slackstation

It isn't that he isn't trying. It's that it's clear that despite trying, he still isn't seeing it.

He talks about being a "pretty good" listener but, not catching the fact that people he respects and admires feel like he's constantly talking down to them.

It's an easy trap to fall into and I imagine a hard one to get out of (not because I'm not an asshole but, because I'm not rich enough to say that I'm in his position).

He just clearly doesn't understand himself. Startup culture looks at this thing called exiting as the very hard thing that very few people do sucessfully and then we look at the few that do it as some kind of oracle. We want answers to hard questions and automatically think that people that achieved success have found it.

Maybe he isn't this business savant and maverick. Maybe he just got lucky and the momentum of that took him over the line into success. I'm not saying it was easy but, maybe his success isn't because of the things he thinks it is.

> One of the three or four core apps that will ship with Magic Leap’s headset “is a game, ‘Dr. G.,’ that has no female heroes or lead characters”. The one female character in the narrative, who isn’t in the game itself, “is a busty woman depicted on her knees grovelling at the heroes’ feet in admiration”.

So in 2017 it's a hostile work environment if there aren't female characters in the video game that the company is producing?

I know that not the whole suite but, it highlighted as part of it.

Are people at the Gillette going to sue because they make a whole line of razors that are pink? Are people going to sue at fashion companies because the clothes they make are too revealing or tight?

Are we going to bring subjective criticism of art into the courtroom not out it own merits to society but, judging it on the basis of how it makes one of the employees of the company feel?

I'm not saying that the whole suite it without merit. This one point was just especially egregious to me.

This is what happens to a market when the person paying for it and person receiving the service are seperated.

It can be generational (parents pay for kids education) or time (a person buys something at 20 that they will pay off at 45).

I also think that the prestige of a degree combined with less and less real world application of that degree has something to do it with.

I think that the market value for certain degrees is falling below the market price for said degrees and what you are hearing is people complaining loudly.

I think if there really was a serious market for pure academics and high value, quality degrees someone would be tapping that market already. There is plenty of expertise, plenty of study in the subject and plenty of players would would be ready to provide that service.

I think far, far too many people look at college as a four year luxury party with a side of academics rather than the other way around. People going to college today seem like the most privileged demanding consumers.

The new source of costs in colleges which eclipses academics today is services that didn't exist 20 years ago. It's gone way beyond merely housing and a few health services.

Colleges are giving students what they want and what they want is scoreboards not lower student-to-professor ratios or cutting edge research. People have always wanted more cake and circus. College is just as consumer driven in this culture as anything else.

Why do we treat people with PHDs as idiots who in their 10 years of collegate level study don't ever think about their debt, their job prospects or their lives as they do it.

Do you think that grad students don't read articles like this? Do they understand points that author laid out?

If they do as a group stop applying for PHD programs knowing that their job prospects are abysmal? If so, why don't more people either a) cut their losses or b) not pursue a PHD in a wholly oversaturated market?

The exploitation argument works if you have completely illiterate and uninformed workers who work on the promise of advancement or pay that never comes. This doesn't hold water for professionals who literally spend every day working with the people they are trying to become.

The question then begs why do all of these intelligent, well educated people go through such great hardship, knowing full well the level of poverty involved. Every grad student I've ever known has joked about how poor they will be, how little they get paid, how miserable they will be on the other side.

Here's a radical idea; intelligent people are choosing this hard life because they value something in it more than the hardship they are going through to get it.

Now, you may disagree that the hardship is more than what they will get in return. You may also make the point that by definition, most of them won't even have the opportunity to achieve their goals. You may even make the point that colleges don't prioritize academics. I would agree with you on those points, especially the last one.

What's clear though is that they are people making this decision deliberately. College isn't the kind of thing where you just fall into like some academic gulag. At every step of the way, people applied, got loans or secured financing, moved across the country and put in hard work to achieve. All of this to say that somehow they were tricked by the "system" that's against them and is out to exploit them and their labor?

Now people are saying that colleges and society needs to put out a helping hand to all of these poor souls who find themselves in a position after a decade of deliberate decisions. If people put more support for this and made English PHDs more sustainable, I predict that you would see ever more PHDs and even more people trying to get into the field.

