I like the suggestion that we concern ourselvrs more with the quality of men’s internal lives, but I do worry we’re still objectifying men as ‘the problem’.
Navigating interpersonal relationships in a time of evolving gender norms and expectations “requires a level of emotional sensitivity that I think some men probably just lack, or they don’t have the experience,” he added.
I like the quote above about this topic but it does still seem like men are the problem. The problem is that we as a society haven't taught those skills and worse yet reinforce the opposite. We should be concerned with men's internal lives and mold them to fit into modern society
Seriously. We can’t just call men “the problem”. We have to address the problems men are having in their social lives and in dating. Men are not being given a fair shot to bring their best selves.
He had recently read about a high school creative writing assignment in which boys and girls were asked to imagine a day from the perspective of the opposite sex. While girls wrote detailed essays showing they had already spent significant time thinking about the subject, many boys simply refused to do the exercise or did so resentfully.
I mean, we're not just talking about the ability to communicate (which is important), but the basic ability to empathize. If men (in general) are unwilling to even consider the female point of view, is it any wonder why women have a difficult time dating? This isn't happening in a vacuum; there are real reasons why this is happening.
Think of the structural issues which have caused this to be the case. Blaming men for not achieving an externally defined target isn’t going to help anyone.
Boys refusing to do an exercise about imagining a day as the other gender represents a social problem, not a men problem. High school boys who refuse to imagine themselves as someone else were taught to be resistant to that idea, and not only by men but society as a whole.
Maybe we stop with top down one size fits all solutions to human interaction? The article is a good example of part of the problem, as it seems to exonerate one group while putting all the onus for change on the other. Mainly by it having essentially a single position from all them people that the author uses as sources and references and the narrow scope that they actually show.
You couldn’t be more in your own echo chamber. If other men are telling you woman also act the same way as some men and also have issues and you refuse to see another position or point of view you are the problem.
I would hesitate to draw conclusions from something like that. Both me and a lot of the other men I know just flat out skipped basically every assignment like that if it didn’t give enough points to be worth the effort, from middle school up through college.
Beyond that, it just seems like a shitty assignment as a whole. Because either a) it’s done under an assumption that their day as the opposite sex would be spontaneous, and thus would have very few relevant differences from their normal days (and we can easily guess those differences) or b) it’s done under an assumption of having always been the opposite sex, in which case it would just be an exercise in the butterfly effect, since huge amounts of things would be different, to the point that any generic hypothetical day would work.
All this is to say, it’s a prime assignment for skipping
A big part is diminishing religiosity. There is little point in getting married if you aren’t religious. Thanks to progress made by LGBT couples, most of the legal benefits of marriage are shared by domestic partnerships. Traditionalists on the left and the right make a big deal of this, but it is of negligible factual importance.
I don't think most people who get married do it for religious reasons or even to start a family in the US anymore. People do it since they see it a formal a commitment and want to announce their love in public.
That only covers one angle, if people do it for religious reasons, not if they don’t do it because of religion. I’m not getting married, and the religious connotations of even a secular wedding is a significant chunk of why.
There’s also a million legal reasons to get married… If there weren’t, same sex marriage would probably have never made it to the Supreme Court. Everything from insurance coverage, employment benefits, credit rating, child custody, transfer of property following death, medical decisions, and a bunch of other very secular, very important benefits are conferred via legal marriage.
Is there any way to adapt this better for polyamorous people? I have poly friends that got around it by choosing a primary partner and marrying them, but that seems like a bad solution in the long term.
I don't think that is going to be happening for a long time. It took decades for gays and lesbians. The marrying of a primary partner is the best solution so far.
Copyright won't help here. Extending it to allow the protection of concepts as well as literal implementation is what Oracle tried to do, and would've resulted in a few megacorps demanding licensing for core concepts that no one can really make quality, functional software without.
Of course, software patents are also stupid, even if the general intent of patents seems reasonable.
