Archive for the ‘Culture Wars’ Category

Candace Owens Criticizes Harry Styles, Sparks An Embarrassingly Outdated Culture War – Forbes

Candace Owens, boldly breaking gender norms by wearing a suit. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

In 2020, is cross-dressing still considered to be provocative?

Rock stars were challenging gender norms back in the seventies - youd think wed have moved on to more interesting conversations by now. But for attention-starved conservative commentators, the sight of a man wearing a dress is still, apparently, worth making a fuss over.

Conservative commentator Candace Owens, infamous for her bizarre, completely unprompted defense of Adolf Hitler, sparked a tiresome Twitter debate after criticizing Harry Styles, who dared to don a dress in his cover for Vogue.(The first man ever to appear alone on its cover in 128 years.)

On Twitter, Owens wrote: There is no society that can survive without strong men. The East knows this. In the west, the steady feminization of our men at the same time that Marxism is being taught to our children is not a coincidence. It is an outright attack. Bring back manly men.

It didnt take long for Ben Shapiro, the embodiment of raw masculinity, the modern-day Marlboro Man, to chime in:

Im not sure what Vogue marketing their big-name photoshoot through an outdated subversion of gender norms has to do with the Left, but needless to say, Im pretty sure Harry Styles is extremely comfortable with his sexuality, and doesnt stay up at night worrying about being perceived as effeminate.

But Twitter users rarely give up the opportunity to poke fun at these two towering intellectuals, so Owens and Shaprio spent the rest of the day being mercilessly mocked, the price of being a controversial internet commentator (although, I suspect the pay is pretty good).

It is genuinely interesting (or maybe depressing?), to look back at the culture wars of the seventies and see how little has changed. Its quite remarkable, really. The very notion of breaking gender norms seems to strike intense fear into the heart of certain people; a line that, once crossed, marks the end of Western civilization, an imagined descent into barbarism and hedonism.

It sounds like a great deal of fun, but perhaps it's time to move on - nostalgia culture might be trendy right now, but that doesnt mean we have to argue over men wearing dresses for the next century.

Candace, seemingly satisfied with her attention-grabbing Tweet, ended her commentary on the subject with a mind-melting, incendiary take, writing:

Wait until they find out that I also think women should be feminineand I enjoy cooking for and taking care of my husband.

The Tweet was accompanied by a GIF of Elmo, writhing in flames ... because its fiery.

I cant wait to hear what Owens and Shapiro are offended by nextlong hair and tattoos?

View original post here:
Candace Owens Criticizes Harry Styles, Sparks An Embarrassingly Outdated Culture War - Forbes

The culture war is a distraction | TheHill – The Hill

Weeks after the historic presidential election, America seems as polarized as ever. The red and blue political sects looking at each other as enemies, morally suspect and indeed almost incomprehensible to one another. But even as polarization has spiked, as Northwestern University psychology professor Eli J. Finkel points out, The debate going on is increasingly divorced from ideas.

The two sides are interested in conquest, not in political ideology, social science, or philosophical questions about the appropriate government role. So while polarization may seem to be about politics, its really about increasingly cordoned social, cultural, and demographic groupings. Within this context, with a better understanding of whats actually dividing the country, culture war histrionics are revealed as a mere distraction, the thin veneer that covers a public policy reality too terrible for most Americans to confront honestly.

For example, Americans have never seriously reckoned with our governments foreign policy of endless war, or its lawless, unaccountable intelligence and national security officialdom, or its collusive monopoly capitalism. And in a year when there really did seem to be a historic moment of reckoning on issues of systemic racism, particularly as associated with policing and the criminal justice system, Americans elected a pair who built their political careers on pushing exactly the kinds of policies that led to the current crisis of injustice on the war on drugs, general overcriminalization, mandatory minimums and mass incarceration, the militarization of the police, stop-and-frisk, and no-knock warrants (and this is, of course, a non-exhaustive list). Americans seem to like authoritarianism, which is not unique to either party, embarrassing celebrations of the Democratic victory notwithstanding.

The two culture wars sides are much, much more alike than they are different. And while Donald TrumpDonald John TrumpBen Carson says he's 'out of the woods' after being 'extremely sick' with COVID-19 Biden will receive @POTUS Twitter account on Jan. 20 even if Trump doesn't concede, company says Trump to participate in virtual G-20 summit amid coronavirus surge MORE did his best to damn Biden and the Democrats as socialists, socialism and the monopoly capitalism Trump represents are also more alike than different; they only seem to be opposites, a fact that more insightful thinkers have long appreciated.

