The backlash has been a long time in coming and it is more than a bit ridiculous that those who failed to keep the train on the tracks of sanity for the last two decades are now whinging about excesses from those trying to bring it back to some semblance of reality.
Right?!? Respiratory virus with a 99.7% survival rate? Up-end society, we'll figure out the consequences later. Change things at public universities in one of the 50 states? It's the end of freedom itself.
Like you, I'm cautiously in favor of the Florida bill. One always has to wait and see how such laws get interpreted, and by whom.
Also:
"Therapist: (nods, several times, thinks for about thirty seconds.) “When I was a boy, we had a different word for people like that. We called them, ‘women’.”"
There is very little that's more affirming than to have someone who is legit *wise* (not just smart) affirm that one does in fact see a thing clearly. To do it with humor is a bigger blessing than anyone deserves. I am very, very lucky.
The US system is very different from anything in the Commonwealth, where universities are nearly all state funded and any student loan is clawed back via one's taxes once a certain income level is reached.
This difference means that a hypothetical anti-woke Commonwealth country Education Secretary has the power to go through the courses universities offer line by line and delete any undesirable ones. Typically, this means they are no longer eligible for funding via graduate students' income tax repayments, or they simply won't be funded as part of the country's annual education budget.
If I were Education Secretary, I would do both, just to make sure - like using a silver bullet for a werewolf.
Universities must stop teaching nonsense, on pain of formal dissolution. Medicine no longer teaches miasma. Chemistry no longer teaches phlogiston. Biology no longer teaches creationism. Physics no longer teaches geocentrism.
That means humanities disciplines don't get to teach that people can change sex, that reality is constructed by language, or that only white people can be racist. Not on the taxpayers' tit, at least.
To be fair, we have had 13 years of Conservative government in the UK, and while Michael Gove pushed a lot of wokery out of high schools, the most the Tories have done about the tertiary sector is shut down a few Middle Eastern religion courses that were fronts for promoting Islamic terrorism and anti-semitism.
It's all very well and good to have a power, but one must use it.
This is why I question the existence of all that power. The deep state and Humphrey Appleby might not be 100% real. But they are real enough.
More importantly, stirring up the hornet's of Respectable (ie ABC watching) Opinion is a distraction that pragmatic conservatives believe they have to avoid.
As a Canadian, my respect for Americans only continues to grow. Our Universities are just as deeply entrenched in this ideology, but very little is being done to fight back against it. The majority (and I'm guessing at 80%) of Canadians have no idea this is going on. When they do hear about it, they dismiss it as 'kids being kids' or an American thing. I only just became aware of how bad it was over the last two years. So, please keep fighting. We need you.
BTW, this was just awesome!!! "Can you explain to me why I shouldn’t be deeply and profoundly offended? You just said that when you’re doing something difficult that requires discipline and strength you feel like a man, but when you are doing something that involves dressing up and attending a ceremony focused on beauty and emotions, you feel like a woman. How is this not just adherence to regressive stereotypes?”
Your hypothetical analogy of the poor white girls and the Obama daughters it the type that I usually go to when hearing the white privilege trope. Thinking people who haven't taken the time to play it out, typically respond with a "that's a good point I haven't heard or thought about." When they protest, as in your college class, I assume that they graduated from the D'Angelo fan club of feelings over brains.
I shared this on FB as it will smack a quarter of my "friends" in the face as I am all in on the fight for our youth and our future... friends feelings be damned. Your background and logic gives our shared ideas and values a chance to take root when my words ring hollow.... you know, because of "privilege". I don't do this to just to win an ideological battle (well not all the time) but because it is the right thing. Keep up the good fight.
Just to steelman "demisexual" a bit (I know, I know): I think it might potentially have some utility in describing people (usually women) who are, in fact, only able to feel sexually attracted to someone after they have formed an emotional connection. You (and your therapist) say those people used to be called "women," but there are women who like casual sex, and don't need an emotional connection to enjoy sexyfuntimes.
Of course, post-sexual liberation society strongly encourages women to have that attitude (or claim to have that attitude). It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize who this chiefly benefits, but try pointing that out without being accused of wanting a return to a 1950s Cleaver household...
So - I *suspect* that the "demisexual" construct might have arisen among young women who actually *don't* like casual sex and would prefer to have commitment and an emotional connection before getting it on, but the only acceptable way to express this was as a new "identity" that falls under the queer alphabet soup umbrella.
