The numbers afre impressive but i have ask the question "+41 what?". What units, what scale, what the h*ll are they rerprewsenting in a relatively real world outside of statistics?
Trump DOJ official [Leo Terrell, Black male, interviewed by Hugh Hewitt] proclaims federal law enforcement power is being marshaled to "eradicate anti-Semitism in this country." Kind of like when liberals claim they can eradicate "racism" or "bigotry," but even dumber, and connected with suppressing criticism of US foreign policy
That must have titillated Hughie, pro-Zionist that he is. It's interesting how easily Americans are manipulated into doing things that are not in their best interest.
I was once a long time subscriber to the Economist Magazine. I got my degree in Economics and History. I wasn't able to pursue the advanced Econ due to finances and the need to work and feed a family, but I remained interested in Econ and read the magazine for the wide range of subjects. In the 150 year anniversary edition (Sept. 11-17th, 1993). They featured a survey of the next 150 years and the contributors were a range of leading thinkers across World politics and current affairs, Biz/Finance and Science, a total of 19 thinkers and doodlers, our betters.
I was really struck by the article written by Daniel Boorstin, at the time, Librarian of Congress, emeritus. His essay: A Conscious Wracked Nation. Two New Worlds are heading for Conflict. I think he captured the Zeitgeist of the American people. He opened, "Everybody knows that the founders of New England came to America for reasons of conscience." They aimed to "purify" Old World institutions and set up a spiritually pure city upon a hill." He mixed a just a little de Tocqueville, love of wealth, and how the 19th century European viewed us as crass materialists, the American Philistine (Palestineia for the Roman and Greek readers).
It's three pages long and if there was a way, Mark to send you a copy via email I would for others to read. I think he was on to something as it has played out so far. It was ideals and conscience. We are moved by every injustice and conscience colliding with opportunity (reparations), level the playing field, individual and the community. Quite an essay and I found it timely and I see so much of what he wrote driving the mania of who and what we are in the world today. Figuring predominantly were the feminists. it's all there, abortion, rights of the unborn, rights and more rights of black, Indians, bigotry, the new American moralism. I think Women today exemplify this new moralism, this rights mania, and the opportunities that a level field has given and they see themselves staking their right to decide, to control and to bully America to being the way they see the world should be.
Many higher-income women, including a healthy share of white women, have something in common. They've been indoctrinated by radical leftists at an institution of, supposed, higher learning.
These women have been taught to prioritize their career above a husband, children and the family, in general. They're miserable. That's why they cling to the federal government. Who's their daddy? It's Uncle Sugar.
Plus, they've been taught to hate whites, especially white men. Now that the left has successfully taught hatred of white men, they've moved onto hating white women. Therefore, many white women have self-hatred.
Another success story brought to you by plundering your tax dollars.
Well, I sure wish I knew. I am a college-educated white woman and I have been lonely in my female-to-female relationships ever since 2016. It is like everyone has lost her mind. I relate so much better to men and women with no degree, but I really miss having women I align with.
Obviously, we exist. But I'd be interested if this were broken down not just by education/sex, but location -- like city. I live in a liberal city in a liberal state. Of course it would be like that, here.
No degree doesn't mean lack of depth or intelligence, and having multiple degrees does not mean a person is more aware of what's going on, clearly. It is sad that the more educated a person is, apparently, the more susceptible to brainwashing.
OK, but we do all know that women tend to flock together and tend to care a lot about being accepted by the group -- more so than men, generally speaking. So, this insanity is sadly self-reinforced by the group.
Many pixels have been blackened over the "AWFL" phenomenon. I'll just note that in higher education women (on average) tend to gravitate toward the arts, humanities, social sciences, and medicine: fields that emphasize human relationships. Meanwhile college men (on average) tend to go for fields that emphasize study and control of the inanimate: "STEM" as we've glossed it lately. The mindset required to work with "things" is less susceptible to bullshit than that needed to work with individual people, let alone people in groups. I can't claim to say whether or to what extent this correlation is cause or effect.
