Posted on 01/06/2026 5:21:42 AM PST by beejaa
End of transcript beginning at 24:48:
"Our old systems were based on a masculine value system. Femininity was valued and it was respected, but it mostly played out in the private sphere. Public life was dominated by men and masculine values. Whether or not there is an important contribution that feminine values can make in reshaping our large institutions still remains to be seen. We are still very early in that experiment. But if you want to diagnose why our cultural decline seems to be speeding up and also understand where it began, look at gender. Our culture and our society have become feminine and everything that you see is an expression of that femininity."
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The content of the video is in a similar vein to an recent article by Helen Andrews, "The Great Feminization," but it takes a longer look and is less sanguine about the possible outcome.
I don’t listen to nor read long articles from people who are complete strangers, and whose credentials are unknown to me
BFL
One thing that is known is when each state gave women the right to vote spending began to increase in each state at that time. It likely never went back to previous levels.
The 19th Amendment was a mistake, but I think it’s too late to go back now.
Can’t blame it all on the women. Easier to learn this when you are raising daughters and see the losers who are interested in them.
Society is falling apart. I'm sure you've noticed how every single institution feels weaker, every conversation feels more fragile, and people today are more anxious, more tribal, and more easily offended. The moral compass of the West, once built on individualism, truthtelling, and merit, has been replaced with something softer, more irrational, and far more chaotic.
People offer lots of different explanations for why this is. Some say that it is religion collapsing. Others say it's race politics, it's cultural differences, it's immigration. Others blame capitalism, globalization, technology, class conflict.
There are so many lenses of interpretation through which you can look at the decline of the West. And all of these lenses capture the story to some extent, but none of them get at the root. That's because there is a lens that nobody uses. It is a lens that people actively avoid because they are scared to talk about it. The implications are just too big. Yet, this lens explains the pattern more clearly than any other.
I'm talking about gender. When women gain influence over cultural norms, values, institutions, education, media, public discourse, that's when everything changes. Not because women are bad, but because feminine psychology, feminine morality, and feminine styles of conflict resolution are at their core in conflict with what used to provide the structural basis of all of our institutions.
By the end of this video, you will understand that it is gender more than race, class, or creed that is the invisible engine that's driving our cultural decline.
Let's start with the collapse of private life. It was in the movement of second-wave feminism that the popularized slogan, "The personal is political." became widespread. Things that used to be considered politically neutral, like domestic duties and gender roles, suddenly came into the spotlight and were framed as tools of political oppression. Suddenly, you could not escape politics. Previously, liberalism held a divide between the public and the private sphere. The state governs the public and the home governs itself. But feminism expanded the definition of oppression so that it was no longer just economic but included the moral and the personal spheres as well. Sexual norms, even household chores. All of these were now considered political discussions.
The effect of this is that once private life has been politicized, then no longer are your choices considered an expression of individual agency, but instead a political statement. Suddenly, a woman's choice to stay home and raise children is no longer an expression of her personal values, but a symbol of her political oppression. Gender is now a political identity, and it carries all of the associated moral weight.
Of course, once gender becomes political, it opens up the floodgates.
What other identities are now political?
Why not race?
Why not sexual orientation?
Why not neurode divergence?
Why not body type?
And now we have created intersectionality where identity has become the core of politics not ideas not values. Tribalism has replaced individualism and it is group affiliation that now defines your moral status and your credibility and role in public life. This of course completely erodess the foundations of liberal thought that held that individual sovereignty reigns supreme guaranteeing the rights of everybody under the law to be treated as equals. Feminist ideology undermined this claim by saying that neutrality was a myth, that all systems are embedded in bias and that justice and equality in the old system was impossible.
While home life and the family had previously been a safe haven from political discussions, this new ideology completely tore that open. Suddenly, the family structure became a battleground for power and the traditional patriarchal model of a man at the head of a household was seen as inherently abusive.
While femininity by default is internalized oppression, these assumptions are now what govern our culture from the law, from education, all the way through to media.
Once feminism demonstrated that you could use your group identity to advance yourself personally, it then opened the door for everybody to identify with their group and then use that as a tool to get ahead. Merit was no longer the determining factor to see how far you could rise. Grievance was. This undermines the liberal notion that it is individual merit that should determine your level of success.
But very quickly, feminism made the claim that women were not succeeding because of a lack of individual merit, but because of systemic oppression. Perhaps they were right. But instead of giving time for the culture to catch up, they relied on legal action, enforcing affirmative action, gender quotas, special recruitment programs, and of course, scholarships based on gender. The key change was that feminism framed under representation not as a challenge to be overcome, but as proof of oppression and injustice.
