Why America’s Hustle Culture Might Kill Us Before Anything Else Does

Writing under the above heading, Katie Jgln is critical below of America's hard-driving money oriented culture. And she is right that it is exceptional to the point of excess. We Australians see enough of Americans to know what she is talking about. We tend to see Americans as "money-hungry".

But why are they like that and why is Europe much more relaxed? There are two major reasons why and I am going to put first the least challenging of them. I am going to have to be very careful how I put the second reason. But first:

Compared to Europe (and Australia), America has a much more limited economic support network. If you become unemployed or seriously ill you are in much bigger trouble in America than in other advanced countries. In Australia if I go to the doctor or the hospital it is mostly "free" and if I get unemployed the "dole" is generous enough that some people actively choose to live on that and not work. They are not supposed to but some do.

That must sound like anathema to most Americans but it does promote a relaxed, laid back lifestyle, something Australia is famous for. So the big difference is basic personal security. Americans largely have to provide it for themselves whereas others do not. Americans NEED the money more.

There is a story here about a woman in the People's Republic of Maine being denied all monetary support after becoming unemployed. She had to rely entirely on her savings. That would never have happened in Australia.

Now we get on to what I believe is another powerful factor behind American money-motivation: crime. The rate of violent crime is huge in America but it varies greatly by region. Places like NYC are crime hellholes but civility reigns upstate.

And there are big differences even within cities. And it is the big cities that matter because that is where the good jobs are. So you have crime and poverty stricken inner cities and relatively peaceful and secure exurbs. You have more living space and a generally nicer environment in the outer suburbs but it costs you. You have to have real money to live there. And the bonus is that the crime-prone poor of the inner cities can't afford to live there, so you are free of them. Putting it very simply, you need money to live safely in America. The safety of you and your family depends on you being a high income earner. It's a powerful motivator.

And America is again different in that way. In Australia, I live in an inner-city area with no security qualms whatever. It's a bit more expensive but it saves a lot of driving

So Americans are not as irrational as Katie Jglin thinks they are. She has just not come to grips with her own culture

I have commented on these matters at greater length elsewhere


Just like every year, I took much of August off.

In many — if not most – European countries, this is still a pretty normal and common thing to do. Actually, it existed for long enough for some historians to start calling it a ‘tradition.’

When I used to work for an Italian-owned company in London, it wasn’t even a question of whether I would take time off during that month, but how many weeks this time. (I still burnt out, but that’s another story.)

However, our fondness for enjoying the brief existence on this giant piece of rock floating through space while we can doesn’t always seem to go down well with our neighbours across the pond.

Over the years, I’ve gotten several mostly passive-aggressive, but sometimes even downright aggresive, emails from Americans I worked with precisely because of it. It’s ‘slowing them down’ and ‘makes things less efficient,’ they claimed.

This year, my ‘sorry, I’m out of the office this month’ email was met with the following response: ‘that’s a shame, but let’s try to schedule a call anyway.’

I’ve also seen some refer to this phenomenon as ‘Euro Laziness.’

Is it really ‘laziness’, though? And why are so many people adamant about driving themselves to an early grave?

Because, yes, American hustle culture’s ‘grind never stops’ ethos is a slow but steady killer. And we don’t talk about it nearly as much as we should.

The hell that is the American work culture
I feel sort of bad even just talking about taking time off when chatting with my brother who lives in the US.

He spent most of the last two decades working there, and by now, he’s positively soaked in its toxic work culture. And even though he isn’t all that crazy about what he does for a living, he’s pretty much a stranger to the whole holiday business.

When I recently suggested that he and his partner should finally take some time off next summer and consider going to an adults-only hotel, he asked me if it was some sort of a ‘big sex party.’ (It’s not.)

And while for many Americans taking time off is impossible from a financial standpoint — according to a recent survey, 58% point to money as the main reason for not taking a vacation — for many others, including my brother, it mostly boils down to ‘work ethic.’

