AEI.
CATO.
Brookings.
For as long as I can remember, these were highly-prestigious and credible places of research where the elite of the elite put their minds to work and produced policy papers that influenced America's biggest decision-makers. But perhaps I speak of a different time - a time when the media was about getting to the facts and universities were about STEM, intellect and critical thinking, not rubber-stamping and SJW-branded, doctrine-fitting narrative.
One night, not too long ago, I met a young woman who had just finished her contract at AEI. The stint added polish to her resume, opening the door to many positions, including one with the Department of State which could take her to South America. I thought she was lucky, talented and ambitious - not to mention physically attractive, despite her nose ring. But as the night went on, I found out more than I had bargained for, and got a good glimpse of what lies hidden behind AEI's doors.
One of the first things that became clear was the woman's passion for feminism and LGBT issues. Color me surprised to learn that a woman with a nose ring would have such proclivities. But then she started to discuss why she wanted the South America position, and I could not believe what I was hearing. Well, actually I could, because it fits the new America.
So, what motivated her to apply for the position? Well, she indicated that a federal paycheck could carry her the farthest in South America. And, in the position, she could work from home and enjoy the most hours off. She was looking forward to great weather. And nightlife. In other words, her passion was not serving her country; it was being on federal payroll, doing as little work as possible and, presumably, having access to plenty of exotic men to get attention from on a fun night out.
So, why had the AEI elevated her career? And how intelligent could this woman possibly be, when she was risking everything by telling a stranger like myself all of this? It later dawned on me that these women have never lived the life we do, where the things one might be inclined to say have to be carefully monitored and held in check to avoid destroying career and being exposed. By contrast, everything she would want to say, in line with her views, was completely fair game. I wondered: if people like her are getting these jobs, how likely are they to accidentally disclose secrets? What has conditioned them in their life to prepare them for silence? Nothing.
Over the next days, I lost touch with this woman. More specifically, somebody told her I was a "Republican" and she made it clear to me that she had to disassociate. When I responded, I assumed the dissociation thing was a joke. But she was not amused. Apparently, she felt I had betrayed her trust or something. It was completely bizarre.
On the other hand, I was amused by the irony; the previous night, she had let on that she "loved" Diego Rivera's work. Note that Rivera was a self-described "Jewish-influenced" Mexican leftist and Picasso-admiring Latino revolutionary artist who had once sheltered Leon Trotsky; of course, for a woman with strong feminist and LGBT-flavored principles who refuses to talk to somebody she suspects is a Republican, nothing in that identity-strand raises the pulse. But Rivera also had another reputation, as the quintessential controlling male-chauvinist, if there ever was one. Should she not have harbored the same principle-based hatred of Rivera that she felt towards me?
And had the AEI woman not heard of Frida Kahlo? Kahlo was the female artist - and LGBT-inspiring, feminist-whateverist - who Rivera married, cheated on, purportedly abused and drove to despair. Of course, that was only half the story; like most "strong independent women", Kahlo threw her loins wherever she wanted when she wanted, only to fall for a dark, brazen, controlling man she could not keep for herself, and that tore her apart. And that was Rivera. It is the same, tired tale. But women usually blame the man who betrays (or all men for that matter) for it all, so you would think a feminist like the AEI woman, so guided by her beliefs to refuse the company of a supposed Republican, would be aware of the baggage with Rivera and hate him. Then again, avoiding a guy who is supposedly Republican - which registers as pro-family and socially conservative - while putting Rivera on a pedestal is just the other side of the same coin Kahlo was minted with, isn't it?
How much longer are we going to raise our women to be like this, and why are these Frida Kahlos being trusted to help shape American policy?
CATO.
Brookings.
For as long as I can remember, these were highly-prestigious and credible places of research where the elite of the elite put their minds to work and produced policy papers that influenced America's biggest decision-makers. But perhaps I speak of a different time - a time when the media was about getting to the facts and universities were about STEM, intellect and critical thinking, not rubber-stamping and SJW-branded, doctrine-fitting narrative.
One night, not too long ago, I met a young woman who had just finished her contract at AEI. The stint added polish to her resume, opening the door to many positions, including one with the Department of State which could take her to South America. I thought she was lucky, talented and ambitious - not to mention physically attractive, despite her nose ring. But as the night went on, I found out more than I had bargained for, and got a good glimpse of what lies hidden behind AEI's doors.
One of the first things that became clear was the woman's passion for feminism and LGBT issues. Color me surprised to learn that a woman with a nose ring would have such proclivities. But then she started to discuss why she wanted the South America position, and I could not believe what I was hearing. Well, actually I could, because it fits the new America.
So, what motivated her to apply for the position? Well, she indicated that a federal paycheck could carry her the farthest in South America. And, in the position, she could work from home and enjoy the most hours off. She was looking forward to great weather. And nightlife. In other words, her passion was not serving her country; it was being on federal payroll, doing as little work as possible and, presumably, having access to plenty of exotic men to get attention from on a fun night out.
So, why had the AEI elevated her career? And how intelligent could this woman possibly be, when she was risking everything by telling a stranger like myself all of this? It later dawned on me that these women have never lived the life we do, where the things one might be inclined to say have to be carefully monitored and held in check to avoid destroying career and being exposed. By contrast, everything she would want to say, in line with her views, was completely fair game. I wondered: if people like her are getting these jobs, how likely are they to accidentally disclose secrets? What has conditioned them in their life to prepare them for silence? Nothing.
Over the next days, I lost touch with this woman. More specifically, somebody told her I was a "Republican" and she made it clear to me that she had to disassociate. When I responded, I assumed the dissociation thing was a joke. But she was not amused. Apparently, she felt I had betrayed her trust or something. It was completely bizarre.
On the other hand, I was amused by the irony; the previous night, she had let on that she "loved" Diego Rivera's work. Note that Rivera was a self-described "Jewish-influenced" Mexican leftist and Picasso-admiring Latino revolutionary artist who had once sheltered Leon Trotsky; of course, for a woman with strong feminist and LGBT-flavored principles who refuses to talk to somebody she suspects is a Republican, nothing in that identity-strand raises the pulse. But Rivera also had another reputation, as the quintessential controlling male-chauvinist, if there ever was one. Should she not have harbored the same principle-based hatred of Rivera that she felt towards me?
And had the AEI woman not heard of Frida Kahlo? Kahlo was the female artist - and LGBT-inspiring, feminist-whateverist - who Rivera married, cheated on, purportedly abused and drove to despair. Of course, that was only half the story; like most "strong independent women", Kahlo threw her loins wherever she wanted when she wanted, only to fall for a dark, brazen, controlling man she could not keep for herself, and that tore her apart. And that was Rivera. It is the same, tired tale. But women usually blame the man who betrays (or all men for that matter) for it all, so you would think a feminist like the AEI woman, so guided by her beliefs to refuse the company of a supposed Republican, would be aware of the baggage with Rivera and hate him. Then again, avoiding a guy who is supposedly Republican - which registers as pro-family and socially conservative - while putting Rivera on a pedestal is just the other side of the same coin Kahlo was minted with, isn't it?
How much longer are we going to raise our women to be like this, and why are these Frida Kahlos being trusted to help shape American policy?