Having such an openly dishonest and odious character in the White House has forced people to evaluate political power as principled libertarians always do. At least the cultural and media elite see Trump for what he is. One of the only things a peace-loving anti-authoritarian can say for the Trump years is that the newsmedia actually scrutinized presidential power, treating the president as an evil authoritarian. In contrast, they fawn incessantly over Biden and Harris, who represent the very worst and most demonstrably racist public policy decisions of the past several decades. Journalists have been either pretending not to know this, or else they actually dont know.

Trump is an inarticulate, unscripted speaker lacking charisma and moral character. But it is too little acknowledged that such traits frequently made Trump less dangerous as a politician rather than more, for the media and political establishments arrayed themselves against his administration before it even began, and for a good reason. How are the same people handling Biden and Harris? How are the journalism profession and the pundit class likely to treat the Biden administration's abuses and excesses? Which candidate do you think warmongers and Wall Street wanted to win the 2020 election?

On the political philosophers' pages, the state is an abstraction; it can be a perfect justice-producing machine, untethered to the human imperfections and evils to which it ostensibly addresses itself. That it has been, from its earliest appearances in history, an expression of those imperfections and evils, is everywhere ignored by those who ask for an even stronger state.

The modern state is best understood both historically and conceptually not as some kind of neutral scorekeeper sit[ting] outside the game, but as a corporation made up of and operated by actual flesh-and-blood human beings with their own interests, incentives, blind spots, and shortcomings. Unless we believe that the state is possessed of some supernatural essence that makes it different from other human-operated organizations (and indeed many seem to believe just this), then it is not at all clear why we should consider the state a scorekeeper, unbound by the rules and assumptions in place for all other mere mortals.

The state represents human beings at their worst: force instead of persuasion, impunity instead of accountability, censorship instead of free inquiry. Instead of polarizing and treating each other as enemies, we must come to understand that political power itself is the enemy.

David S. D'Amato is an attorney, a columnist at the Cato Institute's Libertarianism.org, and a policy advisor at both the Future of Freedom Foundation and the Heartland Institute.

The rest is here:
The culture war is a distraction | TheHill - The Hill

The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture Releases "Democracy in Dark Times," a Landmark National Survey and Analysis of American…

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va., Nov. 16, 2020 /PRNewswire/ --The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture at the University of Virginia today released its 2020 IASC Survey of American Political Culture, Democracy in Dark Times, fielded by Gallup Inc. The report, coauthored by James Davison Hunter and Carl Desportes Bowman, finds troubling evidence that nearly 30 years after Hunter's 1991 book, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America, introduced America to the concept of a "culture war," the country is even more deeply fractured by ideology, religion, race, and income. According to Hunter and Bowman,

What divides Americans at this moment strikes at the heart of what each side perceived to be at stake in this election. One side believed that Trump and his supporters were gradually transforming the country into a dictatorship that leaned toward fascism; the other side believed that the Democrats under Biden would gradually transform America into a socialist country. Each side...viewed the other as enemies of our modern liberal democratic order. Fear was driving the passions of this election.

Highlights from the survey, which interviewed a representative sample of 2,205 American adults, include the following:

What do these deep-seated divisions mean for America's politics and culture wars? The authors observe, "It is well established that White Evangelicals are President Trump's main political base, a fact clearly confirmed by the evidence in this survey." They continue:

Yet it is significant that the majority of non-Evangelical Americans, and the majority of social elites in particular (the gatekeepers of our late-modern society), are so negatively disposed toward religious Evangelicals, directly or indirectly. These are the cultural conditions for the ultimate decline not only of Evangelical political influence, but because of its close association with Evangelicalism, of the Republican Party itself.

This does not guarantee an easy road for the Democratic Party either, however:

At the same time, because the vote for Biden as president was overwhelmingly about defeating Trump rather than electing Biden, the conditions are present for the fragmentation of the Democratic Party, perhaps especially now that Biden has won.

The authors conclude that Americans' increasing pessimism, distrust, and cynicism

will not fix themselves. Without strong and creative institutional leadership, these problems will continue to undermine the substance and process of democratic life, irrespective of who is elected. Winning certainly matters in a competitive political environment where important policies affecting millions of people are concerned, but winning is neither everything nor the only thing when it comes to sustaining a vital liberal democracy.

