Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Men Without Work (2016)

time.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 471 posts

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#381

Post by draw_down »

isthisthingon99 wrote: post #63
javajosh wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you need to apologize and explain why you care about issues that might affect men is telling in and of itself. The American Zeitgeist around gender issues is distorted to dehumanize men and alienate anyone who even dares to recognize this fact. I'm a pretty hardcore liberal and I I'm totally astonished on a daily basis at the hate in vitriol directed at men that go without comment, let alone castigation…

I had the same reaction to his first sentence. Why do you need to say that?

[dead]

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#382

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

xg15 wrote: post #312
lordfrito wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all about the social contract. Which is largely culturally dependent. Society may have never cared about young men, but (as someone else said here) the old contract with men here was build and fight wars and monogamy is enforced most will get the opportunity to raise their own family. As I get older I realize that evolution is less about me and my DNA and more about the cultural DNA of civilization. There's indi…

Yeah no, that's social darwinism. If you follow that logic through, then only the ultra-conservative cultures that turn women into breeding machines and then relentlessly indoctrinate the next generation to do the same have a chance to survive. I also don't quite get what exactly you're criticizing. Life has become too easy, which somehow in turn makes life unbearably hard for young men, so they rightfully escape and…

>If you follow that logic through, then only the ultra-conservative cultures that turn women into breeding machines and then relentlessly indoctrinate the next generation to do the same have a chance to survive.

Your dismissive comment would be funny if it wasn't being proven true right now. European people are currently slowly being replaced in some cities in Europe as over half of the newborns are now from middle eastern/Muslim and African immigrant families precisely because in their culture they treat their women as breeding machines that are supposed to sit at home to take care of the kids and house chores while the male is working and providing. You know, exactly like how it was in the west over 70 years ago up till the baby boomer generation.

The Europeans of today don't reproduces as much since they pushed women into the traditional male only workforce and the males of today are expected to climb the work ladder even higher than women in order to be seen as a desirable mating partner, while also making the traditional stay-at-home mom taking care of the kids instead of pursuing a career and an independent lifestyle be seen as something shameful and old fashioned for modern European women, leading young Europeans to spend most of their prime reproductive years studying, working and competing for jobs and overpriced housing instead of reproducing, leading to their demographic collapse.

So yeah, the ones who reproduce more are surviving, displacing those who don't reproduce. I'm surprised you're trying to argue against such an obvious fact.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#383

Post by fxtentacle »

itsmemattchung wrote: post #324
lordfrito wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. We can pat ourselves on the back about changing gender roles, but the fact remains that when a man loses his job his chance of divorce goes way up. [1] Personally I think trying to reprogram humans to fight biology is a lost cause. But people keep trying. [1] https://time.com/4425061/unemployment-divorce-men-women/

Strikes fear in my heart. Just a little over a year ago, July 2021, I left FAANG to start my own software consulting company and there were periods of feast or famine (especially during early days...I mean its still early days, I guess) with the income exploding then dropping to nil. In order to preserve my marriage, I sometimes (okay, often) wonder whether I should return back to the old 9-5. Life trade offs.

You could set up a Corp so that revenue goes into the company and you pay yourself a salary every month. That way, the Corp smoothes out variations before they reach your private bank account.

Also might enable tax and other savings because then you purchase health insurance as a company, not as a freelancer.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#384

Post by dudul »

lazide wrote: post #343
dudul wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If things are so dire, why aren't women drafted too? Why is anyone allowed to leave the country?

Because they need physically strong folks able to fight in subzero temperatures while carrying heavy equipment, willing to run into enemy fire to save their friends or family despite extreme danger to themselves, with familiarity and ability to live in harsh outdoor conditions (or even enjoy it), and with a willingness to bayonet, shoot, or explode a stranger to death because of the uniform they are wearing (with a m…

I don't know, I've been told anything a man can do, a woman can do - often better.

Also, I dont know if we can use "willing" when talking about people who are forced to do it.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#385

Post by ajsnigrutin »

lazide wrote: post #340
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people including armies don't want to kill you, a civillian. Even more so if you move away for the time of the war and then come back after it's over. The problem is, that your own government won't let you leave, will make you fight (and probably die) and imprison you if you desert.

If you were in Mariupol, or Bakhmut, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Stalingrad, it sure didn't matter if you were a civilian or not. And hell, all of Eastern Europe during WW2, it barely mattered. When it did, that might mean 'just' getting shot and pushed into a ditch instead of shot and left on the battlefield. And the reason that societies don't just let folks leave is because the whole is stronger than the parts -…

> If you were in Mariupol, or Bakhmut, or Dresden, or Hiroshima, or Stalingrad, it sure didn't matter if you were a civilian or not. And hell, all of Eastern Europe during WW2, it barely mattered. When it did, that might mean 'just' getting shot and pushed into a ditch instead of shot and left on the battlefield.

Yes, I know, that's why I'd pack and leave... I don't want to live in "a society" that expects me to die for it.

