The FLDS (Fundamentalist Later Day Saints)

Everyone is aware of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints AKA the Mormons or the LDS with their crisply ironed white shirts and their magical underwear door knocking in pairs. Most people know the story of Joseph Smith visited by the archangel Moroni presenting the golden plates to be read with sear stones and transcribed before the golden plates disappeared. They are a Christian sect with some beliefs beyond what is normally expected from Christians including a multi-worlds multi gods cosmos, a Semitic origin for native Americans, polygamy (in the early days) and the baptism of the dead. I am thankful for the last one because I have found their giant family research database useful for my family research. These are the run of the mill Mormons we all know and love and probably like to laugh at occasionally. Not quite mainstream or really out of it either. Some other Christians may not consider Mormons to be “true” Christians but even so they do not register too high on the cultometre. The Mormons are just a bit amusing.

Fewer people are aware that beyond the run of the mill Mormons there exists a group of Mormons dialed up to 11 known as the Fundamentalist Later Day Saints or the FLDS. This group is way out there. Waaaaaaay way out there maxing out the cultometre.

One defining feature of Mormons in the 19th century was plural marriage. This issue of polygamy seems to have been the point of contention causing the FLDS to split off from mainstream Mormons. In the late 19th century the Mormons reversed the church’s position on polygamy and endorsed monogamy.

It seems to me that the behaviour of the FLDS mirrors exactly that of some animals. That is it is not the religious doctrine which causes the behaviour and beliefs of the FLDS such as polygamy. Rather it is deep brain behaviour borne of evolutionary psychology and rooted in pre-human ancestry which gives rise to the to the religious beliefs and practices.

The present leader is Warren Jeffs. He is like a dominant male of a lion pride. All the females are his and young males are chased away. This is exactly the behaviour of a lion pride. How does this relate to human society? Homo sapiens are imperfectly monogamous . The monogamy/polygamy tendency is related to the dimorphism of the species. For example in elephant seals the dimorphism is extreme and so is the polygamy. Most male elephant seals will never reproduce. However the “sneaky male” strategy as an alternative to the “alpha male” strategy can sometimes result in lower caste males reproducing. Waiting in the shallows off the beach for their chance. How successful either strategy is depends on the environmental context which will favour one or the other and keep a mix of both at an equilibrium. Lower caste males can have some reproductive advantages considering they do not get into fights as often and their numbers can overwhelm the dominance of the alphas. Baboon society is an interplay of competing factors in which different mating strategies can have an advantages at one time and can have a disadvantage at other times. Evolutionary fitness is often a game of “paper, rock scissors”. The possible complexities are nowhere better seen than in human society.

It is east to see where polygamous species become dimorphic. With males competing with each other size is an advantage. More muscle to shove aside other males. Additionally females will prefer larger males because they can protect both them and their offspring.

Lion society has a lower level of dimorphism than elephant seals but it is still present. Humans have a lower level of dimorphism again. Humans have a number of mating strategies but in general can be described as “imperfectly monogamous”. With humans we can certainly see the “sneaky male” strategy. In fact much of the “crime and punishment” hysteria may stem from an ancient pre-human deep brain repertoire being a “dominant male” “protecting” his females being directly his wife, daughters and by sympathetic extension all women in the “in” tribe from marauding males outside. Activating this ancient repertoire is always a sure vote winner for political candidates. Male voters naturally want to protect their “harem” being their wives and daughters and this instinct can encompass a degree of racism, conscious or unconscious. Female voters want a “strong leader” who will “protect” them and their offspring. Ultimately this instinct can scale all the way up to war, genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Most people may be alarmed at the excesses of Warren Jeffs and the FLDS may be to the point of invoking the same protective instinct in them as Warren Jeffs and the FLDS community as a whole feel. They see religious fundamentalism, pederasty and cult like control of the members and understandably so. What most people fail to realize is the extant of biology at play. Yes there is a power crazed leader and the pederasty and the cultish control but this is playing out not because of a crazed religious environment. Rather the environment emerges because deeper and darker biological repertoires are at work and the FDLS is a result of the madness and not the cause.

