A topic I've been exploring lately relates to the 50-year cycle that Peter Turchin uncovered in social chaos and civil breakdown in American history, with eruptions circa 1970, 1920, 1870, missing one in 1820, and 1770. On that basis he predicted another eruption circa 2020 -- boy, was he right on the money.
He does mention the opposite values of these chaotic eruptions -- low-points for civil breakdown, or in other words, peaks of social harmony. The Era of Good Feelings in the 1820s was halfway between the breakdowns of the 1770s and 1870s. The Gay Nineties were halfway between the breakdowns of the 1870s and circa 1920.
It's misleadingly called the WWII era, since it began well before the war did (certainly before America's involvement in it), but the '30s and first half of the '40s, even the late '20s, were another such period. Woody Allen dubbed the period Radio Days. Also the period in which A Christmas Story is set. Or the contempo setting of It's a Wonderful Life. Whatever we call it, it was halfway between the breakdowns of circa 1920 and 1970.
Well, we just went through another breakdown circa 2020, which leaves the halfway point between it and the previous one before that, 1970, circa 1995. And really, harmony had been on the upswing by the late '70s, lasting throughout the '80s, and peaking in the first half of the '90s.
Chaos, breakdown, disorder, riots, etc. -- far more attention-grabbing for historians. The phases of greater harmony, stability, order, and calm, tend to go unnoticed.
Because this cycle pertains to such a foundational aspect of society -- order vs. disorder -- it affects so many domains of societal life. Riots vs. calmness is an obvious one. I'm interested in surveying how broadly this cycle touches our lives.
A perennial topic of discourse is the battle of the sexes, which has reached a fever pitch in the last 5, 10, 15 years. I think we're past the worst part of it, but it's still raging.
And before focusing on the harmonious phase, it does help to start with the chaotic phase, since its symptoms are so much more intense and easy to discern.
During the most recent chaotic phase, circa the late '90s through the early 2020s, and exploding during the woketard 2010s, there are too many symptoms to list briefly. #MeToo, Slutwalk, toxic masculinity, incels, gay BFFs / fag hags, fujoshi fanfic (girl imagining herself as a male in a homoerotic male-male fantasy), redpill, Game / pickup artists, porn based on degradation or humiliation (for either sex), and on and on down the line. Guys and girls could not have inhabited more separate, and more mutually hostile social environments.
In terms of waves of feminism, this is associated with the Fourth Wave.
During the previous eruption of chaos in the late '60s and early '70s, there was the Second Wave of feminism. Mostly focused on abortion, but also women's liberation in general, free love, bra-burning, equal pay for equal work, divorce, and the birth of what's called radical feminism i.e. the bitter man-hating abolish all gender roles type. That included the SCUM Manifesto, i.e. the Society for Cutting Up Men, by the whackjob who shot Andy Warhol, Valerie Solanas -- this was before feminazis sanctified gay men as their protective cockblocking eunuchs against the forces of toxic heterosexual masculinity.
During the previous eruption of chaos before that, was the breakdown of the late 1910s and early '20s. That coincided with the First Wave of feminism, specifically the Suffragette movement. Along with the chaotic social mood generally, this movement of feminism had been growing since the turn of the 20th century, it just hit its peak circa 1920 (when the US granted women the right to vote).
You may have noticed a skipped-over wave of feminism -- the Third Wave. That term applies to the '90s and the early 2000s, during a period of relative social calm rather than upheaval, as opposed to the other three waves coinciding with civil breakdowns.
Well, Third Wave feminism doesn't really exist, and feminists admit it -- its hallmark was its lack of cohesion politically, and lack of coherence conceptually. It's more of a placeholder term for "whatever feminists were up to in the '90s". And it's premised upon women of the '80s and '90s having won so many things during the previous two waves, so what was left for the '90s?
One of the major books of the Third Wave, Susan Faludi's Backlash ('91), is more about the past than the present -- the backlash against the Second Wave after the peak of social chaos had been reached, by the late '70s and throughout the '80s and into the early '90s.
The other major book, which *was* more about the present than a backlash against the previous wave, was The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf (also '91). Like the Third Wave in general, its premise is how many material, legal, and other gains have already been won due to the First and Second Waves. Now with women seemingly having it all, they find themselves searching for that last little bit of perfection that cannot be allocated to them by laws or corporate policies -- beauty, namely cosmetic surgery, fashion victimhood, eating disorders, and the like. The idea was, let's try to liberate ourselves from that self-imposed / mass-mediated oppression, and focus more on our worth as people who are not paragons of beauty.
OK, if that's feminism, then there was a Third Wave of it in the '90s. But it's not a movement, not political, and not seeking to up-end society like the other three waves did. Crucially, it was not man-hating or man-blaming or seeking a redress of grievances from the offending male sex. All feminists are at least somewhat man-hating and man-blaming, but the Third Wavers were pretty tame and calm, relative to the radicals of the Second and Fourth waves on either side of them.
The most you could point to in the '90s was in its second half, after the peak of social harmony had been reached, and the pendulum began to swing once again toward chaos and breakdown -- but had only just begun to shift. These developments were the embryonic forms of Fourth Wave feminism that would rear their ugly heads for real during the woketard 2010s.
Things like The Vagina Monologues ('96) and the associated V-Day ('98) which warped Valentine's Day into a day of raising awareness about violence against women, and even the whole Girl Power phenomenon ("chicks before dicks", to counter "bros before hoes"), associated with the Spice Girls and their Millennial audience.
Also the rise of gay BFFs, gay eunuchs, fag hags, and fujoshi fanfic -- Will & Grace, Sex and the City, and by the early 2000s, the first gay kiss in primetime in an episode of Dawson's Creek (2000), and in the music video for "Beautiful" by Christina Aguilera (2002), and the bitter emo girl + messy gay BFF duo in Mean Girls (2004).
Suddenly, boys and girls were beginning to split apart, although this rift would not reach its yawning maximum until circa 2020. But it was quite a gear-shift or phase-change compared to the first half of the '90s, the '80s, and the late '70s.
So, one of the hallmarks of that harmonious phase was the relative absence of a feminist movement, especially of the man-hating and man-blaming and man-lobbying type that we usually require for something to be a true feminist movement.
The last time there was such a relative absence of feminism was the second half of the '20s (after women's suffrage was fait accompli, as well as discredited by their lobbying for the 18th Amendment to ban alcohol, which got repealed by the 21st Amendment in '33), all of the '30s, and at least the first half of the '40s.
You know the WWII era was barren of feminism when all they can point to, desperately, is the Rosie the Riveter ad campaign, or the fact that women joined the military as WACs and WAVES in their cute wool nurse's capes, to support the men in the war effort, in their typical female capacity. This was not man-hating, man-blaming, or man-lobbying for societal upheaval. So women could join the emergency war effort -- big deal, that's not radical at all, and tellingly it was not won by protests, violence, or other forms of coordinated confrontation against the power structure.
Much like the second half of the '90s, the second half of the '40s saw the very embryonic forms that would eventually become Second Wave feminism, like the 1949 publication of The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, followed some time later in '63 by Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique.
I will go into greater detail on other cultural correlates of these harmonious phases, when the battle of the sexes ground to a halt. But for now, just to get the ball rolling, this brief overview of the timeline of various waves of feminism should give you the overall picture.
I promise those details will be more exciting and relatable than the history of feminism! But we have to start somewhere uncontroversial, like organized man-hating, man-blaming, and man-lobbying. And of course, the pair movement of womanizing, woman-hating, woman-blaming, and woman-hectoring. But the male version is not an organized or academic affair, so it doesn't leave as rich of a paper trail as the female version.
And in any case, females are the choosy sex in human beings, so generally speaking, what they say goes, regarding how close or distant the sexes will be with each other. The fine-detailed surveys will also focus more on how women change or cycle over time, although I will note how men change or cycle over time in the same ways.
February 17, 2025
The truce in the battle of the sexes during peaks of social harmony, 1940s and 1990s, halfway between peaks of social chaos circa 1920, 1970, and 2020
Categories:
Books,
Dudes and dudettes,
Gays,
Generations,
Media,
Movies,
Music,
Politics,
Pop culture,
Psychology,
Television,
Violence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Cece and the Koronator played classic games today! I've only watched the first hour of each, and can't wait to finish them later.
ReplyDeleteCece is getting into Super Mario World -- a contender for best Mario game ever, along with Super Mario 3 and I'd also say Mario 2 USA (which is very different from the others, but has lots of vertically oriented level designs, as 3 and World do).
She says she hasn't played a 3D Mario game -- she doesn't have to bother with them, they don't even come close to the 2D side-scrollers. ^_^
And Korosan played an obscure Taito arcade game from '88 -- Jigoku Meguri, literally Hell Tour, but translated as Bonze Adventure outside of Japan (Bonze being Nihongo for a Buddhist monk). It's an action platformer where you play as a Buddhist monk battling various ghosts and monsters from Japanese mythology, in a series of hellish landscapes. Very cool -- not surprising, it's from Taito!
To return to a point I've made several times, Japan remains a culture that is pervaded by Buddhist influences, notwithstanding the attempts by the Meiji Reformation to demote the Buddhists and revive / re-invent a Shinto religion.
Video games were invented in Japan, they remain a national pastime, and even young girls play the classics from the canon.
In this medium, there are quite a few examples where you play as a Buddhist figure, in this case a monk whose weapon is shooting a hail of prayer beads.
Korone knows the term "bonze" for monk. When a god-like figure appears to shower you with power-ups, she refers to him as "Shaka-sama" -- the term for the historical first Buddha himself, i.e. Siddharta Gautama, as opposed to other figures who attained Buddhahood later, following his example. Japanese "Shaka" is derived from the term Shakyamuni (Sage of the Shakyas).
ReplyDeleteShe recognizes the statue of Jizo, and calls him by that name. He's an important bodhisattva in Japan, and his statues are EVERYWHERE -- including in this video game, as well as in Super Mario Bros 3 (when you're Tanuki Mario, you can transform into a Jizo statue for temporarily invincibility).
There are certain blocks with caricatured faces on them, which remind her of ningyo yaki -- baked dolls, a kind of confection whose cake exterior is shaped in a mold that stamps it with a face, body, etc. Originally made in the early 1900s, they were shaped like the Seven Lucky Gods in Buddhism, and later as fish and other shapes. From the early days of the Meiji war on Buddhism, to the present day, these popular symbols of Buddhism remain recognizable and appreciated.
One of the levels is Sanzu no Kawa -- Three-World River -- which is part of the Underworld in Japanese mythology, and was borrowed from an Indo-Aryan variant (Vaitarani) of the River Styx concept in Ancient Greek mythology. Both are obviously from an older Indo-European or Proto-Indo-European origin. Japan borrowed this concept when they adopted Buddhism, which also came from the Indo-Aryans, albeit by way of Tang China.
She also recognized Sanzu no Kawa in another video game, whose name I forget, which also has a Yuki-onna (Snow Woman). It's retro-styled, but I think from the 2000s.
She has a special costume as a Celestial Maiden, who takes away the worldly desires of her listeners after they confess them to her. In today's game, she said something about taking away desire. Very central concepts for Buddhism.
The point is -- she knows all sorts of specific references and terms and practices relating to Buddhism. And I don't think she's very religious. Most Japanese people are not regular visitors to Buddhist temples anymore. And yet, Buddhism still pervades their culture, and they are aware of their roots as a Buddhist culture, rather than a Christian or Muslim or Confucian culture.
Even a meme-y comedian gamer girl Millennial, who uses an anime avatar, is aware of all these Buddhist symbols in her nation's culture. That's how pervasive the influences are!
It's certainly the main religion that foreigners think of when it comes to Japan -- specifically, Zen Buddhism. But ever since the Meiji Reformation, there has been a massive effort, largely unsuccessful, to rid the culture of Buddhism.
You might as well try to erase Christianity from French culture, or Islam from Iranian culture!
Glorious Nippon, emphasizing their Dark Age cultural roots even in a modern hi-tech medium like video games -- and streaming and vtubing! ^_^
My Japanese grandmother was raised Buddhist, but I don't think she practiced it much when she moved here after marrying my American grandfather. She didn't try to transmit any of it on to her grandchildren, and from what I can tell, to her own children either.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if that makes it hard for Japanese-Americans like Irys and Coco / Kson when they move to Japan. It would be like being an American of French descent, but whose family had since given up Christianity, then moving to France, and not being familiar with all the ways that Christianity pervades French culture -- even for the liberals and non-religious French.
I could do both of those challenges, since my grandfather was originally of French (and English) descent. I would have absolutely no clue how to integrate into Japanese or French society and culture, even if I spoke the languages (which I do not). You have to be raised there for it to be natural.
Well, if either of them happen to be lurking, that's one piece of advice I can give -- developing an understanding and appreciation for all the Buddhist influences in Japanese culture, from ideas and concepts like reincarnation, to morality like removing worldly desires and not getting too attached to things that are in a state of flux, to practices like the funerary rites involving putting coins on the eyes (like the River Styx) so they can make it through the Sanzu no Kawa.
And the aesthetic influences of Buddhism as well! Like wabi-sabi, or the tea ceremony, bonsai, ikebana, sand gardens, and so on and so forth.
Just as you don't have to be a devout Christian to celebrate Christmas, to use an Advent calendar, etc., you don't have to be a weekly visitor to a Buddhist temple in order to know what a Jizo statue is, how Zen Buddhist morality can be applied to your everyday life, etc.
In Japan, you can't escape Buddhism -- so don't try to fight it! ^_^
Perhaps related to Japanese Buddhism? I remember one thing my grandmother had as a decoration in her home -- a large bowl filled with various plastic fruits. They were pretty realistic, some had furry texture, others more waxy texture, the grapes were more rubbery and hollow so you could squeeze them like real grapes.
ReplyDeleteApparently this has been elevated to a refined craft in Japan:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_model
I always thought they were cool, although it's not seen as a refined craft in America.
I wonder if this has a Buddhist influence -- like, what's the best example of a material thing you can desire, which is in a state of flux and will quickly pass out of existence, so that there's no point in you getting attached to it? Perishable food! Especially fruit.
The Dutch painters focused their still lives on flowers and fruit, as a memento mori message. The painting may last, but the real-world items they are portraying will not.
Is it similar with Japanese food models? The plastic models will last a long time, but not the real-world items they are imitating.
You can get somewhat attached to a work of art, or a craft product, since it will last somewhat. But a piece of fruit? That won't last long at all. No point in attaching your worldly desires to fruit. By making an artwork or craft product that portrays fruit, however, you can appreciate it over a longer time-period, without developing an intense worldly desire for it -- you know that the oil painting on canvas doesn't contain any fructose, nor does the plastic fruit model that only serves as decoration. Not as desire-stimulating as a real piece of fruist, with actual fructose in it.
Just a thought... ^_^
I need to buy a plastic replica of a Ben & Jerry's pint, with the lid opened and highlighting all the various goodies inside -- I'm really going through them lately! But they're so cheap, only $1 and change for a pint, that I can finally afford to indulge myself on them. Not for long, though, I think this store is just about finished clearing out their inventory.
ReplyDeleteI almost went through an entire pint of Impretzively Fudged tonight. It's got a chocolate ice cream base, that's what gets me. I had two pints of Netflix and Chill'd, which I did not come close to finishing in a single sitting -- they have a peanut butter ice cream base. It tastes great, but I don't feel compelled to keep digging away at it until there's nothing left, when it's PB ice cream.
Last one I have is 4 small quarter-pints of Cherry Garcia, each of which was literally just 42 cents apiece, adding up to only $1 and change for a whole pint. I'll never see prices this low for B&J ever again in my life. I had to scoop them up! ^_^
On an "end of wokeness" note, we can claim another nail in the coffin when B&J gets rid of the libtard propaganda branding for some of their flavors from the 2010s, like The Tonight Dough (Jimmy Fallon) and Americone Dream (Stephen Colbert).
Just stick with non-political, non-media / propaganda references like the Grateful Dead, Phish, and the movie Half Baked (they claim this is not a reference to the Jim Breuer / Dave Chappelle movie, but the audience would certainly hear it this way when the flavor came out).
Up in Smoke-o-late... although the audience would have to know how "chocolate" is pronounced in Spanish, where "choco" and "smoke-o" rhyme, as opposed to English "choco" which has an "a" rather than "o" stressed vowel.
Chocoleidoscope -- very hippie-dippy. Multiple bright-colored ice creams swirled together, with chocolate brownie chunks suspended in them.
Molten Chocolate Lava Lamp -- has pieces of fudge cake in it, and ooey-gooey blobs of chocolate suspended in vanilla (or PB or whatever) ice cream, like a lava lamp. For a more realistic version, maybe Strawberry Mango Lava Lamp, with red blobs of strawberry ice cream / syrup / actual strawberries, suspended in a yellowy orange mango ice cream.
Magic 8 Ball -- tinted black chocolate ice cream, with blueberry-flavored chunks in the shape of pyramids, with some white cream swirls.
Anything but libtard propagandists!
I think this song from the new Mean Girls quite signifies a vibe shift regarding relations between the sexes:
ReplyDeletehttps://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Onn6ottfKtE&pp=ygUPbWVhbiBnaXJscyBzZXh5
There's also the feminism in the 1870s as well. The Susan B Anthony types and campaigns for women's suffrage in the western states.
