Ah yes, Levi's..... a thoroughly modern American company, moving its production overseas, discriminating against small local merchants, but look how socially wonderful we are!
China is the largest manufacturer of socks. If one wants to buy American, one will pay more and probably still have a sock made with yarn manufactured outside the U.S.
"Have the cultural backpages of the prestige press ever been less interesting? The left assumes that their Racial Reckoning is still interesting, while the right hasn’t yet started to make much interesting art."
Perhaps because the left is waiting for the next new cultural thing to get behind and push. LGBT is yesterday's news, Woke-DEI is beginning to die down, so what's the latest newest thing to push, to bring from the depths of the underground and into the mainstream culture at large?
In 2025, what cultural trend exactly is out there for the left to push? Doesn't appear to be anything.
Possibly it was going to be Polyamory, but that's oh so white bread and by now the facts be faced: most people in those kinds of relationships tend to be beta nerdy dorky uncool loser white bread types, so not exactly the ideal peoples to push the latest coolest trend.
If only Jeffrey Epstein hadn't queered the pitch, perhaps at long last Minor Attractions could be the latest newest thing to get behind IF it's done in a tasteful manner with a Rosa Parks clean cut All American with impeccable credentials to promote it, again, in a tasteful and a subtle (but not too subtle so that it slips completely underneath the radar) sort of way.
THAT might still be the newest and latest frontier left to cross. But again, that would largely depend upon how long the right wants to keep Jeffrey Epstein front and center in the mainstream. Once that subject dies down, THEN perhaps Minor Attractions can finally gain some acceptance from the mainstream, especially if New Yorker, NYT, etc cultural pages start promoting it in earnest. After all, LGBT yesterday, which can logically transition to Minor Attractions tomorrow (or next week). Because, if minors are permitted to transition, then logically they also should be permitted to have their attractions to whomever they so desire. Why should a mathematical construct such as age be a preventive factor in prohibiting two people who desire to follow their natural affections and attractions for one another?
So, give it to around 2030, and Minor Attractions should be the latest and coolest trend for the left to promote in full force.
I'm still in amazement that parents actually named their daughter such an obvious male boy name like Sydney.
In Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, Tom's youngest sibling is named Sydney, and he's a boy. Throughout pretty much up til the final years of the 20th century, the name Sydney was for boys. It wasn't really ever popular like say, Michael, but it was a boys name, period.
What is this with women naming their daughters traditional boys names (albeit some of them tend to be obscure)? Aubrey is another one, a traditional British upper crust name of late Victorian-Edwardian era, much in the vein of Trevor. So guess now Trevor will be another name adopted for girls to be named as well?
Why not just do the traditional thing and feminize the name, to say, Sydneah, Sydna, or even Sydnequah?
Come on people! Boys aren't named Barbara or Sue, and girls shouldn't be named Aubrey or Sydney.
At least women won't start naming their daughters Donald, or something like that.
And the same is to be said for most of the entire 20th century for girls being named Sydney, which is based on Sidney, which is still a boys name, period.
Thankfully, the name is dying out among girls as it was not listed among the top 200 popular girls names in the US.
The person also stated that its a personal anecdote, so it did occur,.
> I'm still in amazement that parents actually named their daughter such an obvious male boy name like Sydney
I'm still in amazement how clueless you are, Grandpa. Sydney (with 2 y's) has always been a girl's name and even combining it with Sidney it has been more popular with girls than boys since the 1980s. In the 1990s Sydney was the 117th most popular girl name while Sidney was the 1166th most popular boy name
Seriously, even if someone is factually wrong, is it necessary or useful to call them an “ass wipe.” Honestly, it makes me less likely to read what you have to say about the underlying issue. Does this relatively unimportant dispute require this level of hostility?
> Sydney was NOT a popular girls name during the 1980's as it doesn't show up in top 200 popular names
You have shifted the goalposts; I stated that Sydney was a more popular name for girls than Sidney was for boys, which is an undeniable fact as Sydney was in the top 1000 girl names but Sidney was not in the top 1000 boy names.
NO, I STATED THAT SIDNEY/SYDNEY WAS NEVER POPULAR AS A BOYS NAME, PERIOD. BUT, THAT WHENEVER THE NAME WAS USED for centuries up until say, the 1990's IT 100% OF THE TIME WAS A BOYS NAME, as far back as Victorian Era, the name was used for boys, period. It wasn't on people's radar in any significant manner to name girls sydney/sidney. It was more prominent in the UK as opposed to the US, but there it was also a BOY's name.
