"Status competition among women has intensified because we are the majority of the overproduced elites. Not all of us can be absorbed into professional class and afford the lifestyle we assumed we’d have."
I was an 80s feminist, back when feminism was mostly about removal of double standards and giving women the same financial freedom and potential to earn as men. We didnt expect men to act like women, we didn't belittle our sons in favor of our daughters. I wouldn't call myself a feminist now, I don't want to be part of that crowd (actually I think feminism succeeded in meeting goals that were based on logos, (did I get that right?) leaving only those useless emotional based goals. I have to admit I find women harder to work with and socialize with than men, and girls harder to raise than boys. New subscriber, I loved this article, cant wait to check out the rest.
I think as I explain more about my suspicions of feminism you and I get closer (but I still don’t expect your agreement, just to be clear). And I think I appreciate our friendship more because we don’t always agree.
It is absolutely possible for women to integrated the emotional with the logical. I am reminded, reading this, of how different our professional lives have gone--me, because I'm older and entered the technology field 30 years ago at a time when women were hardly anywhere in the IT profession. Usually it was just myself and one other woman, usually but not always the receptionist. Lady IT directors were almost unknown back in the early '90s. I mostly worked with a lot of men and it wasn't much of an issue for me.
I guess I see what I missed. Not. :)
Somehow, though, I think you can rise to the challenge of challenging some of these chickie-boos to move beyond their stultifying mindset. The older is dying and the new one is forming, and frankly, the wusses aren't much on the Democratic side. Stay tuned. You are not alone.
"Feminism is about shielding women from accountability for their actions among both individuals and institutions." This is sadly true and against all evidence of the eyes. As added, this can only shield, never hold accountable, which would be real equality and empowerment.
The idea of Social Capital is critical, but I don't think related to "Capital" or money, as women are doing well, possibly better than men atm. (Setting aside legacy successes and legacy fortunes) It's in the way the mind is constructed, nothing to do with wealth, but is not a bad thing, just that if one has a weakness, it should be limited -- and certainly not encouraged by every means, society-wide. That would be bad for anyone.
This comes up because this is the same outcome for Socialism, which is universally popularized as the solution to all ills. Yet if you have no "Monetary", or Logos measure, what measure remains? Yes: SOCIAL Capital. That is, if you're popular with the Insider Party or not. ...Sad part being, everyone thinks they will be the popular girl, when in reality no one will be, and much worse off than before, both because: feminine orientation on that, and on strict practicality. Our "Capitalism" actually isn't, as it has both tracks operational, both means of having "Capital". You can be popular, well-liked, and should be, yes, but you can also just have money, a skill or item people need without being liked. So if one leg fails you, the other remains, which would have been helpful to Solzhenitsyn, as it is to use in the West who take it for granted.
This comes up as you can see the "Coding" (using slang I hate) for that, for banning, silencing people, for ignoring open, physical failures, and other such things that run in a pack. It's so bad and gotten to such an extreme that when I hear only one vice, one element of this grouping, I immediately look around for all the others and find them, along with the inevitable failure and collapse they engender.
Last note: that is acutely, viciously UNkind and UNLoving to all those around them. To family, friends, groups, organizations, movements. Or, perhaps this way: Hating Logos is just Hate. Don't do that. Hate is not Pathos, it pops the very illusion of Pathos.
As a woman who has always been more logical, I've felt safe with very few females. Not that I care about their sabotage, I've always been able to deal with it and moved on, but I usually hurt their feelings. I cross lines and fail on the social queues. I've long told my husband that I'm not really friends with any of the women in our social group because they're not emotionally reliable. He thought I was kidding. Then he defended JD Vance at a party last November, didn't say he was voting for JD, just pointing out that the clip that the people were quoting wasn't accurately shared in the MSM, and now, there's one couple that will not even look us in the eye. I'd told him that this was coming, but he didn't believe me. My husband reached out to the female, because he'd always gotten along with her. Note, my husband is quite charming and I think he's used to women liking him. He wanted to know why she was being so cold and why her husband, whom he'd thought was a friend, wouldn't even speak to him at the dinner party we were all attended last Friday. Her response was to accuse him of betrayal for voting for Trump because of her "daughter" (who is of course, a gay male who has transitioned). That Trump is erasing her "daughter" as a person and how dare we give that man a vote. She's no longer able to trust us, doesn't feel safe around us, and told him she never wanted to speak with us again. My husband was shocked. I simply shrugged and said, "I told you so. You can't win at this game my dear."