Patents should simply be a monopoly on an idea for enough time to gather resources to develop that idea’s prototype. I know it doesn’t work that way, but it should. They really should be there for small inventors, not giant corps who have plenty of resources, but I digress.
But software itself can implement that prototype without having to build anything. Your ideas can be created directly. We don’t patent math and we don’t patent poetry or even poetic writing structures.
Software and business method patents are utter bullshit.
Say Mexico was starving. Say aid was sent to them again and again but every time, the Mexican government snatched a large chunk of it up and hoarded it. Say then that the Mexican government decides to attack the US and the US cut off aid. The Mexican government still have huge stocks of food and supplies from the years of aid that was meant for the people, but now no new aid is coming in.
Is the US to blame for Mexicans starving? Or is it the Mexican government who refuse to distribute their stockpiles to their people?
to be accurate it would have to be the us says the mexican government snatched a large chunk and horded it. also mexico would also have had to not be able to elect a government for close to 20 years. also the us government would have propped up the people hoarding everything like netanyahu did for hamas.
I think the last point is the most important: Netanyahu is so responsible for all of this that I think his rhetoric around a “second war of independence” is all designed around distracting people.
I mean, for fuck’s sake, last March we were all talking about how he and his party were trying to do away with government oversight so he could get out of criminal corruption probes.
This guy is literally using the people of Israel and Palestine for his own gains. Hamas literally exists because of him.
Lol but the article isn’t painting anything in a bad light? Just me?
Gaza is in this position because of Gaza right? And Hamas isn’t helping because they’re bad guys ooh spooky.
Doesn’t mention Israel forcing Palestine to this point with restricting aid and overall self autonomy. Doesn’t matter this crisis is happening because Israel is attacking and also not allowing citizens to leave Gaza. None of that matters.
Palestine has been forced to this point by Israel. Hamas is doing what a fighting force would do which is shitty but is more justifiable than what Israel is doing.
The world according the Fediverse : Nazis, bad, Muslim Terrorist Jew Rapers, Killers, and Burners, good. Those poor poor "palestinian" cinnamon rolls, oh come here lemme help you up, what did those bad Jews do to you now. The cognitive dissonance and purposeful selective outrage, kills Jews. Always has, always will.
This has opened my eyes to one thing: jewish people do need a state where they are majority, and the ability to defend themselves. The world will never change I’m afraid.
Outside of maybe Hexbear and Lemmygrad, which I blocked some time ago, I don’t encounter these extreme opinions much at all here. How are you justifying painting the entire fediverse with such a broad brush?
Those poor poor “palestinian” cinnamon rolls, oh come here lemme help you up, what did those bad Jews do to you now.
this is an incredibly weird thing to say about a bombing campaign that has disproportionately killed people who have literally nothing to do with Hamas. let’s not.
It could also be a lot worse. Ever heard of Hiroshima - or about the carpet firebombing of Dresden?
“it’s bad but worse war crimes have happened in world history so it’s fine actually” is such an incredibly bad and disgusting argument to make for killing hundreds of people–many of which are children–a day who, again, have done nothing but be born in a place that a terrorist group operates and from which they cannot leave because Israel (and to a lesser extent Egypt) will not let them. any further attempt to justify the course of action Israel is taking on these grounds will get you banned from this instance.
Pretty cynical when Hamas and Islamic Jihad could release the hostages and surrender and end all the fighting instead of giving people a choice over how they die
Mostly concern that it weakens their position militarily. Get a genuine willingness for peace from a posr-Hamas Palestinain government and some sort of land-for-peace becomes thinkable
Do you mean weakens the Hamas position militarily? Or do you mean weakens the Israeli position militarily?
I understand WB is Fatah controlled who are more inclined towards a 2SS which is why Bibi supported Hamas (until it backfired on Oct 7).
I also read a Reddit comment about how taking land from settlers and returning it to Palestinians would make the border larger and Israel more vulnerable but I don’t understand how that is so.
Total return weakens Israel. Basically because it leaves the country as a fairly narrow strip that’s easily cut apart in an attack.