ReplyDeleteThat video game also has Enma-O, or King Enma (from Indo-Aryan Yama), a lord of the Underworld in Buddhism, who decides whether a soul goes to Heaven or Hell (as we would understand it). He's the final boss of the game.
ReplyDeleteKorone knew his name as well. He also appears in Dragonball, One Piece, and perhaps many other modern Japanese pop culture works.
In Japanese culture, Buddhism has not only provided much of the moral framework and aesthetic philosophy, it has furnished many of the cast of characters relating to the supernatural. There are some pre-Buddhist, distinctly Japanese figures like Yuki-Onna. But for the most part, these figures are from Buddhism -- Shaka, Enma, Jizo, and so on. Their names and images are well known by Japanese people, even if they're not regular temple visitors.
The larger point is that Japan is not a Confucian or a Daoist culture, which are the other two international religions from China that could have expanded into Japan, but did not. Only Buddhism did -- and ultimately that came from India, by way of China, not an indigenous Chinese religion like Confucianism or Daoism.
This relates to the relative strength in Japanese history of the monks and clerical class, as well as the warrior class, and the relative weakness of the scholar-bureaucrat class or the eunuch class, which were far more influential in China and Korea, along with Confucianism and Daoism.
That's not to say there was no Confucian influence in Japan, but on the whole, it is primarily Buddhist, not Confucian (or Daoist).
Glorious Nippon.
Japanese people LOVE the song "To Be with You" by Mr. Big! At least the ojisans do. I just looked through the comments to the YouTube video, and the only non-English comments are Japanese -- and there are quite a few of them!
ReplyDeleteUsually there are comments in Brazilian Portuguese, Spanish, Russian, whatever else. But on this song, it's only Japanese. I don't think it was a global hit, and even in America it's more of a deep cut these days, although it was massively popular when it came out.
Looks like it was promoted in Japan as well, and became a huge hit there too.
Glad to see that great minds think alike.
Now the fans of Hololive JP girls know which song to blast while holding up a boombox in front of the Cover studio, to get their oshi's attention and declare their love. ^_^
Actually, "To Be with You" *was* a global hit, topping the charts in many many countries outside America -- but did not chart in Japan at all.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it was used in a Japanese movie or TV show sometime later, and became popular that way?
I'm not sure how, but it's pretty popular in Japan to this day, whereas all those other countries where it hit #1 are not chiming in on the YouTube video to reminisce.
Just another example of Japan being America's soulmate, where so many things are wildly popular in both countries but not in others.
One of the most common complaints in the current battle of the sexes is that girls won't approach guys, won't ask them out, won't confess their feelings first, and so on. All those duties fall on the guys' shoulders.
ReplyDeleteBut far from this leading to some imaginary trad-topia where guys suck it up, take on their masculine duties, and everyone winds up happily ever after, thanks to men taking the lead -- guys mostly just keep their feelings to themselves, and nobody gets asked out or confessed to, in either direction.
Strictly physical random hookups may occasionally happen (far less so than before, however -- more on that later). But that's not confessing feelings, asking someone out / to be your bf or gf / to go steady / to get engaged or married / etc. It doesn't imply you have an emotional soft spot for the other person, and therefore doesn't reveal a weakness on your part. It's just saying you have an itch you want to scratch, and will the other person be willing to scratch it for you.
It doesn't build toward a social-emotional attachment between two people. And that is what's missing these days -- in addition to far fewer people having even casual sex. I'd describe it as casual sex has severely declined, while confessing feelings of love and attachment has vanished entirely.
Why don't guys simply take on their masculine duties, and lead / initiate, so that the girl can choose whether or not to follow? "It's their role as the male!" has not persuaded them, no matter how many decades this message has been blared at them. So something larger is going on.
Trying to contrast it with the good ol' days of the '80s and first half of the '90s (and late '70s), it seems like the difference is that guys were happy to ask out girls during that period cuz girls were also willing to ask out guys. It wasn't so lopsided in who was shouldering the burden.
Now, if there's an inherent biological difference between the sexes, then maybe men will do a lot more of it -- like lifting heavy objects, opening difficult jars, protecting from violence, and so on. And if it requires fine motor skills, guys will do a lot less of it, like sewing and other small-scale crafts.
But both guys and girls get romantic feelings. Both guys and girls feel the urge to convey those feelings to the object of their affection. And both guys and girls want to hear that person say back that they feel the same way! There is absolutely no physical, biological sex difference in the ability to do any of these things.
It's just opening your mouth and talking, sharing your feelings -- aren't girls better at that than guys, anyway? If anything, the sex difference theory says that girls should confess their feelings to guys.
This has nothing to do with females being the choosy sex in human beings, which just says that females will tend to have more restrictive tastes than males will. In other words, the average girl might be open to less than 50% of the male population, when developing and conveying her romantic feelings, whereas the average guy might be open to more than 50% of the female population.
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm talking about is, regardless of how choosy a person is in their mate selection -- who they have their eye on, and a soft spot for -- conveying that information to the target is not a male specialty.
Plus, guys tend to over-estimate how romantically intereseted girls are in them. Guys are more emotionally clueless / autistic. Guys are more verbally and emotionally awkward. If anything, this situation is tailor-made for the girls to do, and for the guys to react with either a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Then again, guys are more risk-taking, and confessing a personal weakness in a way that the listener has some kind of power over you, is a real big risk. So guys have some advantage over girls in this aspect of confessing feelings.
The point is: there is no major sex difference favoring either one, regarding the confessing of feelings. Both men and women are equally likely to write lyric love poetry, for instance, among writers. If anything, again, women are more inclined toward that kind of poetry than, say, epic or third-person narrative poetry.
Enter the Sadie Hawkins dance phenomenon of the late '30s and '40s! During the period of increasing social harmony, from the second half of the '20s through the first half of the '40s, American youngsters adopted an entirely new way of asking someone to a school dance -- how about the girls ask the guys? At least half of the time, and the other half of the dances, guys would ask the girls. Fair is fair.
ReplyDeleteThe dance was named after a similar plotline in the Li'l Abner comic strip in 1937, where a race was held, in which the unmarried women chased after the unmarried men in the area, to capture a suitable husband.
Asking a boy to a school dance is not the same as hunting him down to marry him, but close enough. The craze was at its height in the first half of the '40s, i.e. the maximum of social harmony, although it did linger into the second half of the decade, before slowly fading away in the decades afterward. See the Wiki entries for some contempo photographs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Hawkins_dance
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadie_Hawkins_Day
Here is a scene of the Sadie Hawkins race, from the 1944 cartoon version of the Li'l Abner comic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23uLsAlkCfo
And a similar depiction, from the 1959 movie adaptation of a musical based on Li'l Abner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuIi5lOZRvY
We will be returning to pop culture depictions of assertive and confident and initiative-taking women from the late '20s through the mid-'40s later. But to start off, it's better to have a real-life widespread phenomenon like the Sadie Hawkins dances, which were only inspired by a pop culture product, and took on a life of their own IRL.
The Sadie Hawkins dance is not akin to a free-love / women's liberation era girl propositioning a guy for some casual sex. Asking a boy to a dance, or on a date, or in the comic / cartoon / musical / movie, roping him into marriage, is about establishing a longer-term social-emotional attachment. Not just hooking up one night to scratch a physiological itch.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, romance-free physiological reductionist behaviors are more common during the periods of civil breakdown (circa 1920, 1970, and 2020, and on the rise during the two decades preceding each breakdown). They don't show a personal weakness or aim to establish a social bond, so they're compatible with a climate of anti-social competition, jockeying for status, trying to gain the upper hand, fearing exploitation so much you emotionally clam up, and so on and so forth.
It's not that girls totally shouldered the burden of asking out boys to dances, on dates, for marriage, etc. During the Sadie Hawkins era, boys still asked girls out to the established dances like Homecoming and Prom. They simply balanced that out by holding dances where the girls asked out the boys.
By making each sex responsible for opening up to the other, at least some of the time, it made everyone feel more safe and comfortable when they had to undertake the risky role of confessing their feelings -- cuz the other half of the time, they could rest easy as the person being confessed to, and only have to worry about how to react to the other person's confession.
In the opposite climate, where girls never ask out guys, that sends a very intense signal to the guys that there is an atmosphere of "don't expect me to ever open up, make myself vulnerable, or take any risk, for fear I might get rejected". If girls aren't going to make themselves vulnerable by asking out guys -- at least half of the time -- then *what else* are they unwilling to do, for fear of being vulnerable, getting rejected, etc.?
It sounds like they're clamming up, which means they're unwilling to form much of a social-emotional attachment *even if* the guys do all the approaching and confessing of feelings. In that case, why bother approaching them in the first place? They're too focused on preserving their own personal fortress walls. They're in zero-sum or negative-sum mode, guys vs. girls, never show your weakness, take advantage of the other or get taken advantage of by the other, etc.
So, rather than a message of, "We girls are totally willing to let our guard down, form long-term social-emotional attachments, etc., but we just want the guys to initiate this process," the true message is that they're unwilling to do those things, and are therefore unwilling to confess their feelings. If the guys want to take a stab at confessing their feelings, let them go ahead and try, but no, we don't guarantee any of us girls will feel the same way back and start a long-term bonding process with the risk-taking guys.
It's like if a bunch of guys and girls show up to a dance, not as couples, and the girls claim that no one is dancing cuz the guys are supposed to be the ones to lead in a dance, and the guys aren't initiating.
Well, maybe... but given how romantically inclined guys are, especially if they showed up to a dance, they're probably not just refusing to initiate. The girls are more likely sending them signals that they don't actually want to be asked to dance, don't want to follow the lead of the initiating guy, don't want to dance with boys in general. Rather, the girls showed up to dance with their female friend circle, or by themselves, or whatever -- not to be asked to dance by boys, after which they'll say yes and follow their lead.
In the LGBTQ era, it's worth noting who the girls will and will not take along with them to a danceclub, or invite over to a house party where there's music and dancing, etc.
ReplyDeleteThey have no problem dancing near or with fags, and may even prefer them for the company. This has nothing to do with being pro-LGBTQ, open-minded, tolerant, etc.
Why not? Cuz they socially exclude lesbians from accompanying them to these places. I'm not talking about a straight sad girl who says she's non-binary and asexual. I mean an honest-to-goodness, "I fall in love with girls and want to cuddle them in bed and move in with them" lesbian.
So there goes all the woketard BS about wanting to include sexual minorities or whatever.
The difference is that a fag can never "catch feelings" for a girl, let alone seek physical intimacy with her. So if you're all about protecting your personal fortress walls, as a girl, having a fag nearby is totally safe.
But having a lesbian around would threaten that security -- she might catch feelings for another girl, seek physical intimacy or cohabitation and social bonding, etc. So she must be excluded.
This also shows that it's not about a battle between the sexes per se. Clearly some kind of guys are given a free pass by girls, while some kinds of girls are strictly excluded despite being fellow girls.
The common factor is protecting your individual self from external threats, in this case, "people who could catch feelings for me". Generally those people will be from the opposite sex, and this hyper-active self-defense looks like a battle between the sexes. But when girls wave the fags right on through, while keeping lesbians at arm's length, we can see it's not about girls battling guys per se, but about ego protection and social-emotional isolation.
It's about putting the self above others, and to the exclusion of others. No wonder these behaviors only emerge during periods of increasing social tensions and outright civil breakdown.
But enough about the present battle, I'm trying to focus on what the opposite phase is like. But occasionally, it is worth reminding ourselves how insane the current moment is -- or at least, was, up through the early 2020s. I really think it's past its worst level, and like the other times, will start getting more pro-social in the coming years, until another maximum of social harmony in the first half of the 2040s.
ReplyDeleteI'll provide some examples that mirror the Sadie Hawkins craze, from the first half of the '90s, later. It wasn't the exact same phenomenon -- I went to a bunch of middle school dances then, and none involved girls asking boys to the dance. Girls might have initiated a dance with a boy once they were inside, but they didn't ask a boy *to* the dance, as though they were going as a couple for the whole night.
But there were similar phenomena, from both IRL and pop culture, of girls taking the lead in the confessing of romantic feelings -- at least, half the time. Maybe more than half the time, if he was cute!
How many girls confessed their feelings to Jordan Catalano, vs. how many did he confess his feelings toward? Well, that's all part of the risk the girl is taking by confessing her feelings to a pretty boy.
But it wasn't just hot girls making moves on hot guys. That's cope from the present battle of the sexes. Nerdy girls like Delia Fisher also confessed their feelings to nerdy guys like Brian Krackow.
I'll have to investigate who confessed their feelings first between nerdy couple Screech and Violet on Saved by the Bell. He motivated her to dump her neglectful bf, but that could've been white-knighting from just-a-friend, it doesn't imply he confessed his love for her as well, like "I would be better for you". I'll have to see whether he went that far, or whether she realized his superior potential as a bf after he inspired her to tell off her bf, even though he was content being just a friend.
Cher confesses her feelings to Josh first in Clueless, BTW. Even the super-popular, well-to-do, mega-hotties were willing to initiate, back in the '90s. And that's not even mentioning her role in The Crush -- talk about taking the initiative! My friend and I rented that tape when it first came out, and I'm still hopelessly in love with her over 30 years later! ^_^
ReplyDeleteYep, that's the potential downside or side-effect of confident, initiative-taking women -- femme fatales. They know what they want, they're going to do whatever it takes to get it, and watch out if you try to obstruct them!
A total staple of '90s erotic thrillers and neo-noir, as well as in classic film noir movies from the '40s.
Yeah, it's a crazy having her way with us, but we'd be crazy to have it any other way...
To briefly preview some further topics, without going into detail. Boys and girls being friends -- whether it's "just friends" or potentially more. That was so common in the good ol' harmonious days.
ReplyDeleteBut one thing now, that really stands out -- we stayed friend no matter what our romantic relationship status was. Meaning, if one of us got a bf / gf, that person didn't just drop off the face of the Earth and leave the friendship in a suspended state.
My best girl friend from middle and high school had a boyfriend at some point, but I couldn't even tell you exactly when, or what his name was. It was a parallel existence or role she was playing -- she didn't stop calling me and talking to me on the phone for hours, didn't stop sitting next to me in class, didn't stop doodling on my binder or on my shoes or whatever, didn't stop joking around with me, etc etc etc.
Neither did I stop doing all those things when I got a girlfriend during out friendship. In fact, I think we both developed a stronger social-emotional bond with each other than we did with our bf / gf! She's still one of the few people I would just about insta-marry, even after all these years of not having communicated, if I really felt like settling down, and making sure I could trust and depend on the person.
Same with Zack and Jessie from Saved by the Bell -- both of them had an S.O. during the show, Zack with Kelly, and Jessie with Slater. But that didn't stop them from being friends with each other. Jessie didn't drop off the face of the Earth when she started dating Slater -- she stayed close and active friends with Zack, and with the whole rest of their social circle.
That's another very common complaint these days -- girls vanishing from friends when they get a boyfriend. But it really was not like that during the last period of social harmony. It's so disrespectful and anti-social, and self-focused -- only going to happen when the social climate is trending toward chaos and disorder rather than order and harmony.
A final brief example, without going into too much detail -- male-female partner or buddy roles, in TV or movies. Not romantic -- not at first anyway, there could be / is a "will they or won't they?" vibe. But they're not actually bf + gf.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking of Mulder and Scully from the X-Files in the '90s (show began in '93, and I just scored the first two seasons on DVD from a thrift store, though I won't start watching them until I'm done with the current season of Star Trek: TNG).
But also, the detective duo on Silk Stalkings -- a very similar vibe, and that show began in '91.
And also, the title characters from Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman, which began in '93.
And also, Audrey Horne and Agent Cooper from Twin Peaks, which began in '90.
I'm sure there's a ton more, if I looked further into it. But this kind of male-female partnership that wasn't romantic, was very common in pop culture of the last peak of social harmony.
They weren't all femme fatales -- like I said, that's just one side-effect of the harmonious climate. The flipside of femme fatales are these partner-confidante types, short of being bf + gf although still with some romantic tension between them.
I'll have to look further into examples from the '30s and '40s.
I don't count Benson & Stabler from Law & Order: SVU in this pattern, since there was never any romantic tension, "will they or won't they?" etc. Not surprising, since Stabler IRL is closeted gay, and there have always been lesbian rumors about Benson IRL.
ReplyDeleteAnd that show began in '99, mainly from the 2000s. It was past the point where they could have the semi-romantic tension between the mixed-sex partners. Sad.
As for IRL in the early '90s, my first girlfriend asked ME out... via her friend, of course, who called me on the phone, on her behalf. Awww, so shy! Well, not once we started dating -- she was also the one to initiate our first kiss. ^_^
ReplyDeleteVoluptuous latina with by far the biggest bouncers in the whole middle school, and she was only in 6th grade. I'm not a boob guy, so the other boys were always way more into that aspect of my gf than I was, but she had an hourglass figure and a decent ass, too. And a sparkly smile. ^_^
She was either a recent immigrant or daughter of recent immigrants -- looking back now, I wonder if they misstated her age for whatever reason when they came here, perhaps by accident, and she was actually a few years older than the rest of us 6th graders. I mean, she was just so voluptuous and horny for a 6th grader. But who knows...
