Terracotta
13d ago
Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but most of the industry-facing benefits of price opacity seem to entail a parallel set of benefits for regulators, legislators and nonprofits. If the meme that Healthcare is Priceless signs blank checks for producers in the industry, it presumably works the same way for bureaucrats and lawmakers, who get a free pass to accumulate power, expand surveillance, reward cronies and promote pet causes through selective disbursement of all that funding. And that's leaving out the large proportion of regulators/ lawmakers who are just literally in bed with parts of the industry, like the FDA folks who retire to take plum positions with Pharma.
I'm sure you could get that class to happily support selected instances of price-limiting legislation where it might hurt their political adversaries, but who's the constituency for plain consumer empowerment, beyond just Joe Q. Public?
Terracotta
13d ago
I'm curious as to why you think it would ever be in the best interests of the medical industry to provide price transparency.
Like, obviously they could develop ways to formalize price estimates and communicate them to customers. If anything, that's confirmed by the poor quality of the countervailing arguments in the thread below. But why would they ever want to?
Having the ability to inflate prices without reducing demand, because nobody at the point of consumption has any idea what anything costs, seems like a pretty sweet situation. Likewise, high salaries and various other forms of grift and waste across healthcare are made possible by the broader cultural perception that the industry provides priceless, sanctified Human Care Through Science rather than some mere grubby service like your hairdresser or auto mechanic. Giving patients the power to participate in rational cost-benefit analysis about their healthcare seems like it'd work out worse for every single level of the industry.
Terracotta
25d ago
Never attribute to feminism what can be adequately explained by endumbening.
Substituting cartoony physical stuff for nuanced dialogue and subtle social powerplays has been a trend in youth media for a while now. Women's YA novels should be the peak medium for wordy scenes of deception and covert social manipulation, and even those regularly pull out some kind of broad screen-ready Loony Tunes thing these days, not necessarily girlboss swordplay but someone being punched or shoved, or physically restrained, or exploded (!), in interactions that would have been subtle verbal insults or manipulations a few decades ago. There's maybe some element of fantasy about women wreaking physical revenge, but equally often it's evil moms and boyfriends inflicting violence on girls, or just the universe conveniently providing violence to fill up plot holes, so I don't think it can be purely a girl power thing.
My bet is on a combination of progressively lower social intelligence in younger cohorts (if you're raised without freeform peer play, how would you learn to recognize and understand negotiation or manipulation strategies?), worsening verbal/logical ability in writers, and possibly some studio mistrust of audiences. Say what you will about sword-swinging girlbosses, but they're easy to write, don't need to say much, and reliably capture a viewer's attention.
Terracotta
27d ago
Most people are aware of Bipolar disorder, at least superficially. Lots of people say "I have mood swings" and tell that to healthcare workers with less training, these people dutifully write down Bipolar in the chart. Or they say "you ever like have mood swings and be unable to sleep?" Gets the diagnosis. Someone who actually has Bipolar 1 with a manic episode barely sleeps for a week of more, does illegal things, or spends ALL of their money in the bank account and all kinds of other stuff. The diagnosis is serious and life limiting without treatment. The medications are also serious - most patients get antipsychotics these days which increase all cause mortality. They are worth it if you actually have the disease. Put undertrained staff give the dx to people who don't have it and then suddenly...
OK, this is a good example for illustrating the difficulty I'm having with the binary MD-competent/ NP-incompetent model. So here we have a fairly clear, potentially dangerous error in practice. Insofar as it is fairly clear, you were able to explain it to me in a paragraph or so: now I, a random Mottizen, understand that it's bad to diagnose and medicate bipolar just on the basis of "mood swings" or "poor sleep," and that patients should instead be experiencing very florid manic episodes with clear life consequences. That's facile, but for someone going on to psych practice, I'd imagine a few additional hours of video case studies would eliminate the lowest-hanging 80-90% of obvious mistakes of the form "don't diagnose bipolar in this clearly not-bipolar patient, dummy." So presumably that same advice and video training could be administered to a DNP before they begin psych practice, problem solved.
