Hacker News Reader

Comment by vrganj | Hacker News Reader

Why are you pro-sexism?

Gender equality = breakdown of traditional family structure in my mind. That’s just going to lead to horrible societies and broken kids.

I appreciate the honesty so I put this forward sincerely - you dont think its problematic to essentially force women down a certain life path (aka "gender roles")? - how is this compatible with individual liberty? Presumably you would not like being forced into a traditinal "peasant role" of toiling on the farm, which 99% of men were subjected to before modernity, perhaps that can help you relate.

Unfortunately on the last part, we may be heading back there, except toiling as a peasant is better than the alternative we will get.

Damn hoss, I'm sorry that you can't get a partner without one of the partners being unable to get a bank account. That's gotta be a hard life and a hard thing to think about yourself.

Oh no, I’m happily married. I’m just worried about the future.

> I’m happily married

But is your wife?

GP is probably one of the non-white conservative dudes that are onboard with the rest of the MAGA agenda. The racism is only bad because they are the outgroup on that specific issue, and in harm's way. That group is surprisingly diverse and includes swathes of immigrants from the Middle East, Latin America, and Africa (non-exhaustive list).

They'll only "come around" on LGBTQ issues when it affects them personally, say, if one or more of their kids come out of the closet.

I'd say OP has a genuine concern, if you do the work to see past the needlessly inflammatory framing. Their pain is coming from somewhere, right? Ostensibly advocating for sexism is not where they started, but rather a product of the hate industry pushing fake solutions on vulnerable people. Writing off their whole point of view (especially when you think it matches a significant group!) rather than focusing on the underlying economic problems is exactly how we ended up with the maggot movement.

I know it's quite tempting to merely cheer blue blue blue after voters soundly rebuked open fascism, but we need to really address the longstanding problems driving that frustration if we don't want to just end up right back there again.

> I'd say OP has a genuine concern, if you do the work to see past the needlessly inflammatory framing

> I know it's quite tempting to merely cheer blue blue blue

I'm not shouting "blue blue blue", I'm talking about the politics of tolerance (or lack thereof).

I am far from the first to make the observation that generalizes gp's comment: a lot of non-white immigrants come from cultures and/or belong to religions that are socially conservative, and are a natural fit for American conservatives - were it not for the racism. Republicans will need to grapple with this, if they don't succumb to ethno-nationalist fascism.

> [...] after voters soundly rebuked open fascism

Sadly, the voters did not rebuke fascism, they just got hit in their pockets, and didn't like it. They knew Trump's agenda in 2024 and voted him back in.

> Ostensibly advocating for sexism is not where they started

That's a big assumption; for a lot of - let's call them culturally conservative folk - disliking the "LGBTQ agenda" and "wokism" is the first common thread binding a bible believin' Southern Baptist Conservative good ol' boy, a conservative Muslimah, and a Hindi Nationalist.

I'd say I'm more optimistic than you about individual people, and less optimistic about herds. From what I see, the Republican party has already succumbed to ethno-nationalist fascism. There is no "grappling" to do, rather it's a matter of whether propaganda is strong enough to assuage the cognitive dissonance. Easy to do when "project 2025" is some abstract thing on a website, hard to do when there are militias attacking our cities, kidnapping minorities on suspicion of illegal immigration, and summarily executing citizens for exercising our most cherished rights (1A and 2A). And sure, the price at the pump - but terrible economic decisions are part and parcel of autocratic regimes, right? As it stands, I do not see how Republican party is coming back from this. The grassroots has invested in far too many simplistic emotional narratives for anyone to start talking sense and succeed - while Grumpism is most certainly a watershed moment, it's also just the inevitable destination of the specific narratives the party had been rallying support with for decades.

Meanwhile I really do think there a lot of people who were/are attached to the reactionary movement for purely economic reasons, and then end up backfitting the collectivist social moores as they at least outline a team that might actually address the economic pain. But I think this is ultimately just another rug pull of managed dissent - converting what might be opposition to the actual economic con, into fight amongst yourself social issues.

It is a non exhaustive list because in addition to the Middle East, Latin America and Africa, it also includes East Asia, Central Asia, South Asia and South East Asia. Having lived there for a while it also (somewhat) includes Eastern Europe and Russia.

It really is everywhere other than progressive parts of the US and Western Europe and I want to turn that around. I don’t like the way it is now.

What are you using as examples to measure "horrible societies and broken kids"? In my mind, the Taliban represents what you're wanting vs Nordic countries represent what you don't want. It's pretty clear to me the Taliban is the horrible society with broken kids (watch the "The Kite Runner" for more info) here where-as in Nordic countries you have a fairly high quality of life. What is your take on this?

I'd say you're hoping to (fallaciously) turn the clock back to some imagined rosy past rather than directly addressing the actual oppressive dynamic we're facing today. Women being able to enter the workforce was not a problem for family formation in and of itself.

The number of workers doubling while the definition of full time employment per worker stayed fixed rather than being halved is the problem. Combined with the Fed mandate for an inflationary treadmill, this made it so the new standard lifestyle is now a two income household - with all those domestic chores still getting done in mostly system-illegible ways. And while you can live with dirty floors or buy cleaning services in a competitive market, raising children is an extraordinary chunk of domestic work that can't be straightforwardly outsourced.

True choice is good. An illusion of "choice" under a strong economic incentive / paperclip maximizer / Moloch is the liability.

(Also "LGBTQ" is another red herring only involving a small part of the population, but yet emphasized to keep you from focusing on the economic oppression)

Can you elaborate why gender equality breaks down family structure? Why would it lead to broken children and societies? I’m legitimately curious why you think this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com