I’m not sure what you mean by demean women. Do you mean that to even make truthful observations that could make a woman feel bad is wrong?
No.
Some descriptive claims associated with the PUA memeplex seem to come with an addendum that could be crudely rendered as ”… and therefore, women are your inferiors.” Women are manipulable; therefore, you have the right to manipulate them. Women desire approval, therefore, you should manipulate their desire for approval to get sex out of them that they may otherwise not want to have. And so on.
(To make a geek analogy: “Their server has a security vulnerability; therefore, they are morons and you should hack them and take all their stuff.”)
I’m not sure what treated as baby makers means.
Perhaps I should have said “treated merely as baby-makers”; as opposed to thinkers, dreamers, desirers, planners, possessors of values and goals, colleagues, rivals, partners — you know, people.
I don’t know what your footnote references.
Blaaah … that’s because I removed the sentence it was a footnote to, and didn’t remove the footnote. Edited.
I’m certainly not going to defend all pua, or necessarily any particular pua.
I will defend women-as-baby makers, because I think that’s one of the most awesome things about them (especially rolling together all the child-raising instincts and so forth).
Absolutely, sexual reproduction is a wonder of nature, but there is an awesomeness differential there. Although of course awe is a subjective emotion, I could discuss it in more intellectual terms if you remain unconvinced.
Yeah, it’s not like the minimal obligatory parental investment from the father is, like, five orders of magnitude smaller than from the mother. At all.
Hmm, 6 orders of magnitude. If you are limiting fatherhood to conception that would be about 5 minutes for the man; times 1,000,000 then, 5,000,000 for the woman equals 3472 days, or 9.5 years. Not a bad approximation, except that that obviously isn’t the absolute minimum the woman could invest, as she could give it up for adoption after birth, or about 432,000 minutes, only 5 orders of magnitude larger than the father.
Shouldn’t you be including recovery time in that minimum?
Then you should also exclude the first few months, when (from what I’ve seen) aren’t that bad.
Also, why focus on the minimum rather than the typical in practice
Because that’s what my awesomeness-o-meter (which is what started this subthread) seems to respond to, especially given that Pragmatist put it in terms of sperm.
Let’s call it 4*10^5 minutes, then.
My response was to what is ‘minimal obligatory’—assuming the obligation is placed by biology, rather than law or honor or reason. Over a lifetime of care, the differences vary more by couple than gender, I’d expect.
I had pulled a figure out of my ass, and then divided the normal duration of a pregnancy by it to see whether the result was reasonable, but I must have goofed with the maths because I had got 23 minutes.¹ (Fixed.)
Yes, a man can take shorter than that to just ejaculate, but then again it’s not like pregnancy completely prevents you from working throughout its duration.
Seems to me that it’s a pretty serious bug that currently the only way we have for making more human-level intelligences involves causing one heck of a lot of pain, risk, and general discomfort to already-existing human-level intelligences.
And therefore?
Seems to me that all potential ways of making more human-or-greater-level intelligences discussed at this site involves heck of a lot of pain (in terms of man-hours of work), risk (of the x kind), and general discomfort (in adjusting to ai technology) to already exisiting human-level intelligences. And yet, when it happens, if we survive and all, it will be rather awesome.
I mean, is calling the grand canyon awesome minimizing the hazards of flash-flooding rivers may pose? Is calling a sky-scraper awesome callous to those who have ever labored or died in construction?
I’ll make the obligatory confused about down-voting post here. My assumption is that it is down-voted because “Duh, of course baby-making is awesome, and saying you defend it implies other people don’t which is stupid,” but there’s a chance that my comment could be read as either pro or anti feminist, and down voted accordingly; I’m just not sure which.
No.
Some descriptive claims associated with the PUA memeplex seem to come with an addendum that could be crudely rendered as ”… and therefore, women are your inferiors.” Women are manipulable; therefore, you have the right to manipulate them. Women desire approval, therefore, you should manipulate their desire for approval to get sex out of them that they may otherwise not want to have. And so on.
(To make a geek analogy: “Their server has a security vulnerability; therefore, they are morons and you should hack them and take all their stuff.”)
Perhaps I should have said “treated merely as baby-makers”; as opposed to thinkers, dreamers, desirers, planners, possessors of values and goals, colleagues, rivals, partners — you know, people.
Blaaah … that’s because I removed the sentence it was a footnote to, and didn’t remove the footnote. Edited.
I’m certainly not going to defend all pua, or necessarily any particular pua. I will defend women-as-baby makers, because I think that’s one of the most awesome things about them (especially rolling together all the child-raising instincts and so forth).
Yes! And one of the most awesome things about men is that they can produce sperm, also crucial for baby-making. Gotta love those sperm factories.
Absolutely, sexual reproduction is a wonder of nature, but there is an awesomeness differential there. Although of course awe is a subjective emotion, I could discuss it in more intellectual terms if you remain unconvinced.
Yeah, it’s not like the minimal obligatory parental investment from the father is, like, five orders of magnitude smaller than from the mother. At all.
Hmm, 6 orders of magnitude. If you are limiting fatherhood to conception that would be about 5 minutes for the man; times 1,000,000 then, 5,000,000 for the woman equals 3472 days, or 9.5 years. Not a bad approximation, except that that obviously isn’t the absolute minimum the woman could invest, as she could give it up for adoption after birth, or about 432,000 minutes, only 5 orders of magnitude larger than the father.
Shouldn’t you be including recovery time in that minimum?
Also, why focus on the minimum rather than the typical in practice or father’s investment which is most likely to lead to grandchildren?
Then you should also exclude the first few months, when (from what I’ve seen) aren’t that bad.
Because that’s what my awesomeness-o-meter (which is what started this subthread) seems to respond to, especially given that Pragmatist put it in terms of sperm.
Let’s call it 4*10^5 minutes, then. My response was to what is ‘minimal obligatory’—assuming the obligation is placed by biology, rather than law or honor or reason. Over a lifetime of care, the differences vary more by couple than gender, I’d expect.
I had pulled a figure out of my ass, and then divided the normal duration of a pregnancy by it to see whether the result was reasonable, but I must have goofed with the maths because I had got 23 minutes.¹ (Fixed.)
Yes, a man can take shorter than that to just ejaculate, but then again it’s not like pregnancy completely prevents you from working throughout its duration.
I actually had no idea how it would end up before I did the math. You must have read the Fermi post*.
*(Not to imply you couldn’t have read about it beforehand; just a figure of speech)
I have, but IIRC I hadn’t when I wrote that comment.
Historically maybe. In modern societies there are parental testing and child support laws.
Seems to me that it’s a pretty serious bug that currently the only way we have for making more human-level intelligences involves causing one heck of a lot of pain, risk, and general discomfort to already-existing human-level intelligences.
And therefore? Seems to me that all potential ways of making more human-or-greater-level intelligences discussed at this site involves heck of a lot of pain (in terms of man-hours of work), risk (of the x kind), and general discomfort (in adjusting to ai technology) to already exisiting human-level intelligences. And yet, when it happens, if we survive and all, it will be rather awesome.
I mean, is calling the grand canyon awesome minimizing the hazards of flash-flooding rivers may pose? Is calling a sky-scraper awesome callous to those who have ever labored or died in construction?
Can you point to any bug-free system?
I’ll make the obligatory confused about down-voting post here. My assumption is that it is down-voted because “Duh, of course baby-making is awesome, and saying you defend it implies other people don’t which is stupid,” but there’s a chance that my comment could be read as either pro or anti feminist, and down voted accordingly; I’m just not sure which.