Later in 8th grade, one of the top 10 hottest girls also asked me out via a mutual friend, but although I'd had a HUGE crush on her for the previous year, I couldn't shake the feeling that she was out of my league. Her friend didn't say that she was pondering the idea or anything -- she said "reeeaaaalllly likes you!"
We stayed friends and flirted still, but I never did pull the trigger with her. One of the biggest regrets in my whole life, I still think about it. Not for the physical loss, but the fact that I'd already had a huge crush on her, and this was seemingly a dream come true, an answer to my prayers.
I guess I was cute, cool, or something -- she must've seen something in me, since she had whatever options she wanted. She was a total babe. But I hadn't had much experience in girls letting me know about my worthiness as a bf, so I didn't have an intuitive feel for my own value vs. a very clear intuition of her value. It just seemed ill-fated, too good to be true, out of my league, etc.
If by some miracle you're lurking my blog over 30 years later, D-------, please know that I wanted you more than you wanted me, I was just an insecure 8th grader, and I hope you didn't take it the wrong way back then.
The supple pressure from the outer palm of her hand against the back of my neck, as she was writing cute things and doodling on the canvas of my skin, with slow gliding strokes of a ballpoint pen, where I couldn't even see what marks she was leaving... I had to trust her. It was during a movie day in English class, the lights were off, we could sit wherever we wanted, and she had me right where she wanted me -- and where *I* wanted me!
I don't know how much more convincing she could've given me, but it was too early in my development. I just couldn't believe it! It had to be too good to be true.
...The point being, girls were way more confident and willing to open up and take a risk by approaching boys back then. These two cases were from '92-'93 and '94-'95.
I have to reiterate I'm not talking about random hookups, but something with a medium-to-long-term social-emotional attachment implied. Asking a boy to be your boyfriend, or to start dating, or saying you love him, or something like that -- not just dry-humping him at a school dance to scratch your itch.
ReplyDeleteWait a minute! There was another time, probably around '95, when some girl, who I couldn't even see cuz it all happened so fast, was in a car driving next to mine. My mom was driving me somewhere, and some girl saw me and told her friend or older sibling who was driving -- I can't believe she would've done this if her parent had been driving -- to pull up close to our car, and since it was warm out, both cars had their windows down.
With absolutely no warning that anything of this plan was proceeding, my mom and I heard a girl scream "I LOVE YOU [AGNOSTIC'S FULL NAME]!!!!!!!" before speeding away! My mom was dumbfounded, but laughing out loud at the same time, like "Who was THAT???!!! Do you know who that was???" I literally had no idea, the car sped away before I could get a look at her, and I didn't recognize the voice since there was ambient traffic noise, and again, it all happened so fast.
Whoever she was, she never did let me know in school or via her friend calling me on the phone, to follow up on her little drive-by confession of love. Even though she didn't reveal her identity, that still took A LOT of guts to pull off right there on the spot. It's not like she was following us or anything, she just saw me in a car and decided to seize the opportunity.
In contrast to the catcalls that I heard later on, in the 2000s, 2010s, and 2020s, which were always physical -- since I didn't know these stranger girls at all, they just saw a random hot guy and felt like letting out a mating call. This girl knew me, and did not say "Omigod, [AGNOSTIC'S FULL NAME], you're so CUTE!" She specifically said "I love you!" That's emotionallll, not physicallll....
I've been surrounded and pursued by confident, initiative-taking girls my whole life -- how can I not love them? ^_^
I won't go into all the details, since they're not as relevant to the main point, but I will say that girls were also way more likely to initiate strictly physical flirtation back then as well. It was initiative-taking in general, that they were comfortable with. Not just a girl who knew me already, had an emotional attachment in mind, and was using physical flirtation to test the waters of whether I liked her or not.
ReplyDeleteI mean, as in, a total stranger cutie who was sitting a couple seats away from me, when my friends and I went to see Rushmore in the theater, and we started exchanging glances, and then started playing footsie and touching our legs across two or three seats -- but in a dark theater where no one could see us. ^_^ That was one of the hottest things I've ever experienced, even if it didn't lead to full-on intercourse. Wow!
She came alone, too, and usually that makes girls clam up. They're more emboldened when they can feel like they're acting as part of a mob, crowd, clique, etc. That took some real guts!
Zoomers will never know what that's like, having gone through adolescence during a time when movie theaters had already died. I doubt most Millennials know what that's like either, but you never know. Some of the earlier ones may have experienced that in the late '90s, when I did.
Some things cannot be experienced via online streaming services, or even the beloved video rental store -- only in the seating rows of a darkened theater. They were the good ol' kind of seats, too, the metal ones with the upholsteryed seat and back, where the seat part flipped up and down. It'd be a lot more difficult with those high-back chairs arrayed in the stadium / amphitheater format, let alone where everyone is in an oversized recliner positioned 20 feet away from their neighbors.
Not only were the seats the right type, they were arranged the right way -- all along a mostly even height, not where the "floor" slopes up like a friggin' mountainside. In order to kick up your feet on the seatback in front of you, which is how we started touching -- angling our legs toward each other and resting our feet in the same valley between two seats in front of us -- the row in front has to be the same height as your own. In a stadium arrangement, the row in front of you has like a 10-foot drop. You can't kick up your feet and lie back in your seat.
Remember what they took from you! ^_^
As an epilogue, I will admit that there was one time well after the '90s when a girl confessed her love to me first. I will never forget that either -- it was the summer of 2006, and she was a nearly 16 year-old student at the tutoring center I worked at. Absolute babe, yes even at that age it was clear, alpha-female / queen bee / popular type. Exotic Persian hotness. Normally very cocky, always trying to tease and scandalize me sexually, and so on...
ReplyDeleteThen one night, she dropped the irony-poisoned provocateur act, and called me by my first name in an upward-intoning way like a curious child.
"Agnostiiiic?"
Yes, what do you want?
"How old are youuuuuu?"
25.
"Oh... well... I think, when two people LOVE each other... it doesn't matter how old they are... like, age is just a number..."
I didn't respond verbally, just looked her in the eye, raised my eyebrows slightly, and nodded along, like "Hmmm, interesting hypothesis, maybe it's true." I didn't shoot her down or shut her down, just left it neutral-to-accepting, and I'm sure I had a slight smile that didn't escape her attention.
We stayed friendly afterward, she didn't take it the wrong way, and I didn't encourage her further, although that would have easily been one of the most memorable episodes of my life. She was a student, and she needed to feel safe and secure in order to open up her feelings like that to me... it would have ruined that rare special security if I had told her I thought she was a mega-hottie, so why don't we meet up sometime outside of tutoring?
Purely physical approaches -- oh, I still got tons of those throughout the 2000s and 2010s and 2020s. Just last year, an alt-girl at a thrift store cold approached me, heavily complimenting my outfit, asking me my sign, "Oh, well I know [that sign] are always very handsome..." and pressing hard for my phone number, social media, email, anything.
But I honestly told her, I don't do email, don't have social media, and don't have a cell phone. We still hung out in the store, but I didn't pursue it -- can't hook up with every random cutie who cold approaches you. Any specific one of them would be fine to hook up with -- but if you do that with all of them, all of a sudden you get corrupted by High Body Count Syndrome, whose corruption is just as spiritual / psychological as it is physiological.
Point being, after the mid-'90s or so, a girl confessing her love first was damn rare, and even that later exception was in the mid-2000s, which was nearly 20 years ago by now. It went from emotional to physical declarations.
And as I said before, random hookups are way less common these days than in the '90s. It's just that casual sex has severely declined, while confessing your romantic love first to someone you don't know will respond with "I feel the same way" -- has vanished entirely.
I also don't want to give the impression that gender roles were inverted or anything. I asked out / declared my romantic feelings for girls, before they did so to me. The girlfriend I had around the same time my best girl friend had her boyfriend, I asked out first, made the first physical move on her, etc. I asked out a lot of girls in college, mainly during the early 2000s.
ReplyDeleteBack in the early '90s, I gave the mother of all secred admirer gifts to a girl I had a crush on, for the last day of school.
Remember that yearbook I mentioned, just for 5th graders, with entire profiles of our preferences? Well, I flipped on over to her page to see angle of attack I could pursue, and she listed her hobby as "Collecting stuffed bunnys" -- so why don't I just pay a visit to the local mom & pop high-end toy store at the mall, and pick out a couple of stuffed bunnies from their plushie section? A pink one and a white one!
I had to hide those for what seemed like a thousand years, before I bundled them up into a paper grocery bag, with some kind of basic letter on top of them, like "From your secret admirer" or something basic like that.
On the last day of school, we always went to the pool next to the school, so I knew everyone would be out of the building then. I pretended to have left something swimming-related back in the classroom, and that's when I snuck that present-bag over to her classroom (she had a different teacher -- it was like breaking into a stranger's house, not even my own classroom!), looked for her desk, and placed it there on her chair.
Then after we got back from the pool visit, I walked past her classroom door right as she discovered the gift from her secret admirer, and she was OVER THE MOON! She had one of her girl friends next to her, and she was ecstatic, bouncing or jumping up and down, wide-eyed, like "CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS???!?!?!??!?!" to her friend, who was also ecstatic for her. Like, "Omigod, I thought this only happened in the movies!"
Not with this guy around -- I'm here to make those fantastical moments as real as they can be.
How many girls can say they experienced something like that? Not many, but J------ is one of them. I never revealed who sent it, my family was about to move across the country over the summer, and I would never see her again anyway. And this way, she could indulge in a little speculative fantasy of her own -- was it boy A, boy B, or maybe boy Z? The tantalizing mystery of it all! I'm sure she got quite the kick out of that, even after her initial ecstatic surprise on the last day of school itself. ^_^
I did at least work up the courage to walk right up to her and ask her to sign that 5th-grade special yearbook. I'm looking at it right now -- she signed her full name in cursive, with an exclamation point (with an open circle, instead of a mere dot, on the lower part of it), and an undulating sideways wave to underline it all. Y'know, starting wide at the top, then narrowing lower down, then terminating in a small stroke, so it all fits inside of a triangle boundary.
I know this doesn't mean she was also madly in love with me, she was just bubbly and friendly and probably a future Manic Pixie Dream Girl. But that -- and seeing the expression on her face, and really her whole body, when she discovered that secret admirer gift -- was more than enough for little ol' 5th grade me. ^_^
So why didn't Millennials and Zoomers and Alphas do the whole "secret admirer" thing? That was totally a mainstream trope in media in the '80s and early '90s, when I made it happen for real. And I was not the only one -- I remember in middle school, sometimes people would slip a little secret admirer note into someone's locker.
ReplyDeleteOne possibility is that the girls would perceive it the opposite way as the girls of my generation -- they'd think it was creepy, or from a stalker (the favorite term for "hopeless romantic", in the post-'90s low-trust paranoid chaotic anarchic atomized shithole era). If it was not explicitly solicited and consented to beforehand, why, that makes the act tantamount to rape! Or at the very least, sexual harassment.
The other possibility is that guys would perceive it the opposite was as I did -- it would be a "beta" move (that's rich, coming from an incel who never got any attention from girls in his whole life), white-knighting, simping, or whatever other term for weakness, which they project onto guys with the actual courage and guts to approach girls to some degree, rather than shrink back entirely and never open up to girls at all. Sorry, that makes you a cowardly little faggot who's terrified of girls.
God, you Millennials and Zoomers are so fucking NUTS... but aside from mental illness, you're profoundly anti-romantic, anti-social, everyone is against you, you're just an innocent attacked victim from all sides. No wonder society blew up during the 2010s, if that kind of anti-social pressure had been building up for a generation.
But, returning to the over-arching point, we're apparently past the worst of that woketard bullshit by now. I actually think the simp liberation and simp appreciation revolution of circa 2022, was the first sign of society finally moving past the battle of the sexes that had been raging since the late '90s in embryonic form.
Millennials may be getting left behind by this revolution, this swinging of the pendulum away from girl-hating and man-hating. Well, that's just tough luck for them, they're too set in their ways, they're in their 30s by now, and there's probably no hope for them going forward.
IDK about Zoomers, they seem pretty fucked in this regard as well, although maybe not the later ones? It's too early to tell. And they're still young, so they still have some changing and adapting left to do, before they harden into their final form. They might make it, although I'm skeptical.
Seems more like Gen Alpha will be the first to reach adulthood in a fundamentally different state as the Millennials and Zoomers, regarding the battle of the sexes. They saw how awful it was when the worst explosion nearly destroyed society in the late 2010s and early 2020s, as they were just impressionable little children. "We don't want to grow up like THAT..."
And with that, suddenly the next generation will dial down the battle of the sexes, to move away from the worst anti-social explosion anyone has witnessed since the late '60s and early '70s.
This pendulum swing is just beginning, and won't reach its max extent until circa 2045. But it really can't go any further in the chaotic "to hell with everyone" direction. The max extent of social breakdown was clearly reached circa 2020, and by now that's beginning to fade away, however gradually.
Going forward -- well, not forever, but at least until 2045 -- hopeless romantics will no longer have to be afraid. Bitter, irony-poisoned man-haters / girl-haters will become a relic of the past, aging fossils who embarrass themselves by trying to hold on to the anti-social peak rather than let it go and join the new era where daily life will aim closer and closer toward becoming a Mentos commercial and an Amy Grant song. ^_^
It's worth noting that many shows from the late '80s and early '90s didn't exactly have the most wholesome intra-family dynamics (i.e. The Simpsons, Married with Children), but there was certainly better relations between the sexes.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CuUP-hX6_8
Don't you miss un-self-aware dolls like those?
OK, two more vignettes from IRL, on the belated occasion of Valentine's Day, before moving on to other examples from a totally different domain (dance).
ReplyDeleteBoth are fairly similar, but were two years apart and show how things had already started to shift by the late '90s.
For Valentine's Day of '96 (practically still '95), two friends and I got the idea to pass out Valentine's cards and candy throughout the school day. This was freshman year of high school, and the ritual of bringing cards to school, and having the box to collect them on your desk, was long gone.
But we felt like reviving that same spirit, just with us handing out all the goodies instead of trying to organize a schoolwide revival of the elementary school ritual, where everyone would participate. This way, it was just up to us -- easy peasy.
So we walked over to the nearest shopping center, bought a ton of Valentine's cards, including a dozen that were large-sized -- for a handful of our close friends, which would be addressed to them specifically.
The others would not be addressed to anyone in particular, much like the elementary school ritual -- I don't remember using a class roster to address them to each member of the class and then make sure I put the right cards in the right person's box. They just said who it was from, not who it was to.
I think we even bought one rose apiece for those dozen close friends, from the florist in the same shopping center. And then we bought some typical Valentine's candy -- a whole bunch of the usual stuff to hand out in general, and then like a full size candy bar for each of the special friends.
These two friends and I had formed a joke / meme group based on scat singing -- as in, the nonsense syllables in jazz, not immature potty humor. This was right after "Scatman" by Scatman was a huge mid-'90s hit, mixing scat jazz singing with spoken rap and techno music, part of the broader Midcentury revival.
Our name was The Ornaments -- that had an ol' timey Midcentury sound to it. So the cards read "From: The Ornaments". Again, not a real band, we never practiced or came up with full songs -- it was purely a joke, we'd scat for like 10 seconds and try to harmonize, and that was it.
We also had a gurrrrrlllll there with us, one of the top 10 hottest foxes in the whole school. She was a real sentimental sweetie, and was totally into the idea of reviving this ritual too! The trope of the super-hot popular girls all being a bunch of frenemy mean girls is from Millennial and Zoomer world, not Gen X world -- our girl-who-everyone-wants was friendly, bubbly, exciting to be around, maybe even a little spunky!
Not just in pop culture portrayals like Kelly and Jessie from Saved by the Bell, or Cher from Clueless, but IRL. I mean, do people really think those shows were plucked out of nowhere, the actors portraying characters who were the opposite of IRL / against their real-life experiences, and so on? No way. They may not have been documentaries, but they were closer to that than to a randomly conjured up hallucination whose correlation to reality was 0.
I think she also offered to help out cuz we didn't want only dudes' handwriting to be on the cards, in case we gave that card to another dude (no homo). We had to have cards with babe-alicious handwriting on them too!
ReplyDeleteI don't think we told them which girl was signing them, though -- imagine if they found out who it was, they would've asked for a hundred of them. If they asked, we might have told them. But we didn't advertise it, which would've felt exploitative toward her -- like they'd only care if they knew that one of the mega-babes was signing it. They didn't need to know, in order to enjoy the ritual!
This effort was an absolute smash hit, every single person we walked up to in the halls or classrooms eagerly took the card and some candy, had a pleasant smile and chuckle, like "Hey, glad someone's keeping up the tradition!" Pretty sure we had a couple other girls to help pass them out to guys -- also popular cuties.
Again, how bad would it feel to get a Valentine from another guy? And they could tell we were passing them out to everyone, it's not like the girls would have to worry about guys taking it the wrong way, reading any sexual interest into it. It's called being romantic!
Now fast-forward to Valentine's Day '98. I had the same inclination to keep the collective buzz alive on that day, even into high school (junior year). But instead of passing them around the school, which had already been done, I thought I'd up the stakes a bit.
