That statistic about 87% of men and 75% of women at least testing out some mate poaching seems impossibly high. I haven't read the book and I don't know the context, but even over a lifetime there have got to be more exceptions than that. Maybe there is something tricky with definitions going on.
I doubt that I am naive. I was a psychiatric social worker for forty years and know the dark undersides of many respectable families. Even in my family of origin there were a couple of examples of hypergamy. The number is just too high.
Pride month isn't about celebrating romantic choices. It's about celebrating your community in a world which has traditionally been hostile toward your community. It's not very different from Irish Fest, Italian Fest, etc. It's a tribe embracing its uniqueness in the mainstream. Everyone needs a community. We have Black History month, Women's History month, etc. This is no different.
My grandmother who was not high born but instead high minded, was very clever at putting elites in their place. In social interactions whenever someone would place a postscript into the conversation such as by saying, "...Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you (or insult, judge, ridicule, etc.,)" she would blythely reply with something along the lines of, "...Not at all. That wasn't an insult; I've been insulted by experts!" She had this very Mark Twainian instinct in those sorts of interactions. But it was a brilliant way of REPOSITIONING the elite person -- the one judging -- and moving them down the hierarchy in favor of higher order, unnamed "experts." Judgmental jujitsu. Hit 'em where it hurts.
I'm torn on the casual sex. I have passed on a couple of women in open relationships because it would just get in the way of finding a meaningful romantic relationship of my own. Plus who wants to deal with multiple people when a romantic relationship with one person is already complicated? However, I still have a sex drive. A biological need that isn't being met. Just yesterday, someone made themselves available in an overt way. Since I have had nothing but bad experiences with women who are sexually aggressive, I passed again. But is having empty sex with someone a bad thing? No, but there has to be some sort of connection or its worthless to me. It comes with negative emotions later on.
It sounds like you are are an attractive, reasonable guy. Many, maybe most, chicks interested in guys and sex and marriage might be interested in a date. Do you know the kind of woman you’re looking for? Or how she’ll act on the first few dates? I advise serious dating, one girl at a time, and accept being sexually frustrated until you love her and are ready to marry her. And she’s ready to marry you, and loves you. You’re right to avoid easy sex, as I did not when younger, but how to meet good potential mates remains a challenge. Try some dates that are shared activities, and make sure you are comfy in talking about your real thoughts. Cliches are often true, yet also platitudes.
This is like what I tell my adult kids, two of whom are married, the other two not, nor so interested in dating yet.
Solid advice. That's exactly what I've been doing. Finding someone who has created an identity for themselves, and recognizes nuance, is difficult. People just dont have the bandwidth to make all of the considerations that need to be made in order to understand a problem fully.
A big chunk of the world wrapping their entire identity around opinions and politics has made things very weird. Ive always preferred action over words. Show dont tell. Actions dont lie. Yet social media has artificially inflated the value of opinion, words, bullshit more than ever. Its magnified everyone's facades. Subtract opinion/politics, and millions of people have no identity of their own.
That's why I keep passing up meaningless sex. And finding someone who doesn't adhere to any of the popular group identities of today is a lot easier said than done.
Its not worse one way or the other. Just different. Our culture is screwing up in a huge way so that we can learn the same damned lessons that religion has taught us for thousands of years. "But its different because of science and technology." Nope. We are using our conscious minds and science to learn the same exact lessons we all learned intuitively ages ago. They didn't need peer reviewed case studies to figure out that sleeping with a lot of people is dangerous, and leaves us empty.
It’s interesting that people react that way, but I guess I get it. I suppose many people, having made an irrevocable bad choice, decide to argue that it was a good choice rather than trying to do the best they can in the post-bad-choice world.
I wasn’t married when my son was born. I’d never argue this was a choice that should be celebrated. It was very, very hard, and I realized quickly that I had a chance to get my life right and do the best I could in the situation I’d put myself in. My child’s father and I got married and focused ourselves on building a relationship and family that would last. And it’s worked out for us, but I wouldn’t advise anyone to proceed the way that I did.
