8 ms·

There's a slight implication because it only covers men that women are the source of unhappiness (e.g. the nagging wife trope), but I agree it's trivial and lik

There's a slight implication because it only covers men that women are the source of unhappiness (e.g. the nagging wife trope), but I agree it's trivial and likely unintentional. Agree with sibling, just as applicable as "happy married people are happy partners, unhappily married people are great philosophers".

xwdv 4y ago
[flagged]
- daveguy 4y ago
  Not being a dipshit is not the same thing as "bending to people's demands."
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    I wish I had the confidence in life to genuinely think anyone who thought or spoke differently to me was just a dipshit.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      That's not what he said, and I doubt it's what he meant. Many people who disagree with me are not dipshits, but the ones who are seem to take positive joy in being disagreeable.
- elil17 4y ago
  >most people stuck in unhappy marriages are men That is wildly untrue. The research on whether men or women are more satisfied in their marriages shows that they have about the same levels of satisfaction. For example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12077 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12077 Not really sure why the demographics of philosophers effects the impact of the statement. Most philosophers are white, would it have been more impactful if the statement had brought race into it?
  - xwdv 4y ago
    If you could bring race into it somehow then yes the statement might seem more based in historical precedence, rather than some idealistic fantasy world of hyper diversity, assuming most unhappily married men are also white.
    - elil17 4y ago
      I don't really get why any of that matters though. Can't you just appreciate the sentiment regardless of how it is phrased? Seems like your trying to make it political when it just isn't.
      - xwdv 4y ago
        Maybe you should think about who is actually making it political, i.e. the people trying to transform the phrase into something politically correct.
        elil17 4y ago
        Idk man sounds like they’re just taking a phrase and phrasing it slightly differently so that it applies to more people. You’re the one who was offended by that
  - water8 4y ago
    [dead]
  - doetoe 4y ago
    Just a side remark, but "most philosophers are white" should probably be "most philosophers you heard about"
    - Retric 4y ago
      It’s true that only a minority of philosophers are white, and people are far less likely to be aware of philosophers outside their culture. But there are less aggressive ways to say it.
- mejutoco 4y ago
  > most people stuck in unhappy marriages are men If we are counting only heterosexual and 2 people marriages, wouldn't the number of people stuck in unhappy marriages be exactly 50% men and 50% women?
  - brippalcharrid 4y ago
    The [perceived] consequences of ending a marriage seem to provide more of a disincentive to men, so they are more likely to persist in a marriage that they feel they would be unable to leave (and then have to support multiple households, etc.). The fact that women (in the USA) are more than twice as likely to initiate a divorce seems to bear this out.
    - antonfire 4y ago
      "Women divorce men more often than the other way around; this seems to bear out that men are more dissatisfied in marriage" seems like a stretch to me. At any rate, it reminds me of the classic physics joke: > An experimental physicist comes running excitedly to a theorist's office, waving a graph taken off his latest experiment. "Hmmm", says the theorist, "that's exactly where you'd expect to see that peak. Here is the reason." A long logical explanation follows. In the middle of it, the experimentalist says "Wait a minute", studies the chart for a second and says "Oops, this is upside down." He fixes it. "Hmmm," says the theorist, "you'd expect to see a dip in exactly that position. Here is the reason..."
      - brippalcharrid 4y ago
        That's an interesting thesis, but it wasn't one that I was putting forward; rather I was saying that the reality of divorce for men tends to be such that they are significantly less likely to seek divorce when their marriage is unhappy compared to women at a similar level of unhappiness.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- schrodinger 4y ago
  Language is lovely because you can find so many ways to express creativity! I don't think "Those happily married make great partners, while those unhappily married make great philosophers!" is any less colorful than the original.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    It’s bland, safe, and lifeless. The statement has no bite. The original statement will be read by men and some men will connect to it right away, because rather than envision some abstract person, they are made to immediately picture a man, and in that image they may recognize themselves, like looking at a mirror.
    - ajmurmann 4y ago
      > The original statement will be read by men and some men will connect to it right away, because rather than envision some abstract person, they are made to immediately picture a man, and in that image they may recognize themselves, like looking at a mirror. Sorry, are you saying that the audience of the statement is on purpose only men? If so, how could you possibly support any claim that it's not misogynistic?
      - thegrimmest 4y ago
        It's quite possible to target a statement at a male audience without a disclaimer and yet still not be guilty of misogyny.
        ajmurmann 4y ago
        The statement was made in a discussion about working in tech, not at a free masons lodge
      - xwdv 4y ago
        Most people here are men. The content will reflect that. Get over it.
- antonfire 4y ago
  Leaning into society's stereotypes is one way to bend to people's implicit demands to change your writing (and quite possibly thinking). But sure, if the metric you're optimizing is raw views and smiles and laughs, then probably the way to go is leaning into stereotypes. There's a reason those views and smiles and laughs are called "cheap".
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
[flagged]
- bobobob420 4y ago
  You went too deep. Never go too deep
- schrodinger 4y ago
  I'm sorry, it really isn't a big deal and I don't think anyone would be triggered or offended by the quote! And of course historical context matters. The poster was just proffering a friendly reminder that to push society forward it's helpful to consider these things. It's just like changing our default branches from master to main, honestly probably not a huge deal to any rationale person, but the cost is negligible so why not? It's possible to be empathetic and considerate, making minor adjustments (and also not judging those who innocently don't) without being the "woke" police!
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > he poster was just proffering a friendly reminder that to push society forward it's helpful to consider these things It is totally not. As Ricky Gervais put it beautifully, like it or not, if you categorize the people of the past with the standards of today, you are preparing the people of the (near) future to categorize you about what you say today. Now imagine that people think of Aristotle as a misogynist, like if it is actually important, he died 2,300 years ago after all and nobody studies Aristotle because "and now let's read about that guy who hated women, because it's something important to learn: women are trash", but By the 1930s, a new kind of human zoo appeared in America, nude shows masquerading as education. These included the Zoro Garden Nudist Colony at the Pacific International Exposition in San Diego, California (1935–36) and the Sally Rand Nude Ranch at the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco (1939). The former was supposedly a real nudist colony, which used hired performers instead of actual nudists. The latter featured nude women performing in western attire. The Golden Gate fair also featured a "Greenwich Village" show, described in the Official Guide Book as "Model artists' colony and revue theatre." Or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo#/media/File:African_Girl,_1958_Expo.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo#/media/File:African_... Sorry if I stand with Aristotle, despite him being a man of his times, and not with 20th century human zoo. edit: to put it simply, should we talk to German people or everytime they try to say something we should shut them up reminding them that they did the holocaust? When I disagree with someone from the US, can I use "you are the only people in history to have dropped two atomic bombs on civilians, you are wrong by design!"? Why Aristotle is problematic, but nobody says "he was a Trump but a lot more intelligent than Trump and actually, now that I think about it, he never said <<grab them by the pussy>>, so Aristotle was less misogynist than Trump"? Aristotle has never been POTUS. I understand pushing society forward, so why blame people who have died thousands of years ago for things they are not responsible of today? Does someone really think that quoting that sentence from Aristotle will plant the seed of misogyny in people's mind? Is this really the kind of trust we have in each other's intelligence? I believe people can read the context loud and clear.
Aeolun 4y ago
I mean, I’ve never heard of any woman being unhappy because of a nagging husband. The source of unhappiness for women seems to be the reverse. A husband that’s not doing all the things she nags about automatically. I think priorities are just fundamentally different somehow.
- deroanth 4y ago
  I'm surprised you've never heard of a woman being unhappy because her husband wants her to do/be one thing, and she wants to do/be another. "Nagging" isn't always the stereotypical annoyance.

