The successor to Julia and Linda. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/b-1-100x100.jpg)
In a recent appearance before the National Association of Black Journalists, Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump caused a furore by questioning the racial “identity” of Democrat Kamala Harris. “Is she Indian or is she black?” Trump wondered. “I respect either one, but she obviously doesn’t, because she was Indian all the way, and then all of a sudden she made a turn, and she became a black person.”
Lost in the days of press attacks that followed was the fact that both Trump and his critics were stuck in an outdated American electoral calculus of identity politics grounded in race. In fact, the key to a Harris win in November won’t be the support of black Americans or Indian Americans or even “brown Americans” — though she has identified at various points in her political life as all three. Rather, Harris is a flesh-and-blood avatar of a much more numerous, powerful, and radically dissatisfied demographic: never-married and childless American women between the ages of 20 and 45.
Aside from mass immigration, the most striking demographic development of the past decade is the large cohort of American women who have embraced the helping hand of the state in place of the increasingly suspect protections of fathers, brothers, boyfriends and husbands. In doing so, they have become the Democratic Party’s most enthusiastic and decisive constituency. According to a recent Pew survey, these Brides Of The State (BOTS) support Democrats over Republicans by a whopping 72-24%, providing the Party with its entire advantage in both national and most state elections. Married American women, by contrast, support Republicans by 50-45, which more or less matches the pro-Republican margin in every other age and gender demographic. Without the overwhelming support of BOTS for the Democrats, in other words, America would be a solid-majority Republican country in which Trump would win a likely electoral landslide.
The Democratic Party’s political engineers first sensed the centrality of BOTS to the Party’s power base during Barack Obama’s re-election campaign in 2012. The Obama campaign then duly rolled out a storybook ad called “the Life of Julia”, which explained how Obama’s policies, from Head Start to Obamacare to contraception coverage to Medicare reform, would care for Julia from graduation through motherhood and finally to the grave without her needing to form a human relationship with anyone outside the government.
![](https://unherd.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/ewgwegeg.jpg)
Julia’s life was defined by her interactions with the state, with each step of her life tied to a particular government programme. She is able to pursue her chosen career as a web designer because, at age 27, “her health insurance is required to cover birth control and preventive care, letting Julia focus on her work rather than worry about her health”. At age 31, Julia changes her mind about birth control and “decides to have a child” — a decision that apparently involves no partner aside from the state. The resulting progeny, Zachary, attends a Race to the Top Federally-funded public school — which allows Julia to start her own business. At age 67, Julia retires with the financial support of Social Security and Medicare, and spends her partner-less golden years volunteering in a community garden.
While the Julia campaign was a subject of some mockery in 2012, the Obama campaign was in fact ahead of the curve. When Joe Biden was elected in 2020, he made the fictional “Linda” the avatar of his “Build Back Better” campaign. More blue-collar than Julia, in keeping with Biden’s lunch-pail Democrat persona, Linda earned $40,000 annually working at a manufacturing facility in Peoria, Illinois — an income that was a little more than $10,000 short of the city’s median salary. However, Linda had no need for a second income in her home, thanks to the government — which gave her $3,600 annually in the form of a Build Back Better tax credit. Her son, Leo, who like Zachary appears to have been fathered by an anonymous bureaucratic sperm donor, began universal pre-K by age three and enjoyed a free educational ride subsidised by the state — all of which enabled Linda to keep working and Zachary to obtain a “good-paying, union job as a wind turbine technician”. The saga wistfully concludes by describing how, later in life, Linda needs home and hearing care. But fortunately, help is at hand: “Thanks to President Biden’s plan,” it adds, “Linda can access affordable health care through Medicare, and Leo is able to afford at-home elder care for his mom.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Lefts religion is rage.
Yes….plus self-pity. So perhaps Tears of Rage (to borrow a song title)?
You will have to add a dollop of resentment to get a truly tasty Leftie.
Best piece on Unherd in some time.
Exactly what I was going to say. This article hits the spot. I often consider unsubscribing because of the clickbait headlines then an article like this comes along which is as good if not better than you can find anywhere else.
Agreed, a perceptive piece of analysis with much more meat on it than most articles.
I agree….it is a well written analysis, weaving together several of our current ‘Progressive’ discontents….. including its prizing of victimhood, ‘therapy culture’ androgyny and misandry. But on a more positve note: “recently (in a certain kind of feminist journalism) I keep coming across warm-hearted acknowledgements that Masculinity and Femininity are complementary polarities in any sane conception of The Good Life. An acknowledgement that the relationship between a man and a woman has the potential to be the finest fruit that life has to offer. And that when things go wrong, they are often better understood as resulting from a kind of Faustian tango between the sexes than as a simple case of one sex always doing wrong by the other. All just timeless truths and plain common sense you might say – and Yes perhaps these timeless truths have ever obtained in the kitchens and bedrooms of our Western society. But they are ones that have been conspicuous by their absence in the groves of academe and in the fourth estate in recent decades….” https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/shall-we-dance
Very much agree
I find it ironic that feminism has been better for men than women.
Probably not how it was intended.
If you look at the university professor feminists who have driven the movement it is no surprise at all. They are not typical women – they are often gay – universally hate men – hate traditional institutions – and usually also subscribe to the various other pathological ideologies found in the humanities. What is interesting is how many women believe their schtick and have been indoctrinated with their anti-life ideologies.
Useless women who will destroy society.
.
PS. “Leo is able to afford at-home elder care for his mom” – Who’s sure Leo will do it?
.
PPS. Igor Shafarevich in his book The Socialist Phenomenon identifies three persistent abolition themes in socialism: the abolition of private property, the abolition of the family, and the abolition of religion (mainly but not exclusively Christianity).He concluded that the success of socialism in destroying these three foundations of human society would inevitably lead to the extinction of humanity as a biological species.
In fact it’s socialism that will destroy society and this is how it’s done.
I’m afraid you didn’t pay attention. His book is named “The Socialist Phenomenon“, it’s about Socialism.
I was referring to the line “Useless women who will destroy society.” So I probably should have made it a bit clearer.
Thank you! Mea culpa
I don’t think anybody is trying to abolish “the family” and “religion”, but a lot of people are realising that the latter has nothing to offer in the 21st century, and that there are ways to live your life other than embracing the former.
Regarding the latter, it’s such a waste to live one’s life in a state of self-inflicted psychological trickery* (which is what religion is) whilst your honesty with regard the former is refreshing.
*Cue the downvotes from those who can’t bear to read that, or fail to appreciate how beautiful life is without it.
