domain:ashallowalcove.substack.com
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
13m ago
kky
16m ago
I guess your point on romantic signaling is probably true, though I hate signaling and reflexively oppose the position on principle.
But I actively disagree that the most important thing is to push moneymaking degrees, on a couple of points.
First, the whole degree-to-job pipeline is overrated. The degree is a proxy for, roughly, intelligence, and as long as you have the real meat you will be able to leverage the actual work. (This is my life story. Started in humanities and trivially switched to work in STEM. I’ll admit software makes this easy.)
Second, while cash obviously matters, I think the most important thing is to learn wisdom and be a good and broad-based parent to your children. This is what my parents were to me. And while I decry the sorry shape of the liberal arts in universities, the actual subject I consider paramount. So rather than just add work training for women, I think bringing refinement and rigor back to the degrees would be better. (And helping people who have no business being in college get out. That’s another topic.)
kky
27m ago
You’re right about divorce as a path for extremely cynical women. If I were writing about the man’s perspective, this comes front and center. He’s devoting so much of his life to her! What if she just takes it from him, with the blessing of the courts? It’s genuinely unsettling. But, in that other hypothetical post, I wouldn’t be talking about cads. I don’t think (or hope) my audience is cads, or people interested in cads, and the same goes for the female equivalent.
Divorce is honestly another point of risk for an honest woman, just like it is for an honest man. Risk hitting your mid-thirties with no loyal man, and either no children or worse - children? It’s kind of awful to think about. But the post was already meandering a little for my tastes.
Yes, of course I agree a man needs standards. I have standards, and I insisted my wife meet them (kindly and firmly in the dating stage - and no, not about petty things like how I wanted my breakfast cooked).
But that doesn’t undercut the fact that what underwrites those standards is a man’s reliability and character. I’ve been performing a little personal ethnography on this forum, and in my own life, and the men who are happily married tend to be extraordinarily solid and secure in their opinions, thoughtful and caring about women’s perspectives (NOT a dogwhistle for mainstream feminism), and with a great focus on their own ability to be trusted. And this is something that good women, women who clearly enjoy the high opinions of their husbands and of me (should I meet them), deeply desire.
Anyway. I don’t think women have greater risks in dating, or that men do, for that matter. I tend to agree that the risks are mostly around discerning good from bad, and that’s hairy both ways. But learn good from bad one must do, or at least learn the methods of getting wiser friends to help, if one wishes to make anything of oneself. But I’m sympathetic to your worries, and hope you find a woman who allows you to lay them aside.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
51m ago
I don’t think it’s that crazy of a position. First, the problem with national wide injunctions without classes is the asymmetry of the outcome. 500 different plaintiffs can bring the lawsuit in different district courts. 1/500 needs to win if the judge gives a nationwide injunction. Contrast with a class where the plaintiffs are in fact bound by a loss.
If it is all going to end up decided by SCOTUS anyway this seems fine. Better one rule while we sort out the litigation than possibly 96. The government has the resources that individual plaintiffs certainly don't.
Second, the idea the government would in fact look for not yet born residents to impose something where there is direct SCOTUS authority is a hypothetical that is so far out there compared to the first concern because the government would quickly lose (eg new plaintiff would say there is a scotus case directly on point).
This is true if the hypothetical plaintiff has the resources to press their claim in court. Unless you already have an injunction against the government, in your own name or as part of a class, the government is free to force you to engage in duplicative litigation and drain your time and resources. The government, at oral argument, would not even commit to respecting a 2nd Circuit precedent in the 2nd Circuit!
I’ve been to a few touristy locations with quiet, unassuming, empty, but gorgeous Orthodox churches. I’ve wondered for a while whether the placement of those beautiful churches was deliberate.
More options
Context Copy link