@gasull This week I listened to this #CurtisYarvin interview by #MichaelMalice (over several days, while working, not focused).
In it, #MenciusMoldbug says he's #rightwing because he's for order and not for chaos. As in: more secure streets and fewer homeless people is more orderly. Who could argue against that?
Some of the other easy examples he fails to mention are: one human race giving the orders while the other races do the work is also more orderly than the “chaos” of mingling all skin colours; there's more order in a society with no drugs than in a society where people seek inspiration and comfort and silliness in drugs. Top-down autocratic hierarchies definitely generate more “order” than voluntary agreements between peers. Heterosexual relationships, mandatory marriage and monogamy are “order”, while free love and tolerance are more chaotic. etc.
To me, more signs that he's a very dangerous and charismatic demagogue. Shamelessly dog-whistling to advance the most retrograde of causes :(
@codewiz Oh, it was about that panel explaining the parallelism between those alpine train networks in CH and in JP. I found it interesting — two extremely prosperous and interesting cultures, united by their special relation with trains, even at very high altitudes and under very harsh conditions… 💖
@codewiz very cute!
@eslibre, ¿hay novedades sobre los vídeos de la edición de este año? Algunos estamos deseando revisar lo que no pudimos ver en su momento 😊
> _“Thanks for shredding the thread into million pieces.”_
I replied in five toots to avoid a single very long post, and to try to disentangle our discussion by splitting up sub-arguments for the sake of clarity.
> _“It’s not a sex inequality issue cause it can’t be solved by sex equality, unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution.”_
Let me blow your mind: yes, I would consider “equal number of women dying” a better situation.
Like so:
[In my country, last year, there were 751 work fatalities](https://qoto.org/@tripu/106800194929488927), of which 696 were men and 55 were women. That is so mostly because men are overrepresented in dangerous industries and hazardous jobs. If those _same jobs_ were filled in roughly equal numbers by men and by women, we would end up with roughly the _same number_ of total work deaths, but split more evenly between the two sexes. That would not be a worse net outcome (it's the same unfortunate number of fatalities), but the gender imbalance itself would be gone. (And yes, obviously, every sane person would _at the same time_ advocate for more safety equipment, better work conditions and security checks, etc. for everyone. But that's a separate issue.)
There you go. I just proved to you that this mostly-male issue can “be solved by sex equality” (your words).
For the last time: **will you admit that work deaths are “a sex inequality issue”?**
(Also: you retorted dismissively _“unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution”_ but, how could _“equal number of {women/men} {outcome}”_ ever be a bad idea, if one considers him/herself an egalitarian, a feminist, a non-sexist? Try it: “equal number of women managing companies”; “equal number of men earning PhDs”; “equal number of women using drugs”; “equal number of men working at nurseries”… _“Equal number of {women/men} {outcome}'”_ should be quite literally the motto of someone who is for equality of the sexes!)
> _“Yes men hate OTHER men.”_
This one sentence summarises very nicely where you're coming from.
**Men hate other men? Speak for yourself!**
/cc @b6hydra
> _“Objective devaluation of men's lives stem exactly from the same logic as objective valuation of women's, and yes it is patriarchy”_
So we live in society that is “controlled by men”, and men decided to use that power to devalue their own lives (so that they die younger, live more often on the streets, are incarcerated more often, etc) and to value more the lives of women (so that they get more degrees, work shorter hours, are not sent to wars, etc).
I think I get it now.
> _“That leaves you with parental fraud and family court, you may talk about those things in this context... obviously these are very important problems that affect majority of people throughout their lifetime... major major things yes, and not at all a side effects of different issues...”_
Parental fraud does not affect “majority of people” — it affects men _only_.
Again, how tilted against men has the balance of a specific issue to be for you to acknowledge that that issue is sex-related, and that it would make no sense in the context of a society where men actually “exerted absolute authority” and “used their power to their own advantage”?
> _“Same goes for most of your other "men issues" that is literally just mortality, or things like homelessness, imprisonment or drug abuse for same exact logic, the solution to those problems is not in equality of sexes.”_
“_Just_ mortality”. You mean _staying alive_. As in, the very thing that all human beings hold most valuable, and the only common prerequisite for all the other good things we might value.
Also: homelessness, imprisonment and drug abuse are among the worst situations anyone can experience. They affect men overwhelmingly.
Again: what is your definition of “sex equality issue”? I'd like to read it in full.
> _“What's your solution, make sure more women die at work so it's equal, yay, we're done?”_
I'll ignore the captious question.
> _“No, the solution is to make sure less people die in general and that has nothing to do with their sex.”_
That is very cute. How did I miss that simple solution? Nobody has to die!
Now let's talk about the real world.
My point is that the same people who defend female quotas, public campaigns to increase the visibility of women, subsidies for feminist initiatives, tax exemptions when hiring women, more funding for research in female illnesses, special treatment for females in male-dominated fields, etc. — those same people should be asking employers to better protect their male workers specifically, campaigning to get insurance companies to give male workers better quotes or coverage, donating safety equipment for men in hazardous industries, pressuring to get laws passed to alleviate the physical toll in male-dominated manual labour sectors, etc.
