As far as an increase in young male hostility toward women, women can be quite mean to men while perceiving themselves as being nice (human reality). I can remember numerous situations growing up, where a female authority would put a young male in an unfair situation. The young male would bite back (verbally). Female authority would cry, and other male authorities would come in force the young male to comply.
Now as a millennial, I grew up with some male only spaces - friends were apart of the boy-scouts, in my church only the men voted, sports was a male only space, my first two jobs were in a male only environment. This meant that if I was in a space where women were being unfair to me, I had plenty of other spaces to go to, to get away from the nonsense.
Zoomers were raised in a world where virtually all spaces are egalitarian now. They don’t have a space to run from bad female behavior.
I am not saying that this is fully a bad thing. I imagine that plenty of women suffered in different ways historically when virtually all spaces were under male authority. But it is no surprise to me that young men are much more hostile to women in general, than previous generations.
Separation politically has been under way for some time now. In Southern California we refused from, the school board meetings were fully dominated by union members and Allies.
In Chattanooga TN the conditions are very different, just across the Georgia 🇬🇪 border there is ubiquity of American 🇺🇸 flags .
When you go to civic meetings evangelical language, prayer and understanding of basic Christian morality, is given lots of room for expression.
Liberals started secluding themselves behind walled communities in California in the 90s.
The critique of DOPMA often assumes that speed of advancement is the primary indicator of institutional health. That assumption does not fit well with the historical experience of the U.S. military. For more than two centuries the American armed forces have produced competent leaders and have repeatedly demonstrated operational effectiveness in complex wars. A personnel system that emphasizes time in grade, progressive responsibility, and cohort promotion is not accidental. It is designed to ensure that leaders accumulate experience across tactical, operational, and institutional levels before they are entrusted with larger formations.
Military leadership is not merely a function of intelligence or brilliance. It is the product of formation over time. An officer who eventually commands at the strategic level has normally spent years learning the profession from the bottom up. He has served as a platoon leader responsible for the lives of a few dozen people, as a company-grade officer mentored by more senior leaders, as a staff officer learning planning and coordination, and later as a commander at progressively larger echelons. Each stage exposes the officer to different aspects of warfare, logistics, personnel management, and the integration of complex combat systems. The purpose of time-in-grade requirements is to ensure that leaders gain this cumulative knowledge and are shaped by those who have already walked that path.
A “brilliant” officer who lacks that developmental process is not necessarily an asset in a military organization. Warfare is fundamentally collective. Success depends on trust, discipline, and an understanding of how large organizations operate under stress. Officers must know how to lead, but they must also know how to be led and how to function within a chain of command. Rapid advancement based solely on perceived talent risks producing leaders who have not internalized the habits, judgment, and institutional knowledge that the profession of arms requires.
The “up or out” system also serves an institutional purpose that critics often overlook. Military organizations require a steady flow of opportunities for younger officers to assume responsibility. Without periodic turnover at higher grades, promotion pipelines would stagnate and younger talent would never reach positions of authority. The system therefore balances experience with renewal, ensuring that the force continues to develop new leaders while retaining those who have proven themselves over time.
The broader evidence suggests that the military model of leadership development is not obviously broken. Retired officers frequently transition into the civilian sector and succeed in demanding leadership roles precisely because of the habits formed in that system: accountability, mission focus, care for subordinates, and the ability to operate within complex organizations. These traits are cultivated through years of mentorship and responsibility, not through rapid promotion.
In fact, one might argue that many modern organizations struggle because they have moved away from this kind of disciplined development. In many sectors today there is intense jockeying for position and status, with individuals seeking rapid advancement and titles after only a few years of experience. The expectation of progression without prolonged apprenticeship can produce leaders who have never spent enough time in the trenches to understand the work or the people they lead.
The military’s slower, experience-based model reflects a different philosophy. Leadership is something that must be learned through service, observation, and responsibility over time. Titles are not the goal; competence and stewardship of others are. While no personnel system is perfect, the long record of military leadership development suggests that the principles behind it are more durable than many critics assume.
Just listened to your full interview with Razhib Khan. Last week, it was paywalled, but the whole thing is up as of yesterday.
