ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
No bio...
User ID: 822
I see school shootings as a distinctly American byproduct of individualism and decayed positive social emotion.
It's probably worth noting that the more general term for mass violence, "running amok", was thought to be relatively unique to Malay culture at the time they coined the phrase.
If it's true that there was a rise in atomization/increase in negative social emotion in that culture, at that time period, relative to its neighboring cultures, this is a good point in this concept's favor, but Asia in the 16th-ish century wasn't exactly a bastion of individualism in general.
(Also, as a point of "pride": it's interesting that the rise of mass shooters generally tracks the elimination of pride as American social driving force. Guess the Reds really were good for something.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
Every commentator I've seen has raised their eyebrows at the promised 50k PSI (iirc) of this cartridge
It's 80,000 PSI. The upshot of this is that this pressure is above the failure point of brass casings; that's why the head has to be stainless steel. This also isn't new technology; Shellshock has been selling this exact thing for the last 5 years in their pistol cartridges at a price point that indicates it's actually quite a bit cheaper than brass is to make. You can even reload it, too, you just need to modify the sizing die so you don't rip the base off when trying to extract the case.
Most of the "but muh feasibility" people are the reason gun owners have the reputation for intellectual curiosity that they do. Even rifles produced 80 years ago and designed only to take 60,000 PSI are still capable of not turning into bombs at twice that pressure; making modern metallurgy take 10% more pressure on the regular is not a difficult challenge.
Barrel life is also not likely to be the issue people think it is, partly because they're using better steel and coatings, but also because of projectile choice. The tradeoff you make with the extremely long projectiles that 6.5CM in particular is famous for (and how it gets most of its performance at extreme distances) is that the projectile's bearing surface gets quite large- contributing to accelerated wear.
On the armor piercing capabilities, he acknowledges that defeating level IV plates "unassisted" (which I take to mean with lead core ball ammunition) is not in the spec, so from my perspective we should assume it doesn't exist.
But if it can't defeat Level IV with assistance (as in, the AP cartridge that nobody outside of the military has been able to take a look at yet), then what the fuck was the point of switching cartridges? The thing to remember is that .308 and 5.56 AP also fails to penetrate (if the armor can't stop that it's not Level IV), but outside of that its wounding potential is higher, the rifles that fire it last longer (and already exist), and it has more room inside the cartridge for incendiary material.
(The article is simply wrong on this point- .308 AP and 5.56 AP, despite their name, do not penetrate Level IV, and Level IV is what the US/Aus military is worried about a mass of Chinese troops showing up wearing. They were certain the Russians would have had it too but, well...)
I refuse to believe the US Army (and the Australian Army, for that matter- they're also considering adopting a rifle in this caliber) is that stupid. Sure, there's always a chance that they want to go back to muh One Shot One Kill and fighting the last war (where they wanted a rifle that could perform from 0.8m to 800m, hence their use of the SCAR and re-issuance of the M14, and a usecase where the LVPO XM157 has a tremendous advantage- this isn't the XM25 where you had to lase the target for it to work, it's a scope first, manual rangefinder second).
I have a personal conspiracy theory that government support for environmentalism is at least partially driven by a desire to preserve the natural resources of the USA for a potential war... but I digress
They should have waited for Textron's all-plastic casings. I remember it being mentioned that they might run out of brass, which is already an expensive material to make functionally one-time-use casings out of. Being able to extrude the casing is the future of ammunition (just as it was back in the 1950s with the Dardick Tround- the ammunition was solid, the gun was crap), we just haven't managed to develop a good rifle for it.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
So it is all about old school grudges?
Considering the current culture war lines are drawn on SomethingAwful vs. 4chan I'd be absolutely willing to say that yes, it is.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
It's called "condescension". The group who (claim to) hate it so much they invented another word for it are the people responsible for most of it.
And sure, the kids eventually pick up on it- nobody likes being treated as if they're beneath someone (which is partially why teen media is infamously edgy as well as the general trend of kids wanting to consume 'adult' media in general), but they're not even human beings so who gives a damn?
Plus, if you do it enough, you can even make some of them proud of this treatment so it's self-reinforcing after a while... exactly what one with power should want in order to retain that power forever.
The left wants the status quo ante of Roe v. Wade
By their revealed preferences, they do not; they knew it was going to get repealed in that leaked decision and they did nothing, and then it was repealed and they still did nothing.
If they cared that much, I would have expected a bill on the floor of the House the next day- but they didn't even bother to even do that. It's not like they're incapable of throwing together a law quickly; after all, they do that for assault weapons bans at every opportunity- so they must not value it that much. (That said, the ruling by and large didn't affect the people agitating for abortion rights.)
The right is the side making those into culture war issues, not the left.
There was nothing stopping a Blue state from making their abortion laws even more liberal than they were in the RvW times. You can certainly argue "the right is imposing its standards on us" in the context of, say, Bruen (imposing gun rights on Blue states), but not so much for this.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
4mo ago
over half of 13 year olds have seen porn by that age. Pretty bad!
Biological adults interested in sex, news at 11.
Why should society's failure to reify the pretenses it currently has about teenagers, or parents failing to parent, ever be my fucking problem?
There probably exists some amount of parental options like this, right?
Those who failed to learn the lessons of the early 2000s are doomed to repeat them forever; what continuously puzzles me is the proportion of parents who were children at that time that don't seem to fully understand this even though they by all rights should. Censorship is effective- that's part of why we continually insist on doing it, after all- but a technological solution to a people problem doesn't solve the people problem that, as a parent, one should obviously be much more interested in actually solving (since the legislature won't)... and if they're not so invested, I don't see why I should have to subsidize these parents' pretense that their 17 year old is still 7 for just a little while longer. Letting them pollute the commons with this extra tax is not acceptable.
Younger children don't tend to search for porn because, should you be fortunate enough to remember what being one is like, it's gross and weird if you don't have the software package that lets you appreciate it. Hell, half of the reason parents even consider turning the parental controls on in the first place is because their kid brought them something they didn't fully understand (because clearly the way you reward your child's trust in you is to respond by revoking your trust in them; it's basically like telling your son who's smart enough to tell the neighborhood creep "no" despite never having received formal instructions to do so that he must now wear a condom at all times).
As far as the teenagers go, of course, you're past the point of realistically controlling them especially if they've inherited enough of their parents disagreeableness to find other ways; general purpose computers that can trivially bypass these blocks are easily-concealable and generally within teenage budgets.
As for your other points:
-
Realistically, they're just going to go to sites that happen to feature a significant number of results with participants a lot closer to their own age (worth noting that this is the main reason 4chan exists). So instead of being exposed to material traditionalist-progressives are merely concerned about, they'll see material about which they're absolutely apoplectic. At least it's higher-quality than whatever self-indulgent garbage progressives think is worthy of school libraries, and sites that feature this aren't generally trying to manipulate you into clicking on uglier porn like PornHub does, but it's the same "well they banned heroin so everyone just uses fentanyl now because it's easier to get" thing. Some jurisdictions are angrier about that material existing than others; I'm sure throwing the odd teenager in jail over loli is going to make things so much better for everyone just like it already does when they catch him with a nude his girlfriend sent him, and is definitely a good use of our resources.
-
Legislation can, and has, replaced parenting but only in the "makes it worse for anyone with an IQ above 70" direction. Bad parents don't follow the rules, good parents don't need them, and in its majestic equality the law prohibits both from ignoring them.
-
You misspelled "will"; this is a target for actors with State-level resources for what should be blatantly obvious reasons.
-
Most countries whose citizens have at least a vague notion of free speech already get hauled to jail for posting edgy memes on Twitter (they're generally stupid enough to use their real names when signing up for their accounts). The porn equivalent of that would be bad, actually.
they're not supervillains doing evil things for the sake of it
No, it's just the more mundane "stop doing what I don't like"/"I don't want to solve the problem, I want to ban X" thing that slave morality modes don't see as distinct from evil.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
5mo ago
In other words, this is what happens when you have parenting advice intended for people who don't need it, implemented by those who aren't capable or self-aware enough to pull it off. Which is probably the best argument for censorship of ideas about relationships that are actively bad for people not capable of implementing them for whatever reason; too bad that always ends badly for other reasons.
but perhaps it’s a little scary and destabilizing to believe that, at 12, you know better than the people with power over your life.
