Finestkind Clinic and fish market: Why do Yanks think freedom means destroying society?

I read Ann Althouse mainly to see what the inteligencia are doing. Usually I don't read the entire article because simply I don't care: it is not my society, and has little to do with the patients I cared for, and like many peasants who look askance at the elite for lamenting their troubles, I remember what my oldest adopted son said about one such book: Mom why is she complaining? She always had enough to eat.

And today, like in many days, some of the articles Ms Althouse links to have the underlying theme as freedom vs society.

So teenage girls are anorexic because they are suicidal and depressed?

Nearly three in five teenage girls reported feeling 'persistent sadness' in 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the highest ratio in a decade. Whichever susceptibilities they are born into and whatever pain they’re feeling in the world, girls clearly seem to be taking it out on themselves. We need to ask very seriously why."

a lot of them are depressed because their parents are messed up or divorced, or sometimes because the parents pressure them to be perfect, and anorexia (and suicide) is one way to retain that control.

This is not limited to American society of course: medieval virgins went bonkers, saw visions and starved themselves to death, and toward the end of the Tale of the Gengi, one of the characters starves herself to death to appease the gods so her father will be saved from Buddhist hell (her excuse, but inreality it is so she won't be forced into a loveless marriage).

And don't forget raging hormones of teenagers and the chemicals in the envoronment (lead, heavy metals, prozac, birth control pills, and of course phytoestrogens).

But again the idea behind the article seems to be bad society (we have to destroy all the rules and make it more inclusive etc. and then these girls will be okay)

Ditto for the link that some on tic tac are editing stories of their lives like Wes Anderson.

Wes Anderson? Wikipedia notes:

His films are known for their eccentricity and unique visual and narrative styles. They often contain themes of grief, loss of innocence, and dysfunctional families. Cited by some critics as a modern-day example of the work of an auteur, three of Anderson's films have appeared in BBC Culture's 2016 poll of the greatest films since 2000.

You know, I've heard about most of his films but didn't watch any: They seem to be about the "Belly button gazing" narcissistic type films that I find boring but win oodles of awards. And if Wikipedia is to be believed, a lot of the audiences who didn't rush to see them agree with me.

then there is an article discussing if one works for meaning and creativity. Sounds interesting, but a lot of folks work because they are supporting their family.

then we have a figure skater who wants to dance with another girl: Not because of the lack of male skaters, which is a problem, but because she rejects the idea of male/female pairing in the dancing:

(I) felt that was imposed on us, which, for me, never felt authentic. And I don’t think I’m the only one thinking that.... It’s just nice to explore something that exists in me but I had never explored on the ice before."

I am reminded of the line in Out of Africa, where Blixen finds her husband decided to grow coffee instead of what she had planned: The next time you decide to do something, do it with your own money.

She wants to express herself? Fine. Do it with your own money, and stop trying to destroy the beauty of dance on ice (where most ordinary folks love to watch dance, since classical dance is not found much in modern culture). Nor, of course, is her idea original: A couple films touted the same gender destroying ideas, but they were boring and I can't be bothered looking up their names.

Is she wanting to express herself, or is she looking for approval by the woke, or is she just want join the PC movement to ridicule those non bohemians in the audience who still believe male and females pair bond via courtship rituals like dancing, and the go on to marry and start families?

the phrase "go woke, get broke" is real.

And having another girl lift you up you are risking the broke part if she drops you... unless she is a he who decided he is a girl of course, then they still have muscles and the strength to do this.

Sorry: I am being snotty.

Then Althouse links to an article by Charles Blow, about creativity... All I know about Blow is that he is an intellectual and that he is a big shot in intellectual urban circles ...Blow writes:

I want freedom in all things: thinking, working, loving and living. That’s one reason I look forward to becoming one of those men with the quirky suspenders, bow ties and orange socks. I’ve often been delighted by how older men lean into sartorial whimsy.... They return to that magic that we all enjoyed as children.

and Althouse comments:

I don't really understand it. If you "want freedom in all things: thinking, working, loving and living," why wait to express yourself? It sounds as though you want the cover of age. What's the freedom in doing something only when you think other people will think that what you do doesn't matter?

Again, this assumes that destroying rules leads to freedom, but it also assumes that art if about destroying rules and destroying normality.

In most of the societies where I have worked, people are not seen as isolated individuals who should be free of all restraints, but as part of society and part of the family. And your actions are limited by internal rules: what in the Philippines is called Hiya, customs and rules that enable you to live together, because in poor countries, if you are alone, you will literally die of starvation.

Ironically, even our baclas and tomboys and sex workers are still part of the family if they follow these cultural rules, whereas if you add drugs into the stresses of a changing society, you get collapse, because drug seeking behavior becomes stronger than your conscience. Hence, the phrase Walan Hiya for those without shame.

Ironically, despite all the calls to destroy the rules because "multiculturalism", a lot of these rules (in various variations) are the norm all over the world, at least in areas where people live, not in those who pretend to speak for their own native culture while instead spouting cliches of leftist intellectuals.

In contrast to most cultures, where family is important and where denying your own wishes so that the family can survive, American culture stresses individual freedom over cooperation and traditional rules.

Uh, you need both, and one of the problems of cancel culture is that you no longer are allowed to say that.

Cancel culture posits a dualism that you either have to chose their rejection of the norm, i.e. anarchy/no rules or end up in a rigid society with no freedom and being called a nazi or racist or whatever.

Nonsense.

this film that questions that idea, which was what we were taught in college in the 1960s. Ironically, the film was made by Chuck Jones, whose film creations are part of culture and watched by a lot more people than Anderson who is touted above. (hint: BeepBeep).

,,,,

for a deeper intellectual discussion of this issue:

this all started 100 plus years ago with the pre WWI avant garde, who rejected the vocation of the artist was to show beauty, and changed to the idea that the vocation of the artist was to destroy normality.

the backstory is to make a utopia, as Tom Wolfe notes in his book from Bauhaus to our house. and the Wikipedia page on Brutalist architecture.

It says a lot that Roger Scruton got canceled by the UK for his ideas, and his classic BBC special on why beauty matters is hard to find on the internet but you can still find it on Vimeo: