hanikrummihundursvin
No bio...
User ID: 673
Every modern generation has to come to terms with the fact that their world gets replaced, their traditions get tossed aside, and their life's work was ultimately worth very little to anyone except themselves.
It's another trick of modernity, where the constantly evolving industrial and technological society outpaces each generation and leaves them without any heirs or students to whom they can pass the mantle. In fact, seeing someone pick up their useless hobby to carry on the tradition would make a self aware person feel guilty and sad.
Prior to such a rapidly changing world, the bond between generations was held together through tools and technology that didn't get outpaced. That could be recycled and innovated again and again. The joy of cultivating a craft and knowing it will live on.
That being said a lot of people need to take a long hard look at themselves. Most of the things people devote themselves to today are useless junk. Prior to a more civilized world, having a useless hobby could very likely lead to something very bad.
The impulse we have to devote ourselves to things that work and to grieve their loss is a small reminder of just how far we are straying away from being human. We have impulses to grieve the lost world, but not to celebrate the fact it was lost under a pile of 'better' things.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I don't understand the trade you are offering. There's no necessary link between the two.
A town in my country renovated a lot of their downtown to carry on a traditional 'old downtown' vibe with modern construction technology. It didn't take the abolition of non-directly-useful science and math. It was just a matter of people being sick to death of vulgar displays of glass, steel and concrete that had started to dominate other towns. Instead the townsfolk got colorful and traditionally framed houses.
It wasn't a matter of some meta-physical revival of the "far right" and their "bizarre" policy suggestions. It's just people with power not being inside their own assholes(and the town was close to going bankrupt afaik). It didn't take a fancy foreign architect educated in Boston to design the thing. A local design office did the job just fine. That might have been a big blow to the ego of some people involved, who could otherwise have made themselves feel very important and high status by rubbing their shoulders with big names and grand ideas. But no. Not needed. It looks great and fits the town.
Sure, math can be beautiful. Sure, architectural design in and of itself can be beautiful. But most people aren't good at math and most people don't know the history to appreciate the full extent of a clever architectural design that incorporates this and that style in a novel way.
I don't think it's a matter of some deep issue or a 'core' of anything. Public displays need to appeal to the public. Not the vanity of whatever person is in charge. You are not special for liking the things you like. A 9 year old who likes a statue of a soldier is no less worthy of experiencing public displays of beauty than someone who is highly cultured, sophisticated and articulate.
The only relevant thing left is to decide what things that the public does like should be displayed to them.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Was there ever a large market of comic book nerds? Superhero movies seemed like a safe family/normie friendly thing until they started to really suck. But the industry somehow managed to poison the whole ecosystem of watching a movie as well.
For starters, the actual quality of the movies became bad. Bad CGI, bad story repeated again and again. Uninteresting characters (wtf is Ant Man?) intertwined with some of the worst aspects of comic book storytelling. And they then pumped these movies out non-stop, moving further and further in some adult nerd direction to a point where staying in the loop became impossible for the family folk. And that's not counting all the TV shows that tied into the 'universe'. Many of which were terrible.
Going to the theater was always an event. But you can't make an event out of something that's been normalized. It seems like the industry cooked the golden goose by releasing too many things in too short a time whilst mixing and matching special with normal.
On top of all of this they decided to move into some pro-ugly anti-white anti-male direction, pissing of a portion of the vocal nerds, as well as the Chinese. So now who is left to enjoy your 'universe'? Half the nerds are in uprising. The family folk have sort of tuned out. Maybe little Johnny really likes the flashing lights and everything but the movies are now something mom and dad really dread seeing. Making them much more likely to tell the kids to wait until its on Netflix.
Worse yet if Johnny just spends his time on Youtube watching his favorite childrens entertainer lambast the movie for being terrible. Being the first kid in class to see something like Captain Marvel can't feel as cool as being one of the first kids to see Iron Man 3 or whatever. I mean, it's about some lady.(again, wtf is Ant Man?)
All in all, it would be easier to blame external factors for why things are going how they are going if the actual product wasn't bad. As a barometer, Guardians of the Galaxy, from what I've seen, is still chugging along just fine.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't disagree. What I disagree with is the selective rejection of otherizing language. Where we want to have our cake and eat it to.
