RUTHFULLY YOURS

What would we do without psychological studies about sex and gender? We’ve had studies that most women are “part lesbian” and a lack of access to sports bras deters girls from playing sports. We’ve had a study showing that women are more likely to become lesbian if they don’t have ready access to men and a landmark study showing that female chimpanzees are more likely to be domineering feminists.

And now we have a new study concluding that white, masculine men are more likely to be mentally ill, conducted by Y. Joel Wong, a man who isn’t white, may not be masculine, and actually…who knows if he is really a man for sure?

Men who have “playboy” attitudes and believe in power over women may face a higher risk for mental health trouble than men who don’t, a broad new research review suggests.

The finding on sexism, and other so-called “traditional views” on masculinity, stems from an analysis of 74 studies conducted between 2003 and 2013. The studies included nearly 19,500 predominantly white male participants, the researchers said.

The research “looked at expectations about what it means to be masculine, and how that relates to mental health outcomes among men,” explained study lead author Y. Joel Wong.

“What we found overall is that the more that men conformed to masculine norms the poorer their mental health, and the less likely they were to seek mental health services,” he said.

Wong’s team focused on data concerning the embrace of 11 different types of so-called “masculine norms,” including the desire to win; to retain emotional control; to take risks; to engage in violence; to exert dominant behavior; to participate in a “playboy” lifestyle; to be self-reliant; to elevate work to the highest level of importance; to retain power over women; to maintain a disdain for homosexuals; and to pursue “status.”

Desiring to win = mentally ill. Retaining emotional control = mentally ill. Making work a priority = mentally ill. But I’m glad that at least these are traits associated with “masculinity.” I’m not 100% sure what a “playboy” lifestyle or “retaining power over women” means; by these twisted standards, it may simply mean a refusal to be subservient to women like these emotionally castrated guys.

There have been many excellent post-election analyses since Trump’s improbable win, most of have which have identified the disaffected working class and the failure of the Democrats’ politically correct identity politics as the driving factors.

But one thing that seems to be overlooked is the Tea Party, the reasons for its beginnings, and its underlying anti-establismentarianism in this election.

It was not just the failure of the Democrats’ urban-centric political focus on minorities, women, and income inequality that deep-sixed Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Walking it back, what has outraged so many grassroots conservatives was the phony conservatism under George W. Bush, culminating in the financial crisis of 2008. It pushed them overboard to no longer get fooled by the Republican establishment that had been basically a milder form of the big-government progressivism that had taken over the Democratic Party following the loss of Hubert Humphrey in 1968 to Richard Nixon. It was that crushing loss that sent Democrats on a far-left trajectory for decades to come.

Bush did nothing to cut back the size and growth of government. Instead, he actually expanded it through his unfunded Medicare Part D prescription drug program and the “No Child Left Behind” federally mandated education program. There were no efforts at all to rein in spending and the size of the federal government. And the war with Iraq added untold billions to the ever expanding annual federal deficits.

Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was liberalism in disguise. From “Decision Time for the GOP Elite” at AT:

Remember that the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress during the presidency of George W. Bush and yet nothing was done to control the size, scope, or cost of the federal government.

In a now forgotten column years back, a writer noted how times had changed in Britain since the 1960s. Back then, he wrote, it was the rock stars who filled the tabloids with their sex and excess. By contrast the British royals, raised on noblesse oblige, largely limited their public appearances to celebrations on behalf of hospitals, schools and other worthy causes.

The roles are now reversed. These days it is the British royals caught exiting nightclubs in the wee hours of the morning or captured playing naked billiards. By contrast, knighted rock stars emerge periodically from their landed estates to offer polite statements on the environment.

Something of the same has just happened this side of the Atlantic. At least since his victory speech promising to be president for all Americans—and notwithstanding the occasional tweet deriding “Saturday Night Live” as “nothing funny” or the New York Times as “failing”—Mr. Trump has mostly tried to sound positive and inclusive. Meanwhile, those who spent the 2016 campaign decrying Mr. Trump for his temperament and fascist tendencies are now exhibiting precisely those traits.
The most recent outburst came Friday night, when Mike Pence and some of his family took in a performance of the Broadway hit “Hamilton.” Having entered the theater to a mixture of cheers and boos, the vice president-elect at the end of the performance found himself lectured from the stage by the cast.

Lin-Manuel Miranda, who both wrote the musical and starred in it, tweeted that he was “proud” of the moment, which he characterized as “leading with love.” As Mr. Pence pointed out, cast members have a right to say what they please. But the rest of us likewise have a right to note how boorish and self-congratulatory they were.

Americans invented the core high-technologies that enable the modern digital age, but they didn’t get a large share of the jobs created by these new industries. High-tech is dominated by Asia, where governments target its growth as vital to their economic development. The relationship between industry and the state is tight. In countries like China, Taiwan and South Korea, government-corporate partnerships provide patient capital, skilled workers and protection for intellectual property.

Their progress has been remarkable. Between 1999 and 2014, the World Bank reports, global exports of high-technology products (computers, aerospace, electrical machinery, pharmaceuticals and other “R&D intensive” products) rose by about 220%. China’s share of that soared to 26% from 3%. America’s fell to only 7% from 18%.

American innovations from the 1960s, the peak of the government’s commitment to defense and aerospace R&D, created the basis for a trillion-dollar electronics industry. Researchers with corporate and federal support invented the key components: microchips, lasers, LEDs, flat-panel displays, memory chips, imaging devices and solar-energy panels, among others. Today, these manufacturing industries employ millions of Asians but relatively few Americans.

Asia got the jobs because Asian governments set out to build innovative industries. They helped license the technology from the U.S., educated engineers and skilled workers, subsidized joint ventures with American firms that provided crucial experience, and underwrote new industries with grants and low-interest loans.

Solar energy is the latest example. As R&D made solar cells commercially viable, American venture capitalists poured money into startups. But Asian companies, with government support, moved into solar beginning around 2000. They bought German technology and by 2007 had cut market prices so low that American manufacturers couldn’t compete. When those kind of jobs move overseas, it’s largely a one-way trip. Since Asia produces most of the components, bringing solar-panel factories back to the U.S. would be difficult.