The problem lies in the fact that some people will make irrational decisions. Some things cost more (in money) than will give out (in money). Some people will get caught up in their love of books and academia and pursue a degree for the joy of literature but, then complain that a decade or professional reading and writing has yielded a mountain of loans and little else as prospects in the job market. It may even be that well meaning but, nefarious English professors are inspiring students to fall in love with Literature and teaching and speaking and this infatuation is causing a glut in the job market.

I would be more sympathetic if it weren't for the fact that this is a decade long process and you are doing in the very environment you are trying to enter. It'd be one thing if it took a decade to become an astronaut on Mars and we had a professional industry for training astronauts that lied or hid the fact that there aren't astronaut jobs available.

But, people see struggling grad students for four years in undergrad, and spend a decade being a struggling grad student. All the while pressing on. I have no sympathy for smart people making dumb decisions all the while studying books. The loud suffering of people who have made bad decisions is an important vital thing to listen to.

Allow people to keep making these decisions. Post this article and send it to every current and prospective grad student. Let them know that the road to a PHD is paved in suffering and misery (as if they don't already know).

Watch how few of them actually change their minds and alter their course. They are adults and are making decisions for their own lives inside dynamic systems that will work against their favor. I don't want to impose artificial limitations on the freedoms of a system because so many people make irrational (by my perspective) decisions for their own lives knowing full and well the consequences.

As someone who also first installed Debian in 98 from a single floppy disk netboot image, a memorized FTP site domain, a cable modem connection and a whole night of hoping, I wholeheartedly agree, Dwarf Fortress is way, way harder.

Every year I pick it up and play it for a bit just show myself that I can do it.

These days, I watch streams of people playing the game on Youtube or I play Rimworld if I'm in the mood for actually playing something myself.

I've never been able to have the patience to get to one of the really interesting kinds of fortresses that have steam-powered defenses that tunnel hordes of enemies strategically through your base only have them burned to death.

Also, the game is single threaded so there's a very linear limit of how many dwarves and interesting emergent things can happen in your fortress.

God, I miss playing that game. When it's good, it's the best there.

I've wanted to learn Rust for the express purpose of making a faster, multi-threaded DF-like game.

This looks like it could be a more modern interpretation of what Apple's Hypercard was trying to be.

Flash did this very well but, the technology and corporate ecosystem around it was terrible so it was good that we got rid of it.

This seems poised not to have those burdons. I wish the creators of this would do two things: 1. Get a sustainable funding model - Patreon seems pretty good for this. 2. Make indepth user testing (with non-technical people) a heavy priority within their culture.

The internet needs something for making media that isn't Adobe or Facebook or Google or Microsoft. Something that is open and financed directly by the people who want to use it and people that care about a free and open internet should happen.

If the authors of this project open a Patreon page, I pledge $20/mo for an entire year. I will also match $5/mo for anyone else willing to join me in supporting this project.

FYI: I have never met nor spoken to any of the Wick team members. I just got inspired to do something other than just throw out random advice on the internet today.

To the Wick team: PM me if you are interested in starting a Patreon.

It's funny how alarmed this person seems to be and how they take pains to point out how it's tied to Nazi imagery.

Dark Enlightenment, Cathedral, etc are ideas. Probably bad ideas but, ideas. You battle bad ideas by showing them to be bad and showing ones that are better. You don't cower in fear or spread alarm.

We live in the age of the internet; a giant library with whole shelves (wings even) of material on scary ideas like The Dark Enlightenment, Racial Superiority, etc. These ideas aren't going away. It's basically impossible to ban motivated people from discussing ideas because of encryption technology. All a ban will do is give a weapon to suppress ideas to the vast silent majority who see little value in defending ideas others have told them are bad.

If the author of this article has a problem with these ideas, then say so or at the very least point out links to refute them. Breathlessly implying they are intrinsically wrong does nothing but signal virtue to those who don't find the topic worth investigating deeper.

It's not either or. Autonomous service for commuting is still highly valuable even if you retain your own car.

Over the medium term, this will only encourage ever more massive and distant suburb creep. Also, with longer commutes less tiresome, the negative cost of having a longer commute will be mitigated.

As for the stranger effect, there are many innovations on that front as well. Google is already has a working app that tries to arrange commutes for true ride sharing where passengers only compensate the driver for the pure cost of the ride. It's cheap and effective if you are a bit flexible in the morning.

I can see autonomous services being so cheap that they become the new corporate perk and companies find value by having employees ride together, share ideas, socialize, etc.

