Is feminism ruining the West?

Rodger

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
4,866
US
Here's one for the record:Lawsuit accuses Seneca Valley 'mean girls' of targeting boy with false allegations
I am not saying this is a direct result of feminism, but it is a result of the politically correct world some have created, of which feminism is an integral part. This kid is just collateral damage in their war. Now if the gender roles were reversed... there would be outrage by those who like to report and shape our views.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,725
Sydney
there seems to be some confusion between male violence and male dominance
the normal way is a display of dominance , brighter feathers , bigger horns ..whatever
outright fight is rare , the preening strutting stage is the normal ,
if it get to aggression , that because the display phase is a draw or the lesser male is really really desperate

the big problem with Feminism is Democracy ,
while it's only a segment of women politics ,
there is more women than men and they tend to vote on practical and authoritarian lines
the State as big daddy is a powerful meme
 

VHS

Ad Honorem
Dec 2015
3,977
Where Pica hudsonia thrives
there seems to be some confusion between male violence and male dominance
the normal way is a display of dominance , brighter feathers , bigger horns ..whatever
outright fight is rare , the preening strutting stage is the normal ,
if it get to aggression , that because the display phase is a draw or the lesser male is really really desperate

the big problem with Feminism is Democracy ,
while it's only a segment of women politics ,
there is more women than men and they tend to vote on practical and authoritarian lines
the State as big daddy is a powerful meme
Why do you consider the state as the biggest patriarchy?
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,725
Sydney
to keep men in check , the state need ,police ,Army , jails and shooting squad
women are much more docile politically

the job of protector is well within the state power , laws are enforced to protect their rights
as soon as a developed administration develop women found a powerful support which transcend all other allegiance
once give the democratic right to vote , their electoral weight ensure their interests are dominant
for politicians it is a constituency which is vital to assuage
 

holoow

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
3,642
Vilnius, Lithuania
there seems to be some confusion between male violence and male domin
to keep men in check , the state need ,police ,Army , jails and shooting squad
women are much more docile politically

the job of protector is well within the state power , laws are enforced to protect their rights
as soon as a developed administration develop women found a powerful support which transcend all other allegiance
once give the democratic right to vote , their electoral weight ensure their interests are dominant
for politicians it is a constituency which is vital to assuage
Well, you know, real men cannot be stopped by state power.

:cool:

 
Apr 2018
355
Upland, Sweden
I think that's a fair summation, yes. These are some thoughtful counterpoints and concerns, thanks for voicing them. I'll articulate my intuitions regarding them; tell me what you think. I'm going to break this post up into two posts; I apologize for that, but the forum just told me that I'm limited to 10,000 characters, and evidently I've exceeded that by a non-trivial margin.
Right, I can relate haha - exceeding that limit tends to happen for me as well...

Sorry for the slow reply as well, I was studying for my midterms in Micro, and being a generally not an overly quantitative guy (as well as having great difficulty in turning away from interesting arguments once exposed to them...) I had a bit of catch up to do, so I didn't "dare" log in here.
Your arguments are very interesting, and I have to say that I feel closer to being convinced than I remember doing earlier, having re-read my original line of argument as well. Nonetheless, I have a few comments and counter-points.

True, there is no guarantee. Indeed, there are precious few guarantees in life at all. Yet when we look at individual examples, I think we see similarities. Consider the small-scale matter of Israel vs Palestine. Were we operating under "winner take all" norms rather than "ritual expression" norms, the Israelis could easily have exterminated the entire population of Palestine while facing little real chance of military reprisal. Why have they not? Why do they limit themselves to military displays which, while impressive and disproportionate, do little to truly change the situation on the ground other than sending signals as to what they could truly do? I'd suggest its precisely because both their internal population and the rest of the world is implicitly operating under the system I've proposed: [...] Syria is another example. It is painfully obvious the United States of America and its allies wanted regime change in Syria, and they probably could have forced it through militarily, but they haven't. Why not? Because there are two constraints. [...] Within the context of the system I'm suggesting exists, this is something of which it is easy to make sense, while absent said system, it's more difficult, since alternative explanations might use different language, but still seem to reduce to the same underlying concept, which is to say, the avoidance of total warfare against any remotely-risky opponent in favor of relying on signals of relative power and willingness to commit force. [...].
Good points, overall, especially about Syria - I find that description very apt, and I would read the situation similarly. I do think the Israeli stiation has more to do with Israeli unwillingness to loose US support than actual fear of military reprisals though - absent that desire I believe something like what we see the Chinese doing in Xinjiang would not be too unlikely. But sure, I suppose if one has a broad enough definition of "reprisals" including economic and diplomatic the Israeli/ Palestine conflict fits equally well into your model. So let's go with that.

