14 ms·

As notacoward observes… literally 'men'? To my ear, 'people' would've worked too. I feel it's always worth asking whether there are unstated axioms here being

As notacoward observes… literally 'men'? To my ear, 'people' would've worked too. I feel it's always worth asking whether there are unstated axioms here being snuck into the discourse. Especially in a big conversation about how 'everything is being ruined because people won't stick to the old good ways'. Though it may be an uncomfortable question to some, to what extent does this rest upon female humans serving as livestock and spawning/rearing children, being relatively disposable themselves? If you REALLY want to maximize 'men attaining dignity and social respect', to what extent does this rest upon the existence of a subhuman underclass which doesn't count as 'men' and can be enslaved for their labor? Dignity and social respect are RELATIVE. The easiest way to make them seem enhanced for some is to strip 'em from others. People vary far too much to make 'free market' human interaction easy and seamless, and every time we run up against a conflict our dignity and social respect takes a hit. How badly do you want your dignity? And how much is your end goal just you and not anybody else? (this would be an abstract 'you', not intending it as an argument that the original commenter is this 'you')

zozbot234 5y ago
Now I really have to wonder, do you get social recognition from your livestock? Of course you don't. So why even make that argument? Dignity and social respect can be a positive sum game; in fact, this is effectively the key insight behind the notion of social capital. In a well-functioning society, more social respect for women can fully coexist with dignity for men and vice versa.
rayiner 5y ago
Any culture that equates women having and raising kids with “being livestock” will be replaced by a society that doesn’t see motherhood that way. By definition.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  It's the exact same culture that sees "happiness" for women in pursuing "a younger, richer, more x partner", as noted by a sibling commenter. The idea that many women as well as men might find genuine happiness and fulfillment within stable, well-functioning household relationships is entirely foreign to some "modern" ways of thinking.
ThrowawayR2 5y ago
All humans, indeed every life-form, are for "serving as livestock and spawning/rearing children", period. Until somebody invents Dune-style axolotl tanks to clone people and robot nannies, that's not going to change. If a society and its culture can't perpetuate itself, it will be replaced by one that does so we all need to come up with a balance that works to perpetuate the type of society that we want. In the meantime, maybe ease up on flamebait language like "subhuman underclass" and trying to insinuate the person you're replying to is some kind of scoundrel and try suggesting solutions to the fraying social balance instead? Because it's increasingly obvious that there's a problem here.
- Applejinx 5y ago
  No, I don't think so. I specifically exempted the person I was replying to in my 'you' unless he wants to lay claim to being the sort of person I meant, and I'm happy with my language in the context I expressed it: 'if you really want to maximize your dignity and social value of men' From my perspective we are looking at social balance that incorporates more variation, and that there were obvious problems with the previous balance that's now said to be 'fraying'. I think 'dignity and social respect' is a zero sum game, and largely dependent on power balances: you can never truly feel 'I am treated with dignity and social respect!' unless you're being kowtowed to by at least some. Otherwise, your perspective will inevitably be challenged, perhaps a lot if you mingle with a lot of varied people. The state of actual freedom, is a state of social instability. Nobody defaults to the dominant, nobody's guaranteed to win, and the larger the pool you're in, the more likely someone is going to turn up, compete hard, and make you VERY challenged indeed. And they're in the same pool so there's doubtless something making them very insecure in turn, even if they're stomping all over you. You can make this seem like a solid, reliable, secure social balance as long as you're able to crush opposing forces and have whatever your class/gender/race is, totally dominate everyone else. Then it won't seem 'fraying' or 'a problem' at all, because you'll not be in serious danger: others will. The nice thing about humans is that, as thinking life-forms, we get to self-govern the appetites we share with dogs. As such we cease being livestock. This counts for women, too, exactly as much as it counts for men: it's more aspirational than practical. But we do get to question these things, both personally and societally.
photochemsyn 5y ago
Well, I was just modifying OP's line and replacing culture with economy. 'Human beings' would be fine as well.

zozbot234 5y ago

Now I really have to wonder, do you get social recognition from your livestock? Of course you don't. So why even make that argument? Dignity and social respect can be a positive sum game; in fact, this is effectively the key insight behind the notion of social capital. In a well-functioning society, more social respect for women can fully coexist with dignity for men and vice versa.

rayiner 5y ago

Any culture that equates women having and raising kids with “being livestock” will be replaced by a society that doesn’t see motherhood that way. By definition.

zozbot234 5y ago
It's the exact same culture that sees "happiness" for women in pursuing "a younger, richer, more x partner", as noted by a sibling commenter. The idea that many women as well as men might find genuine happiness and fulfillment within stable, well-functioning household relationships is entirely foreign to some "modern" ways of thinking.

ThrowawayR2 5y ago

All humans, indeed every life-form, are for "serving as livestock and spawning/rearing children", period. Until somebody invents Dune-style axolotl tanks to clone people and robot nannies, that's not going to change. If a society and its culture can't perpetuate itself, it will be replaced by one that does so we all need to come up with a balance that works to perpetuate the type of society that we want. In the meantime, maybe ease up on flamebait language like "subhuman underclass" and trying to insinuate the person you're replying to is some kind of scoundrel and try suggesting solutions to the fraying social balance instead? Because it's increasingly obvious that there's a problem here.

Applejinx 5y ago
No, I don't think so. I specifically exempted the person I was replying to in my 'you' unless he wants to lay claim to being the sort of person I meant, and I'm happy with my language in the context I expressed it: 'if you really want to maximize your dignity and social value of men' From my perspective we are looking at social balance that incorporates more variation, and that there were obvious problems with the previous balance that's now said to be 'fraying'. I think 'dignity and social respect' is a zero sum game, and largely dependent on power balances: you can never truly feel 'I am treated with dignity and social respect!' unless you're being kowtowed to by at least some. Otherwise, your perspective will inevitably be challenged, perhaps a lot if you mingle with a lot of varied people. The state of actual freedom, is a state of social instability. Nobody defaults to the dominant, nobody's guaranteed to win, and the larger the pool you're in, the more likely someone is going to turn up, compete hard, and make you VERY challenged indeed. And they're in the same pool so there's doubtless something making them very insecure in turn, even if they're stomping all over you. You can make this seem like a solid, reliable, secure social balance as long as you're able to crush opposing forces and have whatever your class/gender/race is, totally dominate everyone else. Then it won't seem 'fraying' or 'a problem' at all, because you'll not be in serious danger: others will. The nice thing about humans is that, as thinking life-forms, we get to self-govern the appetites we share with dogs. As such we cease being livestock. This counts for women, too, exactly as much as it counts for men: it's more aspirational than practical. But we do get to question these things, both personally and societally.

photochemsyn 5y ago

Well, I was just modifying OP's line and replacing culture with economy. 'Human beings' would be fine as well.