You’re pointing at a real failure mode — consensus replacing reality-testing, empathy being used as a substitute for enforcement, and institutions collapsing because they refuse to tolerate friction. But reducing that pathology to “female voting” or biology is a category error.
Consensus-seeking today isn’t female. It’s institutionalized conflict-avoidance — and it has been deliberately taught, rewarded, and enforced across education, HR culture, and institutional governance for two generations.
Men didn’t resist it; they adapted to it, staffed it, administered it, and enforced it. Some of the most enthusiastic consensus enforcers are male judges, male bureaucrats, male academics, and male media figures.
This isn’t estrogen. It’s conditioning.
What we’re actually seeing is moral outsourcing. People no longer want to exercise judgment — they want coverage. Consensus provides that. If everyone agrees, no one is responsible. If the process approved it, no one chose it. If the narrative dominates, dissent becomes immoral by default.
That failure isn’t rooted in women’s psychology. It’s rooted in institutions that refuse to enforce boundaries while pretending empathy is a substitute for consequences.
And here’s the real tragedy: consensus culture doesn’t protect women — it exposes them. Not because women are too empathetic, but because systems that refuse to say “no” inevitably abandon the vulnerable when reality asserts itself.
Empathy without enforcement isn’t compassion. It’s dereliction.
I am a female and an empath, but I am not like what you describe in your commentary. I in no way follow the crowd or the consensus, rather I do my own research and form my own conclusions. I am designed to consider the needs of the tribe, but I am not someone who would cowtow to group think and I have no issue at all going against the grain or confronting those I disagree with. I don’t belong to groups other than participate in some social media where I gather information and then sift through it for the truth. I am built for emotion and sensitivity, but I am also strongly logical and analytical in my thinking. I believe the women you are thinking go for consensus over rule of law are the idealists and the extroverts for who life revolves around belonging to a group. But not all of us are like that.
I have expressed these exact same sentiments since the 90s. I experienced the Karen Phenomenon first on 4/19/95, when a family friend called me up in tears and hysterical crying, "THESE ARE YOUR BUDDIES?!?!? THIS IS WHAT YOU SUPPORT?!?!?!?" It took a long time, a seismograph, General Parton's report and several videos depicting additional explosives being carried out of the Murrah Building to convince her that she had been PLAYED.
I love women. They are pretty, they smell good, they can cook (usually). They have many features and attractions that make them irresistible, often to the detriment of a man.
But a moral, intelligent, politically savvy woman who understands POWER is as rare as a Golda Meir or a Margaret Thatcher, or a Kristi Noem.
Immoral, intelligent, politically savvy women who understand power are a dime a dozen.
Most women vote on physical attraction, and how a candidate makes them "feel", which is why Trump runs into so much female opposition. WOMEN DON'T LIKE HARDBALL. They don't play it well. They are great at BITCHBALL, but that's no comparison.
The only thing men can do to prevent this once great nation from becoming a matriarchy run by ignorant, self-righteous, dishonest and immoral KARENS, is to educate our women to the real games afoot, but to do it in a way they can receive. Just how to do THAT is your problem.
As a female who has had interaction with males, I have come to the conclusion after 7+ decades on this earth that every man no matter how many times he gets laid he is always thinking about the next time he’s gonna get laid and he wants it to happen before he dies. Am I right or am I wrong?
Most women have an innate preference for everybody to
“get along” and avoid conflict so to maintain protection because of their babies that require DIRECT CARE for their survival needs so much attention until they become fully substantial, hopefully self sustaining human beings to continue to promote and propagate the human population. As a female, even though I live in freedom and quality, I am always mindful of the fact that I am the physically weaker sex.
Nuance matters here.
You’re pointing at a real failure mode — consensus replacing reality-testing, empathy being used as a substitute for enforcement, and institutions collapsing because they refuse to tolerate friction. But reducing that pathology to “female voting” or biology is a category error.
Consensus-seeking today isn’t female. It’s institutionalized conflict-avoidance — and it has been deliberately taught, rewarded, and enforced across education, HR culture, and institutional governance for two generations.
