The "left" took over the "cultural apparatus"; the "right" took over the courts: note that both have undermined women's rights. The "right" have undermined access to abortion; the "left" has undermined women's sexed based rights to the extent that women's sports are in jeopardy.
Women fundamentally experience life differently, still obviously are the ones who get pregnant and incur short and long term health consequences due to pregnancy and birth, and still carry the greater burden of childcare for young children. Women have also been objectified to a greater degree than men due to widespread hardcore pornography. Women make up the majority of human sex trafficking victims.
Yet, neither the left nor the right have advocated on behalf of women's right to maternity and parental leave and employment/education protections.
We're talking about half the human population.
The discussion around race is important, but the wholescale abandonment of biological sex as a reality by both the right and the left, and the reality that women encounter life differently due to this, leaves half of America completely abandoned in terms of a meaningful effort to address education, employment rights, right to bodily integrity, the right to sports competition with other women and the right to a reasonable level of safety.
Young women today are depressed and alienated at an unprecedented level. Meanwhile, the "left" and the "right" continue talking over their heads and both seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of women's lives.
Pregnancy discrimination is alive and well and living in our universities. Do you think that Clarence Thomas would come down on the side of Evdokia Nikolova in her tenure/pregnancy discrimination case against UT Austin?
While I agree that the admissions policies at Harvard are very wrong, and discriminate against Asians, the problem with the discussion in the podcast is as follows:
They touch on sex based discrimination and suggest that it *may* be different from race based discrimination. Sex based discrimination *is* different from race based discrimination and up until recently has repeatedly been viewed as being different from race in terms of requiring special legal protection. The speakers in the podcast seem to be quite clueless about this.
They discuss Clarence Thomas in a quite rosy light. My comments specifically bring up problems with Clarence Thomas. The article I posted about Anita Hill has a long discussion about how Clarence Thomas and the concerns about his professionalism when he was put on the Supreme Court.
Trust me, we know that sex-based discrimination is different than race based discrimination. Mortara worked on an emergency motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction on the Tennessee ban on child sex changes.
Mortara is, however, a legal conservative and a former Justice Thomas clerk -- he's pro-life and approves of the Dobbs decision as a matter of law. Those are his views that made it into our conversation.
The podcast mentions the Federalist Society. They are no friend of women and seem intent on destroying policies that would allow women to advance in academia and in professional level jobs. I doubt that the Federalist Society would defend women from pregnancy or maternity discrimination.
The woke don't feel bound by a court they label fascist. They will press on. By tilting the admissions scale, and then upmarking their favorite races, it'll be easy to judge skill by skin color in the end of this process. Woke stupidity knows no bounds.
At the moment, most teens with gender dysphoria are girls and young women. Do people really think that gender dysphoria has nothing to do with the current high level of animosity and hyper sexualization directed at young women?
Personally, I'm done with the screamers who direct their angst at drag queens. If anyone is serious about taking on the high level of gender dysphoria in teens, it's time for them to start talking seriously about the rights of women and girls, and about how the rights of women and girls have been seriously undermined in the last ten years.
Glossing over the problems with the Supreme Court, in my books, further undermines women and girls and does nothing substantive about why so many teen girls don't want to be women.
You mistake my position. I never said that "drag queens and sexualization of kindergarteners will reduce gender dysphoria & hypersexualization of young women". However, I don't hear the same level of outrage over grooming of underage girls by those who are not drag queens and instead are plain old creepy older guys. I've tried to interact with several moms in California about what I see online happening to teenage girls. They don't seem to care about the problem unless it involves issues where children and teens are being groomed into gender non-conformity. Many of these activist mom's organizing around trans issues seem to have a very militant attitude about trans issues, and seem uninterested or unaware of the broader context of why teenage girls have such low self esteem (according to the research of Jonathan Haidt).
Again, you'll need to expand on that. A lot. In particular, I'd like some clarification about age & behaviors, as "creepy older guys" is incredibly vague.
Which is not to say that I'm a fan of current online behaviors; indeed, I'd be happier if smartphones disappeared off the face of the earth.
