Over in the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit, an excitable fellow by the name of ClutchNes is giving a little pep talk to his peers.
“What society gets wrong and what needs to change is…..the concept that females are the prize,” he declares, setting forth his basic thesis.
no, they are not. Men are prize, NOW MORE THAN EVER.
Let me jazz that up a little for you:
Men are the protector, the provider, those who keep the system running, those who are doing the dirty and demanding jobs.
Have you ever been to a hospital? A nursing home? A female Roller Derby match? Hard to see how any of these would survive more than a couple of hours without women doing a lot of the grunt work.
it’s no surprise that women are extremely entitled and don’t have to fear consequences to take responsibility for their actions, because society is still pretending that women are the prize.
What consequences are women supposed to be avoiding, exactly? If you prick them, do they not bleed? If you tickle them, do they not laugh?
Might want to get permission before doing any of that.
how the fuck are they the prize? they bring nothing but their wet holes to the table,
No, that was Judy Chicago.
can’t even fucking cook
I’m not sure MGTOWs really have any right to criticize anyone else’s cooking.
or take care of the household, don’t bring any useful skills, wasting time on nonsense, overpriced crap and social media, zero to none real hobbies and topics you can discuss with them.
Dude, one of your hobbies is writing poorly reasoned and barely literate screeds about the alleged superiority of men, so, again, I’m not sure you really have much to brag about, hobby-wise.
I don’t get it, fuck gynocentrism and fuck feminism, this world will fucking burn to the ground once the females are in total control.
“The females” aren’t actually all that interested in total control. Unless we’re talking about my cats.
If we are honest, even back then women were nothing else but trophies, a prize for “decent” men, a tool to control the men and make them obedient tax payers, world builders, career men, because women being the prize NEVER made sense, it should always been that men are the prize, the only difference is how to convince men to still get their shit together and be the best man they can be, REGARDLESS of women – and this is what movements like MGTOW are trying to do, that’s the real mindset, philosophy and spirit.
IF MGTOW is supposed to be making you “the best man you could be,” I’d have to say that it is doing a terrible job.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@epitome :
> The problems I have that are attributable to “nothing is foolproof” should be distributed fairly evenly over time
No. That’s backward : something random will *NOT* be fairly evenly distributed over time. Even more than that, any human looking at a random distribution *WILL* think it’s not random and that it’s too clumped to be random.
It’s litteraly wired into our brain to be bad at statistics. You are doing the level 0 error of any statistician. Perfectly understandable because that’s the normal human behavior, but you seem persuaded you could recognize randomness by seeing it, where it’s the opposite.
Randomness is weird; like probability. It’s not very intuitive.
If you ask people to distribute themselves randomly in a room; they tend to space out evenly. A true random distribution though would have some people in groups and some isolated people stuck in corners etc. Clusters are part of randomness; but they don’t seem so.
When you select ‘shuffle’ on an iPod or similar it originally generates a real random selection; but then if for example two tracks from the same band come next to each other, the algorithm moves them apart. True randomness doesn’t appear random to us. So ironically they have to make it less random to seem so.
Brains are weird. But presumably it stopped us getting eating by sabre tooth tigers or something.
These peculiar men may think they’re the prize, but they really rather kind of ain’t.
But howsoever nevertheless yet notwithstanding, speaking of prizes – here is one for all the fans of mind-bendingly difficult physical challenges …
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jun/17/sabrina-verjee-sets-record-for-running-all-214-wainwright-peaks-in-under-six-days
(your cup of tea, perhaps @Alan? 🙂 )
@ opposable thumbs
Oh wow yeah, very much so.
That is a spectacular achievement though. I was going to brag about my “Three Peaks Badge”…
https://www.threepeakschallenge.uk/yorkshire-three-peaks-challenge/
But I would have to concede 214 peaks is more impressive.
I have done the Shelterbox Dartmoor Challenge a few times. We’ve never won it. Or even come in the top half. In fact we’ve always come last. It’s great fun though.
In case you were wondering what’s in those green boxes…
Shelterbox is like Thunderbirds. They store those boxes all around the world. Then if there’s a disaster they try to deploy them as a first response. They’re tailored for different climates and potential emergencies. But the idea is that there’s enough stuff in each one to keep a family alive until full-on disaster relief can arrive and be set up.
One thing that really hit me was the children’s stuff. Like colouring books and sometimes cuddly toys*. It really brings home the human reality of what we hear about on the news. (I’m tearing up a bit now!)
