Tags
DIY, domestic, femininity, IKEA, modern life, parenting, raising daughters, red pill, some assembly required
Yesterday, my oldest daughter and I picked up a bookcase she has long admired from IKEA for a birthday gift.
She’s been showing a lot of interest in decorating and rearranging her room over the past few years, something I have encouraged as I see it as practice for feathering and keeping her future home as an adult.
She’s shown herself to be quite creative and frugal — repurposing, restyling, and reusing items or moving them around and mixing things up to create fresh new spaces.
Shes also adopted a “less is more” approach, and has already learned that her room looks better and is easier to keep tidy if there’s less “extra stuff” in it.
She loves to study images of home decor, getting ideas and inspiration for seasonal touches or ways to make her room more cozy, comfortable, and inviting. All in all I think these are all good things to be learning and exploring not to mention practice for the future. She could certainly be interested in less wholesome teenage pursuits and I am so thankful that she’s not.
But back to the bookcase. It was an adventure for us to go to the store, admire the various showroom displays filled with creative and appealing ideas, find the bookcase, load it onto the cart together, then into and out of the car, pack the big box into the house, and assemble it.
I am not the most handy person but I was the handiest of the two so my daughter looked to me to lead the way. We read through the instructions and got down to it. I gathered the tools and we went to work, step-by-step. Luckily there were no major snafus and after an hour or so of good mother-daughter bonding the bookcase was built.
As we were nearly done it occurred to me that we had just experienced the IKEA illusion — that with few skills or tools two rather not-handy people could successfully build something themselves!
I seized the teachable moment and we had a really interesting discussion about this illusion and how often in modern life we forget that for most of the history of humankind things did not come pre-cut, pre-drilled, pre-painted in a box with instructions.
We assembled the bookcase, but we did not make it. Without those who designed, engineered, planned, sourced the materials, cut, painted, drilled, packaged, and sold the bookcase, we would not have had that moment. Because of them, we could.
It was an interesting thing to reflect on and I could tell she understood. We may have successfully put it together but that’s does not mean we “built” that bookcase or that we now have all the knowledge and skill to build bookcases independently on our own in the future. It’s only an illusion that we, “did it ourselves.”
In any case, it looks great and she’s happily reorganizing, decorating, and dreaming of ways to make her little nest more cozy. It was a fun experience and an unexpected red pill moment!
What do you think? Please share in the comments.
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
@Liz
No, I live on the opposite coast, it wouldn’t have been that one. It’s likely I am misremembering which disease it was.
‘WELCOME BACK”
Thanks! 🙂
i have no problems with homeopathy; we use a lot of natural remedies and medicine here. i’d rather use that first. but i’m not against traditional meds either. imo, there’s a balance. when my daughter’s having an allergic reaction, airways are closing up, in obvious distress, i’m not wondering if there’s a natural remedy for her … i’m jamming epinephrine in her thigh and calling 911.
i’m on the fence about vaccinations. i think they’re over-used and a lot of them are fear-based. i think it’s wrong that they mix several together and force you to inject yourself with several just to get a tetanus shot; that’s just wrong. i think it’s wrong they shove multiple shots into tiny systems out of fear the parents will not bring their children in multiple times for multiple shots. i think it’s wrong to be forced to follow certain medical procedures in a ‘free’ society. and i’m super grateful my kids are both over 18, and i don’t have to deal with a lot of stupid-govt controlling things anymore … gov’t controlling things in our ‘free’ country.
i have no problems with people having different opinions. i do have a problem with them forcing their opinions on me and mine.
@Ame asked: Richard – does it bother you that she made an effort for your paths to cross? or does it bother you she didn’t admit it until years later? or all of the above?
The best answer I can give is that it was the beginning of my education that men love idealistically while women love opportunistically (a subject discussed by SSM and either Rollo or Dalrock, don’t remember which at the moment). I found the idea a bit unsettling. That concept was not fully formed in my head when I learned what had really happened. But that is the issue that was brought to my thoughts as a result of this.
My thoughts on the matter of guy/girl relationships were a bit like what Dawn has discussed here. It seemed to me that the proper way to address the issue of liking someone was to just talk to them about it and be done with it. Find some way to let them know. I had had a couple of superficial relationships by the time I met my wife and that was pretty much the way they happened. But then, that was with girls I had known for a while. Wife was new to town and we were new to each other. If she had not intentionally placed herself in my path as she did, it is likely we would have never gotten together. She was going with someone from the town they had just moved from and because of that I would not have pursued her.
This is an example of clueless guy thinking: Find some way to let them know. That is what I thought then (and now). And that is exactly what she did. But upon learning of it, all I could think of was that I had been manipulated. I got over it. But it was obvious at the time that I had to make a concious choice to replace the memory of what I thought had taken place with the new understanding of what actually did take place. Which was the point I was making to Dawn . Do you swallow the new knowledge or do you hang on to the old way of thinking? A weak example of Red Pill versus Blue Pill. That was only the first of many such moments wherein I came to understand – oh, that’s what women do. They come to relationships from a totally different frame of reference than guys do (for the most part). The manosphere over the past few years has been good at giving guys a jump-start at learning these things – things that men may have never learned all of before the age of the internet.