Also, it might be an unpopular thing to say here, but the progress toward equality made by feminist movements of the past few generations have been driven by the Left. Most of us now take for granted that women can hold professional titles and careers, including political office. This was not always so, and perhaps we can see how the now well-paved political path of liberation has led to some unexpected and unhappy destinations.
Re-reading my last paragraph in light of the comments, I didn't make myself clear. Equal rights and economic opportunity are *good* things. I wouldn't want to live in the casual misogyny of the 1970s, and I think most workplaces and fields benefit from having both women and men at all levels. Competence, not chromosomes, should determine career advancement.
At the same time, I believe that raising children is honorable and vitally important work, and should be valued as such. Women are obviously better at this, and it would be a good thing for everybody if they could do it full time.
You shouldn't have to qualify what you wrote; that is a symptom of the times we live in. You were correct to point out the problems progressive thinking has brought forth. Equal rights is still relatively nascent so we could posit that we are still ironing out the creases and finding our way forward - particularly women. Misogyny is still a thing but it now has a friend in misandry. Also, there are plenty of females out there who take advantage of progressive 'values' to disguise the fact they are nothing special - they blame their woes on misogyny or whatever when in actual fact they're just a bit rubbish at adulting. I'm totally opposed to the 'feminist' movement as it is today because it has warped into something really damaging, particularly to girls and I don't appreciate men who describe themselves as feminists - they aren't helping. Please don't feel you need to qualify your opinions - they are valid and most women if they think critically about the subject would agree with you.
They seem to prefer authoritarian methods. It’s the total control aspect. Women are one of the politically protected species. Protected groups seek power and control over those they see as having been their nemesis, most often men or people they differ ideologically. This is not meant as broad brush since more centrist or conservative women remain more traditional, but it’s always about the b.s. notion of patriarchy.
Was just having this very conversation at lunch today with two female colleagues (both very smart, well-informed lawyers) about the college-educated-vs.-non-college-educated bright-line used in political analytics. While largely useless as a metric (let's face it, a bachelor's degree now is not the achievement or distinction it was 50-60 years ago), it IS powerful in reinforcing groupthink. Even if I got my BA off the back of a matchbook, I am now rooted in the thinking class, separate from and above "those rubes who believe Trump's lies," so long as I adopt and display the orthodoxy of my fellow "betters." This is where the "in this house, we believe...." lawn signs come in.
This low-bar, hive-minded credentialism is killing public discourse, nowhere more so than in the DC Metro. An open mind, genuine curiosity and ability to listen and discern are far truer signs of intellect than any academic degree.
‘An open mind, genuine curiosity and ability to listen and discern are far truer signs of intellect than any academic degree.‘ Well said!! Conversely, cretinism proudly and comically displays a trend far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
For hundreds of thousands of years, a typical woman had to leave the bosom of the family that brought her up and be adopted by a new family upon marriage. A new name would be assigned to her. To some extent she would acquire new parents (less so in the fast travel, high communication modern age) and take care of them. Linguistics studies have shown that women are quicker than men to adopt new dialects and accents and quicker to drop old dialects and accents. That's why linguists like to study old men in rural districts. It all makes sense; men don't have to adapt as much.
Psychologists tell us that women are evolved to be more agreeable. I bet if you put people in a hostage situation, the women would develop Stockholm Syndrome first, the men later. So maybe the college/university environment is like a hostage situation. For evolution, it works, in its funny, old way. Once you introduce us 'n' them politics it doesn't work. But that's why politics was invented—to spoil us.
https://archive.is/s3g3f
I hope that archive version of the article works. It's from the WSJ titled "American Women Are Giving Up on Marriage".
The numbers afre impressive but i have ask the question "+41 what?". What units, what scale, what the h*ll are they rerprewsenting in a relatively real world outside of statistics?
Wondering if Kornacki polled his friends down the street at MSDNC or spent time at Smith college, Wellesley Barnard etc.
Seems relevant though.
These stats tell us little until factored by marital status and responsibility for children. In my experience, that's what really makes the shift.