But for the challenge, it’s teams of four, you’re given a series of grid references, and at each one there’s some sort of challenge. Like those command task exercises. You have two days to complete it, and you can use all the stuff in the box. Which you have to carry. You can’t drag it. Or dump the contents behind walls.
ETA: *I do have a Shelterbox bear; he’s very cute…
@Alan : I agree. Our intuition is rigged to be bad at stats, probably to manipulate us in seeking correlation more often. (which is exactly what Epitome try to do here, he put too much effort in finding non-existing correlations)
A similar example is how most videogame don’t give loot randomly, because everyone complain it’s rigged if they do.
During the pandemic, I’ve often intuitively tried to dodge away when passing people in grocery stores and such places. Sometimes I feel kind of silly about it, because intellectually I strongly suspect that fleeting moments of close contact don’t really make a difference for infection risk when I’m spending time with other people in indoor spaces. Especially when people walk around and the air swirls, aerosols probably tend to be evenly distributed.
I think what mainly matters is the accumulation of aerosols in the general airspace. This would depend on the general crowding level, how good the ventilation is and whether most people are wearing masks properly. Any substantial clustering will likely also matter, so do keep some distance when standing in the checkout line!
3 peaks is plenty impressive, imo! (think I might just about manage one, make that a small one, at a gentle stroll with a nice sit-down at the top to enjoy the view TYK :-s ).
Shelterbox bear does look cute, though 🙂 and what a brilliant initiative. I suppose they store them somewhere anonymous, in whatever city/ies or town/s are most convenient to get to from inside or outside the country.
still randomly sometimes getting a black rectangle instead of vids, while still images seem to be fine; wish I knew why (>.<)
It’s one of my favourite things (as in, both intriguing and impossibly annoying) that random distribution (and probabilities, and stats in general) are so counter-intuitive. Why we humans are generally so very bad at estimating risk (and at picking “random” numbers 🙂 )
As you say, @Ohlmann, probably to do with seeking correlations and patterns – better to jump when it was a false positive (predator you thought you saw about to chomp you wasn’t really there) than not bother jumping when it was a false negative … :-s
The three peaks is FUN! First did it as a kid – school trip for the running team. Not too difficult, either – took about 8 or 9 hours, if I recall right.
Reading this immediately after switching over from the orgasm/refraction thread.
@Surplus
“The melting pot of social media, in which nothing gets much attention except if you’re famous.
The uselessness of online dating, where you’re thrown up against three or four billion competitors and inevitably won’t rank in the top 10.
The overall atomization of society.”
Top 10 out of 3 or 4 billion? Forget the top 20%… ;D
Do you really think only the top 10 out of half the population of the world are successful at online dating? I mean, I’m a socially awkward mess who never dated or really talked to women, and I am finding some measure of interest after a year’s effort trying online dating.
(In my admittedly limited experience, the larger a population in the area the better. You’re not competing with half the world. Most people are trying to keep things inside an hour or 45 minutes away, so local population density is rather critical. Almost all my more talkative and interested matches live an hour away, from several large cities. Only one has been from the same small town I live in. Seems to be all of twenty people active at any one time inside a half hour drive, which significantly cuts my chances there. Ooodles online in the cities.)
On a more serious note, per your discussion on arranging society to be more social, that reminds me of a book I read many years ago on that topic. It listed the various ways this could be done and how communities should be built and laid out to make this happen. This struck me as rather interesting, because it seemed like everyone had read this book and decided to do the exact opposite. Upon a moment’s reflection, even as a clueless youngster the reason was obvious as to why: Capitalism.
For example, one point was that buildings should never be more than a few stories high, so that anyone in them can readily yell at and communicate with people in the streets. (OK, catcalling says this isn’t ideal, but…) That would then avoid the sense of detachment from the world one can get living too high up to interact with the life below, blah, blah, blah. However, this would require a vastly more spread out city scape or many smaller communities, a significant number of redundancies in terms of infrastructure and businesses… which means lots and lots of money, space and effort needed to build and maintain everything. Money, space and effort no company or government wants to spend. Thus we have skyscrapers and crowded cities.
Very late to the party here, but it astounds me over and over how close these guys get to realizing that patriarchy is the problem.
@Ohlmann:
Let’s do the actual math on this, shall we? You champion a null hypothesis of “the base rate of power failures in my block has not changed recently”. Let’s take “recently” to be the last, say, 3 years. During that time there have been six outages lasting longer than one minute (I take that as the threshold separating self-correcting glitches from breakdowns that actually required manual human intervention to repair). Including this week’s three.
So, outages of this severity have been occurring at an average rate of about one every 180 days. Alternatively put, the odds of getting one on any particular day ought to be 1/180.
