Why not remove those instincts, either through social engineering, genetics, or some other method, or channel them into more productive avenues like art?
WHY remove them? I like having them, millions of men like having them, and if they are linked with testosterone, it has additional benefits like many women find that attractive. Why remove any human feature people like to have? Just because it is dangerous? Here is a solution for that.
WHY should everybody be productive when a post-scarcity society does not require this, and some people like other things than being productive?
I find it hard to believe you can’t see the irony in that, and claim that non-straight non-masculine non-males would not be opressed in this society, which itself is named after a specific gender role.
OK, I repeat it third time, if it still does not come accross, I cannot do more. An affluent post-scarcity free-time society where nothing matters anymore and everything is a hobby which people largely pursue in groups of the like-minded is by definition beneficial for ALL. I have worked out the Mannfolk groups because they are the most unusual idea here, and just indicated that groups for everybody else exist. I did not flesh them out, because they are not so unusual, because it is easy to imagine e.g. art groups. The Maletopia title just reflects that one of these many kinds of groups was worked out because I wanted to divert attention to those, but I wrote quite clearly that Maletopia—the sum of these groups—is just a subset of a general Utopia for all. You can call the sum of artistic grousp Artopia and so on.
Oppression is a result of competing for resources. Have you seen any notion of this? Or you think oppressing others is just some kind of a hobby, too or what really?
Why would you design a utopia first and foremost for just a subset of the entire population?
I wouldn’t. I would present the generic idea of everybody pursuing their hobbies, but this is well known and not interesting in itself it was done to death i.e. Banks Culture series etc. I simply focus on an unusual subset of hobbies to make a point and test some ideas.
but your utopia seems exactly like something the manosphere would cook up
If the manosphere cared for ethics yes. Unfortunately they don’t, basically their goal is to preserve their exclusive socially dominant position instead of finding hobbies. However certainly there are similarities, as probably both them, me, and others I wrote it for are high-testosterone, and this predicts certain common desires and likes. So this either something a manosphere would do if you could find a way to inject them ethics, or this is something the ethical community would do if you injected them T.
Second of all, can it really be a marginalization if almost the entire society is built around this supposedly marginalized group? It’s named after them!
Try not take a name too literally, okay? Titles are meant to be catchy, not true. The music band Scorpions are not actually scorpions, even though they are named after them, okay? The society is built around anyone pursuing any hobby in groups. I focused on describing one kind in one group, the most unusual kind.
It is a Maletopia not because it is only works for masculine men, to the contrary, it works for all, because there are a million other hobby groups not described in detail. However, most utopias don’t work for masculine men, because usually they involve some violence-abhorring values as far as I can tell from my sci-fi reading.
And why would liking a sport mean you want to live there 24⁄7, forever?
For most sports not, but for sports where it is true that they are war minus the shooting, yes, because being a warrior is a way of life, not just a hobby.
What if people want the world to not be based around spectator sports, especially if those sports are entirely based around gender differences and influence the entire culture?
I am confused what the question means. I assume most other people just focus on their own groups and hobbies and the world as such is not based around anything. I don’t think such a thing as popular culture will keep existing. Just parallel subcultures. Everybody who does not like what a subculture does can do the same thing as people today who do not like e.g. Nickelback: not pay attention to it.
Did you assume a popular culture, a generic mainstream is supposed to exist? Maybe I need to put into the article it is not, it is already getting outdated even in our current reality.
An affluent post-scarcity free-time society where nothing matters anymore and everything is a hobby which people largely pursue in groups of the like-minded is by definition beneficial for ALL.
Beneficial for all isn’t any part of your definition, you’re just asserting that it would be beneficial. Personally, I find the idea of a society where “nothing matters” to be dystopic, and I would not want to live there. Vacation is fine for a couple of weeks, but after that it palls.
WHY remove them? I like having them, millions of men like having them, and if they are linked with testosterone, it has additional benefits like many women find that attractive. Why remove any human feature people like to have? Just because it is dangerous? Here is a solution for that.
WHY should everybody be productive when a post-scarcity society does not require this, and some people like other things than being productive?
Why not give people the option to remove them if they want to? Why build an entire society based around the idea that men should fight each other, if not everyone wants to? I don’t, for example!
OK, I repeat it third time, if it still does not come accross, I cannot do more. An affluent post-scarcity free-time society where nothing matters anymore and everything is a hobby which people largely pursue in groups of the like-minded is by definition beneficial for ALL. I have worked out the Mannfolk groups because they are the most unusual idea here, and just indicated that groups for everybody else exist. I did not flesh them out, because they are not so unusual, because it is easy to imagine e.g. art groups. The Maletopia title just reflects that one of these many kinds of groups was worked out because I wanted to divert attention to those, but I wrote quite clearly that Maletopia—the sum of these groups—is just a subset of a general Utopia for all. You can call the sum of artistic grousp Artopia and so on.
I agree that if this were one of a subset of worlds, and only the people who wanted to live here could live here, then it could exist as part of the Archipelago. But I doubt more than a small minority of currently-existing people would want to live there for extended periods of time.
