being in the police force but perhaps it should be 20%?
Hahaha wow! What a great conversation with Dr Amy Wax. So enjoyed her feisty, realist perspective. As a Women's Studies graduate of the early 1990s (from a sandstone university and six years of uni study🤭), my life choices have come as a complete surprise to me... After uni, I discovered I was rather a monk/ contemplative by nature, couldn't leave my children in the care of others so stayed at home with the deep contentment of practicing qualities I came to highly value. There is a great freedom in not having to go the route of the blue stocking ... The freedom to think your own thoughts away from corporate and bureaucratic forced-thought, the opportunity to choose the colour, tone and activity of the day (including naps), and the pleasure of inactivity. I am grateful for this freedom over the societal pressure on so many women. And, of course it has been a freedom gifted of good partnership and love. I wish the blue stocking feminism had been willing to acknowledge pull of the Hestia realm; a lot more women would happily choose it and maybe society would be open to offering such options?
The thing is, it's so profoundly wise to our creaturely nature. As your children become young adults themselves, you are the ideal type to become a political leader to turn around the feminist juggernaut in Govmt Institutions, especially education. At the moment all our MP's are doubling down on more affirmative action parity and more feminisation. Just because the current ideological frame is failing doesn't mean there could be a problem with it? So, alas, it's people like yourself full of life wisdom and clarity that have to disturb their own peace and quiet, to represent us, or this crazy train will take us all over the cliff and back to barbarism. ❤
Patriarchy (though in excess) is the primary strength of Islam. Originally, Christianity was a form of gentle patriarchy and is a major factor as to why it was able to revolutionize the civilized world. When Christianity abandoned patriarchy, it chose weakness and sealed its own fate.
Christianity is to serve God and not patriarchy (dominance and masculinity). Patriarchy is a sinful, worldy evil. This is not true Christianity. If you claim to be a Christian, then follow Christ and not the world.
It still appears to be verboten to mention in general crimes evils committed by women. EX: Domestic Violence. It is assumed to be pretty much: Men. If a female does it, the male deserved it. If a male does it, well, arrest him and punish severely, including public shame. But weren't we about Equality? Why was my male friend pressured to go to Anger Management classes after he lost his temper with his wife, without any physical violence involved on his part, and only he was to go? Inconvenient Fact: She had a bad habit of physically pushing him ( not in any affectionately playful way ) over previous months, though he had told her numerous times to stop doing that. He finally had it, the last straw, and raised his voice in anger. The end result was "he" had to go to Anger Management. No mention of her having to go, no accountability on her part. As I said to him, he could have pressed charges, technically, not that I was encouraging him to do so. When I asked him why she did not seek help in Anger Management, he didn't reply. I suggested (2) options: 1. She attends Anger Management on her own. 2. They both attend Anger Management. Still, he bowed to Feminism and went on his own. How did we get to this point? Are we still in a Pendulum Swing away from the ills of Sexism committed by males? ( P.S. - It was only a couple of years ago that I first heard any mention ever on how girls/women bully, i.e. through words and Reputation Destruction. My education, including Liberal Arts, never broached the topic, my psychology courses and conversations failed to do so. Jordan Peterson described it in numerous interviews. It was partly an Ah-Hah moment for me, it was partly beyond frustrating that it was met with reservation from the interviewer. As if calling out females for any ills, abuse, evils committed by women is taboo. My heartfelt, deep gratitude to women like Amy Wax for speaking up "from within" and without. The world profoundly needs wise, astute, strong, just, individuals like her. Men and women aren't to be adversaries, yet the extreme of Feminism is about that. )
I teach at a liberal arts college. The average intelligence of a college student in the US is now 102. And it really shows. If I have a class of 25, I'm actually teaching five decently smart students with 20 bored observers who can't follow the discussion. And they're going into lifelong debt for the privilege. It's no wonder that most departments and professors see this and, in their progressive mindset, conclude that school should be transformed to accommodate the needs (read incapacity) of these students by turning it into a right-think factory. Really awful - those kids should be starting families, getting real job training, etc.
@@Lindsay_Quo_Vadis Interesting comment Lindsay. Here in Australia 45% of 25 to 34 year olds hold a bachelors degree or higher with the federal government saying it wants to increase this further. We'd be a lot better off with fewer degree holders and more people with practical skills and qualifications. We have, for example, a housing crisis due in part to a shortage of qualified tradesmen and women. Investment in high quality vocational training should be a priority.
@@grannyannie2948hark at you! Don’t you feel ‘a cut above’ women who have had working careers in public life! Lol. Come on sister - let’s all value each other equally no matter what route we took in life. All routes have their pros and cons. No need for the nasty snipe ‘fancy careers’ for women who worked in academia (for the common good) during their fertile years.
@@SophieHamilton-d3e Meanwhile the Anglosphere nations are being systematically replaced due to falling birthrates. I eventually went to university when my kids were older, and the nonsense they troped was beyond ridiculous. But they were the social workers and teachers sent out to destroy the next generation. I instead tried to save as many as I could. As a qualified social worker, I became a professional foster carer, of what became over 60 children. But no, this new class of social workers were ridiculous. So what that a man convicted of raping his 14 yo daughter, should now have custody of his 11 yo daughter. After all he is brown. I care for the genuine welfare of people, especially children. Not the current brain fart from academia. And yes, I do believe that feminists are to blame for much of what is wrong.
I like the concepts of chaos and order to represent the feminine and masculine. Both have value and both can be oppressive and/or destructive if not in balance. It really has nothing to do with genitalia. We all embody these forces to some degree. I studied art history in the early 80s. There was quite a bit of deconstruction going on then but it was mostly a positive imo. Nothing wrong with understanding the controversial personal life of Picasso for example, as opposed to depicting him in an almost saintly way, without flaws. This should never have led to trigger warnings attached to his works. Give it another generation, and his paintings will be moved to storage if they even survive the iconoclasts. We're probably one generation or less away from Renaissance sculptures getting toppled because 'white men are evil.' It's so much like ISIS toppling ancient Buddhist statues that it's chilling. We need balance at this point, desperately.
43% Modern Women are deemed unattractive for Long term relationship/marriage, 68% Men don't feel like approaching women, pursuing relationship/marriage proposal, women wanted equality, sexual liberty, hook up culture, feminism liberated women from relationships/marriage.
The last sensible Prime Minister of Australia (John Howard) refused 50/50 male versus female ratio in his cabinet stating that proportionally males are more career driven and thought his 70/30 ratio was about right. He also structured the family tax/benefit system in favour of those having more children. He saw the family unit as the foundation of society. That was 20 years ago.
Hopefully this is a pendulum swing leading to an eventual reversal. Alas, the damage is so debilitating it may take generations to reestablish equilibrium. What are we going to do with all the spinsters?
Correct. Eastern cultures have avoided this disruption of advancing intellectual and cultural evolution as they maintain their dedication to the development new ideas regardless of who may or may not need to be included and dragged along to share the glory of the success. This has of course left the west at a distinct disadvantage in the immediate and long-term future. yclep down below nails the difference between men and women. Men prioritize structural stability to avoid PERVERSE CONSEQUENCES while women mostly prioritize immediate feelings.
Emotional "resoning"has taken precedence over objective reasoning in society. In particular, when it comes to women. It's striking how modern education in the West emphasises discomfort awoidance.
Great guest. Amy is one of the few guests who can integrate the fields of philosophy/law, neurology/medicine, evolutionary biology/psychology, academia, and even culture into a coherent narrative of the problems (and sometimes even the solutions) affecting our times. On the male versus female sexuality front, however, the male sex drive is obviously due primarily to the fact that men have 17 times the amount of testosterone in their bloodstream than women. The only biological females who ever really get to experience the male sex drive are female body builders who take androgenous steroids. This has actually been documented in the cultural body building literature, although I don't know if it's been scientifically examined. I would bet that most males would like to turn their sex drive OFF for a few weeks or months. But, if we did that collectively, then I really believe that society and infrastructure would soon start to collapse (without said male sex drive). For better or worse, the male drive to reproduce (and, in doing so, impress females - in the hopes of securing a potential mate) drives initiative, ingenuity, and civilization's maintenance. To doubt this (male sex drive and it's role in maintaining civilization) is naive at best and delusional at worst, imo.
