Academia is women’s work now. That spells it’s doom. A 🧵 about...

Recently, universities reached the threshold of 60%
2/22
Across all programs, at all academic levels,American universities recently reached the threshold of 60% of the student body being female.
This will be a disaster for academia.
Why?
3/22
(Pan, 2010, Gender Segregation in Occupations: The Role of Tipping and Social Interactions)
4/22
“There’s sort of a cliff you can fall off once you become 60-40 female-men. It becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”
5/22
Most men probably can’t quite verbalize why female spaces feel uncomfortable, it is simply an instinctive realization that one is in the wrong place. There are good reasons for this.
Men in female-coded professions pay a steep romantic penalty, with reduced lifetime odds of getting married as compared to men in male-coded or gender-neutral professions.
Women in male-coded professions pay no such price. Men don’t care what women do. At all.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.111…
6/22
7/22
Men are exquisitely sensitive to this. If they compete in an environment dominated by women, there is nothing for them to win, and a great deal to lose.
8/22
A female kindergarten teacher isn’t really higher or lower status than a garbage man or a stock broker, because neither the garbage man nor the stockbroker care that she’s a kindergarten teacher; they mainly care that she’s young, pretty, and not a ho.
The kindergarten teacher, however, cares a great deal about which guy gets paid to come home smelling like rotten bananas, and which one brings home a high six-figure income.
9/22
But this makes sense! If a man gets paid less, this hurts his romantic prospects, whereas it doesn’t hurt a woman’s; so men will push much harder for higher wages than women will.
10/22
Universities recently reached this level.
We should expect that society will then start seeing academia as much less important, and become much less willing to lavish money upon it.
One sign of this would be that institutes of higher education should start closing all over the place due to bankruptcy.
Oh, hey, look at that!
12/22
Christensen doesn’t blame the presence of too many women, of course; that would be impolite. But the largest enrolment declines have been seen among men; there are good reasons to ascribe this to male flight; and one of the known consequences of male flight is a collapse in prestige, followed by a restriction in the resources society is inclined to provide to a devalued institution.
13/22
This is something I’ve written about before, and there are obviously more reasons for this than just academic work being women’s work ... but again, that decline is confidence, which is really a decrease in prestige, is exactly what you’d expect.
14/22
The overwhelming majority of Nobel prize winners are men, which feminists blame on muh patriarchy, but is really because the combination of traits that creates a genius are much more likely to be found in men: high outlier IQ (greater male variability hypothesis) + the personality traits of high openness/low agreeableness/low conscientiousness.
Geniuses are smart, weird jerks, and most smart, weird jerks are men.
And after male flight kicks in, guys like that will have no interest in working in the academy.
15/22
This means they tend to do rather safe, boring, ‘ordinary’ science - tyingup loose ends in dangling theoretical postulates,addingan additional decimal place of precision to a pre-existing result,selecting tastefulcolour schemes for the visualization of scientific data. The scientific equivalent of quilting, needlework, and interior decorating.
When they’re not doing that, they can be found clucking away in their nests on diversity and inclusion committees and running around the department with their ears perked up checking for compliance with this season’s lexicon of fashionable words.
16/22
17/22

Sure enough,disruptive science has been declining for generations. There are more reasons for this than just women being around – the bureaucratization of science is probably the biggest factor, as can be seen by the decline starting in the early 50s, long before women entered the academy in large numbers. But the presence of risk-averse, consensus-obsessed women in large numbers isn't helping.
18/22
A recent Senate committee went through a bunch of NSF grants and found that over a quarter of them were given to diversity nonsense.
This is due to a top-down policy imposition by the “Biden” regime, but the girlbosses are largely thrilled about this – it lets them play mother hen to their surrogate children in the designated victim classes, which is much more emotionally rewarding than determining the electron orbital structure of excited rubidium atoms.
19/22
There is!
Women are not homogeneously distributed in academia. They absolute dominate in education, health sciences, psychology, but STEM, not so much. There are obvious reasons for this – natural disposition, inherent talents. Male flight from the soft disciplines is almost certainly a factor, as well.
If universities left well enough alone, let nature take its course, STEM departments could persist as pockets of patriarchy within otherwise female-dominated institutions. Engineering students don’t feel like they’re in competition with the theatre kids or the psych girls. Let STEM stay male and universities could retain viable status arenas in which men would feel comfortable competing with one another (while being otherwise happily embedded in rich romantic hunting grounds).
But, while this would require them to merely do nothing, universities will absolutely not do it.
20/22
That STEM is still male dominant is considered a travesty, an affront to everything the longhouse stands for.
There are huge entrenched constituencies of activist girlbosses whose sole animating purpose in life is to hire more activist girlbosses. The Future is Female!
Universities seem like they’re basically locked into this ideological trajectory, meaning it’s only a matter of time before the STEM departments succumb.
And that’s when male flight kicks in in earnest, and the DIEing academy fades into quiet irrelevance as a convent for Nth-wave feminism.
21/22
In lieu of such infrastructure, ad hoc solutions have self-organized amongst the sensitive young men who no longer feel comfortable in the academic quilting bee.
The right-wing anon sphere has essentially become an informal salon in which high-IQ youth gather behind anime avatars to discuss thinkers deliberately misrepresented or memory-holed by the DIEvory tower – Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Spengler, Evola, Guenon, de Coulanges, Junger, etc. This has not gone unnoticed. Consider this recent thread, the main author of which, @JacobAShell is a Temple University geography professor:
23/22

It’s true that young men are doing pretty poorly right now. They’re depressed, withdrawn, suicidal, disenfranchised, bitter, and angry.
But they’ll be fine in the long run.
Universities need men a lot more than men need universities.
It’s the universities that should be worried.
25/22


