Ironically, most of the the pushback against "demisexuality" I have seen has come from the left, where it is perceived as "slut shaming." The anger at women who try to stake out boundaries in a SJ-acceptable way being perceived as "shaming" other women was quite eye-opening to me.
I think this statement: "there are women who like casual sex, and don't need an emotional connection to enjoy sexyfuntimes" is true, but only in the sense that these statements are also true:
There are people who enjoy eating human flesh.
There are parents who feel they've done the right thing after they shake an infant very hard.
There are people who experience relief from emotional agony by cutting or burning themselves.
Women and men are different. Women bear 100% of the risks of procreation that come from sexual behavior. Women who convince themselves, almost always as a trauma reaction, that they enjoy casual sex, are behaving against deeply ingrained instincts, put there by evolution for good reasons. This is why there is a glut of content from women above the age of 35 talking about how deeply damaging their indiscriminate sexual behavior was during their 20s, how they were convinced that acting like men was the way to liberation when it was anything but.
I agree men and women are different. I don't think I agree that women who like casual sex are as rare or deviant as people who enjoy eating human flesh or shaking infants.
It's of course likely that a lot of women who really enjoyed a free love lifestyle when they were young regret it when they get older and the costs become evident. And some are probably lying to themselves about how much they enjoy it. But there is a lot of variation in human behavior and adaptability.
Numbers-wise, on the rarity thereof, I have no idea. Yes, outliers exist. I am a statistician; I know all about outliers. But society is so set up to communicate to women that having sex like men is normal and healthy, to the point that we literally have a word for women who don't have sex like men and it is presented as minority status in need of its own pride movement and flag. That's an incredible level of pathology, and it skews any possibility of developing an intuition for what's "normal." Yes, I think it is as deviant, if deviant in a different way. It is either pretending to believe or convincing yourself you believe or, in a worst case scenario, actually believing that something that is an act of self-harm is good and healthy.
You'll probably appreciate it when you get around to reading it, but it will probably be kind of confirmation of what you already know than something new.
The main thing that I took out of it that I didn't know was about porn and how violence against women is almost standard in porn.
After attending drama school I started to watch movies "outside the frame", in that I could imagine crew, a director, etc, beyond what was on screen. A group of people creating a production with a purpose. They weren't objects, they were individuals. Logically this framing made its way to porn. Anyone with a soul will have significant cognitive dissonance once you see this.
Not only that but even if you're male and not a scumbag you still understand how the male mind works. You know how manipulation and gaslighting work, even if you don't exercise it. Now apply *that* framing to porn. It's sickening. "Women can make up their own mind" is bourgeois coomer apologia. It's incomplete. Grooming doesn't just happen to children.
The vax mandates inform my view on this, too. People told me I was NOT being coerced or pressured. I had a choice. If I want to swim at the local YMCA/be part of the local sangha/whatever, I could get jabbed. That really made me think about women who have only abusive families to return to, little in the way of job skills, and end up doing porn because it's a way to not be desperately poor. Coercion is a nuanced term.
Me included. I believed this lie for about ten years as a response to dating a genuinely terrible human being. I never thought I was acting like a man though - I just didn't care. It was easier to be shallow. After a while Jesus dragged me over to Him, and after that I did care. I never went to therapy - I just stopped.
My question is “Why do we need to put people into these compartments?” Personally, I am a complex individual who cannot be shoved into any box. I am more than a sum of my parts. I am a woman. I am a Catholic. I am a mother. I am a wife. I am a heterosexual. I am a weaver. I am a spinner. I am a crocheter. I am an animal lover. I am a moderate conservative. I am mainly Western European. I am an avid reader. I am often physically lazy. I am a gardener. I am an omnivore. I am retired. I could go on and on but I think you get my gist. To pick any one of those things to describe me would be erroneous.
I loathe being pigeonholed. We are all unique individuals and deserve to be seen as such.
100% of the time that I presented such sentiments in these classes, I was told that this desire, to be regarded as an individual, much less to voice such a desire, was an act of privilege in and of itself. I suspect that is what happens to anyone who dares to wish for such a thing in university level classes. Meanwhile, these ideas are so inculcated, starting in early elementary school, that people who've grown up/are growing up in them never develop a desire or appreciation for being regarded as an individual at all.