I learned the slow way that women come to relationships from a different frame of reference than guys do, for the most part. A learning which triggered my interest in an issue that I commented on somewhere on one of these blogs recently – about the research that has been done on the development of moral reasoning (google on that phrase if interested). A lot of the guys in the manosphere debate whether women have agency – and then point to whether women make the same “moral” choices that men do. The research has shown that women have a set of morals that drive their choices that is fundamentally different from what men have. Many men expect women to be making choices from the men’s frame of reference and have no clue that women are making choices based on their own, different, frames of reference. At its most basic (and in general), women make choices / show agency from the perspective of what choices / behavior will best advance their desire to make babies and make babies in the safest and most stable circumstances possible (at its most basic, wife putting herself into a position to be seen by me was driven by this). The moral reasoning that men develop is not driven by this and so some men end up being baffled by the fact that women make different moral / behavior choices than they do.
Kipling had a good handle on this, as shown by this poem The Female of the Species – particularly the second-to-last stanza
Richard –
This is an example of clueless guy thinking:
‘clueless’ tends to make one think ‘stupid’ … so i don’t think it’s the best word here. realizing that men and women do not think alike does not make us previously clueless … it makes us normal, imo. it’s normal that we don’t think like what we’re not. it’s normal that men and women are different, that we think differently, etc. if ‘clueless’ is the best term, then most women live with clueless girl thinking … but many, esp in this day and age, take it further in that they don’t care.
Find some way to let them know. That is what I thought then (and now). And that is exactly what she did. But upon learning of it, all I could think of was that I had been manipulated.
that’s very interesting … i would not have thought that myself, but now that you mention it, i can clearly see that. i find that reading out here, what you men think, helps me understand the male frame … things i had no clue 🙂 about (well, maybe clueless is a good word 😉 ).
But it was obvious at the time that I had to make a concious choice to replace the memory of what I thought had taken place with the new understanding of what actually did take place. Which was the point I was making to Dawn . Do you swallow the new knowledge or do you hang on to the old way of thinking? A weak example of Red Pill versus Blue Pill.
actually … that’s a pretty strong example. that’s what TRP is about … replacing what we believed to be true but was not with what is actually true.
Many men expect women to be making choices from the men’s frame of reference and have no clue that women are making choices based on their own, different, frames of reference.
🙂
yes.
🙂
and wise is the man who understands this.
and difficult to teach to the one (male or female) who does not want to hear.
@Ame
I don’t take any issue with natural remedies either, but homeopathy is not part of that. Specifically, homeopathy is defined as “the treatment of disease by minute doses of natural substances that in a healthy person would produce symptoms of disease”, such as someone taking a few drop of saliva from a rabid animal, diluting it in a lot of water, then having the patient consume it/inject it. Best case scenario, it does absolutely nothing… worst case, it’ll actually cause the disease. That’s very different than people using poultices or herbal remedies that were previously shown to work due to active components we still use in modern medicine.
Regarding vaccines, I do think the government pushes some of them more than they need to (like urging *everyone* to get a flu shot every single year). But the only way we can keep the terrifying diseases like rubella, polio, mumps, chicken pox, etc down to such small levels and use herd immunity to protect people who are physically unable to receive said vaccinations is to try and ensure as many people get them as possible.
I learned the slow way that women come to relationships from a different frame of reference than guys do, for the most part. A learning which triggered my interest in an issue that I commented on somewhere on one of these blogs recently – about the research that has been done on the development of moral reasoning (google on that phrase if interested). A lot of the guys in the manosphere debate whether women have agency – and then point to whether women make the same “moral” choices that men do.
I admit to not only being an introvert but also having only a small amount of friends, who are almost entirely men, so I don’t interact with many women in a close/meaningful way. It’s well within the realm of possibility that my sex has a different path of defining morality than males do. But speaking as an atheist who has had to defend the very existence of her morality and/or try to convince Christians that faith isn’t a necessary component…it is bizarre to learn that there are also people who think we don’t have agency or ethical reasoning simply because we’re women. I’m used to such arguments coming from the religious sector, not the male one lol. My immediate response would be “yes, of course women are agents, and have morals”. Now, whether those morals are actually followed is a different matter entirely. Remember, there are large amounts of women (and men) who live by the code of “Do as I say, not as I do”. These people have morals… but are hypocrites.
The research has shown that women have a set of morals that drive their choices that is fundamentally different from what men have. Many men expect women to be making choices from the men’s frame of reference and have no clue that women are making choices based on their own, different, frames of reference. At its most basic (and in general), women make choices / show agency from the perspective of what choices / behavior will best advance their desire to make babies and make babies in the safest and most stable circumstances possible (at its most basic, wife putting herself into a position to be seen by me was driven by this).
