Shit, they got the UUs too. Well, now you can freely denounce them and call them out for their hypocrisy and illiberal views. I guess I'm not surprised. I really don't know why the hell it's been so easy to poison the liberal well this way. But, if you can convince conservatives to abandon conservatism for the Trump cult, I guess you can do equally to get former liberals to join the wokeness cult.
Shit, they got the UUs too. Well, now you can freely denounce them and call them out for their hypocrisy and illiberal views. I guess I'm not surprised. I really don't know why the hell it's been so easy to poison the liberal well this way. But, if you can convince conservatives to abandon conservatism for the Trump cult, I guess you can do equally to get former liberals to join the wokeness cult.
You say you “don’t know why the hell it’s been so easy to poison the liberal well this way”. Well it’s because modern liberals ( whose usual party of choice in America has been the Democrats) allowed it to be hijacked incrementally by the radical left. And historically speaking, intolerance, subjugation, tyranny and mass scale murder has always been the result of leftist ideologies. Marxists, communists and socialists have always professed to care about oppressed peoples but in actuality despise them and only use them to achieve their despotic ends.
From Russia to China to Cambodia and Cuba, history is replete with the evidence. And with the ennabling by well intentioned liberals, this cancer has now metastasized in America and we are enduring our own version of the Cultural Revolution dressed in Wokeism. You want to talk cults? This movement is the mother of all cults.
What you say is all true, and for sure, all the cancers the left thought only existed on the right - misogyny, anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, etc. have always been there, as has been cancel culture long before it had a name (Google E.O. Wilson sometime if you're bored & aren't familiar with this problems with Boomer college students). What gets me I think is the conscious turning over of one's critical thinking faculties to what you so aptly describe as a cult (as have myself and many others). What particularly bothers me is how easily gaslit so many feminists are by manipulative men who appropriate womanhood and get the girlies to do what they want (except for lesbians who seem a bit more rebellious against penii, lol). Feminism has a very long way to go when women can be convinced to allow male bodies - even convicted sex offenders! - in female spaces and prisons. I've never figured out why the hippies could condemn Nixon's campaign in Vietnam in one breath and support ratbastards like Castro and other southern hemisphere dictators so easily. Or how white so-called liberals today can bow and scrape before the racists in 'antiracism' who are clearly just as racist (against white people), including re-defining a fair number of non-white Jews as white to justify their anti-Semitism. But to be honest, I've been just as mystified by how far-righters have hijacked conservatism and turned it into MAGA stupidity. Chickens for Colonel Sanders, and many genuine conservatives who haven't turned their brains over to the MAGA cult are just as afraid to speak up against their own terrorists as libs are against our woke ones.
I'm one lesbian who has protested regularly at my UU church, all to no avail. It has been three years of seeing UU becoming an illiberal, anti-women, and racist religion. This has been a very sad and angry time for me.
You could also call it social justice warriorism, or identity politics, or identitarnism, or cultural progressivism,or post-modernism, or social media activism, or intersectional feminism, or 4th wave feminism, or something else if you like. The point is there is a social movement a trend, which has grown significantly since about 2013, which people often refer to as "wokeness." The name is less important the phenomenon. While yes, conservatives and Neo-fasicists and MAGA's and all those folks also talk about this phenomenon, that doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. In fact you are using two different forms of sophistry and deceptive rhetoric here. You're trying to change the subject by getting people to focus on the name of the social movement rather than the substance of the thing itself. You'e also trying to dismiss any critique or even discussion (or indeed naming) of that movement by asserting that, by definition, anyone attempting to discuss and critique it are right wing fasicists, bigots, etc. Anyone who follows these issues fairly knows that isn't true. This ideological split is not so new. It's what Frederick Douglas criticized William Garrison about in the abolition movement. It's what MLK criticized the Nation of Islam about. Hell, it's what older Malcolm X criticized younger Malcom X about. If you want to discuss sincerely, go read a book then come back. If you want to troll, please just stop.
I can just visualize you scratching and clawing at yourself, trying to find the most vulgar utterances to make us sane folks feel threatened. Whaaagh, not happening. 👏👍
Nice try. You clearly do not have a clue about the definition of a troll. This is my forum and subject. Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In fact, they surf the net looking for it. And you clearly do. GTFOH.