The 2020 IASC Survey of American Political CultureTM sampled 2,205 adults ages 18 and over. The sample includes completed responses from 320 Hispanics and 336 African Americans, as well as an oversample of 504 adults with at least some postgraduate education. Gallup fielded the survey from July 28 through August 27, 2020.

The survey is available online. The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture is an interdisciplinary research center and intellectual community at the University of Virginia that seeks to understand contemporary cultural change and its individual and social consequences.

SOURCE Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture

https://iasculture.org

Read the original post:
The Institute for Advanced Studies in Culture Releases "Democracy in Dark Times," a Landmark National Survey and Analysis of American...

Why is fruit picking the latest front in the culture wars? – The Canberra Times

news, latest-news, fruit picking, wage theft, working conditions, backpackers, employment, unemployment, overseas, working holiday

About now, thousands of young Australian school-leavers should be going on a gap year. Instead, they are stuck at home with nowhere to go. So why aren't they all heading off to Young or Swan Hill and picking cherries? Short-term, well-paid work, far away from nagging parents. Sounds perfect. Not so fast. Even the folks at the National Farmers' Federation recognise there are real problems with fruit picking. Ben Rogers, the NFF's general manager for workplace relations and legal affairs, concedes the industry has a bad reputation. But he starts by saying the reason young Australian workers don't want to work in fruit picking, even in the short term, is because farm work is undervalued. That's true all over the world. He also says that the non-suit-wearing, no-university-education-needed nature of the job puts people off. It's hard physical labour. Workers are exposed to weather. And it is remote, although I'd argue remoteness would be a benefit to many young people. Take your mates and you are 1000 miles away from worry. Your parents' worry, that is. But Rogers is open about the other major negative influence. Farm workers are exploited in a number of ways. Terrifying stories of sexual assault and sexual harassment and consistent stories of underpayment persist across the sector. "As an industry we try to own the problem," he says. Of course, fruit pickers can go to the police if it is a criminal matter. But that's tough at the best of times - sexual assault is underreported even in urban areas. Imagine what it is like to try to report when the only place you can shelter is the place where the assault took place. But if it is not a criminal matter, even the most confident young person might struggle to get what is rightfully theirs. Big employer, young inexperienced employee. Alison Pennington, senior economist at the Centre for Future Work, reveals the big secrets from the orchards. She says the reason young Australians don't want to go fruit picking is because of pay and conditions. She also says the agriculture industry would prefer employees who don't talk back and who might not have the same grasp of employment rights as the average Australian. It is one of the reasons agriculture has favoured backpackers and international students. She doubts Big Agriculture is even looking at the applications of Austrailan citizens, who are, she says, "more likely to understand the minimum wage structure and have a better understanding of rights and conditions under Australian law". "The scale of wage theft the industry is engaged in is huge," she says. The federal government is trying to make fruit picking and other farm work more appealing through a scheme introduced this month offering up to $6000 to workers to cover relocation costs such as accommodation and travel. It is designed to help farmers deal with a massive worker shortage. The money is available for work from NSW to Western Australia, from the Northern Territory to Tasmania; and some states and territories have added their own incentive schemes, including WA's Work and Wander Out Yonder, criticised at its launch for making farm work look like a walk in the park. While farmers might like employing backpackers and international students during university breaks, we now have the COVID-19 problem. There are usually 160,000 people in those categories in Australia at any one time, but right now there are just 70,000. And most of those are in the city. National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar was quoted as saying earlier this year: "Farmers require people who are reliable, enthusiastic and energetic; if you tick these boxes, you'll very likely have what it takes to be a valued member of a farm's workforce." READ MORE: Thing is, it is hard to be reliable, enthusiastic and energetic about your work if you feel you are being ripped off. So, a couple of ideas. Pennington reminds me that there are plenty of remote work incentive schemes which are a helluva lot more generous than the $6000 promised by the federal government - for instance, those granted to teachers, doctors and other health workers. So that's one way of supporting workers. She advises against any employer-mandated accommodation, because it is likely to diminish other pay and conditions. The other way is to join a union. That's the simplest form of protection. There are two which cover farm work, the Australian Workers' Union and the United Workers Union. AWU national secretary Daniel Walton confirms Pennington's view that farmers will often choose international workers because they are easier to exploit. And he says the industry is notorious for underpayment and "dodgy labour practices". But there are ways to gauge whether your prospective employer is ripping you off. Cash in hand, partial payments or late payments are all features of employers breaching employment law. There are more: no contract of employment, no payslips, no superannuation payments. Walton says he has seen cases where the hourly rate changes from day to day, or where farm workers are paid by the cherry or by the punnet. If it is easy pickings, the price paid to workers for each punnet drops. But here's the thing. We need our cherries and apricots, and young people need work. Take the six grand the government is promising you to pay for rent. That will pay for the accommodation at Young Tourist Park easily, you and your seven mates (safety in numbers); if you are 18, it is just under $20 an hour for a casual fruit picking gig, and just over $6 a week for union dues. The rest is money for jam.