On the topic of Trump, I did vote for him and it was because of JD Vance. He is the logic, the vessel we need right now. The man who can point out the crazy cat ladies being in charge has hurt society, that even one apartment building taking over by a Venezuelan gang is too many, and that facing our debt, which is a HUGE crisis that most women cannot grasp (because we're told we can have everything we want and if we don't get it, then we're being victimized), is one of the most important tasks ahead of us. He's the reason I finally gave my vote for Trump. Kamala was never getting it, I've been voting 3rd party since 2012. But this time, I couldn't hide behind Jill Stein.
I dont like the transphobia and I feel like pushing transgender people into an extreme leftist position because those are the only people who accept then is a bad idea.
I do not think that most moderates (which is how I identify politically) consider all of the administration's changes transphobic. For many biological women, it comes down to consent and Title IX, things that matter to us as a sex. It's not transphobic to request that there are no intact penises in biological women's spaces, especially ones where we are naked (this includes spas, shelters, prisons, changing rooms and locker rooms with showers). This shouldn't even be an issue. Nor are lesbian women transphobic if they won't date transwomen, especially if they are still intact. There is a biological turnoff inside of them toward male genitalia, didn't we already fight for lesbian rights long ago? Again, shouldn't be an issue, but it is. As for transwomen in sports, there's a reason we had to force universities back in the 70s to provide female sports teams and female locker rooms, why are those women who still want them considered transphobic? Our grandmothers fought for our chance to play sports at the college level and were called all sorts of terrible names back then for advocating on our behalf, now we're called horrible things for wanting to continue for our granddaughters. Just because some women are more "liberal" about this issues and consent, they can't give consent for all of us. Plain and simple. Just as a father can't give consent to a man asking for his daughter in marriage. No one can consent for another in this way and being naked in front of another requires consent. This is why many Democrats voted for Trump this time around. The second issue is also about consent, that of a child. We have many laws already on the books that protect children from contentious consent by their guardians, but for some reason performing surgery and giving them hormones to block puberty is something they can decide on their own or parents can decide for them? Again, that's not transphobic, it's actually scientific. There haven't been enough studies on the effects of puberty blockers or filling your child with the wrong hormones for their body's DNA during puberty when the frontal lobes of the brain are developed, as well as the completion of the cardiovascular system (in adults, hormone usage increases the chance of high blood pressure, stroke, heart attacks and small vessel disease in general, but what does it do to the developing child? Do we even care?). Most Americans question these things, and yet most Americans when polled are actually fine with adults over 18 transitioning their gender and as long biological women's spaces are honored and that they are given medical information about the consequences of hormones on their developing brains (frontal lobe development is not complete till we're 25). It only seems fair that you should know that first, because it does matter for your mid and elder life if you go into those phases compromised physically. We call it informed consent and everyone deserves that protection. That is not transphobic. It honors consent. As for Trump, most of his EOs address these main concerns. However, I do think there's overkill and possibly unconstitutionality with the passport laws as well as the military restrictions (though biological women in the military should have their consent respected in their intimate spaces) and the courts are going to challenge them and work it out.
Transgender people will almost invariably adopt an extreme Leftist position, regardless of any political calculation on the Right, because their worldview requires fundamental rejection of the traditional conception of sex/gender held by most humans at most times in history.
Transgenderism is inherently Radical, so who could but expect that transgender people would be radicals as well?
That is the stupidest thing i have read today and proves that you've never been within Farting distance of either a leftist or a transgender person.
You might as well say that all jews are going to be extreme rightwingers because they reject Jesus.
Just because you don't understand why someone is in the wrong sex doesn't mean that you get to pronounce them rebels against "traditional gender roles"
It's complicated for sure. I don't have an emotional stake in any of it, so I'm fine with being wrong. But I also am hopeful. I mean, it can't hurt to be a little hopeful.
Do men need to integrate pathos with logos and ethos?
If I'm evaluating something mechanical or propositional, logos and ethos are a distraction at best, ad hominem at worst.
If I'm trying to convince someone else to do something, logos and ethos are important, but only if I am attempting to use them to see things from someone else's perspective in order to approach the person in such a way as to route around objections.
At no point has it ever been useful to me (as a relatively judgmental man concerned about outcomes) to examine a situation based on how *I* feel. The few times I have, it has resulted in a bad outcome.
Not sure I agree about your take on Trump's competence, but it is too early in his second term to tell. His first term was derailed by people he should not have trusted... We'll see what happens. I hope you are wrong.
Hey I hope I’m wrong too; it’s not that I disagree with literally everything the administration has done, but he’s decided to use a wrecking ball where a scalpel would have been better. And, I don’t appreciate musk being an unelected president with unchecked access to Americans’ data.
