The advice to cut off your family is the most frightening element to come out of this - the only milieu I've ever encountered this demand is inside cults. And just like cults the social justice movement engages in "love bombing" of their acolytes by telling them they are perfect and all their shortcomings stem from THEM oppressing you.
The advice to cut off your family is the most frightening element to come out of this - the only milieu I've ever encountered this demand is inside cults. And just like cults the social justice movement engages in "love bombing" of their acolytes by telling them they are perfect and all their shortcomings stem from THEM oppressing you.
Following on to the prestige angle is highly apt. Once equality is more or less attainable - what is the next social good to demand? Prestige. Problem is that equality is not a zero-sum social good, it actually raises all boats when meritocracy is allowed; but for me to gain prestige you must lose it. Therefore it is not hard to see why there is such a sustained campaign of "ritualised humiliation" toward white (working class) men. And not hard to see why elite white men participate - they are howling with the wolves to preserve their precarious status.
Prestige can proceed across multiple dimensions. Much of politicisation is about trumping prestige with propriety. Shirtgate was the key moment of cultural shift.
I am well aware of it - and other incidents like the Lebow elevator joke*. Such were my first thoughts when I saw feminists fighting against gender ideology being punished w/o due process... a practice of course originally instituted by them in the exemplar cases. Nevertheless I am not a petty man and support the Truth Espousing Rational Females regardless.
*Which reminds me: has anyone read The Joke by Kundera? Ideal book for our times, needs a film adapted to present events.
Throwing other members of oppressed groups under the bus to get in good with your oppressors is a time-honored way of moving upward in society's hierarchy. Oh, you'll never be seen as equal to the oppressors - the people in charge - but you'll be treated better than most of your people by them. Just look at the Indians who supported the British rulers in India. It's just like women supporting trans-identifying males over other women.
For women supporting trans identified males, I suspect it's a form of potlatch. They are attempting to signal that their situation is so secure, they will not be threatened by males coming in to take resources previously allocated to females. That is why, I suspect, the political standpoint is so prevalent among highly educated women. They may even be attempting to demonstrate that their success isn't due to affirmative action; their merit will always be recognized regardless. Since an appearance of power is in fact often accepted as deserving power, this isn't an approach that would encounter internal red flags. It's a gamble, but the more that their colleagues also play the game, the more risky it becomes anyway, to not play the game.
I'm definitely following your substack and am going to be reading through it. I've been wrestling with nature vs nurture and identity politics since the 90s, as it wrecked my preferred academic interests.
Well, as it happens, physical anthro was/is one of them. At that time, Stephen Pinker's *the blank slate* was several years in the future, and I felt I would have to take another degree in philosophy in order to push back -- a logistical impossibility. The other one was art, which as a discipline had been involved in real philosophy, but critical theory came up from behind and made phenomenology rooted in materiality extremely unpopular. Can't speak to common experience if no commonality is recognized. Contemporary fine art is in large part a poetic discourse within mutually accepted boundaries (even when "disruptive"--ie nothing is allowed to be disrupted that isn't already a target for mockery) and the boundaries contracted. It's a very academic phase.
I don't mean either of these are absolutely impossible, but the situation is just generally intellectually offensive and a drag to engage with, and of course both of these are conducted in dialogue. As it happens I find the situation interesting in certain ways, but only abstractly. Art is very caught up in the abject or the derisive, and so it's often just a useless bummer that, among other things, minimizes true suffering.
Yes, indeed. But also a status signal, which tells others (mostly women) what standing one has. To be unconcerned with TIM incursions into women's shelters is to assert that one will never need to make use of such services. One's attorney would win the house and a large settlement, if one's husband became a problem--which he wouldn't do because he's not of the battering classes.
To be unconcerned with what fewer cops in poor brown and black neighborhoods actually means for those people is to demonstrate that one has never thought experimented to walk in their shoes. Certainly never had a heart to heart discussion in which one felt their problems as close to one's own life. Even releasing criminals is no problem, because one never goes to those places anyway. In fact one has never needed the police one's entire life, except to obtain directions in a tourist town.
It's similar to volunteering: conspicuous expenditure only possible because one has so much excess. It's also a giving away of others' safety of course, and so one demonstrates one's distance from those people.
Yes as you said it's throwing one's own oppressed group under the bus, but it's also a proclamation of how distant that group is. Doesn't matter if one's blocked from SVP by a TIM, my husband is CFO and we'd be fine if I didn't even work. And I have no idea what you mesn by AGP, I've never thought of such a thing I don't know what that is.
One time I was being hassled by a homeless guy at the ATM and I spoke to him normally with expectations of him shoving off. My companion was appalled, because we don't talk to them. It's like that. The problems caused by idpol are invisible when one's at a certain level, so it's déclassé to admit they exist.
I feel seen, even by those in the comments. Yes exactly with an added dash of "I've heard there are other people, how quaint. Girls we should get up a collection".
The advice to cut off your family is the most frightening element to come out of this - the only milieu I've ever encountered this demand is inside cults. And just like cults the social justice movement engages in "love bombing" of their acolytes by telling them they are perfect and all their shortcomings stem from THEM oppressing you.