Life is what you make it. I know people who derive lots of support from religion and their families (both nuclear and extended), but my point is that there are other ways to live a life.
I appreciate that, though it’s precisely the “support” that makes religion so invidious. I’m sure their religion provides “support” for those who’d look to kill in the name of their particular brand. It really is all just psychological bolstering, which humanity would be better off without now
We can do good work and help others entirely independently of it.
Where is your evidence for that? You make sweeping statements without evidence. Please back up your assumptions.
I agree completely. Religion is a crutch.
Are you referring to Christianity or Islam, or both?
All forms of religious belief.
Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot – case against you proved. Interestingly, Christianity in the UK is growing fast, especially now among teens, 20s and 30 year olds.
Nonsense. Those ideologies are just as iniquitous.
Case dismissed, and a very poor response if i might say so.
No it’s not. Britain (or at least England and Wales) is now no longer a majority Christian nation.
How is it a “Waste”? If you make a statement like that please back it up. Particularly in light of the fact that people of faith are shown to be happier, more prosperous and generally more fulfilled.
Are they really? I mean really?
I’m sure children with a comfort blanket feel a bit happier, and i wouldn’t deprive them of one; but seriously, don’t you think it’s time we grew up as a species?
Adults hanging on to their comfort blanket really isn’t anything to shout about.
I do find interesting the parallels between the state’s security blanket, mentioned in this article, and religion’s security blanket. Both offer support, no doubt with an eye on gathering another follower to boost the cause.
So please tell us how well that’s working for us? I’m curious to know how we’re better off?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m having a fabulous life. As we say in Australia, I wouldn’t be dead for quids.
You are probably correct about the prime movers not setting out to abolish the family and religion (apart from BLM that is). However, by creating perverse incentives in the name of compassion (“the state will provide you with an income and accommodation if you are a single mother”), undesirable outcomes ensue, as the article points out. If people want to find a basis other than faith and family for their lives, best to check that the chosen path genuinely does lead to human flourishing.
So, your preference would be “the State will let you be homeless and starve if you are a single mother”?
Haha, that is an unusual level of dooming even for UnHerd commenters.
Please reread Universe 25. I’m pretty sure these women’s behavior is driven by population-level biology. It never bodes well for the species.
thanks for the suggestion…
So a bunch of unhappy women with daddy issues turn the state into their father? And we’re all just supposed to go along with it?
They can vote for whomever they want, as can the racist morons who make up some of Trump’s constituency.
Truly amazing, and a bit disturbing, that a comment presses your TDS so easily.
How narrow minded and bigoted, not to mention boring, everyone is tired of your Trump Derangement. Tell us, who are all these “Racist” people again? How are they racist? If you can’t back up your bigotry then please stop insulting millions of decent people.
As to the millions, I said that some of them were racist morons. That’s observable from media interviews with some of them, and deducible from Trump’s rhetoric, e.g. about rapists, murderers and vermin.
As I don’t post here very often, and hadn’t for about a week and a half because I’d been ill, and not all my comments are about Trump anyway, I doubt that “everyone” is “tired” of my “Trump Derangement” (which incidentally is another cliche favoured by the intellectually lazy). But even if they were, while I pay my subscription and observe the rules I’ll post whatever I like, just as you can.
Well said.
Racist morons abound if you allow for a consistent application of the definition. You might be able to argue the left/progressive/democratic camp is built on a racist foundation.
Overstatement at best. For example Ibram X. Kendi is a racist moron and he does not support Trump.
Some more data would be good because my hunch is that most of the unmarried liberal women the author refers to would come from the middle-classes and up?? And I’ve read that it is those classes that have the least family breakdown. If that’s the case the fatherless theory doesn’t add up.
Can you give us the source for where you read that please, I’d be interested in knowing that information about the middle classes? A link would be good. Thanks.
I suspect it was from reading (or more likely watching) Rob Henderson, for example: “Most personal to me is the luxury belief that family is unimportant or that children are equally likely to thrive in all family structures. In 1960, the percentage of American children living with both biological parents was identical for affluent and working-class families — 95 per cent. By 2005, 85 per cent of affluent families were still intact, but for working-class families the figure had plummeted to 30 per cent. The Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam said at a 2017 Senate hearing: “Rich kids and poor kids now grow up in separate Americas … Growing up with two parents is now unusual in the working class, while two-parent families are normal and becoming more common among the upper middle class.”
https://archive.is/blDyB#selection-3111.0-3111.717
I don’t have the exact figures overall on this. But I do know that when my two girls started at a tony private school on NYC, someone commented to me that by 8th grade half the parents would be divorced. And it turned out to be true; a few of the ‘divorced’ didn’t actually divorce but they weren’t exactly happy either.
The mentioned Gimbone study found that depression risk was “highest overall for female liberal adolescents with low parental education.” This might align with the fatherless theory.
Probably the other way round – not fatherless but rather fathers who were too nice, paid for everything, treated her like a princess…..
And she ends up being an ungrateful princess who looks down upon that father, and all decent men like him….
I thought the metaphor was nuns – brides of God.
Or is it Brides of the Islamic State? (Cf Wikipedia article on the subject.)
Brides of Christ, I think.
My read of the article is that it makes a coherent, reasonable argument, with some outside sources to buttress the argument that American culture sets a toxic level of individuality as the main goal for adulthood. It is a provocative argument, and that is the sort of essay I enjoy finding at UnHerd.
I’m not sure dependence on the State can be characterised as “a toxic level of individuality”
But that’s exactly the issue. The “invisible hand” of the state, supporting and providing the individuals needs, allows people to live isolated, atomized lives, pretending like they have all this independence and individual agency. Modern women have no problem relying on corporations and the state, but just don’t want to rely on a man.
It is a good piece, but how is support for Gazans any more a part of an “empathy-based social justice campaign” than support for Israel?
I can’t speak for women (given that I am a man), but as far as I can see, some people just aren’t suited to marriage and children (me included). I have been married a couple of times, but I came to the realisation that it isn’t my thing. Life is so much better now.
Sorry in advance. Are you sure this isn’t just an attempt to shirk responsibility?
No, it is an attempt to have a good time pretty much all the time. So far, it has worked perfectly (and I am about to turn 62, so I am having an excellent run).
That you want to have a fun life means not having children etc sounds so shallow.
Still more space for my children so maybe a good thing.
Sure, have as many kids as you like. I’m cool with it. Somebody’s got to, after all. I always had a (semi serious) deal with my oldest friend, to the effect that he could have my share of kids. That’s how it worked out too. He had four. I had none.
Good for you that you’re finding happiness, long may it continue. But your way of life is not a prescription for everyone or we’re doomed.
