Botond173
2d ago
First, the Bolshevik revolutionaries didn't say they were merciless and malevolent; quite the opposite! Who could be against their stated agenda of fighting tyranny no matter what class of the people it affects? or self-determination for oppressed peoples?
They also promised to terminate Russian involvement in the ongoing world war and sue for a separate peace. Which, I guess, was more important of a factor than this.
Botond173
3d ago
I'd say the two are necessarily interconnected. Existing social networks need to weaken and dissolve to a degree for the Sexual Revolution to happen, because social controls need to loosen for it to happen.
Botond173
4d ago
I'd imagine the meme originates from the US or Canada, which are enormous countries with enormous areas of wilderness, where relatively crowded forest trails aren't the norm, so women's preconceptions are different.
Botond173
4d ago
I would assume that you primarily mean vetting by the family of the male, not the female?
In short: no. In a patriarchy, the family of the male fulfills the role of raising him up to be a prospective husband, because that’s in their interest. They put incentives in place to ensure he doesn’t turn into a lout, a gambler, a hobo etc. The family of the female basically does the mirror image of this, plus they restrict the girl’s social life in the sense that she only moves around in the wider social circle of the family where everyone is assumed to be vetted. To put it in cynical terms: she’s basically provided a pool of, say, 5-10 potential husbands, and she’s free to choose from them, under the supervision of her family and the families of those 5-10 guys. (Maybe it’s just 3-5 guys or whatever, but that’s not important.) That is the extent of the mating choice she has. It is in this sense that her family is vetting her future husband. This is feasible because the social circles of the future spouses either overlap or have direct connections. There are strong social bonds, a sense of community, social capital etc. Of course, people aren’t only getting vetted on an individual basis, their families are also getting vetted.
Again, I’m no sociologist, but I assume this is how this all went down normally. These societies no longer exist, so it’s all bygone history anyway.
I think that in many patriarchal cultures, not being especially rapey was not part of the vetting process on the side of the man.
You’re absolutely correct. In the current sense of the word, it wasn’t part of it because it wasn’t seen as relevant. In a different sense of the word, though, not being rapey towards virtuous women in your social circle was 100% part of it. Of course, feminists will happily explain to you that the patriarchy is a horrible shitshow with a wholly backward concept of rape. Which is basically true, in the sense that yes, it’s a system which, in certain circumstances, gives you covert license to rape a woman whom you encounter in the woods. If, for example, she’s a loud alcoholic whore who had abortions, belonging to a family that your family has a feud with. Or if you’re a soldier of a victorious army on enemy soil etc. And again, these societies had a vastly different concept of the word ‘rape’, but I don’t think it’s necessary to go into detail here.
If there was a common denominator, it was perhaps to certify that the male was able to fulfill their expected role in society and support one or more wives and their children. (Of course, such vetting processes are also heavier on the upper end of societies. I am not sure how it was on the lower end: "This helot man has managed to survive for two decades without starving or being slaughtered or maimed by the Spartans, that makes him husband material?"
Yes and yes.
I am also skeptical of claims that the female's male relatives filtered especially for a kind man. In societies where marital violence and rape were considered normal, why would they?
And you’re absolutely right to be skeptical. A patriarchy has no concept of ‘marital rape’, for example.
Botond173
4d ago
-
Before the Sexual Revolution became the new norm*, it was not standard practice to hit on girls outside your social circle as a single man. In fact, the unstated consensus was that your relatives or friends will introduce you to some girl in their social circle, thereby vetting you for her sake, and sort of vetting her as well, although that wasn't seen as equally important, I think. This is how rank-and-file people paired up.
-
Mandatory military service, hard physical labor, service in the Boy Scouts, boarding school, time spent in all-male environments in general were all social norms throughout the West for large numbers of men. This had the aggregate effect of toughening men up to a degree, which served to at least partially offset/balance the effects of hypergyny / female hypergamy on the mating market.
-
There was social consensus that masculinity is an ideal and is clearly defined. This wasn't undermined by any social institution. Boys were expected to assume this role, with sticks and carrots put in place accordingly.
-
Feminists will happily complain that patriarchal societies enact slut-shaming, which is more or less true. What is left unsaid is that there existed the parallel practice of cad-shaming. Both single men and single women lived under the surveillance and control of their social circle to a degree.
"Eligible" in this context means "eligible for marriage or at least long-term commitment" i.e. "to be considered as a future husband". Which means a couple of things: not addicted to any substance, not a gambler, not a domestic abuser, not a rake, not a violent thug etc.