The high-capability children are already well-aware they know better than the people with power over their lives and are thus fine to discuss this with; the problem is every parent thinking their child is high-capability when they aren't (because what mother doesn't think that about her kid?).
They believe it’s important to explain their reasoning to their kids. Not all of them do this with the paternal grace of Atticus Finch.
The problem with velvet-glove-in-iron-fist-style parenting (of which I am personally a fan) is that it doesn't work if the iron fist isn't consistently there. (Alternately: the most successful parents, as all effective rulers, are all obeying Machiavellian principles.)
When their 15 year old comes back from vacation in a country where the drinking age is 16, they ask her, “Did you go out? Did you have a beer?” When she says no, they tease her.
This is more a problem inherent to "doing drugs with your boss is generally a bad idea", adjacent to "dating them is also a bad idea". This becomes a better idea if you're once or twice removed from the authority relationship and have cultivated a reputation of generally being safe, but less kids means fewer chances you'll get to be the cool aunt (and you need to know parents that trust you enough), so...
They don’t enforce basic civic norms, like standing for the national anthem.
People who fail the shopping cart test are unfit to live in civilized society; this trait is inherently overrepresented by those in any moral majority.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
6mo ago
but they’re required to wear body cameras while in public.
Not only is everyone already wearing a body camera in public, but one of the reasons they upgrade to new models is for the better and better cameras installed thereon.
The government is already known to seize any footage taken with such a camera without a warrant, too.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
8mo ago
It's mostly wasteland, so very desolate and unproductive outside cities.
Or in other words, the state is just Australia in microcosm; political implications and all.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
or we might have to give up on this "cultural sovereignty"
The only people who care about "cultural sovereignty" are the Eastern City people for what should be obvious reasons; the rest of their empire throwing in with the Americans is a real risk. Of course, the Eastern Cities are arguably even more [Blue] American than the rest of the country so it's not really going to help them any more than it did before, but they think it will and that's what matters.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
The whole thing strikes me as so sordid, precisely because the boys targeted were so close to being of age.
Meh? I get that we pretend that 7 and 17 are equivalent for political/moral purposes, but assuming gays act like straights with respect to favoring youth right at physical maturity, and for straights we already know late teenagers are already in the "most attractive" zone for straight men, this doesn't seem that out of left field (3.6 Roentgen is the highest, er, 18 is the lowest we want the meter to be able to read). He had the power at the time to afford it, so he offered it.
Disapproving of homosexuality doesn't seem to work. Disapproving of all sex doesn't seem to work.
Which is why the solution the liberals proposed was "just devalue sex itself to the point where this activity isn't transgressive enough to bother with/bother attaching personal meaning -> assuming a trauma from". Rates of under-18 sexual abuse are lower in societies that don't have as massive a complex about "muh pedos" so I'm not entirely sure they're wrong.
The only solution that occurs to me is to avoid all organized structures, avoid giving men power
We tried this already. The women [we replaced the men with] are primarily responsible for pushing "take HRT and chop your dick/breasts off", "we only care about underage relationships when it's male -> female; male -> male relationships like this are stunning and brave", "only bullying by women is permitted", and "all expressions of straight male sexuality are problematic and harmful, yikes, #metoo".
Some think this is an improvement; I disagree.
How do we raise kids when we must protect them from virtually all men [and, by the same measure, all women]?
Make sure that disengaging from an bad [expensive/turned exploitative] relationship is as costless as possible. Rational analysis of all the #metoo cases prove that it takes two (and the more powerful offers benefits at the cost of a sexual relationship: the assertion that these were purely exploitative relationships was a blatant lie).
Remove the ability of that party to offer those benefits (you can't market "I'll give you X in exchange for sex" if you can find 50 other people overnight offering X for less) and that's most of the problem taken care of. You'll still have the occasional Weinstein, but if they had sufficient other options, chose that, and they claim "victimization and trauma" afterwards... well, we gave them other options and they did it anyway so it's not our problem.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
It might be relevant to note that nearly the entire Uvalde Police department seems to have been mixed race latino (visibly so)
So were the students. Not exactly an argument that supports a racial solidarity angle.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
So are libel and grievous bodily harm. These women deserve prison time and ruinous fines, because they conspired to create consequences indistinguishable from simply hacking off their target's limbs.
