Schadrach

joined 2 years ago
[–] Schadrach 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I'd argue patriarchy is a bad model for the social dynamics regarding sex. It's just another rebranding of Marxist class conflict onto something other than economic class, and as a consequence it works about as well as that something actually resembles (or alternately is a proxy for) economic class. This means it works OK for race in the US (except for Asians, who get to be functionally white in some cases) but it it's a bad fit for sex.

It's why there are so many apologetics around patriarchy for all the myriad cases where reality just doesn't seem to align with what you would expect based on it a priori. "The patriarchy hurts men too" is probably the most common, though you'd be hard pressed to argue "Capitalism hurts billionaires too" or "white supremacy hurts whites too" in the same kind of fashion. Because the moment you stop looking at the fraction of a percent of the top performers the idea that society was created by and for men to benefit men above women first and foremost just doesn't align with observation.

What seems to be a more fitting model to me is malagency, the idea that agency is inappropriately assigned based on the sex of the party in question. Specifically that in general women are assumed to have less agency than they otherwise might while men are assumed to have more agency than they otherwise might. This fits neatly with lots of observations - ideas presented by a man being given extra credit or consideration than the same coming from a woman (because he's seen as more responsible for his ideas than a woman might be), the very highest tiers of things having over-representation by men but also when men are also over-represented at the bottom (for example, rough sleeping homeless) because they are seen as more responsible for their own successes and failures as well, or why the criminal justice system treats men much worse than women (women are seen as less responsible for their transgressions). Etc, etc.

[–] Schadrach 4 points 1 month ago

instead of blaming all their problems and all the world’s problems on women and feminists

Sometimes it is their fault. Protests against equal custody laws, for example. Kentucky was the first state to pass one that required the judge in contested custody cases to start from the position that equal custody is best for the child unless there is a reason it might not be. The closest other states had gotten before that were laws that required judges "consider" equal custody as a possibility, as opposed to having to work from it as a starting point.

Ever seen the Big Red angry feminist meme? She's a real person from Toronto and the meme started because she was protesting a talk on suicide in men at the University of Toronto by shouting a Jezebel article at the crowd, and if anyone tried to engage with her yelling "shut up fuckface!" or similar at them. A few different phrasings but she was fond of "fuckface" as an insult in particular. If you check out The Red Pill documentary (it's creator did a Kickstarter to fund finishing it) one of the interviews is of Big Red herself.

The organization behind that talk on suicide in men later went on to found what at the time (and possibly still is though I haven't checked) the only shelter for male victims of abuse in Canada.

Not the first such shelter, as that was Men's Alternative Safe Housing which was founded by Earl Silverman and had to be run entirely on his own resources and private donations because he couldn't get government funding for it because it was a men's shelter and not a women's shelter. Eventually he couldn't afford to keep it going, and when he had to shut it down hung himself in the garage of his now-defunct shelter the day after he sold it.

[–] Schadrach 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

what the manosphere is

Literally coined by one person who wanted to lump all men's spaces online together to sell a book. Later used to equate the worst incel, PUA, and redpill spaces with people who oppose circumcision, separated fathers who want to see their kids more, people who call out law or policy that's biased against men either explicitly or in practice, etc in order to use the former to spite the latter by putting them in the same box.

You know, basically the thing that if you try to do with women's groups you get responded to with "feminism is not a monolith."

[–] Schadrach 6 points 1 month ago (8 children)

Because it is. Women aren’t magically getting rich while all the men go bankrupt.

Wouldn't be required, so long as the social expectation is that straight dating generally requires men to spend on women over the reverse. All it requires is that the dude not have the money to spare, regardless of how women are doing. Couple that with the tendency for women to tend to strongly preference men who are wealthier or higher status than themselves, and just barely scraping by means you have a generally smaller dating pool available as a straight guy. That still generally expects you to be spending on them, rather than the reverse.

[–] Schadrach 7 points 1 month ago (3 children)

That is the goal, I think.

[–] Schadrach 0 points 1 month ago

That's Maine, Maine is a blue state and it costs him and his little electoral capital to attack a Dem politician in a blue state.

WV is red, extremely red. Trying to fuck with WV like that is attacking a strongly red state, and risks making the other red states realize that maybe, just maybe the leopard might eat their faces too. We're not far enough down the "and then they came for..." list for that to be a safe move, yet.

[–] Schadrach 2 points 1 month ago

He could do that, but it would become very public very quickly and that's more a problem for your side politically when you do it to a state where your side is in power in general.

He can threaten Maine and Maines governor like that because they're a blue state and turning on them doesn't make his base realize he could do the same to them in the same way because they're the other team. Doing the same to WV would read as a betrayal to his own followers precisely because they're solid red and we're not far enough down the "and then they came for..." list for that to be a safe move politically yet.

[–] Schadrach 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Our governor might be a GOP dipshit, but he's...less on the Trump train than some others. I think he got shocked out of it a bit when the whole "stop all payments" thing first started less than 48 hours before the Medicaid disbursement was supposed to hit and he was needing to have emergency "how do we keep Medicaid going" meetings before the injunction against it. He can't be totally off the Trump train if he wants reelected because this is a hard red safe state in the way it used to be a hard blue safe state before fucking Gore of all people fucked it up.

I don't think he'd pardon someone just because Trump asked, barring Trump making a significant threat to force the issue.

[–] Schadrach 16 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I always find the people here with Confederate flags claiming it's about heritage to be the most ridiculous. The state was founded during the Civil War and is the part of Virginia that stayed with the Union, how in the everloving fuck is a Confederate flag part of our heritage?

[–] Schadrach 7 points 1 month ago

You should have paid attention to the timeline. In the Star Trek timeline we should expect world war 3 to start next year and go for thirty years. The first warp flight and first contact is after that, and it's only after that that the "better for us" even starts happening.

[–] Schadrach 4 points 1 month ago
[–] Schadrach 6 points 1 month ago (7 children)

who somehow thinks HIS genes need to be propagated with gold diggers.

Who else is he going to propagate his genes with? At least they get paid for their service?

view more: ‹ prev next ›