You said, verbatim:

Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women

and then went on to justify it with

because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks.

implying that more men would mean worse results “because women are so much better at it”: If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that “women provide one thing, men another”.

The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn’t absence of men as such – it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren’t as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there’s a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There’s no ideal ratio, there’s a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.

And btw you don’t teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it’s not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word “authority”, on top of that “strict authority”, in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.

The code section in particular is gold and exactly the type of online content we need. A big reason why chuds like Tate are successful is because they provide a code (“compass, outlets, who you’re with, how it feels”), which before the internet was something everyone built for themselves, actively picking and choosing, while nowadays the algorithms do the picking+choosing for us. Or, well, before the algorithmic internet boomers largely got that stuff from old institutions (be that church or the party), Gen X from rebellion, then come us sweet-spot millennials seeing the boomer/X conflict and having access to previously unheard of amounts of information to actively choose from, and then Gen Y and younger getting fed by the outrage machine.

So what we need is algorithm-compatible content that challenges the whippersnappers to build their own code, in an active manner. Give guidelines, give examples, but don’t decide for them (that makes you no better than the algorithm or for that matter Gen X and boomers) and definitely don’t make it a list of don’ts: They’re in the process of adapting instincts to currentyear, good living requires finding a configuration that denies none, our task is to help them not being maladaptive, steering away from both neurosis (denial of instinct) as well as asocial BS (exploiting in/outgroup instincts for power plays, oxytocin can be vile). To do that you need to point out the various fundamental drives, validate all of them, make that shit resonate as deeply as possible so they spot the drives themselves instead of some social construct painting over it, enable them to draw a map of their needs, then give examples, plural, of how it can all be integrated in a coherent fashion.

I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can’t see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.

The only thing I won’t stand for here is saying is “pointing at patterns is bad”. These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.

And if you just don’t care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don’t womensplain the male perception of “men are simple creatures” to men. You came out swinging, remember.

Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.

I don’t expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, “ideal”. It is you who is saying “guys get some other job I don’t care how much you want the job and how good you’d be at it, we already have a quota of 30%”.

Let’s try this again: If, as you say “women do empathy, men do resilience”, then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.

You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.

A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear “men are simple” we don’t hear “men are stupid” but “finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins”. If you wanted to say “men are stupid” you’d have said “men are primitive”, it’s not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.

Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with “but not everyone does that”, “of course, all people are unique and different” then communication becomes a chore. It’s like hearing “sunscreen is important” and insisting “of course, if it’s winter that’s a different issue, we wouldn’t want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic”. Come on.

And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. “No, really, it’s fine that we don’t have decorative towels” – “There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation”… no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn’t make them dirty again, that’s all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There’s a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.

I’ve got a song for you.

“men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of “men are primitive” and “men only want one thing and it’s disgusting”. Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that’s not a satisfying day then you have issues.

Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.

I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding?

No I think you’re better at putting words in my mouth than I am – allegedly – at putting words in yours. Speak about going to extremes to attempt to prove a point.

but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house?

You want to be a housekeeper? More power to you then but if your wife is an engineer and earns the money why do you suppose she can’t teach kids about it?

She’s the housekeeper and does tell the kids “just wait until your father gets home”? She’s training them to hate you, alienate them from you, that’s a giant red flag. Make sure to connect up with them or you’re going to have a hard time in custody court.

As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once.

Nope. Both are very capable of doing both. Again: Please don’t project your hangups onto others. Female fainting is just as much a trained behaviour (ultimately, an act the actor believes themselves), as male callousness.

Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don’t want to be in?

I’m not forcing anyone here, it’s you who’s drawing lines in the sand, “men shall do this, women shall do that”.

Boys, on average, like to wrestle a hell a lot more than girls, are interested in mechanical things more, when playing they care about outside things. Girls, on average, develop their fine motor skills well before boys, and their play focusses on social scenarios, in a bounded (inside) context.

Let them learn in the order and manner as they see fit, that’s absolutely fine and natural. But you’re an adult, not a kid, your competencies should, by now, have expanded beyond that initial set and focus. If you’re under the impression that “women are better at this, men are better at that” then you’re either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.

Your first sentence is completely sensible, the rest is completely toxic and also BS gender roles. Don’t project your emotional and social incapacity on me.

If my wife were to tell my kids “wait until your father comes home” a) they’ll get off 110% scot-free because they already suffered enough dread and b) she’ll get an earful. Ideally, though, of course, you’ll date someone emotionally and socially mature enough so that won’t be an issue. Someone who can stand up for herself, is actually competent, and doesn’t make your kids hate you.

Also please explain: Women are good at emotional stuff but then you need the man to do the emotional resilience thing… what? I know plenty of women who I’m pretty sure could beat you up and work with plenty of brilliant female engineers, and are you accusing me of not caring. Am I just pretending to care about people? Does caring about people not come natural to you? Maybe that’s a thing you should mull over.

If that’s your take on this thread then you’re just as complicit as the rest of these incels.