It didn't take long for people to notice that being part of an oppressed group gave you moral leverage. When you were applying for a position, you are no longer just a candidate. You are now a potential solution to an injustice. Employers could no longer afford to look at candidates simply based on merit because not hiring you was suddenly a political decision. Once the politics of representation took root, it didn't take long for other groups to notice. The strategy was mimicked by racial minorities, the LGBT community, even obesity activists and those who were pushing for body positivity felt they needed representation. The message was clear. You don't need to outperform, you just need to out-identify.
Suddenly men began to feel a pressure that they had some kind of moral duty to step aside to allow women to take opportunities that they based on merit would have been given because to not do so would be an act of political oppression. It was not difficult to institute these changes because feminism was very effective at exploiting the human capacity for empathy towards the vulnerable. Before we even knew what had happened, we discovered that our compassion had been hijacked and used as a competitive tool against us. Those who favored a merit-based system were pushed aside as increasingly individuals looked towards their collective identity as their personal tool for advancement. The cultural precedent is set and now every minority identifies with their group identity.
But don't forget, it is gender and feminism that was at the root of it. Perhaps if this had stayed within our public institutions, we might have been able to weather the storm. But when feminism politicized the home, that was no longer a safe space. With no place left in their life untouched by ideology, people felt a drift. And so they turned to group identity as a psychological coping mechanism to provide that sense of safety that all humans need.
It is almost impossible to understate how much damage has been done by the erosion of a stable family life. It used to be that men could suffer setbacks out in the world but still be respected at home. It used to be that women found tremendous meaning and identity in their role as mothers and wives.
Children had a clear model for how reality worked, a sense of structure, and the roles that were expected of them. With that psychologically stable base, it gave individuals the freedom to experiment and to innovate in the public sphere, knowing that they could always return to their families and their home for stability.
Undermining that foundation has created a collective trauma that is very deep. People questioned their identities. They did not know what their role was. Suddenly you found fathers uncomfortable embodying the authoritative leader role at home. Mothers were inattentive to their children, seeing them as a form of oppression and soft imprisonment and often left the home in search of a new identity, a quest to find themselves.
The results were entirely predictable. Divorce rates soared. Children grew up in confused and fragmented homes. They internalized the message that nothing is permanent. There is no safety. There's nothing that you can count on. Without a stable non-political identity, mother, son, daughter, father, people began to define themselves by their group affiliations.
Your group identity became your new emotional home. To understand why, we need to consider the evolutionary roots of female psychology that women are inherently more tribal and group oriented. Due to evolutionary pressures, women naturally evolved survival strategies that were anchored in group bonding and social cohesion. So long as this was tempered by male authority and other matters, it was fine. Things were in the balance. But as women's tribal instincts began to take hold in our public institutions, it eroded the healthy sense of competition and individualism that used to define our public life and replaced it in favor of emotional consensus and group thinking.
There is no denying that the ideology of individualism maps far more neatly onto male psychology. The notion of healthy competition, a fair fight, or even just going it alone and being a lone wolf are all instincts that fit naturally into male psychology.
But for a woman to be seen as an individual alone from the group was akin to a death sentence. She needed the sisterhood to survive. And so over generations, evolution favored women who prioritized group coherence and social harmony. When given the choice, many women would choose to be wrong but remain inside the group, than to be right and kicked out. This is why differences of opinion and conflict inside all female groups can either become explosive or be quashed. This is because the stakes for women are incredibly high.
Conflict, disagreements, and arguments, these are not opportunities to learn from new perspectives. Instead, these are dangerous developments that threaten the harmony of the group. At a cultural level, this has reshaped everything that we experience. As we move away from a competition of ideas into a public discourse that focuses more on consensus building and emotional validation, social media has become an ideal environment for studying these ancient feminine tribal instincts as they're playing out today.
You see the ancient instinct of reputation policing with the modern phenomenon of cancel culture. You see virtue signaling with the constant anxiety to be seen as one of the good ones, one who gets on with the group. Political correctness itself emerged from the tribal instinct to promote harmony, to make sure that nobody felt excluded or offended.
The goal is not let's have a debate and discover what's true. The new goal is to make sure that everybody feels good. Over time, a society that internalizes these values becomes risk averse, emotionally sensitive, and conformity driven. The traditional hallmarks of liberalism like creative dissent, free speech, intellectual disagreement, these are viewed as threats to social cohesion. Now the group is more important than the individual, a direct inversion of liberal values.