'Transphobe' was always an otherizing dehumanizing term. And as soon as it's applied to oneself it becomes obvious. What is less obvious is that the deconstruction of 'transphobe' applies to all the other terms as well. Racism, homophobia, misogyny or any other group defining otherizing language. The point of these words is not to accurately describe, the point is to otherize and dehumanize anyone who is not sufficiently demonstrating themselves to be a member of the ingroup.
I can't join a pity party for people like Rowling who have excessively enjoyed the luxury of being able to dehumanize their opponents instead of actually making an effort in understanding and discussing things with them. This is her world. She does not bother with reading blogs detailing the finer points of the position of some racist or misogynist in their own words. She allows herself the convenience of dehumanizing them as members of the outgroup. She doesn't weigh herself down with the effort of understanding them as human beings. No, she just otherizes them. That's the game being played and she sees no issue with it so long as she is the playmaker.
Well, now Rowling dun goofed and found herself enemies that are doing the same thing to her. They are not bothering with her blog, or mealy mouthed excuses. They are just recognizing her as the enemy. And they are not wrong. Rowling is against trans women having the same rights as women. Why should a trans person accept that? Why should the boundaries of acceptability for trans emancipation be tied to the sensibilities of some author?
This is a battle in the culture war. Rowling picked a side. She is a transphobe.
A first impression: If we take a lot of leftist dogma as being true and discard obvious analogs to reality and claim they might be inaccurate, then we might just be able to explain why our ideology is seemingly not mapping on to the world around us.
Now queue the arguments through analogy, 'what if's' about reality, and a mountain of research motivated entirely by a need to collapse all genetic gravity into a neat environmentalist fold.
Scott Alexander seems to have a good eye for strategy. The article is effectively just an advertisement for a few plucky anti-hereditarian rebels who want to expose the fatal flaw of the hereditarian Death Star. Scott speaks highly of the effort, but obviously signals that he is going to wait until the rebels actually fire a torpedo into the thing. And there in lies the problem for the rebels.
For every alleged fatal flaw exhaust shaft that the hereditarian Death Star has, environmentalism has less than nothing. Every proposed theory has failed to explain the big problems. So... What's the point? What exactly are we doing here?
To be crude: Those folks will become fertile soil for MOAB 2.0. Like the people unlucky enough to have shared a slice of continent with Osama bin Laden.
The cost of indefinitely providing medical care to people who cannot care for themselves may seem steep, but it is trivial compared to the cost of not doing so.
My gut tells me this isn't true at all. Where is the direct negative for the western world to not giving free stuff to an infinitely growing third world?
It feels like you are hoisting the western world on its own petard. Leveraging the massive amount of sympathy and charity it has given, which has driven it to its knees, in order to justify it continuing the practice to not face the wrath of the people it has been saving for the past century.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
I was spurred to ask this question by this article and especially this paragraph where author builds logical sequence connecting segregation with various social ills:
The author doesn't build any connections, he just asserts them. To that extent there is no reason to make any assumptions based on what he writes as being true. It could all just as well fall under the umbrella of baseline brown inferiority and white supremacy when it comes to the gaps between the groups.
More to your question: There is no world in which parents accept placing their children into worse education facilities than they have to. The only way 'desegregation' is done is through direct or indirect coercion. It has long been the case that the poorest and worst off whites have to suffer living with the browns. Nothing about this will change. It's only now, as is evident in the comment section of the article, that the white middle class is feeling the heat it once left the white lower class to sweat in.
There is certainly justice involved in the disintegration of the white middle class in America. But it's not to anyone's benefit. Schools will still have to segregate the bad browns from the good. And for every brown that might be uplifted by white excellence, there might just as well be a white child dragged down by brown inferiority.
On a final note, something about this topic always strikes me as disturbing. Maybe it's a personal problem but I find it hard to tease out some cosmic righteousness through the suffering of children. If the fine folks in favor of these policies want to volunteer theirs to make things right, so be it. But if they want to volunteer other peoples children for this sort of endeavor I would find it more right those same people be thrown off a cliff. Because there is an inevitable increase in suffering coming the way of children that would otherwise be free of it, if not saddled with browns. I don't feel like anyone owes society their children in an effort to facilitate some devils bargain to differently distribute suffering amongst children. But considering the support for desegregation across the board, I'm not surprised the discussion crops up from time to time. People accept the suffering in the name of social justice.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Never Trump 2: Electric Boogaloo
I'd think the game plays out in a similar way as it did last time. Republicans denounce and disavow. Trump calls their wives ugly. Republicans then, a week later, pledge support for Donald Trump when they realize which way the wind is blowing.
