Off-topic: Peter Leithart has an excellent review of Nancy Pearcey's book THE TOXIC WAR ON MASCULINITY. I hope Aaron will review it if he hasn't already:
In good Econ fashion, Rob writes, "Assuming a spectrum of goods ranging from cheap and low-quality to expensive and high-quality..." But of course this simple linear relationship doesn't hold in all arenas.
It is my observation that in national politics we are paying a fairly high price and getting extremely poor quality in return. The same holds true in California, in my own state of Washington, and a similar inverse relationship occurs to some degree in quite a few of our political and civic functions
I know Aaron doesn't want to do it, but maybe he's the hero the under-30 dissident right crowd needs right now. A Christian young men's guru who will not lead them to hedonism, nihilism, or simpism.
“This is part of the social context for why a number of younger evangelical men are feistier than they used to be”
I completely agree with this and your preceding statements about the social context… but how do you square that insight with your prior essay that when it comes to young conservative radicals, there is nothing new under the sun, that they think they’re reinventing the wheel when the 80s conservatives were saying the same stuff, etc? Which is it: feistier or equally feisty? ; )
I was actually referring to the new right politics as being a repeat over the old New Right, or early 90s populism.
But in fact, Gilder's 1973 book Sexual Suicide (the 1.0 version of Men and Marriage) anticipates a large number of contemporary complaints. Don't let his female centric framing distract from what really was a bold anti-feminist critique at the time.
Apologies for the 2nd post...but would be curious on the middle-aged Americans not going back to church: You mention Gen X. I'd love to see a breakdown. Many (maybe most) in their 40's are older Millennials. Unless the data says otherwise, I would suggest it would breakdown lopsided towards the Millennials in this grouping. My own anecdotal observations and the word from many of my GenX pastor friends is that it is nearly all Millenials that are gone from their churches. Not so with X, Boomers and Z. I believe I've seen some other data that supports this as well.
So... who wins? If it becomes boys vs girls, instead of boys laying down and taking it from feminism, who wins?
If the answer is boys, then the new question is how does the establishment switch horses? The real elites are pretty crafty. They're probably working on this contingency right now.
In the sense that everybody loses, I agree. But the elites whole business is making sure they themselves remain on top. At a minimum, they will have manage the male opposition which didn't exist until very recently.
Like my son says. He's not fighting this. He's just moving on to better options, wherever they might be. The single, white, blue haired progressive females that post sad, sorry "where are all the good men" videos as they post insta pics of their cats are simply not marryable.
Regarding the political split of high school boys. There are so many fascinating issues that this will create. My son is the demo that just graduated this past May. He confirmed that his experience matches this. He further says that the divide is mainly white girls that skew heavily liberal. The Latinas and other ethnic girls are more normative and even conservative in many cases. His conclusion? He'll likely marry a non-white girl because they are normal.
Rick, I'm with you...have four teenagers, two boys, two girls. From what I see in the high school, it's girls of all stripes who try to befriend the gay boys, the trans, the 'furries.' That same list doesn't want anything to do with the athletes, the farm kids, the future outdoorsmen (hunting/fishing/camping) and vice versa.
It makes the girls who want to hang out with regular boys look like tomboys. And anecdotally, the girls who have suffered family divorce, death, or other crises are the most real because they don't have the time to be progressive.
If that is what he is finding anecdotally where you live ok, but there is no data to back up his conclusion that nationally young white women are more liberal than other races. Voting data from Pew would indicate white women are the most likely to vote Republican. He might want to expand his pool before he completely writes off the largest group and makes the difficult challenge of finding a spouse even harder.
I understand your point, Barnard. However, living in Texas, my above description is pretty accurate to our context. He's not closed to anything...but he's pretty put out with a demographic that is primarily drunk on crazy. Plus, Pew's research does not account for those that have not yet reached voting age...which was the group I'm referencing.
One observation is that nonwhites form the right of the Democratic Party. White people are more bifurcated towards the extremes.
An example of this dynamic is that whites in major cities are the ones who elect Soros DAs, because whites are more likely to show up to low-turnout special elections that elect those DAs. Nonwhites show up to high-turnout elections to elect the mayors that, while still Democrats, are pragmatists that often clash with the DAs because they fear their reelection odds if they allow their city to be modeled after one that Snake Plissken is escaping from.
A few months ago there was an article in a left-leaning publication (can't recall which) that was surprisingly forthright in shedding a light on this dynamic.
I also remember there was a finding that at some point, white Democrats shifted to the left of blacks in terms of their concerns about anti-black racism. It also seems that white Democrats are the ones at the forefront of pushing trans and other forms of sexual insanity.
So as a young man in a milieu in which the young women are almost all Democrats, nonwhite Democrats (especially Latinas) are probably the better bet for settling down into a normal life in which she adopts social conservative (or at least socially non-insane) positions. Though it also seems foolish to think about whole groups in this way when you really only need to find one good woman.
Off-topic: Peter Leithart has an excellent review of Nancy Pearcey's book THE TOXIC WAR ON MASCULINITY. I hope Aaron will review it if he hasn't already:
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2023/08/man-up
I am not planning on reviewing the book, but have scheduled Pearcy for a podcast interview. It's not until the fall, however.
In good Econ fashion, Rob writes, "Assuming a spectrum of goods ranging from cheap and low-quality to expensive and high-quality..." But of course this simple linear relationship doesn't hold in all arenas.
