https://winteryknight.com/2024/08/13/progressive-white-women-report-high-levels-of-mental-illness-in-2020-pew-survey-6/
JD Vance has gotten a lot of flack for his "cat ladies" comment. The left somehow thinks that's it's OK to call people NAZIs, but "cat ladies" is a bridge too far.
Given the results of the study WK references above, and the polling data that tells us that single white women are the DFLs biggest demographic group of supporters, maybe Vance's comments aren't quite so far fetched.
https://winteryknight.com/2010/09/28/jennifer-roback-morse-discusses-the-rise-of-single-childless-women/
https://winteryknight.com/2023/12/28/survey-young-unmarried-women-explain-why-they-avoid-having-children-2/
https://winteryknight.com/2021/12/26/sex-and-the-city-inspiration-candace-bushnell-reaches-age-60-childless-and-alone-2/
https://winteryknight.com/2015/06/11/top-fertility-specialist-advises-women-dont-wait-till-30-to-try-to-children/
It seems as though the data is telling us that there is an expanding cohort of childless women, and that those women are having an effect on the political conversation in this country.
Obviously had Vance said "unmarried, childless women", his remarks would have gone unnoticed and we wouldn't be having this conversation. But it seems like studying this particular demographic group and what their motivations are is something that should be happening.
It probably doesn't help that the single most popular and influential celebrity in 2024 is literally a single, childless, woman with a ton of cats.
27 comments:
I'm not necessarily defending the "cat ladies" term, but since this is becoming a demographic group that is tracked and identified, and that has a disproportionate level of mental illness, it seems reasonable to take a look.
It's quite a superpower of the left that regardless of any word or words spoken by a center-right figure, the left will find a way to pervert the intention of the person who used the word or words...and the leftist sheep will stand shocked and awed on queue.
It is. Much like Dan, they all seem to know what people really, secretly mean when they say things.
The left somehow thinks that's it's OK to call people NAZIs, but "cat ladies" is a bridge too far.
He said childless people are sociopathic.
He said childless people don't have any investment in the future.
He said that childless people should have less voting power than parents.
He said all of that multiple times, typically focusing specifically on women.
What does it take for y'all to just denounce deranged and dangerous comments as beyond acceptable?
You DO understand that it's not just about the literally misogynistic "cat ladies" comments, right?
It has nothing to do with what he "secretly means" and everything to do with dangerous, anti-democratic claims, comments and plans.
Dan
"and that has a disproportionate level of mental illness"
Holy shit.
Even if you think these things in your head, if you want women to Vote your way, you need to stop attacking, demonizing and taking rights away from them.
Barring some unforeseen wrinkle, I expect y'all to lose in a landslide and it will be equal parts of brilliant campaign choices by the Democrats and the GOP repeatedly shooting themselves in their own feet with bazooka and letting Trump continue his rambling, deranged rants.
Dan,
I'll simply note the Pew research that is noted in the first link and suggest that you debunk that research first.
Your tactic here, focusing on your version of Vance's comments but ignoring the NAZI comments from the left, has the effect of legitimizing the use of NAZI and other slurs from the left. Your focus on blaming the other side, while remaining silent on your side isn't a good look.
I'll simply note the lack of actual in context quotes of Vance and suggest that it's possible that you haven't listened to what he actually said, so much as to what other, hyper partisan leftists, have told you that he said.
Craig,
The Left are the Good Guys, on the side of angels, siding with the oppressed and on the right side of history; Jesus used harsh language sometimes, and they can, too. We're the Bad Guys, demonic and oppressive and railing against the inexorable march of Progress; Jesus warned against using harsh language, and we are obligated to obey Him to the nth degree.
After all, our speech is outright violence, and even their violence is mere speech -- the language of the unheard.
And anyway, you'd have to look long and far to find unhinged comments from the left. It's not as if one of Dan's closest online friends has just now repeatedly called one of us a wanna-be Not-zee; had he done so, Dan's commitment to grace would have compelled him to step in and tell Feodor to knock it off.