Women on average earn less than men and are more likely to be receiving benefits from the state. They are more likely to take breaks from their career to raise children and they are more concentrated in lowpaying careers of hospitality, nursing, administration, etc. These realities make women natural supporters of state sponsored redistribution. Subsidized child care, health care, food assistance, housing. On average, these will benefit women more than men. Their support for this kind of welfare state is naturally drawn from the feminine values of care, compassion, and inclusion. The obvious result is that women have developed political preferences that deemphasize consequences for your own personal choices and the justification of state support for any individual's behavior regardless of how poor that choice was.
It is important to understand that this is not just ideological. This is biological. What you're seeing is the feminine instinct to nurture scaled up to the position of law. What we now see is the erosion of any natural accountability structures. The system has now been designed to insulate people from the feedback loops of reality and an increasing number of people for whom their need is a permanent state of affairs. They will be dependent upon the government for life.
One of the biggest drivers of this change is the demographic of single mothers who receive more support from the government than any other group. But of course, when you subsidize the choice of single motherhood, you disincentivize any instinct that they had for preserving a long-term relationship or encouraging their own independence. It is not a coincidence that we have seen a decline in marriage rates. It is not a coincidence that women vote more left-leaning on economic issues than men do. And it is this voting block that has shaped national policy away from temporary relief structures to permanent dependency systems.
Over generations, this kind of dependency becomes culturally embedded and children grow up seeing the government as the natural provider of their needs rather than a man, a father, a husband. Men are increasingly being displaced as the economic providers, replaced by the state. Gratitude shifts away from your personal relationships towards the government. After all, they're the ones taking care of your needs.
And so the cycle continues until people feel like the idea of a government that is not involved in every area of their lives as an unthinkable course of action never to be contemplated. This will be difficult to break because men and women define compassion in fundamentally different ways. When men think of compassion, they think of fairness and justice, holding people to a consistent set of standards and giving them a chance. But for women, their expression of compassion is very different. It's often expressed with rule bending and leniency and a desire to remove all suffering.
Most men when asked do not have the desire to remove suffering from the world as they see it as a useful consequence that indicates to somebody when they have strayed too far from the path. It might hurt when somebody tells you something that you don't want to hear. It might be painful if you try something and it turns out to be a bad idea and you fail. But the suffering that results is its own form of dignity, one that men respect. In masculine logic, it is actually cruel to spare somebody from their suffering that they've created for themselves because you deny them the chance to learn an important lesson. There is a nobility that comes from letting a man fall down, knowing that he's going to have the strength to pick himself back up.
This runs counter to feminine values. Women are evolutionarily attuned to pain and suffering, and their instincts for nurturing and caregiving give them the impulse to soothe suffering wherever it shows up, even if it comes at the cost of growth or truth. In female logic, mercy is not earned. It is given by default.
You see this divide when it comes to the way that mothers and fathers typically discipline their children. The father might say he needs to learn his lesson. He broke the rules. He lied. And he needs to suffer the consequences so he knows not to do it again. A mother might say, "But he didn't mean to. Can you see how upset he is, how much he's suffering? He needs to be given another chance."
This is not to say that both the masculine and the feminine don't have their place. Children do better in two parent households where there is both a masculine and a feminine value system operating. But when it comes to our institutions, you can see that the masculine approach with equality under the rules and a strict and rigid enforcement of those is going to produce a very different outcome. To put it another way, when you allow feminine values to shape institutions, what you are actually breeding is inconsistency. If one person is punished, but another person is excused, then suddenly truth becomes less important than pain.
Over time, this erodess trust. If the rules don't apply equally to everybody, then eventually people just stop respecting them. Justice becomes political rather than principled. There is no better example of this than the fact that women receive lighter sentences than men do for the exact same crime.
None of this is to say that compassion and forgiveness are not important values, particularly when practiced in the private sphere of life. But it is an undeniable fact that over time if you spare individuals from any hardships then on a societal level eventually you will be creating weaker individuals and a culture that features far more injustice.
It is also true to say that women naturally are more risk averse than men. At the core of classical liberalism is the belief that you are free to rise and you are free to fall. You are free to win and you are also free to fail. Failure itself is not injustice. It is feedback.
To men, this freedom is important and men are naturally predisposed to taking risks, facing consequences, owning their outcomes, and creating new plans based on that feedback. This mindset is extremely important for any society because it creates innovation and entrepreneurship. An individual who practices personal responsibility in this way is going to be a leader, somebody that other people feel trust in and who they can count on in an emergency.