I never said it was for everyone. I don’t have the right to judge anybody’s life other than my own.
The philosophy of the age. Have a good time pretty much all the time.
I share it with Viv Savage of Spinal Tap.
People are entitled to make their own choices except they have a duty towards their children.
For whatever reason, children are not being cared for by both their parents in too many cases.
You can’t speak for men either. You can only speak for yourself (and those who have chosen you as their representative).
From reading this article, and the other one today about women freezing their eggs, I suspect I am not the only man to hold the views I do.
Marriage isn’t a hobby. It’s a serious commitment to the person you love and a covenant between yourselves and God.
I hope the women you married found men who took the institution more seriously than you, and that life is better for them, too.
It is not my place to say whether their lives were “better”. Only they can speak to that. However, I should point out that there wasn’t any “God” aspect to either of my marriages. Other than the legal formalities, the only “ritual” observed was visiting the grave of Jim Morrison in the following days.
I should point out that I don’t ascribe any religious function to the late Mr Morrison. It’s just that visiting his grave is a cool thing to do if you have a free afternoon in Paris.
So I guess they are a bunch of cat ladies.
JDVance definitely hit a nerve. The chorus of ‘meows’ in response was deafening.
Yeah! If the guy had an ounce of charisma, he could be President!
The biggest underlying factors for depression (significant psychiatric issues aside) are ingratitude and having a victim mentality. Feminism has done a grave disservice to generations of women.
Yes. But victimhood also is – along with greviance and entitlement – the bitter fruit of the crushing human rights and progressive credo/ideology adopted by the Blairite State in the 90s. This is wreaking havoc on women men all; feminism is not the problem.
I agree that the victim attitude is damaging men as well as women. And I also am coming to see that it is a feminine perspective.
The ultimate cause, however, appears to be the rise of industrial capitalism in the 19th century, which required a large number of urban factory workers. I think that did enormous damage to traditional extended family culture. People were made appendages to the machinery, as shown (with comedy) in Charlie Chaplin’s “Modern Times”.
And I believe that modern feminism, which is also a 19th century phenomenon, arose as a reaction to the dehumanizing social damage caused by the industrialization of society.
True. But remember too that getting women out of home and into the workforce has been a key tenet of Communism and Socialism for well over a century. The Bolsheviks were into free love, easy divorce and equality in the workplace. Our post 80s society seemed to be creating a ‘Have It All World’ for women. But no one is talking about the twin Mega Crises that have impacted us especially post 2008. First, our society has allowed property to be unaffordable to all bar the wealthy – and almost every family needs two incomes to survive. And then with young children, comes Crisis Two. We do not have adequate child care!! But the feminsation of the public sector and especially NHS (80/90%) still accelerates – even when their own trade unions declare that health work is so arduous it is systemically ‘anti women’. Guess what is at the root of the WFH phenomenon in our post Lock crashed economy and public sector?? Guess why a 24/7 Weekend Hospital service will never happen? This is a car crash for working women and an identity/rights obsessed Labour will pretend the problem simply does not exist and shove Rosy to the Rivets. Feminism in 2024 has to confront these awful new realities if it is to be relevant.
So I think you are saying we would all be happier without cars, phones, TVs, computers, kitchen appliances, and electricity generally?
That’s a big leap.
The unionized workforce of the 50s, 60s and seventies would have provided all of that and comfortable, secure single earner life-styles.
It was Thatcher and Reagan who put an end to that.
Women’s portion of earnings almost exactly mirrors the federal tax burden. Problably more than a coincidence.
So, to sum up, you blame Tony Blair for the current state of the USA?
I agree that younger women have been poorly served by messaging, but Feminism isn’t all to blame. Not being dependent on men for security and purpose is good. Failing to value the importance of decent men and fathers in general, relationships, partnerships, children etc is not.
I think a lot of feminism was trying to make women more like men. Promiscuity, childlessness, deferred marriage, focus on careers – the negative aspects of this are all harder on women than men.
“Not being dependent on men for security and purpose is good.”
Can’t say that I agree with that. Wives should be dependent on husbands, just as husbands should be dependent on wives. Mutual interdependence – which sometimes in poetic circles travels under the name ‘love’ – is the keystone to the long, fruitful, mutually-edifying marriage that most people consider a central feature of a life well lived.
Wow sexist much? I guess men not hanging around for their partner and children have nothing to do with this increasing demographic?
Of course those men who desert their children should be held responsible. What’s unclear is why they are doing this. Some really don’t care and regard sex as fun without responsibility. Are there others? Men surprised by a pregnancy but keen to be part of their child’s life but denied the opportunity?
Sexist? How, where?
How do you get a down vote for asking a question?
There you go, again, Amazing.
Why are you worried about how your comments are perceived/voted on?
Why do you think I’m worried?
I find it interesting that someone down votes when nothing’s been said. What’s the down vote for?
Well, a lot of them are because you took issue with the first one.
No, I asked a question. Sometimes a question is just a question. I was interested to see where the sexism was in the article because I couldn’t see it.
Women having sex and children outside of marriage is likely the real culprit. Why buy the cow if you get the milk for free?
Do you really think that men leaving their families has become more prevalent over the years?
Or has it become more prevalent for women to have children without men? Among other developments.
Mary Harrington’s research matches up nicely with this fascinating piece. The idea of the US (and US feminism) leading the transhuman transformation of Western life (and for 60 years now) should be given more pertinence in political discourse today.
A sobering read. It’s only a matter of time before strong men put a stop to this madness.
Humans live in patriarchies. That is, men are always the ones who are the ultimate enforcers and guarantors of rights. We are currently living in an illusory state where women’s position is being underwritten by acquiescent men.
When enough men get sick of this arrangement, as they will when society continues to unravel, feminism will come to an end. And it will be in the best interests of everyone: men, women, and children.
And that will happen how exactly? By physical violence on the part of the men?
Violence is a part of life in a baboon troop. It is as necessary as grooming.
You are very naive if you think that a human troop is much different from a baboon troop, no less naive than these nice lonely ladies who poison our life.
Speak for yourself. They are not poisoning my life.
Looks to me like radical Muslims are already sick of it. It probably wont be an uprising of modern feminized Ritalin-soaked men.
How very Christian of you.
Are you aware of St. Paul’s teachings on marriage? They’re not California progressivism, I can tell you that for free.
I am not familiar with those, but St. Martin M’s teachings on marriage are to the effect of “Be very careful. Marriage is not for everybody”.
You’re right. The other path is monasticism. Did you opt for that one?
I gave marriage a couple of goes, found it wasn’t for me, and I now live alone. Not sure about monasticism though. That term implies a level of religiosity that is not present in my life.
