(“The mayor announces that beer will be brewed on Wednesday, therefore beginning Tuesday people are not to shit in the brook”)

Hey I wanted to make that post. Tomorrow. With sprats.

Frisian and Low Saxon should be practically the same to English speakers, Frisian being more closely related to English is more of a technical thing than a practical one: In practice English uses a gigantic amount of Romance words and is not mutually intelligible with either, while Low Saxon and Frisian do have a decent amount of mutual intelligibility… you can always cherrypick something mutually intelligible, of course, but knowing Low Saxon Frisian is easy to wrap your head around once you decode the accent. Difference like RP vs. Scots I’d say.

Here’s the video; it’s pretty entertaining if you’re into languages.

Bujen? I don’t speak West Frisian but dictionaries spit out keapje. Kuupe for North Frisian (mainland), in Low Saxon it’s kö­pen or kopen. Half of the difference there is spelling the other half the exact vowels/dipthongs. The Low Saxon ones are actually diphthongs they just get analysed as long vowels.

The “buy” root seems to be extinct in all other Germanic languages, everyone uses the root for cheap, instead.

English does seem to drift the semantics of its Germanic roots like a motherfucker. People snicker about place names like “Quickborn” but if you weren’t English-brained it’d just mean “lively spring” to you. Speaking of fuck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AFZdFrfXoA

There’s no “behind the scenes” there are plenty of EU-based cloud providers. Including SAP though that’s not why I mentioned them.

It’d take some time to organise a replacement organisation but it’s not like those systems collapse when the central service goes down. We do have our own root servers and the internet can survive a month or two of not being able to register new tlds or assign subnets.

On the flipside, I wonder how US multinationals would fare without SAP.

You said, verbatim:

Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women

and then went on to justify it with

because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks.

implying that more men would mean worse results “because women are so much better at it”: If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that “women provide one thing, men another”.

The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn’t absence of men as such – it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren’t as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there’s a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There’s no ideal ratio, there’s a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.

And btw you don’t teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it’s not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word “authority”, on top of that “strict authority”, in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.

The code section in particular is gold and exactly the type of online content we need. A big reason why chuds like Tate are successful is because they provide a code (“compass, outlets, who you’re with, how it feels”), which before the internet was something everyone built for themselves, actively picking and choosing, while nowadays the algorithms do the picking+choosing for us. Or, well, before the algorithmic internet boomers largely got that stuff from old institutions (be that church or the party), Gen X from rebellion, then come us sweet-spot millennials seeing the boomer/X conflict and having access to previously unheard of amounts of information to actively choose from, and then Gen Y and younger getting fed by the outrage machine.

So what we need is algorithm-compatible content that challenges the whippersnappers to build their own code, in an active manner. Give guidelines, give examples, but don’t decide for them (that makes you no better than the algorithm or for that matter Gen X and boomers) and definitely don’t make it a list of don’ts: They’re in the process of adapting instincts to currentyear, good living requires finding a configuration that denies none, our task is to help them not being maladaptive, steering away from both neurosis (denial of instinct) as well as asocial BS (exploiting in/outgroup instincts for power plays, oxytocin can be vile). To do that you need to point out the various fundamental drives, validate all of them, make that shit resonate as deeply as possible so they spot the drives themselves instead of some social construct painting over it, enable them to draw a map of their needs, then give examples, plural, of how it can all be integrated in a coherent fashion.

I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can’t see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.

The only thing I won’t stand for here is saying is “pointing at patterns is bad”. These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.

And if you just don’t care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don’t womensplain the male perception of “men are simple creatures” to men. You came out swinging, remember.

Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.

I don’t expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, “ideal”. It is you who is saying “guys get some other job I don’t care how much you want the job and how good you’d be at it, we already have a quota of 30%”.

Let’s try this again: If, as you say “women do empathy, men do resilience”, then why should childcare be 70:30? Why not 50:50 so the kids get taught empathy and resilience in equal measure? Also, how can you even be empathetic if you lack in the resilience department.

It would’ve been smarter of those companies to replace the bosses with AI.

You are completely overthinking it. I readily acknowledged it is reductive. And my example was an example, a vibe. I do not, in fact, fish. Nor consider desert dwellers to be less masculine or something.

A typical male experience in a hetero relationship is that women are overly fussy over many things, I think most of it is culture (a generalised fear of a catty mother in law not considering you good enough for her son causing a fear of losing your partner because he might listen to her instead of you) so when we hear “men are simple” we don’t hear “men are stupid” but “finally, someone who understands the pointlessness of having seasonal napkins”. If you wanted to say “men are stupid” you’d have said “men are primitive”, it’s not hard to tell apart. We do, in fact, have social and contextual awareness, I freely admit that we use obliviousness as a conscious strategy.

Are there men who are totally into decorative towels? Sure, but if we hedge everything with “but not everyone does that”, “of course, all people are unique and different” then communication becomes a chore. It’s like hearing “sunscreen is important” and insisting “of course, if it’s winter that’s a different issue, we wouldn’t want to essentialise weather to be carcinogenic”. Come on.

