It’s the single chicks, stupid

Here are two excellent articles that explore the problem of social and political troubles that are a direct consequence of female cognitive dysfunction.

Hysterics for Hamas by Heather MacDonald explores the reasons behind and consequences of campuses dominated by women and the skew in areas of study. “Student protests have always been hilariously self-dramatizing, but the current outbreak is particularly maudlin, in keeping with female self-pity.” It is amazing to watch the bizarre demands for medical care while hunger-striking, and the almost self-satirizing expressions of surprise that self-inflicted inconvenience has not brought surrogate parental authorities to their knees. The mental gymnastics (or the absence of mental activity) required to make the Oct. 7 monsters into an official intersectionally sanctified victim group (especially given their treatment of female victims) is astounding, occurring as it has in places where people are supposed to have high SAT scores.

I have always assumed that safe spaces, trigger warnings, and speech codes were a consequence of a female majority. Men think that verbal exchanges in lieu of fists and weapons comprise the essence of a peaceful resolution. Women who grew up under the tyranny of mean girls believe that words are weapons. Revealing embarrassing secrets is even more hurtful if true. The appeal of a monolithic, logic-free victim-based ideology appears to be overwhelming for many.

I think our reverence for the truth might have become a bit of a distraction that is preventing us from finding consensus, and getting things done.” - NPR CEO, Katherine Maher

A perhaps even scarier picture can be found in The march of Kamala’s brides : Miserable young women are the Democrats' foot-soldiers by David Samuels.

Aside from mass immigration, the most striking demographic development of the past decade is the large cohort of American women who have embraced the helping hand of the state in place of the increasingly suspect protections of fathers, brothers, boyfriends and husbands. In doing so, they have become the Democratic Party’s most enthusiastic and decisive constituency. According to a recent Pew survey, these Brides Of The State (BOTS) support Democrats over Republicans by a whopping 72-24%, providing the Party with its entire advantage in both national and most state elections.

The sexual liberation of women has brought about an utterly barbarous dating environment, the rise of the lounge lizard (see, e.g., Clinton, Bill), and two generations of young men instructed that it is her body, her choice, her problem. Displacing men in the workplace also has the side effect of reducing the number of available breadwinner husbands. Restructuring education to reward conformity has created a hostile environment for a lot of boys, further retarding male academic success. The rise of unserious, unprepared young men is a wellspring of female grievance.

[w]omen have surpassed men in earning four-year degrees, while black and Latino students remain underrepresented. But have these efforts made BOTS happy? The answer, according to young women, is no. In fact, the demographic that has been the most highly socialised into core progressive values and would seem to benefit most directly from bureaucratic intervention in their lives is also the most miserable group in America. A startling 56% of liberal American women aged 18-29 have been diagnosed with a mental-health condition (the percentage for conservative women is 21%).

The highly successful American culture was founded on guy stuff, like discursive reason, pursuit of the truth, competition of ideas, and economic and personal freedoms. It is being tossed away in favor of omnipotent HR departments and the elimination of productive academic rigor in favor of “studies” departmental groupthink. At this point, what can possibly undo the magical thinking that government can compensate for an absent or distant father and no reliable husband material, and do so with no concomitant loss of freedom, economic growth, and well-being?

In 2019 I complained to friends that Trump needed to cultivate a more avuncular image befitting a successful presidency rather than punch down at pygmy critics and continuing to alienate marginal female voters. I was told that (a) the combative mode works (b) it is about the issues and performance, because that is what people vote on.

Trump does need something resembling a protective, warm, and fuzzy side this time. Slamming cat ladies (which I admit I enjoy) is not the requisite tool of persuasion in this election. And in this media environment, rational choice is under attack as a derivative of misinformation, sexism, racism, [fill the blank] -ism. Image and feelings matter more than ever. The brazen repackaging of Harris and Walz would make Goebbels blush, but is there any reason to believe it will fail, especially with the sensibility-driven BOTS demographic?

The BOTS don't care about a successful presidency or strong economy if it does not resonate with their sensibilities and generic grievances. If there is a recession, can't the government [daddy?] just print more money and also mandate that because of my good grades, I always get a nice job? As distasteful as the task may be, somebody needs to make Julia understand that her career, the equity in her new condo, and whether it is safe to walk to the park all depend on some objective hard truths in policymaking regardless of feelings and sensibilities.

Given the statistical improbability of an ideal sudden appearance of millions of fiscally secure heroes in gleaming uniforms to rescue unhappy young women like Richard Gere carrying Debra Winger out of that dreary packing plant to a presumed happily ever after (An Officer and a Gentleman, 1982), instead we need a political language to bring tens of millions of unhappy women to a healthier and less destructive cognitive disposition at election time, which would also be a rescue from bad fiscal and social outcomes whether they realize it or not.