I’m not sure why the title of that poll would say that younger and older men are the most supportive of porn restrictions when it shows that in every age bracket, women are more likely to support it, so the poll title is only true when considering men only.
It’s also interesting that support for restricting porn is very high, but only a few states have actually taken steps towards ID verification. I assume it’s like sports betting where a very powerful lobby manages to get its way despite lack of popular support.
Regarding "Where Have All the Men Gone", I saw something similar (maybe the same?) on Rod Dreher's blog and as I said there, this does not match my perceptions at all. Maybe the lady frequents places that mostly appeal to women? All I know is that when I am out socially I see a mix of men and women. Old fashioned couple dates not predominantly, no, though they aren't rare either. But small groups of people out to do whatever-- eat, drink, dance, you name it. And in fact back when I was of fairly tender years that was normal for us too: rather than couple dates we'd go out in small groups, guys and girls both, with the benefit of looking out for each other if things got too Bacchic (I'm talking in the 80s and 90s-- Gen X knew how to party!) Once in a while there's an all female bachelorette party, or an all-male sports team showing up, but mostly there's a lot of fraternizing between the sexes. Oh, I live in St Pete in case this might be a local thing, though I seem to remember the same thing back when I lived in Baltimore too.
>Maybe the lady frequents places that mostly appeal to women?
Yes, that's my reaction -- plus she's in her 50s and naturally drawing less male interest.
The thing I notice around here, when I'm on a date with my wife, is that groups of young women will go out to dinner at upscale "date night" places without men. Which sound like the kinds of places she's describing. Men, generally speaking, will not do that. If we're going out to dinner without women, it's going to be someplace much cheaper. Look for a barbecue joint or sports bar that serves beer by the pitcher.
Though I also think women like to eat out more, period. And male loneliness is a reality. I have little doubt that shut-ins skew male. On the margin, more men aren't seen out because they're ordering DoorDash by themselves, or heating up ramen. But men DO go out.
What you’re describing is definitely true in New York City: there are many wine bars in the glamorous parts of the city where groups of women will drink aperol spritzes and post photos of their drinks on Instagram, with no man in sight. Many of these women work in PR, fashion, advertising, marketing, etc. and spend their disposable income on drinks and clothes that will get a lot of likes on Instagram.
"One question to ask yourself if you are a pessimist on America: where other place of any size could you go that would be better? Most places have even worse problems than we do."
Yes. America is going to probably come out on top by the end of the 21st century not because our leadership is competent or our structure is sound, but because everyone else has even more incompetent leadership, worse structural issues, or both.
Fertility? Europe, Japan, and China are crashing.
Economy? We have the farmland and the oil to support ourselves, something most countries donxt have.
Immigration? We have the culture to manage it, if the identitarians will get out of the way, which most countries don't have.
I was more or less with you until your last point. From what I can see immigrants have tremendous identitarian tendencies themselves, and being an identitarian Caucasian is a surefire way to complete social and professional ostracism. There are no “white” equivalents of the myriad professional organizations centered on ethnicity in the United States and its borderline legal to discriminate against white males in employment and education (near as I can tell the Asian parents who fought the Ivies recently only wanted meritocracy for Asians, no real concerns for anyone else). I mean it just isn’t 1965 out there is what I’m saying.
Re: . There are no “white” equivalents of the myriad professional organizations centered on ethnicity in the United States
White people are divided into multiple ethnicities, which for a long time clumped together in their own neighborhoods. You can still find remnants of that in the Little Italies, Greek Towns etc in older cities.
I mean my statement still basically stands. In Manhattan Chinatown is still Chinatown, Little Italy is basically like four restaurants. Settler descended Americans, the dominant ethnic group since the founding has an absolute interdict on organizing. Even taking my statement on face value virtually every large organization has groups for Africans, Asians, women, etc. every protected group. Only one ethnic group is fundamentally forbidden from having group interests. Thing is I don’t even think the point is directly about ethnicity, Europeans are the cultural group most closely associated to Christianity, that’s why the minute an “ethnic” becomes a Christian conservative they functionally become “white” as far as the left is concerned.
