"It's tricknological, when white people invoke the holocaust. allows them to step out of their whiteness and slip on fake oppression."

Wrote Doreen St. Félix, in an X post screencapped in an Instapundit post by Ed Driscoll.

St. Félix published an article — in The New Yorker — about the Sydney Sweeney jeans/genes foofaraw. I'd skipped that article — I was Sweeneyed out by the time it appeared — but I see from the excerpt at Instapundit that it contained lines like "Interestingly, breasts, and the desire for them, are stereotyped as objects of white desire, as opposed to, say, the Black man’s hunger for ass." The desire is the object of desire? That's defective writing, and The New Yorker got its lofty reputation in part because of its punctilious word editing. But St. Félix is in The New Yorker, thus making her statements conspicuous and goofier than they would be somewhere else, like X (or a blog). 

Hey! It says "Black man’s hunger for ass" in The New Yorker.

The screencappers of X plunged into St. Félix's X account, homing in on posts with the words "hate" and "white people." Go to the Instapundit link to see what they found. 

What calls me is that new word: "tricknological." The adjective is, apparently, formed from the word "Tricknology," which is in the OED and traced back to 1938. It's marked "U.S. disparaging." It means:

"In my ideal society, we would vote as households. I would ordinarily be the one to cast the vote, but I would cast the vote having discussed it with my household."

Said the pastor Toby Sumpter, quoted in "Pete Hegseth reposts video that says women shouldn’t be allowed to vote/Progressive evangelical group says ideas shared by pastors and amplified by defense secretary are 'very disturbing'" (The Guardian)

1. What are you saying when you repost something? I post things I don't agree with all the time. Often my posting means: This is obviously a terrible idea. Or: This is weirdly interesting.

2. Sumpter's idea is weirdly interesting: He's talking about his "ideal society." I could see saying: In an ideal society, we wouldn't need voting at all. And we know what Jesus said about government.

3. How could we have voting at the "household" level without insane intrusion on everyone's privacy? Wilson doesn't seem to have thought about this since he's relying on the notion of what would "ordinarily" happen. And what would happen to the un-ordinary people? Maybe in Wilson's "ideal society," everyone is clustered into formal, officially designated families, but you can't get there from here, so it's a fantasy, for your contemplation. A weirdly interesting idea, as noted in point #1.

4. But, ooh, that terrible Hegseth!

ADDED: I've corrected the source of the quote which I'd mistakenly attributed to Doug Wilson, co-founder of the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Wilson is also quoted, saying "I would like to see this nation being a Christian nation, and I would like this world to be a Christian world." And, before bringing up Sumpter, The Guardian says that Wilson "raises the idea of women not voting." That's confusing, though I should have been more careful. I've also swapped in the name Sumpter on point #2. Thanks to Aggie, in the comments, for pointing out this problem.

"The stereotype is of young men perpetually playing video games in their parents’ basements, too depressed and shut in to ask women out."

"But such exaggeration shouldn’t eclipse the broader and more subtle reality. You don’t have to be an incel to believe that the 'system' is fundamentally broken and rigged against your success... specifically homeownership.... This is, of course, a problem for all Americans — men and women alike. But, unpopular as it may be to say in some quarters of my party, the crisis affects one gender with particular potency. Like it or not, American men are still raised to believe that their role is to act as providers and protectors. And when men whose self-worth is tied up in that aspiration realize they’ll never be able to buy a home, they’re bound to feel shame and anger.... It’s not just a matter of Democrats finding our own Joe Rogan, or making better use of TikTok, or using more 'authentic' language.... [I]f Democrats want to save our democracy... we should treat first-time home buyers as their own class.... [W]e should reinstitute the Obama administration’s $8,000 homebuyer’s tax credit, triple it to reflect present market conditions and index the benefit to inflation.... [T]he Democratic Party’s success hinges on our ability to enable men, in particular, to realize that hope and ensure their own success."

Writes Rahm Emanuel, in "What’s really depressing America’s young men/The U.S. has two overlapping problems: the housing crisis and despondency in young men" (WaPo)(gift link).

Is this a special appeal to men? Clearly, Democrats want to appeal to men, but this hardly seems to crack the code. Men would feel more manly if they owned a house? Did someone give Rahm Emanuel the assignment to connect the housing shortage issue to the problem known as men?

