Oceans Yet to Burn

akaltynarchitectonica

mitigatedchaos

I think the distinction that people don’t make is that…

For a woman, sometimes you can get a man to fight for you, so it makes sense to get him to take on all that risk himself.
For a woman, the upper body strength distribution is almost bimodal, so it makes even more sense not to fight and send a man instead if you might end up fighting a man.
Society often treats women and their violence as harmless. (The flip side of the glass ceiling.)

So if you have a high stress situation consisting only of women, isolated from society and from men, it may well get violent.

wirehead-wannabe

Do we have any actual statistics on rates of violence in all-female societies?

akaltynarchitectonica

All girls schools seem the obvious test case. A quick google gives me one article saying that violent bullying is worse in all femae schools, but other studies say the opposite. Confounders are a problem obviously. But at the very least the numbers are close enough that there isn’t conclusive evidence. There’s some interesting stuff saying that bullying for not conforming to gender stereotypes is less bad in single sex environments, but that doesn’t necessarily say anything about the total levels

Source: mitigatedchaos gendpol

Sometimes we’ll get “look, straight neurotypical women don’t *really* want a man that will perform masculinity, her boyfriend is wearing a pink shirt!” but then the dude is tall, buff, and confident, and he works in construction - the kind of man for whom a pink shirt shows that he is so masculine that wearing a pink shirt doesn’t harm his aura of masculinity, and thus further proves his masculinity.

gendpol

obiternihili

celestialmechanic

Evidence has shown that guys are actually really good at things we happen to find meaningful and prestigious, whereas girls are only good at meaningless, frivolous things. Only people who think testosterone literally doesn’t exist would doubt this very scientific conclusion.

mitigatedchaos

Sex routinely judged as mates by earning power, social status, seek jobs with high earning power, prestige, work greater hours. Sex that has tendency to select opposite sex based on earning power and social status baffled.

obiternihili

That would make more sense as an “uncharitable interpretation” if A) it didn’t happen basically equally both ways, or equivalently if sons inherited nothing from their mothers and vice versa B) hunter-gatherer societies where we did most of the whole “evolving the parts of us that make us human” weren’t generally egalitarian, with basically every break from that pattern having to do with the introduction of agriculture.

I can’t help but wonder how much of this is eurocentrism anyways. Like ancient Rome was not a good place to be a woman, but intelligence and nobility were very desirable traits in young girls. Men were expected to continue their wife’s education both for their mutual benefit and as a means to bond over, but also for the secondary effects having the person doing one’s own primary caretaking be educated can do.

The Egyptians worshiped Isis - not just because she was a mother, but because she was cunning, a witch in pretty much every sense of the word who managed to trick Atum into giving her his Secret Name - something no other being in existence knows because of its creative potential - but also managed to be the primary agent in avenging her murdered husband and propelling her son to take back the throne after trekking around everywhere from Nubia to Lebanon.

“Women are more desirable stupid” is not a historically common thing, and “Men are more desirable smart” is not mutually exclusive with “Women are more desirable smart”

Like your sarcastic comeback works equally whether or not you substitute (male,female) or (female,male) and that’s got to be telling of something, isn’t it?

mitigatedchaos

That isn’t the same thing as stupid women being more desirable than smart women. Even traditionalists like Mailadreapta will acknowledge this. Not putting a trait at maximum priority does not mean putting it at negative priority.

Quite frankly, observing the mismatch in what straight neurotypical women say they want vs who they actually date means it will take a lot to convince me otherwise.

Source: celestialmechanic gendpol

celestialmechanic

mitigatedchaos

gendpol uncharitable

@rendakuenthusiast

It’s weird that most people don’t pretend to be the other gender online, honestly.

Eh, there’s still existing gender conformity rules (though more for men than for women) saying not to do it, plus I think a lot more people are vaguely comfortable in their gender roles than they let on.

Not that I don’t recommend it. I have many faces, and I like to let people assume.

gendpol

I think the distinction that people don’t make is that…

For a woman, sometimes you can get a man to fight for you, so it makes sense to get him to take on all that risk himself.
For a woman, the upper body strength distribution is almost bimodal, so it makes even more sense not to fight and send a man instead if you might end up fighting a man.
Society often treats women and their violence as harmless. (The flip side of the glass ceiling.)

So if you have a high stress situation consisting only of women, isolated from society and from men, it may well get violent.

gendpol

argumate

One must also commit to the idea that autism is equally prevalent in both men and women and simply underdiagnosed for women, and that the reason young girls are typically better at masking the syndromes is purely due to socialisation and cultural factors.

argumate

silver-and-ivory said: I mean I think this might be true
anaisnein said: using today’s relatively broad definition of autism, this seems completely intuitively obvious to me, tbh
timtotal said: yeah, this seems entirely reasonable?

One could perhaps test this by looking at children diagnosed at very early ages due to being nonverbal, which seems less likely to be confounded by socialisation issues.

Then there are gender differences in schizophrenia, which presents at different ages and at different rates.