If you choose your job over taking time off, you might be rewarded. But if you choose to take time off over your job, you might be punished for your ‘laziness’ and ‘lack of ambition.’

This mentality is just absurd.

And so is the fact that citizens of one of the world’s wealthiest countries on this planet can’t even afford to rest.

But what I find equally shocking is the number of people who glorify and defend the very system that sucks them dry.

https://medium.com/the-no%C3%B6sphere/why-americas-hustle-culture-might-kill-us-before-anything-else-does-c0a0710deb48

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

Sex and gender – it’s in the genes

This shouldn’t have to be said, but it’s possible to be supportive of women’s rights without being a feminist. That something as uncontroversial as this needs to be explained is evidence of the influence that feminism holds over contemporary culture. Along with environmentalism, identity politics (which is another name for racism), and other forms of left-wing philosophy, feminism is the dominant ideology in Western, liberal-democratic countries. You can’t watch a television program, open a newspaper, or observe any cultural activity without being metaphorically hit over the head by feminist propaganda. This morning, to give one example, I watched a clip from a British television program, where the guests were complaining that not enough non-blonde, non-skinny women were represented on the English women’s soccer team, and that girls need to see players like themselves, with their identities, to become enthusiastic about playing football.

This was the opposite of my upbringing in Ireland where every second boy wanted to play guitar like Jimi Hendrix and box like Muhammad Ali, both of whom were loved simply because they were brilliant. Hendrix and Ali’s identities were invisible to us. This attitude is shared by both sexes, but is more common in men, who, in general, admire people with talent, whether the talented person is a woman or a man. It’s why men detest the feminist ruse of exaggerating the brilliance of untalented women. They have exactly the same attitude to male braggarts.

You cannot, however, no matter what you do, escape feminist propaganda, which is so pervasive that it’s become the background noise of contemporary life. If an audience was not presented with a strong, feisty, gutsy, extraordinarily intelligent and wise female character, the effect would be so jarring to contemporary sensibilities that they would become instantly bamboozled. (The only exception to this trope is when a woman is the victim of male turpitude).

Of course, if a stupid, unwise, afraid-of-her-own-shadow, shifty female character, without the nefarious influence of a man, was portrayed on television, in literature, or in the cinema, the siren song of whinge would become so loud as to drown out the sound of a twenty-one-gun salute.

Feminists for too long have spouted a deluge of nonsense, which is why we’re seeing a growing revolt against feminist ideology.

I write the above to show that while I’m an advocate for women’s rights, I’m tired of the constant whirring of the feminist dirge that’s been the background noise of cultural life for decades. Another reason is that, while I’m almost entirely immoral (contra philosopher Derek Parfitt’s claim that morality is objective), I do hold some principles, most notably, the absolute importance of free speech. Without free speech, no other goods can exist, at least for any extended period of time.

Recently, however, I’ve found myself, much to my bemusement, absolutely, steadfastly, on the side of the minority of feminists who believe, (as anyone with a semblance of a brain should), that biology is real, that you can’t change your sex, and that women are entitled to their own spaces without the influence or presence of men.

That these truths need to be stated is an absolute condemnation of contemporary culture.

But, and here’s the rub, while I am one hundred per cent on the side of these brave feminists (for once the word brave in relation to feminists shouldn’t be in scare quotes), I am not going to let the greatest gaslight in recent history occur without some sort of pushback. Which is that feminism created our current mess and no amount of rewriting the past can change this truth.

Feminists have not been particularly creative, all the time relying on the work of, ironically, male philosophers such as Marx, Nietzsche, Derrida, Foucault, etc. (Simone de Beauvoir is the intellectual progeny of Sartre, who was a disciple of Heidegger); or psychologists such as the egregious John Money, (even the first wave of feminism was derivative of the ideas of men).

However, it was feminism that weaponised these male theorists’ ideas and pushed them through an institutionally captured –initially feminised, then politicised – education sector.