ReplyDeleteThe student government association, or the Key Club, or one of those groups, ran a Valentine's Day operation every year. During 6th period, they would deliver a card and a rose to anyone you chose, for I think a dollar. They had a little table set up in the cafeteria in the week or so beforehand, where you took the blank card, filled it out with who it was for and which teacher they had for 6th period, and handed them the dollar.
Well, I figured -- why not send these cards and roses to my whole 6th period class?! It's the loneliest thing in the world to see the club volunteers enter the room, and you're wondering if it's going to be for you -- and of course, it never is. It's always just couples sending them to each other, there's no real surprise or chance or mystery or tension.
And they would keep re-visiting the room each time, they didn't have them all organized by teacher. And evvverrryy time one of them entered the room, you're thinking, "Is that one going to be for me? Or at least, one of my friends, or someone who isn't expecting it? Is something cool going to happen?" And it never did, it was just couples sending them to each other.
Nothing wrong with that in itself, but it kills the Valentine's Day spirit for everyone else -- that's why everyone got the cards and candy in elementary school, and in our revival of it in 9th grade! Spread the love around. Major holidays are supposed to be ones that everyone participates in, looks forward to, and feels that sense of collective effervescence while they're happening.
Imagine if only committed couples, or some other small minority of the population, could write letters to Santa Claus, go on Easter egg hunts, watch the fireworks on the Fourth of July, dress up and go trick-or-treating, and so on -- what a terrible excuse for a holiday that would be!
That's why the vtuber girls just got done singing love songs to 10s of thousands of people watching live on Valentine's Day -- so everyone gets included in the holiday, and not just committed couples. Or why I drove down the main drag serenading whoever was there to listen. That's keeping the collective spirit alive, too!
I certainly didn't have enough money to send the entire school a card and rose, but for my own class, there were only 20-30 kids -- and yes, I sent one to the teacher, too! *Everybody* got one.
And in the interest of making it feel special, I wrote some kind of poem on the inside of the card. It wasn't meme-y or jokey, it was sincere and sentimental, but not cheesey -- the kind of thing you'd see on a store-bought greeting card that has a poem.
And to make it more special, I wrote it using a basic kind of calligraphy -- vaguely Gothic, is how I'd describe it. Cuz nothing says romantic like Gothic -- remember, this was before emo, which is angsty and self-focused.
Just like freshman year, I asked a girl from the class to sign the ones addressed to the guys, so they wouldn't feel like "Oh great, a Valentine's card from a dude..."
ReplyDeleteAgain, no one was confused about reading any specific sexual interest into it -- when everyone gets one, it's clearly part of a community-wide celebration or ritual, not a declaration of personal one-to-one love. No one ever got confused about that in elementary school, why would they now? They didn't. They understood that it was a high school update to that elementary school ritual.
Well... except for one guy, actually a friend of mine, who immediately began sneering and seething about how it was fake, contrived, dishonest, a cynical attempt to curry favor with the girls, etc etc etc. Y'know, total projection from a seething jealous hater, incel-like anti-romantic attitude, self-styled cynicism equalling wisdom but really just being a clueless autistic moron about the ritual, and so on.
Looking back, it was a very 2010s kind of reaction. But in '98, it was only there in embryonic form -- however, it *was* there by that year, as opposed to not being there 2 years earlier.
Maybe a few other guys felt the same and just kept quiet, IDK, but this one guy making such a big deal about it was enough to signal a vibe shift away from the maximum of social harmony, which held through the mid-'90s, and toward the current -- or recent -- maximum of social breakdown.
But he was the only one to pipe up about it. Most everyone else was appreciative, said thanks, and generally took it in a happy way.
And just before the cynic flipped out, perhaps what triggered him so hard, one of the girls sprang out of her seat, shuffled her chunky heeled shoes over to my desk, leaned over me, wrapped her arms around my shoulders, saying "Oh, that's sooo sweeeeeet!!! :))))" or something like that.
ReplyDeleteI don't think she even gave me a smooch on the cheek, or if she did it was just an innocent kind of smooch in appreciation. I think it was more like leaning the side of her head into mine and maybe rubbing her hair onto mine back and forth a little bit, affectionately. Nothing sexual, not an invitation to date her or anything. Just her feeling overwhelmed by the spirit of love being publicly revived so everyone could feel it, just like in elementary school, and she couldn't help but show her appreciation for the ringleader. ^_^
She was a pretty popular preppy girl -- and the lead ditz of the whole school! She was famous for that, although her best friend was also quite a ditz in her own right. The ditzy duo, those two. And as I've written on and off for over a decade, I love ditzes.
They don't make 'em like that anymore -- totally lacking in self-awareness, therefore focused on their external environment and other people, not stewing and ruminating in their own private thought-prison, not dwelling on their inner monologue, or thinking they're the main character, or whatever other sicknesses people began suffering from one the pendulum swung in the anti-social direction.
Ditzes got along with everyone -- they didn't stay within their own clique or sub-cultural boundaries, and they didn't blacklist individuals unless they had done something bad to deserve it. I was not part of her social circle at all, but she treated me like one of her own that day -- if you do something good, you deserve a reward, in her eyes, and don't bother thinking or dwelling on who it is, who they're friends with, what clique they hang out with, etc etc etc.
ReplyDeleteDitzes were not diplomatic like ambassadors, since that role requires a high degree of self-awareness and meticulously curating your speech and behavior in front of others. Ditzes are more like free spirits flowing from one group of people to another, based on vibes -- if the vibes are good, follow where they lead. If they're bad, turn away. It's totally other-oriented and externally directed -- not self-focused at all.
Ditzes were the most open-minded and tolerant and socially mixing type of person -- which is how you know the woketards who consciously branded themselves as open-minded, tolerant, etc. in the 2010s were full of shit. They weren't ditzy free spirits wandering wherever the vibes were good and the people friendly. They were intensely self-focused self-promoters whose open-mindedness was just a cynical branding exercise, not genuine like that of a ditzy preppy girl from the '90s.
So, '98 still felt mostly like the mid-'90s, but it was also clearly starting to break away from it, and that only got worse over time. It never cycled back -- until possibly starting in the mid-2020s, after the peak of social breakdown in the late 2010s and early 2020s.
When that guy flipped out over what I'd done, everyone else saw it too, not just me -- he flipped out loud enough for the whole class to hear. That signalled a vibe shift to them as well. In the future, anyone trying to be a genuine romantic like me would become a possible target of a bitter seething hater like my friend -- and that might not be worth it, to some people, even if they would also be rewarded with a hug by a pretty popular girl. (Again, not my goal anyway, but I was happy to receive it!)
After the pendulum swung far enough away from the mid-'90s maximum of social harmony, that kind of cynical hater attitude would become the norm, not just one guy. And that means everyone else would perceive a hostile atmosphere, even if they were inclined toward the socially romantic public ritual. Better to just keep your head down, to avoid getting targeted by the hater brigade -- and later, the cancel squad.
Oh God, imagine if I'd done that in the 2010s! "Um, did you get everyone's explicit consent beforehand? If not, y'know that's not so different from rape -- or at the very least, sexual harassment. Not a good look, my dude."
STFU, you seething jealous hater.
You can tell, even when I think back on that episode, the overall positive vibes were quite soured by that one cynical flip-out. I never did do anything like that for senior year, or in college, or afterward.
ReplyDeleteMaybe when I started writing fan songs to the streamer girls, starting in 2022, and serenading girls from the car window around that time, was when I felt comfortable coming out of my shell again.
It's not just wanting to avoid a majority-hater attitude from guys, but if girls would respond similarly too -- "Oh how cute, you're trying to do that whole 'I'm such a nice guy, sensitive young man, romantic soul' act, but we all know you're just trying to get us to lower our shields so you can date-rape us. It's 2018, we're not naive little babies like Cher from Clueless anymore!" Or whatever the fuck other insane thoughts were going through their woketard brains.
But I really do feel safe again, as of the mid-2020s, to be an open and public romantic. There's still tons of seething jealous haters out there, but their influence is waning, and girls are a lot more receptive, or less cynical, than they used to be in the 2000s and 2010s.
Change is in the air, whether you'd know it from an aging-Millennial irony-poisoned prison like Twitter, or not. They can't fight it, no amount of lower-case puncutation-free deadpan mockery can put the romantic genie back in the bottle at this point.
It's onwards and upwards, ascending the mountain toward its Mentos commercial / Amy Grant summit!
Romantics have been powerless to reverse the cycle of history since the late '90s as it swung in the bitter hater direction, now finally the irony crew will be powerless to reverse the cycle of history as it swings in the sincere and sentimental direction!
But unlike them, our thoughts do not mainly dwell on the haters, and our enjoyment doesn't derive from owning the haters. We'll be focusing more on increasing the good vibes, bringing joy to wherever we can, however we can, performing random acts of kindness, reviving dormant rituals to that effect, and in general spreading the love around to the rising share of the population that is receptive to it.
Maybe it'll be online, maybe it'll be IRL, who cares. Wherever and however people interact, these changes will happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWzWL-S05fg
IIRC, the ditzy girl did have a moment of self-awareness, but as usual only after noticing the crowd's reaction. I think some of the girls were smiling or giggling when she came over to hug me, and on her way back to her seat, I think she paused to take in their reaction, and said something defensive like, "What? It was sweet!"
ReplyDeleteI don't think the other girls were laughing at her in disagreement, they were just giggling that she, in her lack of self-awareness and lack of inhibition, just sprang out of her seat and crossed the room to hug me. They felt the same way as she did, but she couldn't control her impulses, and that's funny to people who do control their impulses.
Once they started smiling and giggling in response to her defensive address to them, she must've understood that they felt the same way but just didn't feel like making such an overt act of appreciation like her free-spirited self did.
But initially, she felt socially confused -- "What's wrong with what I did? It's totally natural!" It is, it's just that everyone else said thanks instead of getting up out of their seat to hug the guy.
Ditzes dare... or maybe it's not being daring, they just don't perceive it as a risky thing to begin with. There's nothing even remotely inappropriate about following your natural impulses, in a way that rewards good behavior, right?
So it's more about having a lack of inhibitions, not in an anti-social or norm-corroding way, just interpersonally. Like I said, they flowed from one clique to another, one individual to another, with no social inhibitions whatsoever.
Free spirits.
In fact, she reminds me of Irys somewhat, or Vivi, one of the new Hololive JP girls. She is *very* free-spirited and ditzy, focused on interacting with others instead of dwelling in her own private thought-prison. Kind of like Aqua / Sakuna -- and also from Kansai!
ReplyDeleteI wonder if ditzes are more common in non-standard dialect-speaking regions of a country, where people are more theatrical and uninhibited, in contrast to people in standard dialect regions, who are more about suppressing their emotions and acting proper.
That would tie into the meta-ethnic frontier -- close to the frontier, you have to closely regulate your emotions in public, to be part of a strong team against the meta-ethnic nemesis. Far from the frontier, you are more free to be your individual self, cross social boundaries freely, and have a more uninhibited personality.
Well, this was when I was living on the East Coast, so she was definitely not the inhibited Midwestern / out-Western type. She was an East Coaster.
The meta-ethnic frontier in Japan is in the East and North, against the Emishi and later the Ainu. Kansai and the West / South is far from that frontier.
Korone is another uninhibited free spirit from Holo JP, and she's from Kansai originally as well. I don't think she's ditzy, she is more self-aware, but still an uninhibited free spirit. Luv the doggy goddess. ^_^
It is worth noting that people in non-standard dialect regions (especially if they speak different languages completely like Breton in France) may also be more un-inhibited because they live in a "closed clique" who cannot be as easily comprehended by the surveillance agents of a larger empire. This would be especially true of mountain people as James C. Scott, the late anarchist philosopher, has noted.
Deletehttps://books.google.ca/books?id=oiLYu2-uc8IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=james+c+scott+hill+people&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&ovdme=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi_16LT7NKLAxVUAzQIHWErIwIQ6AF6BAgIEAM#v=onepage&q=james%20c%20scott%20hill%20people&f=false
"She's not gonna fuck you bro" -- that's what the cynical jealous projecting hater guy would've said in the late 2010s / early 2020s. But he meant the same thing. It just wasn't a common reaction back in '98, and there was no widespread common phrase to that effect. Not until circa 2020.
ReplyDeleteBut there's been a backlash against that phrase over the past few years, both from guys and girls. And not in the sense of a euphemism treadmill, replacing an out-of-favor phrase with a new one with the same meaning. The whole meaning and intent of the phrase has come under attack.
I'm telling you -- love is in the air. Well, it's starting to be, anyway, this pendulum swing has barely just begun. But it's real!
It can't get any more cynical, irony-poisoned, and anti-social than circa 2020. Slowly but surely, the social mood is slipping out of the haters' grip, and being seized by the sentimental sincere free spirits. :)
Aha! The region of a country far from a meta-ethnic frontier has greater variation, not that it necessarily produces more ditzes or free spirits. Cuz it also produces more streetwise, brusque, anti-sentimental types as well.
ReplyDeleteIt's about the lack of inhibition -- you're free to be whatever your inner inclination is.
Close to the frontier, everyone has to be on the same team, since the Us vs. Them force is very strong. You can't be whoever you naturally are -- you have to dial it down, and shape it to fit the group better. Or else the group is going to get wiped out by the nearby meta-ethnic nemesis.
This pattern is already evident in dialects -- non-standard dialects don't just have one very widespread non-standard dialect. They have a ton of variation -- look at all the dialects just along the East Coast of America, let alone adding in those out to Appalachia.
Once you get to the Midwest, though, it all pretty much blends into a single widespread standard dialect -- Western American.
Same thing in Britain -- there are tons of distinct dialects across Ireland and Scotland, and even the North is easily distinguishable between the Northeast and Northwest, even to a foreigner like me (albeit one with a linguistically honed ear). Like Leeds vs. Manchester -- that's easy to tell! Just listen for the vowel in "cut" -- if it's pronounced like the vowel in "could," then that's a Northeastern dialect, like in Leeds. Northwesterners, whether Mancunians or otherwise, don't do that, although they do share other Northern features with the Northeasterners.
Once you get down to Southern England, where the standard dialect comes from, there are far fewer distinct regional dialects.
Same in Spain -- lots of variation in the Northwest (similar to Portuguese), across the far North, and throughout the Northeast, compared to only small differences in the Center and South of the country, where the standard dialect is from.
And in Japan, Kanto / the East and Tohoku / Hokkaido / the North don't have quite as much regional variation, compared to the various dialects in Kansai / the West / the South.
The presence of a meta-ethnic nemesis forces people to conform more, to homogenize more, and to centralize more, in order to form a capable team-unit that can withstand it and defeat it.
The absence of such a nemesis allows people to be themselves -- which is not to say, norm-corroding or flouting rules, or that kind of "non-conformity". Rather, in the sense of, "not feeling intense pressure to homogenize, and not bowing to such pressure to homogenize."
So, non-standard dialect regions far from the meta-ethnic frontier also allow for a more diverse cast of characters in their communities -- diverse, meaning personalities, not silly woketard racial diversity.
I think most Americans have a stereotype in their minds about Valley Girls from Southern California being ditzy, but they're really not. They're mellow, chill, cool, etc. But not necessarily ditzy. Ditzes in fact seem to be way more common along the East Coast, whether Yankee or Confederate in their sub-flavor.
Also suggests that Australians have lots of ditzes and free spirits -- they have no standard dialect, and no meta-ethnic nemesis. Free to be whoever they are, without a pressure to homogenize and centralize.
Neat!
The British dialect example is great since it rules out another source of greater regional diversity, which is that diversity is greater at the origin, and lesser far from the origin, of a speech group (or a genepool).
ReplyDeleteDue to things like founder effects as individuals migrate away from the origin.
In Britain, the origin of English dialects is in the Southeast, where the Angles, Saxons, etc. landed in the early Dark Ages.
But after Britain became an empire, in response to their meta-ethnic nemesis the Viking invaders, the Southeast and the South in general became highly homogenized culturally and centralized politically.
So as of the past 500 or so years, the greatest degree of dialect diversity is actually in the regions of Britain far away from the origin of the English-speakers -- Ireland, Scotland, and the Norf.
Same thing in Italy -- there's lots of regional variation among the non-standard dialects of the South, vs. more uniformity or homogeneity in the Central and Northern regions. Italy did not become an empire like Britain or America, so it did not homogenize *that* much -- but it tended in that direction for awhile, mainly in response to the incursions of the French Empire on their Northwestern frontier (where the unification movement came from -- Savoy).
But the Romance languages did not originate in the South of Italy -- there was an entirely different branch of Italic spoken there in pre-imperial Roman times, mainly Oscan. Dialects of Italian come from Latin, which originated in the Center of Italy, in Rome.
So today, there is high diversity *far away from* the origin, and more uniformity close to the origin, of the Romance languages in Italy. Same reason as in Britain -- there was a meta-ethnic frontier closer to the Center than to the South, so the Center homogenized more than the South.
In other countries, the two possible sources of variation-generation yield the same result, so you can't tell which one did it. Like in America or Japan -- greater variation where the settlers landed, and less variation far from that origin.
But in countries where these two possible sources do not coincide with each other, it's the meta-ethnic frontier source that wins, not the "proximity to the origin" source.
Genetics may show another picture, with greater diversity at the origin. But culture is subject to other forces and processes that genetics is not -- like homogenization in the presence of a meta-ethnic nemesis.
