domain:astralcodexten.substack.com
gattsuru
1d ago
I would recommend using, or picking up, a pair of decent work gloves. I've done four or five car door repairs, and every single time I've either cut up my hands or gloves. Even if it's miserably hot, they'll be worth making sure it's not your fingers.
Magusoflight
1d ago
In my opinion and recollection feminist used to have a sex negative valence - it was associated with ugly women who hated men, bull dyke lesbians etc.
It seemed to switch valence in the 90s I think.
Primaprimaprima
...something all admit only "TRUMP", and the Trump Administration, can do.
1d ago
The author is making the case that the current status quo privileges men’s interests at the expense of women’s.
I mean, of course she's wrong about this point. An unregulated sexual marketplace (assuming all individuals are as free as possible from physical and economic coercion) privileges women over men for much the same reason that an unregulated free market privileges large corporations over workers. I assume that most of the commentariat here is already familiar with this analysis.
But the thing is that you can know she's wrong without even doing a full analysis of why she's wrong, because you can see that she fundamentally doesn't understand why people around her act the way that they do. She admits that she's confused by the actions of both men and women around her and she doesn't have a comprehensive theory to explain their behavior, so she resorts to mystifying explanations that are grounded in morality and "mental illness" (a synonym for throwing your hands up and saying "idk"), instead of seeing the people around her as rational actors who are doing the best they can within the constraints laid out for them by biology and decision theory.
Also I have to comment on this:
the ‘male centered woman.’
because it's just so wild that she would use this phrase without even a hint of irony or reflection. Thanks to "J. Allen" for mentioning it in the comments under her post. ("Men don't worry about whether we're centering women--most of us are in some form or fashion." -- lol, exactly). She talks about the "male centered woman" like it's a unique affliction that only burdens women, but her friend from New York whose entire social life revolves around setting up and going on dates with women isn't a "female centered man" because...?
09milk
1d ago
Traditionally, woman will be shamed for being sex-positive while man will be prided.
The first few waves of feminism (in the west) try to combat this contradiction by pushing woman's stand closer to the man's side, likly due to this appear to give more power to woman instead of stripping power from man.
I think this is a mistake, in practice, this casued a conflict of interest for womon. On one hand woman are now free to have sex without legal repercussions and too much socal slut naming, on the other hand woman are now finding out the biological difference between both sex, namely man can fuck and go now, while woman might need an abortion or get a 18 years liability.
Purhaps feminism should instead goes for shaming man of pre-marital sex, but it is too late now
kky
1d ago
I’m not sure the author wants anything at all. I remember her from a while back, and get the same feeling of simple hatred from what she writes. She hates men for being wicked, she hates women for being stupid, and yet she’s still friends with them? Even though her darling mother is right, she frames it in a stupid religious way, and thus is not really worth closeness.
I don’t find a single piece of her writing that betrays an actual appreciation of a single other human being. Hell, she doesn’t even seem to like anything in the abstract. She’s happy enough to look data up, but only insofar as it justifies hate. And then there’s the OnlyFans deal on top of it. I suspect that the reason she’s still a virgin is less that there is something she is reserving it for, or out of a sense of chastity or self-denial, but instead that it’s a helpful way of hurting others by refusing herself to them. This, I’m guessing, is why she also is friends with the kind of men she explicitly hates. She has to understand they’re a very particular subculture, right? She could find men who aren’t like that. So why is she staying around lecherous men who only see value in having sex with women and then denying them - if not so that she can take her satisfaction by denying them first? In that light, this piece seems more a justification for why she enjoys staying friends with women who destroy themselves. It’s for a good cause, so it can’t be because she hates them. Right?
Enough amateur psychoanalysis. It suffices to say that I dislike this woman quite a lot. She’s not totally wrong on the specifics, but this bitter poison is better not tasted.
For the actual question: how does a woman avoid this? I think it’s much simpler than you let on. The men who get away with this nonsense only do because they get a truly disproportionate amount of female attention. A man who gets even modestly less attention will struggle to achieve the same feats. So: go for less popular men, more trustworthy men, or both. Less popular is sufficient to avoid this kind of behavior. More trustworthy gets what a woman actually wants.