Which is tragic, of course, but also presents an opportunity. An individualistic philosophy will be deeply attractive to many of these kids as they mature.
Oh, Holly, I devoutly hope so. Individuals, especially those that have no interest in fitting into a mold, are infinitely more interesting and innovative.
I think as the kids who've been forcefed this bullshit all their lives get to their late teens/early 20s and start wanting to rebel, the combination of that dynamic and the OMG YOU MEAN I DON'T HAVE TO WEIGH EVERY THOUGHT I HAVE AND OPINION I VOICE AGAINST A MATRIX OF ALL MY IDENTITIES FIRST?!?!?!? liberation we can show them is possible will present a big opportunity for a classical liberal resurgence, yes. *fingers crossed*
So, related to the "dinosaur" comment, I think one of the biggest problems I have with the identitarian movement is that I've been online since the era back when everybody was just 80x24 green or amber text on a black screen, and the slogan "On the internet, nobody can tell you're a dog." was taken somewhat as gospel. And that was a *good* thing. Now you're oppressing their fursonality by not acknowledging their dogness. But having experienced some fairly egregious racial bigotry due to my skin color, and frankly simply *having been raised better than that*, I found that very refreshing. It's likely a large part of what shaped my radical individualist positions.
This trend to only consider people's external characteristics, and not their knowledge, disposition, actions, and beliefs is a tremendous step backwards. I despise it.
And three generations later that will metastasise into another nonsense. No classical liberalism contains the seeds of its' own demise. We need to excise those elements like toleration for intolerance; or our great-grandcildren will be kicked in the head by the next iteration of liberal stupid. The same needs to be done with conservatism, probably. We can't go back to classical anything, or we will likely wind back here. Always have in mind history will rhyme if you take your eye off the ball.
Right - rather than appear a traditionalist or conservative, let's put it on the spectrum, because we don't want to be associated with ***those people.***
I’m not sure how many people come into contact with poor white people, or maybe they have no sympathy for their plight (either kids or adults). But poverty, addiction and upbringing IS the hurdle to a successful life for all races. And omg I’m a demisexual too! BRB going out to get my flag.
German here: The first paragraphs could be describing Germany 1933-45, it's classic and pure racism. "Whatever your position is, if you are poor, if you are living in a small "Shtetl" in Poland or Ukraine, with no prospect, no refuge, with one goat in your backyard and five children to feed – you're a Jew, and as such part of the global jewish conspiracy against Whites; you may not even know this, but you are. (That's why you have to die, btw, please come with me)." Always baffles me that people don't even see their own blatant racism and that of others. Still baffles me more that it's coming from people that put themselves voluntarily and happily not on the top, but in the bottom of their racist hierarchy."
I would not have graduated from university if I had faced requirements like those. I am absolutely and utterly incapable of sitting around with my mouth shut in the face of such a torrent of bullshit. Also, it's appalling that those three classes alone cost $9k, I'm not sure I spent that much on my entire degree. Though I did go to a state university in the state I am resident in, and got a discount because my mother worked there.
If I counted the costs for food and shelter, it would certainly exceed that number, though, so perhaps I'm comparing apples and dinosaurs. (Spoiler: I'm the dinosaur here. Pardon me, I have to go yell at some kids on the lawn...)
I have no idea when you started following me on Twitter, if you did at all. But people who followed me in my first and second incarnations there (2017-2018 and again 2019-present, though limited to tweeting links since November) who read this essay and your comment will now know why I vented/ranted on Twitter so much. It was that or give up.
The one good thing was that the classes were such easy A's. Math is hard. I needed some easy GPA boosting. That's how I kept my tongue under control, in part.
Nope, I found you here on Substack. I don't Twitter, despite having had the opportunity to be part of the very first group of users. It seemed as dumb to me back then as it does now, but it did end up buying a number of friends and acquaintances rather nice flats in San Francisco. ;)
Math *is* hard, which is why I stopped after calc 2. Ok, that and because the only sections of calc 3 that were offered my freshman year were at 0700, and after I switched schools and majors after that year, I didn't need it anymore.
Psychrabble: "Holly hits a grand slam with this one: Not short, but written so well, reads so easy you are done before you felt like you were reading."
