The future of Men and Families
We should try to turn back the clock
10.4% (8)
10.4% (8)
We should not turn back the clock
63.6% (49)
63.6% (49)
Other
26% (20)
26% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Manosphere and the future of Men and Families

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Lilani:
Snip

Regarding automation, maybe it's a good idea to not have kids. The powers that be are doing everything they can to keep costs of operation down which translates to robots being in charge when they can't hire someone for a barely or not-even liveable wage. Having less people around means the general population would be less disposable at the individual level. I'm of the opinion that not only can Earth not support all of us the way we live, but we actively avoid systems that could make up for such shortcomings. Why should we all be popping out more of us when less is better all round?

Lilani:

Have you ever considered that expressing a preference to your child is in fact a type of pushing? Perhaps not the most aggressive type, but it can still be construed by the child that they've disappointed you in some way. And for no other reason than deciding what's life-affirming to them isn't the same as what you think should be. When I told my parents I wanted to go to school for computer animation, they did express concerns regarding finding a lucrative job in that field. But they didn't tell me to try going into another safer field like marketing or dentistry or whatever. Instead they helped me find resources and feasible employment options within that realm of my interest and education. They addressed their concerns for me without telling me they'd prefer I chose another path.

I think it is all about the aggressiveness that would make it wrong. In the movie, "Don John" the main character prefers porn to real relationships with women. His mom yells, yes, yells at him that at this rate she will never be a grandmother. This kind of thing really happens and mom was not being helpful here.
But had you told your parent that you wanted to be, say, a street mime and that you needed ? million dollars to get to the right schools, would they really have been out of line to suggest you think of a different path?

Well then it's a good thing not everybody is choosing to not have kids, lol. We're still very far from that in the US. That's about as reasonable as me saying "If every parent decided to tell their kid what to do and refused to take no for an answer." And if our population does begin to slide like Japan and Iceland (I think? I thought I heard something about their government encouraging people to get it on), then again we'll address that issue when we get to it, taking into account where our economy and technology are.

On a semi-related note, the WalMarts in my area are aggressively remodeling their check-out centers to include mostly self-checkout lanes and very few actual cashiers. It would seem at least corporations are very keen on operating with a minimal number of physical employees. For the numbered thingy:

1. What is life-affirming to people is completely subjective. This would make a bit of sense if what the parent wanted were guaranteed to be beneficial to the child, but plenty of people have had children and completely regretted it for every moment afterward. And again, to children and especially emotional teenagers the words "I'd prefer it if you did this" can easily be construed as "You'll disappoint me if you don't do this," which is an unhealthy and unfair burden to put on them. Especially if, again, the perceived benefits are completely subjective.

2. Parents should certainly have hopes and preferences. They should just be very careful about how they communicate them to the child. The hopes and preferences which should always be held above all others should be that they are safe, happy, and in control of their life. Where a parent can begin to overstep the boundary is telling them what will make them safe, happy, and in control. I can totally see how it'd be scary for a child who just graduated from high school to go up to their parent and say "I want to travel in Europe for a year" when they haven't even been out of their state before. But that sort of thing would put them out of the boundaries of "safe," so that's a good time for the parent to intervene.

On the other hand, like my choice to go to school for the arts, while that path may have been riskier it certainly wasn't unreasonable. And it was well within my parent's power to help me be successful in that field without outright telling me "No, another field will make you happier." There is usually a middle ground to be found.
3. Not sure what you mean by "enforced Stalinist indifference," lol. Just saying people are deviating from the norms whether we like it or not. And we need to make sure people who deviate from those norms aren't being treated as second-class citizens, or are having significant trouble accessing certain resources just because they made the mistake of being gay or getting a divorce.

The Walmart thing fits well into a whole other thread about creative destruction and micro economics. Technology is replacing workers and that is a good thing: as long as it is happening slowly enough for those workers to find new and different ways to be constructive/creative.
1. Nope. I think, for instance, that it was important I tell my boy that even in the bad times, I've found raising a family rewarding and hope he can know similar reward some days.


2. Agreed. I think I am very careful to not be pushy.
As to 3. : what I mean is, there appears to be a social hostility toward a parent doing what I think they are obligated to do: provide their children with guidance. The kids can ignore that guidance (based upon a parent's hopes and preferences) but a parent should still give it.

Gorfias:

The Walmart thing fits well into a whole other thread about creative destruction and micro economics. Technology is replacing workers and that is a good thing: as long as it is happening slowly enough for those workers to find new and different ways to be constructive/creative.

I think the current ructions in Western society suggest that unfortunately this is not the case.

The capitalist class need worry little about creative destruction, because they readily benefit from creation as well as losing from destruction. The problem is much more for those who rely on labour, as they are far more "invested" in the old via the accumulated skills and experience of their labour.

Lieju:

Yes... Which is what I was arguing for. You were the person complaining men and children aren't treated equal. And that it's discrimination against men if a child's comfort and well-being is given higher priority than men's.