One word that has more or less dropped out of common parlance is seducer. It means, roughly, a man who lures women in on false pretenses. What are those pretenses? In the olden days, it was marriage. Dickens’ Pickwick Papers has, as one of its droll episodes, the somewhat aged and unattractive landlady of the titular and rotund Pickwick misunderstanding a totally unrelated announcement of his to be a discussion of marriage. So far, so irrelevant: what matters is that the next chapter (issue) is her bringing him to court over the affair, on the grounds that he was leading her on, and as he did not intend to marry her, she was owed damages.
While the fictional event was intentionally absurd, we could not even write such a scenario today. There is no law that a woman can enforce on the basis that her seducer had promised marriage. The idea is nonsensical: sex is just sex, right? Love is free, so why tie it to marriage? And yet women still want commitment. But “boyfriend” is not something that can be legally enforced, and so a disappointed woman has no recourse.
It’s easy to forget, however, that the explicit law was far from the only protection against seducers. The first line of defense was the woman’s friends and family. There’s a rather enlightening scene in Tolstoy’s War and Peace - spoilers, by the way - where the delightful, young, and severely naive Natasha is seduced by a ne’er-do-well from another noble family. He plans on eloping out of country with her, which will bring him entirely out of the grasp of the law. Natasha’s bosom friend finds out, informs the powerful matron who has lately been exercising godmother-like authority over them, and the whole thing falls apart. The would-be seducer goes to the site of their destined meeting and finds the huge manservant of the house cornering him, deeply rumbling “My mistress would like to speak with you,” manages to slip away and elopes rather more individually than initially planned. I believe “hell for leather” is how we describe that sort of ride. Nowhere in this equation is Natasha having sex, finding out he only wanted sex, and trying to get recompense after the fact. In reality, her friends and family were deeply involved with her and protected her from her worst mistakes. True, the law which made them matriarchal guardians of her made coercion possible, but the mechanism was preventative.
So if women want to stop being disappointed, they need people to help protect them from seducers: people who can sniff them out, stop a dalliance going too far without commitment, and stand up for and to them. And I suspect where this starts is, in fact, recognizing that women have a reasonable demand in commitment and that the man who leads her on and gets what he wants while giving nothing in return is a waste of time. I suppose the Facebook “are we dating the same guy” groups are an awkward attempt at this, but frankly they’re sunk because it’s all women of the roughly same age, and the dynamics devolve to the usual gossipy mess of women’s worst elements unrestrained. What you actually need is a connection to older, married women and good men. They aren’t competing for men’s attention and can give some real advice. And probably, the women who wind up happy will be the ones who manage this in one way or another.
Anyway, things like this make me glad I ain’t a dame. Seems hard!
OliveTapenade
1d ago
I don't accept your definition of "anti-semitism". "Anti-semitic" is an emotionally-loaded slur intended to denounce and pathologize any criticism of Jewish identity, religion, or culture whether it's rational or irrational, true or false.
Is there a definition of 'anti-semite' that you do accept as applying to yourself?
Would you agree with a statement like, "SecureSignals opposes and dislikes Jews?", absent any comment about whether or not you are rational in doing so?
Anti-Semitism can be rational or irrational, true or false. All it requires is engaging in criticism of Jewish behavior, culture, and identity, and there's no word for when Jews do the same to Gentile race, religion, or culture. And I do those things, so I accept the label, although I don't accept that label denotes irrationality- that's just a vain attempt to pathologize rational criticism as being crazy-talk.
All right, let's accept this. You would presumably say that you are a rational anti-semite, in that you are rationally opposed to Jews?
This is progress, because this means that our disagreement has now been precisified. We no longer need to argue about whether you are opposed to ('dislike', 'hate', etc.) Jews. We only need to argue about whether it is rational for you to do so.
(I do think there are clear ways to express the idea of a Jew who hates Gentiles - Jewish supremacism definitely exists. You can find Jews who hate non-Jews. But I don't want to get sidetracked. We're talking about you.)
I also don't accept "you hate the Jews" that's just a proto-woke slur also intended to intrinsically attach irrationality to a critical perspective of Jewish behavior and identity.
