“Both Angela Saini and Amy Harmon are ladylike “Well! I never . . .” pearl-clutchers who subscribe utterly to the conventional wisdom of their era and have never had an idiosyncratic thought.”
Steve Sailer, “AntiScientific American Lauds Angla Sani’s Science Denialism,” iSteve Blog, Unz Review, (October 18, 2019)
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.”
George Orwell, 1984 (1948)
Angela Sani is the author of Superior: A Return to Race Science, an equalitarian apologia that equalitarian reviewers have praised as “thoroughly researched, brilliantly written and deeply disturbing.” Less sympathetic readers have described it as a catechism of what Orwell called goodthink. As Orwell explained,
“If he is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a Goodthinker), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion.”
Sani’s goodthinkful belief is that there is no natural basis for statistical differences in racial performance, and her goodthinkful emotion is horror and disgust with anyone who thinks otherwise. Amy Harmond is the New York Times columnist who plows this same furrow goodthinkwise, and who recently succeeded in denouncing and ostracizing the geneticist James Watson.
It is nowadays “crimethink” even to wonder if young women are natural conformists, and if they are therefore especially prone intellectual bigotry and persecution. You have no doubt heard some variant of the motto “well-behaved women seldom make history,” a piece of smug nonsense that fails to consider that history would have ended without a steady supply of babies.
The quote comes from an early feminist historian, about whom I propose to say nothing here.
Women are naturally conformist because pregnancy and child-rearing made them for many thousands of years dependent on the group in a way that men are not. They are therefore more concerned with maintenance of harmonious relations in the group, and more fearful of oddballs who disrupt that harmony. Examples of sour and splenetic women (the “crone” of feminist mythology) do nothing to weaken this generalization.
When you take these natural conformists and beat them over the head with the motto “well-behaved women seldom make history,” you intensify their natural hatred and persecution of idiosyncratic thinkers and turn them into an utterly unscrupulous mob. They will still be the most bigoted adherents of the goodthinking orthodoxy, but they will win group approval by miss-behaving: by nosing out unorthodoxy in especially cruel and unseemly ways.
This is why young women are at the forefront of the nosing-out of unorthodoxy that nowadays pretends to be radical thought, and why their persecutions are, in fact, miss-behavior.