"Blown away by the massive ordnance penetrators that have phallicized our world, female political stars seem to have disappeared off the map."

"We were promised Mamala and instead we got Mountainhead.... Why is mighty-voiced Michelle Obama relegating herself to that sappy podcast with her brother? Why are we supposed to admire 44-year-old former New Zealand PM Jacinda Ardern, once idolized for her brave gesture of donning a hijab after a 2019 terrorist attack on a Christchurch mosque, for drippily dropping out in January 2023 because she found politics 'pretty unrelenting.'... And Gretchen 'Big Gretch' Whitmer [has]... now come out from behind the folder, but still… Meanwhile... Liz Cheney... now describes herself on X as 'proud rodeo mom, soccer mom, baseball mom, hockey mom, constitutional conservative'—in that order. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski... gives a full-throated waffle at the suggestion of daylight between her and the rest of her insane party. 'There is some openness to exploring something different than the status quo,' she said. To the barricades!"

Writes Tina Brown.

"Scholars who have studied the earlier age of electric vehicles see parallels in their demise in the early decades of the 1900s..."

"...  and the attacks they are facing now. In both eras, electric cars struggled to gain acceptance in the marketplace and were undermined by politics. A big knock against them was they had to be charged and ultimately were considered less convenient than vehicles with internal combustion engines.... Charging and access to fuel were also concerns a century earlier.... They also had to overcome gender stereotypes. Their benefits like quiet, smooth operation were considered by some men to be too feminine, and, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, many models like the Baker Electric were explicitly marketed only to women.... In the fall of 2022, Representative Majorie Taylor Greene [said].... 'There’s nothing more American than the roar of a V-8 engine under the hood of a Ford Mustang or Chevy Camaro, an incredible feel of all that horsepower.' But Democrats, she said, 'want to emasculate the way we drive.'... 'Musk has done everything he could to try to make a Tesla a manly vehicle,' said Virginia Scharff, ... author of... 'Taking the Wheel: Women and the Coming of the Motor Age.'... But, Ms. Scharff added, Mr. Musk may have gone too far... 'Tesla is so associated with a kind of toxic masculinity now...'..."

From "Electric Vehicles Died a Century Ago. Could That Happen Again? Battery-operated vehicles were a mainstay more than a hundred years ago, but only a few still exist — one happens to be in Jay Leno’s garage" (NYT).

Here's Jay with his Baker:

Here's a charming 1910 ad — "Daddy — Get Me a Baker":

She's very feminine but does seem to know about "the business underneath," the "shaft drive."

Megyn Kelly corners Jake Tapper, who only apologizes for supposedly not noticing Joe Biden's decline...

... but it looks far more likely that he saw but chose to be part of the coverup:

"Of course, I've said I I look back at my coverage with humility and and uh I wish I did cover the issues of age and acuity but I wish I had covered them much more and I wish I mean of course..."

Watch the whole video, please, and see how Jake Tapper treated Lara Trump when she was a guest on his show on October 18, 2020. Kelly shows the video clip in which Lara Trump called attention to Biden's lack of mental acuity — the subject of Tapper's new book — and Tapper accused her of mocking Biden's stutter.

Watch Tapper's face and listen to his voice as he berates her for her lack of empathy. That's very effective on many women. Not on Lara Trump, but on many women, including many viewers of Tapper's show, and I presume he knows it. You can do a lot of subordinating of women by stimulating our fear that we may be regarded as unkind. 

Stephen Miller goes into a long Trumpish "weave," and the reporters don't turn and walk away.

I guess they're still waiting and hoping that they'll be the one to wedge in a question that will somehow stymie the man who's never going to stop:

I am SO GLAD the Trump administration decided to completely UNLEASH Stephen Miller on the media.

He regularly displays a masterclass in debunking their lies.

"Guys - do you know the difference between a deportation order and a withholding order? Do you know the difference? Any… pic.twitter.com/sDmzpLtiyu

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) April 14, 2025

What a dysfunctional relationship! Miller will take any question and return to the tortured, raped, and murdered women and girls who rule his world. The reporters cling to the hope that the plight of the deportees will seize the hearts of America. If only Miller would say something sufficiently inhumane about them, but every answer is the same: Think of their victims — the women and girls!

