Live data from Hacker News

What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

newyorker.com

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

#11
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are few if any true differences in mental abilities. The construction of gender in social societal terms is being dismantled. There are casualties, and there is backlash in masculine reverb and even terror but the construct of patriarchy is dying - that’s what needs to be discussed, not Galloways take.

> There are few if any true differences in mental abilities. Science disagrees with you there: • https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-... • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6418873/ Navigation is just one such major mental difference, where women are far more effective with waypoints and landmarks in familiar spaces, whereas men are better at dead reckoning over unfamiliar land. But I’m…

These mental differences do not confer dominance. This is obvious! Don’t fall back upon ye old patriarchal arguments splitting hairs on hippocampal endocrine adjustments.

Physical prowess is no longer convincingly conferring a definitive route to dominance unless there’s a patriarchal overreach into coercion that defies growing universal regularities of equalities in bills of rights etc.

The fact women give birth does in no way restrict them into submission.

Please reject all patriarchal myths in order to discus partnership goals.

Humans are not like other primates, we’re a mix of evolutionary and biological factors that result in a continuum rather than a strict dichotomy, humans fall somewhere between "tournament mating" species and "pair-bonding" species. We’re not locked into any certain gender dominant if you know endocrinology and evolution.

There is no true dominant outcome once the mental playing field is leveled. Male aggression is uniquely equalized in feminine control.

Re: What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

#12
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are few if any true differences in mental abilities. Science disagrees with you there: • https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-... • https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6418873/ Navigation is just one such major mental difference, where women are far more effective with waypoints and landmarks in familiar spaces, whereas men are better at dead reckoning over unfamiliar land. But I’m…

These mental differences do not confer dominance. This is obvious! Don’t fall back upon ye old patriarchal arguments splitting hairs on hippocampal endocrine adjustments. Physical prowess is no longer convincingly conferring a definitive route to dominance unless there’s a patriarchal overreach into coercion that defies growing universal regularities of equalities in bills of rights etc. The fact women give birth doe…

If you read my comments, at no point did I ever veer into anything approaching dominance.

Having a physical advantage is not dominance. It is merely capability with regards to the objective in play, which is where the argument of division of labour comes into play.

You want to have people play to their capabilities and (metaphorical) strengths. It’s how a society (or any cohesive unit of people, actually) maximizes its effectiveness and utility for everyone concerned.

To not do so is akin to having two people paint a wall, and for the sake of appearances you have the tall one paint near the floor and the short person paint up near the ceiling. Unless other attributes significantly overcome the massive disadvantages of the height difference, it would be madness to force them to paint the wall like this.

Re: What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

#13
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These mental differences do not confer dominance. This is obvious! Don’t fall back upon ye old patriarchal arguments splitting hairs on hippocampal endocrine adjustments. Physical prowess is no longer convincingly conferring a definitive route to dominance unless there’s a patriarchal overreach into coercion that defies growing universal regularities of equalities in bills of rights etc. The fact women give birth doe…

If you read my comments, at no point did I ever veer into anything approaching dominance . Having a physical advantage is not dominance. It is merely capability with regards to the objective in play, which is where the argument of division of labour comes into play. You want to have people play to their capabilities and (metaphorical) strengths. It’s how a society (or any cohesive unit of people, actually) maximizes…

There are no distinct advantages that confer dominance that affords such a construct as patriarchy.

Hypotheticals regarding where optimums are best expressed are irrelevant in terms of a partnership future, they will be negotiated.

Re: What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

#14
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the hidden legacy that gave lesser able men places at the societal table would vanish. These men who are castaways were included earlier as the effluvia of dominance. Now they’re not included. Lovely pro-female sentiment, but be aware: every time this has happened in history, these “redundant” men have conducted violent revolution because they had had nothing left to lose. It was no different during the dawn of agr…

This has never happened in history, Kurgan partnership old Europe was probably seamless with hunter gatherer preceding, and the mass transition is only beginning of the overthrow of patriarchy, and is teamed with instant planet wide communication and the rhetoric in the peak male dominators of the West: Trump, Hegseth, Kirk, Thiel, Yarvin, Galloway, Peterson in eg is not brain science level, it’s amateur hour. Partne…

> Partnership males are ready to negotiate, the negotiations are social and online.