Fine, says the MD, but what about the top-10% "art of medicine" situations where the line is far more nuanced? There aren't empirical tests to verify a diagnosis; what if the situation sounds right on the border? The precise mechanisms of bipolar are poorly understood; what if there are a lot of other things going on and it's not clear how they interact? Or it's not clear how medication will impact any particular patient, so what if the risk-benefit math around prescription is very challenging?
I can easily see how what you call the "skill ceiling" could come into play there, leading an NP to get those questions wrong. What I don't see is the training value-add that makes you confident a random board-certified psychiatrist would clear the skill ceiling and get them right. There's not good basic science around these issues, so the organic chemistry and anatomy from med school certainly won't help. Residency? Presumably this means that the MD encountered some difficult cases under supervision and was admonished to approach each case the way their attending would do it. However, (a) that could have been an indefinite amount of time ago, and there's nothing beyond some trivial online quizzes to ensure the MD has kept up with new data since their training; and (b) even back in training, nobody was checking to make sure the supervisor was themselves particularly judging the situation "correctly". Indeed, how could anyone even define "correctly," if the case was by definition so difficult and subtle, the kind of situation where the wrong call would just make a patient sadder and less functional 20 years hence, not cause them to keel over and die on the spot? Doubtless the attending felt confident that their approach was making a real difference; but we all know the various cognitive biases that would lead doctors to overestimate the correctness of their judgment and the effectiveness of their treatment under those circumstances.
I guess it boils down to the broader question "when psychiatry works clearly, it should work for DNPs too; but when it doesn't work clearly, how can you be sure it works at all?" One established answer is to turn to empirical investigation to discipline our judgment; but as you point out, psychiatry isn't a field with a lot of options for carefully blinded RCTs and massive long-term studies.
Terracotta
27d ago
However the bad outcomes are mostly increased lifetime mortality and risk of side effects 20 years down the line when the patient is seeing someone else. This becomes effectively impossible to study so we don't... Psychiatry is a better example - psychiatric interviews and pharmacology are the most complicated in medicine. Mental health care NPs are terrible at both of these things, give people unnecessary medications and incorrect diagnoses and are legible experienced as lower quality by patients and staff with some regularity.
I should emphasize that I have a lot of respect for psychiatrists, who seem to hurl themselves into the breach of various social ills in a way I certainly wouldn't want to do. But if we're searching for a test field where rigorous evidence makes it very legible which are the "necessary medications" and "correct diagnoses," so that MDs' highly effective healing practice contrasts clearly with NPs' useless flailing, then I'm not sure psychiatry is the obvious pick. We're talking about the same psychiatry that regularly diagnoses from subjective surveys and patient self-reports, correct? Where almost none of the biological mechanisms are thoroughly understood, either for the ailments being treated or the medications that treat them? Where exercise, healthy diet and getting plenty of sun/fresh air seem to work as well as the best drugs a lot of the time? Where official medical conditions pop in and out of the DSM with every passing political wind?
Would you say that psychiatry does a good job of monitoring its physicians' contribution to patients' lifetime mortality and/or risk of third-order side effects 20 years out, either across different levels of physician talent/conscientiousness, or versus not receiving psychiatric care at all?
Also, since this is why people normally bring it up - if you magically paid all doctors NPs salaries and didn't really change anything else......healthcare costs wouldn't go down at all in any substantive way.
I don't quite get the reasoning here. Is the idea that receiving NP salaries would cause physicians to practice as badly as you believe NPs practice, because all the competent MDs would decamp for higher-paid professions (notwithstanding the additional benefits of prestige, flexibility, autonomy and meaning in medicine)? Doctors in Canada, the UK and Germany earn about 1/3 to 1/2 what they earn in the US; is the contention that they must practice incompetently and waste a ton of money doing so?
Terracotta
27d ago
That AMA link gives such a laughably biased summary of the actual study, though. The paper itself suggests a far more nuanced picture than your metaphor about Juan the day laborer-- and that's a study led by an MD who presumably has his own professional axe to grind. (I'd be much more interested in seeing some adversarial MD-DNP research collaborations in this area.)
Notably,
- The study focused almost entirely on costs in an ED setting; on a skim, I can't find that it examined detailed health outcomes at all beyond 30-day mortality and "preventable hospitalization," the latter of which seems difficult to define in terms of patient welfare. They say NPs and MDs had no significant differences in 30-day patient mortality.