@@beaucannington6448 Transmen admitting in interviews that their sex drives increased when they started exogenous testosterone for their transitions; anecdotal evidence that supports the comment above. As commentator stated, no official papers to draw this link, but observations in female weight lifters who have used steroids. We can also observe this in transmen. What am I missing?
I graduated from an all-boys high school that is nearing 200 years in age. In the alumni newsletter, and during my periodic visits back to the school, I have noticed a steady takeover of the place...by women. Faculty, moms-with-too-much-time, maybe a trustee or two or three. Now the teams periodically wear pink uniforms for breast cancer awareness. There is also a therapy dog whose necessity and utility cannot be questioned. The fact will always remain that boys and men have a limited tolerance for social events organized by women and institutions that are run by them.
I am also temperamentally quite different and have struggled with the Feminization of public life for years, both at work and in my personal life. Thank you for discussing the topic.
Re: the Push for Parity at 44:00 - an anecdote: I recently have been taking mandatory corporate annual ethics training, on line. The training videos have become quite slick since I first started taking the training ~10 years ago. They are no doubt developed by high end marketing firms that specialize in training videos. What annoys me is just how utterly ethnically diverse these videos are. They make such an overwhelming effort at ethnic and racial diversity as to be strikingly obvious even if I wasn't thinking about it. The last video I viewed, I decided to keep track of who was on the screen talking to me. A black man, a black woman, a white man, an asian man, woman, a latino man or woman... etc. I then tallied the results. 44% of the time a person was on the screen (even in cartoon form), it was a black woman. Only 5% of the time it was an Asian woman. Now, this is at complete odds with my professional field (biotechnology). Those numbers should be reversed if we are to be "fair and representative". Biotech is at least 50% Southeast Asian, so I should be seeing an Asian woman on screen at least 25% of the time, not 5%. White men were represented the second most at 11%, but that's still a little under-representative. So this push for equity is jarring and quite frankly, weird. It's gone so far now, I would prefer not to see any person on the screen talking to me. Just use an AI generated voice at this point.
The corporate Koolaid at my job very pointed makes a white male the screw up or bad guy in 95% of the training skits, a white female 4% of the time, a black male only once, and a "minority" female never screws up or offends others even once. If I played the victim game like these wokies do I would sue for emotional damages from racial and sexual discrimination, instead I'm learning enough to leave to work at a company that doesn't tell me each year how much they hate me for existing.
Whoa. Lack of manliness. I got cancelled ftom a theate group, the Dinner Detective, and now I am ready to fight back. I should have pushed back at the time. I am sick of this leftist pronoun pronouncing anti racist woke idiocy.
It wrecked literature, the universities, Hollywood, corporations and education.. Everything it touches is ruined in about 3 generations. It takes time for utter corruption to spread.
If you want to live in a feminist theocracy that is your choice. I prefer the bombastic macho thing - but that's just me. These women seem to talk from the point of view of "what I can get" and not "what I can give". If that is how you see the world - good luck with that.
Something I've discovered as a result of having many hospitalizations in the last few years is that women are great in the medical field. They've always dominated nursing, but even the majority of the doctors in the hospitals I've been in have been women also. And unlike what I've noticed in some other fields, their excellence in medicine seems to come naturally to them. And they seem to be more attentive and conscientious than the male doctors I've had in my lifetime. So maybe we should just allow men and women to dominate fields that are suitable for them instead of viewing everything as having to be 50/50.
Garbage ,the toxcity and bullying between female nurses is contributing to many women leaving the job. Men also bully but not to the extent of women I the medical field.
Honest question: are there ANY wmn alive today who haven't built their entire belief system upon the flawed notion that wmn have historically been severely constrained by men?
There's a short from the Richard Nixon Foundation 'Women in Negotiations' of Nixon talking of the advantage of having a woman on your team as men wouldn't be harsh toward a woman and thus be weaker in the negotiations.
these trends will continue largely unabated. practical men see the destruction being wrought and are bailing out of participation in western society leadership - and instead building businesses separate from the system.
I find Dr. Wax"s discussions on the feminization of society, IQ differences, diversity and Wrstern vaues so extremely interesting. I just can't believe she hasn't lost everything due to her statements. This woman definitely stands up for her viewpoints! 💯
Her assertion about men in academia having been captured by leftism or at least having a lack of cultural confidence is salient to Western society more broadly as well, but also leaves out a keep reason for why many men gave in even against their better judgement: for a significant period of time going along with the Zeitgeist got them more sex from more women.
But good on Louise for calling her out on getting her own daughters educated. Big blind spot Ms. Wax hasn't really bothered to think through. Good enough for me but not thee
Western culture has long been the most navel-gazing of all cultures; we over-analyze everything. In academics, I have noticed we also tend to like certain explanations ("it's cultural") over others ("it's human nature"). This pretending that e.g. no sex differences are in human nature, that we can re-shape everything to be according to some utopian whim, has led to many cases of throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have forgotten the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and overly favored the idea of "change" as always good.
14:48 .Love Amy Wax. Louise tried to underplay female flaws by using the term bitchiness. Amy didn't let her get away with it. She emphasized the problem was truth and fair mindedness. Louise doesn't get the problem because she is a part of it.
The outrage expressed by women today when confronted with the way women we expelled from employment in agriculture and industrial manufacturing after WW2 should be redressed by asking those outraged women how many of them now work in primary industries and manufacturing? It's been fifty years since employers have been prevented from excluding women in these activities
Female academics tend to be lefties, socially aware, from upper middle class backgrounds and highly educated with PhDs. Universities, particularly in humanities and social sciences, are also a haven for lesbians, feminists, social justice warriors, and Karens who argue women are disadvantaged. Female academics also started in the early 1990s to adopt postmodernism as ideology. We saw a lot of this in 2024 with the Israel and Hamas debate. People will question truth about Jewish hostages and sexual assaults, calling it a "false narrative". Feminists also question the new freedoms women enjoy living in the west.
I'm just curious if there's anybody listening to this that disagrees with Professor Amy Wax. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any leftists or progressives would listen to these well reasoned conversations. And if by any chance there is a leftist or Progressive lurking, what do you find objectionable about these very reasonable positions?
Depends on what you call "a progressive", I guess. I still have mostly the same beliefs that made me "a progressive", by 00's standards... ... but when I talk to modern lefties, they seem to think those same beliefs make me some kind of "far right white supremacist", today (I'm black, lol). But I think there's a decent amount of people like me, "classical liberal" or "politically homeless", or whatever other label- People who still believe in that older version of "progressivism", where it basically just meant genuinely equal rights. But who reject the modern version of "progressivism', where it means obsessive identity politics, biology-denying"gender" ideology, "critical race theory" etc, and is very authoritrian and pro-censorship.
Chief difference between men and women: structure vs feelings as a priority. Structural stability (perverse consequences avoided) is men's priority, immediate feelings are women's priority. That makes men better at big systems (the Founding Fathers were structure guys) and women better at small systems (household, neighborhood).
Extreme over-generalizations do nothing but hurt people and society. Men and women are human and therefore are able to think, change, and adjust. Men can do these so-called small systems and women can do the large systems.
15mins in and I LOVE HER! ftm who transitioned 2001-it took me a decade on T to realise my feminist lesbian training abt what men are was SO far off the mark its just beyond words at this point! abigale favale is right abt the history of how we got here yes- Kinsey, money, blah blah blah what's missing from the conversation is Dworkin & Millet and womens studies as the delivery device for Marxist QT feminism is undulated female opinion- not 1000% fact the bias is overwhelmingly obvious but u need to be able to see it to look Good Job- your getting close & it should be admired that your this honest!
The thing you said about feminism being unchallenged female opinion seems to be true. Thing is it seems to be running straight into a wall of easily accessible empiricism. Most of the talking points they have been using can easily be disproven with hard data. That why almost no feminists do debates anymore.