The Assimilation of Aborigines compared to the War on Boys

From the 1930s until the 1960s and even into the early 1970s successive Australian governments had a policy of assimilation. It was believed that aborigines were going to die out. Under assimilation policies the incomes of aboriginal people were garnished and held by the Protector of Aborigines. Pocket money change was paid to the aborigines. Major expenditures like travel or to buy a car needed the approval of the Protector of Aborigines. In recent decades the monies kept in trust is unaccounted for. Additionally their wages were lower and there was segregation in the use of public facilities. In Perth aborigines needed to vacate the city before the evening. The people lived on missions looked after by religious missionaries or government bureaucrats.

A part of the policy was removing half caste children, that is children of mixed European and aboriginal parentage, away from missions and families and putting the children up for adoption. The workers in the church, on the missions, in government departments were certain that “it was all for the best”, “think of the child.”, “a mission is no place for a child”. The heartbreak involved formed part of the tragedy of what was called the Stolen Generation.  The child removalists believed themselves to be noble and righteous. They cared for the welfare of the aboriginal peoples. But they were absolutely certain of their cause to the extent that that they were blind to their own humanity as well as being blind to the plight of the heartbreak left in their wake. These do gooders prided themselves on being more morally upright than those who brought atrocities including mass killings in conflict between European settlers and aborigines in the 19th century. These do gooders social worker analogues sawed themselves as giving palliative care to a dying people. At the base of this kind palliative care for a dying people was a chauvinism about the “advanced” peoples, social Darwinism, sometimes eugenics and an absolute certainty that what they were doing was the right thing. It goes without saying that there was no need to listen to the aboriginal people themselves. “You’ve got to be cruel to be kind” and “tough love”.

This is the same absolute certainty which is seen today in the treatment of men and boys. When Erza Klein asserts “spike of fear” in a Breitbart article Ezra Klein: Men Need ‘Spike of Fear’ with Sex to Prevent Rape or when Catherine Comins asserts that “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” we are seeing people who really honestly believe that it’s “for their own good” and if a few eggs have to be broken to broken to make scrambled eggs then so be it. In this and in the Stolen Generation one’s won humanity is put to one side in service to a high ideal. One outs aside empathy and compassion. This is the effect of being blinded by the light of an ideology. In the USA countless cases of male students having their college studies terminated and their lives ruined because of the abuse of Title IX for minor, silly or actually fabricated cases of harassment. The same logic of Klein and Comins could be used to justify miscarriages of justice of say black men in the Jim Crow south because sending a “spike of fear” into those scumbags will improve public safety. There is a ruthlessness in Comins and Klein which would be rightfully condemned if made in any other circumstance. In fact there is the cold efficiency of fascism echoing with no regard to the consequences and the only reaction if any is usually laughter at the plight of unlucky males.

That brings us to the unpleasant potential for escalating the cruelty against men and boys. There is laughter at the abuse of men by women and an impatience with their pain, even as feminism complain that “men need to learn to express their feelings” (so that we can shut you up again). One thinks of what it took to get ordinary Germans to commit extraordinary abuses on others. We can gain a clue to what motivates other people by observing ourselves. Insight into ourselves. Something feminists avoid by projecting on to others that which they fear exists in themselves. There is a certain point in the slide into hate where no appeal to logic or common sense can help and will not be allowed to help and where the mere reluctance to join the hate movement makes one a suspect. The “spike of fear”. Erza Klein may wish to live in such a society but I do not.

Not all men will be treated unfairly, they will only fear that they may be so mistreated. Basically men can be “protectors” of the paranoid delusions of extreme feminists or they can look forward to be persecuted by those men who are. To be one of the “protectors” or one of the persecuted at the hands to a “protector”. If you’re one not one you must automaticly be the other, the hated other. This is the utopia that feminists want to deliver all of us to but I get the sense that we have been there and done it all before in lessons of history we have now all forgotten.

I will end this post with an image meme which speaks for itself.

Julie Burchill2

Genghis Khan – The Alpha Male of all Alpha Males Ever

Genghis Khan

The Genghis Khan Monument near Ulan Batar in Mongolia

We have all heard about  Genghis Khan emperor conquered a vast territory and and established a huge empire. He had a reputation for genocide and also for his prolific fathering. Today the great khan has a total of 16 million Y chromosome descendants or 0.5% of all males globally. The size of the monument of the good Khan pictured above does indeed reflect his genetic contribution to the human gene pool.

This was the conclusion of a study described in the National Geographic. This is an extraordinary progeny. But these 16 million men carrying Genghis Khan’s Y chromosome does not even begin to describe demographics of his genetic heritage.

