Why the world hates us?

[hu lover]

hehehehehe you said moist! hehehehe

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

yes and that can be difficult to go through especially for women, men however do not need to worry about that

Yet (decent) men CHOOSE to raise that child without the same hormonal drive. Genders are different but you cannot make it so simple as that.

 

[hu lover]

Yet (decent) men CHOOSE to raise that child without the same hormonal drive. Genders are different but you cannot make it so simple as that.

true but after the woman having the baby who would have it more difficult afterward the man or the woman?

 

[hu lover]

It's actually an incredibly old political principal put forth by Emanual Kant. Humans are not ends, nor means to something else. Failing this elementary philosophical threshold puts you squarely in the realm of 'authoritarian.' If you can't respect human autonomy, you are some degree of authoritarian.


Go ahead and try to get two partisan groups at the table and get them to agree on anything.

Then come back and tell me how 'easy' that was.


MLK was actually the reasonable centrist relative to two radical sides, but OK. His positions were completely reasonable, and down the middle. He emphasized peaceful resistance. Absolutely wild to frame him as a radical in an environment where actual radicals were shacking up with the USSR and becoming terrorist organizations.

And self indulgent liberals who supported him up to the point it might cost themselves something were decidedly not 'centrists.' Once again, centrism as explained by someone who doesn't understand centrism. MLK's position didn't earn him friends. He wasn't radical enough for his own side of the fence, and he was too radical for the conservatives who want nothing to change.


Centrism understands that when either side of two radical factions get what they want, it's usually a net drag on society. It's either cultural stagnation or complete chaos. You are not obligated to carry water for one group of radicals just because the other side is repugnant. They can both be repugnant. Societal change performed from the barrel of a gun is usually not effective and it's usually guaranteeing that the problem will not go away for generations.

Which is why most radicals fail. They can't accept that what they fight for wont be realized in their life time and instead of playing the long game- which historically usually works- they demand immediate satisfaction. Which understandably makes people treat them with suspicion; you don't know if these people care about their cause or are just out to enrich themselves. Because radicals tend to treat loyalty as their chief capital and competence gets treated with suspicion.

you make some pretty good observations

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

true but after the woman having the baby who would have it more difficult afterward the man or the woman?

Depends on the human story that follows?

you make some pretty good observations

That compromise has to happen for something lasting to occur? Yes, but if that's an 'observation' we are all fucked.

 

[balitz Method]

Your comment tries to sound thoughtful, but it’s just dressed-up condescension. You’re dismissing everything as entitlement without actually engaging with the reasons behind it. Let’s start with your premise. Yes, men have historically held power in institutions. But you’re talking about the top 1%. The majority of men weren’t kings or lawmakers. They were coal miners, factory workers, soldiers sent to die in wars they didn’t start. This idea that "men dominated everything" flattens class, history, and reality into one lazy narrative.

You must be registered to see the links

Used up, discarded, and invisible. That’s sacrifice, not domination. And it wasn’t done for the benefit of women either. It was done to sustain the same elite structures that oppressed everyone.

A good bit of Marxist and post-Marxist communist literature tries to stress that class consciousness is the only important consciousness, but by and large that still centers male concerns and viewpoints as 'the natural ones' without further examining them. The idea that only a small percentage of men have benefited from the male perspective being centered when all the facts in any situation have been and continue to be in most situations bent to support this view so that any concerns by others are easily dismissed as irrational hysteria not worth considering simply doesn't hold up. Solidarity between the ruling class and the proletariat (largely against their own interests) is often achieved through promises to increase male control over women. We have several current examples of far-right pushes gaining ground this way. Disenfranchised poor men are less likely to gain class consciousness if the ruling class allows them to police birth control or enforce standards of femininity by allowing violence against anyone who doesn't look traditionally ladylike.

There are concerns that need to be addressed - I agree that education caters to the way girls are socialized to behave and this is affecting boys, for instance - but at the same time no one saw these things as problems when it was men being exclusively catered to. There's a lot of "I'm not being given the chance to succeed (subtext: and I deserve to succeed)" without the historical awareness that they've been putting other people in that position for literally ever and more often than not their proposed solution is to go back to the way things were - whichever particular model was their favorite. What I was saying is that you have to actually investigate your premises to see if this is a case where there's a demonstrable and consistent systemic problem or just an instance of men seeing a change that favors someone else and declaring it unfair without realizing that things are still very much stacked in their favor.

That's why it's useful to seek out other perspectives, especially if they can thoroughly break down many of the things you've simply taken for granted; seeing just how thoroughly the male perspective and men in general are valued is eye-opening to people who have been living in that bubble for their whole lives.

It's frustrating to talk to people who think that they've never been prioritized just because they don't see it. They've never had 100% of their value tied to their reproductive functions and allowed zero control over them; they don't have a foreign perspective living in their head that judges their appearance; they don't experience how little everyday places cater to their unique needs; they haven't been discouraged from speaking up about harassment because the old fart in question is someone very important; they've never seen that look of trepidation that sinks into people's faces when they realize that a woman is going to be handling their matter; they don't get spoken down to as a matter of course; doing the best job and seeing the reward go to a mediocre man is an exception rather than the rule.

Most of all they haven't experienced how even other women may not sympathize with any of these concerns because they have come from thousands of years of alienation that caused them to think of themselves as secondary, to more easily empathize with the nearest man than other women. The system has not been dismantled. It's barely been adjusted and even that change causes huge uproars.

Men don't deserve to be ignored any more than women do, but they also have to do the work and stop dramaticizing every instance of not being given special (which to them is just normal) treatment. That's why The Other Sex works so well even now; it's not a man-hating book; it's a 'let's go over this step by step and see where we end up' book.

 

[anne O'nymous]

I find it funny that you hand picked European countries calling them secular while almost all of em have a large christan population not to mention their cultural is largely influenced by Christianity.

Also what made you think i am from USA?

Who the fuck said that you are from the USA? Not me...

Arent you making a lot of assumptions now and from what i remember Usa is also secular.

You know that the USA have "in God we trust" wrote in their banknote, and make their president swear on the bible, right?

Well celebrate your secular western democracies while you can maybe not now but in a few decades hopefully we would have better choices like an all African Britain or an all Arab France. It would be an upgrade really. "reality isn't as black and white as you think" i am brown i dont care. Give away your nations as i said before its your choice. I dont care for USA, I saw the LA riots video that country should focus on fixing itself before lecturing others.

 

[hu lover]

based on how the daughters or sons are raised within a family, the way they act and react to the world around them can be how they were raised by their parents. this would apply to some families but probably not all though

 

[suprisedcrankyface]

That's why it's useful to seek out other perspectives, especially if they can thoroughly break down many of the things you've simply taken for granted

Ohhhh.... the irony.... gotta be trolling posting blocks of chat gpt here hey?

 

[Shiko200]

Who the fuck said that you are from the USA? Not me...




You know that the USA have "in God we trust" wrote in their banknote, and make their president swear on the bible, right?

That makes a country non secular? wtf Also i dont think the president ABSOLUTELY has to swear on the bible. In god we trust being on their banknote means nothing either.

 

[hu lover]

 

[Warspawnfury75]

and now my head is physically starting to hurt!

 

[Warspawnfury75]

and thus this thread has now died.... rest in pieces