Cornell’s President Understands ‘Responsibility.’ He Should Insist Jane Doe Do The Same

We’re apparently at the part of this “Cornell Seven” saga where the Ivy League university’s president needs to go through a ritualistic struggle session, enshrined by the political left, and he chose the most fitting location: The New York Times. In an interview published this week, Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff, surely having already tortured himself […]

The ‘Cornell 7’ Fallout Is Infantilized Women And Villainized Men

Two developments in recent days show just how bad things are getting for young adults following Jane Doe’s exceedingly thin claim that she was gang-raped by frat men at Cornell University. The first one comes in a New York Times article from Saturday featuring some incredible quotes that should offend any self-respecting woman. The story […]

The strange masculinization of American women



The United States is a wonderfully strange place that has entered a remarkably bizarre era.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted the growing appeal of big, muscular arms among women. On its own, it sounds like a harmless, somewhat ridiculous trend. But the veiny flexes are only the most visible part of a broader cultural shift.

The female body becomes another declaration of independence: stronger, harder, more imposing, less vulnerable.

Look around any busy gym in America, or spend five minutes scrolling Instagram, and the directives handed down to young women seem to have completely flipped. Women were once told they should no longer have to conform to male expectations to achieve genuine success. Internet culture somehow turned that promise inside out. Now the fashionable ideal increasingly resembles a female version of masculinity: bigger muscles, more tattoos, even the deliberate rejection of conventional beauty rituals through shaved heads.

The ideal is no longer merely to be desirable. It is to look completely untouchable.

'Resistance' training

This transformation has acquired an unmistakably political dimension. Writing in the Washington Post last year, columnist Karen Attiah described gaining 20 pounds of muscle through powerlifting. Attiah argues that muscles and femininity are perfectly compatible and reports receiving plenty of admiring attention from men. But her conception of femininity is heavily politicized. Connecting women's growing enthusiasm for muscularity to abortion restrictions, male violence, and the revival of traditional gender roles, she wrote, "At a time when the rights of women, particularly Black women, are under attack, we need to return to the basics — to be grounded in our agency, physical power, and transformational energy."

Attiah is hardly alone. Writing in Women's Health last year, personal trainer Lacee Lazoff declared that lifting weights is a feminist act of rebellion. She described grunting, developing calloused hands, and lifting heavy weights as ways of defying traditional expectations of femininity. Even a trip to the gym, apparently, can become another skirmish in the war against the patriarchy.

There is a curious irony here. For decades, feminists argued that a woman's worth should not be determined by her appearance. Now, in certain feminist circles, appearance has become a political statement in its own right. A muscular back is an act of resistance. A shaved head is a declaration of independence. Even the size of a woman's biceps can apparently tell us something about her commitment to dismantling the patriarchy.

Women were supposed to be liberated from having their bodies scrutinized. Instead, they are being invited to turn those bodies into ideological billboards.

Trying on toxicity

Fitness culture is especially enthusiastic about this transformation. Building a wide back, heavy upper trapezius muscles, a thick neck, and bulging biceps is sold not simply as exercise but as empowerment. The female body becomes another declaration of independence: stronger, harder, more imposing, less vulnerable.

The disconnect becomes even stranger when you consider the way masculinity itself is discussed. Traditional male behavior is endlessly scrutinized for signs of toxicity, aggression, dominance, and emotional repression. Yet many of the same outward qualities — toughness, physical intimidation, extreme independence, indifference to approval — are celebrated when women cultivate them.

Somehow, masculinity becomes problematic in men and empowering in women. Female strength once meant endurance, patience, wisdom, competence, fortitude. A mother could be extraordinarily strong without feeling compelled to acquire the neck of an Olympic weightlifter. Increasingly, however, strength must be visible before it counts -- and preferably visible on Instagram.

RELATED: Stallone’s ‘Steps’ looks back on the long, brutal road to ‘Rocky’

United Archives/Getty Images

Muscle mates

Women spend hundreds of hours dragging heavy sleds, curling dumbbells, counting grams of protein, and sculpting bodies designed to project an aura of absolute self-sufficiency. Add the sleeve tattoos, buzz cuts, and permanent don't-talk-to-me expression, and the aesthetic communicates something before a word has been spoken: I require nothing from anyone.

