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

The Great Feminization

compactmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: The Great Feminization

#61

Post by vapg1974 »

ogurechny wrote: post #30
janwl wrote: 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.

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…

So philosophically a 48yo, 6ft4 and 200lbs man can be taken as a 5ft4 90lbs woman. That means if I repeat "Charmander" enough times, it will socially construct itself in this reality.

Re: The Great Feminization

#62

Post by vapg1974 »

1659447091 wrote: post #31
cedilla wrote: 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.

This reminds me of my father getting so frustrated with something that didnt go his way, yelling about all the “idiots” that are the problem and that he was the only unemotional rational person there. Plus every other variant of this. I eventually told him he was one of the more emotional people I knew; that anger is an emotion. On the positive he started checking his random lashing out at these invisible (to everyon…

That reminds me all the armies of women go passive-aggressive when hings don't go their way.

Re: The Great Feminization

#63

Post by vapg1974 »

burnt-resistor wrote: post #35

Compact is "post-liberal" illiberal, anti-individual, syncretism clickbait trash. They're trying to reinvent elimination of individual freedoms with elements of totalitarianism to make it seem palatable or acceptable. They're as misguided as the Unabomber's prescription for technological unemployment.

Just like reducating young boys to act as women since that behaviour is deemed the only acceptable, while all "diversity" is referred to melanin, clothing and attractions,

Re: The Great Feminization

#64

Post by vapg1974 »

nis0s wrote: post #3

I can’t take this author seriously for a number of reasons, but the main one being that she assumes groups of men are more likely to behave rationally. Anyone who has experience with teenage boys should know better than to say that, but even if you take that out of consideration life is just not that simple. Similarly for truth-seeking, men and women lie the same amount if their incentives are the same. Most people d…

"A majority women group may be more rational, competitive, or risk-seeking (all values she attributes as more likely to appear in groups of men), but it depends on the women in the group. She already admits that individual characteristics are variable across sexes or genders", tell me again why rescuers, fron line soldiers and oil riggers are women.

Re: The Great Feminization

#65

Post by ogurechny »

vapg1974 wrote: post #60
ogurechny wrote: post #2

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... "Humanities", that alone makes your whole argument invalid. As if brain configuation, that staemming from genetics and hormone levels, had no influence in how the sexes perceive world and social clues and behave according to those perceptions. Not mentioning the inherent phy…

As many others, you believe that by talking about certain things you're directly touching “real”, “material”, “physical” world. So-called humanities — barely even taught to so-called educated public — could help you see how that specific creed of scientism spread in last two centuries, how it was tied to mass education and journalism, and not actually to science, and what made you stick to it (no one told you that the outside world exists). You chose comfortable ignorance.

Being a proud servant of the status quo is neither fresh, nor smart, nor scientific. Illiterate savages worshipped their idols in the exact same fashion.

Re: The Great Feminization

#66

Post by ogurechny »

vapg1974 wrote: post #61
ogurechny wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So philosophically a 48yo, 6ft4 and 200lbs man can be taken as a 5ft4 90lbs woman. That means if I repeat "Charmander" enough times, it will socially construct itself in this reality.

What you're saying is “Fat, ugly, flat-chested, etc. women are not real women, I only care about my kind of true women, please only show me these”. That's exactly what I was talking about. The measure to define women in your head is shaped like that, and you reluctantly decide to let someone pass. Yes, it is common. Yes, it is stupid. What's actually new in that?

Re: The Great Feminization

#67

Post by morshu9001 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #59
morshu9001 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I mean is, it seems like every culture's music has some things in common, and it's not because all of them are derived from a common ancestor. Isolated people can make music that everyone else will perceive as music, maybe enjoy it too. Some music has very broad appeal. Again I'm not sure, but it's pretty strong to assert that it's absolutely culture-dependent.

But what are they? You said this: > 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. Does the octave interval make music enjoyable in some non culturally contingent way? I don't thin…

It just means that there's at least one aspect of music that everyone agrees on. Harmony might be favored more by some people than others, but they're all hearing harmony. And not everyone developed scales, but all the ones who did agreed on octave equivalence.

Also, idk who finds consistent rhythm completely wrong. Some music breaks it more than others. Is there some culture that will hear Mozart and think "what, this isn't even music"?

Re: The Great Feminization

#68

Post by 1659447091 »

vapg1974 wrote: post #62
1659447091 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reminds me of my father getting so frustrated with something that didnt go his way, yelling about all the “idiots” that are the problem and that he was the only unemotional rational person there. Plus every other variant of this. I eventually told him he was one of the more emotional people I knew; that anger is an emotion. On the positive he started checking his random lashing out at these invisible (to everyon…

That reminds me all the armies of women go passive-aggressive when hings don't go their way.

The amusing part was it seemed my comment provoked a deep insecurity about that-that ended up living in his head from that point forward. It was typical banter but turns out that one struck a chord
Post reply on HN