Damn. So freaking true. I have seen this pattern in my own life: law school where we white males had to finish top 10% to get the lucrative jobs, whereas our black peers could finish in the bottom half of the class and have multiple job offers from big firms; as a white man, finally getting a job for which I was wayyyy overqualified, in a government agency that had old white Boomers at the top, but all the lower echelons mostly filled with POC women, and the few white men among the lower echelons being consistently the top performers by all objective measures, yet never getting promotions, while unprofessional morons of color got all the promotions. In one example, I trained a guy on the job, and before he was even done with his training, he got promoted as a technical expert in the very area I was training him. At some point, the white men invariably quit or just say fuck it and do the bare minimum to keep their jobs, while putting their time and energy into personal projects. Exactly like the character Peter Gibbons from the movie Office Space.
But what is worse about this is not even what is being done to us white men, but rather it's the 180-degrees-opposite-the-reality agitprop we are forced to endure saying we are oh so privileged and have no right to complain about anything. Shut up and let women and POC speak, you privileged colonizer. And the same woke imbeciles who tell us that we cannot speak to racial or gender issues because we don't understand the lived experience of women or POC will then, with no sense of irony and zero self awareness, go on to tell us what our lives are like as white men.
At this point, I have almost zero buy-in for the American project. If the USA gets its ass handed to it in direct conflict with Russia and China (loved your analysis of why the US empire won't win WWIII, by the way), we may see a return to a culture that is forced to value competence over woke bullshit. If things stay the way they are, we've got a one way ticket to another Mike Judge movie: Idiocracy.
Thanks for doing this substack and being a voice of reason in the cultural wasteland of woke America. Goddamit, you don't know how much it means to read stuff like this and be able to breathe a sigh of relief: okay, I'm not just imagining it, I'm not crazy, this shit really is being done to us.
Interesting read. I work in the trades with almost the exact opposite problem. Many professional tradesmen would love to mentor anybody with a pulse but it's hard to get anybody to show up and even harder to get them to give a shit if they do.
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by John Carter
You have a unique knack of taking topics that are clear after reading but that seldom seem to be a matter of focus and making them accessible with generally compelling arguments. Your footnote three was particularly hard hitting, especially for readers of this Substack who, I expect, to a person match this footnote. Not sure what to do with that observation yet, but was right on point.
For the record, against loud groans, I have always insisted on a color blind/sex blind hiring policy. We have never had preferences of any sort and will not allow them. Having said that, we have about equal numbers of males and females at all levels and a polyglot mix of ethnicities unrelated to anything except talent. The people with whom you end up working using this strategy are all keepers -- not like the placeholders we now let into medical school over my loud objections because they fit the right demographic and SJW status.
It is a dismaying time. But person by person we can do our part. I am often frustrated by trying to mount more global pushback to some of the horrible things going on (e.g., Covid, transgender, whatever) but am glad that here is an area where in my tiny sphere I can still do the right thing. The more of us that do that, the better off we all shall be.
Brilliant piece! You have the courage to address one of the truly great unacknowledged problems of our time.
The sincerity of boomer loyalty to their own individual sons is less significant than their absolute lack of interest in the welfare of the sons of others. Individual parents will always be invested in the wellbeing or success of their progeny. In civilised and cohesive societies, there is also at least a discernible degree of routine loyalty or concern about others. In the modern West the degree of cohesion, loyalty or asssabiyah is now so low, and what little remains is so perversely allocated towards ideologically-anointed surrogates, that the run of the mill young white male cannot expect encouragement or assistance from non-related elders.
This is in large part a generational problem. The boomers grew up in a world run by WW2 vets. The ethical consensus of that generation was born from the widespread, deeply felt, beliefs that emerged from mid 20th c welfare capitalism and the experience of war. Solidarity, concern for others and a belief that people should not be neglected or left to rot (as so many had been during the Great Depression) was widespread and informed a hots of decisions concerning education, training, mentoring, employment etc.