Character assassination is still assassination and should be punished as such. "Oh, don't worry, we left you with two arms and a head" is not a defense.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
I think the main difference is that male attributes are more legible and women are attuned to the relative status of their males.
Interestingly, the same is true for crime. When men attempt to destroy their enemy, the signs are generally very, very visible- hard to hide scratches, bruises, and broken bones- but when women do the same, it's invisible and completely deniable (it's very difficult to prosecute a woman for false rape accusations, and their bullying more generally as the lies are told and the damage done behind closed doors and side channels).
As such, it takes a lot more effort to put an end to female bad actors (and a lot of the judgment will be on circumstantial evidence anyway), and the effect multiplies as the gender balance of an organization (including society at large) skews their way to the point where the (for lack of a better term) "begone thot" school of problem solving stops working.
Corruption is a difficult beast to deal with and no civilization ever survives it (States fall apart when the parasitic load gets too high, but can survive a lot of it to begin with); they all just fracture or are conquered (and we've managed to exterminate all barbarians that could do the latter).
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
but they lacked the power to pass a bill so it seems strange to blame them for not doing so.
Hence why I brought up the gun bills; they still present them even if the same thing would happen (passes House, stalls Senate). Just because it's (locally) bad politics doesn't mean they're not going to do it anyway; this is true to an extent for the Republicans winning the abortion battle in the first place, if you believe the pundits.
maybe making Republican senators commit to their abortion views would have been bad for them in the midterms
Interestingly, the only thing that makes sense here (and their failure over the past 40+ years to actually back up abortion rights with legislation) is that making Democrat politicians commit to their abortion views would be bad for them. But then again, this makes sense if you assume the left's distance from "center" is larger than it is for the right's.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
In a perfect world, there would be some government owned drug store in a non-descript building, open at inconvenient hours that sold the products people would otherwise purchase from street dealers.
Of course, this being the government we're talking about, the prices will be in excess of the street dealers, and you'll have 10 round milligram limits on products because anything over that is "high-capacity assault" weed. Which is... exactly how it works north of the US.
Finally, no one is actually going to jail for smoking weed.
Too many things are felonies, and selective enforcement exists (making a "concerned citizen calling about" heckler's veto into law is just inviting and incentivizing bad behavior).
The fact that a law exists that can put you in jail for a relatively-harmless thing is a massive liability even if nobody enforces it. And that liability affects the people who respect the law the most (or don't have the risk tolerance to break it), which also happen to be the people who wouldn't be adding to the current problems people who are anti-weed complain about in the first place.
If it's not going to stop, and considering the number of people currently breaking the laws around it, it isn't; might as well not fuck up the ability for everyone else to enjoy it.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
My thoughts: It's sad that some progressive organizations might be reluctant to bring positive attention to the rebels or the tools they use because it arguably hurts their cause or something.
I mean, it actually can hurt their cause- if a man knows he can just magic up himself a gun, he has a stronger position from which to re-negotiate or enforce a social contract (and fighting against government forces is fundamentally a re-negotiation attempt, as is most targeted violence). For people who have, or aspire to have, the power to unilaterally impose such a contract, this is a problem.
So the establishment needs to show "that protest and resistance works and is good" per their internal narrative, but if they also anticipate (rightly or wrongly) being resisted in the same way (for any reason- human beings generally don't like being forced to do things at gunpoint), it's important not to go into too much detail.
"the most important thing to me is getting these files somewhere where they can't be taken down and where they can be accessed by anyone, because that's the only way for me to help rebels like these. I care about the downsides of making these guns available, but I've calculated things and it is greatly overshadowed by the upside."
This is the same argument pro-gun people use in the US as well- they just believe in arming said rebels up front rather than trying to fix it after the hypothetical dictatorship is imposed in an attempt to make it more difficult to create. Whether or not that's worth the price is... ultimately where the debate lies.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1yr ago
What puzzles me, is through what force does society implement change like this?
Simple economics!
