How Women Took Over the Universities - Amy Wax | Maiden Mother Matriarch

[@reekinronald6776]

They took over because it was planned, and openly so. In the 90s I received my doctorate. Just before graduating the University setup a series of meetings for graduate students outlining their options for employment once graduated. One meeting was run by a male and female professor. The female professor got up and said that men should not apply to ANY University since there was a push to hire only female faculty until parity was met for male and female staff. She had some pretty graphs showing it would take 20 years to reach parity. Thirty years on and I now visit Universities for my job in the private sector and looking at pictures and names on the directory as I enter the various departments I see that women have a slight edge on men with regard to teaching positions and the vast majority of graduate students are now women. Strangely, the whole idea of parity doesn't seem so important to them any more .

[@Olyrous]

It was never about parity, it's about female priority. Parity and equality are used as a cover to justify preferential treatment.

[@ungarlinski7965]

@@Olyrous Yep. In the same way that racism is used to allow domination by third-world values.

[@michaelmasserang8922]

@@Olyrous, its about power and control. The very root of cultural Marxist politics and narrative.

[@themanofmyth]

Planned is correct, I attended college a second time for a career change about 6 years ago, professors in each one of my classes asked the paying male students if they new of any women looking to get into the Technologies field and that a FREE ride (scholarship) would be available due to lack of diversity and need to have more females represented in the field!

[@non_ideological_transexual7414]

@@reekinronald6776 Yes this was equity and also why equity was used again foolishly to give the "right " of males into womens subsidized sport. Also separate things such as "protected" chess categories that Carol Hooven has written about should exclude females from equal numbers on that basis alone. Hiring strictly on merit , having politicians etc ONLY on merit never happened completely but feminist thinking has made it much much worse .Standards need to be neutral based on the needs of the positions not the opposite 🤮

[@goodtalker]

This is nothing new. Aristotle observed 2,000 years ago: "Masculine republics, over time, will become feminine democracies. Feminine democracies will, over time, become tyrannical." I've seen it in my farming business, when I was in law enforcement, when I worked as a junior high math teacher, and more importantly when my wife divorced me. Men are not afraid of women; but they are afraid of the state! Thanks for reading.

[@bobhill4364]

Wow. Didn't know he said that, but could clearly see that a feminine society would eventually progress into a totalitarian regime. Why that is, is also pretty clear now.

[@grodesby3422]

Also it is not just the existence of men, but men competing or collaborating with each other, that drives a lot of what makes society work. At least when it doesn't boil over into war.

[@jackofalltrades123]

Women who see the world for how it is and not how they want to see it is always a delight to see!

[@carlharmeling512]

Men of creative talent have abandoned the universities and women have moved into the vacuum. Men recognize the restrictive nature of these institutions and avoid them if possible while women are attracted to the thought restrictions and are glad to make their home in that type of environment.

[@ungarlinski7965]

I 100% agree. Once you let the women in, it's over, and eventually these places will lose their real status. Then, when the next institutions are created by men, women will say "you're sexist" until they're let in, and the cycle continues. Thank God for the internet so we can see the patterns much more clearly now.

[@sinesaii]

Only in humanities and social sciences, excluding economics. There are still armies of men fighting vigorously to gain tenure-track jobs. Females do dominate university administrations, which have grown out of control with the worst mission creep ever. But in the academic jobs, men are still there, and they still dominate in sciences, engineering and economics.

[@ungarlinski7965]

It also appeals to girls socially. And the image of the faculty now is weakness and giving in.

[@onceamoth]

Legionnarie's disease incubates in a Warm Bath environment...

[@fredneecher1746]

Women moving in predated the abandonment by men. Universities are now places of conformity whereas previously radical new ideas were encouraged and debated. Consequently, if you are a thinker outside the box you avoid universities.

[@jkbrown5496]

The universities, especially the status universities, are in the ideological conformity phase of, as Edward Dutton (Jolly Heretic) calls "The Priestly Cycle of the Universities. Oxford/Cambridge were in this phase from the Reformation to around 1870. They were finishing schools for the elite, but not places where science or rigorous investigation occurred. So, in 300 years or so, the universities will come out of Wokism just as they did Christianity in the late 19th century. On the upside, knowledge has broken out of the corral of the campus and you can easily get exposed to disciplined thinkers online. Far easier than on most campuses. Sure the status universities will continue to give credentials to increasingly incompetent "elites". "Social justice is an actual impediment to acquiring human capital" --Thomas Sowell If you school has a social justice mission, it is not a place that values education over indoctrination.