Thomas Sowell mentions the issue of broken families especially among African Americans. According to him this began to increase massively with the new government programmes in the wake of the civil rights movement in the 70s, which made it possible for women to bring up a child by herself, without the need for a father with an income. There used to be a system where men supported their wife and kids, being involved in the family itself. Now men have been cut off from family life and are forced to support mothers and children indirectly through taxes without getting anything in return. They got cucked by the government. All of that of course kills the need for personal responsibility in a society as well.
As you say this is an issue Thomas Sowell picked up on in respect of the black population a long time ago and that it was bleeding into the white population but governments of all political stripe have done little to address.
And Daniel Patrick Moynihan before him but that has been memory holed for a long time
Did Thomas Sowell (or anyone else) ever ask WHY African American fathers exited the family scene in the 70s ?
I am genuinely curious.
Elaine, I am no expert, but I believe that the welfare state provided (still provides?) more money to unwed or single mothers than the women might receive if they were part of an intact two-parent family. It’s my understanding that there was a financial incentive to being a single mom. That can’t be the one-size-fits-all answer to your question, but it was likely a part of it.
Sowell–and Moynihan–argued that they were replaced by the government.
Yes, that was exactly it. Under these new welfare programs, single women were paid money for each child they had, thus incentivizing them to have more children, also making them unable to work. So the single mother had welfare benefits for herself and each child. This led to a whole generation of people raised entirely on welfare, which, in turn, led to more generations of people subsisting on welfare, which continues today. In political terms, it should be obvious that people relying on welfare will vote for the party that provides it.
The key remains that mothers lose some, or all, of their welfare benefits when a father lives in the home. Consequently, many men are technically homeless, as they move from household to household, siring more fatherless children.
Because Black women received rather less money from being married than White or Hispanic women – ie, Black men earned less than White and Hispanic men – the inducement to head a fatherless household was greater.
The fact that what you wrote is deeply troubling at so many levels doesn’t make it less true.
All I can say is thanks for nothing feminists of the last few decades.
This is one of the most thought provoking pieces I’ve read in a long while. The erasure of women, a theme made more pronounced by the trans movement, is to my mind a feature of this article as well. The idea that we now have a proliferation of BOTS is pitiful and unnerving. This iteration started long ago with LBJs Great Society which made ousting husbands and fathers from their own families an economic incentive for women. I know it’s hard to believe, especially on an intellectual platform such as this, but it is still is possible for a man and a woman to experience a Great Love for one another along with the challenges and conflict inherent in all human relationships, and to experience the beauty of biologically bringing children into the world. Along with the Dialectical Materialists, the LGBTQ etc etc agenda has for nearly 50 years been a powerful misogynistic force that despises this spiritual dimension of human love.
If someone was trying to destroy the family then destroying women would be a good beginning. As for children; people without children have no investment in education, except as a tool for Capitalism. I’m not against Capitalism but we’re not work units. Their are many things that childless people have no interest in or care for. Public health; private insurance is their choice, the rest get what’s left. The cost of living for childless people; not a problem. These games have consequences.
Im sorry but this piece comes across as glib and mean even with a touch of cruelty. As someone who has moved politically in the last few years ( from socialist to centrist/conservative ) and started a family, this comes across as callous towards those who maybe havent been as lucky. I do feel.lucky to be able to have a family – the economy is screwed – i wouldnt want my single friends ( male or female) to read this. Its grossly reductive of our human lives and the choices we make. A little kindness goes a long way
You have a valid point but I think you overestimate somewhat the negative feelings of a reader who may be single..!
I found this article a little one-sided as I tried to describe in a comment. My point is that conservatives are supporting the well-fair state by endorsing unlimited increasing of wealth of certain individuals and special interest groups..!
Have you looked at the Left and Democrats lately? They’re the party of the elites and the wealthy. They’re the party of “Special interest groups”. I think you should update your thinking.
“conservatives are supporting the well-fair state by endorsing unlimited increasing of wealth of certain individuals and special interest groups”
I don’t understand this. How does an increase in wealth support social welfare?
Unlimited increasing of profit via a constant lowering of production cost is killing small people’s salaries. No space for a family. The progressive then come to offer the solution that we experience..! Immigrants with minimum salary and a benefit-state for both immigrants and citizens of the west..! We barely survive.. they harvest..!
Ex middle class and lower middle class people are divided into progressive and conservative, according to various reasons that have to do with personal background and experiences, a more traditional or a modern philosophy on life, plus.. deeper psychological reasons. While the ruling elites of both mainstream political forces are gathering more and more of the wealth, obstructing a fairer distribution..!
I want the conservatives to win..! Only because progressives are near to lunatic and there is no better choice on the sight..!
That’s a good point, I misunderstood your comment about where the wealth went.
Thank you..! It was not sharp-clear obviously..!
I agree with your comment. The statistics in the article are reductive and misleading as they may mask a myriad of reasons as to why women may be single or unhappy. It is remarkable that except for the sole woman respondent…most are men! I am particularly incensed about the comment that Harris’s career was launched by an affair with Willie Brown. The inuendo implied by this is disgusting really. I guess the author really wants a President who’s moral turpitude is legendary and who is already a convicted woman abuser, a corporate cheat, a convicted felon, 6 times bankrupt, and a man who has ~90 indictments against him. While the author does not explicitly promote Trump, he surely falls into the category of white males who do. Intellectual snobbery mixed with misogyny…what a toxic brew!
I do feel like she is very unfairly being shamed there. I find it hard to believe that she put in literally zero work and just slept around and suddenly found herself in the VP chair. But that is the narrative that I hear in most of these articles. Not to mention that many men have surely done despicable things to advance their political careers.
Too much kindness can also blind people from their situation and rob them of the opportunity to do something about it.
The poor state we are in is the result of the disintegration of the family, to propose that we should seek to continue in the same course that has led us to this sorry state is akin to the alcoholic that believes that one more beer will cure his troubles.
There will be people who will not be happy with any situation, but to claim that therefore the entire project should be scrapped because some people don’t want a family or relationships is to condemn all of humanity to please those that wish to reject the fact that connection and belonging are the most vital elements of happiness and well being.
