4 ms·

The underlying issue seems to be twofold: On the one hand, women seem to be evolutionarily adapted to want to be cared for. At least a subset of them is going

The underlying issue seems to be twofold: On the one hand, women seem to be evolutionarily adapted to want to be cared for. At least a subset of them is going to complain about just about anything much like children and taking that seriously is beginning to have seriously adverse consequences. On the other hand, there are sneaky males who try to get the attention of women by standing in for them. Such males are largely pushed to such strategies because they have been starved of physical affection because society denies the fact that women predominantly want men who emerge from dominance competition over them and ceased to cultivate this, which itself is a consequence of women's complaining taken seriously. These two mechanisms form a feedback loop that is hard to break, especially in the current political climate.

terminalhealth 7y ago
%s/stand in/stand up/g HN's 2 hour edit policy is ludicrous, btw.
mkr-hn 7y ago
Plenty of men want to be listened to. You just have to be the kind of person who they feel safe confiding in. If you believe in gender essentialism as you appear to, your male friends probably don't consider you safe to open up to. All babies cry for help and attention. The bifurcation into two rigid binary genders with roles and expectations layered on later is cultural and varies through history. Evolution isn't that fast.
- terminalhealth 7y ago
  Human females always had a much lower economic output until recently. Even in the most matriarchal cultures, men were in charge of >90% of the agriculture, military, politics etc. Human matriarchies have never existed. Men have always been selected by dominance competition, though dominance is frequently very subtle; it's mainly about status, affiliation, competence, attire, ornamentation, art etc., but also ... pecking order.
  - mkr-hn 7y ago
    At best, our picture of human history is incomplete. Historians routinely compress concepts to what they understand, and their compressions become The Understanding. For example: historians often assumed all relationships between two men were platonic because they were raised in a society with enforced heterosexuality. Their lens became the story. Alternate explanations, like trying to read a character as queer, can fall victim to the same conformation bias. You can look to more recent times to, for example, see Native culture crushed legally and compressed until people believe running around in mass produced war bonnets while hollering respects the culture. Loki, however, was definitely genderfluid and pansexual.
    - terminalhealth 7y ago
      Only a small minority of cultures allowed homosexuality and even in those it wasn't very common. Even in modern societies, where it is socially acceptable only a small minority has deviant sexual preferences, probably less than 5%, so, no, this has never been normal and will likely never be. So enough of this already; the backlash is going to be harsh if natural sex roles will be stifled any further. It should be even in the interest of queers to let it cool off at this point.

terminalhealth 7y ago

%s/stand in/stand up/g HN's 2 hour edit policy is ludicrous, btw.

mkr-hn 7y ago

Plenty of men want to be listened to. You just have to be the kind of person who they feel safe confiding in. If you believe in gender essentialism as you appear to, your male friends probably don't consider you safe to open up to. All babies cry for help and attention. The bifurcation into two rigid binary genders with roles and expectations layered on later is cultural and varies through history. Evolution isn't that fast.

terminalhealth 7y ago
Human females always had a much lower economic output until recently. Even in the most matriarchal cultures, men were in charge of >90% of the agriculture, military, politics etc. Human matriarchies have never existed. Men have always been selected by dominance competition, though dominance is frequently very subtle; it's mainly about status, affiliation, competence, attire, ornamentation, art etc., but also ... pecking order.
- mkr-hn 7y ago
  At best, our picture of human history is incomplete. Historians routinely compress concepts to what they understand, and their compressions become The Understanding. For example: historians often assumed all relationships between two men were platonic because they were raised in a society with enforced heterosexuality. Their lens became the story. Alternate explanations, like trying to read a character as queer, can fall victim to the same conformation bias. You can look to more recent times to, for example, see Native culture crushed legally and compressed until people believe running around in mass produced war bonnets while hollering respects the culture. Loki, however, was definitely genderfluid and pansexual.
  - terminalhealth 7y ago
    Only a small minority of cultures allowed homosexuality and even in those it wasn't very common. Even in modern societies, where it is socially acceptable only a small minority has deviant sexual preferences, probably less than 5%, so, no, this has never been normal and will likely never be. So enough of this already; the backlash is going to be harsh if natural sex roles will be stifled any further. It should be even in the interest of queers to let it cool off at this point.