But this makes up such an incredibly small amount of moral decisions, even amongst women who are seeking relationships and looking to procreate. There’s a multitude of other scenarios in ones daily or weekly life that could conceivably test one’s moral compass. What about telling white lies to your friends, omitting important personality traits or financial issues when dating, deciding whether or not to shoplift? How about making a decision to help a mama duck and her babies cross a busy street vs driving by knowing at least one will probably die? What about deciding to give the homeless guy at the corner a full breakfast and your uncle’s business card when he’s looking for day labourers vs choosing to be apathetic to his situation?
I don’t know, Richard. There doesn’t seem to be a way to extrapolate a woman’s overall morality based only on how she acts when mate hunting… and that’s even working under the assumption that she will be manipulative in that circumstance too.
Dawn…scientific materialism. “That particular term carries some pejorative weight from creationists” No pejorative connotation intended. I’m using the term in the philosophical sense: the belief that everything, including human thought and emotions, is explicable in terms of the laws of nature, even though we may have incomplete knowledge of those laws at any given time.
@David
Oh, I definitely didn’t mean to insinuate that you were saying so. Just that previous conversations I’ve had it was misused. Yes, that is what I think. We don’t have all the answers, but are getting closer and closer as we grow in our scientific understanding of the world. Until such a time we can answer everything (if that’s even possible), it is perfectly fine to admit the most honest answer is “I don’t know”.
“But the only way we can keep the terrifying diseases like rubella, polio, mumps, chicken pox, etc down to such small levels”
Is chicken pox truly a “terrifying disease” Dawn?
Rubella is truly terrifying…but only for newborns.
So women should be immunized for potential pregnancies.
Measles really isn’t so terrifying. I’m glad it isn’t ubiquitous anymore…but it wasn’t really something former generations would generally classify as “terrifying”.
The chickenpox vaccine has created a shingles pandemic. Shingles sucks worse than chickenpox.
Yes, polio is bad. Let me say in no uncertain terms (I’ll use bold even):
It’s very good we have vaccinations against polio.
“But muh polio!” has become the standard response to ANY criticism of vaccines.
I think it’s important to understand that just because some vaccines are really good, that this shouldn’t be taken to mean all vaccines are really good.
“I think it’s important to understand that just because some vaccines are really good, that this shouldn’t be taken to mean all vaccines are really good.”
Right. There are a few that are pretty scary actually. I thought the CDC came out with something in the last couple of years where they admitted that some of them are being linked to the increase in autism in children?
If anyone’s had babies recently and seen how many vaccines they try to give them at the same time every few months… it is a little scary. We say ‘no” a lot and just force the doctor to move at a slower pace for our kids.
And the HPV vaccine Gardasil has a lot of information documented on how “not good” it is.
I knew a woman from a Bible study group a couple of years ago, whose daughter got the HPV vaccine and for her “adverse reaction” she went into menopause… in her teens 😥 It completely destroyed her reproductive health and capabilities with one shot.
I think if you search for it, there are other cases out there like that. And they’re pushing that vaccine on boys, too.
Here’s where at least one study confirmed the premature ovarian failure caused by that vaccine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23902317/
The chickenpox vaccine has created a shingles pandemic. Shingles sucks worse than chickenpox.
i really worry about that with my girls 😦
I think it’s important to understand that just because some vaccines are really good, that this shouldn’t be taken to mean all vaccines are really good.
yes. yes. yes.
i think the really scary thing, for me anyway, with medications and vaccinations, is that the truth is so buried under political and monetary gains by untold numbers of people who stand in line to benefit in such ways from them, that one is forced to question every.freakin.thing. and then trying to figure out the truth in there is just.so.scary.
my girls’ dad would not go against the public school system, and the system said they needed vaccinations, so they got them. i was able to have them delayed and spread out.
i’m just really leery and cautious when medicating without definite need. now that my aspie girl is 18, she has enjoyed being able to tell med professionals ‘no’ regarding certain treatments 🙂 … she hadn’t enjoyed ‘needing’ to have those considered, but she’s enjoyed the freedom to choose.
hpv is one of the scariest things to come out that i know of. truly, truly scary – and they market it sooo young. and the hovering fear that medical professionals or others in ‘authority’ can just come take your kids away b/c someone determines discriminately that you’re not doing your job … guilty till proven innocent … and then give your kids whatever medications/medical treatment they want. it’s really scary. i know of a lot of parents who avoid doctors and such for just these reasons. it’s really really hard to find a doc you can trust.
The CDC does not accept correlation/causation links between vaccinations and autism. A big problem is “control” groups in those studies. It isn’t ethical to tell a patient they’re being immunized and then inoculate them with a placebo. Animals don’t get autism. But we do have some groups that could be observed as a control.
https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2005/12/07/The-Age-of-Autism-A-pretty-big-secret/UPI-68291133982531/
Anecdotes aren’t evidence but when literally tens of thousands of parents are noticing the same thing, seems very likely there is a correlation. For years I had acne due to inflammation from a wheat allergy. The dermatologists would smirk smugly when I suggested the culprit might be diet, and hand me another expensive bottle of topical cream with some sort of sandpaper scrubber for my face.
