Male self-hatred; as "woke" as can be

[CarlD.]

....aaaand sure enough, I was right. I found a draft of the paper on Google scholar:

"92 participants were recruited in the present study, including 23 cisgender males, 23 cisgender females, 23 trans men and 23 trans women."

OF COURSE you will get noisy data if you pick rare outliers like that.

Thanks, I was wondering about the validity of the study's techniques. Those result seemed over the top.

[jhkim]

Running data through an AI and it identified up to nine separate coordinate axes of gender? O.o

This stuff is getting out of hand...

Thanks, I was wondering about the validity of the study's techniques. Those result seemed over the top.

I haven't read the full paper - just the article and the abstract. But it seems to me that the article isn't saying that much. Saying that there are 9 axes in the pattern recognition doesn't say much about the strength of the clustering. If there was only a single axis, then we'd have male-type brains and female-type brains, with presumably two peaks and variation along that spectrum.

Even with only one axis, there could be strong clustering -- i.e. men all think one way, and women think a different way with no little variation. Or there could be more overlap - where there are some men that think more like average women, and some women that think more like average men.

With nine axes, you could still have strong clustering. It just means that when there are edge cases, they are different edge cases -- rather than all trans-men having similar brain patterns, for example.

[Trond]

I haven't read the full paper - just the article and the abstract. But it seems to me that the article isn't saying that much. Saying that there are 9 axes in the pattern recognition doesn't say much about the strength of the clustering. If there was only a single axis, then we'd have male-type brains and female-type brains, with presumably two peaks and variation along that spectrum.

Even with only one axis, there could be strong clustering -- i.e. men all think one way, and women think a different way with no little variation. Or there could be more overlap - where there are some men that think more like average women, and some women that think more like average men.

With nine axes, you could still have strong clustering. It just means that when there are edge cases, they are different edge cases -- rather than all trans-men having similar brain patterns, for example.

Having done some PCA studies myself, I'm almost certain you would not find those same axes if the population were randomly sampled. These guys used some sort of computer learning, but they "taught" the computer a very biased thing. It really is very similar to the "fingers" joke I made a few posts back.

[CarlD.]

Did you notice that even Michelle Wolf, herself a rather obnoxious feminist, has finally understood that some radical feminists are this much batshit crazy? She joked that although she's a feminist, she knows that men are stronger than women, because she's not an idiot. And she also noted that some feminists DO admit that they hate all men. Most men were of course not surprised. That's......something I suppose. Baby steps.

Its a little saddening. I supported, as did many friends of mine, aspect of what I guess would be earlier waves of feminism quite a bit. I wouldn't call myself a "male feminist", the concept seems a bit a ridiculous frankly, so I guess I was an 'ally' in today parlance. Now though, it genuinely feels like that is unwelcome by an increasingly mainstream portion of the the 'movement' (which is and has been diverse, admittedly).

It feels as if its become more about women's superiority and male fault. That men are intellectually, but more ethically, emotionally even spiritually inferior and, at best, physically dead equal or behind in all physical senses. That if a man comes emerges victorious in any confrontation with a woman its solely because of sexism, Patriarchy, the Glass Ceiling or whatever the many names are. And Feminism is more about punishing men for that...and seemingly for not being women.

OTOH, the women are perpetual victims being held down by their brutish, stupid and immature sperm warmers, noble goddesses that need male help (for some reason) to ascend to their true role as Harbingers of paradise on Earth.

Yeah, that's being sarcastic, but it comes across that way pretty often.

And pop culture appears to be adopting that angle as well, in part because humans seem geared to take the suffering and harm towards females more emotionally than makes (for some solid biological reason, most likely, but its an important bit female 'privilege' that like other double standards that favor women is ignored or considered the norm or deserved.

[CarlD.]

I wonder what effects on the current zeitgeist will have boys and young  men growing under it, hearing how 'toxic' what they are is, filled with images, stories and insinuation of their innate failing compared to the superiority of women and that anything with less of their 'kind' is automatically better. I remember hearing from boys as far back as the 90s statements like about fiction where it was 'boys vs girls' that the automatic and resigned assumption that the girls would win (and the boys humiliated  and depicted as jerks besides) and that was in times that are currently deemed intolerably sexist, even misogynistic.  

That seems even more driven home now, moving through out and beyond fiction. You have people waxing wishful how they don't even want sons, but daughters...

There are programs, support groups, studies, etc for women's issues and women's problems. Boys seem increasingly left to sink or swim as they can. There have have studies that illustrate performance and fitness among boys and young men but it seems to generate little reaction. Maybe its the pendulum swinging and eventually things will settle into a more balanced medium but it promises some interesting times over the next few decades.

[Ratman_tf]

I wonder what effects on the current zeitgeist will have boys and young  men growing under it, hearing how 'toxic' what they are is, filled with images, stories and insinuation of their innate failing compared to the superiority of women and that anything with less of their 'kind' is automatically better. I remember hearing from boys as far back as the 90s statements like about fiction where it was 'boys vs girls' that the automatic and resigned assumption that the girls would win (and the boys humiliated  and depicted as jerks besides) and that was in times that are currently deemed intolerably sexist, even misogynistic.  

