I listened to Sonny's pod with Ken Auletta yesterday. I read Ronan Farrow's book when it came out. I am a woman of "certain age" and I think it is hard for people to see/accept that the culture allowed a whole lot of abuse without much push back. I have a sister that worked for GM Corporate back in the early 80's, she was referred to as …
I listened to Sonny's pod with Ken Auletta yesterday. I read Ronan Farrow's book when it came out. I am a woman of "certain age" and I think it is hard for people to see/accept that the culture allowed a whole lot of abuse without much push back. I have a sister that worked for GM Corporate back in the early 80's, she was referred to as the c-word by her boss in front of herself and other male co-workers. While working for a large NY Bank, I was asked by a boss (3 levels above me) how I felt about sleeping with older men. If you objected to the treatment you were a bitch, a nag, couldn't take a joke, or should just ignore them and on and on. It is so disheartening to still be fighting the same nonsense 40 years on.
Hopefully things have improved a bit, however I am not certain with the horseshit being promoted by the Christian Nationalists (otherwise known as Republicans) we are not starting the backslide to the past.
JVL, just want to let you know how much I appreciate your Saturday recommendations. I follow way too many people on Substack now, but I learn a lot, so thanks!
But did you vote for higher taxes on the wealthy so that they couldn't afford the lawsuit settlements on behalf of their behavior, or did you just go with the flow and agree with everyone else in the 1980's that a "rising tide lifts all boats"?
A lot of rich men out there lifting boats via lawsuit settlements now because a whole half of the voting populace in the 80's was more concerned with getting onto the money train than seeing the problems that the money train was bringing to society. Like, how many wives have these abusive rich men had? How many women were willing to toe the "greed is good" line because their awful husbands were giving their children a life they could never dream of otherwise? Melania is *still* doing women a disservice by latching onto Trump. How come women ain't out here dragging her en masse for being a gold-digger who enables Trump's behavior and smiles while she does it?
It seems to this outside observer that there are *plenty* of women willing to defend the Weinsteins of the world so long as it's their kids getting the college funds off of his settlements rather than sending him to jail and calling the insane male wealth problem out for what it is. We reap what we sow folks.
Not dragging because a) we know that it's better to lead by example rather than by dragging, and b) because we got better things to do and lovely Melania is a mere fashion accessory who is best ignored.
Refusing to drag people lets them know that their behavior is acceptable, which is exactly how we got this whole rich powerful men problem to begin with: we told them that being decadently wealthy--and powerful as a result--was not only okay but *desirable* since at least the 1980's, and they've been obliging us generation after generation ever since. We made them our *heroes* decade after decade while ignoring their bullshit. That was the poison that set into the country, and plenty of women had a helping hand in that little cultural endeavor. Now we're here. And don't look now, but there's a whole lot of Melania's peers ignoring her bullshit as we speak. We reap what we sow. We either end it or keep letting it flourish folks.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Molly Jong-Fasts of the world are finally coming out and talking about the culture they collectively enabled for decades, but it's a day late and a dollar short now isn't it? How many millennial women suffered at the hands of a culture their mothers helped create do you think? Our moms failed us just as much as our fathers did. Who do you think helped protect the decadent sons young women are dealing with now via wealth? The mothers. They made sure to marry a solid provider so that their decadent ass sons could have as much financial protection from societal accountability as humanly possible. It buys you through the faux-meritocracy and makes sure the women you abuse don't land you in jail when you inevitably make it to the top because of the connections you made at the good schools your mom made sure you got sent to. This American house of cards has a lot of layers, and a lot of hands were involved in building those layers over the years. They always seem to wait until the end of their lives before they finally come out and acknowledge the cultural toxicity they helped enable. Just like Trump cabinet officials.
The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportionate amount of the nation wealth are numerically only a tiny percentage of the population--0.1% or1% or 9.9%, depending on which percentage is most useful to the argument, right? the kind of equality of outcome you seem to envision as the ideal has been tried and utterly failed. If you think wealth is the problem, where is the cut-off. In 2025, it will revert to $5.5 million (before estate tax kicks in).
I use the top 10% just as Matthew Stewart does (see "The 9.9%").
Douthat's definition of decadence: "...a decadent society manifests forms of economic stagnation, institutional schlerosis, and cultural repetition at a high stage of wealth and technological proficiency and civilizational development."
Voltaire had warned about the perils of decadence: "silken slippers" and "wooden clogs."
