Feminists and the Weak Men Who Empower Them

Christopher DeGroot has written a wildly unpopular but wholly truthful and important essay about men and women and the urgency of the problem created in western culture by feminists and the weak men who empower them. An excerpt:

“In this essay I shall argue that masculine reassertion is necessary for authority’s sake and for keeping the US competitive at the international level and the culture stable (“the principle of order”). For in time, there is little social order without sufficient male authority, and excellence, too, declines insofar as resentful manipulation and hysteria—the latter historically a distinctly female phenomenon—triumph over sober judgment and rationality. Needless to say, in an inherently competitive world, such a situation is not desirable. What could be better for the Chinese, our chief and quite ruthless competitor, than our corporations and universities forever enabling meritocracy to give way to gender-based hiring quotas, that unjust feminist imperative?

Like the ancient Greeks, the ancient Chinese associated order with men and chaos with women. Certainly no informed person, knowledgeable about the history of human institutions, could believe that safe spaces, microaggressions, bias response teams and the like ever would have arisen in any male-only or male-dominated context. As feminists rightly give us to understand, the characteristic vices of men—violence, harshness, insensitivity—are on the other side of the psychological spectrum. Lee Jussim and other social psychologists have shown that “gender stereotypes are mostly accurate,” and that “Stereotype accuracy is one of the largest and most replicable effects in all of social psychology.” It must be understood, though many people will dismiss it as sheer prejudice, that more than men, women in their moral behavior tend to act on sheer affect. For it is the vital instinct of the mothers of our species to be deeply partial to their children. Meanwhile, arriving at the objective good requires exacting impartiality, something that, in many instances, is contrary to the interests of one’s in-group relations. If, as Rudyard Kipling said, “The female of the species is more deadly than the male,” then so much the better for the family, the terrible bias serving its interests. Yet ours is a mixed life, so what is a virtue in one domain can be a vice in another.

For example, research confirms what people have long observed: that women (on average) are more egalitarian and more altruistic than men. They are also higher (on average) in conformityless open to ideas, and value consensus more than men do. Within the family, these traits allow women to serve essential moral functions, for which we should of course be grateful. But outside the family, these same traits can allow for much harm, however unintended. And though it is a sensitive one, we need to be able to discuss this subject objectively and dispassionately. I am not, it should be clear, trying to “vilify” women or some such thing. As I have indicated, the value of a trait depends on its function in a particular context. I refer to differences in degree, not in kind, between the sexes, nor is it my purpose to criticize the moral behavior of women per se.

More than women, men in their moral behavior tend to be abstract and rule-oriented, just as they are more meritocratic. The word virtue itself means manhood, manliness: the quality of being a real VIR, as opposed to being a child, or a woman. Virtue’s secondary meaning in both French and Middle English (and medieval Latin) was power; compare to English in virtue of = by the force of X or from the power of X. Little wonder that major moral thought systems—be they religious or philosophical—have always been created by men. History furnishes not a single exception. Likewise, all vast systems of rational social organization have been created by men: religion, government, law, science, academe. Again, there is no exception. 

As for why this is, I am persuaded by Steven Goldberg’s argument that patriarchy…”

You can read the entire article here.

Leave a Reply