I also stated that Sydney is NOT prominent in the 2010 US GOV CENSUS per popular girls names. It enjoyed a brief run during late 90s into the 2000's. So it's run its course.
But Google? Please settle this. WHEN DID THE NAME SYDNEY (with a Y) FIRST COME INTO PROMINENCE? ISNT THERE a MAJOR CITY ON A CONTINENT NAMED SYDNEY? (With a Y)
It's so "OBVIOUS" that SYDNEY (with a Y) MUST always have been NAMED FOR GIRLS, RIGHT?
PER GOOGLE:
SYDNEY, Australia, was NAMED AFTER Thomas Townshend, 1st Viscount SYDNEY. (with a Y) HE was a British politician who served as Home Secretary in 1788, the year the first British settlement was established in Australia. Captain Arthur Phillip, the first Governor of New South Wales, honored Lord Sydney by naming the settlement "Sydney"
A MAN'S TITLE, SYDNEY. Not a woman's title. The first prominent Englishman to use the name SYDNEY, was a MAN. Sydney Australia was directly named after a MAN.
So then...when the name first gained in any relevant prominence, as a standalone name...it was understood by folks over the age of 8 that the name was for a BOY.
So...Sydney Australia was named after a man with the name/title SYDNEY (With a Y).
AGAIN. Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer. Tom's youngest brother was named Sidney. With an I or a Y it doesn't matter. Similar to Bryan or Brian--both spellings denote a boy's name.
Yes. Now it is used for women, but per US Gov, it no longer enjoys the prominence it once did in 1990's/2000's Census. So basically it's run its course.
There were Lyndsay and Sidney Greenbush, twin actresses who played the youngest daughter in Little House in the Prairie. Born 1970. Although usually with the “i” it’s a boy’s name and “y” a girl’s.
Apparently after St. Denis. Itself after Dionysus. Which suggests masculine, but baby naming sites say gender neutral of French origin after St. Denis. And yes a popular name in the ‘90s for girls.
Sidney Poitier named one of his daughters Sydney. The highlight of her acting career so far is playing the doomed Jungle Julia in Tarantino’s Death Proof.
Poitier's daughter is still based on his name, which is Sidney. If he had had a son, he would've most likely named him after himself.
A minor variant on the spelling doesn't change the fact that Sydney/Sidney remains a boys name. If one wants to name a boy Sydney, it doesn't change that fact. Similar to boys being named Bryan or Brian--both are based on the original (Brian) and both are boys names.
In fact, giving girls “boy names” isn’t that uncommon, and boy names sometimes migrate to become girl names. Beverly and Lynn, for example. Really traditional boy names seldom make this move, but I’ve known girls whose diminutive names were “Alex” for Alexandra and “Bobbie” for Roberta. I even knew a Michelle who went by Mike!
Some people give their daughters traditionally masculine or ambiguous names believing their daughters will be more successful than if they have a traditionally feminine name. While names do tip from male to female, they seldom go the other way, and names can become permanently feminine. Naming your son Beverly today would be like naming him Sue.
It used to be that way across the board, as there was a clear demarkation between what was viewed as a boys name vs a girls name. With the rise of gender neutral or unisex names, where the name is slightly ambiguous.
Sydney or Sidney was a boys name, just as Brian or Bryan are boys names. It wasn't a popular name in the US, but throughout the 20th century, it was a boys name.
Aubrey is another example. It wasn't a common name in the US, but for most of the 20th century it was a boys name.
Sometimes this does occur because fathers didn't get a son. Also helps to explain why some of them tend to also push their daughters into sports (they didn't get the son they so wanted)
There was a trend for naming girls after cities (possibly where they were conceived). That's how you get Paris as a girl's name. Paris, the mythological character for whom (I assume) Paris the city was named, was a man. Paris Hilton is a woman.
I thought the New Yorker excerpt was a spoof... but no, it's real. Wow.
All I have to add is that my husband is a country music fan and has commented a few times that he's never heard Beyonce played on any of the country music stations nor seen a video on CMT. He is baffled how you sweep country award shows when this happens... but he's used to the crazy. I'm sure Taylor Swift could do a rap album, be invited to the BET award shows and sweep everything, right?
I've got no problem with old black ladies--or any else for that matter--loving, and wanting to continue to love Beyonce--and her appropriation of blondness. Peachy.
