domain:furiouslyrotatingshapes.substack.com
Stefferi
Chief Suomiposter
12m ago
The OG Nazis, it should be remembered, strived to at least in theory to reduce the stigma of unwanted motherhood.
During this period an attempt was made to change views on illegitimate children. Adolf Hitler was quoted as saying that as long as there was an imbalance in the population of childbearing age, people "shall be forbidden to despise the child born out of wedlock". (33) According to Lisa Pine, the author of Nazi Family Policy (1997), the Nazi state no longer saw the single mother as "degenerate" and placed the single mother who had given a child life, higher than the woman who had "avoided having children in her marriage on egotistical grounds". (34)
It has been argued by the historian, Cate Haste, that in the 1930s "most European countries stigmatized unmarried mothers as a threat to the institution of marriage". In Nazi Germany, however, motherhood and procreation by women of "good blood" were so highly valued that steps were taken to "re-cast the image of the unmarried mother and illegitimate child". It was claimed the "bourgeois concept of marriage and morality was outmoded as far as Nazi population policy was concerned. (35) The Nazi campaign was "designed to confer parity of status as well as of public esteem on unmarried mothers and their offspring". (36)
Heinrich Himmler explained to his masseur, Felix Kersten: "Only a few years ago illegitimate children were considered a shameful matter. In defiance of the existing laws I have systematically influenced the SS to consider children, irrespective of illegality or otherwise, the most beautiful, and best thing there is. The results - today my men tell me with shining eyes that an illegitimate son has been born to them. Their girls consider it an honour, not a source of shame, in spite of existing legal circumstances." (37)
Thanks for the advice.
The pattern to watch out for is volatility. She will draw away, try to make you mad, try to make you jealous, and start a fight in some capacity. Then, after the fight, she will get much more clingy and attached.
Not gonna lie I am seeing something similar lately, but it wasn't really there before I don't think, so I chalk it up to approaching critical mass.
If she has concrete things she wants out of you, and providing them makes her happier, then you’re in a good spot.
This is mostly how I know what she wants, because (to damn with faint praise) she shows remarkable explicitness/honesty for a woman and has been pretty consistently patient with explaining things to my autistic ass, even during fights. It's actually a big part of why I want to salvage this because this uh... doesn't seem to be a common trait.
Basically I see my problem as, pardon the parlance, having to System 2 my way out of what is really a System 1 problem - my goal is to try and make "giving her what she wants" natural/instinctive instead of deliberative.
Also, love is not really best thought of as a natural expression of deep and abiding emotions. Save that for the chicks. Love is about day-to-day duties of caring for and about another human.
That's exactly how I see it to be fair, it's also why I asked whether my difficulty with it is a symptom of something else - like maybe if I actually cared or cared more, it would've been much easier to do.
not least because you’re not gay. (I think.)
Thankfully not heh, but I am unwillingly learning about the jo/y/s and tri/u/mphs of human relationships, although my last gf was a literal fujo so I have practice if nothing else.
rayon
waifutech enthusiast
29m ago
No, we haven't met (yet) but I'm lining up my autumn schedule or just getting fired soon.
high-maintenance
Funny you mention it because this specific word is as close as it gets to a trigger for her heh, I used it once in an unrelated context (describing another woman) and she never lived it down, even bringing it up during said fights occasionally. Not exactly a red flag but it stood out enough to nootice.
rayon
waifutech enthusiast
35m ago
All good advice, thanks. These are things I know I should do but aren't in the habit of actually doing them casually, will work on it.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
36m ago
The basic answer is that this is just not a big or influential constituency. No ladder pulling required. Neolibs with a YIMBY flavor don't run for office, and when they do they tend to lose because boring technocratic policymaking isn't just boring, it also tends to slaughter a lot of sacred cows (one of the characteristics of this faction is a disdain for interest groups, which is not a great feature for endearing yourself to interest groups).
There's some hints of this changing, but most of the people who would fit this bill are still working at the state or municipal level. Buttigieg arguably lucked out, leveraging a failed presidential primary run to vault from mayor of a small city to cabinet secretary.
Their mortal enemies, the Boomer neo-libs (Kamala, Biden, Blinken, Pelosi)
None of these people are neolibs (at least assuming that by 'neolib' you mean technocratically inclined center-left, as seems to be implied by earlier remarks) except maybe Blinken, who, rather prominently, is a career functionary rather than a politician. There's no particular reason for anyone of them to care about raising up the next generation of neolibs.
Likewise "less progressive" democrats tend to be almost the polar opposite of neoliberals: moderate to conservative-ish socially, economically populist.
rayon
waifutech enthusiast
39m ago
venting from a woman is not a prompt for you to fix an issue and absolutely not a prompt for you to try and dedramatise the issue.