And our interaction here, ironically, falls into a similar pattern. “No, really, it’s fine that we don’t have decorative towels” – “There must be a deeper meaning behind this, a social force, someone pulling his strings, why would anyone not want to have complex things like decorative towels, what is the meaning of this, am I on top of the situation”… no. He meant what he said, exactly that, and nothing more: My hands are dry, the towels didn’t make them dirty again, that’s all I need from a towel. I want my pants to have pockets so I buy them with pockets instead of worrying whether they ruin the silhouette and agonising over compromises. There’s a lot of freedom in simplicity. That inner mother in law, though? Of course everything is complicated, how else would she be able to drive you crazy.

I’ve got a song for you.

“men are simple creatures”, “keep your belly fully and balls empty and we’re happy” ect, like, is that not demeaning to men?

Personally, not inherently, no. And definitely not in context, context here being the existence of “men are primitive” and “men only want one thing and it’s disgusting”. Is it reductive, yes, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

Catch some fish, chop some wood, smoke the critters, unclog the sink so that stubbles will actually flush instead of cling to the rim, annoying the wife (for incomprehensible reasons, but a well-functioning drain is its own reward), be a rollercoaster for the kids, kick back on the sofa, get your balls emptied, if that’s not a satisfying day then you have issues.

Complexity is not a good in itself. Be only as complex as is necessary to stay simple.

I guess you think also men are equally good at giving birth and breastfeeding?

No I think you’re better at putting words in my mouth than I am – allegedly – at putting words in yours. Speak about going to extremes to attempt to prove a point.

but why would I want to put the burden of getting the kids in check with my wife when I am supposed to be the man in the house?

You want to be a housekeeper? More power to you then but if your wife is an engineer and earns the money why do you suppose she can’t teach kids about it?

She’s the housekeeper and does tell the kids “just wait until your father gets home”? She’s training them to hate you, alienate them from you, that’s a giant red flag. Make sure to connect up with them or you’re going to have a hard time in custody court.

As for the emotional part - women can teach kids empathy, men can teach kids not to cry immediately if you fall down once.

Nope. Both are very capable of doing both. Again: Please don’t project your hangups onto others. Female fainting is just as much a trained behaviour (ultimately, an act the actor believes themselves), as male callousness.

Whats the problem in gender roles, if it suits the people? Why force people into a different role, that they don’t want to be in?

I’m not forcing anyone here, it’s you who’s drawing lines in the sand, “men shall do this, women shall do that”.

Boys, on average, like to wrestle a hell a lot more than girls, are interested in mechanical things more, when playing they care about outside things. Girls, on average, develop their fine motor skills well before boys, and their play focusses on social scenarios, in a bounded (inside) context.

Let them learn in the order and manner as they see fit, that’s absolutely fine and natural. But you’re an adult, not a kid, your competencies should, by now, have expanded beyond that initial set and focus. If you’re under the impression that “women are better at this, men are better at that” then you’re either 12 and/or are living in a society which actively stifles human development.

Your first sentence is completely sensible, the rest is completely toxic and also BS gender roles. Don’t project your emotional and social incapacity on me.

If my wife were to tell my kids “wait until your father comes home” a) they’ll get off 110% scot-free because they already suffered enough dread and b) she’ll get an earful. Ideally, though, of course, you’ll date someone emotionally and socially mature enough so that won’t be an issue. Someone who can stand up for herself, is actually competent, and doesn’t make your kids hate you.

Also please explain: Women are good at emotional stuff but then you need the man to do the emotional resilience thing… what? I know plenty of women who I’m pretty sure could beat you up and work with plenty of brilliant female engineers, and are you accusing me of not caring. Am I just pretending to care about people? Does caring about people not come natural to you? Maybe that’s a thing you should mull over.

If that’s your take on this thread then you’re just as complicit as the rest of these incels.

It’s my take on my own contributions. Note that those didn’t include “defending some guy”, it really was an exhaustive list. How you managed to get that wrong in a post in which you apologised about getting something wrong is something you’ll have to ask your dead horse, I suppose.

Dadvocate would be a good source for this stuff especially if you don’t fancy your watch history to get infested by misogynists. Just a gal who doesn’t pull guard.

Lol, falsely conflating me telling you not to blame POC and women for late stage capitalism with telling you not to cry is pretty hilarious.

I did what?

What injustice are you facing that generations of women and immigrants haven’t been receiving the whole time?

I’ve been using this thread as an opportunity to talk about a positive example, and that’s the marked increase in male childcare workers in Germany. I pointed out some masculine influencers doing good work. I bemoaned that much “X for women/girls” stuff is half-assed feel-good BS, prone to causing more harm than good (because half-assed, because it’s done for optics instead of the thing itself).

I’ve been constructive. I didn’t lash out and try to put people down for caring about their issues. I didn’t wrap people up in ass-long back and forth threads demanding justification after justification why they care just to find an excuse to pounce, then ride my high horse into the sunset.

Oh, and I also shot the horse of some guy.