It seems that this has been recognized as a historically giant problem that people like you like to defend as being okay while the rest of the country backslides. We reap what we sow brother. Keep thinking this shit is cool until suddenly it's not. I'll just keep highlighting it in the meanwhile.
Yep, Douthat has his own idiosyncratic definition of decadence. I have not defended decadence. I have only objected to everything being called decadence in all-purpose radical rants. Your ill-informed diatribe against California is a good example. For decades, California has been at the forefront of non-decadent policies to ensure future environmental health, among other things while the rest of the country mocks them as fruitcakes.
Ahhh yes, California with its lack of golf courses, lawns, and excessive cubic footage households to keep ACed off of carbon sources. Real water and environment savers over there, especially when you talk air conditioning and lack of nuclear power. But hey, at least Larry David can go golfing and what not.
I am also a woman of a certain age. And oh man, does this strike a chord with me. Clang clang clang. Walking along an urban sidewalk, leered at, called a flat assed bitch, frigid, a lesbian, out loud, by strangers, because I didn't welcome the leers. Learning to cross the street, take a detour, if I spotted a cluster of males ahead. Yes, also the bosses who 'just wondered" what I thought of fucking bosses. The saddest part is that in my youth I bought into it, that's just the way things are.
At college, in those times, Freud. Oh don't get me started on Freud. Revered by male intellectuals, the greatest materialist, sexist the world has ever known, the very author of male sexual entitlement. The way things are is the way things are meant to be, but more, the Great Man says so. I embrace all the women, myself included, who were victims of Weinstein and all the other messed up men who made women suffer. We've come a long way sistas, and we ain't going back.
"At college, in those times, Freud. Oh don't get me started on Freud. Revered by male intellectuals, the greatest materialist, sexist the world has ever known, the very author of male sexual entitlement."
Right. The midcentury "Again" America MAGA promises to Make Great may have been nominally Christian, but Freud was its sex god.
People truly focused on traditional Christian teaching, and not using it as cover to sneak in other old prejudices, have sexual hangups that are remarkably egalitarian compared to midcentury Freudianism. The Christian teaching isn't, "My fornication is good because I'm 'normal', and yours is bad because you're 'deviant'." It's that even normal fornication is wrong. Even dwelling on perfectly normal lusts is wrong (Matthew 5:28). That's such a demanding standard that it may seem inhuman, and it's particularly painful if you're gay in a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage. It's still far more egalitarian that midcentury Freudian standards.
Someone quipped, "If you hated the Christian right, just wait till you meet the post-Christian right." As "barstool conservatism" arises, we meet 'em. Those folks indulging Trumpian behavior as that of a "baby Christian"? What they call "baby Christian" is really full-blown Freudian.
I am also a woman of a certain age and agree with all you said. In the past, women were treated as chattel- second class citizens who were the property of males, like a father, boyfriend, husband or boss. Then, through collective and strategic hard work women seemed to enter a new phase of (among other things) independence, respect and being taken seriously. I say “seemed to” since it is now clear that was an illusion.
Now, women are officially second class citizens- again. We have been stripped of our (prior) constitutional right to bodily autonomy, which is now determined by the state in which we live. And, this is just the beginning. As this country is shaped into a christian nationalist state, women (and men) will be expected to live under the religious beliefs of the minority. It’s currently happening in radical red states across the country in new laws about education (what can and can’t be read and taught), whether parents or the state have the right to make medical (gender affirming) decisions for their children etc.
Women’s rights are human rights. Once one starts to decline, so will the other.
I hate the term christian nationalist because it really isn't christian at all. The book, Kingdom Coming," charting the power consolidation was written by someone who may not understand how authentic Christianity is preached. For example, christian nationalists preach that Christianity should permeate every aspect of life. On its face, it is accurate, however, when preached by an authentic Christians, it means every aspect of one's personal life. It does not mean imposing it on other people personal lives. Acceptance of the Gospel is a matter of free choice, not a legal mandate.
The Great Commission wherein Jesus commands his followers to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," taken together with his "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" actually teaches the separation of church and state, as does Jesus' insistence that his Kingdom is not of this world. Christian nationalists have corrupted the teaching of Jesus to serve their own political ends. They have put themselves in that group that Jesus will reject, "And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Matt 7:23. In fact, Jesus says their punishment will be very dire indeed because they have misled so many people. If they are not sobered by the actual words of Jesus, they betray that for them the bible is nothing but a weapon to be wielded against "the other."