/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/tPntrWhUbGLyDWYCTv46rt/1c34230c-853c-46ee-a616-7ea308c0a837.jpg/r2_450_5469_3539_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg

OPINION

November 20 2020 - 4:30AM

About now, thousands of young Australian school-leavers should be going on a gap year. Instead, they are stuck at home with nowhere to go.

So why aren't they all heading off to Young or Swan Hill and picking cherries?

Short-term, well-paid work, far away from nagging parents. Sounds perfect.

Not so fast. Even the folks at the National Farmers' Federation recognise there are real problems with fruit picking. Ben Rogers, the NFF's general manager for workplace relations and legal affairs, concedes the industry has a bad reputation. But he starts by saying the reason young Australian workers don't want to work in fruit picking, even in the short term, is because farm work is undervalued. That's true all over the world. He also says that the non-suit-wearing, no-university-education-needed nature of the job puts people off.

It's hard physical labour. Workers are exposed to weather. And it is remote, although I'd argue remoteness would be a benefit to many young people. Take your mates and you are 1000 miles away from worry. Your parents' worry, that is.

But Rogers is open about the other major negative influence. Farm workers are exploited in a number of ways. Terrifying stories of sexual assault and sexual harassment and consistent stories of underpayment persist across the sector.

"As an industry we try to own the problem," he says.

Of course, fruit pickers can go to the police if it is a criminal matter. But that's tough at the best of times - sexual assault is underreported even in urban areas. Imagine what it is like to try to report when the only place you can shelter is the place where the assault took place. But if it is not a criminal matter, even the most confident young person might struggle to get what is rightfully theirs. Big employer, young inexperienced employee.

The scale of wage theft the [fruit picking] industry is engaged in is huge.

Alison Pennington, senior economist at the Centre for Future Work, reveals the big secrets from the orchards. She says the reason young Australians don't want to go fruit picking is because of pay and conditions. She also says the agriculture industry would prefer employees who don't talk back and who might not have the same grasp of employment rights as the average Australian. It is one of the reasons agriculture has favoured backpackers and international students.

She doubts Big Agriculture is even looking at the applications of Austrailan citizens, who are, she says, "more likely to understand the minimum wage structure and have a better understanding of rights and conditions under Australian law".

"The scale of wage theft the industry is engaged in is huge," she says.

The federal government is trying to make fruit picking and other farm work more appealing through a scheme introduced this month offering up to $6000 to workers to cover relocation costs such as accommodation and travel. It is designed to help farmers deal with a massive worker shortage. The money is available for work from NSW to Western Australia, from the Northern Territory to Tasmania; and some states and territories have added their own incentive schemes, including WA's Work and Wander Out Yonder, criticised at its launch for making farm work look like a walk in the park.

While farmers might like employing backpackers and international students during university breaks, we now have the COVID-19 problem. There are usually 160,000 people in those categories in Australia at any one time, but right now there are just 70,000. And most of those are in the city.

National Farmers' Federation chief executive Tony Mahar was quoted as saying earlier this year: "Farmers require people who are reliable, enthusiastic and energetic; if you tick these boxes, you'll very likely have what it takes to be a valued member of a farm's workforce."

Thing is, it is hard to be reliable, enthusiastic and energetic about your work if you feel you are being ripped off.

So, a couple of ideas. Pennington reminds me that there are plenty of remote work incentive schemes which are a helluva lot more generous than the $6000 promised by the federal government - for instance, those granted to teachers, doctors and other health workers. So that's one way of supporting workers. She advises against any employer-mandated accommodation, because it is likely to diminish other pay and conditions.

The other way is to join a union. That's the simplest form of protection. There are two which cover farm work, the Australian Workers' Union and the United Workers Union.

