{"id":531,"date":"2022-04-05T21:36:36","date_gmt":"2022-04-06T02:36:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/?p=531"},"modified":"2022-10-22T16:32:51","modified_gmt":"2022-10-22T21:32:51","slug":"always-be-capturing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/always-be-capturing\/","title":{"rendered":"ALWAYS BE CAPTURING"},"content":{"rendered":"

The ubiquity of \u201ckulturkampf\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I\u2019ve already written a lot of essays<\/a> about women\u2019s maternal and other sex-specific traits, and how the mass entry of women into public life, in the last several decades, has brought those feminine traits to bear on culture and politics, driving extensive and ongoing changes in Western societies.<\/p>\n

I am convinced more than ever that that “great feminization” argument is essentially correct. But there is another facet of male\/female cultural competition that I have mostly overlooked until now. It\u2019s really something that relates to groups in general, not just to women, but I think it\u2019s especially relevant to the current female-driven social transformations of Western societies.<\/p>\n

The idea here is that, when women a few decades ago began to achieve parity\/dominance vis-<\/em>\u00e0<\/em>-vis<\/em> men in professions and institutions across the West, they automatically<\/em> set up a rivalry, a \u201cbattle of the sexes,\u201d in each of these professions and institutions. Why? Not because of any particular \u201cfemale\u201d or \u201cmale\u201d trait, but simply because the two sexes are different in general<\/em>. They have different group identities, different ways of thinking, different group cultures. If only at an instinctive, nonconscious level\u2014and if only to avoid the emotional pain of having to conform to the others\u2019 ways\u2014each has sought dominance over the other.<\/p>\n

This certainly seems to be true from women\u2019s perspective. You can hardly open a newspaper or browse news websites these days without encountering lamentations, by female writers, about male workplace behavior\u2014from the mildly irritating to the supposedly traumatizing. These behaviors typically are blamed upon the male domination of the workplace in question, although from my (admittedly biased, male) perspective these complaints often look more like attempts to stamp out the last vestiges of male culture in workplaces that are already significantly feminized.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Women in their workplaces nowadays also\u2014typically with the thinnest of formal rationales\u2014are apt to organize emotional coalitions to oust their male CEOs or other leaders whose ways are insufficiently accommodating to the current female mindset.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

I suppose that if one ventures into the \u201cmanosphere\u201d reaches of the Internet, one will find similar complaints from men trapped in female-dominated institutions. One will strain to find similar victories, though.<\/p>\n

On the whole, the institutional battle of the sexes is something that seems to have really crept up on men, creating a challenge for them that they may be unable to surmount. Men, in particular the white, European-derived men who created the institutions of Western civilization, were trying to be progressive and even-handed when they welcomed women into the workplace (they were<\/em> relatively welcoming, compared to Asians, Arabs, Africans, etc.). They were trying to be meritocratic. Arguably that relatively fair-minded meritocratic mindset was a psychological or cultural trait that helped Western men build their civilization into the powerhouse it was. (Most men also regarded the scaled-up presence of women in the workplace as a colossal and wondrous sexual opportunity.)<\/p>\n

What men didn\u2019t reckon with is that women eventually would reach a certain level of presence and power in the institutions and professions where they worked\u2014a critical mass, as it were\u2014and from that point onward would tend to seek not parity but dominance<\/em>, and by just about any means.<\/p>\n

I submit that we are already seeing this reach for (and, frequently, achievement of) female dominance across multiple institutions and professions. While the most visible manifestation is the one I just mentioned—the noisy cancellation coalition that dislodges a problematic male executive (who is often replaced with a woman)—women also have been feminizing their institutions, and crowding out men, in much less newsworthy ways, e.g., the practice of \u201cpreferred pronouns,\u201d \u201cinclusive,\u201d i.e., non-meritocratic hiring including quotas for female execs and board members, mandatory pro-diversity statements, and feminist\/ESG\/green constraints on investment and general corporate policy.<\/p>\n

The upshot of this organizational capture is, of course, women\u2019s use of these entities to promote the wider feminization of culture and politics\u2014often synonymous with \u201cwokeification\u201d\u2014which, again, I have written about<\/a> elsewhere.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Their steamrolling victories suggest that women are much more powerful and effective than men in these institutional struggles, and, in a way, this should be unsurprising: Men presumably have not been under long-term evolutionary or cultural pressure to cope with competition of this kind from women. Women, on the other hand, as the weaker sex, have long had need of \u201cforce multiplier\u201d tactics and instincts.<\/p>\n

I strongly suspect that women\u2019s greater power derives especially from a set of closely related female traits that include superior emotional sensitivity, superior sociality, superior ability to catch and transmit social contagions, and superior ability to form emotional coalitions\u2014traits that, again, may have evolved not just in support of maternal functions, but also as special weapons in contests with otherwise dominant males. (I have touched on these points in previous essays, e.g., here<\/a> and here<\/a>.)<\/p>\n