What would you like me to do, Eric? Make myself permanently unemployable raging and throwing verbal insults at Scott Wiener? Like many women, I no longer have any social media accounts because anytime I say anything online, I'm hit with the "Karen" label. In 2020, when I was on twitter, I made a few jokes about how ridiculous it is not to be able to say "woman" and instead have to say "person with a uterus". I got doxed.
Men were silent and likely not the least bit interested that women where being forced off social media. Even quite recently, I saw Michael Shellenberger using the "karen" label.
As part of my career (electronics engineer) working in Silicon Valley and Washington, DC, as a woman in a male dominated workplace, I've delt with pervasive abusive supervision, pay discrimination, maternity discrimination, temper tantrums from bosses who felt threatened by me, a guy threatening to bring an AK-47 to work if he had to continue being my colleague, male classmates and professors running a hardcore pornography operation on the computer servers where I had to do my research, heterosexual male classmates cross dressing as women to ridicule women . . . that's not even the half of it.
Look up Jonathan Haidt's research. Discord, TikTok, Youtube, Instagram, 4chan . . . full of hatred and dehumanization of women. Something like a full third of teenage girls are profoundly depressed. Haidt's research indicates that depression in teenage girls correlates with smartphone usage.
The drag queen's in libraries and public schools? This did not emerge in a vacuum.
Excellent commentary. The modern discourse patently ignores the elephant in the room. Kudos to you for saying the thing out loud despite doxxing, denial, and harassment.
Legacy admissions? Doesn't seem like the Supreme Court is very interested in discussing legacy admissions.
Clarence Thomas? Sorry, I'm no fan of his and haven't forgotten about Anita Hill.
In fact, I agree that Harvard's admission policies are completely screwed up and should be changed to be more like that of its neighbor, MIT. But why do we place so much weight on Harvard as an institution anyway? After so many scandals, it seems like Harvard's reputation as an institution is undeserved at this point.
Of the people that I have seen gain legacy/donor admission access to Harvard, Georgetown and Princeton this year, all were white young men. Families usually have to be wealthy to gain these legacy/donor admissions. Don't have any statistics on this. Of course, it would be interesting to see the stats on that. And again, it probably varies by school. But Harvard, Princeton, Yale? Probably mostly white. I'd be happy if I was wrong.
Nonsense. Legacy/donor admissions perpetuate an insider American ruling class that is impervious to the realities of the rest of the country. This is damaging to most Americans, including middle class and poor white Americans.
I don't actually believe in classifying people by their skin color. In any case, I'm partly a descendant of people who called themselves "Founders of Hartford" who escaped England in the 1630s under a veil of religious persecution. What Thomas Hooker, the theologian, believed in:
Olmsted believed in the dignity of the common person.
If you were to ask Hooker and Olmsted what they thought about legacy admissions for wealthy donors (most legacy admissions are, in fact, given to wealthy donors), I suspect they would say it is destructive to the long-term interests of the country.
I'm with Thomas Hooker, Frederick Law Olmsted and the dignity and freedom of the common person. I am not with legacy/donor admissions and an American Ruling Class.
Semantic argument, Eric. In fact, I don't care about what legal statute donor admissions violates. That's exactly one way that the country is so so off track. Who gives a shit whether donor/legacy admissions violate an anti-discrimination statute or not? Do you really think that an exceptionally wealthy and isolated ruling class, generation after generation, should legally, administratively and financially dominate a third of a billion people?
The "left" took over the "cultural apparatus"; the "right" took over the courts: note that both have undermined women's rights. The "right" have undermined access to abortion; the "left" has undermined women's sexed based rights to the extent that women's sports are in jeopardy.
Women fundamentally experience life differently, still obviously are the ones who get pregnant and incur short and long term health consequences due to pregnancy and birth, and still carry the greater burden of childcare for young children. Women have also been objectified to a greater degree than men due to widespread hardcore pornography. Women make up the majority of human sex trafficking victims.
Yet, neither the left nor the right have advocated on behalf of women's right to maternity and parental leave and employment/education protections.
We're talking about half the human population.
