faceh
1hr ago
But if someone criticized a smoker because its bad for them, sets a bad example for kids, or its corrosive to the public good, without threatening legal consequences...
Would you feel the need to jump to their defense? Or to participate in solidarity events demanding smokers be left alone?
Quoth me:
there was a point in time where women were fighting to be able to (in theory) bare their breasts online and in public.
And yet, the vast, vast majority of women aren't pulling out their boobs on instagram. They just don't like being told they can't or shouldn't do it. And that was literally just Instagram setting their user policy! Not a legal restriction!
Women do that when anyone tries to police female behavior, anywhere.
We JUST CAME OFF THE LINDSAY CLANCY TRIAL, where tons of women, including jurors expressed solidarity with a woman who killed her own children.
Are you THAT libertarian? I assume no. So if we can't bring legal consequences down on a woman who kills children, what CAN we do?
faceh
1hr ago
I more broadly wonder who one can consent to gambling if they can't even understand what the odds mean in true numerical terms.
Should one have to pass a statistics class to legally place bets? MAYBE!
Not all women's interests consistently align.
This is almost irrelevant. What is relevant is if they BELIEVE that they do.
For example a workers union does not help all employees. It generally only helps current employees. It often actively hurts prospective employees to make these gains.
Yes. My point. Do workers BELIEVE that forcing the boss to give them more pay for fewer hours is in their interests? Usually yes.
They are less likely to notice that this means more of them are fired, they get fewer breaks, the benefits get worse, etc. etc.
Status is a zero sum game, and the main competition in status for most women is other women. A couple boss ladys hoarding all the status and rewards is a fully consistent story here.
Nah, the real likely explanation is that women disregard the bottom 50% of men and see the top 10-20% of men as the actual competition. As long as they're lower status than THOSE men (read: they can't secure commitment from such men) they can easily BELIEVE they are decreasing in status, even if they continue to make more and more gains on the other 80%.
That's a consistent explanation I've yet to see refuted.
That I think there is a trad wife out there for you dear reader. Not that there is one out there for everyone
Great.
But the dear reader is still competing with everyone.
I'd suggest changing your social setting. You've no doubt already done this, at least in minor ways.
Be more specific. More actionable. What social settings are you talking about? I've tried bars (of various types), dance classes, hosted gatherings at my house, gone to speed dating events, gone to car meets, church, social media, the gym... the women are OUT there, but they aren't interested in being approached, or they are zeroing in on the top guys in the room, or they're already taken. You can automatically assume that they've got 50 matches in a dating app at any given time.
The problems I mention infest everything. And the fact is, no matter where you are, you're still competing against the options a woman thinks she has on the dating apps.
I am the true feminist, equal treatment under the law. I'd be happy to take an axe, or a can of gasoline and a lighter to a lot of the privileges women enjoy from the government. I'm not willing to go handmaidens tale or something that extreme. But many things short of that seem reasonable to me.
So what are you willing to do if we tell women "we're making it harder for you to get loans and go to college" and they all break down in tears and call you a misogynist pig and/or threaten to vote you out of office? How hard can you be when female tears are involved.
(Funny enough, the Trump admin may have found an end run around the problem)
faceh
2hr ago
Yep.
There's a undercurrent of "literally any rule that might restrict or punish any given behavior is bad, even if I don't actually intend to break that rule" in everything now.
I noticed this year that almost ZERO women worse Sundresses for the summer.
They're sporting jeans and often baggier t-shirts. So not dressing traditionally feminine OR dressing in a way that appeals to the male gaze. Okay occasionally you see cutoff jeans that showed off the legs.
Its like they coordinated specifically to not show much or any feminine appeal this year, outside of their pilates classes or their staged instagram photos. Someone claimed to me that women decided that sundresses were porn-coded or something, possible downstream effect of e-girls exploiting various 'sexy' identities (including goth girls) to draw in customers so the only option avoid the implication that you sell yourself online is to not be too sexy at all.
If you were the one 'defector' girl wearing a cute dress and actually entertaining the male gaze in some way you would have it SO EASY if your goal was to entertain male approaches.