Bubba,
On target as usual. The notion that Jesus occasionally used "harsh language" as a justification for progressives going scorched earth on any who disagree is baffling. That they somehow think that they have even a tiny fraction of Jesus' authority or knowledge that would excuse their actions makes no sense.
As for the troll, it's his attacks on me and others that have gotten him banished from here, not his takes. As you note, some of his takes are actually good.
All anyone had to do was to listen to the full context of Vance's speech, which I DID, and he was just making an excellent point about LEFTIST women.
"What does it take for y'all to just denounce deranged and dangerous comments as beyond acceptable?"
A link to those comments in their full context so that we can determine if they are indeed "deranged and dangerous" and "beyond acceptable". Barring that, what Dan posted was "stupidly false claims" lacking support. Thus, they can be dismissed or deleted.
As for the troll, I delete him automatically so perhaps I've missed any "good takes" of his.
I'll simply note the Pew research that is noted in the first link and suggest that you debunk that research first.
I have no reason to doubt the poll and what it actually said.
More progressive women may well be connected to mental health experts.
But what that DOESN'T say is:
1. That liberals, generally, and progressive women specifically are sociopathic as Vance falsely stated in a fit of misogyny.
Simple reality. Do you recognize that reality?
2. That conservative women might not ALSO benefit from mental health services. It's just stating that they don't seek out those services.
2a. And what we know is that, statistically, conservatives don't trust "experts" or "mental health" and so, of course, it's not surprising that they don't turn to mental health experts for help.
3. That childless people should have less voting representation than parents.
There's nothing to debunk. What YOU need to do is explain WHY in the name of all that is holy and good and decent and loving of human rights you can't denounce the guy who is suggesting that "
"We're effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they've made..."
"Having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way... "
"It's just a basic fact. You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children."
and...
"I'm worried that it makes people more sociopathic and ultimately our whole country a little less mentally unstable."
and...
“We’ve allowed ourselves to be dominated by childless sociopaths - they’re invested in NOTHING because they’re not invested in this country’s children. Fighting back won’t be easy - our childless opponents have a lot of free time. That’s why I need YOU to stand with me.”
and...
“Our country is basically run by childless Democrats who are miserable in their own lives and want to make the rest of the country miserable too… What I want to know is: why have we turned our country over to people who don’t have a direct stake in it?”
AND...
"Let's give votes to ALL children in this country but give control of those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have MORE power you should have MORE of an ability to speak your voice than people who don't have kids.... If you don't have as much an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn't get nearly the same voice..."
And his "defense" was this:
"This is not about criticizing people who for various reasons didn't have kids. This is about criticizing the Democratic party for becoming
ANTI-FAMILY and
ANTI-CHILD."
? WHY are you not able to condemn this?
Do you think that parents should have MORE voting power than childless people? OR can you condemn that as anti-liberty nonsense and a threat to our free republic?
I've listened in whole to what Vance is saying about this and it's nuts and it's not "sarcastic..." he's being quite serious and humor-less about that.
But then, that too, is the magop way.
cont'd...
Craig:
The notion that Jesus occasionally used "harsh language" as a justification for progressives going scorched earth on any who disagree is baffling.
So, denouncing Vance's words cited above as misogynistic and anti-human liberty is a problem for you, but Vance saying that we're sociopathic and anti-child is okay??
Do you see the hypocrisy and just bad reasoning?
Look at who's enjoying children and the beloved community, working alongside with children and their parents and the homeless and those with disabilities and families in crises (that would be us) in a way that is joyful and life-affirming... then look at these grim, humor-less white men willing to attack people with no grounds based on made-up claims... that's Joyful?
I don't think so.
You all are going to lose in a landslide if you don't turn around this anti-woman, anti-family (ALL families), anti-liberty path you're on.
You all just aren't no fun, anymore.
And by the way, by ALL means, cite some specific place where Harris or Walz has called you all Nazis and we can talk about the specifics. I'm willing to bet that it hasn't happened. That it's just another made-up claim from you all.