*So sometime between 1970-1980, depending on social circumstances. That was the cutoff point, I think.
Botond173
4d ago
Fair enough. But hasn't pretty much all combat since late 2022 taken place in the central and southern sectors? I imagine Kharkov's logistical role as a railway hub hasn't been that important since then.
Also, maybe the current offensive is limited because it's only meant to capture areas which are due to serve as starting points of a bigger offensive in the summer. Not that I'm certain that they want to capture the city this summer.
Botond173
4d ago
Thesis (not a terribly original one, but here it goes) as food for thought / discussion fodder:
The online proliferation of the man vs bear in the woods meme, plus similar earlier social media phenomena with a feminist message are, in reality, generalized and simplified expressions of women's overall frustration and latent anger directed at the loss of manhood initiation rituals that characterizes modern post-patriarchal atomized societies; namely, the current social reality is that adolescent boys and young single men are no longer vetted by fathers, elders, brothers, uncles and other pre-vetted eligible men before they are, in effect, released into their wider social circle from the family environment, which makes it rather difficult and risky for single women to separate eligible men from ineligible men.
Botond173
4d ago
an important military hub for the existing frontline:
Is it really one though?
Botond173
4d ago
Exactly. The Chinese and Russian regimes rather markedly do not normalize ethnomasochism.
Botond173
7d ago
I'm not sure I understand if HBD has some unified perspective on this. While I see darker hispanics, most hispanics I see are majority European.
It's because Hispanic is a linguistic category, not a racial one.
Botond173
7d ago
"never ask a Latin American father about his teenage/young adult daughter's 'social' life"
Never ask a Latin American father about his teenage/young adult daughter's 'social' life.
Botond173
8d ago
There’s a Trump personality cult with very little genuine infrastructure behind it, sitting on top of the carcass of the post-Tea Party GOP, which itself is a hollowed-out shell of what it once was even ten years ago.
The timeline is a bit of a mess here. 10 years ago it was 2014. The Tea Party protests were in 2010 and, as far as I know, were quickly co-opted by the mainstream GOP after contributing to its success in the midterms. It was a flash in the pan, basically. 10 years, ago, the GOP was already a post-Tea Party GOP. Also, weren't there periods/terms between 2010-18 when it had a majority in the Senate and the House? There was ample opportunity to do immigration reform.
Botond173
11d ago
"not even with zero effort or consequences would she get any"
We can rephrase this in this context simply as "unable to induce an erection".
Botond173
11d ago
There was also a similar though more serious scandal in California back in 1993 around the so-called Spur Posse.
Botond173
11d ago
When I think of wokeness, I think of the great cultural turn around 2010 - 2015... Hanania has no explanation for this.
Liberal disappointment in Obama seems to explain most if it, I think. OWS and the Tea Party can be interpreted as repercussions from this.
Botond173
11d ago
My point is this: isn't hiking normally considered as a social/bonding activity by its enthusiasts, or at least the majority of them? I'm looking at this in the context of social conventions, not legality. The issue isn't how hiking is to be regulated. I know a bunch of people who have hiking as their hobby, and almost everytime they go in groups. When I first heard about this whole social media brouhaha, this was my first thought: why is a - presumably young and single - woman going hiking alone in the first place? Especially in a forest inhabited by wild bears? Isn't it women who do not like solo activities as much as men?
Botond173
14d ago
So after reading of this online trend I decided to look up information on bear attacks in Russia, as I remembered reading that those often become a serious issue on a local level.
There's an interesting tidbit I've found: "Kamchatka brown bears are generally not dangerous to humans, and only 1% of encounters result in attack." (The cited source is a Kamchatka Ecology and Environmental Institute study.)
To be sure, brown bears are no joke, and the Kamchatkan subspecies is even less of a joke: "The Kamchatka brown bear is the biggest brown bear in Eurasia, with a body length of 2.4 m (7.9 ft) to 3 m (9.8 ft) tall on hind legs, and a weight up to at least 650 kg (1,430 lb). It is about the size of the Kodiak bear..."
Anyway, the 1% figure is somewhat surprising and seems to underpin the feminist argument at first sight. However, I'd be very surprised if solitary female-on-male encounters in the woods were statistically as dangerous anywhere in the world.
Botond173
14d ago
Botond173
14d ago
Botond173
15d ago
Fair enough. When I first read it, I didn't notice that the story also entails boning.
I guess not even the intelligentsia is immune from getting too emotionally caught up in the desire for peace, a promise of a new beginning etc. and thus focusing on that one goal while ignoring all the red flags (heh).
More options
Context Copy link