A thorough article but seems to neglect the conservatives’ contribution to the current state of women’s (and men’s) behavior. The established societal process of the maximalisation of profit describes an ideal that has been flourishing among conservatives for long. Ever increasing profit and productivity, may lead to unprecedented prosperity and “progress”. The thing is that this is also ever consuming of resources and of everything “slowing” back the speed of “progress”..! Living a natural life is very “unproductive” in such a universe. Women, very naturally are following the trend of this “progressive” method to destructive “prosperity”. This fallacy is an ancient sin of humankind that today gets magnified indeed to a fearful extreme. The conservatives have yet to propose an actual slowing down of that process. Meanwhile the progressives are being the “pioneers” harvesting the “overproduce” of our self-denial..! Until the day that either the progressives or the conservatives, or even better someone else, take the lead to a progress that makes sense and at the same time conserves what needs to be preserved, we will keep sliding towards chaos.
Until that day that either progressives or conservatives, or even better someone else, takes the lead to a progress that makes sense and points towards conserving what needs to be preserved, we will keep sliding towards chaos.
.
Who will decide what is a progress that makes sense and points towards conserving what needs to be preserved. Until now, everyone who has proposed solutions, from Greta Thunberg to Pol Pot, has only caused sane people to be stunned.
I never said that the left is doing the job. I am trying to say that conservatives aren’t either and that they are much into hard core business that maximize profit and that’s against women and is destructive to families.!
That is why there is a shift to harder line right-wing parties. The progressives are at the moment terrible, but had the conservatives really supported women and family things would have been deferent..!
What way would you have liked to see Conservatives support women and family?
Do you really think that working women are to be attributed to conservatives? Did conservatives want women to work?
Not the small people who may be conservative. The big money conservatives profit more when a family needs two salaries to make a living…!
Conservatives are still preferable, but they are not delivering..! If they really supported women and families they would still be in power in the UK..!
Last week, when asked about affordable housing, Trump said he’ll bring the energy price down to make house maintenance cheeper. That may lower house prices a little but is it really a big step to support young people to make a step into creating a family..? Not to my opinion..!
A very long way to explain what we all know: progressives believe they are making the world a better place, while actually making it worse.
Zachary and Leo are 100% voting for Trump.
Is that supposed to be an argument, a simple assertion, or your way of avoiding having to explain your objections to the carefully offered explanation by the author of the miserable brides? Suppose I flippantly declare that BM is voting for the twit the Democrats switched into the role for which she’s hardly qualified, except she’s a miserable bride? Does that do it for you?
Ironically, it is aspects of the sexual revolution, specifically that men are not culturally required to commit, which has landed women in this very difficult spot, and voting for the democrats because they are at least not mean about the situation is the best solution until republicans realise (as they should have long ago) that if anyone is to blame for decline of the family its men.
Of course its men, men who like to have casual sex without the responsibility of taking care of the children they sire. The normalization of premarital sex and abortions serves that purpose nicely. Before the sexual revolution both premarital sex and abortions–and fatherless homes–were rare. Men convincing women to have commitment-free sex created this environment where a whole class of women became sort of throw away sex toys. Is it any surprise that they’ve become depressed, angry cat ladies?
Who are these men having casual sex with? Women. Women with agency and far more choices than their mothers and grandmothers had. They took advantage of those choices, often created by schools in a zero-sum atmosphere that led to a vast cohort of aimless men, meaning these adult women have a much shallower mating pool from which to draw.
Yeah, women who now are depressed, unmarried and living with their cats. And voting Democrat.
In my experience which is not statistically insignificant, women have casual sex in the hope that it will lead somewhere – and men tend to take advantage of that. This is also the view of many people (including women) who I know and with whom I have addressed topic with. I accept that men who did not get the opportunity to have casual sex might be inclined to disagree.
What is the old adage? “Women use sex to get love, and men use love to get sex”?
“Of course its men, men who like to have casual sex without the responsibility of taking care of the children they sire.”
Do you think this is the case across all socio/economic groups?
Men are men.
But obviously women can chose to avoid getting pregnant. If there’s a reason they can’t then they’re a vulnerable section of society. So who might they be?
Very much this, although men who are not at least moderately marriable will tend not to agree. Alphas would tend to agree but fill their boots anyway.
When govt policy provides an economic incentive for having children WITHOUT fathers in the home, please explain how the decline is men’s fault.
When the education system engages in moronic gender politics by elevating girls, at the expense of boys, please explain how men are to blame.
Perhaps you have missed that women have agency and it began with the pill, which empowered them to be as promiscuous as men. Add to that the normalization of abortion plus a tremendous expansion of economic opportunities that allow women to be financially self-sufficient, and blaming men reads more like self-hatred than analysis.
I think this is a loser man perspective and I do not mean that the man who holds the view is a loser but that the view will tend to make him a loser because he does not understand women at all.
That said, I do accept that the culture of narcissism which fully embedded in Wester Civ has made women and men worse, but for biological reasons women’s window to be selfish/narcissistic, if she wants to have children, (and the vast majority of women do) is far shorter.
And why would women prefer to have children WITHOUT fathers in the home ? You seem to imply that for women to want to raise children with a man, they have to have no other choice, seems like it’s the less desirable choice in a range of options… Why ?
An electoral base consisting of barren harpies (dixit Peterson) on the verge of a nervous breakdown? That is very cynical, and the last sentence of this article contains the key. It is all about power, even if it means condemning half of the population to a miserable life. And strangely enough, many women are happy to go along with this scheme.
It brings to mind the saying about burning a place down in order to rule over the ashes.
Conservatives are pro-family, as the author himself points out again and again, so what are the “myseries caused by anti-family social policies” he cites without example? He contradicts the entire article with this one line.
I saw that too. Must be a typo?
Agreed. He became a less reliable source because he fell into the trap of appeasement with that statement.
“…the resultant depression and anxiety into anger, which it then utilizes as political fuel for empathy-based social justice campaigns from Ferguson to Gaza.”
Hard not to notice that these women’s empathy only runs one direction. It never extends to understanding or tolerating any political disagreement.
Rather, Harris is a flesh-and-blood avatar of a much more numerous, powerful, and radically dissatisfied demographic: never-married and childless American women between the ages of 20 and 45.
That sounds very much like the cat ladies to whom JD Vance referred, except that Harris is married to a guy who had children in a previous marriage before boffing the nanny. Harris, meanwhile, was famously the side-chick of a political benefactor. That does not exactly scream “hear me roar” as the old-school feminists used to say.
Yes, that demographic IS dissatisfied, with scores of TikTok videos to prove it. These women benefited from the idiotic zero-sum game of gender politics that elevated girls but did so at the expense of boys. As a result, these women are professionally successful but personally empty, because a large portion of their potential mating pool was rendered impotent for the sake of a political score.