Pasting Susan Crawford posters on public property in Madison.

The fine print says "VOTE BY 04.O1/FOR SUSAN CRAWFORD."

Crawford is one of the candidates in the much-watched Wisconsin Supreme Court election.

I photographed the posters this morning, but yesterday evening, I saw the man pasting them up. I couldn't believe that he had the nerve, in daylight hours, to deface public property. How does it help your candidate to conspicuously trash the neighborhood of the people you hope to influence? Are you picturing desperate, anarchic citizens who don't care about anything but abortion?

If I were Susan Crawford, I would be distressed to have my name on something like this. I have no idea if she or her campaign has anything to do with it. The ultra-fine print might answer that question, but it's not legible in my photographs and most definitely not legible to those of driving through the underpass.

A pedestrian could stop and read the ultra-fine print. Of course, pedestrians walking through an underpass, especially if female, can feel physically vulnerable, and pasted-up posters can magnify fear. Vandalism speaks of chaos and a breakdown of vigilance. Maybe that's the idea. The woman worries about the problem of rape, and the posters offer the second-rate solution: abortion.

UPDATE: Here's the ultra-fine print:

"Musk is notorious for sharing edgelord memes on X, the kinds of things that might be passed around by teenage boys."

"He also has a remarkably juvenile sense of humor. For example, he edited the X bio of the Canadian Broadcast Corporation to say it is 69 percent government-funded (69, get it?). He recently changed his name on the same platform to 'Harry Bolz.' His Department of Government Efficiency is itself named after an internet meme about a shiba inu. He proposed 'a literal dick-measuring contest' with Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg. He bought Twitter and turned it into X after being annoyed by its moderation policies, which he compared to censorship, but once in charge, he experienced serial emotional meltdowns over content he didn’t like, some of which he then censored. He has gone on sprees of banning accounts that offended him in some way, while allowing white supremacists and Nazis to proliferate on the site. He often communicates on X using video-game jargon, the lingua franca of teenage boys...."

Writes Jill Filipovic, in "The Adolescent Style in American Politics/The version of manhood placed on display by Trump and his aides is the one imagined by teenage boys" (The Atlantic).

"It started decades ago, in my opinion. It started decades ago with timeouts and last-place participation trophies."

"And sorry to put it so harsh, but it seems to me like we lost a good portion of a few generations of men who've just turned into complete fucking pussies."

Said Kid Rock, getting the last word in a discussion — with Bill Maher, Tim Ryan, and Pamela Paul — that started out with a criticism of the Boy Scouts changing its name to Scouting America.

Here's a pretty obtuse New Republic article: "It’s Time for Democrats to Woo the Man Vote."

That's by Susan Milligan. Subheadline: "The post-Dobbs emphasis on the women’s vote didn’t help the party among women—and it may have affirmatively alienated millions of men. It's time to treat men as an interest group."

Sample obtuseness:

Trump ridiculed trans rights, feeding a young male fear that young women were not just surpassing them, but perhaps trying to become them (a strategy that had the ancillary effect of appealing to mothers and fathers worried about their daughters’ bathrooms and locker rooms being invaded by trans women).

I don’t believe young men are worried that female-bodied persons are going to horn in on maleness and outdo them. No one's been talking about trans men. The focus — as the parenthetical concedes — has always been on trans women and how they might infringe on the interests of non-trans women. 

"I think [the Democrats'] primary currency was shaming and scolding and talking down to people and telling them 'Hey, I know better than you, or you’re dopes...'"

"'... or you’re a bro, or you’re ignorant or, how can you be this dumb?' I can’t imagine it. And then, by the way, they’re fascists. How can you vote for that?... And you know, when you’re in a state like Pennsylvania, I know and I love people that voted for Trump, and they’re not fascist. They don’t support insurrection and those things. And if you go to an extreme, and you become a boutique kind of proposition, then you’re going to lose the argument. And we have done that.... And in some cases, in the conversations I’ve had, a lot of people, they don’t even want to say it publicly, but they just feel like the other side seems like…the men’s the problem. Men are to blame. Or their masculinity is toxic. Or unless you’re able to conform to our very strict kinds of definition of what we think is appropriate, well then, hey, I’m going to find an alternative. And they’ve done that.... it’s going to be difficult to rebuild and replace that...."