I'd think the only hope for the establishment and DeSantis is the fact that Trump is old and he's spent a lot of his powder. In that sense Biden may manage to serve as a tactical landmine. You can't make fun of a geriatric dude for 4 years to then support another one without some part of your brain noticing. But ehh, maybe.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
A recent tragic event: Mother accused of killing three children in Massachusetts
A mother is accused of strangling three of her children before she jumped out a window in an attempted suicide at their suburban Boston home, officials said Wednesday.
An arrest warrant had already been issued Wednesday for Lindsay Clancy for two counts of homicide in connection with the deaths of her 5-year-old daughter and 3-year-old son. Her 8-month-old son, who she's also accused of strangling and was "grievously wounded," has since died, NBC Boston reported.
First responders found three children in the home in Duxbury. The children were unconscious and “with obvious signs of severe trauma,” Cruz said. "Preliminarily it appears that the children were strangled,"
The Culture War angle: Following this event some TikTok accounts have released videos in support of the mother and voicing concern over mothers and their mental health, leading to discussion. Examples: https://postimg.cc/NKpX61ty, https://postimg.cc/vxT8d6jK, https://postimg.cc/CnnyNC9w, https://postimg.cc/8FvttKzK, https://postimg.cc/TK6wKhWK, https://postimg.cc/K3cXXSKv
Considering the nature of the crime I find the wording in the TikTok's off putting. This isn't phrased as something the mother, Lindsay Clancy 'did'. It's something that 'happened to her' and that she 'needs support'.
On a tangential note: This reminds me of an older sex war question surrounding female violence towards children and how women are treated in society. Specifically the terminology of SIDS. Sudden Infrant Death Syndrome. Which became a notable issue when multiple women who murdered their own children ended up, after a few years, being released scot-free. Neven Sesardić, a Croatian philosopher, wrote a very interesting article published in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Specifically relating to Sally Clark, a woman in the UK who was accused of murdering two of her children, and some relevant statistical analysis that cast aspersions on the validity of SIDS as it was relied on by expert witnesses to defend Clark in court. Along with leveraging statistical critiques against the Royal Statistical Society.
The tangential relevance here is whether or not Lindsay Clancy will be afforded similar legal leniency on top of everything else. Though with the hellish nature of the crime, one could only really hope for punishments that far exceed all the comforts that a lifetime in a women's prison will afford her.
hanikrummihundursvin
1mo ago
I think, respectfully, that the time to take a principled stance against online crowdfunding was what, 10 years ago? The cat seems very much out of the bag on that one...
On top of that, this event as a whole, as @corman puts it, is part of an ongoing conflict. With a whole host of new technologies. For instance, having a camera shoved into your face by a brown person isn't as much of a neutral event as your child getting sick and dying. It's a deliberate act of hostility fueled and maintained by other people. Fighting against that is not the same as fighting against, say, cancer.
I don't think there is a conflict averse highroad for people to take here. The causal chain that drives white people towards group solidarity is initiated by hostile actors. White people organizing and rebelling against these emergent aggressors and using whatever tools they have at their disposal is noble, just and good. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to justify why and through what mechanism white people should fight against this unjust circumstance as an alternative.
Ambivalence is not a morally neutral act.
hanikrummihundursvin
4mo ago
Dysfunctional social policies cause/exasperate problems.
Problems are incompetently addressed with system bloat.
System bloat starts weighing the functional parts of society down.
Functional society members want bloat cut down.
Dysfunctional social policy advocates say system bloat cannot be cut down, citing: Who will address the problems?
The correct way to contextualize this predicament is through hate and sympathetic horror. Government waste is just a symptom.
The cavalcade of replies along the lines of 'don't worry champ, you'll beat the odds!' look, sound and feel... silly.
Sure, if you abstract yourself to the point of just being an idea you'll be fine, but human beings are obviously not ideas. They exist as biological entities. Genes expressed in an environment. We are a 'social animal'. We exist in groups. We interact with groups. You don't exist as an idea. You exist as a part of a greater whole.