Also, the economies of scale alone would make a private automated car trip still cheaper than owning privately an autonomous vehicle.

The technology will move fast enough that the vast majority people will be switching from a human operated car to a self-driving car service. I can see the ad campaigns now. Basically showing people how much cheaper and safer and more convenient it is.

Cars can be seen like horses were before them, an expensive hassle that requires land for storage and usage. If you think about it, people have whole buildings just for storing cars, garages, like we did with horses, barns.

15 years from now suburbs will be built without garages and driveways. There will be a cottage industry for people to convert garages and carparks into more usable space.

20 years from now, multistory car parking lots will be the new conversion buildings like the old meat packing and textile plans that used to be in downtown areas that were turned into lofts. Polished concrete floors will feature the original parking space numbers. The open sides will feature panoramic views.

Lastly, having your own car will be a throwback element. People who like to 4x4 or work on their own cars (a huge market that might actually grow in the medium term) will fill this but, even then they'll use automated services to commute. The number of people who have hobby cars (off-roading, auto racing, vintage collectibles, restoration) will skyrocket because a car no longer has to be a daily driver.

Or people might care less about cars, I don't presume to know the complex of a future of human desire. But, in a world full of cheap cars that you driver yourself, automated car services will still create so much value that people will still switch.

This is an N of one but, I use either Uber or Lyft to and from work every day. People get used to it. I find it far more pleasant than a crowded and dirty bus or train. Even when the car is small and full, the car usually smells better, is cleaner and oddly feels like there are more defined boundaries than a bus or train seat when crowded.

Everyone has their own door as well so there isn't as much jostling past and touching and being touched by strangers even in a full car.

The only time I've ever taken an Uber or Lyft and I not have my own door and/or I've had to scoot past people is in large party situation and those other people were my friends.

I've talked to women and they seem to prefer an Uber or Lyft over taking the train and/or the bus. Also, being dropped off at your destination rather than walking a few blocks from a metro stop to where you are going also makes a massive difference.

The benefits really outweigh the drawbacks. Especially if this is cheaper than owning one's own car. In theory, a private automated car service (calling a car and being the only rider) would still be cheaper than owning a private car and still have the same conveniences. It's just that eventually it will basically just be 4x cheaper to share a ride.

For all intents and purposes, it's more energy than we will ever need so it's closer to infinite (conceptually) than finite.

Same thing happened with me. Coastal housing prices skew your perception of reality so much, it's hard to imagine <$100K even existing.

Also, making a logo is a one-time service. What value can you provide in the month after the logo is done?

People want car ownership; it's built into the culture. The question is at what cost.

I have gotten rid of my car because Uber/Lyft and public transport/biking are SO much cheaper than owning a car. On the order of a few hundred dollars a month (if I had gotten a new car and insurance).

Additionally, I don't spend time parking or with car maintenance nor do I worry about speeding. In addition, I have more time to make or take phone calls on the road, do some light work on a laptop (with a mobile hotspot) or if I'm feeling tired, just nap.

Despite initial concerns, Ubering and Lyfting is simpler, faster, easier and far, far less stressful than driving. This only compounds for longer trips. There is nothing like an hour-long Uber ride where you basically take a nap and wake up when you've reached your destination or just calmly listening to a podcast or watching an online lecture and being able to take notes.

Now, that said, I'm becoming an avid outdoors person and I want a vehicle I can take on trips that can stow my gear. I use a car rental service for this (currently Turo) and that works well but, I wish there was a service that let me borrow my friends' cars but, got a daily insurance rider so that their asset would never be at risk and that I would be in compliance with the law in California that requires all drivers to have insurance. Something like what Google's ridesharing is doing but, for car borrowing.

Put a per-mile fee on there based on IRS mileage, slap a $5 per rental fee for putting all of this together and boom, you have something that would really revolutionize things.

Cheap? You can buy one from this guy for only $230 (!)

I think people are pointing out that the founder was someone that people wanted to see, a brilliant young woman; proof that the Steve Jobs of the world don't have to only be men.

The real story turns out that the whole thing was smoke and mirrors and it was obscured by both her secrecy, her powerful connection and the point that some are making here in part the image of a woman wasn't one that they wanted to look at critically.

It isn't the entire problem but, it contributed.

