tripu @tripu@social.cleverlibre.org
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
Finally:
> _“You then argue that the only way to address any injustice in systemic sexism is to attack *all* sexism. But this is a ludicrous proposition that I doubt you actually agree with in broad strokes.”_
Of course I think we should “attack all sexism”. How could it be otherwise? Don't you want to combat “all” racism, “all” violence, “all” disinformation…?
What I have _never_ said is that all manifestations of sexism are equal in importance, or equally pressing — or that both sexes suffer sexism in the same degree. Now, _that_ would be a ludicrous proposition.
For instance: I think we all should put resources towards the eradication of (and speak out loudly against) #FGM, honour killings (mostly female), child soldiers (mostly male), any discrimination in the law on the basis of sex (eg, monarchies extending exclusively in the male-line, military draft for males only), oppressive social norms that still prevent girls from getting and education and a job and becoming independent… — we need to focus much more on all that, before tackling customisable pronouns everywhere, cultural abuse towards introverted male nerds, dress codes, accurate parity in parliaments or shareholders' meetings, redesigning all iconography in public spaces to make it fully inclusive, etc.
If that's where we disagree, I can easily clarify that misunderstanding, and I'm glad that our views are actually closer than it seemed.
tripu
boosted
RT @Chinito55@twitter.com
Es cierto, favor ayuda a hacer conciencia
🐦🔗: https://twitter.com/Chinito55/status/1434493979194798083
You say that I “cherrypick a specific set of dictionary senses” for the term “patriarchy”, and offer three alternative definitions that supposedly “are more structural and less prescriptive”.
The problem is, you are cherrypicking even more, since **none of the quotations you cite are listed as the first meaning, or appear in the first paragraph of those sources**. This is not irrelevant in the context of our discussion, because **the first entries in those dictionaries, and the first sentence in that encyclopedia, all give a very specific and prescriptive definition**.
These are all the first entries/sentences from your own sources, verbatim (in bold, my emphasis):
👉 [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy):
> _“Patriarchy is a social system in which men hold **primary power** and predominate in roles of **political leadership, moral authority, social privilege and control of property**.”_
👉 [American Heritage Dictionary](https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=patriarchy):
> _“1. A social system in which **the father is the head of the family**. 2. **Dominance of a society by men**, or the values that uphold such dominance.”_
👉 [Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/patriarchy):
> _“A form of social organization in which the father is the **supreme authority** in the family, clan, or tribe and **descent is reckoned in the male line**, with the **children belonging to the father's** clan or tribe.”_
> _“If we were to device a series of observational tests which ask, ‘what structure would patriarchal societies take?’ we'd find a lot of positive results.”_
“Structure” is too vague a term, but I like this general idea. 👍 I agree that this would be a useful heuristic to “test for” #patriarchy.
To avoid biases, the experiment would have to be conducted having fixed, _ex-ante_, a few parameters and criteria. Otherwise, results could be interpreted to support pretty much any hypothesis.
In that spirit, here I suggest some improvements:
1️⃣ **_How many_ of those “structures” must exist for a society to qualify as “patriarchal”?** ie, what if we find just two or three of those structures? or, what if we find many, but most of them are of low importance, or circumscribed to very specific areas of life?
2️⃣ For the sake of consistency, we should also **ask “what structure would patriarchal societies NOT take?”, and test for that**, too. Positive findings here would _weaken_ our confidence in the hypothesis, namely that the society being examined is indeed “patriarchal”.
3️⃣ All participants in the test should commit to considering any conceivable aspect of life or measure of well-being as **_supportive_ of the patriarchy hypothesis _iff_ statistically _women do worse than men on average_**. And conversely, any area where statistically _men do worse than women on average_ contributes to _undermine_ the hypothesis. This is to proscribe the insidious sleight of hand of explaining that women on average earn less money than their male colleagues because “men exert power and control in society”, and also that boys on average fail school more often than their female classmates… because “men exert power and control in society” (!).
WDYT? Agree on the terms before conducting the “experiment”?
@swiley Thank you for pointing out! #pmOS is one of those promising #Linux mobile distros… that never seem mature enough 
My #phone (Moto G5s Plus, XT1805), is [not supported](https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices), and although I would love to contribute to the project myself, I lack the time and the attention atm 🤷♂️
> _“#Google defended its service fees, which it says ‘helps keep #Android free’.”_
Where can I pay a monthly subscription to support a mobile OS that is free software, customisable, feature-rich, ad and spyware-free, and that uses open protocols and formats? I do want to pay. I mean it. Please take my money.
