SkookumTree
1yr ago
why does male disposability imply that women cannot be held accountable for any acts of wrongdoing, why we must scramble and contrive reasons that someone (some man) other than the woman in question was at fault for the crime she freely chose to commit?
I guess you could stretch it to argue that the successful men who haven't been disposed of are responsible, like captains at sea, for everything the women in their household do and fail to do. Therefore, if a man's wife commits murder or robbery or fraud, it is the man who is responsible and knows or should have known and done something to prevent it. His failure to do so means that he is unfit and must be punished. I don't exactly agree with this, as I am a Westerner and not a Talib, but that's my best argument for it.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Women are manipulated into careers they don't really enjoy and talked into having less children later, to keep them in the workforce for longer (similar to the former claims, we don't think this is a conscious conspiracy, merely the automatic and implicit market forces of the modern world at work).
That is fair; atomization and increased government surveillance (or the perception of it) means that the things that used to keep abusive assholes in check in ages past aren't as strong anymore. There's a greater chance you wind up in prison if you and your friends instruct your sister's husband on why it is not a good idea to be an abusive asshole. There are weaker family and community networks for applying pressure to people defecting from local optimums. So in order to not be vulnerable to certain kinds of exploitation, women need to work and have careers. Taking a couple decades off of work to raise children is admirable, but makes women vulnerable: I knew a woman that had a Master's degree, but could only find minimum-wage unskilled work after twenty years of homemaking. That led her to stay with her rather insensitive but mostly good breadwinner husband instead of divorcing her. Perhaps you can bite the bullet and argue that women need to be in relationships they do not want to be in because of economic and societal pressure in order to continue the species, but that is a rather hard bullet to bite and I sincerely hope that this is not true.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Yeah, the idea of honorable, celibate life paths was something we lost when we became less religious. I think that (rough ballpark) five or so percent of people aren't good candidates for marriage, relationships, and children. It's like the Army...fifteen percent of people don't have the cognitive horsepower to be Army cooks or janitors. You've got the intellectually disabled, treatment resistant schizophrenia, different kinds of physical disability. Those are often no one's fault, but even so, they aren't great candidates for relationships and may not be able to form mutually beneficial relationships. Then you've got the traumatized, the unattractive, the asexual...every generation is going to have some of these people, and having them become long-haul truck drivers or travel nurses or neurosurgeons who are "too busy to date" doesn't sound like a bad place to park them.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Fair enough; wondered if you'd see it like undergoing a (painful, gross) medical procedure. Like having your retina lasered because a small part of it became detached (the wonders of mild EDS...) That is an awful lot of septic tanks to be fixing though; most guys fix 0 septic tanks/lifetime...
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Is he worthy of someone enduring deep, visceral, biological disgust and misery simply to make him happy? The men I knew that were that determined, hardworking, and admirable didn't have trouble with women.
You're a straight man. Would YOU fuck him, even once, if you thought it would boost his self esteem? If not, why not? Sure, you might find it gross, but people do a lot of gross shit. Would you rather fuck him, or help him bail out his overflowing septic tank using a rented pickup truck and a couple hundred bucks' worth of whatever bullshit you could pick up from the local hardware store?
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Can he inspire people? Can you see him succeeding at high end sales or in politics? Also: how tall is he?
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Where does he want the ambulances? I'm not entirely clear if a relationship with the type of person he can attract as he is would be good for anyone concerned. Maybe it would be.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Hmm...I might recommend saturation of some kind. Go to a regional burning man event. Learn to interact with scantily clad and nude women... without it being sexual at all. A healthy dose of fear of offending or being creepy helps. As does experience in the healthcare field or perhaps with dealing with anything disgusting while keeping a straight face. Like... she's not into you, would never in a million years be into you, it's fine for you to appreciate her aesthetic but you are kinda gross for finding her attractive in any way other than the way a sunset is pretty. You just need to keep your eyes focused on her face even if her tits are huge and she's not wearing anything. It gets much easier with practice and willpower.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Also regional burning man events. Frequently there are conventionally attractive women walking around not wearing anything. You get used to it after a while.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
As far as pills...the efficacy is not great and it's probably bad medical advice to use them for this purpose, but you're a physician. Surely you are aware of the side effects of SSRIs for some people?
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Hmm. My close female friend told me to stop being so self loathing. This has been helpful. I might have a date this weekend with a thin middle class American woman. Other than that...I don't remember having gotten any garbage tier advice from women, although it is possible I can't tell good stuff from dogshit.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
I would advise making a top one percent income and being charismatic enough for a career in politics. Failing this, either choose lifelong celibacy or decide where you want the ambulances. If the former it helps to take a job that meshes poorly with marriage and family. A truck driver or a neurosurgeon both don't have time to put down roots.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Yeah. Unless he gets maimed from a weightlifting accident or something he's going to be better off from self improvement.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
More or less. Wealth (for the peasants like you and I, and the lords and aristocrats at the top) isn't generated the same way it was in, say, 1500 AD. Then (oversimplifying here) you generated wealth by having a bunch of land on which you had a bunch of peasants growing crops, and you generally had a shortage of land. So killing the other guys and stealing their land was a good move; even a terrible war didn't usually make the land unusable. Now, the wealth is in factories and skilled workers. Even a resource-extraction economy has more sensitive infrastructure than preindustrial farmland.
As for Ukraine...this is basically the West trying to discourage Russia from going for ye olde pillage and loot strategy. The Russians now own an awful lot of smoking rubble and figuring out how to make money off that will be a pretty tough thing to do...
