> Sometime the truth is so weird and specific that to repeat it at a dinner conversation would make you look like an internet nutter. Take this on the origins of feminism
That quoted section is not actually the truth. Howard W. Smith always insisted he was sincere, and he'd been a longtime backer of the ERA and ally of the National Woman's Party. He opposed equal rights for blacks, but as long as the bill passed he wanted his amendment for the kind of equality he favored.
While Hanania does an admirable job of explaining that the law has been subverted as basically every turn, I disagree with his points.
TLDR: Claiming exclusive knowledge of the Good is an existential advantage, the law was written so that no religion can do so on gov't paper. Woke does this while also claiming it does not count as a religion since God isn't involved. This is obviously a fluke, but since all other parties do not feel the right to use the weapon of the Good at the individual level, Woke dominates.
"Civil rights law has the ambition of religion... without having competed with other systems of societal organization and having proved more functional than them."
This is like claiming that socialism wins if not for the scheming of those filthy capitalists! CRT/Woke/Civil Rights *has* outcompeted literally everyone else, and "proved more functional" is doing a lot of work here. At the individual level, it seems less functional, but as a system itself, it is pretty functional! I have several friends that I've known for several years who went to uni and became radically aligned with the ideology. I know no other belief system that has such a stunning hit rate at 20-25.
"It constructs and shapes racial identities, has ideal types of each gender it tries to mold into being, and claims jurisdiction over a potentially unlimited range of speech, thought, and behavior."
This is not unusual, right?
"All the while, it is of a fundamentally dishonest character. It speaks of equal treatment but requires different treatment of various groups; justifies itself as temporary and limited even as it has become permanent and expansive; and claims to be based in the rule of law while creating subjective and ever-changing standards."
I do not get the sense that anyone "in the system" thinks of it this way. It is not temporary, it is not limited, and it is not claiming to be based in law so much as claiming to re-write the law. This is dishonest towards those who don't want to be involved. The pitch for the inside crowd is quite honest. Who feels more betrayed by their leadership, DEI advocates (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/ibram-x-kendi-antiracism-boston-university.html) or Catholics (https://apnews.com/article/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6)? Which org feels more unity of purpose from the bottom to the top? I know Catholics who will weep when discussing the abuse scandals and bitterly curse the Church. My woke friends want to de-colonize their workplaces and question whiteness. Moreover, the Catholics feel the weight of "separating Church and state." My woke friends will explain that there's no law against doing what is equitable, and in fact their should be laws enforcing equity.
Simply put: Woke, for all its flaws, feels the right to rule at the individual level. This has less to do with individual laws, and does not mean the orgs are better than their competitors. But it grants such a stunning advantage in the common areas, where you win the marginal converts, that it is in effect the only game in town. You could overturn all Hanania's laws of choice, and it would help, but it wouldn't matter as much as the normal non-Woke getting much more involved in the local scene.
Hanania also regularly speaks of the feminisation of society, as women have entered and equaled men in the workforce in most professions (excepting those “Jordan Peterson” professions like bricklayer or offshore oil rig worker.)
Before this equalisation, men’s negotiation tactics & dispute resolution tactics or methods dominated:
-do what we say, or else
-suck it up, this is how it is
-open hazing, workplace pranks or insults & laughing it off
- Exploring emotions, all parties made conscious of them
- Women’s tears, if you’re emotionally upset, that means you’re probably the victim & deserving of sympathy and probably compensation
- Going to HR for any perceived slight, whether intentional or unintentional, to avoid confrontation with a coworker
Male dominate workplaces could go too far and things like workplace hazing turn into bullying leading to suicide.
Some feminine dispute resolution methods were a good antidote.
But it’s probably gone too far today.
Government bureaucracy is an embodiment of these feminised practices gone on unchecked.
We definitely need to push back on many fronts:
- intellectually, challenging academics who are always cited or quoted for leftist opinion.
- with incisive humour, making fun of the emperors with no clothes - this arms ordinary people with the ability to laugh off things like “women’s tears” as manipulative
So with truth and popular opinion at its back, American conservatives can use executive action, the courts and court appointments, and legislation to fight back.
IF they can figure out what they are fighting for. Maybe that will be Hanania's next book.