Overall I find your argument convincing - so let us suppose that we have indeed moved into such a system of largely ritualized combat as you describe. Now, will that be a permanent development, or is it merely part of an overall trend towards "softening" international and social relations, which might culminate in something else - perhaps this "feminine" world order I have outlined? Let us discuss the issue below.


What I would predict is that we'd see a "punctuated equilibrium," wherein rough peers spend most of their time circling one another, but occasionally one experiences a breakthrough of some sort -- in terms of circumstance, technology, political will, or so forth -- that allows them to "shift the playing field" in their favor before other "players" react, catch up, and re-establish equilibrium. The real question, then, is whether some breakthrough in circumstance, technology, or political will can result in one player irreversibly "winning the game," but it is difficult to see what such a breakthrough could be. [...] In fact, this is the real problem I see with the "feminization" strategy: it takes a prisoner's dilemma and tries to win it using a strategy which strongly incentivizes your opponent to take advantage of you and score an unmitigated win at your expense. [...]From a "prisoner's dilemma" perspective, it was a high risk, low reward move, especially since the way the geopolitical "prisoner's dilemma" works is that each round "won" comes with cumulative benefits.
Here I have to disagree somewhat with you. I do believe there is some potential for large breakthroughs in AI research to be precisely that "winning" move - or put in a more precise way, how could we know what the consequences of such a breakthrough would be? Suppose one country (or maybe just Google or some other such actor) succeeds in developing a "superintelligence" (in the sense outlined by my reluctant countryman Nick Boström) - isn't there a good possibility that the sheer speed and breadth of action available to it would risk being beyong calculation to us mere humans, even the brightest and most informed among us? Indeed, it would probably be wrong to claim that such a develop constitutes a "winning strategy" - I would argue that it is just as likely do cause us all unspeakable harm, and I can't help but feel the residue of half a millennia of radical Swedish Lutheranism inside me providing an impulse to "purge the heretics" engaged in such research - but lots of decisionmakers might indeed percieve it to be such a winning strategy, and acting according to the logic of the prisoner's dilemma, choose to go forward with it anyway, resulting in a situation in which the whole system of ritualized combat which you describe becomes undone and the equilibrium does not merely become punctuated but broken by radical uncertainty. This is the problem of the decentralized system of conflict regulation you describe, and I can't see the different actors compensating for it in a way that does not either 1) involve co-operation and setting up common rules (which risks aboloshing the system you describe for it to be an effective form of regulation) 2) massive domination by one party or set of parties over the others to establish such rules or 3) some black swan, like the Internet facilitating in a new global religious awakening converting people worldwide to sensibly conservative principles with some kind of suspicion of materialism and over-reliance on technology (think Jordan Peterson on steroids). All of this is dependent upon my very pessimistic views on AI research being correct though I will admit, and I grant that I am in no way a technologist or engineer of any kind (unlike you perhaps, if I could make a guess?), quite the opposite in fact.

I agree with your description of the weaknesses of feminization, and at the issue through the lense of urrent events you are no doubt right - the West has certianly not benefited from subscribing to the melange of a liberal, rules based "party of Davos" approach combined with a dose of what seems like manic cultural self-hatred. I also think we have went far beyond any reasonable point that is concievably long term beneficial, both to us and the world at large. Nonetheless, my point above still stands. I am not entirely convinced that the current system of ritualized violence will be able to deal with radical uncertainty in the future. In your defence though, I am not at all sure the other alternative I have "proposed" (I use the quotation marks because I take absolutely no joy in that). So, the way I see it, the question really becomes: is a centralized, homogenizing and "feminine" approach better? Let us look at the arguments below.
 

Similar History Discussions