followed tags: 13
followed domains: 0
badges given: 0 of 1
member for: 1672 days
Your entire attitude is wrong.
It seems like you are distant from, uncomfortable with, and perhaps even deeply intimidated by, the girl you are courting. No matter what you say to her in this state or how well thought out it is, the insecurity will be visible through your body language, and it will not be attractive to anyone.
Relationships are primarily emotional and physical in nature. The first things you have to ask yourself are 1) whether you can be comfortable being very close friends with this girl, and 2) is it reasonable that she could find you physically attractive? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then either fix the problem with yourself, or seek out a relationship with a different person.
I , too, love Flatland. It's also a pretty on-point satire of Victorian society.
Never got into HPMOR though. Yudkowski's writing style is kind of headache inducing, and complicates otherwise simple concepts in an effort to impress and overawe. Sometimes when the point is explained plainly, contradictions in his ideas become obvious. Like the chapter where he goes on about how "the map is not the territory", yet does the transfiguration be reifying the "map" that is quantum field theory anyways.
It's a wonderful movie. Pixar did really well this time!
I especially liked how the moral of the story was that it is ok, and sometimes necessary, to express sadness. The rest of our culture is obsessed with telling us that we ought to be happy all the time, and if not, we should consume until we are. Inside Out was a welcome and refreshing corrective to this.
There's quite a dearth of anime suggestions here. I strongly recommend Psycho-Pass (but only Series 1), though it's more dystopian sci-fi than post-apocalyptic.
If you're into something more low-key and philosophical, I would suggest Ghost in the Shell: Stand-Alone Complex, as well as the original GITS movie, which is a classic.
- I'm just not sure why having children is more important than other aspirations or, for that matter, why child-rearing ought to be specific to women.
Honestly, it's because I'm working under the assumption that childcare is necessary labor to sustain the population and thus maintain society. But if you believe that most jobs are going to be automated away in the future, and so less people would be a better thing, and childcare is a non-essential choice, I can see where you're coming from. Indeed, a basic income would be liberating for everyone, including women.
But I'm still confused by your lack of concern about the lack of leverage that women have relative to men and the real indignities that it enables. Again, back to the geopolitical analogy: Would you advise a country to not maintain a standing army just because taxes infringe a bit on free choice? How, then, will the country defend itself from the threat of external aggression or secure its state interests against its competitors? Why is it any different when it comes to competition between classes?
One last thing, we do have some maternity leave in the US, but it's atrocious compared to what exists in almost every other country.
- The point is that people will discriminate in favour of women, not against.
If you weren't so absurdly politically biased, you would recognize immediately that this statement doesn't follow from the conclusion of the study you linked. People "associating more positive attributes" with women is inherently tied to discrimination against women; it means they're treated like children and not like adults.
People have the same bias towards evaluating children positively too, but we don't allow children to have any responsibility.
As for the first study you linked, there's another study that follows almost an identical methodology and comes to exactly the opposite result. It's a gross distortion to present your single study as the last word of SCIENCE!!!! on gender equality in stem. Here is a good overview of the problem. Personally, I feel that college labs at least strive to be quite gender neutral on the whole (even if sometimes they don't quite succeed), and the conclusions of both studies simply reflect the known political biases of their authors.
Arguably, reforming our labor laws and subsidizing childcare would increase women's agency and the choices that women can make in their lives by removing the heavy opportunity cost between career and family. And it is estimated to be a cause of a large portion of the overall gender wage gap as well.
If anything, we should both be able to agree that this is a good idea, even if our political frameworks are completely different!
- I have to say, though it's nice to be able to have conversations like this, intractable as our positions may become, without all the hostility I'm used to seeing surrounding this sort of thing.
Ikr? Hubski is amazing.
- I'd say that for the most part we have changed the social system to be more fair.
Yes, we have, but clearly not enough. Example: A huge part of the overall wage gap can be attributed to the fact that most workplaces simply aren't flexible enough to accommodate women who become pregnant and have to take care of a young child for a few years. Hence there is currently a huge opportunity cost between career success and having a family. So, the mass of women who choose their career end up driving down the fertility rate, and the other mass of women who do choose to have a few children end up driving up the gender wage gap at the same time.
The obvious solution to both these problems is to get the state to extensively subsidize childcare and pay for it with increased taxes, like they do in France. But of course in America they're idiotically resistant to anything that makes sense.
Gendered oppression is often not about sexism at all; a lot of the time there's just some shitty economic or political policy behind it.
- If women tend not to be as interested in working 60 hours a week as men, why should we need them to? How is that oppressing their full agency?
Because it denies them wealth and promotions, putting them in an inferior economic and social position that leaves them weak when it comes to representing their collective interests (like including women's reproductive health in company healthcare packages, or making sure they aren't sexually harassed) and defending their collective rights (perhaps if we had a few more female billionaires to lobby Congress, they wouldn't have dismantled abortion access across the South).
Again, if we were talking about two rival nations, nobody would bat an eye at the suggestion that an equal balance of power ought to be maintained between them to deter any threat of invasion. But when it comes to social classes at odds within those nations, suddenly the more powerful party objects to any such notion that everyone ought to have sufficient leverage to protect themselves against exploitation.
- We all have different motivations, different beliefs and desires, different skills and preferences.
I understand that people's freedom and diversity ought not to be infringed on without compelling reason.
But what if some of these differences are such that within our social system they allow one group of people to lord over others, thus denying the oppressed full agency? Is that not a compelling reason to, at the very least, change the social system to be more fair, or if that proves unwise, to eradicate the differences?
- How would you measure relational equality?
How would you measure the balance of power between states? People don't really bother to, because it isn't necessary to. What matters in the end is: Do women as a class have sufficient means at their disposal to keep the threat of exploitation at bay without having to depend on the goodwill of men?
Also, "equality of outcome/opportunity" is a nonsensical distinction. If it is true that we live in a deterministic universe, then equal opportunity must necessarily lead to equal outcome. If not, then there are unequal differences from the very beginning, whether environmental, biological, or both, that can potentially be corrected through social policy or medicine.