Perhaps that feels liberating. But it leaves remarkably little room for femininity. And then comes the sales pitch that may be hardest to swallow: that men are supposed to find the whole package irresistible.

Human attraction is obviously more complicated than a checklist, and plenty of men like athletic women. But cross-cultural research on mate preferences has consistently found that men place greater importance on physical attractiveness in a long-term partner than women do. Both sexes, meanwhile, value qualities such as dependability and emotional compatibility. There is little reason to believe that a new fashion for bulging biceps has fundamentally rewritten these preferences.

None of this means women should organize their lives around pleasing men. It does mean we should stop pretending male attraction has been culturally reprogrammed because an influencer said "strong is sexy."

If you're a female reader skeptical of the point, consider the inverse. Would you feel genuinely attraction to a man who deliberately adopted every traditionally feminine aesthetic he could find? Imagine him stepping out in floral sundresses and pearl anklets. Picture him borrowing your crop tops, straightening his hair, spending two hours applying liquid eyeliner before heading to a sports bar, then asking whether he should start carrying a tiny micro-purse for his perfume and lip oil.

Perhaps somebody is into it; most women probably aren't.

Sexual difference has proven remarkably stubborn despite decades of attempts to explain it away. Men and women can obviously borrow from one another, and nobody is suggesting that women should avoid barbells or men should avoid moisturizer. But a culture supposedly devoted to freeing women from male standards has arrived at a curious destination: It increasingly congratulates women for looking and behaving more like men.

To be clear, fitness is attractive. A strong, sculpted female body can be beautiful. But there's a considerable difference between looking fit and looking as though you could throw your boyfriend through drywall.

Even Girlbosses Can’t Stand The Office Environments Feminism Built

How ironic that the feminist labor movement that promised to liberate women may actually vitiate their happiness and undercut the successful work they hoped to find.

STREET-FIGHTING MA'AM: The strange late-life radicalization of liberal Boomers



The late-life radicalization of the Boomers is proving to be an ongoing catastrophe.

I am, of course, referring to liberal Boomers, not conservative ones. As far as I can tell, conservative Baby Boomers might be one of the most stable voting blocs in the country. Conservative Boomers today tend to vote for the same things they have always voted for and basically believe in the same American values they did in 2006 or 1986. Their stability is something we currently take for granted, and it will be missed one day.

The old people I remember from the 1980s and ’90s acted old. I don’t mean that as an insult.

Liberal Baby Boomers have taken a different path: a strange, late-life radicalization.

Gray panthers

Usually when we hear the word “radicalization,” we think of anarchists, Islamic terrorists, and other violent groups. With liberal Boomers, we aren’t dealing so much with a violent insurgency or rogue actors who want to bring society to its knees. We’re dealing with people who, in their old age, have too much time to read the news and get mad in fits of performative self-righteousness and who have decided that a good use of their twilight years is reliving some micro-version of the ’60s and ’70s.

Next time there is a No Kings rally or some other left-wing protest, drive by and take a look at who is there. You may be struck by the amount of gray hair. This isn’t a novel observation. Researchers studying the recent anti-Trump protest movement have noticed that many of the organizers are considerably older than the activists who usually come to mind when we think of political protest.

At first, that doesn’t seem strange at all. Of course retired people are going to show up. They have the free time.

But I’m interested in something beyond simple availability. Why do so many people who are approaching 70 or 80 seem determined to become political activists now? Why the signs, the marches, the constant outrage, the sense that retirement is finally their chance to join the resistance?

AARP anarchists

The obvious retort is that young people today are politically disengaged and somebody has to do it.

There may be some truth to that. But it still doesn’t explain why a certain kind of affluent liberal senior citizen now seems to fancy himself part of the vanguard of political action.

There is something historically upside down about it.

The old stereotype says that age brings caution. You accumulate responsibilities, watch political fashions come and go, and become a little less impressed by people promising to remake the world. Whether or not people literally become more conservative as they age, older generations have traditionally occupied that cultural role: They remind the young that most supposedly revolutionary ideas have been tried before and that smashing things is easier than rebuilding them.

The old are supposed to be the anchor. The young are supposed to be pulling at the chain.

So how did we end up with 70-year-olds trying to recapture the barricades?