Someone saying bad things about your 'whole' looks, sounds and feels bad!
I wish that the individual, reason driven, enlightened and fair minded people could understand and empathize with the emotion being displayed in the OP. Being part of a 'whole' that is in some ways lesser than another is a constant feeling of badness. The aforementioned minded, who want to rise above such silly emotions, or simply lack them, need to understand that they are a minority of a minority. Telling someone who feels to simply not feel is silly. You can't understand what the person is talking about and give such an answer. It's not smart, reasoned or enlightened.
I'm reminded of Joseph Sobran, who hit on a similar type of a fundamental misunderstanding of just why some of the emotional expression that exists continues to persist, to the endless bafflement of the 'enlightened' few.
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible. It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself. Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared. The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation. The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.”
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
For a tl;dr: you make a lot of fine points, but for some reason tie them to 'race'. Most of these anti-racist arguments therefor end up not being anti-racist at all. They seem more like general individual based introspection arguments. For what it's worth I'm not against any of them specifically, I'm just not sure what they have to do with typical 'racist' thinking which, most of the time, deals with groups and averages.
As an example, from "Taking Responsibility":
Deterministic thinking is not specific to 'racist' thinking. Typical 'I can't' most often heard from children doing homework is a great example of this. On top of that the argument falls over itself when you flip it around. Believing yourself to be destined to lose is bad. But believing yourself to be destined to win is good. It's obvious from this that the 'bad' here is not determinism but self defeatism.
As for your personal maximum capacity for achievement, the argument you make falls to similar issues. The point about 'maximum genetic capacity'(my paraphrasing) is not about you personally, it's about you in relation to others. The reason Usain Bolt could become the world's fastest sprinter is not because of his magic training or the sand in Jamaica. The guy started training very late at 17 and his diet consisted mostly of McNuggets straight from McDonalds. It was his DNA. If you thought you had a genuine chance in competing against him, you were stupid. But if you liked running track, why let that stop you? Just run to see what you can do. The problem here is not 'race' and minimizing it changes nothing. It's our lizard brain competitive spirit trying to outcompete Dunbar's number when in reality it is competing against 7 billion people.
As for "Information and Stereotyping"
Making conceptual arguments about this seems rather pointless. We don't need conceptual arguments to figure out that blacks commit more crime than do whites. On top of that, making the argument individualized further leads us astray from the utility of 'race'. Since 'race and crime' generally refers to populations, not an individual instance in someones life.
To meet your conceptualized argument head on: If I am walking alone at night and there is a guy in a hoody and worn out jeans walking towards me, I'm not going to think he is mugging me. Ever. Because that sort of thing has never happened where I live. Ever. But if you live in the USA in an average black neighborhood, my instincts would be potentially dangerously wrong because the chances are no longer 0. Because average white Scandinavian town and average black USA town are not the same. To that end race is useful. One town is average USA black, the other is average Scandinavian white. You can comb through the finer details but race is still there as a fact of life. Ignoring it would be stupid.
As for "Policy"
The reason affirmative action is bad is because it is trying to fit an unfit population. There is nothing wrong with affirmatively actioning a bunch of otherwise neurotypical 140 IQ people into colleges. They would probably do very well and better the school and society. The problem arises when the population is on average at 85 IQ and demand for 'diversity' outstrips supply of college material people.
If you want 'diversity' there is no magic process that can fix your problem with blacks. Without a mechanism that selects unfit people to meet your 'diversity' quota, you will not meet the quota. Without a program that is designed to cater to these unfit people, you will not see many of them graduate. Without unfair you get less than 1% black at the elite level. With those kind of numbers you will be seeing 'calls to action' against your racist policies.
As for "Immigration"
We are again using conceptual arguments. Why make those arguments imprecise? Here's one: lets have an immigration system that only imports good people we will all personally like who will also benefit the economy and save a child and/or pet in need.
OK, we don't have that. What do we have? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S00148-017-0636-1
- We present life cycle estimates of the potential fiscal impact of immigration considering the cost of immigration on the margin as well as on average. The main conclusion is that immigrants from Western countries have a positive fiscal impact, while immigrants from non-Western countries have a large negative one, which is also the case when considering only non-refugee immigrants.
