This is all the more impressive because macaques generally display strong sexual dimorphism in size (males are ~45% bigger on average than females, vs. more like ~15% in humans). I wonder how big Yakei is.
I think the article said she’s 10kg but it didn’t say the size of the former alpha male. I wish they had mentioned the size difference for comparison, that’s interesting!
Oh wow I missed that, thanks for catching. Given these are Japanese macaques, it looks like typical m/f size difference is more like ~32%, not ~45%, and 10kg puts her larger than the average female, but smaller than the average male. Would be interested in the former alpha males size too, but it's probably safe to assume he was bigger!
You inspired me to the lifespan of Japanese macaques, and it is 27 years; the previous alpha male was 31 years old, which suggests to me that he must have been pretty over the hill.
Given that she is smaller than the average male macaque, I imagine that this is not a terribly stable situation.
it’s strength, both psychological and physical, that correlates most closely with dominance, not size or gender/sex, though those of course tend to correlate with physical strength. a nice property of sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual) is that you get two chances at having generalized strength in parents, as opposed to one, which correlates with greater family fitness and offspring survival.
this is probably the biggest misconception in mainstream discussions of gender/sex and power (and part of what makes them so tiresome), which threads through everything from affirmative action to sexual harassment to lgbt rights. multidimensional strength fosters dominance, not just gender/sex or simply size. the dominant (or submissive) gender can be performed by either sex. this is foundational for understanding power dynamics (whether sexual, political, economic, social, religious, or anything else).
We should expect to see this throughout the world, as the climate crisis intensifies. We should expect to see this especially in intelligent or social species. Game theory predicts that, from the point of view of parents, when the population is expanding it is better to have sons and when the population is shrinking it is better to have daughters. A son might have a lot of children when times are good and zero children when times are bad. A daughter is likely to always have some children, and therefore is a safer bet when things are bad. This shifts the incentives for parents. When population is falling, parents have an incentive to care less about their sons, and to invest more resources in their daughters.
That much is known.
We can also speculate that if daughters are now receiving more investment as children, they are better positioned to go higher in society as they become adults. A general shift in political power, throughout social species, should be expected, as the climate crisis threatens more and more species with extinction.
This might extent to even those species in zoos, as their population usually is not allowed to expand.
This like most evolutionary psychology seems like one of those “anything goes” explanations that simply seems like a plausible explanation, but can just as easily be offered to explain falsehoods.
The problem with it is that one can invent a scenario that never happened and asked for an explanation and similar such plausible explanations can be proffered for it, but there's really no way to actually verify and test them.
It can just as easily be explained with “It is a simple fluke that will repeat itself in another 70 years.”.
I know of the hypothesis, but it doesn't address the problem that it's an unfalsifiable explanation.
It's observing an event, formulating an explanation for it that sounds plausible enough, but the explanation is unfalsifiable, and a number of other explanations that are just as plausible and unfalsifiable can be proffered.
I think you might be confusing a few different things. I originally wrote "Game theory predicts" because this has been worked out with some rigor in game theory. You should never assume that anything in game theory necessarily applies to real life. At best, game theory models give us a starting point for other lines of inquiry. That's the whole of the claim, not that this is real, but only that there is a game theory model where this works well.
That makes no sense to me because for every child a daughter has, someone's son had a child. It has to balance out unless someone invents monkey mitosis.
It doesn't. In a species with 50/50 split between male and female, the number of males is almost irrelevant to population growth. Take rabbits. If you kill at birth 90% of the males, the population growth won't slow as the limit is the number of babies per-female. The 10% of males that survive simply father more kids via more females. Males can do that. Females cannot. Going one step further, killing all those males increases the resources available to the females. Ironically, culling those males can cause a population to grow faster than if they lived.
> In a species with 50/50 split between male and female, the number of males is almost irrelevant to population growth.
The split between male and female isn't relevant to this. Unless the males are needed to raise the children, the number of males is irrelevant to population growth.
But the average benefit of having a son remains equal to the average benefit of having a daughter; that's why the ratio stays at 50/50.
In nature, males can impregnate many females and do not have to necessarily be around to rear their many offspring. So it is advantageous to have many females that can procreate with less males to increase the population size at a higher rate than more males and less females to mate with.
