DRAFT NOTES on "Grab 'Em by the Pussy" for January 20, 2025

A little advice I think necessary to give to the confused right-wing young men of America in the age of Trump II. My bottom line? Listen to the wise Eddie Cornelius...

A little advice I think necessary to give to the confused right-wing young men of America in the age of Trump II. My bottom line? Listen to the wise Eddie Cornelius...

Is the danger serious that right-wing young American men today will think in the wake of the coming of Trump II that bravado and negging are ways to get ahead in the world? That they will not understand that aggression in pursuit of status in some male-only pecking order is a trap, and that success today requires emotional intelligence, collaboration, likability, and a strong wllingness to pitch in and be a pair of extra useful hands as she multitasks? We are not in as much trouble as some other countries, where young men really have not received the memo…

---

FT Reporters: “Is corporate America going Maga?”: ‘“I feel liberated,” said a top banker. “We can say ‘retard’ and ‘pussy’ without the fear of getting cancelled… it’s a new dawn…” <https://www.ft.com/content/cf876b19-8c69-498b-95f5-d018618d99ec>

This makes me wonder: under what circumstances does a “top banker” want to say “retard” and “pussy”—and why does he think things have now changed so that whatever blowback he feared from people thinking he was an asshole in the past no longer applies? I mean, people—anyone with a Social Intelligence Quotient SIQ above 50—will still think he is an asshole.

Now if you are a “top banker”, you can bring truly enormous amounts of resources to the table. And when you find someone who highly values those resources you, bluntly, will not have much trouble getting yourself laid even if all of her friends with SIQ > 50 are warning her that you are an asshole.

But for young men to emulate him? Without those resources, or with their eye fixed on other things than the lifestyle Sarah Ann Ferguson claims she sorta values here?:

How does that work?

The FT goes on:

FT Reporters: “Is corporate America going Maga?”: ‘Some Wall Streeters also feel able to embrace making money openly, without nodding to any broader social goals. “Most of us don’t have to kiss ass because, like Trump, we love America and capitalism,” one said… <https://www.ft.com/content/cf876b19-8c69-498b-95f5-d018618d99ec>

Presumably the idea is that now assholes can think they can vice-signal, and so recognize each other, and so band together in a group to… what? Young men who imitate this “top banker” are, I think, much more likely to get themselves into long-run trouble. Having everyone with an SIQ > 50 think you are an asshole greatly limits your alliances and the number of people who will have your back when you need it guarded. And if the only thing you care about is cash-nexus transactions with profit the only way to keep score, the only game you will ever win is The Money Game and your only relationships will be cash-nexus ones.

And you will probably not win The Money Game as well.

Of all those in this space right now, Mark Zuckerberg appears perhaps the most confused:

FT Reporters: “Is corporate America going Maga?”: ‘[Facebook] founder Mark Zuckerberg later joined a podcast hosted by Joe Rogan, who backed Trump in the election, and lamented the rise of “culturally neutered” companies. “I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive,” Zuckerberg said… <https://www.ft.com/content/cf876b19-8c69-498b-95f5-d018618d99ec>

But is this a headfake to conform to new political realities? Perhaps:

Casey Newton: “Mark Blames Sheryl”: ‘Donald Trump… had threatened to imprison Zuckerberg for the rest of his life due to the CEO’s nonpartisan donations…. A new effort on Zuckerberg’s part to make peace with Republicans, by accepting their critique of Meta’s platforms wholeheartedly and without complaint…. Zuckerberg has agreed to participate in a public shame ritual…. On Thursday, we learned that part of this ritual involved privately pledging to Trump adviser Stephen Miller that Meta would dismantle its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and blamed the company’s previously more inclusive culture on his former chief operating officer, Sheryl Sandberg… <https://www.platformer.news/zuckerberg-blames-sheryl-sandberg-dei/>

Perhaps not. Perhaps Mark really believe that Facebook needs more “aggression”, rather than more coöperation a la Sheryl Sandberg in order to get things done? In the podcast, Zuckerberg directs his aggression against Apple Computer as a platform, which he hopes will die:

Mark Zuckerberg: “Joe Rogan Transcript'“: ‘Steve Jobs invented the iPhone and now they’re just kind of sitting on it 20 years later…. Each generation doesn’t actually get that much better. So people are just taking longer to upgrade…. I’m pretty optimistic… They’ve been so off their game in terms of not really releasing many innovative things…. Companies, if you just don’t do a good job for, like, 10 years, eventually you’re just going to get beat… <https://singjupost.com/transcript-of-mark-zuckerberg-on-joe-rogan-podcast/?singlepage=1>