It is my observation that in national politics we are paying a fairly high price and getting extremely poor quality in return. The same holds true in California, in my own state of Washington, and a similar inverse relationship occurs to some degree in quite a few of our political and civic functions
I know Aaron doesn't want to do it, but maybe he's the hero the under-30 dissident right crowd needs right now. A Christian young men's guru who will not lead them to hedonism, nihilism, or simpism.
I'm old enough to remember when "Barstool Conservatives" were known as "South Park Conservatives" https://manhattan.institute/book/south-park-conservatives
“This is part of the social context for why a number of younger evangelical men are feistier than they used to be”
I completely agree with this and your preceding statements about the social context… but how do you square that insight with your prior essay that when it comes to young conservative radicals, there is nothing new under the sun, that they think they’re reinventing the wheel when the 80s conservatives were saying the same stuff, etc? Which is it: feistier or equally feisty? ; )
I was actually referring to the new right politics as being a repeat over the old New Right, or early 90s populism.
But in fact, Gilder's 1973 book Sexual Suicide (the 1.0 version of Men and Marriage) anticipates a large number of contemporary complaints. Don't let his female centric framing distract from what really was a bold anti-feminist critique at the time.
Thank you!
Apologies for the 2nd post...but would be curious on the middle-aged Americans not going back to church: You mention Gen X. I'd love to see a breakdown. Many (maybe most) in their 40's are older Millennials. Unless the data says otherwise, I would suggest it would breakdown lopsided towards the Millennials in this grouping. My own anecdotal observations and the word from many of my GenX pastor friends is that it is nearly all Millenials that are gone from their churches. Not so with X, Boomers and Z. I believe I've seen some other data that supports this as well.
So... who wins? If it becomes boys vs girls, instead of boys laying down and taking it from feminism, who wins?
If the answer is boys, then the new question is how does the establishment switch horses? The real elites are pretty crafty. They're probably working on this contingency right now.
Amplification on the same article:
https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2023/08/10/angry-young-men-are-going-to-disrupt-the-garbage-paradigm-n2626783
“…Perhaps the battle of the sexes will go from a cold war to a hot one…”
"Nobody will win the battle of the sexes.... there's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
At least, there used to be too much 'fraternizing with the enemy'... Maybe the way everybody loses is if nobody joins the battle.
There's no winning the battle of the sexes.
In the sense that everybody loses, I agree. But the elites whole business is making sure they themselves remain on top. At a minimum, they will have manage the male opposition which didn't exist until very recently.
Like my son says. He's not fighting this. He's just moving on to better options, wherever they might be. The single, white, blue haired progressive females that post sad, sorry "where are all the good men" videos as they post insta pics of their cats are simply not marryable.
Regarding the political split of high school boys. There are so many fascinating issues that this will create. My son is the demo that just graduated this past May. He confirmed that his experience matches this. He further says that the divide is mainly white girls that skew heavily liberal. The Latinas and other ethnic girls are more normative and even conservative in many cases. His conclusion? He'll likely marry a non-white girl because they are normal.
Rick, I'm with you...have four teenagers, two boys, two girls. From what I see in the high school, it's girls of all stripes who try to befriend the gay boys, the trans, the 'furries.' That same list doesn't want anything to do with the athletes, the farm kids, the future outdoorsmen (hunting/fishing/camping) and vice versa.
It makes the girls who want to hang out with regular boys look like tomboys. And anecdotally, the girls who have suffered family divorce, death, or other crises are the most real because they don't have the time to be progressive.
If that is what he is finding anecdotally where you live ok, but there is no data to back up his conclusion that nationally young white women are more liberal than other races. Voting data from Pew would indicate white women are the most likely to vote Republican. He might want to expand his pool before he completely writes off the largest group and makes the difficult challenge of finding a spouse even harder.
I understand your point, Barnard. However, living in Texas, my above description is pretty accurate to our context. He's not closed to anything...but he's pretty put out with a demographic that is primarily drunk on crazy. Plus, Pew's research does not account for those that have not yet reached voting age...which was the group I'm referencing.
One observation is that nonwhites form the right of the Democratic Party. White people are more bifurcated towards the extremes.
An example of this dynamic is that whites in major cities are the ones who elect Soros DAs, because whites are more likely to show up to low-turnout special elections that elect those DAs. Nonwhites show up to high-turnout elections to elect the mayors that, while still Democrats, are pragmatists that often clash with the DAs because they fear their reelection odds if they allow their city to be modeled after one that Snake Plissken is escaping from.
A few months ago there was an article in a left-leaning publication (can't recall which) that was surprisingly forthright in shedding a light on this dynamic.
I also remember there was a finding that at some point, white Democrats shifted to the left of blacks in terms of their concerns about anti-black racism. It also seems that white Democrats are the ones at the forefront of pushing trans and other forms of sexual insanity.
So as a young man in a milieu in which the young women are almost all Democrats, nonwhite Democrats (especially Latinas) are probably the better bet for settling down into a normal life in which she adopts social conservative (or at least socially non-insane) positions. Though it also seems foolish to think about whole groups in this way when you really only need to find one good woman.
This reminds me of the Steve Sailer article on Happy Married White Women
https://vdare.com/articles/happy-white-married-people-vote-republican-so-why-doesn-t-the-gop-work-on-making-white-people-happy
God's judgment is coming down hard.