xwdv 4y ago

[flagged]

daveguy 4y ago
Not being a dipshit is not the same thing as "bending to people's demands."
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  I wish I had the confidence in life to genuinely think anyone who thought or spoke differently to me was just a dipshit.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That's not what he said, and I doubt it's what he meant. Many people who disagree with me are not dipshits, but the ones who are seem to take positive joy in being disagreeable.
elil17 4y ago
>most people stuck in unhappy marriages are men That is wildly untrue. The research on whether men or women are more satisfied in their marriages shows that they have about the same levels of satisfaction. For example: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12077 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jomf.12077 Not really sure why the demographics of philosophers effects the impact of the statement. Most philosophers are white, would it have been more impactful if the statement had brought race into it?
- xwdv 4y ago
  If you could bring race into it somehow then yes the statement might seem more based in historical precedence, rather than some idealistic fantasy world of hyper diversity, assuming most unhappily married men are also white.
  - elil17 4y ago
    I don't really get why any of that matters though. Can't you just appreciate the sentiment regardless of how it is phrased? Seems like your trying to make it political when it just isn't.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      Maybe you should think about who is actually making it political, i.e. the people trying to transform the phrase into something politically correct.
      - elil17 4y ago
        Idk man sounds like they’re just taking a phrase and phrasing it slightly differently so that it applies to more people. You’re the one who was offended by that
- water8 4y ago
  [dead]
- doetoe 4y ago
  Just a side remark, but "most philosophers are white" should probably be "most philosophers you heard about"
  - Retric 4y ago
    It’s true that only a minority of philosophers are white, and people are far less likely to be aware of philosophers outside their culture. But there are less aggressive ways to say it.
mejutoco 4y ago
> most people stuck in unhappy marriages are men If we are counting only heterosexual and 2 people marriages, wouldn't the number of people stuck in unhappy marriages be exactly 50% men and 50% women?
- brippalcharrid 4y ago
  The [perceived] consequences of ending a marriage seem to provide more of a disincentive to men, so they are more likely to persist in a marriage that they feel they would be unable to leave (and then have to support multiple households, etc.). The fact that women (in the USA) are more than twice as likely to initiate a divorce seems to bear this out.
  - antonfire 4y ago
    "Women divorce men more often than the other way around; this seems to bear out that men are more dissatisfied in marriage" seems like a stretch to me. At any rate, it reminds me of the classic physics joke: > An experimental physicist comes running excitedly to a theorist's office, waving a graph taken off his latest experiment. "Hmmm", says the theorist, "that's exactly where you'd expect to see that peak. Here is the reason." A long logical explanation follows. In the middle of it, the experimentalist says "Wait a minute", studies the chart for a second and says "Oops, this is upside down." He fixes it. "Hmmm," says the theorist, "you'd expect to see a dip in exactly that position. Here is the reason..."
    - brippalcharrid 4y ago
      That's an interesting thesis, but it wasn't one that I was putting forward; rather I was saying that the reality of divorce for men tends to be such that they are significantly less likely to seek divorce when their marriage is unhappy compared to women at a similar level of unhappiness.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
schrodinger 4y ago
Language is lovely because you can find so many ways to express creativity! I don't think "Those happily married make great partners, while those unhappily married make great philosophers!" is any less colorful than the original.
- xwdv 4y ago
  It’s bland, safe, and lifeless. The statement has no bite. The original statement will be read by men and some men will connect to it right away, because rather than envision some abstract person, they are made to immediately picture a man, and in that image they may recognize themselves, like looking at a mirror.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    > The original statement will be read by men and some men will connect to it right away, because rather than envision some abstract person, they are made to immediately picture a man, and in that image they may recognize themselves, like looking at a mirror. Sorry, are you saying that the audience of the statement is on purpose only men? If so, how could you possibly support any claim that it's not misogynistic?
    - thegrimmest 4y ago
      It's quite possible to target a statement at a male audience without a disclaimer and yet still not be guilty of misogyny.
      - ajmurmann 4y ago
        The statement was made in a discussion about working in tech, not at a free masons lodge
    - xwdv 4y ago
      Most people here are men. The content will reflect that. Get over it.
antonfire 4y ago
Leaning into society's stereotypes is one way to bend to people's implicit demands to change your writing (and quite possibly thinking). But sure, if the metric you're optimizing is raw views and smiles and laughs, then probably the way to go is leaning into stereotypes. There's a reason those views and smiles and laughs are called "cheap".