The boomers took advantage of that consensus when they were growing up and getting established in their careers. When the WW2 vets retired and handed over institutional power to the boomers, there was a decisive and ongoing shift towards selfishness. This was camouflaged by the limitless bullshit of pseudo-progressive performative social engineering (the petri dish in which woke and diversity were cultivated). It has all been downhilll ever since.
One of the functions of woke-craft is that it stigmatises and disables loyalty, cohesion or cooperation between the disfavoured. The old hags club monitor the workplace to suppress this under the pretence of anti-discrimination, while enabling the nepotism and cronyism of the favoured. The suppression of competitive exams, IQ testing and evidence based assessment of performance further empowers the old hags.
To cap it off, the younger generation, raised amidst ever increasing anomie and atomisation, has no lived experience of the older forms of loyalty or solidarity. They are being disabled by social decay.
Being a Gen Xer, the old patronage system you and Rolo talk appeared to be out there when I grew up, but was rapidly disappearing. It was something the late Boomers still got but was gone by the time I finished my B.A.
I did have a few chance meetings that led to potential job offers, but all that rapidly disappeared in the changing times. Recessions gutted the networks, leaving the HR medusas in charge.
Academia is completely lost. And so is government. Until hiring the best candidates matters more than diversity, men are mostly left on their own.
So what is to be done? Every man should try to mentor young men in their circle and help them forward.
And, the old patronage system still exists but only full the PMC and the wealthy. Many of those midwits making policy in DC got there from this system. The rest of us have little to no chance.
Maybe somewhat distantly related, but I’ve noticed something odd amongst my daughter and her friends. All young teenagers. And all her friends have adopted a rainbow-alphabet identity. And I’ve puzzled over why. And perhaps it has to do with inflicting guilt on young white kids for being white, so their escape is adopting a group that gets not only attention, but preferential treatment. Or to even get attention anymore, they have to have some diversity qualification. Just a thought I’ve been kicking around. So this article landed pretty square in that theme for me.
Excellent piece! The success that I have had is a direct result of pushing others up over the last 40+years. Yes, virtually all them were white, and most were males, but guess what? I'm a white male surrounded by primarily other white males. It can be done just as successfully with both sexes and all races.
Feeling for you in that environment! Glad I'm not in academia anymore. Can see the bias against white men everywhere - smart guys missing out because of artificial quotas for minority groups having to be filled with basically whoever fronts up being driven by clueless woke HR staff. Travesty.
Remember my own time in American academia (I did leave). Same same as what you describe. And this was in your terms a generation (or so) ago. The senior faculty were highly eager to diversify the faculty -- at the junior faculty level. But replacing one of their own -- well, not practical, too expensive, etc..
So the one program I was with did a bunch of hires: a non-American post colonial scholar, a "local" so to speak up-and-coming African-American literature and cultural studies scholar, a lesbian feminist to cover gender studies and queer theory. All good. Except two things. First, as the senior faculty did not understand or accept, these people really did want to do their things -- they were not simply going along for ride. Second, the market for their services (say what you will) was highly competitive. So the new faculty members were not properly grateful, deferential, and "knowing their place" to the senior faculty who ushered them in. Within five years, all the new faculty had moved on -- all to better schools or positions.
So the process rebooted. Same same. No lessons learned. Senior faculty as diversity patrons -- out to preserve and redefine their "legacies."
Wow. I have an AWFL aunt in New Hampshire that lost her twin sons to suicide. The first committed suicide at 18 with a shotgun, while his father was home. The second twin, just as you described, a man in his 40's who could no longer salve the gaping wound in his life, utilized police assisted suicide to terminate his pain.
My aunt is the greatest proponent of DIE, vaccines, the latest thing, or whatever media tells her. She has been very active politically. She was devastated by Trump and pushed hard for Hillary. I'm sure she is watching the "Insurrection" on CNN or where ever they are airing that clown show.