The discussion around race is important, but the wholescale abandonment of biological sex as a reality by both the right and the left, and the reality that women encounter life differently due to this, leaves half of America completely abandoned in terms of a meaningful effort to address education, employment rights, right to bodily integrity, the right to sports competition with other women and the right to a reasonable level of safety.
Young women today are depressed and alienated at an unprecedented level. Meanwhile, the "left" and the "right" continue talking over their heads and both seem hopelessly out of touch with the reality of women's lives.
Marnie, as valid as your concerns are, they are off topic in this thread.
Just in case you think there is no impact from treating women exactly as men, here's a case for you:
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/03/16/ut-austin-must-pay-professor-3m-sex-discrimination-case
Pregnancy discrimination is alive and well and living in our universities. Do you think that Clarence Thomas would come down on the side of Evdokia Nikolova in her tenure/pregnancy discrimination case against UT Austin?
I listened to the entire podcast.
While I agree that the admissions policies at Harvard are very wrong, and discriminate against Asians, the problem with the discussion in the podcast is as follows:
They touch on sex based discrimination and suggest that it *may* be different from race based discrimination. Sex based discrimination *is* different from race based discrimination and up until recently has repeatedly been viewed as being different from race in terms of requiring special legal protection. The speakers in the podcast seem to be quite clueless about this.
They discuss Clarence Thomas in a quite rosy light. My comments specifically bring up problems with Clarence Thomas. The article I posted about Anita Hill has a long discussion about how Clarence Thomas and the concerns about his professionalism when he was put on the Supreme Court.
Trust me, we know that sex-based discrimination is different than race based discrimination. Mortara worked on an emergency motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction on the Tennessee ban on child sex changes.
Mortara is, however, a legal conservative and a former Justice Thomas clerk -- he's pro-life and approves of the Dobbs decision as a matter of law. Those are his views that made it into our conversation.
OK.
The podcast mentions the Federalist Society. They are no friend of women and seem intent on destroying policies that would allow women to advance in academia and in professional level jobs. I doubt that the Federalist Society would defend women from pregnancy or maternity discrimination.
The woke don't feel bound by a court they label fascist. They will press on. By tilting the admissions scale, and then upmarking their favorite races, it'll be easy to judge skill by skin color in the end of this process. Woke stupidity knows no bounds.
The best way to fight alleged racism is with real racism. Way to go Harvard!
BTW, your brand is plummeting thanks to all the Woke insanity.
Anita Hill in her own words:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/10/01/30-years-after-her-testimony-anita-hill-still-wants-something-from-joe-biden-514884
At the moment, most teens with gender dysphoria are girls and young women. Do people really think that gender dysphoria has nothing to do with the current high level of animosity and hyper sexualization directed at young women?
Personally, I'm done with the screamers who direct their angst at drag queens. If anyone is serious about taking on the high level of gender dysphoria in teens, it's time for them to start talking seriously about the rights of women and girls, and about how the rights of women and girls have been seriously undermined in the last ten years.
Glossing over the problems with the Supreme Court, in my books, further undermines women and girls and does nothing substantive about why so many teen girls don't want to be women.
Could you expand on how drag queens and sexualization of kindergarteners will reduce gender dysphoria & hypersexualization of young women?
You mistake my position. I never said that "drag queens and sexualization of kindergarteners will reduce gender dysphoria & hypersexualization of young women". However, I don't hear the same level of outrage over grooming of underage girls by those who are not drag queens and instead are plain old creepy older guys. I've tried to interact with several moms in California about what I see online happening to teenage girls. They don't seem to care about the problem unless it involves issues where children and teens are being groomed into gender non-conformity. Many of these activist mom's organizing around trans issues seem to have a very militant attitude about trans issues, and seem uninterested or unaware of the broader context of why teenage girls have such low self esteem (according to the research of Jonathan Haidt).
So that's where I'm coming from.
Again, you'll need to expand on that. A lot. In particular, I'd like some clarification about age & behaviors, as "creepy older guys" is incredibly vague.
Which is not to say that I'm a fan of current online behaviors; indeed, I'd be happier if smartphones disappeared off the face of the earth.
