JoshuaZ comments on Neo-reactionaries, why are you neo-reactionary? - Less Wrong

10 Post author: Capla 17 November 2014 10:31PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (616)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 19 November 2014 01:14:53AM 9 points [-]

I'm puzzled by your focus on women. Many men probably don't want to live in a patriarchal society either. I certainly don't.

That's aside from the fact that this really has very little to do with the subject at hand. There's a distinct question of what you expect will happen and what one should try to make happen.

Comment author: CellBioGuy 20 November 2014 04:11:51AM *  4 points [-]

I'm puzzled by your focus on women. Many men probably don't want to live in a patriarchal society either. I certainly don't.

Thirded. My disquiet comes primarily from the idea of benefiting in status and power from a system that would systematically deny freedom and independent agency and security to half the people I know, and the notion that I would be denied the freedom to take on roles usually assigned to other groups should the situation warrant it.

Comment author: [deleted] 22 November 2014 11:50:23AM 1 point [-]

Fourthed.

Comment author: [deleted] 19 November 2014 08:27:26AM 0 points [-]

I'm puzzled by your focus on women. Many men probably don't want to live in a patriarchal society either. I certainly don't.

Seconded. Dear Lord patriarchy is unappealing: you "get to" basically enslave a few women and children at the cost of having to spend your entire life on utterly unappealing status and machismo competitions.

Comment author: Azathoth123 20 November 2014 04:11:55AM *  2 points [-]

Dear Lord patriarchy is unappealing: you "get to" basically enslave a few women and children at the cost of having to spend your entire life on utterly unappealing status and machismo competitions.

What do you mean by "status and machismo competitions"? Narrowly defined, in many patriarchal societies this is false. Seriously, read some history. Take a look at say 18th-19th century England. Some men could do many different things from becoming ascetic monks, to becoming gentlemen scientists, to sponsoring works of art, to yes even status and machismo competitions if that suites your fancy.

If you define "status and machismo competitions" broadly then we're mostly doing the same thing today.

Comment author: polymathwannabe 21 November 2014 02:10:32PM 6 points [-]

I still don't get why you'd prefer to live in a world where women cannot do all those awesome things as well.

Comment author: [deleted] 20 November 2014 08:11:46AM 1 point [-]

If you define "status and machismo competitions" broadly then we're mostly doing the same thing today.

Your mistake here was thinking I enjoy what we have today.

Comment author: Azathoth123 20 November 2014 09:27:00AM 1 point [-]

Ok, then you won't be any more disappointed up on waking up in a patriarchy.

Comment author: TheAncientGeek 22 November 2014 02:58:27PM 0 points [-]

Of course there were plenty of options...they were post enlightenment societies.