Of course, women also benefit tremendously from the civil rights dogma and legal regime that has gripped the US and some other Western societies for decades now, and often designates women as \u201ctraditionally disadvantaged\u201d and thus worthy of favorable treatment, especially vis-\u00e0-vis<\/em> white males.<\/p>\n

Other groups<\/strong><\/p>\n

As I suggested at the top of this essay, women\u2019s quest for supremacy within traditionally male institutions\/professions is just one specific example of a much more general phenomenon of modernity. In other words, my hypothesis here is that any<\/em> two (or more) groups that are sufficiently well defined and coherent, with sufficiently distinct group identities and cultures and so on, are bound to vie for control, to some extent, whenever they occupy the same social space.<\/p>\n

Ethnic\/racial groups are probably the most obvious examples of highly coherent but non-gender-defined groups that we would expect to see in these wars for institutional supremacy. As in the case of women vs. men, some of these ethnic\/racial groups, due to their own particular traits, will be better than others in such contests. Immigrants to Western countries, especially those who have to travel from remote parts of the world, already tend to be the smartest, most ambitious, get-up-and-go members of their societies. Moreover, some of those societies are already highly stratified, with highly intelligent, highly entitled, highly ambitious (even ruthless) upper strata\u2014so the immigrants from those upper strata are really<\/em> going to pose a challenge to Westerners in the context of institutional struggles.<\/p>\n

Thus, we are essentially looking at the flip side, the dark side one might say, of the fact that America and other Western countries attract the world\u2019s best: Yes, many of these immigrants are the best, or are at least highly ambitious and sharp-elbowed, but that also means that they may soon have your job\u2014and may even control your organizations.<\/p>\n

Additionally, virtually any non-legacy-Western ethnic group is nonwhite, and ipso facto<\/em> will be granted further strong advantages by contemporary civil rights culture. These advantages, over the past fifty-odd years, have included preferences\/quotas in academic admissions, in public and private job hiring, and in government contracting\u2014even when the group\u2019s members have hailed mostly from elite, wealthy castes in the home country, and have not been \u201cdisadvantaged\u201d in any sense.<\/p>\n

Apart from the very tangible, often windfall-scale benefits of this civil rights regime, there has been, especially in recent decades, a civil rights mindset<\/em> within organizations, a mindset that provides a further advantage to nonwhite ethnicities. Cloaking themselves in civil rights victimhood, preaching about the need for more diversity and equity, calling out alleged racists and racism, nonwhites can basically activate and direct that mindset as a further, quite powerful tool for displacing legacy Whites, for individual and group benefit.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

I can think of at least several ethnicities that are doing very well in Western societies for the reasons I\u2019ve just described. Indians are probably the most obvious example. They make up only about 1.5 percent of the US population now, and were hardly visible at all in the country half a century ago, but already they are strikingly overrepresented in the ranks of big-company CEOs as well as in other influential professions such as law, medicine, and politics.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Again, according to this general hypothesis, the struggle for control of institutions and professions could involve any other type of group with a significant presence and a sufficiently distinct and coherent identity. I think there are not many good examples beyond gender- and ethnicity-based groupings, but surely the \u201cLGBTQ community\u201d is one that has had some success in influencing big organizations\u2019 policies.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/strong>A General Hypothesis of Cultural Struggle<\/strong><\/p>\n

To sum up, then, my hypothesis is that a \u201ccollective instinct\u201d to vie for supremacy over institutions\/professions is something that occurs to some extent, and more or less automatically, even non-consciously, within all<\/em> well-defined, cohering groups of significant size within those organizations. Different groups will have different traits that affect the intensity of their participation, their strategies, and their overall chances of success in these struggles. Some will also be advantaged or disadvantaged by the surrounding law and culture, e.g., civil rights law and culture.<\/p>\n

I am not sure how original this idea is. Certainly, the idea of group culture is not new; nor is the idea of a struggle between cultures\u2014what the Germans call a kulturkampf<\/em>\u2014novel. But the idea that such a struggle begins almost automatically when two or more rival cultures share a defined social space\u2014a profession, an organization, a country\u2014is one I don\u2019t think I have encountered before.<\/p>\n

I may not have emphasized enough that this \u201cstruggle\u201d normally, for most of its participants, would be relatively subtle and even non-conscious. We all have our conscious explanations of, and justifications for, the things we do, but clearly there is a lot of other stuff going on under the hood\u2014under the \u201climen,\u201d the threshold of consciousness, as psychologists call it. Thus, Sanjay from the IT department may not be consciously plotting to dislodge the white CEO of his corporation; but,<\/em> if asked to sign a petition decrying overheard off-color remarks by his company\u2019s white CEO at a recent company retreat, he may be, ceteris paribus,<\/em> much more likely to sign it if he knows the replacement CEO will be one of his countrymen\u2014even if he isn\u2019t consciously aware of that knowledge\u2019s influence on him.<\/p>\n