Following on to the prestige angle is highly apt. Once equality is more or less attainable - what is the next social good to demand? Prestige. Problem is that equality is not a zero-sum social good, it actually raises all boats when meritocracy is allowed; but for me to gain prestige you must lose it. Therefore it is not hard to see why there is such a sustained campaign of "ritualised humiliation" toward white (working class) men. And not hard to see why elite white men participate - they are howling with the wolves to preserve their precarious status.
Prestige can proceed across multiple dimensions. Much of politicisation is about trumping prestige with propriety. Shirtgate was the key moment of cultural shift.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Shirtgate
I am well aware of it - and other incidents like the Lebow elevator joke*. Such were my first thoughts when I saw feminists fighting against gender ideology being punished w/o due process... a practice of course originally instituted by them in the exemplar cases. Nevertheless I am not a petty man and support the Truth Espousing Rational Females regardless.
*Which reminds me: has anyone read The Joke by Kundera? Ideal book for our times, needs a film adapted to present events.
Throwing other members of oppressed groups under the bus to get in good with your oppressors is a time-honored way of moving upward in society's hierarchy. Oh, you'll never be seen as equal to the oppressors - the people in charge - but you'll be treated better than most of your people by them. Just look at the Indians who supported the British rulers in India. It's just like women supporting trans-identifying males over other women.
For women supporting trans identified males, I suspect it's a form of potlatch. They are attempting to signal that their situation is so secure, they will not be threatened by males coming in to take resources previously allocated to females. That is why, I suspect, the political standpoint is so prevalent among highly educated women. They may even be attempting to demonstrate that their success isn't due to affirmative action; their merit will always be recognized regardless. Since an appearance of power is in fact often accepted as deserving power, this isn't an approach that would encounter internal red flags. It's a gamble, but the more that their colleagues also play the game, the more risky it becomes anyway, to not play the game.
What a fascinating perspective. I will have to think on this, ta.
I'm definitely following your substack and am going to be reading through it. I've been wrestling with nature vs nurture and identity politics since the 90s, as it wrecked my preferred academic interests.
I hope you find my thoughts helpful. The discovery of evolutionary biology and evolutionary anthropology was something of a revelation for me.
If I may asks, which academic interests were those?
Well, as it happens, physical anthro was/is one of them. At that time, Stephen Pinker's *the blank slate* was several years in the future, and I felt I would have to take another degree in philosophy in order to push back -- a logistical impossibility. The other one was art, which as a discipline had been involved in real philosophy, but critical theory came up from behind and made phenomenology rooted in materiality extremely unpopular. Can't speak to common experience if no commonality is recognized. Contemporary fine art is in large part a poetic discourse within mutually accepted boundaries (even when "disruptive"--ie nothing is allowed to be disrupted that isn't already a target for mockery) and the boundaries contracted. It's a very academic phase.
My profound sympathies. As a left-field suggestion, I have found costumed Chinese dramas (C-dramas) something of a consolation. https://youtu.be/5RVn8ZUZL9s?si=xn_EO7jtlQYTqTU5
That's purely delightful, and extremely well chosen as a response to what I'd mentioned.
Approaches sort of like these mentioned here aren't dead in art, and people are hungry for it, but they're halfway protected as a secret.
I'm a few short videos in now and it's great. Her brother is quite annoyed with her. What a spectacular production.
I don't mean either of these are absolutely impossible, but the situation is just generally intellectually offensive and a drag to engage with, and of course both of these are conducted in dialogue. As it happens I find the situation interesting in certain ways, but only abstractly. Art is very caught up in the abject or the derisive, and so it's often just a useless bummer that, among other things, minimizes true suffering.
"That is why, I suspect, the political standpoint is so prevalent among highly educated women."
Luxury beliefs of the upper class.
Yes, indeed. But also a status signal, which tells others (mostly women) what standing one has. To be unconcerned with TIM incursions into women's shelters is to assert that one will never need to make use of such services. One's attorney would win the house and a large settlement, if one's husband became a problem--which he wouldn't do because he's not of the battering classes.
To be unconcerned with what fewer cops in poor brown and black neighborhoods actually means for those people is to demonstrate that one has never thought experimented to walk in their shoes. Certainly never had a heart to heart discussion in which one felt their problems as close to one's own life. Even releasing criminals is no problem, because one never goes to those places anyway. In fact one has never needed the police one's entire life, except to obtain directions in a tourist town.
It's similar to volunteering: conspicuous expenditure only possible because one has so much excess. It's also a giving away of others' safety of course, and so one demonstrates one's distance from those people.
Yes as you said it's throwing one's own oppressed group under the bus, but it's also a proclamation of how distant that group is. Doesn't matter if one's blocked from SVP by a TIM, my husband is CFO and we'd be fine if I didn't even work. And I have no idea what you mesn by AGP, I've never thought of such a thing I don't know what that is.
One time I was being hassled by a homeless guy at the ATM and I spoke to him normally with expectations of him shoving off. My companion was appalled, because we don't talk to them. It's like that. The problems caused by idpol are invisible when one's at a certain level, so it's déclassé to admit they exist.
The People Unlike Me problem.
https://www.notonyourteam.co.uk/p/people-unlike-me
I feel seen, even by those in the comments. Yes exactly with an added dash of "I've heard there are other people, how quaint. Girls we should get up a collection".
I haven’t read The Joke, but now, I’m going to have to so thank you in advance!