Getting land in the west Bank returned means significant security concessions from whatever government is left. Last time this was tried it led to Hamas winning an election
Yet with Gazans facing a humanitarian catastrophe, Hamas’s stockpiles raise questions about what responsibility, if any, it has to the civilian population.
I find statements like this pretty fatuous.
Ethically all humans have a responsibility to see that these civilians won't starve or lack medicine.
Hamas is hoarding it and won't share with civilians.
Israel is also refusing to share with the hapless civilians
it's trying to prevent the rest of the world from sharing either.
It's stupid to say I'm not allowed to give a homeless guy a hot meal because there's a rich guy nearby.
Hamas is their government, and as such, has a responsibility to those it governs.
And the supplies are literally under the feet of the people who need them. Not something dependent on outside shipment.
Hamas made a decision to start a war, and now they’re choosing to let people suffer for PR points instead of moving supplies up and out of their tunnels to the people.
Eh, this is the kind of thing people say to absolve themselves.
"Sure that neighbour kid's getting starved and abused by his parents but it's his parents' responsibility to feed him, not mine".
"Sure, the Rohingya are getting genocided by the Junta but after all the Junta is technically their government who are responsible for their safety, not us".
Last time anyone voted in Hamas was 17 years ago. Meanwhile literally half the Gazans are aged 18 or younger. Far too younger to have voted for Hamas let alone for this nightmare.
If you just send in food, Hamas will take the bulk of it, same way they supplied the tunnels in the first place. Only real way to solve the problem is to get rid of Hamas.
this is just not a well founded assumption. humanitarian aid was going into Gaza, and was being distributed to the people there before Israel cut off the supply. you’re trying to engineer a false dichotomy, where the only solution to the ongoing humanitarian crisis caused in part by the denial of necessary resources is more denial of necessary resources. like, just think for like a moment. Hamas has a surplus of resources to supply their own forces. they aren’t reliant on humanitarian aid. not allowing food and other resources to get into Gaza only negatively affects the civilian population, and does very little to harm the supposed actual target of this indiscriminate violence. like, even if nearly all of it was just taken by Hamas, the quantity that remained would almost certainly still help innocent people survive this conflict, and that’s a worthwhile pursuit in and of itself.
but whatever, i bet you’ll just move the goalpost again. we cannot act based on what Hamas “should” be doing if they were acting responsibly. Hamas isn’t taking responsibility for the death and destruction being waged against the Palestinian people, they aren’t providing the resources they have, they aren’t distributing them to those who need them. and seeing that situation, we should act to prevent the suffering of these people who are not being served by the government that is supposed to represent them, instead of actively preventing aid from reaching into the region.
So let us send even more. I'd rather civillians no longer starved. Even if it means bad actors take some too.
We saw the flaws with the aid sanctions against Ethiopia earlier this year. Some corrupt officials were re-routing some of the aid intended for the famine in Tigray. But when the UN and US halted all food aid in response, starvation deaths in Ethiopia rose.
I understand that Israel don't mind starving the civilian population of Gaza as collatoral damage in their war with Hamas, but I do mind. The fact remains that starvation of civilians during war is illegal under international law. And I support that law.
You are searching morality in something, where there is none. This is urban warfare - WAR - and quite frankly - not letting Resources through Israeli border crossings - is nothing compared to things done in other wars. Especially as Egypt could deliver aid into Gaza from their border - But they chose not to.
@dumdum666 that's a hard disagree from me. I think you fundamentally misunderstand what ethics and morals are. Either you believe something or you don't.
If you come upon some people raping some kid in an alley that doesn't mean it's somehow okay for you stand there and just watch because "this is rape and quite frankly worse things were done in other rapes".
The argument "other people could have chosen to help and didn't, therefore it's fine for me to not help either" doesn't cut it.
If you, personally, think it's morally fine to starve civilians and children that's one thing - luckily many disagree which is why it's deemed a war crime.
But you should own your views on that. Don't try to argue that there's some special ☆magical place☆ where there's no such thing as right or wrong and ethics suddenly don't exist.