But if you told one of these women they're not "ALLOWED" to wear sundresses or that they shouldn't wear Goth girl outfits, they would throw an absolute shitfit at your attempts to restrict a behavior that she herself was choosing to refrain from.
I no-joke think that the current rape culture cases du jour, Clavicular, The Tate Bros. and The Cornell 7 are going to probably dissolve the last illusions around the female sexual selection process and will probably finally nuke intergender relations, or force some kind of reckoning. We're basically re-litigating "MeToo" but with a very different social environment.
They're mostly very noncentral examples of 'coerced' or nonconsensual sex.
In the first, she went out to the budding celebrity guy's house, stayed there and never asked to leave, drank alcohol willingly (she claims he said it was water, but that claim doesn't hold any), and the 'worst' he is accused of doing is penetrating her while she was asleep, already in his bed. And apparently continued to try and engage with him (in hopes of boosting her streamer career) for up to a YEAR after the interactions.
In the second, its more standardized human trafficking allegations, among which is the threat to withhold a passport in exchange for sexual favors, but again, very little evidence that these women were not understanding the nature of the other party.
And in the final one, it was again a case of someone agreeing to sex, including threesomes (being clear, SHE alleges this! She's saying she just lacked capacity to consent!) after AGREEING to take various psychoactive drugs, and otherwise being very open to the activities but then coming back and deciding that no maybe that was not what she wanted after all. So most of these circumstances lack any element of physical coercion or incapacitation, and some have clear indicators of consent present!
Every single one of these situations required the young ladies in question to actively put themselves in the situation for the ultimate allegations to result, and yet to disclaim any agreement to the act at the time.
Any young guy watching these matters unfolding is going to be left in a complete quandry as to when exactly you can legally have sex with a young woman. They're learning:
-
Don't invite a woman to your house alone and offer her alcohol ever. (i.e. how every successful date ever normally ends)
-
Don't take a woman's agreement to sex as actual legally enforceable consent if she's the tiniest bit inebriated.
-
Don't fly a woman out of a different country and then try to seduce her.
-
The accusations can come flying in months or years later even if you've gotten more confirmations of their consent in the interim.
The risk of engaging in sexual relations is thus extremely high, even if these actual outcomes are rareish.
The rough conclusion they might draw is that a guy can't bang a young woman ever unless she openly initiates it and he just lies there passively, which is the opposite of how women want sexual encounters to go!
Basically, we're kind of hitting the apotheosis of whether women can ever be held accountable for their own decisions or not. If young women can't be trusted to control their intake of alcohol or drugs, and will continue to hang around frat houses, around famous streamers, or around known abusive pimps and 'agree' to sex with them despite not actually wanting it... OR if they're going to agree to such and then utterly lie about it later,
Then why exactly are we giving such creatures any autonomy around their mate-selection at all? The outcomes speak for themselves.
And this is all on the tail of the Lindsay Clancy affair.
The Clavicular case is taking place in Massachussets, same place as the Clancy Trial. How would the media react if he raises the insanity defense, that he was just overpowered by his hormones and wasn't in control of his actions at the time? The cojones it would take to make that argument.
Hey, if its a viable defense for murdering children I don't see why it couldn't apply to sexual assault.
(also, look at the female support for Clancy, including from the jurors themselves to back up my assertion that women are more monolithic)
The simplest rejoinder:
"Women" as a collective are more monolithic than men. That is, they are more likely to cluster around certain values or ideas or, similarly people on pure instinct than men are.
A side effect is that women are better at organizing around their collective interests. If there's a cause that would benefit womens' material wealth or status, they tend to naturally group around and advocate that interest. In the worst cases this causes mass social hysteria and we get bad policy changes in response.
And technology over the past 30 years has vastly increased the ability for loose social organization to emerge and coordinate around group interests across large distances.
So I would posit thus:
-
Judging women as a collective/monolithic group will be more accurate as to the ground truth about them as individuals than would judging men. One still has to account for individual characteristics.
-
There's been a positive feedback loop where women instinctively use their social organization to advocate their own interest, more status and power accrues to women, this increases their leverage, which allows them to make bigger changes in their favor, and lock in old ones. As a result, policy changes are a one-way ratchet.
And women are very unlikely to admit to being so powerful even if you point out how every single policy change in the past 30 years (in the West) has massively favored them.