Don’t forget that as a man, it’s awfully hard to date some of these women. I’m a previously married 41 year old man, and it’s so hard to have even a light conversation about social issues, politics, anything like that, without feeling like you are being grilled or looked down upon because you don’t 100000% support every liberal policy or LGBTQ issue or whatever. Obviously, these topics aren’t usually part of a first date or anything, but after a few weeks, I sometimes feel like I’m being secretly interviewed to see if I’m a horrible trumper or whatever.
I don’t have a problem with anyone who has an alternate viewpoint (unless it’s straight up obvious bigotry or hate), and I don’t personally care much if a woman who I am attracted to has some different opinions or views. In fact, I often prefer to hear those views because sometimes I even learn something. But I don’t find that to be the case with many single women these days, sadly.
I can’t help feeling you’re mixing with the wrong crowd.
The terrifying results of absent fathers; the list is endless. In my experience in SE London, this was prevalent and the primary cause of teenage crime and mental illness.
It’s interesting that commenters on here who say society doesn’t need religion, it’s a “Waste” as one put it, are oblivious to the premise of the article. When a vacuum is created it must be filled.
We removed all meaningful motivation in life for young women, finding a loving partner and getting married, having children, being in an intact family and enjoying exploring a spiritual life and it got replaced with the Democratic Party. That’s the point of the article. What a paltry swap.
Women are extremely gullible, we have a tendency not to believe in our value to society. Some of us allow a political party to tell us what our value is instead.
I don’t think, individually, women are gullible: it’s that they are more prone to being influenced by groupthink. Sometimes working together is beneficial, other times, not.
And when there are political or marketing behavioral nudges, the results can be surprising, and difficult to remedy.
Females also test higher on the neuroticism scale, which only gets exacerbated by social media. Maybe there’s a reason why men won’t commit?
Yeah, as a single 41 y/o, I can definitely relate to this. I hate painting all women of a group a certain way, of course, but there is definitely an increase of neurotic “if you aren’t with me, you are against me” mentality in women over the last decade or so. As if having an alternate viewpoint makes you Satan or something.
This is a superb assessment of a phenomenon that’s highly visible in the large US city where I live. Young women are replacing men in their lives with the company of other women and (sadly) an obsession with their dogs, which they speak to and shower with affection in ways that previous generations reserved for their boyfriends and husbands.
It does occur to me though, that women find no security in men these days and they can’t plan a future with them. How many women are childless because their boyfriend/husband doesn’t want kids? It’s like that saying”I wanted to have a child, not marry one.”
I like the obsession with dogs part, I see that where I live as well. And it’s mostly well off people, probably women with carreers. The problem with carreers is that aspect of life takes over, and by the time they are 40 well it’s too late for kids. Welcome to the world of educated career women, who now are in the majority in universities. Not good for having families for sure. I suspect this is not going to change, the age of the carreer man and woman at home is over for good, for better or worse. Everyone has become too independent, it’s the material world now, a product of wealth as well. Maybe the modern world has become too complicated.
I bet the dogs are more appreciative than the boyfriends and husbands ever were.
Why do you think some people refer to men as “dogs”?
I regret to say that Kamala will win in a landslide. Her key constituents described here will vote in huge numbers. As a female baby boomer I shake my head that women who think they don’t want children or marriage, distrust their sexual identity, and are so afraid of their reproductive capabilities that they must feel such affinity with Kamala. Women are chumps.
Boomers have alot to do with the society that exists today, they created most of the mess everyone is in, the generations below need to live with the consequences.
I always find it amusing that people think that a given “generation” controls society, even if they never comprised more than a third of the voters, and they were extremely internally divided rather than monolithic. Blaming all the ills of society on right handed people would be much more logical, because every election we have ever had has been absolutely controlled by them. As I see it, this is a way of deliberately misunderstanding democratic power so as to position oneself as a victim.
Individuals of all cohorts had their tiny piece in producing the outcomes we have today. The groupings like by arbitrary birth date ranges are more deceptive than illuminating.
Another amusing reframing is when some younger folks feel that any dysfunction or challenges they have are “not their fault”, because they were raised by older generations and inherited a world they did not make. In other words, humans used to have agency and they abused it, but we don’t have agency so it’s not our fault. But those older folks were also raised by their elders and did not create the world they inherited either. Either we all have agency, or none of us do and we are all automatons. It doesn’t work to try to escape one’s own responsibility by pushing it onto others.
It reaches a point where trying to work things out with someone is not going to happen. Your opinion regarding the boomers displays total ignorance and stupidity. If you thought things through you’d see how stupid your statement is. But you obviously haven’t and then, typically, you feel confident enough to say it out aloud.
First if all: if you’re going to hold the boomers responsible for things today then you have to include the positives as well.
Second: the real boomers were born between 1945-1955. The second cohort, 1955-1965, is some irrelevant add-on. They can’t possibly be included in what the boomers are, which is the sudden optimism of the ten years after the war ended and the consequent birth rate. The last boomer retired around 2020. Obviously they haven’t been the driving force for a long time. Let’s say their powerful influence, ended around 2000 when the following generation began to gain momentum and influence. Surely the following generations have been around long enough to influence things. Mark Zuckerberg is 40. Larry Page is 51. How’s that going?
Third: it’s really ignorant to generalise about a generation. Do you really think they’re all Conservatives, that they all had money, jobs, or homes. Do you actually believe that state housing only came about recently? Presumably you know that in England they had rationing well after the war finished, that many children were malnourished. And obviously you’d know that many became surgeons and made breakthroughs in surgical procedures, like heart surgery, treatment for leukaemia in children.
It’s a long list of what came out of that generation and I’m pretty sure you’ve benefited from it.
Speaking as a (very late – 1962) Boomer, I am not bothered at all. In 20 years’ time, I will be dead. Someone else can sort the world out, and when they do, they can make it just how they like it.
It’s only revisionist history that makes you a Boomer. Douglas Coupland, who wrote Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture which greatly popularised the term Generation X, (which he may have invented, as well, authorities disagree) about himself, and his generation — was born in 1961.
I’m in this demographic, but I don’t have a mental illness and haven’t had government help. I was also raised by a wonderful dad. I hate being talked about like this. I’m happy with my life and I hope others are too. We’re not ruining the country, we just want to live in peace. I don’t like Kamala or the democrats but being framed as a mentally ill bitter loser makes me dislike the republicans as well.
It’s interesting how politics, the shallow nature of it and the cheap tricks they play, will suddenly put the spotlight on particular members of society, for their own political, short term gain, that did not ask for it and must now answer to it. It’s shameful and destructive.