Indications from genetic research are that humans may have about twice as many female ancestors as male according to some theory about discrepancy in the "time to most recent common ancestor" for mitochondrial DNA (extrapolating for female ancestors) and the nonrecombining portion of the Y chromosome (extrapolating for male ancestors).
I think the presence discrepancy is reasonably well accepted.
The guys weren't cutting it any more. They were not delivering on the expectations of the group (growing it). Life became too harsh and stressful for them, they are not even mating any more, since the offspring couldn't be fed, so they stop breading with the females. Still: Everyone is disappointed and the males know it, too... affecting their behavior which gets less dominant/aggressive. The females are now in focus, since they procreated more reliably (on average, the old alpha, that had a lot of offspring, is likely dead by now). The shift to a female leader means the population is in trouble and in decline. A crisis manager(female) gets installed.
Note that typically older males mate with (much) younger females: It's no coincidence, that she is that much younger than her male counter parts: She is angry about her mating partners that they have stopped mating (with her). Older females have offspring. The old alpha male, which is dead, has a lot of offspring. The external life conditions just became too harsh, this is not a happy setup. There are 2 strategies, but one is to react on external circumstances (stop procreating), instead of blindly going ahead and having to stem the bill later (starving babies). Apes are intelligent enough for the first, but there are furious women now (including "her").
I've been there a few times but always referred to it as "Monkey Mountain", never knew it was called Takasakiyama. If you're in Beppu it's well worth a visit.
Well, you had to figure it was named something in Japanese, right?
高崎山 appears to mean "tall, mountainous mountain". Monkeys aren't mentioned, though the name of the monkey preserve, 高崎山自然動物園 "Mount Takasaki Nature Zoo", does mention animals.
The concept of alpha, beta, etc in wolves was observed in captivity, and then incorrectly extrapolated to describe wild populations. Now science is finding that if you put a social species in a captive environment with unfamiliar stressors and dissolve the existing natural social groups that would have existed freely, unnatural social hierarchies develop to fill the gap.
The originator of the (generic) concept "alpha" (please let us know who this is / who you think this is) has discontinued the term "alpha" (quite an alpha-decision from him, I would say) due to new insights discovered when observing wolves. Alpha does not exist for wolves (presumably)... and in general. To extend just further (why not) the concept gets fully discontinued, due to public pressure, because everything is equal anyway.
You had me until your last sentence. What do you mean that the term is being discontinued due to public pressure? Isn't it natural for concepts to go away if they're found to be inaccurate (ex: phlogiston)? I also don't understand "everything is equal anyway". Could you elaborate?
Since you mention the term in relationship to the public, I actually think that "alpha" as a term to describe someone who is dominant has been doing just fine as a societal meme, despite it being used less among biologists/whomever. In this sense it doesn't seem to be going away at all.
I am being ironic (which is not allowed here, actually) and I am mocking the SJW an PC pressure, which very few but loud proponents shout out on the internet, mainly social media, today. Wishing away things, like not only the concepts, but also the words. But that won't happen and we see an alpha leader / beneficent dictator (for life) rise again (because it just works so well): Elon Musk.
Interesting that she's "walking the walk" in terms of dominance behaviors too. It would be fascinating to study whether she underwent significant hormonal changes after taking leadership or whether she had a different hormonal makeup compared to the average female "follower" even prior to her takeover.
i wonder what implications this has on mating? will she find a mate? Presumably the male would need to dominate her in order to procreate, that does not appear to be the case, currently.
Will she attempt to assume the male role in the mating process?
Let's be honest and address the implicitly given analogy to our modern human world. What are the different motivations males and females have in general and why did she end up in this alpha-position, while still lacking a lot of the advantages a male would have (mating and procreating with a lot of females)? It's because "the other gender" also carries all these (particularly very desirable in one gender) traits in them. I always think of men, which have very attractive daughters, like Billy Ray Cyrus (Miley Cyrus) or Rob Schneider (Elle King), but they themselves can't profit that much from the interesting looks (nose) and rather even look like a bum, themselves.
So "the other sex" also inevitably carries around all these (attractive) traits (kind of "reciprocally"), typically: They are there, but don't matter, really. They were inherited and can be passed on, though.