Accepting the hypothesis that the evolution of men prioritised the obtaining and protection of resources, then it would make sense that it included a bias to submit, in general, to the needs of women, otherwise it would spiral out of control. Therefore if there was a bias, then it would exacerbate the current challenges. i.e. In general, men find it harder to say no to requests from women than women saying no to the requests from men. - Just a thought.
Why academic men gave in: Human Resources is run by women. See the chapter "Administrative Encirclement" in John Gall's _Systemantics_, the process whereby the people hired to order paper and pencils wind up in charge of everything.
What I have noticed is that articles published by academics almost always portray women as suffering or being hard done by. Take for example the 2nd Shift that now has transformed into mental overload, emotional labour. The findings were based on journal keeping, and the fact that the genders might just keep a journal differently perhaps wasn't considered to be a factor.. Take for example doing the laundry, it takes for example 5 mins to load and unload the machine that has a cycle of 90mins, so it possible that a women would include the whole time from beginning to end of 100 minutes, even though she sat down and had a cup of tea/coffee, while men may have only measured the acutal effort of 10 mins, while they went and did some other activity.
Awesome lady. There really is no great good that can or has come from the feminization of academy. As is, things are disintegrating at a rate of knots and it's the handiwork of dedicated feminists to have it thus.
This seems like the women that continue to vote against their own interests and the interests of their children over and over again. Lots of linear thought processes where it’s this or that. Progress and preservation can occur at the same time. Everything that was, is not appropriate for future times. Unfortunately she’s procreated and lent these principles to her sons who will likely continue her legacy of thought. She’s an educated “trad wife “.
The problem with the idea of figuring out the failure modes of female leadership is that men assimilate to female leadership by nature. Look at how the right has adopted some feminists narratives uncritically. In my opinion that's the missing piece and is the reason for an ideological pump. The empathy gap is evidenced that male perception is bent to protect women. So unlike male negative behavior I don't see any opposition since men will always assimilate according to their incentives. That's how all institutions work from MIT to NYT and the only thing that arouses anyone's opposition are things like women's sports in an outsized way.
Its profoundly simple... If you separate the warrior and the intellect, your was will be fought by fools and the thinking will be done by cowards... Full stop
Never thought of academic women as blue stockings - they work shorter hours and have longer holidays... which, by the way, helps with raising children.
the relationship between masculization of women and feminism is a fine example of becoming what one hates. In my highly unacedemic research over the past decade I cannot and have not found a single real example of oppressive patriarchy whereas men oppress women and men benefit from that oppression. I've been offing a $500 reward for one.
She's correct generally yet should not be confused by the speed and degree of the feminism pendulum swing - primarily feminism champions took advantage of the idealism and acceleration of socialization mechanisms of the post war era. Intrinsic to this was the post World War II culture and belief that Western culture could do no wrong ( reason could always replace traditional values, science had "proven" this) as long as it went the opposite direction of anything deemed at first War; and once we had a first generation freed of War conscription the feminism machine had to redefine its purpose as against Patriarchy; and once women occupied a significant position in preferred workplaces in academia the objective had to be redefined as Toxic Masculinity (to be expedient this man expunging all masculine traditions all the way to chivalry and male politeness); once a generation of boys had given up the traditional Moors of male behavior than the purpose had to Reese specify to find a purpose - "white" men, straight, Christian, conservative, more and more sub targets are chosen as the purpose kids trying and failing to refocus as inevitably the demographic Targeting hits upon the very well being of those pushing the feminism. Foundational to this was worth fatigue which gave way to grandiosity where people believed we had won the greatest war, in large part defeated famine and disease, created inventions of wonder and ease making - there was the idea that we could go away from anything (philosophical at first and sociological at last) related to "the bad", the war, and even forego traditional rules and religion (which were framed as historically failing to prevent the bad things rather than keeping them at bay), because they now "possessed", by the capacity of our new inventiveness, the ability to encompass and immediately reinvent the very beingness of human. This belief soon became a slogan indoctrinated into youth who grew up believing it not only was possible but was a necessity to reject the principles of the previous generations in favor of the narcissistic promise they were (and still are) supposed to fulfill. Given the new concentrated proximity of the mass of each new generation, from a young age and through centralized schooling and mass communication, there became a generationally renewing efficiency of understanding that anyone who spoke or acted contrary to the "change/hope" mandate was only proving their point... The path back is through Christianity - traditionalism. There is no other reference system of beliefs that has the historical and cultural underpinnings strong enough to be re-established efficiently. This is still working and a strong and bride power base, however it has become two divided and also caught up in the demographic defined debates rather than the mechanisms of government which to base the people's capacity (independent land, business, ip, and education ownership) for self-determined preservation of familial well-being and pursuit of happiness.
Hang on, this analysis seems a little ahistorical or context-lacking to me. Amy Wax says men are the ones responsible for modern civilization and I concede that's true. But shouldn't she also concede that it's because half of the human population wast forcibly excluded from education, professional training and public life? I think her perspective assumes meritocracy when in reality it was just a male-designed system that had a predictable structural bias towards men. So now, when women have only VERY recently been allowed participation in those things, changes are happening. Bad ones? For the worse? I'm not so sure about that. This is difficult for me because I agree that "femininity" is pretty lame and superficial and encourages weakness. It's gonna take some time for women to fully shake it off because of the extreme cognitive dissonance women face (i.e., be agreeable and pretty and nice, but also have some ambition, but also have a family, but also don't be a golddigger, etc.)
Your framing is locked into the modern one so often pushed via schools and media. Try this on for size: Women are excellent at managing and running families, whether nuclear or extended. They are built to wrangle children and to convince men to do things for their and their children's benefit. Over our history, women and menhave worked together to build civilization - women, by building and maintaining the families that are thw bedrock of our social order, and men by building the infrastructure and providing the resources the families need to thrive in. Can a giraffe ride a skateboard? Maybe, but I don't have any evidence that they are capable of it. It is entirely possible, and perhaps we should give them a chance at it, but maybe (just maybe) we should also scrutinize them while they are making their attempt at it, and if they fail over and over again maybe we should rethink the experiment. In the same vein, we need to be allowed to scrutinize a society that is now largely run by and for women. If a society run by and for women starts running off the rails, perhaps we should have the ability to yank on the brake lever, take a breather and rethink how we go about managing our societies.
Also, you are making an assumption that these things you call "feminine weaknesses" are socially constructed and can be shaken off. Have you ever considered that perhaps these things you speak of are in-built biological processes shaped by eons of evolution, and therefore can't be simply shaken off, and also therefore might actually cause harm to women if we try to socially-engineer evolved biological behavior out of them?
Our view of history has been greatly skewed by feminist ideology. Women have always been considered very important contributors to society and the economy, but not always on the same way as men because we are different. Women may have had less rights but that came with much more security and far less accountability. For example if a family went into debt, only the man could be held responsible. The other reality is that most people - Women and men - were generally excluded from education and positions of power. It was a class divide more than anything else.
@@bbainter7880 I get what you are saying and I think you're half right. But I am particularly engaging with "femininity" i.e., social expectations placed upon women. There are both 1) real biological differences between the sexes that impact our behaviors (I agree with you there), and 2) behaviors that are taught and modeled socially. I mean, Amy Wax admits in this very interview isn't particularly feminine, so she's breaking the mold. She makes some decent critiques of femininity but I just didn't agree with her framing. I'm worried the end result of these deterministic perspectives often end up at "women obviously don't belong in these spaces of power. They are too emotional, they ruin it with feelings, they should just care for the family, etc. It's evolution!" Femininity and masculinity, when treated as natural and inevitable, are limiting.
@@laura44135 I've heard this line of argument before -- and I do appreciate that we often look at the past through a modern perspective and can loose the element of context. I am absolutely a historical materialist. But I do think you display some of that same bias in your examples. A family goes into debt, and only the man is responsible and that is... a benefit to the woman? The woman who would perhaps have been interested in contributing financially to the household but couldn't? I actually do like you brought up class because I think it's a crucial element that is overlooked too frequently. Yet, in limiting the financial prospects of women, did that doom them to perpetually be in the "underclass"? Society changed, and is changing still. And when women had the opportunity to for a little self-direction, many decided to take freedom and autonomy over security and no accountability.