Lots of gross exaggeration in this article, obviously anti female and anti younger generations, with a right political agenda to boot. It’s a shame how Republicans fuel the generational divide, after all it’s often their children and grandchildren they shit on, they will do whatever it takes to win. If people were diagnosed with anxiety and depression problems in the 1960s in the same fashion as they are today, they would probably find the same proportion of people with those problems, many used to drown themselves in alcohol , there was rampant child abuse and spousal abuse in those days, mostly hidden out of site, and often masked by religious hypocrisy.
Don’t forget “mother’s little helpers”, stimulants dished out like smarties to the crushingly bored US housewives of the 1960s.
So what explains the number of women on anti-depressants these days. A total reversal of circumstances and still high use if anti-depressants.
> “If people were diagnosed with anxiety and depression problems in the 1960s in the same fashion as they are today, they would probably find the same proportion of people with those problems, many used to drown themselves in alcohol , there was rampant child abuse and spousal abuse in those days, mostly hidden out of site, and often masked by religious hypocrisy.”
I have considered that hypothesis from time to time for years. Certainly all of those things existed in the 1960’s and exist today, but have the proportions remained the same or changed? In part because of the hiding, it’s really hard to tell – leaving an easy canvas upon which to project our imaginings, if we are not careful. And for many, that’s the end of it – they are very happy imagining whatever makes them most comfortable about the past and present, and seeking truth which might disrupt that comfort is not a positive.
But how can we seek some truth, or at least evidence, if we ARE interested? As you say, we can speculate that things like diagnosed mental illness might not be accurately reflected in those stats because of different standards and practices today.
But there are other more reliable statistics which have also been gathered across that time period. That’s a big subject, too big to take up in depth now, but we could skim a bit of it.
One probe would be to look at K12 education then and now, and see what has changed. For example, how do long term teachers view today’s pupils and those from their earlier years?
Go to youtube and search for “why I quit teaching” or similar prompts. Besides the videos, read some of the comments to see which experiences are widely echoed and which are not. It’s pretty discouraging, and there are LOTS of people reporting on it. The national teacher shortage is not coming from nowhere. The problems began before the pandemic lockdowns and continue after it, though things went downhill even faster during it. It looks like generation Alpha may be a huge problem, again on average, with exceptions. Partly academic, but I’m actually more concerned about their social attitudes and abilities.
Go to the National Educational Assessment web pages and look up the schools in your area. How many of the students are performing “at grade level”? How many are dropping out before graduation – entering a job market with very subpar skills in many cases?
Look at the stats for two parent families versus one parent. Even if some percentage of two parent families were dysfunctional, with alcoholism and various other ills, even including those in the mix, children from two parent families statistically do much better on average, it’s not even close.
Of course there are exceptions (I know this very well from my own life, raised by a single mom after escaping from an abusive father, but I have a great life with a great mate today), but on the whole the pattern is clear that one parent families produce more kids with a lot more problems, usually for life. I don’t say that to stigmatize those kids (or myself), I sympathize. But for society, I think encouraging healthy two parent families is likely very functional.
And two parent families are decreasing, as certain societal dysfunctions which appear to be correlated are increasing. Can we write that off as a coincidence?
Overall, after weighing that question for years and looking in many places, I really do believe that we are an increasingly psychologically unhealthy and dysfunctional society, even compared to the acknowledged imperfections of the 60s as you reference. The increasing problems cannot be wished away by assuming that changing diagnostic standards can explain all or most of it; they cannot.
We can’t bury our heads in the sand and recite the problems of the past, while ignoring that we seem to be heading in the wrong direction in so many ways – things are not getting better on most fronts. Having humane and caring values is good in my opinion – so long as they are balanced by not losing touch with the real world; good intentions unanchored to reality can cause bad outcomes.
Lots of good points there, I am no expert in the education field, our society has many intertwined problems for sure, life was simpler in the old days, I honestly believe that the complexity of modern life including the accelerating need to adapt to change and new technology is overwhelming alot of people. Change was more gradual in the 20th century, in addition to the endless distractions (social media, video games, video streaming, smart phones, etc) that young people are faced with is creating huge problems. What’s good for Google, Netflix, Facebook etc is not necessarily good for society. Alot of anxiety is caused by trying to keep up with all this stuff, I suspect the mind can only take so much stimulus.
“I hate being talked about like this. ”
They are not talking about *YOU*
They are talking about your average demographic.
I don’t believe the author, or anyone, refers to 100% of a category when making generalizations. When women refer to men as pigs, do they refer to every last man that has ever lived? Of course not.
I hardly know where to start.:
—Leo got free education, because it’s been free since the 19th Century. That’s why it’s called public education.
—all couples get a child tax deduction.
—“Linda needs home and hearing care” and Leo can afford at-home elder elder care for his mom.” My mother got 24-hour at home care for two weeks. The bill was $6000. We were stunned. Leo’s mother got Medicare because all American workers pay into it.
—Now: Willie Brown. He was no saint when it comes to women. But he had been estranged from his wife for a decade when he dated Harris. He celebrated his 50th anniversary with his wife (they were friends), and he hadn’t lived with her for over 25 years.
—Only 8 percent of Democrats are progressive. A significant majority are moderates.
—The decline of church attendance is also a conservative problem. The lack of any social ties is often cited for deaths of despair.
—Divorces are higher in conservatives states.
I’ll just respond to this one right here
> Willie Brown. He was no saint when it comes to women. But he had been estranged from his wife for a decade when he dated Harris. He celebrated his 50th anniversary with his wife (they were friends), and he hadn’t lived with her for over 25 years.
If Kamela had been around just 6 months earlier it seems to me like she would’ve been a loud and resonant voice in “me too”.
Of course back in my day we just called women who traded sex for power, money and position what they were. Whores.
And before anyone comes after me the same thing goes for men, I think we should bring back the old Bible punishment for adultery of stoning.
I am certainly open to getting stoned after committing adultery.
I hear you, dear UnHerd reader, but I’m not sure these factoids diminish the astuteness of David Samuels’ article, which seems to have struck deep chords in many, including me.
The Left’s “solutions” that they offer to women are like alcohol and drugs: they give you a momentary relief, resonate with your feelings, give you an illusion of strength and happiness, but ultimate add to your problems rather that resolve those, and leave you helpless with a hangover and addiction.
I am curious to see how this will play out in the next couple of generations. The BOTS are not having children–obviously. So their numbers should proportionally decrease since it is the conservatives who are having the kids. Won’t this change the electoral composition?
You assume that the children of conservatives will also be conservative.
They won’t.
