Bloody shovel

Don't call it a spade

Neovictorianism in Campus

So this is doing the rounds lately.

It may be true that the feminist witch-hunt against anything that hurts women’s feelings are going to result in a return to Victorian sexual norms. The end is so sacred that apparently it justifies the means, which are screwing with a lot of boys’ future. But fuck the boys anyway; those who are having sex are the alpha bastards who are screwing all the girls to get some notches. No pity for them.

Not a bad argument; I’m not sure if it’s the alphas who are getting shafted by the date-rape witch hunt; by poor chance they probably are. The rest aren’t getting any poon anyway, they couldn’t possibly be doing any raping.

What’s hilarious is McDonald’s prediction: men will go back to Victorian norms too, and be celibate gentlemen who write a lot of cheesy love letters. But she forgets a small datum: there were no co-ed campuses in the Victorian era. No huge and beautiful institutions where girls aged 18-25 went giggling around in heavy make-up and short skirts.

You won’t get men to be Victorian if the girls don’t do it first. Feminism may be equipped to stop alpha dudes from pumping and dumping women, but it isn’t equipped from making girls start to behave themselves.

And the big question is: from a man’s standpoint, what’s the point of college if you can’t screw the girls? Especially when they go around showing their bodies and giggling in class all day. It’s not like women are incredibly interesting and men love to hear their profound conversations. McDonald exhorts young men to do some actual studying instead of getting drunk all day. But having women around isn’t precisely conducive to studying. Not only because having boobs shown around doesn’t help with concentration; having women around dumbs down any classroom discussion and shifts all topics to stuff women like to talk about.

If men aren’t to have even the vain hope of landing a drunken slut once a semester, there really is no point in having women around. If you wan’t people to go back to Victorian norms, get stable fiancees and do some actual studying; then do like the Victorians and get the women out of higher education. Then the men may do some actual studying and actually cherish the little female contact they can get.

Advertisements

19 responses to “Neovictorianism in Campus

  1. Pingback: Neovictorianism in Campus | Reaction Times

  2. shartiste October 16, 2014 at 13:04

    Viewing college attendance/campus dorming in a vaccuum, the situation looks bleak. But if the student loan bubble bursts, female college attendance would certainly seem to be the hardest hit. It doesn’t make sense to pursue useless degress without free money, most useful degrees are pursued by men, ergo without a ridiculous student loan situation, college will have a much higher percentage of men.

    Another factor will be the true rise of online education, if it does happen. It’s been primed for a while, attending a physical university at some point may be antiquated for all but a few intensive professional degree paths. This would be socially atomizing, but far more conducive to this neovictorianism than co-ed dorm halls.

    • Handle October 18, 2014 at 14:08

      The student loan bubble won’t burst for two reasons:

      1. It can’t financially burst until and until the whole government bursts. The government has a monopoly and doesn’t care about losing money, which it probably won’t (at least not according to its own crazy accounting rules) because the loans are nondischargable in bankruptcy, and the tiny number of hardship discharges will always be negligible.

      What that means is that any other creditors – autos, mortgages, credit cards, etc. know they have to sit at the back of the line, and so will extend less credit and charge higher rates. By burdening people with house-equivalent but first-priority debt during their first experience of adulthood, that means you will be reallocating their lifetime consumption profile away from commercial goods and into the zero-sum credential signalling rat race, where the addition of every increasingly marginal student undermines the value of the credential.

      The point is that the crazy price rises can go on and on until they finally reach equilibrium by allowing no more lifetime consumption than can stimulate the production that can generate the tax revenues for all the de-facto government-provided health care and education. That production must also provide the salaries for the wage-slaves who will be have every dollar beyond what they need to survive garnished away to repay the loans they needed to get the credentials to obtain the right to work in the first place.

      2. The point of sending as many young people to college as possible (and originally the real point of most education) is the excellent progressive indoctrination and socialization service it provides. Also, through some minimally laundering of state action through subsidized institutions – colleges (like the military) are now also a great venue for experiments in progressive social-engineering and behavioral control beyond the reach of the legislature and the regular courts, what with their annoying “due process” rules and “presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the unanimous verdict of a jury of one’s peers”.

      The real customer of the colleges is the government, and the service they provide is so valuable that the money will never stop flowing, no matter what. The government would rather do without an aircraft carrier than without more student loans.

      • B November 3, 2014 at 02:27

        This is a bit much.

        I was able to get a bachelor’s and an MBA on the GI Bill, with some left over. That’s three years of service for a degree (I did 8, but 3 is the minimum,) not a lifetime’s worth of debt.

