domain:nfinf.substack.com
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
12m ago
In what way is a beehive "male-created"?
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
13m ago
The fundemental problem the hereditarians face is that thier entire edifice rests on an assumption that biology, psychology, and anthropology are not only rigourous and mechanisistic, but sufficiently understood that outcomes can be manipulated in a near deterministic manner. This is manifestly not the case.
Sure biology may be more rigorous than psychology which is in turn more rigourous than anthropology, but none of them are even in the same zip code (much less the same ballpark) as electrical engineering.
FtttG
25m ago
Fair enough. If I'm accused of seducing women via lies and deception, it's a charge I'd strongly rebut. If I'm accused of having had sex with women I had no interest of pursuing a serious romantic relationship with - guilty as charged.
ControlsFreak
27m ago
The only historical precedent which has to do with natural children is the legal presumption that a woman's husband is the father of her children, absent other evidence.
What do you make of prohibitions on marriage between sufficiently close relatives? ...what do you make of exceptions to those prohibitions when one of the two individuals could demonstrate that they were sterile?
TowardsPanna
27m ago
Wish I could utterly root and de-bloat and de-spyware my samsung android phone, but I think I need it bloated for bank apps to function.
Crowstep
29m ago
I always found it strange for activists to complain about emotional labour (rather than simply describing it neutrally). I mean sure, most emotional-labour heavy jobs are predominantly female, but that's because those are the jobs women want. A woman doesn't become a nurse because she likes changing bedpans, she becomes a nurse because she likes caring for people. The emotional labour is the main appeal of the job.
The fb-word is a slur and offensive to the community of men experiencing relationship expectation mismatches with women, demeaning the challenges they face in their lived experiences and further entrenching casual misandry. *crosses arms and turns away*
There’s a motte-and-bailey. If asked to define fuckboy, I suspect chicks would say something along the lines of what you described: A guy who obtained or obtains sex by lies and/or deception. However, in practice they extend it to any guy who merely banged them without unilaterally preregistering a guarantee of commitment and no commitment ensuing thereafter (shocked pikachu).
Thus resulting in ex-post hoe maddening. principal_skinner.jpg: “Is it possible I have some accountability in the matter? No, it’s the men who are evil.”
Barfknuckle
46m ago
“wife-selling” was a well-known Anglo practice of soft divorce
wat
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
46m ago
Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
47m ago
a male-created space, dominated by women, that the males don't even get to stay in
Seems like a perfect metaphor to me.
The former is a foundational axiom of the latter. People latch on to genetic determinism as "obvious" and "true" because they reject the validity of non-material/non-quantifiable explanations.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
50m ago
Or in other words, more proficient [sex] workers tend to end up with more lucrative exclusivity agreements.
Which is why it's understandable that a generation of people who just take being well-off/stable for granted will deny this dynamic exists.
hydroacetylene
56m ago
Women who treat them as jobs are otherwise known as gold diggers(barely more positive connotation than the word it rhymes with) or trophy wives(neutral connotation), and most of these women have a high but not above a normal upper class standard of living because rich husbands put their much younger wives on allowances and make them sign prenups and all that.
Women who treat them as investments are the ones who come out ahead, and this is the historical attitude you’re referencing.
kky
56m ago
Women used to provide much, much more in terms of money, back when spinning was a thing, and “wife-selling” was a well-known Anglo practice of soft divorce for when things really weren’t working out.
Plus, consider that the law back then was basically decided on a village-by-village basis, and you can see that for a woman to straight-up defect would not be to her benefit.
EDIT: reading back, you didn’t mention historical aspects. So take this as color as opposed to rebuttal.
N=1, but the only prostitute I’ve ever known in person was a friend of a friend who whored herself out essentially because she watched too much porn and Internet goon-brained herself into a female coomer. No economic privation or tragic backstory needed.
As four decades of Doomsday Argument arguments show, there are legitimate difficulties on inferring the shape of a distribution from a single sample, but there you go.
She didn’t hate men though, so this does not support the whole of the thesis.
Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.
Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.
More options
Context Copy link