In case you missed it, this month’s Vanity Fair features an impressively bleak and depressing article, with a title worth a thousand Internet clicks: “Tinder and the Dawn of the Dating Apocalypse.” Written by Nancy Jo Sales, it’s a salty, f-bomb-laden, desolate look at The Lives of Young People These Days. Traditional dating, the article suggests, has largely dissolved; young women, meanwhile, are the hardest hit.
Tinder, in case you’re not on it right now, is a “dating” app that allows users to find interested singles nearby. If you like the looks of someone, you can swipe right; if you don’t, you swipe left. “Dating” sometimes happens, but it’s often a stretch: Many people, human nature being what it is, use apps like Tinder — and Happn, Hinge, and WhatevR, Nothing MattRs (OK, I made that last one up) — for one-time, no-strings-attached hookups. It’s just like ordering online food, one investment banker says, “but you’re ordering a person.” Delightful! Here’s to the lucky lady who meets up with that enterprising chap.
“In February, one study reported there were nearly 100 million people — perhaps 50 million on Tinder alone — using their phones as a sort of all-day, every-day, handheld singles club,” Sales writes, “where they might find a sex partner as easily as they’d find a cheap flight to Florida.”
The article goes on to detail a barrage of pleased young men, bragging about their “easy,” “hit it and quit it” conquests. The women, meanwhile, express nothing but angst, detailing an army of dudes who are rude, dysfunctional, disinterested, and, to add insult to injury, often worthless in the sack.
The piece has inspired numerous heated reactions and varying levels of hilarity, most notably from Tinder itself. Recently, Tinder’s Twitter account — social media layered on top of social media, which is never, ever pretty — freaked out, issuing a series of 30 defensive and grandiose statements.
“If you want to try to tear us down with one-sided journalism, well, that’s your prerogative,” said one. “The Tinder generation is real,” insisted another.
In an excerpt from his book “Modern Romance,” comedian Aziz Ansari was among those who defended Tinder: When you look at the big picture, he writes, it “isn’t so different from what our grandparents did.”
So, which is it? Are we riding to heck in a smartphone-laden, relationship-killing hand basket? Or is everything the same as it ever was? The truth, I would guess, is somewhere down the middle. Certainly, functional relationships still exist; on the flip side, the hookup culture is clearly real, and it’s not doing women any favors. Here’s the weird thing: Most modern feminists will never, ever admit that last part, even though it would genuinely help women to do so.
If a woman publicly expresses any discomfort about the hookup culture, a young woman named Amanda tells Vanity Fair, “it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism.” That memo has been well articulated over the years, from 1970s feminist trailblazers to today. It comes down to the following thesis: Sex is meaningless, and there is no difference between women and men.
This is absurd, of course, on a biological level alone — and yet, somehow, it gets a lot of takers. Hanna Rosin, author of “The End of Men,” once wrote that “the hookup culture is … bound up with everything that’s fabulous about being a young woman in 2012 — the freedom, the confidence.” Meanwhile, feminist writer Amanda Marcotte called the Vanity Fair article “sex-negative gibberish,” “sexual fear-mongering,” and “paternalistic.” Why? Because it suggested that men and women were different, and that rampant, casual sex might not be the best idea.
Here’s the key question: Why were the women in the article continuing to go back to Tinder, even when they admitted they got literally nothing — not even physical satisfaction — out of it? What were they looking for? Why were they hanging out with jerks? “For young women the problem in navigating sexuality and relationships is still gender inequality,” Elizabeth Armstrong, a University of Michigan sociology professor, told Sales. “There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”
Well, we could puzzle it out, but I have one theory: This isn’t about “gender inequality” at all, but the fact that many young women, by and large, have been sold a bill of goods by modern “feminists” — a group that ultimately, with their reams of bad, bad advice, might not be very feminist at all.
Heather Wilhelm is a writer based in Austin, Texas. She wrote this for The Dallas Morning News.
Today, you may have heard something about a tax on driving in Maryland.
While the idea is another in a long line of bad policy prescriptions emanating from the Maryland Democratic machine, one we reported on over a year ago, a certain candidate running in the Maryland Republican gubernatorial primary is an enabler of the proposal.
Yesterday, WBAL Television reported about the possibility of a vehicle miles travelled tax for Maryland motorists.
Supporters of the proposal call it a Vehicle Miles Traveled tax, or VMT. As proposed in the state’s transportation master plan, it would be in addition to and would not replace the state gas tax…
Maryland’s master transportation plan contains an option for a VMT tax. It was inspired by the desire to cut emissions and by diminishing gas tax revenues.
That “desire to cut emissions” is expressed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act of 2009, one of Governor O’Malley’s signature pieces of environmental legislation. The law commits the state to reducing GHG emissions to 25 percent of 2006 levels by 2020. The law tasked the Maryland Department of the Environment with working with other state agencies to devise an implementation plan.
In its 2012 Climate Action Plan Draft Implementation Plan, the Maryland Department of Transportation put fort the option of establishing:
a Maryland motor fuel taxes or VMT fees – There are two primary options for consideration: (1) an increase in the per gallon motor fuel tax consistent with alternatives under consideration by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Maryland Transportation Funding, and (2) establish a GHG emission-based road user fee (or VMT fee) statewide by 2020 in addition to existing motor fuel taxes. Both options would create additional revenue that could be used to fund transportation improvements and systems operations to help meet Maryland GHG reduction goals [emphasis mine].
