BahRamYou
1d ago
But most (99%) of men were just as powerless and unequal as men. Indeed, if you compared the position of a wife of a wealthy landowner with that of a coal miner in the 19th century or that of a duchess with that of a peasant, it's pretty clear that the sex-reductionist view falls apart somewhat quickly.
Sure, of course most men are going to be lower class in any society. But, relative to the women in their own social class, they still had some power. The stereotypical coal miner still had some power over his wife that would shock people today. Moreover, he could probably find a wife quite easily, because women really needed a guy like him to earn money for her, whereas now he'd be considered "low SMV" unless he was particularly handsome.
Young, childless women unequivocally and consistently do better than their male counterparts now. It is true that companies are not allowed to price in the detriments of hiring a woman (periods, sexual harassment lawsuits, pregnancy) and that the regulatory and welfare state creates and redistributes away investment and jobs towards women (HR and nursing for example, DEI), but it's wrong to say it hasn't worked.
Yeah that's fair. And I think there's a generational disconnect there. The older men, especialy the ones with long established careers, don't feel threatened and still want to help promote women. The younger men absolutely feel threatened, and feel like they need to organize to protect themselves.
BahRamYou
1d ago
Wouldn't it be a contradiction for any woman to become a thought leader as an anti-feminist? By definition she should be trying to not lead, and simply support a man. It's the same reason women would never support a male as a feminist leader.
The female influencers who I've seen play the act best tend to just kinda... flirt with anti-feminism but then just duck any sort of serious discussion. They're entertainers first and foremost, not political pundits.
BahRamYou
1d ago
Even hardcore chuds would laugh you out of the room/look on in stunned silence if you started quoting Edward Hammond Clarke. The actual views held by anti-suffragettes were not things that are popular with present day anti-19th amendment believers
Hmm, I've never heard of him before. Let me take a quick trip over to wikipedia to see what he believed...
He claimed that a woman's health would deteriorate as a result of higher education, and moreover that the education of women would come at the expense of their reproductive health.
hahaha, what crazy nonsense. Good thing no one believes that anymore. There's definitely no relation between women's higher education and a lower birth rate, is there...?
(There is)
BahRamYou
1d ago
Honestly I wrote those paragraphs pretty tongue in cheek, so you and @magic9mushroom or @IdiocyInAction shouldn't take them too seriously. There's no way I can address something as broad as "all human history" in just two paragraphs, whether that's literally the entire time that Homo Sapiens have existed or "just" written history. I think I actually had that thought about whether I was referring to only written history or not, and decided I didn't really care. All I meant was that there did indeed used to be something of a patriarchy, as feminists use the term, but it has been pretty thoroughly dismantled in modern times, but perhaps is making a comeback.
BahRamYou
1d ago
n the late 2010s -- when PewDiePie, then the most popular channel on YouTube, would tell rape jokes and debunk the wage gap to his viewers.
I never watched PewDiePie, so I can't speak to exactly what he was saying. But I will say... that was then and this is now? Back then, the internet was still a clear second place compared to newspapers and TV in actually changing people's minds. Now, I'd say the internet is the clear first place. And it's not just one channel, it's a lot of channels saying things like this.
In 2020, Ms. Magazine celebrated an all-time high of only 60% of women identifying as feminists, and as a footnote mentioned that 98% of people believed gender equality is important
That actually seems shockingly low. An explicitly feminist magazine, polling only women, could only get to 60% self-identifying as feminist? A label which doesn't really mean anything specific? That implies a lot of people are strongly running away from any sort of feminism.
BahRamYou
1d ago
I think you're understating it. Women have been a majority of new doctors and lawyers for years.
That's fair. There are certainly some fields where feminism has worked as intended? women have caught up to, or surpassed men.
The question now is... is that a good thing? There's no longer a shortage of people willing and able to be doctors and lawyers. Instead, people fight viciously in competition to get those high-prestige jobs. I do not know if the current status quo of "give it to the teacher's pets" will hold, there. Perhaps the chuds will also take over that competition by simply banning female doctors and lawyers, instead of trying to out-study them on the exams?