For some reason, fewer of them believe that women are respected in society
I want to reiterate, an increasing amount of women believe their status is decreasing, despite this being objectively incorrect by almost any metric you choose.
A huge portion (again, more monolithic!) of women harbor a belief that is the direct opposite of the truth.
So the third implication:
- It is all but impossible to reason with or bargain with the female collective to make changes they think might harm their interests.
Which leaves us precious few options to try to work towards a better equilibrium.
In general I'd suggest not viewing women as a thing to conquer/trick/subdue. There are intelligent women out there that would make a great partner in your life goals. Especially if those life goals involve family, happiness, well-being.
This is encouraging but an incorrect statement of the problem.
The problem is there are not enough intelligent women who would make good partners to go around.
Run any kind of estimate you want to narrow in how many "appealing" women there are, vs. the number of men you're competing with to locate, attract, and lock down that woman. Any LLM can give you a fermi estimate and range of likely single women based on whatever criteria you can supply.
THAT Is the nature of the struggle. And you can't solve this by addressing men, the only answer to a supply crunch is to increase supply.
Guess what, this means addressing women.
There is definitely a trad wife out there for you. I believe that sincerely. You may need to compromise on how trad you want to go (amish anyone?), or how trad she needs to go (maybe she can have a job).
If you can turn this into an actionable statement of how to go about finding them that actually accounts for the aforementioned difficulties, that will be more persuasive.
I've been doing active spouse hunt for about 4 years now. I have tried literally every tactic that has been suggested, and seen precisely why each one fails. And the failure mode is fundamentally due to the above stated issues. Women are more coordinated around their own interests, even when those interests run counter to the general social interest in people getting romantically paired up and families formed. And the general pool of single women is less appealing, by and large, as partners.
So the pool is smaller, while the demand for a good female partner is still extremely high, and females remain the bottleneck through which reproduction flows. Which means fewer women are being born, so the supply crisis gets worse. Men's behavior can't overcome an utter lack of marriageable women. Full stop.
If you are not willing to consider solutions that involve removing a few privileges that women currently enjoy I do not think you are serious about solving the problem.
As for my take, I think we're getting a technological solution before we get a social or political one.
faceh
3hr ago
My point is that being able to walk to a live theatre is a bad criterion.
No I'll happily stand by it, since it still very effectively delineates those areas where there's cultural/entertainment options easily accessible to residents and those that do not.
As an area urbanizes there's a period where such options are proliferating, and so its never going to be a 'bright line' distinction.
faceh
7d ago
Rural – no traffic jams ever anywhere
Unless you're stuck behind a tractor moving between fields.
Then you have found some suburban Amish.
Although I'd go ahead and say that "neighbors with Amish farmers" is a ruraldom indicator.
faceh
7d ago
Even if the roads are winding?
Florida has a feature where it is very flat so almost every road is straight as an arrow, so one can speed 'safely' if there is light traffic and no cops.
Driving in Northern Georgia was a different matter, especially at night.
faceh
7d ago
You're just making me push it more towards urban.
"Access to forms of nature resembling 'wilderness'" is a strong 'rural' indicator but some suburbs butt up right against extensive national or state preservation parks, so if you're telling me this spot just has regular parks then it reads as even more 'city-like' than I thought.
I said 20 minutes, not 20 miles for a reason though.
20 miles CAN be a 30-45 minute drive depending on the type of roads you got out there.
If you can drive 20 miles in 20 minutes reliably (i.e. average speed of 60 mph) that strongly implies enough development to be suburban. In urban areas... the traffic is the factor that makes that almost impossible.
One feature of rural living (that can be shared with decaying urban areas) is roads in generally bad condition forcing you to drive more carefully and slowly.
This is hitting on my point. "accessibility of true amenities" plays into my perception of the area's qualities.
"Rural living" implies you have to do things to keep yourself amused because there isn't some major entertainment venue available within easy distance.
If you can hop a train after work and manage to hit up a Major Sports team's game with a bunch of other fans, you're at least Suburban.