If the shoe fits. Not my fault DEI/CSJ chose to embrace the concept of wokeness to champion their cause. Heterodox "woke" need to vehemently reject these concepts if they want to save the term.
Evidence shows these extremist positions come from Universities and Colleges - and they grow more and more extreme. But why? I speculate that it is due to "publish or perish" coupled with America having far too many professors in the humanities.
Getting tenure (and build a reputation) in Higher Ed requires publishing stuff that is "New" and compatible with the zeitgeist of the field.
In STEM fields, there are many unanswered questions that are related to active topics of research. A young scientist can select a question and publish an answer to build her/his reputation. Many scientific careers grew from picking a neglected topic and exploring it. The ultimate judge of the quality of these answers of question is Nature - via empiricism. Increasingly, STEM fields require large teams of Scientists who do competent work but do not have the reputation draw in grant dollars. (TBH: young scholars in STEM are starting to go woke, too. If the work cannot stand on its own, wokify it! Relabel your new, mediocre programming language as being trans- friendly! Whether or not you have had surgery and hormone treatment - it all compiles the same!)
It is harder in the humanities. First, humans have been talking about humans for millennia so there is little new to say about the human condition. Second, there isn't much funding for large teams to do big projects (and, frankly, how big of team do Humanities projects need?). This creates an environment for young humanities professors to make bold claims in order to get tenure and build their reputation (the alternative is to be assistant manager at a WalMart). To avoid that fate, many in the humanities take an old, popular argument and make it more extreme. For example, anti-racism asserts without evidence that everyone is either racist or anti-racist, with no grey areas. (making the state of racism unlike sex)
The next scholar has to push it further because just saying "S/He got it right" will not get you tenure. So the next one asserts without evidence that all Whites are intrinsically incapable of being anti-racist (but they point out that the fact that Whites cannot help being racists does not absolve them of blame!)
Now, we have humanities profs teach unwitting students about biological sex - they barely understand the biology and empiricism so they rely on sophistry and rhetoric to conflate biological sex with social gender. So the poor students come out less educated and more confused than when they went in - but they are very confident about their misunderstanding of biology. God help the families of those students when they return home for Thanksgiving!
I note that these woke-folks seem to be focused on issues related to race, identity and sex. I suspect it's because these topics attract adolescents and keep enrollments high (oh. I didn't mention the importance of enrollment - depts that have high enrollment grow whereas depts with low enrollments shrink). Also, since people tend to crave novelty profs have to keep pushing their positions, making them ever more extreme.
Here are 3 predictions of positions that will come out of academia in the next ten years:
1) Human sexes are on a spectrum but 'male' is not a legitimate sex on that spectrum - only female and intersex are. (They will have to redefine 'species' to explain how human males can interbreed with human females to produce fertile offspring - but that's child's play for them).
2) People who have sex with animals are not deviant, it's just a sexual orientation - anyone uncomfortable with humans having sex with animals is a bigot, and probably homophobic.
3) Recent arrivals from Africa - who tend to have more success than African-Americans whose families have been here for centuries - will be considered "White Adjacent".
Very interesting rundown on what happens in academia - you sound like you've spent rather a lot of time there. I think it's also that the kids want to hear a certain narrative and the academia model has d/evolved to treat students like customers, which they're not, but as you know 'the customer is always right'. So they learn a blinkered view of humanity that fits their constipated worldview and don't develop the resilience they need for the real world. Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff covered it in The Coddling of the American Mind. I also think critical everything theory simply provides an excuse to be a bigot (racist, antisemitic, misogynist, misandrist, homophobic, etc.) but against different people, or in different ways. (white people are evil, so are male people, white males are the worst, and anyone we don't like gets bleached (hence the sudden whitenizing of all Jews, and Asians to a certain degree, and yeah, I agree with her, some black people are going to find out they have been granted white privilege whether they want it or not. Yeah, I see the animals thing coming too, along with furries and 'Otherkin' as 'viable' identities, but I think the pedos will be moving in soon. I don't think biological sex can ever truly be considered a spectrum, but *feelings* about it could be. What a mad, insane, world we live in...