        Had I not done the military thing, state schools are affordable enough that you can get a four year degree while working part time/summers and come out with minimum debt. If you do your first two years at a community college, where tuition runs about $1.4K per quarter, and stack the credits, that’s an associate’s at under $10K. A bachelor’s in engineering at, for instance, University of Iowa, will run you $4K per semester. Assume 3 semesters per year at $12K, that’s $24K to turn that associate’s into a bachelor’s. We’re assuming you work summers to pay living expenses. So, a total of about $32K for a BS in comp sci or engineering, which will get you about $50-70K per year out of school. That’s assuming you don’t get any kind of scholarship whatsoever, which requires a certain determination.

        I am down with the NRx complaints about college etc., but the people I see saddled with debt they don’t stand a chance of paying off with the degree it bought are status signallers who are too lazy to study anything useful but still want the credentials. Oh, and lawyers, and (to some extent) doctors.

        • Handle November 3, 2014 at 03:11

          Status signalling is of course a big part of it. And obviously there is a lot of variance in prices and programs. The GI bill is an awesome deal these days, but I used it back before they significantly raised the payouts. That meant I needed to supplemental loans, which I just finished paying off.

          I know a lot of new lawyers with a lot of debt. The folks that are coming out of a T14 programs straight after undergrad are definitely in the six-figures and looking at a minimum of $500/month to prevent default. Some with more debt, but also on a quicker pay-down plan, are above $1,000 a month. That’s enough debt to have gotten a mortgage to a decent home where I grew up. Not to mention the seven years out of the workforce one sacrifices to get to that point.

          The point is, however, that college is about putting on a full-court press of indoctrination, isolation from parents and tradition, and ideological pressure to fit in to your new social groups, and so the left has an interest in lowering whatever barriers might exist that deter people from attending. If talent is a barrier, they’ll lower the threshold for admission. If money is a barrier, they’ll make more loans available. Whatever it takes – it’s worth it!

          • B November 3, 2014 at 03:20

            No offense, but unlike engineering and comp sci, lawyering is one of those things that we would not be worse off if there was less of it. It’s a proposition akin to pro sports or selling crack-the top one percent prosper, the rest grind it out. The only thing that can change that is a government which hires up tons of lawyers which…oh, hey. Again, nothing personal, and sadly I know that when you need a lawyer, you really need one. In our societies, you increasingly need one, but it’s another one of those peacock’s tail-like contests where we’re all worse off as a whole for it.

            College is the finishing polish on indoctrination. 95% of indoc takes place in pre-k-6th grade, and most of the rest in grades 7-12. That’s the whole point. College is where final sorting and direction take place, but the ideology and indoctrination are there before the kids learn to read and write. Dewey and the Fabians were no suckers.

  3. Redneck Esq October 16, 2014 at 14:18

    When the University of Utrecht admitted its first woman student, Anna Maria van Schurman, later known as the Learned Maid of Utrecht, in 1636, they had her sit in a booth screened off from the male students. And in a foreshadowing of what was to come, she never married, but became the principal assistant to the charismatic leader of a pietistic religious sect, Jean de Labadie. That does seem to be the way of it, though: Most women would be better off marrying and raising children, a few are never going to marry and a few out of those few are actually cut out for scholarly pursuits. But it’s just a few centuries from veils and booths to miniskirts and Belle Knox.

    Civilization, nice idea while it lasted.

  4. Mike in Boston October 17, 2014 at 03:40

    And the big question is: from a man’s standpoint, what’s the point of college if you can’t screw the girls?

    I guess this is the take of the wealthy and/or shortsighted on college, but as someone from a family of quite modest means I can only roll my eyes. Even as a high school kid with the usual amount of interest in screwing the girls, it was always crystal clear that the point of college was to get a degree that would get you a decent job. After my freshman year at a tough engineering school, I realized that continuing to date meant not passing my classes.

    I knew enough about being flat broke to buckle down, yet it was still nice to have girls around: I liked to study in the dorm’s quiet shared kitchens, and one girl not only helped me work through the math of phased-lock loops while something was simmering, she fed me when it was done. Truth be told, I never really wrapped my head around analog chip design and barely pulled off a B, but she joined Hitachi’s chip division out of school and is a serious professional.

    I’m sure my experience is wildly unrepresentative; but as I see it the problem is not the coeds. Rather, it’s that both sexes are going to college for signaling purposes, with the added bonus of a bacchanal interrupted only by periodic left-wing indoctrination sessions. Eventually the debt bubble will get too big for that to remain a sufficient payoff for most people, and college will have to once again be primarily about useful learning. That will get both sexes to buckle down, without telling half the next generation of materials scientists that they should go to cooking school instead.

    • spandrell October 17, 2014 at 05:07

      Oh shut up. Unpresentative is putting it mildly. For every Hitachi engineer chick who is smarter than you there are 100 stupid bitches with a chip on their shoulder. You wanna play anecdotes? I can play that game too.

