> Second, there may be gender differences in the perceived causes of breakups. Women blame their male partners more often for breakups than men blame their female partners (Choo et al., 1996). In addition, women more frequently report problematic partner behaviors as the reason for a breakup, such as infidelity, substance abuse, and mental or physical abuse (Amato & Previti, 2003; Morris, Reiber, & Roman, 2015). Men, in contrast, are more likely to claim that they do not know what caused their past breakups (Amato & Previti, 2003).
This feels like the important bit to me. People view their ex’s less favorably if they blame them for the breakup; and women blame men more than men blame women. Women also reported receiving less support from their partners than men. Reading between the lines, men in average like the women more because the women put in more effort to the relationship.
Right, they just need to man up. I say that in jest but you hit on an important part of it. While some may not admit fault in the open, Men (I know I am generalizing) do internalize failure, it is a core part of their ego and identity. So it would seem natural for them to internalize the failure of a relationship.
One good example where the difference can be demonstrated clearly is forums devoted to dating questions. A lot of people come there to whine and they get very different responses depending on gender. Guys almost always get something along the lines of "be more confident, go to gym, be more interesting, etc", while girls gets reassured that they are totally fine, just not lucky yet
Lots of arguments about whether this is purely historical or disguised opinion. The last paragraph suggests the author’s intention is to discredit feminists imo. Note the use of “God the Father”, “bravely” and “demonstrates” (the lattermost implying that something is factually true and being proven therein). Sure, maybe this was a part of early feminism. But also, buzz off dude. Don’t need this here at least.
> Dr Faxneld provides a most compelling account of how Satanism played a crucial part in early feminism—primarily between 1880 and 1930—as something employed to vilify and denigrate Christianity, and transform God the Father into an oppressive creator and the ultimate enemy of women’s liberation. This book makes for fascinating reading as Faxneld bravely endeavours to demonstrate the centrality of Satanism in influential feminist narrative during the period in a way nobody before him has ever dared to do. His most enlightening book makes a significant contribution to scholarship.
The author went on a Christian radio station[1] to talk about White Christians being oppressed by allowing same-sex marriage in Australia. I thought the article reeked of preachy double-speak from the first sentence so this was hardly surprising.
Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?
While I think you're correct the authors opinions do appear to shine through in that last paragraph, it seems that efforts have been made to show this history without framing.
Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing? Many modern western values align closely with Satanism. Satanism in its modern form was a deliberate effort by some to oppose Christianaities stronghold on the western world at the time.
Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition?
To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?
> Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?
No, the maleness of Christian God is not something that needs clarification. Appending “the Father” signals the author’s personal beliefs, asserts god’s righteousness, etc. all with plausible deniability
> Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing?
Technically correct, persuasively irrelevant. Satanism is without a doubt seen as something blatantly “evil” among his target audience.
> Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition
Aside from abortion probably not. But most religious groups preach conservatism, and are thus anti feminism.
> To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?
Intentions matter. The author’s goal is to create an association between satanism (-> Satan -> evil) and feminism (-> progressive social movements). If we look at this guy’s other works we will find the same agenda. It is enabling a justification of pre-existing beliefs of the basis of rationality because now there are facts, even if those facts have literally zero salience to the issue at hand. To state facts neutrally, but obscure, irrelevant, and persuasively chosen facts is a dirty technique because it’s effective and it gives everyone plausible deniability upon accusations of having a bias
Sorry I thought I acknowledged the author had a bias? Simply that they’d made an effort to write something other than an opinion piece.
I’m trying to challenge the notion that this article sheds a negative light on feminism. That the opposition between feminism and Chrisitanity, especially Christianity at that time should be obvious.
I would like to raise the question; is that opposition a problem for non Christians and if so why?
As a non-Christian I find it interesting and not at all a problem if true. I think the same basic thing is common in some punk circles today (partly due to some racist Sweedish metal bands, but that is a different topic, although maybe not coincidence that it looks like the author of the book in question is Sweedish). I don't know anything about the author and maybe it is a interesting book, maybe not.
However, I did quickly get the feel that this article was not what it appeared to be (e.g. "nobody dared to do", which seems an unlikely phrase for actual historians) and after very quickly scanning and reading the last paragraph I didn't read it. I would be interested in a historical look at this topic, but not something written to whip up bigots. IMO this particular article should not be on HN.
One thing I love about anime is that when the authors really want to drive home a thematic concept they throw in these humble observations about the human condition and demonstrate it in the most absurd contexts.
Evangelion does this. I would highly recommend Mob Psycho 100 for this as well (by the one punch man guy, and similar but not sarcastic)
I really enjoyed one of the more subtle points the Psycho Pass movie made as well, reflected in the dynamic between two different shots involving two of the main characters in the film. It drives home the point about the difference between a technical victory and a lasting cultural victory.
The use of Christian symbolism as nothing more than an aesthetic is somewhat common is Japanese fiction. I wouldn’t say it made no sense though.
The bad guys say humanity is fundamentally incapable of opening up to each other. Shinji proves that it can be done and is worth pursuing, although it is fundamentally difficult. He discovers acceptance of himself through his connections with his peers. He acknowledges that everyone must go through life at a pace they don’t get to choose, and that the inevitably of death doesn’t erase the meaning of existence.