I enjoyed reading your reply to my overlong comment. I think we are in agreement. BTW: I have spent most of my adult life in academia, for 25 years I was a research astronomer and for the past decade or so, I have been teaching. I mostly teach General Ed Astronomy because my 'mission' is to increase science literacy in America - it is a quixotic quest because academia's science literacy is plummeting at a staggering rate. Let me give you an example:
I was having beers with some friends in academia when some of their friends show up and joined us - they teach Philosophy. I tend to have a lot of respect for Philosophy because doing science well requires us to think about how we are thinking about things (metacognition is the douchey term for it). One of these Philosophers mentioned that she teaches a class on sex and gender - I replied that I have had discussions with a *lot* of biologists whether sex is binary or not and it is a complicated topic.
She and her ally eagerly agreed and somehow made a case that complexity in Biology supports their position that sex is a spectrum. I kept saying "The community of biologists does *not* have a consensus that sex is a spectrum." That did not seem to make them hesitant, as Philosophers, to speak for the field of Biology.
They quoted one estimate that 'intersex' makes up 5% of the spectrum and I pointed out that many biologists dispute that estimate for being far too high (the most common estimate is between 1 & 2%). They dismissed that, saying a lot of people are intersex and don't know it, justifying cherry-picking the higher estimate. I replied that *real* scientists do not make up new numbers because the old numbers are flawed. *Real* scientists make better measurements to get better numbers. They brushed that aside.
Then they made the absurd case that 5% is a *huge* number - why that exceeds the percentage of redheads! I replied, "First, no 5% is not a huge number, would you accept a 5% COLA in your salary during this period of inflation?" Then, because I am a scientist and am very careful about comparisons, I said "Comparing the percentage of an entire spectrum of non-male & non-female to the percentage of a SINGLE category of hair color is an apples to oranges comparison. It would only be valid if their position was that there are three sexes."
Once I got into the topic of measurements and analysis, they reverted to rhetoric and essentially based everything on their feelings and the feelings of intersex people (I should have walked away, saying I was searching for a person who is one exact sex: tight tush, big rack ... and a vagina. The last part is non-negotiable)
After beers one of the profs - who had a BS in Biology and wisely stayed out of it - told me that we were quibbling whether these variations are within the two sexes or constitute another sex, but the words do not change their nature or reality. Folks in the humanities spend all of their time thinking about things that humans have created so they lose sight of the Universe out there. It was there before us, it will be there after us, and it exists entirely independent of us. Our words and thoughts do not change it.
Maybe y'all should challenge them more on feelings. They may be *part* of the humanities but in the end, for something like sex, it's pretty immutable...feelings notwithstanding, you can't say transwomen are women because biology says they're not; and it's the gametes, as you point out, that ultimately define them. Everything else is window dressing, although it strikes me that bio males always think like bio males to some extent, as do bio females. Elliott Page is the most chicky transmale I've seen so far. I'm quite sure she will one day regret what she did to herself; it seems so ridiculously inauthentic, and I wouldn't say that about all transfolk.
I agree mostly, except the part about engaging with them. Arguing with an intellectual is like mud wrestling with a pig - you both wind up covered in muck but the pig actually likes it!
Instead, we should get word out that _some_ college degrees aren't worth the price. They don't provide marketable skills beyond what should have been learned in High School. Also, if a person must work 3 jobs to pay rent and student loans, then they don't have time & energy to ponder all the deep thoughts that these degrees introduce. It is just a waste. I call these 'dilettante degrees' because only kids with trust funds can afford to major in them.
Going to college nowadays is like entering indentured servitude - you have to work the rest of your life to earn your freedom. How ironic they bandy about decolonization when they are the biggest colonizers of the modern era.
Thank you for posting that video! It is excellent. I had heard most of those points before (Dr Asher has been saying this for a few years now) but that video is a nice summary of his points (there is an accompanying article on substack: https://boghossian.substack.com/p/dr-lyell-asher-why-colleges-are-becoming
Mary Harrington has some interesting things to say about why the liberals fell so easily. Her book "Feminism Against Progress" is a fascinating analysis.
Interesting. I may have to read that. Also beginning to consider books from a conservative (not far right/Christian fundy) viewpoint that critiques where liberalism may have failed women. Steven Pinker writes about it in a few of his books, and he's no right wing crazy.
Shit, they got the UUs too. Well, now you can freely denounce them and call them out for their hypocrisy and illiberal views. I guess I'm not surprised. I really don't know why the hell it's been so easy to poison the liberal well this way. But, if you can convince conservatives to abandon conservatism for the Trump cult, I guess you can do equally to get former liberals to join the wokeness cult.