(also 'comfort and well-being of the ambitions of the state' and I don't even know what to say about that. Sometimes that happens and it's not discrimination. If you go on a stabbing rampage and the police come and lock you up to protect people that's not discrimination even if it makes you sad you don't get to stab people.)

My main issue here is I don't agree with you on your definition of what discrimination is.
I do agree men face issues (I very much agree the treatment of male rape victims is horrendous) but I don't think your approach is good.

No no no, you?re getting me mixed up with FriendsoftheFallen, it's me you imagined making that argument.

And it IS still discrimination if a child?s well-being is put before that of an adult, but that is justified, children need adults for protection and all the necessities of growing up, children SHOULD be put first.

So, to avoid further confusion, let me spell it out for you:
A man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child, a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child, if the ambitions of the state need to be satisfied, the comfort and safety of men specifically is secondary to the ambitions of the state.
(One can interpret "the state" as more than just a government, it could be any ruling class, really.)

This is the current state of affairs, and people don't feel this is the equality they were promised.

Combustion Kevin:
So, to avoid further confusion, let me spell it out for you:
A man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child, a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child, if the ambitions of the state need to be satisfied, the comfort and safety of men specifically is secondary to the ambitions of the state.
(One can interpret "the state" as more than just a government, it could be any ruling class, really.)

This is the current state of affairs, and people don't feel this is the equality they were promised.

That is simply not true. Now, there are plenty of example of where men are put into danger where women are not (if you decide that women are unfit for dangerous jobs, it's men that end up dying in them, for example), but there are plenty of examples where men are given priority. Steubenville comes to mind (due to the unusual name rather than it being an unusual incident), the community rallied around the poor male rapists again the female victim out to ruin them by reporting a rape.

Thaluikhain:

That is simply not true. Now, there are plenty of example of where men are put into danger where women are not (if you decide that women are unfit for dangerous jobs, it's men that end up dying in them, for example), but there are plenty of examples where men are given priority. Steubenville comes to mind (due to the unusual name rather than it being an unusual incident), the community rallied around the poor male rapists again the female victim out to ruin them by reporting a rape.

It IS an unusual case, for one, the people protecting them believed they were innocent, people perceived to be guilty do not receive protection, rather they are often the subject to harassment and sometimes outright vigilantism well before they see a single day in court, men can be, and have been, expelled from colleges and universities on accusation alone, whether they were actually guilty or not, without a trial.
As part of protocol.

For each Steubenville case you can find another case of violence and abuse against the accused, to the point of murder before or after the official verdict, guilty or not.

The boys from Steubenville did not receive protection because they were men, they received protection for being their town's precious celebrities.
(By the by, I never actually found out what the verdict was, were they convicted? <<)

Combustion Kevin:
It IS an unusual case, for one, the people protecting them believed they were innocent, people perceived to be guilty do not receive protection, rather they are often the subject to harassment and sometimes outright vigilantism well before they see a single day in court, men can be, and have been, expelled from colleges and universities on accusation alone, whether they were actually guilty or not, without a trial.
As part of protocol.

For each Steubenville case you can find another case of violence and abuse against the accused, to the point of murder before or after the official verdict, guilty or not.

Not true. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all, but it's very rare, especially compared with rapes that go unpunished. The overwhelming majority of rapes don't end with a conviction, nor are there large amounts of false accusations.

Combustion Kevin:
The boys from Steubenville did not receive protection because they were men, they received protection for being their town's precious celebrities.

I disagree with that. Certainly, it helped that they were beloved of the community, but there've plenty of similar instances where it was someone merely seen as a normal part of society, and thus innocent.

However, my point wasn't that they were protected simply by being men, but that your statement:

"A man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child, a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child"

was false. "Always", not "always, except" or "often".

Combustion Kevin:
(By the by, I never actually found out what the verdict was, were they convicted? <<)

Got a year, I think, then were welcomed back with open arms by the community.

Now, in many cases, the community will choose not to believe the victim, but in this case the rapists guilt or innocence was not in doubt, they got community support anyway.

Agema:

Gorfias:

The Walmart thing fits well into a whole other thread about creative destruction and micro economics. Technology is replacing workers and that is a good thing: as long as it is happening slowly enough for those workers to find new and different ways to be constructive/creative.

I think the current ructions in Western society suggest that unfortunately this is not the case.

The capitalist class need worry little about creative destruction, because they readily benefit from creation as well as losing from destruction. The problem is much more for those who rely on labour, as they are far more "invested" in the old via the accumulated skills and experience of their labour.

True: to the point that we have to worry about the end of scarcity to the extent that work is arguably good for people. (In these pages it has been argued that actually, it is not). We are always going to need some (most?) people to work. And at different skill levels.

If an entry level job will provide, for instance, a middle class life style for a family of four, what will it take to motivate someone to step it up to the next levels (such as learning how to do machine shop work?) If some people need not work ever, why them? What will that do to the moral of those working entry level jobs?

It might simply be inflationary: Every one in the labor classes (as opposed to capital classes that make money with money) should move up a notch.