On the other hand, if experts and the people who listen to them SEE what Trump is doing with downplaying and attacking facts and the media and the courts and election officials and SEE that this is not dissimilar to what Nazis did, you can't help but respect folks who point that troubling resemblance out.
If you convince enough people that the heroes in our media can't be trusted
and that experts can't be trusted
and that our courts can't be trusted
and that our election officials and processes can't be trusted...
You're going a very long way down the path of setting up violent insurrection.
As we have seen already.
What do you want to bet that when Trump loses in a landslide in November, that his followers (some of them) won't react violently because they actually believe his attacks on the US?
That they somehow think that they have even a tiny fraction of Jesus' authority or knowledge that would excuse their actions makes no sense.
We ARE the body of Christ, after all, acting (hopefully) in Jesus' name to side with and alongside the poor and oppressed. Jesus is the one who said we'd do even greater things than he did. I trust Jesus, that way.
But what "actions" do you think need an "excuse..." I'm wondering?
For the record, what Feodor actually said was:
And when your dogma, Bubba, calls you to coercively take away rights of human beings in the 21st century, it is precisely there that you replicate Nazi fascists.
That is, he's denouncing DOGMA (not Bubba, specifically) that takes away rights of fellow citizens. That is something we can agree upon. Now, we can debate whether or not you ARE trying to take away rights, but I can't either of you to denounce giving childless people fewer votes than parents.
But by all means, clarify: WILL you stand in opposition to taking away/minimizing voting rights for some segment of the population because they don't have children?
Your unwillingness to denounce this anti-liberty idea is problematic, in a fascist sort of way, can you see how people can see it that way?
1. Well, I guess being proud of the fact that a group of women with a disproportionately high level of mantel illness are the group likely to vote for your side in the highest numbers is something.
"Simple reality. Do you recognize that reality?"
Yes, I recognize the reality that the data shows that Vance might be closer to the Truth than you'd like to admit.
2. Nice excuse.
2a. Nice excuse. Make shit up to counter the data.
3. Stripped of your hysteria, the idea that parents (who are voting on behalf of more people) should have that fact represented really isn't horribly controversial.
"We're effectively run in this country via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they've made..."
Given the fact that (per RFK jr) "The Democratic Party of RFK and JFK was the party of civil liberties and free speech. VP Harris‘s is the party of censorship, lockdowns, and medical coercion. The RFK/JFK dems were allies of Main Street, cops, firefighters, and working people. VP Harris’s is the Party of Big Tech, Big Pharma and Wall Street." there are long time democrats who don't disagree with Vance. Given the fact that we see a regular stream of women bemoaning exactly the circumstances Vance mentions, and the we regularly see these women in positions of power, I'm not seeing where his statement is not without some Truth. It may be inelegant, or phrased in a way you find offensive, but (as the links in my post demonstrate) he's not completely wrong.
"So, denouncing Vance's words cited above as misogynistic and anti-human liberty is a problem for you, but Vance saying that we're sociopathic and anti-child is okay??"
No.
"Do you see the hypocrisy and just bad reasoning?"
I don't think so.
You all are going to lose in a landslide if you don't turn around this anti-woman, anti-family (ALL families), anti-liberty path you're on.
You all just aren't no fun, anymore.
"And by the way, by ALL means, cite some specific place where Harris or Walz has called you all Nazis and we can talk about the specifics. I'm willing to bet that it hasn't happened. That it's just another made-up claim from you all."
What an excellent job here. Move the goal posts, by making up something that wasn't said, then gleefully fight against the straw men. Are you truly unaware that there are numerous people on "the left" (including one at your blog) who regularly use the NAZI comparison?
"On the other hand, if experts and the people who listen to them SEE what Trump is doing with downplaying and attacking facts and the media and the courts and election officials and SEE that this is not dissimilar to what Nazis did, you can't help but respect folks who point that troubling resemblance out."
Why look, Dan doubles down and makes the unwarranted NAZI comparison himself. I'm going to post at some point about the rumored price controls that Harris is being reported to be proposing, which bear a striking resemblance to exactly what Stalin did, thanks for validating that comparison if it is apt.
"You're going a very long way down the path of setting up violent insurrection."
