throwaway66920

I’m not sure this varies by gender

That doesn’t mesh with my anecdata nor data on the proportion of housework women handle. But I do think the blame comment has merit.

> Second, there may be gender differences in the perceived causes of breakups. Women blame their male partners more often for breakups than men blame their female partners (Choo et al., 1996). In addition, women more frequently report problematic partner behaviors as the reason for a breakup, such as infidelity, substance abuse, and mental or physical abuse (Amato & Previti, 2003; Morris, Reiber, & Roman, 2015). Men, in contrast, are more likely to claim that they do not know what caused their past breakups (Amato & Previti, 2003).

This feels like the important bit to me. People view their ex’s less favorably if they blame them for the breakup; and women blame men more than men blame women. Women also reported receiving less support from their partners than men. Reading between the lines, men in average like the women more because the women put in more effort to the relationship.

> Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?

No, the maleness of Christian God is not something that needs clarification. Appending “the Father” signals the author’s personal beliefs, asserts god’s righteousness, etc. all with plausible deniability

> Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing?

Technically correct, persuasively irrelevant. Satanism is without a doubt seen as something blatantly “evil” among his target audience.

> Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition

Aside from abortion probably not. But most religious groups preach conservatism, and are thus anti feminism.

> To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?

Intentions matter. The author’s goal is to create an association between satanism (-> Satan -> evil) and feminism (-> progressive social movements). If we look at this guy’s other works we will find the same agenda. It is enabling a justification of pre-existing beliefs of the basis of rationality because now there are facts, even if those facts have literally zero salience to the issue at hand. To state facts neutrally, but obscure, irrelevant, and persuasively chosen facts is a dirty technique because it’s effective and it gives everyone plausible deniability upon accusations of having a bias

Lots of arguments about whether this is purely historical or disguised opinion. The last paragraph suggests the author’s intention is to discredit feminists imo. Note the use of “God the Father”, “bravely” and “demonstrates” (the lattermost implying that something is factually true and being proven therein). Sure, maybe this was a part of early feminism. But also, buzz off dude. Don’t need this here at least.

> Dr Faxneld provides a most compelling account of how Satanism played a crucial part in early feminism—primarily between 1880 and 1930—as something employed to vilify and denigrate Christianity, and transform God the Father into an oppressive creator and the ultimate enemy of women’s liberation. This book makes for fascinating reading as Faxneld bravely endeavours to demonstrate the centrality of Satanism in influential feminist narrative during the period in a way nobody before him has ever dared to do. His most enlightening book makes a significant contribution to scholarship.

This is great news. There’s few companies in the world I want to do well specifically. Tesla’s gotta be at the top of the list.

“Playing politics” is is largely empathy and communication skills. Giving people what they want is actually not intuitive because, again, people are generally bad at communicating what they want. It’s common to hear people maligned for being “political players” but I’ll be honest; if you’re bad at office politics, it generally implies you don’t have people’s confidence, trust, and friendship- often because you’re fixated on the idea that work should stand for itself and not recognizing the massive importance that is working with others.

Being a dick with your influence is a different concept

Former employee

Edit: I cannot reply to the below, but I will say, that’s a pretty contrived justification for your view.

Communication is hard. Few things done at a corporate scale are easy to implement. People like to point at big consulting firms and say “I could have done that” or “they could have just asked me” but that’s really just a fraction of it.

Alternatively, this is just some guy asserting that everyone at McKinsey thinks they invented a brand new concept, when in fact, it’s just a heuristic they teach people to communicate more effectively, because communication is hard.

I think I agree. It’s also just not a very good chart, error aside.

One thing I love about anime is that when the authors really want to drive home a thematic concept they throw in these humble observations about the human condition and demonstrate it in the most absurd contexts.

Evangelion does this. I would highly recommend Mob Psycho 100 for this as well (by the one punch man guy, and similar but not sarcastic)

The use of Christian symbolism as nothing more than an aesthetic is somewhat common is Japanese fiction. I wouldn’t say it made no sense though.

The bad guys say humanity is fundamentally incapable of opening up to each other. Shinji proves that it can be done and is worth pursuing, although it is fundamentally difficult. He discovers acceptance of himself through his connections with his peers. He acknowledges that everyone must go through life at a pace they don’t get to choose, and that the inevitably of death doesn’t erase the meaning of existence.

You mean... unsupervised machine learning? That doesn’t feel intellectually dishonest to me

I mean... yeah, that’s correct. The world’s resources are overtly unequally and inefficiently distributed.

You could argue that purposely designing things to last only a year when they could last ten years is purposeful destruction though