“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.

7 thoughts on “Miss-Behavior

  1. Your article here, and an article (more accurately, article review) by Fr. Zuhlsdorf over at his space were posted within days of each other and tackle a similar theme from two directions. Fr. Z discusses how women have a starring role to play in the return to sanity in the Catholic world (my paraphrasal, not his words). The phenomenon you describe of women being at the forefront of rooting out heterodoxy (for good or ill) could arguably be the mechanism for that change. Im not sure i have a coherent thesis, just neurons connected in my brain. Ill have to read both articles again.

    • Women are not naturally orthodox in the Orthosphere sense of that word. They are naturally drawn to groupthink. This makes them conservative in a settled society and fanatical in a revolutionary society.

      • Hence, the huge difference between Northern and Southern women prior to the WBTS. In our time the whole sex has been thoroughly corrupted by their participation in the political scene, as R.L. Dabney rightly predicted would be the case. Now entire generations are being raised by what Dabney termed “that most abhorrent of all phenomena, infidel women,” and we wonder why we face the problem in our generations of gun-wielding lunatics walking into a Wal-Mart and indiscrimately murdering innocent people. In point of fact, I stand amazed this doesn’t happen more often in the Weimerican Clown World we all live in. And of course we know all too well that, with rare exception, even the most pious and godly Christian women have been smitten by this “Satanic ingenuity” declaring women to be the perfect equals of men. “Hath God said?”

  2. This is a problem of modern society – and its profound unnaturalness – rather than an aspect of women as such. I tend to think of this in evolutionary terms.

    We are all damaged by aspects of modern conditions (including in a basic biological sense – in that sub-fertilty – which will lead to extinction unless reversed, a sign of extreme avcersive stress, is endemic in all developed societies); and of these unnatural and damaging conditions, atheism is among the worst.

    But women are orientated to what they perceive to be their femal ‘peer group’ – which nowadays means (pretty much) the mass media. So women Now are much more (biologically, as well as psychologically) damaged than men by modernity – and the more intelligent, conscientious, educated, high status teh woman – (on average) the more damaged.


    (Fertility in the most intelligent/ educated women is about 0.5 – less than a quarter of minimum replacement levels. Indeed, this seems to have been the situation for a century, e.g. in Terman’s high IQ cohort. The only antidote to subfertility and this inverse relation between intelligence and fertility, is in certain kinds of communities of devout and ‘patriachal’ religion: including Christianity, Judaism, Islam.)

    But we must bear in mind that this desperate state of modern women is not a natural or spontaneous (or universal) sex difference – it is a specific product of our post-industrial-revolution un-naturalness.

    • There is some feminist gravity well at work here. It requires even the best among us when speaking on the subject of women to base certain key premises upon sentiment rather than intelligence.

  3. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 10/20/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores


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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.