Rob, you know that Diana and Geoffrey have children, right? A polycule is not a healthy/stable way to raise kids - I think you talk about childhood stability a lot and how our society is healthier with more of it. I guess it would be better if they kept it a secret from their kids (though their polyamory is plastered all over the internet, so the kid will find out). Seems heartbreaking.
There seems to be a convenient amnesia around the history of marriage and child-rearing. Early societies (just look in the bible) had multiple wives, multiple children with those wives (and concubines). The practice of modern-day monogamy and the nuclear family is relatively short compared with historic practices. Don't get me wrong, I love monogamy and agree that nuclear families are the ideal. But life isn't always ideal. And as a divorce attorney, I see MANY nuclear families who are toxic as hell, and many single parents (straight and LGBTQ+) who are healthy and raising amazing children. Civil unions existed in large part because gay people couldn't marry, although many straight couples chose to enjoy those benefits as well, because marriage has gotten a bad rap (or should I say, divorce has soured people on marriage). I agree that young people nowadays often enter into marriage as if it's a starter union, and they "can always get divorced" if they "aren't happy." I don't think that's healthy, but divorce has definitely become more normalized. On the other hand, I've seen a generation of people (women especially) who stayed in horrible, abusive marriages, out of financial dependence or fear of judgment. Our society has become polarized, self-righteous, and trend-following. Most of the "elites" I know are self-supporting, but not very charitable-minded. I do not understand why those who have the most would not want to contribute to society and their communities at large.
I keep coming back to the saying "hard times create strong men that create good times that create weak men that create hard times".
In my career of having to assess the competence and related confidence in so many people (both are required) and to work as a leader and coach to help advance those things, I have developed a skill set to identify much of it at first impressions. Does the person have the juice above the line, or do they demonstrate they are not quite there yet?
Now, competence and confidence have to be in balance, and they also cover the two domains of hard/technical skills (with a deep and broad perspective and knowledge set) and the soft kind that connect with the developed psychological health of the person. You can be an expert coder, but if you don't understand the big picture of the product you are working on, and/or cannot communicate and get along well with team members, your overall human competence for the role is going to be inadequate.
My sense of the domain of elites is that our astounding economic success (given to us by the work of strong men with competence) has enabled many people with inadequate human competence (weak men) to rise to positions of influence and authority. We have blown through the social dominance hierarchy competition based on productive merit to arrive at one where paper-pushing, rent-seeking and gambling with a keyboard and screen gets a person wealthy and then with that wealth can be bought positions of power and influence.
I live in a university town. The staff and faculty parking lots are filled with expensive automobiles. The largest houses in town are occupied by university administrators and retired government workers - university and others.
Many of the people in my community that I know who occupy elite status are not worthy of that status. They sort of fell into it. They didn't get rewarded by a system that tested them for real productive merit... they were almost incidentally lucky because financial opportunity in an overly complex bureaucracy and it rewarded them in their ability to manipulate and peddle information.
Attorneys. They are the worst. Our system is dominated by elites with a law degree. They are the epitome of rent-seekers... sucking off the productive economy... frankly impeding the productive economy... especially the startup and small operator that cannot afford to wage a defense if sued for even the most dishonest and frivolous of cases. These people masquerade as "strong men" but they are only law-bullies that excel at a form of legal extortion. They are scavengers seeking scraps they can rip from the living economy. They end up in politics and continue the same tactics. With the law behind them they are a wrecking ball to others who are the actual strong men with productive merit.
I have to use attorneys in my businesses. I also have to use them for personal business. I have good ones... good people. But I also have to deal with other attorneys and my experience is that the profession is filled with the epitome of weak men elites.
In my opinion, the reason that we are beset with elites misbehaving and pushing their idiotic ideas on the rest of us is because we have too many attorneys and our book of laws has become so large and complex that the average non-attorney, non-elite cannot effectively combat these legal bullies.
A good example is California CEQA laws. The legal-bully elites exploit them to block the strong men that would building housing in the state. Elites judge and scold us that environmental protection trumps the need for affordable housing, while also demanding that we pass new tax measures to fund the "housing crisis solution". There is the luxury belief because, of course, they all ready own a bunch of residential real estate located on class-1 farmland soil and previous natural habitat. The elite people I debate with on this topic are some of the weakest, least competent and psychologically-off humans in my community. But they have the law behind them.