You say you “don’t know why the hell it’s been so easy to poison the liberal well this way”. Well it’s because modern liberals ( whose usual party of choice in America has been the Democrats) allowed it to be hijacked incrementally by the radical left. And historically speaking, intolerance, subjugation, tyranny and mass scale murder has always been the result of leftist ideologies. Marxists, communists and socialists have always professed to care about oppressed peoples but in actuality despise them and only use them to achieve their despotic ends.
From Russia to China to Cambodia and Cuba, history is replete with the evidence. And with the ennabling by well intentioned liberals, this cancer has now metastasized in America and we are enduring our own version of the Cultural Revolution dressed in Wokeism. You want to talk cults? This movement is the mother of all cults.
What you say is all true, and for sure, all the cancers the left thought only existed on the right - misogyny, anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, etc. have always been there, as has been cancel culture long before it had a name (Google E.O. Wilson sometime if you're bored & aren't familiar with this problems with Boomer college students). What gets me I think is the conscious turning over of one's critical thinking faculties to what you so aptly describe as a cult (as have myself and many others). What particularly bothers me is how easily gaslit so many feminists are by manipulative men who appropriate womanhood and get the girlies to do what they want (except for lesbians who seem a bit more rebellious against penii, lol). Feminism has a very long way to go when women can be convinced to allow male bodies - even convicted sex offenders! - in female spaces and prisons. I've never figured out why the hippies could condemn Nixon's campaign in Vietnam in one breath and support ratbastards like Castro and other southern hemisphere dictators so easily. Or how white so-called liberals today can bow and scrape before the racists in 'antiracism' who are clearly just as racist (against white people), including re-defining a fair number of non-white Jews as white to justify their anti-Semitism. But to be honest, I've been just as mystified by how far-righters have hijacked conservatism and turned it into MAGA stupidity. Chickens for Colonel Sanders, and many genuine conservatives who haven't turned their brains over to the MAGA cult are just as afraid to speak up against their own terrorists as libs are against our woke ones.
I'm one lesbian who has protested regularly at my UU church, all to no avail. It has been three years of seeing UU becoming an illiberal, anti-women, and racist religion. This has been a very sad and angry time for me.
Thanks for saying what needs to be said more often.
You could also call it social justice warriorism, or identity politics, or identitarnism, or cultural progressivism,or post-modernism, or social media activism, or intersectional feminism, or 4th wave feminism, or something else if you like. The point is there is a social movement a trend, which has grown significantly since about 2013, which people often refer to as "wokeness." The name is less important the phenomenon. While yes, conservatives and Neo-fasicists and MAGA's and all those folks also talk about this phenomenon, that doesn't mean the phenomenon doesn't exist. In fact you are using two different forms of sophistry and deceptive rhetoric here. You're trying to change the subject by getting people to focus on the name of the social movement rather than the substance of the thing itself. You'e also trying to dismiss any critique or even discussion (or indeed naming) of that movement by asserting that, by definition, anyone attempting to discuss and critique it are right wing fasicists, bigots, etc. Anyone who follows these issues fairly knows that isn't true. This ideological split is not so new. It's what Frederick Douglas criticized William Garrison about in the abolition movement. It's what MLK criticized the Nation of Islam about. Hell, it's what older Malcolm X criticized younger Malcom X about. If you want to discuss sincerely, go read a book then come back. If you want to troll, please just stop.
Good faith? Introducing vulgarity into the conversation is not good faith.
Your vulgarity is unwelcome.
Oh my, are you ‘triggered’? Feel ‘unsafe’?
SO sorry Scottie 😩
Triggered? No, I hope for a much less vulgar culture.
Oh Scottie,
I can just visualize you scratching and clawing at yourself, trying to find the most vulgar utterances to make us sane folks feel threatened. Whaaagh, not happening. 👏👍
The fact that you came on here to while about the post, shows you are the one whining. LOL
Nice try. You clearly do not have a clue about the definition of a troll. This is my forum and subject. Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In fact, they surf the net looking for it. And you clearly do. GTFOH.
If the shoe fits. Not my fault DEI/CSJ chose to embrace the concept of wokeness to champion their cause. Heterodox "woke" need to vehemently reject these concepts if they want to save the term.