Because Apple Computer, acting like a greedy profit-centered tech platform, constrains Facebook and how much money it can make:

Mark Zuckerberg: “Joe Rogan Transcript'“: ‘All the random rules that Apple puts out…. If they didn’t apply… Meta… [would] make twice as much profit… <https://singjupost.com/transcript-of-mark-zuckerberg-on-joe-rogan-podcast/?singlepage=1>

And Zuckerberg thinks that Apple Computer’s acting like a greedy profit-centered tech platform is unfair to him:

Mark Zuckerberg: “Joe Rogan Transcript'“: ‘They build stuff like AirPods, which are cool, but they’ve just thoroughly hamstrung the ability for anyone else to build something that can connect to the iPhone in the same way…. Apple has a specific protocol that they’ve built into the iPhone that allows AirPods to basically connect to it. And it’s just much more seamless because they’ve enabled that, but they don’t let anyone else use the protocol… <https://singjupost.com/transcript-of-mark-zuckerberg-on-joe-rogan-podcast/?singlepage=1>

And his aggression and anger at Apple’s treatment of Facebook is very visible. This whining abot Apple using the fact that it own the platform to make lots of money and hobble potential competitors calls forth snark from John Gruber, pointing out that Apple is just doing to Zuckerberg what Zuckerberg does to others:

John Gruber: “Zuckerberg Disses Apple”: ‘<snark>If only there existed other phone platforms than the iPhone, we could see how cool these other earbuds would be. And Meta Ray-Bans could integrate with those phones in super cool ways that would make iPhone users realize what dopes they’ve been.</snark>

What’s really rich about Meta and Zuckerberg… is that Meta doesn’t allow third parties any sort of access…. There are no third-party clients…. It is very hard to get any information out of them let alone integrate with them bi-directionally. Miller concludes: “Let us also not forget that Meta has never ‘invented anything great’. Oculus was an acquisition, WhatsApp was an acquisition, Instagram was an acquisition, and intermixed with those acquisitions are features copied and pasted from other platforms…” Yeah but other than that they invented a lot… <https://daringfireball.net/linked/2025/01/10/zuckerberg-rogan>

So what is going on in what Zuckerberg is now apparently selling as Mark vs. Sheryl?

I think its roots are in our High Patriarchy past—the world in which women breastfeeding for 20 years, pregnant for seven, with a toddler hanging on much of that time, and men taking advantage, were substantially restricted by mammalian biology and culture. In that world, what men brought to the family back then and what High Patriarchy teaches young men that their role is today is to form a particular kind of family:

• (a) to provide resources;

• (b) and “protection”;

• (c) in return for cosseting and deference— a rather large extra toddler for her to handle as she multitasks;

• (d) and note that a lot of the ability to provide resources and “protection” comes from first acquiring status in the male community to coördinate action and also to grab the lion’s share of resources;

• (e) ditto for “protection”, but with that status gained in substantial part by taking the lead in the policing of uppity women—by becoming somebody whom women may well need protection from;

• (f) with being a willing assistant and extra pair of hands to help here as she multitasks profoundly secondary—indeed, possibly a derogatory form of feminization

• (g) and making her laugh also coded as unmasculine.

In that context, what Mark Zuckerberg calls “aggression” was, in that world, a (d) key to gaining status within the outside-the-home-and-shop male community, and hence (a) resources gained from coördinating action, plus extra resources from using your status to grab the lion’s share. But modern women with TFR < 2 rather than seven or more have outide economic options, and so have less need for resources, as they have other sources.

Women today also appear much less willing to be (b) “protected” than their great-grandmothers.

And the idea that motherhood comes not just with children but a (c) husband that must be hand-fed makes it less appetizing. The aggression and status-seeking within the outside male community to gain (d) and (e) are thus worth less and also make you a less pleasant person to be around—less effective at the roles of (f) an extra helpful pair of hands to assist you in your constant multitasking and (g) making you laugh. A man off spending his energy playing some male-community pecking-order game is trying to succeed in a High Patriarchy world that is on the way out.

And do note that Zuckerberg’s “aggression” was at best orthogonal to actually getting things done—while it can get you extra status within the outside-male community, it does not boost that community’s total resources that it could then distribute.

These habits of thought still, I think, mark our culture. They are why the “top banker” wants to call people “retards”—to gain and reïnforce his status within an outside male community that no longer exists—and put women down by teaching them the lesson that their private parts are what is important about them. And they are why Mark Zuckerberg is so anxious to aggressively say that Apple is of little account because it has invented nothing substantial, at least not since the 2007 invention of the most consequential tech consumer product since the dawn of time.