I have a pharmacist friend who got RA (rheumatoid arthritis) at 20 years old. She’s convinced the series of vaccinations she was required to receive within a very short timeframe to enter the school of Pharmacy was the contributing factor. This isn’t a moron, she has a PhD and knows everything the government requires to qualify as an expert in the field of vaccination studies. She has managed her RA without any medication, just diet, for over 2 decades (low inflammation diet). The doctors can’t believe it.
“I have a pharmacist friend who got RA (rheumatoid arthritis) at 20 years old. She’s convinced the series of vaccinations she was required to receive within a very short timeframe to enter the school of Pharmacy was the contributing factor. This isn’t a moron, she has a PhD and knows everything the government requires to qualify as an expert in the field of vaccination studies. She has managed her RA without any medication, just diet, for over 2 decades (low inflammation diet). The doctors can’t believe it.”
So many stories and people right? 😥
My husband and I are friends with a woman whose infant died THE DAY AFTER he received a ton of “normal” vaccines for his age range. It’s normal for them to try to force babies to get 3-7 vaccines in the same day.
Anyway… he got them, and then died the next morning in his crib of unknown causes. It was extremely traumatic to say the least for his parents and all of us who knew them. And of course they decided it was just “SIDS,” nothing at all related to all those vaccines he had the day before.
@Liz, I’m sure you’re right. I swear I thought I saw (a putty cat! JK LOL) something come out a couple of years ago where they admitted it was possibly causing autism.
They make so many mistakes!!! I never knew how untrustworthy NIH and the CDC were until I worked developing vaccines.
it’s all sooo scary. i saw before and after pics of babies/children when my aspie girl was in PT when she was little. the moms were heartbroken 😦
the one thing i really like about this allergist we’re seeing for her with this new crazy allergy is that he is treating her individually and not ‘according to protocol.’ he said something like ‘those who determine the protocol have decided that right now the best thing is ____, but i don’t think that’s what’s best for her.’ RELIEF! a doc who can think for himself … who understands that just b/c it’s ‘protocol’ right now doesn’t mean it’s right or best for every patient. and that it seems that a good part of this protocol is fear-based – or in the very least CYA.
i have friends who have done much more extensive research than i ever will and have better scientific minds than i do, and they’re saying that there is a generational effect, too.
and diet is SO huge … and now so scary with all the poisons used on crops that are now in our soils since the ’50’s. one doc was telling me that there’s a significant increase in adult anaphylactic allergies that is unprecedented in history.
my daughter has had five anaphylactic reactions since march, 3 with epi injections, 2 ER visits, and they can’t figure out what it’s to b/c it’s not a ‘natural’ substance. they’ve tested her for everything. but they don’t have tests for synthetic foods. we can’t find one ingredient that is common. it’s really, really scary – esp as her last reaction was much more severe than the previous ones. waiting on results of a ‘serum tryptase’ test from the last one to see if it tells us anything (added that for Liz and Stephanie – and am feeling quite proud that i even remember the name of it! 😉 ).
epinephrine, which has no contraindications, does have side effects. poor thing … it’s been hard on her body 😦
That’s awful about the baby who died of SIDs, Stephanie. 😦
Ame, I’m so sorry to hear about your daughter’s anaphylaxis, that’s really scary. 😦
There are definitely more allergies than before (did anyone know a kid in the 80s who couldn’t eat peanut butter? they’re everywhere now).
Hard to say what it is…probably a combination of things. I try to buy organic when I can…one reason I’m looking forward to owning some property (to have fresh chicken eggs and grow my own vegetables).
Changing the subject:
@Ame said: ‘clueless’ tends to make one think ‘stupid’ … so i don’t think it’s the best word here.
Until a man has lived with a woman, he is clueless in many ways about <…what women do. That is not a negative statement. It is a statement of fact. The same goes for women. Why would a man have a reaon to know how a woman thinks, at the level of where she lives day to day, until he has had a chance to see the choices she makes and her reasons for them. The same goes for women. Fortunately, the internet and blogs like these are changing that reality. Folks sharing their life experiences should make for a shorter learning curve for any young folks who are reading.
Blame it On the Moon – Bob Seger – could be titled “Get a Clue”
Until you’ve been beside a man
You don’t know what he wants
You don’t know if he cries at night
You don’t know if he don’t
Where nothing comes easy, old nightmares are real
Until you’ve been beside a man
You don’t know how he feels
Once inside a woman’s heart
A man must keep his head
Heaven opens up the door
Where angels fear to tread
Some men go crazy, some men go slow
Some men go just where they want
Some men never go
Oh, blame it on midnight
Ooh, shame on the moon
Everywhere is all around
Comfort in the crowd
Stranger’s faces all round
Laughing right out loud
Hey, watch where you’re goin’
Step light on old toes
Until you’ve been beside a man
You don’t know who he knows
Oh, blame it on midnight
Ooh, shame on the moon
Oh, blame it on midnight
Ooh, shame on the moon
@Dawn said: But this makes up such an incredibly small amount of moral decisions …
The research to which I referred re. the development of moral reasoning has nothing to do with “morals” as defined in religious circles. You would really have to read a number of the research abstracts to see what they are getting at. But Rudyard Kipling’s poem that I linked to raises many of the issues that are explored in the research on the development of moral reasoning.
