Your lack of empathy for men and your objectification of men as mere walking dicks is truly disgusting. You are definitely part of why men do not trust women: you are part of the problem. If being afraid of the, quite frequent, false accusations is misogyny then I am a misogynist.
Yes, I think from your comment history that it is quite clear that you are a misogynist, and that because of that, your opinions don't matter, and nobody cares what you think.
>But if the man decide to not want to be a "slave" of the woman who "doesn't love him anymore" he must pay or go to prison. Yay reproductive rights for me but not for thee! How dare man not wanting to slave away at the benefits of women!
And let's remember that in EVERY society men pay ALL the taxes and women are ALWAYS net beneficiaries, not exactly "slaves".
Neither is sexual assault. Now try to use said justification against a victim. What is happening is that the empress is naked and we are not impressed by her accusations.
I mean it happens to 4 in 5 women, right? And we know that those numbers tend to be under reported, right?
Have you ever been close with a woman who didn't have multiple stories of assault to share. I haven't. Literally every woman I've ever dated, every woman in my immediate family and many of of close friends have talked to be about it, and it doesn't happen to them just once either. And we live in ostensibly one of the safest parts of the world, with plenty of money and good policing etc.
This isn't to mention the literal thousands of women showing up involuntarily on revenge porn websites every day, the creepshot websites, the harassment subreddits...
Nor the domestic abuse/spousal coercian (or the femicide that can follow!)
It's, like, literally super common. I'm sorry but if you think otherwise you need to listen better to the women around you.
Just think about it: The vast majority of sexual assault goes unreported, and the only a tiny percentage of reports are made maliciously. It's clear from napkin maths that sexual assault is orders of magnitude more common than false accusation.
The empress may well be naked but it's because men have ripped her clothes off.
I wish we had the stability you talk about. Here, not in the US but in a kafkaesque hellhole, our political class decided that the job market should be flexible: that meant that finding a stable employment contract is a farce: instead of having a probationary period you have contracts for 6 months of fulltime work written of as internship and payed as such, and you can be sure the contract will not be renovated so you change job every six month because it is illegal to renovate an internship contract, you offer fulltime or you fire. Meanwhile this "companies" keep churning people using them like almost-slaves because people are desperate: 8 hours a day? No, no: 10 is the minimum otherwise there's something more desperate that will take your "internship". And you end up 40 years old, living with your parents, unable to afford anything other than distraction and then you listen to the TV about the "brain-drain" and start saving money for the plane ticket.
Maybe the fact that they were used by seemingly very different society for thousand of years and society who did enforce them were more stable and successful? The hubris of modern people to think they are so enlightened they can engineer society to fit they ideological views as if humans were mere economical units.
> seemingly very different society for thousand of years and society who did enforce them were more stable and successful
Ahh, so a bias for values that were evolutionarily successful? I can kind of see the utility there.
Would this hypothetical system take into account the dominance of the societies in question, or is it just specifically how long they've survived/been stable?
>For what it's worth, I don't actually think IQ is a canonical measure of intelligence, and the narrative people have of "being stupid" is often driven by society valuing certain kinds of intelligence more than others.
Not only IQ is correlated with every positive prosocial behavior we, in general, value but every seemingly disparate form of intelligence is correlated to the others so we can, in fact, talk about a single form of intelligence that manifest in different form (generally named "g factor"). This is just the inherent unfairness of life. I wish it wasn't true and only your hard-work would matter, but it doesn't.
This is actually what made it so disturbing to me. I think people with high g factor are innately advantaged by no merit of their own. According to my personal philosophy, I’d say these people (assuming they experience inordinate success in life in a career which leverages features of high g factor) are obligated to some degree to use that ability to uplift other people who struggle due to low g factor.
After some consideration I was left with the sense that I’d squandered something because I was too busy mired in egoism, navel gazing, insecurity, and helplessness driven by the sense that I’m less fortunate. And yet I’ve had a lot of good fortune which clearly stemmed from mental characteristics I believed I didn’t have.
I suppose I always felt like such an imposter. As though I was only ever hours or days away from being found out, then being relegated to a life more suited to someone as incompetent as I was.
Now I try to be less self absorbed and think more about what I can do for other people — people who can’t thrive in a technology-driven world due to innate disabilities, for example. Statistically it’s known that this is a staggering portion of our population, and these people deserve to get as much out of life as anyone. Living in poverty because you can’t understand how to apply for a job online, perform many basic jobs, navigate state or provincial websites to obtain disability assistance, or manage personal finances and so on is such an egregious offence to humanity in my mind.
In summary, I should have spent less time feeling sorry for myself and more time helping people with real problems.
I suspect I will never manage to meaningfully help people more than I would have when I thought I was stupid. I believed in pro social behaviour before the test. For that reason I’m not sure it helped me to see the IQ score.
Women represent at most 2% of the victim of every war that we have data on. Trying to reframe the suffering of men, and only men, as a women problem is one the most vile things done by the modern zeitgeist. Shame on everyone who doesn't remember who really fights in war, and that is not women.
Yoga is stretching. Ayurveda is pseudoscientific nonsense. Meditation exists in lots of religious traditions. Now let's talk about the cast system. Wasn't that a way for high status people to "other" anyone who wasn't them?
Strange because I'm from [country in EU]: homework generally have no bearing on the final grade and considering homework it's considered permissive and hippy-esque: they can cheat, copy, make the parents/siblings do it, ask the Internet to do it and so on. The actual, rigorous evaluation happens in class and only in class, homework assigned so you can prepare for the actual test.
If my experience with essays means anything is that to receive a good grade you need to regurgitate the teacher pet causes using the most flowery language possible. No thinking involved.
I was pretty surprised to discover that no-one in business gives a fuck if you cite your sources. On the rare occasions when you really need to, they also don't care if you use any kind of special formatting for it, and might even find it weird and off-putting if you did.
They also don't mind if you "cheat" (seek extensive help on a piece of work without asking if that's OK first, or "steal" something that already exists). Usually, they prefer you do. Results matter, and maybe not breaking the law. Beyond that, nobody cares.
I've also not once used all that business letter-formatting crap we wasted so very much time on in elementary school. WTF.
Yeah I remember fretting so much over things like MLA, but then you get a job and your bosses boss can't seem to figure out the complex landscape of their/there/they're... preeeettyyy frustrating
It's handy to know if you go into academia, I guess, but I'm not quite sure why we're teaching specifically a citation format that's only useful in some fields, and only if you're an academic. If we must teach one, it'd be nice if it was something more intuitive and less fiddly, like Chicago Style. Still not broadly useful, but at least it's not, you know, insane like MLA is.
Really seems like something that could be left out until undergrad. Just give enough info that a reasonable person could find your source easily, and keep the format consistent and simple in each paper. That's all anyone cares about outside academia, in the rare cases they care about citations at all.