Me in reply: She writes w/a rare skill! Delights me every time I read her work. I've pondered the ingredients in her secret sauce:
Thank you, Holly! My son, a retired Army Veteran, had to sit through these classes and, at first, couldn't keep his mouth from speaking, but later realized it was a waste of time and effort to speak to the deranged, mindless, robotic, brainless (incapable of thinking for themselves) victims of public education which he found en masse. He told me that's why he retired after 21 yrs, he could stand to see the degenerate ideas infiltrating our Country's Military, no longer.
I'm almost at the point where I hate people criticizing *any* type of action at this stage of the game. The point of trying, whether on a personal or macro scale, is proving a hypothesis and adjusting where needed. Purists (typically the libertarian-minded, when talking politics) are ultimately unhelpful because if you have a hypothesis, ultimately you have to test it! "We think this will address the problem." Analyze the feedback, re-calibrate. Ironically those who (ostensibly) believe in facts, reason, and science are some of the most unrealistic people around.
Not to mention that by waiting so long to address these issues we don't have the luxury of thorough deliberation. SOMEbody has to break some eggs.
The backlash has been a long time in coming and it is more than a bit ridiculous that those who failed to keep the train on the tracks of sanity for the last two decades are now whinging about excesses from those trying to bring it back to some semblance of reality.
Right?!? Respiratory virus with a 99.7% survival rate? Up-end society, we'll figure out the consequences later. Change things at public universities in one of the 50 states? It's the end of freedom itself.
Like you, I'm cautiously in favor of the Florida bill. One always has to wait and see how such laws get interpreted, and by whom.
Also:
"Therapist: (nods, several times, thinks for about thirty seconds.) “When I was a boy, we had a different word for people like that. We called them, ‘women’.”"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA
There is very little that's more affirming than to have someone who is legit *wise* (not just smart) affirm that one does in fact see a thing clearly. To do it with humor is a bigger blessing than anyone deserves. I am very, very lucky.
Male reading this who also takes time to get to know people: "Oh, god, am I trans?" XD
LMAO
"Demitrans", I believe... ;)
The US system is very different from anything in the Commonwealth, where universities are nearly all state funded and any student loan is clawed back via one's taxes once a certain income level is reached.
This difference means that a hypothetical anti-woke Commonwealth country Education Secretary has the power to go through the courses universities offer line by line and delete any undesirable ones. Typically, this means they are no longer eligible for funding via graduate students' income tax repayments, or they simply won't be funded as part of the country's annual education budget.
If I were Education Secretary, I would do both, just to make sure - like using a silver bullet for a werewolf.
Universities must stop teaching nonsense, on pain of formal dissolution. Medicine no longer teaches miasma. Chemistry no longer teaches phlogiston. Biology no longer teaches creationism. Physics no longer teaches geocentrism.
That means humanities disciplines don't get to teach that people can change sex, that reality is constructed by language, or that only white people can be racist. Not on the taxpayers' tit, at least.
*swoons and starts writing an amendment where women named Helen who were not born in the US can get elected POTUS*
Seriously, thank you -- it's always so interesting to hear how it works elsewhere!!!
To be fair, we have had 13 years of Conservative government in the UK, and while Michael Gove pushed a lot of wokery out of high schools, the most the Tories have done about the tertiary sector is shut down a few Middle Eastern religion courses that were fronts for promoting Islamic terrorism and anti-semitism.
It's all very well and good to have a power, but one must use it.
It's a toss up which conservatives are more feckless and self-handicapped, yours or ours.
This is why I question the existence of all that power. The deep state and Humphrey Appleby might not be 100% real. But they are real enough.
More importantly, stirring up the hornet's of Respectable (ie ABC watching) Opinion is a distraction that pragmatic conservatives believe they have to avoid.
As a Canadian, my respect for Americans only continues to grow. Our Universities are just as deeply entrenched in this ideology, but very little is being done to fight back against it. The majority (and I'm guessing at 80%) of Canadians have no idea this is going on. When they do hear about it, they dismiss it as 'kids being kids' or an American thing. I only just became aware of how bad it was over the last two years. So, please keep fighting. We need you.