It follows that the probability that any particular day will be the first of three days in a row with multi-minute outages would be one in 5832000.
I don’t think I need to tell you that there are a lot fewer days than that in a three-year period. In fact, there are 1095. The probability, then, given the observed rate of such outages over the past three years, of my running into an incident like earlier this week is smaller than one in five thousand.
The null hypothesis is thus rejected with p=0.9998. I think that’s well above the usual p=0.95 threshold demanded by professional journals.
The only two counterarguments I can envision here end up backfiring.
One is a sample size argument: only six outages? But given the overall rate of one every 180 days it would take decades to get a really nice sample size, and on timescales that long it’s bound to be the case that a relevant policy change will occur. Which means the null hypothesis would prove to be false by the end of the study period.
The other is to argue that the failures are not independent of one another. The problem with that is, there are only two ways for that to happen. One is for a common external cause to be in play, say a days-long freezing rain event or even a hurricane. However, no such ongoing atypical relevant external condition was actually present during the three-day interval at issue. The other is for the first failure itself to have set up the conditions for the second and third ones. But the only way that happens is if the repair performed after the first failure was in some way incomplete, overlooking something and leading to the repair being fragile and failing again within 24 hours. This would, if true, prove my case that the power company has abruptly become incompetent, as the repairs after the prior three outages in the three-year period each held for months or longer at minimum, and then we got two repairs in a row that didn’t last out a day. The repairs now become the data that is hard to explain without an underlying change in the defacto policy of the organization.
However, this fragile-repair hypothesis is actually unlikely. I’d expect a shoddy, corner-cutting, cost-minimizing repair job that fails within a day to be performed much faster than a proper, thorough, careful repair job that will hold up for weeks or longer, and therefore that hypothesis predicts that the first two failures of the recent three would have been significantly briefer than the third.
The data are the diametric opposite: the third outage was the shortest by a good margin and the second was the longest. If there was a better, more thorough repair job, it was on the 2nd outage, and then the third one is an independent failure again. If there was a shoddy, corner-cutting repair job it was on the 3rd outage, but there has not (yet) been a 4th. The data provides strong evidence against the fragile-repair hypothesis … which would still not have helped you here though.
The conclusion is inescapable. The recent triplet of power outages was extremely improbable (p<0.0002) without an underlying shift in the behavior of the utility company that created the conditions for it to occur.
<gavel bang>
@.45:
So, the capacity to date and perhaps find a long term relationship is also now being denied to anyone unable to pay $2000 or more a month in rent, in addition to:
How much more will be added to that list in the coming years, I wonder? And where are these policy shifts being decided? It sure doesn’t seem to be coming up for debate during Question Period …
@Surplus : you continue the same basic mistake. STATISTICS DON’T WORK THAT WAY. And you aren’t doing a neutral analysis ; you’re just trying to justify your errors via misconceptions.
Your “analysis” here would suggest that running ten 6 on ten dice is litteraly impossible and cannot be attributed to luck. In real life, as you may know, that actually happen. (I have done that for damage on one of my player in tabletop rpg)
The most basic problem of your analysis is that you would not have noticed just 3 incidents in a row in electricity. But 3 incidents in the same general area, regardless of what is that area. Would you have three days without buses, or three days with your local store having a problem of X, or three days with internet problems.
Now, let’s apply that to a city. One human easily use 10 differents services in their day live to live. Supposing any single service have a 1% fail rate and a city have 100.000 inhabitant, there’s about 120 peoples who would see 3 days in a row with the same service being on the fritz each day.
Without any hypothesis, something that you rule out as impossible happen to hundred of people, every day.
That’s also expressed thus “improbable stuff happen all the time”. It’s one of the basic statistic fact, WAY more important than the p-value that you CLEARLY have absolutely no idea of how to use ; and it’s the #1 rules of anyone who work on safety. Typically, Tchernobyl would be deemed as impossible without sabotage with the kind of p-hacking you are doing.
@Ohlmann:
I won’t dignify most of your hacky hit-piece with a response, but this bit is easily refuted (and takes down the whole rest, domino-style):
I didn’t claim it was impossible. I claimed, essentially, that if you get ten 6s in a row within, say, the first hundred rolls of a typical-looking six-sided die then there is a very small chance this legitimately happened by sheer luck and a very significant chance that the die you were rolling is loaded to favor 6s.
Your claim, meanwhile, amounts to an assertion that it is outright impossible for the die to be loaded, even after getting a run of ten sixes after only a few dozen rolls of it. Essentially that we should disbelieve evidence that a game was rigged even when it is pretty darn blatant.