That is actually good advice, thanks! Looking back I see exactly these attempts starting fights on their own.
The empty platitudes might feel empty to you, but if you actually love her then they are not empty if you're saying them to help her feel better.
Also a pretty good cope mindset to view these things through, thank you.
It's a miracle humanity managed to pair bond for so long.
Tangent, but I always wondered if a big part of the persisting popular perception of Love at First Sight and True Soulmates and stuff like that is just couples/parents downplaying their struggles after the fact to strengthen their bond and/or to reassure their children. Maybe I'm an outlier, but for me attraction (in a romantic sense) was never a 0-to-100 flash of inspiration, it was always me gradually growing interested in a person as I learn about their life and language, not noticing it sinking in until at some point the realization hits out of left field.
FistfullOfCrows
43m ago
Nah, I don't want this kind of police organ to be personally identifiable by the usual suspects. Give them per operation badge ids, have a public website where the id can be checked such that they are "real" and not some random dude. Have a complaint box where you can put in text and video.
rayon
waifutech enthusiast
53m ago
This is not my first LD rodeo either (insert "clown dies in second rodeo" meme here), and likewise that ended in disaster very quickly upon actual contact; the difference being that one crashed and burned through no real fault of my own, whereas here the main culprit is, far as I can tell, mostly me and my autism.
Consider all your flaws, and reasons you can't find a real relationship near you, and understand that along axis you don't even realize exist, she's probably worse.
On the contrary, I'm actually in mild disbelief that a person like her is hanging on random Bolivian melon farming forums at all, much less contacting me first and developing interest. She has her flaws but welp, so do I. Making it work despite that is part of the point, no?
Browser
57m ago
How much of that is the tendency of black seats to atrophy onto a local monarch for 50 years
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
1hr ago
so they can be more easily doxed and their families threatened
So when they violate peoples' civil rights they can be identified and held legally accountable. The general public has an interest in government officers being identifiable and accountable for their actions. If people are threatening them (actually threatening them) for doing their jobs, there are laws for that already.
Zephyr
1hr ago
For what it’s worth, I work in industry, and until you mentioned which industry you were in, I was wondering if one of my coworkers had found this site.
Timesheets are the worst.
erwgv3g34
1hr ago
There is also the issue of verification; even if you agree that women whose birth control failed are more deserving of an abortion than women who are chose to take the risk, how the fuck do you check that a pregnant woman was habitually using birth control? If you just take them at their word, then any woman who wants an abortion will just claim that they were using condoms they bought for cash at the gas station.
The only way to split this baby is probabilistically; say that a woman who has sex with birth control is accepting a 1% chance (or whatever the failure rate is) of getting pregnant, and if she happens to lose that gamble, sucks to be her. But she knew what she was getting into, and only 1% of conscientious women will be affected, so our policy of not allowing abortions for anyone is 99% similar to a policy of allowing women whose birth control failed to have abortions; good enough.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
2hr ago
The number of top surgeries on underage patients is in the hundreds per year for the whole US anyway, might as well have the minimum age be 18 and avoid the moral panic altogether.
My opinion on blockers and hormones isn't particularly high either, but yeah, never understood why we can't settle on 18+ for all this stuff.
anti_dan
2hr ago
3). They lack media platforms in major markets. If you want to hear conservative news, you have a very large network to choose from. You have podcasts, YouTubers, tv news networks, radio, websites, substacks, etc. and they are generally agreed on what they support, or at least who they support. They have a mutual respect and understanding that you don’t attack other conservatives unless they’re going too far to the left. The Left has individuals with TV, radio, or podcasts, but they really don’t support each other. Raechel Maddow doesn’t tell the same story as Ezra Klein who doesn’t tell the same story as Thom Hartmann.
This is false. Democrats control most major media outlets. Your have to intentionally seek out conservative podcasts or other. If you just watch a football or basketball game, the news that follows will be massively left of center.
Zephyr
2hr ago
If it would help, I do code reviews as part of my job, and I have a very similar tech stack to what you do. If it would be something you’d be interested in, I’d be willing to take a look at some code you’ve written and give you my assessment of where you’re at and where you can improve at.
Botond173
2hr ago
so long as that man is not looking for life long commitment or is demanding sex before taking things any further
Then he's not relationship material.
anti_dan
2hr ago
How to go back to a strategy you never held? Competent technocrat is the Mitt Romney lane. No one else since Eisenhower has even run on that.
Butlerian
Not robot-ist just don't like 'em
2hr ago
I agree that, ceteris paribus, habitual risky-sex-havers more deserve to be denied abortions than “I used three different prophylactics but somehow they all failed at the same time” neurotics deserve it, but given that you can’t fractionally abort a baby, there is alas no room for a sliding scale here.