But not really a problem (the wrong thing to be worried about at this time) in the West, particularly the US as unskilled workers are in a race to the bottom of the economic barrel and there appears to be no end in site. Kinda off topic but, it will effect men's social positions.

Thaluikhain:

Not true. That's not to say it doesn't happen at all, but it's very rare, especially compared with rapes that go unpunished. The overwhelming majority of rapes don't end with a conviction, nor are there large amounts of false accusations.

What part is not true? protection based on celebrity status? vigilantism? the expulsion without trial? or the "revenge violence"? look up what prison inmates do to rape convicts.
It should also be noted that the majority of rape CASES do not end in conviction, and this due to the difficulty of proving guilt in such cases, but I'm sure you've heard all that before.
When it comes to false allegations, there are a slew of conflicting statistics around so it is difficult to get a clear picture of it all, some sources report 50%, some report only 5%, these numbers are also often inflated or skewed for political ends so take that for what you will.

What can not be denied is that the accusation alone can ruin someone's life, and if one were to be callous or morally bankrupt enough to hold it over someone's head they can cause a lot of damage.

Thaluikhain:

I disagree with that. Certainly, it helped that they were beloved of the community, but there've plenty of similar instances where it was someone merely seen as a normal part of society, and thus innocent.

"Normal people don't rape, right?" ;P
If the charge can not be proven, they are still considered innocent, that is how "innocent until proven guilty" works, that is why rape cases are so difficult, and due to their sensitive nature cause some very intense reactions from people.

Thaluikhain:

However, my point wasn't that they were protected simply by being men, but that your statement:

"A man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child, a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child"

was false. "Always", not "always, except" or "often".

I do not recall a single instance wherein women were called upon to undertake risky or otherwise dangerous endeavors to protect men, maybe male children or their own men specifically, but not men in general even within their own community, they are simply not granted that level of compassion, empathy maybe, but not compassion.
I admit, its an absolutist stance, but it is what reflects the evidence I have seen, and I will not change on that stance unless I've been presented with the contrary.
I could be wrong, of course, but I haven't been wrong about it so far, all I get when consulting Google is HeforShe articles or the backlash thereof.

The Steubenville case was pretty horrid and I'm glad they got their sentence (as light as it was), but like most rape convictions (or accusations), the prison sentence itself is probably the most bearable consequence of their actions.

Combustion Kevin:
What part is not true? protection based on celebrity status? vigilantism? the expulsion without trial? or the "revenge violence"? look up what prison inmates do to rape convicts.

I meant that there is a case of vigilantism for every case of people taking the rapist's side. I hadn't considered attacks on people in prison for rape, though.

Combustion Kevin:
It should also be noted that the majority of rape CASES do not end in conviction, and this due to the difficulty of proving guilt in such cases, but I'm sure you've heard all that before.

In part due to difficulty, there's also a lack of will. Police in the US often store rape kits rather than test them, and them throw them away when they run out of storage space because people aren't keen on the expensive of testing them, for example.

Combustion Kevin:
I do not recall a single instance wherein women were called upon to undertake risky or otherwise dangerous endeavors to protect men, maybe male children or their own men specifically, but not men in general even within their own community, they are simply not granted that level of compassion, empathy maybe, but not compassion.

I bring up Steubenville, because the wellbeing of the rapists (whom the community acknowledged as rapists) was seen by the community as being more important than the victim (who was acknowledged to be a victim).

Combustion Kevin:

Lieju:

Yes... Which is what I was arguing for. You were the person complaining men and children aren't treated equal. And that it's discrimination against men if a child's comfort and well-being is given higher priority than men's.

(also 'comfort and well-being of the ambitions of the state' and I don't even know what to say about that. Sometimes that happens and it's not discrimination. If you go on a stabbing rampage and the police come and lock you up to protect people that's not discrimination even if it makes you sad you don't get to stab people.)

My main issue here is I don't agree with you on your definition of what discrimination is.
I do agree men face issues (I very much agree the treatment of male rape victims is horrendous) but I don't think your approach is good.

No no no, you?re getting me mixed up with FriendsoftheFallen, it's me you imagined making that argument.

And it IS still discrimination if a child?s well-being is put before that of an adult, but that is justified, children need adults for protection and all the necessities of growing up, children SHOULD be put first.

So, to avoid further confusion, let me spell it out for you:
A man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child, a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child, if the ambitions of the state need to be satisfied, the comfort and safety of men specifically is secondary to the ambitions of the state.
(One can interpret "the state" as more than just a government, it could be any ruling class, really.)

This is the current state of affairs, and people don't feel this is the equality they were promised.

Hmmm. This post seems to be lacking this little detail called any evidence whatsoever for a pretty absolute claim

Thaluikhain:

In part due to difficulty, there's also a lack of will. Police in the US often store rape kits rather than test them, and them throw them away when they run out of storage space because people aren't keen on the expensive of testing them, for example.

Is that for real?
That's crazy! what a complete waste of perfectly good equipment! D:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Hmmm. This post seems to be lacking this little detail called any evidence whatsoever for a pretty absolute claim

It is pretty absolute, I'm aware, but one need not to look very far for all the campaigns against rape, FGM, women's rights, domestic violence or even war propaganda that call upon men to take action to protect women, even feminist campaigns are guilty of falling into that trap, however, as I mentioned above, when looking up large scale initiatives that call upon women to protect men, not young boys or relatives but all men, I only end up finding HeforShe related items, which again, call upon men to take up the cause of women's rights and advancement.

I come up short for counter-evidence to my claim, so I will maintain it until proven wrong.

Combustion Kevin:

Thaluikhain:

In part due to difficulty, there's also a lack of will. Police in the US often store rape kits rather than test them, and them throw them away when they run out of storage space because people aren't keen on the expensive of testing them, for example.

Is that for real?

Unfortunately, yes. There've been some privately run campaigns to raise funds to get some of the backlog tested, and unsurprisingly many of the samples contain DNA linked to other crimes. If they'd tested the kits like they are supposed to, they'd have caught criminals before they could have committed later crimes.

Combustion Kevin:
It is pretty absolute, I'm aware, but one need not to look very far for all the campaigns against rape, FGM, women's rights, domestic violence or even war propaganda that call upon men to take action to protect women, even feminist campaigns are guilty of falling into that trap, however, as I mentioned above, when looking up large scale initiatives that call upon women to protect men, not young boys or relatives but all men, I only end up finding HeforShe related items, which again, call upon men to take up the cause of women's rights and advancement.

I come up short for counter-evidence to my claim, so I will maintain it until proven wrong.

That men are called on to stop violence against women and that women aren't called on to stop violence against men is not proof that a man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child or that a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child.

Combustion Kevin:

Thaluikhain:

In part due to difficulty, there's also a lack of will. Police in the US often store rape kits rather than test them, and them throw them away when they run out of storage space because people aren't keen on the expensive of testing them, for example.

Is that for real?
That's crazy! what a complete waste of perfectly good equipment! D:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Hmmm. This post seems to be lacking this little detail called any evidence whatsoever for a pretty absolute claim

It is pretty absolute, I'm aware, but one need not to look very far for all the campaigns against rape, FGM, women's rights, domestic violence or even war propaganda that call upon men to take action to protect women, even feminist campaigns are guilty of falling into that trap, however, as I mentioned above, when looking up large scale initiatives that call upon women to protect men, not young boys or relatives but all men, I only end up finding HeforShe related items, which again, call upon men to take up the cause of women's rights and advancement.

I come up short for counter-evidence to my claim, so I will maintain it until proven wrong.

Your evidence is shit though. It doesn't follow that the reason for that must be comfort of one being prioritized or anything of the sort. For example one explanation could be that people believe men have more power over those issues than women do over the male ones. You have your apparent favored explanation but you've done nothing to say why anyone should accept it.

Thaluikhain:

That men are called on to stop violence against women and that women aren't called on to stop violence against men is not proof that a man's comfort is always secondary to that of a woman or child or that a man's safety is always put after the safety of a woman or child.

These are not all about violence, they also include legal and social causes, however, I will point out to you that men being called upon to stop violence against women and children makes them the more acceptable target of violence, we'd all rather not have it happen at all, of course, but if it does, we'd rather see a man in the crossfire.

Then lets expand the criteria, shall we?
Any large scale initiative that calls upon women specifically to take action for the well being of all men in some way, whether that be their rights, social causes, bodily integrity or mental health.
Lets just leave violence for what it is then.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Your evidence is shit though. It doesn't follow that the reason for that must be comfort of one being prioritized or anything of the sort. For example one explanation could be that people believe men have more power over those issues than women do over the male ones. You have your apparent favored explanation but you've done nothing to say why anyone should accept it.

Nobody SHOULD do anything, I only offer my perspective, you are free to agree or disagree, I do think it is self-evident when one half of the population is called upon and expected to fix things is the one whom's needs come last.
Besides, considering women take up half the population, I think their influence, at least on social issues is quite equal to that of men, and considering they are consistently getting better educated while men graduates start to dwindle, legal and political influence quickly follows.

Combustion Kevin:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Your evidence is shit though. It doesn't follow that the reason for that must be comfort of one being prioritized or anything of the sort. For example one explanation could be that people believe men have more power over those issues than women do over the male ones. You have your apparent favored explanation but you've done nothing to say why anyone should accept it.

Nobody SHOULD do anything, I only offer my perspective, you are free to agree or disagree, I do think it is self-evident when one half of the population is called upon and expected to fix things is the one whom's needs come last.
Besides, considering women take up half the population, I think their influence, at least on social issues is quite equal to that of men, and considering they are consistently getting better educated while men graduates start to dwindle, legal and political influence quickly follows.

Okay so pretty much you think it's because people put one over the other just cuz. Okay nice talking with you, I'll continue to find that laughable.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Okay so pretty much you think it's because people put one over the other just cuz. Okay nice talking with you, I'll continue to find that laughable.