That’s ridiculous.
I stand by my claim that something has recently caused a jump in the probability of power outages in my area. That claim is far more supported by the data than is the null hypothesis of no such jump having occurred.
I will not engage you further on this topic as it is clear you have some kind of an axe to grind. (And I seem to recall saying something similar to you fairly recently, on a different topic, too. This seems to be a recurring issue with you.)
@Surplus:
This is a really bad faith incel-ish argument. There’s obviously no “policy” that stops people in small towns from dating.
Small towns have fewer people than big cities. Fewer people means fewer single people. Fewer single people means fewer people available to go on a date. Fewer people available to go on a date means lower chances of finding a long term partnership.
This is literally always been the case. Yes, it sucks that dating is a numbers game and that large cities with large numbers of people are expensive to live in. Yes, cost of living is way too high and there need to be policies to address that.
But no, there are no evil policy makers who are conspiring to keep you from sex or a relationship by making things prohibitively expensive.
Surplus, I hope you’re just being hyperbolic, because otherwise I agree with bumblebug that this argument feels…worrying. I know you’re not an incel, but this sounds like some of the stuff they say.
I’d like to understand you better. In my experience, people from all social classes are able to find relationships. Yes, small towns have smaller dating pools because they have a smaller population. But this isn’t new, and certainly people met and settled down together before the internet made far-flung dating possible.
I feel like you must be speaking out of some painful personal experiences that we’re not privy to. I’m sorry to hear you’ve had trouble finding relationships, but I don’t believe you really think that can be due to any malicious policy decisions taken by the government.
Oh, I’ve long since given up on dating. I don’t even know how to hold down a normal conversation, and I have no way to actually go out and meet new people due to lack of affordable transportation options.
Doesn’t stop me from adding to the list of things being increasingly restricted to the top 10% though.
There seem to be a mix of policy decisions, some public and some private, combining to cause this. On the private side, we have businesses underserving areas out side of big cities because they are less profitable, and the entertainment industry wanting to move everything behind their streaming paywalls, now that they can. The latter just incidentally makes it inaccessible to anyone without high speed internet. Outside the big cities, of course, high speed internet is almost nonexistent, save for 4G if you get a good signal, and you pay by the gigabyte for mobile data so you’d still have to be rich to watch a lot of video over that connection.
Public decisions include not to invest more heavily in building out broadband internet outside the bigger cities, the systematic favoring of giant land developers and suburban homeowners over renters in policymaking, and even the “quantitative easing” (aka printing money) that’s all the rage these days, which helicopters free money to the rich (aka those who need it least) who then spend it in speculation on various asset markets rather than on productive enterprise (they spend on productive enterprise if that’s the only way to get more money, so, if demand is high and they don’t have any easier source of money). Speculative asset purchases include real estate, driving up housing prices.
Then there’s public decisions that have starved the general populace of decent-paying jobs, public decisions whittling away at social security and the like (or simply letting it stagnate while inflation does the dirty work), and so on, and so forth.
But it does seem to have accelerated in recent years. Until about 2018 it was possible to get non-emergency healthcare outside the major cities in Canada, for example, and very little TV and movie fare was restricted to streaming paywalls. In that year, though, doctors started dumping their patients left and right outside of the major cities, and the TV industry did a little experiment, moving “The Orville” behind their streaming paywalls after two seasons on normal OTA TV. Apparently there was an insufficient backlash to the latter dick move because more and more shows are following the same path now: air a season or two on traditional TV and then move it behind the paywall.
Canada is rapidly turning itself into the same kind of banana republic the US already has, where there’s a highly privileged 10% living in the major urban centers and then there’s everyone else, shut out from basic services (decent internet speeds at an affordable price, health care) and relegated to low-quality jobs without prospects of advancement, increasingly segregated from the 10% both geographically and by getting separate, crappier tiers of services and excluded from others altogether, sometimes with a very expensive way out.
Speaking of geographic segregation, did you know there’s now no intercity bus service here? If you don’t own a car and don’t live in a large urban center you can’t even visit that large urban center now, not even at the exorbitant price of about $200 per round trip from before. I suppose you could rent a car, or take a taxi, but it will probably set you back a grand or more to do so.
The 10% might as well be building physical walls around their enclaves now; this amounts to the same thing.
There’s no way this ends well.
@Surplus:
If you’re trying to say that poor infrastructure and public amenities caused by current political and economic circumstances have a side effect of making socialization, dating, and any sort of networking more difficult for people in lower income brackets, then I agree with you.