The thing about this though--the common element of minoritarianism--is that these people *must* tells us, what we must do, see, enjoy, how we must live. That's the deal with minoritarianism. It is not--has never been--about minorities being "free to be me". It is always about white gentiles must do X--must let us in!, must pay attention!, must give us stuff!--and most of all must not be allowed organize and do things as they would like. Whites can never be allowed to just have and enjoy their own stuff--our schools or country clubs, our neighborhoods or nations.
If it was just "live and let live", there would be no problem. Heck, pealing off a separate nation, wouldn't have even been a problem. But that has never been what any of this was about. It was always about parasitism.
Geez, just leave us alone to enjoy our "boring", "white bread", "ticky-tacky" lives--our jiggling jello salad and Sydney Sweeney's tits--in peace.
Lol, “two American blondes”? Where? Also, “to be tossed with diamonds instead of detergent pods” - is there anything more revolting and passé than flaunting bling? It gives me nightmare visions of gold-capped teeth, Cristal champagne and lowrider cars. As usual this New Yorker harridan is trying to get a rise out of people. It’s all so tiresome.
Haven't heard a song of Beyonce's but I doubt she sings as well as Olivia Newton-John did in the 70s. Of course, Beyonce is ugly and, when she was twenty-five, Olivia Newton-John was beautiful.
> Perhaps because the left is waiting for the next new cultural thing to get behind and push. LGBT is yesterday's news, Woke-DEI is beginning to die down, so what's the latest newest thing to push, to bring from the depths of the underground and into the mainstream culture at large? <
Yojimbo, I don't think there is any "next thing".
All this stuff has always been about the same thing--minority parasitism and attacking the right of white gentiles to have their nations and run them in their interests, for their posterity. That's it.
You can sort of break it down into two prongs:
1) Racism! I.e. whites are bad, oppressive, racial and ethnic minorities are virtuous and wonderful. With the overarching theme being that whites don't deserve their nations and should have them broken open, invaded and taken away from them.
2) LBGQWERTY. Normal human sexuality of the civilized races--marriage, family, children--is nothing special, oppressive and just a random choice anyway. This serves as an attack upon the idea of family, of lineage, of our debt to ancestors and responsibility to our posterity. (You are just an atom floating in the sea, unconnected--just a lifestyle consumer in the marketplace.) Again, fundamentally--an attack upon the white gentiles having nations--living breathing organic nations they are part of, that they own.
~~
Yeah, there may be some new little shit show over this or that new oppression fad. But there won't be anything that's really new. The minoritarians have long had the two wings of their assault--mass immigration and cratered fertility. You are a racist and must behave and let diverse immigrants stream into your nation. You are a sexist and must behave and accept sexual diversity, don't go thinking your sexuality is normal, that men and women are naturally complementary, that women are supposed to have babies and that preserving your nation for your kids is your job.
Post Malone got his stage name from a "rap name generator." I wonnder what our names would be.
I did get my patron Saint, Saint Columbanus, from the random saint generator at Saints and Angels. He should be the saint for the cancelled. He's the monk shaking hands with the bear, iconographically. Columbanus got in trouble constantly irritating powerful landowners and kings by sending them the equivalent of what would be an op-ed today. He ended up in the wildernesss. From that point on, God would send squirrels to sit in his pockets whenever he was about to write something troublesome. Clever God! Squirrels are everywhere. Though I feel extra awful when I drive over one now.
> Let's talk instead about somebody who is really relevant and up to date: Beyoncé [sarcasm]
> It's fascinating how you are supposed to believe that Beyoncé, who became famous in the 1990s, is still cutting edge in 2025
It's fascinating how much of a clueless dipshit you can be. I'm not personally a fan, but Beyoncé is still relevant in 2025. She has had four hit songs in the last three years alone and just completed a record-breaking stadium tour*. Only Taylor Swift is her rival.
As an aside, she was given her mother's maiden name as her first name. WASP men of a certain age do this but I've never seen a woman do so. Stockard Channing uses her given last name as her first name and kept her first husband's last name
I haven't heard a decent popular song since about 1985. Pop songs since then seem to be written either by homosexuals or 16-year old girls who got stood up for the prom. Childish lyrics. And a lot of over-singing. Modern singers can't sing songs straight like Sinatra, Cole or Patsy Cline.
Crap is crap, no matter how modern it is. Music has been crap for a very long time, from pop to rap to headbanger to computer crap. Modern music has no Beatles or Rolling Stones or Frank Sinatra or even a Fleetwood Mac or Eagles or Bruce Springsteen.
