Is the left collapsing?

I think it’s more likely to be a case of women just tend to be less interested in the STEM subjects

If you talk to women who work in male dominated fields you learn all the things men do to women in male dominated fields. Then you know what happens to women in male dominated fields and stop blaming women for refusing to tolerate what men do to them.

My DH sent me this during the week the right and left have put us in this position.

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-trial-runs-for-fascism-are-in-full-flow-1.3543375?mode=amp

Regarding evolutionary psychology.

I am a geneticist. My heart sinks when I hear arguments using it because they are always, without fail, being used to Justify Bad Shit.

(And they usually get the science wrong too...)

If you hear someone dragging evolutionary psychology into a debate on, well anything political, it should start your Bad Science Alert Alarm 🚨

OP
To be honest, I am not sure how to feel about Sargon of Akkad (the speaker). I think he might sometimes makes sense, but I do think he is more of an anti- everything (SJW/feminist/socialist/etc), and a bit of a provocateur. His internet history is controversial, as you've pointed out. Some of his critiques are probably okay for particular arguments, but I think he can miss the nuance, and is not the best at building things back up holistically.
This is the same issue I have with Jordan Peterson. I have no problem with him worrying about men (because I worry about women). It does concern me that under the guise of a warped idea of "intersectionality" (which I do believe has been hijacked from the original lens that Crenshaw meant) we are building new hierarchies to punish the old ones, instead of abolishing them... I am not sure I can agree with how Peterson views feminism and women, because I reckon that he genuinely is arguing an "evolutionary psychology," relatively essentialist, position of women's interests and character being more "neurotic" and "agreeable". I don't really mind research into the subject, but it rankles because historically women have always been described as "hysterical" or "irrational," usually to support viewpoints like not allowing women to own property or vote. My argument is that even if some psychological differences are broadly present, as they may be, there is very little way real way of telling what exactly is nature and what is nurture. Because unless we dump a whole bunch of people into a desert island from birth without any outside influence, how do we tell? Broadly speaking we ought to accept that men and women are different, and there might be an element of innate psychology there. However, when we code certain personalities for certain sexes, this hurts everyone in the long run. If you don't code personalities for races, you shouldn't do so for sexes.
In my ideal world, we would strive to ensure equality of opportunity - but not necessarily equality of outcome, because individuals need to be able to influence their own outcomes. The problem is we have to find ways of creating a somewhat level playing field to start with, and here is where it gets murky. Because sexism is real. Racism is real. Prejudices are obviously real.
I am genuinely conflicted about the best way forward. In principle, I am instinctively against "positive discrimination" initiatives as there is something that doesn't sit right with me about choosing someone for a role based on characteristics they cannot change (sex and ethnic background being some of them), but at the same time I do get fed up with, for example, watching all male comedy panel shows all the time. And there is a huge problem if we ignore the fact that women actually need maternity leave in order to give birth to the next generation of people. I am not sure that enforced quotas or ratios is necessarily the right path forward, but I do think there ought to be careful consideration of things like programs to empower people (and this applies to economic background, etc as well). Because the honest truth is that people do pick up on societal messages that certain career paths/futures are simply not for them, and I believe that representation very likely plays a role in that.
I guess my argument boils down to this: I don't need STEM fields to be 50% female any more than I need 50% of the fishing industry to be female. But I want 100% of females to feel like they could go into STEM or fishing if they wanted to, and that these fields would be as easy for them to enter as it would be for any male. Likewise, if males want to go into nursing, for example, they should be allowed to, and not face structural discrimination from society. That doesn't mean I need nursing to be a 50% male field.
On the trans thing, I believe that there's a fundamental misunderstanding of sex, which is the problem. Trans ideology is an extension of the idea that males and females have "different brains," which is categorically untrue. There are brains in male and female bodies, but they mean as much to me as the assertions that there are kidneys of those who have male or female bodies. In other words, it means nothing. If you can say that you have a "female brain" in a male body, it means you're saying you can have a "female kidney" in a male body. Which is absolute horse s**t.
Basically, if I had a magic wand, we'd all move back to the centre so at least we could all talk to each other and hash these complex ideas out. I am a huge fan of meeting in the middle, if only to try and understand things.

I think it’s more likely to be a case of women just tend to be less interested in the STEM subjects

As a woman in STEM I would say this wasn’t the reason. Women are not inherently and innately ‘less interested.’ Society socialises girls from birth to be a certain way, and a small part of that is the careers stuff (boys are xxx and like xxx/ girls are xxx and like xxx.) then there’s overt pressure through school. As a kid I heard, innumerable times that ‘this wasn’t for nice girls.’ That sinks in. It means that women choose these careers less. There’s no inherent reason women ‘aren’t good at/interested in’ STEM.

I’ve never seen a laser microscope that needed a penis to operate.