While most feminists believe in the nebulous idea of patriarchy, which is as empirically valid as Klingons living on the Moon, (ecology and evolution explain the cultural differences between societies), it is the feminist ideas of social construction and, particularly gender, (these notions are two sides of the same coin), that have caused the most damage to contemporary culture.

The feminist claim that everything, including biology and science, is socially constructed, and that gender is distinct from sex, (and is an invention of society), is the root cause of our contemporary insanity. To understand why this claim is nonsense, imagine, as a thought experiment, the relative height of men and women. That men, in general, are taller than women is true. But because some women are taller than some men does not negate the premise that men are taller than women. But this is exactly the argument that feminists use to separate sex from gender.

For the majority of people our gender (whether our behaviour is more stereotypically male or female) coheres almost exactly to our biological sex. A small percentage of people, both male and female, behave in ways that are more typically identified as that of the opposite sex, but they are an anomaly, just like women in general being taller than men.

Even the redoubtable Helen Joyce, scourge of nonsense and author of Trans: When Ideology Meets Reality, uses this argument in interviews. One moment she states that gender is how we behave and that women manifest their gender in all sorts of ways, and the next moment she’s stating that men are responsible for the majority of rapes and sexual violence, which is true; but her claim about men negates her claim about gender. Male sexual abuse is inseparable from sex. It’s genetics, in other words. Sex, not gender, explains egregious male behavior.

Men and women are the same species, but we have different likes, psychopathologies and interests. It’s time we put feminist gender nonsense in the dustbin of history.

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

Our Sad Departure From Dr. King’s ‘Dream’

This past week, the nation noted the 60th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech.

The speech is without question a historic landmark, both in terms of recalling the unique stress of the time and in terms of King’s eloquence in capturing the situation.

But beyond being interesting, why do we bother at all with history?

It brings to mind Albert Einstein’s famous definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

Einstein essentially touched the question about why we study history. Our track record of success and failure is spotted. Looking back, we get a sense of what works and what doesn’t. Regarding our failures, Einstein was conveying we should be honest about them, learn from them, and have the courage to change.

Given that King spoke that day to all Americans—not just black Americans or white Americans—we should assess where we are today given how King defined then what was wrong. What have we learned, and what remains for us to learn?

We need to ask why, 60 years later, race still occupies such a large part of our public consciousness.

King’s complaint was not about our national charter. He referred to the “magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”

His complaint and indictment were that the nation was not living up to that charter.

In the grand scheme of things, King, in that speech, defined the movement he led as about leading America to its full potential, as defined by the ideals and principles in its founding documents.

He implored that the struggle to realize the American charter of freedom and protection of the rights of all citizens take place “on the high plane of dignity and discipline.” He urged black Americans to not “satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.”

And King’s final appeal was to see our nation as a nation under God.

It is a critical point.

King’s vision, as expressed that day, was that the American ideal of freedom would be made possible when “all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: ‘Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last.'”

Although our realities today are far different from August 1963—certainly the material state of black Americans is far, far better—there is a prevailing sense that things are not good.

If we take King’s words at face value, then it is questionable we have learned much since then.

When he spoke about failing to live up to the “magnificent words” of our founding documents, he got applause from the crowd.

It is questionable that would be the case today. Many on the Left see our nation as fundamentally flawed. They see government and politics as the answer, not individual freedom.

The nation’s deplorable fiscal situation today reflects this change in attitude. Government spending now takes two-thirds more from our national economy than when King spoke in 1963.

King’s appeal that the struggle take place “on the high plane of dignity” is also, sadly, lost. The divisions and hate between citizens today are an unfortunate and troubling reality.

And what should trouble us most is we have moved in the opposite direction from King’s vision that ultimately our freedom will be realized as children of God.

The political Left sees our future in socialism and secularism.