And in this very rare case like this: A female became an alpha. Her masculinity traits, which should rather only exist reciprocally within her (as a female), were coming out so strong, that she beat all the males. Though: No mass-mating (offspring) for her, rather likely: No offspring at all.
"""In 1970, the book The Wolf: Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species was published, written by David Mech. It was a success. The book helped to popularize the alpha concept, because many people referred to Mech's work.
Mech has written on his website that he repeatedly asked the publisher to stop printing the book because much of the information is outdated — including the concept behind the alpha wolf. Nevertheless, the book is still being sold."""
This is awesome. To get the top job, she: beat up her own mother; then took on the existing alpha 4x her age, and probably larger; then in the next 'peanut session' he had to backdown and let her eat first; and now she walks with an erect tail and goes and shakes trees for fun--It expresses her power. How cool is that!
It just goes to show, it's never about gender, just about choices, ambition and how brave you choose to be. Fuck yeah!
I wonder if the social dynamics will change under a (nominally?) female leader?
>A master politician and maneuverer, she achieved one of the highest ranks in UN government without ever standing for election. She manipulates those in the highest seats of power through careful cultivation of relationships with their spouses, friends, and staff nearest to them. [...]
>Avasarala's personality is often one of clashing traits. She is erudite and elegant, always properly and beautifully dressed, but is also notorious for her use of foul language and profanity, and was described by Bobbie as cursing "like a trucker". She has been shown to be cold and ruthless one moment, as she tortures a prisoner for information or manipulates her close friend DeGraaf into ruining his career for her political gain, while she is warm and maternal the next, playing with her grandson or giving Errinwright a chance to redeem himself. She is shrewd and intelligent, knows her way around people, and is also an astute and remorseless deceiver, often lying to advance her goals, such as when she pretended to know Captain Yvgeny to convince Sorrento-Gillis to do what she wanted, or attributed fake quotes to the deceased Admiral Souther and called him her friend, while in truth they barely spoke to each other.
Replying to the above comment, the parent. I think this is fascinating and definitely worth thinking about. But I don't think we should ascribe any list of traits to one thing or another: that too is discriminatory, no? Sort of like finding discrimination by setting up a biased framework from which to then go looking for it. Like setting out to prove the conclusion you've already decided...so I definitely disagree with that, but nevertheless think this is such a fascinating topic. Thank you for this, and good on you for replying here!
Bill Burr always had a good joke about inclusivity in politics, where the gist of it is - just because you have a woman, or a minority as your leader, doesn’t also mean that a woman or minority won’t be a corrupt piece of shit.
You’ll just have diversity in corruption, nothing will truly change, so don’t just blindly support these current ideologies.
Corruption and diversity are obviously orthogonal issues which I think everyone recognizes, so I'm not sure what point Bill Burr was trying to make. Women being just as corrupt as men is kind of irrelevant for any diversity policy; Burr's joke isn't illuminating much here.
He's attacking the "women-are-wonderful" bias which most people aren't cognizant of. You see lowlifes like the woman who assaulted the teenager last year over a phone hide behind their gender and act like their bad behavior is an impossibility.
I'm sure people with those biases exist, however Burr is willfully conflating these people with any diversity initiative or outreach; that's both unfounded and ignorant, and seems like the kind of joke that you laugh about until you think deeper on it for like 5 minutes.
Several world leaders, including former President Barak Obama, have said there would be less wars if women ruled the world. I've seen diversity initiatives justified on the basis that women would make better leaders because they are more "empathetic".
Burr is right in targeting a belief with a high-degree of traction, and that includes among people involved in DEI initiatives.
Just read the comment below yours. People actually believe that there is something qualitatively different about gender with respect to the job.
‘The world would be better if women ran it’ or ‘The world would be better if men ran it’, none of these beliefs use objective criteria, yet it is one of the more dominant themes in the current zeitgeist.
Maybe, but be careful that this argument is circulated in good faith and not just as a cover for getting another dude over the line into the job. Especially if it's a job that has never been done by a woman, so you really don't know how they might do it better.