Again, "white" is not an ethnic group. Look at a map of Europe: those countries are your white ethnic groups, each with their own languages and cultures (and until very recently some of them hated each other's guts). In the US, as I noted, immigrants from those countries generally lived in their own enclaves in the cities. Even in rural areas it was often true that some small towns were noted as being mostly German, etc.
In the American context white means largely British and Germanic Protestant descended settler populations. It’s been used that way for 100 years, that’s why there were debates about whether the Irish or Italians were “white”, being neither settlers (with some exceptions) or Protestant. Let’s not act like America didn’t have a more or less unified culture from its founding: Protestant Christianity, the English language, common law, etc. “White” became the dominant term because it was more descriptive than English seeing as it included not only other British ethnicities, but Dutchmen, Germans, Swedes, Huguenots who had largely joined in to the dominant culture. In the American context “white” is a genuine distinct ethnic group.
Re: Let’s not act like America didn’t have a more or less unified culture from its founding
But with very distinct subcultures, as described in "Albion's Seed". And that subculture boundary became an active fault line in the Late Unpleasantness of 1861-65.
And no 'white" is not an ethnic group. The sheer number of "white" people makes the group far too large to have any coherence. White people are all over the map, economically, culturally, politically, religiously. There are no unifying common interests beyond their common interests with all Americans. If any anything, white people tend yo break down by class.
I should have made myself clearer--when I referred to "identitarians," I meant <i>all<i/> identitarians, whether homegrown or foreign-born.
And while oftentimes immigrants can be identitarian, history shows that identitarianism is generally not solved by responding to it with more identitarianism, but by convincing people that they don't need to be identitarians to survive/succeed.
Sorry, hard to capture tone over text. I do fear that we are not really trying to discourage identitarianism in new arrivals kind of the opposite. And truth be told it all has levels, no one is saying the Irish shouldn’t have St Patrick’s day or that Chinatowns shouldn’t exist, but we really need to have the same civic loyalty and respect for the law.
I’m not sure why the title of that poll would say that younger and older men are the most supportive of porn restrictions when it shows that in every age bracket, women are more likely to support it, so the poll title is only true when considering men only.
It’s also interesting that support for restricting porn is very high, but only a few states have actually taken steps towards ID verification. I assume it’s like sports betting where a very powerful lobby manages to get its way despite lack of popular support.
Seeing as women are doing so well, we could probably get away with
no longer privileging them in law, employment, education, etc. Let’s try legal gender blindness and real freedom of association and see what happens.
Regarding "Where Have All the Men Gone", I saw something similar (maybe the same?) on Rod Dreher's blog and as I said there, this does not match my perceptions at all. Maybe the lady frequents places that mostly appeal to women? All I know is that when I am out socially I see a mix of men and women. Old fashioned couple dates not predominantly, no, though they aren't rare either. But small groups of people out to do whatever-- eat, drink, dance, you name it. And in fact back when I was of fairly tender years that was normal for us too: rather than couple dates we'd go out in small groups, guys and girls both, with the benefit of looking out for each other if things got too Bacchic (I'm talking in the 80s and 90s-- Gen X knew how to party!) Once in a while there's an all female bachelorette party, or an all-male sports team showing up, but mostly there's a lot of fraternizing between the sexes. Oh, I live in St Pete in case this might be a local thing, though I seem to remember the same thing back when I lived in Baltimore too.
>Maybe the lady frequents places that mostly appeal to women?
Yes, that's my reaction -- plus she's in her 50s and naturally drawing less male interest.
The thing I notice around here, when I'm on a date with my wife, is that groups of young women will go out to dinner at upscale "date night" places without men. Which sound like the kinds of places she's describing. Men, generally speaking, will not do that. If we're going out to dinner without women, it's going to be someplace much cheaper. Look for a barbecue joint or sports bar that serves beer by the pitcher.
Though I also think women like to eat out more, period. And male loneliness is a reality. I have little doubt that shut-ins skew male. On the margin, more men aren't seen out because they're ordering DoorDash by themselves, or heating up ramen. But men DO go out.