If you could tell me who had unchecked access to my data before January 20th, and to what ends they were using it, I would find that argument compelling, but I don't.
What is in the treasury databases that I should be concerned about? Ownership of treasury bonds? Wouldn't the IRS (politicized under Obama) have access to that anyway via 1099s? Am I missing something? Honest question...
A scalpel (protocol) would have enabled the opposition to outflank (diminish/delay) this effort. They are using the right tool for the job. The outcome will benefit the country as a whole moving forward.
Also, Musk and his team are not leveraging citizen data in a nefarious manner. That is just wishful thinking on the part of the media.
It is obvious that the MSM is distorting your perspective on the Trump administration. Perhaps read a bit more broadly? I think you are a brilliant thinker but this appears to be a blind spot.
Sad but true. The scalpel had been tried 100 times in 100 years, they have full defenses and nothing at all changed. Also the argument was totally strange to me: the Government has access to the Government's data? No kidding, whut?
The clear problem from their actions was the BUREAUCRACY didn't want any OVERSIGHT to the data, and I guess we found out why. The crew is a fully-authorized GOVERNMENT agency, from Obama, on direct orders from the current President, who has full oversight of every agency involved, and you say the Boss can't see the books? That is not suspicious at all. Last, the government always had admin access to the government's data and could always change things (but leave computer traces) -- nothing had changed at all except they didn't like THIS government dept to have the power to look at what a DIFFERENT govt dept did. Obviously ALL computer systems have admins and always have. No one was worried until it was an audit.
He pointed out it would be cheaper, easier, and less work to just buy all your info and SS# online from the Dark Web. From working in tech: True dat. I'd buy all that AND your credit card numbers which the govt doesn't have.
I actually don’t read the news at all, so perhaps that’s why I’m not up on every detail. I made the deliberate choice to avoid it, and I fear looking too closely will also be depressing. I don’t read the NYT, only the WSJ and Economist from time to time.
"Status competition among women has intensified because we are the majority of the overproduced elites. Not all of us can be absorbed into professional class and afford the lifestyle we assumed we’d have."
A good male friend of mine had been pursuing a law degree at Georgetown. He came back home one summer... his upper-class parents were building a new home. His father was doing the trim work and cabinet work as he had taken up the hobby of woodworking. My friend left Georgetown and attended a community college curriculum for construction. Today he is a very successful, and very life-satisfied, luxury home builder/developer.
One of the big problems with this oversupply of female elites, the number of over-educated feminists, is that they won't pick up a hammer. But they will pick up a sign to protest how life is so unfair. At least some males are good giving up the dream of a high-status fake laptop job to do some real work with their hands.
"Trump said one for him is a vote for competence. He is indeed incompetent"
This comment is completely void of logos. It is a sign that the gaslighting and pull of acceptance by the feminist witch cult is very strong for all females... even those that believe they have escaped.
Inventory the evidence that backs your opinions that Trump is incompetent (ignoring for the time that he twice beat they entire educated and wealthy media, corporatist oligarchy establishment) and I am sure that list will be firmly connected to pathos and ethos.
Shallow thought on the topic of political leader actions tends to be critical of that which isn't the same standards we have been pattered to be used to... even though the evidence is that those common patterns have caused a mess of problems that never get fixed and just grow, and grow and grow. We emotionally clutch what we are used to even as it isn't the right choice. True logical thinking and assessment helps us unwind from the comfort of destructive norms, to embrace real solutions.
Trump isn't normal. But normal has proven to really suck.
I will have to respectfully disagree. While I agree with a handful of actions, I don’t endorse taking a sledgehammer to the government, either. It seems devoid of competence to blanket blame everything on DEI, as problematic as it is. I see Trump as lacking in discernment; he acts out of impulse and is too prone to flattery to be trusted with outsize power. That said, I do understand intellectually where you’re coming from.
Did you watch the Bret Baire interview of Musk and the DOGE team? I respectfully disagree with you that you don't seem to understand the crisis we are dealing with and what level of transformation leadership is required to fix what is broken. They are not taking a "sledgehammer" to government. That comment is a sign that you have been gaslit by your media feeds. They are not blanket blaming everything on DEI, but DEI is anti-merit as you point out. It is toxic to all work cultures. It is 100% bad and has to go.
I have a lot of experience in fixing broken organizations. Our federal government is the worst of the worst. I work directly with several agencies. You simply cannot make progress in fixing what is broken by treating these employees any differently than those in the private sector for an organization that is fiscally insolvent and headed toward bankruptcy. You are clearly making these comments about Trump from your heart and not your head.