I think it's fair to say that your posting on the Motte displays, at the very least, a pathological interest in Jews. You keep bringing them up all the time, and always do so in the context of opposing or criticising them.
Rounding that off to 'you hate Jews' seems like a reasonable use of language to me. You certainly regard Jews with a great deal of hostility.
Which is why I don't respond to it, those accusations very conveniently derail from the arguments I'm making (by design), so if you just get bogged down in trying to convince everyone you aren't a neo-Nazi or you don't want to kill all the Jews you are just operating within the same consensus that I reject.
Will you respond to the question, "What do you want to do about Jews?"
There's no hidden agenda there. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that everything you've argued in the past about Jews is correct. What follows from that? What policies would you recommend? You've clearly indicated that you regard Jews as opponents - what, then, would you do?
I don't think that's an unfair gotcha. There are certainly groups that I regard as 'political and cultural opposition' to myself, so it would be fair game to ask me, "Olive, what do you want to do about the communists?" If I tried to avoid answering that, or if I treated that question as being inherently in bad faith, it would reflect badly on me. So too with you.
(I want to discredit communism as an ideological position in public debate and defeat communists in elections. There, see, it's easy.)
self_made_human
C'est la vie
1d ago
I have pointed questions about the kind of men she's "friends" with. They're so far from a representative sample that it's farcical.
self_made_human
C'est la vie
1d ago
I've never given it much thought, it's not something I've had to look up in depth.
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
1d ago
Interesting, never knew that.
He seems to be rather like the Mule in terms of charisma, which is to be expected if such a simple clip of him can get 16 million views on youtube, forever memorable:
A number of commentators have remarked upon Rajneesh's charisma. Comparing Rajneesh with Gurdjieff, Anthony Storr wrote that Rajneesh was "personally extremely impressive", noting that "many of those who visited him for the first time felt that their most intimate feelings were instantly understood, that they were accepted and unequivocally welcomed rather than judged. [Rajneesh] seemed to radiate energy and to awaken hidden possibilities in those who came into contact with him".[286] Many sannyasins have stated that hearing Rajneesh speak, they "fell in love with him".[287][288] Susan J. Palmer noted that even critics attested to the power of his presence.[287] James S. Gordon, a psychiatrist and researcher, recalls inexplicably finding himself laughing like a child, hugging strangers and having tears of gratitude in his eyes after a glance by Rajneesh from within his passing Rolls-Royce.[289] Frances FitzGerald concluded upon listening to Rajneesh in person that he was a brilliant lecturer, and expressed surprise at his talent as a comedian, which had not been apparent from reading his books, as well as the hypnotic quality of his talks, which had a profound effect on his audience.[290] Hugh Milne (Swami Shivamurti), an ex-devotee who between 1973 and 1982 worked closely with Rajneesh as leader of the Poona Ashram Guard[291] and as his personal bodyguard,[292][293] noted that their first meeting left him with a sense that far more than words had passed between them: "There is no invasion of privacy, no alarm, but it is as if his soul is slowly slipping inside mine, and in a split second transferring vital information."[294] Milne also observed another facet of Rajneesh's charismatic ability in stating that he was "a brilliant manipulator of the unquestioning disciple".[295]
sockpuppet2
1d ago
Any comment on estrogen upregulating NMDA signalling?
sockpuppet2
1d ago
Whacking it to not being able to do math is a common AGP pastime.
How do you know that?
sockpuppet2
1d ago
Any good explanation of how they were converting it to USD?
PutAHelmetOn
Recovering Quokka
1d ago
My guess is he (and others?) consider 'traditional conservative sexual morality' to be the female-biased opposite of Hookup Culture. They would describe it as men giving commitment to women for a long time and the woman not putting out. Presumably, this is what the substack author would want.
Of course, you and I both know that's a secular perversion of the Christian sexual morality. Isn't the actual Christian sexual morality the middle ground where couples move from "no commitment, no sex" into "commitment and sex" in one fell swoop?
