Of course they do. And while there is overlap in the methods of signalling and enforcing dominance within the respective hierarchies the balance of competitive behaviours tends to be somewhat different.
In terms of this specific behaviour the penalty for not displaying sufficiently low initiative is less for a low status female than for a low status male while the rewards at the other end of the spectrum are also greater for the male showing leadership than the female doing the same. In respect to this particular trait and all else being equal this would lead to the expectation that there would be greater variance in male initiative taking behaviours than in females.
There are other forms of competition and signalling behaviour where the balance of importance leans more towards female hierarchies while the applicability to male competition is somewhat reduced.
The thing is, I have problems with acrasia which don’t seem all that different from the men who describe it here.
For quite some time (with a partial reversal in the past century), passivity was taught as a quintessential female trait, which I’d say is confirmed by your use of “pussy” as meaning unduly subordinate—for a male.
For quite some time (with a partial reversal in the past century), passivity was taught as a quintessential female trait, which I’d say is confirmed by your use of “pussy” as meaning unduly subordinate—for a male.
Nothing I previously said confirms, denies or in any way indicates interest in that trait’s quintessentiality. Your historical observation does seem accurate, albeit orthogonal.
Come to think of it “meaning unduly subordinate—for a male” isn’t implied by my words or the context either.”Male who is unduly subordinate and passive”, perhaps. But there is a world of difference between a “male who is” prefix and “for a male” suffix. Even then the masculine identification is only loosely implied.
This comment—and in particular the emphasis on “pussy” and the labeling of the status in question as categorically masculine—seems intended to imply female passivity.
If that implication really is orthogonal to your intended meaning, then I’m obliged to sharply reduce my confidence that I’m able to correctly infer what you mean from what you say, at least when it comes to gender.
If that implication really is orthogonal to your intended meaning, then I’m obliged to sharply reduce my confidence that I’m able to correctly infer what you mean from what you say, at least when it comes to gender.
A reasonable conclusion. By default I don’t particularly expect people to understand others when it comes to the kind of topics Nancy dragged in. Comprehending someone else’s model is typically a sign of submission.
Mind you you were also unable to follow what I was saying regarding identity recently, suggesting that futility of interaction may be more broad reaching.
Something I missed on the first pass was that “supplicating” is a fairly rare word—except in a PUA context.
PUA deals extensively with motivating males and status analysis. I think its not controversial to say that they do pretty ok at producing usable rules of thumb on those topics. Using their perspective to analyse the difference in impact of status loaded language on males and females seems reasonable, as long as one controls for their systemic bias.
I’m not sure wedrifid was doing that, but if he had it would have been perfectly acceptable.
Eliezer clearly chose his subject line to sting—“paralyzed subordinate” is insulting, and “monkey” is lower status than the more accurate “ape”.
That’ being said, his post wasn’t about gender. Your reply was.
My reply was about applying the motivation positively, rather than as an excuse. You appear to be complaining that I expended insufficient effort in ensuring that these insulting labels extended to females as well as males.
Something I missed on the first pass was that “supplicating” is a fairly rare word—except in a PUA context.
I can understand you associating ‘pussy’ with PUA style context. At very least “quit being a pussy” is far more likely to be used as an encouraging exhortation in a male locker room than a female locker room. But you are trying now to declare a word that is more properly a religious term to be a PUA term.
Supplication is doing something—it isn’t the sort of paralysis Eliezer was talking about.
Supplication works fine, in some of the cases at least. But now that you mention it if I was to actually use PUA jargon I would say “DLV”—which seems to catch the meaning of the behaviour perfectly. And the proper use “DLV”s is actually a life saving (or nowadays a ‘job saving’) skill to develop (although seldom useful when applying PUA).
Of course they do. And while there is overlap in the methods of signalling and enforcing dominance within the respective hierarchies the balance of competitive behaviours tends to be somewhat different.
In terms of this specific behaviour the penalty for not displaying sufficiently low initiative is less for a low status female than for a low status male while the rewards at the other end of the spectrum are also greater for the male showing leadership than the female doing the same. In respect to this particular trait and all else being equal this would lead to the expectation that there would be greater variance in male initiative taking behaviours than in females.
There are other forms of competition and signalling behaviour where the balance of importance leans more towards female hierarchies while the applicability to male competition is somewhat reduced.
The thing is, I have problems with acrasia which don’t seem all that different from the men who describe it here.
For quite some time (with a partial reversal in the past century), passivity was taught as a quintessential female trait, which I’d say is confirmed by your use of “pussy” as meaning unduly subordinate—for a male.
Nothing I previously said confirms, denies or in any way indicates interest in that trait’s quintessentiality. Your historical observation does seem accurate, albeit orthogonal.
Come to think of it “meaning unduly subordinate—for a male” isn’t implied by my words or the context either.”Male who is unduly subordinate and passive”, perhaps. But there is a world of difference between a “male who is” prefix and “for a male” suffix. Even then the masculine identification is only loosely implied.
Mm?
This comment—and in particular the emphasis on “pussy” and the labeling of the status in question as categorically masculine—seems intended to imply female passivity.
If that implication really is orthogonal to your intended meaning, then I’m obliged to sharply reduce my confidence that I’m able to correctly infer what you mean from what you say, at least when it comes to gender.
Good to know, I guess.
A reasonable conclusion. By default I don’t particularly expect people to understand others when it comes to the kind of topics Nancy dragged in. Comprehending someone else’s model is typically a sign of submission.
Mind you you were also unable to follow what I was saying regarding identity recently, suggesting that futility of interaction may be more broad reaching.
Eliezer clearly chose his subject line to sting—“paralyzed subordinate” is insulting, and “monkey” is lower status than the more accurate “ape”.
That’ being said, his post wasn’t about gender. Your reply was.
Something I missed on the first pass was that “supplicating” is a fairly rare word—except in a PUA context.
Supplication is doing something—it isn’t the sort of paralysis Eliezer was talking about.
PUA deals extensively with motivating males and status analysis. I think its not controversial to say that they do pretty ok at producing usable rules of thumb on those topics. Using their perspective to analyse the difference in impact of status loaded language on males and females seems reasonable, as long as one controls for their systemic bias.
I’m not sure wedrifid was doing that, but if he had it would have been perfectly acceptable.
My reply was about applying the motivation positively, rather than as an excuse. You appear to be complaining that I expended insufficient effort in ensuring that these insulting labels extended to females as well as males.
I can understand you associating ‘pussy’ with PUA style context. At very least “quit being a pussy” is far more likely to be used as an encouraging exhortation in a male locker room than a female locker room. But you are trying now to declare a word that is more properly a religious term to be a PUA term.
Supplication works fine, in some of the cases at least. But now that you mention it if I was to actually use PUA jargon I would say “DLV”—which seems to catch the meaning of the behaviour perfectly. And the proper use “DLV”s is actually a life saving (or nowadays a ‘job saving’) skill to develop (although seldom useful when applying PUA).