I never connected my cousins suicides to my aunts leanings. My uncle is a tyrant who can't live five seconds without his wife's presence and opinions. Their two girls did very well in life.
I still love my aunt, but glad that I am not AWFL.
Many many salient points in this article. Always an excellent read.
I'm a White Boomer with a GenX son, PHD Geology who's married to a chemical engineer working for baddie Exxon Mobile. When she got transferred from Houston to the Joliet refinery, my son was building the new research lab at the University of Houston. Upon the move they decided he would be the stay-at-home dad for my two grands. Once the kids got a little older, pre-school/elementary, he took an adjunct position at Joliet Junior college because the hours let him be home when the kids weren't in school/pre-school and when his wife was home from work. He was slated to replace the retiring professor in his department when Covid happened. Once classes finally resumed, over all enrollment was down enough that his promotion was put on hold. He now teaches at both Joliet and another nearby community college, still as a low paid adjunct, but class schedules still permit him to be home when the kids aren't in school. I don't think Community Colleges are quite as rife with the woke BS as Universities but any of it is too much.
Fortunately, his aspirations haven't been to climb the ranks of academia or I'm sure he would be a very miserable and frustrated guy. His PHD was funded through a full-ride scholarship, so no student loans. I'm happy he put his career secondary to his responsibility as a parent, but to be honest I don't think it was much of a sacrifice on his part. My daughter-in-law may be one of those "gotta meet the woke hire requirement", though she is a smart cookie. However, once she decided not to make the scramble to the top of her profession, she's been consigned to positions at the refinery that don't seem to have much to do with her chem engineering degree. Between the two of them they make a good living, live modestly, and plan to retire at the first reasonable opportunity.
He was probably just a step ahead of when the current atmosphere of punishing males for being both male and white began. When they retire, my d-i-l will pursue her crafting hobbies and my son will play golf. That is assuming there's still an intact US of A to live in. And they aren't dealing with messed up kids who think they are a different sex and ethnicity and have already transitioned.
Weird, bad, sad place this world has come to. A reckoning is on the way.
Jun 16, 2022·edited Jun 16, 2022Liked by John Carter
John, we all need to consider this from the perspective of the system itself, rather than from that of an abstraction like justice or fairness.
The deprioritisation of men, above all white men, is a necessity for the existing system, given the emerging family structure that has evolved to suit the needs of both the state and employers as we undergo the integration of economies across the planet.
As Charles Murray has pointed out, 80% of working-class marriages now end in divorce. Few women today realistically expect to form a family in the traditional mode. The workplace regime enforced by the old hags’ club sustains the predominant family structure in existence (one which relies heavily on assistance from the state and other agencies to assist with the role once played by male breadwinners). Any reversion to the older model would directly threaten the established way of life of many, perhaps most, people. Women raising kids by themselves or women without kids will turn into the regime's 'sardaukar' the moment such a prospect gets raised.
The replacement of traditional family structures fortifies the elite’s interest in sponsoring forces hostile to inherited social and cultural norms (feminism, gender fluidity, LGBTQI). These forces form essential support for the status quo. Were reactionary men, especially white ones, to successfully frustrate their demotion in the social system, the regime would be overwhelmed by the challenge of meeting their expectations while simultaneously meeting the expectations of women and POC.
Furthermore, any return to meritocratic selection or organisational governance would scandalise or threaten the left and centre of the bell curve for IQ. This has obvious implications for social peace (especially race relations) and for the international image of the US. I suspect that you, John, may not fully appreciate how thoroughly and easily anyone like yourself (a physicist, I presume) threatens the left and centre of the bell curve. People of average and sub-average intelligence are viscerally antagonistic to those well to the right of the curve. Forget that and you'll regret it.
Grinding down the majority of white men into an athumotic or dispirited class of tax-slaves and precariously employed helots offers the system the path of least resistance.
