Live data from Hacker News

The Great Feminization

compactmag.com

21–30 of 68 posts

Re: The Great Feminization

#21

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether…

> The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities.

Straightforward male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom, including the other great apes.

Honestly, even entertaining this idea is female-coded. In a male space, the denial of so obvious a reality would be dismissed out of hand as obviously retarded.

Re: The Great Feminization

#22
post #16

What an absolutely hilarious idea that appeals to emotion are a uniquely feminine way to tackle a problem, while men just go on and make logical arguments, which I assume they then scrutinize rationally to be convinced by the most rigorously argued-for one.

The purely analytical professions are dominated by men. The caring, empathy-forward professions are dominated by women. This is purely coincidental.

Re: The Great Feminization

#24

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether…

> The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. Straightforward male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom, including the other great apes. Honestly, even entertaining this idea is female-coded. In a male space, the denial of so obvious a reality would be dismissed out of hand as obviously retarded.

Are you saying other male animals don’t perform the tasks usually attributed to human females? Look up the behavior of male penguins in the Arctics. There are many such examples, have Chat look them up for you.

Re: The Great Feminization

#25
No additional comment on the male vs female thing, just want to say that the "proof by emotion" described in the article is something to watch out for in universities.

One example of many I remember was a social/music class where the prof asked the lecture if there are any innate, non-culture-specific features that make music enjoyable. I raised my hand to say I think so, because octave equivalence seems pretty universal, but the right answer was no. Suggesting that there's anything innate about music means you can't chalk everything up to cultural difference, leading to the possibility that some cultures have better music than others, which needless to say would be very offensive. So I learned something valuable.

Re: The Great Feminization

#26
> This cancellation was feminine, the essay argued, because all cancellations are feminine. Cancel culture is simply what women do […] Everything you think of as “wokeness” is simply an epiphenomenon of demographic feminization.

Did she intend to make that veiled dig suggesting the “feminization” of MAGA with the recent highly emotional calls for cancellation lead by the (feminine??) Trump, Vance, Carr?

For the rest of it, randomly spouting off things she heard random others tell her were true -- makes it true I guess?

Re: The Great Feminization

#27

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether…

If you look at things like physical strength for instance, the difference is quite marked. That some females can be stronger than some men does not change the fundamental distribution. This is not a construct of the mind. If male and female abilities differ, it should follow that our social expectations differ.

So all of Donald Trumps arguments are emotional, and illogical.

Are you saying he is actually a woman?

Re: The Great Feminization

#28
post #16

What an absolutely hilarious idea that appeals to emotion are a uniquely feminine way to tackle a problem, while men just go on and make logical arguments, which I assume they then scrutinize rationally to be convinced by the most rigorously argued-for one.

The purely analytical professions are dominated by men. The caring, empathy-forward professions are dominated by women. This is purely coincidental.

If, when asked why most mathematicians are men, from the whole universe of possibilities there are only two reasons that come to your mind: women are emotional, or it's random chance - then I have really bad news about your talent for male rationality and critical thinking.

Re: The Great Feminization

#29
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind No, they are not. And when we take into account that they are not, the whole argument breaks down.

Are you going to make an argument here? This isn’t aggressive or empathetic. Trying to mask your gender????

If we are just going to be serious here, the morphology of females differs significantly from males, and there are well documented behavioral biases that have been shown to predate or even defy socialization time and time again.

Just because some people -want- men and women to be interchangeable in all respects does not mean that they are, or can be.

Women bring a critical set of biases and skills to the human condition, as do men. There is technologically no escape from sex determined role differentiation at a statistically significant scale without dooming humanity to population decline and rapid extinction.

Even if it were possible, is it wise to ignore the wisdom of millions of years of evolution, hard won by countless suffering and deaths? Should we blindly lunge toward an ill tested notion of “equality”, ignoring the sociopolitical and cultural risks we now are bearing witness to, undercutting the very ideals of self determination and individual freedom and allowing an easy entry point for totalitarian aspirations?

The simple, inescapable truth is that statistically, men hold the monopoly of coercive force on the planet, and all rights that women enjoy are therefore in effect granted by men. We don’t have to look far to see what happens in societies where this kind of affordance is considered unwise.

Whether one wishes it were so or not, the overstepping of women towards the erosion of reason in deference to compassion, while admirable in some measures, is propelling us towards a reaction by men and women alike that erodes the plausibility of the hypothesis that women should be trusted with power in hierarchical society.

I’d like to add that I am not making a personal value judgment here. I am a man, but life has shown me the great value that women can bring to nearly every endeavor both directly and indirectly.

I do not suppose that the role of men is somehow more important or significant in creating a just and prosperous society, but that rather the roles of women and men are of equal importance and value, specifically because those roles tend to be distinct and irreplaceable.

Re: The Great Feminization

#30
post #8

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether…

> The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind No, they are not. And when we take into account that they are not, the whole argument breaks down.

I think that you misunderstood me. Sadly, philosophy is completely absent from “required” education in our “enlightened” world (or presented as narrow-minded bean counting), so capturing “evident things” as results of the thought process is hard.

By one side of equation I meant all those arguments about “men” and “women” altogether. You are absolutely free to state that men are X, and women are Y, and attribute it to Nature as a whole, or scientific data sliced off of it. There is nothing wrong with that by itself. However, the whole other “stable” side which you try to “fix” by this process is no less of an invention.

Say, we're having an argument whether cucumbers are fruits or vegetables. In that case, we can even reach an “official” answer. But it's more important to realise that the whole stage on which we're playing is constructed. “Fruits” and “vegetables” are convenient man-made classifications. Cucumber does not come with a label “I'm a cucumber, as stated in encyclopaedias, etc.” Nor its atoms come with a label “We're parts of that cucumber thing”, nor anything else (note for our young vulgar materialists).

In my opinion, feminist thought taking that step (which — for multiple possible reasons — was not taken even by greatest thinkers) is the most important achievement. Which “wave” is right, or how to “correctly” display your alignment with “correct” movement according to latest fashions are ancillary questions.

Post reply on HN