It's baffling she doesn't know why they didn't resist (9:15). Men hold the roof as a responsibility and a burden. If they are told they are no longer needed, they'll be happy.
📰Subscribe to Maiden Mother Matriarch here to listen to full extended episodes: louiseperry.substack.com
57:05
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
:-)
Now go and serve your MASTERS like a good wife and daughter!
The consequences for disobeying one's superiors can be VERY severe.😨
Evil is narcissism masquerading as morality
Her summarization at 4:02 is exactly what I have been thinking. The prioritization of inclusion, fairness and avoiding offence that women favour over the pursuit of truth is the triumph of the kindergarten way of doing things over what had been carved out by adults for the pursuit of goals beyond the classroom. It is a disaster.
Ikr
This is why the academic quality has been devalued drastically. I had a professor 20 years ago that already stated the downwards spiral. When education is no longer about (scientific) facts, and it no longer teaches skills that are in line with what the many industries require from new employees....then the academic facilities no longer have any value and purpose. This is also why more and more people no longer care about a degree and instead just go find a job. Since the colleges and universities are failing society will go back to a master/apprentice situation. Women can claim to be educated and intelligent, but reality constantly proofs otherwise.
I see this in primary and secondary education too. However, primary and secondary education has always been female dominated (except for school administrators) so I’m not sure how much gender plays a role.
@@DELLRS2012when I was at high school in 1960s London we had a lot more male than female teachers. Even in primary school it was about 50:50. Not dominated by women.
If Prof. Wax would question her own understanding of Evolution, which seems a controlling idea in her thinking, would help her argument. Otherwise her opponents will just say "society is evolving..." Genetic scientists now understand that blind evolution, life from non life, order from randomness is impossible, and every experimental attempt to allow an evolutionary outcome has failed. Better to understand simply that we are male and female as we were created to be, and as every successful society has always understood. To force men and women to be contrary to nature causes the dysfunction we are experiencing. Male and female differences when accepted lead to harmony and population growth. It is that simple. I am married to a female sociologist and she has seen that disaster of throwing away Emile Durkheims' founding work in the field.
Intellectual honesty is such a rare commodity these days, especially in academia, it should be applauded regardless if one agrees or not.
Most of us had no idea that there was a downside to the feminization of the universities. It took us a long time to realize that we would have to deal with the inter-personal gossip, the tears to get one’s own way, the warnings not to be cruel by criticizing incoherent thought, the pressure to praise the mediocre because of its gender and so on.
I did my doctorate in the 1990s, If you were there, you definitely saw that tsunami coming...and you didn't have to be doctoral candidate to figure out the amount of destruction it was going to cause.
the feminization of anything is a recipe for disaster through all of human history. its just that people don't learn from history since they're unable to recognize what is happening. and also like to downplay situations.
Having studied at and graduated from a very liberal university then moderately liberal seminary, values like Fairness, Equality and Tolerance through simple observation and "lived experience" didn't add up. The problem was: If you weren't the right color or sex, then you were inherently pressured to internalize shame over your immutable characteristics. Lesser-than. For those who were lonely, didn't want to push back and argue for one's dignity under "Equality", denied any self-awareness on being mistreated, they just shut up and went along with things in the name of Comfort. Well, to those of us who were more about Freedom, true Equality and Dignity, it has meant people "unfriending" us, calling us racist or sexist, or fewer invitations to parties and social gatherings. One broken friendship in my life was over my finally not taking any more of my friend's wife's bullying attitude, her name-calling me a misandrist & sexist over a silly disagreement, and my DARING to push back on her intimidation tactics. ( Mind you, my patience towards her mouth had been tested for years prior to this point-in-reference. ) Well, she and her husband, under her Feminist control of the marriage, severed ties with me. After years of friendship with him, birthday and Christmas parties, funerals. The fallout from the Feminization of universities on down has had untold horrible ripple effects.
P.S. - FWIW: The couple are Christians, the wife mentioned at one point threatened to divorce her husband if he wasn't going to vote for her presidential choice. Yes, Feminism, in its worst forms, can produce such extremism.
Means cancer won't get cured.
I wish there was a discussion on the effects of feminism on the measures of happiness in women and why there is now a pronounced underrepresentation of male students in higher education.
From a Harvard Business Review article
"Further, many women discover in their internships that the engineering profession is not as open to being socially responsible or as dedicated to tackling pressing national and global problems as they had hoped. This is a result of the assignments they are given, the values that are supported, and the messages that are communicated to them.
"Our recent work helps explain why some women who go to college intending to be engineers end up leaving the profession before even starting their careers. Of course, not all of the men we studied decided to pursue engineering careers, but they wrote that they appreciated the tools that their education gave them."
Men and women leave engineering when they realize that they are most likely to work on a sub-assembly of a sub-assembly of product that will likely be discarded before going to market. The college's sell the delusion that you'll change the world, when at best, you'll make a tiny efficiency that reduces the price of some throwaway product.
Kinda reflects the narcissism of our day. Go back to 1960s and men knew that a job was just a job. It wasn't going to change the world. Their world was their family and their accomplishment and purpose was to support them. Now? Everyone thinks they are special and should be over turning thousands years of human endeavour by their trade as cook, editor, or social media influencer.
And pour blood, sweat and tears into achieving it.
Dont quite get your point.
perfect example of women not living in reality and not having a clue how reality operates. they operate on childish naïve neurotic idealism
@@TheWhitehiker I know. I guess women are put off, or disillusioned or whatever by the more grim, unrewarding reality of day to day life as an 'engineer' than men are. So there's that. I'll make a mental note. I guess they're just not cut out for it. Even though they can learn the principles. But more importantly I feel like know a little bit more about practical engineering employment, and what unspectacular, unsatisfying work it is. Nobody really knows or cares where gizmos and assorted mechanical crap comes from. But it doesn't design itself. It ain't just about building the hoover dam!
Young men are struggling to be successful in today’s institutional female environment. This makes the proposition of family really unappealing.
We're not even trying to be successful, what's the point?
In the past, men had a huge incentive to be successful, because it greatly increased their chances of marriage and having children; now, no matter how hard we try, our jobs will be given to DEI hires, even if we get a decent job we run the risk of false allegations, and even if we get married and have children, we will be divorced and left with NOTHING.
Men struggle in any female environment. We have to watch what we say, where we look, what we do, etc. to minimize harassment accusations. We cannot stand out in any way without becoming a target.
Can you talk about feminism, about women, without addressing fatherlessness, about a 50% divorce rate, about obliterating the past, about the destruction of education, about the things that have mattered for millennia? We are literally blowing up civilization. At some point even the upper classes must take note.
The "upper classes" will take note when the money stops coming in. Not before; think about it.
The upper class are the ones driving it. 🙏🏻
You have a huge chip on your shoulder dude
@@wyleecoyotee4252 says the radical manhating Feminoid
@@wyleecoyotee4252 And you live in an American snow globe secure from facts that might have triggered your conscience. BTW how are things on Manhattan's Upper East Side, Brooklyn Heights, Park Slope, Bloomfield Hills, Rodeo Drive, Aspen, Martha's Vineyard (where Barack Obama owns just one of his five multimillion dollar homes)...? My real offense is that my conclusions come from a Judeo-Christian conscience which can be painful but useful, perhaps necessary, to be humane or at least try to be. The wealthy and influential and, yes, powerful, used to build libraries (Andrew Carnegie in white AND black neighborhoods), schools for black children (Julian Rosenwald), health care facilities (John Cardinal O'Connor. Archbishop of New York during the AIDS epidemic) and so many more. That chip on my shoulder has ancestral roots that reach back to Jamestown and Devon and I'm fortunate to have them.
Wish we had more women like her speaking up! 👏👏👏👏👏
Nah, she's a poisoned pill that when ingested, only leads right back to the same effeminate leftist mediocrity.
Janice Fiamengo has been speaking to this for many years.