Women achieved productive parity with men somewhere around 1900 due to the near-total mechanization of society at that time. The means of producing food and primary goods (mining) was, for the first time in human history, automated to the extent that physical strength (the primary advantage of men as a class) was rendered mostly to completely irrelevant for the average profession of the time. The impact of mechanization was so great that even elementary-age children could drive a combine, thread an industrial loom, or press a switch as well as a grown woman or man, which is the reason even they were part of the labor force at that time.
With productive parity comes economic parity, and with economic parity comes social parity, hence suffrage in every industrialized nation before the 1920s were over.
(And then, after those nations became great or bombed themselves/each other back into the Stone Age, the bottom fell out/was removed from the labor pool; child labor was the first to go for specialization reasons, and then most unskilled/nominally-lower-class labor got shipped to Asian countries for the same reason. The effect is the same- sociopolitical [and to a lesser extent, economic] consequences for these two groups have been substantial.)
We make a compromise - don't make your thoughts other people's problems.
Of course, the pronoun/trans thing is a deliberate and willful violation of that compromise.
(That the faction most supportive of breaking that compromise in that way is apoplectic when anyone else does it is... illustrative.)
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
If climate change is a real problem, then the deal may be tackling it at a cost.
Hence "just build nuclear plants; if you thought it was such a problem you would already have accepted the added risk".
So either climate change isn't actually the existential risk they claim because they're willing to let other hysteria take precedence, or they are correct about it being the most important existential risk... which means the environment is precious enough that we're willing to let a reactor mess up a city or two. Drop in the bucket compared to "the world will be destroyed".
Teslas are nice..but they are still (in my view) inferior to a similary luxurious petrol car.
I wholeheartedly agree, but the reason given for not buying one is not "Electric car inherently inferior", it's "Elon man bad". People who take steps in solving the problem should be honored among those with the grievance; that is historically how the people with the grievance pay for the solutions. That they refuse to pay now, and will do whatever they can not to pay (the person who has done more for Blue environmental goals in decades than anyone else... is also their biggest political target), is notable.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
Perhaps I will rethink my position on the possible existence of microaggressions.
Honestly, I think microaggressions are best modeled as "real, but 100% projection/revealing too much about the speaker/thief thinking everyone steals".
I propose "micro-defection" for this, or enshittification-by-social-capture. The "my patients/students/customers are [not my favorite race or gender], so I won't try as hard serving them; what are they going to do, fire me?" effect. The woke are more correct than the mainstream in asserting that the sum of micro-aggressions is outright aggression- it's just that the only people who really care to micro-aggress are the woke (which we see in stuff like Covid vaccine distributions, grading disparities by gender, etc.).
"As a nonbinary player I always wished they'd remove genderlocked customization"
Failure to acquire properly-fitted women's clothing generally blows ex-men's cover even before you see their face (ex-women don't have this problem since women's clothing is a strict superset of men's clothing). It is strange that there doesn't seem to be anyone trying to fix that problem (or if they are, they're on the down-low/everyone who wears it passes so well they're invisible?).
Though, I do have to say that the disruption is even-handed enough (and not just "ill-fitting female clothes on the male model") that I don't think it qualifies as "micro", since even the models that transpeople would prefer are ruined by this change (being they would already have picked "attractive model of the opposite gender").
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
1mo ago
our cops mostly don't dress in camo or bring out long guns unless they're actively using them
Honestly, that was a bit of a culture shock when I went there; I wasn't expecting to see someone standing around with a rifle at what I'd consider low-ready in the tube stations or just casually walking around, but the English and the French (at least; I'm pretty sure this is normal for everywhere inland) are armed to the fucking teeth. Some of them are subtle, like "this person isn't distinguishable from a normal guard, but the gun she's carrying was never made only in semi-auto... so what the fuck's so important back there?".
It's kind of disingenuous to say "yeah, British cops don't have guns" to New World audiences, because New World countries don't have soldiers on the streets whereas they're so common in Old World countries that their residents find it completely beneath notice.
Maybe I draw more of a distinction on the presence of pistols vs. rifles; pistols are defensive weapons that aren't front and center in any interaction you have with someone carrying one (there's an assumed continuum of escalation there where the cop has to pull it out first), rifles are very much not (they can't be carried in as neutral a manner). Serve and protect vs. seek and destroy.