Said John Fetterman, quoted in "Democrat Sen. John Fetterman blasts party brand as ‘toxic’ after years of ‘shaming and scolding’ voters" (NY Post).

"If... your dress is for internal satisfaction — if it is an expression of your own sense of gender and what it means to you..."

"... simply wearing what makes you feel most like yourself and reminds you of your own belief system is the answer. If the point you want to make is about old gender norms, simply failing to buy into them, literally, may be enough. Maybe that means wearing chunky boots with a big tread rather than stilettos. Maybe it means a concert tee underneath a suit jacket.... If you want it to go further... there is a simple way to turn a fashion choice into a form of protest. Create a uniform for yourself that stands out simply because it is different from the uniform of the majority.... Wear any garment consistently, and at some point everyone else should get the message... "

The NYT style writer Vanessa Friedman writes in "What Should I Wear to Protest an Unspoken Dress Code? A reader asks how to push back against the resurgence of traditional dressing. Our critic discusses the history of rebellion through clothing and how to make a true 'fashion statement.'"

Speaking of a concert tee underneath a suit jacket and creating a uniform for yourself, I'm remembering that NYT article that's been getting a lot of attention —"Inside Musk’s Aggressive Incursion Into the Federal Government" (blogged here by me yesterday). It says:

Some of the young workers on Mr. Musk’s team share a similar uniform: blazers worn over T-shirts. At the G.S.A., some staff members began calling the team “the Bobs,” a reference to management consultant characters from the dark comedy movie “Office Space” who are responsible for layoffs.

I have a feeling Musk's guys look much cooler than the Bobs in "Office Space"... 

... and I bet they cause more anxiety.

What would you say you do here?

A funny answer would be: I protest gender norms.

"She was spotted carrying books including The Iliad, a classic saga of male rage and refusal to accept defeat, on the campaign trail."

From "Who Is JD Vance’s Wife? Second Lady Usha Vance, Former Democrat, Steals the Inauguration Spotlight/Just after his swearing-in, Donald Trump joked that he 'would have chosen' Usha as VP—'the only one smarter than' JD Vance" (Vanity Fair).

A classic saga of male rage and refusal to accept defeat — that amused me. The boundaries of the manosphere are vast.

They say don't judge a book by its cover, but apparently it's fine to judge a person by the visible cover of any book they happen to be carrying. Remember back in May 2008 when candidate Barack Obama was photographed carrying "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria? The NYT had just reviewed the book and said:

Zakaria’s is not another exercise in declinism. His point is not the demise of Gulliver, but the "rise of the rest.”...  The real problem, Zakaria argues, is the rise of China.... Authoritarian modernization just hums along. The Party’s message reads "Enrich yourselves, but leave the driving to us,” and most of 1.3 billion Chinese seem happy to comply — and to consume. With power safely lodged in the Politburo, China does not conform to the historical pattern of "first rich, then rowdy,” which led to Tokyo’s and Berlin’s imperialist careers.....

How did we read his reading? 

"In a political environment like this, you throw at the wall whatever you can."

"This is a political rather than a legal struggle.... It would succeed only in a different environment than we have.... The real question is what political message is being sent."

Said lawprof Laurence Tribe, quoted in "Can He Do That? Here’s What Biden’s Move on the Equal Rights Amendment Means. Presidents have no direct role in approving constitutional amendments. So what could President Biden’s pronouncement recognizing a new one actually do?" (NYT).

From the article: "Proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment have long made it clear that their strategy is primarily a political, not a legal one. Their goal is to dare Republicans to challenge the legitimacy of sex equality, and of moving to nullify something as simple as equal rights for women."

I don't think Biden even purported to "do" anything. He merely stated his legal opinion. Given the well-known deterioration of his mental capacity, who cares what he thinks?

Anyway, as you endeavor to maintain your own mental sharpness, take note of what's happening in the twilight between law and politics.