I'm sure if you were to ask any of them they would be able to point out music from the last 40 years that is worth listening to. Therefore you are being a pigheaded curmudgeon
You're not necessarily wrong but it is still telling that the columnist has to reach back at least two and maybe closer to three decades (since her emergence) to find a black artist with widespread cross-cultural appeal. You may have to Google this but imagine referencing Sammy Davis Junior in the 1982 after the release of Thriller by Michael Jackson.
The funny thing about Sammy Davis is that as much of a cultural icon as he is, he only had four hit songs in his entire career, as opposed to Beyoncé in the last three years: Something's Gotta Give (1955), Love Me or Leave Me (1955), I've Gotta Be Me (1968), and The Candy Man (1972), although to be fair he is also known for Mr. Bojangles which became his signature song performed live.
Also, he died young* from throat cancer, outliving his father by only two years.
*and broke, as since he didn't write his songs he never got residuals
It's nice info but totally not the point, though I admit I was a bit obtuse. If somebody wrote a similar column in 1982 asking why black artist Sammy Davis Junior wasn't featured in a completely hypothetical commercial instead of, say, Harrison Ford (coming off his star breakout as Indiana Jones) as a spokesperson, the immediate reaction of virtually everyone would be to wonder why you weren't comparing Ford to Michael Jackson (who was roughly the same age as Sydney Sweeney in 1982). You keep trying to prove somebody who broke out in the 1990s is still relevant to deflect from the fact that nobody with the cross-cultural appeal of Michael Jackson has appeared since then.
The info on Sammy was just for background; it was not intended as an argument. However, why are you taking this so personally? Steve isn't as upset as you seem be about this
Derek, I am …..well, I am not telling, but I didn’t know Sweeney until this debacle with the AE jeans ad. Who cares? Progressives are damn. Nothing new and exciting here.
Back in the day, there were Calvin Kline controversial ads (heroin chic) and American Apparel.
Then we went to woke era "inclusive" ads which I found totally uninteresting. And then there was this. In general, the woke police came off as out of touch...hence this Lizzo parody ad .
At least Sydney remains clearly and unapologetically female...white and non inclusive. Sweeney is actually popular with teenage girls, as much as that seems to hurt the feelings of woke media.
Beyonce has been around forever. If you look at the marketing hall of fame, for a couple of decades the most trusted product spokesperson in the USA was current sex criminal Bill Cosby.
Doreen St. Felix writes like a 22 year old intern at the old Village Voice.
Ah yes, Levi's..... a thoroughly modern American company, moving its production overseas, discriminating against small local merchants, but look how socially wonderful we are!
If one is only going to wear clothing manufactured in the U.S. then one's wardrobe is going to be very limited and very expensive.
There's more available than most people realize. Socks and T-shirts are an easy way to start buying American.
China is the largest manufacturer of socks. If one wants to buy American, one will pay more and probably still have a sock made with yarn manufactured outside the U.S.
Yes Obama put a nail in the coffin of the sock industry, but I see some resurgence, and buy at every opportunity. He was truly a terrible president.
Wigwam has USA made socks. They’re not 1.00 a pair, but they’re not outrageous. Plus, no child slave labor involved.
Origin in Maine makes 100% US sourced and manufactured clothing. I get a good bit of my clothing from them. Their prices are not out of line.
One needs to look at what clothes on Shein or TEMU costs even with the tariffs. No U.S. company can compete.
"Have the cultural backpages of the prestige press ever been less interesting? The left assumes that their Racial Reckoning is still interesting, while the right hasn’t yet started to make much interesting art."
Perhaps because the left is waiting for the next new cultural thing to get behind and push. LGBT is yesterday's news, Woke-DEI is beginning to die down, so what's the latest newest thing to push, to bring from the depths of the underground and into the mainstream culture at large?
In 2025, what cultural trend exactly is out there for the left to push? Doesn't appear to be anything.
Possibly it was going to be Polyamory, but that's oh so white bread and by now the facts be faced: most people in those kinds of relationships tend to be beta nerdy dorky uncool loser white bread types, so not exactly the ideal peoples to push the latest coolest trend.
If only Jeffrey Epstein hadn't queered the pitch, perhaps at long last Minor Attractions could be the latest newest thing to get behind IF it's done in a tasteful manner with a Rosa Parks clean cut All American with impeccable credentials to promote it, again, in a tasteful and a subtle (but not too subtle so that it slips completely underneath the radar) sort of way.