[@peterjrmoore3941]

wow - great comment !

[@non_ideological_transexual7414]

"I still don't understand how they gave in " 🙄 Heterosexual men favor women. How does she think women got the vote ?

[@karenclark266]

Women have the right to vote because they pay taxes. Taxation with representation is the law of the land.

[@non_ideological_transexual7414]

@@karenclark266 Missed the key difference of the situation and why i asked the question. " but anyways"

[@OneCharmedLife]

@@non_ideological_transexual7414 Seems so... @karenclark266: reply?

[@mikeb5372]

​@@karenclark266No. That's just plain dumb

[@John-Galt-Misfit]

It's true that men are solely for letting women run amock. Women solely on their own have no power, men have to give it to them.

[@Art-um7mz]

Men recognized that the market for degrees was saturated and degrees were losing value .

[@ungarlinski7965]

But also most jobs don't really need the material taught in schools, so that ruse is up. People should go to school to learn. That everyone and their mother goes just for higher pay is why now schools are a joke and academic dishonesty is rampant.

[@Art-um7mz]

@@ungarlinski7965 the only thing primary and secondary school is supposed to teach you is showing up on time every day and obey what the boss tells you.

[@sinesaii]

Not from the ivies. A drunken jerk from Yale can easily get a highly paid job on Wall Street that the top finance graduate from State U, would have trouble even getting an interview with. For better or for worse, the fastest way to access the elite class is to gain admission to a top university.

[@karenclark266]

Men didn't leave the universities voluntarily. They applied but weren't hired.

[@ungarlinski7965]

@@karenclark266 Right, but he's talking about students, not faculty.

[@michaelplunkett5124]

She's my type of gal. These are not men/women issues, these are human issues. Is she who speaks loudest right or is she who speaks with deep knowledge right? More likely the latter.

[@yclept9]

John Gall _Systemantics_ "Administrative Encirclement" - the process by which the people hired to order chalk and pencils wind up in charge of the institution. In this case HR.

[@ungarlinski7965]

Yes, but that also shows why academics are cowards. I mean they can't order their own chalk? What a joke.

[@michaelmasserang8922]

@@ungarlinski7965, they do not know how to order their own chalk. We say this to be politely funny, however, there is a lot of truth to this comment. As a professional consultant making my living in the field doing inspections, I see a very diverse cross section of the population. The ultra elite educator types from universities are the most difficult to deal with. Intelligent and well informed inside their own particular shallow bandwidth of expertise, these super elites act like children when bumped outside of that narrow comfort zone. Absolutely no common sense of any kind when it comes to anything. Yet they pretend to be experts on everything. Dripping with administrative zeal and projected arrogance. Condescending and arrogant to someone whom might be more well informed than they are. No openness to suggestion and/or new ideas. And zero problem solving skills which makes it impossible to teach them what the particular problem is, and how to fix it. They generally make poor decisions if any due to this endless loop of hyper paranoia. The obvious flaw of being encapsulated inside fantasy land for decades a very obvious symptom. Not good. For themselves, and/or for the young minds that they might influence.

[@AliciatheCho]

@@ungarlinski7965Academics used to do their administrative work. Now Karens do it. Hence why college costs have skyrocketed

[@gemox3225]

Yes there is a definite lack of manliness in Academia. Many men are spineless vis a vis the Woke. It seems they want to look progressive.

[@christophergraves6725]

Besides the influx of women into the Academic World, the New Left has taken over most colleges in the U.S. This trend began in the late 1970's and gradually accelerated during the 80's and into the 90's with young radicals from the 60's obtaining Ph.D's in the Humanities and the social sciences. The left-liberal professors who hired them seemed to be impressed with the early radical Ph.D students' ability to do sound research at a high level. These early radicals accepted the need to perform at a high level and many did so. Many were smart and very highly ambitious, contrary to their strict egalitarian philosophy. The left-liberal professors admired this and most somehow did not notice the substance of their radical views or if they did, they thought that they were just adding some intellectual diversity to their department not realizing that once in power these younger professors would turn against the entire enterprise of seeking truth through free and open discussion. Many of these now older Leftists actually did high quality research as they downplayed how radical they really were. They also cultivated respectful and cordial relationships with the older left-liberal professors who hired them and then later voted to give them tenure. Some of these same left-liberal professors were also open to conservative and libertarian Ph.D students and were also cordial with them, but the difference in hiring new faculty was twofold: one is sheer numbers-there were and still are a lot more Leftists in these fields than conservatives and the left-liberals still preferred fellow Leftists to Rightists not realizing that Marxists of all stripes see left-liberals as much as the enemy to ushering in a godless version of the Millennium as they view conservatives.