Karen Straughan
John Silber was president of Boston University, then ran for governor of the state of Massachusetts. He was quoted - decades ago - as referring to some of the departments as 'a damned matriarchy.' I believe that would have been in the 1980s. He was a man who did not suffer fools, and never feared controversy. Given what we've seen since then, its' obvious that he was ahead of his time - at least in speaking out. We were told that when women got power, things would be much better. How has that worked out, given the women running Harvard and Columbia?
I’ve been a business school professor for 22 years. I have seen this accelerate over the course of the past 5 to 8 years such that even my male undergrad students are noticing what is happening!
I’m also an African American who is absolutely not a leftist. I have also been an academic administrator. I can say that there was a push back. But, the wave of feminization at my institution has been so broad and synchronized that the wave just rolled over dissenters who quickly left. They were replaced by adherents. I suspect this process is playing out everywhere. The male dissenters that have left my institution also left academia as I will do shortly. The rational decision has been that the fight is simply not worth the aggravation, demonization, and potential legal jeopardy.
Meanwhile, there is much talk about fairness. Yet, we push our male students to take women’s studies classes. Yet, no men’s studies courses exist. Worse still, attempting to address this apparent hypocrisy rarely engenders a rational discussion about educational objectives or pedagogy.
Perhaps rather than leaving academia, the displaced dissenters should join or create an competing institution (such as Hillsdale) which adheres to the old masculine values and thus will inevitably outshine crumbling institutions which have to replace their diversity hire presidents for academic fraud.
Quotas in professions such as the police force have been in force in our state for the last 5 to 10 years. First they can't recruit enough females without dropping the standards significantly. Second, the females don't last. They either retire to have families or they burn out. My daughter was one who made it in on merit, she did a great job (of which i am very proud), but she resigned after about 3 years. The cost of quotas is a drain on the taxpayers who need to continue to hire and train while at the same time excluding males who would be better for the job in the first place. I am absolutely in favour of women being in the police force but perhaps it should be 20%?
Hahaha wow! What a great conversation with Dr Amy Wax. So enjoyed her feisty, realist perspective. As a Women's Studies graduate of the early 1990s (from a sandstone university and six years of uni study🤭), my life choices have come as a complete surprise to me... After uni, I discovered I was rather a monk/ contemplative by nature, couldn't leave my children in the care of others so stayed at home with the deep contentment of practicing qualities I came to highly value. There is a great freedom in not having to go the route of the blue stocking ... The freedom to think your own thoughts away from corporate and bureaucratic forced-thought, the opportunity to choose the colour, tone and activity of the day (including naps), and the pleasure of inactivity. I am grateful for this freedom over the societal pressure on so many women. And, of course it has been a freedom gifted of good partnership and love. I wish the blue stocking feminism had been willing to acknowledge pull of the Hestia realm; a lot more women would happily choose it and maybe society would be open to offering such options?
So agree. Sounds similar to my story.
The thing is, it's so profoundly wise to our creaturely nature. As your children become young adults themselves, you are the ideal type to become a political leader to turn around the feminist juggernaut in Govmt Institutions, especially education. At the moment all our MP's are doubling down on more affirmative action parity and more feminisation. Just because the current ideological frame is failing doesn't mean there could be a problem with it? So, alas, it's people like yourself full of life wisdom and clarity that have to disturb their own peace and quiet, to represent us, or this crazy train will take us all over the cliff and back to barbarism. ❤
Some women I'd like to see you talk to: Camile Paglia, Heather Heying, Karen Straughan
She’s already brought Heather Heying on the podcast.
Heather Mac Donald would be another.
Janice Fiamengo.
All of the above! Islands of female sanity in a Western world gone feminine crazy.
Where in the world is Camille Paglia anyway? A few years ago she seemed to be all over and now I get nothing from her.
Patriarchy (though in excess) is the primary strength of Islam. Originally, Christianity was a form of gentle patriarchy and is a major factor as to why it was able to revolutionize the civilized world. When Christianity abandoned patriarchy, it chose weakness and sealed its own fate.
Glad you modified. 😊
Christianity is to serve God and not patriarchy (dominance and masculinity). Patriarchy is a sinful, worldy evil. This is not true Christianity. If you claim to be a Christian, then follow Christ and not the world.
It still appears to be verboten to mention in general crimes evils committed by women. EX: Domestic Violence. It is assumed to be pretty much: Men. If a female does it, the male deserved it. If a male does it, well, arrest him and punish severely, including public shame. But weren't we about Equality? Why was my male friend pressured to go to Anger Management classes after he lost his temper with his wife, without any physical violence involved on his part, and only he was to go? Inconvenient Fact: She had a bad habit of physically pushing him ( not in any affectionately playful way ) over previous months, though he had told her numerous times to stop doing that. He finally had it, the last straw, and raised his voice in anger. The end result was "he" had to go to Anger Management. No mention of her having to go, no accountability on her part. As I said to him, he could have pressed charges, technically, not that I was encouraging him to do so. When I asked him why she did not seek help in Anger Management, he didn't reply. I suggested (2) options: 1. She attends Anger Management on her own. 2. They both attend Anger Management. Still, he bowed to Feminism and went on his own. How did we get to this point? Are we still in a Pendulum Swing away from the ills of Sexism committed by males?
( P.S. - It was only a couple of years ago that I first heard any mention ever on how girls/women bully, i.e. through words and Reputation Destruction. My education, including Liberal Arts, never broached the topic, my psychology courses and conversations failed to do so. Jordan Peterson described it in numerous interviews. It was partly an Ah-Hah moment for me, it was partly beyond frustrating that it was met with reservation from the interviewer. As if calling out females for any ills, abuse, evils committed by women is taboo. My heartfelt, deep gratitude to women like Amy Wax for speaking up "from within" and without. The world profoundly needs wise, astute, strong, just, individuals like her. Men and women aren't to be adversaries, yet the extreme of Feminism is about that. )
he's a spineless s1mp
Men are rarely punished for domestic violence. It only ends for the woman when she is eventually deleted by him.
She makes a great point about there being way too many people with degrees who are just not smart enough to have benefited from tertiary education.
I teach at a liberal arts college. The average intelligence of a college student in the US is now 102. And it really shows. If I have a class of 25, I'm actually teaching five decently smart students with 20 bored observers who can't follow the discussion. And they're going into lifelong debt for the privilege. It's no wonder that most departments and professors see this and, in their progressive mindset, conclude that school should be transformed to accommodate the needs (read incapacity) of these students by turning it into a right-think factory. Really awful - those kids should be starting families, getting real job training, etc.
@@Lindsay_Quo_Vadis Interesting comment Lindsay. Here in Australia 45% of 25 to 34 year olds hold a bachelors degree or higher with the federal government saying it wants to increase this further. We'd be a lot better off with fewer degree holders and more people with practical skills and qualifications. We have, for example, a housing crisis due in part to a shortage of qualified tradesmen and women. Investment in high quality vocational training should be a priority.
Glad i`m old,Aussie,working class and never finished high school. Escaped all the shit of these times. We know who we are
Me too. And I'm glad I didn't waste my fertile years in academia and fancy careers. Better finding a good bloke and having a few kids.
@@grannyannie2948
@@grannyannie2948hark at you! Don’t you feel ‘a cut above’ women who have had working careers in public life! Lol. Come on sister - let’s all value each other equally no matter what route we took in life. All routes have their pros and cons. No need for the nasty snipe ‘fancy careers’ for women who worked in academia (for the common good) during their fertile years.
@@SophieHamilton-d3e Meanwhile the Anglosphere nations are being systematically replaced due to falling birthrates. I eventually went to university when my kids were older, and the nonsense they troped was beyond ridiculous.
But they were the social workers and teachers sent out to destroy the next generation. I instead tried to save as many as I could. As a qualified social worker, I became a professional foster carer, of what became over 60 children.
But no, this new class of social workers were ridiculous. So what that a man convicted of raping his 14 yo daughter, should now have custody of his 11 yo daughter. After all he is brown.
I care for the genuine welfare of people, especially children. Not the current brain fart from academia. And yes, I do believe that feminists are to blame for much of what is wrong.