- The study did find that treatment by NPs cost the system more than treatment by MDs, owing to NPs calling for longer hospital stays and more tests. But the difference in costs diminished with more experienced NPs.
- The cost difference also diminished to a relatively trivial level for less complex cases, and the authors themselves suggest that this means NPs could be valuable substitutes for physicians in primary care.
- They found almost as much variability in productivity from clinician to clinician *within* professions as there was *across* professions. Money sentence from the abstract: "Importantly, even larger productivity variation exists within each profession, leading to substantial overlap between the productivity distributions of the two professions; NPs perform better than physicians in 38 percent of random pairs."
Terracotta
29d ago
That would certainly explain a lot. Including, potentially, the silly debate over "what is a woman". Because if by "a woman" they inadvertently mean "a 95th-percentile hotness woman," i.e. the concept of womanhood inheres in the hotness not vice-versa, then "I'm smokin' hot because I feel hot/ because I believe in my hotness" actually is a popular meme in the wider culture.
Terracotta
29d ago
I've heard it pointed out that transwomen who embrace the female in long hair and flirty dresses never seem to connect with the unsexy but more psychologically and socially deep-rooted parts of stereotypical female gender performance, like being held responsible for emotional labor in conversations, over-contributing to household scut work, organizing office parties and remembering birthday observances, spontaneously volunteering care for the sick and elderly, feeling impulses or pressure to politely apologize, compromise and defer in conversations, feeling sorry for winning in a competition (because it hurts someone's feelings), fearing unwanted sexual contact and altering behavior to avoid it, fearing pregnancy and ditto, shouldering by default the more grueling parts of childcare responsibilities, etc.
Not all AFAB people experience all of these to the same extent, but I bet the proportion of women who experience their femaleness partly in one or more of these ways is vastly greater than the proportion who experience femaleness through short skirts, pert boobs and glamour makeup.
Might a real point of compromise be to clarify that AGP individuals desire to be, not women, but specifically hotties? It's possible that the few women who also self-identify as hotties would have an easier time embracing men who do the same, and it would clear up a lot of the issue for the many, many other women who feel that their womanhood is something more complex and fairly unconnected to hotness.
Terracotta
1mo ago
I think you're right that there's some important impact from the decline of embodied competence (material, social, physical) as a personal quality that people aspire to. In a society where people need to do more to survive on a daily basis, there's more value from the kind of deep, optimized knowledge you accrue through pure repeated experience; and that feels like a natural factor in making people respect their parents enough to want to become them, in a household/family setting that's similar to the one where they excelled. I definitely consult my mother regularly on workplace relations, etiquette, domestic stuff, child/husband/friend psychology, and various adulting skills, in addition to her professional areas of expertise, and I similarly pay attention to other women and men of her generation as models for social technologies and ways of being that I feel like we're in danger of losing. I expect it will be unpleasant to become a crone when it's my turn, but I don't think I'd trade the abilities and understanding I will have gained along the way.
If that kind of respect for experience is on the wane, I wonder how much of it is (a) the devaluation/ demystification of knowledge in general with the rise of the Internet; and (b) the massive Dunning-Krugerization and loss of intellectual humility that the culture has undergone as a result. But also, the high-status life narratives these days seem much more consumption-oriented than production-oriented, so maybe people don't particularly know or care whether they're good at anything.
Terracotta
1mo ago
(And I should add, by the way, @doglatine , that I deeply appreciate how open-minded, thoughtful and respectful this whole exchange was; it's been a real pleasure to get into these questions in such an honest way. Thank you!)
Terracotta
1mo ago
It can be a fun and an interesting exercise, but I'm less convinced that it helps us access truths in any meaningful way, at least most of the time. It's a kind of "social psychoanalysis" that just like regular psychoanalysis, is largely immune to falsification (Freudianism was one of the ur-examples that motivated Popper).
I had a long thing about my concerns with Popper (although I'm certainly no fan of Freud, either)-- but rather than getting too deeply into it, I'd just strongly question that claim that it's always a basically speculative and time-wasting project to try to model someone's motivations from a combination of their words and actions. Developing and refining theories of mind seems to me like a kind of metis that humans are inherently excellent at based on our nature as a social species-- certainly better at, on average, than we are at understanding the laws of physics, for instance. The processes of observation and analysis aren't always very legible, so they might not stand strict Popperian scrutiny-- but it's also not accurate to say that there's no opportunity to gather more data, discard false hypotheses and refine models accordingly.