THAT might still be the newest and latest frontier left to cross. But again, that would largely depend upon how long the right wants to keep Jeffrey Epstein front and center in the mainstream. Once that subject dies down, THEN perhaps Minor Attractions can finally gain some acceptance from the mainstream, especially if New Yorker, NYT, etc cultural pages start promoting it in earnest. After all, LGBT yesterday, which can logically transition to Minor Attractions tomorrow (or next week). Because, if minors are permitted to transition, then logically they also should be permitted to have their attractions to whomever they so desire. Why should a mathematical construct such as age be a preventive factor in prohibiting two people who desire to follow their natural affections and attractions for one another?
So, give it to around 2030, and Minor Attractions should be the latest and coolest trend for the left to promote in full force.
I’ve always wondered what happens when we run out of ideas.
I'm still in amazement that parents actually named their daughter such an obvious male boy name like Sydney.
In Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer, Tom's youngest sibling is named Sydney, and he's a boy. Throughout pretty much up til the final years of the 20th century, the name Sydney was for boys. It wasn't really ever popular like say, Michael, but it was a boys name, period.
What is this with women naming their daughters traditional boys names (albeit some of them tend to be obscure)? Aubrey is another one, a traditional British upper crust name of late Victorian-Edwardian era, much in the vein of Trevor. So guess now Trevor will be another name adopted for girls to be named as well?
Why not just do the traditional thing and feminize the name, to say, Sydneah, Sydna, or even Sydnequah?
Come on people! Boys aren't named Barbara or Sue, and girls shouldn't be named Aubrey or Sydney.
At least women won't start naming their daughters Donald, or something like that.
As an Anecdote, I saw Wesley as a girl's name.
Umm, in the United States there has literally never been a girl named Wesley since social security numbers became a thing
And the same is to be said for most of the entire 20th century for girls being named Sydney, which is based on Sidney, which is still a boys name, period.
Thankfully, the name is dying out among girls as it was not listed among the top 200 popular girls names in the US.
The person also stated that its a personal anecdote, so it did occur,.
> Sidney, which is still a boys name, period
No, since the 1990's even Sidney with an I has been a girl's name
> The person also stated that its a personal anecdote, so it did occur
"it's", genius. Also, you used a non sequitur.
Except for Wesley LePatner recently murdered in NYC.
LOL the gunman was so upset that she was using a boy name that he couldn't take it anymore 🤣
> I'm still in amazement that parents actually named their daughter such an obvious male boy name like Sydney
I'm still in amazement how clueless you are, Grandpa. Sydney (with 2 y's) has always been a girl's name and even combining it with Sidney it has been more popular with girls than boys since the 1980s. In the 1990s Sydney was the 117th most popular girl name while Sidney was the 1166th most popular boy name
Seriously, even if someone is factually wrong, is it necessary or useful to call them an “ass wipe.” Honestly, it makes me less likely to read what you have to say about the underlying issue. Does this relatively unimportant dispute require this level of hostility?
Uh, he started it prior to Steve's Substack. I have never started it. Never have.
When they stop, well then...
But I'm sure you will be fair and admonish him in the same manner as well, as again, he started it.
> Sydney was NOT a popular girls name during the 1980's as it doesn't show up in top 200 popular names
You have shifted the goalposts; I stated that Sydney was a more popular name for girls than Sidney was for boys, which is an undeniable fact as Sydney was in the top 1000 girl names but Sidney was not in the top 1000 boy names.
NO, I STATED THAT SIDNEY/SYDNEY WAS NEVER POPULAR AS A BOYS NAME, PERIOD. BUT, THAT WHENEVER THE NAME WAS USED for centuries up until say, the 1990's IT 100% OF THE TIME WAS A BOYS NAME, as far back as Victorian Era, the name was used for boys, period. It wasn't on people's radar in any significant manner to name girls sydney/sidney. It was more prominent in the UK as opposed to the US, but there it was also a BOY's name.
I also stated that Sydney is NOT prominent in the 2010 US GOV CENSUS per popular girls names. It enjoyed a brief run during late 90s into the 2000's. So it's run its course.
But Google? Please settle this. WHEN DID THE NAME SYDNEY (with a Y) FIRST COME INTO PROMINENCE? ISNT THERE a MAJOR CITY ON A CONTINENT NAMED SYDNEY? (With a Y)
It's so "OBVIOUS" that SYDNEY (with a Y) MUST always have been NAMED FOR GIRLS, RIGHT?