For example, it's been widely observed that on the whole, countries with female leadership understood and managed COVID better than the rest— acting sooner, more decisively, and in a way that both started and stayed aligned to the evolving scientific understanding. A sprinkling of articles across varying dates:
Totally! Agree that feminists and modern women aspiring to adopt male traits rather than embracing innate female goddess energy and power is stupid, especially when they, at the same time, "stand against" how "toxic" men are.
But then again, some of those traits you pretend are toxic, are actually just awesome, and work in the human world. So why should "man" or "woman" polarity have dibs on that stuff? That gendering of traits is the fucking stupid thing I think. Anyone can choose to do anything. Don't trust people who devalue choice, they're the ones that love to try to deflect blame and responsibility onto anyone but themselves.
But yeah, the human world is pretty fucked up as a whole, male and female, because we're all full of ape brain shit, of which you're no better being human, too.
> Agree that feminists and modern women aspiring to adopt male traits rather than embracing innate female goddess energy and power is stupid
"Agree that"? What are you on about? The parent comment can't remotely be interpreted to be saying this.
> ... especially when they, at the same time, "stand against" how "toxic" men are.
The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic".
Rather, our culture associates certain (often positive) traits with what it means to "be a (real) man", such as strength, protectiveness, ambition, decisiveness, confidence, courage etc.
"Toxic masculinity" is the cancerous behavior you get when men overshoot in trying to display these qualities, such as authoritarian behavior stemming from an obsession with being perceived as strong; being incapable of letting others shine due to seeing everything as a zero-sum competition; being unreasonably stubborn and unwilling to change their mind out of a desire to be perceived as decisive and confident; pointless risk-seeking behavior potentially putting others at risk etc.
> The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic".
It totally does though, whether that's the intention or not. If I talk about "greedy Frenchmen", that technically just means, the (perhaps tiny) subset of Frenchmen who are greedy, but in practice, through a quirk of language, it also communicates an idea about Frenchmen being greedy.
Hopefully, "greedy Frenchmen" is not an expression that pushes anybody's buttons too much, but I think most people will be able to think of comparable "[Adjective] [Noun]" examples that illustrate the problem more vividly.
I agree that the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" can only be reasonably interpreted as the speaker believing it is typical for Frenchmen to be greedy.
But contrast another phrase of the same pattern, say, "fundamentalist Christians". I don't think anyone reasonable would interpret this as saying "fundamentalists, as is typical for Christians" (it could depend on the speaker though). Instead, this phrase would be broadly recognized as selecting the fundamentalist subset of the set of Christians (most of whom are understood not to be fundamentalists).
The difference between these two phrases is that in the first case, the two properties being discussed (being greedy and being French) don't really inform one another. There is no broadly understood "typically French way" of being greedy (afaik). So by putting these two properties in proximity, the speaker tries to construct the association. In the second case, the properties (being fundamentalist and being Christian) do inform one another. If you'd get both pieces of data separately, the meaning is different: a person might be Christian and fundamentalist about something other than Christianity. So the phrase "he is a Christian fundamentalist" is more informative than just getting these two pieces of information apart, since Christian fundamentalism is a somewhat specific set of beliefs.
So you only argue why it is linguistically possible for phrases of the pattern "<adjective> <noun>" to be interpreted as "<noun>s are typically <adjective>", but you don't argue for why this must be the case for "toxic masculinity".
And it seems quite clear to me that the phrase "toxic masculinity" is in this regard a lot closer to "fundamentalist Christians" than to "greedy Frenchmen". There is a qualitative difference between being told "his displays toxically masculine behavior" and the two separate pieces of information "he is masculine" and "he is toxic"; this is because there are many ways to be toxic, and the phrase "toxic masculinity" asserts that there is a certain type of toxicity that arises from trying to be perceived as very masculine.
> I agree that the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" can only be reasonably interpreted as the speaker believing it is typical for Frenchmen to be greedy.
That isn't agreeing with me! My point was that both meanings are expressed by the phrase. I also think the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" does (in practice) contain an message about Christians, aswellas acting as a qualifier that excludes many of them. I'm entirely not a Christian, but I imagine if I was, I might well not read it and think "Well they said fundamentalist Christians so they definitely don't mean me..."