Another point to emphasize is that many, maybe most large organizations and institutions will have more than one group vying for control (e.g., women, assorted nonwhites, LGBTQs) against the legacy group (white males). These factions will coalesce and separate as needed, negotiating power-sharing strategies and arrangements, one faction slipstreaming behind another that has more power, and so on\u2014similar to the workings of political parties in a multiparty system.<\/p>\n

The uniqueness of whites<\/strong><\/p>\n

I have hesitated to include the legacy managerial class\u2014white males\u2014as combatants in these ubiquitous struggles, for the simple reason that they seldom seem to put up a fight. It\u2019s downright eerie how some of these guys, no matter how innocent, will grovel, apologize, and plaintively attempt to appease when attacked, instead of showing any kind of defiance. It\u2019s also odd that these men are so easily isolated; they are like those hobbled old wildebeests from the nature documentaries: left behind by the panicked herd for the pursuing, shrieking jackals to surround and kill at their leisure.<\/p>\n

As for most of this social-psych territory, I can only speculate about the source of white males\u2019 peculiar weakness and apathy. Maybe just having been on top for so long is enough to erode the mojo needed to stay there; maybe success has made us too soft, as the ascendant Greeks of antiquity said of the descendant Persians. Maybe we also developed psychological tools, such as hyper-individualism<\/a> and relative cultural openness, that were once highly adaptive in enabling us to build our great civilization, but now leave us vulnerable as our environment becomes more post-patriarchal and multi-ethnic, and the protection and promotion of the \u201ctribe\u201d acquires a renewed importance.<\/p>\n

Indeed, we aren\u2019t merely passive in the face of challenges from women and nonwhites. We\u2014a huge number of us anyway\u2014are quick to respond with active self-loathing and self-abasement. Our women are even quicker in this regard, so I guess that this represents not a male trait but a white trait: a guilt\/appeasement reflex that is related to emotional sensitivity and social (\u201cvirtue\u201d) signaling.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Whatever the cause, it is or should be remarkable, not to mention alarming, that nonwhites<\/em> don\u2019t seem to have this self-abasing, guilt-signaling reflex. Nonwhites have at least many skeletons in their ancestral closets as whites do—everyone living now is the beneficiary of hundreds of invasions and genocides going back to ape-men times. Yet I’m sure I’ve never heard an Indian, a Nigerian, or a Filipino lament his own<\/em> ongoing, deliberate colonization and exploitation of the countries of the West.<\/p>\n

Implications<\/strong><\/p>\n

In principle, some struggles between group cultures will merely simmer, remaining unresolved indefinitely, because the factions that would challenge the incumbent white male faction cannot put together the numbers to prevail, or simply because a certain number of white males are needed to keep the organizational ship afloat. But now in the 2020s, after six decades in which Western women and nonwhites have been crowding into Western professions and institutions (lately empowered by blatantly anti-white-male ideology) they seem to be seriously reaching for supremacy, at least wherever white males and their mindset are less necessary.<\/p>\n

In any case, one implication of this hypothesis is that adding “diversity” to an organization doesn’t necessarily bring it closer to some happy, stable equilibrium. It may, instead, disrupt what had been a relatively stable balance of forces, stimulating anew the struggle(s) for dominance in that organization—and leading to the further marginalization of white males.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Moreover, struggles among factions within organizations reflect, and also to a great extent add up to, a struggle at the societal level. By this reasoning, increasing demographic diversity in Western societies via mass-nonwhite-immigration is simply adding fuel to the kulturkampf<\/em> fire, making ethnic factionalism burn hotter to the detriment of most, and increasing the chances that at least in some countries, nonwhites will prevail—marginalizing whites in their own lands.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

Author\u2019s note:<\/em><\/p>\n

I\u2019d appreciate it, reader, if you would link to my essays on cultural feminization (or otherwise cite them) wherever you see this topic being discussed. I\u2019ve been writing about \u201ccult-fem\u201d for more than a decade\u2014which, as far as I know, is much longer than anyone else. Some of my essays have circulated widely<\/a><\/em> in recent years, and I\u2019ve even placed one<\/a><\/em> in a moderately well-read webzine. I like to think that my contributions have helped seed what is becoming an important public discourse. Yet those contributions of mine are almost never acknowledged by the better-known opinionators who have ventured into this realm in the last year or so. Being pseudonymous and writing principally from a personal website seem to have left me in the unhappy state of being \u201cmuch read but seldom cited.\u201d (I discuss the general problem of citation in the Internet age in my short essay \u201cThe Tree of Knowledge<\/a><\/em>.\u201d)<\/em><\/p>\n

Also, though I don\u2019t charge a subscription to this website, or put ads on it, or even solicit donations, you could buy a copy of my e-book (see image below, linked to its Amazon page) if you\u2019d like to support my writing.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The ubiquity of \u201ckulturkampf\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":554,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[14,7,11,2],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=531"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":707,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/531\/revisions\/707"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=531"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=531"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thoughtsofstone.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=531"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}