It’s my take on my own contributions. Note that those didn’t include “defending some guy”, it really was an exhaustive list. How you managed to get that wrong in a post in which you apologised about getting something wrong is something you’ll have to ask your dead horse, I suppose.

Dadvocate would be a good source for this stuff especially if you don’t fancy your watch history to get infested by misogynists. Just a gal who doesn’t pull guard.

Lol, falsely conflating me telling you not to blame POC and women for late stage capitalism with telling you not to cry is pretty hilarious.

I did what?

What injustice are you facing that generations of women and immigrants haven’t been receiving the whole time?

I’ve been using this thread as an opportunity to talk about a positive example, and that’s the marked increase in male childcare workers in Germany. I pointed out some masculine influencers doing good work. I bemoaned that much “X for women/girls” stuff is half-assed feel-good BS, prone to causing more harm than good (because half-assed, because it’s done for optics instead of the thing itself).

I’ve been constructive. I didn’t lash out and try to put people down for caring about their issues. I didn’t wrap people up in ass-long back and forth threads demanding justification after justification why they care just to find an excuse to pounce, then ride my high horse into the sunset.

Oh, and I also shot the horse of some guy.

I’m nowhere close to being an LLM specialist but to actually skew the model itself I think you need a lot of consistent data. Ten thousand alt-right blogs peddling a hundred thousand internally inconsistent and mutually incompatible narratives won’t cut it, they’ll criss-cross over the gradient landscape and because they don’t coincide, won’t make a dent in the deep groves trodden by pirating libgen. And training only on the alt-right blogs won’t cut it either that’s just not enough data which on top of that doesn’t sound smart enough to woo anyone, or have any resemblance of a consistent stance. Sure you’ll get it to claim ridiculous shit and use lots of slurs but 4chan managed to do that back in 2016 and noone was fooled.

Sure. Real men don’t cry. Real men aren’t weak. Real men toughen up and don’t complain. Real men don’t care about injustice if it’s them who are affected. That’s you.

Nothing to do with people in this thread being sexist: That’s your addition to justify your toxicity to yourself. Even if that is the case, that this threat is full of sexist assholes: You’re still taking a toxic approach to facing it.

I mean it’s specifically a girl’s coding class, I suppose there’s also open classes. Segregated resources are not the same as one side lacking resources.

The trouble with that kind of stuff is usually that the gendered version is some half-assed feel-good BS. There’s not a single martial artist, gender doesn’t matter, who respects “women’s self defence” courses because the stuff they teach there is, at best, useless. More often it’s actively dangerous placebo and reading the instructions for your pepper spray will be much, much more helpful.

Though I’d hardly acknowledge nearly anyone in this thread as a man. Weak shit.

Speaking of toxic masculinity…

I only see women being pushed into places with traditionally male majority, but not men being pushed into places with traditional female majority.

As a positive counter-example, I’d like to give a shoutout to German childcare. In 2022, 17.9% of under 20yolds, 12,6% of under 30yold childcare professionals were men, contrast with 2% among 60 and older. There’s been an active effort both from the professional organisations as well as operators to increase the ratio, right-out masterplanned it, and they’re making strides. As a side-effect: Plenty of young female childcare workers now don’t feel weird at all about wrestling with the boys. Not that “boys need movement because their gross motor skills develop before fine motor skills” was unknown back in my days but the vibe was either “grandma watching you build wood block towers” or “grandma watching you at the playground”.

There’s three aspects to this: They recognised that “women know better than men when it comes to childcare” is BS and recognition was given to masculine styles of parenting, with that the pattern of dealing with the few men that were in the field by “promoting them out of sight”, that is, into administration, was abolished, and finally an active push to advertise the job to men.

Not sure whether the ratio will ever reach 50:50 or whether that’s even important at all, stabilising at 1/3rd or such would be plenty to ensure that things are even-keeled. If you rather become a construction worker I’m not going to tell you to go into childcare instead, and vice versa, not everything that’s not 50:50 is due to gatekeeping. Women aren’t going to become saturation divers en masse, and that’s fine.

Masculine influencer. Another masculine influencer. Not going for “male influencer” here that’s just the top of my head list of people who a) happen to end up in my youtube feed and b) look really cool to pubescent boys. Silverback energy: Big, strong, just, kind.

Map (Int, Int) Int. Kind of a bad example because tuples have special-case infix syntax, the general case would be Map Int (Either Int Bool). Follows the same exact syntax as function application just that types (by enforced convention) start upper case. Modulo technical wibbles to ensure that type inference is possible you can consider type constructors to be functions from types to types.

…function application syntax is a story in itself in Haskell because foo a b c gets desugared to (((foo a) b) c): There’s only one-argument functions. If you want to have more arguments, accept an argument and return a function that accepts yet another argument. Then hide all that under syntactic sugar so that it looks innocent. And, of course, optimise it away when compiling. Thus you can write stuff like map (+5) xs in Haskell while other languages need the equivalent of map (\x -> x + 5) xs (imagine the \ is a lambda symbol).