3 ms·

I agree with this. Nobody can be exactly the same amount of good at everything. What the current system in the west (NOT Sweden) encourages people to is: for a

by artyom 2y ago

I agree with this. Nobody can be exactly the same amount of good at everything. What the current system in the west (NOT Sweden) encourages people to is: for a 50/50 scenario; as a man, you'll have to pay alimony, child support, work, and take care of the kids. As a woman, alimony and child support are rare to non-existent, work is optional, and taking care of the kids is an imposition from the patriarchy. As a man, you can dispute the money part IF you keep the kids 50% of the time at least, but oh boy, there's a million scenarios where things may be based purely on hope: Hopefully you'll get a judge that has common sense and doesn't just want to avoid dealing with the feminist crowd (or actually believes in those claims). Hopefully you won't get a false domestic violence claim, which automatically "believes the victim". Hopefully you won't experience the child's custody being weaponized to get more money. Most men simply walk away from all that (and no, that's no justification, they're being horrible fathers - or no fathers at all - by doing so). The equality discourse revolves around the division of labor in a family being just an imposition of the supposed patriarchy which rules the world. There's no historical fact checking that can support such claim. The right tends to claim that "raising the next generation is the most important job in the world" while at the same time refusing to put ANY money on it (see the Finland example, with very extended parental leaves, financial support, and public schools). The left tends to enable woman to do whatever they want, with no accountability, on the premise that they were oppressed from the patriarchy (so it's time for payback I guess?). Children are the last thing anyone cares in both scenarios. The reality is that whatever we're trying to do right now is really far away from the "success rate" of the nuclear family. Even same-gender couples with kids tend to evolve into husband/wife dynamics eventually. Also, stop giving examples from Escandinavia, nobody else functions (or legislates) like that. It has little to do with the money they have, and more to do with their culture and heritage. I'm aware of the irony of giving a Finland example myself.

piva00 2y ago
> Also, stop giving examples from Escandinavia, nobody else functions (or legislates) like that. It has little to do with the money they have, and more to do with their culture and heritage. I'm aware of the irony of giving a Finland example myself. I don't understand this part, what do you mean by that? As an immigrant in Scandinavia I saw many other immigrants eventually fall into this culture, so it's not something inherit in the people here but, as you say, part of the culture, and culture can be spread to other places. Learning about examples is the first step for others to perhaps look into it and give a chance for culture to spread.
- artyom 2y ago
  I'd love to agree with you, and I probably do for the most part regarding "spreading out good ideas", but only as two probably well-educated members of today's society. Unfortunately, while I completely believe you about immigrants "falling" into the culture when moving there (as it happens, in my experience, with most immigrants adopting the culture of whichever place they end up in after a while); I never suggested it was something that Scandinavians get in their genes at birth time or anything -- only how their societies were developed through history. I don't think you can just do the inverse (expats influenced by a new culture, vs. new external idea influencing an established culture) and expect it to work to the same degree or at the same speed. Or, the same argument, in meme form: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F93kjpbtearg21.jpg https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F9...
arghnoname 2y ago
> whatever we're trying to do right now is really far away from the "success rate" of the nuclear family. I think of many social/cultural arrangements as Nash equilibria. These can be very stable (over centuries even), partly because relative to many immediate deviations from them, they work. However, a big enough change (e.g., a change in productive forces) can be enough to destroy the equilibrium and change can occur rapidly and sometimes violently (e.g., the end of feudalism). So we were in many ways operating in a local minima and I think we've been knocked out of it. Where we are heading is hopefully ultimately better, but it'll probably be bumpy getting there. I don't think ultimately we'll return to a lot of the absurdities you're talking about. I suspect a lot of the speed-run level social changes we're experiencing is a bit of a mad thrash trying to find some new equilibrium but what we have is something that just doesn't work very well as a cohesive system. As an aside, your point about children is particularly salient. They're the ultimate inheritors of the world that is being reinvented and thus far, I don't envy them their inheritance.
- artyom 2y ago
  I don't disagree (I think "operating in a local minima" is spot on), however the argument about "a bumpy road to a better place" is just futurology. I really hope that's the case, but I have a hard time finding current evidence of it. Citing "how things got worse in the past to eventually get better" sounds a little ad antiquitatem to me. I don't think coming back to absurdities or more traditional roles is the answer either. The solution is always putting your wallet where your mouth is which nobody (*) is willing to do currently. (*) except Nordic countries obviously, which everyone loves to cite as an example but nobody is willing to imitate.

by artyom 2y ago

piva00 2y ago

> Also, stop giving examples from Escandinavia, nobody else functions (or legislates) like that. It has little to do with the money they have, and more to do with their culture and heritage. I'm aware of the irony of giving a Finland example myself. I don't understand this part, what do you mean by that? As an immigrant in Scandinavia I saw many other immigrants eventually fall into this culture, so it's not something inherit in the people here but, as you say, part of the culture, and culture can be spread to other places. Learning about examples is the first step for others to perhaps look into it and give a chance for culture to spread.

artyom 2y ago
I'd love to agree with you, and I probably do for the most part regarding "spreading out good ideas", but only as two probably well-educated members of today's society. Unfortunately, while I completely believe you about immigrants "falling" into the culture when moving there (as it happens, in my experience, with most immigrants adopting the culture of whichever place they end up in after a while); I never suggested it was something that Scandinavians get in their genes at birth time or anything -- only how their societies were developed through history. I don't think you can just do the inverse (expats influenced by a new culture, vs. new external idea influencing an established culture) and expect it to work to the same degree or at the same speed. Or, the same argument, in meme form: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F93kjpbtearg21.jpg https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F9...

arghnoname 2y ago

> whatever we're trying to do right now is really far away from the "success rate" of the nuclear family. I think of many social/cultural arrangements as Nash equilibria. These can be very stable (over centuries even), partly because relative to many immediate deviations from them, they work. However, a big enough change (e.g., a change in productive forces) can be enough to destroy the equilibrium and change can occur rapidly and sometimes violently (e.g., the end of feudalism). So we were in many ways operating in a local minima and I think we've been knocked out of it. Where we are heading is hopefully ultimately better, but it'll probably be bumpy getting there. I don't think ultimately we'll return to a lot of the absurdities you're talking about. I suspect a lot of the speed-run level social changes we're experiencing is a bit of a mad thrash trying to find some new equilibrium but what we have is something that just doesn't work very well as a cohesive system. As an aside, your point about children is particularly salient. They're the ultimate inheritors of the world that is being reinvented and thus far, I don't envy them their inheritance.

artyom 2y ago
I don't disagree (I think "operating in a local minima" is spot on), however the argument about "a bumpy road to a better place" is just futurology. I really hope that's the case, but I have a hard time finding current evidence of it. Citing "how things got worse in the past to eventually get better" sounds a little ad antiquitatem to me. I don't think coming back to absurdities or more traditional roles is the answer either. The solution is always putting your wallet where your mouth is which nobody (*) is willing to do currently. (*) except Nordic countries obviously, which everyone loves to cite as an example but nobody is willing to imitate.