> _“Most users are now silo'd inside an officially approved feature set. Except for #Linux, which is still figuring out how audio should work.”_
tripu
boosted
@tripu Espeluznante. Y luego los privilegiados que viven en Occidente pidiendo comunismo.
@gasull This week I listened to this #CurtisYarvin interview by #MichaelMalice (over several days, while working, not focused).
In it, #MenciusMoldbug says he's #rightwing because he's for order and not for chaos. As in: more secure streets and fewer homeless people is more orderly. Who could argue against that?
Some of the other easy examples he fails to mention are: one human race giving the orders while the other races do the work is also more orderly than the “chaos” of mingling all skin colours; there's more order in a society with no drugs than in a society where people seek inspiration and comfort and silliness in drugs. Top-down autocratic hierarchies definitely generate more “order” than voluntary agreements between peers. Heterosexual relationships, mandatory marriage and monogamy are “order”, while free love and tolerance are more chaotic. etc.
To me, more signs that he's a very dangerous and charismatic demagogue. Shamelessly dog-whistling to advance the most retrograde of causes :(
@codewiz Oh, it was about that panel explaining the parallelism between those alpine train networks in CH and in JP. I found it interesting — two extremely prosperous and interesting cultures, united by their special relation with trains, even at very high altitudes and under very harsh conditions… 💖
@codewiz very cute!
@eslibre, ¿hay novedades sobre los vídeos de la edición de este año? Algunos estamos deseando revisar lo que no pudimos ver en su momento 😊
> _“Thanks for shredding the thread into million pieces.”_
I replied in five toots to avoid a single very long post, and to try to disentangle our discussion by splitting up sub-arguments for the sake of clarity.
> _“It’s not a sex inequality issue cause it can’t be solved by sex equality, unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution.”_
Let me blow your mind: yes, I would consider “equal number of women dying” a better situation.
Like so:
[In my country, last year, there were 751 work fatalities](https://qoto.org/@tripu/106800194929488927), of which 696 were men and 55 were women. That is so mostly because men are overrepresented in dangerous industries and hazardous jobs. If those _same jobs_ were filled in roughly equal numbers by men and by women, we would end up with roughly the _same number_ of total work deaths, but split more evenly between the two sexes. That would not be a worse net outcome (it's the same unfortunate number of fatalities), but the gender imbalance itself would be gone. (And yes, obviously, every sane person would _at the same time_ advocate for more safety equipment, better work conditions and security checks, etc. for everyone. But that's a separate issue.)
There you go. I just proved to you that this mostly-male issue can “be solved by sex equality” (your words).
For the last time: **will you admit that work deaths are “a sex inequality issue”?**
(Also: you retorted dismissively _“unless you consider equal number of women dying a solution”_ but, how could _“equal number of {women/men} {outcome}”_ ever be a bad idea, if one considers him/herself an egalitarian, a feminist, a non-sexist? Try it: “equal number of women managing companies”; “equal number of men earning PhDs”; “equal number of women using drugs”; “equal number of men working at nurseries”… _“Equal number of {women/men} {outcome}'”_ should be quite literally the motto of someone who is for equality of the sexes!)
> _“Yes men hate OTHER men.”_
This one sentence summarises very nicely where you're coming from.
**Men hate other men? Speak for yourself!**
/cc @b6hydra
> _“Objective devaluation of men's lives stem exactly from the same logic as objective valuation of women's, and yes it is patriarchy”_
So we live in society that is “controlled by men”, and men decided to use that power to devalue their own lives (so that they die younger, live more often on the streets, are incarcerated more often, etc) and to value more the lives of women (so that they get more degrees, work shorter hours, are not sent to wars, etc).
I think I get it now.
> _“That leaves you with parental fraud and family court, you may talk about those things in this context... obviously these are very important problems that affect majority of people throughout their lifetime... major major things yes, and not at all a side effects of different issues...”_
Parental fraud does not affect “majority of people” — it affects men _only_.
Again, how tilted against men has the balance of a specific issue to be for you to acknowledge that that issue is sex-related, and that it would make no sense in the context of a society where men actually “exerted absolute authority” and “used their power to their own advantage”?
> _“Same goes for most of your other "men issues" that is literally just mortality, or things like homelessness, imprisonment or drug abuse for same exact logic, the solution to those problems is not in equality of sexes.”_
“_Just_ mortality”. You mean _staying alive_. As in, the very thing that all human beings hold most valuable, and the only common prerequisite for all the other good things we might value.
Also: homelessness, imprisonment and drug abuse are among the worst situations anyone can experience. They affect men overwhelmingly.
Again: what is your definition of “sex equality issue”? I'd like to read it in full.
Technologist, Spaniard, male, 42
Joined May 2020