AWU national secretary Daniel Walton confirms Pennington's view that farmers will often choose international workers because they are easier to exploit. And he says the industry is notorious for underpayment and "dodgy labour practices".

But there are ways to gauge whether your prospective employer is ripping you off. Cash in hand, partial payments or late payments are all features of employers breaching employment law. There are more: no contract of employment, no payslips, no superannuation payments. Walton says he has seen cases where the hourly rate changes from day to day, or where farm workers are paid by the cherry or by the punnet. If it is easy pickings, the price paid to workers for each punnet drops.

But here's the thing. We need our cherries and apricots, and young people need work. Take the six grand the government is promising you to pay for rent. That will pay for the accommodation at Young Tourist Park easily, you and your seven mates (safety in numbers); if you are 18, it is just under $20 an hour for a casual fruit picking gig, and just over $6 a week for union dues.

The rest is money for jam.

Read the original here:
Why is fruit picking the latest front in the culture wars? - The Canberra Times

Editorial: Nows time to revisit the Equal Rights Amendment – San Antonio Express-News

It seems a classic no-brainer: 24 simple words merely stating men and women should be viewed as equal under the law.

Thats it. No big whoop, right?

But adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a fight thats gone on since it was proposed over a century ago and then passed by Congress in 1972. Its a humane idea that has fallen victim to the culture wars, killed, resuscitated, only to be killed again.

Viewers of the recent Hulu drama Mrs. America watched Cate Blanchett steal every scene as the white-gloved and pugnacious Phyllis Schlafly, who mobilized her supporters to harpoon the ERA. They argued it threatened the very nature of relationships between men and women, indeed the very nature of American life.

The ERA does neither of those things. But it does hold broad implications for such necessary battles as the need for equal pay between the sexes. It would further enshrine into law protections against domestic violence and sexual harassment, as well as workplace discrimination, including that based on pregnancy and motherhood.

Why would this scare anyone?

Now that we have a female vice president-elect and a wave of female Republican candidates who have swept into the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., perhaps its a good time to revisit the ERA in a bipartisan way.

It seems particularly fitting to examine why we need the ERA during this pandemic, a time in which women are being disproportionately impacted by the coronavirus, from job losses to their unequal shouldering in the balancing of work and family life.

Some history for those who think of the ERA as merely a baseball statistic: The ERA is an amendment to the Constitution, and as such requires ratification of three-quarters of the states, or 38 out of 50.

At first, Congress set a deadline of 1979 for ratification, which was later extended to 1982. Thanks to Schlaflys efforts, only 35 states ratified the rule.

But in 2017, a female Democratic state senator in Nevada, riding the growing #MeToo wave, got her state to ratify the ERA, even though the deadline had passed. Illinois did the same in 2018. Virginia followed suit last January and became the 38th state to ratify.

For the record, Texas yes, Texas ratified the ERA in March of 1972.

However, over the years five states Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, South Dakota and Tennessee rescinded their ratifications, which had occurred before 1982. But that sort of takeback ploy has failed in other legal contexts.

A big problem is the deadline. Should it matter? Opponents say yes. Supporters say no. Each side has its own arguments. In February, the U.S. House voted to remove the deadline, with five Republicans supporting the measure and no Democrats opposing it.

But the vote to kill the deadline needed to get through the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has flatly stated hes against the ERA. The Trump administration has labeled the amendment expired.

The fate of the modern-day ERA remains muddled.

What isnt unclear is how the American people view the amendment. A 2016 survey found a whopping 94 percent of respondents approved of adding it to the Constitution. At the same time, 80 percent of Americans thought men and women already enjoy equal protection under the 14th amendment, via the famous cases won by late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the 1970s.

But as wonderful as the 14th amendment may be, it still features gender loopholes one can drive a truck through, gaps in state and federal law that should be closed.

Perhaps the Biden administration will somehow intervene to move the ERA across the finish line. Perhaps the Supreme Court will somehow get involved, as it did last summer, when justices ruled that existing federal law bans job discrimination based on sexual orientation or transgender status.

What the nation needs to do is get past ridiculous arguments that say equal rights for both genders will somehow lead to the elimination of single-sex public bathrooms and other canards.

And those who portray the ERA as unnecessary should consider this question: Why is there such a fight against it?

Link:
Editorial: Nows time to revisit the Equal Rights Amendment - San Antonio Express-News