love the article but it quickly went from being well written and thought provoking to pushing the writer’s political views into your face and while i appreciate that the point of writing is to give voice to the writer i didn’t feel like it was necessary here because it wasn’t the point
I think the internet plays a huge part in how "punk rock" is perceived today versus 40 years ago. Back then, we who chose to exist outside of the system were just stoners and delinquents. We had to think for ourselves because we were ditching class and rebelling against things that simply didn't suit our preferred terms. Growing up that way made us the independent adults we are today--Gen X. I know only a handful of ex-punk/stoner/degenerates who now espouse the Democrat party, but I give them their props because I believe their choices are their own, and not just social conformity.
Today, kids seem to choose their cliques based on clicks. Terms have been hijacked and redefined simply because it's cool to redefine terms. Hell, they even hijacked "punk rock" to mean something other than punk rock. If you'd asked a punk rock kid what it meant to be punk rock in ninety-eighty-something, I don't know what the answer might have been, but it certainly wouldn't have included giving society the middle finger while listening to John Mayer or whatever the fuck his name is.
More accurately, making punk rock into a label is the most anti-punk rock thing anyone can do.
I haven’t seen anyone address the ironic shift in punk culture, it’s so “rage with the machine” it’s hilarious when people think they are rebels and simultaneously sync up with NYT op ed, legacy media, career politicians, celebrity influencers…
I love this. OG punk did teach us it’s ok not to fit in and it’s badass to have a spine and think for yourself. Cheers to building a meaningful, productive, beautiful life and rebelling against oppressive power schemes.
I admire your eloquence engaging with debate in the comments.
This might be my favorite thing you’ve written yet. Rage Against the Machine really does capture the moment—only now it’s stretched across both ends of the yin/yang extremes. Here’s hoping that out of all this tension we get a genuine punk or avant-garde revival. 🤞🤞
What if someone feels truly about some of those things you seem to be against and sticks to that truth. Regardless of consequence. Just because there are groups without a doubt co-opting some of the list you mentioned doesn’t mean that there aren’t those who live it as their truth. Probably to their great detriment. Being punk rock is living your personal truth and thinking for yourself no matter who disagrees. Punk rock is sticking to your own ethos. Should say, as long as you’re not harming others.
Live and let live is a great mantra and I agree, people should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn’t harm others. However, reality and truth doesn’t care about lived experience or feelings—it just is. 2+2=4 no matter how someone “feels” about it. And regarding “those things I seem to disagree with”—those things are rooted in biological reality. Things like transitioning children, for example, do harm other people. Just because groups “co-opt things” doesn’t make those things right.
Truth is reality for all intents and purposes. Agreed on young children and the hormone situation. However, not my lived experience so really don’t have a right to comment one way or another. Totally disagree that lived experience doesn’t matter. It most certainly does.
I never said lived experience doesn't matter, I simply said it doesn't make it the Truth. There's not "your truth" and "my truth"—there is only The Truth.
I would agree with that. Except these days people just make shit up and say it’s the truth. A large swath of the country. More on one side than the other but lots of full of shit out there right now.
"That doesn’t mean going full prepper or tradwife or off-the-grid monk (unless that’s your thing). It just means not letting mass consensus replace personal discernment. It means asking: who benefits from me believing this? And what happens if I don’t?"
yup who benefits from me conforming and believing all this non-binary stuff is real? i mean it's a just representation. it's only a map put not the territory. i wish i could be known as disagreeing and understanding you -non-binary, transcending gender people- are only using mental models. and mental models are just ways of seeing the world not the truth.
blah...lots of people would stop talking to me. perhaps.
"nothing is true, everything is permitted" has been taken off the rails. of course it could and it has been.
I think the punks need to go a step further. Simple statements of reality can be used to justify anything from regressive policies to atrocious behavior. Intellectual courage must include dealing with how these truths influence action, not simply seeing that they are stated.
would be great to see punks saying things of significance instead of walking down hollywood blvd with a sign saying "i'll clean your stinky pussy for $5". where is the thoughtfulness and the and worth while endevour? "nothing matters therefore i'll do anything that thrills me", "or i want to be edgy"??? is that close to the thinking. well it sux.
