201–210 of 230 posts
> Faced with the choice between an energy-intensive, highly competitive dating environment and the low-effort rewards of porn, young men appear to be taking the path of least resistance. If young men are dropping out of the competition and resorting to porn instead, then who's staying in the dating environment to keep it competitive? With all those porn dropouts, I should have an easy time dating, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not sexist. It's a statistical observation about human behavior. Sure, there may be females that are just looking for a male who is nice. But in general they are looking for a male who is nice and good looking and has high societal status. Just as males are looking for females that are good looking and fertile. That's what all animals do. They try to maximize their reproductive success. Humans are animals. And e…
What you're completely disregarding is the fact that nice males make for good fathers and helpful partners which is highly valuable. Your simplistic view on behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce patriarchal social constructs
When it comes to human societies; I don't buy that whole "patriarchal social constructs" thing.
Society is a matter of constant negotiation between the sexes, not something that is forced from one sex onto the other and set in stone. To believe that females are oppressed by males is to believe that females are helpless and fragile and need to be protected. Females can very much take care of themselves and are just as strong a force in shaping society - if not more so - than males.
Your simplistic view on reproductive behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce misunderstandings between the sexes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you're completely disregarding is the fact that nice males make for good fathers and helpful partners which is highly valuable. Your simplistic view on behavior results in a completely misunderstood and sexist viewpoint which only serves to reinforce patriarchal social constructs
It doesn't matter if nice males make for better fathers if that doesn't improve reproductive success. Quite the contrary. When it comes to human societies; I don't buy that whole "patriarchal social constructs" thing. Society is a matter of constant negotiation between the sexes, not something that is forced from one sex onto the other and set in stone. To believe that females are oppressed by males is to believe tha…
Were women just voluntarily not voting in the US or what?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the kids spend too much time online, so I'm not sure casting shade at them really gets us anywhere. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If anything I was "casting shade" at you for your remark about how terrible young men are. You're the one defending someone calling them "nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly". > If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (becau…
[flagged]
I think you're assuming that the vocal minority of men who spend too much time on the internet is bigger than it is proportionally to the rest of the population
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the kids spend too much time online, so I'm not sure casting shade at them really gets us anywhere. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. If anything I was "casting shade" at you for your remark about how terrible young men are. You're the one defending someone calling them "nasty/abusive/uninteresting/unintelligent/ugly". > If you're not talking to boys about Andrew Tate because it hasn't come up (becau…
[flagged]
Anyway, this is a pattern I see weirdly often on HN--person A casually insults a large group of people, and person B calls them out on it. A proceeds to clutch pearls about "guidelines" being violated as if they didn't just say something vitriolic.
Also, I'm not sure how suggesting you spend too much time online is "calling names".
Back to the point: using social media like HN isn't evidence of spending too much time online. Being unaware that Tate is a nobody outside of the internet is.
> I don't get how you can claim that they don't care about his shit if you've never actually brought him up with any of them.
Hence my accusation. The answer to this is obvious if you spend time around real people. How do you know your friends aren't flat earthers? Because those ideas appeal to a certain type of person, and they aren't that type (presumably).
There's a certain segment of the male population: insecure, awkward young guys who think that if only they can emulate the right behaviors, they'll "be a man", and for some reason their ability to get laid while displaying maximum disregard for their partner is the sole yardstick by which they measure their success. This is Tate's target audience. Ever heard of the "manosphere", internet personalities teaching guys "game" and how to "spin plates" and whatnot? Tate is just the latest iteration of that. He's not some new phenomenon.
I've known guys who follow that stuff. They're socially awkward, usually posturing, and have a thinly veiled resentment towards women.
The guys at my gym are normal, fairly well-adjusted dudes. Relaxed, usually cracking jokes, supportive of their classmates both male and female. I know they don't follow Andrew Tate because he has nothing to offer them, and they don't act like the guys who are typically into that nonsense.
> Even then, if your using "people at your gym" as your final dataset then you've got a biased sample and your data's inaccurate, at best.
Imagine that, the guy who claims that 60% of men are $LIST_OF_SUBJECTIVE_NEGATIVE_THINGS expects only the most rigorous data from his opponents. Where's your data coming from? In your highly scientific analysis, precisely how "uninteresting" or "ugly" does a poor chap have to be to fall in your 60%? SI units only, please.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter if nice males make for better fathers if that doesn't improve reproductive success. Quite the contrary. When it comes to human societies; I don't buy that whole "patriarchal social constructs" thing. Society is a matter of constant negotiation between the sexes, not something that is forced from one sex onto the other and set in stone. To believe that females are oppressed by males is to believe tha…
Females are not helpless or fragile but have definitely been historically oppressed especially in some highly religious societies Were women just voluntarily not voting in the US or what?
Voting rights were limited to rich men only. Poor men couldn't vote either. Only with the conscription into citizens' armies after the French revolution became it necessary for the "elites" to share their power. And soon after poor men gained suffrage, everyone gained suffrage. Go and check the development of voting rights in various democracies - you will find exactly this pattern.
So no; women have not been historically oppressed, not even in some highly religious societies.
Poor people have historically been oppressed. In any society.
Women had other roles than men. That doesn't mean they were oppressed. That narrative propagates capitalistic propaganda to turn the poor against themselves and to divert from the the fact that power always was limited to those with means. You know - the actual oppressors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "discrimination" has two meanings. > 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. > 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. > Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to ha…
Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better.
Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particular form of discrimination is unjust (in whatever sense you prefer).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Females are not helpless or fragile but have definitely been historically oppressed especially in some highly religious societies Were women just voluntarily not voting in the US or what?
So, you are of the impression that men were all able to vote? That's kinda funny. Voting rights were limited to rich men only. Poor men couldn't vote either. Only with the conscription into citizens' armies after the French revolution became it necessary for the "elites" to share their power. And soon after poor men gained suffrage, everyone gained suffrage. Go and check the development of voting rights in various de…
However the oppression of the poor has historically run in parallel with the oppression of women. In ancient societies, women were often excluded from political and public life, and their main role was to bear children and maintain the household. This was true in many early civilizations, such as ancient Greece, Rome, and China.
Religion also played a significant role in the oppression of women. Many religious traditions, such as Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, have traditionally placed women in subordinate roles, with men as the primary religious leaders and decision-makers.
Women were also subjected to practices such as foot-binding, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages. These practices aimed to control and limit women's movements and independence, and were often seen as necessary for maintaining social order.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word "discrimination" has two meanings. > 1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability. > 2. recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. > Deciding who to have sex with is definitely a form of discrimination. It's definitely discrimination in the sense of (2). But that doesn't seem to ha…
Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just vs. unjust is what captures the social construct part. How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? You either poll society as whole, the elites of the society, or the monarchy, depending on the type of government.
> How do you decide what is just vs. unjust? The entire field of moral philosophy is dedicated to this question. There are many ideas of how to characterize justice. I can't tell you what idea of justice you should subscribe to. There are tons of texts doing that much better. Im just pointing out that the argument that something is bad because it is discrimination is circular. Unless you also argue why that particula…