So long as the current form of oligarchic state-capitalism (managed from the top by the allocation of capital through the federal reserve and the investment banks close to it and sustained by global capital markets) endures, the regime does not need to prioritise domestic productivity or even output as the system is on life-support from the bond-market. Mediocre levels of productivity can easily sustain the lifestyle of the pod-dwellers and the inhabitants of the emerging favelas.
Spot on, John. You show me equity, I show you stakeholder capitalism with bigger hair and whiter teeth, wrapped in a rainbow and carnally enticing God's judgement.
Tammy Sepetis, a divorced Human Resources recruiter and the amalgamation of the old hag who thinks abortion is doubtlessly a human right, but only 'vaccinated' are actually human, the rest of us pyred into granny-killing lakes of dogmatic fire!
I agree with everything you’ve written and you will certainly be advanced that much faster even if completely inept if female or some kind of minority group. But as a straight white male, I don’t think it’s game over. I did once have an offer like you described from someone famous in my field that I’d worked under but it came with strings attached of good behaviour within the strictures of academia. To be honest I did the PhD largely because the world of graduate jobs was boring, I had a talent for the field and wanted to see how far I could go, plus I liked being left to my own devices most of the time. “Good behaviour” was never my top priority. Especially not for the conditions in academia. Now more than ever, there is a gap if you are not of the favoured background if you don’t choose the easy paths favoured by those of no real talent or toughness. Whether that’s your own business or something hot right now and for a while longer like AI/machine learning or Web 3.0, it doesn’t really matter. I actually think there are far more opportunities now than a decade ago as the skill bar for work is going up all the time and there are so many idiots promoted past their competence…
Jun 14, 2022·edited Jun 14, 2022Liked by John Carter
In my lifetime I have seen the changes: be strong, stoic and a provider; be strong but make way for women, respect and serve them; get out of the way and emasculate, patriarchal, toxic-masculine, rape-culrural oppressor, and then see how you like it.
Meanwhile I have long been exploring the concept of sacred masculine.
Damn. So freaking true. I have seen this pattern in my own life: law school where we white males had to finish top 10% to get the lucrative jobs, whereas our black peers could finish in the bottom half of the class and have multiple job offers from big firms; as a white man, finally getting a job for which I was wayyyy overqualified, in a government agency that had old white Boomers at the top, but all the lower echelons mostly filled with POC women, and the few white men among the lower echelons being consistently the top performers by all objective measures, yet never getting promotions, while unprofessional morons of color got all the promotions. In one example, I trained a guy on the job, and before he was even done with his training, he got promoted as a technical expert in the very area I was training him. At some point, the white men invariably quit or just say fuck it and do the bare minimum to keep their jobs, while putting their time and energy into personal projects. Exactly like the character Peter Gibbons from the movie Office Space.
But what is worse about this is not even what is being done to us white men, but rather it's the 180-degrees-opposite-the-reality agitprop we are forced to endure saying we are oh so privileged and have no right to complain about anything. Shut up and let women and POC speak, you privileged colonizer. And the same woke imbeciles who tell us that we cannot speak to racial or gender issues because we don't understand the lived experience of women or POC will then, with no sense of irony and zero self awareness, go on to tell us what our lives are like as white men.
At this point, I have almost zero buy-in for the American project. If the USA gets its ass handed to it in direct conflict with Russia and China (loved your analysis of why the US empire won't win WWIII, by the way), we may see a return to a culture that is forced to value competence over woke bullshit. If things stay the way they are, we've got a one way ticket to another Mike Judge movie: Idiocracy.
Thanks for doing this substack and being a voice of reason in the cultural wasteland of woke America. Goddamit, you don't know how much it means to read stuff like this and be able to breathe a sigh of relief: okay, I'm not just imagining it, I'm not crazy, this shit really is being done to us.
Interesting read. I work in the trades with almost the exact opposite problem. Many professional tradesmen would love to mentor anybody with a pulse but it's hard to get anybody to show up and even harder to get them to give a shit if they do.