If you come upon some people raping some kid in an alley that doesn't mean it's somehow okay for you stand there and just watch because "this is rape and quite frankly worse things were done in other rapes".
The argument "other people could have chosen to help and didn't, therefore it's fine for me to not help either" doesn't cut it.
All right, then take a plane to Egypt and start to personally deliver that aid, if you just can’t stand by as the moral and ethical pure person you are. No? Took your mouth too full? Maybe you are a Keyboard Warrior after all?
If you, personally, think it's morally fine to starve civilians and children that's one thing - luckily many disagree which is why it's deemed a war crime.
It is a war crime if it is actually done to starve the civilians, yes. And you love to throw around accusations, don’t you?
Why aren’t you fighting that the women and young children can flee - to Egypt or maybe even into Israel? That would actually be useful, don’t you think?
If you think physically being in a situation is a prerequisite for caring about it, I don't know where this conversation can go. You seem to be veering into personal attacks.
None of this is a valid criticism of my point. I think it might be time for us to stop, since we are clearly talking past one another.
Everything you said is wrong. Egypt is trying to let aid through, Israel has repeatedly bombed the roads in each time they’re fixed; preventing aid. Also, as you so aptly pointed out, it’s war. The first thing a functioning country does in war is ration food so the soldiers can stay fed; even if it costs civilian lives. This has happened many times. That Israel is purposely starving civilians knowing full well it won’t affect the soldiers, just for propaganda, is frankly evil.
From a quick Google search, docking is done to prevent injury to the stallion in mating and is thought to increase the frequency/ desire for the stallion to mate. There are, of course, more humane ways of accomplishing this but that’s the historical justification for the practice
This is the kind of irrational bullshit that people defend to the death. “Thought to” = wishful thinking with zero evidence. Thanks for looking it up, though!
I’ve seen a few other articles on this issue and the double standard is astounding.
If a conventional minority group struggles, they need to be helped. If it’s a man, screw them! They’re oppressive and don’t deserve help.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it’s a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that’s just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
And the funny part is, I read one article about this and the editor (a middle aged woman as usual) said that this imbalanced ratio is an issue because surprise surprise young women won’t have enough men to date!
It’s almost like men’s issues only matter if it affects women, and somehow that’s the only concern.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it’s a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that’s just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
I’m open to having my mind changed, but I think that might actually be true. In cases where men are dominant, we can point to specific discriminatory situations. We can see how hiring committees consist primarily or exclusively of men. We can see how popular depictions of people in [field] are all male. We can note that neurodivergent boys are far more likely to get diagnoses and support than neurodivergent girls. With the exception of certain fields like education and nursing, I can’t think of any systemic factors that discriminate against men.
I don’t think an imbalance necessarily means that we should automatically assume discrimination, for example there is a small correlation between sex and interest (men to objects, women to living things) which may account for some discrepancy in certain fields.
Hiring committees would depend but very often we see HR is majority female, and some studies show that female named job applications in certain cases may be more favoured even when the exact same application is given with a male name.
In terms of school, I can attest that boys need to stop fucking around during class time and actually pay attention, but I’ve seen another study show that for the exact same work, public school teachers sometimes mark higher for a girls work.
The last point I would make is that there are quite a few female only grants and bursaries and aid programs, but there’s very few that outright exist for males.
That’s my two cents, but I understand your perspective as well.
I think Warren Farrell especially, and a bit of Leonard Sax as well have gone into this in more detail.
Unfortunately the mainstream feminist objection is that “men should just make their own support organizations” but the problem is sometimes the government won’t give them a nickel, which I find absurd.
This guy in Calgary Canada made a men’s domestic violence shelter, (shockingly women are first statistically to initiate domestic violence, which I didn’t know). This was around 2011 or so? But the local feminists at the time online were saying that he should not feel entitled to government funding and only women’s shelters should get government funding. I think he killed himself afterwards.
So it seems like when men do band together to make a support group, it doesn’t get the same amount of government support as a women’s group will.
nytimes.com
Hot