ashenblood

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.

With regard to the situation with Guaido in Venezuela, isn't it true that the 2013 Venezuelan presidential election had a voter turnout of 79% and was extremely close? Whereas the 2018 election only had a voter turnout of 45% and Maduro was re-elected amidst widespread allegations of corruption and fraud. And for the upcoming 2024 election, multiple opposition candidates have been barred from running against Maduro.

Since 2010, Venezuela has been suffering a socioeconomic crisis under Nicolás Maduro and briefly under his predecessor Hugo Chávez as rampant crime, hyperinflation and shortages diminish the quality of life.[6][7] As a result of discontent with the government, the opposition was elected to hold the majority in the National Assembly for the first time since 1999 following the 2015 parliamentary election.[8] After the election, the lame duck National Assembly—with a pro-government majority—filled the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, the highest court in Venezuela, with Maduro allies. The tribunal stripped three opposition lawmakers of their National Assembly seats in early 2016, citing alleged "irregularities" in their elections, thereby preventing an opposition supermajority which would have been able to challenge President Maduro.

The tribunal approved several actions by Maduro and granted him more powers in 2017.[8] As protests mounted against Maduro, he called for a constituent assembly that would draft a new constitution to replace the 1999 Venezuela Constitution created under Chávez. Many countries considered these actions a bid by Maduro to stay in power indefinitely,[11] and over 40 countries stated that they would not recognize the 2017 Constituent National Assembly (ANC). The Democratic Unity Roundtable—the opposition to the incumbent ruling party—boycotted the election, saying that the ANC was "a trick to keep [the incumbent ruling party] in power".[14] Since the opposition did not participate in the election, the incumbent Great Patriotic Pole, dominated by the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, won almost all seats in the assembly by default.[15] On 8 August 2017, the ANC declared itself to be the government branch with supreme power in Venezuela, banning the opposition-led National Assembly from performing actions that would interfere with the assembly while continuing to pass measures in "support and solidarity" with President Maduro, effectively stripping the National Assembly of all its powers.

And I understand that you're not supporting Maduro. But if the US is trying to support free and fair elections which Maduro is suppressing, than they are essentially doing the opposite of supporting a fascist coup. I unfortunately don't have time to unpack each of your scenarios.

You're not wrong in saying that the US has frequently intervened in Latin America for the past 200 years, right up until the present. But intervening to protect democracy is very different from intervening to support fascism, and failing to distinguish between the two is bordering on misinformation.

Think of it this way, if it weren't the US intervening, it'd be another foreign power. And the US primarily intervenes just to keep capitalism flowing, which is sometimes good and sometimes bad. Panama has done quite well as a result of the US intervening and building the Canal. And Latin America has largely avoided genocides and wars of the scale that we have seen in other developing countries in Asia and Africa.

You are correct. I was only joking, lemmy.ml is officially a general purpose server and this community is meant for everybody. But nonetheless, lemmy.ml users tend to be very leftist.

I'm confused by the second part, are you referring to lemmy.ml or lemmy.world when you say this instance? If people are claiming that the Lemmy devs are right wing... wow.

Nope. That's over at [email protected]. This is the Lemmy version of askMarxists

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.

If the possibility that a man will treat a woman badly (everything between belittling and straight up murder) is high enough, it is a life insurance to expect every man to be dangerous until proven otherwise. Its the same logic as "don't talk to cops".

No, it's not life insurance. It's pathological paranoia that doesn't effectively improve one's safety. If you go through life with an incredibly simplistic model of judgement, where any interaction with men or cops is dangerous until proven otherwise, you are simply trading one set of risks for another. There are many situations where a certain cop or man could be in a position to help or protect you, and you might fail to recognize that.

If you're not making any distinction between "belittling and straight up murder", then you're really just handicapping your ability to distinguish people who are actually violently dangerous from people who are just normal people. Most people act like assholes on a regular basis, but that doesn't make them dangerous.

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.

I'm sorry that happened to you.

However, your anecdotal experience is just that. I have been subject to exponentially more racist abuse from black individuals than from individuals of any other race. Does that indicate to you that we should be "pushing back" against black racists? Obviously not, because my personal experience is not enough to draw any conclusions about society as a whole.

In fact, you're condescending me right now. You're implying that your personal judgment supercedes my rational argument. I provide sources and construct an argument, and you respond "this is news to me" (condescending and dismissing my argument) and proceed to explain that what I'm saying can't possibly be true, because it contradicts your personal viewpoint.

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.