In fact the 16 million men who share Genghis Khan’s Y chromosome are only a tiny percentage of all the descendants of Genghis Khan. Simple arithmetic makes this clear.

I will assume the reader is male. If in fact you the reader is female then consider yourself a honorary male for the purposes of this thought experiment.

How many biological parents do you have? Two is the usual answer. I will use the notation 2^x. Two parents would be 2^1. Yourself are generation 0. There is just one of you or 2^0.

How parents have your Y chromosome? One of two, 1 in two or 1/2^1 at the -1 generation.

How many grandparents do you have? Four or 2^2. How many of your grandparents have your Y chromosome? One of four, or 1/2^2 at the -2 generation.

How many great grandparents do you have? Eight or 2^3.  How many of your great grandparents have your Y chromosome? One of eight, or 1/2^3 at the -3 generation.

How many great great grandparents do you have? Sixteen or 2^4. How many of your great great grandparents have your Y chromosome? One of sixteen , or 1/2^4 at the -4 generation.

If we go back to the -10 generation we have 2^10 ancestors or 1,024 at that level. How many of these ancestors have your Y chromosome? 1/2^10. One of 1,024. Another way to look at this is to ask of all a man’s descendants at +10 generations into the future will have his Y chromosome? The is 1/2^10. About 1 in a thousand of his descendants at the +10 generation will have his Y chromosome.

The next question to ask how many generations have passed since Genghis Khan? It is not possible to know this. If 20 generations have passed then the total number of descendants including both Y chromosome descendants and non Y chromosome descendants alike will be 16 million multiplied by 10^20 or about one million. That is 16 trillion descendants at the +20 generation level. If 30 generations have passed then the total number increases to 16 quadrillion. 16,000,000 X 2^30 (1 billion).

These are impossible numbers and obviously many descendants of Genghis Khan have married many other descendants of Genghis Khan. These would not likely include Europeans or Africans. Large areas of Asia however would be descendants pretty well down to the last one. The 16 million Y chromosome descendants does not tell the whole story of the Khan’s legacy.

At this point the ancestor paradox becomes obvious. That is the number of ancestors increases exponentially with each generation back so that your number of ancestors exceeds the world’s population with fewer than 30 generations into the past. 2^30 is approximately 1 billion. The world’s population only exceeded 1 billion people in 1804. For someone like myself with English, Scottish, Cornish and Irish ancestry this really means I am descended from every reproducing person alive in Britain at the time of Edward I and probably most of Europe as well. This would include Edward I himself down to the lowest peasant. One and only one of these will be my Y chromosome ancestor.

Asian males living in the time of Genghis Khan would on average have hundreds of millions of descendants living today or perhaps billions but would have only between 10 to 20 Y chromosome descendants today.

The behaviour of Genghis Khan very anomalous indeed. The alpha male of all alpha males ever. “Kill all the men and rape all the women” certainly describes him. He killed about 10% of the world’s population at the time including half of the population of China. This is deeply biological behaviour turned up to ten. Maximising his genetic advantage. No animal in the wild would garner such an advantage on such a scale but humans can capitalise on simple technology to greatly magnify their natural mating advantages or perhaps even supplants natural disadvantages. In this way slightly dimorphic homo sapiens can exert a polygamous advantage like that of male elephant seals.

Social constructs can not alone explain this sort of behaviour. It is the genes of Genghis Khan which benefit from this behaviour and it is the genes which drives this behaviour. The Mongol Empire was an alpha male’s way of propagating his genes or more precisely the alpha male’s genes’ way of propagating themselves.

In Genghis Khan we see analogues of animal behaviour. This we can expect because homo sapiens are animals. Apes actually. We have have inherited our behaviour from evolutionary ancestors. We did not lose our biological inheritance at the neck up. A lion pride is a well known example of a polygamous species. Humans are not as polygamous as lions but in the record of the the great khan we do see an example which exceeds the norm for human males. With basic technology human alpha males have vastly exceeded what would be expected by the degree of dimorphism in humans.

A male lion pride owner has the job of propagating himself and protecting such progeny with his life if necessary. If his mating rights are overthrown by a younger stronger male lion the first job at hand is the killing or chasing away the old lion followed by killing his progeny in a very bloody affair. This is Genghis Khan, Jacob, David, Solomon and the sultans and emperors of various empires through history with their harems and frequently bloody successions. For the human alpha the animal behaviour is shielded probably even from the alpha male himself behind a lot nationalistic, moral ennobling or religious spin doctoring.