You have a unique knack of taking topics that are clear after reading but that seldom seem to be a matter of focus and making them accessible with generally compelling arguments. Your footnote three was particularly hard hitting, especially for readers of this Substack who, I expect, to a person match this footnote. Not sure what to do with that observation yet, but was right on point.
For the record, against loud groans, I have always insisted on a color blind/sex blind hiring policy. We have never had preferences of any sort and will not allow them. Having said that, we have about equal numbers of males and females at all levels and a polyglot mix of ethnicities unrelated to anything except talent. The people with whom you end up working using this strategy are all keepers -- not like the placeholders we now let into medical school over my loud objections because they fit the right demographic and SJW status.
It is a dismaying time. But person by person we can do our part. I am often frustrated by trying to mount more global pushback to some of the horrible things going on (e.g., Covid, transgender, whatever) but am glad that here is an area where in my tiny sphere I can still do the right thing. The more of us that do that, the better off we all shall be.
Brilliant piece! You have the courage to address one of the truly great unacknowledged problems of our time.
The sincerity of boomer loyalty to their own individual sons is less significant than their absolute lack of interest in the welfare of the sons of others. Individual parents will always be invested in the wellbeing or success of their progeny. In civilised and cohesive societies, there is also at least a discernible degree of routine loyalty or concern about others. In the modern West the degree of cohesion, loyalty or asssabiyah is now so low, and what little remains is so perversely allocated towards ideologically-anointed surrogates, that the run of the mill young white male cannot expect encouragement or assistance from non-related elders.
This is in large part a generational problem. The boomers grew up in a world run by WW2 vets. The ethical consensus of that generation was born from the widespread, deeply felt, beliefs that emerged from mid 20th c welfare capitalism and the experience of war. Solidarity, concern for others and a belief that people should not be neglected or left to rot (as so many had been during the Great Depression) was widespread and informed a hots of decisions concerning education, training, mentoring, employment etc.
The boomers took advantage of that consensus when they were growing up and getting established in their careers. When the WW2 vets retired and handed over institutional power to the boomers, there was a decisive and ongoing shift towards selfishness. This was camouflaged by the limitless bullshit of pseudo-progressive performative social engineering (the petri dish in which woke and diversity were cultivated). It has all been downhilll ever since.
One of the functions of woke-craft is that it stigmatises and disables loyalty, cohesion or cooperation between the disfavoured. The old hags club monitor the workplace to suppress this under the pretence of anti-discrimination, while enabling the nepotism and cronyism of the favoured. The suppression of competitive exams, IQ testing and evidence based assessment of performance further empowers the old hags.
To cap it off, the younger generation, raised amidst ever increasing anomie and atomisation, has no lived experience of the older forms of loyalty or solidarity. They are being disabled by social decay.
Being a Gen Xer, the old patronage system you and Rolo talk appeared to be out there when I grew up, but was rapidly disappearing. It was something the late Boomers still got but was gone by the time I finished my B.A.
I did have a few chance meetings that led to potential job offers, but all that rapidly disappeared in the changing times. Recessions gutted the networks, leaving the HR medusas in charge.
Academia is completely lost. And so is government. Until hiring the best candidates matters more than diversity, men are mostly left on their own.
So what is to be done? Every man should try to mentor young men in their circle and help them forward.
And, the old patronage system still exists but only full the PMC and the wealthy. Many of those midwits making policy in DC got there from this system. The rest of us have little to no chance.
"obese Shoggoths in HR"
you /really/ have a way with words that makes unavoidable evil worth laughing at.
Maybe somewhat distantly related, but I’ve noticed something odd amongst my daughter and her friends. All young teenagers. And all her friends have adopted a rainbow-alphabet identity. And I’ve puzzled over why. And perhaps it has to do with inflicting guilt on young white kids for being white, so their escape is adopting a group that gets not only attention, but preferential treatment. Or to even get attention anymore, they have to have some diversity qualification. Just a thought I’ve been kicking around. So this article landed pretty square in that theme for me.