What kind of "argument" do you expect of me?
Or would you prefer to deride and dismiss everything out of hand?

Combustion Kevin:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Okay so pretty much you think it's because people put one over the other just cuz. Okay nice talking with you, I'll continue to find that laughable.

What kind of "argument" do you expect of me?
Or would you prefer to deride and dismiss everything out of hand?

Well I would tend to expect something to back up your idea that the reason that you find more people calling for men to help with women's issues than people calling for women to help men is due to people putting the comfort of women above men. And by something I don't mean 'I think it's self-evident!'

I asked you about it, you shrugged and made it clear you don't seem to think your position needs any support for it or that anyone *should* believe it and that you think it's 'self-evident'. If that's your response then dismissiveness is the correct reply to it.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well I would tend to expect something to back up your idea that the reason that you find more people calling for men to help with women's issues than people calling for women to help men is due to people putting the comfort of women above men. And by something I don't mean 'I think it's self-evident!'

Gender roles?
Like, men are expected to sacrifice time, effort and resources for women, does that count?
You could argue that people perceive men to have more influence on such issues, but is that actually even true?

The argument was whether or not these phenomena actually happen, not why or whether or not they were justified.

Combustion Kevin:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Well I would tend to expect something to back up your idea that the reason that you find more people calling for men to help with women's issues than people calling for women to help men is due to people putting the comfort of women above men. And by something I don't mean 'I think it's self-evident!'

Gender roles?
Like, men are expected to sacrifice time, effort and resources for women, does that count?
You could argue that people perceive men to have more influence on such issues, but is that actually even true?

The argument was whether or not these phenomena actually happen, not why or whether or not they were justified.

Expected by everyone? Your statement was pretty absolute. Plenty of people don't care much for gender roles. Perhaps we should be blaming those who want to keep them around, eh?

Is it true? Well you weren't very specific about the issues iirc so that'd be pretty hard to say wouldn't it? I was tossing out possible other reasons since you hadn't really gone over any at all.

Placing one group's comfort over another is a motive you're suggesting. I'm asking for evidence that that is the motive. If, for example, someone views women as not able to fulfill a role, like say in the military, it's hardly about putting one person's comfort over another.

Combustion Kevin:
when one half of the population is called upon and expected to fix things is the one whom's needs come last.

Politicians are called upon and expected to fix things for the general population.

Combustion Kevin:
Besides, considering women take up half the population, I think their influence, at least on social issues is quite equal to that of men

By that logic, since women have been equal in numbers to men more or less forever, at no point would there by any disparity in social influence between the genders.

Who are (now and historically), the leading figures in your nation's politics, finance, industry, religion, military and literature? I don't need to know what nation your are from to be pretty safe guessing they are almost all men at the highest levels and predominantly men in general. Why has society chosen them?

Thaluikhain:

Politicians are called upon and expected to fix things for the general population.

Yes, and putting their own needs and desires first is what we refer to as either corruption or negligence.
I mean, yeah, it happens, but they get into hot water about it all the time too. :P

Thaluikhain:

By that logic, since women have been equal in numbers to men more or less forever, at no point would there by any disparity in social influence between the genders.

Who are (now and historically), the leading figures in your nation's politics, finance, industry, religion, military and literature? I don't need to know what nation your are from to be pretty safe guessing they are almost all men at the highest levels and predominantly men in general. Why has society chosen them?

We had a queen that ruled here for over 30 years.
As for the reason, could it be that these position allow them to provide and protect women and children more effectively?
If someone seems competent and trustworthy in that position of responsibility, people are often inclined to put them in that position, however, you'll more often see that the top of the pile is decided by internal competition and not democratic process.
On that note, does the majority of men in power offset the majority of men in displacement or poverty, or does only the top half of the population count?

What I meant by social influence based on population is more referring to the influence they have on a community scale, think villages, neighborhoods or social circles, Norms and values are more or less accepted by the majority of the people involved, the influence of women, especially in a historical cultural sense, should not be underestimated and, in my opinion, is often downplayed.

Combustion Kevin:

As for the reason, could it be that these position allow them to provide and protect women and children more effectively?

Well is there any evidence pointing to that as the reason men were in power?

On that note, does the majority of men in power offset the majority of men in displacement or poverty, or does only the top half of the population count?

Offset in what way? The point in this little offshoot was who has the power to change things, yes?

What I meant by social influence based on population is more referring to the influence they have on a community scale, think villages, neighborhoods or social circles, Norms and values are more or less accepted by the majority of the people involved, the influence of women, especially in a historical cultural sense, should not be underestimated and, in my opinion, is often downplayed.

Okay well what exactly is that amount of influence? Is it equal when it comes to all social issues? It's easy to say something vague like that it's often downplayed and underestimated but that's not very quantifiable or verifiable.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Okay well what exactly is that amount of influence? Is it equal when it comes to all social issues? It's easy to say something vague like that it's often downplayed and underestimated but that's not very quantifiable or verifiable.