I have connections inside the team that is working on making the federal government more efficient. They are not heartless bulldozers destroying the lives of federal employees. The reason that they put forth the early retirement with 9 months of severance is that this is a best-practice method to preserve jobs for younger and newer employees, and give promotion opportunities to people that are more motivated to make changes.
The Democrat-supporting mainstream media is gaslighting the public, exploiting those that are more easily emotionally influenced, to negative brand this work as heartless and unnecessary. It is neither. Since 2000, the number of federal government workers has increased by 9.2%.
"Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%) and Health and Human Services (18.7%).
Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%) and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%). Even the White House Council of Economic Advisers has increased by a third during the Biden Presidency, not that economic policy has improved. A rare Biden-era exception is Defense and the armed forces (-1.2%), despite an increasingly dangerous world."
During the Biden Admin it peaked over 3 million... but that does not include the growth in all the contractors and the NGO workforce.
Biden ballooned the deficit to $2 trillion per year. We are taking in $5 million and spending $7 trillion. The DOGE team thinks we can carve off $1 trillion in spending just by eliminating waste and fraud. Many good people in the federal government have identified the waste and fraud and have put forth ideas to fix it, but failed due to the entrenched bureaucracy that protects itself. But by fixing these problem the US government can better protect the programs that are needed. The cuts to the VA are needed. The VA is a mess of inefficiency. Cutting does not equate to reduced services. A bloated workforce tends to see a decline in service.
I think you should consider a few data points here:
1) DOGE is engaging in Reductions in Force (RIFs), which by statute ensure those with fewer years of federal service get fired first, and the old timers stay. See 5 CFR 351.501(a). This negates your first “out with the old, in with the new” point. Yes, DOGE gave employees the option to retire early, but the vast majority of separations will come from RIFs. This will destroy civil service for generations.
2) Where is the $Trillion going to come from? Because there are 3 places in government that have that kind of money: Defense, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even if you cut every single federal worker, that gets you to about $350 billion, so let’s say they cut half—-so you’re at $175 billion. DOGE has claimed savings of $115 billion after 3 months of review, so that puts you (generously) at $290 billion. Where is the other $710 billion coming from? There is waste and fraud but there ain’t that much of it. GAO documented about $667 billion in savings but that was over a 13 year period. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106915.
3) The VA backlog spiked heavily under COVID, came down due to additional hiring, then spiked again due to the passage of the PACT Act which expanded VA claims, then came down significantly again due to a 2023 hiring blitz. The hiring bumps directly led to declines in the VA claims backlog. This appears to negate your final point, unless you can cite to other data? https://www.benefits.va.gov/reports/mmwr_va_claims_backlog.asp
This is another great essay. Thanks for writing this. It might be a little too generous calling it “pathos in the public square” though, a lot of the time it’s hysteria (there is some of it on the right as well).
Working on the right, though, I’ve experienced the stoicism that denies physical danger, just as much as women-driven focus on “emotional safety”. In one case logic is over-applied, in the other not at all… I’m not sure how, or why, we’ve become so disjointed spiritually, as a nation
I hear that. I think there is broicism and there’s stoicism. Much of what passes for it online calls for a suppression of emotion and a sort of withdrawal. We have indeed become disjointed in that spiritual wholeness is impossible without discernment and what sanskrit texts called rasa, or aesthetics including emotion.
That’s neat. That was actually the original understanding of even the word “aesthetic.” To this day in Greek, in order to say “I am feeling” you say “Aesthanome”. It’s wild how much we’ve lost over time
"Status competition among women has intensified because we are the majority of the overproduced elites. Not all of us can be absorbed into professional class and afford the lifestyle we assumed we’d have."
this is a really good insight
This doesn't seem like a healthy feminism. Granted, feminism is a big tent but some versions seem very destructive
https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/eighteen-to-twenty-one-by-david-trinidad?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
I was an 80s feminist, back when feminism was mostly about removal of double standards and giving women the same financial freedom and potential to earn as men. We didnt expect men to act like women, we didn't belittle our sons in favor of our daughters. I wouldn't call myself a feminist now, I don't want to be part of that crowd (actually I think feminism succeeded in meeting goals that were based on logos, (did I get that right?) leaving only those useless emotional based goals. I have to admit I find women harder to work with and socialize with than men, and girls harder to raise than boys. New subscriber, I loved this article, cant wait to check out the rest.
Thanks Diane! If todays feminism were about equal standards, I’d be with it, but appreciate that your recognize that it’s not.