I think we need a great big project at regulatory simplification and relief. Corporations have adopted these practices noting the tendency for bureaucratic bloat that destroys productivity... gives power to the administrative types and takes away from the creative and productive types. IBM under Louis Gershner in the 90s famously broke up the behemoth company into smaller pieces for this reason. IBM was on the wrong path of change-resistance, and Gershner came in to break it down into creative units with decision autonomy. He cut the deadwood employees that had risen over their level of competence. IBM was saved and experienced a new era of marvelous growth that continues today.
We have a sandbox that the incompetent elite can thrive in. They know they are weak. They are insecure. Their ability to block the progress of others and push their absurd ideas is specifically aimed at preserving that sandbox as is. They don't welcome going back to a real system of reward for demonstrated productive merit because they know they cannot measure up.
We are in a period of weak men creating hard times. We either allow it to happen, or we start culling those weak men from their perch to prevent the destruction they are causing.
In the same context and for the same reasons you pushback against polyamory for all (and the like), queer lifestyles cannot be for everyone and therefore shouldn’t be encouraged; and yet civil union (gay marriage) has been foisted on society while not being an unalloyed good for all.
I'm circling around a conclusion related to the disappointment in American elites - the abdication of responsibility for leading communities and change. A lot of people discuss erosion of community as the result of self-absorption of community members. I disagree. I think elites' abdication of responsibility, which I've experienced and so many others have in their careers, is how community really starts to unravel. Without leaders who act responsibly and make personal sacrifices, no one believes or desires community. Why would we?
I'm personally mixed on dating apps because I've had good experiences with it and my dating life was pretty non-existent before them. But these apps have clearly had a major impact on the way socialize, many of them not for the better. I at least grew up having to learn to take the initiative in terms of approaching women, so I have to wonder what a generation of young men who've never had to learn that (and critically, learn to deal with direct rejection) will be like.
… except study then work, play video games, & some porn plus masturbation. Life with little sex drive. Avoids relationships, but also unwanted pregnancy, hurtful break ups, and the dreaded rejection.
My divorce remains my biggest regret 15 years later-due to the kids. I do look back at all the encouragement I got from the women in my life, appreciated at the time as very supportive, and wonder if that almost made it too easy.
I am thin and healthy. Always have been. So is my wife and kids. We eat healthy. We don't eat to excess. We are active. We exercise. My oldest son is engaged to a smart and wonderful girl. She is a bit young, but very mature. Just finished her nursing degree... she was top in her class. She is overweight.
My step father at one point was over 400 lbs.
My circle of good friends includes a couple of families of very large people. In fact, I just purchased a new pontoon boat and got a larger size because these people are often with us on holiday.
I am also the family chef.
My sense for the correct way to handle weight is to not glorify it but also don't judge people for their weight... just accept people for who they are, and just demonstrate how to live a healthy life. I know that my future daughter in-law will learn from this family how to live a more healthy food and activity life. My large-sized friends have certainly improved their eating habits and activity levels by just being exposed to how we do things.
I remember making diner for them years ago while we were all renting a house on the coast. They went out for some shopping in the local village and stayed back to prepare dinner with the ingredients I had previously purchased and brought with us. Lightly seasoned and smoked fresh salmon on the grill, wild rice in vegetable broth, garlic and porcini mushrooms and fresh sage... and broccolini tossed in good olive oil, kosher salt and fresh-ground pepper and broiled to get a bit of char. All of them said they did not like fish, nor broccoli but they would try it. We ended up consuming everything I made that night. Dessert was fresh fruit with dark chocolate shavings and a yogurt and wildflower honey drizzle. That too was devoured.
The chat that night was that I would do a cooking class next year when we holidayed together again. I would get them involved in the menu selection and then get them to help with the meal prep.
We did that the next year.
Since then their eating habits and activity levels have improved (with some weight loss)... although I cringe when we are on a road trip and stop at a Subway and they order extra cheese and mayo on their foot-long sandwich.