My point was that the influence of women is often discounted in favor of portraying men as the sole deciders on how society works and what it looks like, which I think is inaccurate, the exact quantities are irrelevant.

Combustion Kevin:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Okay well what exactly is that amount of influence? Is it equal when it comes to all social issues? It's easy to say something vague like that it's often downplayed and underestimated but that's not very quantifiable or verifiable.

My point was that the influence of women is often discounted in favor of portraying men as the sole deciders on how society works and what it looks like, which I think is inaccurate, the exact quantities are irrelevant.

Like I said that's pretty vague. Which aspect of society? All of them?

The Decapitated Centaur:

Like I said that's pretty vague. Which aspect of society? All of them?

Probably, at least to some degree.
Our mothers leave a huge impact on our upbringing and teach us many things on what we perceive to be right or wrong, we then translate these sensibilities into law, policy and philosophy, it does not dictate it, but at least heavily influence it, this is just one example from the top of my head.
These influences then go on to inform our culture, the way we view the world and how we interact with each other.

Gorfias:
I think it is all about the aggressiveness that would make it wrong. In the movie, "Don John" the main character prefers porn to real relationships with women. His mom yells, yes, yells at him that at this rate she will never be a grandmother. This kind of thing really happens and mom was not being helpful here.
But had you told your parent that you wanted to be, say, a street mime and that you needed ? million dollars to get to the right schools, would they really have been out of line to suggest you think of a different path?

I saw this post at lunch and thought about it while I was at work, lol. Honestly, I think my parents would have given me much the same advice and help as they did for pursuing computer animation. Mostly what they helped me with was diversifying my skills in such a way that complimented the field I wanted to pursue. For example, my high school didn't have a computer animation class. But it had an intensive graphic design program that lasted 3 hours a day and went through both your junior and senior years. My choices as far as other electives became very limited by going into that program, but apart from learning graphic design the class also provided up to 26 college credit hours, about 20 of which my university ended up taking. I walked in my freshman year with nearly a minor in graphic design under my belt already. That took out a lot of basic art courses I'd otherwise have to take to meet the computer animation requirements, and on top of that I learned a lot of useful things about CMYK, RGB, color theory, design, photoshop, typography, etc.

Even though it wasn't EXACTLY what I wanted, they encouraged me to pursue it and helped me buy the extra supplies needed for it. That background in graphic design helped me through college and land my first job in my field. On top of that, all of us knew if nothing else graphic designers are usually more in demand than computer animators, so that would be a good fallback plan if I couldn't find an animation job immediately. They didn't hold that up as a preferable alternative, but rather a backup plan or temporary situation until I could get the animation career off the ground. While I was driven toward the animation, I wasn't deluded into thinking I'd get a job right out of college. And it was them who taught me that reasonable expectation.

So if I had chosen to be a street mime, I feel like I would have gotten similar advice. They would have helped me find acting and improv classes, figure out where street performers are in demand, and cultivate other skills which would both helped me as a self-employed mime and make other backup or temporary options available (such as becoming educated in business, marketing, investments, entrepreneurship, entertainment, hospitality, etc).

1. Nope. I think, for instance, that it was important I tell my boy that even in the bad times, I've found raising a family rewarding and hope he can know similar reward some days.

It's fine for you to make him abundantly aware that having a family has been life-affirming for you. But I hope you have made it just as clear that if it really and truly does not feel right for him, he will not disappoint you by choosing that other path. Basically, that he knows that your single highest hope is his happiness and fulfillment, and NOT him choosing the path you think is best. Because those are two separate things and you know it. The fact that he is a separate human being from you makes that true.

2. Agreed. I think I am very careful to not be pushy.
As to 3. : what I mean is, there appears to be a social hostility toward a parent doing what I think they are obligated to do: provide their children with guidance. The kids can ignore that guidance (based upon a parent's hopes and preferences) but a parent should still give it.

I think the hostility only applies to projecting your personal desires onto your child, and to "helicopter parenting" where the parents don't want to allow their kids to make mistakes, and want to keep them near for their sake as opposed to the child's sake. I skimmed through some of the earlier pages in this thread, and I've gotta say, I got a huge helicopter parent vibe from what you said about your wife keeping your son around the house and joking "you get to leave when I say" or something like that. My parents have NEVER said anything like that, even when joking. They like me to visit and don't feel I call enough (which I don't), and they're even happy to do my laundry if I bring it home. And I know if things got bad and I needed to live with them, their door would be open.

But my chosen path for life always comes first for them. They do miss having me around, but growing up and moving out on my own was always the goal of raising me. As is the goal for any parent. I get becoming an empty-nester is sad and can cause a disruption in routine, but it is something that was guaranteed to happen from the moment the child was born. Any parent who clings to their child to the point of affecting the child's choices n life has failed to grow up as a parent, and in doing so is not allowing their child to grow up and have an adult relationship with them.