AND: Tribe's line "you throw at the wall whatever you can" seems to relate to the old expression "throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks." How did that get started? Grok tells me about a 1946 cookbook callled "You Can Cook If You Can Read." It says you can test whether spaghetti is done by throwing it against the wall. I don't know if that's the origin of the expression. I always think of Walter Matthau throwing the spaghetti linguini against the wall in "The Odd Couple":

PLUS: I don't know if this is less or more amusing, but a colleague just sent me a link to "The ERA Is Now Law!" by Professor Tribe in — of all places — The Falls Church News-Press. It's also at that new website The Contrarian, with a different title: "The Equal Rights Amendment at Long Last/Thanks to President Biden, the Constitution will finally guarantee equality for all."

My colleague thinks Tribe is contradicting himself: first, Tribe said it was law, and then Tribe said it was politics. My response is that saying it's law is doing politics. You decide: Is it spaghetti, linguini, or garbage?

"I tried to explain to them how the Taliban has destroyed all the dreams I worked so hard to achieve. They kept saying how happy they are here..."

"... and how safe it is now. These are the things that impact them directly.... But what value does safety have when you lose all your dreams for it?"

Said 24-year-old Afghan woman, speaking about her female cousins, who were visiting from Europe. She is quoted in "Women despair over Taliban rules, but many Afghan returnees don’t see it/Afghans living abroad are flocking back to visit relatives for the first time since the Taliban takeover. Severe restrictions on women are not top of mind" (WaPo)(free-access link).

"He looked like some kind of health food hostage wanting to impress the cool kids by caving to their greasy junk food vices."

"Even for me — someone who unapologetically champions the return of brazen masculinity — the whole thing felt a bit too ‘bro-ish’ for my liking."

That's Jessica Reed Kraus, describing RFK Jr. in that famous photo that shows him eating McDonald's food on a plane with Trump, Musk, and Trump Jr.

Kraus is quoted in "MAGA Women Are Realizing Their Movement Is Sexist" (NY Magazine).

The NY Magazine writer, E.J. Dickson, continues:

"The boys in our liberal school are different now that Trump has won."

This is an article by "Anonymous" in The Guardian, ostensibly written by a girl who is a senior in a high school in New York's Hudson Valley — a "mostly liberal" place, we're told. She purports to be capable of perceiving and reporting how boys have changed since 10 days ago. I have no idea how accurate any of this is, but I'm interested in the text that was published, which says something about The Guardian's attitude, if nothing else:

When we walked into school on the morning of 6 November, we exchanged quick glances with the other girls in our social circle – looks filled with uncertainty and dread about the future.... [A]s we walked to our first period classes... we noticed a very different attitude among our male peers. Subtle high-fives were exchanged and remarks about the impending success of the next four years were whispered around. It didn’t make much sense.... 

"Democrats lost because everyone except for whites moved in the direction of Donald Trump this cycle."

Said the sociologist Musa al-Gharbi, quoted in David Brooks's new column, "Why We Got It So Wrong" (NYT).

I thought that was a good quote, but I don't care about this column otherwise, because if you were "so wrong" before, why would I look to you for right answers now? I skimmed it. I get the impression Brooks thinks we should move beyond identity politics... now that the identity groups have trended toward Trump.

"Kamala Harris’s campaign was predicated on the dominance and continuance of the alleged monoculture..."

"... an appearance from Oprah Winfrey, a rally endorsement from Beyoncé, Instagram support from Taylor Swift, twerking from Megan Thee Stallion. It presumed the existence of a coherent cultural tent that the targeted voters already lived under, and presented Harris’s embrace by these stars as an extension of the audience’s pre-existing fandom.... Trump, denied access to this monoculture, took an approach that was both fragmentary and more modern — and in many ways more attuned to the rhythm of a young person’s media diet. He leaned into the evanescent, the niche, the lightly scandalous...."

Writes Jon Caramanica in "Where to Find the Avuncular Donald Trump? Check the Manosphere. In the months leading up to the election, Donald J. Trump sat for a slew of casual and unconventional conversations with podcasters and streamers. We watched them all" (NYT).

Do I need a tag for this post-election hand-wringing about the "manosphere"? I've got my old "MSM reports what's in social media" and "gender politics," but must I cook up a combination of the two?