PER GOOGLE:
SYDNEY, Australia, was NAMED AFTER Thomas Townshend, 1st Viscount SYDNEY. (with a Y) HE was a British politician who served as Home Secretary in 1788, the year the first British settlement was established in Australia. Captain Arthur Phillip, the first Governor of New South Wales, honored Lord Sydney by naming the settlement "Sydney"
A MAN'S TITLE, SYDNEY. Not a woman's title. The first prominent Englishman to use the name SYDNEY, was a MAN. Sydney Australia was directly named after a MAN.
So then...when the name first gained in any relevant prominence, as a standalone name...it was understood by folks over the age of 8 that the name was for a BOY.
So...Sydney Australia was named after a man with the name/title SYDNEY (With a Y).
AGAIN. Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer. Tom's youngest brother was named Sidney. With an I or a Y it doesn't matter. Similar to Bryan or Brian--both spellings denote a boy's name.
Yes. Now it is used for women, but per US Gov, it no longer enjoys the prominence it once did in 1990's/2000's Census. So basically it's run its course.
There were Lyndsay and Sidney Greenbush, twin actresses who played the youngest daughter in Little House in the Prairie. Born 1970. Although usually with the “i” it’s a boy’s name and “y” a girl’s.
Apparently after St. Denis. Itself after Dionysus. Which suggests masculine, but baby naming sites say gender neutral of French origin after St. Denis. And yes a popular name in the ‘90s for girls.
Denise peaked in the 1960s
Blondie's cover of Denis Denis was cool. You can youube a live version from Dutch tv I believe circa 1979. Clem Burke totally sped up.
Sidney Poitier named one of his daughters Sydney. The highlight of her acting career so far is playing the doomed Jungle Julia in Tarantino’s Death Proof.
Poitier's daughter is still based on his name, which is Sidney. If he had had a son, he would've most likely named him after himself.
A minor variant on the spelling doesn't change the fact that Sydney/Sidney remains a boys name. If one wants to name a boy Sydney, it doesn't change that fact. Similar to boys being named Bryan or Brian--both are based on the original (Brian) and both are boys names.
I noted the name because I thought it was funny.
In fact, giving girls “boy names” isn’t that uncommon, and boy names sometimes migrate to become girl names. Beverly and Lynn, for example. Really traditional boy names seldom make this move, but I’ve known girls whose diminutive names were “Alex” for Alexandra and “Bobbie” for Roberta. I even knew a Michelle who went by Mike!
Some people give their daughters traditionally masculine or ambiguous names believing their daughters will be more successful than if they have a traditionally feminine name. While names do tip from male to female, they seldom go the other way, and names can become permanently feminine. Naming your son Beverly today would be like naming him Sue.
It used to be that way across the board, as there was a clear demarkation between what was viewed as a boys name vs a girls name. With the rise of gender neutral or unisex names, where the name is slightly ambiguous.
Sydney or Sidney was a boys name, just as Brian or Bryan are boys names. It wasn't a popular name in the US, but throughout the 20th century, it was a boys name.
Aubrey is another example. It wasn't a common name in the US, but for most of the 20th century it was a boys name.
Sometimes this does occur because fathers didn't get a son. Also helps to explain why some of them tend to also push their daughters into sports (they didn't get the son they so wanted)
> I even knew a Michelle who went by Mike!
A New Jersey congresswoman goes by Mikie after her given middle name of Michelle; she is currently running for governor.
> boy names sometimes migrate to become girl names. Beverly and Lynn, for example
These are both good examples; I would add Ashley to this list
There was a trend for naming girls after cities (possibly where they were conceived). That's how you get Paris as a girl's name. Paris, the mythological character for whom (I assume) Paris the city was named, was a man. Paris Hilton is a woman.
I thought the New Yorker excerpt was a spoof... but no, it's real. Wow.
All I have to add is that my husband is a country music fan and has commented a few times that he's never heard Beyonce played on any of the country music stations nor seen a video on CMT. He is baffled how you sweep country award shows when this happens... but he's used to the crazy. I'm sure Taylor Swift could do a rap album, be invited to the BET award shows and sweep everything, right?
R&B is black and C&W is white. Anything else is cultural appropriation.
I've got no problem with old black ladies--or any else for that matter--loving, and wanting to continue to love Beyonce--and her appropriation of blondness. Peachy.
The thing about this though--the common element of minoritarianism--is that these people *must* tells us, what we must do, see, enjoy, how we must live. That's the deal with minoritarianism. It is not--has never been--about minorities being "free to be me". It is always about white gentiles must do X--must let us in!, must pay attention!, must give us stuff!--and most of all must not be allowed organize and do things as they would like. Whites can never be allowed to just have and enjoy their own stuff--our schools or country clubs, our neighborhoods or nations.