All right, that's plenty for tonight, and my tiger-bear is getting more vocal about going to cuddle in bed together, so I'll return to the "truce in the battle of the sexes" topic tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteIt will have to do with what styles of dance become popular among laypeople, or normative among dancers and choreographers, during the two different phases of more-harmonious or less-harmonious.
Surprise -- more acrobatic and gymnastic dance styles are actually favored in the harmonious phase! Harmonious doesn't mean low-energy -- it just means low intensity of social / civic warfare. There may be plenty of energy.
And since harmony is all about trust, then dancing will take the form of playing trust games -- and when you get acrobatic, you're really relying on trust in your fellow dance partners!
If you don't trust them to catch your fall -- literally -- there's no way in hell you're going to get acrobatic on the dancefloor.
I've done plenty of research, but I may need to do a second pass in order to get timestamps from YouTube videos, in case you guys don't feel like watching the entire video with your eyes peeled (party-poopers).
All for now.
You can’t get much more acrobatic and energetic than the popular dance styles of the 20s-40s like the charleston, Lindy, swing, etc. Especially once you get into the late 30s through WW2. A lot of energy, improvisation but also trust required.
DeleteDang girl, you didn't have to kidnap me, duct-tape my mouth, bind my hands, hang me upside down, and push me along the rail of a meatpacking plant -- you could've just left a secret admirer note in my locker!
ReplyDeleteThe femme fatale facet of the confident, initiative-taking woman phenomenon. "Be My Lover" by La Bouche (1995):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViP87WipSm0
She got them crazy eyes, too!
I'm going to make that dancing thread a separate post, it's getting way too long for a comments section. I'll probably be adding to it like crazy in the comments anyway.
ReplyDeleteAnd it isn't only about the literal physical support between the two sexes on the dancefloor, since it also shows up in choreography involving just guys doing acrobatic dances. But the larger point remains -- social harmony, covering interactions within the sexes as well as between the sexes.
This revelation must have all started germinating when I watched Xanadu recently, with its '40s meets early '80s fusion. The fusion would've worked even better in the first half of the '90s, when social harmony hit another peak, but at least the early '80s were part of the more-harmony phase, recovering from the peak of social chaos circa 1970.
Anyway, I'm going to try to put more comments in this thread that are still on the topic of the truce in the battle of the sexes, and the dancing discussion will have to wait a little while.
Briefly on the topic of race relations and social harmony, the '80s and first half of the '90s saw white rappers rise to global stardom -- without having to genuflect before the black founders of the genre, as though it were still the late '60s / early '70s Black Power era.
ReplyDeleteOr -- as though it were the late '90s to early 2020s era of renewed schisms between the races in America, when white rappers were required to get a permission slip, blessing, indulgence, or other form of OK from an office-holder in the institution of black rap.
The first was just part of one song, "Rapture" by Blondie (1980), at the outset of rap history. The Beastie Boys went mainstream throughout the '80s and first half of the '90s, and even enjoyed a late '90s hit ("Intergalactic").
By far the peak of white rap that was mainstream and didn't have to prove itself or exonerate itself in some racial conflict, was the first half of the '90s. "Ice Ice Baby" by Vanilla Ice from '90, "Informer" by Snow in '92, "Jump Around" by House of Pain in '92, and "Insane in the Brain" by Cypress Hill in '93.
Cypress Hill were mixed-race, but they were not African-American, so they also could not claim automatic protection if there had been a racially charged atmosphere back then. The lead rapper is Mexican and Cuban, the other rapper is Cuban (as in, born there), and the DJ is a white New Yorker with a Norwegian surname (Muggerud).
Given the hostilities that have erupted between Mexicans and African-Americans in Southern California (where the group is from) since over the past few decades -- whereby Mexicans have displaced most of the African-Americans -- this group would not have had a free pass to rap in the late 2010s or early 2020s. They would have to bend the knee ethnically somehow.
But back in '93, no such ritual was necessary -- cuz the ethnic groups and races were not in a sustained war with each other, not even after the Rodney King-related L.A. riots of '91, which were an acute flare-up rather than a chronic plague -- and they were more of an anti-police protest than an anti-white protest.
The 1994 movie Airheads shows an all-white metal band take over a radio station to get their demo tape played on the air, prompting the police to show up. In order to rile up a crowd against the police, the metal group starts chanting "ROD-NEY KING! ROD-NEY KING!" And "Informer" is an anti-police song as well. And "Jump Around" has a few anti-police lines -- saying they just hang out in donut shops all day long, and calling them pigs.
In a period of civil breakdown, the Rodney King riots would've been explicitly a white vs. black war. But in the early '90s, it was only partly racial, and mainly about police brutality / calling cops worthless pigs / etc. regardless of the race of the anti-cop person.
One of those turning points in the second half of the '90s was "Amish Paradise" by Weird Al Yankovic, one of his typical parodies of popular songs, in this cas "Gangsta Paradise" by Coolio. The Weird Al parody came out in '96, and during a '99 episode of VH1's Behind the Music with him, he said Coolio took the parody the wrong way, the original was serious about the sorry state of black inner cities, etc., and Weird Al was making too light of that situation by making a parody set in wholesome Amish country. Coolio refused the royalties from the parody.
ReplyDeleteWeird Al looked straight into the camera and apologized, hoping to settle the beef, which eventually did happen. But I still remember that being a bizarre moment of tension -- for Coolio to be beefing with like-able Weird Al of all people.
By the late '90s, white rappers bifurcated in two directions -- the first was to keep doing your own thing and not seek permission, benediction, etc. from African-American rappers, but collapsing into an increasingly niche genre. This was the rap-rock or rap-metal solution, including Insane Clown Posse, Limp Bizkit, and others.
Although having some degree of visibility, they were not chart-toppers like the Beastie Boys, whose earlier rap-rock fusion they descend from. And they no longer appealed to black audiences, whereas earlier white rappers did.
Only Kid Rock had mainstream success, and it was a flash in the pan, and leaned more in the rock / metal direction than the rap direction.
The other solution was to become the protege of an established black rapper, or at least get their blessing, and always make it known that you were a guest in their house. That was the strategy of Eminem, who had Dr. Dre vouching for his bona fides. His first hit was in '99, and most of his success is from the 2000s. That was a real turning point away from the Vanilla Ice and Cypress Hill era of race-blind rap.
But because Eminem matched up with the changing social mood, he did enjoy far more mainstream success, including with black audiences, unlike the rap-rock strategy that pretended it was still the '80s and early '90s, when the mood had shifted decisively toward race-vigilant rap, depriving Limp Bizkit et al of Eminem-tier popularity.
They didn't have the term "cultural appropriation" back in the late '90s, but that was the meaning and intent behind Coolio's beef with Weird Al and making sure Eminem had a black mentor to extend him a line of social credit. By the woketard 2010s, this term exploded, and so did the attitude behind it, targeting whoever was white and rapping, such as Iggy Azalea -- who was put under even more of a microscope cuz she's Australian, not American or even Canadian.
Post Malone is the most famous and popular recent white rapper -- but he doesn't really rap in his major hits, such as "Circles" from 2019. He sings, albeit in a sad-boy way -- but still, singing rather than spitting bars. And the rhythm and beats from his major hits don't sound very rappy either, nor are they suited to rap-oriented danceclubs.
I think by the late 2010s and early 2020s, white rappers had had enough of being put under such a racially charged microscope, and just bowed out altogether from the genre -- at least, in the songs they wanted to be broadly visible and popular. Maybe they would still do a little rapping on the B-sides, but not as their main draw, not as part of their defining stage presence.
However, since we are now past that peak of civil breakdown, maybe white rappers will be allowed to come out of their shells and do their own thing, without having to be vouched for by an African-
ReplyDeleteAmerican elder statesman within the hip-hop nation.
Like I've said before, though, American culture is dead, so going forward the vibe shift won't be so noticeable in pop culture -- cuz there is hardly any such thing left to examine. But to the extent that there are still recording artists, and audiences, "white rap" will be gradually allowed to come into its own again, however slowly at first. Probably won't become a non-controversial genre -- or as the woketards labeled it, non-problematic -- until the early 2040s.
But the pendulum is swinging that way, so if your thing is rapping and you're white, now is the time to get in on the ground floor of the rebirth of race-blind rap.
Can't neglect "Good Vibrations" by Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch from '91, easily the best of its time -- or since!
ReplyDeleteReturning to the whole "cool vs. weird" vibe shift during this same time period, early '90s rap was about being cool, not weird. Weird rap happened right when weird rock / weird metal did -- second half of the '90s.
If you were into Marilyn Manson, you were probably into Limp Bizkit, Korn, etc. as well. Weird, twisted, warped, scatological, pornographic, shocking the normies, grossing them out, and so on.
The Eminem to Post Malone era was more about the birth of emo, which affected rap as much as it did rock and pop. Unlike rock, there was no rap counterpart to goth in the '80s or early '90s, to provide a perfect contrast with emo from the 2000s. Romantic rap was more likely to be pure R&B or soul music.
There was a little crossover, though, like "Freak Me" by Silk from '93 -- #1 R&B / Hip-hop, and #1 on the Hot 100 overall. The verses have a pretty monotone, plainspoken, rap-like delivery and rhyme pattern, while the backup vocal and the chorus is a more soulful R&B delivery. And it's not raunchy or pornographic or shocking the normies -- it's sensual and romantic.
Not quite as wistful or yearning or bouncy like classic goth music is, but that's the closest thing I can think of for "goth is to rock, as X is to rap".
Actually, "Don't Walk Away" by Jade is pretty close to "goth but for black people". It's mainly R&B, but with some rap elements ("new jack swing"). No rapping in the vocal delivery, but maybe part of the funky danceable beats -- which you could also say is just danceclub music, not necessarily rap. It does have somewhat of a hard edge to it, like rap of its time, something for the badasses and baddies, not just innocent R&B.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet it has that romantic, pining tone throughout the singing as well. And it *is* danceable.
So, the key elements of goth -- but applied to a foundation of rap instead of rock. It's the perfect foil for 2000s and 2010s emo-rap. Romantic, pining, focused on the other rather than dwelling and stewing within your own private throught-prison.
And with a clearly sub-cultural baddie aesthetic on the performers and in the music video, similar to goth within the broad genre of rock.
Hip-Goth! Goth & B! Whatever you want to call it, it was there after all! ^_^
The popularity of the term "wigger" is from the early to mid '90s. I think closer to '94 or '95, although maybe a few people were using it a bit earlier.
ReplyDeleteIt did not mean someone who liked black culture -- cuz back then, everyone liked everything. Preppies listened to rap, pop, rock, dance, country, Latin, you name it. If it was hot, they listened to it.
It meant someone who *only* liked black culture and modeled themselves entirely on black people.
Back then it was used non-ironically, and in a non-judgmental way. It was a little mocking and pejorative, but more of a roasting way -- not mean-spirited or condescending. Y'know, that was that person's quirk -- pretending they were black. But we've all got our quirks, right? No big deal.
The fat kid was a fattie, the tall scrawny kid was a beanpole, the wannabe black guy was a wigger.
In fact, wiggers were less shamed or ostracized than the fatties and beanpoles and four-eyeses. It was totally non-problematic at the time.
As of the late 2010s and early 2020s, it must be used ironically as an apology -- like "I know I like black culture, and I'm not black, so forgive me for clusmily trying to enjoy it and make it my own, I'm just a goofy cornball white person."
Or it's used in a pejorative ostracizing way by black people, which black people did not do in the first half of the '90s.
But as the pendulum swings toward social harmony once again, maybe it will be used non-ironically in the coming decades.
One final vignette for today, on race relations in the '90s. This one involves a wigger, in fact.
ReplyDeleteThis was just before the decisive turning point in the late '90s, 1995, so we escaped from it without any major drama, but the tension was thick enough to cut with a knife. If it had happened a few years later, I don't know that we wouldn't have gotten our asses beaten right there in the movie theater.
While hanging out at the mall one day, two friends and I felt like seeing a movie. What's this one about -- Higher Learning? Set in college, raw / alt / 90s aesthetic, directed by the guy who did Boyz n the Hood -- sounds cool!
Holy shit, what an insane bunch of proto-woketard propaganda that movie was! From start to finish! Every possible angle to inflame civil conflicts was in it, dialed up to 11. Frat boys raping girls on a supposedly safe college campus. White kid who starts off innocent but becomes a full-fledged neo-Nazi. Elder Black Power-era mentor to the young black protege.
Anything from the late '60s / early '70s era that could be dragged out again, they dragged it out again.
And worst of all, we saw it at Wheaton Plaza mall, which was in a fairly African-American area, and we were literally the only white people in the entire audience. Could've been worse -- could've seen it in P.G. Plaza. But man, did we see that movie in the *wrong* theater...
During one of the most inflammatory neo-Nazi scenes -- I don't even remember the particulars, cuz we just totally blanked out what we were watching, and went into survival mode -- we could hear the whole audience starting to grumble and suck their teeth and generally get pissed off. I don't think we heard any shouting of anti-white slurs or anything that bad, but the temperature was RISING. And the theater was PACKED -- we were not just the only white people, but surrounded close-by the black audience.
So what else could we do? We had to let out very loud expressions of disbelief, condemnation, "man, that's fucked UP..." and so on. Just to let them know, we weren't neo-Nazis ourselves. Please, don't turn your anger on us, just hate the neo-Nazi on the make-believe inflammatory propaganda big screen, and let it go at that.
And luckily... they did! Maybe one or two members of the audience looked our way, like "That's you up there!" but I don't remember getting nasty glares, insults, etc. We just went into our condemnation pre-emptively, just in case.
One of us, more of a friend of my friend, was a wigger, too. Not like that was going to protect him -- "Hey man, I love your culture more than my own, don't hurt me!" He had to join our little condemnation as well. He didn't get to sit back in comfort like being a wigger made you somehow not-white.
Nobody did anything to us on the way out of the theater, when the lights came on and they could see a few white kids there.
But that was the closest I've ever been to accidentally stumbling into a race riot.
Lucky for us, 1995 was right about at the peak of social harmony, so no matter how flagrantly the director tried to inflame the audience, they didn't try to lynch us -- or even insult us with words or looks. Thank Jesus, it would've been the end of us if it had been 2020 -- but in reality, we would've still lived, we just would've had to go through an even more elaborate condemnation ritual before the audience, as many white people did during the summer of 2020.
ReplyDeleteAmerican History X was even more inflammatory, focusing just on the white power / neo-Nazi angle. That came out in '98 -- no way I'd see that in an all-black theater, three years after Higher Learning!
The second half of the '90s seems to have been the origin of the media's inflammatory propaganda about white people being closeted Nazis who can be summoned into genocide mode at a moment's notice and without having been born that way either.
Earlier, there may have been portrayals of the US military vs. the German military in WWII, like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989). But setting Nazism in the present day, in America, was just totally risible garbage before about 1995 when Higher Learning came out.
That also reflects the swinging of the pendulum away from social harmony and toward civil breakdown.
But that swing itself has reached its max extent as of circa 2020, and the racial tension is simmering down from that unchecked conflagration of 5 years ago.
Hopefully that means "everyone I don't agree with is a Nazi" witch hunts will die down over the next few decades, until they get re-ignited with the next pendulum swing in the late 2040s.
1995 is when Noel Ignatiev's "How The Irish Became White" came out, which really accelerated the essentialization of "whiteness" in many elite quarters.
DeleteSome clarifications on how rappy some of those white rappers were, based on which Billboard charts they landed on.
ReplyDeleteTurns out "Good Vibrations" didn't make it to the rap charts at all. It topped the Hot 100, was #10 on the Dance Club Play chart, and #64 on the R&B chart. Not being a huge fan of rap, this explains why I like it the most of the ones I listed -- the least rappy. But still strange that it didn't chart at all for rap, since the verses are nothing but rap, and there's no chorus, just a refrain that's R&B-like.
Kid Rock never had a song on the rap charts -- Hot 100, various rock charts, sometimes country, but never rap. Audiences treated him like a rock artist with occasional country crossover appeal, not as rap-rock that could actually land on a black/urban chart. Ditto for Korn and Limp Bizkit.
The late hit by the Beastie Boys, "Intergalactic", did not reach the rap charts either -- Hot 100, Alternative, Dance, Pop, and Rhythmic (a black/urban-friendly chart, but not Rap or the R&B/Hip-Hop chart, which are specifically about rap). Same with "Sabotage" from '94 -- Hot 100 and Alternative only. "Sure Shot" from that same album only hit the Dance chart.
But "Get It Together" from the same album *did* hit the Rap chart, as did "So What'cha Want" from '92, and "Hey Ladies" from '89. There was no separate Rap chart in '87, when their first album Licensed to Ill came out.
So Beastie Boys' acceptance by the rap audience lasted from the late '80s through '94, after which they were received as a rock and/or dance group -- exactly like their descendants in rap-rock, Kid Rock, Korn, and Limp Bizkit. By the late '90s, rap audiences wanted nothing to do with a white genre like rock anymore -- the widening of the social chasm was beginning all over again, after narrowing to a minimum in the early-mid '90s, when rap-rock songs could find chart success with *both* the rap audience and the rock audience.
Add in 3rd Bass for a mostly white rap group from the late '80s and early '90s (two white rappers, and a black DJ). They topped the Rap chart in '91 with "Pop Goes the Weasel" -- parodying / dissing Vanilla Ice.
