Azathoth123 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: 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.