Examples like Genghis Khan illustrate the importance of biology in human biology and that is at odds with the social construct model of human behaviour. A Genghis Khan can not be socially constructed. A Genghis Khan is energised from deeper levels. The cerebral cortex does not create him as much as filter deeper instincts with some culture and a good justifying story for the expression of those instincts culturally shaped though they may be. We will realise darker angels of our nature in unexpected ways if we continue to deny the importance of the biological.

Young fatherhood may be a risk factor for early death

This post is inspired by an article “Fatherhood in Early 20s May Raise Risk of Midlife Death” at

http://m.livescience.com/51734-early-fatherhood-midlife-death.html

The article can be summarised by one sentence from it as reproduced below.

In the large Finnish study, researchers found that men who had their first child by age 22 were 26 percent more likely to die in middle age, compared with men who fathered their first child at age 25 or 26

The article doesn’t go into the reasons other then some speculation that the education and careers of young fathers being short circuited and thus being forced to support his family with lower paying and more dangerous work.

“…interrupt career plans and push young dads into lower-paying jobs, which could impair their health”

The factors will not known without further research but the results suggest that fatherhood and family life in general takes a toll on men. There are many stresses associated with family life and men generally have few resources and few people who will want to listen. “Be a man”, “suck it up” and “man up” are common put downs while the problems of women in general and mothers in particular are acknowledged.

This caused my brain to recognise a pattern. That this that since the 1960s and 70s the difference in life expectancy between men and women has narrowed from a maximum of 7 years in favour of women to 4.2 in 2014 in favour of women. In the period 1975-7 the average life expectancy of men in Australia at birth was 69.6 years and for women it was 76.6 years, a difference of 7 years. See

http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Mar+2011

Fast forward to 2014 statistics the life expectancy for men is 80.1 years and for women it was 84.3 years. See http://www.aihw.gov.au/deaths/life-expectancy/

Over this period the median age of first marriage has increased. See

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/2f762f95845417aeca25706c00834efa/a8d1bea8a2ff1b33ca2570ec001b0dc3!OpenDocument

This is a graph from the above site.

AusFirstMarriageThe observant reader would have noticed on the tables of the previous web pages listed that the  difference in life expectancy between men and women was narrow near the end of the 19th century and widening out to the 1970s before narrowing again towards today. This widening of the difference in life expectancy in the 1970s mirrors the dip in the median age of first marriage in Australia. See

AusLifeExpect

I can guess that the age of fatherhood would bare some relationship with the median age of marriage. It looks like that early marriage and early fatherhood are health compromising choices for men. If that is the case the Finnish study linking early fatherhood to more likely early death of males does not surprise me.

This highlights the need for more study of mens health issues in general. Trends in mens health are occurring under the radar without comment or interest. The narrowing in the gap of life expectancy for men and women is good news for men. The reason as I can see may be worrying for policy makers. The implications for the value of marriage for men and its cost in terms of the health of men are areas researchers should take an interest in. The implications for the MGTOW movement are obvious although I will not talk about MGTOW in this blog.

Shamtrinos – some thoughts on the shaming culture

Other people’s opinions of you is none of your business. – Leftleaningantifeminist

Care about what other people think and you will always be their prisoner. – Lao Tsu

Shaming is a part of our landscape. No one wants to be ostracised but yet this seems to be social policy whip of choice. Doing or not doing anything because of a fear of social ostracism is one of the worse reasons to do or not do anything. It is on the lowest rung of values. Those employing such instruments as policy implementers really show the utmost contempt for other people. In short it is simply disrespect. It works in a situation of “insiders” who talk to each other in one vocabulary in one narrative and who talk to “outsiders” in terms of clichés and in a vocabulary of emotional manipulation like shamming. The inner party and the proles.The superior and the inferior.

In our feminist times there is a shamming vocabulary used against men by both feminists and non-feminists and by women and the chivalrous men stepping up to save their honour. “Man up”, “take it like a man”, “Peter Pan”, “commitment phobia”, “suck it up”, “take responsibility”, “mansplaining” and “man up” are just a few examples of these shamming barbs. On Twitter there are the derogatory hash tags of #MenzFeelz and #WhatAboutTheMenz. There are also a few oldies like “sissy” and “wuss” are also optional shaming barbs. Regrettably the mens movement has also developed a few of their own like “mangina” which I think is counter productive because it appeals to an emotional centre instead causing pause to think.