If it was just "live and let live", there would be no problem. Heck, pealing off a separate nation, wouldn't have even been a problem. But that has never been what any of this was about. It was always about parasitism.
Geez, just leave us alone to enjoy our "boring", "white bread", "ticky-tacky" lives--our jiggling jello salad and Sydney Sweeney's tits--in peace.
Lol, “two American blondes”? Where? Also, “to be tossed with diamonds instead of detergent pods” - is there anything more revolting and passé than flaunting bling? It gives me nightmare visions of gold-capped teeth, Cristal champagne and lowrider cars. As usual this New Yorker harridan is trying to get a rise out of people. It’s all so tiresome.
When I saw this video a few years back I thought the same; https://youtu.be/WY7qJ4Co8r0?si=FdOJ1Pie63GK0MBa
Beyonce is talented. I'd put her in the same tier as Janet Jackson.
Yes, this is a big whiff on the part of Steve
Haven't heard a song of Beyonce's but I doubt she sings as well as Olivia Newton-John did in the 70s. Of course, Beyonce is ugly and, when she was twenty-five, Olivia Newton-John was beautiful.
How come The New Yorker is keeping us up to date about Beyonce when they should be keeping us up to date about Janet Jackson?
To The New Yorker and - especially - the Guardian, Beyonce is not in the Janet tier, she is in the Mozart tier.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/apr/15/beyonce-at-coachella-review-greatest-star-of-her-generation-writes-herself-into-history
So they cannot understand why anyone is interested in the jeans/genes of some white woman when Beyonce wore some jeans too.
> Perhaps because the left is waiting for the next new cultural thing to get behind and push. LGBT is yesterday's news, Woke-DEI is beginning to die down, so what's the latest newest thing to push, to bring from the depths of the underground and into the mainstream culture at large? <
Yojimbo, I don't think there is any "next thing".
All this stuff has always been about the same thing--minority parasitism and attacking the right of white gentiles to have their nations and run them in their interests, for their posterity. That's it.
You can sort of break it down into two prongs:
1) Racism! I.e. whites are bad, oppressive, racial and ethnic minorities are virtuous and wonderful. With the overarching theme being that whites don't deserve their nations and should have them broken open, invaded and taken away from them.
2) LBGQWERTY. Normal human sexuality of the civilized races--marriage, family, children--is nothing special, oppressive and just a random choice anyway. This serves as an attack upon the idea of family, of lineage, of our debt to ancestors and responsibility to our posterity. (You are just an atom floating in the sea, unconnected--just a lifestyle consumer in the marketplace.) Again, fundamentally--an attack upon the white gentiles having nations--living breathing organic nations they are part of, that they own.
~~
Yeah, there may be some new little shit show over this or that new oppression fad. But there won't be anything that's really new. The minoritarians have long had the two wings of their assault--mass immigration and cratered fertility. You are a racist and must behave and let diverse immigrants stream into your nation. You are a sexist and must behave and accept sexual diversity, don't go thinking your sexuality is normal, that men and women are naturally complementary, that women are supposed to have babies and that preserving your nation for your kids is your job.
BTW, what's the ugly guy with the ugly tats doing in the pocket with Beyonce?
Post Malone.
Post Malone got his stage name from a "rap name generator." I wonnder what our names would be.
I did get my patron Saint, Saint Columbanus, from the random saint generator at Saints and Angels. He should be the saint for the cancelled. He's the monk shaking hands with the bear, iconographically. Columbanus got in trouble constantly irritating powerful landowners and kings by sending them the equivalent of what would be an op-ed today. He ended up in the wildernesss. From that point on, God would send squirrels to sit in his pockets whenever he was about to write something troublesome. Clever God! Squirrels are everywhere. Though I feel extra awful when I drive over one now.
A sample of videos.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLsTskih7_I&list=RDEMTB63z0qhnihj3oNEZqO0jQ&start_radio=1
> Let's talk instead about somebody who is really relevant and up to date: Beyoncé [sarcasm]
> It's fascinating how you are supposed to believe that Beyoncé, who became famous in the 1990s, is still cutting edge in 2025
It's fascinating how much of a clueless dipshit you can be. I'm not personally a fan, but Beyoncé is still relevant in 2025. She has had four hit songs in the last three years alone and just completed a record-breaking stadium tour*. Only Taylor Swift is her rival.