I personally do not support the former, and thus I do not support the latter. But if someone is in favour of special measures for women, _they should be in favour of special measures for men where that makes sense, too._
> _“How the fuck is work deaths a sex equality issue?”_
How is an extremely bad outcome (_death_, no less) affecting 1,165% more men than women (ie, men being _>12× more at risk_) _not_ a sex equality issue?
Issues with a much, much smaller imbalance in favour of men (eg, the “pay gap”) are invariably considered a sex-related issue.
Your points seemed all very confusing to me. And you did not argue against any of mine, _specifically_. But I'll try to answer. I hope you'll reciprocate.
If that's your takeaway, I must have done a really bad job at explaining myself.
What does “not all men” even mean?
Which of the steps in my argument do you disagree with, and why?
@koalie Oh. I watched a couple seasons of that one, I think. I had mixed feelings. I remember the script, the production and the acting were all impeccable (as in _Breaking Bad_), and I love Bob Odenkirk. But I think my girlfriend and I got tired of waiting for things to happen; it was too slow. 🤷♂️
To clarify, this is the critique behind [my initial post](https://qoto.org/@tripu/106796492140032253), which proved somewhat controversial:
**I.** Mainstream #feminism today tends to see “patriarchy” everywhere and (consistent with that view) focuses almost solely on issues affecting more women than men, and on differences of outcome where women seem to do worse than men.
**II.** Definition of #patriarchy (in bold, my emphasis):
> _“Social system in which the father or a male elder has **absolute authority** over the family group; by extension, one or more men […] exert absolute authority **over the community as a whole**.”_
— [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/topic/patriarchy).
> _“Social organization marked by the **supremacy of the father** in the clan or family, the **legal dependence of wives** and children, and the reckoning of descent and **inheritance in the male line**.”_
— [Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/patriarchy).
> _“Society in which the oldest **male is the leader of the family**, or a society **controlled by men** in which they use their power to their own advantage.”_
— [Cambridge English Dictionary](https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/patriarchy).
**III.** According to normal definitions of the term (and also because there are important issues affecting more men than women, and differences of outcome where men are clearly doing worse than women) prosperous liberal democratic countries today are obviously _not_ patriarchies.
**IV.** When confronted with this error, #feminists often bend and distort the definition of “patriarchy” to make it a synonym of “sexism”, and (consistent with that redefinition) say that the patriarchy is also hurting men, and that ending the patriarchy will benefit men, too.
**V.** That redefinition of “patriarchy” is unnecessary and confusing. Why conflate two words with very very different meanings? Can we then say that the Taliban and the old tribes of hunter-gatherers were merely “sexist”, instead of outright “patriarchal”? Should we then lump together under the same category truly retrograde societies where a few old men are the only people _legally_ entitled to exert absolute authority and to inherit and all women are _legally_ subservient, and extremely egalitarian 21st-century Sweden? The redefinition is (conscious or unconsciously) disingenuous.
**VI.** In spite of all those issues, bona fide #feminists often accept this bizarre framing for the sake of moving the conversation forward and making actual progress against sexism, naïvely assuming that _finally we are all now talking about the same thing_ (ie, fighting sex-based discrimination, wherever it occurs).
**VII.** After making this concession, inevitably it so happens that the original denouncers of the patriarchy get back to focusing only on issues affecting more women than men, and on differences of outcome where women do worse than men — ignoring or dismissing all male issues, just as before.
**VIII.** The result is that all participants in the discussion have now agreed that our modern, developed, equal-under-the-law societies are _patriarchies_ (I invite you to re-read the three definitions above) while at the same time having made zero progress against actual sexism of any kind. In fact, participants make _negative_ progress, because this swallowing-the-patriarchy move generates a lot of guilt and resentment.
I find this recurrent pattern dishonest, counterproductive, and irritating.
I like one or two Spanish sitcoms (eg, the first few seasons of [_7 Vidas_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_vidas) were funny and original). But in general American and British #shows are better written and produced.
A Spanish #TV #drama, _Money Heist_, [became very popular worldwide recently](https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/tv-radio/2018/08/spanish-hit-series-la-casa-de-papel-captures-europe-s-mood-decade-after). But I have not watched it (and the comments I got from relatives were not very positive)…
tripu
boosted
Teens Flock To New App Where They Just Enter Own Personal Data Into Form https://bit.ly/3mkeEnB
@admin@masto.nogafam.es ¿No es el #capital privado de un montón de programadores y donantes altruistas lo que ha hecho siempre posible #Linux, el #SoftwareLibre y las redes «libres»?
TV series I have enjoyed the most:
More than anything else, **these four crime dramas**:
* _The Wire_
* _Breaking Bad_
* _The Sopranos_
* _Fargo_
Other kinds of dramas:
* _The Deuce_ (period)
* _The Leftovers_ (supernatural)
Sitcoms:
* _Friends_
* _How I Met Your Mother_
* _The Big Bang Theory_
Animated sitcoms:
* _The Simpsons_
* _Futurama_
* _Big Mouth_
* _Rick and Morty_
My top favourite #TVseries are all realistic, violent #crime #dramas with #drugs or #gangs, where important characters either turn evil or confront vicious evil.
What does that say about me?