Unlike men, women are not built for risk. While in caveman times, men were out waging war on the neighboring tribes or hunting big game or doing other dangerous activities, women stayed at camp, protecting themselves and protecting their offspring, often relying on the community around them for their sense of safety. Risk was inherently more biologically costly for women. Pregnancy and child rearing demand caution, and your status as a woman in the tribe depended upon you being well-liked. And given that women were almost guaranteed to be able to reproduce, it really made no sense for women to take huge risks.
It is no surprise then that women overwhelmingly support public policy that eliminates risk. There has been an exponential increase in government regulations, consumer protections, health and safety mandates, and various other forms of government overreach all in the name of the public good.
Gradually what you have seen is freedom being reframed away from something that is heroic and noble into a source of danger. Freedom is seen as being reckless or selfish or harmful. Even free speech, the cornerstone of all liberal democracies is under attack. As there is a growing sentiment in society driven primarily by women that if free speech can be used to say things that are hateful, then that speech needs to be regulated.
The consequences of this kind of thinking are devastating. A society that wants to protect its citizens from failure is going to kill ambition. Risk takers, those that would use their creative energies to innovate and push society forward, are now going to be seen as dangerous troublemakers and villains that are making the rest of us unsafe by their choices. The effect of this is not limited just to male adults, but to our young boys as well. In the classroom, natural boyish instincts for rulebreaking, risk-taking, and rough play are heavily discouraged. Those masculine instincts that used to be seen as useful and virtuous are now viewed with suspicion. They grow up to be men in a society that seems to fear liberty more than it fears tyranny. For these young boys, there is no reprieve once they reach adulthood because they'll find that the institutions themselves that he will go into have all been reshaped by these same feminine values.
In higher education, grade curves have been flattened in order to protect students from feeling like failures. Safe spaces and trigger warnings have replaced areas that should be reserved for intellectual challenge and debate. In corporate human resources departments, hiring and promotion discussions are now shaped by diversity optics rather than merit. Emotional complaints often outweigh objective valuations, and men fear advocating too strongly for themselves at the risk of not being seen as a team player or pushing aside somebody who others feel is more deserving.
And perhaps the strongest institution that we've seen shift under feminine influence is that of journalism and media. There has been an undeniable shift away from hard journalism, our accounting of the black and white facts, towards narrative journalism, which focuses on the lived experiences of the people going through the event. Newspaper headlines are written more for emotional validation rather than informing the audience. Opinion pieces are seen as more important than those pieces with true investigative depth. When the focus shifts away from the discovery of the truth towards emotional validation, then it naturally creates a culture of intellectual stagnation.
Why risk innovating or suggesting new ideas when all it does is put a target on your back?
In all of these institutions, the natural male instincts are being wasted because they are not welcome or valued. Men's ambition, their quest for the truth, their innate competitiveness, these are all now viewed as problematic. But in not making use of these masculine contributions, we've lost something extremely important. And there is no recourse for men to voice these complaints because the difference between the masculine and the feminine methods of conflict resolution.
If a man did have an issue with the institution and the way it was being run, what are his options? He would like to have a structured debate, a competitive testing of the ideas, an objective examination of the facts. But this is because it suits the masculine style of conflict resolution. But women feel and experience things differently. When things get difficult for women, they often resort to indirect emotional tactics, social exclusion, passive aggression, and reputation destruction. These instincts fundamentally undermine the integrity of any debate where we're having a healthy disagreement, and any quest for the truth.
Men do not inherently view disagreement as problematic. In ancient times, when discussing battle tactics or hunting strategies, there was likely fierce disagreement amongst the warriors as they debated the merits of a particular course of action. But this was encouraged and even promoted because this exchange of ideas would lead to the best outcome. It was possible to fiercely disagree with the person next to you, but still respect them, knowing that at an inherent level, the two of you were on the same team working towards the same goal. These masculine instincts formed the basis of our cultural institutions that we have today and the principles that underly them. Courtrooms where justice is delivered, scientific inquiry where new discoveries are made, sport and athletic competition, and even in the realm of politics where healthy debate used to be a hallmark of our liberal democracies.
However, the concept of a healthy disagreement and respect for an opponent who is telling you that you are wrong is a difficult concept for female biology. This is not to say that women are not competitive or that they don't enter into conflict with each other. But women have strong instincts telling them to repress this conflict and to express it in indirect ways. This is why you see in groups of women tactics used like gossip, social exclusion, emotional manipulation, reputation damage. The goal is often not to win the argument, but to undermine your opponent's social standing.
