The Chinese are insecure about their eyelid shape

In a remarkable example of a cultural cringe, Chinese have taken Western eyes as the ideal. It is common throughout Asia among those who can afford it to have their eyelids "done" by a plastic surgeon. They beat themselves up over it

A deplored image

Chinese netizens have been debating about “squinty eyes” in the last few weeks. The debates centred on a series of advertisement posters from Three Squirrels, a Chinese snack maker, featuring a model with small, narrow eyes.

At the heart of the controversy is the perception by some Chinese netizens that these ads invoked the “slanted eyes” stereotype associated historically with Western racism against Asians. On that basis, they accused Three Squirrels of being “unpatriotic” and “insulting China”.

The Three Squirrels controversy is not an isolated instance. Recently, Mercedes Benz and Dior also came under fire for depicting models with small, narrow eyes in their ads. Chinese animated film I Am What I Am, a story about a boy and his friends chasing their dreams and becoming lion dancers, have come under attack for the eye shape and size of the main characters.

Hypersensitivity

This torrent of outcry underscores China’s political and social environment. Deteriorating relations between China and the US, paranoia about external and internal enemies, Chinese state propaganda, and social media dynamics have made the soil conducive for nationalist discourse.

The Chinese party-state and a portion of the Chinese public have become hypersensitive to perceived insults. This hypersensitivity is hurting China’s relations with the broader world and eroding political tolerance at home.

Yes, the “slanted eyes” stereotype has a long history of association with Western racism against Asians. One prominent example of this is the fictional character Fu Manchu, the personification of the “yellow peril” threat to Western society.

And, indeed, the label “slit eyes” and its associated pulled-eye gesture are highly offensive to Asians even though Western mainstream societies no longer consider Asian eye features as a mark of racial inferiority.

Regardless, today’s racists, like their predecessors, tend to assert their superiority by exaggerating minor variations in human genetics. A slightly more pronounced epicanthic fold becomes “slit-eyed”; a slightly different skin tone becomes “yellow”.

But the Chinese critics are overreacting. They are projecting their nationalist agendas, paranoia and sensibilities onto the aesthetic expressions and intentions of others.

In the case of Three Squirrels, this is a local Chinese company selling to Chinese consumers. Why would it intentionally “insult” its customers by getting into bed with Western racism? It makes no sense whatsoever. A better explanation is that the company was trying to capitalise on international fashion trends.

Some idiots have attacked the model featured in the ads for her looks, labelling her “unpatriotic”. How can the features of one’s eyes be “unpatriotic”? Can the shape of a cloud or the contours of a mountain be “unpatriotic”?

In the eyes of the beholder

Large, double-lid eyes are considered beautiful by the Chinese mainstream. This preference is so strong that millions of young Chinese feel the need to undergo double eyelid surgery every year. Some critics have internalised this preference so deeply that they seem incapable of comprehending that beauty is in the eyes of the beholder: “are you telling me some people find small eyes beautiful? That’s absurd!”

The more sophisticated critics argue that the Three Squirrels controversy underlines the cultural and aesthetic hegemony of the West. They say that China needs to fight western oppression by developing its cultural and aesthetic confidence. Central to this narrative is the idea that bad apples in China are helping the West by self-Orientalising.

But this argument is fatally flawed. First, the standard of beauty varies across time and cultures. For much of China’s dynastic history, tiny feet and small eyes, for example, are considered physically appealing. The mainstream standard of beauty in China today is a distinctively modern product, one heavily influenced by western material culture and aesthetics.

Second, despite calls for emancipation, these critics are having the opposite effect: enforcing conformity of aesthetic expression. Ironically, their aesthetic intolerance is stigmatising their compatriots with small, narrow eyes, the very features that were used historically by Western racists as symbolism for Asian degeneracy.

Moreover, times have changed, aesthetic tastes have shifted, and aesthetic symbols are being repurposed. Small, narrow eyes and other Asian physical features have actually become cool among many Western youngsters due to the global influence of Asian culture.

Yet, some Chinese critics are trapped in the past. Unable to transcend their own prejudices and ignorance, they fail to see the transformative potential of embracing diversity.