Michael Tracey @mtracey
Trump DOJ official [Leo Terrell, Black male, interviewed by Hugh Hewitt] proclaims federal law enforcement power is being marshaled to "eradicate anti-Semitism in this country." Kind of like when liberals claim they can eradicate "racism" or "bigotry," but even dumber, and connected with suppressing criticism of US foreign policy
1:34 PM · Mar 20, 2025
·
That must have titillated Hughie, pro-Zionist that he is. It's interesting how easily Americans are manipulated into doing things that are not in their best interest.
I was once a long time subscriber to the Economist Magazine. I got my degree in Economics and History. I wasn't able to pursue the advanced Econ due to finances and the need to work and feed a family, but I remained interested in Econ and read the magazine for the wide range of subjects. In the 150 year anniversary edition (Sept. 11-17th, 1993). They featured a survey of the next 150 years and the contributors were a range of leading thinkers across World politics and current affairs, Biz/Finance and Science, a total of 19 thinkers and doodlers, our betters.
I was really struck by the article written by Daniel Boorstin, at the time, Librarian of Congress, emeritus. His essay: A Conscious Wracked Nation. Two New Worlds are heading for Conflict. I think he captured the Zeitgeist of the American people. He opened, "Everybody knows that the founders of New England came to America for reasons of conscience." They aimed to "purify" Old World institutions and set up a spiritually pure city upon a hill." He mixed a just a little de Tocqueville, love of wealth, and how the 19th century European viewed us as crass materialists, the American Philistine (Palestineia for the Roman and Greek readers).
It's three pages long and if there was a way, Mark to send you a copy via email I would for others to read. I think he was on to something as it has played out so far. It was ideals and conscience. We are moved by every injustice and conscience colliding with opportunity (reparations), level the playing field, individual and the community. Quite an essay and I found it timely and I see so much of what he wrote driving the mania of who and what we are in the world today. Figuring predominantly were the feminists. it's all there, abortion, rights of the unborn, rights and more rights of black, Indians, bigotry, the new American moralism. I think Women today exemplify this new moralism, this rights mania, and the opportunities that a level field has given and they see themselves staking their right to decide, to control and to bully America to being the way they see the world should be.
Many higher-income women, including a healthy share of white women, have something in common. They've been indoctrinated by radical leftists at an institution of, supposed, higher learning.
These women have been taught to prioritize their career above a husband, children and the family, in general. They're miserable. That's why they cling to the federal government. Who's their daddy? It's Uncle Sugar.
Plus, they've been taught to hate whites, especially white men. Now that the left has successfully taught hatred of white men, they've moved onto hating white women. Therefore, many white women have self-hatred.
Another success story brought to you by plundering your tax dollars.
Well, I sure wish I knew. I am a college-educated white woman and I have been lonely in my female-to-female relationships ever since 2016. It is like everyone has lost her mind. I relate so much better to men and women with no degree, but I really miss having women I align with.
Obviously, we exist. But I'd be interested if this were broken down not just by education/sex, but location -- like city. I live in a liberal city in a liberal state. Of course it would be like that, here.
No degree doesn't mean lack of depth or intelligence, and having multiple degrees does not mean a person is more aware of what's going on, clearly. It is sad that the more educated a person is, apparently, the more susceptible to brainwashing.
OK, but we do all know that women tend to flock together and tend to care a lot about being accepted by the group -- more so than men, generally speaking. So, this insanity is sadly self-reinforced by the group.
Many pixels have been blackened over the "AWFL" phenomenon. I'll just note that in higher education women (on average) tend to gravitate toward the arts, humanities, social sciences, and medicine: fields that emphasize human relationships. Meanwhile college men (on average) tend to go for fields that emphasize study and control of the inanimate: "STEM" as we've glossed it lately. The mindset required to work with "things" is less susceptible to bullshit than that needed to work with individual people, let alone people in groups. I can't claim to say whether or to what extent this correlation is cause or effect.
Also, it might be an unpopular thing to say here, but the progress toward equality made by feminist movements of the past few generations have been driven by the Left. Most of us now take for granted that women can hold professional titles and careers, including political office. This was not always so, and perhaps we can see how the now well-paved political path of liberation has led to some unexpected and unhappy destinations.
