ANS -- Homogeny versus diversity

This is a great analysis.  It's a bit different than ones I have used before, but goes along with them, it's just another viewpoint of what is happening with Right versus Left.  Read it.  

--Kim

Kalen Dion

Suggested for you ·eopornsStdt0iu73i991c7162t4h113cgif9mmac0g8u68c0lliuh5mcgg4h ·

The right wants homogeny.

The left wants diversity.

And this is why there’s no seeing eye to eye. These two objectives are fundamentally incompatible. They cannot be simultaneously achieved.

The right wants uniformity; cultural, religious, racial, ideological. One way of being that applies to everybody. A strict social hierarchy. And a singular order controlled by those who are believed to have the most authority.

Diversity disrupts the social order… and that’s why it’s seen as a threat.

The left, by contrast, desires pluralism. They don’t want to be forced to conform to a single identity. They believe it should be their right to govern their own moral template. All they are asking for is dignity and equality. 

That’s why the right doesn’t just oppose ideas on the left. It opposes the existence of people on the left. Queer people. Trans people. Immigrants. Religious minorities. Political dissidents. Their presence alone is seen as an act of provocation and a violation of natural law. They are treated like a manifestation of instability. And an attack on gods order. 

The truth is that the anger from the people on the left is a natural reaction to legislation, policing, surveillance, deportation, violence, and criminalization based on identity. When people are told they don’t belong, their existence itself a violation, that their families are illegitimate, and their culture, history, and spiritual traditions are a problem… anger is not radical. It’s reasonable and proportionate. In the least.

The whole process creates one giant cycle. 

The right initiates harm and the left responds. The response is subsequently framed as the actual offense. Self-defense is called “aggression”. Boundary-setting is “intolerance”. Refusal to assimilate gets labeled “extremism”. When marginalized groups protest police violence, the initial harm is minimized while the protest is called a riot. There is no demonstration quiet enough. When queer communities resist laws targeting their existence, they’re accused of “pushing an agenda.” When immigrants object to being caged or deported, they’re framed as ungrateful and told to leave… or called dangerous. When women assert the right to independence, they’re accused of destroying family values. When educators teach history about the harms we have committed, they’re accused of indoctrination.

The pattern is always the same. A scapegoat is chosen. Harm occurs. Resistance follows. Resistance is treated like the problem. The right makes sweeping moral claims disparaging those they are harming.

“Look how angry they are”

“Look how divisive they are”

“Look how violent they are”

This framing erases the original coercion. It paints dominance as neutral.

Then the right accuses the left of being unwilling to coexist. But genuine coexistence isn’t actually on the table. So when the left refuses(or is unable, by virtue of their identity,) to assimilate…when it insists on visibility, autonomy, and legal protection… that refusal is framed as hostile. Refusing to disappear is called an act of aggression.

The right calls the left “divisive” while pushing policies that restrict or deny their right to exist. Calls for inclusion are labeled censorship. While bans and crackdowns are seen as “order.” It’s why the right insists it’s being persecuted by the very people it is trying to eliminate. The right claims to be defending peace while demanding unrestricted control. The left is blamed for conflict… simply for existing.

And over time, this framing conditions the public to see control as stability. Resistance as chaos. And domination as order. It teaches people to side with power instinctively, even when that power is openly violent to the very groups it is supposed to protect.

The whole “both sides” narrative is insane, the symmetry of oppression is a lie, and calling people divisive for refusing to disappear is bullshit. What we are actually witnessing is one side is demanding homogeny… and the other is refusing to disappear.

Kalen Dion

01/31/2026

ANS -- The Missing Plaque

I hope this is true.  I think they are basically true but a bit overly positive.  Anyway, it's such a great story I thought I would pass it on to you all.

--Kim

The Missing Plaque

Suggested for you ·oSsrpteond7  Ai:95h041g74497388l4mclP2thghm p7r1a686ll9 6M7u ·

She was a female civil engineer in the 1920s. The state certified her math. The construction firms locked their gates.

Elsie Eaves graduated from the University of Colorado in 1920. She was the first woman to earn a civil engineering degree from the institution. She understood concrete stress limits. She knew the exact tensile strength of industrial steel. She could calculate the sheer force of wind against a suspension bridge.

She moved to New York. The city was building upward. The skyline was a cage of exposed beams and rivet hammers. American infrastructure was expanding at a pace the world had never seen.

Subways were being carved out of Manhattan bedrock with dynamite and sheer human labor. Bridges were spinning webs of steel across the East River. The Holland Tunnel was pushing under the Hudson.

She had the exact same degree as the men stepping off the trains at Grand Central. She had the same rigorous training in load-bearing physics and structural dynamics. She had spent years mastering the equations that kept buildings from collapsing.

Her father had been an engineer in Colorado. She grew up watching the math turn into physical reality on the frontier. If the calculations were correct, the structure held against the wind. If they were wrong, it fell. The math did not care who held the pencil.

She expected the industry in New York to operate with the same cold, geographical logic. She assumed the numbers would speak for themselves.

