Hacker News Reader

This might be my management role leaking, but in my experience you are being far too rational. Humans are emotional beings first and foremost, then rational.

I do think society is hostile to him, but I don't want him to become a reactionary, or a culture warrior.

I'm his mother, I want him to be happy. I won't sacrifice my son to some abstract societal goal no matter how noble it might seem.

This is why I cannot agree with your idea of ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. It is wrong to rationalize away all the collateral damage that happens to living human beings under the guise of statistics and history.

Ok? I don't think society is overall hostile to men. I'm a man. I think I might have noticed.

I'm not telling you to sacrifice your son to some abstract goal. I'm telling you that his happiness depend on things more meaningful than a gender label. Your son doesn't have to attach his identity to an oppressor class that is ending, which surely would impact his happiness. He can instead attach it to the end of oppression, something he can feel happy working toward.

And it's not my idea that ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior. It's a basic fact that if Bucket A has 4 apples and Bucket B has 2 apples, asymmetric behavior will be required to get an equal number of apples in the buckets. Similarly, reducing my male privilege is going to require behaviors that are not perfectly the same toward all people. Should we try to minimize "collateral damage" as we move forward? Absolutely! But we should also keep in mind that not moving forward means ongoing damage. If we treat the collateral damage to men (from improvement) as more important than the damage to women (from not improving), that's just another flavor of patriarchy.

You don't notice because you aren't the same generation. You seem to have a blindspot around the idea of generational differences.

My son did not get advantages from being part of the oppressor class, YOU did. My son and you might both be male, but the generation experience is not the same. My son is a innocent child.

You an old white man telling me I should tell my son to to accept an identity he does not deserve. I will not force my son to pay for your oppressor sin/guilt. There is a way forward for both young women and young men,but its not your way. Your way only works if humans were robots.

I have young male family members and also try to keep up with what's going on. So I think painting me as out of touch is incorrect. If you'd like to demonstrate that patriarchy entirely ended sometime in the last few years I'm certainly willing to look at your data.

I certainly believe that the generational experience is different. But I also believe that we have not get achieved gender equality. For example, dating and sexual violence for high schoolers in 2019: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/snapshots/DataSnapshot_YRBS20...

> You an old white man telling me I should tell my son to to accept an identity he does not deserve.

I am not in fact telling you that. That's what people like Andrew Tate want: for him to see himself as a Big Man who gets his bigness from lording it over women, an identity he does not deserve. I'm telling you that he should accept an identity he can earn: a person in the world who can feel empathy for the people around him, appreciate that he, like everybody, is caught up in the vast flows of history, and that he can participate in steering those flows in the direction he thinks for the better.

> Ok? I don't think society is overall hostile to men. I'm a man. I think I might have noticed.

Your left wing ideology is so extreme that it's causing you to hopelessly contradict yourself, are you aware of that? It looks ridiculous.

You already said "I'm perfectly fine with things like the future is female" - that's objectively a very hostile statement against men but because you yourself are a part of the woke misandrist social movement you keep trying to rationalize it. So you say things like "Society isn't generally hostile against your son; its hostility is to patriarchy" which is meaningless ideological babble. Woke people consider all men to be members of the "patriarchy" so it's the same thing. You also claimed "that as long as he's working for what's right, he doesn't have to worry too much if people's trauma leads them to mistake him as being part of something wrong" except this so-called trauma is a lie. Men are not oppressing anyone, you haven't benefited from any such oppression and if people identify that young man as "part of something wrong" then he does in fact have to worry about that, because they will oppress him in false vengance even though he is innocent.

Ah, a spew of right-wing ideological talking points without the slightest bit of data. How surprising to find this in a discussion relating to feminism! I am perfectly ok with people who spout stuff like this claiming I'm ridiculous, so you just keep going, bub.

Why would I cite data when you didn't? What data can even be cited to refute totally subjective statements like the ones in this thread?

If you want points with data look at the usual suspects: percentage of men in prison, ratios of men/women in higher education, or the one this thread is about (women more likely to be elected in ....).

Yeah, I thought you couldn't cite any data for your claims. Nice work adding in some whataboutism to distract, though.

Huh? This feels like a response from a chatbot. I just did cite several data points. This whole thread is about a specific data point that backs up the claim that society is overall hostile to men.

> Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior.

You lost me here. If you were serious about fairness, you would propose reparations for past harm, and an equal system going forward. It's absurd to try to replace one unequal system with another unequal system.

Reparations for past harm is an example of asymmetric behavior.

I hope you're young because this level of naivety in an older person would be very concerning. As others have pointed out, the real world does not work based on rationality, and assuming it does will lead to some very bad decisions.

>I hope you're young because this level of naivety in an older person would be very concerning.

I do not know about this particular fellow, but I think at least some part of the current generation of older people have similar views, much more than in the previous centuries. Relative prosperity in recent times has ensured that many of these dimwits now have the opportunity to survive and now that they are in positions of power or influence.

Good thing I never said that the real world is based in rationality. But we should use our rationality both to make sense of the world and to shape the world so it is more reasonable.