Gorfias:

I think it important for a society to encourage self actualization, but also have social and cultural preferences. Young people should know that us old timers hope they will partner up and raise kids. I attended a Jeb! rally when he was running and he spoke of the need to import people to make up for our "demographic problems.". To me, having such problems is indicative of a failed society. That doesn't mean that someone that goes their own way, like my best friend, is worthless. It just is that there is a social preference. Just as I'd prefer my boy finish High School, he could still be a stunning success dropping out and starting a thriving business.

The problem that I'm seeing is that you're confusing "society" (lower-case "s", a collection of individuals) with "Society" (upper-case "S", a collective of individuals).

Society, upper-case S, is an authoritarian notion: the collective itself is an organization, almost Hobbesian in nature, that demands you to make sacrifices to support it, and maybe, hopefully, you'll benefit as a result. Whereas society, lower-case s, is a collection of individuals who are all understood to have shared rights and responsibilities with the explicit intention of promoting the common good of all of the people within it.

You know what I think a failed society is? One that becomes a "Society" (upper-case): it just perpetuates itself for the mere sake of self-perpetuation at the expense of the rights, freedoms, and well-being of the people within it. If we can't create a society that can accommodate many people who make different choices, then that's a much greater failure, because then what's the point of having that society?

Lieju:

FriendoftheFallen:

If we are going for gender equality then it should be children first then adults of every gender.

Yes... Which is what I was arguing for. You were the person complaining men and children aren't treated equal. And that it's discrimination against men if a child's comfort and well-being is given higher priority than men's.

You are reading something different then because my issue was never about men and children it was about women'
s lives being given more regard then men. It's not men and children first its women and children first. If it was children first then you'd have a valid point but it isn't so you don't. You grossly misread or misinterpreted me and I'm puzzled as to if it was deliberate or not. You interpreted the opposite of what I was saying and combustion seemed to read and interpret it correctly so I wonder if it was intention to disagree that made you think I was arguing for men's rights over children's when I was clearly arguing for men being held in equal regard to women.

Lieju:

My main issue here is I don't agree with you on your definition of what discrimination is.
I do agree men face issues (I very much agree the treatment of male rape victims is horrendous) but I don't think your approach is good.

So you are tone policing me? I was told tone policing is somehow bad for some vague reason every time I try and bring up how vitriolic and acerbic other's tones are. Guess its fine to tone police me though.

That's fine if we disagree, I still wholeheartedly believe it is discrimination. Merriam-webster discrimination 3rd meaning : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually. Merriam webster discriminating 2nd meaning : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit. Seems my interpretation agrees with at least one prominent dictionary.
Higher rates of incarceration, greater chance of being incarcerated for the same crime, longer sentences, higher likelihood of dying on the job and being culturally expected to risk you life before women risk theirs is discrimination.

Do a fun experiment and have a woman hit a man in public unprovoked. If the man so much as thinks of retaliating someone will wrongfully threaten them with violence. That is discrimination of the highest form - to validate violence by one group and invalidate it from the other. The public discriminates against men whoa re victims of female led violence.
Women hitting men in public often receive laughter.
since the state is more powerful than the individual and the state discriminates against men and police are more likely to shoot and arrest men then you can make a decent argument that not only do men experience discrimination and sexism, but that they have it worse than women. State endorsed violence is one of the most oppressive things to encounter and men are subjected to it way more than women. This doesn't negate women's issues but it is a valid point about how men are suffering and those pointing it out are mocked and disparaged. (As happened in this thread)
Men's problems do not negate women's problems and vice versa. Those that think misandry isn't really a thing are hurtful, condescending, smug, and spiteful people with little empathy for outgroups.

Gorfias:

True: to the point that we have to worry about the end of scarcity to the extent that work is arguably good for people. (In these pages it has been argued that actually, it is not). We are always going to need some (most?) people to work. And at different skill levels.

Work is just good for people, period. I mean work in a very broad sense (a satisfying hobby is enough): something to stop them being completely idle and give them a sense of being productive. Realistically, work in the sense of something societally productive and likely salaried seems most societally useful.

If an entry level job will provide, for instance, a middle class life style for a family of four, what will it take to motivate someone to step it up to the next levels (such as learning how to do machine shop work?) If some people need not work ever, why them? What will that do to the moral of those working entry level jobs?

My perception is that a great number of people have low to modest ambition, and it's nothing to be ashamed of. They just want a comfortable life... and when they get to a position that achieves that, they have little impetus to go forward. However, even with minimal ambition, people will progress because they think something is interesting, or because they have a feeling that they could do a better job than the person currently doing it. And there are always people who want to dominate and feel superior, who will always drive to the top.

Society can also motivate people without money, perhaps with forms of status and recognition. Getting a nice, shiny, official, "well done" medal from a civic authority. Money is not the only motivator, but our capitalist / consumerist, market-orientated society will lionise and increase the extent to which money is most valued as a reward system.

It might simply be inflationary: Every one in the labor classes (as opposed to capital classes that make money with money) should move up a notch.

Yes, at some level, the total amount of money has to relate in some way to assets and productivity, otherwise it will just be inflation. Although in practice even the poor get richer over time (even if that's just from goods getting cheaper rather than their salaries increasing), to some extent to meaningfully increase the income for the poor, it demands removing some from the middle and top.