      Of course there are exceptions: I married one. But out of engineering faculties, where I guess women are so scarce that they seem the epitome of all that is nice in the world, all that women do in school is drag things down.

      And yes of course people go to college to signal to get a job. I just don’t see the point of having to live 4 years with women in order to do so, especially given that any sexual approach can get you kicked out at any moment.

      • Mike in Boston October 17, 2014 at 19:01

        I don’t disagree with anything you said. My point was that once the debt bubble bursts and college once again becomes about learning and not signaling, those hundred stupid bitches will do their signaling somewhere else and experiences like mine will be more representative.

  5. Handle October 18, 2014 at 14:35

    Here’s the revolting propagandist Ezra Klein writing at Vox about the “affirmative consent law”, with the last sentence being the only half-honest thing in it:

    The Yes Means Yes law is trying to change a culture of sexual entitlement. That culture of sexual entitlement is built on fear; fear that the word “no” will lead to violence, or that the complaint you bring to the authorities will be be ignored, or that the hearing will become a venue for your humiliation, as the man who assaulted you details all the ways you were asking for it. “No Means No” has created a world where women are afraid. To work, “Yes Means Yes” needs to create a world where men are afraid.

    You mean that culture of sexual entitlement that these 18-year-olds learned sometime after 2004 (when Klein was himself still in college) instead of 1804?

    ‘Equality’ doesn’t mean that no one should be afraid of injustice, it means that men – er, I mean, ‘oppressors’ – should be genuinely afraid instead of women pretending to be.

    • spandrell October 18, 2014 at 14:44

      I don’t get it but apparently Vox has a zillion visitors every day. Why would anyone read that crap? It’s not like the product is new.

      • Handle October 18, 2014 at 15:17

        In this day and age of rapid shifting and complete logical incoherence, it’s hard for a good progressive to coordinate with the collective and stay in tune with the latest respectable opinions.

        Have we won the war against Eurasia yet? Wait, we’re now at war with Eastasia? And we’ve ‘always’ been at war with Eastasia? But I don’t remem … oh … yes … I see. Of course we’ve always been at war with Eastasia, every good person knows that. Sorry, still nursing a bit of a hangover you know. I should probably lay off the Victory Gin for a while and stick to choco. To bad the rations have been cut … oh .. raised? Uh .. yes, of course they were raised, silly me forgetting again; my memory’s never been very reliable since the revolution you know.

        In the internet era, there’s really only room for one Schelling Point for the Inner Party Pravda, though it’s possible to carve some ‘market segmentation’ niches out for low, medium, and high-brow content. Vox is just trying to capture the tablet-friendly sub-NYT long-form quick-sync space, the field of which the New York Times is only just know realizing they left abandoned, and which it is desperately trying to occupy with some new experimental platforms of its own, like “The Upshot”. Klein and Yglesias, being outside of the NYT world, just realized this first and tried to preemptively occupy and monopolize the once piece of uncontested terrain in progressive media opportunity space.

        • spandrell October 18, 2014 at 15:44

          So is the NYT starting the purges yet? Or will Klein stage a coup and suddenly appear as op-ed writer in the NYT.

          • Handle October 18, 2014 at 16:42

            My guess is that Vox will sell out to NYT and merge, though, there still needs to be some other sites out there than can be the voice of the Inner Party’s vanguard, but which can maintain just enough separation and plausibly deniable affiliation with the NYT so that that can take more potentially embarrassing risks and step a little further off the leading edge of he Overton window without placing the respectability of the flagship at risk. These are like the minor league farms teams that are often career dead-ends for most players, but from which the majors will occasionally pluck a diamond in the rough. But again, that’s just market segmentation, which can be achieved by many seemingly different ‘competitive’ brands existing under the same corporate parent.

            Notice this from DeBoer (during an attempt to reign in some insane progressive delusional policy by using their own anti-disparate-impact rhetoric

            And as goes Ezra, so will go elite media. Klein has always been one of those interesting media figures, at once a weather vane and the weather. Brad Delong once showed up in my comments to tell me that criticizing Klein is “career-limiting.” That amounts to essentially proving every criticism I’ve ever made about the media. But it’s not wrong.

            And here’s what DeLong said:

            Joining Tom Frank, Sally Quinn, and company in their War on Ezra Klein and Nate Silver really looks like a career-limiting move to me…

            You have observed the tendency towards the unitary consolidation of all sectors of power and all the once competitive and independent private spheres of influence – money, political power, media and university opinion-making, and recently Arnold Kling had a post about a book that quoted that Historian hero, Henry Maine. Kling starts

            1. … one way to think of it is that in modern societies, there is separation and balance among power, economic activity, religion, and kinship.

            2. In pre-modern societies, whether tribal or imperial, these forces are fused, into the tribe or the state, respectively.