The law didn't say a woman couldn't build. The foremen did.

Construction in the 1920s was physical, loud, and brutally informal. Deals happened on wooden scaffolding suspended fifty stories in the air. Men chewed cigars in the drafting rooms.

They did not want a woman in a skirt climbing ladders in the wind.

She applied for field management roles. The companies looked at her credentials. They offered her a desk in the typing pool.

She applied to structural design firms. They told her the site bosses would never take orders from a female civil engineer.

One firm finally hired her to draft. They put her desk in the corner. She sat there, checking the math for men who made twice her salary.

She watched the blueprints go out the door. She watched the buildings go up through the window.

At the time, the American Society of Civil Engineers maintained strict membership criteria. Field experience was mandatory for full elevation within the society. A desk job in an engineering firm disqualified an applicant from holding authority over active sites. The system required dirt on the boots. The same system then barred her from the mud. The institutional rule was designed to be a closed loop, explicitly filtering out anyone who could not secure a foreman's permission to stand in the dirt. Records from the society's 1927 membership meetings show the committee repeatedly rejected female applicants based entirely on this manufactured technicality.

The industry logic was flawless in its exclusion.

To manage a project, you needed site experience. To get site experience, you needed a construction manager to let you on the site.

No manager would sign the pass. The insurance underwriters claimed a woman in the field was a distraction and a liability. The unions refused to recognize female site inspectors.

She was trapped in the drafting room by an invisible wall of bureaucracy and prejudice.

She calculated the load bearing capacity for a highway she would never be allowed to inspect. She drafted the foundation for a skyscraper she would never be permitted to enter until the ribbon was cut and the public was invited inside.

Her title remained junior. Her pay remained static.

On a Tuesday afternoon, a junior draftsman asked her to fetch a file from the basement archives.

He didn't ask the other engineers. He asked her.

She got the file. She placed it on his desk.

She packed her drafting tools into her leather bag. She walked out of the firm.

She didn't leave the industry. She changed her angle of attack.

She walked into the offices of the Engineering News-Record. They were a publishing house. They didn't build things. They wrote about people who built things.

She took a job managing their data.

From her desk in New York, she began looking at the entire American construction industry from a bird's-eye view. She noticed something the men on the steel beams couldn't see.

They were working blind.

A construction firm in Chicago had no idea what a firm in Boston was paying for cement. A bridge builder in Ohio didn't know the going rate for a riveter in Pennsylvania. The entire national industry was running on guesswork, localized monopolies, and informal gossip.

She started collecting numbers.

She mailed surveys to every major construction firm in the country. She asked for their material costs, their labor rates, and their project bids.

She kept a petty, meticulously updated ledger in her bottom drawer. It listed the name of every male executive who hung up the phone on her. Years later, when those same men called begging for cost projections, she made sure to pull their cards first and read their original rejections back to them before giving them the data.

She built a database out of index cards and carbon paper. She tracked every bridge, every dam, every highway project over a certain dollar amount. She maintained files on 1,500 active construction sites across forty-eight states.

She tracked the cost of lumber in the Pacific Northwest.

She tracked the price of structural steel in Pittsburgh down to the ton.

She tracked the wages of pipefitters in Detroit.

She tracked the freight charges for moving cement from the rail yards to the pouring sites.

She organized it all into a weekly publication. She categorized the American infrastructure boom into rows and columns. She turned the chaos of the physical job site into clean, manageable data.

Then, the market shifted. The Great Depression hit in 1929. The private building boom evaporated. Guesswork was no longer acceptable. A miscalculated bid by a fraction of a cent could bankrupt a construction firm overnight. The margin for error vanished.

The men who wouldn't let her on the sites began calling her office. They needed her numbers to bid on the few government infrastructure jobs that still existed. The Hoover Dam project required precision. The rural electrification projects required exact cost projections.

They had to ask her for the data.

She held the figures.

She set the baselines.

She mapped the supply chains.

She dictated the terms of reality for the men in the mud.

They wouldn't let her build the skyline. So she built the system that controlled it.

By 1945, Elsie Eaves managed the entire Business News Department. The federal government used her data to plan postwar construction. The municipalities rebuilding Europe after the war used her cost indices as their standard.

The men who had refused to hire her were now paying for subscriptions to read her analysis. She dictated the baseline costs for the entire national infrastructure boom.

The American Society of Civil Engineers eventually made her a life member. They quietly waived the field experience requirement. They had to. She possessed more comprehensive knowledge of American civil engineering than any man on their board.

Today, construction management software tracks thousands of variables per second on a digital tablet. The architecture of those digital systems relies entirely on the categorization logic she invented on paper index cards.

The men on the scaffolding check their phones for material price updates. They adjust their bids based on national averages.

They still don't know who organized their math.

Elsie Eaves: the woman who engineered the engineers.

Source: American Society of Civil Engineers archives. Verified via: Engineering News-Record historical records.

(Some details summarized for brevity.)