The truly talented PJ O’Rourke once observed – we’re possibly in paraphrase territory here – that you could tell how successful a public movement or protest or rally was or would be by counting the pretty girls involved.
More pretty girls equaled a better chance of success because guys would start showing up.
I hate to break it to the politically pugnacious ladies out there, but when you ask a guy to join your cause and the guy says “That’s important, I get it, what time is the rally?” he is almost certainly not thinking only about whatever you are protesting or demanding or complaining about.
He’s thinking about something else. And he thinks you just asked him out.
And that is the key to protest culture – more people means more impact.
From going to Beat poetry readings in the Village with Barnard girls in the 1950s to hanging with the presumably easy but insufferable hippie chicks upset about Vietnam and other 60’s stuff to the strident ladies of the ”no nukes” movement of 1980s to PETA (in fact, PETA proves the entire point) PICS to interminable social justice sit-ins to the essentially genocidal Gaza campus much ados of today, the majority of the guys in the crowd may, shall we say, not exactly be 100 percent into the issue at hand.
Did you really think that kinda cute guy really cared about Justice for East Timor and that’s all that was on his mind when he spent two hours that Saturday morning with you handing out pamphlets?
Hate to break it to you gals, but he was just playing the odds.
Not all guys are like this and, if the movement is of real import, the male participation can be legitimate. The 60’s protests, for example, include the very guy-centric matter of being drafted to go to Vietnam. But, in general, if the protest is about, well, caring about something in a more philosophical and/or distant way, the “getting some clause” applies.
The getting some clause is recognized by the International Court of Justice at The Hague and in general is considered proper for contractual considerations. Well, maybe not but still the clause can be invoked for various reasons beyond going to protests about something you do not care at all about: for example, if a person is the designated driver for a night out with friends and happens to meet up with a girl during the festivities, the clause can be properly and emphatically invoked to abandon said driver duty.
This “sure, whatever you say, baby” concept applies well beyond protests and movements and such. If on a date and the girl is a vegan, the guy will not order a porterhouse, Pittsburgh style. In fact, he will simply lie and say he’s thought about going vegan and he does make sure to eat healthy and its great she’s trying to save the planet one meal at a time and add some progress “stolen valor style” claiming he’s thinking about pescatarianism and get the swordfish (he will choose the quinoa side, but it will go suspiciously untouched through the course of the meal.)
Possibly a tad too on the nose of an example, but an example none the less. Here is a picture of Nika Soon-Shiong, the absurdly wealthy daughter of the owner – of the Los Angeles Times (a paper which she is helping to ruin and bankrupt every day with her progressive reporting demands and newsroom interference):
She is, by any standard, objectively very pretty and clearly able to use her looks and money to intentionally manipulate people to think as she does: she is woker than woke, stands with Hamas, has a basic income foundation (which, for some I’m sure not at all hypocritical reason does not operate in Gaza,) and is involved with various so left they’re right boards and non-profits.
Imagine if she looked like this:
The money may still go a long way, but to say she would be treated with oracular reverence is absurd. While Soon-Shiong’s manipulation is far more intentional than typical of the 19-year-old gathering support to save the wooded treefish and she has not been elected to anything like those above, the comparison is still apt.
By the way, that’s Bella Abzug, Ella Grasso, Barbara Mikulski, Eleanor Roosevelt (who was used by mothers during the Great Depression and World War II as a warning about masturbation as follows: if you play with yourself you will look like Eleanor Roosevelt when you grow up) above.
All – putting policy differences aside – capable politicians in their own right but to say their looks gave them “potential sexual partner so a guy would attend a protest or a rally” appeal is simply not rational.
Side note – until the past generation or so, female politicians essentially could not be successful politicians if they were, say, lookers, and that was not the men’s fault: poll after poll, going into the 1990s, showed that women were very leery of voting for anyone they thought was prettier than they were.
In general, attractiveness equaling movement success is a universal phenomena, but in California it is taken to the next level of omnipresent, existential, all-encompassing, small “c” catholic kind of universal.
The hunky USC frat boy does not really care about climate change, the husbands of the second wives who populate the fundraising brunches of the white woke west side of LA aren’t really that into whatever the cause du jour is as long as all they have to do is right a check to keep her quiet (cheaper than a third wife,) the guys who helped shut down an LA freeway for Hamas would not have been their without their girlfriends, and the delta smelt would be a thing of the past if it weren’t for the (predominantly) interesting looking women who led the charge.
The concept is particularly strong in the Golden State because of its (admittedly waning) self-image, the outsized role being attractive plays in the state’s culture, the Californian tendency to hop on any bandwagon going by, and the prevalence of marketing and public relations and advertising and film and TV professionals. Californian’s “get” what sells – see Gavin Newsom.
So if you wonder why the wave of protests that have occurred over the past few years have gained traction, don’t think about what is being said – just look at who is saying it.
In the immortal words of one of the many Spinal Tap drummers, “As long as there’s the sex and drugs I could do without the rock and roll.”
One added note (sorry guys, gotta do it if we’re being completely honest here) – Holding a door open for woman is an ancient tradition that traces its roots to basic safety concerns: the outside or the streets were dangerous, hence the desire to make sure the lady is safe by making sure she gets inside first. It is now merely seen as a chivalrous act of courtesy and respect. However, there is another reason the custom still exists: it lets guys do a quick surreptitious booty check. To be blunt, ladies, we’re not looking at the back of your head when we open the door for you.
Oddly, the custom does not seem to be that prevalent in the gay or lesbian communities which is odd because it would seem everyone, proclivities aside, has a butt to be checked out.
- About Last Week …and Some About This Week - March 4, 2024
- The Los Angeles DA Homestretch: Notables Donate, Endorsements Ramp Up - March 1, 2024
- Another $170 Million – EDD Faces Fed Debt Interest Hike - February 29, 2024