            3. The 18th century was when thinkers such as Adam Smith began to notice a cultural break with the past. 19th-century legal historian Henry Maine called this the transition from a society of status in which social relationships are determined at birth to a society of contract, in which social relationships are more egalitarian and formal. …

            6. Modernity is not necessarily robust. Modern societies have managed to make production more rewarding than predation, and consequently they are wealthier and more powerful than pre-modern states. But humans remain attracted by encompassing ideologies, such as Communism or radical Islam. In fact, MacFarlane cites several scholars who wrote over 100 years ago that Islam did not adapt to modernity as did Christianity, and Islam still calls for a pre-modern unity of all spheres.

            and he then quotes Maine:

            … a fundamental trait of classical capitalism is that it is a very special kind of order in that the economic and the political seem to be separated, to a greater degree than in any other … There are four main human drives. One is towards material sufficiency…or what we would now call the economy. A second drive is towards power and domination…This we call politics. The third is the area of the individual and society, social relations, kinship, and reproduction. This is the social sphere. The final is the drive towards understanding and knowledge, belief and ethics. This is the realm of religion and ideology. The basic characteristics of most civilizations throughout history is that these are only partially separated.

            Due to the operation of Conquest’s Second Law and the Spontane Gleichschaltung of progressive opinion through the Cooperative Institutions of Public Influence, and also the zero-marginal-cost of publication scalability and economies of scale and scope with modern information technology – it seems we have been gradually regressing back towards completely unlimited absolutism, a kind of modern and perverse form of the God-Emperor, Caesaropapism, or de Maistre’s Ultramontanism.

            • spandrell October 19, 2014 at 04:04

              I’m not sure how much I buy this framework, I think there are other easier ways of conceptualizing it. You have centralizing phases and decentralizing phases in history. Capitalism stemmed from the post Cromwell English oligarchic system which didn’t really have a king, so he couldn’t monopolize the economy. Now the Anglo world is entering a centralizing phase of sorts.

              Note that Japan was also the most decentralized place in the world after NW Europe.
              China never conceded control over the economy, religion and certainly not kinship. Perhaps that’s why it always stuck me as so non-modern.

              • Handle October 20, 2014 at 13:28

                I think Adam Smith pointed to a multi-century period of development, and much earlier than Cromwell. He said the key innovation was when some aspiring merchants were able to gradually buy (er, bribe) their liberation from the local lords and their right to travel through and even exit some fiefdom, in order to make some cottage-industry wares and then trade them at temporary booth-markets.

                Then they started to stay the night, build inns and homes and such, and then obtained leave – so long as the lord’s cut kept flowing back to the castle to pay his private army – to form and then permanently reside in quasi-self-governing burger towns. Eventually, the lords gave up on paying some thugs to hang around the castle with nothing to do, and instead wanted to use their local tax money to buy the nice, status-signalling objects from the bourgeois, driving their estates slowly bankrupt in the process. Inevitably, the New Money (from the law-and-contract society) overcame the Old Money (from the privilege-and-status society). Well, there was plenty of ‘matrimonial merger’ as well, just like Murray says happened in the recent merger of the smart and affluent. Nice attracts Nice, and all the separate sphere of competitive elites in competitive institutions become one giant elite caste that takes on different professions as if they were merely different branches of specialty in the same Army.

                Yes, there has been centralizing / decentralizing cycles in History, however, I think part of what that demonstrates is how difficult it was to maintain genuine stable centralized control over large geographic distances. At the very least, a lot of constant effort had to be put into quashing rebellions and maintaining security, control, and means of transport and communication, and when these broke down, everything went to hell.

                Cowen has mentioned somewhere his theory that the advent of modern technologies are all force multipliers for a centralizing bureaucracy and represent a genuine break from the past in this regard. If you add together rapid transport, instantaneous and cheap communication (and surveillance of such), electronic mass-media, heavy automatic weapons, and all the improvements in producing and processing information (even before computers, things like the typewriter and carbon paper were huge breakthroughs for the ‘labor productivity’, and possible scale and scope of centralizing bureaucracy. So much so that modern systems and centralizing trends are incredibly robust against centrifugal forces. It’s more a question of willpower than capability these days, and if even a barely functional state has the determination and balls to hold itself together it can.

                I see a lot of accelerating harmonization, globalization, unification, merger, etc. and of course all the claustrophobic, stiffing, suffocating, and viciously-enforced political and ideologically conformity and uniformity we complain about. A turn away from this trend would have to be accompanied by an amazingly strong countervailing force to all these enablers of increased centralization.

          • Handle October 19, 2014 at 00:27

            Other reply stuck in moderation…

  6. Friedrich Ludovico October 29, 2014 at 17:39

    A woman’s college! Maddest folly going! What can girls learn within its walls worth knowing?

Please comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s