Oh look, you are able to regurgitate your nonsense twice.
Evidence shows these extremist positions come from Universities and Colleges - and they grow more and more extreme. But why? I speculate that it is due to "publish or perish" coupled with America having far too many professors in the humanities.
Getting tenure (and build a reputation) in Higher Ed requires publishing stuff that is "New" and compatible with the zeitgeist of the field.
In STEM fields, there are many unanswered questions that are related to active topics of research. A young scientist can select a question and publish an answer to build her/his reputation. Many scientific careers grew from picking a neglected topic and exploring it. The ultimate judge of the quality of these answers of question is Nature - via empiricism. Increasingly, STEM fields require large teams of Scientists who do competent work but do not have the reputation draw in grant dollars. (TBH: young scholars in STEM are starting to go woke, too. If the work cannot stand on its own, wokify it! Relabel your new, mediocre programming language as being trans- friendly! Whether or not you have had surgery and hormone treatment - it all compiles the same!)
It is harder in the humanities. First, humans have been talking about humans for millennia so there is little new to say about the human condition. Second, there isn't much funding for large teams to do big projects (and, frankly, how big of team do Humanities projects need?). This creates an environment for young humanities professors to make bold claims in order to get tenure and build their reputation (the alternative is to be assistant manager at a WalMart). To avoid that fate, many in the humanities take an old, popular argument and make it more extreme. For example, anti-racism asserts without evidence that everyone is either racist or anti-racist, with no grey areas. (making the state of racism unlike sex)
The next scholar has to push it further because just saying "S/He got it right" will not get you tenure. So the next one asserts without evidence that all Whites are intrinsically incapable of being anti-racist (but they point out that the fact that Whites cannot help being racists does not absolve them of blame!)
Now, we have humanities profs teach unwitting students about biological sex - they barely understand the biology and empiricism so they rely on sophistry and rhetoric to conflate biological sex with social gender. So the poor students come out less educated and more confused than when they went in - but they are very confident about their misunderstanding of biology. God help the families of those students when they return home for Thanksgiving!
I note that these woke-folks seem to be focused on issues related to race, identity and sex. I suspect it's because these topics attract adolescents and keep enrollments high (oh. I didn't mention the importance of enrollment - depts that have high enrollment grow whereas depts with low enrollments shrink). Also, since people tend to crave novelty profs have to keep pushing their positions, making them ever more extreme.
Here are 3 predictions of positions that will come out of academia in the next ten years:
1) Human sexes are on a spectrum but 'male' is not a legitimate sex on that spectrum - only female and intersex are. (They will have to redefine 'species' to explain how human males can interbreed with human females to produce fertile offspring - but that's child's play for them).
2) People who have sex with animals are not deviant, it's just a sexual orientation - anyone uncomfortable with humans having sex with animals is a bigot, and probably homophobic.
3) Recent arrivals from Africa - who tend to have more success than African-Americans whose families have been here for centuries - will be considered "White Adjacent".
Very interesting rundown on what happens in academia - you sound like you've spent rather a lot of time there. I think it's also that the kids want to hear a certain narrative and the academia model has d/evolved to treat students like customers, which they're not, but as you know 'the customer is always right'. So they learn a blinkered view of humanity that fits their constipated worldview and don't develop the resilience they need for the real world. Jonathan Haidt & Greg Lukianoff covered it in The Coddling of the American Mind. I also think critical everything theory simply provides an excuse to be a bigot (racist, antisemitic, misogynist, misandrist, homophobic, etc.) but against different people, or in different ways. (white people are evil, so are male people, white males are the worst, and anyone we don't like gets bleached (hence the sudden whitenizing of all Jews, and Asians to a certain degree, and yeah, I agree with her, some black people are going to find out they have been granted white privilege whether they want it or not. Yeah, I see the animals thing coming too, along with furries and 'Otherkin' as 'viable' identities, but I think the pedos will be moving in soon. I don't think biological sex can ever truly be considered a spectrum, but *feelings* about it could be. What a mad, insane, world we live in...
