EatingWithForks

I hope we can relieve women of the pressure of motherhood this way. Maybe we can even develop more equitable societies where any gender can raise any children, or all genders will be expected to raise all children.

Or, worst case, only poor people will be expected to raise children at all, and raising children will become a job/career bimodally distributed to the very poor earning almost nothing raising workers to fuel capitalism and the very wealthy developing dynasties to rule over the poor with.

I like newer data than older data, especially since the 2016 study is actually referencing a 2008 study. If we assume they're both true then we shouldn't be talking about men at all, and exclusively focus on the rapid retreat of women from society!

I think that we're getting away from the original discussion of NEETism by making this into a gender debate mostly in a western lens, even though we are talking about a global phenomenon.

That study is much older, though. 2016. This recent government study was reported on in 2023. That 90% quote actually references an even older study, 2008! It could be possible that studies on NEET people were themselves biased in 2008 in a way that future surveys have resolved. Otherwise it might indicate there's a huge wave of women withdrawing from society over the past decade or so, which is a holy fuck situation.

I also looked into this a little more, and I believe these are out of date. It looks like it's much closer to evenly split than previously believed.

"A government survey has revealed that women make up almost half of the estimated 1.46 million people aged 15 to 64 who have withdrawn from Japanese society. It was previously believed that most of the recluses, known as hikikomori, were men." https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2391/ [April 2023]

Actually, looking into this a bit more, NEETs are not primarily men!

https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/2391/ says its almost 50/50!

These are called NEET (not in education, employment, or training) in the west with a similarly large populace. I don't think we can attribute this to just Japan. Canada also has a NEET population problem.

I would rather attribute this to the rigors of society which doesn't allow for different development paths. Adulthood is a hard transition and some people need more time or different structures than others, but society doesn't allow for that. In the past these people would be vagrants until they "settled down" and could somewhat easily re-integrate back to society (employment as a stablehand could go to ferrier, horse trainer, or other land management). Now, with the need for specialization and training paired with age expectations, there's much less room.

It's only reasonable to decide your window is missed and therefore there's nothing for you.

I definitely see this kind of nonsense from lifting, high intensity interval training, bodyweight exercises, rock climbing, cycling... I think when people get very passionate about something that was lifechangingly important to them, then its very easy to forget other people don't share that experience.

It's probably better to generalize to have some level of daily activity that works for you. But then it's kind of boring, and everyone already knows this.

Positively affirming rights are passed, and often passed regularly. But remember we monkey brains are drawn towards the negative. Positive news doesn't make it on the news that often, and even when they are, we forget them way faster than negative news.

Within the fairly recent times, people of certain races could marry. People of certain sexes could marry. Sweeping minimal standards for healthcare have been passed. If you go to the state level, Minnesota for example has been crushing it by guaranteeing abortion access, fertility treatment access, family planning, 12 weeks off for the birth of a child, universal school lunch, legalizing weed, etc.

I want to emphasize that rights are not won once. Rights must be continuously fought for. Collectively, society has succeeded in performing an outcry against bills like this, and they've done so for well over a decade at this point. It's important to know that this is what winning looks like.

Actual activism keeps this in mind: winning looks like bad things not passing. It looks like keeping an eye out for societal danger, mobilizing against it, and celebrating once the danger has been defeated-- with the knowledge that they must remain vigilant.

Moby Dick was never meant to be read how it is read now. It was originally a serial, so like a webcomic or a fanfic that's actively being worked on. Those are still very popular mediums of media.

There are plenty wildly successful people. There's a list of billionaires, and even more millionaires. Of course, these people tend to pull up ladders behind them, so they prevent other people from their opportunities. :)

Why are you calling the actual, historically factual sexual assaults of women in asylums to be "hypothetical inconveniences for marginalized people"? I guess that's what it means to be marginalized, that the harm done to you and how your life has been ruined is an inconvenience.

The only reason why the rape of women in asylums is historical is because we no longer have asylums. If you want to bring back asylums, justify how you're not going to also be bringing back raping women in them.

Consider you may be the person disrespecting your time

Musk didn't even have the vision of spacex. He bought it from the original founders and strongarmed the founder label on himself in the legal dispute.

If you want to "bring back" something that never existed, you have to address what the thing actually was that you want to bring back-- and more importantly emphasize what will actually be different. You cannot merely lie about what that thing was you're bringing back, or handwave that its different now because the year is different. There is ample evidence that government officials will sexually assault people, traffic children, forcibly sterilize women, and starve/torture/kill/enslave men that they are responsible for in current day.

I live in a major city that is constantly described as having an epidemic of homeless people. I am far more annoyed by delinquent, housed teenagers than I am of the homeless population here. And more people die from reckless drivers than are murdered by insane homeless people-- in fact, a little girl was killed in a hit and run this year a few streets from me, and 0 murders by insane homeless people have happened in the meantime.