I’m 54. And, I wish I was older! 🙈
I like the concepts of chaos and order to represent the feminine and masculine. Both have value and both can be oppressive and/or destructive if not in balance. It really has nothing to do with genitalia. We all embody these forces to some degree. I studied art history in the early 80s. There was quite a bit of deconstruction going on then but it was mostly a positive imo.
Nothing wrong with understanding the controversial personal life of Picasso for example, as opposed to depicting him in an almost saintly way, without flaws. This should never have led to trigger warnings attached to his works. Give it another generation, and his paintings will be moved to storage if they even survive the iconoclasts. We're probably one generation or less away from Renaissance sculptures getting toppled because 'white men are evil.' It's so much like ISIS toppling ancient Buddhist statues that it's chilling. We need balance at this point, desperately.
43% Modern Women are deemed unattractive for Long term relationship/marriage, 68% Men don't feel like approaching women, pursuing relationship/marriage proposal, women wanted equality, sexual liberty, hook up culture, feminism liberated women from relationships/marriage.
Amy will be remembered long after her time. Thanks for having her on.
The last sensible Prime Minister of Australia (John Howard) refused 50/50 male versus female ratio in his cabinet stating that proportionally males are more career driven and thought his 70/30 ratio was about right. He also structured the family tax/benefit system in favour of those having more children. He saw the family unit as the foundation of society. That was 20 years ago.
Don't worry, the dismantling of those ideas is almost complete. some ex Victorian premiers and albo have seen to that.
Amy always goes hard AF. Love her
Prof. Wax does NOT hold back. Absolutely necessary and tremendously refreshing.
Hopefully this is a pendulum swing leading to an eventual reversal.
Alas, the damage is so debilitating it may take generations to reestablish equilibrium.
What are we going to do with all the spinsters?
Lovely to hear Amy's analysis. Feminism has brought academia and western societies more broadly, to its knees.
Matriarchies have never gone past the mud or grass hut stage of civilization. The reason is obvious.
Elites want u jumping in the river. Have robots coming for all jobs. Why else would they support feminism? Maybe could love loose young women.
And that’s because women feel instead of think and they think feeling is thinking. Academia is now because of this Marx-ism on steroids.
Correct. Eastern cultures have avoided this disruption of advancing intellectual and cultural evolution as they maintain their dedication to the development new ideas regardless of who may or may not need to be included and dragged along to share the glory of the success. This has of course left the west at a distinct disadvantage in the immediate and long-term future. yclep down below nails the difference between men and women. Men prioritize structural stability to avoid PERVERSE CONSEQUENCES while women mostly prioritize immediate feelings.
Emotional "resoning"has taken precedence over objective reasoning in society. In particular, when it comes to women. It's striking how modern education in the West emphasises discomfort awoidance.
Great guest. Amy is one of the few guests who can integrate the fields of philosophy/law, neurology/medicine, evolutionary biology/psychology, academia, and even culture into a coherent narrative of the problems (and sometimes even the solutions) affecting our times.
On the male versus female sexuality front, however, the male sex drive is obviously due primarily to the fact that men have 17 times the amount of testosterone in their bloodstream than women. The only biological females who ever really get to experience the male sex drive are female body builders who take androgenous steroids. This has actually been documented in the cultural body building literature, although I don't know if it's been scientifically examined.
I would bet that most males would like to turn their sex drive OFF for a few weeks or months. But, if we did that collectively, then I really believe that society and infrastructure would soon start to collapse (without said male sex drive). For better or worse, the male drive to reproduce (and, in doing so, impress females - in the hopes of securing a potential mate) drives initiative, ingenuity, and civilization's maintenance. To doubt this (male sex drive and it's role in maintaining civilization) is naive at best and delusional at worst, imo.
We now have trans-men who also support the testosterone = increased sex drive theory.
'Trans' people make up so little of the population (as a whole), so why even bring them up - other than to push a political ideology?
@@jennaphage
Why even use this as an example unless you are trying to promote a certain political ideology?
@@beaucannington6448 Transmen admitting in interviews that their sex drives increased when they started exogenous testosterone for their transitions; anecdotal evidence that supports the comment above. As commentator stated, no official papers to draw this link, but observations in female weight lifters who have used steroids. We can also observe this in transmen. What am I missing?
That's fair
Great to hear a well balanced conversation on this topic, which is often taboo 👍
I graduated from an all-boys high school that is nearing 200 years in age. In the alumni newsletter, and during my periodic visits back to the school, I have noticed a steady takeover of the place...by women. Faculty, moms-with-too-much-time, maybe a trustee or two or three. Now the teams periodically wear pink uniforms for breast cancer awareness. There is also a therapy dog whose necessity and utility cannot be questioned. The fact will always remain that boys and men have a limited tolerance for social events organized by women and institutions that are run by them.
I am also temperamentally quite different and have struggled with the Feminization of public life for years, both at work and in my personal life. Thank you for discussing the topic.
Women lean towards social constructionism, men lean towards rational objectivism.
Thank you, so much, for having Amy Wax on. She is absolutely fantastic.
Amy Wax is brilliant. Her bourgeois values article was great.
Wby didn't the males in academia resist? Because even the strongest man will break under constant nagging.
I was gonna say: why did the male academics capitulate ? Because they had wives, of course.
Because the ones in power control what goes on in academia too
I adore women with such marvellous common sense
Re: the Push for Parity at 44:00 - an anecdote: I recently have been taking mandatory corporate annual ethics training, on line. The training videos have become quite slick since I first started taking the training ~10 years ago. They are no doubt developed by high end marketing firms that specialize in training videos. What annoys me is just how utterly ethnically diverse these videos are. They make such an overwhelming effort at ethnic and racial diversity as to be strikingly obvious even if I wasn't thinking about it. The last video I viewed, I decided to keep track of who was on the screen talking to me. A black man, a black woman, a white man, an asian man, woman, a latino man or woman... etc. I then tallied the results. 44% of the time a person was on the screen (even in cartoon form), it was a black woman. Only 5% of the time it was an Asian woman. Now, this is at complete odds with my professional field (biotechnology). Those numbers should be reversed if we are to be "fair and representative". Biotech is at least 50% Southeast Asian, so I should be seeing an Asian woman on screen at least 25% of the time, not 5%. White men were represented the second most at 11%, but that's still a little under-representative. So this push for equity is jarring and quite frankly, weird. It's gone so far now, I would prefer not to see any person on the screen talking to me. Just use an AI generated voice at this point.
The corporate Koolaid at my job very pointed makes a white male the screw up or bad guy in 95% of the training skits, a white female 4% of the time, a black male only once, and a "minority" female never screws up or offends others even once. If I played the victim game like these wokies do I would sue for emotional damages from racial and sexual discrimination, instead I'm learning enough to leave to work at a company that doesn't tell me each year how much they hate me for existing.
Wax is purely common sense. I love the idea of taking a more ‘aristocratic’ approach to parenting as a remedy to career pause.
No, this sense is now very uncommon.
Whoa. Lack of manliness. I got cancelled ftom a theate group, the Dinner Detective, and now I am ready to fight back. I should have pushed back at the time. I am sick of this leftist pronoun pronouncing anti racist woke idiocy.
Louise, to quote Lizzo, “It’s About Damn Time” you had Amy Wax on your podcast.
buckle up ladies the back lash will be amazing, which is good because feminism wrecked anything entertainment oriented.
It wrecked literature, the universities, Hollywood, corporations and education.. Everything it touches is ruined in about 3 generations. It takes time for utter corruption to spread.
It's also wrecked the education system, the legal system, industry, the family unit, and politics.
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391
All the institutions that previously favored men.
@@wyleecoyotee4252 No, they favoured merit.
@@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391
Nepotism isn't merit
Ooh yeah Amy Wax, much respect
If you want to live in a feminist theocracy that is your choice. I prefer the bombastic macho thing - but that's just me. These women seem to talk from the point of view of "what I can get" and not "what I can give". If that is how you see the world - good luck with that.