ReplyDeleteOne of the white rappers in the group, MC Serch, topped the Rap chart by himself in '92 with "Here It Comes" / "Back to the Grill".
Now let's look over the #1's on the Rap chart over time, which admittedly misses all the close-calls that reached the top 10 but not #1. Still instructive, though. The chart begins in 1989.
ReplyDeleteThe first white-ish rapper to score a #1 was Kid of the duo Kid 'n Play -- he has a Jamaican father and Irish(-American?) mother, and everyone could always tell he was pretty white for a rapper. His partner, Play, was African-American, though. The group had two #1's, "Funhouse" in '90 and "Ain't Gonna Hurt Nobody" in '91.
Good ol' "Ice Ice Baby" was not only popular on the overall chart, it dominated the Rap chart as well in '90 -- and it was not a wimp-rap kind of environment that he succeeded in. In the same year, other chart-toppers included "AmeriKKKa's Most Wanted" by Ice Cube, "911 Is a Joke" by Public Enemy, and "Murder Rap" by Above the Law.
Vanilla Ice was seen as cool in 1990, not as a goofy cornball -- and that included his reception by the rap audience, not just white suburbanites listening to the Top 40 radio stations. Yes he got parodied -- like all cool, popular artists do. Nirvana was parodied even more -- were they not seen as cool or badass? Of course they were.
One of those parodies, "Pop Goes the Weasel" by 3rd Bass, topped the chart in '91, and as mentioned one their members topped the chart again solo in '92.
Cypress Hill scored an early #1 with "The Phuncky Feel One" / "How I Could Just Kill a Man" in '92, then another more iconic #1 in '93 with "Insane in the Brain".
Earlier in '93, "Informer" by Snow hit #1, and again it was not a wimp-rap environment that he dominated. A few weeks earlier, the chart-topper was "Wicked" by Ice Cube, and the two songs that followed "Informer" at the top were "Nuthin' but a 'G' Thang" by Dr. Dre and Snoop Doggy Dogg, and "Throw Ya Gunz" by Onyx.
After '93, no more white or other non-black rappers topped the chart, until the early 2010s, by which point they had made the transition to house-guests who sit their white ass the fuck down and listen, only if vouched for by an established black rapper, and so on.
In fact, Eminem didn't hit #1 solo until 2013 with "Berzerk". He hit #1 as lead artist, ft. Rihanna, in 2010 with "Love the Way You Lie". And he hit #1 as a featured artist in 2009 under Drake's song "Forever". Both Drake and Rihanna being black artists who could vouch for him in the same way that Dr. Dre had during his debut.
At the height of his influence in the 2000s, he came close to topping the Rap chart, but got #2 with "Lose Yourself" from 2002.
Judging from the Rap #1's, the mid-'90s is the point of reversal in the pendulum's swing. But some of that is due to the noise introduced by only looking at #1's instead of also #2's, or the top 10, etc. So I'm still going with "second half of the '90s" for when rap split from white genres -- taking into account when the Beastie Boys, the original and longest-living white rap group, were received by the rap audience (up through '94).
Actually the label "rap metal" or "rap-rock" isn't even used anymore for Kid Rock, Limp Bizkit, Korn, etc. -- it's "nu metal," with no reference to rap or any other black genre.
ReplyDeleteEveryone just wants to pretend like there's no rap influence there whatsoever, just cuz the rap-rock fusion was no longer accepted as genuine rap by the late '90s.
If you classify it by its aesthetic elements, it has some degree of rap in it.
But if you classify it by who it was received by, it was not rap at all, it was only rock.
Just give it until the early 2040s, and some kind of fusion between white and black genres will make a sincere, non-ironic, unqualified, non-problematic comeback. You heard it here first!
There was a Hololive EN rap contest tonight! Talk about synchronicity, I spent all day getting distracted by the history of non-black rappers, without knowing Mori hosted a rap contest for the entirely non-black Holo EN crew!
ReplyDeleteI'm an anti-woketard, you know I don't care if you're white, Asian, or Martian. I imprinted on the cool era of rap -- the late '80s and early '90s -- so your skin color would never enter my mind.
Just felt like expressing how cool it is when synchronicity strikes like this! ^_^
But tellingly, race-blind rap can only take place under a Japanese company like Hololive. If it were an American company, it'd be run by a bunch of insane woketards who would force the non-black contestants and judges to bow down and apologize for their original sin of being white or Asian or whatever.
...Or is even the American scene starting to change by 2025? IDK, but even if it is, it's still MUCH MUCH safer to be a non-black rapper in Japan, where woketards have never had any influence. Japan never bent the knee to gay marriage, gay pride parades, trannies, the gay flag, or any of that other 2010s bullshit.
Glorious Nippon! Creating a safe space for non-black rappers. ^_^
When woketards seethe and whine about "Japan still uses fax machines!!!" they're not really complaining about a mismatch in the Western perception of Japan as a techno-futurist society and the reality of them still using fax machines and Web 2.0.
ReplyDeleteThey're just using their techno-gadgets as an autistic deflection -- what they really are trying to say is:
"Japan never entered the woketard crusade of the 2010s and early 2020s! We kept telling them, every single year: It's 2012, It's 2015, It's 2018, It's 2020... get with the times! Why don't you allow gay marriage? Why don't you allow gays to adopt? Why don't you let trannies change their legal gender? Why don't you fly the gay flag? You're so BACKWARDS!"
It's called being noble savages, honorable barbarians, and proud cavemen, rather than a corrupted decadent civilization, fag-wad.
I hope Japan never stops using fax machines, it'll be a permanent reminder that they decide what to adopt from outside Japan, they aren't dictated to by American libtards. And it'll be a permanent reminder that they chose to never get sucked down the 2010s and early 2020s vortex of woketard chaos and civil breakdown, like America and much of its imperial orbit.
Glorious Nippon! Never stop using the fax machine! Assert your independence from 2010s woketard America! ^_^
It's just a lazy and retarded techno-determinist worldview. "If Japan still uses the fax machine, that must mean they're ideologically stuck in the 2000s or more like the '90s."
ReplyDelete"And it's not like they're unaware of America having moved past the fax machine, and also having moved past the American ideology of the '90s and 2000s, and into 2010s ideology."
"So, why aren't they moving past the '90s along with us? They want to stay stuck in the past?"
"If they only wanted to stay stuck in the past technologically, well that's one thing. But staying stuck in the past ideologically? Oh no no no, that's heresy -- burn the witches!"
Of course, Japan is *not* stuck in the '90s or 2000s technologically just cuz they still use those awesome fax machines that Americans still remember fondly, if they were alive in the '90s.
Japan adopted digital point-and-shoot cameras, then cell phones, then smartphones with built-in cameras (the exact same models we use), and then social media (the exact same platforms we use).
If having cameras everywhere, and if having such a large share of the population (or just young people) constantly plugged into social media, were the root cause of so many large-scale illnesses in the American Empire -- then why isn't Japan sick in those ways?
Japanese people may be lonely, some live as hikki NEETs, etc. But they aren't at each other's throats like we have been for several decades. They don't conduct witch hunts on each other. They don't destroy their heritage in iconoclastic fashion. They don't self-harm or kill themselves like we do. They don't all think they're ugly due to comparisons with girls they see online. And so on and so forth.
American society right now being so sick, has nothing to do with technology whatsoever. It is 100% a social disease, not caused by tech changes in any domain of society. It's just a cope to blame the tech, when Japan adopted the exact same tech with none of the sicknesses that we have suffered from during that same period.
South Korea is as sick as America, or even more so, but they also adopted the same tech as Japan. So why is Japan so different from South Korea? As with the Japan vs. America comparison, the answer has nothing to do with tech -- they're the same.
ReplyDeleteAmerica is a collapsing empire, due to falling cohesion, which is the source of most of our current sicknesses. America's vassals are absorbing that same attitude, vibe, and set of sicknesses.
But Glorious Nippon is not an American vassal -- not culturally anyway. We defeated them militarily and have occupied them ever since. And yet they still don't speak English, while South Koreans and even Indonesians (who we do not occupy) do speak English. Good for the Japanese! It's nice that some of them learn English to some degree, but they have a healthy culture of their own, and they don't need to learn English in order to experience great culture.
South Korea and Indonesia have very little of their own culture, at least from the contemporary era. So they rely on American or other English-language culture that is contemporary.
Good ol' Japan makes their own manga, anime, video games, vtubers, TV, movies, and so on -- in Nihongo! If you want to enjoy it, you'd better have closed captions with auto-translate turned on, or find someone to translate it by hand, or maybe dub over it in English, or something. Cuz they're not going to learn perfect English just so the kaigai niki can understand it. They're going to stick with their native language, and either the outsiders can find a translator or not.
For the good of the entire world, I hope the Japanese never stop being Japanese. There are already too many South Koreas, Czech Republics, and other shithole vassal cultures of the crumbling American Empire.
Japan must be preserved as a Japanese culture, not dictated to by American woketards!
You can also tell the Eurolarpers in America apart by who is still complaining today about the Rothschilds and their influence over the world. The Rothschilds were a powerful banking family in the 19th century, but in the 20th century their influence went into the abyss as the Nazis confiscated the Rothschilds' banks and investments in Austria and Mitterrand nationalised the Rothschilds' banks and investments in France. The Rothschilds failed to enter the American banking industry and so they were overshadowed by American banking families like the House of Morgan as the United States overtook Europe to become one of two global superpowers. These days the Rothschilds are only relevant in France and the UK as a minor player in their national banking industries, being dwarfed by giants like Barclays, Deutsche Bank, and UBS/Credit Suisse in Europe and completely irrelevant in America.
ReplyDeleteTrump is deporting less people than Joe Biden did in his last year in office
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-set-broaden-arrests-deportation-routes-expand-immigration-crackdown-2025-02-21/
Want cute young girls to talk to you first in public spaces? It's as simple as looking cool. Being hot will amplify the effect of looking cool, but coolness goes a long way in itself, even if you're not hot.
ReplyDeleteFor example, by now everyone knows that big muscles don't get you noticed by girls, don't get you unsolicited compliments, don't make girls strike up a convo with you in public, etc. "Oh wow, what big muscles you have..." -- psych! Only other guys notice that, will spontaneously compliment on them, etc.
But if you have a cool look, that will catch girls' attention, make them look up to and respect you at least somewhat compared to other guys they don't know, and open them up to chatting in public -- whether they initiate or you do. If you're hot, they'll initiate. If you're not, then you have to open -- but they'll be open to it.
Last night I wasn't even planning to go out, but decided to at the last minute and threw something together. All of it vintage, made in first-world countries, from real materials, etc.
Dark-blue slim fit but straight leg jeans (not tapered / skinny) by Wrangler, REAL Doc Martens shoes (black, low-top, Made in England -- not Thailand), white button-down shirt with navy blue stripes, apple-red v-neck wool vest over top of that, chocolate brown corduroy sportcoat with brown suede elbow patches, navy blue wool beret, large-lens glasses with dark-brown frames and slight rose tint to the lenses.
I thought it looked pretty snazzy-jazzy -- and so did the babes! I wasn't even planning on an outfit specifically for babes to approach me, just thought it looked cool. But that's what I mean -- looking cool opens them up to chatting you up.
And it's a very simple understated look -- only one pattern, the blue stripes on a white background, and even that was only visible on the shirt collar and upper chest area. Only one noticeable texture, on the corduroy. Otherwise, no insane level of details / ornamentation, muted textures, solid colors, and not even loud bold contrasting colors at that -- red, blue, and brown were the main combo.
At a thrift store, there was a pair of alt-girls making what looked like a weekly or monthly pilgrimage, hauling a huge shopping cart of stuff around the store, possibly coming up from college campus. One of them called out as I was passing nearby, "I really like your outfit, by the way!"
I turned toward her, looked her up and down, and said, "Thanks! I like yours too..." Tall-ish bubble-butt goth in all-black and winged eyeliner -- I did not have to lie for politeness' sake. ^_^ She wasn't expecting to get looked up and down in return, so that must have refilled her validation tank for the night, hehe.
She had her long-sleeve t-shirt tucked into her pants, which is something I haven't seen since the '80s or early '90s. Usually t-shirts are left untucked and flowy, but she must have wanted to emphasize her round buns -- and it was very much appreciated! Usually goths and emos are boob girls, so perhaps she wanted to let it be known that there are bootylicious goths as well. Her friend was a butt-girl too.
Before that, at another thrift store, there was a young alt-girl looking over while we were both waiting for the dressing rooms, although we were far enough apart that she didn't call out anything. She had a pale white foundation on her face, and heavy black eye make-up, and a black bob that went down to about her chin all the way around and straight-across bangs. Very classic goth.
ReplyDeleteAnd then in the supermarket later, the same tall Asian honey who complimented me on my poncho / jeans / Western boots look a few weeks ago, approached me while I was standing in the self checkout line, which she was supervising.
"I just want to say... you always have such a... curated look," she gushed as she walked up beside me. "Like everything is so..." nice and cool, or something to that effect. What, this ol' ensemble that I just threw together at the last minute? ^_^ It's more like you get things that you know will be cool no matter what else they're combined with, always part of an overall coherent vintage / cool look.
Then she went on to say that she remembered the last time we talked, I told her the poncho and most of the outfit was thrifted, and how cool she thought that was. And I told her last night, truthfully, that just about everything was thrifted again, but how you have to go often cuz they don't have piles of treasure every time.
Then after she was finished helping some other customers, she circled back and asked me more about what stores I go to, and I pointed out the nearby thrift stores, and had a nice little back-and-forth about them and thrifting in general.
She had an alt-girl look as well, with her black pants tucked into black Doc Martens (?) combat boots.
I emphasize the alt-ness of these girls cuz from the online presence of alt-girls, you might think they'd be the most shy or anti-social or outright hateful. But IRL, they are VERY open to chatting with guys, including strangers, in public spaces. They may not be as giggly as the preppy / popular type of girls get when there's a hot guy with a cool vintage look, but they absolutely notice you and want to talk to you and get some validation from you.
ReplyDeleteWell, at least the ones who will actually venture outside their home. There's some selection bias, of course, but that's true for girls from all sub-cultures. These days, if someone has left the home at all, consider them a life-of-the-party social butterfly, no matter what you associate their sub-culture with.
They left their home, when they could've stayed in bedrotmaxxing and doomscrolling all night long? They're practically *begging* to chat with someone! ^_^
With the usual caveat that you don't make it weird, as though you were a rando from Twitter trying to insult her in typical incel fashion, or trying to score updoot points from your fellow girl-hating incel crew.
And yes, when a girl compliments your outfit, she is clearly telling you that she looked you up and down and likes what she sees -- inviting you to do likewise! And since the topic, overtly, is about clothing -- well, that's less sexually forward than saying AWOOOOGA. It lets you strike up a little flirtatious convo in a comfortable way for both, so it doesn't get weird and go straight into body-part discussion, even if that's what you're noticing.
I didn't tell the goth girl, "Dang girl, so that's where you been hiding all them melancholy feelings at..." Just getting looked up and down, and complimented overtly on her clothing alone, is enough to refill her validation tank.
As I said earlier, I don't pursue every babe who is open to flirtation, but if you're a sub-super-hot guy who pursues the handful of opportunities he gets, this is a surefire way to get some of those opportunities in the first place. Just look cool and be cool, and if need be, compliment an alt-girl on her outfit / hair first.
No negging whatsoever, or you're a gay incel. Negging for Gen X PUA types just meant playful teasing to get her to drop her shield, then acting friendly and pleasant afterward. Millennial and/or Zoomer incels took it the wrong way, meaning insulting her or dishing out mean-spirited / back-handed / two-faced compliments to try to make her insecure and self-doubting. News flash, faggot -- that just makes her clam up and want to withdraw from public view. No pussy for you -- not even flirtation or validation. Congrats on dooming yourself even more thoroughly...
Just a pleasant smile, like "real recognizes real", showing some interest and appreciation for her looking cute and cool in a public space, rather than staying inside all the time or wearing frumpy athleisure when she does leave the home.
Maybe work in a reference that she would know and appreciate, without it seeming tryhard. If she's alt / goth / emo, say she looks like a princess from a Tim Burton movie, or a "goth Disney princess". That pair of alt-girls were gushing over some item in the women's section giving "Disney princess", so they'd appreciate a seemingly normie compliment about Disney, too.
Unless you've been told, explicitly, repeatedly throughout your life, that's you're hot, gorgeous, beautiful, sooo cuuuute, etc. -- you will never cold approach a girl and get laid that night. Especially if you behave and communicate in a way that says you're just looking for a quick fling, and is she DTF or not.
ReplyDeleteMaybe if you were both shitfaced drunk at a house party in 2006, you could wind up in bed together as strangers. But house parties, shitfaced drunk around strangers, casual sex in general -- that's gone. Not coming back soon.
And when it does, it'll only be because guys and girls start acting friendly and flirtatious at the outset, rather than amping up the psychological arms race in the battle of the sexes.
I've already been given signals for the past several years that girls are willing to lay down their arms, and cold-approach guys in public without it being an overtly sexual "omg you're so hot, come back to my place tonight" kind of way. But in a more friendly, low-stakes, comfy kind of way -- which is actually more likely to lead toward casual sex in the short-term, for sub-super-hot guys.