But your previous comment made it sound like you think that there is some conspiracy to keep you from dating and ruin your life. It may not be your intention, but your comments often read as you saying that you are being specifically targeted and that the people in charge are out to make specifically your life as difficult as possible.
I agree that the way things are set up now puts people in lower income brackets at a huge disadvantage. This needs to change. But no one is after you in particular.
As we have recently been discussing both lions and giant cat statues; I feel able to claim this is on topic. (That’s one single piece of wood!)
https://mymodernmet.com/giant-lion-worlds-largest-sculpture/?fbclid=IwAR3otcL1ukxrx1ZL5p0SYCdj0gQIqLRxQi7492FBX8-6asYP2_im6GOfBqI
@Surplus
I love my husband very much. we met on my college campus when he was there for one of those mormial things that soldiers do and I was walking to class. Chance decided that we should be together. The street worker that put the uneven curve on the side walk hadn’t planned for me to trip over it and for my husband to catch me, but that’s what happened. We live in Kansas. I go to a small college. I live in the smallest capital of any of the states I have ever seen. My husband doesn’t have his own car, I have mine. we are both still poor but we were poorer when we started dating. our first date was dinner at an ihop and a play being put on at my campus theater department. all and all the first date cost about 40 dollars. We still don’t have a concrete place to live together when he gets out of the marines. We don’t go out much. we stream things and watch YouTube videos together for entertainment. There are still the things we do that go out on special events that include things like a corn maze during fall season, small town fairs, thrift shopping, renasounce festival, The occasional barn dance, the drag show (never taking him to that one again), there are a lot of times where we just put on some music and slow dance to our wedding song in the kitchen. if he has a million dollars or 1 dollar I still love him, I still choose to be with him, I still wear his ring.
There is no human plot, policy, or conspincary to decide if you fall in love or get into a relationship. It’s fate that does. Humans pair off with the humans they meet in their communities or surrounding communities. Bigger cities make it harder. Because it’s harder to meet people when your in a sea of other people. If I didn’t trip, I would have just continued to walk by with my face in my phone and my thoughts on my lab work I still needed to do. But I tripped, the most handsome soldier I had ever seen caught me in his strong arms and uniform. Then he saw me later when I was walking back from class and asked me if my ankle was okay. I didn’t plan on finding him that day, it just happened. And I think that is the way it happens for most people. They don’t plan it, can’t force it, it just drops out of the sky one day and finds them. You just have to be open to it. And you’ve closed yourself off to it. That’s fine, if you don’t want to date, if you don’t want a relationship, that’s fine. Close yourself off to it. But if you want one, you have to be open. You have to look around you. You have to be able to change and adapt to changes. You have to be positive in your interactions with others. A beautiful woman might be looking at you on the bus and you snub her off cause she’s got an expensive bag or something and think she could want nothing to do with someone without money.
I saw an incel post just the other day where some idiot thought a woman was trying to trick him because she asked for a cigarette, he told her no and then he saw her pull out one. You know what he missed? someone trying to have a conversation with him. someone trying to make the first move. I am going off the things you have posted here to tell you that you are your own worst enemy. You make assumptions on people. you snub people. you decide you got everything all figured out and you close yourself off to anyone that wants to help you. Its not a stretch to think you do that in romantic relationships as well.
@ Elaine,
Aww, your “how we met” story is the plot of a romance movie! ?
I always enjoy the way you talk about your husband. Your love for each other is so wonderful to see. My husband and I were also pretty financially iffy when we met, and we stayed that way for years. Our best dates were, and remain, going on long walks together and just talking. That’s how we, I guess “courted” is the best word, and we still do that now. The cost is nothing (except sore feet the next day – we’re not in our early 20s anymore!)
@Alan: you’ve got an Ian McKellen thing happening in your teddy bear photo; I approve.
My husband and I met at a college dance. Our first date was the terrible pizza from the only place that was walking distance from the college. I think it was the only pizza place in the small town, and it was so terrible that everyone rejoiced mightily when Domino’s finally opened a store, because Domino’s was far superior. (!)
We were often down to peanut butter and mac n cheese by the end of the month. Later we had plenty of money and bought a house and traveled. We’re back to pinching pennies to keep hold of the house — thankfully Obamacare came in — and we still eat pizza once a week, on 40% discount day.
@Bookworm
(Possible TMI)
I’d tell mine, but it’s more the plot of a low budget porn movie.
@ GSS, our go-to meal was anything with lentils. And our first “date” was visiting the local cat shelter together to play with the kittens. We’re much better off financially now; we can afford to house 3 cats, not just visit shelter ones!