Vance's beliefs aren't too far from someone like Catherine Pakaluk, does that make her a Chud?
Well, this is the first time I've heard of her, so it's hard to say. She seems quite conservative and reactionary. But I think she's still a bit too refined and intellectual to a be a proper "chud." Frankly, I'm not sure it's possible for any woman to be a chud, that's almost an oxymoron.
BahRamYou
1d ago
Semantics. Legal precedent since Vietnam has given the president wide ranging power to use the military without an official declaration of war. Maybe that's not how the founders intended it, but that's what we've got. But he really, really doesn't have the power to re-make medicare and social security into whatever he wants, that's just college student naivete to think that a president has that kind of power.
Are we entering a new phase of the gender wars? To pull a term from Asmongold: "the age of the chud." That is to say: openly, unapologetically sexist men, who don't even try to hide it or justify it.
I can't exactly prove any of this, so I'm just going to list a bunch of anecdotes and vibes to show what I mean. You can decide for yourself if you agree or disagree.
The story thus far: for most of human history, humans had a patriarchy where men controlled most positions of power. Starting in 1919 with the 19th amendment in the US, and a similar date in most European countries, women got the right to vote and generally got legal equality with men. But certain social and institutional barriers remained, so 3rd wave feminists worked to gradually push back and get more rights and power for women. This was generally seen as a good thing by all, with only the most unashamedly reactionary men being opposed.
In the 80s and 90s, this was mostly done by trying to treat everyone the same, with the hope that taking away men's sexism would naturally create equality with men. But over time this proved insufficient, so left-leaning groups started pushing for more and more efforts to actively favor women. This was seen most acutely in corporate recruiting, where companies would heavily recruit in trying to get more women in male-leaning professions, especially engineering and management, and punish heavily anyone who was accused of making women feel "unwelcome." Male employees who wanted to fit in were forced to learn academic feminist jargon, and generally act like an "ally," regardless of their own personal views.
But has any of this actually worked? Well... no. Or at least, it's hit a wall. Engineering and the physical trades remain stubbornly male dominated. Women do a bit better in management, but only when they can sit in large meetings and avoid personal responsibility for anything. Their strong preference remains fields like nursing, HR, and marketing.
On a more personal level, I think any of us who have paid attention long enough have seen the cycle play out long enough to become jaded. Talking like a feminist might get you some kudos ("good boy points"), but it won't get you respected as a thinker- you're still expected to do your duty as an ally by following behind the female leaders. It certainly won't get you laid, which admittedly is not the fairest way to judge an ideology, but it does tend to influence the thinking of young men. It also won't get you the respect of other men, unless they're the most simptastic of feminist men who will still dislike you for being a man. It doesn't seem to get you anything at all, no matter how well you articulate the feminist talking points.
Enter: the chud. Or "C.H.U.D." if you will, since the term comes from an 80s movie where it's an acronym, but it's recently become internet slang for the sort of man who openly embraces reactionary cultural politics, without any veneer of intellectualism. They seem to have found a new way to play the game: you don't debate the feminists, you don't even try, you just do whatever the hell you want and ignore them, while openly embracing some of the worst stereotypes. Trump was probably the trailblazer here, with his total lack of shame, but lots of guys have learned this power.
At the same time, there's been a resurgance in traditional feminine behavior. Things like wearing makeup, lipstock, playing with dolls, openly crying, doing needlework, and sometimes even wearing sexy clothes. For a while these sorts of things were demonized by the more militant wing of the feminist movement, to the point where women felt a bit guilty for indulging in them, but now it seems like they're admitting that it's ok for women to have their traditional feminine interests too. And lots of chuds eat this up, too. I've also noticed a lot more games have blatant fan service in them, almost to the point where I'm numb to it, but this is a level of T&A that would have been protested if it was in old movies.
For a long time, the practical center on feminism was that it was good for the economy. Left or right, everyone agreed that we needed more women in the workforce to grow the economy. But with AI and automation, that's much less clear. So many white collar jobs are getting automated, and it's only going to get worse. Every new woman in the office is simply competition with a man for the same scarce job. The place where we actually need women is at home, having babies, and that doesn't seem to be happening nearly enough.