In addition to a VMT, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act put on the table a menu of taxes, fees, and mandates—a environmental statist’s policy version of a wet dream.
What does this have to do with the Maryland Republican gubernatorial primary?
Well… it turns out one member of the “conservative team Maryland needs” or “the conservative’s choice” ticket or something—Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio voted for the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act. She joined her other house colleagues in the gubernatorial race, Democrats Heather Mizeur and Jolene Ivey, in assisting the O’Malley administration in saddling taxpayers and our economy with ruinous environmental policies.
Here’s a finding from the Department of Legislative Services analysis of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act:
In Maryland, the manufacturing sector will likely experience a greater amount of employment and output losses relative to the rest of the economy as a result of GHG reduction policies. However, policies that attempt to mitigate these losses and exempt the manufacturing sector will only increase the total cost of GHG mitigation and shift the burden to other economic sectors. Ultimately, the cost of GHG mitigation policies, even those imposed on businesses, will be borne by individuals [emphasis mine].
It should also be noted that Haddaway-Riccio was a sponsor of legislation in 2010, which gave generous taxpayer subsidies to green energy rent seekers—$14.9 million to be exact, going by the math in the fiscal policy note.
The conservative choice indeed!
Now this brings us to our friend Michael Swartz, who, in his endorsement of David Craig, wrote that picking Haddaway-Riccio “sealed it” and made “the difference” in his endorsement.
This is curious given Swartz is such a critic (and rightfully so) of the very policies Haddwway-Riccio not only voted for, but sponsored.
SeekingArrangement.com’s Friday announcement followed a recent report in the Dallas Morning News which detailed a number of discrepancies in Davis’ personal narrative, including that she left a man 13 years her senior the day after he made the last payment for her Harvard Law School education.
“Wendy Davis is proof that the sugar lifestyle is empowering,” seeking arrangements founder and CEO Brandon Wade said in his endorsement. “It can take a single mom from squalor to scholar, or in this case from the trailer park to Harvard, and a seat in the Senate. The sugar lifestyle creates an opportunity for women to transcend the single mother stereotypes.”
Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in pursuit of big-government control, had trampled the US Constitution with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these unconstitutional twins, birthed by feminists, were intended to restrict “romantic” contact between Maryland men and foreign women. Ironically, by couching the misandrist legislation in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers stomped on all American women in Maryland who date foreign men. Parrotte provides details at http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.
Buckeystown, Maryland — Maryland businessman Michael Parrotte was outraged to learn that, in January 2010, his state, in pursuit of big-government control, had trampled the US Constitution with Senate Bill 129 and House Bill 65. He discovered that these unconstitutional twins, birthed by feminists, were intended to restrict “romantic” contact between Maryland men and foreign women. Ironically, by couching the misandrist legislation in gender-neutral language, Maryland lawmakers stomped on all American women in Maryland who date foreign men. Parrotte provides details at http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.
The Maryland bills, as originally proposed, would have required each American citizen, before beginning any communication with potential foreign paramours — even anonymous communication through a dating Website — to provide them fingerprints, criminal and sex-offender records, and a complete marital history. Not only are foreigners, even those located in the US, not required to reciprocate their personal info to Americans, they are free to disseminate and publicize the Americans’ information on the Internet.
According to Michael Parrotte, the Maryland businessman trying to defeat these bills: “I can’t believe this pernicious government intrusion into private lives and total disregard for American rights. When will it end? This is yet another example of politicians buckling to radical feminists. Our lawmakers were so politically correct that they unwittingly rushed through an unconstitutional monster that will equally punish women. And, when women learn of this, these politicians will become unemployed in the next election.”
The bill’s chief author, Delegate Jeannie Haddaway-Riccio (R), ostensibly modeled it after the federal International Marriage Broker Act of 2005 (IMBRA), which, according to many, is unconstitutional. Apparently, IMBRA isn’t invasive enough — its background-info requirement isn’t triggered until the foreigner invokes it. HB65’s requirement for personal information from Americans, on the other hand, is always active.
Senator Alex X. Mooney (R), who was instrumental in delaying the passage of SB129, is curiously in support of unilateral protections for foreigners. In a letter to Michael Parrotte, he wrote: “I was not prepared to support or offer an amendment to require foreign countries to provide similar records when contacting a United States citizen through these services.”
Marc H. Rudov, globally known author, radio/TV personality, and men’s rights advocate, opined thusly: “The US Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, confers upon American citizens certain protections from tyranny: presumption of innocence, due process, equal protection, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and protection from self-incrimination. Not only does Maryland’s HB65 deny Americans all such protections, it unilaterally transfers them to foreigners. What would George Washington say? The sole purpose of Maryland’s nonsense is to help radical feminists bash men who prefer non-American women. The solution is to kill these bills, period. Not dilution, not modification, not amendment. Just kill them altogether.”
For more information about killing Maryland’s SB129 and HB65, go to http://Maryland-Dating-Law.com.