Also, I don't think that the opposite would be true, that if she were a man, she would have gotten more scrutiny. I think it wouldn't have been a factor to be pointed out. People are ready and willing to see men as villains. There are plenty of companies founded by people with a deep powerful roster and that have pulled the wool over many peoples' eyes founded by men.

This is just far worse because this is a medical device issue and obscuring and ignoring standards is playing with people's lives. Martin Shkreli was tarred and pilloried in the press for merely increasing the price of a drug treatment that we knew to work. Theranos misguided people into believing that their treatment worked when it didn't. All the money in the world can't buy back the time to detect issues and diseases that could be caught early or caught at all with other higher standard tests.

Her gender isn't everything but, it did contribute and even now we treat her with kid gloves in public opinion despite the depth of what Theranos did and worse how it conspired to do it.

edit - spelling

From the article, Glenn Beck says:

> "Yet, I still go to church, sometimes with a gun."

I don't know why but, that somehow chills me to the core. As a former religious person. I'm so glad I got out American Christianity. It feels insane.

The rest of the article is actually quite sane and rational. I can be wrong but, it reads as if Glenn Beck had a chance to see himself and calm down. He realizes that his rhetoric got him nowhere. Obama wasn't as bad as he had feared. Trump won't be as bad as people fear.

I find myself agreeing with Glenn Beck as we prepare for a Donald Trump presidency. What a time to be alive.

-edited formatting for clarity

> ... but she did do a very good job amassing big names, capital, and fantastic media attention to Theranos[1]. Things that every startup needs to do well.

She did that largely because everyone wanted her a young, well educated smart white woman to succeed. Everyone wanted to be a part of an industry where she and other women like her could found billion dollar unicorns. They wanted her as a role model. They were willing to look past the signs that things weren't adding up until the very end when it all came crashing down.

So, no I don't think her story should be held up for emulation because it's unlikely to be repeated.

This industry still desperately wants a woman to make a billion dollar startup that isn't in fashion, or markets where women traditionally are greater consumers or have greater inside knowledge (fertility, ovulation, makeup, certain parts of the fitness industry, etc.)

I don't know if Elizabeth Holmes has hurt the image of women at the helm. She hasn't helped. I would like to think that I'm a part of an industry that doesn't think that every woman who wants to found a non-woman's industry startup is the next Elizabeth Holmes. I don't have data on that either way.

If a simple sandwich gets famous and then goes up in price, it isn't the fault of people outside the neighbourhood, it's the fault of they guy who runs the bodega on the corner. He realizes that he can do business where last week a chopped cheese went for $4, this week, he can sell it for $10.

He's making a profit from the demand. People get mad that things get popular but, that's just a small downside for an otherwise hyper-efficient capitalist system works. Also an option is making them at home for next to nothing. Bread, ground beef, provalone cheese, some spices and thinly sliced lettuce? It's not like this would be that hard nor expensive to make.

This takes a massive amount of capital and distribution is usually through department stores that both sell and often install the machines. Getting into department stores will be an uphill battle but, that's still less hard and cheaper than trying to make an installer network across a country.

You might initially make an enthusiast market of people willing to pay for quality and install the machines themselves but, it would have to be very specialized marketing. Maybe to people who service and repair appliances initially?

The author mentions mattresses and that market is being disrupted but, other than shipping (which seems a pretty sizable problem to solve) they don't have to worry too much about installation.

Also, the network of people to service the machines after the fact. It's hard, it will take alot of money and the most likely outcome is being purchased by one of the big companies and then they do the same thing sa before and use the brand but, make the same shitty machines underneath the disrupting company's logo.

Yes, if you are going to minimalism as a lived, pre-subscribed aesthetic experience, it's basically a really uncomfortable fashion.

I find it better suited as a tool to examine your life and peel away things that aren't needed. That extra space and lightness that is made gives you freedom to do more of what you want and less of things you are forced into.

I personally started minimizing my wardrobe. By having radically fewer individual pieces of clothing, then I can more consciously consume. Case in point, if I have 20 pairs of jeans that I randomly picked up because they looked nice or more likely, I was bored and wanted to distract myself with shopping, then I was much less likely to buy something from a brand that treats it's workers and the environment responsibly; something I personally care about.

I would like to save money so that I can have the freedom to travel for extended periods while I'm still young. Getting rid of alot of things I didn't use but, were taking up space in my apartment allowed me to see just how much space was taken up by things I didn't really need and more importantly weren't adding value to my life.