So many things to think about here and beautifully written. I agree with much of it.
This simple line among the complexity of the argument had a striking effect, “Without discipline, creativity itself would die.”
Great read, Anu.
I think as I explain more about my suspicions of feminism you and I get closer (but I still don’t expect your agreement, just to be clear). And I think I appreciate our friendship more because we don’t always agree.
I absolutely believe we’re fighting for very similar things with different approaches.
Keep putting out this stuff that makes me think 🖤
It is absolutely possible for women to integrated the emotional with the logical. I am reminded, reading this, of how different our professional lives have gone--me, because I'm older and entered the technology field 30 years ago at a time when women were hardly anywhere in the IT profession. Usually it was just myself and one other woman, usually but not always the receptionist. Lady IT directors were almost unknown back in the early '90s. I mostly worked with a lot of men and it wasn't much of an issue for me.
I guess I see what I missed. Not. :)
Somehow, though, I think you can rise to the challenge of challenging some of these chickie-boos to move beyond their stultifying mindset. The older is dying and the new one is forming, and frankly, the wusses aren't much on the Democratic side. Stay tuned. You are not alone.
"Feminism is about shielding women from accountability for their actions among both individuals and institutions." This is sadly true and against all evidence of the eyes. As added, this can only shield, never hold accountable, which would be real equality and empowerment.
The idea of Social Capital is critical, but I don't think related to "Capital" or money, as women are doing well, possibly better than men atm. (Setting aside legacy successes and legacy fortunes) It's in the way the mind is constructed, nothing to do with wealth, but is not a bad thing, just that if one has a weakness, it should be limited -- and certainly not encouraged by every means, society-wide. That would be bad for anyone.
This comes up because this is the same outcome for Socialism, which is universally popularized as the solution to all ills. Yet if you have no "Monetary", or Logos measure, what measure remains? Yes: SOCIAL Capital. That is, if you're popular with the Insider Party or not. ...Sad part being, everyone thinks they will be the popular girl, when in reality no one will be, and much worse off than before, both because: feminine orientation on that, and on strict practicality. Our "Capitalism" actually isn't, as it has both tracks operational, both means of having "Capital". You can be popular, well-liked, and should be, yes, but you can also just have money, a skill or item people need without being liked. So if one leg fails you, the other remains, which would have been helpful to Solzhenitsyn, as it is to use in the West who take it for granted.
This comes up as you can see the "Coding" (using slang I hate) for that, for banning, silencing people, for ignoring open, physical failures, and other such things that run in a pack. It's so bad and gotten to such an extreme that when I hear only one vice, one element of this grouping, I immediately look around for all the others and find them, along with the inevitable failure and collapse they engender.
Last note: that is acutely, viciously UNkind and UNLoving to all those around them. To family, friends, groups, organizations, movements. Or, perhaps this way: Hating Logos is just Hate. Don't do that. Hate is not Pathos, it pops the very illusion of Pathos.
As a woman who has always been more logical, I've felt safe with very few females. Not that I care about their sabotage, I've always been able to deal with it and moved on, but I usually hurt their feelings. I cross lines and fail on the social queues. I've long told my husband that I'm not really friends with any of the women in our social group because they're not emotionally reliable. He thought I was kidding. Then he defended JD Vance at a party last November, didn't say he was voting for JD, just pointing out that the clip that the people were quoting wasn't accurately shared in the MSM, and now, there's one couple that will not even look us in the eye. I'd told him that this was coming, but he didn't believe me. My husband reached out to the female, because he'd always gotten along with her. Note, my husband is quite charming and I think he's used to women liking him. He wanted to know why she was being so cold and why her husband, whom he'd thought was a friend, wouldn't even speak to him at the dinner party we were all attended last Friday. Her response was to accuse him of betrayal for voting for Trump because of her "daughter" (who is of course, a gay male who has transitioned). That Trump is erasing her "daughter" as a person and how dare we give that man a vote. She's no longer able to trust us, doesn't feel safe around us, and told him she never wanted to speak with us again. My husband was shocked. I simply shrugged and said, "I told you so. You can't win at this game my dear."
On the topic of Trump, I did vote for him and it was because of JD Vance. He is the logic, the vessel we need right now. The man who can point out the crazy cat ladies being in charge has hurt society, that even one apartment building taking over by a Venezuelan gang is too many, and that facing our debt, which is a HUGE crisis that most women cannot grasp (because we're told we can have everything we want and if we don't get it, then we're being victimized), is one of the most important tasks ahead of us. He's the reason I finally gave my vote for Trump. Kamala was never getting it, I've been voting 3rd party since 2012. But this time, I couldn't hide behind Jill Stein.