Excellent piece! The success that I have had is a direct result of pushing others up over the last 40+years. Yes, virtually all them were white, and most were males, but guess what? I'm a white male surrounded by primarily other white males. It can be done just as successfully with both sexes and all races.
Feeling for you in that environment! Glad I'm not in academia anymore. Can see the bias against white men everywhere - smart guys missing out because of artificial quotas for minority groups having to be filled with basically whoever fronts up being driven by clueless woke HR staff. Travesty.
Remember my own time in American academia (I did leave). Same same as what you describe. And this was in your terms a generation (or so) ago. The senior faculty were highly eager to diversify the faculty -- at the junior faculty level. But replacing one of their own -- well, not practical, too expensive, etc..
So the one program I was with did a bunch of hires: a non-American post colonial scholar, a "local" so to speak up-and-coming African-American literature and cultural studies scholar, a lesbian feminist to cover gender studies and queer theory. All good. Except two things. First, as the senior faculty did not understand or accept, these people really did want to do their things -- they were not simply going along for ride. Second, the market for their services (say what you will) was highly competitive. So the new faculty members were not properly grateful, deferential, and "knowing their place" to the senior faculty who ushered them in. Within five years, all the new faculty had moved on -- all to better schools or positions.
So the process rebooted. Same same. No lessons learned. Senior faculty as diversity patrons -- out to preserve and redefine their "legacies."
Wow. I have an AWFL aunt in New Hampshire that lost her twin sons to suicide. The first committed suicide at 18 with a shotgun, while his father was home. The second twin, just as you described, a man in his 40's who could no longer salve the gaping wound in his life, utilized police assisted suicide to terminate his pain.
My aunt is the greatest proponent of DIE, vaccines, the latest thing, or whatever media tells her. She has been very active politically. She was devastated by Trump and pushed hard for Hillary. I'm sure she is watching the "Insurrection" on CNN or where ever they are airing that clown show.
I never connected my cousins suicides to my aunts leanings. My uncle is a tyrant who can't live five seconds without his wife's presence and opinions. Their two girls did very well in life.
I still love my aunt, but glad that I am not AWFL.
Many many salient points in this article. Always an excellent read.
I'm a White Boomer with a GenX son, PHD Geology who's married to a chemical engineer working for baddie Exxon Mobile. When she got transferred from Houston to the Joliet refinery, my son was building the new research lab at the University of Houston. Upon the move they decided he would be the stay-at-home dad for my two grands. Once the kids got a little older, pre-school/elementary, he took an adjunct position at Joliet Junior college because the hours let him be home when the kids weren't in school/pre-school and when his wife was home from work. He was slated to replace the retiring professor in his department when Covid happened. Once classes finally resumed, over all enrollment was down enough that his promotion was put on hold. He now teaches at both Joliet and another nearby community college, still as a low paid adjunct, but class schedules still permit him to be home when the kids aren't in school. I don't think Community Colleges are quite as rife with the woke BS as Universities but any of it is too much.
Fortunately, his aspirations haven't been to climb the ranks of academia or I'm sure he would be a very miserable and frustrated guy. His PHD was funded through a full-ride scholarship, so no student loans. I'm happy he put his career secondary to his responsibility as a parent, but to be honest I don't think it was much of a sacrifice on his part. My daughter-in-law may be one of those "gotta meet the woke hire requirement", though she is a smart cookie. However, once she decided not to make the scramble to the top of her profession, she's been consigned to positions at the refinery that don't seem to have much to do with her chem engineering degree. Between the two of them they make a good living, live modestly, and plan to retire at the first reasonable opportunity.
He was probably just a step ahead of when the current atmosphere of punishing males for being both male and white began. When they retire, my d-i-l will pursue her crafting hobbies and my son will play golf. That is assuming there's still an intact US of A to live in. And they aren't dealing with messed up kids who think they are a different sex and ethnicity and have already transitioned.
Weird, bad, sad place this world has come to. A reckoning is on the way.