If, over the 60 years since King spoke, we pursued freedom in terms of personal responsibility, limited government, and faith, we would be far, far better off today.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/30/our-sad-departure-from-dr-kings-dream/

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

Transgender Backlash: Parental Rights Advocates Launch New Strategy to Combat Gender Ideology in California

Under Gov. Gavin Newsom, California, has enacted policies endorsing “transgender” identity over the broad concerns of critics who claim the policies threaten parental rights, fairness in women’s sports, and the long-term health of children. Those critics have launched a new strategy to counter the gender ideology policies by going directly to the voters of the state.

Protect Kids California, a coalition of parental rights advocates and others who oppose gender ideology, filed three ballot initiatives Monday for the November 2024 ballot, aiming to circumvent the Golden State’s Legislature.

The ballot measures require schools to notify parents if their children claim to identify as transgender, prevent biological males from entering women’s spaces and sports, and forbid medical professionals from putting kids on experimental drugs or performing surgery on them to “affirm” a gender identity opposite their biological sex.

“We have legislators and institutions taking advantage of vulnerable children and busy parents,” Jonathan Zachreson, a member of the Roseville City School Board and spokesman for Protect Kids California, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Tuesday. “It’s going to take parents, grandparents, and concerned citizens from all over to stand up to protect kids from these harmful practices.”

“We have a Legislature that does not represent the people very well,” added Zachreson, a parental rights advocate who founded Reopen California Schools during the COVID-19 pandemic. “The best polling that’s out there suggests that these initiatives would pass in California overwhelmingly.”

He cited numerous polls suggesting that more than 60% of California voters support schools notifying parents if their kids are questioning their gender identity, oppose biological males competing in women’s sports, and support restricting “sex-change” surgeries and drugs to patients over 18.

The Protect Kids California leader said transgender policies “are quietly being passed by the Legislature, and people are not sure what’s going on.”

He noted that transgender advocates are “basically saying that parents are a danger to their kid.” They lament that “transgender kids are bullied at school, yet we’re going to keep that secret from parents? No one cares more about their kids than parents do.”

“They’re acting like parents are the enemy,” Zachreson noted. “It’s scary that that’s their state of mind.”

In September 2022, Newsom signed SB 107, a bill declaring the Golden State a “trans refuge state” and empowering California courts to reassign custody of children who flee to California from other states seeking experimental medical interventions often euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care.”

The California Senate is also currently considering AB 957, which would make parents who refuse to “affirm” their child’s preferred gender identity liable for child abuse.

The state’s education code explicitly allows students to access sex-segregated school programs and facilities “consistent with his or her gender identity.”

The three ballot initiatives would change some of these policies.

Protecting Children

The Protect Children from Reproductive Harm Act would bar health care providers from prescribing experimental drugs to or performing surgeries on minors to make their bodies resemble those of the opposite sex.

“It is in the interest of the people of California to protect the reproductive, sexual health, and bodily integrity of children as they grow into adults, including their natural ability to function sexually, reproduce, and breastfeed,” the ballot initiative states.

It notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not approved the use of the medical interventions for gender dysphoria in minors and that countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Finland no longer recommend such interventions on children.

The initiative defines biological sex as male or female, determined by whether an individual’s body is developed for the production of sperm or eggs. It defines “sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures” as any intervention aimed at “affirming a child’s perceived gender identity if that perception is inconsistent with the child’s biological sex.”

While the initiative would prevent most “sex-reassignment” procedures, it allows key exceptions for minors with “a medically verifiable genetic disorder of sexual development” and it would allow a minor who previously underwent such procedures to reverse those effects. It also allows children who already started sex-reassignment procedures before Jan. 1, 2025, to continue those procedures.

Violation of this law would be considered unprofessional conduct and would subject a health care provider to discipline.

Protect Kids California cited a national Harvard-Harris poll finding that 78% of Americans say “surgery to change gender and puberty blockers” should only be allowed for people over 18 years old. Protect Kids California weighted the poll to fit California’s party affiliation, finding that 64% of California voters (including 48% of the state’s Democrats) would likely support restricting sex-reassignment procedures to adults.

https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/08/30/transgender-backlash-parental-rights-advocates-launch-new-strategy-combat-gender-ideology-california/

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

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)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

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