Women have the ability to carry life within them. For those who value this ability, and for those who actually get pregnant and give live birth multiple times, their outlook on what is important is going to be different than a man’s outlook. Women tend to build community, regardless of whether they can or want to birth live babies; men tend to feed and defend that community. Two totally separate activities, requiring totally different mind sets and skill sets. (Many women who aren’t invested in creating babies still get caught up in the community-building part of what women do.) In a non-religious sense, morals are those principles that are defended because they are necessary for keeping the respective skill sets intact. Choosing those things that will help build or preserve your group’s spot in the larger circle of life is considered being moral. GIven that mens and womens spot in the larger circle of life are different, the morals that inform their choices are likewise going to be different. It is the unwise man who thinks he knows the choices his wife will make because she thinks just like him. Maybe she does. But in most cases she doesn’t – even if she pretends to. Before the industrial revolution and the advent of labor saving devices made possible by oil, the distinctions between mens and womens worlds, and the differences in what they considered moral, was more obvious. Our conversation at Spawnys about farms a thread or two back highlights that.
My goal by referring to the development of moral reasoning was not to prove any particular point but to pique the interest of those passing by who might want to go do more research on their own.
yeah, Liz, it really has been scary. it’s all been in the last few months, too.
her last reaction was at camp, and it was by far the worst. thankfully, VERY thankfully, they had a great nurse whom i had talked to at length before she went. when she saw the counselor bringing her in, she knew what was happening and was prepared.
her allergist told us not to hesitate using the epi injector b/c the cases that fail (read … people who die 😦 ) are the ones who wait too long before using it.
at camp, there was a longer interval between reaction and successful injection, which i think factored into her being in such distress by the time the EMT’s arrived. the first injection wasn’t complete – user error i believe … the woman who injected her didn’t hold it in long enough, and some of the medicine leaked out.
anyway … it’s frustrating no knowing what that ingredient is. is it in the food? is it in the packaging? the questions are endless.
so far she’s not had any reaction at home – i’ve become more and more particular over the years with food and food choices. AND … she’s not allergic to chick fil a! 🙂
but every time i turn around i hear something new … like, you’d think she could stick to salads, but then i hear they spray salad greens with chemicals to keep them fresh at restaurants. ugh.
i agree … and i understand using the word. i just think the word, clueless, gives the connotation that not only does one not know something … but they are incapable of learning. that’s my personal opinion.
my first husband and i were married 13 years before our first baby was born, and it’s sad how terribly we were treated by other couples (all in the church, of course) b/c we didn’t have children. they were very condescending. how could i know what it’s like to be a mother if i’d never been a mother?
using ‘clueless’ in the strict sense of the word was appropriate, but it also has a condescending connotation, imo 🙂
Dawn…”But this (decisions related to mate-hunting) makes up such an incredibly small amount of moral decisions, even amongst women who are seeking relationships and looking to procreate. There’s a multitude of other scenarios in ones daily or weekly life that could conceivably test one’s moral compass.”
Thing is, though, the evolutionary logic of mating-related characteristics also would seem to drive a lot of other aspects of life. For example: if a man decides to pursue a very high-risk career or hobby…and he gets 5 women pregnant before getting killed himself…then he has succeeded, from an evolutionary point of view. But if a woman pursues that same high-risk career or hobby…and has sex with 5 different men before getting killed herself…then she probably has not, from an evolutionary point of view, succeeded.
So it is logical that men would be incentivized to take more risks than women, and there would be no evolutionary incentive to be attracted to risk-taking women.
It is hard to see how such conclusions could be avoided unless either one assumes evolution is false OR evolution has very little to do with human behavior, at least at any detailed level.
And even in that case, memes might well take the place of genes in driving differential behavior between the sexes.
@RichardP
We may be talking past one another. Could you give me your definition of morality? Mine is “that which causes the least amount of harm towards a group or individual, preferably approaching as close to zero as possible”. Thus, I’m against things like manipulation, narcissism, misandry, misogyny, theft, murder, slavery, rape, unnecessary lies, racism, abuse, etc. However, I think the majority of the West has very similar morals.
I’m gonna just jump in here. Hope people don’t mind. i’m pretty good at observation, actually damn good at it. And calling people out on their shit, and good at that too. When they don’t own up to it … for sure. So, I’m gonna call this one. Dawn is legit. She’s an Aspie, so deal with it. That’s all she is expecting and wanting. No lies. No bullshit. She’s just giving it to you straight out … its how they are.