> Sometime the truth is so weird and specific that to repeat it at a dinner conversation would make you look like an internet nutter. Take this on the origins of feminism
That quoted section is not actually the truth. Howard W. Smith always insisted he was sincere, and he'd been a longtime backer of the ERA and ally of the National Woman's Party. He opposed equal rights for blacks, but as long as the bill passed he wanted his amendment for the kind of equality he favored.
While Hanania does an admirable job of explaining that the law has been subverted as basically every turn, I disagree with his points.
TLDR: Claiming exclusive knowledge of the Good is an existential advantage, the law was written so that no religion can do so on gov't paper. Woke does this while also claiming it does not count as a religion since God isn't involved. This is obviously a fluke, but since all other parties do not feel the right to use the weapon of the Good at the individual level, Woke dominates.
"Civil rights law has the ambition of religion... without having competed with other systems of societal organization and having proved more functional than them."
This is like claiming that socialism wins if not for the scheming of those filthy capitalists! CRT/Woke/Civil Rights *has* outcompeted literally everyone else, and "proved more functional" is doing a lot of work here. At the individual level, it seems less functional, but as a system itself, it is pretty functional! I have several friends that I've known for several years who went to uni and became radically aligned with the ideology. I know no other belief system that has such a stunning hit rate at 20-25.
"It constructs and shapes racial identities, has ideal types of each gender it tries to mold into being, and claims jurisdiction over a potentially unlimited range of speech, thought, and behavior."
This is not unusual, right?
"All the while, it is of a fundamentally dishonest character. It speaks of equal treatment but requires different treatment of various groups; justifies itself as temporary and limited even as it has become permanent and expansive; and claims to be based in the rule of law while creating subjective and ever-changing standards."
I do not get the sense that anyone "in the system" thinks of it this way. It is not temporary, it is not limited, and it is not claiming to be based in law so much as claiming to re-write the law. This is dishonest towards those who don't want to be involved. The pitch for the inside crowd is quite honest. Who feels more betrayed by their leadership, DEI advocates (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/23/us/ibram-x-kendi-antiracism-boston-university.html) or Catholics (https://apnews.com/article/dab8261c68c93f24c0bfc1876518b3f6)? Which org feels more unity of purpose from the bottom to the top? I know Catholics who will weep when discussing the abuse scandals and bitterly curse the Church. My woke friends want to de-colonize their workplaces and question whiteness. Moreover, the Catholics feel the weight of "separating Church and state." My woke friends will explain that there's no law against doing what is equitable, and in fact their should be laws enforcing equity.
Simply put: Woke, for all its flaws, feels the right to rule at the individual level. This has less to do with individual laws, and does not mean the orgs are better than their competitors. But it grants such a stunning advantage in the common areas, where you win the marginal converts, that it is in effect the only game in town. You could overturn all Hanania's laws of choice, and it would help, but it wouldn't matter as much as the normal non-Woke getting much more involved in the local scene.
Hanania also regularly speaks of the feminisation of society, as women have entered and equaled men in the workforce in most professions (excepting those “Jordan Peterson” professions like bricklayer or offshore oil rig worker.)
Before this equalisation, men’s negotiation tactics & dispute resolution tactics or methods dominated:
-do what we say, or else
-suck it up, this is how it is
-open hazing, workplace pranks or insults & laughing it off
-at the extreme bullying
-even fisticuffs
Today women’s dispute resolution & negotiation tactics dominate society:
- Exploring emotions, all parties made conscious of them
- Women’s tears, if you’re emotionally upset, that means you’re probably the victim & deserving of sympathy and probably compensation
- Going to HR for any perceived slight, whether intentional or unintentional, to avoid confrontation with a coworker
Male dominate workplaces could go too far and things like workplace hazing turn into bullying leading to suicide.
Some feminine dispute resolution methods were a good antidote.
But it’s probably gone too far today.
Government bureaucracy is an embodiment of these feminised practices gone on unchecked.
We definitely need to push back on many fronts:
- intellectually, challenging academics who are always cited or quoted for leftist opinion.
- with incisive humour, making fun of the emperors with no clothes - this arms ordinary people with the ability to laugh off things like “women’s tears” as manipulative
- with men being unapologetic for being masculine
So with truth and popular opinion at its back, American conservatives can use executive action, the courts and court appointments, and legislation to fight back.
IF they can figure out what they are fighting for. Maybe that will be Hanania's next book.