[@mathewm7136]

...Women took over by teaching useless classes with low to no accountability for grades. They do this through the Fine Arts, Liberal Arts and Ethnic Study programs in which they wholly dominate as instructors. And since these classes have the lowest (if any) "bar" for college enrollment, these classes have both a much higher student acceptance and retention than any STEM college. -Which than leads to the Lib Arts College making much more money/student than any other campus college. -Which than leads to a bigger department. -Which than leads to greater influence on every university board. It's a scam.

[@fredneecher1746]

I was a university post-grad in the UK in the early 1980s. 'Women's Studies' was a new thing, and we traditional Leftists (I was one then) found this a direct challenge to our political analysis. Why did we not resist? Two reasons. One, we liked women and were all for women's emancipation, and two, we lacked the confidence to criticise them because the terms they used were so obscure (deliberately so, in my opinion). I don't think one can embrace both these ideas as simple 'Leftism'. In fact, I regarded the new feminism as coming from a more right-leaning place, and their claim to be on the Left felt like a usurpation for the purposes of self-promotion.

[@oraz.]

I agree with you and it's been weird to watch kind of a feminist consensus take over the right. Meanwhile Amy Wax is a minority voice talking about what seemed to me like such an obvious and even measurable dynamic behind wokism.

[@fanshaw]

You don't push back against the _customer_. Once you abandon objective morality, you can't hold on to objective truth.

[@mattphillips538]

You might ask yourself how the Suffragettes got men to grant women the political franchise when a majority of women didn't want it.

[@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391]

The Suffragettes didn't get women the vote (in Britain), the suffragettes were OPPOSED to the act that gave women (and men) the vote.

[@johnmccormick8159]

In the U.S., it had a lot to do with getting as many whites to the polls as possible at time the country was seeing monumental immigration from non-Protestant countries, migration of blacks from the south to the north, and farm workers displaced by mechanization moving into cities. The idea that the men running the country wanted to do something for the ladies is pure nonsense.

[@nigelwitgunn3406]

And just how many of those Suffragettes were members of the Hell Fire Club? Nothing new to see here, trannnies have been around much longer than feminism.

[@MrStClair247]

Really ? I'm not being sarcastic. Where can I read more about this ?

[@joejoejoejoejoejoe4391]

@MrStClair247 There were 2,000 women in the suffragettes, 20,000 women in the Women's National Anti Suffrage Union, 10 time more women opposed to women getting the vote, than women wanting a minority of rich women to vote, but we're against the majority of women voting. Almost everything you've heard of women and the vote will be a feminist lie.

[@grodesby3422]

The death of Christianity made it impossible to resist any semi-persistent progressive social pressure

[@onceamoth]

I'm an atheist and have zero problem resisting. I'm not a status grasping coward though.

[@grodesby3422]

@@onceamoth Christianity as an institution embodying the fundamental beliefs of society, I meant to say. Obviously there are still Christian individuals, so it isn't dead in that sense. Atheism is all well and good if you think that religions are running around making silly claims about the physical existence of things, but it has so far failed to put up the slightest resistance to the ongoing cultural ebb.

[@tomgreene1843]

@@grodesby3422 As a Christian that is generally a point I would agree with ,,,but certain atheists are quite non woke ..Dawkins and Helen Joyce on gender studies for instance.

[@grodesby3422]

@@tomgreene1843I'm not trying to suggest that individual atheists cannot be anti-woke, just that atheism as a cultural ethos doesn't seem capable of building a society that is both reasonably liberal, and flourishing, and resistant to damaging ideas that sound good at first.

[@mikeb5372]

No it didn't

[@hvrtguys]

I would rather stand in a 20,000 mile long line to get into hell then deal with woke agendas.

[@MrStClair247]

Whoooooaaaaaa

[@joekeegan937]

Thank you.

[@ThomasMullaly-do9lz]

It's the working class who pay for universities and service jobs.

[@TigerHogan]

Good.

[@pleyda]

the word you're looking for "simp."

[@KimPhilby203]

Plenty of women sick of universities too...

[@OneCharmedLife]

"...the downside of chivalry..." very interesting.