Insightful piece! Not completely surprising that you have received such criticism, but for the record, you have never come across judgmental to me - just as sharing information, facts, etc.
But then again I am find little wrong with being accused of being judgmental. We all discriminate, and in most preferences /choices contain an inherent judgment that one thing or course of action is better than another.
Reading your article confirms that my instinct not to pursue a career in academia 40+ years ago was correct. A godless homosexual with love of facts and modest interest in feelings would not be interested in the validation business. I realized many years ago that I am in a small minority. I never try to persuade people but will every so often give them something to think about. I have always assumed that people want to grow up and be mature adults. I was mistaken.
I'm a conservative who comes from a well-off family and grew up around elites. I don't feel personally "judged" by your comments (90% of which I agree with) but I do think you overgeneralize elites and fan the flames of class-based resentment. Sometimes you impute nefarious motives to elites that I don't think are the norm. Many elites are scheming Machiavellians, for sure, but many liberal elites are simply overly agreeable/conscientious types who condone things like single motherhood because they are terrified of seeming "offensive." Also luxury beliefs are mostly the domain of a subset of elites, namely coastal professionals, rather than elites as a whole. You sometimes make claims about elites that don't align with my experiences. You once claimed that elites school their children in how to craft college essays that use all the right language, portray themselves as "marginalized" etc. Maybe this happens, but I never experienced it myself or saw it among my peers. Overall you seem to assume that elites have easy lives. All of the above foster an "oppressed" vs. "oppressor" mentality that I think is counterproductive. You're not the only right-leaning commentator who does this; perhaps it's a subconscious way of trying to gain approval on the Left and remain socially acceptable.
These are relatively minor points--I enjoy reading your work and look forward to your book.
That statistic about 87% of men and 75% of women at least testing out some mate poaching seems impossibly high. I haven't read the book and I don't know the context, but even over a lifetime there have got to be more exceptions than that. Maybe there is something tricky with definitions going on.
I doubt that I am naive. I was a psychiatric social worker for forty years and know the dark undersides of many respectable families. Even in my family of origin there were a couple of examples of hypergamy. The number is just too high.
“Make the romantic choices you want to make. But expecting other people to also celebrate you for them is absurd.”
I agree! Don’t we all? Then I say why does society have Pride month?
Pride month isn't about celebrating romantic choices. It's about celebrating your community in a world which has traditionally been hostile toward your community. It's not very different from Irish Fest, Italian Fest, etc. It's a tribe embracing its uniqueness in the mainstream. Everyone needs a community. We have Black History month, Women's History month, etc. This is no different.
My grandmother who was not high born but instead high minded, was very clever at putting elites in their place. In social interactions whenever someone would place a postscript into the conversation such as by saying, "...Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you (or insult, judge, ridicule, etc.,)" she would blythely reply with something along the lines of, "...Not at all. That wasn't an insult; I've been insulted by experts!" She had this very Mark Twainian instinct in those sorts of interactions. But it was a brilliant way of REPOSITIONING the elite person -- the one judging -- and moving them down the hierarchy in favor of higher order, unnamed "experts." Judgmental jujitsu. Hit 'em where it hurts.
I'm torn on the casual sex. I have passed on a couple of women in open relationships because it would just get in the way of finding a meaningful romantic relationship of my own. Plus who wants to deal with multiple people when a romantic relationship with one person is already complicated? However, I still have a sex drive. A biological need that isn't being met. Just yesterday, someone made themselves available in an overt way. Since I have had nothing but bad experiences with women who are sexually aggressive, I passed again. But is having empty sex with someone a bad thing? No, but there has to be some sort of connection or its worthless to me. It comes with negative emotions later on.
It sounds like you are are an attractive, reasonable guy. Many, maybe most, chicks interested in guys and sex and marriage might be interested in a date. Do you know the kind of woman you’re looking for? Or how she’ll act on the first few dates? I advise serious dating, one girl at a time, and accept being sexually frustrated until you love her and are ready to marry her. And she’s ready to marry you, and loves you. You’re right to avoid easy sex, as I did not when younger, but how to meet good potential mates remains a challenge. Try some dates that are shared activities, and make sure you are comfy in talking about your real thoughts. Cliches are often true, yet also platitudes.