John, we all need to consider this from the perspective of the system itself, rather than from that of an abstraction like justice or fairness.
The deprioritisation of men, above all white men, is a necessity for the existing system, given the emerging family structure that has evolved to suit the needs of both the state and employers as we undergo the integration of economies across the planet.
As Charles Murray has pointed out, 80% of working-class marriages now end in divorce. Few women today realistically expect to form a family in the traditional mode. The workplace regime enforced by the old hags’ club sustains the predominant family structure in existence (one which relies heavily on assistance from the state and other agencies to assist with the role once played by male breadwinners). Any reversion to the older model would directly threaten the established way of life of many, perhaps most, people. Women raising kids by themselves or women without kids will turn into the regime's 'sardaukar' the moment such a prospect gets raised.
The replacement of traditional family structures fortifies the elite’s interest in sponsoring forces hostile to inherited social and cultural norms (feminism, gender fluidity, LGBTQI). These forces form essential support for the status quo. Were reactionary men, especially white ones, to successfully frustrate their demotion in the social system, the regime would be overwhelmed by the challenge of meeting their expectations while simultaneously meeting the expectations of women and POC.
Furthermore, any return to meritocratic selection or organisational governance would scandalise or threaten the left and centre of the bell curve for IQ. This has obvious implications for social peace (especially race relations) and for the international image of the US. I suspect that you, John, may not fully appreciate how thoroughly and easily anyone like yourself (a physicist, I presume) threatens the left and centre of the bell curve. People of average and sub-average intelligence are viscerally antagonistic to those well to the right of the curve. Forget that and you'll regret it.
Grinding down the majority of white men into an athumotic or dispirited class of tax-slaves and precariously employed helots offers the system the path of least resistance.
So long as the current form of oligarchic state-capitalism (managed from the top by the allocation of capital through the federal reserve and the investment banks close to it and sustained by global capital markets) endures, the regime does not need to prioritise domestic productivity or even output as the system is on life-support from the bond-market. Mediocre levels of productivity can easily sustain the lifestyle of the pod-dwellers and the inhabitants of the emerging favelas.
Spot on, John. You show me equity, I show you stakeholder capitalism with bigger hair and whiter teeth, wrapped in a rainbow and carnally enticing God's judgement.
Tammy Sepetis, a divorced Human Resources recruiter and the amalgamation of the old hag who thinks abortion is doubtlessly a human right, but only 'vaccinated' are actually human, the rest of us pyred into granny-killing lakes of dogmatic fire!
https://youtu.be/WkKHupWzB-g
It's the gun, the bottle, or the way which has always been beneath your feet, Folx. Godspeed.
I agree with everything you’ve written and you will certainly be advanced that much faster even if completely inept if female or some kind of minority group. But as a straight white male, I don’t think it’s game over. I did once have an offer like you described from someone famous in my field that I’d worked under but it came with strings attached of good behaviour within the strictures of academia. To be honest I did the PhD largely because the world of graduate jobs was boring, I had a talent for the field and wanted to see how far I could go, plus I liked being left to my own devices most of the time. “Good behaviour” was never my top priority. Especially not for the conditions in academia. Now more than ever, there is a gap if you are not of the favoured background if you don’t choose the easy paths favoured by those of no real talent or toughness. Whether that’s your own business or something hot right now and for a while longer like AI/machine learning or Web 3.0, it doesn’t really matter. I actually think there are far more opportunities now than a decade ago as the skill bar for work is going up all the time and there are so many idiots promoted past their competence…
In my lifetime I have seen the changes: be strong, stoic and a provider; be strong but make way for women, respect and serve them; get out of the way and emasculate, patriarchal, toxic-masculine, rape-culrural oppressor, and then see how you like it.
Meanwhile I have long been exploring the concept of sacred masculine.
This is a worthy talk too about young men, Jordan Peterson with Dr Warren Farrell. https://youtu.be/lAqCISsZEM4