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

[flagged]

bobobob420 4y ago
You went too deep. Never go too deep
schrodinger 4y ago
I'm sorry, it really isn't a big deal and I don't think anyone would be triggered or offended by the quote! And of course historical context matters. The poster was just proffering a friendly reminder that to push society forward it's helpful to consider these things. It's just like changing our default branches from master to main, honestly probably not a huge deal to any rationale person, but the cost is negligible so why not? It's possible to be empathetic and considerate, making minor adjustments (and also not judging those who innocently don't) without being the "woke" police!
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > he poster was just proffering a friendly reminder that to push society forward it's helpful to consider these things It is totally not. As Ricky Gervais put it beautifully, like it or not, if you categorize the people of the past with the standards of today, you are preparing the people of the (near) future to categorize you about what you say today. Now imagine that people think of Aristotle as a misogynist, like if it is actually important, he died 2,300 years ago after all and nobody studies Aristotle because "and now let's read about that guy who hated women, because it's something important to learn: women are trash", but By the 1930s, a new kind of human zoo appeared in America, nude shows masquerading as education. These included the Zoro Garden Nudist Colony at the Pacific International Exposition in San Diego, California (1935–36) and the Sally Rand Nude Ranch at the Golden Gate International Exposition in San Francisco (1939). The former was supposedly a real nudist colony, which used hired performers instead of actual nudists. The latter featured nude women performing in western attire. The Golden Gate fair also featured a "Greenwich Village" show, described in the Official Guide Book as "Model artists' colony and revue theatre." Or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo#/media/File:African_Girl,_1958_Expo.jpeg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_zoo#/media/File:African_... Sorry if I stand with Aristotle, despite him being a man of his times, and not with 20th century human zoo. edit: to put it simply, should we talk to German people or everytime they try to say something we should shut them up reminding them that they did the holocaust? When I disagree with someone from the US, can I use "you are the only people in history to have dropped two atomic bombs on civilians, you are wrong by design!"? Why Aristotle is problematic, but nobody says "he was a Trump but a lot more intelligent than Trump and actually, now that I think about it, he never said <<grab them by the pussy>>, so Aristotle was less misogynist than Trump"? Aristotle has never been POTUS. I understand pushing society forward, so why blame people who have died thousands of years ago for things they are not responsible of today? Does someone really think that quoting that sentence from Aristotle will plant the seed of misogyny in people's mind? Is this really the kind of trust we have in each other's intelligence? I believe people can read the context loud and clear.

Aeolun 4y ago

I mean, I’ve never heard of any woman being unhappy because of a nagging husband. The source of unhappiness for women seems to be the reverse. A husband that’s not doing all the things she nags about automatically. I think priorities are just fundamentally different somehow.

deroanth 4y ago
I'm surprised you've never heard of a woman being unhappy because her husband wants her to do/be one thing, and she wants to do/be another. "Nagging" isn't always the stereotypical annoyance.