> And the reason that societies don't just let folks leave is because the whole is stronger than the parts - and they don’t want you or some other part bailing and getting them all killed.

So, they want to use me as a human shield? Sure, another reason to leave.

> While certainly a survival strategy for an individual to desert, it has heavy costs - and don't expect any friends in those who are left behind.

Who cares, they'll be dead anyway and i'll be alive somewhere far away and safe.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#386

Post by ajsnigrutin »

dudul wrote: post #337
lazide wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is society trying to protect and sustain itself. And frankly, what other options are there?

If things are so dire, why aren't women drafted too? Why is anyone allowed to leave the country?

It's bad for morale, bad for international PR reasons, most aren't as capable of fighting as most men are,... but in the end, if things get tough, women and children get drafted too.

There were some talks about that in ukraine recently, but nothing much happened on that, so women can still leave the country. - https://www.kyivpost.com/russias-war/confusion-as-registrati...

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#387

Post by wadd1e »

xg15 wrote: post #272
bluefirebrand wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> E.g., I haven't yet seen a feminist sub on reddit excuse a female rapist They don't have to, society already does this for them all the time. Pay attention to how media frames the crime when a female teacher sleeps with an underage male student versus when a male teacher rapes an underaged female student. My word choices are deliberate here. In a vast majority of headlines and articles I've seen, if the perpetrator…

Yep, I've seen this as well. What I've haven't seen is actual feminists endorsing those articles. This makes me think this kind of narrative stems more from "woke captialist" media or from people pushing the "men are always happy about sexual attention" narrative. That narrative is considered part of "toxic maskulinity" - exactly the mindset that feminists want to get rid of. Also note that (in the US) the legal defi…

That reminds me that even now, in the UK, rape is legally defined as "when a person intentionally penetrates another's vagina, anus or mouth with a penis, without the other person's consent."[0] So biological females literally cannot be convicted of rape.

[0]: https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/...

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#388

Post by badpun »

TylerE wrote: post #76
javajosh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>in theory I'd like and participate in the "men's rights" subreddit, in reality it's a pit of toxicity. Indeed, but so is the equivalent feminism subreddit (try "r/askafeminist" for example). And yet "women's rights" don't have the same stigma as "men's rights". What explains this asymmetry? Why is it some movements get defined by their extremists, and others don't? >: a lot of this societal pressure against men bein…

Is it really that hard to understand the difference between a historically oppressed minority and the minority that historically was doing the oppressing?

Let's not forget that most white men on Earth were always in the "oppressed" group. In Europe, you were either in the aristocracy, in some semi-privileged class like clergy, or you were working super hard for a living, and sometimes (fairly regularly in some countries, e.g. France) died due to starvation. In America, it was similar - yes, there were some slave owners, but majority of white men were living and working in abhorrent, dickensians conditions in the slums of New York etc. or living a tough, poor and primitve live rural life, while being opressed by nature itself.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#389

Post by yucky »

dbingham wrote: post #371
yucky wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your worker co-op utopia, when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? If not, wouldn't I just be an outside capitalist investor in my old company at that point? If yes, then am I bought out by the existing owners in an equitable manner? Or do new employees get my share of ownership? If they do…

Note, it's not a utopia - just better, not perfect. It's a refactor. An iteration on the existing system. > when say you envision the workers as the owners, how exactly does one change jobs then? Would I be forced to sell my ownership any/every time I wanted to leave a job? Open question. I think there are a couple of ways you could explore implementing this. One would be through ownership similar to what you describ…

    > Another approach would be to consider businesses as institutions to be governed, rather than property to be owned. In this case, no one owns the business.
This is probably the quickest way possible to ensure no new businesses are created, ever. There would be no incentive, and if the government has proven anything it's that it is the least efficient institution ever created.

     > The cooperative would have to maintain capital reserves to cover this case.
The math on this doesn't work.

    > I think there are existing worker cooperatives experimenting with both implementations
Indeed, and now we know why they're not significant enterprises in any way.

Re: Men Without Work (2016)

#390

Post by P_I_Staker »

scottLobster wrote: post #69
ianai wrote: post #2

In lieu of any particular review I’m submitting the Wikipedia page. I was unemployed for most of the Great Recession and can empathize with much of this book. I also just remember the “tragedy of my twenties” realizing society had basically no interest in me. Despite a math degree and IT/programming experience. Then the myriad people I’ve interacted with in the last decade plus who are in this situation. Luckily I no…

Yeah it seems like there used to be a cultural value of putting people to work. Generally speaking you had to be a real fuck-up to not get a job. Maybe the jobs available weren't the best, but you could get something to pay for basic food/housing with little effort or credentialing. The attitude was, if you were a decent person and willing to work, "come by and we'll find something for you to do". Now the zeitgeist i…

> "Why should we give you the gift of this job? Speak quickly and well, lest we cast you back into the void! You are a piece of shit until proven otherwise!"

This is so damaging to our culture. Also, getting really sick of these insanely specific reqs, then when qualified people don't show up begging on their hands and knees: "nobody wants to work anymore".

Post reply on HN