Men didn’t resist it; they adapted to it, staffed it, administered it, and enforced it. Some of the most enthusiastic consensus enforcers are male judges, male bureaucrats, male academics, and male media figures.
This isn’t estrogen. It’s conditioning.
What we’re actually seeing is moral outsourcing. People no longer want to exercise judgment — they want coverage. Consensus provides that. If everyone agrees, no one is responsible. If the process approved it, no one chose it. If the narrative dominates, dissent becomes immoral by default.
That failure isn’t rooted in women’s psychology. It’s rooted in institutions that refuse to enforce boundaries while pretending empathy is a substitute for consequences.
And here’s the real tragedy: consensus culture doesn’t protect women — it exposes them. Not because women are too empathetic, but because systems that refuse to say “no” inevitably abandon the vulnerable when reality asserts itself.
Empathy without enforcement isn’t compassion. It’s dereliction.
I am a female and an empath, but I am not like what you describe in your commentary. I in no way follow the crowd or the consensus, rather I do my own research and form my own conclusions. I am designed to consider the needs of the tribe, but I am not someone who would cowtow to group think and I have no issue at all going against the grain or confronting those I disagree with. I don’t belong to groups other than participate in some social media where I gather information and then sift through it for the truth. I am built for emotion and sensitivity, but I am also strongly logical and analytical in my thinking. I believe the women you are thinking go for consensus over rule of law are the idealists and the extroverts for who life revolves around belonging to a group. But not all of us are like that.
I have expressed these exact same sentiments since the 90s. I experienced the Karen Phenomenon first on 4/19/95, when a family friend called me up in tears and hysterical crying, "THESE ARE YOUR BUDDIES?!?!? THIS IS WHAT YOU SUPPORT?!?!?!?" It took a long time, a seismograph, General Parton's report and several videos depicting additional explosives being carried out of the Murrah Building to convince her that she had been PLAYED.
I love women. They are pretty, they smell good, they can cook (usually). They have many features and attractions that make them irresistible, often to the detriment of a man.
But a moral, intelligent, politically savvy woman who understands POWER is as rare as a Golda Meir or a Margaret Thatcher, or a Kristi Noem.
Immoral, intelligent, politically savvy women who understand power are a dime a dozen.
Most women vote on physical attraction, and how a candidate makes them "feel", which is why Trump runs into so much female opposition. WOMEN DON'T LIKE HARDBALL. They don't play it well. They are great at BITCHBALL, but that's no comparison.
The only thing men can do to prevent this once great nation from becoming a matriarchy run by ignorant, self-righteous, dishonest and immoral KARENS, is to educate our women to the real games afoot, but to do it in a way they can receive. Just how to do THAT is your problem.
As a female who has had interaction with males, I have come to the conclusion after 7+ decades on this earth that every man no matter how many times he gets laid he is always thinking about the next time he’s gonna get laid and he wants it to happen before he dies. Am I right or am I wrong?
I completely concur with you, Jesus!
Most women have an innate preference for everybody to
“get along” and avoid conflict so to maintain protection because of their babies that require DIRECT CARE for their survival needs so much attention until they become fully substantial, hopefully self sustaining human beings to continue to promote and propagate the human population. As a female, even though I live in freedom and quality, I am always mindful of the fact that I am the physically weaker sex.
Yes, exactly. That the smoke smells like progress. Unreal.
I agree about the disagreement regarding focusing on the female tribe. Yet really, that’s beside the point in a powerful way.
The point is that we are ALL subscribing to the “pathologically altruistic” lack of thinking/thinking. (I’m generalizing here).
Even here, on substack, I feel surrounded by non-thinkers, sheeple.
I’m most definitely not in this ilk. I go against the narrative and always have.
I believe in myself.
Most humans don’t believe in themselves.
I feel blessed, as it’s a choice we make.
Generally, I agree with you, Jesus.
(Although I feel that you’re way too harsh regarding babies…)
Right on the nose!