I listened to Sonny's pod with Ken Auletta yesterday. I read Ronan Farrow's book when it came out. I am a woman of "certain age" and I think it is hard for people to see/accept that the culture allowed a whole lot of abuse without much push back. I have a sister that worked for GM Corporate back in the early 80's, she was referred to as the c-word by her boss in front of herself and other male co-workers. While working for a large NY Bank, I was asked by a boss (3 levels above me) how I felt about sleeping with older men. If you objected to the treatment you were a bitch, a nag, couldn't take a joke, or should just ignore them and on and on. It is so disheartening to still be fighting the same nonsense 40 years on.
Hopefully things have improved a bit, however I am not certain with the horseshit being promoted by the Christian Nationalists (otherwise known as Republicans) we are not starting the backslide to the past.
JVL, just want to let you know how much I appreciate your Saturday recommendations. I follow way too many people on Substack now, but I learn a lot, so thanks!
I'm glad!
But did you vote for higher taxes on the wealthy so that they couldn't afford the lawsuit settlements on behalf of their behavior, or did you just go with the flow and agree with everyone else in the 1980's that a "rising tide lifts all boats"?
A lot of rich men out there lifting boats via lawsuit settlements now because a whole half of the voting populace in the 80's was more concerned with getting onto the money train than seeing the problems that the money train was bringing to society. Like, how many wives have these abusive rich men had? How many women were willing to toe the "greed is good" line because their awful husbands were giving their children a life they could never dream of otherwise? Melania is *still* doing women a disservice by latching onto Trump. How come women ain't out here dragging her en masse for being a gold-digger who enables Trump's behavior and smiles while she does it?
It seems to this outside observer that there are *plenty* of women willing to defend the Weinsteins of the world so long as it's their kids getting the college funds off of his settlements rather than sending him to jail and calling the insane male wealth problem out for what it is. We reap what we sow folks.
Not dragging because a) we know that it's better to lead by example rather than by dragging, and b) because we got better things to do and lovely Melania is a mere fashion accessory who is best ignored.
Refusing to drag people lets them know that their behavior is acceptable, which is exactly how we got this whole rich powerful men problem to begin with: we told them that being decadently wealthy--and powerful as a result--was not only okay but *desirable* since at least the 1980's, and they've been obliging us generation after generation ever since. We made them our *heroes* decade after decade while ignoring their bullshit. That was the poison that set into the country, and plenty of women had a helping hand in that little cultural endeavor. Now we're here. And don't look now, but there's a whole lot of Melania's peers ignoring her bullshit as we speak. We reap what we sow. We either end it or keep letting it flourish folks.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Molly Jong-Fasts of the world are finally coming out and talking about the culture they collectively enabled for decades, but it's a day late and a dollar short now isn't it? How many millennial women suffered at the hands of a culture their mothers helped create do you think? Our moms failed us just as much as our fathers did. Who do you think helped protect the decadent sons young women are dealing with now via wealth? The mothers. They made sure to marry a solid provider so that their decadent ass sons could have as much financial protection from societal accountability as humanly possible. It buys you through the faux-meritocracy and makes sure the women you abuse don't land you in jail when you inevitably make it to the top because of the connections you made at the good schools your mom made sure you got sent to. This American house of cards has a lot of layers, and a lot of hands were involved in building those layers over the years. They always seem to wait until the end of their lives before they finally come out and acknowledge the cultural toxicity they helped enable. Just like Trump cabinet officials.
The decadent line is getting old. Douthat's apparent definition of decadence is anything he doesn't approve of. It doesn't seem to actually be correlated with wealth, as in his condemnation of movie remakes as evidence of decadence. All statistics point to the fact that the absurdly wealthy. while having possession of a disproportionate amount of the nation wealth are numerically only a tiny percentage of the population--0.1% or1% or 9.9%, depending on which percentage is most useful to the argument, right? the kind of equality of outcome you seem to envision as the ideal has been tried and utterly failed. If you think wealth is the problem, where is the cut-off. In 2025, it will revert to $5.5 million (before estate tax kicks in).
I use the top 10% just as Matthew Stewart does (see "The 9.9%").
Douthat's definition of decadence: "...a decadent society manifests forms of economic stagnation, institutional schlerosis, and cultural repetition at a high stage of wealth and technological proficiency and civilizational development."
Voltaire had warned about the perils of decadence: "silken slippers" and "wooden clogs."