Capital_Room
rather dementor-like
1d ago
It reminds me of the sage, soft-speaking Islamic cleric speaking with profound meaning "democracy means government by the people, of the people, for the people... but the people are retarded"
Point of correction: Rajneesh (AKA Osho, born Chandra Mohan Jain), the man in that video, was an Indian "godman," guru, and founder of the eponymous "Rajneesh movement," which had an intentional community in Oregon in the 80s:
Rajneeshpuram was a religious intentional community in the northwest United States, located in Wasco County, Oregon. Incorporated as a city between 1981 and 1988, its population consisted entirely of Rajneeshees, followers of the spiritual teacher Rajneesh,[1][2][3][4] later known as Osho.[5]
Some of its citizens and leaders were responsible for launching the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attacks, as well as the planned 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot, in which they conspired to assassinate Charles Turner, the United States Attorney for the District of Oregon.
HighResolutionSleep
1d ago
By all means, lay out this excluded middle ground. What's the answer to the problem?
Women sharing authorship and responsibility for their own lives and the world around them.
— so yeah, there probably isn't one.
fribble
1d ago
I drive a 2010 Honda Fit and recently the driver side door handle started feeling "soft." I assume something broke due to age but the door handle and lock still work. I decided not to wait until it fails completely so if the new door handle gets here in time, this weekend I will pull apart the inner door so I can get to the handle hardware and replace it. I have access to the Chilton manuals through work and it doesn't look too impossible. Famous last words.
ControlsFreak
1d ago
Society doesn't seem to be paying attention to the claimed harms
We conveniently got a new top-level comment a couple hours ago.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1d ago
By all means, lay out this excluded middle ground. What's the answer to the problem? What's the difference between an endpoint and a frontier?
HighResolutionSleep
1d ago
As if the average man is doing so hot.
Right but she's not talking about the average man, she's talking about the dark triad psychopath who makes her horny.
anon_
1d ago
Despite that, she still converges on advocating for basically traditional conservative sexual morality in women’s dating life.
There is a middle ground here that's implicitly excluded. But as usual people are arguing about endpoints rather than about the frontier.
anon_
1d ago
They didn't know that in 1944! There were proposals to carve Germany up into 4-5 States. Same with Japan, it wasn't clear upon surrender that the US would eventually allow it to regain its independence.
Moreover, the Arabs were aggressively expansionary for centuries. They didn't end up being an ethnic & religious majority in North Africa just by accident. Saying "from the perspective of a guy that came as part of an expansionist empire but whose specific family lived in the area for generations" doesn't do much work.
fribble
1d ago
I recently started on hrt and as someone who has been an insomniac her entire life, the progesterone gets all my love. Sure, the estrogen may be helping with aches and pains and vaginal atrophy but the progesterone is letting me occasionally fall asleep before midnight and sometimes sleep past 3am. It's magical! (My mom had a mild peri/menopause and mine was starting in that direction too, but when I read some women found progesterone helped with sleep I had to give it a try.) I will probably stay on hrt for the bone benefits. I recently got a weighted vest to try out. I bet the tricksy girlie hormones made me do it - math is hard, let's go shopping!
urquan
Every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
1d ago
I often reflect upon the fact that “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” is one of the curses put upon Eve in Genesis 3.
sodiummuffin
1d ago
Now I want to know whether "being forced to find the derivative of an integral" is someone's kink. Surely not?
Yudkowsky tried it but they apparently didn't end up liking it. I know about this because it became the basis of a rumor in SneerClub-adjacent circles that he kept a harem of "math pets" that he forced to do math problems and that this was abusive somehow.
https://old.reddit.com/r/HPMOR/comments/1jel94/hate_for_yudkowsky/cbemgta/
I've recently acquired a sex slave / IF!Sekirei who will earn her orgasms by completing math assignments.
https://x.com/ESYudkowsky/status/1172190781794160641
It didn't work out at all when we tried it, I married her anyways, and the person who made up the "math pets" allegation claimed no such source, but I agree that explains why the concept was in the air.
Example of the rumor:
The guy who (I learned this just a few days ago) allegedly had an abusive relationship with a harem of women and allegedly called them his "math pets", yes.
How much do you hand around old school church-going (Protestant) conservatives — typically age 50+ — IRL? Because that's the main place I've seen it. Also preacher blogs. (And some younger religious conservatives blogging from the Eastern European or Latin American country they moved to.)
More options
Context Copy link