A mature society allows space for political and aesthetic pluralism. The Chinese don’t need any more shackles on freedom of expression, including self-imposed ones introduced in the name of liberation.

https://www.neican.org/brief-103-big-eyes-small-heart/

*************************************************

Why Voter ID Requirements Make Sense

Last March, 220 of the 221 Democrats in the House—but not one Republican—voted to pass the For the People Act.

The introduction to the bill claimed it had the following purpose: “To expand Americans’ access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and implement other anti-corruption measures for the purpose of fortifying our democracy, and for other purposes.”

“Congress also finds that states and localities have eroded access to the right to vote through restrictions on the right to vote including excessively onerous voter identification requirements,” said the bill.

One section of the bill carried this title: “Permitting use of sworn written statement to meet identification requirements for voting.” It says:

Except as provided in subsection (c), if a state has in effect a requirement that an individual present identification as a condition of receiving and casting a ballot in an election for federal office, the state shall permit the individual to meet the requirement—(A) in the case of an individual who desires to vote in person, by presenting the appropriate state or local election official with a sworn written statement, signed by the individual under penalty of perjury, attesting to the individual’s identity and attesting that the individual is eligible to vote in the election; or (B) in the case of an individual who desires to vote by mail, by submitting with the ballot the statement described in subparagraph (A).

“The [Election Assistance] Commission,” the bill said, “shall develop a preprinted version of the statement described in paragraph (1)(A) which includes a blank space for an individual to provide a name and signature for use by election officials in states which are subject to paragraph (1).”

So, if this bill were to become law, a person could simply sign a preprinted government form and drop a ballot in a mailbox without presenting anyone with an identification.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., has offered a slightly stricter bill in the Senate. It is called the Freedom to Vote Act.

One part of this bill is headlined: “Voter Identification and Allowable Alternatives.” It says in part: “If a state or local jurisdiction has a voter identification requirement, the state or local jurisdiction—(A) shall treat any applicable identifying document as meeting such voter identification requirement.”

“The term ‘applicable identifying document’ means, with respect to any individual, any document issued to such individual containing the individual’s name,” the bill says.

It then stipulates that this document can only have expired within the past four years. “The term ‘applicable identifying documents,’” says the bill, “shall include any of the following (so long as that document has not expired or, if expired, expired no earlier than four years before the date of presentation).”

Some of the “applicable identifying documents” then listed in the bill are completely reasonable: “A driver’s license or an identification card issued by a state, the federal government, or a state or federally recognized tribal government.”

Some are more dubious: “A bank card or debit card.”

So, if this bill became law, a debit card that expired in 2021 would be a valid identification for someone voting in 2024.

It is not unreasonable in the 21st century to require people who want to vote to demonstrate that they are legally eligible to do so by presenting a valid form of identification.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/01/12/why-voter-id-requirements-make-sense/

**********************************************

The Great Re-sorting Is Here

Americans have been fleeing the most liberal states in mass numbers. Those numbers are about to increase even more.

Between July 2020 and July 2021, approximately 352,198 residents of New York state embarked for warmer climes. Over that same period, the District of Columbia lost 2.9% of its population. California lost 367,299 people via net domestic migration. Illinois, another failing blue state, saw a net domestic out-migration of 122,460 people.

Where did all these blue state refugees go? To red states, of course. Texas picked up 170,307 Americans migrating from other areas. Florida picked up 220,890 people. Arizona picked up 93,026. Idaho had the fastest annual population increase in the nation.

The only region of the country to gain population was the South, which now holds 38.3% of the total population of the country—and which picked up 657,682 Americans migrating from different areas. The Northeast is now the least populous region in the United States, and saw a net population decrease of 365,795 residents. All net increase in population in the West was due to births and international migration, not domestic moves.

It’s not just individuals—it’s companies. Facebook’s parent company, Meta, just signed the largest-ever lease in downtown Austin for floors 34 through 66 of the tallest tower in the city. Elon Musk has relocated his company headquarters to Texas. My own Daily Wire relocated in 2020 from California to Nashville, Tennessee.

In other words, red state governance is a magnet; blue state governance is a disaster. Yet blue states cannot change course. They cannot simply jettison their adherence to failed ideas like single-payer health care or voting for illegal immigrants. To do so would be to acknowledge error. And so instead, they are banking on unearned moral superiority—virtue signaling—to fill the gap where good governance should be.