The hypothesis being put forwards is that you can tell nothing about the preferences, psychology, or personality of a group based on their genetic or physical attributes alone without knowing their culture and socialisation.

(The weaker version of this hypothesis is that you can, but the information is so weak as to be useless).

It would be convenient, but seems scarcely credible.

Presumably age at least has a measurable statistical impact, even if gender does not.

mitigatedchaos

Well, we know that testosterone is not a placebo. The idea that it could have no impact on the relative rates of various mental illnesses seems, to me, absurd.

gendpol

mailadreapta

Anonymous asked:

Isn't the fact that it's been passed everywhere else irrelevant to whether or not it should be passed in Australia? Either it's good or it isn't, right?

argumate answered:

Indeed, but if the reasons given are based on its likely future consequences, then they can be evaluated against the actual experience of places which are already there.

mailadreapta

Consequences can take decades to materialize, and past history suggests they often do. But noone has that much patience, so

mitigatedchaos

Sure, but what are the actual bad consequences of gays getting married, assuming one is not religious?

Monogamy is good and provides stability and emotional support even if it’s gay. Marriage generally comes with not being promiscuous, and sexual orientation is, for most people, not malleable, so it’s not like it will increase the number of gays - and the number of gay people is relatively small.

The only thing I can think of that’s a problem is that social progressives won’t be able to use it to signal how #woke they are anymore and they’ll move on to some bullshit that’s actually harmful, like legalizing polygamy (for normies).

Source: argumate gendpol

isaacsapphire

theage.com.au

Marrying down: why more women are doing it now

Hot news: it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single woman in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a husband.

Jenna Price

argumate

The reason? Women are now far more likely to be well-educated and earn more, but not the blokes with whom they mate. Yes, women are marrying down more than ever before. For men, it’s hypergamy, the concept of marrying above your station. Women are pitching their sights a lot lower, hypogamy. Both of these risk the long-term stability of relationships and the answer is monogamy. Joke. It’s actually homogamy. More about that later.

damn those hypergamous men!

seriously though these numbers require very careful handling

silver-and-ivory

regression to the mean

(actually this is the exact example used by Thinking, Fast and Slow)

2357911131719

Is regression to the mean sufficient as an explanation? If we assume that marriage partners aren’t selected for income at all, we’d expect women to marry up more than they married down due to the pay gap, so it seems to me that there remains something to be explained when we find that the exact opposite is occurring.

isaacsapphire

Have you accounted for the higher rates of both incarceration and homosexuality in men? Oh, and dying off faster too. Basically, there are fewer “eligible” men than women.

mitigatedchaos

Hmn… no doubt this situation will be described as sexist later on. (”A net transfer of wealth to men! How dare they! Where have all the good men gone!”) Though while in my extended family an executive married a blue collar man, said blue collar man was still a very manly type (and fairly sharp, had his own business at one point). Big, tall, works with his hands, likes hunting and fishing, and other things I can’t quite describe.

(Unlike a few other members of the extended family, I approved of this relationship. He’s a pretty good guy. Trustworthy.)

I’ve talked about women wanting status in men, and I think the trick is actually in that gender segregation of professions everyone hates so much. If the career track has no women in it, or few women in it, then it still works for proving masculinity even if it’s low-earning. (It’s a status track that he’s further along that she isn’t, as compared to her being better than him at literally everything.)

Though now I’m wondering about the death rates of lesbians and bisexual women relative to men.

Source: argumate gendpol

argumate

those who would celebrate strong women must celebrate weak men.

andhishorse

that’s a straw man

light-rook-offtopic

He means it as a good thing. I think?

andhishorse

Oh…maybe?

argumate

to celebrate women challenging feminine norms and adopting roles traditionally coded as masculine while scorning men who challenge masculine norms and take on traditionally feminine roles is simply to reinforce the idea that masculinity as is superior to femininity, not a progressive stance but highly reactionary.

cultural engineering that attempts to use traditional masculinity to subvert itself comes across as deceptive pandering (”are you MAN ENOUGH to accept your girlfriend earning more than you do??”) and builds resentment.

much like anxious femininity trying to excel at sport but still look pretty doing it, pictures of bearded lumberjacks wearing pink or bikies braiding girls hair only emphasise that of course men can be feminine: but only if they make sure to signal masculinity so hard that no one could possibly get the wrong idea.

saying “girls, don’t waste your time on a man who doesn’t have his life in order / has a decent job / has a car that works / owns a neat apartment” is an ostensibly feminist statement (”you’re worth it!”) that is just recapitulating gender norms that are centuries old: the woman chooses a man who will provide for the family.

Hollywood loves to match young actresses with old men and we love to decry that practice. support older women! yes. but are we willing to watch stories about young men, weak men, immature men, fragile men, failing men?

society hates nothing more than a weak man, and celebrating strong women only doubles down on that. those who would celebrate strong women must celebrate weak men.

gendpol bravo

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

Marrying down: why more women are doing it now