But here is what most people and maybe even Dawn herself doesn’t realize. We are not on the same plane. The same planet … hence, wrong planet. I think of it this way and if you think I’m wrong, I don’t care. I think of it this way, Aspies are the new humans. Or the old humans. Just not human. Not NORMIE and that is what they call us. NORMIES. Cause its true. They are different and they are not wrong, and may very well be right. Just different from us. Think different. Act different. Different from them. And there are more and more of them all the time. And that’s not a bad thing, and may very well be a good thing. Just an observation. More and more aspies all the time. While humans plunge down the shit hole, rabbit hole
Its kinda like trying to communicate with a different species. Human meet Aspie. Is human better ? Or is aspie better ? Kinda hard to ;pick, if you ask me.
Guess I wanna throw this back on Dawn. Do you really think you can learn from a different species ? They are total retards, but not all of them. Some make sense. Most don’t. Kinda like a human and a dog. Humans understand dogs and most dogs to them make sense. Would any of them want a dog in charge of their lives ? The difference is that the diff between a dog and a human is great … the difference between a human and an aspie … not so much. Kinda like asking a human, wanna put a retard with an IQ of 80 in charge of your life ? And most, if they realize what 80 really means … would say no. Nope. Nadda. No retard in charge of my life. Kinda like aspies, when they realize that most normies are retards. But they aren’t all retards. So … who to listen to, and who not to ?
That’s about it. Dawn … I declare you legit. We aren’t go to agree on much of anything but you know what .. I respect your opinion. And hope you respect mine. Even though, I bark, have a tail, and smell like a dog.
Yeah, that last bit was an attempt at humor.
LOL Mega 🙂
you certainly add creative spice to our world! and that’s a good thing 🙂
i agree that Dawn is legit.
and i love aspies … of course, i’m a bit partial, and that’s always allowed with a Mama 🙂
Some of my favorite people are probably somewhere on the spectrum. Very smart, not always understood, but true blue.
Dawn, we are not talking past each other.
@Dawn said: Could you give me your definition of morality?
No.
Because I have not been talking about morality, mine or anyone elses. I referenced the research on the development of moral reasoning. Big difference. My point was that the research shows women develop moral reasoning that is different from men’s moral reasoning. That reasoning is driven by the need to build and maintain community – the making of and caring for babies. But also the old folks. So they see choices as “moral” that serve to develop or maintain that community (short version). Most men are not driven by the need to build or maintain community. They are driven by a need to feed and protect the community. So they see choices as “moral” that serve to develop or maintain that ability to feed and protect. Any behavior that would jeapordize the men’s ability to do that is discouraged. (short version)
Lots of things fall out of discussions about the basis of men’s moral reasoning versus women’s moral reasoning. Not the least of which is that many men think women do not engage in moral reasoning at all because they don’t choose like men do.
Some folks believe that, if they can’t see it, it doesn’t exist. Many men don’t “see” women’s moral reasoning and the basis upon which they make choices that they see as moral. And so the men conclude that women lack agency and morals. It was this conclusion that women aren’t moral and lack agency that I was addressing by referring to the research on the development of moral reasoning – since it shows in much greater detail the basics of what I have just described about the different basis that drives moral reasoning / choices between men and women..
Dawn, In a post on the first page above, I said: At its most basic (and in general), women make choices / show agency from the perspective of what choices / behavior will best advance their desire to make babies and make babies in the safest and most stable circumstances possible … I should have simply said there what I said above: at its most basic, women make choices from the perspective of what choices / behavior will best help create and maintain community. Because that is what I meant – even though I used other words. A woman finding someone she considers sponge-worthy (mate-worthy) and putting herself in his path in such a manner that he can’t help but notice her is a very basic part of creating a family (husband & wife) – which in itself is a very basic part of creating and maintain community.
Dawn – I think we’ve taken this as far as is useful, short of you googling the phrase development of moral reasoning and reading the articles for a few months. However, I want to point out that you objected to my less-clear statement referenced in the previous paragraph. You gave examples of other moral choices that could be made. Every single one of those examples could be said to be something involved in either the creation of or maintenance of community (women’s moral domain). You gave not one example of moral choices that would be involved in the feeding or the protecting of the community from outside threats (men’s moral domain). You may not see it yet – but you proved the point I was making by the examples you chose to provide. Your focus was on community and the protection of same (the part about shoplifting would be a part of maintaining harmony in the community).
We will engage again on other issues, I am sure. But I can’t say anything more to help you understand my point about why some men think that women are not moral and don’t have agency – because women are choosing based on a different frame of reference than men’s choices are based on.
@Mega
Thanks for saying I’m legit, that was kind of you and I appreciate it. One thing I’d like to clarify though, is that I don’t believe most non-autistic people are of significantly lower intelligence or not worth listening to. Rather, I have a great appreciation for my friends and boyfriends, none of whom are on the spectrum because they provide insights, typically emotional ones, that I have difficulty accessing. For example, when I first started going to a psychologist/counseling group, he gave me the Stanford-Binet IQ test and I scored a 137…not a genius (that requires 140+) but definitely higher than normal. However, he also gave me an emotional intelligence test, including pictures of people making various facial expressions, and I scored below average even though I am quite capable of empathizing with people’s written words. As such, I view “normies” (can’t say I’ve ever used that term before either… similar to how I’m childfree but don’t refer to parents as “breeders”. It may be true, but sounds derogatory) simply as different. It’s like how I view men as different than me, but still my equals when considering their civil rights and how I should treat them. Likewise, non-autistic women are far more emotional and difficult to understand than most men, but I don’t think of them as inferior either. It’s like being caught on a biological fence in a way…male vs female, logical vs emotional, IQ vs EQ. Both are definitely needed, in an individual and in society at large.