But these habits of thought really do not cut it today in a sociobiological perspective, do they? Energy spent being an asshole to gain status within an outside-male community so you can bring home resources and provide protection—that no longer exists. And it does you actual harm by getting a reputation as someone unpleasant to be around. Ditto for (b) protection.

No: the real Game today is (e) being a willing assistant and extra pair of hands to help here as she multitasks, and (f) making her laugh. Those are the desirable skills. While (c)—requiring that one be babied and thus giving her a large extra toddler in the house to manage—is a dealbreaker.

And so I finally get to the point of these notes: Ginny Hogan, who has smart things to say:

Ginny Hogan: “What Trump Can't Do For Men”: ‘I’ve been worried about men for a while…. Men are doing poorly relative to woman across nearly all metrics…. It’s all too easy, now that Trump is the President, to conclude… that the men won, they’re back in charge…. [But] it is the men saying just that (JUST the men saying it – not all men!!!) that concern me… angry comments… best characterized by the refrain “your body my choice”… [by] men who want women to know that times are changing….

There has been a vibe shift…. This [“top banker”] man thinks he’ll benefit. I fear he won’t…. Does a man like this want not to get cancelled, or do he want to be liked? If he’s anything like anybody else, probably the latter. It’s a real “be careful what you wish for” situation. Any woman who’s ever told a man not to use the term “pussy” has been helping him get laid. In fact, she’s probably done more for him than Trump ever will…. This is what Trump can’t do for men. He can’t guarantee that men will be likable regardless of what they say. He can’t make “your body my choice” charming…. But I understand why a man might be confused. Trump – I hate to – is likable, regardless of what he says. Well, to many people….

But it’s not just that Trump can’t make his male supporters likable. He also can’t make them rich…. If you perfectly timed your buying and selling of his Memecoin, you may have made money. But you probably didn’t do that…. To all the men expecting big changes from the Trump presidency: I’m sorry. He can’t get you laid. He can’t make you popular. He can’t make you attractive…. He can’t make you successful, no matter how many immigrants he deports… <https://mutual.substack.com/p/what-trump-cant-do-for-men>

And this brings me to Claudia Goldin’s new working paper: “Babies”:

Claudia Goldin: “Babies”: ‘Fertility levels have greatly decreased in virtually every nation in the world, but the timing of the decline has differed even among developed countries. In Europe, Asia, and North America, total fertility rates of some nations dipped below the magic replacement figure of 2.1 as early as the 1970s. But in other nations, fertility rates remained substantial until the 1990s but plummeted subsequently. This paper addresses why some countries in Europe and Asia with moderate fertility levels in 1980s, have become the “lowest-low” nations today (total fertility rates of less than 1.3), whereas those that decreased earlier have not. Also addressed is why the crossover point for the two groups of nations was around the 1980s and 1990s. An important factor that distinguishes the two groups is their economic growth in the 1960s and 1970s. Countries with “lowest low” fertility rates today experienced rapid growth in GNP per capita after a long period of stagnation or decline. They were catapulted into modernity, but the beliefs, values, and traditions of their citizens changed more slowly. Thus, swift economic change may lead to both generational and gendered conflicts that result in a rapid decrease in the total fertility rate… <https://www.nber.org/papers/w33311>

In this context, men in the United States are not in nearly as much trouble as men in the countries that she focuses on.

She points out that countries where the total fertility rate is now approaching not 2 but 1—a population decline of 50% every generation—are countries where rapid economic growth a generation ago opened up opportunities to women, but where previous stagnation had cemented High Patriarchy’s cultural ability to resist the coming of modernity.

Hence now it is hard to convince young women to reproduce, given the cultural baggage of the ascribed role of “motherhood” they then undertake.

The solution, of course, is to change the hearts and minds of young men—if, that is, you don’t want a TFR = 1 in your society.

So listen to the wise Eddie Cornelius:

Whoa, strange as it seems
You know you can't treat a woman mean
So my friend, there you have it
I said it's the easy, simple way
If you fail to do this
don't blame her if she looks my way
’Cause I'm gonna treat her like a lady…

---

If reading this gets you Value Above Replacement, then become a free subscriber to this newsletter. And forward it! And if your VAR from this newsletter is in the three digits or more each year, please become a paid subscriber! I am trying to make you readers—and myself—smarter. Please tell me if I succeed, or how I fail…