What they need now is a reciprocal response from guys.
Not that it makes all the difference in the world, but the type of pockets on a sportcoat can make you feel less awkward if you normally don't wear them or think they look too tryhard or whatever.
ReplyDeleteThe one I was wearing last night, aside from being made from corduroy -- casual -- and having suede elbow patches -- casual -- also had hip pockets that were "patch pockets". That's the kind that are sewn over top of the outside of the jacket, so the sides and bottom are visible, as opposed to the type that are hidden behind the outside and only the top entry slit is visible.
They also did not have any kind of flap at the top -- totally open.
The more formal it looks, the more awkward you'll feel if you're not used to looking cool.
Finding a sportcoat where it's just cazh, cazh, and more cazh, will make it easier to not be self-conscious about it or worry if others are going to think it looks tryhard or whatever.
Not that a sportcoat with a more formal-looking texture, lack of patches, and jetted pockets will be poorly received by the babes or fellow cool-aspiring dudes. But to start off with -- and perhaps to stick with long-term, if it suits you better -- go for the most casual-looking stand-out piece you can find.
For some people, that would just be the navy blue beret! Most guys wouldn't dare.
Or just the contrasting yellow welt stitching on those Doc Martens -- woah dude, stimulation overload!
And it doesn't have to be a sportcoat, i.e. cut to look like a suit jacket. It could be a sharp-looking hunting jacket or safari jacket, both of which have large patch pockets rather than hidden ones. Those little details make them look distinctive, and cool.
You don't have to delve into all the micro-genres of pockets or jacket shapes or whatever. You can eyeball it on a gestalt level and tell how casual or formal it comes off. This little discussion of pocket types is just to bring your attention to something specific to look for, that you might've noticed on a gestalt level but not consciously focused on it before.
Patch pockets! With or without a flap cover on top. Even more casual if no flap, though.
The max of social harmony saw the theme of friendship take over everything. Not the least of which was the mega-hit TV show, appropriately enough titled Friends, which debuted in '94. I never watched it, although revisiting the culture of the most socially harmonious period since the '40s has made me curious about maybe watching the first season or two, which were mid-'90s rather than late '90s or 2000s.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course I know the theme song, that was inescapable -- for good reason. It's insanely catchy. And the lyrics reinforce the theme of the show -- that it's about friendship, not necessarily romance, family, the workplace, etc.
And what role do friends play, according to this theme song? They're not activity partners, or those who share a common interest -- they're the ones who support each other through the tough times in life, on a long-term basis, reciprocally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2TyVQGoCYo
That's what makes friendship so central to the rising-harmony period: it's about supporting others, rather than competing against them.
Getting along with those around you, but in an active way -- doing whatever the others need when they're going through tough times, not in a negative way of "refraining from antagonizing others while remaining socially isolated," which is how we view "getting along" in the 21st century so far.
And, in contrast to other songs about supporting someone in difficult times, like "Lean on Me" from the last peak of social chaos (1972), the emotional tone is upbeat, carefree, and dance-y in "I'll Be There for You".
For that matter, Club Nouveau's 1987 cover of "Lean on Me" is more upbeat, carefree, and dance-y. Aesthetically, it's a worse rendition than the original, and not as poignant, but it does show how the social mood had changed between the peak of social breakdown circa 1970 and the late '80s.
Without having seen it, Friends strikes me as "John Hughes teen movie as TV series, but when they've aged into their 20s and early 30s, with a dash of '90s sarcasm instead of pure '80s sentimentality". In other words, more of a final trace of the '80s and early '90s mood, less of a proto-2000s mood. Well, the early seasons anyway at least -- I expect the seasons that were literally in the 2000s to be very 2000s.
I'd rather stay incel than do all this. Talking clothing with women? Come on. No man in my entire lineage has ever flirted with a female. and they were all given teen virgins to marry, but I have to entertain these street hoes to get my dick wet. I will keep my dignity. Very interesting to read what it's like from the other side though.
ReplyDeleteTV series whose main characters were a friend group seem to be a rising-harmony trend. Friends debuted in '94. Seinfeld debuted even earlier, in '89.
ReplyDeleteAnd Cheers, whose characters are regulars at a local bar and play mostly the same role as "supportive friends" as a friendship circle that associates outside of a single meet-up space like a bar, debuted in '82 (peak ratings in the '86-'87 season, and huge series finale as late as '93). Like Friends, it has a popular theme song about having a social support group for the tough times in life ("Where Everybody Knows Your Name").
Contemporary with Cheers was The Golden Girls, from '85 to '92, which had its own iconic friendship theme song ("Thank You for Being a Friend"). The three main characters are not related, but live in the same Florida retirement village, although one of them also has her mother living there.
In its embryonic stage, this format goes back to 1975 with the debut of Laverne & Shirley, which does not, however, have a "supporting friends through tough times" theme song (it's more about taking the world by storm, achieving your dreams together, etc.).
Three's Company, which debuted in '77, was another highly popular early example, but like Laverne & Shirley, its theme song was not about friends supporting each other (more like, a trio of unattached 20-somethings living a fun-filled single lifestyle).
Mork & Mindy, which debuted in '78 -- and like Laverne & Shirley, was a spin-off of Happy Days -- filled out the proto-examples of this genre. Its theme song didn't have lyrics.
In the '78-'79 season, these 3 shows ranked in the top 3 spots of the Nielsen ratings, showing how suddenly in-demand it was for shows whose characters were friends rather than some other relation.
Without exhaustively going back through all TV history, I don't recall any examples of this genre from the early '70s, '60s, or '50s. It took until the rising-harmony period of 1975 onward (well, till '94 or so) for this genre to be born and take over popular consciousness.
I don't count shows whose characters are in school as a friendship-themed show -- they're usually heavily focused on romance, or family, or "school as teen workplace, with teachers and principal as the managers". They may involve friend relations, but it's not the central premise, like the three shows above.
And by the second half of the '90s, this genre stopped debuting any new series, as the rising-chaos phase set in. Hypothetically, now that that phase has ended, and the pendulum is swinging back toward harmony, this genre could spawn new shows in the second half of the 2020s -- but since American culture has died, there won't be any such thing.
ReplyDeleteIt may show up in the fragmented niches and sub-cultures, like streamers forming friend circles, perhaps like a generation of vtubers who debut at the same time.
But the point is, since our culture has died and begun disintegrating, signals of which phase a cycle is in will be much harder to read than before, when everyone watched the same handful of shows.
The series finale of Cheers in '93 was viewed live by 42 million households in America, and an estimated 93 million American individuals saw it -- 40% of the population at the time. Those days are long gone, so intense signals like the Cheers series as a whole, its theme song, and its finale, will not be found going forward.
But whatever fragmented, niche-ified, disintegrated form American culture takes in the future, this theme of rising harmony, actively getting along and supporting others, and friendship circles, will become more and more popular -- in culture as well as IRL.
Although not in the top 30 of the Nielsen ratings, another key entry from the first half of the '90s was The Real World, MTV's pioneering reality TV show. In the early seasons, the premise was throwing together a bunch of strangers into the same house, and watching their friendships and conflicts evolve. But it was about friendship primarily -- maybe some would become romantic, maybe that would break off.
ReplyDeleteFriends-to-lovers was not common -- other than Rachel and Puck in Season 3 -- although some characters did feel or express their romantic feelings toward others, which were not reciprocal (like Jon crushing on Irene in Season 2). After Season 3 concluded, though, two of the characters later dated, married, and had kids together (Judd and Pam).
Beginning in Season 5, the premise of the show changed to a gimmick where the characters were all working toward a common goal (like launching a business), making it somewhat of a workplace environment peopled by co-workers. Later seasons turned it into a party house with random hook-ups.
After the first half of the '90s, the friendship angle of the show weakened quickly, and soon became a drama / beefing cage-match, mixed with random hook-ups -- ego-centered relations, in both cases, not friendships.
You can watch the first 3 or 4 seasons and get all there is from the series, i.e. "Gen X-ers thrown together to navigate friendships". Again it derives from John Hughes '80s movies -- trying to recreate a Breakfast Club dynamic IRL and film it like a documentary.
I've written about this genre of TV before, but I probably attributed it to the outgoing vs. cocooning cycle. However, reviewing the hit shows of the '60s and early '70s, which were also part of the outgoing phase, there aren't really any examples from this genre. They were still focused on family, romantic couple / spouses, workplace, or school.
ReplyDeleteThe only apparent exception is Gilligan's Island -- they're a motley crew who aren't related, aren't romancing each other, aren't working in the same profession or workplace, aren't at a school. It would seem to lead toward a Breakfast Club / The Real World dynamic, but they don't become supportive friends toward each other. The ones who began related to each other, like spouses or workmates, stay close, and mostly they have conflicts with each other and have to navigate and suppress that conflict.
It was the New Deal / Great Compression / Pre-Neoliberal era, so they weren't at each other's throats, beefing, etc., as their counterparts would be in shows like Lost from the 2000s, with a somewhat similar premise. But still, they don't become an actively supportive friendship circle like they would have during the '80s and first half of the '90s.
And some of the peak examples of the genre come from the cocooning phase of the cycle, which began in the early '90s.
So this looks to fit the timing of the Turchin 50-year "civil harmony vs. breakdown" cycle, more than my 30-year outgoing vs. cocooning cycle (which is just about the same as the 30-year rising-crime vs. falling-crime cycle, and linked to it, as I've outlined before).
Final brief video clip for now. I vaguely remember The Adventures of Pete and Pete when it was still making new episodes, but it was a little past my time for watching that kind of show. I think the target audience for those Nickelodeon shows was just a few years younger than me. I know my brother, born in '82, was obsessed with The Secret World of Alex Mack, as well as the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and other staples of Millennial culture. Late X-ers were more likely watching The Real World, My So-Called Life, and earlier Saved by the Bell.
ReplyDeleteBut browsing through some of these early Millennial faves, I notice a similar focus on friendship, including between a teenage guy and girl, which they may at some point test on a romantic date / kiss, then ultimately decide to stay friends.
But that was just like Jessie and Zack on Saved by the Bell, of the same time period, so it's no surprise to find it on Clarissa Explains It All (between Clarissa and Sam), and The Adventures of Pete and Pete (between big Pete and Ellen). And on Boy Meets World, Cory and Topanga begin as friends -- it's never "just friends," BTW, as the show demonstrates.
The actors are all late Gen X-ers, not Millennials, but some of these shows were targeted more at Millennial audiences. They obviously did not imprint very much on these shows, since they wound up shredding the harmonious / friendship bonds, and reviving the ego-focused hyper-competitive antagonisms of the previous phase of rising chaos.
So this shows that the TV series were reflecting current norms, rather than programming the minds of their target audience. Otherwise the 6-11 year-old Millennials would've been programmed to behave like the late Gen X-ers they were watching on these shows. But they ended up going their own way, toward society-wide antagonism and chaos and breakdown.
But, for that sweet tender innocent moment in the mid-'90s, they were at least getting the right message, whether they took it to heart or not.
This clip isn't set to an appropriate '90s song like "Saved the Best for Last," but it's a similar sound from a bit earlier in the rising-harmony phase nonetheless.
Pete and Ellen not confined to being "just" friends, a compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NEBExbURqM
Interestingly, swing type dances only blew up in the second half of the '20s.
ReplyDeleteI thought for sure the whole F. Scott Fitzgerald, late '10s / early '20s, Lost Generation, Jazz Age, etc. environment was the origin of the Charleston, Lindy Hop, and so on. But nope, it was the late '20s onward.
Same with scat singing, for that matter -- "Heebie Jeebies" by Louis Armstrong in 1926.
Society was still to ego-focused, self-serving, and chaotic in the late '10s and early '20s for there to be high-trust kinds of dancing.
And speaking of race-blind rap in the '90s, that happened with jazz, too, starting in the late '20s. It was never entirely white or entirely black, but it becoming more race-blind, less race-conscious, more of an all-American genre, is more of a late '20s thing, '30s, and '40s, with big band.
Irving Berlin even changed the lyrics of "Puttin' on the Ritz" (published 1929) to no longer be about the flashy fashions of blacks in Harlem, to be about rich socialites and climbers.
The nadir of race relations was circa 1920, and by the '30s, racism was no longer fashionable or edgy or intellectual, in America at least. That was more of an early 20th-C thing.
Yes. The whole zeitgeist of 1917-23 and how many near-revolutions there were (including the Russian Civil War) has largely been forgotten and erased in the public memory. This is despite the fact that these failed revolutions spawned neo-Marxism which the woke cite as the supposed philosophical roots of their movements a century hence!
DeleteLOL, your male ancestors weren't "given" anything, they had to work and prove themselves and compete against other males. And they had to basically get along with women -- no father would want to give his daughter away to some dead-end girl-hating porn-brain, get real.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, the focus on virgins, getting your dick wet, etc. does make you a porn-brain or fag-brain, not a natural human being.
Incels have their priorities backwards -- you have to focus on getting along socially and emotionally with girls, then some of them will sleep with you, casually or committedly.
You can only treat them as purely physical specimens if they would also treat you that way -- i.e., if you're super-hot. But you don't sound like that, so you're not allowed to view or treat them that way either.
I don't mean in a moral / normative way -- just purely descriptively and objectively, cause-and-effect-ly. If you're not hot, that strategy will go nowhere forever.
Humble yourself and compliment a girl on her clothes and her hair with a pleasant smile -- it'll get you farther than fantasizing about what their armpit feels like around your dick, calling them step-sister, or whatever the fetish du jour is.
Indeed. Treat women like women not the toy of one's kink.
DeleteAlso her makeup and perfume.
Getting along with girls socially and emotionally doesn't mean "becoming one of them" in those dimensions, or "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". That's also porn-brained and fag-brained -- it's what leads to crypto-tranny behavior, yuri shipping, and so on.
ReplyDeleteThe male version of a fujo, who thinks no boy would ever accept her as a girl, so she has to fantasize about being a boy who can get close to the boy she's interested in. You'll start fantasizing about being a girl, to get close to the girl you're interested in -- a la that yuri kissing scene from Cruel Intentions, probably the ground zero for yuri in the West. Not surprisingly, from the late '90s ('99), the same time that fujo fetishes took off in the West ("omg, look at those hot gay guys kissing in the 'Beautiful' video!").
It means being male, socially and emotionally, and them being female, socially and emotionally. But those two roles linking up in a complimentary way. You do have to compromise, share some common ground, etc., but you're not going to become clones of each other in some weird sexless way -- watch that Pete and Ellen video, and observe how they're two clearly distinctive sex roles, but complimentary, and also not *entirely* distinctive, overlapping in some ways as well.
Sexual dimorphism is not that wide in human beings, that includes social-emotional stuff as well. We're not separate species, especially when you're talking within a racial or ethnic group, as we almost always are for courtship.
And in the craziest twist of all, the incel urge to "not be female socially / emotionally", in pursuit of some imaginary uber-masculine ideal, they don't reject the awful parts of being female, like being catty, bitchy, whiny, immature, perfectionist, etc. They *are* all those things!
No, they reject the good parts of being female, which any good male should also have -- caring about others, having a sense of humor that doesn't scare anyone, mirroring others' pleasant behavior (smiling back when someone smiles at you), and all that other warm-and-fuzzy stuff. The cooperative, collectivist, pro-social stuff.
Incel-dom ultimately leads to a warped Ayn Rand crypto-tranny personality -- needless to say, that will not only never get you laid, it will repel all girls from even being your friend and flirting with you and valuing your existence.
If you're a Millennial, it's too late, you're probably set in your ways. But if you're a Zoomer, especially a late one, it's not too late to turn back. Your personality doesn't harden into place until around 30.
And while a large percentage of Millennial women may also be set in their man-belittling, fag-hagging, red-flag-hunting ways, Zoomer girls are not. Nor are Gen Alpha girls.
ReplyDeleteIDK how old you are, but if you're a late Zoomer, some of these Gen Alpha girls will be willing to flirt with you in the next coming years. Better practice getting along with girls now, so you can hit the ground running in a few years.
And nobody can get more psychotically competitive between the sexes than Millennials or Zoomers (again, I think even Zoomers are less bogged down in the battle of the sexes). Gen Alpha girls *will* be less battle-oriented, having imprinted on the peak of social chaos and saying, "Yeah no, we are NOT going any further down that cursed path..."
They'll be more John Hughes-y, I promise. Admittedly not a high bar to clear when compared to Millennials.
At first it'll feel like the late '70s -- gears shifting, but not at the next peak of harmony. That's fine, what a relief it was by the late '70s to be past the recent peak of civil breakdown.
THESE -- ARE -- THE -- GOOD -- TIMES!
Our most recent peak of civil breakdown is already in the rearview mirror -- don't let the current pendulum swing toward harmony pass you by!
But to reiterate, that means girls will be willing to flirt and befriend you, and you cultivate your relationship from that foundation. Not throwing themselves at you sexually, LOL -- you'd already know if that were an option for you.
Time to humanize girls -- since they are suddenly willing to humanize you in return. The woketard 2010s and early 2020s are over, not coming back for another 50 years. You'll be too old to care about that next breakdown anyway!