I dont like the transphobia and I feel like pushing transgender people into an extreme leftist position because those are the only people who accept then is a bad idea.
The rest is fine.
https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/eighteen-to-twenty-one-by-david-trinidad?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
I do not think that most moderates (which is how I identify politically) consider all of the administration's changes transphobic. For many biological women, it comes down to consent and Title IX, things that matter to us as a sex. It's not transphobic to request that there are no intact penises in biological women's spaces, especially ones where we are naked (this includes spas, shelters, prisons, changing rooms and locker rooms with showers). This shouldn't even be an issue. Nor are lesbian women transphobic if they won't date transwomen, especially if they are still intact. There is a biological turnoff inside of them toward male genitalia, didn't we already fight for lesbian rights long ago? Again, shouldn't be an issue, but it is. As for transwomen in sports, there's a reason we had to force universities back in the 70s to provide female sports teams and female locker rooms, why are those women who still want them considered transphobic? Our grandmothers fought for our chance to play sports at the college level and were called all sorts of terrible names back then for advocating on our behalf, now we're called horrible things for wanting to continue for our granddaughters. Just because some women are more "liberal" about this issues and consent, they can't give consent for all of us. Plain and simple. Just as a father can't give consent to a man asking for his daughter in marriage. No one can consent for another in this way and being naked in front of another requires consent. This is why many Democrats voted for Trump this time around. The second issue is also about consent, that of a child. We have many laws already on the books that protect children from contentious consent by their guardians, but for some reason performing surgery and giving them hormones to block puberty is something they can decide on their own or parents can decide for them? Again, that's not transphobic, it's actually scientific. There haven't been enough studies on the effects of puberty blockers or filling your child with the wrong hormones for their body's DNA during puberty when the frontal lobes of the brain are developed, as well as the completion of the cardiovascular system (in adults, hormone usage increases the chance of high blood pressure, stroke, heart attacks and small vessel disease in general, but what does it do to the developing child? Do we even care?). Most Americans question these things, and yet most Americans when polled are actually fine with adults over 18 transitioning their gender and as long biological women's spaces are honored and that they are given medical information about the consequences of hormones on their developing brains (frontal lobe development is not complete till we're 25). It only seems fair that you should know that first, because it does matter for your mid and elder life if you go into those phases compromised physically. We call it informed consent and everyone deserves that protection. That is not transphobic. It honors consent. As for Trump, most of his EOs address these main concerns. However, I do think there's overkill and possibly unconstitutionality with the passport laws as well as the military restrictions (though biological women in the military should have their consent respected in their intimate spaces) and the courts are going to challenge them and work it out.
Transgender people will almost invariably adopt an extreme Leftist position, regardless of any political calculation on the Right, because their worldview requires fundamental rejection of the traditional conception of sex/gender held by most humans at most times in history.
Transgenderism is inherently Radical, so who could but expect that transgender people would be radicals as well?
That is the stupidest thing i have read today and proves that you've never been within Farting distance of either a leftist or a transgender person.
You might as well say that all jews are going to be extreme rightwingers because they reject Jesus.
Just because you don't understand why someone is in the wrong sex doesn't mean that you get to pronounce them rebels against "traditional gender roles"
https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/the-duchess-the-stories-of-john-cheever?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
I mean I live near SF and used to *be* a Leftist, so what would I know about Leftism or gender ideology?
Thank you for your rational, not-unhinged response.
That is a very fair assessment.
It's complicated for sure. I don't have an emotional stake in any of it, so I'm fine with being wrong. But I also am hopeful. I mean, it can't hurt to be a little hopeful.
Do men need to integrate pathos with logos and ethos?
If I'm evaluating something mechanical or propositional, logos and ethos are a distraction at best, ad hominem at worst.
If I'm trying to convince someone else to do something, logos and ethos are important, but only if I am attempting to use them to see things from someone else's perspective in order to approach the person in such a way as to route around objections.
At no point has it ever been useful to me (as a relatively judgmental man concerned about outcomes) to examine a situation based on how *I* feel. The few times I have, it has resulted in a bad outcome.
Not sure I agree about your take on Trump's competence, but it is too early in his second term to tell. His first term was derailed by people he should not have trusted... We'll see what happens. I hope you are wrong.
Hey I hope I’m wrong too; it’s not that I disagree with literally everything the administration has done, but he’s decided to use a wrecking ball where a scalpel would have been better. And, I don’t appreciate musk being an unelected president with unchecked access to Americans’ data.