RELATED: The future belongs to people who believe in one

Cheng Xin/Getty Images

Elder shortage

Maybe it’s because fewer of them have grandchildren than previous generations did. Maybe it’s the nature of technological society, which gives everyone access to a limitless supply of things to be angry about and has, for whatever reason, had a particularly strange effect on liberal Boomers. Maybe it’s because people are living longer and spending more years in retirement with more free time.

Or maybe it’s just something particular to the liberals of that generation. Maybe they want to relive their glory days.

Maybe they simply can’t bear to be old.

I’m not sure exactly what the answer is. It’s probably some combination of those things plus a few others. But what I do know is that it wasn’t like this when I was a kid.

The old people I remember from the 1980s and ’90s acted old. I don’t mean that as an insult. They weren’t desperately trying to keep up, prove they were hip, adopt the latest political vocabulary, or convince the rest of us that they were on the right side of history. They had older-generation attitudes. Sometimes those attitudes were wrong. Sometimes they were annoying. But they were recognizably the attitudes of people who had been around for a while.

What makes the current situation even stranger is that many of these newly radicalized liberal Boomers weren’t extreme leftists when they were younger. Plenty were basically centrists in the ’80s and ’90s. They had kids and jobs and mortgages and wanted their children to have a decent future. Those responsibilities tended to keep them somewhere near the middle, even if they considered themselves liberals.

Now the kids are gone, the mortgage is paid off, and some of them seem to have finally become the campus radicals they never quite managed to be at 22.

Are we going to see the same thing happen as Gen X ages? What about Millennials?

I hope not.

If we want future generations to inherit the same America we lived in, at some point we have to start acting our age.

Roy the Reprehensible

Roy Cohn, who burst onto the national political scene in the 1950s by pursuing communists, first in the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and later as chief aide to Senator Joseph McCarthy, transformed himself in the 1960s and '70s into a take-no-prisoners divorce lawyer and mouthpiece for Mafia bosses, and then served as a mentor to an up-and-coming New York developer named Donald Trump.

The post Roy the Reprehensible appeared first on .

Mary Kay’s Complete Makeover

In the 20th century, certain corporate brands became so well-known as to be immediately recognizable: McDonald's golden arches, the Nike swoosh, and, for a certain segment of the population, the Mary Kay pink Cadillac.

The post Mary Kay’s Complete Makeover appeared first on .

Political Overtures

Down the generations, certain intellectuals have been attracted to opera. Nietzsche, outstandingly. Also Bernard Williams, the English philosopher (1929–2003). Williams wrote about opera throughout his life, and, three years after his death, a collection was published: On Opera. In 2017, Mitchell Cohen, the political scientist who was long an editor at Dissent, published The Politics of Opera: A History from Monteverdi to Mozart. It is a brilliant book, loaded with learning. So is the latest from Martha C. Nussbaum, the philosopher, who works at the University of Chicago. Like Williams, who was one of her teachers, she has written about opera throughout her life. At age six, she was taken to the Metropolitan Opera by her grandmother. "We had close-up orchestra seats for Verdi's Rigoletto, which shocked and profoundly moved me," she writes.

The post Political Overtures appeared first on .

REVIEW: ‘Top Gun’

The Reagan Revolution didn't just usher in a wave of prosperity, but also wholesome patriotism. Every proper child of the 1980s has a wisp of nostalgia for the times. Reagan was an actor, and Hollywood wasn't so uptight about politics. Producers then shoveled cash into content that lionized the military, pleased the White House, and made America's blood pump. Veterans like Clint Eastwood and Chuck Norris practically reinvented the patriotic chic genre that died off after the 1960s, when Hollywood grew tired of making World War II movies and hunting commies.

The post REVIEW: ‘Top Gun’ appeared first on .

'PRIME' TIME: Failing Emmys flee network TV for Amazon



Hollywood is overrun with copycats.

Remember how 1978’s “Halloween” scared the bell-bottom pants off us? Well, another studio copied that stalker formula with 1980’s “Friday the 13th.” The rest is — ka-ka-ka ... ching-ching-ching — history.

Longtime liberals crossing party lines to oust an incompetent mayor and governor? if only we could import some of that common sense to the left coast.

If greed is good, then copycatting is even better.

