Thread: Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably

By Lance Welton
"During World War I, seven of the medical schools attached to the University of London decided to start admitting female students, as did Oxford and Edinburgh University. But by 1928, five of these London colleges had decided to stop admitting women, with the other two heavily restricting female numbers. Oxford voted for a ratio of no more than one female for every six males. Male academics and students were concerned that the presence of female students, let alone staff, would “alter the character of the teaching” and lead to “feminine government” of universities [Discussed in Education, by Carol Dyhouse, in Women in Twentieth Century Britain, 2014.] In other words, the “masculine” dimension to academia—rigorously, unemotionally and coldly examining facts and arguments—would be wrecked by the increasing presence of emotional and over-empathetic girls. As females increasingly take over Western universities, now constituting the majority of students in the USA [Why Do Women Outnumber Men in College?, NBER Working Paper No. 12139, January 2007 ], it is becoming clear that these skeptics were right.

A recent column by Christopher DeGroot looked how feminization is destroying academia. [The University of Narcissism, October 25, 2019] A recent video by British independent scientist “The Jolly Heretic”—Dr Edward Dutton—has gone even further, claiming that female dominance of universities is destroying the “genius” type that is critical to the generation of original ideas (This idea is developed further in The Genius Famine, by Edward Dutton & Bruce Charlton) . . .

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

Good points. I think any experiment is only as valid as the person interpreting the data, worse is statistics which can be used to prove anything if you squint the right way.
Consider Da Vinci who made a prediction about the function of the heart which he had no way to verify with the technology of his time not until recently was the technology available to check and hence confirm he was right.

In psychology for instance it has become the new rage to label little boys who are energetic as having adhd because little girls are more docile ? Truth is especially in fields which are not hard sciences, there is a required level of trust placed upon the person whose perspective we are trying to adopt. Look at the modern day mental health professional and you find certain maladaptive behaviours yet they expect everyone to use their mind as the criteria to judge health. Like krishnamurti said " its no measure of health to be well adjusted to a sick society.

Cheers

Are they destroying academia? A better question is "What aren't they destroying?"

Destroyed, past tense.

Now it's every man for himself!

Home schooled and self educated are now part of our vernacular (thanks equality, but no thanks), like any raging wildfire, there's islands of life among the ashes where people took measures necessary!

However small, I live on one of those proverbial islands where I live and harvest substance.

This is a great video, however I had a problem with his definition of "empathy", that women want everybody to be happy, get along, and not triggered.

That is not the case. Women are experts at reading people, knowing what affects them, and manipulate their feelings. But they DON'T WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY! In fact they frequently want to make people unhappy. They occasionally make people happy for ulterior motives, to better manipulate them.

But what is the primary driver for female empathy? I think its SAFETY.

Women do not want to create ill feelings with people that can harm them in any way. But the will have no compulsion to do so when they feel safe or its their interest.

So, I would not say women are emphatic, because that word means that one's feelings is aligned with what the other feels.

I would say that women are emotionally driven to security.

Women are attracted to violent men because they feel safe, they think that these man will protect them. Men understand that violent men are usually out-of-control men, and therefore not safe at all.
But women believe they can adjust their behavior to make those man happy and avoid being the victims. Their type of "empathy" is the chameleonesc ability to be and act upon interest and adjusted to the others.

Originally Posted by Manfred

This is a great video, however I had a problem with his definition of "empathy", that women want everybody to be happy, get along, and not triggered.

That is not the case. Women are experts at reading people, knowing what affects them, and manipulate their feelings. But they DON'T WANT TO MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY! In fact they frequently want to make people unhappy. They occasionally make people happy for ulterior motives, to better manipulate them.

But what is the primary driver for female empathy? I think its SAFETY.

Women do not want to create ill feelings with people that can harm them in any way. But the will have no compulsion to do so when they feel safe or its their interest.

So, I would not say women are emphatic, because that word means that one's feelings is aligned with what the other feels.

I would say that women are emotionally driven to security.

Women are attracted to violent men because they feel safe, they think that these man will protect them. Men understand that violent men are usually out-of-control men, and therefore not safe at all.
But women believe they can adjust their behavior to make those man happy and avoid being the victims. Their type of "empathy" is the chameleonesc ability to be and act upon interest and adjusted to the others.

Spot on.

They dont care about making people happy, they care about making the environment safe and stable since its much easy to manipulate and suck resources from a calm group than from a bar rumble.

Also pissed off people are less likely to listen someone who bring nothing on the table or be tolerant toward leechers.

Just think about night clubs, they do anything possible to create violence among men, ignite it when its necessary and only when the fists start to fly they stupidly try to pull people away.

They basically create the drama to get attention and increase their power only to realize that no matter who wins the fights, no free drinks or a lift home will be coming.

So, I would not say women are emphatic, because that word means that one's feelings is aligned with what the other feels.

I would say that women are emotionally driven to security.

Sure. I would add though that these are choices that women make and they can make other choices should they choose to.

One thing which I disagree with many MGTOW is that women are 'genetically' or 'biologically' predisposed to seek safety, security and comfort.

I would disagree. They make the choice to make financial stability, security and materialism their aim in life and they usually get what they want. It may not make them happy, but it does mean they live in far far more comfort than the average man.

People make choices all the time, and we judge them on the choices they have made in life. This is a general rule I follow.
Women can easily choose a different set of choices. They can choose men who are kind, caring but maybe not the richest or most attractive.

Originally Posted by Opaque

One thing which I disagree with many MGTOW is that women are 'genetically' or 'biologically' predisposed to seek safety, security and comfort.

I would disagree. They make the choice to make financial stability, security and materialism their aim in life and they usually get what they want. It may not make them happy, but it does mean they live in far far more comfort than the average man.

People make choices all the time, and we judge them on the choices they have made in life.

There is a lot to be said in the discussion about choice or lack of choice (the biological imperative or other).

But the bottom line is "how does that affect me?"

Either there is a conscious choice or not, the fact is women's behavior is harmful to men.

So, maybe in the practical sense of life it doesn't matter if it is voluntarily or involuntary. It is simply bad.

But we can dwell a little this discussion because of the AWALT principle. If we take the position of a biological drive to women's behavior, them AWALT makes perfect sense as "the way things are". Just like saying people need to eat, its a biological imperative.

However if there is no evolutionary trait as basis for female behavior, then how do we look at AWALT? It makes this argument very shaky!

In fact, if female predatory behavior is voluntary, then the NAWALT argument is more likely, because some women can and will chose differently.

But the way I see it there is little freewill in mankind.

Yes, there are choices, but how are those choices evaluated? By our desires, or instincts and our needs. And these things are biological and evolutionary.

Maybe mankind is a lot less rational than we like to believe.