Nose Ring Theory and the Rule of Law

Tom Hunter
No Minister

The theory may be more trustworthy than most since it has not been generated from within academia but derived from something seen every day on the interwebby, especially on TikTok and Bluesky, but also other social media sites. Crazed feminists who have the exact same physical characteristics: face, neck and full body tatts, high-cut bangs – and almost always septum rings in their noses.

They also have other characteristics: see if you can pick them out from this selection:

The good news is that this cultish behaviour, where they’re signalling to one another that they belong in the cult, has also meant that men can see the same and STAY THE F**K AWAY, thus saving themselves much anguish.

This has led to what some are calling the “female loneliness epidemic”: a rise in women seeking relationships but unable to find men willing to reciprocate. Within feminist circles, the word on the street is that men are “no longer approaching”, which I also covered here, and they have all sorts of theories about it, like men being “too frightened of strong independent women”, etc.

But apparently feminists have heard of Nose Ring Theory, and they’re not happy about it. They admit that the theory is somewhat accurate, but they also argue that men are not being honest about why they are avoiding feminists. They say that men are scared away by the septum ring (feminism) because it represents “freedom” and a “woman who will not be controlled” (see above).

The thing is, putting rings in the noses of pigs was a way of controlling them, stopping them from rooting up entire paddocks. Don’t laugh too much though:

Today, 63 per cent of men are single with the majority not looking for a partner.  By the year 2030, 45 per cent of western women between the ages of 25 and 45 will single and childless (spinsters).

Which basically means a demographic disaster and the end of Western civilisation – which is probably what large chunks of the left want anyway; after all, it’ll destroy all those oppressive Western systems built by the patriarchy that they despise, will prove that multiculturalism was true, and will solve Climate Change.

Interestingly another woman, one Helen Andrews, recently explained the meta-theory behind all this in The Great Feminization: (if you think she won’t be damned by being a woman, see Weiss, Bari), and it starts with the famous cancellation of a man, Harvard President Larry Summers, way back in 2005 for uttering a nasty biological fact about the distribution of IQ in men and woman:

This cancellation was feminine, the essay [The Day The Logic Died] argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do whenever there are enough of them in a given organization or field. That is the Great Feminization thesis, which the same author later elaborated upon at book length: Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

The explanatory power of this simple thesis was incredible. It really did unlock the secrets of the era we are living in. Wokeness is not a new ideology, an outgrowth of Marxism, or a result of post-Obama disillusionment. It is simply feminine patterns of behavior applied to institutions where women were few in number until recently.

Individuals are unique but groups of them show defining characteristics; a female model might be taller than many men, even ten such models, but 10 randomly selected woman will almost certainly be shorter than 10 randomly selected men, which was the Larry Summers argument in a nutshell. And so:

Female group dynamics favor consensus and cooperation. Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade. Any criticism or negative sentiment, if it absolutely must be expressed, needs to be buried in layers of compliments. The outcome of a discussion is less important than the fact that a discussion was held and everyone participated in it. The most important sex difference in group dynamics is attitude to conflict. In short, men wage conflict openly while women covertly undermine or ostracize their enemies.

I’ve known several woman who worked in almost 100 per cent female environments – HR departments, law, etc – and it’s not the wonderful world that feminism implied or explicitly stated, let alone that portrayed by feminist writers in my lifetime, to say the least. Again, see Weiss, Bari:

Bari Weiss, in her letter of resignation from the New York Times, described how colleagues referred to her in internal Slack messages as a racist, a Nazi, and a bigot and – this is the most feminine part – “colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers”. Weiss once asked a colleague at the Times opinion desk to get coffee with her. This journalist, a biracial woman who wrote frequently about race, refused to meet. This was a failure to meet the standards of basic professionalism, obviously. It was also very feminine.

She goes on to write of this impact in various fields like academia, medicine and law:

The field that frightens me most is the law. All of us depend on a functioning legal system, and, to be blunt, the rule of law will not survive the legal profession becoming majority female. The rule of law is not just about writing rules down. It means following them even when they yield an outcome that tugs at your heartstrings or runs contrary to your gut sense of which party is more sympathetic.

A feminized legal system might resemble the Title IX courts for sexual assault on college campuses established in 2011 under President Obama. These proceedings were governed by written rules and so technically could be said to operate under the rule of law. But they lacked many of the safeguards that our legal system holds sacred, such as the right to confront your accuser, the right to know what crime you are accused of, and the fundamental concept that guilt should depend on objective circumstances knowable by both parties, not in how one party feels about an act in retrospect. These protections were abolished because the people who made these rules sympathized with the accusers, who were mostly women, and not with the accused, who were mostly men.

As the Powerline lawyers observed:

But I am afraid that liberals are not wrong when they tell us that the increasing feminization of the legal profession will bring about substantive changes – less concern with text, logic and precedent, and more emphasis on feelings and political loyalties. I share Helen Andrews’ concern about what feminization of the legal profession will do to our society. Can those consequences be avoided? I don’t know. The demographics are baked in: if most law students and young lawyers today are women, most judges and senior lawyers will, before long, also be women. We can only hope that liberals are wrong about the consequences of that change.

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens when the likes of Charlotte Proudman and her system run headlong into the other big demographic change happening in Britain and Western Europe as a result of the collapse in European woman having babies.

Unfortunately this end will not be peaceful and quiet. When the Western Roman Empire collapsed there were many large pockets of it where life continued on as it had for decades. Our interconnectedness will not allow that to happen to us.

This article was originally published by No Minister.