That seems even more driven home now, moving through out and beyond fiction. You have people waxing wishful how they don't even want sons, but daughters...

There are programs, support groups, studies, etc for women's issues and women's problems. Boys seem increasingly left to sink or swim as they can. There have have studies that illustrate performance and fitness among boys and young men but it seems to generate little reaction. Maybe its the pendulum swinging and eventually things will settle into a more balanced medium but it promises some interesting times over the next few decades.

I think there's a lot of pushback, at least it seems like it online. I think the pendulum's already swinging back, but it will take years to see the results in mainstream culture.

[Trond]

I think there's a lot of pushback, at least it seems like it online. I think the pendulum's already swinging back, but it will take years to see the results in mainstream culture.

I have had several (late-teen early twenties) students who roll their eyes at SJWs and terms like "trigger warnings".

[Spinachcat]

The anti-male SJW stupidity is heavily dominated by honky women and their weakling male honky allies. I don't see this anti-male bullshit becoming popular in the Latino or Asian community. The black community is such a mess already, so who knows how it will play out there.

I wondering where the first major backlash will come from. The women who are losing female spaces to the transvestites? Or the men who might be finally tired of the feminist bullshit? Or the Latinos enraged at honky liberals trying to emasculate their men and break their families? Or maybe even Black America standing up and reclaiming their strong family heritage?

Or the backlash becomes regional? AKA, Red State vs. Blue State drawing down much harder cultural lines.

There are programs, support groups, studies, etc for women's issues and women's problems. Boys seem increasingly left to sink or swim as they can.

This will eventually fuel the backlash. Those who succeed, recognizing their success was based on their own efforts, will recognize their superiority against those whose existence requires programs, support groups and other government intervention.

Let's be honest. Everybody in every office knows who the diversity hire is....and treats them accordingly. Sharp and independent employees recognize and respect each other, and will seek to build companies with each other and recruit those like themselves.

And small companies are exempt from much of federal laws that empower HR nonsense.

[Pat]

Or the backlash becomes regional? AKA, Red State vs. Blue State drawing down much harder cultural lines.

If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing. That's the problem with a central government that imposes lots rules on everyone. Inevitably, more and more of the rules will become intolerable, and the only option is to fight to get your preferences imposed on everyone else instead. And the more everyone separates into different tribes, the more it accelerates. Devolving those rules to the regional, state, county, or municipal level allows local preferences to be respected, and reduces the stress on the system. And the ultimate version of that is breaking up, say allowing California and Texas to become separate nation-states.

[jhkim]

Or the backlash becomes regional? AKA, Red State vs. Blue State drawing down much harder cultural lines.

If it hardens, secession wouldn't be a bad thing. That's the problem with a central government that imposes lots rules on everyone. Inevitably, more and more of the rules will become intolerable, and the only option is to fight to get your preferences imposed on everyone else instead. And the more everyone separates into different tribes, the more it accelerates. Devolving those rules to the regional, state, county, or municipal level allows local preferences to be respected, and reduces the stress on the system. And the ultimate version of that is breaking up, say allowing California and Texas to become separate nation-states.

From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.

With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.

[ThatChrisGuy]

From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.

With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.

I shudder to think what Alabama would be like under our state Constitution without the US Constitution above it.

[Pat]

From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.

With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.

Except central governments generally don't involve a lot of compromise. What happens is the majority imposes their will on the minorities. Extreme examples lead to totalitarian states and quite literally the worst genocides in history, and lesser examples still lead to plenty of strife. Look at the Kurds today, the Slovaks and the Bosnians in the 1990s, or the Ukrainians in the 1920s, and so on. When you have distinct minority groups, which have traditionally been ethnic or religious groups but today can include different political alignments and ideologies, you end up with irreconcilable differences. This is true even in democracies, especially in the first winner past the post systems, but also to a slightly lesser extent in parliamentary systems. If you're not part of a majority or a majority coalition, you may never have representation, much less influence on political outcomes.

That's why limited government is so important, because it's the only real protection minorities have. And that's the key to federalism as well -- identifying and maintaining the core values that almost everyone can agree on (broad consensus opinion instead of majoritarianism), using those as ground rules, and then pushing the rest of the decisions down to the various subgroups. Because the more you do at the higher level, the more likely you are to run stumble across ones where people are simply unable to come to a consensus decision. And when you force one of those decisions on everyone, you alienate everyone who doesn't agree, and either silence them or make them far more politically active. And since people belong to multiple groups, if you make enough of those decisions, you'll eventually alienate nearly everyone. That's why it's important to focus on the commonalities, and let people go their own way when there is no consensus.