I agree. But since so many people can't even bring themselves to admit well-established truths out loud, I think saying them is of the utmost importance right now. Until the silent majority starts to speak up, we'll be stuck with these narratives.
I'm glad you agree - we want our thinkers to go further!! But here you seem sure that you are on the side of the silent majority. Isn't that engaging in the politics of identity? What is the Silent Majority if not an identity? Based on its name and the implications thereof, how can anyone be sure they are a member?
The silent majority is definitely not an identity, it’s a sociological pattern. When the loudest voices control media, schools, and culture—and most people quietly disagree but say nothing out of fear—that’s not ideology lol
I recommend reading Todd Rose's book "Collective Illusions" if you haven't already. He does a great job of explaining how we end up with a silent majority to begin with and what it means for society.
I have not read heard of the book that you suggest - thank you for the recommendation, I'll seek it out. But Stef, you didn't engage with my point. You maintain that you know who it is and what ideas there are in this 'silent majority' - and that it is a truth in place today. I'm sure that the pattern you describe is one of sociological validity, but - does it actually exist today in our society in the manner you believe? What evidence do you have that it does? Why are you laughing out loud at the idea that you are caught in this concept being an ideological trap?
God, I love you Stepfanie! Your intellect is unique, your eloquence, inspirational, and your passion, completely aligned with the God's...but that's just my opinion. Write on, girl!
Just as an aside, as 'We are all created in HIS image', so yes, we do know. That's one of my favorite things about be a human being...we're the highest creatures, on the greatest planet, in all the Universe.
Hey, Step, I'm an ol' timer musician with a collection of music I've produced over the last 40 or so years that you just might like. May I send a song to you for consideration? You could use it or NOT however you might choose, no obligation. So give me an email if you're interested. Thanks!
I'm duane.evans @charter.net (*I think you and I are on the same plain*)
I'm not going to cancel my subscription—though I’ve been tempted—because I find your posts thought-provoking. While I generally agree with your underlying concepts, I strongly disagree with the political lens through which you apply them.
Your alignment with socially conservative trends—particularly the current suppression of fluid gender identities, which are distinct from biological sex—and your apparent disdain for drag queens and perhaps other LGBTQ identities is troubling. Your comment that “men and women are different” oversimplifies a complex topic, and the remark “no thanks to drag queen storytime” comes across as unnecessary and dismissive.
I too Stepfanie, am having these exact same thoughts. Your content is thought provoking, and I can agree with underlying concepts. But the drag comment was off. where is this even happening? And what is wrong with it? If it is, isn’t that more punk than anything? and while I agree that there are obvious differences between men/women , I do think you are flattening the subject. I thought you were after nuanced thought and that doesn’t feel very nuanced to me.
I am after nuance. But on this, there’s no ambiguity. Boys are not girls. Men and women are fundamentally different—and no amount of cultural theorizing changes that.
Drag queen story hour has happened across schools and libraries and is usually public funded. It’s not a myth. And yes, I draw a hard line between adult identity performance and children’s developmental spaces.
Nuance doesn’t mean entertaining every idea like it might be valid. It means knowing which ones to dismiss—and why.
Anton, I was simply trying to reference a concrete example from the article that I found troubling. I don’t see gender as an “obsession,” but I do believe it exists on a continuum distinct from biological sex. I’m sorry if that perspective bothers you.
I find it a bit ironic that you’re upset I have a “political lens” while filtering everything through your own, but I appreciate you laying out your position.
I think this is where we fundamentally diverge—not just politically, but epistemologically.
“Gender fluidity” isn’t a coherent category when examined from a systems or first principles lens. If gender is purely a social construct, then it has no intrinsic essence—and therefore cannot be “felt” in some innate or internal way. But if it does have an essence, then that implies an underlying structure, which brings us right back to biology, evolution, and sexual dimorphism.