We have information. For some reason, despite race being allegedly irrelevant, geographically isolated population groups perform differently when placed in the same environment. We can theorize a system of import that weeds out the 'bad'. But that still leaves the fact that there are so many bads that they need extensive weeding out when compared to 'Western' people.
What I don't understand is, why do you care so much to ignore this sort of information? You could make a similar case for ignoring anything. Just figure out some proxy for it and voila. But that doesn't change the reality behind it. The kind of systems that functionally racially discriminate against blacks are conducive to healthy and happy western societies. You can dress them up how you want, it doesn't change the fact that people notice. And it's not the white identitarians.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I don't disagree with the advice in general, but specifically here, being physically fit can also lead you to a false sense of security.
There's a reason every single 'street fight' guru tells you to run away every single time if you can. Even if you are in shape, even if you know how to fight, you are potentially one moment away from a knife in an artery, just to name a single life ending risk out of a thousand.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think this was ultimately a respectable move from Adams. If you wanted to get canceled for street cred then it's harder to imagine a more irrelevant legacy media artifact than newspaper comic strips. But it's just as valid a cancelation as anything else.
Assuming it was deliberate, like many are doing, then it's interesting to note that this move is potentially alienating to a lot of the mainstream right. From the IDW, Triggernometry, Joe Rogan, Jordan Petersen, along with the thousand and one other names. Race stuff that is not extremely benign is a third rail for a lot of these folks. So if this was an intended springboard into right wing media world: where to, Adams?
In any case its a great saga so far. Primarily due to the way Adams is responding to the media. As far as I know, no apologies. The only thing he gives them is mockery. I don't think this is a hard template to follow for anyone with even half a spine. Someone at EA should get in touch with him, or at least take notes.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Seeing all of these progressives turn into luddites in this instance, and free speech advocates after the Musk journalist bans in another, I think it's fair to say that there are no principles. There is no political theory of friend/enemy anymore. It's a law. And anyone who pretends to, in any instance, be above that law or exist outside its scope is just, through the act, a self described moron.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
My brother, what you can get is your market value.
The comment you are replying to, in market terms, is predicting a 'crash', for a lack of a better term. The baseline ingredient for a crash is a mismatch of information. Deferring to market standards in a market that is suffering from a mismatch of information isn't much of an argument in relation to what the value of things should be.
The rest of your comment is just a framegame where instead of looking at the issues from a sympathetic view, which from reading your comment seems to hurt your personal sensibilities for sounding too much like incel trutherism, you instead just describe the problem in terms of others being losers.
The problem with this is that the frame doesn't change the questions being asked. To phrase the question in terms that don't offend a person of such a grand social stature as yourself: Why are there more losers now?
if you think the responses here are anti-male, try posting the same story but for women being unable to find a good man, and watch the claws come out. The responses aren't anti-male, they're anti-whiner.
Reducing all arguments to group conflict isn't relevant. Sure, there is group based pathology in play like always, but that fact doesn't change the fact that there is also an objective reality in play. Just like many early 2000's feminists were objectively wrong in their assertions about men and women being 'equal' in terms of mental and physical competition in various sporting activities, it can also be true that women who can't find a 'good man' are pathologically complaining about a problem that has less to do with reality than men who can't find a 'good woman'. Just because both 'whines' are pathologies doesn't mean they are of equal relation to reality.
The discourse around conspiracy seems like a gift from the heavens for any 'pro-institution' person. What an embarrassing gaff for the Secret Service.
Seeing a bunch of old men and fat assed women who look like school teachers running around the stage was embarrassing enough. But as the details emerge, it seems like it would have been hard to do their jobs worse. I was under the impression that a rooftop was a complete no-go zone when a VIP like this is around. Let alone that a guy with a range finder is allowed to prance around without anyone asking him what he's doing.
If there is no conspiracy I would like the discourse to move away from that and towards a recognition of how bad the Secret Service has to be to let this sort of thing happen.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Coordinated minority>Disorganized majority
You can vote more than once from the same number. Up to 20 times or something. Any geopolitically motivated adult can outdo a kid who votes once with the permission of mom and dad.
You could say the same for opponents of Israel, they all get 20 votes. But the difference is that they have no singular target to back. And they are still only changing the points on a ladder of 1-12. So even if they all vote for the same country, giving it 12 points, Israel can just run up behind them and claim 11.