BTW, this was just awesome!!! "Can you explain to me why I shouldn’t be deeply and profoundly offended? You just said that when you’re doing something difficult that requires discipline and strength you feel like a man, but when you are doing something that involves dressing up and attending a ceremony focused on beauty and emotions, you feel like a woman. How is this not just adherence to regressive stereotypes?”
Holly,
Your hypothetical analogy of the poor white girls and the Obama daughters it the type that I usually go to when hearing the white privilege trope. Thinking people who haven't taken the time to play it out, typically respond with a "that's a good point I haven't heard or thought about." When they protest, as in your college class, I assume that they graduated from the D'Angelo fan club of feelings over brains.
I shared this on FB as it will smack a quarter of my "friends" in the face as I am all in on the fight for our youth and our future... friends feelings be damned. Your background and logic gives our shared ideas and values a chance to take root when my words ring hollow.... you know, because of "privilege". I don't do this to just to win an ideological battle (well not all the time) but because it is the right thing. Keep up the good fight.
❤️❤️❤️
Thank you for the sanity and objective reality you express. Much appreciated.
Just to steelman "demisexual" a bit (I know, I know): I think it might potentially have some utility in describing people (usually women) who are, in fact, only able to feel sexually attracted to someone after they have formed an emotional connection. You (and your therapist) say those people used to be called "women," but there are women who like casual sex, and don't need an emotional connection to enjoy sexyfuntimes.
Of course, post-sexual liberation society strongly encourages women to have that attitude (or claim to have that attitude). It doesn't take a lot of thought to realize who this chiefly benefits, but try pointing that out without being accused of wanting a return to a 1950s Cleaver household...
So - I *suspect* that the "demisexual" construct might have arisen among young women who actually *don't* like casual sex and would prefer to have commitment and an emotional connection before getting it on, but the only acceptable way to express this was as a new "identity" that falls under the queer alphabet soup umbrella.
Ironically, most of the the pushback against "demisexuality" I have seen has come from the left, where it is perceived as "slut shaming." The anger at women who try to stake out boundaries in a SJ-acceptable way being perceived as "shaming" other women was quite eye-opening to me.
I think this statement: "there are women who like casual sex, and don't need an emotional connection to enjoy sexyfuntimes" is true, but only in the sense that these statements are also true:
There are people who enjoy eating human flesh.
There are parents who feel they've done the right thing after they shake an infant very hard.
There are people who experience relief from emotional agony by cutting or burning themselves.
Women and men are different. Women bear 100% of the risks of procreation that come from sexual behavior. Women who convince themselves, almost always as a trauma reaction, that they enjoy casual sex, are behaving against deeply ingrained instincts, put there by evolution for good reasons. This is why there is a glut of content from women above the age of 35 talking about how deeply damaging their indiscriminate sexual behavior was during their 20s, how they were convinced that acting like men was the way to liberation when it was anything but.
I agree men and women are different. I don't think I agree that women who like casual sex are as rare or deviant as people who enjoy eating human flesh or shaking infants.
It's of course likely that a lot of women who really enjoyed a free love lifestyle when they were young regret it when they get older and the costs become evident. And some are probably lying to themselves about how much they enjoy it. But there is a lot of variation in human behavior and adaptability.
Numbers-wise, on the rarity thereof, I have no idea. Yes, outliers exist. I am a statistician; I know all about outliers. But society is so set up to communicate to women that having sex like men is normal and healthy, to the point that we literally have a word for women who don't have sex like men and it is presented as minority status in need of its own pride movement and flag. That's an incredible level of pathology, and it skews any possibility of developing an intuition for what's "normal." Yes, I think it is as deviant, if deviant in a different way. It is either pretending to believe or convincing yourself you believe or, in a worst case scenario, actually believing that something that is an act of self-harm is good and healthy.
Have you read Louise Perry's book - https://www.amazon.com/Case-Against-Sexual-Revolution-ebook/dp/B0B1TBS69S ? because you are almost quoting verbatim from it
Not yet. I own it. I'm not surprised though. Evolutionary theory on this is solid.
You'll probably appreciate it when you get around to reading it, but it will probably be kind of confirmation of what you already know than something new.
The main thing that I took out of it that I didn't know was about porn and how violence against women is almost standard in porn.
After attending drama school I started to watch movies "outside the frame", in that I could imagine crew, a director, etc, beyond what was on screen. A group of people creating a production with a purpose. They weren't objects, they were individuals. Logically this framing made its way to porn. Anyone with a soul will have significant cognitive dissonance once you see this.