Nothing, you know, toxic, nothing overtly heteronormative..." and you've already lost the plot.
So progressivism isn't feminist, it's gynosupremacist. I'm not surprised that obligate misandrists think their enemy thinks exactly as they do with the valence switched; hence the claim that everything a man does is "misogyny", and other misunderstandings where critiques of behavior are not understood to be distinct from critiques of identity.
"Cultural construction" can do a lot, but it cannot lightly obliterate thousands of years of natural selection.
And this is something progressives/gynosupremacists are on the high side of now. Physical equality between the genders has resulted in a major power imbalance in favor of the one that had to evolve a separate system to compete for resources; it's not a fight men are going to win in the short term seeing as how the weapon that is "200,000 years of sociobiological specialization in getting men to do things on your behalf" is parked right on their doorsteps with very little in the way of counterbalance. The sexes did not evolve co-operatively (and any co-operation that does exist must be defended by mothers for sons, and fathers for daughters; most of the post-1980s lack of male role models is mainly due to women having done away with them- claimed it was "unsafe", if I recall correctly).
I think the progressive response is probably retrenchment on the idea that, surely, anyone can be taught to be anything, given sufficiently quality teaching methods.
I dunno; judging by how they vote, teaching young men to work against their interests is pretty effective, actually.
ThisIsSin
Tomboys: transgender or transcendental?
3mo ago
I also find privacy warrior claims rather, lets say, Joker-level anarchistic about rule of law. Everyone should have end-to-end encrypted messaging and the government should be locked out of private spaces no matter what.
The steelman for this being "if technology is basically just telepathy, why should "because it's technically possible" ever be a valid argument for society to have any right to monitor the contents of the communication"? The strongest right is one you can guarantee personally, after all.
In no other domain do we accept a claim like "this dungeon in my house is off limits even to detectives with a court order because it is my private property"
We have at least 2; attorney-client, and religious priest-confessor.
this digital cache of self-produced child pornography is something we can take to our graves regardless of any legitimate pursuit of justice.
We throw, and threaten to throw, teenagers in jail all the time over this. It is probably good that they take steps to defend themselves if they're going to engage in this activity to avoid the current environment of societal overreaction; the entire point of "rights" is to limit the damage society can do when (not if) it overreacts (the flip side of the coin being "ticking time bomb plots", but I'm willing to trade the lives lost in those for the ones saved due to them not committing suicide any more over this).
The level of hostility towards government here surpasses any of government's responsibility to protect its citizenry.
The overwhelming majority of murders worldwide in the 20th century were perpetrated in an organized fashion by governments targeting their own citizens (organized mobs using simple demographic criteria make up most of the rest); the impulse to make one a harder target against those is only natural. Proponents of this approach can point to things like census records being burned to stop an angry invading force from determining which people were going to the concentration camps and which were not. The Germans are well-acquainted with this; being that they have committed the overwhelming majority of murder on the European continent in the last 100 years probably has something to do with that.
The fact that privacy fretting appears to primarily afflict men (with notable exceptions like Naomi Brockwell) suggests that there must be something autistic about it.
While there are a variety of reasons why this is true, men are murdered more often than women; I don't think it's more complex than that.
There's another form of employment that has basically no accountability for results. It's called "welfare".
People on welfare tend to vote for parties that promise more welfare (expanding the education system and increasing administrative burden on companies being the two most common ways), and their interests follow naturally downstream from there (even though a good chunk of people- welfare recipients or not- don't realize that).
I don't think there's anything more complex than that going on, but it's also why you can't meaningfully reform these systems- if you went back to 1950s standards in these areas, you'd both cut welfare benefits off from a massive number of women and incinerate the 4-8 years of their lives they spent getting
a useless degreecertified to receive that welfare. The sociopolitical ramifications of this would be interesting, to say the least; the last time the economy contracted that hard it forced the New Deal.D+30 for young women, and an even split for young men? It's only the men the teachers need to worry about indoctrinating into the "you're trash and deserve this" philosophy (and they're clearly doing that quite well, aided by parents who grew up in a milieu of "the sexes are co-operating" and try to enforce it blindly)- for the women, cashing the checks is good enough.
More options
Context Copy link