I can't speak for women but they face greater challenges if for example they don't have a degree since blue collar work is not female friendly and even if it is, women don't tend to get satisfaction out of those jobs. It also has to do with ambition, women get pregnant or plan to get pregnant so for those women they typically have to plan for child care/future much earlier than men. Just in society as well, women who earn less are often forced to rely on a man which makes them feel less independent. So to be complacent as a woman, I would imagine being able to guarantee a future where men and children don't control your life or force you to give up your ambitions as well as for many women avoiding "nursing/caring" stereotypes and "physical labor" would be some of the things they desire before being complacent. Of course I am talking about women who pursue college, there are many women who are happy with depending on a man that is well to do but their daughters see how their mothers fare when older and usually want the opposite.
These are just my observations, there couldn't be anyone who is less qualified to comment about women than myself, so if any woman reads this, please educate on things I have gotten wrong.
Just to add something here: Beautician (of various forms including but not limited to: hairdressing, waxing, nailcare) and shop work (selling at the register, stocking) are blue collar jobs and are overrepresented by Women.
You're right, I forgot about that. There are women who aspire to do those jobs and there is nothing wrong with that. I suppose if you dig deeper all of this has to do with how your brought up and what you expect out of life. Media and the internet play a big role in this.
>He is torn between being the kind of man he has been told to be and the kind of man the world seems to want now.
Ironically, I think many men seem to experience this in the opposite direction implied by the article. Men are told to be obedient male feminists, and they find a world in which that mentality sets them up for failure. Women on the otherhand are encouraged to pursue the "toxic masculinity" mindset that men have been chastized for.
So it seems that masculinity itself is a winning strategy, just the sex pursuing that strategy has partially reversed.
For any young people reading this and feeling hopeless - it's not universal. There are friend groups, companies, and places where people are kind to each other, and if someone comes in playing dominance hierarchy games (is this what you mean by 'toxic masculinity?) they will be politely redirected, and eventually shown the door.
There are good situations out there, and as you get older you may gain the ability to explore more and find one.
It will give you peace of mind and it will take away that "wtf?!" anxiety you feel (in time; it's not immediate so be patient). Just read the books and consider the ideas, don't get sucked into the manosphere bs (there are a lot of idiots who grift on these ideas—the only guy who actually backs up his points is the author of this series).
I'm not libertarian but the obvious solution is consumer advocacy & reporting groups and such, who certify products as "legit". They do the hard work of figuring out which products are good. But unlike the FDA, they have a market incentive to do this effectively.
I don't propose this belief, but it's the libertarian solution to the problem you pose.
Ironically, I just ran into this phrase last week while reading an anthropology paper from the 90's ("Maya Hackers and the Cyberspatialized Nation-State: Modernity, Ethnostalgia, and a Lizard Queen in Guatemala")
Whenever I hear this phrase it reminds me the part in the book Cryptonomicon where the pretentious humanities professor feels so clever for asking "How many slums will we bulldoze to build the Information Superhighway?"
Oh, ugh... Memories of all the awful road metaphor headlines of the time are flooding back-- "Breaking Down on the Information Superhighway", "Traffic Jams...",
When I was a teen I made a way shittier version of this using a bunch of vertical <marquee> tags and exotic looking Unicode characters. I literally just copy and pasted them since I didn't know any JS. It looked great as long as you didn't inspect the code!
I like how marquee is long deprecated yet the MDN compatibility guide[1] shows that no one has dared drop it. Unlike its friend blink who got dropped the moment everyone hated it[2].
>an idea these agencies themselves would like perpetuated to make it seem resistance is futile.
Quite the opposite - the conspiratorial reaction is that these agencies want to be mistaken for bumbling bureaucracies, so they let reports of small-level stuff get out. That way we underestimate the real degree of their control and believe that if they ever tried to manipulate us, they would get caught anyway, and besides, they're just making unsuccessful tweets, right?
Or even deeper, that these organizations are meant to distract us from much more powerful entities who they don't even realize they are controlled by.
I don't believe any of this, but the conspiracy theorists deserve more credit for creativity that you are giving them!
Well, here in Guatemala journalists are being silenced, and it doesn't mean they're being kicked off Twitter. I really hate big tech censorship, but you're naivete about the impact of "being silenced" reminds me of this part from Days and Nights of Love and of War
>Perdí varias cosas en Buenos Aires... No me quejo. Con tantas personas perdidas, llorar por las cosas sería como faltarle el respeto al dolor.
Translates roughly as:
>I lost various things in Buenos Aires... I don't complain. With so many people lost, to cry over things seemed to lack respect for suffering.
In a kind of similar vein, you're complaint about Twitter users being silenced lacks some respect for people who are actually being silenced. Although I agree with your underlying sentiment.
Obviously, "silenced" has different meanings and weight depending on the context in which it's being used, but ... I never actually used the term, so it's an odd point of contention to raise.
The original statement I replied to — which was also the first time "silenced" was used in this thread — was:
> Being kicked off Twitter isn't the same as being silenced.
> do we really want the government to start dictating to private sector publishing companies what content they must publish?
Yes, I think we do, if it’s in exchange for their currently privileged position.
Currently, they operate with the privileges of a common carrier, and none of the responsibilities.
They shouldn’t have the privilege of being shielded from responsibility for what they publish on behalf of others, while also claiming that doing so represents their own protected speech.
If they want to editorialize, they can be treated like any other publisher, and be held responsible for what they publish — including disinformation, libel, harassment, et al.
> A common carrier in common law countries (corresponding to a public carrier in some civil law systems,[1] usually called simply a carrier)[2] is a person or company that transports goods or people for any person or company and is responsible for any possible loss of the goods during transport.[3] A common carrier offers its services to the general public under license or authority provided by a regulatory body, which has usually been granted "ministerial authority" by the legislation that created it.
Of course they’re not common carriers; that’s the whole problem.
They were granted the traditional privileges of common carrier status under section 230 of the CDA, but none of the responsibilities.
Refer to the “telecommunications” section of the Wikipedia page you’ve cited, where this specific topic is covered, along with additional references for further details.
Section 230 of the CDA never uses the term "common carrier". In fact, "Interactive computer service" was the exact phrase of language that ISPs successfully lobbied themselves to be classified as to avoid common carrier regulations.
Being a "Interactive computer service" != being a "common carrier". Pointing to Section 230 as an example of "common carrier" statues is massively misunderstanding the "ISPs as common carriers" debate.
As someone that doesn’t use Twitter, I can confirm that I am not silent and that any model where one is silenced by being removed from Twitter is similar to geocentricity.
I agree with the sentiment but a LOT of journalists seem to not only take Twitter seriously enough to report about the nonsense that its users are rambling about, but even use it themselves !
What about the “Net Centers” in Guatemala? Don’t they use platforms like Twitter to actually harass/silence dissidents? Obviously social media isnt everything, but Morales and his backers sure showed how important it is. Or do you disagree?
Oh completely agree. But to put this in the context of the current argument, the solution (from Twitter's perspective) would be to ban the net center accounts. And I don't think Twitter banning Net Centers would have "silenced" Jimmy Morales, for example.
Social media can definitely be used to silence people, but I don't think that's mostly what's happening (for the most part) wrt big tech banning certain controversial content on their platforms.
Why aren't women in the US complacent? Couldn't they just get by doing the bare minimum?