If your only and preferred option for sports spectating is the local high school football teams... most likely rural to ruralish suburban.
faceh
7d ago
Look, I may be a simple Suburban Lawyer, but when I type "Live Theater" into Google Maps over Manhattan, and I get OVER 100 RESULTS I question your assertion. Obviously mostly centered on Broadway.
faceh
7d ago
Was going to say. There's no denying that the U.S. as a whole is not very 'urbanized' compared to a lot of nations.
Its really just "pockets" of high urbanism, TONS AND TONS of rural, buffered by the suburban zones. Although in Florida there's a whole lot of pockets of suburbs rather disconnected from anything else.
They're full of cars but what do the majority of people actually do for transport day to day?
I'm reliably told that Majority of NYC residents do not own a car.
Millburn, NJ is clearly suburban, despite a live theatre being right there. Density 900/km^2.
Almost my point, though. Looking at photos of Millburn, to me it reads just barely towards the 'urban' side of the divide, and then I look at its proximity to NYC, and I am reinforced in this. I can also see, however, that it has close proximity to large swathes of nature which pulls it back towards 'rural'. Finally, Google tells me that the majority of the residents live in unincorporated "Short Hills", which appears pretty sparsely populated for its area.
So really its a ruralish area attached to an urbanized one? So my guess is the majority of residents can't walk to the theater.
Yes, its a suburb compared to New York, but if my suburban ass were to visit I think I'd feel like I was in 'the city' to some degree.
(my mental model of New Jersey, incidentally, is a lot of urban sprawl attached to a lot of deciduous forests. I have never been to New Jersey.)
Hmm,there is an impact of Zoning on all this.
For reference, I live in a single-family house that is in an area that is zoned agricultural, and is situated just outside the local town's limits in unincorporated territory. If you squint and fudge you could say I'm living rural, but I can drive to several theaters easily, clearly I'm living suburban. There's some rural territory if I drive about 20 minutes east/Inland. Lehigh Acres, Florida is just wall to wall single-family homes, but there ain't nothing to do out there in terms of amenities, so I consider that a 'developing' rural area, myself. Lehigh Acres does not (yet) have a Live Theater.
So, what do you actually mean when you say "urban", "suburban", and "rural" living? Maybe it's something like this.
Urban living: Row houses and apartment buildings, with incidental retail
Suburban living: Single-family and two-family houses, and nothing else
Rural living: Incidental single-family houses in land that is largely agricultural or undeveloped
Funny, I personallyhave a closer definition to this, than any actual density measures, but I realize that I also incorporate an element of culture into it as well.
I can explain thusly:
-
Urban: People get around by foot or bike or public transport.
-
Suburban: Mostly cars, interspersed with bikes.
-
Rural: Trucks, horses, or occasional farm equipment.
Likewise, 'how far' do you have to travel to get to the nearest live theater? If you live in an area that is technically sparsely populated but you can drive <20 minutes and see a live production, that's gotta be suburban. If you can walk to see one, OBVIOUSLY Urban.
All of these are correlates with density, so it really just helps sort out the gray areas of the spectrum, I guess. I know of areas that are sparsely populated but wealthy with plenty of amenities in driving range so they're 'suburban' for most pursuits and purposes, even if the locals keep and ride horses. The workers may come in from the nearest metro area, which adds to that point.
Likewise, areas composed of single family homes lined up for miles, which is the stereotypical suburb, but low income and you DO occasionally people keeping farm animals, and its an hour to the nearest theater are 'rural-coded' in my mind, even if there's technically no agriculture going on.
If you put a large apartment block in the middle of nowhere, that might have decently high density but no way is it 'urban', too.
Finally, you can get weird situations where high tourist areas are 'urban' in that there's a ton of people that come around seasonally but it quiets down so much outside of that you might as well be living rurally.
faceh
11d ago
Explain your reasoning on why it is a 'literal Jewish caricature.'
I'll give you the nose, but he's not wearing a hat, nor any other unambiguous "jew" symbols. Is he intentionally dancing close to the fire or are the complainants being overly sensitive?
faceh
12d ago
Liability plays a large role.
Such events can persist until there's a mass casualty event or one (1) child is seriously injured or dies and then public attention and outcry will demand they be shut down.