Something I've discovered as a result of having many hospitalizations in the last few years is that women are great in the medical field. They've always dominated nursing, but even the majority of the doctors in the hospitals I've been in have been women also. And unlike what I've noticed in some other fields, their excellence in medicine seems to come naturally to them. And they seem to be more attentive and conscientious than the male doctors I've had in my lifetime. So maybe we should just allow men and women to dominate fields that are suitable for them instead of viewing everything as having to be 50/50.
Garbage ,the toxcity and bullying between female nurses is contributing to many women leaving the job. Men also bully but not to the extent of women I the medical field.
Honest question: are there ANY wmn alive today who haven't built their entire belief system upon the flawed notion that wmn have historically been severely constrained by men?
There's a short from the Richard Nixon Foundation 'Women in Negotiations' of Nixon talking of the advantage of having a woman on your team as men wouldn't be harsh toward a woman and thus be weaker in the negotiations.
This interview was the most mentally stimulating one i have listened to in ages. Total respect to Mrs Wax.
Thanks for having Amy Wax.
A wonderful interview - thanks!!!
I’ve rarely worked for a woman having emotional maturity. Most were wholly unsuited to leadership and took everything personally.
On the upside, the hilarious screaming matches between female co-workers and passive-aggressive fighting made decades of office work entertaining
As a Dad I've shared this with my 21year old daughter. Wondering if to share with my son...
these trends will continue largely unabated. practical men see the destruction being wrought and are bailing out of participation in western society leadership - and instead building businesses separate from the system.
That thesis nails it and almost NO ONE admits it…yet
I find Dr. Wax"s discussions on the feminization of society, IQ differences, diversity and Wrstern vaues so extremely interesting. I just can't believe she hasn't lost everything due to her statements. This woman definitely stands up for her viewpoints! 💯
Amy Wax is a treasure. I'd donate a kidney so that she could have another 20 years being as sharp and brave and principled.
The overall effect is to take society away from capitalism and individualism, moving it toward socialism and collectivism.
I appreciate Amy’s bravery as truth benefits us all.
For years I have been talking about Toxic Femininity running rampant.
How do you define toxic femininity?
@@Himmiefan Self-righteous control resulting in the infantilizing of some and the demeaning of others done in the name of "Caring."
Her assertion about men in academia having been captured by leftism or at least having a lack of cultural confidence is salient to Western society more broadly as well, but also leaves out a keep reason for why many men gave in even against their better judgement: for a significant period of time going along with the Zeitgeist got them more sex from more women.
But good on Louise for calling her out on getting her own daughters educated. Big blind spot Ms. Wax hasn't really bothered to think through. Good enough for me but not thee
Women own academia and everything it now represents.
Western culture has long been the most navel-gazing of all cultures; we over-analyze everything. In academics, I have noticed we also tend to like certain explanations ("it's cultural") over others ("it's human nature"). This pretending that e.g. no sex differences are in human nature, that we can re-shape everything to be according to some utopian whim, has led to many cases of throwing out the baby with the bath water. We have forgotten the saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and overly favored the idea of "change" as always good.
only the social constructionists
14:48 .Love Amy Wax. Louise tried to underplay female flaws by using the term bitchiness. Amy didn't let her get away with it. She emphasized the problem was truth and fair mindedness. Louise doesn't get the problem because she is a part of it.
Two very smart women who seem to be seeking the truth. Feminism has, quite literally, thrown the baby out with the bath water.
Such an important interview.
Upper levels of medicine, its just become riddled with bureaucracy.
The outrage expressed by women today when confronted with the way women we expelled from employment in agriculture and industrial manufacturing after WW2 should be redressed by asking those outraged women how many of them now work in primary industries and manufacturing?
It's been fifty years since employers have been prevented from excluding women in these activities
Female academics tend to be lefties, socially aware, from upper middle class backgrounds and highly educated with PhDs. Universities, particularly in humanities and social sciences, are also a haven for lesbians, feminists, social justice warriors, and Karens who argue women are disadvantaged. Female academics also started in the early 1990s to adopt postmodernism as ideology. We saw a lot of this in 2024 with the Israel and Hamas debate. People will question truth about Jewish hostages and sexual assaults, calling it a "false narrative". Feminists also question the new freedoms women enjoy living in the west.
Well, historically, women have been disadvantaged in all societies. Also, I suspect you're a Palestinian who try to dominate comment sections.
Hierarchy vs Circle of friends
Some, perhaps many organizations work best as hierarchies
I'm just curious if there's anybody listening to this that disagrees with Professor Amy Wax. Frankly, I'd be surprised if any leftists or progressives would listen to these well reasoned conversations. And if by any chance there is a leftist or Progressive lurking, what do you find objectionable about these very reasonable positions?
Depends on what you call "a progressive", I guess. I still have mostly the same beliefs that made me "a progressive", by 00's standards...
... but when I talk to modern lefties, they seem to think those same beliefs make me some kind of "far right white supremacist", today (I'm black, lol).
But I think there's a decent amount of people like me, "classical liberal" or "politically homeless", or whatever other label- People who still believe in that older version of "progressivism", where it basically just meant genuinely equal rights. But who reject the modern version of "progressivism', where it means obsessive identity politics, biology-denying"gender" ideology, "critical race theory" etc, and is very authoritrian and pro-censorship.
Chief difference between men and women: structure vs feelings as a priority. Structural stability (perverse consequences avoided) is men's priority, immediate feelings are women's priority. That makes men better at big systems (the Founding Fathers were structure guys) and women better at small systems (household, neighborhood).
Extreme over-generalizations do nothing but hurt people and society. Men and women are human and therefore are able to think, change, and adjust. Men can do these so-called small systems and women can do the large systems.
I'm not sure I would mind living in a grass hut.
Thank you both for this. 💪❤
Women have much to contribute, but not toxic feminism... It isn't college if everyone gets a gold star for just showing up.
15mins in and I LOVE HER!
ftm who transitioned 2001-it took me a decade on T to realise my feminist lesbian training abt what men are was SO far off the mark its just beyond words at this point!
abigale favale is right abt the history of how we got here
yes- Kinsey, money, blah blah blah
what's missing from the conversation is Dworkin & Millet and womens studies as the delivery device for Marxist QT
feminism is undulated female opinion- not 1000% fact
the bias is overwhelmingly obvious but u need to be able to see it to look
Good Job- your getting close & it should be admired that your this honest!
The thing you said about feminism being unchallenged female opinion seems to be true. Thing is it seems to be running straight into a wall of easily accessible empiricism. Most of the talking points they have been using can easily be disproven with hard data. That why almost no feminists do debates anymore.
Accepting the hypothesis that the evolution of men prioritised the obtaining and protection of resources, then it would make sense that it included a bias to submit, in general, to the needs of women, otherwise it would spiral out of control. Therefore if there was a bias, then it would exacerbate the current challenges. i.e. In general, men find it harder to say no to requests from women than women saying no to the requests from men. - Just a thought.
I love this woman.
Why academic men gave in: Human Resources is run by women. See the chapter "Administrative Encirclement" in John Gall's _Systemantics_, the process whereby the people hired to order paper and pencils wind up in charge of everything.
Amy Wax is a masterclass. She goes in guns blazing.
What I have noticed is that articles published by academics almost always portray women as suffering or being hard done by. Take for example the 2nd Shift that now has transformed into mental overload, emotional labour. The findings were based on journal keeping, and the fact that the genders might just keep a journal differently perhaps wasn't considered to be a factor.. Take for example doing the laundry, it takes for example 5 mins to load and unload the machine that has a cycle of 90mins, so it possible that a women would include the whole time from beginning to end of 100 minutes, even though she sat down and had a cup of tea/coffee, while men may have only measured the acutal effort of 10 mins, while they went and did some other activity.
I don't know a single person who would sit down & wait for the washing machine to complete its cycle 😂 do you think women are imbeciles?
Awesome lady. There really is no great good that can or has come from the feminization of academy. As is, things are disintegrating at a rate of knots and it's the handiwork of dedicated feminists to have it thus.
I think there is definitely outside influence pushing these problems in institutions.
Wowzas. Amy Wax doesn't pull punches does she?! To be fair I love her honesty. We need a bit more of it in the world generally.
We need Government programs and funding to get men into these fields to give balanced views and serve as an examples for our boys and young men.