Some (not all) areas of STEM are so riddled with misogyny you wouldn’t believe - computer science/tech type companies are particularly bad. Just look at Twitter. Others are more female friendly - I have worked with a couple of very successful all female or predominantly female biotech companies for example.

The dearth of women in some areas of stem is socialisation and shit company culture.

"He basically reiterates a lot of the right wing propaganda that enables certain people to maintain the status quo in a social environment enabling the exploitation of certain other people in the name of "individual choice" and "reality of life" while remaining completely ignorant of socioeconomic influences and class analysis."

You summed up Sargon of Akkad quite nicely. I've been watching this "classical liberal" dudes videos and actions for years.

"I think feminists understand we are the ball in the manly sport of politics when the discussion between the parties turns to to the dispute over how best to position the boot on women's neck. "

Right = women are private property
Left = woman are public property

The Conservatives are in a huge mess and it can no longer be controlled via the media. They are the ones in Government after all. It's a shit storm of massive proportions.

The media are still massively covering up Tory issues. Look how little coverage Islamophobia in the Conservative Party has received, compared to anti Semitism in the Labour Party. Equally bad problems, yet one has a few limited reports and the other is droned on about for weeks.

OP, I can't take any woman that chooses to join UKIP seriously. There's no more white male centric party out there.

So I wondered what feminists who are not onboard with trans agenda though, if the same conclusions are being reached by those with different political perspectives?

I think feminists understand we are the ball in the manly sport of politics when the discussion between the parties turns to to the dispute over how best to position the boot on women's neck. The men do not agree and the women are not consulted.

I think it's more the right is collapsing, as much as I would like to think it's the left.

The Conservatives are in a huge mess and it can no longer be controlled via the media. They are the ones in Government after all. It's a shit storm of massive proportions.

This thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3082251-Men-whose-lives-are-facilitated-by-women-how-did-this-happen

More females than males go to university these days, young women under 30 earn more than young males as a result

Then what happens?

1. The nature of biology means women are hit disproportionately by pregnancy and childbirth. Im pregnant with my second, I’ve needed to be signed off for several weeks at the start because I was vomiting up to fifty times a day. I now have childbirth, lactation and recovery from pregnancy and birth ahead of me. The first one floored me, I expect this to be similar. DH will surge ahead at work.

1. The structure of the world of work means that when women have children, they are predominantly the ones doing the parental leave, then men expect to be facilitated more at work (there is a great thread about this, I’ll put the link in another post.) so men surge ahead again because women are doing all the grunt work and allowing them to.

So that’s just biology. (Similar things happen with race and with poverty. I’m no expert on race, but I’ve seen poverty first hand and that is a massive disadvantage.)

And it is a societal structural problem. DH and I try to be as equal as we can. We are very equal parents but we feel the pressure from our work. When he takes a day for a sick child he’s a hero. If I take one I’m uncommitted. Why can’t he fly to Miami tomorrow for a meeting? Doesn’t he have a wife at home? Etc. Etc. It’s constant. If a couple as committed to equality as us feels it, I can be sure a lot of others do too.

society is set up to benefit men (and the rich, and white people.)

So al those women under thirty? Well they’re probably like I was before I had kids. Nothing opens your eyes to how much society is rigged against women like a direct encounter with your biology. That can be something nice, like having kids, or something awful, like gynae cancer, or being at the mercy of a larger, stronger Male, or rape.

But once you’ve seen it, you can’t unsee it.

Society is rigged. All those quotas are aimed at evening the field. Once the field is even and humans are advanced enough to not slide back to barbarity if they’re removed, we can remove them.

But we can’t remove them now.

Those questions Bowlofbabelfish are brilliant!

What are you aiming for?
How will you achieve that?
Who/what will benefit/be harmed along the way?

I would add to them my other concerns:
How much force are you planning to apply to those that dissent? What will you do if shown evidence that goes against your dogma?

Because it's authoritarianism that really chills me to the bone, and at the moment I worry about left and right almost equally.

Lots of complex arguments going on here but
A) The Left had better not fall apart, because the Tories are ripping up the raisons d'etre of good government
B) I do hope you are all aware of the Political Compass idea of political ideologies mapped along two axes - redistributive or not, and libertarian or authoritarian?
C) Completely agree with the point about people imagining they are on the Left when they're not. My erstwhile friend who believes that women who disagree with letting men into the Ladies' should be beaten up could barely be more authoritarian, and hasn't said a peep on economic matters. But he has the bloody cheek to pride himself as a right-on lefty.

Is the same structural inequality that causing 90% of the prison population to be male?

That’s a combination of higher testosterone, larger physical strength and about twenty thousand years of being socialised to do whatever the fuck you want regardless. It’s a complex issue.

Don’t look at what people say. Look at what they do (or here, what they want to do.)

Meritocratic society sounds fab. So how’s he going to do that?

Ah. he wants to abolish all the laws and processes that help other people compete with him on an even playing field. In the name of equality.

So what would that look like?