For men this is further complicated by the demand that men “express their feelings” at the same time as a combination of social and biological reasons work to discourage exactly this. Whatever the rhetoric women both forge and test men for stoicism. Women will one minute describe an ideal “sensitive” man and in the next minute will actually despise a real sensitive man. One minute women will talk about how important it is that men express themselves and in the next minute will demean such self expression with “male tears”. This is the conflict between the ideal and the reality. In evolutionary psychological terms women will test and forge men assisted by other men because in the context of the African savannah women need need a strong protector and provider and such a male will be rewarded with mating rights. The offspring of such a union will be more likely to survive with a strong provider. These values are consistent with stoicism. This pattern is followed even today even given of the absence of sabre tooth cats and mammoths today.

It is evident that calls for men to “man up” or claims that all men are (……fill in your own insult……) is really testing and forging men to stoic standards required on the African savannah. This can sometimes take on tribal scales. Shamming men with white feathers in WWI or asking men to take cat callers/domestic violence offenders/rapists to task if not actually do violence against them. The basis for Jim Crow and mob justice. An atmosphere close to that today with the rape culture hysteria. Mob justice is not fair but it can be understood in context of our biology. The global labelling of all men as having some kind of “original sin” for which men need to confess and atone for is an extension of this sort of shamming. It is also evident the gender politics is an extension of general primate politics in the wild but with more a elaborate vocabulary. The issues pertaining to that vocabulary are not important or the real focus. The instincts expressing themselves through whichever vocabulary is what matters.

However the real profit from the conditioning for male stoicism on top of what may be biological may be to the detriment of feminism. Men can gain much more personal autonomy by deciding not to be shamed. Not a naturally easy task given the threat of social ostracism but a training in stoicism is valuable here. Shamming barbs are intended to get a reaction. It is why they are fired. Think of these shaming barbs as neutrinos. Neutrinos are sub-atomic particles which do not react with anything. Millions are passing through your body at any time. Think of shaming barbs in this way. Passing through without interacting. We can call them shamtrinos.

Racism, a conjecture on the origin, reasons for its persistence and advice on living with it.

This blog post is not directly related to feminism but the issue of blinkered sociology and the social sciences vizaviz evolutionary psychology is also an issue for feminism. It is based on another social media post.

All people have the potential to be racist. It’s an instinct to fear what is different. We do not learn racism contrary to what is gospel according to social scientists and sociologists. It comes from evolutionary psychology. It is really genetic competition. Sometimes it manifests in ways that are not directly related to genes or are only slightly related to genes like prejudice to other languages, ethnic groups, religious beliefs or cultures. In these instances the same instinct is misdirected but on average it will work to favour own genes. On who or what it operates is determined by the size of your circle of empathy which can include your family, your tribe, your town, your country, your race, human beings as a whole or even other species, thus pets. That empathy circle can expand or contract in time and dependant on stresses in your environment.

Social scientists and activists sometimes claim that “under privileged” classes can not be racist and thus their loathing of “whites”, “men”, “cis gendered” and other “privileged” groups is not really “prejudice”  or “hate”. This is self serving double think and ideological exceptionalism and it is very dangerous nonsense. Imperial powers are often guilty of exceptionalism. Social scientists have no idea of what motivates us in behaviour or our likes and dislikes. The social sciences have been poisoned by ideology. This is the victory of irrationality over rationality.

So what can we do? It helps to realise we are captive to our biology but that our basic biology does not have to be us. We reproduce not to ensure OUR immortality. No, we reproduce to ensure the immortality of our GENES but we are not our genes. We, each of us are just flowering parts of our genomes and our instincts. Biologically influenced behaviours are in the interest of a lower based entity which is not us. Each of us are really vehicles carrying our genes as passengers. When the vehicle wears out the passengers will abandon the wreck and continue their journey in other vehicles. We ourselves will be extinct. We feel good with the release of brain chemicals when our behaviour enables our reproduction. By viewing ourselves as less than we are biologically, then we can lessen our potential to do evil than we can when we are held hostage to the darker angels of our nature. By having a lower level of investment in our biological selves we can gain insight into our nature as both good and evil at the same time and also feel less inclination and act on our darker angels.