What you’re describing is definitely true in New York City: there are many wine bars in the glamorous parts of the city where groups of women will drink aperol spritzes and post photos of their drinks on Instagram, with no man in sight. Many of these women work in PR, fashion, advertising, marketing, etc. and spend their disposable income on drinks and clothes that will get a lot of likes on Instagram.
"One question to ask yourself if you are a pessimist on America: where other place of any size could you go that would be better? Most places have even worse problems than we do."
Yes. America is going to probably come out on top by the end of the 21st century not because our leadership is competent or our structure is sound, but because everyone else has even more incompetent leadership, worse structural issues, or both.
Fertility? Europe, Japan, and China are crashing.
Economy? We have the farmland and the oil to support ourselves, something most countries donxt have.
Immigration? We have the culture to manage it, if the identitarians will get out of the way, which most countries don't have.
I was more or less with you until your last point. From what I can see immigrants have tremendous identitarian tendencies themselves, and being an identitarian Caucasian is a surefire way to complete social and professional ostracism. There are no “white” equivalents of the myriad professional organizations centered on ethnicity in the United States and its borderline legal to discriminate against white males in employment and education (near as I can tell the Asian parents who fought the Ivies recently only wanted meritocracy for Asians, no real concerns for anyone else). I mean it just isn’t 1965 out there is what I’m saying.
Re: . There are no “white” equivalents of the myriad professional organizations centered on ethnicity in the United States
White people are divided into multiple ethnicities, which for a long time clumped together in their own neighborhoods. You can still find remnants of that in the Little Italies, Greek Towns etc in older cities.
I mean my statement still basically stands. In Manhattan Chinatown is still Chinatown, Little Italy is basically like four restaurants. Settler descended Americans, the dominant ethnic group since the founding has an absolute interdict on organizing. Even taking my statement on face value virtually every large organization has groups for Africans, Asians, women, etc. every protected group. Only one ethnic group is fundamentally forbidden from having group interests. Thing is I don’t even think the point is directly about ethnicity, Europeans are the cultural group most closely associated to Christianity, that’s why the minute an “ethnic” becomes a Christian conservative they functionally become “white” as far as the left is concerned.
Again, "white" is not an ethnic group. Look at a map of Europe: those countries are your white ethnic groups, each with their own languages and cultures (and until very recently some of them hated each other's guts). In the US, as I noted, immigrants from those countries generally lived in their own enclaves in the cities. Even in rural areas it was often true that some small towns were noted as being mostly German, etc.
In the American context white means largely British and Germanic Protestant descended settler populations. It’s been used that way for 100 years, that’s why there were debates about whether the Irish or Italians were “white”, being neither settlers (with some exceptions) or Protestant. Let’s not act like America didn’t have a more or less unified culture from its founding: Protestant Christianity, the English language, common law, etc. “White” became the dominant term because it was more descriptive than English seeing as it included not only other British ethnicities, but Dutchmen, Germans, Swedes, Huguenots who had largely joined in to the dominant culture. In the American context “white” is a genuine distinct ethnic group.
Re: Let’s not act like America didn’t have a more or less unified culture from its founding
But with very distinct subcultures, as described in "Albion's Seed". And that subculture boundary became an active fault line in the Late Unpleasantness of 1861-65.
And no 'white" is not an ethnic group. The sheer number of "white" people makes the group far too large to have any coherence. White people are all over the map, economically, culturally, politically, religiously. There are no unifying common interests beyond their common interests with all Americans. If any anything, white people tend yo break down by class.
I should have made myself clearer--when I referred to "identitarians," I meant <i>all<i/> identitarians, whether homegrown or foreign-born.
And while oftentimes immigrants can be identitarian, history shows that identitarianism is generally not solved by responding to it with more identitarianism, but by convincing people that they don't need to be identitarians to survive/succeed.
Sorry, hard to capture tone over text. I do fear that we are not really trying to discourage identitarianism in new arrivals kind of the opposite. And truth be told it all has levels, no one is saying the Irish shouldn’t have St Patrick’s day or that Chinatowns shouldn’t exist, but we really need to have the same civic loyalty and respect for the law.
On that, we are in agreement.