If you could tell me who had unchecked access to my data before January 20th, and to what ends they were using it, I would find that argument compelling, but I don't.
Did he not get access to treasury databases?
What is in the treasury databases that I should be concerned about? Ownership of treasury bonds? Wouldn't the IRS (politicized under Obama) have access to that anyway via 1099s? Am I missing something? Honest question...
A scalpel (protocol) would have enabled the opposition to outflank (diminish/delay) this effort. They are using the right tool for the job. The outcome will benefit the country as a whole moving forward.
Also, Musk and his team are not leveraging citizen data in a nefarious manner. That is just wishful thinking on the part of the media.
It is obvious that the MSM is distorting your perspective on the Trump administration. Perhaps read a bit more broadly? I think you are a brilliant thinker but this appears to be a blind spot.
Sad but true. The scalpel had been tried 100 times in 100 years, they have full defenses and nothing at all changed. Also the argument was totally strange to me: the Government has access to the Government's data? No kidding, whut?
The clear problem from their actions was the BUREAUCRACY didn't want any OVERSIGHT to the data, and I guess we found out why. The crew is a fully-authorized GOVERNMENT agency, from Obama, on direct orders from the current President, who has full oversight of every agency involved, and you say the Boss can't see the books? That is not suspicious at all. Last, the government always had admin access to the government's data and could always change things (but leave computer traces) -- nothing had changed at all except they didn't like THIS government dept to have the power to look at what a DIFFERENT govt dept did. Obviously ALL computer systems have admins and always have. No one was worried until it was an audit.
He pointed out it would be cheaper, easier, and less work to just buy all your info and SS# online from the Dark Web. From working in tech: True dat. I'd buy all that AND your credit card numbers which the govt doesn't have.
I actually don’t read the news at all, so perhaps that’s why I’m not up on every detail. I made the deliberate choice to avoid it, and I fear looking too closely will also be depressing. I don’t read the NYT, only the WSJ and Economist from time to time.
I get it. I tend to avoid and filter through Substack and another social media platform I participate in.
"Status competition among women has intensified because we are the majority of the overproduced elites. Not all of us can be absorbed into professional class and afford the lifestyle we assumed we’d have."
A good male friend of mine had been pursuing a law degree at Georgetown. He came back home one summer... his upper-class parents were building a new home. His father was doing the trim work and cabinet work as he had taken up the hobby of woodworking. My friend left Georgetown and attended a community college curriculum for construction. Today he is a very successful, and very life-satisfied, luxury home builder/developer.
One of the big problems with this oversupply of female elites, the number of over-educated feminists, is that they won't pick up a hammer. But they will pick up a sign to protest how life is so unfair. At least some males are good giving up the dream of a high-status fake laptop job to do some real work with their hands.
"Trump said one for him is a vote for competence. He is indeed incompetent"
This comment is completely void of logos. It is a sign that the gaslighting and pull of acceptance by the feminist witch cult is very strong for all females... even those that believe they have escaped.
Inventory the evidence that backs your opinions that Trump is incompetent (ignoring for the time that he twice beat they entire educated and wealthy media, corporatist oligarchy establishment) and I am sure that list will be firmly connected to pathos and ethos.
Shallow thought on the topic of political leader actions tends to be critical of that which isn't the same standards we have been pattered to be used to... even though the evidence is that those common patterns have caused a mess of problems that never get fixed and just grow, and grow and grow. We emotionally clutch what we are used to even as it isn't the right choice. True logical thinking and assessment helps us unwind from the comfort of destructive norms, to embrace real solutions.
Trump isn't normal. But normal has proven to really suck.
I will have to respectfully disagree. While I agree with a handful of actions, I don’t endorse taking a sledgehammer to the government, either. It seems devoid of competence to blanket blame everything on DEI, as problematic as it is. I see Trump as lacking in discernment; he acts out of impulse and is too prone to flattery to be trusted with outsize power. That said, I do understand intellectually where you’re coming from.
Trump is a CEO, not a politician. If you view him through this lens, he might make more sense to you. And, admittedly, he is a poor communicator.
https://x.com/BretBaier/status/1905393918977393099
Did you watch the Bret Baire interview of Musk and the DOGE team? I respectfully disagree with you that you don't seem to understand the crisis we are dealing with and what level of transformation leadership is required to fix what is broken. They are not taking a "sledgehammer" to government. That comment is a sign that you have been gaslit by your media feeds. They are not blanket blaming everything on DEI, but DEI is anti-merit as you point out. It is toxic to all work cultures. It is 100% bad and has to go.