Not only that but even if you're male and not a scumbag you still understand how the male mind works. You know how manipulation and gaslighting work, even if you don't exercise it. Now apply *that* framing to porn. It's sickening. "Women can make up their own mind" is bourgeois coomer apologia. It's incomplete. Grooming doesn't just happen to children.
The vax mandates inform my view on this, too. People told me I was NOT being coerced or pressured. I had a choice. If I want to swim at the local YMCA/be part of the local sangha/whatever, I could get jabbed. That really made me think about women who have only abusive families to return to, little in the way of job skills, and end up doing porn because it's a way to not be desperately poor. Coercion is a nuanced term.
Me included. I believed this lie for about ten years as a response to dating a genuinely terrible human being. I never thought I was acting like a man though - I just didn't care. It was easier to be shallow. After a while Jesus dragged me over to Him, and after that I did care. I never went to therapy - I just stopped.
My question is “Why do we need to put people into these compartments?” Personally, I am a complex individual who cannot be shoved into any box. I am more than a sum of my parts. I am a woman. I am a Catholic. I am a mother. I am a wife. I am a heterosexual. I am a weaver. I am a spinner. I am a crocheter. I am an animal lover. I am a moderate conservative. I am mainly Western European. I am an avid reader. I am often physically lazy. I am a gardener. I am an omnivore. I am retired. I could go on and on but I think you get my gist. To pick any one of those things to describe me would be erroneous.
I loathe being pigeonholed. We are all unique individuals and deserve to be seen as such.
100% of the time that I presented such sentiments in these classes, I was told that this desire, to be regarded as an individual, much less to voice such a desire, was an act of privilege in and of itself. I suspect that is what happens to anyone who dares to wish for such a thing in university level classes. Meanwhile, these ideas are so inculcated, starting in early elementary school, that people who've grown up/are growing up in them never develop a desire or appreciation for being regarded as an individual at all.
Which is tragic, of course, but also presents an opportunity. An individualistic philosophy will be deeply attractive to many of these kids as they mature.
Oh, Holly, I devoutly hope so. Individuals, especially those that have no interest in fitting into a mold, are infinitely more interesting and innovative.
I think as the kids who've been forcefed this bullshit all their lives get to their late teens/early 20s and start wanting to rebel, the combination of that dynamic and the OMG YOU MEAN I DON'T HAVE TO WEIGH EVERY THOUGHT I HAVE AND OPINION I VOICE AGAINST A MATRIX OF ALL MY IDENTITIES FIRST?!?!?!? liberation we can show them is possible will present a big opportunity for a classical liberal resurgence, yes. *fingers crossed*
🤞👏👏
So, related to the "dinosaur" comment, I think one of the biggest problems I have with the identitarian movement is that I've been online since the era back when everybody was just 80x24 green or amber text on a black screen, and the slogan "On the internet, nobody can tell you're a dog." was taken somewhat as gospel. And that was a *good* thing. Now you're oppressing their fursonality by not acknowledging their dogness. But having experienced some fairly egregious racial bigotry due to my skin color, and frankly simply *having been raised better than that*, I found that very refreshing. It's likely a large part of what shaped my radical individualist positions.
This trend to only consider people's external characteristics, and not their knowledge, disposition, actions, and beliefs is a tremendous step backwards. I despise it.
And three generations later that will metastasise into another nonsense. No classical liberalism contains the seeds of its' own demise. We need to excise those elements like toleration for intolerance; or our great-grandcildren will be kicked in the head by the next iteration of liberal stupid. The same needs to be done with conservatism, probably. We can't go back to classical anything, or we will likely wind back here. Always have in mind history will rhyme if you take your eye off the ball.
> Personally, I am a complex individual who cannot be shoved into any box.
I need at least a fair sized shipping crate for myself... 🤪
🤣👍
The unique combination of things you are vs things I am = intersectionality. It's ridiculous.
Right - rather than appear a traditionalist or conservative, let's put it on the spectrum, because we don't want to be associated with ***those people.***
Good points,
I’m not sure how many people come into contact with poor white people, or maybe they have no sympathy for their plight (either kids or adults). But poverty, addiction and upbringing IS the hurdle to a successful life for all races. And omg I’m a demisexual too! BRB going out to get my flag.