MathWizard
Good things are good
2hr ago
Framing things in terms of "pro-single-mother" vs "anti-single-mother" makes about as much sense as being "pro-orphan" or "anti-orphan". You can believe that a situation is bad to be in and therefore want to help people who happen to be in that situation AND try to prevent people from falling into that situation AND not Goodhart the numbers by killing them.
DO: Help kids with no parents with money and support structures (without actively incentivizing the status)
DO: Try to prevent people from becoming orphans.
DON'T: Reduce the number of orphans by killing them
Really, a child of a single parent is just a half-orphan. Therefore
DO: Help single parent families with money and support structures (without actively incentivizing the status)
DO: Try to prevent people from becoming single-parents.
DON'T: Reduce the number of single-parents by killing them (or the children)
All of this follows trivially from the quality of life the child can expect, on average, in each state:
Full family > Single Parent Family > Orphan > Death
Whether you want more or fewer single parent families then depends on which direction you're coming from. Trying to pin people down into "pro" or "anti" single parents only makes sense if these were terminal ends rather than proxies for quality of life.
anti_dan
2hr ago
I mean, I would bite this bullet. Sex should result in children. People who disagree are discordant.
CrispyFriedBarnacles
2hr ago
I don't know; I think this is not responding to the actual argument.
I think most traditionalist Christians would say, you want a culture that treats sex like it's sacred and important. Abstinence only sex education might be part of that, but it pales in comparison for norm shaping to other forces. And the norm shaping in the 90s and 2000s, via Hollywood, and network TV, MTV, and the radio, was absolutely drenched in liberal notions about "sexuality" and "sexual liberation". (I'm honestly not sure where to put internet porn in this discussion, because although it shaped certain norms about behavior, I'm less clear about its role in normalizing public social roles about sexuality, and I suspect it played an important role in the #MeToo sex negative backlash towards male sexual assertiveness). I mean, I grew up in the religious South in the 90s. And all the Southern Baptist families around me still had to deal with the fact that their kids were marinating in a sexual culture being promulgated by a million vectors of national broadcast media, all heavily liberalizing, whether they liked it or not. Fights over abstinence based education were rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. I think, given that broader media context, that sure, abstinence based education probably couldn't have worked. And it may well have been that kids from more traditional or religious households were less likely to be on birth control or have condoms and then, after amorous circumstances intervened, ended up getting teen pregnant. I don't know (although the other comment about the usual racial cofounder can never be ignored when it comes to the South).
If traditionalists say "tell them not to have premarital sex", they generally mean something much, much bigger and deeper than the contents of a stray sex ed class. They mean something like, a healthy culture in one where all the various sense-making institutions treat sex like it is sacred, and important, and something set aside, and not to be treated likely or traded like a product - and then people will respond to that and treat it thusly, rather than treating it like a trip to the amusement park with a new friend. Progressives deeply disagree with this, but they understand the impulse, because this is precisely how they feel about "racism" and "sexism" and "xenophobia" and "homophobia" - they get very, very upset if people treat those topics lightly, and they insist that all the various sense-making institutions that they control treat these topics as sacralized, and important, and set aside, and that everyone participate in their universal morality story.
Lots of cultures historically have had much more consensus on treating sex the way that traditionalists would prefer it were treated, including America in earlier eras (the fact of the pill coming into existing in the mid 20th century complicates this discussion, of course). And claiming that that never worked is probably a tall order, and disingenuous to boot, because the actual crux of the argument for most progressives, really, is not, "Did it factually work?" It's "I don't want to live in a world where sex is that culturally locked down and hidden away". Which is fine, but accepting that means abandoning the fig leaf of scientism and accepting that different groups just fundamentally have incommensurable worldviews and values.
anti_dan
2hr ago
Sympathy is just another word for bad public policy. People who are sympathetic are mostly just weights to be borne by the people. The less sympathetic a state is, the more functional it will be, holding all other things equal.
Is it? Most people don't behave as if marriages are transactions (in a nontrivial sense). For that matter, they don't behave as if children are property. People who do treat marriages as transactions and children as property are frowned on and considered disturbed and even criminal. You can in some literal sense use those terms but that ignores the emotional attachments people have to spouses and children, which massively affects behavior.
Also, some of your conclusions don't seem to match the real world. The average woman in favor of abortion isn't more likely to be progressive because they have the least to offer other than sex and children. Being progressive is associated with having the most to offer--they're likely to have university degrees, journalist positions, etc. Housewifes are more likely to oppose abortion.
You also seem to think that the belief about whether fetuses count as people is for all practical purposes completely downstream from other considerations. But it's obvious in the real world that religious belief in the personhood of the fetuses is a huge source of opposition to abortion, not the effect of it.
More options
Context Copy link