I have a lot of experience in fixing broken organizations. Our federal government is the worst of the worst. I work directly with several agencies. You simply cannot make progress in fixing what is broken by treating these employees any differently than those in the private sector for an organization that is fiscally insolvent and headed toward bankruptcy. You are clearly making these comments about Trump from your heart and not your head.
I will watch it because I respect your mind enough to question whether I’m wrong :)
I respect your mind too. It is fabulous.
I have connections inside the team that is working on making the federal government more efficient. They are not heartless bulldozers destroying the lives of federal employees. The reason that they put forth the early retirement with 9 months of severance is that this is a best-practice method to preserve jobs for younger and newer employees, and give promotion opportunities to people that are more motivated to make changes.
The Democrat-supporting mainstream media is gaslighting the public, exploiting those that are more easily emotionally influenced, to negative brand this work as heartless and unnecessary. It is neither. Since 2000, the number of federal government workers has increased by 9.2%.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/government-workforce-expanding-bureaucracy-regulation-kamala-harris-joe-biden-elon-musk-a5e08412
"Between December 2020 and March 2024 (the latest data), employment has increased sharply at the Environmental Protection Agency (9.4%), Agriculture Department (9.6%), Department of Housing and Urban Development (10.7%), Internal Revenue Service (14%), Energy Department (14.8%), State Department (18.4%) and Health and Human Services (18.7%).
Independent agencies have also mushroomed, including the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (9.8%), Securities and Exchange Commission (11.1%) and Federal Trade Commission (11.6%). Even the White House Council of Economic Advisers has increased by a third during the Biden Presidency, not that economic policy has improved. A rare Biden-era exception is Defense and the armed forces (-1.2%), despite an increasingly dangerous world."
During the Biden Admin it peaked over 3 million... but that does not include the growth in all the contractors and the NGO workforce.
Biden ballooned the deficit to $2 trillion per year. We are taking in $5 million and spending $7 trillion. The DOGE team thinks we can carve off $1 trillion in spending just by eliminating waste and fraud. Many good people in the federal government have identified the waste and fraud and have put forth ideas to fix it, but failed due to the entrenched bureaucracy that protects itself. But by fixing these problem the US government can better protect the programs that are needed. The cuts to the VA are needed. The VA is a mess of inefficiency. Cutting does not equate to reduced services. A bloated workforce tends to see a decline in service.
I think you should consider a few data points here:
1) DOGE is engaging in Reductions in Force (RIFs), which by statute ensure those with fewer years of federal service get fired first, and the old timers stay. See 5 CFR 351.501(a). This negates your first “out with the old, in with the new” point. Yes, DOGE gave employees the option to retire early, but the vast majority of separations will come from RIFs. This will destroy civil service for generations.
2) Where is the $Trillion going to come from? Because there are 3 places in government that have that kind of money: Defense, Medicaid, and Social Security. Even if you cut every single federal worker, that gets you to about $350 billion, so let’s say they cut half—-so you’re at $175 billion. DOGE has claimed savings of $115 billion after 3 months of review, so that puts you (generously) at $290 billion. Where is the other $710 billion coming from? There is waste and fraud but there ain’t that much of it. GAO documented about $667 billion in savings but that was over a 13 year period. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-106915.
3) The VA backlog spiked heavily under COVID, came down due to additional hiring, then spiked again due to the passage of the PACT Act which expanded VA claims, then came down significantly again due to a 2023 hiring blitz. The hiring bumps directly led to declines in the VA claims backlog. This appears to negate your final point, unless you can cite to other data? https://www.benefits.va.gov/reports/mmwr_va_claims_backlog.asp
Thanks for sparking deep thought! Appreciate!
This is another great essay. Thanks for writing this. It might be a little too generous calling it “pathos in the public square” though, a lot of the time it’s hysteria (there is some of it on the right as well).
Working on the right, though, I’ve experienced the stoicism that denies physical danger, just as much as women-driven focus on “emotional safety”. In one case logic is over-applied, in the other not at all… I’m not sure how, or why, we’ve become so disjointed spiritually, as a nation
I hear that. I think there is broicism and there’s stoicism. Much of what passes for it online calls for a suppression of emotion and a sort of withdrawal. We have indeed become disjointed in that spiritual wholeness is impossible without discernment and what sanskrit texts called rasa, or aesthetics including emotion.
That’s neat. That was actually the original understanding of even the word “aesthetic.” To this day in Greek, in order to say “I am feeling” you say “Aesthanome”. It’s wild how much we’ve lost over time
This was a really good read. Thanks for sharing!
I enjoy your writing quite a bit myself :). Keep fighting.