John Carter explains how the university system and academia is doomed now that it has become women’s work:
If you want your society to produce transcendent excellence in a given field, the only way to do so is to attach a competitive male status hierarchy to it. With status on the line, men will throw themselves into the arena, immersing themselves completely, devoting their every waking moment to mastering a skill or subject, making it their life’s purpose to push a discipline beyond its limits. Competitive pressures between the best of the best then raises performance to its apogee. Iron sharpens iron.
Conversely, if you want reliable mediocrity, then you want women’s work. Women don’t have the same sexual incentive to compete with one another in performance, and so, by and large, don’t (they compete in other ways). Their instinct is to perform to a perfectly acceptable standard, but not, in general, to push themselves to exceed it.
For men, the play-by-play events of a competitive environment are high drama. Not so for women. Women, as the old saying goes, don’t care about the struggles of the competitors: they just wait at the finish line and fuck the winner. The drama women tend to care about focuses more on the heroine’s struggle to distinguish winners from posers, to decide which winner she wants, and/or to stand out from the other girls so she can catch the eye of the winner. “I’m so torn … do I go with the musky barbarian warlord werewolf rapist, or the the aloof immortal billionaire vampire knight?” the heroine asks herself for three hundred pages. How he became an immortal billionaire vampire knight in the first place is of much less interest than whether or not he’s really interested in her.
Men are constantly on the lookout for arenas in which they can prove their worth, and thereby attract a mate or, more accurately, as many mates as possible. Across the myriad competitive arenas that men have invented, there is one common element shared by all of them, which both men and women are exquisitely sensitive to:
An arena cannot be dominated by women.
The reason for this is obvious. The purpose of the arena, from the male point of view, is to demonstrate his worth relative to other men. To enter an arena filled with women is to engage in a lose/lose proposition: if one does poorly, one has been beaten (up) by girls; if one does well, one has beaten (up) girls. Neither outcome is going to impress the girls. Or, for that matter, the guys.
For this reason, men who enter a social environment in which women predominate will tend to make a hasty exit. There is nothing for them there. This is not a social construct which can be corrected with sufficient nagging. It is hardwired into human sexual psychology. There is nothing that can be done about it, short of redesigning human beings from their genes on up. At which point you’re not talking about humans anymore.
You might make people pretend that men do not prefer to compete in male-dominated arenas; you might, through sufficient emotional abuse, give them bad consciences about their natural instincts; you will not, not ever, not even once, change those natural instincts. If you ignore those instincts, you will only awaken the Gods of the Copybook Headings.
This explains two related phenomena, both much deplored by feminists, who are in the business of ignoring human instinct.
- The first is male flight: the tendency of male involvement in a given profession, occupation, institution, or industry to drop precipitously once a certain threshold of female involvement is surpassed.
- The second is the low value assigned to women’s work.
Men are no more welcome in any field that becomes female-dominated than they are in the women’s bathroom. Any man who insists on entering such a field is regarded as a metaphorical transgender whose decision to compete with the female majority there is considered intrinsically unfair. Any man choosing to do so will be considered an interloper and opportunist by the women and as less of a man by the men.
As Carter lays out in considerable detail, this process is natural, inevitable, and absolutely unstoppable. We’ve witnessed it taking place in our lifetimes in several fields, and while academia is not something that most of us pay any attention to, we’ve seen it in books, we’ve seen it in comics, and we’ve seen it in video games. Once the women get involved in a field and start demanding mediocrity while simultaneously decrying excellence, the men start walking away. Competition is replaced by consensus, quality collapses, prestige vanishes, and eventually the entire field becomes a wasteland of posers and imposters pretending to be impressed with each other, producing nothing and selling to no one. Profitable productivity is replaced with political parasitism off financial hosts, and when the ability to parasitize is eventually lost, the entire field collapses.
This is probably a good time to start developing alternative credentials based on objective standards. They will be increasingly in demand as the value of academic credentials continue to collapse. Apprentice systems and guilds are also likely to become more important, as the need to demonstrate an actual ability to do the work required replaces paper certificates of implied potential capability.
DISCUSS ON SG