Oppression is a result of competing for resources. Have you seen any notion of this? Or you think oppressing others is just some kind of a hobby, too or what really?
Status will always be a scarce resource.
It is a Maletopia not because it is only works for masculine men, to the contrary, it works for all, because there are a million other hobby groups not described in detail. However, most utopias don’t work for masculine men, because usually they involve some violence-abhorring values as far as I can tell from my sci-fi reading.
Then why make your entire post about this one tiny aspect of the utopia, and neglect to mention that it is only a small part of it? And why do you assume that all men like fighting and violence? Not a single person I know likes violence, our culture is anti-violence already, and most people look down on it rightly because it causes harm by definition.
For most sports not, but for sports where it is true that they are war minus the shooting, yes, because being a warrior is a way of life, not just a hobby.
This appears to be a massive case of projection. Just as most people do not like violence, most people do not like war. And what would war without the shooting even be, anyway?
I am confused what the question means. I assume most other people just focus on their own groups and hobbies and the world as such is not based around anything. I don’t think such a thing as popular culture will keep existing. Just parallel subcultures. Everybody who does not like what a subculture does can do the same thing as people today who do not like e.g. Nickelback: not pay attention to it.
Did you assume a popular culture, a generic mainstream is supposed to exist? Maybe I need to put into the article it is not, it is already getting outdated even in our current reality.
Again, if your world is just one of many subsets of a greater world, then I get your point. I fail to believe many people would want to live there, but as long as they had many options I guess it would be fine for it to be an option. But I don’t believe your article should have focused on a single subset which isn’t applicable to most of the existing population, when it is supposed to be a small part of a larger world.
Thanks for the archipelago idea, that is exactly it.
Status will always be a scarce resource.
Status would be the cause of oppression? That is difficult to parse, unless you agree with the SJW kind of stuff that using slurs or inappropriate jokes constitutes oppression. I generally don’t, I consider those things oppression when for people people get beaten up for their skin color or orientation or discriminated from a job. I am European and thankfully do not have to care about the incredibly thin-skinned over-sensitivitiy American SJWs developed in the last 10-15 years, microagressions and all that, so I focus on serious stuff like discriminating people in things that matter. And serious oppression I don’t really think that can be explained merely by status. Given that usually the victim gains status and the people who make themselves look brutal bigots lose status, don’t think so.
And why do you assume that all men like fighting and violence?
Did you read it carefully? The Mentsch sub-gender was made for exactly those men who don’t.
Not a single person I know likes violence, our culture is anti-violence already, and most people look down on it rightly because it causes harm by definition.
WHAT culture? Is this a case of Everybody Is American On The InternetTM? Do you see an anti-violence culture in Donbass? Even in America, have you ever seen further than the Blue-Tribe, SWPL intellectual elites with college degrees? Ever talked with a blue-collar redneck who goes to destruction derbies and wrestling?
Just as most people do not like violence, most people do not like war.
Based on videogames and films, that is kind of doubtful. These day you could write Total War on a potato and get a million pre-orders...
And what would war without the shooting even be, anyway?
Using different weapons, obviously, such as hands and feet.
But I don’t believe your article should have focused on a single subset which isn’t applicable to most of the existing population, when it is supposed to be a small part of a larger world.
Again I saw no point to focus on the conventional (in the sci-fi sense) and common, I wanted to focus on the shocking and surprising, because that can teach something.
Status would be the cause of oppression? That is difficult to parse, unless you agree with the SJW kind of stuff that using slurs or inappropriate jokes constitutes oppression.
Yes, language can be a tool of oppression. It’s the main mechanism of us/them dehumanization. It’s at the border of the socially acceptable and serves as gateway for worse forms of aggression.
Yes, in extreme cases it is true. However, it is precisely those extreme cases that must be about something more important than just status. Merely status-challenging language does not dehumanize. E.g. status-challenging: “X are bad at math”, dehumanizing: “X are murderous animals without conscience”. I don’t think merely status could be a motivation for the later—economics is IMHO more likely.
Yes. This is a bad thing. This is also not dehumanization nor a gateway for worse aggression. This is something someone would do who would expect to compete with his own daughter in math-related status.
WHY remove them? I like having them, millions of men like having them, and if they are linked with testosterone, it has additional benefits like many women find that attractive. Why remove any human feature people like to have? Just because it is dangerous? Here is a solution for that.
WHY should everybody be productive when a post-scarcity society does not require this, and some people like other things than being productive?
OK, I repeat it third time, if it still does not come accross, I cannot do more. An affluent post-scarcity free-time society where nothing matters anymore and everything is a hobby which people largely pursue in groups of the like-minded is by definition beneficial for ALL. I have worked out the Mannfolk groups because they are the most unusual idea here, and just indicated that groups for everybody else exist. I did not flesh them out, because they are not so unusual, because it is easy to imagine e.g. art groups. The Maletopia title just reflects that one of these many kinds of groups was worked out because I wanted to divert attention to those, but I wrote quite clearly that Maletopia—the sum of these groups—is just a subset of a general Utopia for all. You can call the sum of artistic grousp Artopia and so on.