Aside from all of that, I don't think winning will do Israel any propaganda favors, although it would be funny. So whilst a 'respectable' middle of the pack outcome might be on the cards for Israel, you never know with how unhinged and rabid philosemites/zionists are and how honest or not the Eurovision voting is counted and which way the minds of the jurors sway. The jurors might hope for a politically neutral result, but too many 6-7 pointers for Israel could make things interesting.
That being said, Eurovision is a purely news cycle driven thing. It doesn't matter in any sense outside of that.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
More than that, formerly shelved and sold Disney projects like "Sound of Freedom" were outdoing Indy. Considering Disney's apparent cavalier attitude towards money, seeing that kind of ideological adversary gain a win at their expense has to speak to someone. Or maybe it just further cements the idea that these stupid peasants deserved nothing good to begin with.
hanikrummihundursvin
1yr ago
Most of the utility from 538 was plausible deniability for 'free thinkers' to be on the "neutral" side. They had the numbers and the data. Nate Silver is a nerdy numbers guy. I mean, just look at him. ABC are taking a mechanism to be 'safely' "neutral" and ruining it. And Nate recognizes it.
That being said, it's all a sham. Nate Silver, just like so many of his 'followers' are always looking for plausible deniability to be on the "neutral" side because not being on the "neutral" side is way too much work. And much more importantly, you can't be anything other than "neutral" if you expect to participate in 'civilized' urban society, let alone show up on TV and be respected for your work. The guy was not slightly wrong or missing a few steps in 2016, he was off on the numbers and way off with his attitude.
It's not that "conservatives" accidentally got this one right against all odds against all polling against all reality. It's that there was a manufacture process going on with an extremely biased media complex doing everything it could to push one candidate forward whilst pulling another back. If you recognized this you would have no issue predicting, at the least, a very tight race.
If you didn't recognize it you were either stupid or willfully complicit. The 2016 election cycle was genuinely insane in its bias and one should not take people who missed the insanity part of it either too seriously or too trustingly.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
The person referred to in the latter half of the episode as being a very active transmitter of AIDS was probably Gaetan Dugas.
The Wikipedia article on Dugas manages very artfully to gloss over the 'disgusting' aspect of his story by 'debunking' a theory that Dugas was the person who introduced AIDS to America/various cities. And under that debunking sweep the very insidious nature of a person that allegedly intentionally spread a deadly contagious disease, even if he wasn't the first one.
"I've got gay cancer, I'm going to die and so are you" He is reported to have said after sex. Not my idea of pillow talk.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
Area A has higher risk than area B. Which one would you like your family to live in?
Now help me understand why the fact that 'many black people are not violent and hateful' should influence your decision. Do the same for the school you will send your kid to.
hanikrummihundursvin
2yr ago
I think it's an interesting step though. Regardless of what the headlines say, Adams was doing 'racism' from a rather 'queer' angle. Whilst people can shout about racism from the sidelines I don't think there are any salient right of center arguments against the position Adams put himself in.
As a white person, is your safety and wellbeing secondary to your obligation to help black people that hate you?
A thing: If Bezos is on a lot of gear it might be messing with his libido/sexuality.
A more likely thing: That woman is a turn on in more ways than just physical. Maybe smart, confident and sexually aggressive. On top of that she is probably motivated to keep her man.
To that extent it shouldn't be a wonder a 'feminist' of sorts wouldn't like her. Similar to how Amy Coney Barrett is disliked by many feminists, despite being a power feminist wet dream. Lauren Sanchez might just be a go-getter who doesn't care about what the patriarchy tells her and instead does what she wants.
It's kind of funny. Two women expose the lived experience of most feminists as kind of pathetic and their ire against the 'system' as rather fraudulent. Apparently some women can have it all. So why don't you?
I'd be interested in knowing if there is some feminist literature out there on this topic. Inequality between women is a subject usually broached through terms of class and race, but barring that, most of the stuff I can find reads more like a lot of cope. To take a maximally aggressive angle: Why should the women who win at life pay heed to the women who lose? And why should anyone take the advice of the women who are by comparison losers?
A part of the upheaval of Andrew Tate was the fact that he wasn't a 'loser' whilst doling out MGTOW/incel talking points. Does he have a female counterpart somewhere on the internet?
More options
Context Copy link