Sorry you had to go through such a class. Stuff like that keeps me cautious of going back for PhD or getting back into teaching.
The people who say they are the most open and empathetic turn out to be the biggest closed minded monsters out there.
A joke:
Traditionalism: The woman does the dishes.
Modern Feminism: The man should do the dishes.
Gender studies Professor: Whoever does the dishes is the woman.
Great write up!
German here: The first paragraphs could be describing Germany 1933-45, it's classic and pure racism. "Whatever your position is, if you are poor, if you are living in a small "Shtetl" in Poland or Ukraine, with no prospect, no refuge, with one goat in your backyard and five children to feed – you're a Jew, and as such part of the global jewish conspiracy against Whites; you may not even know this, but you are. (That's why you have to die, btw, please come with me)." Always baffles me that people don't even see their own blatant racism and that of others. Still baffles me more that it's coming from people that put themselves voluntarily and happily not on the top, but in the bottom of their racist hierarchy."
This is a very powerful point. Thank you for making it.
I would not have graduated from university if I had faced requirements like those. I am absolutely and utterly incapable of sitting around with my mouth shut in the face of such a torrent of bullshit. Also, it's appalling that those three classes alone cost $9k, I'm not sure I spent that much on my entire degree. Though I did go to a state university in the state I am resident in, and got a discount because my mother worked there.
If I counted the costs for food and shelter, it would certainly exceed that number, though, so perhaps I'm comparing apples and dinosaurs. (Spoiler: I'm the dinosaur here. Pardon me, I have to go yell at some kids on the lawn...)
I have no idea when you started following me on Twitter, if you did at all. But people who followed me in my first and second incarnations there (2017-2018 and again 2019-present, though limited to tweeting links since November) who read this essay and your comment will now know why I vented/ranted on Twitter so much. It was that or give up.
The one good thing was that the classes were such easy A's. Math is hard. I needed some easy GPA boosting. That's how I kept my tongue under control, in part.
Nope, I found you here on Substack. I don't Twitter, despite having had the opportunity to be part of the very first group of users. It seemed as dumb to me back then as it does now, but it did end up buying a number of friends and acquaintances rather nice flats in San Francisco. ;)
Math *is* hard, which is why I stopped after calc 2. Ok, that and because the only sections of calc 3 that were offered my freshman year were at 0700, and after I switched schools and majors after that year, I didn't need it anymore.
Nice flats... in a cess pit that needs nuking from orbit?
EXCELLENT piece!
Psychrabble: "Holly hits a grand slam with this one: Not short, but written so well, reads so easy you are done before you felt like you were reading."
Me in reply: She writes w/a rare skill! Delights me every time I read her work. I've pondered the ingredients in her secret sauce:
mathematical/orderly mind [oh the horror😂]
excellent transitions drawing one in
honesty/integrity/fearlessness
unique insights
humor
epistemic humility
My reply to F.I.R.E. below
https://twitter.com/JaniceBrauner/status/1629582030047412227
Thank you!!
If this bill passes and the de-brainwashing of America works, Florida man may become a compliment.
Thank you, Holly! My son, a retired Army Veteran, had to sit through these classes and, at first, couldn't keep his mouth from speaking, but later realized it was a waste of time and effort to speak to the deranged, mindless, robotic, brainless (incapable of thinking for themselves) victims of public education which he found en masse. He told me that's why he retired after 21 yrs, he could stand to see the degenerate ideas infiltrating our Country's Military, no longer.
I'm almost at the point where I hate people criticizing *any* type of action at this stage of the game. The point of trying, whether on a personal or macro scale, is proving a hypothesis and adjusting where needed. Purists (typically the libertarian-minded, when talking politics) are ultimately unhelpful because if you have a hypothesis, ultimately you have to test it! "We think this will address the problem." Analyze the feedback, re-calibrate. Ironically those who (ostensibly) believe in facts, reason, and science are some of the most unrealistic people around.
Not to mention that by waiting so long to address these issues we don't have the luxury of thorough deliberation. SOMEbody has to break some eggs.
Yep. I am grateful for the courage of DeSantis and Florida Republicans to try to do *something*.
The only problem with Florida seems to be IT IS TOO FEKKIN' HOT & HUMID!
Good therapist you had there.