[@johnslagboom1836]

They didn't resist because they were ambitious and sensed which way the wings were blowing, aka they were motivated by power and not a commitment to what they knew was right.

[@Drew-b9p]

Relatively few highly creative people and geniuses have been involved with universities. In the 20th century there have been quite a few significant scientists but most of these were actually sequestered in research institutes attached to universities and did relatively little or no teaching.... These could be recreated if we got rid of government communust mandates on equity for women and ethnics. Perhaps the bigger problem is the rewriting of scholarship replaced with pseudo scholarship and the production of textbooks full of lies and propaganda especially in the humanities and biology....

[@sinesaii]

Yea, but the government communists are the ones funding that research. The ties were there from the start.

[@AllenDickenson]

Ironically Amy is way too intelligent for academia

[@RondelayAOK]

I was in a philosophy PhD program in the 1980s. Two tenured professors from two different schools separately told me that it would be unlikely for me, a White male, to get a job in the discipline and that hiring committees were focused on finding females. So I dropped out. It was enormously painful since that was my true vocation.

[@Josephv3848]

Why did you give up and drop out?

[@spaceknight793]

@@Josephv3848 He literally told you... no chance of employment.

[@waynemcauliffe-fv5yf]

She`s good

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

I guess classical academia leaned (maybe) towards 'masculine,' to a greater extent than 'feminine' virtues. Although, I think it was a mix, because my understanding is that college really, was supposed to be 'one step above the asylum,' at a certain point in history. Near-lunatics would go to this place, pour over absurd notions and pet theories, they couldn't help themselves, this was just what they tended to do. It was useful to society, if they ever came up with something very strange that could actually be implemented, but mostly they would just spaz out forever and obsess over weird notions. Is it considered characteristically 'feminine,' to always speculate madly in an open-ended way, even as an adult? Like creative kindergarten, but with relatively greater mature, contextual knowledge? I guess so, therefore maybe it could be argued that there actually HAS always been a certain kind of stereotypical femininity, at the heart of academia. However, I'm obviously caricaturing the history, with this description. At what point in the development of the institution, or even in the narrower developmental arc of a specific individual, unusual thinker's trajectory (in any given historical instance) does greater systematization, and formalization enter into the equation? I suppose when things become 'structured' they become 'masculine,' and when fanciful notions eventually come into contact with harsh reality-testing (to which children's creativity in contrast, would usually not be subjected) is when you finally end up with the complete, genuine formula for true academia. It seems to me that both of these kinds of things I described, are very much necessary. Switching gears now: I'm not sure how much any of the above considerations, necessarily relate to our current social predicament. There's some relevance, but it seems to me we might largely be facing a whole different beast. Firstly, 'feminization, feminization, feminization,' people say. I'm not so sure, I think we might all have this exactly backwards. Lots of women, but what are women drawn towards? What (typically) compels them, perhaps even against their better instincts oftentimes? The structure. The regimentation. The order and predictability. The State has captured women, because it has 'become the husband'. The academy has captured women, because it has 'become the boyfriend'. Why am I drawn to this open, often ridiculous, online space full of possibilities, and some madness? Why do I feel naturally compelled to bring some structure to this thing, and why does this particular environment draw men/skew male? This online space nowadays, is like what college used to be. It's like this amorphous abstraction of a 'woman,' so it draws men. On the other hand, 'college' nowadays? Unsurprising, it's almost more like church. Gives structure, prescribed thought, abstracted societal construct of a 'man,' so it draws women. I don't think we're really parsing the healthy, nuanced and balanced interplay of these different human tendencies, that used to permeate this type of social milieu in a previous era. I think that rather, we're just in the process of identifying yet another Machiavellian device, partly emergent and partly inculcated, wielded to further divide, and control atomized subsets of the populace.

[@emilylidie5120]

I think your onto something here about the attractive qualities online space & academic space hold for the sexes. masculine wants a frontier, feminine wants sanctuary.

[@Jules-Is-a-Guy]

@@emilylidie5120 Thanks, and that's incredibly well said.

[@sinesaii]

@@emilylidie5120I find that hilarious given how hard early feminists fought to break out of sanctuaries into the frontier. I am not disagreeing with you, but I do think early feminists would be appalled at the creepy, mothering environment that has infected so many institutions of higher learning.

[@srb4722]

" A lack of manliness " - yes, you hit the bull's-eye there. 🎯

[@findbridge1790]

entitled vacuous member of the chosen

[@JEREMY99218]

It's no coincidence that feminism and Marxism arose at the same time.