In this instance, for example, I suggested that perhaps men like mom-rape jokes but hate daughter-rape jokes because, on some level, they like the idea of moms being taken down a peg. You countered that au contraire, perhaps men's love for their moms is so deeply embedded that it's more easily outraged versus fatherly love of a daughter, hence those jokes are funnier. Human minds are enough of a black box that we may never fully resolve it, but is it really true that we can literally never get any closer to the truth, and thus that we should never ask the question at all? It seems to me that we could try to get a bit closer by asking whether we know of any men who didn't grow up with their moms, or men who hate their daughters, and explore how they react to humor. Or by asking whether men are on the whole more respectful, deferential and attentive to their moms in other contexts, versus their daughters. Or by asking whether your or my interpretation better models how aggressive humor works in other contexts: for instance, do men more greatly enjoy rape jokes about their political outgroup, or their political ingroup? About a disliked boss, or a beloved boss?
It's certainly possible for this kind of inquiry to be done poorly, and it definitely gets dramatically worse the more you fund university professorships to do it at industrial scale (as does empirical science itself, for that matter). But just refusing to countenance it at all seems just oddly incurious, unless it's part of some strategic boundary that women shouldn't be allowed to think about male sexuality. As a man, are you not interested in why some jokes are hilarious while others are painful? Do you not feel that on some level, you respond differently to some classes of people versus others, and are the causal mechanisms underlying those feelings not intriguing to try to model?
Terracotta
1mo ago
I'm late responding, but just wanted to say that it's been a while since I read anything so solidly info-dense and enlightening. Wish I could find more deep dives into the entirely foreign and fascinating culture of gay porn. Thank you for this!
Terracotta
1mo ago
I'm not exactly sure why it's taboo, when mothers are fair game, but jokes about someone's kids are ugly or dumb or gay would come across very poorly.
Yeah, I think this is what I meant by making humor subject to "political analysis": not hand-wringing that rape jokes mean you're a rapist, but acknowledging that a group's perception of what's funny vs. unfunny could indicate something important about their underlying sentiments and desires, and that it's fair to investigate those sentiments by close-reading the jokes. Ironically, the threat of over-reading is probably what provokes some of the compensatory under-reading here, but there must be some level of valid interpretation between "jokes are a straightforward statement of intention" and "jokes mean literally nothing about anything."
(For instance, on why mama jokes are funny but daughter jokes aren't-- is it possible that most men have a little bit of underlying resentment/ contempt for older women, including their moms, that makes it a teeeeny bit viscerally enjoyable to imagine them being put in their place or subjected to male dominance, whereas having a beloved daughter demeaned is just straightforwardly painful?)
I think men who struggle with locker-room talk fall into two main camps. The first are those who can handle the social dynamics but don't like the mock aggression, and to oversimplify, they become theatre/art/literature club kids. The second are those who ASD kids who don't get the complex social dynamics.
That's really interesting: when I asked the question I was thinking about a certain type of dumb and self-serious but also very athletic "jughead"-style guy that seems both common in sporty contexts and reasonably socially successful. Having known those folks in their administrative and bureaucratic afterlives, they seem too rigid, touchy and literal-minded to ever have been great at verbal sparring, but that's just from mixed-company observations. Are successful jocks really witty and transgressive with other men? I'm trying to imagine what that would even sound like.
Terracotta
1mo ago
The only hill I'm dying on here is that I think that the actual communicative intention behind this kind of humour is typically misconstrued by women as more sincere or literal or psychopathic than it is, whereas men can more readily see that it's taking a kind of entirely performative humour/banter/mock aggression that's common in all-male contexts and employing it outside of them
Thanks for your candor and critical thinking about this! I think the only hill I'd die on is that female proscription of rape humor is similarly rational and grounded in practical safety considerations for female-bodied people in a sexually dimorphic species, not just some outpouring of blue-haired librarian priggishness as various bros would have it elsewhere on this site.