I think we're on the verge of rolling back a lot of feminism. I know you might say "oh, that's just internet talk, no one actually believes that in real life." But the internet is where we go to talk politics now. If you can win on the internet, you win in real life, too. We might see corporate and political groups stop trying to recruit women, and men being openly sexist again.
As an example, consider our new Secretary of War (that's war, not defense), Pete Hegseth. He opposes feminism, says that women should not be in combat roles, and has instituted mandatory testosterone testing for the military. He's also just generally blunt and aggressive in the way he talks. The left hates him but... he's still in charge. In his personal life, he is twice divorced due to having a lot of affairs.
Or consider JD Vance. He's a lot more intellectual than Hegseth, but still something of a chud. He opposes abortion, same-sex marriage, and childlessness in general. He's flirted with the idea that parents should have more voting rights than non-parents. He wants to "de-woke-ify" all federal institutions. He's saying all kinds of things that would have gotten me fired from most corporate jobs, and yet there's a strong chance that he'll become president.
On a final note, consider the voting demographics. In pretty much every election, the women trend left and the men trend right. If only men voted, the right would basically win every election easily. And that's true internationally, not just in the US. So I'm sure there are a few strategists thinking... "hmm... are we sure we can't repeal that 19th amendment? Or at least make it more difficult for women to vote?" Because that would be an instant knockout blow to the left.
I will say, I don't support any of this. I still consider myself something of a feminist, and I wouldn't fit in at all in a world of chuds. But... I see the appeal, especially for young men, and I think that might be where the world is trending, unless the world finds a more reasonable compromise in the gender wars.
BahRamYou
2d ago
If he wanted to do something that is unpopular but has to be done, cutting entitlements or the debt would be a good place to start instead of another war.
That's not actually a thing that the president can do though. He doesn't have the power to decide budgets. He does have the power to fight wars. Obama did the same thing in his second term, he mostly gave up on trying to fix healthcare and just spent his time handling drone strikes across the middle east. But it's another reason why losing midterm elections isn't the end of the world... if Democrats win Congress, then it's on them to do the unpopular stuff and cut spending.
BahRamYou
2d ago
Right now the war is "unpopular" because the mainstream media is spinning it 24/7 as some sort of unwinnable quagmire, and people are afraid of getting trapped in another Afghanistan type situation. But if he actually wins the war, then it will suddenly be a lot less unpopular. Winning doesn't necessarily have to be a formal regime change, just some sort of obvious symbol of progress, like floating a big convey through the Strait of Hormuz.
But on a broader level, if Republicans lose in the midterms... so what? Trump is a lame duck president and an elderly man, of course he's going to lose popularity. The purpose of winning elections is to do things, you're not trying to do things just to win elections! Trump will still be commander in chief, with wide powers to fight the war as he sees fit. The democrats in Congress can complain, but all they can really do is set budgets.
BahRamYou
2d ago
Regular inspections (as well as satellite reconnaissance) are the mechanism. Nukes might be old tech, but they still require a massive industrial apparatus of centrifuges to make the enriched uranium. It's pretty easy to spot, and then blow it up. As well as blowing up all the engineers and the leaders who authorized it, for good measure. America has tremendous power to do things now, we don't have to suffer the learned helplessness of the Obama era anymore.
BahRamYou
2d ago
We have spent six months and who knows how many weapons—for what? Delaying a nuclear program?
I'm hoping that this does a little more than simply delay the program, but stops it entirely. A six month bombing campaign seems a completely reasonable cost for that! I feel like people are far too blase with the idea of letting 3rd world dictators have nuclear weapons, especially when they also have long range missiles
BahRamYou
2d ago
I agree with all of this. I'm no military expert, and I have no idea what's going on in the strait. It seems to be a huge fog of war with everyone saying different things, and ships deliberately hiding their traffic. But I can safely tune out all that noise and just look at the price of oil in the financial markets, and I feel like that tells me a lot more than any political commentator. From that, it's easy to see that the price of oil is elevated, but not too much so. Suggesting that, while things aren't exactly "back to normal," it's also very far from a full blockade on oil.