The educational systems will use its thousands of hours of access to those children to turn their little brains to progressive mush, which will be reinforced by social media platforms’ selective amplification of progressive posts and by media, through entertainment and the celebrities that purvey it, mimetically sealing the deal. Then, after they have been rendered incapable of autonomy, the therapeutic-industrial complex with swathe them in psychobabble and drugs to assuage their angst and ensure they never question the orthodoxy that crippled them.
In other words, they get an education and realize that their folks are bigoted morons and they should be ignored. They go on to lead happy and productive lives while pops freaks out every night over whatever garbage Fox News feeds him that day.
There – fixed it for you!
And the word being screamed from the rooftops these days is how UNHAPPY and UNPRODUCTIVE young people now are. Every metric applied to young people recently demonstrates them to be less happy, more apt to commit suicide, more risk averse, less sexually active, and less hopeful. What cave do you live in?
This is the first time – ostensibly – you have been right about anything, but you’re underlying reasoning is still wrong. Ex Nihilo hit the nail on the head.
Fabulous, fabulous piece. As an Indian sitting in India, I ought not to worry about what’s plaguing American society. But I am compelled to, because American soft power, its cultural mores, impact cultures around the world.
Is anything plaguing Indian society?
I’ve said it before, and am pleased to see this author “do it”: provide references or site your sources. David Samuels has done a very nice job of providing links to many of the sources he sites to support his thesis. THANK YOU, David!!
Excellent article. Unfortunately, it won’t penetrate the thick walls of the hardened silo where all those sad and unfulfilled women reside in mutually-reinforcing certainty.
BTOS is the goal of a policy direction that is not discussed called DEFAMILIALIZATION. It is sponsored by the right – corporations seeking corporate welfare and more profit from larger labour supply and increased commodification of service production, and the left – anti-family ideologues and public sector unions seeking to expand.
Sociologist and tax-funded lobbyist, Dr Paul Kershaw, is Canada’s lead promoter of this neo-lib/con ideology. He defines defamilialization in the alarmingly titled paper ‘The Just Commodification of Women’: “[T]he degree to which individuals can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independently of family relationships,….[It is] “an analytic theme …regarding citizens’, and especially women’s, ‘capacity to form and maintain an autonomous household’ apart from male adult family members and spouses… [In the] “concept’s more transformative intent ….lone mothers are a bellwether group.”
After reading this utter nonsense on has to assume that David Samuels has very little interaction with any real women other than when his mom brings his coco pops down to the basement while he’s bingeing Joe Rogan.
Of course, the mugs who comment here think this is deep insight because they are equally ill informed.
What an extraordinary array of male commentators, scrutinising this bizarre and clearly isolated tribe known as “women” with the intensity of late Victorian anthropologists. Samuels fails to acknowledge the known differences in maturation processes in girls, and the withering impact of the “male gaze”, both contributing to heavier impact that social media have on girls. Nor does he seem at all aware of the number of women deeply frustrated, isolated and finally despairing at the hopelessness of finding a male partner who has a similar interest in a deeper relationship and eventually raising a family. And the commentariat on display here does no better, by and large. Please, guys, look at your own part in all this before you start blaming women.
Grow a pair.
What a man! Quod erat demonstrandum
The hopelessness of finding a … deeper relationship.
Maybe it’s always been that way. For a long time marriage was something you entered into once you began a relationship. Children followed. Once begun you didn’t back out. Eventually women realised they had not found a decent relationship at all. If divorce had been more acceptable, and women could make go of it in their own, then the true picture might have been clearer. Once begun the women endured what they’d entered into, The number of men they could have deeper relationship with may have been as small then as it is today. What we see now us the true relationship between men and women. That’s not to say all, but big enough to warrant attention.
Justification for the fact that your 4 cats keep you warm at night alone in your bed. A partnership with a normal male requires compromise, not compatibility. That’s the main problem today. Women are unreasonable in their requirements.
Common sense overload. Not used to this in my diet.
The problem, I’d say, is that if you are a Democratic politician, the system is working. The more you chase men out of the game the more that women look to the state to protect them.
Perhaps some of you may also read “Hysterics for Hamas” by Heather MacDonald in City Journal earlier this year. Here in the US, note the large percentage of female protestors, garbed in keffiyehs to hide their identity – for safety. Although if one of them put on a sarape that would be cultural appropriation, a real no-no.
Very entertaining – confirming what many men suspect when working with modern young idealistic women. Toxic culture in the office and the men no longer speak to them in case they get hit with a sexual harassment case. Unfortunate.
Some men will no longer mentor women or meet with them alone in the office for fear that saying the wrong thing, and what is wrong depends on the recipient, or simply creating an opportunity for a career derailing investigation.
Excellent article.
I find this a very interesting article. In much of India we are currently incensed at the cheek and temerity of a hard Left regime in Bengal, presided over by the type of woman Samuels describes, to destroy evidence on the brutal gang rape of a female doctor.
The Left is not necessarily a paragon of holding up women’s rights and choices – one wonders what is the type of attitude the kind of female person portrayed here holds towards women who make different choices.
In today’s Wall Street Journal, the editorial “How the Biden-Harris Economy Left Most Americans Behind,” showed that the largest increase (8.8%) in jobs took place in Healthcare and Social Assistance, as per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics from January 2020 through July 2024. 75% of the employees in these roles are women. Government grew by 2.4%, which also employee are higher percentage of women than men. We job growth in majority male Information of 3.4% and Manufacturing,1.3%. Generally speaking, Healthcare and Social Assistance and Government are funded by taxes in the other sectors of the economy which are not growing as fast. If you are employed in Healthcare and Social Assistance or Government, which party are you most likely to vote for?
So the solution is The Hand Maids Tale I suppose .Make women happy again! Yay!
That BOTS are voting to destroy female sport, shelters & prisons is profoundly depressing. They are essentially selling the truly disadvantaged women out for material gain. Women beware women, indeed.
Excellent piece! Democrats’ message to the country: you’ll take this misery we’ve given you and you’ll like it. This explains why the stated theme of Harris’s campaign is joy?
I would go further actually. Her demographic also includes the desperate young Happy Hour cocktail circuit women, everyone who wants a handout and thinks they deserve it, the lazy, and as she proudly acknowledges, the “brats” who think their bad behavior and low morals make them chic. We are in trouble.
Time now for a follow up piece on miserable, angry, ignorant, destructive Trump supporting males who somehow blame the “elite”, rather than their own inadequacies, for the failures in their personal lives.
LGBTQ is not about homosexuality. How could the writer not know that? It has become an anti homosexual movement, obviously , with its promotion of the mutilation of gay kids and its criticism of gay men for rejecting sex with women with beards and cut off breasts (trsnzzwomen)
It will be a sad day if the future of America is determined by BOTS.