But not really a problem (the wrong thing to be worried about at this time) in the West, particularly the US as unskilled workers are in a race to the bottom of the economic barrel and there appears to be no end in site. Kinda off topic but, it will effect men's social positions.

Yes. Broadly, globalisation is good in many ways. More trade, faster economic growth, more access to "stuff". The downside at least for the West is that, as you say, lower skilled jobs (and increasingly skilled jobs as well these days) are under threat from poorer countries - a race to the bottom, as you say.

This could be prevented with protectionism. But now imagine economic growth drops to about 1.5% instead of 3%, and lack of access to cheaper, foreign-made goods in fact decreases living standards, effectively via inflation. You slap tariffs on $3 Vietnam-made t-shirts so they can't undercut US-made t-shirts, but now everyone's t-shirts cost $4 instead. Good for US t-shirt manufacturing jobs, bad for any Americans that want to buy a t-shirt. It also potentially means increased global conflict between nations that increasingly vie against each other.

What I think globalisation has done is of course facilitated the rich (whose money can readily go anywhere in the globe) whilst subjecting the bottom and now increasingly the middle to competition. Back in the 40s-70s, pretty much everyone benefitted roughly equally from economic success. However, since the 1980s the overall national good has become distributed as a lot of good to the rich, and very little good to the poor. A great deal of unhappiness is also that wealth gap. A CEO that earns 10x the average worker isn't half so aggravating as ones that earn 100x.

What I think the left of the 1990s decided was that globalised capitalism was a done deal. Rather than futilely attempt to roll it back, instead to accept the unequal distribution, but then attempt to redistribute via tax and benefits. It has failed, in large part because the rich do not want to be taxed, and ever more aggressively avoid it. Secondly, that benefits and being treated like chaff are degrading, so for the same money the poor would rather have the dignity of a well-paid, secure job. In many ways, the taxes ended up hitting the middle as well (the rich being so damned hard to tax), so they got increasingly unhappy too.

Thaluikhain:

Who are (now and historically), the leading figures in your nation's politics, finance, industry, religion, military and literature? I don't need to know what nation your are from to be pretty safe guessing they are almost all men at the highest levels and predominantly men in general. Why has society chosen them?

Remember, if we look at the demographic mix of a tiny sliver of people at the top, that tells us meaningfully about those demographics in a broader sense. Not a particularly common flavor of fallacy of composition or anything.

Of course, that's the only slice you'd want to look at, because the bottom and the top look weirdly similar in terms of gender demographics. Rough sleeping homeless, suicides, victims of violent crime as a whole, victims of every non-sexual violent crime taken individually, hell even people with very negatively viewed jobs that are necessary to keep society running (like sewer and garbage workers).

The top of the ivory tower might be predominately men, but so are the ones being trampled in the mud. Neither of these reflects society as a whole, though one could argue there are a lot more near the bottom than near the top.

Schadrach:
The top of the ivory tower might be predominately men, but so are the ones being trampled in the mud. Neither of these reflects society as a whole, though one could argue there are a lot more near the bottom than near the top.

I wasn't talking about society as a whole, I was talking about those in society with the most influence. They are going to be at the top by definition. Society has decided that the best people for those positions generally happen to be men. Again, why is that?

Thaluikhain:

I wasn't talking about society as a whole, I was talking about those in society with the most influence. They are going to be at the top by definition. Society has decided that the best people for those positions generally happen to be men. Again, why is that?

But why only look there?
I mean, people who are not at the top are not devoid of influence themselves, and a lot of the higher positions are bestowed by the approval of people in the lower echelons, in a way, they choose their own leaders, it works that way in democracies as well as other institutions, like the catholic church for example, wherein peers decide between them who gets to advance to a higher position.

And yes, men are generally selected for these positions more often, but keep in mind that attaining these positions very often requires a lot of personal sacrifice.
For example, consider what it takes to become a successful politician, one needs to spent a lot of time and resources and have to give up a ton of their privacy in order to get there, it does seem men are more often willing to make those sacrifices as opposed to women, the paradigm is shifting to be sure, but the disparity remains.

So I will echo your question, why is that indeed?
There could be several reasons, societal preference, higher risk taking tendencies, socialization, cultural influences and norms, all of these are causes and none of them can be pointed at as the sole reason, at least, I will not point at one being the sole reason, and I think this is what makes making changes so difficult.

Agema:

Society can also motivate people without money, perhaps with forms of status and recognition. Getting a nice, shiny, official, "well done" medal from a civic authority. Money is not the only motivator, but our capitalist / consumerist, market-orientated society will lionise and increase the extent to which money is most valued as a reward system.

I probably showed this off before. Interesting stuff. I'm kind of going through it myself right now, where there is something I need to do for money but finding it very difficult.

The rest of what you write is, as always, very interesting.

I have read a "truism": "Trade wars beget real shooting wars." Bad idea.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here