Ultimately, minimalism for me is trying to give myself the room and the lightness to reach a certain escape velocity from the life I feel I have to live just to survive in my environment to the life I tell myself that I want to have.

It's easy to say, if I had the means, I would travel full time or I would bike across the United States or I would hike the PCT or Appalachian Trail. It's almost a comfort to say, I can't afford it, or I could never take the time off, or what would I do with my apartment for 3 months? It's entirely another thing all together to watch yourself answer those questions and resolve those roadblocks and to see if you really have the will to be the person you tell yourself you really are on the inside but, because of circumstances you don't have to opportunity to be.

Alot of people of financial privilege find appeal in this minimalist life only because it's easier and clearer to see that having everything or almost everything you want doesn't actually make you as happy as you expect you it will. At a certain point there are many people who feel working hard to get more stuff is a losing bargain.

Having less stuff and (for me at least) less carrying costs for having so much stuff, such a nice apartment, such a nice car, so many nights out, so many ways to keep up with the Jones' was something I gladly shrugged off once I saw how much of a difference it was making in my life.

Will I end up a hyper-minimalist in the end? I don't honestly know but, I do know that what I have done so far has impacted my life in real and amazing ways. Having less stuff isn't magic. What is magic is how your life grows when you give it space.

By going to a system of clothes, I have both fewer clothes, less time to shop for them and more outfit options while spending less time wondering what combination I would wear.

Encouraged by that, I'm planning on moving out of what seems like my huge luxury apartment into a smaller one both to have less space to fill up and also to save money.

Saving money and making a plan to confront who I really am. Am I the traveling, freewheeling, wake up in a different country, lover of the outdoors person that I tell myself I am or will I shy away from the new back toward the familiar? Does that even actually make a difference to who I am?

All of those questions can't be answered unless I change my life in an effort to answer them and that's what minimalism is doing for me, allowing me to start answering those questions.

> I wish more companies understood the value of great products that people love to use as marketing instead of spending money on advertising.

Companies understand. It's just that making something that people truely like is expensive, takes a long time and is risky.

Marketing (in many instances) is cheaper, faster and less risky. Also, it's something you can do with 3rd party providers who do this for many companies. In other words, it's a business problem that can be solved by basically throwing money at it.

Building something usually takes insight into the customer, knowledge on how to build the thing that people want and ongoing work at maintaining that thing that makes people so happy. All of this takes a great amount of internal talent, skill and leadership. If the wrong few key people leave, if the corporate culture changes, if the winds of the stock market and profits shift, this can go away. It's much, much easier to just rebrand your way into people's good graces.

A $900 11" Macbook Air is really hard pressed to a better option than a $250 13" Chromebook for the types of low-end user that these appeal to.

Yes, there are those dedicated few who would prefer an 11" over a 13" model but, still do advanced computing on it but, those people aren't enough for a market.

Apple is letting the low end of the market get gobbled up by Google like they have everywhere else. Chromebooks now dominate in schools where Apple used to shine.

That isn't even to mention the effect of advanced mobile apps have had on our need for low end computing. Even the differences between 2012 and now is pretty stark. There is basically an app for everything that a casual user would do on their computer in a mobile device and that syncs up to the web. Google Docs, photo editing, light video editing and now what people mostly do is browse the web and consume various kinds of content online and games.

There simply isn't the market for a small laptop like there used to be.

Lastly, with a 20% reduction in volume with the 13" MBP, the distinction is more or less gone. The only thing is the price-point. There is nothing to fill that void.

>> It's the same as if I chose to take 3 months off to section hike the Appalachian Trail

> This includes holding future promotions and days off against them for doing the very things society thinks they should be doing - namely, parenting.

You ignore the parent poster. His point seems to be the idea that a person can take upto 3 months off of work shouldn't be equivalent to someone who didn't take that 3 month block off regardless of the reason, child rearing or hiking the Appalachian Trail.

If I took that much time off and a coworker didn't, especially year after year, I wouldn't expect them to get more raises, more seniority.

This idea me at home taking care of my kid is the same as people at work is silly. Promotions shouldn't be given just because someone has worked at a place for an amount of time. The exception being cost of living increases. Seniority on the team, responsibility and the increases in compensation that come with that should be according to ability, time dedicated and skills, etc.