You can’t have it both ways: either gender is performative (in which case “fluidity” is just theater), or it’s rooted in something real, stable, and biologically constrained. The popular rhetoric tries to merge both, but contradicts itself at every turn. It claims gender is both entirely subjective and somehow deeply innate, simultaneously meaningless and sacred.
From a systems lens, male and female are not arbitrary—they’re necessary for the propagation of life. Every culture on earth, across time, has organized around this reproductive distinction because it’s not just cultural—it’s functional.
So when I say “men and women are different,” I’m not flattening complexity, I’m anchoring to reality. And when I reject “drag queen story hour” for children, it’s because no healthy society sexualizes identity performance in front of toddlers and calls it progress.
What you’re calling “troubling” is simply my refusal to adopt a belief system that breaks under basic logical and biological pressure.
I’m dismissive because I’ve thought about it deeply. I’ve looked at it through systems theory, developmental psychology, evolutionary biology, and first principles—not to mention, my literal college degree in Women's and Gender Studies. And it doesn’t hold up.
I believe you may have misunderstood my point. I’m not upset that your political perspective differs from the one shaped by my own experiences and thinking—nor would I expect otherwise, regardless of where our viewpoints align or diverge. What surprises me is that I find myself in agreement with many of the concepts you express, yet completely at odds with your conclusions. That’s why I continue to read your posts, though I must admit I’ll be glad when you move beyond this political minefield and return to the more introspective writing that first drew me in.
One thing that us old punks understood was that we're GOING to stand out, we're not going to fit in, we're not looking to be accepted by the public at large. Going the face tattoo, piercing, ear gauge, and liberty spikes is not going to get you an office job. Realize that's part of the cost.
Good God, this should be a class in high schools!!
love the article but it quickly went from being well written and thought provoking to pushing the writer’s political views into your face and while i appreciate that the point of writing is to give voice to the writer i didn’t feel like it was necessary here because it wasn’t the point
What political views did I push?
Fuck. Yes.
🌶️
I cannot explain how much your perspective means to me.
Loved every sentence of this piece.
I think the internet plays a huge part in how "punk rock" is perceived today versus 40 years ago. Back then, we who chose to exist outside of the system were just stoners and delinquents. We had to think for ourselves because we were ditching class and rebelling against things that simply didn't suit our preferred terms. Growing up that way made us the independent adults we are today--Gen X. I know only a handful of ex-punk/stoner/degenerates who now espouse the Democrat party, but I give them their props because I believe their choices are their own, and not just social conformity.
Today, kids seem to choose their cliques based on clicks. Terms have been hijacked and redefined simply because it's cool to redefine terms. Hell, they even hijacked "punk rock" to mean something other than punk rock. If you'd asked a punk rock kid what it meant to be punk rock in ninety-eighty-something, I don't know what the answer might have been, but it certainly wouldn't have included giving society the middle finger while listening to John Mayer or whatever the fuck his name is.
More accurately, making punk rock into a label is the most anti-punk rock thing anyone can do.
Your brain is a weapon😂👏I love watching you go to work!
THIS IS SO GOOD
I haven’t seen anyone address the ironic shift in punk culture, it’s so “rage with the machine” it’s hilarious when people think they are rebels and simultaneously sync up with NYT op ed, legacy media, career politicians, celebrity influencers…
I love this. OG punk did teach us it’s ok not to fit in and it’s badass to have a spine and think for yourself. Cheers to building a meaningful, productive, beautiful life and rebelling against oppressive power schemes.
I admire your eloquence engaging with debate in the comments.
This might be my favorite thing you’ve written yet. Rage Against the Machine really does capture the moment—only now it’s stretched across both ends of the yin/yang extremes. Here’s hoping that out of all this tension we get a genuine punk or avant-garde revival. 🤞🤞
What if someone feels truly about some of those things you seem to be against and sticks to that truth. Regardless of consequence. Just because there are groups without a doubt co-opting some of the list you mentioned doesn’t mean that there aren’t those who live it as their truth. Probably to their great detriment. Being punk rock is living your personal truth and thinking for yourself no matter who disagrees. Punk rock is sticking to your own ethos. Should say, as long as you’re not harming others.