As far as an increase in young male hostility toward women, women can be quite mean to men while perceiving themselves as being nice (human reality). I can remember numerous situations growing up, where a female authority would put a young male in an unfair situation. The young male would bite back (verbally). Female authority would cry, and other male authorities would come in force the young male to comply.
Now as a millennial, I grew up with some male only spaces - friends were apart of the boy-scouts, in my church only the men voted, sports was a male only space, my first two jobs were in a male only environment. This meant that if I was in a space where women were being unfair to me, I had plenty of other spaces to go to, to get away from the nonsense.
Zoomers were raised in a world where virtually all spaces are egalitarian now. They don’t have a space to run from bad female behavior.
I am not saying that this is fully a bad thing. I imagine that plenty of women suffered in different ways historically when virtually all spaces were under male authority. But it is no surprise to me that young men are much more hostile to women in general, than previous generations.
Separation politically has been under way for some time now. In Southern California we refused from, the school board meetings were fully dominated by union members and Allies.
In Chattanooga TN the conditions are very different, just across the Georgia 🇬🇪 border there is ubiquity of American 🇺🇸 flags .
When you go to civic meetings evangelical language, prayer and understanding of basic Christian morality, is given lots of room for expression.
Liberals started secluding themselves behind walled communities in California in the 90s.
Balkanization
The critique of DOPMA often assumes that speed of advancement is the primary indicator of institutional health. That assumption does not fit well with the historical experience of the U.S. military. For more than two centuries the American armed forces have produced competent leaders and have repeatedly demonstrated operational effectiveness in complex wars. A personnel system that emphasizes time in grade, progressive responsibility, and cohort promotion is not accidental. It is designed to ensure that leaders accumulate experience across tactical, operational, and institutional levels before they are entrusted with larger formations.
Military leadership is not merely a function of intelligence or brilliance. It is the product of formation over time. An officer who eventually commands at the strategic level has normally spent years learning the profession from the bottom up. He has served as a platoon leader responsible for the lives of a few dozen people, as a company-grade officer mentored by more senior leaders, as a staff officer learning planning and coordination, and later as a commander at progressively larger echelons. Each stage exposes the officer to different aspects of warfare, logistics, personnel management, and the integration of complex combat systems. The purpose of time-in-grade requirements is to ensure that leaders gain this cumulative knowledge and are shaped by those who have already walked that path.
A “brilliant” officer who lacks that developmental process is not necessarily an asset in a military organization. Warfare is fundamentally collective. Success depends on trust, discipline, and an understanding of how large organizations operate under stress. Officers must know how to lead, but they must also know how to be led and how to function within a chain of command. Rapid advancement based solely on perceived talent risks producing leaders who have not internalized the habits, judgment, and institutional knowledge that the profession of arms requires.
The “up or out” system also serves an institutional purpose that critics often overlook. Military organizations require a steady flow of opportunities for younger officers to assume responsibility. Without periodic turnover at higher grades, promotion pipelines would stagnate and younger talent would never reach positions of authority. The system therefore balances experience with renewal, ensuring that the force continues to develop new leaders while retaining those who have proven themselves over time.
The broader evidence suggests that the military model of leadership development is not obviously broken. Retired officers frequently transition into the civilian sector and succeed in demanding leadership roles precisely because of the habits formed in that system: accountability, mission focus, care for subordinates, and the ability to operate within complex organizations. These traits are cultivated through years of mentorship and responsibility, not through rapid promotion.
In fact, one might argue that many modern organizations struggle because they have moved away from this kind of disciplined development. In many sectors today there is intense jockeying for position and status, with individuals seeking rapid advancement and titles after only a few years of experience. The expectation of progression without prolonged apprenticeship can produce leaders who have never spent enough time in the trenches to understand the work or the people they lead.
The military’s slower, experience-based model reflects a different philosophy. Leadership is something that must be learned through service, observation, and responsibility over time. Titles are not the goal; competence and stewardship of others are. While no personnel system is perfect, the long record of military leadership development suggests that the principles behind it are more durable than many critics assume.
My mind boggled at this statement:
"The downside is that our nuclear family can’t afford to move into a home the size we need - 4K sq ft-..."
What, do they have 12 kids or something?