But I'm also a bit skeptical of attempts to place male aggressive humor beyond political analysis because it's supposedly so impartially transgressive and also 100% facetious and harmless. Sure, there are plenty of nuts overreacting to mildly edgy jokes these days, but it also doesn't match my experience to say that men's humor suggests nothing about their underlying views and values because they apply that humor equally to every possible target. I think there are types of harm and violence that men don't joke about, either because it would provoke a threatening response or because they just don't find it funny, and I suspect those gaps probably signal underlying vulnerabilities and anxieties the same way that jokes about raping aged moms aren't as funny to people in the process of becoming weak old ladies (and conversely, a surprising number of Twitter feminists turned out to enjoy jokes about assaulting Republican women and TERFS over the past few years). So it does seem worth exploring the contours a little. I also think that transgressiveness and dominance/aggression are two separate things - I know humorists who are wildly transgressive but still don't make any jokes of the dick-swinging, put-down sort - so just pointing out that men love breaking rules doesn't fully account for what makes women uneasy about YOUR BODY MY CHOICE.
Two follow-up questions: do men think it's funny to joke about raping each other's daughters, the way it's funny to joke about raping moms? I feel like the former isn't as common. Why? How about each other's sons?
Second, there are plenty of humorless men out there (I've met some of them!). When a guy has no sense of humor, how does his participation in locker-room banter usually fall flat? Does he go too far? Not far enough? Not in the right direction?
Terracotta
1mo ago
Uh... at least for 'fucked your mom' level jokes, absolutely positively yes.
Those are pretty funny, and also it's interesting that they are so very, very delicate about it: the language is "I want to flirt with your dad" and "I did your dad," both of which are like 5th-grade starter-pack level in the scale of "fucked your mom" jokes. So maybe it will evolve all the way to where a dude can joke about how another guy's dad moaned as he double-fisted him last night, who knows?
While we're in this media sphere, another thing I've been genuinely curious about: what's the standard level of sexual violence theming in gay porn (of the sort actually made for gay men)? Like, does popular gay porn do "dumb twink rammed until he CAN'T WALK STRAIGHT" or "Ten portly bears PUNISH this bratty man's BLEEDING ASSHOLE while he begs" style videos at the same rate as straight porn, and are there similar levels of theming about men getting choked and hit, getting stuck in tight places and begging for help, having guys cum on their face and chest, etc., as you see in videos about male sex with women?
But for the original claim to be true, that rape jokes are just fun male bonding and guys don't take it too seriously, then there should be no gay taboo at all, correct? Because the idea of being physically forced to be penetrated in ways you don't want, by a stronger person whom you don't desire, is not threatening or traumatizing to men, so why would it be less funny for a straight guy than for a gay guy?
It's telling that your bottom link is not actually a friendly moment of male banter, but a dominance chest-thump from a Gen X right-leaning guy toward his Gen-Z leftist outgroup, and even so he attempts only an extremely gentle and euphemistic joke about male-male quasi-seduction ("you'd be my concubines") happening in an explicitly counterfactual world. Is the expectation that the Gen Z boys will respond "LOL good one you magnificent bastard," because boy talk is just like that? Would O'Neill respond that way if somebody joked about his entering concubinage in turn?
What about if they did so in more explicitly rapey language like "your body is my choice," or by describing the "depraved" things they would do to him, and how much he'd like it once they got started?
What about if they did so while also casually showing that they were armed, so that while they're joking about raping him right now, it could definitely real-life happen at any future point if they encounter him? What if it were not an ex-Navy SEAL joking about doing this to high-school kids, but an established MMA champion joking about doing "depraved" things to one of the programmers on TheMotte? Would any given male Mottizen still reliably find this hilarious?
Terracotta
1mo ago
Similarly, young men on voicechat on videogames have been talking about fucking each others' moms in various depraved ways for decades, while lots of women experience this as traumatising aggression.
This is such a weirdly off-base comparison, though. The proper analog would be men joking about raping each other "in various depraved ways," not each other's moms (as the saying goes, tragedy is me getting a paper cut, comedy is anyone else besides me getting raped). Do locker-room lads generally respond with twinkling eyes and good-humored grins when their bros graphically describe how they will bend them over, force them to the ground and ravage their assholes as they scream, because their bodies are somebody else's choice? Maybe so, I don't hang out in men's locker rooms. Sounds fun!