Live and let live is a great mantra and I agree, people should be able to do what they want so long as it doesn’t harm others. However, reality and truth doesn’t care about lived experience or feelings—it just is. 2+2=4 no matter how someone “feels” about it. And regarding “those things I seem to disagree with”—those things are rooted in biological reality. Things like transitioning children, for example, do harm other people. Just because groups “co-opt things” doesn’t make those things right.
Truth is reality for all intents and purposes. Agreed on young children and the hormone situation. However, not my lived experience so really don’t have a right to comment one way or another. Totally disagree that lived experience doesn’t matter. It most certainly does.
I never said lived experience doesn't matter, I simply said it doesn't make it the Truth. There's not "your truth" and "my truth"—there is only The Truth.
I would agree with that. Except these days people just make shit up and say it’s the truth. A large swath of the country. More on one side than the other but lots of full of shit out there right now.
"That doesn’t mean going full prepper or tradwife or off-the-grid monk (unless that’s your thing). It just means not letting mass consensus replace personal discernment. It means asking: who benefits from me believing this? And what happens if I don’t?"
yup who benefits from me conforming and believing all this non-binary stuff is real? i mean it's a just representation. it's only a map put not the territory. i wish i could be known as disagreeing and understanding you -non-binary, transcending gender people- are only using mental models. and mental models are just ways of seeing the world not the truth.
blah...lots of people would stop talking to me. perhaps.
"nothing is true, everything is permitted" has been taken off the rails. of course it could and it has been.
I think the punks need to go a step further. Simple statements of reality can be used to justify anything from regressive policies to atrocious behavior. Intellectual courage must include dealing with how these truths influence action, not simply seeing that they are stated.
would be great to see punks saying things of significance instead of walking down hollywood blvd with a sign saying "i'll clean your stinky pussy for $5". where is the thoughtfulness and the and worth while endevour? "nothing matters therefore i'll do anything that thrills me", "or i want to be edgy"??? is that close to the thinking. well it sux.
I agree. But since so many people can't even bring themselves to admit well-established truths out loud, I think saying them is of the utmost importance right now. Until the silent majority starts to speak up, we'll be stuck with these narratives.
I'm glad you agree - we want our thinkers to go further!! But here you seem sure that you are on the side of the silent majority. Isn't that engaging in the politics of identity? What is the Silent Majority if not an identity? Based on its name and the implications thereof, how can anyone be sure they are a member?
The silent majority is definitely not an identity, it’s a sociological pattern. When the loudest voices control media, schools, and culture—and most people quietly disagree but say nothing out of fear—that’s not ideology lol
I recommend reading Todd Rose's book "Collective Illusions" if you haven't already. He does a great job of explaining how we end up with a silent majority to begin with and what it means for society.
I have not read heard of the book that you suggest - thank you for the recommendation, I'll seek it out. But Stef, you didn't engage with my point. You maintain that you know who it is and what ideas there are in this 'silent majority' - and that it is a truth in place today. I'm sure that the pattern you describe is one of sociological validity, but - does it actually exist today in our society in the manner you believe? What evidence do you have that it does? Why are you laughing out loud at the idea that you are caught in this concept being an ideological trap?
God, I love you Stepfanie! Your intellect is unique, your eloquence, inspirational, and your passion, completely aligned with the God's...but that's just my opinion. Write on, girl!
Kiss!
Has anyone let the Gods know?? (I kid, I kid)
I'm calling them now and I am certain that they will alert the media. But if not, I know...
Just as an aside, as 'We are all created in HIS image', so yes, we do know. That's one of my favorite things about be a human being...we're the highest creatures, on the greatest planet, in all the Universe.
Hey, Step, I'm an ol' timer musician with a collection of music I've produced over the last 40 or so years that you just might like. May I send a song to you for consideration? You could use it or NOT however you might choose, no obligation. So give me an email if you're interested. Thanks!
I'm duane.evans @charter.net (*I think you and I are on the same plain*)
Or is it "plane"? You're the writer! I have questions...
I'm not going to cancel my subscription—though I’ve been tempted—because I find your posts thought-provoking. While I generally agree with your underlying concepts, I strongly disagree with the political lens through which you apply them.