For a good example, look at abortion. (For the purposes of this example, I don't give a damn what your opinion is on the topic, and anyone who starts arguing one side or the other will be scathingly dismissed.) All that matters is there is no compromise between the two camps. They have a fundamental difference of opinion, and no amount of talking will resolve it. The top-down solution in place has torn apart the country, and even if it's reversed, it will still continue to tear apart the country, because there will be large groups who vehemently disagree with either decision. And it's not the specific answer that's the problem, it's that there is one answer, and it was imposed on everyone.

Now the problem won't go away by pushing it down to the state or local level, but it will be diminished. Most of the activism is because people are fighting for what they want to happen to them, the people their know, and their neighbors. Someone may still hate that X is allowed or forbidden in some distant land, or in another state, or in the next town the road. But it's a lot less immediate, a lot less pressing.

That's the only practical way to deal with these fracture points. Isolate the decisions. A very good example of that happening recently is marijuana legalization. Which is still illegal at the federal level, but those laws were largely (and officially) ignored, allowing each state to make their own decisions. The tools we have to isolate those kinds of decisions, from the strongest to the weakest, are nation-states, federal governments, state governments, county governments, municipal governments, and personal choice.

[jhkim]

From my view of politics, it seems to me that smaller nations are just as prone to corruption and totalitarianism as larger nations - if not moreso. There have been secessions that have worked out well, but more often than not, balkanization leads to less freedom for everyone.

With the power to do so, each region tends to impose more restrictive rules to conform to their preferences. Whereas with a central government, more compromises are required between regional factions, which can allow more individual freedom.

Except central governments generally don't involve a lot of compromise. What happens is the majority imposes their will on the minorities. Extreme examples lead to totalitarian states and quite literally the worst genocides in history, and lesser examples still lead to plenty of strife. Look at the Kurds today, the Slovaks and the Bosnians in the 1990s, or the Ukrainians in the 1920s, and so on.

I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.

When you have distinct minority groups, which have traditionally been ethnic or religious groups but today can include different political alignments and ideologies, you end up with irreconcilable differences. This is true even in democracies, especially in the first winner past the post systems, but also to a slightly lesser extent in parliamentary systems. If you're not part of a majority or a majority coalition, you may never have representation, much less influence on political outcomes.

But there will always be minorities, regardless of how small you split up your democracies. Sure, under U.S. federal law, maybe a bunch of Alabamians feel like they don't have the control they want. If Alabama were free of the U.S. federal government -- sure, there would be a different set of people in control. But that wouldn't get rid of irreconcilable differences. There would instead be a new group of minority people within Alabama who have irreconcilable differences with the Alabama majority.

It wouldn't necessarily be like Bosnia and Slovenia, but I don't think it would result in less strife or differences.

Now the problem won't go away by pushing it down to the state or local level, but it will be diminished. Most of the activism is because people are fighting for what they want to happen to them, the people their know, and their neighbors. Someone may still hate that X is allowed or forbidden in some distant land, or in another state, or in the next town the road. But it's a lot less immediate, a lot less pressing.

That's the only practical way to deal with these fracture points. Isolate the decisions. A very good example of that happening recently is marijuana legalization. Which is still illegal at the federal level, but those laws were largely (and officially) ignored, allowing each state to make their own decisions. The tools we have to isolate those kinds of decisions, from the strongest to the weakest, are nation-states, federal governments, state governments, county governments, municipal governments, and personal choice.

Taking the issue of marijuana legalization -- I'd argue that letting each locality ban substances as they see fit leads to less freedom of personal choice. If Alabama can declare marijuana illegal, and Utah can declare alcohol illegal, and New York can declare trans-fats illegal, etc. -- then the result is less freedom for individuals to choose what they want. Having federal law and a strong Constitution means there is a higher bar for making given substances illegal.

[Shrieking Banshee]

I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.

A smaller government by its very structure has less control over the individual and there are more places to go to escape from one. Would you suggest that more monopolies=less corruption and better service?

[jhkim]

I would argue that the Bosnians demonstrate precisely the problem of balkanization. Fed up with imposed authority from the Soviet central government, the Slovaks and Bosnians declared independence. But being free of the central Soviet government did not result in greater individual freedom. Instead, it lead to even greater tyranny of the local majorities. Tyranny and repression most certainly exist -- but having a smaller local government does not protect against this. The smaller local government is just as likely to be tyrannical and repressive of the individual citizens.

A smaller government by its very structure has less control over the individual and there are more places to go to escape from one. Would you suggest that more monopolies=less corruption and better service?

When I say "smaller local government", I am talking about the area and population that it has sway over - not a quality of what sort of government it is. A very tiny country like Eritrea or Syria has a smaller government, but I disagree that they have less control over the individual. Some of the most repressive governments in the world are very small - like South Sudan or Turkmenistan. Individuals in these countries have few rights, and it is not easy to escape from them.

Along similar lines, being a monopoly is not inherently about being large or small. If a company in some rural town has a contract with the town government as the only ones zoned to show movies, then they have a monopoly.