The big 'appeal' of an organic gathering is that there's not technically any person 'in charge' and thus liable for the actions of the whole. A true "flash mob" (remember when THOSE were a thing?) is a bunch of random folks gathering at a given Schelling point to do a thing that they've all individually, peer to peer, agreed to do with no single person guiding the decision to fruition. Its a semi-random mass cooperation event.
In practice, there's usually someone or someone(s) who is the actual ringleader and can be singled out for legal prosecution, and that disables the event from organizing, or once THAT person serves as an example, the rest will opt not to put themselves at risk too.
The lack of social trust is a subtler problem. Covid itself didn't kill all the social trust. At least, my perception is that governmental institutions took the brunt of the trust hit there. BUT, we also learned that one defector can out you TO said governmental institutions and get you fined, prosecuted, possibly imprisoned.
So generally such a social group will have to be SO secretive and careful about gatekeeping that none of the members are too worried about being betrayed, or your group's activities are innocuous enough that they're beneath the notice of the local sovereigns even if a turncoat goes and reports you.
Car meets thus far occupy the second category. I am pretty sure at SOME point some incident will occur which will bring them under greater scrutiny, it still something very enjoyable while it lasts.
faceh
12d ago
Right, but has he uttered the words "Israel should not exist" and/or "from the river to the sea etc. etc.?"
Not that I'm aware or have heard.
Sounds like your position is "he's dancing around the dog whistle".
faceh
12d ago
It would work just fine if you have a king who respects (not fears) your group and deigns to let them alone for good. But when the king is eventually replaced that favor may not transfer.
In a Democracy, the incentive to bring such a group into the political structure and override their norms with the preferred default is strong and constant.
That's pretty insightful, especially the need to launder politics through culture in order to manufacture consent. Hadn't thought of it in those terms.
Related to the "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you" point.
Any culture that's not under control of the political edifice is, potentially, a method for alternative systems and resistance to organize and arise. The state would see this as an intolerable possible threat to sovereignty. On top of that any popular cultural outlet or gate can be turned into a propaganda organ, can't expect them to ignore that.
I've arranged my immediate affairs so that I have as few as possible intersections with political authority. Quite literally, I chose the location of my house in large part because it has the fewest political bodies with jurisdiction over its physical location (i.e. it is outside of the nearest city's limits in unincorporated territory, has no HOA, and has extremely permissive zoning).
And yet, AND YET I know that I can't afford to ignore politics because the political-minded will constantly seek to bring me and my property under their ambit, and it is NOT enough to just retreat, run, and try to stay outside their grasp, it requires active, intelligent resistance and even then its not guaranteed b/c the state has infinite patience.
faceh
13d ago
He notes that Macklemore claiming not to be antisemitic is nonsense when he specifically name-checked CUAD and Students for Justice in Palestine
Here's one of those times having a good memory comes in handy. I have a clear recollection of that time Macklemore was accused of dressing up as a Jewish Caricature. Twelve years ago.
You look at it and tell me. Is this guy dancing around the dog whistle without making it blatant, or are certain Jews just oversensitive to possible slights, threats, and insults?
Probably a little bit of both, I dunno. Seems like a scissor "clearly he just opposes genocide and colonialism" vs. "clearly he is okay with Jews dying and doesn't want Israel to exist."
Dating apps, on and off (because they are psychologically corrosive).
Dance classes (going to one tonight, actually), referrals from friends, bars (of various types), hosted gatherings at my house, gone to speed dating events, gone to car meets, church, social media, the gym. I'm currently pursuing a random DM I got from an (apparently) real woman on twitter that I already know isn't going to work out.
I am able to get dates. But the quality of woman I find is generally lacking, and they will ghost you without any warning even if you're 3 or so dates in. The norms around appropriate behavior are in shambles. Because women will accept zero correction of their behavior.
It is very expensive to keep paying for all these whilst seeing such poor results.
I've done everything except a Matchmaker or going abroad/mail order bride, basically. And I actually DID do a consult with an AI matchmaking startup, Keeper.AI and one of the founders himself told me "check back in 3-6 months" because they had no truly viable matches (as per their system) out of the 1.25 million women in their database.
The nearest/best one was a bit overweight for me, I was told. Ozempic to the rescue?
More options
Context Copy link