One last thing about racism to remember is that it is the other side of racism is the protective instinct. The protective instinct is actually a manifestation of the “selfish gene” and comes from the same place as racism and other forms of prejudice. That is why in war time propaganda focuses on protecting women and babies. It is why WWI propaganda animation showed a Hun squashing a baby under an iron boot. It is why in 1990 we had the lie of Iraqi soldiers turning off humidi-cribs in Kuwaiti hospitals was propagated in the lead up to the first Gulf War. The desire to protect very easily becomes the desire to hate. By appealing to the best in us leaders can make us do the worse to others. Even the author of Matthew used a baby slaughter to sell the biblical nativity story. There was no war in the context of the bible story but the author of Matthew clearly knew how to pull the heart strings of his readers.

All this brings us to other loyalties and chauvinisms. Chauvinism is only a hair’s breadth away from hate. One such is patriotism but patriotism is love for a temporary formation. Nations are like clouds in the sky. Their form is always shifting. If we become emotionally invested in one cloud formation we will be disappointed within seconds. This is the nature of so many insecurities concerning migration, language use and religious affinity. An emotional attachment to what was never going to be for very long and which leads to frustrations of the type manifesting as racism among other isms.

The Greenhouse of Negative Feelings.

I posted a comment to a post in Facebook about FGM (female genital mutilation).

MGM is a far larger problem than FGM. We are so acculturated to this violence against boys that we son’t even think it should be illegal.

“Son’t” is a typo for “don’t”. This comment elicited this reply from an FGM activist.

I do agree that we have a MGM problem and that it also needs to be discussed however I feel that it needs a seperate discussion as the cause of it is completely different to FGM. As a FGM survivor I’d like to be able to discuss my mutilation and how we can work towards eradicating that without being side tracked by MGM. Lets have separate important conversations about what amounts to child abuse.

I was struck by the need to discuss her mutilation without her stage being “sidetracked” by MGM (male genital mutilation). This ignores the fact that MGM is almost permanently “sidetracked”. The nedia gets more excited about FGM than it does about MGM. It ignores the fact that male circumcision is a far bigger problem affecting a far larger number of men.

  • Q. But isn’t male circumcision a lessor deal and less severe than female circumcision?
  • A. In fact not. There are 4 types of FGM and most cases are not of the more severe types. Most FGM are not more Severe than most MGM. Please read this document about male and female circumcision.

The FGM activist did mention that she wanted to “work towards eradicating” FGM but if this is the case it shows poor judgement if her aim is change. This is because she wants to have have a “separate discussion” which means duplicating efforts at eradicating circumcision. All so that she can have a stage on which she can tell her story exclusive of anyone else’s concerns. It makes more sense for intactivists (MGM activists) and FGM activists can combine in consensus for a common cause. How much better to have gender neutral legislation addressing both male and female circumcision.

This reminds me of the “splitters” scene in “The Life of Brian”. The Peoples Front of Judea. not the Judean Peoples Front. Listen, the only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean Peoples Front.

LoB

So the FGM activist would rather kick intactivists to the ground when they could be far more effective working with them as allies. It seems to me that displaying one’s victimhood status is more important than effective action. The FGM activist does not really want change. She wants a stage on which she wants to display the golden prize of suffering and injustice. The injustice is the object of adoration and attachment. She doesn’t want anyone sharing the lime light of HER suffering. This is the Victimhood Olympics. Victims are affirmed and validated in their experience. The FGM activist is nourishing a hurt feeling in a greenhouse for this purpose.

This sort of game opens the area up for fantasists and candidates for a Munchausen Syndrome diagnosis grab a spot in the glory of suffering. This has become a thing other areas of feminist activism like the “rape culture” hysteria. Feminism is enabling and rewarding borderline personality disorder, narcissism and histrionic disorder; in fact weaponising personality disorders into a political movement.

Where once a narcissistic “daddy’s little rich girl” on campus would be given feedback and her misconceptions corrected if she was receptive. Today a personality disorder can be indulged, encouraged and rewarded with complete impunity protected in a cone of “misogyny detection” force field in the event of criticism; itself an attack of “misogyny” and “how dare you” with the bouncer of a university disciplinary board minus due process. The same is true increasingly outside of campus as well.