One of ROK’s key opponents in the legacy media is the New York Times. The Times has been wrong on just about every subject since it’s founding. From repeatedly insisting during the 1920s that Hitler was no threat to the Jews, to the systematic and now widely exposed coverup of Stalin’s genocides, to almost every issue today. In fact, the Times‘ current state proves Murray Gell-mann’s ironic observation a half-century ago that newspapers tend to be wildly wrong on any topic you know well, yet you believe they are perfectly correct on any topic you don’t know much about.
But one of the core requirements of intellectual honesty is to admit it when your opponent is right. And a broken clock is right two times a day, as the almost-outdated saying goes. So here at ROK, we will humbly admit that the Times has taken on one of the great issues of the day, dear to the heart of many an ROK reader, and has come out on the correct side.
Addressing a truly critical issue, as the Times is known to do, they have come out swinging and published an opinion piece this past Sunday arguing that women above 30 years old should not wear yoga pants, in the piece titled, directly enough, Why Yoga Pants Are Bad for Women. One of the key arguments that the article builds up to is…
Women can, of course, be fit and liberated. We may be able to conquer the world wearing spandex. But wouldn’t it be easier to do so in pants that don’t threaten to show every dimple and roll in every woman over 30?
Two thumbs up for the New York Times, having chosen a critical issue and come to the correct conclusion. Honor Jones, here at ROK, we will toast to you tonight, and thank you for doing your part to help convince women above 30 not to wear yoga pants. You are helping make the the country and the world a more beautiful by helping eliminate this eyesore.
Of course, the Times is still the Times, so there are other parts of the article and argument that Honor Jones got completely wrong. They are worth elucidating, while remembering that just because someone has the correct opinion on issue X, that doesn’t imply they’ll have the correct opinion on issue Y.
Jones argues that even women below 30 (and especially those above 30) ought to wear sweatpants instead of yoga pants. No, no, no. This may be a case of “the solution is worse than the problem”—like how socialism tried to solve the problem of the decadent wealth of the Russian aristocrats at the expense of the peasants, but that solution just made it worse for both groups. She comes to this conclusion due to her faulty logic. She says:
When yoga pants are the first thing grown women put on every morning, we can’t help absorbing the message that staying fit is our No. 1 purpose in life.
So, Honor Jones, what is your “number one” purpose in life? There’s an excellent argument to be made by the non-religious among us, an argument that is supported by evolution, evolutionary psychology, universal traditions, and just about every non-soy man alive, that yes, indeed, your meaning in life as a woman is to take care of your family, and that includes critically these three fitness-related components:
- Raising children—and many studies have demonstrated that physical fitness is a strong proxy for the ability to bear and raise physically healthy children.
- Looking good for your man—of which staying fit is a critical component.
- Taking care of yourself and your long-term health (without that, you can’t achieve #1 and #2)—of which being physically fit is a key component.
And evolution has spent millions of years building up to you, just you, to give you that mission. For evolution-believers, your mission is to understand what evolution designed your ancestors and you, to follow that and live up to your genetic inheritance. That’s respect-worthy.
And I also respect, deeply, those who disagree with this evolutionary analysis for religious reasons: you are humble before your God. And it’s curious how every religion actually comes to the exact same conclusion as as evolution does, as God fills your life with meaning: be fruitful and multiply, in one classic Biblical formulation. That is very respect-worthy.
But here’s what’s not respect-worthy: articulating what you are against, without articulating what you are for. Being for “sweatpants” is glib but sidesteps the Big Issues. When you are against a litany of complaints, but for nothing—that means you are only after power. In fact, the definition of the power grab, trying to make yourself important for your own benefit (while veiled in moralistic preaching), is taking down others without building your own palace. And this why here at ROK, we may mock our enemies and the state of society today; but we focus on learning, education, on taking responsibility and helping ourselves and our loved ones improve, first and foremost, above all.
Let me predict Honor’s response: “I am for something, I just didn’t say it here. I’m for ending the oppression of [insert preferred seemingly-oppressed-non-Asian group here, such as] the LGBTQQIAA (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, Intersex, and Asexual individuals as well as their Allies) community and other Democrat party supporters.” Maybe her preferred group is those who advocate abortions or schooling until you’re 40 or any one of many different possible Democrat-approved groups. And she won’t use these words, since she’ll justify it in a moral framework that demonstrates that defines her preferred groups as the morally superior people, but it will be the same point.
To which my response to her would be: “Honor, with your worldview that explicitly discourages having 3+ children in nuclear family units, your genetic lineage is going to die, you will probably have one or two kids, who will have a 50% chance of having one kid, who will have a 25% chance of having one kid… I give you three generations more, max, and your genetic lineage will have vanished from this world. Ciao, ciao, Honor, my condolences to your ancestors, who struggled and suffered only to have their legacy be erased from this world.” So long, and good riddance.