That explains the marketing behind “Other Mommy.” Jessica Chastain stars as a mother who is targeted by an evil entity in the new horror flick. Apparently, said entity makes the actress adopt a massive, creepy smile to let us know something isn’t quite right with her.

And if you’ve seen “Smile” (2022) or “Smile 2” (2024), you know exactly the look. It’s one thing to make endless sequels. It’s another to steal the signature visual gimmick from another franchise. Maybe that’s why the studio behind “Other Mommy” hid it from critics prior to its Oct. 9 release date.

The reviews will likely be pretty scary …

'Speech' impediment

This should be a golden era for the Emmys. The trophy honoring the very best in TV programming has plenty to choose from, given the crush of new and existing platforms cranking out fresh product.

And while “The Sopranos” and “Breaking Bad” are long since over, there are plenty of top-flight TV shows to savor.

Yet the Emmys telecast will be moving to Prime Video starting next year. Why?

Ratings. Or the lack thereof. A telecast that used to draw 20 million viewers now scrambles to draw 7 million for a given gala.

Now, Prime Video will showcase the best of the best, in between political screeds. Why, it’s almost like the dawn of politically mouthy celebs had something to do with the ratings free fall …

Outbreak ... of TDS

It wasn’t too long ago that DNC mouthpiece Jimmy Kimmel held up a T-shirt with the slogan "Donald J. Trump is gonna kill you" on his show.

Now it’s Ana Navarro’s turn.

The “View” co-host spun news of a Russian-based plague outbreak to attack President Trump. That isn’t really shocking. “The View” could turn a discussion on Chia Pets into an anti-Trump jeremiad.

Navarro went the extra mile with her TDS moment. To be fair, she really attacked Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but he is tied directly to President Trump via the nomination process.

“There's going to be crisis, there's going to be health emergencies. And, you know, when I think of RFK Jr. heading HHS, I just say, girl, kiss your ass goodbye!”

Should be easy enough for Navarro, considering where her head already is ...

RELATED: GRAVE 'DIGGER': Will Tom Cruise's $100 million eco-flop bury Warner Bros.?

Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images

Not 'Messing' around

Here’s the ultimate "man bites dog" story.

“Will & Grace” alum Debra Messing is such a dyed-in-the-wool progressive that she once threatened to doxx anyone who supported President Trump in Hollywood. The obvious context? Good luck finding work in this town, bub.

That was then, before the explosion of anti-Semitism across the globe and, sadly, within her industry.

To her genuine credit, Messing has been one of the loudest celebrity voices speaking up for the Jewish people in our post-Oct. 7 world. And she knows that the Democrat Party is shockingly hostile to her fellow Jews.

That explains her new endorsement — she is supporting the GOP’s Bruce Blakeman over Democrat incumbent Gov. Kathy Hochul in New York’s gubernatorial contest.

“The decline in this city over the last four years has been so exponential and devastating. … Economically, socially, and on every level. And, obviously, we’ve lost so much business here. People are leaving the city.”

In acknowledging Messing's support, Blakeman said the quiet part out loud.

“She is trying as hard as she can to save New York and make sure it’s safe for Jewish people to live in this community and to live in this state.”

She echoed the thoughts shared by fellow Jewish actor Michael Rapaport, who dropped his anti-Trump hysteria in recent years and now targets Big Apple Mayor Zohran Mamdani (D).

Longtime liberals crossing party lines to oust an incompetent mayor and governor? if only we could import some of that common sense to the left coast …

Sorkin's status

Are you sure about that, Aaron?

Writer-director Aaron Sorkin continues the Facebook saga with “The Social Reckoning” this weekend. The film, continuing a story that began in 2010 with “The Social Network,” shreds Facebook for algorithms that hurt one and all.

He’s not necessarily wrong, but the film is actually an attack on President Trump and, more significantly, the January 6 riots.

Except it looks like audiences will be giving Sorkin his own “reckoning.” The film will be lucky to squeak past the $8 million mark this weekend.

“The Social Network” bowed with $22 million en route to a $96 million U.S. haul.

Sorkin is already eyeing a third film in the saga.

“If a good story comes along and it takes place at Facebook, sure.”

If the box office receipts are anything like the experts predict, he might have to start a GoFundMe campaign to get it off the ground. I know just the place to share it!