Re-reading my last paragraph in light of the comments, I didn't make myself clear. Equal rights and economic opportunity are *good* things. I wouldn't want to live in the casual misogyny of the 1970s, and I think most workplaces and fields benefit from having both women and men at all levels. Competence, not chromosomes, should determine career advancement.
At the same time, I believe that raising children is honorable and vitally important work, and should be valued as such. Women are obviously better at this, and it would be a good thing for everybody if they could do it full time.
You shouldn't have to qualify what you wrote; that is a symptom of the times we live in. You were correct to point out the problems progressive thinking has brought forth. Equal rights is still relatively nascent so we could posit that we are still ironing out the creases and finding our way forward - particularly women. Misogyny is still a thing but it now has a friend in misandry. Also, there are plenty of females out there who take advantage of progressive 'values' to disguise the fact they are nothing special - they blame their woes on misogyny or whatever when in actual fact they're just a bit rubbish at adulting. I'm totally opposed to the 'feminist' movement as it is today because it has warped into something really damaging, particularly to girls and I don't appreciate men who describe themselves as feminists - they aren't helping. Please don't feel you need to qualify your opinions - they are valid and most women if they think critically about the subject would agree with you.
They seem to prefer authoritarian methods. It’s the total control aspect. Women are one of the politically protected species. Protected groups seek power and control over those they see as having been their nemesis, most often men or people they differ ideologically. This is not meant as broad brush since more centrist or conservative women remain more traditional, but it’s always about the b.s. notion of patriarchy.
Bring back Home Ec!
First we'll have to bring back an economy that allows for the possibility of middle-class single-earner households.
Like the 1990's and earlier? Not gonna happen.
and “Shop” (not as in “‘til you drop!”)
Great comment.
Was just having this very conversation at lunch today with two female colleagues (both very smart, well-informed lawyers) about the college-educated-vs.-non-college-educated bright-line used in political analytics. While largely useless as a metric (let's face it, a bachelor's degree now is not the achievement or distinction it was 50-60 years ago), it IS powerful in reinforcing groupthink. Even if I got my BA off the back of a matchbook, I am now rooted in the thinking class, separate from and above "those rubes who believe Trump's lies," so long as I adopt and display the orthodoxy of my fellow "betters." This is where the "in this house, we believe...." lawn signs come in.
This low-bar, hive-minded credentialism is killing public discourse, nowhere more so than in the DC Metro. An open mind, genuine curiosity and ability to listen and discern are far truer signs of intellect than any academic degree.
‘An open mind, genuine curiosity and ability to listen and discern are far truer signs of intellect than any academic degree.‘ Well said!! Conversely, cretinism proudly and comically displays a trend far to the left on the Dunning-Kruger curve.
Thanks Mark - great post.
The master's degree is the new bachelor's degree.
The gift that keeps giving. To the establishment, that is.
For hundreds of thousands of years, a typical woman had to leave the bosom of the family that brought her up and be adopted by a new family upon marriage. A new name would be assigned to her. To some extent she would acquire new parents (less so in the fast travel, high communication modern age) and take care of them. Linguistics studies have shown that women are quicker than men to adopt new dialects and accents and quicker to drop old dialects and accents. That's why linguists like to study old men in rural districts. It all makes sense; men don't have to adapt as much.
Psychologists tell us that women are evolved to be more agreeable. I bet if you put people in a hostage situation, the women would develop Stockholm Syndrome first, the men later. So maybe the college/university environment is like a hostage situation. For evolution, it works, in its funny, old way. Once you introduce us 'n' them politics it doesn't work. But that's why politics was invented—to spoil us.
"women tend to flock together and tend to care a lot about being accepted by the group"
Perhaps what's going on is that being accepted in college peaks at being affirmed by the professoriate--which is 90% + highly liberal.
If you are smart, good looking, and ambitious you will grab the professors attention and of course he will grab what ever she lets him. ;o)
Some women are. The ones grounded in faith and family aren't.