4 ms·
Comments like yours are exactly why I posted the original article. It's really nice to hear from someone at HN who sees beyond the controversy caused by a total
by yason 14y ago
Comments like yours are exactly why I posted the original article. It's really nice to hear from someone at HN who sees beyond the controversy caused by a totally different mental model, as you put it. I'm surprised I wasn't downmodded more aggressively.
I wouldn't have answered to this thread unless you had written these two comments of yours: HN certainly isn't the place for serious discussion about such topics and while I don't necessarily like it that way, that's just the way it is. But I sometimes keep fishing for different responses.
Now, anything related to gender, sex, gender roles, and the masculine and feminine parts of a person's psyche and spirit seems to be a touchy subject: add in a few feminist and antifeminist preconceptions—or just any politically correct one—to the mix and what you have is the mother of all can of worms.
It's virtually impossible to discuss those in a large group unless there's a predefined consensus that limits what can be said. All we probably can agree with together is that there's a difference between the masculine and feminine, but there are indefinite ways of how that could unfold into a discussion. Yet it's a very fundamental dynamic of life that you're bound to deal with one way or another, regardless of if you're a man or a woman.
Further, there are so many angles into this gender topic that it's hard if not impossible to establish a definitive model of how to present my thoughts on such a topic myself. And that doesn't fly well at HN: generally people who are thinking more aloud than asserting their final conclusions don't fare well on internet forums.
So, a fruitful conversation of the subject is probably only possible with at most two people who trust each other enough so that they're able to just reflect the other person's thoughts instead of trying to argue them out.
I know there are tens of thousands of different people on HN and most do have beliefs and attitudes that don't fit in the canned scientific-consensus impression most people present on HN.
There is a wealth of intelligent people here and I sometimes wonder what they think of things that can't be said here.
- Mz 14y agoOne problem with your original remark is that it is openly hostile to women while simultaneously failing to conform to the "scientific" model popular here. You managed to alienate pretty much everyone in one stroke. If you posit a male-female dynamic, they must be complementary. If male energy is in crisis, so is female. The one requires the other to balance. I was a homemaker for many years. That is a dying role in modern America. But it is the logical and practical complement to the traditional masculine role of going out and conquering the world. It is routinely disrespected by the modern world. You decry what is being done to male energy while actively participating in the modern trend of pissing on the traditional maternal role. It is no wonder you perceive a crisis. You are shooting yourself in the foot on this one. Best of luck with sorting out whatever is on your mind.
- yason 14y agoIt's not hostile to women unless you choose to interpret it in that light. I simply brought up that subjecting boys to feminine nursing for too long tends to make it more difficult for them to find the man within themselves later. I could have said the same about girls grown in a very male environment and managed to be hostile to men too :) And of course I decry what has happened to male energy in such a short comment. I wrote about male energy because I didn't want to start by writing pages and pages on a subject like this. (See, still trying to keep it short.) By the way, you are aware that traditional patriarchy is a dying scheme in the modern world as well and that traditional paternal role has been pissed on for a long time, too, aren't you? It all started in the 50's/60's and female energy is in crisis too, like you said! For example, in the contemporary world, women in the worklife wear a highly masculine attitude because the current way of doing business is regrettably masculine only. Women in office jobs even dress like men. Now, when a woman comes home after work it will take a while until she can be in touch with her feminine side again. If she has a so-called modern husband who has already picked up the kids from school, looked after them while making dinner for everyone (these are traditional, parallel, stereotypical feminine activities) then she might have a hard time a) finding her feminine side to get in touch with her feelings and b) finding the masculine side in her husband so that she can relax in the trust the masculine provides for her, and just talk her feeling out to get rid of her working day stress.
- Mz 14y agoI am a woman and I am sympathetic, but it sounded hostile to me. You are now dismissing that and blaming me instead of simply trying to clarify when I am the only person here taking you at all seriously. And given that I am having my head handed to me elsewhere on hn, I am not in a good frame of mind to bend over backwards to give you a receptive audience. If you would like to try again, I would be happy to give you a do-over. But, no, I am not going to make a serious attempt to engage this reply. Again, best of luck with whatever is on your mind.
- yason 14y agoWell, thanks for telling me what bothered you. I think I was just surprised to see the question of hostility being brought up at all. Certainly my words can be read in as many ways as there are readers, thus in my head that question was sort of off-topic so I think I didn't pay attention to how important it was to you and possibly others. I am not actively or passively hostile to women, at least to any such extent that I can recognize myself or that can be recognized by my friends, so the whole matter simply hasn't been on my radar at all.