If we want to get language lawyery about it, the meaning where the adjective acts as a qualifier is technicallycorrect, and I would love it if everybody could agree that's what matters and read carefully and charitably, but that is not how things work in this universe. In practice, a bit of care and empathy is required if you don't want to offend people.
> That isn't agreeing with me! My point was that both meanings are expressed by the phrase.
Apologies. I disagree with that then. I think it's quite safe to assume that if someone uses the phrase "greedy Frenchmen", that in almost all contexts they are trying to create or reinforce an association between being greedy and being French.
In that specific example, the technical meaning of the phrase has become irrelevant, as the juxtaposition of these two unrelated facts about the subject immediately raises questions about the motive of the speaker.
To understand your perspective better: I think you want people to stop using the term "toxic masculinity", out of a commendable sense of care and empathy. And I think we all intuitively feel that there's something wrong with phrases like "greedy Frenchmen". But do you think in the same vein that the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" is insensitive/offensive and to be avoided? What language would you use if you wanted to talk about the fundamentalist subset of Christians?
(From my PoV, "toxic masculinity" is like "fundamentalist Christians": there is no pressing reason (unlike with the phrase "greedy Frenchmen") to interpret it as an association, and I find it bewildering and unreasonable if a partner in conversation jumps to that conclusion, rather than interpreting it as subset selection. As such, I don't see a problem with either one. So I'm trying to figure out: do you think "toxic masculinity" should be avoided because you also believe that "fundamentalist Christians" should be avoided, or because you think it is more similar to "greedy Frenchmen"?)
Surely there's a sense in which the precise meaning of "greedy Frenchmen" still exists? It's obviously a bit difficult to discuss without context, but entirely discarding the accurate meaning based on there being "questions about the motive of the speaker" seems, I dunno, hasty? "I helped my uncle jack off a horse" still has two meanings, even though only one of them is the punchline.
My point, linguistically, is just that "<adjective> <group>" paradoxically both qualifies "<group>" and also links "<adjective>" and "<group>". I think that is just how language works, (I'm admittedly not a proper linguist and kind of freestyling). I think that's true of "greedy Frenchmen", "fundamentalist Christians", "fundamentalist Muslims", "toxic masculinity", "gold-digging women", and, well, just in general.
Whether it matters, whether you care, and what you want to do about it, are separate questions. But I think it's useful to understand that language functions that way, whether you like it or not. I don't think these phrases should be verboten, but I do think it's good to understand what it is you're communicating. Even if what's being understood is not what you intended when you transmitted it, I think communication entails a responsibility for the speaker to consider the impact of their speech on the listener.
Completely honestly I'm a bit bewildered by your bewilderment. While it's obviously a huge, toxic rabbit hole and I don't really want to go there, I think perhaps you're not appreciating that people have genuinesensitivities about things you presumably don't. Maybe if I put it like this: There are contexts in which "toxic masculinity" or "fundamentalist Christians" aren't going to land well, and some people spend a lot of time in those contexts.
> My point, linguistically, is just that "<adjective> <group>" paradoxically both qualifies "<group>" and also links "<adjective>" and "<group>".
I think that's broadly speaking correct. The point I made in my first reply to you was that I don't think this happens to the same extent for every word combination. Among other things the degree of linkage seems to me to be inversely correlated to the degree to which your adjective and group inform one another.
That is, to be clear, an attempt by me to put into words why I intuitively feel the phrase "greedy Frenchmen" is strongly dominated by linkage, whereas "fundamentalist Christians" is not. I cannot prove this. But I don't think I'm an insulated case here: I've never seen anyone being called out for being insensitive by using the phrase "fundamentalist Christians"; I have seen it for phrases like "greedy Frenchmen" and, in this very thread, "toxic masculinity".
Nevertheless, even though I might not fully understand a certain sensitivity, I'm happy to adapt my language to be less prone to misinterpretation. But I'm curious whether you have any workable suggestions. If you want to talk about the fundamentalist subset of Christians, what phrasing would you use that avoids offending people?
I'm not necessarily claiming to have better ideas! I think it's really hard, and the internet has made it very hard to second guess the context in which your messages will be received.
* It's usually best to go with something more tailored and thoughtful, and avoid politically charged clichés if you can. For me, this is the real reason "greedy Frenchmen" seems innocuous and the other examples seem problematic.