BahRamYou
3d ago
Sure, and I think most people are partial to something like that in principle. The problem is... externalities exist. None of us can practice our own perfect freedom without infringing on our neighbors, at least a little. We're not actually living in an archipelago, we're living in a town where we all choke on each other's cigarette smoke and get stuck behind each other in traffic. And that means, we have to hide our shame so we don't traumatize kids.
BahRamYou
3d ago
That's true. I can't really give you a logical argument for why it seems much worse to watch someone else's sex acts than to watch someone else's religious rituals. Nonetheless... it is, and I think the vast majority of people would agree with me on that. I suppose this is one of those "I know it when I see it" things, where the law runs into basic human nature in a less-than-perfectly-logical way.
For what it's worth, I wouldn't mind so much if they did it as peformance art in specially marked artistic venues. I have a very high tolerance for that sort of thing! My objection is more that they try to smuggle it in as innocuous behavior that should be accepted everywhere, which seems dishonest when it's obviously controversial.
BahRamYou
3d ago
I think it is legitimate for you to participate in things like local schoolboard elections, or local city council elections to get performances that use your tax dollars shut down.
So why is it legitimate to ask for action at the local/district level, but not at the state level? That seems fairly arbitary. In fact, in the US legal system, states have rather more power than local districts, so it makes a lot more sense to act at the state level. In more practical terms: Most of us don't have the time or ability to fight lawsuits, so the only way it gets done is to pool resources and fight it at the state level. This is one of many issues where I think libertarians are just kind of naiive to how the real world works.
Are these events really happening at every public space?
No, of course not. In normal life it doesn't bother me that much either. But that cuts both ways... apparently this is such a minor issue that people can live without it. What's the harm if we just ban it? It seems like it would give a lot of people peace of mind, while only harming a very small minority. They could always move to California or New Hampshire if they really, really need to live as drag queens.
Drag doesn't have to be sexual though. Shakespearean actors did drag, and it wasn't sexual. English Pantomime had drag, and it wasn't sexual.
While I don't necessarily endorse drag shows for elementary schoolers
It doesn't have to be but... in modern practice, it almost always is. Nobody would really have an issue with shakespear festivals casting men in women's roles or whatever. But what the drag queens seem to really fight for is obviously a sex fetish for them, and I'm tired of having to look the other way and pretend like this is some high class theater thing. Really, it's fine, we can just ban this and it's not the road to slavery, it's just the road to a more civilized public life.
BahRamYou
3d ago
But you see the Motte and Bailey here, right? We're not just talking about private businesses. If the drag queens would keep it there, there'd be no problem (and most of us wouldn't even know that it exists). But they want to move it into public spaces, where we wouldn't normally expect to encounter sexually explicit acts. If I were to walk into the public library or downtown main street naked, I'd get arrested for public indecency, but the drag queens seem to argue that this is some sort of human right, even though it seems very much like a fetish for them.
I can't exactly "boycott" every single public space, and even if I did, I might actually have an opinion on whether its good for them to be used in putting children into someone's fetish play. At some poine, it's simply easier to do a blanket ban rather than try to play small town politics over every single posible location. And yes, when we're talking about people trying to force their sexuality on the rest of us, I do think that usingi the language of consent is appropriate.
BahRamYou
4d ago
But "protected" doesn't guarantee you a printing press, or any sort of venue. The drag queens seem to think they have an inherent right to perform at public buildings and are shocked that they might be turned down.
BahRamYou
4d ago
This. For the most part, drag queens don't just "look like" women. If that's all they were doing, most people wouldn't care (and how would you even know?). Instead, they do a ridiculously exagerated caricature of women. Ridiculously stuffed breasts, buttocks, falsetto voice, etc. Some have described it as "girl face," like the "black face" that people used to do in minstrel shows to make fun of black people. It's completely different from how actual trans women dress, or how actors dress to present as a realistic woman. It makes for an incredibly cheesy, campy effect, and I'm tired of pretending that it's not in horrible taste. We don't have to ban it all together, but we can limit it to the more fringe parts of society, like strip clubs outside of town, rather than welcoming it into public streets, libraries, and everywhere else where we're forced to look at it without consent.