@RichardP
Because I have not been talking about morality, mine or anyone elses. I referenced the research on the development of moral reasoning.
I will have to find a podcast or YouTube channel discussing this then, so I can become more knowledgeable on the subject.
However, I want to point out that you objected to my less-clear statement referenced in the previous paragraph. You gave examples of other moral choices that could be made. Every single one of those examples could be said to be something involved in either the creation of or maintenance of community (women’s moral domain). You gave not one example of moral choices that would be involved in the feeding or the protecting of the community from outside threats (men’s moral domain). You may not see it yet – but you proved the point I was making by the examples you chose to provide.
I see your point, but in my defense I wasn’t thinking of the situations I’ve been in where I or someone else was in physical danger, only situations that might come up in normal, daily living. I could reference the time I had to decide whether or not to fight back against a man I saw hitting a child outside a Starbucks (I didn’t raise my hands to the male in question, and instead put myself between him and the boy). Or I could talk about the time I was faced with a large snarling dog who was running after my little sister, and I pushed her to the ground and covered her body with my own so she wouldn’t be hurt. (Thankfully the dog only bit me once and just kept latched to that one spot until our uncle could grab a stick.) As I live in middle-class North America and am not in the military, I haven’t experienced many situations where I have needed to be protective of others in a nonverbal way. Perhaps I’m still misunderstanding you, and you’ll say that these are still examples of “building the community” rather than “protecting the community”, but maybe you’ll be kind enough to give examples of the latter. If you’re interested in continuing this conversation of course. If not, just say so and I won’t be offended.
@Dawm said: … in my defense … Hopefully you were using that phrase in a neutral sense. I wasn’t criticizing what you said, so no need to defend yourself, other than as a figure of speech.
On this subject, I am referring to articles in the professional research journals. I will be surprised if you find any podcasts that read those articles to you. Maybe you will find some that discuss the topic in general terms.
Here is a link to other links that you might find interesting to explore. Kohlberg, Piaget, and Bandura are some of the names that I recognize from earlier research done on this subject. I’ve scanned some of the more recent research on women’s development of moral reasoning, but am not familiar with any particular names that have emerged as more referenced than others.
If you run across any research in this field on the development of moral reasoning in folks on the spectrum, you might say something in whatever thread is current when you shout out. Off topic posts are allowed so long as they are somehow related to the overall theme of interpersonal relationships – which is really what is being discussed in this corner of the manosphere.
Development of Moral Reasoning
@Dawn said: Perhaps I’m still misunderstanding you, and you’ll say that these are still examples of “building the community” rather than “protecting the community”,
My immediate response was that, yes, these are more examples of keeping peace in the community. So you have proven that you are not misunderstanding me.
The community needs to be built and maintained. That is generally the domain of women, and thus the domain of women’s moral reasoning (so goes the professional argument). Any defensive maneuvers within the community, as you have just described, could be considered part of maintaining the community.
The community needs to be fed and defended against those who would intrude from the outside of the community to take what belongs to the community. That is generally the domain of men, and thus the domain of men’s moral reasoning.
As is usually the case when discussing boundaries that divide one concept from another, there is some overlap here across the inside/outside the community dividing line.. But, in a general sense, those distinctions hold.
I don’t think it would be useful to start listing details and specific examples here, because that invites debate and disagreement and maybe arguing. Instead, if you are going to continue reading here and Spawny’s place and maybe Dalrock’s place, listen to the comments made by the women versus the comments made by the men. In terms of the subjects / issues they are discussing, do they lie mainly in the domain of developing and maintaining community (from the inside) or do they lie mainly in the domain of feeding and defending the community against outsiders? If you read long enough and widely enough around here, you will start to see a pattern. But, as someone on the spectrum, maybe not? (rhetorical; no need to answer)
Dawn, I think I can probably give this example without generating a lot of debate or arguing. It highlights in a general sense the issues involved in the comments I have made above. This link is from the list of links I gave 2 posts back.
Which door do you choose (rhetorical): Life, or Property Rights
Fellow A’s wife is dying of cancer. Fellow B has developed a cure. But will only sell it for ten times what it cost to make. Fellow A cannot afford the price. Without the cure, Fellow A’s wife will die.
In terms of moral reasoning, it is assumed that women will choose life and men will choose property rights, as that is normally their go-to positions.
It is assumed that women will argue that life is more important than things and so it would be immoral for the man to just let his wife die when a cure is available. The moral choice would be to break into Fellow A’s shop and steal the cure. Life always trumps things. Fellow A will be praised for choosing life.
