Having read the whole article, it's one of the very worst and most virulent Year Zero screeds of its kind that I've ever seen. I believe that if it hadn't been published around the same time as the Paris attacks, it would have been pretty big on the web.
What makes it particularly terrible is the
confident and even nonchalant assurance with which these monsters call for the most sweeping and wholesale changes to society and to human nature itself, as if these changes were the most obvious things in the world. This is the tone of people who are deeply entrenched in power and expect their precepts, no matter how ludicrous they may be, to be obeyed as a matter of course.
These paragraphs are a good illustration of what I'm talking about. Note the calm self-assurance with which these Year Zero cadres predict and expect these sweeping and unprecedented changes that go against the very nature of what men and women are:
Quote:Quote:
There is, for example, a growing desire among some policy mavens to create more “marriageable men” by providing them with the kinds of apprenticeships and wage subsidies that will enhance their marriage prospects. This whole enterprise is shot through with a breadwinner-male definition of marriage that is well past its sell-by date.
None of this is to say that better wages and more skills aren’t needed for men: They are, desperately. But it is just as important to keep lifting up women’s skills, earnings and incomes. We don’t want a world in which men can get better jobs than women simply because they are men. Nor are we going to restore marriages based on the superior earning power of men.
Resistance to these kinds of changes in familial roles is often based on assumptions about innate biological differences. There is little doubt that evolutionary differences exist. But it is hard to say how much they influence the adoption of certain roles under current cultural conditions. We suspect beliefs about innate differences are often an excuse for preserving the status quo. If the role of biology is exaggerated, society will suffer.
When Year Zero cadres can swiftly and relaxedly dismiss the most basic differences between men and women as being "
well past their sell-by date", as if they were pretty much the same as a 1980s big hair fad, and when they can do away with the small matter of "innate biological differences" in a single shrugging paragraph, you know that things have come to a serious pass, and that the power this movement wields is both real and growing.
Perhaps the most terrible strength these people possess, and where they truly shew their YZ (my abbreviation for Year Zero) dark powers, is in their instinctive inclination, and dreadful ability, to create
new and instantly deadening language, almost out of nowhere -- language that takes words that have warm, rich, and age-old meanings and instantly replaces them with words that reduce and
deaden the world in the service of the Year Zero ideology. Here is where the black magic happens:
Quote:Quote:
“Stewardesses” have become flight attendants. Good. So why not call nurses “health attendants” (if entry level) or “health associates” (if more highly trained)? Getting more men into teaching would have two advantages: widening male job prospects and at the same time providing more diverse role models for boys in the classroom.
When a couple of Brookings YZ operatives are able, almost on the spot, to dismiss the ancient and beautiful word "nurse" and to conjure the deadly compounds "
health attendant" and "
health associate" out of thin unoxygenated Year Zero air -- that is when I stand up and pay attention, because
shit just got real.
*************
Finally, as a special turd cherry on top of the whole massive YZ sundae, here is a comment on the article by a New York Times reader named Diana from Phoenix:
Quote:Quote:
Women have always had to adapt to survive. We adapted or died. Men literally beat us and raped us into doing what we were told and we have evolved into people who know how to do what they're told and adapt. Men, on the other hand, subconsciously believe that they own the space of the world and that entitlement hinders their adaptive capabilities. I see this in my classroom every day. Boys don't believe they should behave or listen, especially to a woman. It's about time our skills brought us something. Too bad it's not a higher paycheck.
Can you imagine having a fucking cunt who thinks that as your son's "teacher"? I don't want to think about that too much, but let's just say that if I ever encountered Ms. Diana in real life, I would not be a fan.