It seems that this has been recognized as a historically giant problem that people like you like to defend as being okay while the rest of the country backslides. We reap what we sow brother. Keep thinking this shit is cool until suddenly it's not. I'll just keep highlighting it in the meanwhile.
Yep, Douthat has his own idiosyncratic definition of decadence. I have not defended decadence. I have only objected to everything being called decadence in all-purpose radical rants. Your ill-informed diatribe against California is a good example. For decades, California has been at the forefront of non-decadent policies to ensure future environmental health, among other things while the rest of the country mocks them as fruitcakes.
Ahhh yes, California with its lack of golf courses, lawns, and excessive cubic footage households to keep ACed off of carbon sources. Real water and environment savers over there, especially when you talk air conditioning and lack of nuclear power. But hey, at least Larry David can go golfing and what not.
Indulging in the fallacy of the excluded middle does not help your case.
I am also a woman of a certain age. And oh man, does this strike a chord with me. Clang clang clang. Walking along an urban sidewalk, leered at, called a flat assed bitch, frigid, a lesbian, out loud, by strangers, because I didn't welcome the leers. Learning to cross the street, take a detour, if I spotted a cluster of males ahead. Yes, also the bosses who 'just wondered" what I thought of fucking bosses. The saddest part is that in my youth I bought into it, that's just the way things are.
At college, in those times, Freud. Oh don't get me started on Freud. Revered by male intellectuals, the greatest materialist, sexist the world has ever known, the very author of male sexual entitlement. The way things are is the way things are meant to be, but more, the Great Man says so. I embrace all the women, myself included, who were victims of Weinstein and all the other messed up men who made women suffer. We've come a long way sistas, and we ain't going back.
"At college, in those times, Freud. Oh don't get me started on Freud. Revered by male intellectuals, the greatest materialist, sexist the world has ever known, the very author of male sexual entitlement."
Right. The midcentury "Again" America MAGA promises to Make Great may have been nominally Christian, but Freud was its sex god.
People truly focused on traditional Christian teaching, and not using it as cover to sneak in other old prejudices, have sexual hangups that are remarkably egalitarian compared to midcentury Freudianism. The Christian teaching isn't, "My fornication is good because I'm 'normal', and yours is bad because you're 'deviant'." It's that even normal fornication is wrong. Even dwelling on perfectly normal lusts is wrong (Matthew 5:28). That's such a demanding standard that it may seem inhuman, and it's particularly painful if you're gay in a church that doesn't recognize gay marriage. It's still far more egalitarian that midcentury Freudian standards.
Someone quipped, "If you hated the Christian right, just wait till you meet the post-Christian right." As "barstool conservatism" arises, we meet 'em. Those folks indulging Trumpian behavior as that of a "baby Christian"? What they call "baby Christian" is really full-blown Freudian.
I am also a woman of a certain age and agree with all you said. In the past, women were treated as chattel- second class citizens who were the property of males, like a father, boyfriend, husband or boss. Then, through collective and strategic hard work women seemed to enter a new phase of (among other things) independence, respect and being taken seriously. I say “seemed to” since it is now clear that was an illusion.
Now, women are officially second class citizens- again. We have been stripped of our (prior) constitutional right to bodily autonomy, which is now determined by the state in which we live. And, this is just the beginning. As this country is shaped into a christian nationalist state, women (and men) will be expected to live under the religious beliefs of the minority. It’s currently happening in radical red states across the country in new laws about education (what can and can’t be read and taught), whether parents or the state have the right to make medical (gender affirming) decisions for their children etc.
Women’s rights are human rights. Once one starts to decline, so will the other.
I hate the term christian nationalist because it really isn't christian at all. The book, Kingdom Coming," charting the power consolidation was written by someone who may not understand how authentic Christianity is preached. For example, christian nationalists preach that Christianity should permeate every aspect of life. On its face, it is accurate, however, when preached by an authentic Christians, it means every aspect of one's personal life. It does not mean imposing it on other people personal lives. Acceptance of the Gospel is a matter of free choice, not a legal mandate.
The Great Commission wherein Jesus commands his followers to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit," taken together with his "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's" actually teaches the separation of church and state, as does Jesus' insistence that his Kingdom is not of this world. Christian nationalists have corrupted the teaching of Jesus to serve their own political ends. They have put themselves in that group that Jesus will reject, "And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ Matt 7:23. In fact, Jesus says their punishment will be very dire indeed because they have misled so many people. If they are not sobered by the actual words of Jesus, they betray that for them the bible is nothing but a weapon to be wielded against "the other."