I’ve never looked to a male University Professor for back-up when things go bad. Enough said…
This seems like the women that continue to vote against their own interests and the interests of their children over and over again. Lots of linear thought processes where it’s this or that. Progress and preservation can occur at the same time. Everything that was, is not appropriate for future times. Unfortunately she’s procreated and lent these principles to her sons who will likely continue her legacy of thought. She’s an educated “trad wife “.
The problem with the idea of figuring out the failure modes of female leadership is that men assimilate to female leadership by nature. Look at how the right has adopted some feminists narratives uncritically. In my opinion that's the missing piece and is the reason for an ideological pump. The empathy gap is evidenced that male perception is bent to protect women. So unlike male negative behavior I don't see any opposition since men will always assimilate according to their incentives. That's how all institutions work from MIT to NYT and the only thing that arouses anyone's opposition are things like women's sports in an outsized way.
Its profoundly simple... If you separate the warrior and the intellect, your was will be fought by fools and the thinking will be done by cowards...
Full stop
Never thought of academic women as blue stockings - they work shorter hours and have longer holidays... which, by the way, helps with raising children.
I wrote you when you first were harassed and you kindly answered. I am thrilled you have not wavered
"Lecherousness in men" -- Women will be VERY unhappy if they actually successfully extract this... (The conundrum again).
the relationship between masculization of women and feminism is a fine example of becoming what one hates. In my highly unacedemic research over the past decade I cannot and have not found a single real example of oppressive patriarchy whereas men oppress women and men benefit from that oppression. I've been offing a $500 reward for one.
She's correct generally yet should not be confused by the speed and degree of the feminism pendulum swing - primarily feminism champions took advantage of the idealism and acceleration of socialization mechanisms of the post war era.
Intrinsic to this was the post World War II culture and belief that Western culture could do no wrong ( reason could always replace traditional values, science had "proven" this) as long as it went the opposite direction of anything deemed at first War; and once we had a first generation freed of War conscription the feminism machine had to redefine its purpose as against Patriarchy; and once women occupied a significant position in preferred workplaces in academia the objective had to be redefined as Toxic Masculinity (to be expedient this man expunging all masculine traditions all the way to chivalry and male politeness); once a generation of boys had given up the traditional Moors of male behavior than the purpose had to Reese specify to find a purpose - "white" men, straight, Christian, conservative, more and more sub targets are chosen as the purpose kids trying and failing to refocus as inevitably the demographic Targeting hits upon the very well being of those pushing the feminism.
Foundational to this was worth fatigue which gave way to grandiosity where people believed we had won the greatest war, in large part defeated famine and disease, created inventions of wonder and ease making - there was the idea that we could go away from anything (philosophical at first and sociological at last) related to "the bad", the war, and even forego traditional rules and religion (which were framed as historically failing to prevent the bad things rather than keeping them at bay), because they now "possessed", by the capacity of our new inventiveness, the ability to encompass and immediately reinvent the very beingness of human. This belief soon became a slogan indoctrinated into youth who grew up believing it not only was possible but was a necessity to reject the principles of the previous generations in favor of the narcissistic promise they were (and still are) supposed to fulfill. Given the new concentrated proximity of the mass of each new generation, from a young age and through centralized schooling and mass communication, there became a generationally renewing efficiency of understanding that anyone who spoke or acted contrary to the "change/hope" mandate was only proving their point...
The path back is through Christianity - traditionalism. There is no other reference system of beliefs that has the historical and cultural underpinnings strong enough to be re-established efficiently. This is still working and a strong and bride power base, however it has become two divided and also caught up in the demographic defined debates rather than the mechanisms of government which to base the people's capacity (independent land, business, ip, and education ownership) for self-determined preservation of familial well-being and pursuit of happiness.
Hang on, this analysis seems a little ahistorical or context-lacking to me. Amy Wax says men are the ones responsible for modern civilization and I concede that's true. But shouldn't she also concede that it's because half of the human population wast forcibly excluded from education, professional training and public life? I think her perspective assumes meritocracy when in reality it was just a male-designed system that had a predictable structural bias towards men. So now, when women have only VERY recently been allowed participation in those things, changes are happening. Bad ones? For the worse? I'm not so sure about that. This is difficult for me because I agree that "femininity" is pretty lame and superficial and encourages weakness. It's gonna take some time for women to fully shake it off because of the extreme cognitive dissonance women face (i.e., be agreeable and pretty and nice, but also have some ambition, but also have a family, but also don't be a golddigger, etc.)
Your framing is locked into the modern one so often pushed via schools and media.
Try this on for size:
Women are excellent at managing and running families, whether nuclear or extended. They are built to wrangle children and to convince men to do things for their and their children's benefit. Over our history, women and menhave worked together to build civilization - women, by building and maintaining the families that are thw bedrock of our social order, and men by building the infrastructure and providing the resources the families need to thrive in.
Can a giraffe ride a skateboard? Maybe, but I don't have any evidence that they are capable of it. It is entirely possible, and perhaps we should give them a chance at it, but maybe (just maybe) we should also scrutinize them while they are making their attempt at it, and if they fail over and over again maybe we should rethink the experiment.
In the same vein, we need to be allowed to scrutinize a society that is now largely run by and for women. If a society run by and for women starts running off the rails, perhaps we should have the ability to yank on the brake lever, take a breather and rethink how we go about managing our societies.
Also, you are making an assumption that these things you call "feminine weaknesses" are socially constructed and can be shaken off.
Have you ever considered that perhaps these things you speak of are in-built biological processes shaped by eons of evolution, and therefore can't be simply shaken off, and also therefore might actually cause harm to women if we try to socially-engineer evolved biological behavior out of them?
Our view of history has been greatly skewed by feminist ideology. Women have always been considered very important contributors to society and the economy, but not always on the same way as men because we are different. Women may have had less rights but that came with much more security and far less accountability. For example if a family went into debt, only the man could be held responsible. The other reality is that most people - Women and men - were generally excluded from education and positions of power. It was a class divide more than anything else.
@@bbainter7880 I get what you are saying and I think you're half right. But I am particularly engaging with "femininity" i.e., social expectations placed upon women. There are both 1) real biological differences between the sexes that impact our behaviors (I agree with you there), and 2) behaviors that are taught and modeled socially. I mean, Amy Wax admits in this very interview isn't particularly feminine, so she's breaking the mold. She makes some decent critiques of femininity but I just didn't agree with her framing.
I'm worried the end result of these deterministic perspectives often end up at "women obviously don't belong in these spaces of power. They are too emotional, they ruin it with feelings, they should just care for the family, etc. It's evolution!" Femininity and masculinity, when treated as natural and inevitable, are limiting.
@@laura44135 I've heard this line of argument before -- and I do appreciate that we often look at the past through a modern perspective and can loose the element of context. I am absolutely a historical materialist.
But I do think you display some of that same bias in your examples. A family goes into debt, and only the man is responsible and that is... a benefit to the woman? The woman who would perhaps have been interested in contributing financially to the household but couldn't?
I actually do like you brought up class because I think it's a crucial element that is overlooked too frequently. Yet, in limiting the financial prospects of women, did that doom them to perpetually be in the "underclass"?
Society changed, and is changing still. And when women had the opportunity to for a little self-direction, many decided to take freedom and autonomy over security and no accountability.
Did Amy take a shot at jewish guys at the end of the podcast? 😂
Ii would treat a visit to Harvard as I would a visit to Moonie headquarters. Ethnologically interesting, not for me.
Y'all trying to figure this out before the infrastructure fall on y'all? Let me put my popcorn away
No we figured it out already
You are correct. I concluded this s few yesrs ago but didn’t think I could express it.
It's baffling she doesn't know why they didn't resist (9:15). Men hold the roof as a responsibility and a burden. If they are told they are no longer needed, they'll be happy.
Gravy train unstoppable, buffers how far ahead difficult to say.
I don't agree with everything MMM is putting forth here. Would love to talk
Only gay men are left in the academy. The rest of the "real" men pursued labor jobs.
my definition of wokeness is very simple: unearned enlightenment