3 ms·

> Feminism has made most women unfit for marriage. Of all the women I've seriously dated, I can't think of a single one I passed on marrying because of feminis

> Feminism has made most women unfit for marriage. Of all the women I've seriously dated, I can't think of a single one I passed on marrying because of feminism. > The very idea that casting the relations between men and women as a pseudo-Marxist class struggle That's certainly a phrase someone could say, but it doesn't sound like the statement of anyone who has much of an idea what Marxism or feminism are. > Men and women are not equal. Men and women have some characteristics that are distributed bimodally. Arguably some different natural incentives. You could reasonably say they're different. They're also by many criteria more alike than they are different, and any member of either class is only somewhat more likely to be similar to another member of their class than a member of the other class, which implies that the kind of difference in play here is a pretty suspect basis for founding inequality, and the best basis on which to evaluate any individual is... individual. Which works pretty well as one of several general egalitarian principles. It's one thing to recognize difference. It's probably even wise to be able to recognize difference and use it as a starting place. But it's another thing to use generalizations of difference as an assertion of inequality, especially one that implies hierarchies of privilege by class like "men and women are not equal." Where inequality exists, best be sure you can test for it specifically. Simply assuming your priors (especially poorly examined priors) automatically apply has some names, many of them ugly.

realjhol 4y ago
> Where inequality exists, best be sure you can test for it specifically. I think we basically agree with each other. In other words tradition and statistical modes of innate characteristics are strongly related to each other. I am just using the framing language of tradition, which is uncomfortable to those who prefer the trappings of a more rationalistic explanation. But it amounts to the same thing. > But it's another thing to use generalizations of difference as an assertion of inequality, especially one that implies hierarchies of privilege by class like "men and women are not equal." I think the modern mind needs to grapple with this. Hierarchies are natural and inescapable and typically (but not always) healthy. There's nothing wrong/shameful with whatever station we might have in life. For example, I always think of Alfred from Batman. No, he's not Bruce Wayne, but he's integral to the story. Batman can barely cope without him. He's a servant, and yet he carries himself with a justified sense of nobility. And Bruce Wayne has a noblesse oblige to ensure Alfred is well taken care of. We seem to have lost this concept as a culture. I think each of us must learn to be content with who we have been created to be, and the nobility of whatever position we find ourselves in the great chain if being; caring for those who depend on us, and serving those diligently who are placed above us. In the same way the traditional conception of marriage isn't abusive, but rather freeing to enable people to find dignity and play to their strengths.

realjhol 4y ago

> Where inequality exists, best be sure you can test for it specifically. I think we basically agree with each other. In other words tradition and statistical modes of innate characteristics are strongly related to each other. I am just using the framing language of tradition, which is uncomfortable to those who prefer the trappings of a more rationalistic explanation. But it amounts to the same thing. > But it's another thing to use generalizations of difference as an assertion of inequality, especially one that implies hierarchies of privilege by class like "men and women are not equal." I think the modern mind needs to grapple with this. Hierarchies are natural and inescapable and typically (but not always) healthy. There's nothing wrong/shameful with whatever station we might have in life. For example, I always think of Alfred from Batman. No, he's not Bruce Wayne, but he's integral to the story. Batman can barely cope without him. He's a servant, and yet he carries himself with a justified sense of nobility. And Bruce Wayne has a noblesse oblige to ensure Alfred is well taken care of. We seem to have lost this concept as a culture. I think each of us must learn to be content with who we have been created to be, and the nobility of whatever position we find ourselves in the great chain if being; caring for those who depend on us, and serving those diligently who are placed above us. In the same way the traditional conception of marriage isn't abusive, but rather freeing to enable people to find dignity and play to their strengths.