A sincere question: if sexual-assault jokes are an essential and universal part of male bonding, do gay dudes joke about raping each other's dads?
Without some sort of artificial bar keeping women out (which there does not appear to be), there's something very strongly masculine about the job itself.
The problem is the odd presumption that the only possible reasons for not performing an activity must be (a) artificial bar, or (b) innate incapacity. But again, a glance at virtually any other big group difference highlights how silly that is.
For instance, you haven't responded to the point about >3:1 F:M ratios in pediatrics or SLP; can I take it that you agree men are inherently incapable of delivering language therapy?
The US produces only 1/10 the steel that China does; presumably that's because metallurgy is a strongly Asian pursuit, and without their help we would have to build most of our skyscrapers out of mud?
Only 15% of bartenders are people with a college degree. So it seems, given that no law prohibits B.A.s from taking bartending positions, that something about college must erode one's ability to create mixed drinks? Populate a luxury space station with a bunch of Ivy League grads, and they'll all be flailing around smashing the vodka bottles and trying to drink from the soda sprayer.
Re: engineers, like I said, I know some lovely older engineers, so I don't want to rag on the profession too much. I can speculate that low-EQ professions would be canaries in the coalmine for for any kind of emerging populationwide issues with male socialization, though, much more than e.g. medicine or law, where men go through more of a filter for social competence; and some of the truly hair-raising comments by self-professed engineers on themotte and elsewhere make me worry that this is happening. But the gender disparity could equally well be explainable by engineering being a profession with only middling salary and declining prestige, limited flexibility and autonomy, and low levels of evident connection to the values that women are currently socialized to care about (like "contributing to the community" and "helping the less fortunate").
Terracotta
3mo ago
I think I specified male engineers. (And in all fairness, many of the older ones I interact with IRL are great people; it's mostly the remarks one sees from nerd-id'd young and middle-aged men on sites like this that have recently made me feel very sorry for the young women trying to work in those spaces.)
However, we weren't discussing whether current male engineers should feel bad about their character, their social skills or their workplace culture. I was questioning your reasoning above that because somewhat fewer women than men currently choose to enter engineering as a profession (an observation consistent with a wide variety of underlying causes, including that talented women have more options or that the current cohort of men in the field is unpleasant to interact with), therefore we can conclude (a) engineering is inherently, as you term it, a "men's role", (b) that biological females can't do engineering, and an all-female society would have inadequate personnel to complete its necessary engineering tasks. (That's setting aside the broader claim you were trying to support, which was, if I read it correctly, that since engineers are also so incredibly valuable, the current gender balance of engineering partly justifies the existence of patriarchal social norms.) Could you say more about the reasoning that you feel justifies (a) and (b), if I'm getting those correct?
Terracotta
3mo ago
If "Amazons" is just ordinary women who don't need no man, it seems very unlikely they could do these roles... because if they could they would in greater quantities than they are.
This is very weird logic. To take a parallel case: 75% of pediatricians and 90% of speech-language pathologists are female, give or take. Therefore on a male-only island children would die in droves, and stammerers wither into mutism, because obviously men can't perform these roles, or else they would do so in greater numbers?
I'd predict far greater numbers of women entering engineering in an Amazon society, because you're removing the substantial downside that is having to work with male engineers.
Terracotta
3mo ago
I think people are pretty good at giving credit for real, visible contributions, where the reality is clear and concrete (as opposed to a statistical construct, a historical artifact, or an abstract case that somebody could maybe make if they wanted to).
In the subsistence-agriculture conditions that birthed The Patriarchy, and in a world where physical strength is a valuable resource overall, it seems extremely clear why an able-bodied adult man wrangling a yoke of oxen, carrying stones for a wall or fighting with hand weapons is both taking on extra personal risk and rendering irreplaceable value for his family, and why the usefulness of having him in that role might justify investing it with extra privilege versus the females and immature males of his household.
