4 ms·

> Women just have to learn to deal with such men You're not even considering the idea it could be different. Many people have lived in communities where they d

> Women just have to learn to deal with such men You're not even considering the idea it could be different. Many people have lived in communities where they don't lock their doors because they were actually able to trust the people around them. You realize that it is the disparity itself that creates such incentives to harm each other? The rich woman is an apt comparison, because I think the extreme stratification of society is a large part of what creates this incentive to prey. Women are still today decisively limited in their access to wealth and power unless they appeal to powerful men, which is the attention they want. Most men don't get any attention because they are of relatively little worth compared to the rich and powerful, likewise their sense of the worth of women is warped and judged by the standards of the rich and in their desperation to feel powerful they prey upon women they think meet those standards. It's disgusting on every level for everyone involved except the most powerful men, the ones who sit atop the pyramid. Does this sound just?

zozbot234 7y ago
> You're not even considering the idea it could be different. Many people have lived in communities where they don't lock their doors because they were actually able to trust the people around them. The trust in these tightly-knit communities is generally maintained by driving off predatory and criminal folks, and/or by harshly and promptly retaliating against them should anyone be victimized. Unfortunately, this is not something that can work beyond the scale of a fairly small town or perhaps a "gated" neighborhood in a larger city.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  I disagree completely, trust is rare in gated communities and police states. The more harshly the law is enforced, the more clear the sign that people do not trust each other to follow it. Trust is most easily maintained by people simply having no need to steal because there is nothing they want more than they want the trust and respect of the people around them. Why would I steal from you if you're no richer than I am and I know you'd help me in my time of need if it came? Society starts to break down when there come to be things that people view as more valuable to them than each other's good will and friendship. That is to say, trust is only possible under conditions of equality.
adventskalender 7y ago
Whenever the talk comes to equality and so on, I actually do think about women, or mating partners in general. While you could perhaps try to distribute property to everybody in equal amounts, so that (in your theory) nobody would have a reason to steal anymore, what about mating partners? It seems some socialist communities actually tried to make it mandatory for women to sleep with everybody, but I don't think that is a good solution (not sure if that needs to be discussed). So mating partners to me show that that equality in society you describe is not really attainable. And even if everybody would own the same things, it wouldn't imply that nobody would want other people's things. If you would steal stuff from somebody else, you would still have more things than before. I also don't think it is generally true that only poor people steal. Many criminals seem to become rich and they don't change their mind afterwards. And there would be all the other issues with socialism - some people would work more, some would work less, yet all would get the same things. That would be another recipe for dissatisfaction and social unrest. Your story of "men preying on women that fulfill the standards of the rich" also doesn't ring true to me. Why would non-rich men find other things attractive about women than rich men? And why can't they have normal relationships with women, why is it preying if a poor man contacts a woman? It is also definitely not true that women depend on men to make a living these days. Of course you can consider the long-term effects of whatever morals you want to instill in society. For example Christianity seems to have done quite well with their monogamy mandate, providing most people with a mating partner. In reality, presumably the few attractive men and women would be happier if the attractive men could mate with several women, and the women could get to only mate with the most attractive men. It would just leave many men (the majority) in the dust, again causing social unrest. Other societies try that model, and have problems of their own.
- aalleavitch 7y ago
  What is attractive in society is always aligned to the values of that society. Contrary to what evopscyh would have you believe, there is massive cultural variation in the standards of attractiveness. Wealth inequality itself is the most massive driver of inequality in partner selection; the entire reason a mandate to monogamy exists is because there is a huge incentive for all partners to flock to the richest person. If we lacked wealth inequality, we would have far less inequality in the factors of attractiveness, and less sensitivity to those factors which still existed. Being attractive in modern society is an incredibly time and resource intensive activity, and is composed of far more than raw genetics. And even then, those genetic traits are weighted in value by society. The reason all of this takes on so much importance for us is explicitly because we are constantly awash in the act of competition to climb the socioeconomic hierarchy.

zozbot234 7y ago

> You're not even considering the idea it could be different. Many people have lived in communities where they don't lock their doors because they were actually able to trust the people around them. The trust in these tightly-knit communities is generally maintained by driving off predatory and criminal folks, and/or by harshly and promptly retaliating against them should anyone be victimized. Unfortunately, this is not something that can work beyond the scale of a fairly small town or perhaps a "gated" neighborhood in a larger city.

aalleavitch 7y ago
I disagree completely, trust is rare in gated communities and police states. The more harshly the law is enforced, the more clear the sign that people do not trust each other to follow it. Trust is most easily maintained by people simply having no need to steal because there is nothing they want more than they want the trust and respect of the people around them. Why would I steal from you if you're no richer than I am and I know you'd help me in my time of need if it came? Society starts to break down when there come to be things that people view as more valuable to them than each other's good will and friendship. That is to say, trust is only possible under conditions of equality.

adventskalender 7y ago

Whenever the talk comes to equality and so on, I actually do think about women, or mating partners in general. While you could perhaps try to distribute property to everybody in equal amounts, so that (in your theory) nobody would have a reason to steal anymore, what about mating partners? It seems some socialist communities actually tried to make it mandatory for women to sleep with everybody, but I don't think that is a good solution (not sure if that needs to be discussed). So mating partners to me show that that equality in society you describe is not really attainable. And even if everybody would own the same things, it wouldn't imply that nobody would want other people's things. If you would steal stuff from somebody else, you would still have more things than before. I also don't think it is generally true that only poor people steal. Many criminals seem to become rich and they don't change their mind afterwards. And there would be all the other issues with socialism - some people would work more, some would work less, yet all would get the same things. That would be another recipe for dissatisfaction and social unrest. Your story of "men preying on women that fulfill the standards of the rich" also doesn't ring true to me. Why would non-rich men find other things attractive about women than rich men? And why can't they have normal relationships with women, why is it preying if a poor man contacts a woman? It is also definitely not true that women depend on men to make a living these days. Of course you can consider the long-term effects of whatever morals you want to instill in society. For example Christianity seems to have done quite well with their monogamy mandate, providing most people with a mating partner. In reality, presumably the few attractive men and women would be happier if the attractive men could mate with several women, and the women could get to only mate with the most attractive men. It would just leave many men (the majority) in the dust, again causing social unrest. Other societies try that model, and have problems of their own.

aalleavitch 7y ago
What is attractive in society is always aligned to the values of that society. Contrary to what evopscyh would have you believe, there is massive cultural variation in the standards of attractiveness. Wealth inequality itself is the most massive driver of inequality in partner selection; the entire reason a mandate to monogamy exists is because there is a huge incentive for all partners to flock to the richest person. If we lacked wealth inequality, we would have far less inequality in the factors of attractiveness, and less sensitivity to those factors which still existed. Being attractive in modern society is an incredibly time and resource intensive activity, and is composed of far more than raw genetics. And even then, those genetic traits are weighted in value by society. The reason all of this takes on so much importance for us is explicitly because we are constantly awash in the act of competition to climb the socioeconomic hierarchy.