As an aside, she was given her mother's maiden name as her first name. WASP men of a certain age do this but I've never seen a woman do so. Stockard Channing uses her given last name as her first name and kept her first husband's last name
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_Carter_Tour
I haven't heard a decent popular song since about 1985. Pop songs since then seem to be written either by homosexuals or 16-year old girls who got stood up for the prom. Childish lyrics. And a lot of over-singing. Modern singers can't sing songs straight like Sinatra, Cole or Patsy Cline.
This says more about you than it does about popular music. Forty years is a LONG time...
Crap is crap, no matter how modern it is. Music has been crap for a very long time, from pop to rap to headbanger to computer crap. Modern music has no Beatles or Rolling Stones or Frank Sinatra or even a Fleetwood Mac or Eagles or Bruce Springsteen.
I'm sure if you were to ask any of them they would be able to point out music from the last 40 years that is worth listening to. Therefore you are being a pigheaded curmudgeon
There always has to be one "too cool for school" person who claims that they know what is good.
You're not necessarily wrong but it is still telling that the columnist has to reach back at least two and maybe closer to three decades (since her emergence) to find a black artist with widespread cross-cultural appeal. You may have to Google this but imagine referencing Sammy Davis Junior in the 1982 after the release of Thriller by Michael Jackson.
The funny thing about Sammy Davis is that as much of a cultural icon as he is, he only had four hit songs in his entire career, as opposed to Beyoncé in the last three years: Something's Gotta Give (1955), Love Me or Leave Me (1955), I've Gotta Be Me (1968), and The Candy Man (1972), although to be fair he is also known for Mr. Bojangles which became his signature song performed live.
Also, he died young* from throat cancer, outliving his father by only two years.
*and broke, as since he didn't write his songs he never got residuals
It's nice info but totally not the point, though I admit I was a bit obtuse. If somebody wrote a similar column in 1982 asking why black artist Sammy Davis Junior wasn't featured in a completely hypothetical commercial instead of, say, Harrison Ford (coming off his star breakout as Indiana Jones) as a spokesperson, the immediate reaction of virtually everyone would be to wonder why you weren't comparing Ford to Michael Jackson (who was roughly the same age as Sydney Sweeney in 1982). You keep trying to prove somebody who broke out in the 1990s is still relevant to deflect from the fact that nobody with the cross-cultural appeal of Michael Jackson has appeared since then.
If somebody has, name them.
The info on Sammy was just for background; it was not intended as an argument. However, why are you taking this so personally? Steve isn't as upset as you seem be about this
I guess one has never heard of Lizzo.
Why are people talking on the Internet about Shohei Ohtani when they should be talking Babe Ruth?
Why are they talking about Ryan Coogler's "Sinners" when Clint Eastwood's "Juror #2" was pretty good?
Baseball is more quantifiable. Ruth was great. Ohtani is great. Sinatra is great. Osbourne was crap.
I'm 65 and have never heard a Beyonce song. And I never will.
Why would you brag about being an ignorant dipshit?
Maybe he wasn’t bragging nitiwit.
You have very bad manners. By your fake name, I don't even know whether you are a man or a woman.
Describing yourself again?
The only one I ever heard was "Put a ring on it" -- it's hideous stuff.
Another person who insists on being too cool for school.
At least I post under my own name and not hide under a fake name. You are a coward.
Still trying to be too cool for school. Remember, there is no such thing as mass pop culture anymore. Try to remember.
Derek, I am …..well, I am not telling, but I didn’t know Sweeney until this debacle with the AE jeans ad. Who cares? Progressives are damn. Nothing new and exciting here.
Relevant ≠ cutting edge. Being angry and ignorant is no way to go through life.
Another banal provocation from the left via the New Yorker.
And how much longer until these screeds devolve into complaining about hair?
Zombie slop?? You absolute muppet, you psychopath. Blue jeans and mustangs are emblems of the magic America upon whose hill we will die if we must..
Lizzo vs Sydney Sweeney. https://www.boredpanda.com/lizzo-parodies-sydney-sweeney-american-eagle-advertisement/
Back in the day, there were Calvin Kline controversial ads (heroin chic) and American Apparel.
Then we went to woke era "inclusive" ads which I found totally uninteresting. And then there was this. In general, the woke police came off as out of touch...hence this Lizzo parody ad .
At least Sydney remains clearly and unapologetically female...white and non inclusive. Sweeney is actually popular with teenage girls, as much as that seems to hurt the feelings of woke media.
Beyonce has been around forever. If you look at the marketing hall of fame, for a couple of decades the most trusted product spokesperson in the USA was current sex criminal Bill Cosby.