Fast-forward to modern industrial/financial democracy, and sure, construction workers and other male-dominated industrial roles are great and necessary, but:
(a) superior brute strength is no longer the money-maker, thus no longer the source of high status, that it once was;
(b) availability of mechanical aids and automated tools means there's at most a small disparity between male and female capacity to perform those roles (realistically, a country of Amazons could do all their plumbing and engineering just fine)
(c) ergonomics and safety tech improvements mean that these roles are much less dramatically taxing/ uncomfortable, and that men performing them no longer take on substantial daily risk of bodily injury and death, vs. in a preindustrial context
(d) society is much less casually violent, so the utility of physical strength is restricted to a very limited number of workplaces, not experienced daily in street life; and finally
(e) even women married to physical laborers experience concrete benefit from the labor only in the form of a paycheck, which could just as easily be derived from white-collar work; hence there's no particular reason to regard the man as rendering irreplaceable value to the family through his biological form.
Ultimately, I think humans reason about respect in extremely concrete, embodied ways, and with open self-interest. Making some abstract argument that engineers are broadly good to have around, and that like 80% of engineers are men therefore all men deserve some credit for the existence of engineers (?!), is simply not the viscerally compelling case for male privilege that "need this tree chopped down and carried over there? great, I'll get on it" seems to have been.
Terracotta
3mo ago
I don't know about that. Ever since we bet on interchangeability of men and women, we can't seem to reproduce ourselves and have to make up for the shortfall by importing people from more fertile parts of the world, hoping that interchangeability works out this time.
Industrial processes work best with other industrial processes, so I guess it's a race to industrialize that biology as we have various other forms of organic production. I'm not saying I'm a fan, but it's weird for a community as virtualized, urban and seemingly techno-optimist as the Motte to come down so hard in favor of artisanal methods in this single area.
The interesting and under-discussed thing is that male roles got liquidated by modernity way before female roles did. Watch some living-history documentaries about preindustrial farm life, or read about crime in early cities and roads, and it becomes extremely obvious why it would be helpful to have someone around who's taller with a lot of upper-body strength and greater potential for physical aggression, and why a smaller-bodied person might willingly relinquish a certain amount of autonomy to retain that alliance. Once men deliberately technologize themselves out of the hard-labor-and-physical-defense game, to which their biology is naturally suited, it becomes much easier for women to look at their desk-jockey vidya-playing husbands and brothers and ask why they get to demand so much and give so little in return.
Terracotta
3mo ago
Ironically it turned out that it was far less fallacious than the genderist argument. For all the attempts at "gender neutral upbringing" girls still tend to zero-in on girlie princess stuff, and boys on trucks and whatnot. Despite "Sorry Jill, I can't offer you the same salary as Bob" being cancellable and outright illegal, women still earn less money than men, etc.
I mean, I'm aware of many of the checkmate-libtard! style memes on these topics, but a couple weirdos failing at their halfhearted attempts to raise ungendered children in a very gendered social world, or some women continuing to lose out in pay negotiations despite their bosses' professions of fair treatment, says virtually nothing one way or another about the optimum extent to which a well-run society should embrace, enforce or renounce differential treatment of individuals by sex. I don't really know what the "genderist argument" is, since that's not how anybody seems to label themselves in these conversation.
Terracotta
3mo ago
Simply having the sex-vs-gender distinction implies nothing about the relationship between the two, just that they're different things worth analyzing separately, like genotype vs phenotype or wealth vs. income.
I also think doctrinaire blank-slateism as you describe it is a bit of a strawman. Most of the instances I'm aware of sound more like (entirely reasonable) calls for for agnosticism or at least extreme skepticism about the precise extent to which biology determines culture (since everyone opining has serious skin in the game and we're certainly not at the point of making controlled experiments that could falsify our guesses). Similarly, there's an extremely good case for a presumption of blank-slatism as the best working approach to prevent grave injustice on an individual level.
Moreover, liberal modernity certainly works much better with fully interchangeable workers/citizens; and runaway gender-performance competition (like the kind the US saw in the 50s, or arguably is seeing today) is a costly Moloch-style trap that is hard to escape without externally-enforced change. So at a societal level I can fully understand advocating for periodic centrally-enforced sex-stereotype detoxes or elimination diets, just to reset to minimal levels.
I sure hope you're right. But does there exist a historical precedent for any industry ever moving from "heavily bureaucratized, intensively regulated, ideologically freighted, opaque, inefficient and expensive" toward "lean, simple, transparent and consumer-oriented" in any meaningful way under a modern state? If so, I'd genuinely love to hear about it.
More options
Context Copy link