* A low-effort hack that sometimes softens things a bit is prefixing with "some" and / or suffixing with "people" ("some Christian fundamentalist people...").
* You don't have to live in constant fear of offending people, maybe sometimes you can just say what you want to say and hope your audience doesn't take it the wrong way. I don't want to overstate my concern for Christian sensitivities. Your chances of avoiding offence are obviously dependent on the context and your audience.
Again, I'm not necessarily saying I'm good at this! I think I'm better than I used to be, which is an extremely low bar.
> The term "toxic masculinity" does not imply "masculinity = toxic".
It totally does, this is why those two words are used in that expression. The plan is to skew the meaning of masculinity by making the colloquation widely used enough, until it's automatically associated with toxicity even when that word is not present.
> this is why those two words are used in that expression
Do you believe that every "<adjective> <noun>" phrase is intended as "<noun> = <adjective>"? Do you believe that the phrase "fundamentalist Christians" is only used by people who want to create the association "all Christians are fundamentalists"?
Tongue in cheek but totally true. If everyone has a voice and feels like they can express it (everyone "carries a gun" so to speak) yeah that is a pretty good approximation of true progress.
Assholes are so underappreciated they're used for slander. It's an anatomical device that controls defecation; Keeping poop at bay while you go about your business.
Stop calling evil "asshole" and you might find your pooping becomes a little easier, as that part of your body is no longer equivocated with malice.
It's interesting, but brutal. I wouldn't call this "awesome". Beating up your mother isn't "brave". This is literally a monkey dictatorship. That alpha is probably really shitty to be around.
Quick search, macaques's lifespans are roughly 20-30 years. The old alpha was 31... so, in human terms (roughly), it's like a 20-ish year old woman beats a man in his 60s-70s... and she's "brave".
you want to like respond to the weakest version of what I say so you can pretend that I'm so bad for saying this so you want to connect all the words in the worst possible interpretation. First point is it's only a bad interpretation if you want to take it from a human moral point of view I'm not doing that--so you need to impose your different moral view on my comment and judge it from the point of view where you can find something bad. I'm considering it from the monkey point of view. secondly I'm not even saying that's the brave thing. The brave thing is this this female monkey took the alpha position and did what she needed to do to get there... like female alphas are rare so you got to be brave to do it right? I know you want to hate on my comment and pretend it's so bad but why don't you hate on it from the real version like if it's really so hatable for you why do you need to pretend it's the weak version in order to hate it why not just hate on the strongest version? Hahaha.
you're judging everything from a human point of view but that's not what I'm doing here. It's awesome because she achieved what she wanted to achieve using whatever means necessary and so your moral fear about this comes from the idea that it's somehow wrong to beat up your own mother. Sure in our society it would be--what you're really going to take it as like I'm saying yeah that's a good thing? Haha--but in the monkey society that's how things work. And we're not that different to monkeys you know violence kind of rules at the end of the day when you look at military technology and so on. but the other side of it maybe the mother was really abusive mother or just was a really terrible monkey person. but I'm not assuming that I'm just assuming that this girl did what she needed to do to get to the top in that monkey society and that is what is awesome truly fucking awesome. I didn't care about your human morals applied to this monkey situation. Get out of here! :)
Hahaha this is funny even if we agreed you couldn't say anything nice because you hated my first comment so much. I think you should think about that why would you hate something fundamentally empowering for people about choices unless you had something to gain from people being disempowered?
I'm clear on it. I'm against people saying gender matters because it makes me weak and a victim and I can't do anything and therefore people should give to me because of my gender rather than me having to create for myself. so people forget that it's about choices and ambition and bravery just like I said in the monkey comment. I'm for people saying gender matters where it's like whatever qualities you want to associate with your gender as something that you draw strength from. I'm against the sort of self-hating insecurity about gender that seem to come out of Western American culture.
Undoubtedly, the writers at the Guardian were thinking the same. However, one would do well to doubt whether the above described behaviors would be good were they to be performed by humans.
Haha yeah well you're ignoring how much our society is like a monkey society. We are still ruled by ape brain shit and violence still rules today but it's not a good thing in our society and that's right.