Not so fast, the edgy right wing is rooted in that same 1900s, '10s, and early '20s climate. Eugenics, scientific racism, etc. That hit its peak in the late '10s and early '20s, dwindled throughout the '30s -- outside of Nazi Germany -- and was gone by the '40s.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of F. Scott Fitzgerald, the book that Tom Buchanan is reading in The Great Gatsby is based on The Rising Tide of Color: The Threat Against White World-Supremacy, published in 1920.
The idea that you were going to skull-measure or population-segregate your way out of internal imperial collapse was a very popular cope back then for their plummeting levels of asabiya, mainly in the collapsing Euro empires -- not so much here, since we were still an expanding empire.
But now that the American Empire is collapsing, it's become a widely popular cope on the right.
All that stuff that Nazi Germany carried out, did not reverse their empire's collapse. It had been many hundred years since their ethnogenesis got kicked off by the Prussians getting encircled by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. By the 19th C, that entity didn't even exist -- and the German Empire was one of the powers that carved up its corpse.
No common meta-ethnic nemesis, no reason to keep cohering as an empire. So they collapsed, regardless of their attempts to save their empire through eugenics, genocide, segregation, etc.
Same with the Ottomans -- driving out the Greeks, genociding the Armenians, did nothing to stop the collapse of their empire, which had grown in opposition to the meta-ethnic nemesis of the Byzantine Empire, which bit the dust many centuries ago.
Britain was into the same trends, although didn't carry out a huge population transfer, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. Still, all their attempts to Social Darwinize their way out of imperial collapse failed, and they fell just like the Germans and Ottomans.
Today's edgy right-wingers are trying the same failed cope. They're not doing it for academic reasons, out of curiosity, etc. -- that's no big deal. They're specifically trying to shore up the buckling foundations of the American Empire, to no avail. Cucked by Hezbollah in Israel, shut out of the Red Sea by the Houthis, driven out of Afghanistan by the Taliban, annihilated by Russia in Ukraine, on and on down the line.
You can't skull-measure and racist-post your way out of imperial collapse. Our meta-ethnic nemesis was wiped out over a century ago, when the frontier against the Indians was closed circa 1890. We had a little extra tension from a further out-West enemy -- Japan -- but we beat them in the mid-1940s. Cold War was fake & gay, and even that's over as of 1990.
We have no nemesis left to hold us together, so we are splintering apart, plunging into a hangover after a soaring dizzying high.
also the KKK was at its height during the 10s' and 20s'.
DeleteIn fact, in the one empire where the revolution circa 1920 *did* succeed -- Russia -- they kept expanding as an empire for another 70 years, as opposed to collapsing beginning in WWI (or earlier, as in the Ottoman case).
ReplyDeleteAfter subduing much of Central Asia, Russia finally got hold of their original meta-ethnic nemesis -- Mongolia. They didn't annex it outright, but it became a Soviet client state, after it was broken off from the collapsing Qing Empire in China.
So if anything, it was better to have a crazy left-wing revolution than a crazy right-wing revolution, if the goal was to prolong the empire's lifespan by a few more generations.
I don't expect right-wingers to learn anything from that, though. They'll just cope and try to have it both ways -- yes, we want the empire to collapse, also we want to expand our sphere of influence through (threat of) force in multiple theatres simultaneously.
Write more coherent fanfic, dorkwads.
It merits its own post, but briefly on the occasion of Ukraine's de facto surrender to Russia, Ukrainian separatism from Russia is the Russian Empire's auto-immune disorder, fragmentation, black hole of asabiya, etc.
ReplyDeleteSimilar to Ireland's War of Independence during British imperial collapse, in the 1910s. But Ukraine is too important for the core of the empire to allow it to break off, so they reconquered a decent amount of it, possibly all of it, we'll have to wait and see. Whereas Britain ended up saying Ireland can go fuck off if they really don't want to belong to the same polity anymore. They didn't wage a huge war of reconquest.
Russia losing its imperial conquests in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe are just typical loss of the periphery. Not an auto-immune disease, not a black hole of asabiya, not a hangover after a soaring high.
Ukraine, aside from Galicia, has always been Russian, as long as the Muscovite state began expanding in the face of the Turko-Mongol meta-ethnic nemesis, along the steppe frontier. In fact, Ukraine means "frontier" or "borderland".
Kiev has always been Christian, Orthodox, and specifically Russian Orthodox. They've been Russian speakers. They belonged to the same polity as Moscow.
So when the Russian Empire finally collapsed in the 1990s, and Ukraine broke off in a bitter separatist fashion -- *that* was the empire's auto-immune disorder. That wasn't a loss of the periphery, it affected a region close to the core.
Political separatism, military separatism, and cultural separatism -- pretending to speak Ukrainian (de facto still speaking Russian), and severing their church from the Russian Orthodox Church, thanks to neocon moron Mike Pompeo during Trump: Season One.
And Ukrainian separatism was not exclusive to the Galicians in the far West -- a decent share of those bordering on Russia in the East were seduced into separatism as well. Not nearly as many as in Galicia, of course, but Russian imperial cohesion in the Donbass fell to such levels that even some Eastern Ukrainians joined the Azov types.
And until 2022, Moscow had allowed Eastern Ukrainians to fall victim to the Ukrainian separatists. So the decline in cohesion went in both directions for most of the 21st century, until the recent war to reconquer Ukraine.
If the region were not so strategically important to Moscow -- like Ireland to Britain -- Moscow probably would have let Ukraine, including the Donbass, just continue to slide off into separatist lunacy, poverty, and disintegration.
But given how much Moscow's enemies were dumping into Ukraine to weaken Moscow, they couldn't just sit idly by and let the Donbass stray further out of their minds, and their hands. They had to take it back, for self-defense.
Still, before 2022, the story of Ukrainian separatism was the main example of the collapsing Russian Empire's auto-immune disorder, where even places close to the core become a black hole of asabiya. Much like the parts of Italy close to Rome got swamped and occupied by the Byzantine Empire after the Roman Empire collapsed.
Someone asked before what the Russian form of heritage-hating iconoclasm is, during their imperial collapse -- it's Ukrainian separatism, which has been cultural as much as it has been political / military.
ReplyDeleteThey severed their church from their eternal mother church, the Russian Orthodox Church.
They pretend to disavow the Russian language.
They rename streets to deprive Russian figures of being in the name.
They topple statues of Russian emperors.
They purge Pushkin or whoever else from their literary archives.
And so on and so forth -- hating their Russian heritage so much that they go on an insane crusade to destroy and erase all traces of it. And as usual with heritage-hating iconoclasm during imperial collapse -- not putting anything equal or better in its place!
I can't wait to never hear Ukrainian whining again, as they get annexed back into Russia.
I'm not exaggerating, my grandfather legit got rid his first wife and requested another teen virgin, he didn't even know any girls, just told his family "get me another girl". His own grandfather also took an orphan girl as his second wife(polygamous). The men ate first, and the women ate their scraps, literally.
ReplyDeleteIt's just not in our instincts to "treat women like women". This is
not how life was meant to be. This stuff about just being yourself, connecting with gurls, etc. never sat right with me, then it all made sense when I started looking into the past, especially my own. Of course I focus on virgins. Until a few generations ago, girls would be executed on the spot for not being virgins in their wedding night and the police would be told the girl committed suicide.
If you do not feel in your bones that you are entitled to a female like you would any other property, this instinct has been beaten out of you and worse, you submitted, leaving you a childless fashionista in his 40s!
"no father would want to give his daughter away to some dead-end girl-hating porn-brain, get real."
They are giving away their daughters to 80 iq street thugs and drug dealers brother. They don't get to choose. Those guys really get along with the cuties. What's their compliment routine I wonder.
Oh you're a shithole dweller, LOL. Or recently descended from one. Nobody else knows the marital status of their grandfather's grandfather -- tribal low-trust shithole society with only clan-level cohesion. Why didn't you say so to begin with?
ReplyDeleteIt's like that vague "in my country" BS -- just say which shithole you come from, so we know it's irrelevant to us.
And no, you're still a porn-brain and fag-brain for framing marriage as being passively delivered a teen virgin -- that only happens in porn, and of course there's some producer paying the girl to show up there with no effort on the part of the guy, who you're identifying with. She's just a rental.
If you were actually focused on le traditional marriage, you'd be focusing on fulfilling your duties as a patriarch -- materially, not signaling online, in order to provide for your multiple teen virgin wives and your many children with them. It's not cheap, it's not a passive thing that you are delivered, and you have to mainly do it on your own, even if you get help from others.
And you'd be focused on building a strong social network with your in-laws -- in a shithole clannish tribal society like the one your grandfather's grandfather belonged to, only half of your clan is related to you by blood. The other half is your in-laws. Those networks are like alliances, and allow you to navigate that kind of society.
But you're not looking for high-quality in-laws, putting their material provisions under a microscope, and whining about how in the here and now, your would-be in-laws can only provide 5 goats on your wedding night -- whereas in the good ol' days of your grandfather's grandfather, he could easily find in-laws who would deliver 50 goats as a dowry!
All this le trad marriage BS is just pure cope, you're laser-focused only on one aspect of the old ways -- "teen virgin sex delivered literally into your lap effort-free by others", which is imaginary anyway. But even if that were real, you're ignoring all the other requirements and duties of the old ways in the old country.
Whether or not this describes you exactly, you sound like a Muslim of recent immigrant background, living in a first-world country, and totally alienated from it, longing for the imagined paradise of the old country, but unwilling to do your part to fit into that paradise.
You're the typical profile of a radical Islamic terrorist who leaves London for Idlib. Again, maybe you're some Balkan counterpart to this general pattern, not literally Muslim. But that's your basic profile, and something that 99% of the readership here is going to write off as irrelevant. Sucks that your parents deracinated you from your homeland and its culture, but we don't have that problem.
And to be fair, we Americans (of longstanding roots) do have a lesser degree of that problem, due to our parents getting divorced and moving us around a lot while we grow up.
ReplyDeleteNow, moving around America is not the same as moving from Pakistan to London, Toronto, or New Jersey. But it is still socially and culturally disruptive.
And I'm guessing that the incels are more likely to come from this kind of deracinated familiy background -- even for long-time citizens, not just those of recent immigrant background.
This is the flipside that the edgy right-wingers do not want to tackle, and if it's brought up, they will vehemently defend the neoliberal deracinated yuppie phenomenon, cuz that's what they are, and who they're appealing to -- helping the next wave of yuppie strivers secure the bag, hustle, work their way through the grind, etc.
They're fine with saying we need closed borders at the international level -- but we need closed borders between states, or at least regions, within a nation. Maybe we can trade and be economically interlinked, but you need to grow up where you were born, generation after generation.
Otherwise we're only dealing with the external aspect of our problems, not the internal ones -- which are more difficult to root out.
You're also a ghetto-dweller, LOL. Or close to one, anyway. The high-status incel whines about hot sluts being scooped up by "bad-boy bikers" or "football captain jocks". You're whining about them being scooped up by street thugs -- that's your lived experience confessing itself there.
ReplyDeleteOf course, hot sluts are not being scooped up by anyone these days -- sluts don't exist anymore, meaning highly promiscuous women. Showing skin IRL means nothing, posting your tits online means nothing. Actually being easily picked up for casual sex IRL -- does not happen anymore. Even if the guy is hot, so it does still happen, it's less common than it was for hot guys trying to score random sluts in the '80s and '90s.
And hot babes are either married off to hot guys, high income-earners, or are going through life as sexless spinsters. Highly online hotties are of the sexless spinster / femcel type. Once they get a bf IRL, they disappear from online.
By now, everyone knows this -- I don't know why you're still trying to sustain the illusion that there are legions of eager horny sluts out there, they're just choosing the jock / asshole / thug instead of le trad marriage guys like you. They're not out there, they're choosing nobody, they're just bedrotmaxxing and doomscrolling on their phone, while indulging in a little schlicking to fujo fanfic.
You're trying to be a PUA guru, but nobody is fooled by that anymore. You have to promise that there are eager sluts out there to be scooped up, otherwise there's no point in following your advice on how to scoop them up. The "just act like a thug or give up altogether" is your advice on how to scoop up sluts, or retire from the game if you don't want to act that way.
I'm telling the truth -- as of the last few years, there are girls out there who are eager to chat, flirt, and befriend you even as a stranger in public, and you can cultivate that relationship however far it goes. But they're not sluts, they're not waiting to by bamboozled by PUA tricks and cheat codes like they're just a walking pile of video game code.
And they are not giving it up to thugs, jocks, assholes, etc. on the side. That's not your male competition. Birth rates are plummeting around the world, and within every demo inside a nation -- and most precipitously among the urban poors of color, who you are insanely trying to spin as super-fertile. That's a crazy fabrication from the "welfare queen" propaganda of the '80s. Thugs these days are just as incel as you are, and are being demographically replaced just as much as white middle-class suburbanite incels, and are coping with pornographic opium just like you are.
Who's the most fertile demo in America? Mormons -- the polar opposite of thugs, assholes, and jocks. They are actually athletic in the sense of physically fit, not obese, etc. But they're not the stereotype of a bully jock football captain who shoves nerds inside lockers and grabs his hot slut cheerleader's tits in front of others just to rub it in their faces.
ReplyDeleteMormon guys are stereotypically Nice Guys (TM), they compliment Mormon girls, and are more likely to say a girl is wearing a nice outfit or her hair looks pretty, not trying to neg her into insecurity, which in reality would close her up and lower her fertility.
And they used to be polygamous, but still today have very large families by American and global standards. That's an actual alpha / patriarch outcome -- not being a bitter girl-hating incel online who tries to neg e-girls into insecurity.
One of my cousins, an early Gen X-er, and a very conservative Christian, has a huge family, and each of his kids is having a large family.
How did he seal the deal on his wedding day, in the early '90s (during the max of social harmony)? By turning to his bride and singing to her, before the whole crowd. I don't remember what song exactly, but it was a sentimental / vulnerable / sweet kind of song, not a wannabe alpha trying to put a woman in her place by growling nu metal in her face, or whatever insane delusion an incel would fantasize about as a "power move" (i.e., cutting off your own dick move).
Assholes and thugs don't have high fertility, cuz they wear out their welcome quickly. Only supportive, compromising nice guys hang around long enough to ensure lots of babies are made and get provided for -- and long enough for the grandchildren to be provided for as well.
ReplyDeleteIn the old days, maybe a thug could get laid with a ghetto slut easily -- but if she got pregnant, she'd have an abortion. After awhile of that, they get tired and just withdraw from interacting with the opposite sex altogether, in their own separate man-hating / girl-hating bubbles.
But times are changing as of the last few years. Guys can compliment a girl on how she looks (clothing, make-up, and hair, not sexual body parts), or serenade her, or other humanizing behavior, and they'll be receptive to it.
Again, the Millennials out there seem to be a lost cause, for both sexes, they've hardened into shape and can't undo their "every interaction is a battle" mindset. But if you're a Zoomer, especially a later one, or a Gen Alpha person, guy or girl, you don't have to go down the cursed closed-off path of the Millennials.
You're probably already sensing how insane they are, and wanting to steer away from their fate -- take it from someone who remembers the last peak of social harmony, your intuition is correct, and you can take your fate into your own hands! Well, to a certain degree, but that's enough to avoid the Millennial doom of permanent social warfare.
Mormons are also prototypical Americans cuz they're out-West frontier people, who literally battled the Indians at a fairly late stage in American history.
ReplyDeleteWhen there's a strong external threat, it makes the in-group cohere and cooperate more intensely. If Mormons wanted to survive on the Indian frontier, they had to drop all their petty bullshit with each other, and cooperate -- that includes shutting down the battle between the sexes, from both directions.
Mormon girls are not man-belittlers -- they don't think, feel, or act as though "men only think with their dicks," or "men are so easy to manipulate," or "men are dumb and clueless, but occasionally useful or perhaps even indispensable, but god are they dumb," and so on. They're man-respecters.
And Mormon guys are not girl-haters -- they don't try to neg girls into insecurity, don't try to interpersonally put women in their place, beat them, do honor killings, cruise the streets for casual sex from sluts, or otherwise treat girls like the only thing they're good for is a fleeting physiological release.
As the American Empire has lost the raison d'etre of its sky-high asabiya -- a meta-ethnic nemesis (Indians, and later Mexicans, somewhat the Japanese toward the end) -- the motivation for suppressing the battle between the sexes is coming undone as well.
So we're witnessing real fin-de-siecle levels of man-belittling and girl-hating, that we haven't seen since the collapse of the Euro empires around the turn of the last century.
However, that's a very long-term cycle that we're descending. There are medium-term cycles within that as well, like the 50-year one Turchin identified. We had an eruption of social chaos even during our good ol' days -- two of them after our integrative civil war, in fact, circa 1920 and 1970.
The Roman Empire went through an eruption of social chaos around 70 A.D., and that was long after their integrative civil war had wrapped up with the ascent of Augustus.
The flipside of these "eruptions of medium-term chaos, within a long-term expansion and cohesion" is the current American "return to medium-term harmony, within a long-term imperial contraction and implosion". Another example being Diocletian's rule at the end of the chaotic 3rd Century.
We can't do anything to reverse our long-term imperial collapse. But as of the past several years, we can at least return to medium-term social harmony within that broader collapse. That's nothing to complain about -- it was way worse in the 2010s and early 2020s, when we were suffering from both long-term stagnation and outright collapse, *plus* the peak of social chaos in the medium-term!
Silver linings...