It is assumed that men will argue that, if one does not defend property rights, no one will take the risk of developing cures for other maladies, or develop a better way of toasting bread or harvesting wheat. In order to protect the larger community’s access to future innovation, property rights must be defended at all costs – even if it has unwelcomed repercussions for an individual or small groups of people. It would be immoral for Fellow A to violate the property rights of Fellow B. The moral choice would be to find some way to obtain the cure without violating Fellow B’s property rights. Failing that, Fellow A must just let his wife die. That’s what would have happened anyway if Fellow B had not developed the cure. Property rights are more important than any single individual or small group of folks. Fellow A will be punished, to made an example of, for disregarding property rights.
And so on.
@RichardP
Thank you for the example. It actually serves to highlight how being female doesn’t necessarily mean one would choose the stereotypical “feminine morality”. I agree that, unfortunately, someone’s hard work, research, and property rights come above that of a single…or even quite a few…lives. My reasoning behind this is that we have laws protecting people’s property, and to allow someone else to steal it is immoral. Theft is immoral, even when done for a noble cause. Rather, I’d argue that there are other paths to attempt to obtain the cure that the husband could take. He could create a townwide petition to make it more affordable, write a strong and heartfelt letter to the creator asking for mercy, ask his family or neighborhood for financial assistance, etc.
All I know is, without boundaries and laws for men and women to follow, we reap naught but anarchy.
@Dawn said: All I know is, without boundaries and laws for men and women to follow, we reap naught but anarchy.
And … if you get into the weeds in this moral reasoning thing, you will see arguments that – because community comes before anything else for women, generally – their sense of what the boundaries and laws should be are different from what men think. Because men are thinking in different terms. Which plays out in the following way – which, again, is a generalization. But if you listen carefully in the manosphere, you will hear comments that indicate the commenter is speaking from one side or the other as described below:
1. One of the ways that moral reasoning plays itself out:
a. He governs best who governs least – implies that people, mostly left to themselves, will be industrious.
b. Hypergamy = getting the best source of resources one is capable of getting.
If women are generally governed by hypergamy, getting the best source of resources they can attract for themselves and their children, then the industrious folks in Point 1(a) are not going to be women – they will mostly be men.
With the advent of The Great Society in 1964 (see the Wikipedia entry for that title), women have increasingly come to see the government, not a husband, as the best source of resources Chart. (Statistics show that women initate 70-80% of all divorces since The Great Society was initiated.)
Conclusion: When men express their desire for government through their vote, it will be directed mostly to Point 1(a), and result in smaller government and lower taxes. When women express their desire for government through their vote, it will be directed mostly to Point 1(b), and will result in ever-larger government and ever-increasing taxes to help women with children and few resources.
Men = leave me alone and let me work.
Women = leave me alone and let me get the most resources from the government I can get
The frame of reference behind each sex is different, as demonstrated above. And so those different frames of reference will result in different moral reasoning – which will lead to differences in thinking about what is right, what is wrong, what is moral, what is immoral.
It seems to be the general consensus among men that, if left unchecked, women will keep acquiring resources for the community until all the resources are gone (fleshing this idea out requires a different conversation). If men don’t want that to happen, and they don’t, they must put a check on women’s behavior. The scene in Europe where the women are inviting the thugs of the third world to come in and partake of the fruits of the labor of European men is a good example of this. Voting to give an ever-increasing pool of illegal aliens access to food stamps and social security payments in America is another example. The women see it as community building and think it is a moral and good thing to do, and so vote to make it happen. The men, most of them anyway, see what is happening in Europe and American as unsustainable and think it is an immoral and bad thing to do, and vote to stop it.
And with that, I will bow out of this conversation. That should give you enough to get you started learning about this on your own if you are interested. It helps explain what is behind a lot of what you will read in the manosphere. It is what is behind much of the anger men feel toward women. Women were given the vote. And since that time, women have generally continued to vote in increasing numbers to replace husbands with the government. That way, they can continue to build their communities by using other folk’s resources without that pesky husband telling them to stop because that behavior is unsustainable over time. The noise being made by men in the manosphere is, in a very real sense, an effort to get folks to wake up to what is happening and reverse course before it is too late. It is an inelegant noise, but it comes from a genuine concern that the current path is not sustainable.
For those who don’t know, the sponge-worthy phrase I used above comes from a Seinfeld episode. It’s about contraceptive sponges and running low so needing to be more careful in deciding who was sponge-worthy. Google the phrase if you want more details.
@RichardP
For what it’s worth, I agree with your generalizations. As I mentioned in one of my very first comments in this thread, I am a Libertarian and belong to a Meetup group that discusses our political stance and ways we might appeal to more people. I’m a proponent of freedom of speech, minimal taxation, personal accountability, an end to the welfare system (or at the very least a major overhaul of the current one), a free market in both business and education, pro-choice, equal civil rights for all, upholding our right to bear arms, an elimination of gynocentric/racist quotas and hiring practices, and of course, strong property rights. It is just as frustrating for me to see the current state of the US as it is for many others here, I’m sure.