What would you like me to do, Eric? Make myself permanently unemployable raging and throwing verbal insults at Scott Wiener? Like many women, I no longer have any social media accounts because anytime I say anything online, I'm hit with the "Karen" label. In 2020, when I was on twitter, I made a few jokes about how ridiculous it is not to be able to say "woman" and instead have to say "person with a uterus". I got doxed.
Men were silent and likely not the least bit interested that women where being forced off social media. Even quite recently, I saw Michael Shellenberger using the "karen" label.
As part of my career (electronics engineer) working in Silicon Valley and Washington, DC, as a woman in a male dominated workplace, I've delt with pervasive abusive supervision, pay discrimination, maternity discrimination, temper tantrums from bosses who felt threatened by me, a guy threatening to bring an AK-47 to work if he had to continue being my colleague, male classmates and professors running a hardcore pornography operation on the computer servers where I had to do my research, heterosexual male classmates cross dressing as women to ridicule women . . . that's not even the half of it.
Look up Jonathan Haidt's research. Discord, TikTok, Youtube, Instagram, 4chan . . . full of hatred and dehumanization of women. Something like a full third of teenage girls are profoundly depressed. Haidt's research indicates that depression in teenage girls correlates with smartphone usage.
The drag queen's in libraries and public schools? This did not emerge in a vacuum.
Excellent commentary. The modern discourse patently ignores the elephant in the room. Kudos to you for saying the thing out loud despite doxxing, denial, and harassment.
Legacy admissions? Doesn't seem like the Supreme Court is very interested in discussing legacy admissions.
Clarence Thomas? Sorry, I'm no fan of his and haven't forgotten about Anita Hill.
In fact, I agree that Harvard's admission policies are completely screwed up and should be changed to be more like that of its neighbor, MIT. But why do we place so much weight on Harvard as an institution anyway? After so many scandals, it seems like Harvard's reputation as an institution is undeserved at this point.
I was unaware that legacy admissions violated any antidiscrimination statutes. Perhaps you could expand on that.
Oh, it doesn't. But the suit can be bad PR for Harvard.
Of the people that I have seen gain legacy/donor admission access to Harvard, Georgetown and Princeton this year, all were white young men. Families usually have to be wealthy to gain these legacy/donor admissions. Don't have any statistics on this. Of course, it would be interesting to see the stats on that. And again, it probably varies by school. But Harvard, Princeton, Yale? Probably mostly white. I'd be happy if I was wrong.
Again, how does that violate an antidiscrimination statute? At *best*, it discriminates against white non-legacy admissions.
Nonsense. Legacy/donor admissions perpetuate an insider American ruling class that is impervious to the realities of the rest of the country. This is damaging to most Americans, including middle class and poor white Americans.
I don't actually believe in classifying people by their skin color. In any case, I'm partly a descendant of people who called themselves "Founders of Hartford" who escaped England in the 1630s under a veil of religious persecution. What Thomas Hooker, the theologian, believed in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hooker
Freedom. That's why they left England. For freedom.
Frederick Law Olmsted, another descendant of the "Founders of Hartford":
https://www.gsd.harvard.edu/2021/01/in-cotton-kingdom-now-sarah-zewde-retraces-frederick-law-olmsteds-route-through-the-southern-states/
Olmsted believed in the dignity of the common person.
If you were to ask Hooker and Olmsted what they thought about legacy admissions for wealthy donors (most legacy admissions are, in fact, given to wealthy donors), I suspect they would say it is destructive to the long-term interests of the country.
I'm with Thomas Hooker, Frederick Law Olmsted and the dignity and freedom of the common person. I am not with legacy/donor admissions and an American Ruling Class.
Be that as it may, you still haven't mentioned which anti-discrimination statute that legacy admissions is violating.
HINT: NOT ALL BAD THINGS ARE DISCRIMINATION.
Semantic argument, Eric. In fact, I don't care about what legal statute donor admissions violates. That's exactly one way that the country is so so off track. Who gives a shit whether donor/legacy admissions violate an anti-discrimination statute or not? Do you really think that an exceptionally wealthy and isolated ruling class, generation after generation, should legally, administratively and financially dominate a third of a billion people?
Wes, thanks for the audio product. Edifying and insightful interview. Hope you’ll continue with year zero.