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Yeah, these are pretty freaking ugly. Like, the whole Brutalist thing made sense after WWII, when European cities were bombed out, industrial machinery was available to a greater extent than in ages past, and reinforced concrete was fairly inexpensive. At least, it made sense to some degree...figuring out how to build cheap half decent buildings out of reinforced concrete is a worthy goal.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
I'm increasingly convinced that beauty is local and specific. The forms we find loveliest are recognizably from somewhere. A climate-controlled box of concrete, glass, and steel can plop down anywhere.
Yeah. Brutalism at least had an interesting concept - house as machine for living. "What does the most efficient house or building look like, aesthetics be damned?". "What is the least expensive way to build a building that meets this minimum threshold?". Unfortunately, Brutalism didn't deliver. The buildings weren't all that good as buildings; if they had been, perhaps their ugliness could have been forgiven.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
I like BJJ. I like the aesthetic of boxing and football...but really dislike the fucking CTE. That robs brave men of their selves. Maybe there'd be fewer concussions in bare knuckle boxing or something.
Also, my rationale for the Hock.
I think there should be an additional way to get into an elite college. You can still get in because you're an Olympic swimmer, or won an international math competition for high schoolers four years in a row, or because you're the daughter of a sitting U.S. President. But for mere mortals willing to put everything on the line...
I was thinking about an idea for Ivy League admissions reform: the ruling class and those that wind up hanging around them don't have to take much personal risk to get there. In ages past, until a few months into WWI, aristocrats were expected to take personal risk by going to war; many of the sons of aristocrats pulled strings to get sent to the trenches. War is more dangerous now than it was in 1900, and warmongering isn't exactly a good or necessary thing for the United States.
Therefore, I propose Admission of the Hock. Those with SATs over 1300 or ACTs over 27 who are in the top 15 percent of their high school class are eligible for the Hock. In early March, participants are parachuted onto a frozen lake in a boreal forest in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They're allowed anything they can carry on their back except for firearms, maps, and communication devices. No rescue beacons, either. If they survive by making it back to civilization under their own power, they receive admission to an Ivy League school.
If you want something - if you truly, honestly believe in something - that means being willing to risk your life for it and to suffer for it. There's very little of that nowadays in America outside of the combat arms. The likes of Harvard and Yale and by extension the American aristocracy would thus be leavened by large numbers of people willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to ascend the class ladder. These people would know suffering and want as they had not in their sheltered childhoods. They would understand the whims of Mother Nature; they would know viscerally for the rest of their lives that the universe will not bend to their will.
What do you think?
TL;DR If you can do the work at Fancy Elite College and graduate, but you're not a rockstar, you can get dumped into the Alaskan wilderness in winter. Make it out alive and you're in.
Yes, some would become frozen popsicles and have their carcasses eaten by wolves or something. Others would lose fingers and toes. But the survivors would be stronger. And a thousand years ago - or even two hundred years ago? Most people that survived to adulthood would have watched siblings die and not been able to do anything about it; most parents watched their children die unable to do anything about it. "No parent should bury a child" is a sentiment that can't be much more than a hundred years old.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
I can't help but think that they are at least partially correct in their analysis of gender dynamics, regardless of the solutions they purport.
The radical feminists were quite intelligent in describing the problems that existed at the time, but more or less batshit crazy when discussing solutions.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
You also have the issue that in the modern world, unlike the ancient, war is generally bad even for the victors. Instead of fertile agricultural land and slaves and loot, the winners get the smoking remains of factories and a bunch of bombed out buildings.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Yeah, that sounds pretty nice. Especially in wildfire-heavy areas in the West...it might be possible to do more intensive forest management and controlled fires if we had more personnel.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Pillaging and looting the other guy doesn't get you fertile farmland, loot, and slaves anymore. Now, it gets you a smoking wasteland. Most of the human and economic capital has been blown to pieces or left or been killed.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
Nobody can go from the typical incel physique to military levels of fitness in the timeframe in question.
IF they're not morbidly obese and they're fairly dedicated, plus or minus some "help" of questionable legality, they probably can. A sedentary untrained young dude who works out hard can get to benching 185 and running a 7 minute mile in six months. He'll need to work his ass off, but if he spends a bunch of time doing pushups and running with other guys in his Neo-Nazi group? Plausible. Hard, but plausible. And there are probably a few guys who work manual labor or go to the gym or something joining, too.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
consciously develop a new non-theistic Religion that doesn't rely on superstition or demand belief in miracles. Adherence to this religion should sacralize civilizational achievement, the Faustian spirit, and social conventions that steer society in a eugenic direction. It should oppose those who compromise these objectives with false gods and a false morality.
A modern Confucianism? That sounds interesting; hopefully we might get something like this in a century or two.
SkookumTree
1yr ago
"RETVRN to coupling with someone who doesn't really like you all that much but will put up with you and raise a couple of kids"
I mean...for a lot of guys, isn't this a pretty good deal or what they honestly already have? I've known: skilled blue collar workers in relationships with 450lb women that need canes to walk and get winded walking a hundred yards, women in relationships with guys they'd divorce if they had had jobs and hadn't chosen homemaking, guys who chose to remain married to women that tried to strangle their 10-year-old child after the child and their mom had an argument.
That being said: it is probably a good thing that only the best/most adapted/most graceful of men get to have families and children; the idea that patriarchy was a sheltered workshop for low-value men doesn't sound too unreasonable.
Where you are: how is the idea that gay people should be celibate viewed? How is it viewed if a gay person chooses celibacy because he believes that gay relationships aren't for him and that it wouldn't be fair to an opposite-sex partner if he was in a relationship with her? What if it's a lesbian choosing celibacy...perhaps because of religious belief? They don't think that other people's relationships are any of their business and support people being able to do what they want, gay marriage, all that...but believe that their God wants them to be celibate, or are maybe celibate out of personal conviction.
More options
Context Copy link