Interesting notion. The notion that pointing out the flaws and decline in the trustworthiness of various institutions automatically leads to "violent insurrection" as opposed to reform of those institutions, seems pretty myopic. Couple that with the fact that the freedoms you enjoy are the product of a "violent insurrection", and that the founders themselves didn't rule out future "violent insurrections" as corrective measures against a corrupt government, this is a bizarre position to take.
"As we have seen already."
Yes, the looting and burning of government buildings and the threats of violence to influence legal proceedings are disgusting. Seeing government abdicate their responsibility to protect citizens is disgusting. Seeing rampant, antisemitic, mobs supporting terrorists who've engaged in rape, murder, and who's charter literally demands genocide, is disgusting.
"What do you want to bet that when Trump loses in a landslide in November, "
So far this fantasy is not supported by any polling, and is not being taken seriously by anyone. I suspect you'll try to spin a tiny majority as a "landslide" anyway.
"that his followers (some of them)"
Interesting, you've set up a theoretical outcome where you can claim to be "right" if some microscopic percentage of society that does anything remotely "violent". While ignoring the reality that the vast majority of political violence post 2014 has been in support of leftists causes. If Harris loses, and cities burn, it'll be interesting to see your reaction.
"won't react violently because they actually believe his attacks on the US?"
It's possible, and I'll condemn it if some tiny fraction of the US populations does so. It's strange that you don't think that left wing attacks on things ("the police") don't drive the violent attacks we see from those on the left.
"We ARE the body of Christ, after all, acting (hopefully) in Jesus' name to side with and alongside the poor and oppressed. Jesus is the one who said we'd do even greater things than he did. I trust Jesus, that way."
Yet we are not Christ, nor do we have the full extent of His authority. If you think Jesus' meant unloading a bunch of vitriolic attacks at people on the internet as "greater things", I feel sorry for you.
"But what "actions" do you think need an "excuse..." I'm wondering?"
I think that you, the troll, and others use Jesus' infrequent use of "harsh language" in specific situations, as an excuse to unload vitriolic attacks, many of which are totally unmoored from fact or reality on those who simply disagree with your eisegesis.
For the record, the troll lied in his characterization of what Bubba said.
"But by all means, clarify: WILL you stand in opposition to taking away/minimizing voting rights for some segment of the population because they don't have children?"
1. I don't think you understand what "DOGMA" means.
2. I've seen nothing that indicates a desire to deprive childless people of voting rights.
3. Given that I don't recall it being enumerated in the constitution is voting really a right?
4. I also don't support attacking and trying to silence someone who suggests something politically that I don't agree with.
"Your unwillingness to denounce this anti-liberty idea is problematic, in a fascist sort of way, can you see how people can see it that way?"
Well, Dan jumps on the name calling, bandwagon all the while making shit up as his excuse.
Marshall, Craig,
About the troll, it's remarkable how much his understanding of the Bible seems to align more with small-o orthodoxy than Dan's understand does -- but it's more remarkable how little that matters in his obeying the command to love your enemies or in his displaying the fruit of the Spirit, most noticeably kindness and self-control.
Dan says he deletes plenty of what Feodor posts, but what he leaves in place is still appalling.
And on that subject, Dan isn't being accurate about Feo's attacking me.
"AND! because he wants to brutalize groups of people toward whom he's bigoted. Or, in other words, Bubba wants to be like a Nazi."
Even in what Dan quotes, Feo isn't attacking dogma per se, but my dogma specifically, drawing the conclusion that I "replicate Nazi fascists."
Dan isn't making it easy to want to continue an otherwise productive dialogue at Marshal's, not when he approves, quite hypocritically, of such demagoguery.
"Your unwillingness to denounce this anti-liberty idea is problematic, in a fascist sort of way, can you see how people can see it that way?"
In other words, Dan stands by the accusation of fascism because he thinks it's accurate, but calling Leftist women "crazy cat ladies" is unacceptable because Reasons.
IT'S ALWAYS OKAY WHEN THEY DO IT, IT'S NEVER OKAY WHEN WE DO IT.