I'm curious to know which part of the lens you're strongly disagreeing with?
Your alignment with socially conservative trends—particularly the current suppression of fluid gender identities, which are distinct from biological sex—and your apparent disdain for drag queens and perhaps other LGBTQ identities is troubling. Your comment that “men and women are different” oversimplifies a complex topic, and the remark “no thanks to drag queen storytime” comes across as unnecessary and dismissive.
I too Stepfanie, am having these exact same thoughts. Your content is thought provoking, and I can agree with underlying concepts. But the drag comment was off. where is this even happening? And what is wrong with it? If it is, isn’t that more punk than anything? and while I agree that there are obvious differences between men/women , I do think you are flattening the subject. I thought you were after nuanced thought and that doesn’t feel very nuanced to me.
I am after nuance. But on this, there’s no ambiguity. Boys are not girls. Men and women are fundamentally different—and no amount of cultural theorizing changes that.
Drag queen story hour has happened across schools and libraries and is usually public funded. It’s not a myth. And yes, I draw a hard line between adult identity performance and children’s developmental spaces.
Nuance doesn’t mean entertaining every idea like it might be valid. It means knowing which ones to dismiss—and why.
"Nuance" ≠ denying biological reality
I wrote more on this in the comments above.
This is grooming.
Drag Queen Story Hour in schools.
Look it up.
I'm so sick of people bringing gender into literally every discussion.
Anton, I was simply trying to reference a concrete example from the article that I found troubling. I don’t see gender as an “obsession,” but I do believe it exists on a continuum distinct from biological sex. I’m sorry if that perspective bothers you.
Especially considering what I said in the piece was simply "men and women are different" 🤷🏻♀️
I find it a bit ironic that you’re upset I have a “political lens” while filtering everything through your own, but I appreciate you laying out your position.
I think this is where we fundamentally diverge—not just politically, but epistemologically.
“Gender fluidity” isn’t a coherent category when examined from a systems or first principles lens. If gender is purely a social construct, then it has no intrinsic essence—and therefore cannot be “felt” in some innate or internal way. But if it does have an essence, then that implies an underlying structure, which brings us right back to biology, evolution, and sexual dimorphism.
You can’t have it both ways: either gender is performative (in which case “fluidity” is just theater), or it’s rooted in something real, stable, and biologically constrained. The popular rhetoric tries to merge both, but contradicts itself at every turn. It claims gender is both entirely subjective and somehow deeply innate, simultaneously meaningless and sacred.
From a systems lens, male and female are not arbitrary—they’re necessary for the propagation of life. Every culture on earth, across time, has organized around this reproductive distinction because it’s not just cultural—it’s functional.
So when I say “men and women are different,” I’m not flattening complexity, I’m anchoring to reality. And when I reject “drag queen story hour” for children, it’s because no healthy society sexualizes identity performance in front of toddlers and calls it progress.
What you’re calling “troubling” is simply my refusal to adopt a belief system that breaks under basic logical and biological pressure.
I’m dismissive because I’ve thought about it deeply. I’ve looked at it through systems theory, developmental psychology, evolutionary biology, and first principles—not to mention, my literal college degree in Women's and Gender Studies. And it doesn’t hold up.
I believe you may have misunderstood my point. I’m not upset that your political perspective differs from the one shaped by my own experiences and thinking—nor would I expect otherwise, regardless of where our viewpoints align or diverge. What surprises me is that I find myself in agreement with many of the concepts you express, yet completely at odds with your conclusions. That’s why I continue to read your posts, though I must admit I’ll be glad when you move beyond this political minefield and return to the more introspective writing that first drew me in.
Or rather, what lens you think I’m applying—bc my goal is to test ideas against reality, not against party lines.
One thing that us old punks understood was that we're GOING to stand out, we're not going to fit in, we're not looking to be accepted by the public at large. Going the face tattoo, piercing, ear gauge, and liberty spikes is not going to get you an office job. Realize that's part of the cost.
I guess there's a cost to conforming, and a cost of not...