I'm pointing out that you must absolutely contend with the fact that marginalized people have historically been labeled mentally ill when they fight for equality, and that asylums have historically been used as a tool for this purpose. If your concern is to address homeless insane people, one of the major causes of insanity is being homeless for more than a few months, and yet our homeless shelters are still under-resourced and we are still creating more homeless people by seeing housing as an investment that must always grow, pricing out more and more people.

If anything, I am pointing out we must address the "false positive" issue, where the population of people who are under threat of being institutionalized as insane even though they are just a marginalized person reasonably reacting to their own oppression might be greater than the insane homeless we want to address. And that "we just won't do that because regulation" is a straight up delusional belief, with zero basis in actual reality, and is more or less saying you hate homeless people more than you care about marginalized people losing their rights.

I'm merely pointing out that the criminal system is an extremely poor example that the government won't further abuse people once it takes their civil liberties.

If anything its an example that suggesting to bring back asylums should be considered synonymous to an advocacy where the abuse of detained people is taken into account as an acceptable cost.

But mind you: The last time we implemented detaining people, this was in border control, and resulted in the border patrol trafficking children through abusing the child separation policies at the time. There are still tens of thousands of missing children from this policy, implemented for a scant few years.

You are not addressing my concerns and are mostly creating straw men to avoid that I am pointing out the historical, real, already evidenced harms of the proposed solution.

We can't even bother inspecting our current critical inpatient mental crisis facilities. You cannot seriously claim we should be bringing back an evidently widely abused institution because we can regulate it, when we already have widely abused institutions that are not regulated.

We had, in our most respected medical facilities, numerous women subjected to extremely painful ovarian harvesting with no pain relief and it turns out a nurse was stealing pain medication from the patients for YEARS. You cannot seriously suggest bringing back yet another widely abused institution when our current institutions already abuse people to a horrific, systemic extent, as if it will solve anything.

You cannot merely wave aside that your proposed solution is a solution that also already evidenced to have caused mental illness on a broad, demographic-specific scale, in the name of solving mental illness! That's patently ridiculous.

People with severe mental illness are actually more likely to be victims of violence, not perpetrators of it.

You cannot advocate to bring back an institution and then lie about what that institution was. The asylum institution was a way to label people as insane regardless of their sanity and then subject them to heinous mistreatment for which they had no recourse. Unless you directly address this, you are simply advocating for the re-implementation of institutional abuse.

For anyone who wants to bring back asylums: first and foremost, you must imagine that you will be subjected to asylums as they existed. You could simply be protesting while black or female, considered insane for protesting and forcibly detained-- for which you can be raped and assaulted, and any reporting to the police of your trauma isn't taken seriously because you're considered insane.

It's nonsensical to say we should bring back asylums and then not seriously consider what asylums were at the time. Women who tried to fight for their right to vote were put in asylums and raped.

I don't think detaining a criminal is the counter-example you want to be using here. If anything, the horrific and egregious ways that the incarcerated are treated is proof that the government is incapable of not further harming people who they deprive of human rights.

The COVID vaccine already had an existing model to work from that was already ready to go and approved in the SARS-COV-1 vaccine nearly a decade earlier.

ADHD isn't necessarily fast thinking, honestly, it is more accurate to call it an attention dysregulation. It might look like fast thinking because it can resemble someone with a regulated attention but who can context switch quickly. In actuality, it is more like someone who cannot control when their thoughts switch + their thoughts lose context suddenly. So it would be more like when you stand up, go to another room & forget what you went to the room to do but... everything, all the time.

> I hate to say it though, but it's also extremely possible it would cost a lot of money with nobody using it because it sucks.

IMO The government should directly be hiring the best and the brightest with the pay to match. I would be more than happy to pay more taxes at my pay grade (or would support higher capital taxes) for free e-filing that's easy, fast, and multiplatform. However my taxes are raised would surely be cheaper than what I pay my accountant annually to file for me.

It's ridiculous to me that government contracting is always expected to cheapen out for "efficiency". Governments should have excellent software and product minds on staff at all times to manage communication and data internally and externally, imo.

This didn't work in the same way it doesn't work with insurance: students are limited by more than just price alone. Location matters a lot (a student may be staying with their parents). And also if all univiersities raise their prices in this way, there's nothing the students can do.

It's not necessarily that they're bad it's just that they're likely not a valuable source of acquiring information outside of what supports a specific position. Like I wouldn't necessarily trust an oil baron to tell me about how global warming doesn't really exist, or I don't necessarily believe Disney's Iger to tell me about how the writing and acting strikes are entitled whining nonsense.