Oppression is a result of competing for resources. Have you seen any notion of this? Or you think oppressing others is just some kind of a hobby, too or what really?
I wouldn’t. I would present the generic idea of everybody pursuing their hobbies, but this is well known and not interesting in itself it was done to death i.e. Banks Culture series etc. I simply focus on an unusual subset of hobbies to make a point and test some ideas.
If the manosphere cared for ethics yes. Unfortunately they don’t, basically their goal is to preserve their exclusive socially dominant position instead of finding hobbies. However certainly there are similarities, as probably both them, me, and others I wrote it for are high-testosterone, and this predicts certain common desires and likes. So this either something a manosphere would do if you could find a way to inject them ethics, or this is something the ethical community would do if you injected them T.
Try not take a name too literally, okay? Titles are meant to be catchy, not true. The music band Scorpions are not actually scorpions, even though they are named after them, okay? The society is built around anyone pursuing any hobby in groups. I focused on describing one kind in one group, the most unusual kind.
It is a Maletopia not because it is only works for masculine men, to the contrary, it works for all, because there are a million other hobby groups not described in detail. However, most utopias don’t work for masculine men, because usually they involve some violence-abhorring values as far as I can tell from my sci-fi reading.
For most sports not, but for sports where it is true that they are war minus the shooting, yes, because being a warrior is a way of life, not just a hobby.
I am confused what the question means. I assume most other people just focus on their own groups and hobbies and the world as such is not based around anything. I don’t think such a thing as popular culture will keep existing. Just parallel subcultures. Everybody who does not like what a subculture does can do the same thing as people today who do not like e.g. Nickelback: not pay attention to it.
Did you assume a popular culture, a generic mainstream is supposed to exist? Maybe I need to put into the article it is not, it is already getting outdated even in our current reality.
Beneficial for all isn’t any part of your definition, you’re just asserting that it would be beneficial. Personally, I find the idea of a society where “nothing matters” to be dystopic, and I would not want to live there. Vacation is fine for a couple of weeks, but after that it palls.
Why not give people the option to remove them if they want to? Why build an entire society based around the idea that men should fight each other, if not everyone wants to? I don’t, for example!
I agree that if this were one of a subset of worlds, and only the people who wanted to live here could live here, then it could exist as part of the Archipelago. But I doubt more than a small minority of currently-existing people would want to live there for extended periods of time.
Status will always be a scarce resource.
Then why make your entire post about this one tiny aspect of the utopia, and neglect to mention that it is only a small part of it? And why do you assume that all men like fighting and violence? Not a single person I know likes violence, our culture is anti-violence already, and most people look down on it rightly because it causes harm by definition.
This appears to be a massive case of projection. Just as most people do not like violence, most people do not like war. And what would war without the shooting even be, anyway?
Again, if your world is just one of many subsets of a greater world, then I get your point. I fail to believe many people would want to live there, but as long as they had many options I guess it would be fine for it to be an option. But I don’t believe your article should have focused on a single subset which isn’t applicable to most of the existing population, when it is supposed to be a small part of a larger world.
Thanks for the archipelago idea, that is exactly it.
Status would be the cause of oppression? That is difficult to parse, unless you agree with the SJW kind of stuff that using slurs or inappropriate jokes constitutes oppression. I generally don’t, I consider those things oppression when for people people get beaten up for their skin color or orientation or discriminated from a job. I am European and thankfully do not have to care about the incredibly thin-skinned over-sensitivitiy American SJWs developed in the last 10-15 years, microagressions and all that, so I focus on serious stuff like discriminating people in things that matter. And serious oppression I don’t really think that can be explained merely by status. Given that usually the victim gains status and the people who make themselves look brutal bigots lose status, don’t think so.
Did you read it carefully? The Mentsch sub-gender was made for exactly those men who don’t.
WHAT culture? Is this a case of Everybody Is American On The InternetTM? Do you see an anti-violence culture in Donbass? Even in America, have you ever seen further than the Blue-Tribe, SWPL intellectual elites with college degrees? Ever talked with a blue-collar redneck who goes to destruction derbies and wrestling?
Based on videogames and films, that is kind of doubtful. These day you could write Total War on a potato and get a million pre-orders...
Using different weapons, obviously, such as hands and feet.
Again I saw no point to focus on the conventional (in the sci-fi sense) and common, I wanted to focus on the shocking and surprising, because that can teach something.
Yes, language can be a tool of oppression. It’s the main mechanism of us/them dehumanization. It’s at the border of the socially acceptable and serves as gateway for worse forms of aggression.
Yes, in extreme cases it is true. However, it is precisely those extreme cases that must be about something more important than just status. Merely status-challenging language does not dehumanize. E.g. status-challenging: “X are bad at math”, dehumanizing: “X are murderous animals without conscience”. I don’t think merely status could be a motivation for the later—economics is IMHO more likely.
If you teach your little daughter that women are bad at math, a dozen branches of her possible futures tree are cut off.
Yes. This is a bad thing. This is also not dehumanization nor a gateway for worse aggression. This is something someone would do who would expect to compete with his own daughter in math-related status.
I’m no longer sure we’re talking about the same species here.