On the flip side, if my time is spent engaged with my child then it can't be on increasing my career if I'm at home full-time parenting. This isn't about working parents but, during maternity/bonding leave. It's either one or the other.

> Nah. Not really Valley Style, lets just fund another AI Moonshot. Because there isn't enough money in AI already.

An AI moonshot if it works would change everything. It would change way more than the Linux kernel ever even dreamed of doing.

> it would be odd if their porn detector had such a huge gaping hole in it

phrasing!

I couldn't resist.

For centers of innovation and insight into the future, startups collectively shoot themselves in the foot by centering on some of the most expensive real estate in the world.

It'd be far more logical for VCs to pick a far more livable, affordable area so that their investments could go further, last longer and have a higher chance of success.

VC firms are really just high risk money lenders that have a seat on the boards of the companies they lend to. One could take a dystopian view that VC firms like the super high burn rate that having a startup in the Bay Area entails because the high costs makes companies more dependant on round after round of capital thus giving higher and higher percentages to the VC firms of the companies that do eventually make it. That's a little dark, even for me.

More likely, we've made this hellscape of $4k 1bdrm apartments because VC firms are comfortable in their big, well appreciating homes in choice parts of the Silicon Valley and the greater Bay Area and they don't want to drive very far to meet with the companies in their portfolio. This and other factors (NIMBYism) creates the situation to this day.

If VCs were brave and smart, they would try and find a longer term solution to the problem. Find a city nearby that has significantly lower cost of living. I'm actually looking forward to the VC bubble bursting again so that companies would be forced to get scrappy again and start solving this problem themselves.

If I were founding or running a startup today, I would in a location that 1hr or two away from the major startup centers in a place where my workers wouldn't have to spend 50%+ of their salaries making NIMBY owners richer.

This is dumb. He's risking a significant amount of his livelyhood for a company that doesn't really care all that much about him and he's calling them out in public.

Dumb move. Most people will forget about this in a week and his business will be affected for months (in the shortest possible time frame) and probably permanently.

This is a dangerous bluff to make.

I hope you like time paradoxes because this is how you get trapped in a time paradox.

Respectfully, this is kinda BS.

Your average American kid has already won a genetic lottery. Being born and raised in America is already great.

I grew up the kid of immigrant parents from an African country and I am an immigrant myself at 5 years old. I have a great job at a major well known tech company in a technical programming position.

I'm not the kid that got straight A's. I was the smart fuckup. I almost flunked out of high school. I dropped out of college. I could barely program worth a damn out of college. It was hard work learning not only how to program but, all of the other skills that college didn't teach but, are critical to a working professional programmer (git for instance).

Now, I'll argue there weren't a bed of nails. There were a bed of pillows. I had to move back in with my parents multiple times through my twenties. I thought back then that I was walking over a pit of spikes but, it turns out I wasn't.

Today is much different than even a decade ago, so much more than a generation ago.

You can teach yourself how to program. You can work a minium wage job while you teach yourself. You can't do it in LA, SF, NYC but, you can live in the parts of the US that no one talks about and learn.

It takes time and dedication but, one can do it.

I fully financially supported my brother for two years and he didn't learn or do really anything with that time other than barely pass a bad coding bootcamp and then struggle to find a job with that inadequate education.

The greater difference is the person and their perseverance than economic circumstances. As a poor person who made it by screwing up again and again and again and again. Unless I have astronomical luck, I really don't think it's that hard.

Seriously, if you have the intelligence to program, you should be able to find a minimum wage job or what I did, work nights doing security. I learned programming (reading programming books and coding) while I watched warehouses, trucking depots and the gate at gated communities. It was still a fuckton of hard work but, the hard part was the programming not figuring out how I was going to feed myself.

Maybe I'm somehow this unicorn of blind exceptionalism but, while I felt depressed and that it was hard at the time, it doesn't feel that hard now. I just kept working and it was more of less inevitable. Even today, I keep telling my brother that if he keeps working at it, it will eventually work.

Why do we get mired with the attempts quagmire? If you look at depression and suicidal thoughts as a disease, the death rate is gendered.

Men die more from suicide yet society shows more sympathy and support for women. That makes sense since society was basically built to protect women and ensure that offspring had stable diligent parents. This leads to society enshrining the protections of women and children at the (relative) disadvantage of men.