And your internal gender is something that you automatically just know? Have you always known? How?

It seems like at some point, some external reasons may have been involved.

Fascinating perspective, well expressed.

One thing I would clarify is that there are still many different cultures in existence. Although most cultures are converging due to the global economic hegemony enforced by the US, they still maintain highly significant differences.

For instance, in many Muslim countries, your argument wouldn’t apply as much for a wide variety of reasons, including the prevalence of arranged marriages.

Furthermore, each generation actively produces its own culture and it can sometimes change rapidly due to changing environments. I agree with you that culture is built around human biology and in some ways remains similar across all human communities regardless of time or location. However, within that general framework, the possibilities are almost infinite, as we can see just by observing history.

So, in this specific context, I would argue that while it’s essentially inevitable that men will take on the more dangerous and difficult roles in any given culture, the actual manifestation of that tendency can come in many different forms. Western society manifests the male disposability phenomenon in a particularly harsh manner, in my personal opinion.

I think that many other cultural lineages may have traditionally held less demanding/dangerous expectations of masculinity. A relevant factor is that all Western nations have military traditions going back millennia, whereas many other regions of the planet do not share such an extensive history of warfare. All Western cultures essentially trace their roots back to the Roman Empire, in which basic mechanics of the male gauntlet which you speak of had already been firmly established.

It has nothing to do with subjugation, it’s just preference. I prefer to spend time with my family, I’m not subjugating other people by doing so.

But in the context of a corporate oligarchy where my absurd wealth means that my family is unfairly enriched to the detriment of the workers that I employ, it becomes subjugation. It’s not humans, it’s the socioeconomic system that exists that is causing all of this suffering and needs to be supplanted.

Doesn’t your paper you linked imply it isn’t so obvious?

Yeah sure, in the absence of any other data.

If you refuse to acknowledge that people like people similar to themselves, you’re not being honest with yourself, let alone me.

What is the systemic problem/problematic behavior that you are trying to solve? You clearly believe that white men are especially discriminatory towards other groups, which isn’t crazy, although I disagree. But are you so naive to think that if we replaced the powerful white men with powerful hispanic women (or any other combination of race and gender), racial and gender-based discrimination would suddenly end? I’m just pointing out the inconvenient truth that the system would still be biased and unfair, just with different winners and losers.

In my view, the fact that some white men are biased for or against certain groups is completely insignificant and irrelevant to solving the problems that society faces today. It’s the fundamental structure of the economic and political system that naturally results in the few individuals at the top of the hierarchy expressing a large degree of control and domination over the rest of the society.

That’s really nice to hear. Your comment did add something, at least for me!

I agree. People tend to ascribe inherent traits to other groups, when in fact observed behaviors can usually be traced not to inherent dispositions, but to specific environmental conditions that incentivize said behaviors.

For instance, a white man in our current social environment who exhibits a confident, assertive attitude is well situated to succeed. White men are expected to be competent and often rewarded for appearing competent, so they sometimes attempt to exaggerate their competence in order to meet the perceived expectations.

That’s not my main argument, it’s merely a supporting clause.

OP asserted that

white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

I countered that by pointing out that it’s obvious that any human being tends to prefer people who they consider similar to themselves. That’s my main argument.

And if that is true, then attempting to frame such behavior as particular to white men is just silly and unproductive.

I obviously can’t definitively measure the amount of social stigma around white male prejudice, but I don’t need to. I’m not saying that white men are definitely less biased than other demographics, I’m merely pointing out that it’s a distinct possibility, even as you all indicate that they are the demographic most deserving of condemnation for such behavior.

Now, one could make the argument that even though white men may not be especially biased, the effects of their bias may have greater impacts on other demographics due to the disproportionate amount of power they collectively wield. I think that’s a fair point, but it doesn’t really hold any ethical implications, it’s simply a description of a material reality.

This is a consistent and very unpleasant fact of the world that white men will treat anyone of any other demographic as less than equals.

Citation needed.

In all seriousness, I understand your point and respect you for trying to deconstruct the mechanics of privilege.

But I just factually disagree with your assertion. I would argue that every human being has an inherent preference for people that they perceive as similar to themselves in some way, and this can result in bias along racial or gender lines. However, this arguably applies less to white men than any other demographic, because such behavior is so consistently condemned and shamed when exhibited by white men.

In contrast, people of other demographics are less frequently made aware of their own biases, because calling it out has not been construed as some kind of ethical imperative, as it has with white men.

It’s also well documented that women have a much stronger in-group bias compared to men.

In essence, women can be characterized as “If I am good and I am female, females are good,” whereas men can be characterized as “Even if I am good and I am male, men are not necessarily good.” This sex difference in cognitive balance suggests that a mechanism that promotes female preference in women does not similarly contribute to male preference for men.

https://rutgerssocialcognitionlab.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/7/13979590/rudmangoodwin2004jpsp.pdf

Sounds like you just played a more limited array of sports. Football is honestly not easy without uniforms, but possible especially if 7v7 or something.

But playing ultimate Frisbee, capture the flag, etc without uniforms is essentially impossible. Remembering who is on your team isn’t even the hard part. It’s more because you need to make quick decisions and recognize who is open immediately.

So yeah… that’s how uniforms work. I would be baffled if they weren’t the norm.

Did y’all use uniforms in World War II? No wonder the Germans were able to slice through your defensive lines so easily, you couldn’t tell who was on which team.

declare on India

get bodied by UN coalition

max out at Saddam Hussein notoriety levels

not a World War, more of a Regional Shellacking

That bot ain’t right. I’ve seen it responding to itself in an infinite loop in the past couple days 😂

Very strange argument. It seems like you’re bad at those games and created some elaborate theory to rationalize it. Class based games require just as much, if not more, skill than non-class based games. As the number of classes increases, the total amount of knowledge required and variety of techniques available also tends to increase.

Professional players do optimize the fun out of a game, but that’s totally unrelated to the point you were trying to make.