If it weren't for double standards, Dan wouldn't have any standards at all.
""Your unwillingness to denounce this anti-liberty idea is problematic, in a fascist sort of way, can you see how people can see it that way?""
This is Dan name calling without name calling: "can you see how people can see it that way?" Dan's not calling better, honest, more intelligent anti-liberty fascists. No "people"...ostensibly "other" people are. If so, then all that matters for the purpose of this discussion is if Dan sees it that way, too. It's fairly (to say the least) evident he does, or he would not be so concerned what "people" say. Like me or us, he should be concerned with correcting disabusing those people of their false perceptions. Instead, he deflects to what those other people might say instead of simply being a man and speaking only of his own perceptions.
Dan's beloved enemies of the people, the leftists press, do much the same thing, as if they have no duty to get both sides equally in order to determine of what a conservative is accused of saying is an accurate representation of what that conservative said or believes. Dan supposedly watched the entire piece of what Vance said and still chooses to believe the worst about it without the slightest bit of effort to fully understand.
As to what Vance actually said, and as may have been highlighted to a degree by (I think) Craig, the founders didn't allow voting by just anyone, but instead chose to provide the privilege to land owners and others with a similar stake in the game. For some guy who owns nothing and lives in a lean-to out in the woods, it's not in any way out of the realm of possibility that such a guy might vote in favor of that from which he'd personally never benefit, due to the overall wisdom of the policy and it's benefit to the general welfare.
But, as we see so often today, many who have little, for whatever reasons, vote ONLY on the basis of what they will receive for that vote...those to whom Dems routinely pander as the primary means of gaining and maintaining power. Each such group (or individual) cares little for how such a candidate or party might or might not benefit anyone else, but for themselves.
I don't think we can say such is as prevalent among the center-right populations, seeing it less and less if at all the further right from center people are. That's not to say we won't benefit by particular policies, but instead that the policies by which we might benefit are aligned with the Constitution and thus are beneficial to improving the general welfare. For example, I will never be a pregnant woman, nor will I ever again be an embryo. But my staunch support for the abolition of abortion is a great benefit for pregnant women and absolutely beneficial for people in utero. What do Dan's kind so? They pretend people in utero aren't people or people enough to acknowledge their God-given unalienable right to life.
The right votes for what's right, the left vote out of pure selfishness. The right votes in a manner which will be most likely to benefit all Americans (or most of them), while the left votes in a manner which will put one group over others without regard for those others. Those with a stake in the game will vote in a manner which is selfless, thinking of others. Those without a stake in the game aren't really truly understanding what the game is in the first place.
Bubba,
I agree that the troll is much more orthodox in his expressed theology than Dan. This is strange because the troll spends so little time criticizing Dan's non orthodox positions. It's also True that if Dan does delete some of the troll's comments, the ones that survive that vetting process are vile enough. FYI, he just called me a NAZI in a comment or two that didn't survive moderation.
"If it weren't for double standards, Dan wouldn't have any standards at all."
Absolutely. Dan is blind to the things his side actually says, while misrepresenting what others say in order to gin up his faux outrage. He's the world champion of knocking down straw men.
Art,
The problem, I think, is that the founders saw the vote as a privileged while the modern left sees it as a right. This is why/how the left can justify giving the vote to convicted felons, even while they are still serving their sentences. Or justify giving the vote to non citizens.
I am seeing a trend on the right to adopt the "what government will do for you" language of the left. It used to be one of the distinctives between the parties, now it's less so.
Craig,
Again, if "what government will do for you" means that one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are unencumbered by government interference (I'm speaking generally, of course), then this isn't so much pandering in the way the left does it, but pandering in an acceptable way. That is, "I promise to ensure the government will do what is was designed to do" is acceptable pandering, except that it's what we must demand from government and anyone who seeks public office within it on ostensibly our behalf.
If there's the same type of bribery common of the Dems, I certainly oppose that.
I agree, but that implies government staying as far out of the way as possible. I agree that promising to reign in government is what conservatives should be proposing.
Post a Comment