Are Gaza, Ukraine, Somalia and ISS in Syria examples of partnership males having social and online negotiations? I ask only because they are examples of the person you are responding to: a group of males deciding the risk of the death and destruction of everything they hold precious is preferable to what they have now.

To me it looks more like two groups of males fighting to near death for the privilege of running some godforsaken plot of land. The policy is scorched earth. Society, farms, food, schools are disposable pawns in the game. The women and their needs and wants are irrelevant, except as a source of children to feed the armies.

Recently we've seen the USA start down the same road, electing a narcissist who openly bragged about how he demeaned women while on the campaign trail. Maybe they like his attitude to women (and many of the other pillars of modern society), but I suspect it was more a case of just wanting change, and those things matter less than the change they were after.

I'd love if it males really did start solving their problems with social and online negotiations. But history, even recent history is not kind to that view. "The Goodness Paradox" proposes a very different theory to how we got to where we are now. It posits that males solved their problems over the millennia by murdering each other. The paradox is that created evolutionary forces leading to males who were kinder and gentler to others in their village. But to males outside that group, it was always scorched earth, winner takes all.

Re: What Did Men Do to Deserve This?

#15
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the hidden legacy that gave lesser able men places at the societal table would vanish. These men who are castaways were included earlier as the effluvia of dominance. Now they’re not included. Lovely pro-female sentiment, but be aware: every time this has happened in history, these “redundant” men have conducted violent revolution because they had had nothing left to lose. It was no different during the dawn of agr…

This has never happened in history, Kurgan partnership old Europe was probably seamless with hunter gatherer preceding, and the mass transition is only beginning of the overthrow of patriarchy, and is teamed with instant planet wide communication and the rhetoric in the peak male dominators of the West: Trump, Hegseth, Kirk, Thiel, Yarvin, Galloway, Peterson in eg is not brain science level, it’s amateur hour. Partne…

> This has never happened in history

Historians and social scientists widely agree that a significant surplus of unmarried, low-status young males can cause substantial social and political unrest, a pattern observed in ancient societies and documented throughout history.

The core issue stems from an imbalance in the "marriage market" (often referred to as a "marriage squeeze"), where these "surplus men" have little or no prospect of finding a spouse, establishing a family, or gaining a respected place in society. This lack of integration often leads to frustration and alienation, making these individuals more likely to engage in risk-taking behavior, crime, and violence.

Societies have historically dealt with this "bachelor problem" in several ways, and the failure to do so often resulted in conflict:

• Formation of "Bare Branches": In Imperial China, unmarried men were termed guang gun-er ("bare branches" or "bare sticks"). The Ming Code specifically labeled these marginalized individuals as a potential source of illegal activities and unrest. The Nien Rebellion in the mid-19th century has been linked by some scholars to the presence of large numbers of these disaffected, mobile, and unmarried men.

• Redirected Aggression (War and Exploration): Many land-owning societies historically managed excess male populations by sending them away to fight in wars, join the priesthood, or colonize new territories. Examples often cited include:

  • Viking raids: Speculated to be partly driven by a system where not all men could inherit land and marry.

  • Mongol warbands: United by leaders like Genghis Khan, potentially channeling the energy of unmarried young men into conquest.

  • Janissaries: The Ottoman Empire created a military class of forced Christian converts who were kept as unmarried, loyal soldiers, effectively absorbing a potentially destabilizing group.
• Polygyny and Social Inequality: In some polygynous societies, a small number of elite men monopolized most women, leaving many lower-status men without spouses. This extreme inequality has been associated with higher rates of violent crime and internal conflict, as the frustrated, unattached men had little stake in maintaining the existing social order.

• Modern Analogy: In modern times, the pattern repeats in fragile states or cities where extremist groups and gangs heavily recruit from large pools of frustrated young men who lack family ties, jobs, or a clear future.

The existence of a large group of unattached men with little to lose is a recognized warning sign for social instability, leading to domestic and international violence.

https://rhyd.substack.com/p/the-surplus-male-problem

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/11430/1/surplus_men_IS_article.pdf

https://magazine.byu.edu/article/the-dangers-of-losing-balan...

Post reply on HN