As more women entered into the institutions of media, education, and politics, their style of conflict resolution began to take over. It has shifted from a case of you are wrong to you are a bad person. Debate is no longer about ideas. It is about signaling which tribe you belong to. The collapse of respectful and rational discourse in our society is corroding us from the inside.
In order for a healthy society to function, there needs to be space for a healthy disagreement and an exchange of ideas that is robust and competitive. A shared commitment to truth, a willingness to hear ideas that make you uncomfortable or that you don't agree with. There needs to be a fundamental understanding that the facts of a situation are often separate from the feelings we have about it. When we lose our commitment to these principles, everything collapses.
People begin to self-censor out of fear of being punished socially. People are afraid to express their true feelings, always running them through internal filters of what is emotionally acceptable in the cultural zeitgeist of the day. Intellectuals, university professors, even comedians begin to walk on eggshells, scared of offending their audience.
Again, we have a situation where the masculine values are not able to thrive or even contribute in this system because men's directness is seen as relational aggression. The logic that so defines the masculine mind is seen as cold and harmful. And any disagreement that they express, even in a healthy way, as seen as them trying to usurp power and dominate a situation. The effect, of course, is that many men have just checked out of public discourse altogether, no longer willing to participate in a system that does not value their contribution.
How long will men stay on the sidelines?
How long will men stay quiet?
These changes have happened gradually and many men are still only now beginning to wake up to the feminization of their society. They can sense that something is wrong, but it's difficult to put their finger on it.
And of course, it's easy to lay blame at any number of the groups or forces that seem to be benefiting from the current system. But as you can see, at the very core of all of it is gender. Are there biological differences between a rich person and a poor person? Is the DNA of a white person and a black person vastly different? What is a better predictor of your neurology? Is it the fact that you are religious or is it your gender?
None of this is to say that people don't have competing interests based on their economic realities or their cultural preferences. But it is an undeniable truth that from the biology upwards, men and women are different. Our old systems were based on a masculine value system. Femininity was valued and it was respected, but it mostly played out in the private sphere. Public life was dominated by men and masculine values.
Whether or not there is an important contribution that feminine values can make in reshaping our large institutions still remains to be seen. We are still very early in that experiment. But if you want to diagnose why our cultural decline seems to be speeding up and also understand where it began, look at gender. Our culture and our society have become feminine and everything that you see is an expression of that femininity.
Bishop Sheen talked about this in the 1950s while “the greatest generation” was cooking up schemes of normalizing birth control and abortion and turning to formula derived from European pharmaceutical industry to feed their kids, leading to dissolution of natural birth spacing among other things, including overwhelming women with yearly pregnancies and childbirth
One of Bishop Sheen’s talks on women and culture
This is a problem that is temporary.
At some future point there will be hard times and the rules will change.
Warlords don’t get kindly to women that do not obey.
Women never played on sports teams.
Generally speaking, men can walk into a room and determine the leaders and smart folk within a few minutes.
Women have a difficult time with that because they are disposed to nurture and be emotional.
It will change over a few generations because it’s a culture thing and not genetic. But it was painful watching them trying to navigate the corporate world 25-30 years ago.
He's put himself at risk because the globalists who've been pushing Feminism for more than a century as part of collectivism do not like the truth being shared.
Easy divorce makes all of this much worse.
Young girls are often raised in a home with no male role model to speak of. The mother will often portray the father in extremely negative terms. The difference between a strong, responsible man and a dangerous, toxic man may be unclear to the girl. The guy with tattoos, a drug problem, a motorcycle and a prison record? He just might be the “strong protector” a young girl wants to date.
This cycle gets worse each generation.
My preference would be that no divorce settlement would ever allow any alimony or child support. You want separation? Survive on your own. You want custody? Support them on your own. The vast majority of divorces are initiated by women — make this decision far less appealing to women, and more married couples would find a way to make the marriage work. Kids would benefit in a huge way.
BKMRK.
Should be titled:
How DEI hiring practices led to the decline of the West.
Women in positions they are not qualified for have done most of the damage. I have preached this for decades.
Hiring on the basis of ability and qualifications would have prevented much of the damage done.
Instead, we were compelled by some to fill management jobs by checking boxes. Big mistake.
Wait, every third commercial on a weekend is girls playing flag football, besting the men players, and acting like thugs just like the men. Doesn’t that make them alpha-males?? /sarc
I agree
The is the main reason why Muslims hate the west and what has radicalized them. They do not want their society Femenized.
No doubt about it. In newsrooms too. When men dominated media news was unemotional
You are unbelievable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.