This is like what I tell my adult kids, two of whom are married, the other two not, nor so interested in dating yet.
See also https://www.glamourmagazine.co.uk/article/talking-stage
Solid advice. That's exactly what I've been doing. Finding someone who has created an identity for themselves, and recognizes nuance, is difficult. People just dont have the bandwidth to make all of the considerations that need to be made in order to understand a problem fully.
A big chunk of the world wrapping their entire identity around opinions and politics has made things very weird. Ive always preferred action over words. Show dont tell. Actions dont lie. Yet social media has artificially inflated the value of opinion, words, bullshit more than ever. Its magnified everyone's facades. Subtract opinion/politics, and millions of people have no identity of their own.
It encourages narcissism by rewarding emptiness.
There are a lot of clueless people in the world. Thankfully, not everyone.
That's why I keep passing up meaningless sex. And finding someone who doesn't adhere to any of the popular group identities of today is a lot easier said than done.
Its not worse one way or the other. Just different. Our culture is screwing up in a huge way so that we can learn the same damned lessons that religion has taught us for thousands of years. "But its different because of science and technology." Nope. We are using our conscious minds and science to learn the same exact lessons we all learned intuitively ages ago. They didn't need peer reviewed case studies to figure out that sleeping with a lot of people is dangerous, and leaves us empty.
It’s interesting that people react that way, but I guess I get it. I suppose many people, having made an irrevocable bad choice, decide to argue that it was a good choice rather than trying to do the best they can in the post-bad-choice world.
I wasn’t married when my son was born. I’d never argue this was a choice that should be celebrated. It was very, very hard, and I realized quickly that I had a chance to get my life right and do the best I could in the situation I’d put myself in. My child’s father and I got married and focused ourselves on building a relationship and family that would last. And it’s worked out for us, but I wouldn’t advise anyone to proceed the way that I did.
Rob, you know that Diana and Geoffrey have children, right? A polycule is not a healthy/stable way to raise kids - I think you talk about childhood stability a lot and how our society is healthier with more of it. I guess it would be better if they kept it a secret from their kids (though their polyamory is plastered all over the internet, so the kid will find out). Seems heartbreaking.
There seems to be a convenient amnesia around the history of marriage and child-rearing. Early societies (just look in the bible) had multiple wives, multiple children with those wives (and concubines). The practice of modern-day monogamy and the nuclear family is relatively short compared with historic practices. Don't get me wrong, I love monogamy and agree that nuclear families are the ideal. But life isn't always ideal. And as a divorce attorney, I see MANY nuclear families who are toxic as hell, and many single parents (straight and LGBTQ+) who are healthy and raising amazing children. Civil unions existed in large part because gay people couldn't marry, although many straight couples chose to enjoy those benefits as well, because marriage has gotten a bad rap (or should I say, divorce has soured people on marriage). I agree that young people nowadays often enter into marriage as if it's a starter union, and they "can always get divorced" if they "aren't happy." I don't think that's healthy, but divorce has definitely become more normalized. On the other hand, I've seen a generation of people (women especially) who stayed in horrible, abusive marriages, out of financial dependence or fear of judgment. Our society has become polarized, self-righteous, and trend-following. Most of the "elites" I know are self-supporting, but not very charitable-minded. I do not understand why those who have the most would not want to contribute to society and their communities at large.
I keep coming back to the saying "hard times create strong men that create good times that create weak men that create hard times".
In my career of having to assess the competence and related confidence in so many people (both are required) and to work as a leader and coach to help advance those things, I have developed a skill set to identify much of it at first impressions. Does the person have the juice above the line, or do they demonstrate they are not quite there yet?
Now, competence and confidence have to be in balance, and they also cover the two domains of hard/technical skills (with a deep and broad perspective and knowledge set) and the soft kind that connect with the developed psychological health of the person. You can be an expert coder, but if you don't understand the big picture of the product you are working on, and/or cannot communicate and get along well with team members, your overall human competence for the role is going to be inadequate.