Ugh, I hate it when people do things like Exhibit 4 [0] - the size and coloration of the boxes does not match the numbers for the bottom two figures (with the lower-right quadrant in both being displayed as larger than the upper-right, despite having a lower number).
Lies, damned lies, statistics and misleading figures.
Mutually Exclusive & Comprehensively Exhaustive. It's how to do bullet points according to McKinsey. They had to invent it in the 1960s because apparently by the 1960s no one at McKinsey was yet, you know, aware of the existence of centuries' worth of literature on formal logic. So they reinvented the wheel as far as that particular cultural achievement was concerened. Or the first millionth of it, to be more precise, and left it at that, because the rest of it would have no longer fit onto a single PowerPoint slide.
Alternatively, this is just some guy asserting that everyone at McKinsey thinks they invented a brand new concept, when in fact, it’s just a heuristic they teach people to communicate more effectively, because communication is hard.
Edit: I cannot reply to the below, but I will say, that’s a pretty contrived justification for your view.
Communication is hard. Few things done at a corporate scale are easy to implement. People like to point at big consulting firms and say “I could have done that” or “they could have just asked me” but that’s really just a fraction of it.
Former employee of former McKinsey employees. Grandparent point stands: McKinsey seems to offer little to no value that isn't already known and easy to communicate.
I will say though that McKinsey alums I know seem to be better at playing corporate politics than the average, which can be a skill when married with technical acumen.
“Playing politics” is is largely empathy and communication skills. Giving people what they want is actually not intuitive because, again, people are generally bad at communicating what they want. It’s common to hear people maligned for being “political players” but I’ll be honest; if you’re bad at office politics, it generally implies you don’t have people’s confidence, trust, and friendship- often because you’re fixated on the idea that work should stand for itself and not recognizing the massive importance that is working with others.
Being a dick with your influence is a different concept
Being a dick in influence is what I observe more often from my (biased, certainly) sample of McKinsey alum. We both agree that salability of work product is an important and underutilized skill.
Well, for one, that would vastly reduce economic growth. But aside from that, there’s not many things that fit X in the scheme of things you purchase frequently. Packaging / containers of consumed items is a big one. Fashion might be but probably not.
The example I hear a lot for some reason is power tools. Yeah it would be great to share power tools because you only need them once or twice... but you only buy them once or twice otherwise. It’s a good idea to help poor communities consolidate resources but it’s hard to help large communities reduce their eco foot prints
Fast fashion is bad. But I think the broken window fallacy is poorly matched to modern times. It’s useful to demonstrate why war is bad even if it boosts our GDP, but there’s so much nuance to things like repairs, obsolescence, globalism, switching costs, etc.
If something is bad for economic growth, whose growth matters? Ecological arguments are perhaps one of the better things to consider because at the end of the day it may kill everyone. shrug
The broken window fallacy requires forcefully destroying someone’s property to get them to replace it with the same thing. This doesn’t fit that model at all.
> Well, for one, that would vastly reduce economic growth.
Yes, that's the point! I take the world without the economic growth where people are happy with what they have over one with economic growth and unsustainable level of CO2 emissions.
Not to start an argument, but that's easy to say when you have a comfortable life and already experienced abundance.
You know, people of poor and underdeveloped countries have the right to aspire to a better life (and yes, that means owning more than a couple of ragged t-shirts and eat meat often than twice a month)
Genuine question from an ignorance of macroeconomics:
Wouldn't the money going to clothing just go to something else? It's not like the workers or company owners would sit on their hands when fashion stops being profitable.
The money would go into something else, but it would probably be something stupid. A lot of the dumb startups we see now that are burning cash on obviously bad strategies exist because at a global financial scale, there’s not enough opportunities to invest all of the capital in. There’s obviously lots (LOTS) of work to be done that could use capital still but current financial system want to believe in a high rate of return so they look to things like Uber. Note, Uber’s of the world are a drop in the bucket still, but the symptom is growing in prevalence. This is also not to say that fast fashion is a good idea or an efficient use of resources. It’s not.
The people... well this hypothetical is extreme so it’s hard to say. But populations of workers have been abandoned in the past before and it varies. It’s fully believable that they would just not have anything to do and would... idk... protest.
If people are spending it on ‘something stupid’ that’s is a sign that resources are unequally and inefficiently distributes. There are plenty of people in the world who would spend additional cash on food or fuel.
> Disruptive technologies are dismissed as toys because when they are first launched they “undershoot” user needs. The first telephone could only carry voices a mile or two. The leading telco of the time, Western Union, passed on acquiring the phone because they didn’t see how it could possibly be useful to businesses and railroads – their primary customers. What they failed to anticipate was how rapidly telephone technology and infrastructure would improve (technology adoption is usually non-linear due to so-called complementary network effects). The same was true of how mainframe companies viewed the PC (microcomputer), and how modern telecom companies viewed Skype. (Christensen has many more examples in his books).
Skype feels like a bad examples it was always fairly obvious video chat would be prevalent eventually. It was never obvious that Skype was the best answer, and there were Skype alternatives with similar offerings which have failed.
Skype itself may not last the long run if it can’t keep up with zoom or whatnot.
This feels like the important bit to me. People view their ex’s less favorably if they blame them for the breakup; and women blame men more than men blame women. Women also reported receiving less support from their partners than men. Reading between the lines, men in average like the women more because the women put in more effort to the relationship.