> we should use our rationality both to make sense of the world and to shape the world so it is more reasonable.

Recommending that groups take revenge on one another for past behavior and wrapping it in some Orwellian term like "Asymmetric Behavior" is neither rational nor reasonable. It's immoral.

Thank goodness I have never advocated for revenge, then.

> Ending inequality requires asymmetrical behavior.

Sure there's a small delta between what you say and what others claim you say. Unless they verbatim repeat what you say there will always be a delta.

Don't pretend to don't understand the point they are making and address it.

If you believe you understand what they're saying, feel free to be explicit about it. As far as I can tell, their point is based in confusion and ignorance, and I can't address the particulars when they're cloaked in insults and vague accusations.

> he doesn't have to worry too much if people's trauma leads them to mistake him as being part of something wrong.

We're not talking about mature adults capable of reasoning and addressing historical and generational nuance. Children are internalizing the idea that they're bad by virtue of being born a certain way and that's terrible. It's not something they can "not worry too much about". Inflicting pain and trauma on children who had nothing to do with the past in the name of progress is stupid.

Sorry, you've lost me. What specific "inflicting pain and trauma on children [...] in the name of progress" do you believe is going on?

The idea is that letting a generation of young boys think they're personally responsible for a history of oppression and discrimination inflicts pain and trauma.

Ok? I'm not avocating for that idea. If somebody is, you should go talk to them. If I ever see it happen, I'll talk to them too.

What I do believe is that those of us with privilege are personally responsible for how we use it. We can use it to support the oppression that gave it to us, or we can use it to undermine it. I think it's perfectly fine to tell everybody, children included, that whatever power they have, they're responsible for how the use their power in the world.

"Ending inequality requires asymmetric behavior."

2 wrongs make it right?

I don't agree with your framing that all asymmetric behavior is necessarily wrong. But accepting it for the moment, wrongs are sometimes necessary to make rights.

A good example here is the American Revolution. Oppression by force is an obvious wrong. So is killing people. Was it wrong for Americans to revolt, knowing they would have to commit wrongs along the way?

It's not always wrong to kill someone. It's both legal and moral to kill someone in self defense if they're threatening your life and you have no alternative.

It is legal and moral for police to use violence against someone who poses an immediate threat to those around them, preferably detaining, but if necessary killing them.

It was by and large moral (though not legal) for all colonies and colonized people to violently oppose and overthrow the colonial powers that oppressed them. When enemy soldiers arrived and they killed those soldiers, they did the right thing.

None of these cases are examples of two wrongs making a right. They are examples of people doing the right thing in response to a wrong, even though it was difficult.

I agree with your point, but think you're using a different definition of "a wrong" than the person I was replying to.

Surely there were very few British soldiers whose dying thoughts were "this bayonet in my guts is right and proper". That's not to deny that the anti-colonials stabbing them were right, of course. My point is just that writing a wrong via harm will seem like a wrong to the harmed. Of course, the writing of a wrong even with no harm will often be taken as a wrong by the people losing privilege, so I'd also agree that we can't use mere feelings of being wronged as wrongs themselves.

"asymmetric behavior" is just a way to whitewash retribution.

It could be. But there are plenty of other things it could be. Perhaps consider why you leapt to that particular conclusion.

Perhaps you should think why you felt the need to be passive aggressive instead of giving a direct response.

You are passive aggressive because you know my central point is correct, and are seeking to downplay it.

I thought my answer was direct enough, but if you need it spelled out further, I'm glad to give it a go.

It is possible that there are some people seeking "retribution". It is also possible that somebody might seek to whitewash retribution under the label of asymmetric behavior.

However, I am not doing that. I specifically chose that phrase because it's extremely broad, because in encompasses all sorts of things. If you are choosing to see anything asymmetric as retribution, that's not about me. That's about you.

You choose to be passive aggressive and use extremely broad terminology because you know full well retribution is a core part of that and you are fine with it.

You admit being part of the oppressor class and likely have guilt. You simply don't care about that retribution falls under your broad scope and ideas because you are old and will not have to pay for it.

"Asymmetric retribution" is your way to whitewash the damage you wish to inflict on a different generation of men for your guilty conscience.

It's clear you know full well what all this implies but choose to play ignorant as seen in your replies with other commentators.

I'm glad the young men and I guess some women and mothers too here on hackernews see through your tactics and are rejecting them.

> know full well retribution is a core part

It is not.

> "Asymmetric retribution" is your way

I never said those words that you quote. You keep hearing what I said that way for reasons of your own.

Just in case I have't been explicit enough for reasonable participants: I am not interested in "retribution". I am interested in ending oppression. Even if I didn't find retribution repugnant on its own, I find it counterproductive in relation to my goal.

I chose a broad term because I did not want to get bogged down in endless nitpicking over particular approaches to ending oppression. The people who agree that oppression exists and that we must work to ending it will not have much problem seeing that something asymmetrical must take place. (If you have examples of oppression ended without asymmetric behavior, I look forward to it.) But it's not surprising that even the broadest term has itself generated endless nitpicking, because there are a lot of people who are invested in the oppressive systems themselves.