There are days I want to close my eyes and pray that “it will just go away.” For “it,” choose any maddening thing of your preference. I have a bunch of them handy for immediate application.
1. “Equality.”
The Left has used “equality” as a shillelagh against the Right for many years. It’s time we took it away from them, considering the massive inequalities in the societies their schemes produce. But it will be a hard job. They don’t have a lot of rhetorical tools with which to hawk their wares. With “racism” dropping off he charts, they’ll keep an iron grip on the ones they still have.
I read quite recently that in academic year 2024-2025, 68% of the college and university degrees awarded in the United States went to women. That’s quite an imbalance. Nor is the impact of it greatly reduced by the awareness that a large percentage of those degrees were in fields such as “gender studies.”
Once all the relevant variables have been controlled, it develops that American working women are slightly out-earning American men. Dollars are easy to measure, so at least on the commercial front, it would appear that American women have achieved “equality.”
Yet young women appear to be less happy, and less satisfied with their life choices, than ever before in American history. I’m no expert on what makes women happy; ask my wife, if you can get close enough. Still, if the studies and surveys that tell us such things can be trusted, it would seem that something is amiss for young American women. Whether their life satisfactions improve over time, I do not know.
They demanded “equality;” they got commercial equality, plus massive advantages in law, institutional preferences, and social customs. They apparently didn’t get what they wanted. It’s worth a few moments’ thought, especially in light of the plummeting American birthrate.
2. “Inequality.”
When I survey the political battlefield of our time, there does appear to be an imbalance that favors the Right. Consider this article from Britain’s Telegraph:
Not so long ago, the stock image of someone from the far-Right was easily summoned: they’d be male, obviously, and very probably bald, with steel-toe boots and questionable tattoos. Times, however, have moved on: this week, it was reported that the Government had banned seven “far-Right agitators” from entering the country to attend a Tommy Robinson rally on Saturday. Three are strikingly telegenic young women.
Among the verboten ones is Ada Lluch, an impeccably coiffed 26-year-old Catalan activist who has defended the Franco regime and had told the most recent “Unite the Kingdom” rally last September that western democracies have been “completely invaded”. Valentina Gomez, an influencer from the US, has also been barred, having told last year’s rally that “rapist Muslims” were “taking over” the country (she’s said she’ll still try to come on Saturday, though – via small boat). And Eva Vlaardingerbroek, a Dutch political activist and commentator, has been forbidden too, having lamented “the rape, replacement and murder of our people” in London last autumn.
The face of the far-Right, it seems, is changing – and it’s becoming a good deal prettier. Part of the shift is due to a growing number of young people flooding into politics – many of whom are profoundly disaffected with mainstream parties – and bringing with them a native understanding of the importance of a good Instagram filter. At the same time, there seems to be a rising awareness across the movement that improving its “look” is vital to broadening its appeal, which in recent years has come to rely heavily on a network of highly prominent social media influencers.
Of course, it suits the far-Right very well to have beautiful young women zhuzhing its image. Their looks, as much as their messaging, promise to draw in more men and open up new audiences altogether in the form of young women who, while once more wary of indulging in politics of this nature, are now turning towards it amid widespread disillusionment with modern life.
But for many of the individuals involved, there are also considerable rewards to be reaped: fame, the wealth that can flow from success online, perceived “clout” within the community and the satisfaction that can come from speaking out about a subject they care about.
Of course, given the Telegraph’s editorial proclivities, it must be “the far-Right,” that perpetually under-defined menace, that’s benefiting from the activities of “strikingly telegenic young women.” What, does the Left have no beauties of its own? What about all the Hollywood actresses that regularly express Leftist sentiments and contribute to Leftist causes? I could name quite a number of them. Is it the relative youth of the Right’s lovelies that pains “Leaf Arbuthnot?”
As a rule, for a First World society, where the beautiful young women are headed is where the society is headed. The reasons “should” be “obvious.” P. J. O’Rourke made note of this in Parliament of Whores. That does bode poorly for the Left. But worse still is the habit unsightly, obese Leftist women have of taking selfies holding placards that say things such as “I WILL NEVER DATE A MAGA MAN.” Someone should talk to them about that.
3. Bad Judgment.
Some prominent people have been shooting off their mouths – and their feet – in public recently. They’re drawing the wrong kind of attention. That’s not a function of intellect but of judgment. No matter how passionately one holds to a particular conviction, there are times to keep it to oneself. There are also good and bad ways to go about expressing it.
Not long ago, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson went on a tirade in which he said that imprisoning criminals is “racist.” (See the first segment of this screed for commentary on that rhetorical weapon.) Now, this man is no Einstein, but a public figure should be aware of the implications of his statements. If the public were to become convinced that confining convicted felons is unacceptable, what would the response be?
I’ve been predicting the return of the vigilance committee for some time. Brandon Johnson appears to favor that outcome as well. If he doesn’t, it would be damned hard to tell from his public utterances.
On the other side of the fence we have Ben Shapiro. I’ve never had a high opinion of Shapiro as a representative for conservatism, but I was willing to allow that he’s reasonably bright. I don’t think I’ll make that assumption any longer:
Yes. If you are mentally and physically healthy, taxpayers should not pay you to retire at 65. When Social Security was created, life expectancy was 64. Today, it's 78.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) March 12, 2024
Also, people require purpose. If you can retire and find purpose, go for it. For many, that's a bad idea. https://t.co/MrgtO0dEGT
How old is Shapiro? He can’t have yet entered into the stage of life where weariness is a man’s constant companion. He can’t yet be hagridden with the sense that his life is drawing to a close. Yet he decries retirement. This is definitely a candidate for this year’s “What Were You Thinking?” sweepstakes.
The American Dream includes several goals. One of them is surely a comfortable retirement in which to rest from one’s labors. Shapiro may have a problem with Social Security – I do, myself – but attacking retirement rather than the injustice of the Social Security system is the wrong way to express it. A genuinely bright person would have known better.
Hm. Maybe it is intellect, after all.
I think that’s all for this bright clear Tuesday in May, Gentle Reader. Enjoy the rest of your day. Stop by tomorrow for more effluvia from an overactive writer. And remember always:
- Gentlemen: The stripper isn’t really attracted to you. Faking it is just how she earns her living.
- Ladies: Those dollar bills in your G-string won’t go nearly as far as you’d like. Neither, sadly, will you.
No comments:
Post a Comment