BahRamYou
4d ago
I've come to accept that, as technology improves, certain crafts that used to be common simply get lost, or at least become much more rare. So England in the middle ages could count on producing tons of skilled archers, and then in the age of sail it could easily find expert sailors to run a tall ship. Now, those would both be exceptionally rare skills. Working in a munitions plant is a similarly old/obscure skill... kinda hard to learn that without working in some sort of dangerous factory, which probably doesn't exist near you unless you happen to live in Scranton. I suppose we could bring it back, but Baumol and similar effects make it much more expensive than it used to be. Not to mention that it really is dangerous to work in these plants... people in the past used to just accept the occasional accidental explosion, but people now are a little more sensitive to that sort of thing.
As far as I can tell, there's no great shortage of basica artillery shells. Maybe at the start of the Ukraine war there was. But now they're a lot more limited by the more expensive missiles and drones.
BahRamYou
7d ago
negative valence
This is the most important phrase to know when consuming any sort of media. The facts don't matter nearly so much as, what sort of emotion are they creating around it? That will lead the public to mimic that emotion, no matter what it is.
BahRamYou
11d ago
Ok, find and replace "any" with "a significant amount of." Five barges is not the sort of invasion force that threatens WW3.
BahRamYou
11d ago
Or to put it another way: when Xi Jinping told the PLA to prepare the capability to invade Taiwan in 2027 (he said this multiple years ago), do you think that he wasn't being serious?
Let me ask you this. How much time do you spend listening to Xi Jinping speeches? Are you fluent in Chinese? Do you keep up with all of his internal briefings and read all of his essays?
I'm going to guess the answer is no. Me neither. It's impossible to keep up with everything like that unless its your professional job. So I rely on trusting those professionals, instead of trying to figure it all out myself. But that means we can't take one statement out of context from a foreign leader and take it literally- let the professionals who analyze this stuff figure out what it means. If they're not worried, I'm not either.
Politicians love to talk, it's what they do. Most of it is aimed at whatever audiencee they're talking to at the time, not for foreign nations. So it sounds to me like he made some rah-rah patriotic "make the PLA great again!" speech to encourage the troops, which then got picked up by foreign media, and they've been scaremongering us for years. Because that's what media does.
Notice Xi Jinping hasn't done. He hasn't loudly repeated the threat over and over again, like real warmongers do. He's never said anything to Taiwan at all. He hasn't significantly increased military spending, or built any amphibious invasion craft, or worked the general public up into a militaristic frenzy like the leaders did before WW1. There's just no parallel at all in modern times to the massive nationalistic arms race that preceded WW1.
BahRamYou
11d ago
I'm well aware that France has nuclear reactors, and probably I should have mentioned that, but didn't want to get to into the weeds about a side point. France is very much an outlier and Europe, and their fleet of reactors was mostly built in the 80s and 90s, and it was built mostly to serve their own national needs, not to be the powerhouse for all of Europe. They can export some energy, but not nearly enough to power the continent.
I also don't think the solar situation is at all comparable to China. Europe is significantly further north than China, like 10 degrees or more, with only the northern parts of China overlapping with the southern parts of Europe. That massively increases the seasonality problems of solar. Building solar panels in Spain to export energy all the way out to Germany, the Baltics, and Eastern Europe doesn't seem like a real solution, even if you ignore the difficulty of crossing multiple international borders. I know they've gotten some energy from solar and wind, and that's great, but they haven't increased capacity nearly as much as they would need to "just stop burning oil," let alone the natural gas they import.
None of this is to say that Europe is doomed, or anything, it's just that they're facing strong headwinds in energy that will limit their growth. Meanwhile in the US we just have a huge abundance of seemingly every source of energy.
That's fair to distinguish the different types. There's definitely an increasing amount of people who are just in category 1: acknowledging real psychological differences between the sexes, but without any particular malice. But... I think there's some guys in category 2, also, who really do have some malice towards women. They usually mask it as jokes, from edgy "shock jock" pundits like Nick Fuentes, but... when they keep making the same sort of joke over and over, I get the feeling they really do believe in it to some extent.
More options
Context Copy link