I enjoyed reading your reply to my overlong comment. I think we are in agreement. BTW: I have spent most of my adult life in academia, for 25 years I was a research astronomer and for the past decade or so, I have been teaching. I mostly teach General Ed Astronomy because my 'mission' is to increase science literacy in America - it is a quixotic quest because academia's science literacy is plummeting at a staggering rate. Let me give you an example:
I was having beers with some friends in academia when some of their friends show up and joined us - they teach Philosophy. I tend to have a lot of respect for Philosophy because doing science well requires us to think about how we are thinking about things (metacognition is the douchey term for it). One of these Philosophers mentioned that she teaches a class on sex and gender - I replied that I have had discussions with a *lot* of biologists whether sex is binary or not and it is a complicated topic.
She and her ally eagerly agreed and somehow made a case that complexity in Biology supports their position that sex is a spectrum. I kept saying "The community of biologists does *not* have a consensus that sex is a spectrum." That did not seem to make them hesitant, as Philosophers, to speak for the field of Biology.
They quoted one estimate that 'intersex' makes up 5% of the spectrum and I pointed out that many biologists dispute that estimate for being far too high (the most common estimate is between 1 & 2%). They dismissed that, saying a lot of people are intersex and don't know it, justifying cherry-picking the higher estimate. I replied that *real* scientists do not make up new numbers because the old numbers are flawed. *Real* scientists make better measurements to get better numbers. They brushed that aside.
Then they made the absurd case that 5% is a *huge* number - why that exceeds the percentage of redheads! I replied, "First, no 5% is not a huge number, would you accept a 5% COLA in your salary during this period of inflation?" Then, because I am a scientist and am very careful about comparisons, I said "Comparing the percentage of an entire spectrum of non-male & non-female to the percentage of a SINGLE category of hair color is an apples to oranges comparison. It would only be valid if their position was that there are three sexes."
Once I got into the topic of measurements and analysis, they reverted to rhetoric and essentially based everything on their feelings and the feelings of intersex people (I should have walked away, saying I was searching for a person who is one exact sex: tight tush, big rack ... and a vagina. The last part is non-negotiable)
After beers one of the profs - who had a BS in Biology and wisely stayed out of it - told me that we were quibbling whether these variations are within the two sexes or constitute another sex, but the words do not change their nature or reality. Folks in the humanities spend all of their time thinking about things that humans have created so they lose sight of the Universe out there. It was there before us, it will be there after us, and it exists entirely independent of us. Our words and thoughts do not change it.
Maybe y'all should challenge them more on feelings. They may be *part* of the humanities but in the end, for something like sex, it's pretty immutable...feelings notwithstanding, you can't say transwomen are women because biology says they're not; and it's the gametes, as you point out, that ultimately define them. Everything else is window dressing, although it strikes me that bio males always think like bio males to some extent, as do bio females. Elliott Page is the most chicky transmale I've seen so far. I'm quite sure she will one day regret what she did to herself; it seems so ridiculously inauthentic, and I wouldn't say that about all transfolk.
I agree mostly, except the part about engaging with them. Arguing with an intellectual is like mud wrestling with a pig - you both wind up covered in muck but the pig actually likes it!
Instead, we should get word out that _some_ college degrees aren't worth the price. They don't provide marketable skills beyond what should have been learned in High School. Also, if a person must work 3 jobs to pay rent and student loans, then they don't have time & energy to ponder all the deep thoughts that these degrees introduce. It is just a waste. I call these 'dilettante degrees' because only kids with trust funds can afford to major in them.
Going to college nowadays is like entering indentured servitude - you have to work the rest of your life to earn your freedom. How ironic they bandy about decolonization when they are the biggest colonizers of the modern era.
Agreed. Also:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hybqg81n-M
Thank you for posting that video! It is excellent. I had heard most of those points before (Dr Asher has been saying this for a few years now) but that video is a nice summary of his points (there is an accompanying article on substack: https://boghossian.substack.com/p/dr-lyell-asher-why-colleges-are-becoming
Thanks for posting the article!
C’mon now! Stop confusing us with the facts! It’s not FAIR!!!! Whaaaaah!!!
A very good analysis of why:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hybqg81n-M
Mary Harrington has some interesting things to say about why the liberals fell so easily. Her book "Feminism Against Progress" is a fascinating analysis.
Interesting. I may have to read that. Also beginning to consider books from a conservative (not far right/Christian fundy) viewpoint that critiques where liberalism may have failed women. Steven Pinker writes about it in a few of his books, and he's no right wing crazy.