It looks like white men being captains of industry and screwing over everyone else. Business as usual.

Always ask what people will do to achieve their aims, what the consequences will be and who benefits. Because believe me, what this guy says he wants and what he actually is going for are as far apart as they could possibly be. When a member of the dominant class tells you that measures to increase the equality/access/etc of minority classes should be abolished, it doesn’t matter what reasons he tells you he’s doing it for - the outcome will be him, on top.

But doesn’t the evidence suggest men and women have different interests and tend to behave differently? Is the same structural inequality that causing 90% of the prison population to be male?

These are good questions and I think most feminists err on the side of; there are physiological reasons for this, but better socialisation conditions for males could help control these behaviours.
Men and women are clearly different physiologically but does this mean women aren't so good mentally in STEM subjects?

You're thinking from a biological determinist point of view.

I heard him arguing for a totally meritocratic system... He seemed to be saying that we don’t have this meritocratic system anymore

We've never had this system. We live in a classest and sexist society that favours the wealthy and the males, even when we have leaned towards socialism.

To achieve a true meritocracy we need to first provide all born humans with equal access to education, health and resources. Otherwise all you are doing is propping up the already privileged who have access to these things so they can prove their "merit".

A true meritocracy would actually disadvantage white males as a class because other types of people would take positions of power/privilege based on their merit rather than standard discrimination.

The route to this is a socialist route so any one claiming to reject socialism with a big logo reading "socialism sucks" whilst claiming to support a meritocracy is suffering from thinking problems.

One of the most ridiculous points in this person's presentation was where they tried to argue against "Resources are finite" by saying "No they aren't, we all have Kindles, and wealth is created". Just... the classism... it's beyond reasoning with.

Because of what he’s saying. At the moment white men are still top of the tree so we NEED to make sure minorities, women etc are actively supported.

The GOAL of supporting women and minorities is to erase the differences over time. If you need affirmative type action it means there is a structural inequality in the system. You then legislate and society follows.

Meritocracy would be great - and it sounds great and reasonable, but if you got rid of all the laws and protections, all you’d get at the moment, in our unequal society is white men fucking over everyone else. Because the system is rigged towards them.

So what he says is ‘hey I’m so reasonable PC crap blah blah’ but what he means is that he wants the status quo to remain.

It also uses tactics from totalitarian systems including breaking bonds between us, making people suspicious of each other, and afraid to talk openly.

Yes. Absolutely.

I dont think left vs right is a particularly useful way of looking at politics any more.

Id like to be able to look at a political movement or party and be able to ask:

What are you aiming for?
How will you achieve that?
Who/what will benefit/be harmed along the way?

And be morally OK with all the answers. Needless to say I feel rather politically homeless just now.

The speaker in the clip is clearly coming from a position I’d class as those alt right chaps - he’s saying he’s a white male and white males ‘should be on top.’
That attitude is what’s driving all of this - men who have traditionally been at the top not through ability but by simply being white men are now having to compete in a global pool. And there are an awful lot of very talented people in the world who are not white men.
This is the driving force behind MRAs, the vile incel crowd, stripping away women’s rights, attacks along race lines from the alt right etc etc. It’s all linked, and it plays alongside austerity to frighten people into their own little tribes, breaking societal cohesion on all levels.

Look at what’s happening in Europe. Mass immigration is used to have an ‘other’ to demonise. Austerity plus mass immigration makes people feel like they need to ‘protect their own’ so you’ve got effectively a siege mentality. Austerity strips public service and allows private alternatives to be offered, leading to corporate dominance of what should be state owned services run for the populace. Lower levels of public services drive lower levels of public trust
Whether it’s been set up that way or people are just acting like vultures off the back of it I don’t know, but it’s leading us to a situation where we have poverty, inequality, and an ‘other’ to blame. And we know what happened last time with that. This is driving society back to a sort of feudalist corporate nightmare.

I read the other day that US private contractors made at least 40bn from the Iraq conflict alone. Also that the UK only finished paying off the war debt from WW1 in 2014 and the debt from WW2 in 2006.

Follow the money and the power, always.

I got through just the first section of this person's presentation.

He immediately said "they are trying to get rid of all of us white males"
Clue to the room.

Name dropped Jordan Peterson.

He complains about SJWs. They are not left wing for the most part.

His juxtaposition of "ideology" against "reality" in almost every example I would flip it and list it on the opposite side.
Right wing idology is as much an ideology as the left is. Also his progressive/ left points are quite wrong often.

He basically reiterates a lot of the right wing propaganda that enables certain people to maintain the status quo in a social environment enabling the exploitation of certain other people in the name of "individual choice" and "reality of life" while remaining completely ignorant of socioeconomic influences and class analysis.

But I didn't watch the rest.

I agree that the left has been infected by identity politics and has lost it's way, a lot of this is down to neoliberal ideology that bacame popular in the 90's which opened the way to the cult of the self and away from social conscious discourse.