My sense of the domain of elites is that our astounding economic success (given to us by the work of strong men with competence) has enabled many people with inadequate human competence (weak men) to rise to positions of influence and authority. We have blown through the social dominance hierarchy competition based on productive merit to arrive at one where paper-pushing, rent-seeking and gambling with a keyboard and screen gets a person wealthy and then with that wealth can be bought positions of power and influence.
I live in a university town. The staff and faculty parking lots are filled with expensive automobiles. The largest houses in town are occupied by university administrators and retired government workers - university and others.
Many of the people in my community that I know who occupy elite status are not worthy of that status. They sort of fell into it. They didn't get rewarded by a system that tested them for real productive merit... they were almost incidentally lucky because financial opportunity in an overly complex bureaucracy and it rewarded them in their ability to manipulate and peddle information.
Attorneys. They are the worst. Our system is dominated by elites with a law degree. They are the epitome of rent-seekers... sucking off the productive economy... frankly impeding the productive economy... especially the startup and small operator that cannot afford to wage a defense if sued for even the most dishonest and frivolous of cases. These people masquerade as "strong men" but they are only law-bullies that excel at a form of legal extortion. They are scavengers seeking scraps they can rip from the living economy. They end up in politics and continue the same tactics. With the law behind them they are a wrecking ball to others who are the actual strong men with productive merit.
I have to use attorneys in my businesses. I also have to use them for personal business. I have good ones... good people. But I also have to deal with other attorneys and my experience is that the profession is filled with the epitome of weak men elites.
In my opinion, the reason that we are beset with elites misbehaving and pushing their idiotic ideas on the rest of us is because we have too many attorneys and our book of laws has become so large and complex that the average non-attorney, non-elite cannot effectively combat these legal bullies.
A good example is California CEQA laws. The legal-bully elites exploit them to block the strong men that would building housing in the state. Elites judge and scold us that environmental protection trumps the need for affordable housing, while also demanding that we pass new tax measures to fund the "housing crisis solution". There is the luxury belief because, of course, they all ready own a bunch of residential real estate located on class-1 farmland soil and previous natural habitat. The elite people I debate with on this topic are some of the weakest, least competent and psychologically-off humans in my community. But they have the law behind them.
I think we need a great big project at regulatory simplification and relief. Corporations have adopted these practices noting the tendency for bureaucratic bloat that destroys productivity... gives power to the administrative types and takes away from the creative and productive types. IBM under Louis Gershner in the 90s famously broke up the behemoth company into smaller pieces for this reason. IBM was on the wrong path of change-resistance, and Gershner came in to break it down into creative units with decision autonomy. He cut the deadwood employees that had risen over their level of competence. IBM was saved and experienced a new era of marvelous growth that continues today.
We have a sandbox that the incompetent elite can thrive in. They know they are weak. They are insecure. Their ability to block the progress of others and push their absurd ideas is specifically aimed at preserving that sandbox as is. They don't welcome going back to a real system of reward for demonstrated productive merit because they know they cannot measure up.
We are in a period of weak men creating hard times. We either allow it to happen, or we start culling those weak men from their perch to prevent the destruction they are causing.
“I think we need a great big project at regulatory simplification and relief. “
Amen, brother!
In the same context and for the same reasons you pushback against polyamory for all (and the like), queer lifestyles cannot be for everyone and therefore shouldn’t be encouraged; and yet civil union (gay marriage) has been foisted on society while not being an unalloyed good for all.
I'm circling around a conclusion related to the disappointment in American elites - the abdication of responsibility for leading communities and change. A lot of people discuss erosion of community as the result of self-absorption of community members. I disagree. I think elites' abdication of responsibility, which I've experienced and so many others have in their careers, is how community really starts to unravel. Without leaders who act responsibly and make personal sacrifices, no one believes or desires community. Why would we?
I'm personally mixed on dating apps because I've had good experiences with it and my dating life was pretty non-existent before them. But these apps have clearly had a major impact on the way socialize, many of them not for the better. I at least grew up having to learn to take the initiative in terms of approaching women, so I have to wonder what a generation of young men who've never had to learn that (and critically, learn to deal with direct rejection) will be like.