Thus, red states are grandma-killing hellholes (where blue state legislators vacation); red states are brutal suppressors of voting rights (where Stacey Abrams wants to run for governor again); red states are filled with vicious dog-eat-dog trickle-down capitalists (who must be taxed to pay for national spending programs).

None of this is bound to convince Americans to vote Democrat. It’s not designed to do so.

Democrats have banked on a consistent electoral strategy since former President Barack Obama’s 2012 victory—the strategy of driving out a base comprised of minority voters and college-educated women. But that strategy is collapsing—as Ruy Teixeira, once the nation’s leading proponent of that strategy, admitted in November, “If Hispanic voting trends continue to move steadily against the Democrats, the pro-Democratic effect of nonwhite population growth will be blunted, if not cancelled out entirely, and that very influential Democratic theory of the case falls apart.”

It’s falling apart in real time. But Democrats can’t pull out of the tailspin. They’re too invested in the lie that their programs are popular to notice how many Americans are calling up U-Haul.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/01/12/the-great-re-sorting-is-here

***********************************************

49 Pro-Life Groups Urge Senate Opposition to Biden’s Nominee for FDA

A coalition of pro-life organizations expressed opposition Wednesday to the confirmation of President Joe Biden’s choice to run the Food and Drug Administration, saying the nominee has used selective research to push approval of mail-order abortion pills and to ignore their risks.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee is scheduled to vote Thursday on Biden’s nomination of Dr. Robert Califf to be FDA commissioner. Califf previously served in the position during the final 11 months of President Barack Obama’s administration, from Feb. 22, 2016, to Jan. 20, 2017.

If confirmed by the full Senate, Califf would replace Dr. Janet Woodcock, who has served as the acting commissioner for the past year.

While Califf was at the FDA helm, the agency in 2016 reduced the reporting and safety requirements on chemical abortions, making a pregnant woman’s death the only adverse event the FDA required to be reported. Previously, the FDA had required that severe, life-threatening adverse reactions be reported.

In December, the Biden administration’s FDA moved to weaken long-standing safety regulations against mail-order abortion drugs to allow for at-home use without medical oversight.

“Now, the Biden administration seeks your consent to return Dr. Robert Califf to the top spot at the FDA, where he will be asked to approve mail-order chemical abortion,” says the coalition letter from 49 pro-life leaders, spearheaded by the Susan B. Anthony List. “With a track record of rubber-stamping abortion industry demands and with permanent authorization of unsafe mail-order abortion hanging in the balance, Califf is the wrong choice for FDA commissioner. We urge you to vote ‘no’ on his nomination.”

The coalition letter notes that during Califf’s confirmation hearing in front of the committee, he didn’t address his role in weakening safeguards against the abortifacient drug.

“Instead, he told the committee that he trusted that any decision made by the FDA would be based on the best available data,” the coalition letter says. “There is a cruel irony in the fact that FDA data is ‘woefully inadequate’ data, due to Califf’s own decisions while serving as FDA commissioner during the Obama administration.”

The “woefully inadequate” reference was to a 2021 study published on the approval of chemical abortion medication that said:

The FDA Adverse Event Reporting System is woefully inadequate to determine the post-marketing safety of mifepristone due to [the system’s] inability to adequately assess the frequency or severity of adverse events.

The reliance solely on interested parties to report, the large percentage of uncodable events, the redaction of critical clinical information unrelated to personally identifiable information, and the inadequacy of the reports highlight the need to overhaul the current [Adverse Event Reporting] System.

The coalition letter notes that even with the lack of data, there were 20 reported deaths from chemical abortions and about 600 life-threatening emergencies, and more than 2,000 other severe events reported.

“Califf has a record of putting the abortion lobby’s extreme agenda ahead of women’s safety and the lives of unborn children,” Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser said in a statement Wednesday. “There is little doubt he will permanently authorize mail-order abortions if confirmed to lead the FDA. The Senate must protect mothers and children by rejecting his nomination.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2022/01/12/49-pro-life-groups-urge-senate-opposition-to-bidens-nominee-for-fda/

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

*****************************************