But in this case it's a good thing cuz this girl is doing the rare and brave step of achieving alpha status by doing what she needs to do. I think that lesson even from a different species has applications in our own society--you can do what you need to do in our society to achieve the rare heights of being an alpha whatever your gender. It doesn't mean you have to beat everyone up that's incorrectly applying the moral standards from this other species to our own; but it means like do whatever the fuck you need to do: make your choices, be brave, have ambition right? and then score your wins. kind of hilarious that people want to push back against that sentiment and pretend they're standing for women's rights but that makes sense to me because the people who often pretend they're standing for women's rights are really just standing up for the disempowerment of women through fake narratives about how women are always these fake victims. Who can't do anything for themselves and need to be given everything. but it's actually makes sense to me and he's really predictable for those people who pretend to stand up for women's rights would really hate on and be threatened by a comment where a woman was making choices and being brave and having ambition and doing something that's actually empowering for her rather than being playing the fake victim game and disempowering herself all the time, stuff which plays into the hands of those people who only pretend to stand up for rights.
Well see you guys need to be nuanced and maybe you're not capable of seeing the nuance in the current binary love hate zero nuance Zeitgeist discourse. there's irony in there but my beliefs are clearly very different to yours so the irony is different to your irony. But my sentiment is totally true it is all about choices about being brave and having ambition that's how you can get what you want rather than playing the fake victim demanding others give to you and always being disempowered and pretending that somehow to empowerment.
Well the final word would on that would have to come from me you couldn't decide that as you wouldn't know if I'm being ironic, cuz even if you see on my other comments each thing I say is an individual choice where I decide exactly what I'm trying to mean. Each thing I say expresses my own free will--and you're not privy to that and you don't know me--and there's no way you can actually know if I'm being ironic or not from seeing my other comments. but in this case yes I am not being ironic in the sense that you think I might be (the gestalt sentiment of the statement) but I am being ironic in another way but because our beliefs are so different most of the people here will probably not see my irony.
Ridiculous statement: "It just goes to show, it's never about gender, just about choices, ambition and how brave you choose to be."
Followed by: "Fuck yeah!"
--> Ironic in my world, but "the other side ("feminists") seem to have adapted to also address / talk to (deceive/decept) 'more conservative' people with their speech. We try to include/reach each other.
Wow I love how you say that's a ridiculous statement.. to me that's completely true about the world. for you to think that's a ridiculous statement means to me that you are just giving away your power to everyone else letting everyone else set the terms of everything pretending that your choices don't matter and then it doesn't matter your ambition on how brave you out. To me sounds like you just want to start from this disempowered position. By choice no less. But if you take the other path and take personal responsibility? That's empowering. Fuck yeah!
I mean we had the Amazonians, Boudica, Cleopatra, Jean D'Arc, Mulan, Wu Zetian...
It's not like if you have a large enough sample size you won't discover alpha females in even the human world when it was dominated by physical violence prior to the invention of the gun.
everyone became obsessed about the beating up thing the brave thing that I saw was never that that was just something she needed to do on the path to get there-- that was awesome because she showed how she's willing to do that to go against the hierarchy of her society. I don't care she beat up her own mother I'm not a monkey and I'm not reading it from a human point of view I'm reading it from a monkey point of view and so that's totally fine that she did that. What I'm saying is brave is that she took on how no women of the office how it's so rare and she became the alpha. what I find you funny is like the uniformity of the responses of people here...in response to this admittedly challenging idea I proposed. But the people are not dealing with the challenging idea on its face in fact they're deliberately misinterpreting it to find something which maybe more or less challenging for them but where they can cultivate I believe more outrage. even though you don't have to interpret it in this way people interpret the comment in the way where they can find the most outrageous thing and respond to it as if that's the truth. But it's not the truth it's only their interpretation which they're pretending to be the truth... almost so they can have something to be outraged about. it's quite a ridiculous interpretation but it makes sense from an ape brain point of view like you know you you see a situation where you want to see an exaggerate the conflict so you can rile yourself up and get ready for conflict. I think the greatest irony here is that in this comment thread everyone's saying oh you know humans are so much better than this and how could this guy say these comments--right?--they're actually all behaving in an ape brain way with his deliberate misinterpretation egging themselves on towards conflict. Haha, it's hilarious!