… except study then work, play video games, & some porn plus masturbation. Life with little sex drive. Avoids relationships, but also unwanted pregnancy, hurtful break ups, and the dreaded rejection.
I’m afraid you’re right.
My divorce remains my biggest regret 15 years later-due to the kids. I do look back at all the encouragement I got from the women in my life, appreciated at the time as very supportive, and wonder if that almost made it too easy.
I am thin and healthy. Always have been. So is my wife and kids. We eat healthy. We don't eat to excess. We are active. We exercise. My oldest son is engaged to a smart and wonderful girl. She is a bit young, but very mature. Just finished her nursing degree... she was top in her class. She is overweight.
My step father at one point was over 400 lbs.
My circle of good friends includes a couple of families of very large people. In fact, I just purchased a new pontoon boat and got a larger size because these people are often with us on holiday.
I am also the family chef.
My sense for the correct way to handle weight is to not glorify it but also don't judge people for their weight... just accept people for who they are, and just demonstrate how to live a healthy life. I know that my future daughter in-law will learn from this family how to live a more healthy food and activity life. My large-sized friends have certainly improved their eating habits and activity levels by just being exposed to how we do things.
I remember making diner for them years ago while we were all renting a house on the coast. They went out for some shopping in the local village and stayed back to prepare dinner with the ingredients I had previously purchased and brought with us. Lightly seasoned and smoked fresh salmon on the grill, wild rice in vegetable broth, garlic and porcini mushrooms and fresh sage... and broccolini tossed in good olive oil, kosher salt and fresh-ground pepper and broiled to get a bit of char. All of them said they did not like fish, nor broccoli but they would try it. We ended up consuming everything I made that night. Dessert was fresh fruit with dark chocolate shavings and a yogurt and wildflower honey drizzle. That too was devoured.
The chat that night was that I would do a cooking class next year when we holidayed together again. I would get them involved in the menu selection and then get them to help with the meal prep.
We did that the next year.
Since then their eating habits and activity levels have improved (with some weight loss)... although I cringe when we are on a road trip and stop at a Subway and they order extra cheese and mayo on their foot-long sandwich.
Insightful piece! Not completely surprising that you have received such criticism, but for the record, you have never come across judgmental to me - just as sharing information, facts, etc.
But then again I am find little wrong with being accused of being judgmental. We all discriminate, and in most preferences /choices contain an inherent judgment that one thing or course of action is better than another.
Reading your article confirms that my instinct not to pursue a career in academia 40+ years ago was correct. A godless homosexual with love of facts and modest interest in feelings would not be interested in the validation business. I realized many years ago that I am in a small minority. I never try to persuade people but will every so often give them something to think about. I have always assumed that people want to grow up and be mature adults. I was mistaken.
I love the last line. Most if not all criticism of "elites" comes from soi disant elites scheming to displace them.
I'm a conservative who comes from a well-off family and grew up around elites. I don't feel personally "judged" by your comments (90% of which I agree with) but I do think you overgeneralize elites and fan the flames of class-based resentment. Sometimes you impute nefarious motives to elites that I don't think are the norm. Many elites are scheming Machiavellians, for sure, but many liberal elites are simply overly agreeable/conscientious types who condone things like single motherhood because they are terrified of seeming "offensive." Also luxury beliefs are mostly the domain of a subset of elites, namely coastal professionals, rather than elites as a whole. You sometimes make claims about elites that don't align with my experiences. You once claimed that elites school their children in how to craft college essays that use all the right language, portray themselves as "marginalized" etc. Maybe this happens, but I never experienced it myself or saw it among my peers. Overall you seem to assume that elites have easy lives. All of the above foster an "oppressed" vs. "oppressor" mentality that I think is counterproductive. You're not the only right-leaning commentator who does this; perhaps it's a subconscious way of trying to gain approval on the Left and remain socially acceptable.
These are relatively minor points--I enjoy reading your work and look forward to your book.
Insofar as elites want to hinder upward mobility, they're more interested in sabotaging lower-tier/upper-middle-class elites, as this graph shows https://twitter.com/razibkhan/status/1683422744208179200