Because more women than men want to be in daycare it’s unrealistic to expect the same amount of men want to be in daycase as women.

I don't expect it. It is you who is insisting for no discernible reason that 70:30 is, and I quote, "ideal". It is you who is saying "guys get some other job I don't care how much you want the job and how good you'd be at it, we already have a quota of 30%".

I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can't see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.

The only thing I won't stand for here is saying is "pointing at patterns is bad". These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.

And if you just don't care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don't womensplain the male perception of "men are simple creatures" to men. You came out swinging, remember.

Hey. Nice try. My own comment tho, slightly higher.

Women have strong support movement on their side. It's not something they gain only through their sex, but rather something they gain I think mostly due to the same gender stereotypes that also act against them.

I never said women don't have expectations on them, in fact I literally said the opposite ^^ In the part you quoted I underlined just the fact that men face certain problems, not that only men face certain problems.

Except the feminists actually do not oppose the male draft via their collective silence you gaslighter, just like how they don't promote anti-false allegation laws or gender-neutral laws.

Stop trying to move goalposts & absolve feminists of their lies when feminists now use the "crisis of masculinity" excuse to bring back the draft in EU.

But then I wouldn't expect any empathy for men's plight from anyone who comes from LazySoci.al

The code section in particular is gold and exactly the type of online content we need. A big reason why chuds like Tate are successful is because they provide a code ("compass, outlets, who you're with, how it feels"), which before the internet was something everyone built for themselves, actively picking and choosing, while nowadays the algorithms do the picking+choosing for us. Or, well, before the algorithmic internet boomers largely got that stuff from old institutions (be that church or the party), Gen X from rebellion, then come us sweet-spot millennials seeing the boomer/X conflict and having access to previously unheard of amounts of information to actively choose from, and then Gen Y and younger getting fed by the outrage machine.

So what we need is algorithm-compatible content that challenges the whippersnappers to build their own code, in an active manner. Give guidelines, give examples, but don't decide for them (that makes you no better than the algorithm or for that matter Gen X and boomers) and definitely don't make it a list of don'ts: They're in the process of adapting instincts to currentyear, good living requires finding a configuration that denies none, our task is to help them not being maladaptive, steering away from both neurosis (denial of instinct) as well as asocial BS (exploiting in/outgroup instincts for power plays, oxytocin can be vile). To do that you need to point out the various fundamental drives, validate all of them, make that shit resonate as deeply as possible so they spot the drives themselves instead of some social construct painting over it, enable them to draw a map of their needs, then give examples, plural, of how it can all be integrated in a coherent fashion.

I know exactly the community you mean but I haven't interacted with it much beyond occasional visits and upvotes. It's sad to hear that perspective of Lemmy, because it does get rose-tinted as a bit of a leftist utopia and this is the first time I've seen the ugliness. I really appreciate it being shared.

Did I say anywhere that the 30:70 means a really had 30:70 cap and that nobody after that is free to join or leave the job? Did I say that the 30% is exactly, not more not less, the amount of men who want to for ex. work in daycare?

you sound pissy and project hate in every of your responses and on to everything you perceive to involve a man. I feel sorry for you. However, you're making up facts that the other communities are "so dominated by men" to appease your distorted perceptions of the world.

You purport to being intelligent so you know what you're doing with your inflammatory responses of explicitly "opposing the draft for women".

Oh and yet more insults in your responses. I sense a theme here

You said, verbatim:

Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women

and then went on to justify it with

because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks.

implying that more men would mean worse results "because women are so much better at it": If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that "women provide one thing, men another".

The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn't absence of men as such -- it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren't as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there's a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There's no ideal ratio, there's a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.

And btw you don't teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it's not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word "authority", on top of that "strict authority", in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.

Solidarity with women is not the same thing as accepting ad hominem and infantilization from a stranger on the Internet. Soak your head.

Lol, what part of her comment was an hominem, how did she infantalize anyone?

His response was inappropriate and completely avoided her points. Telling a woman to watch their tone is about as common as a misogynistic dog whistle as you can find.

Just because he didn't call her a slur doesn't mean he wasn't being an asshole. The substance of his response was more offensive than any ad hominem.

I dont respect anyone defending sexism, so throwing ad hominems at incels is fine with me. I also don't care about the opinions of misogynist, so please fuck off and go be a disappointment to your mother elsewhere, thanks.

Edit: oh I thought it was some once defending you, you were the fuckface in the original post. Yeah you can go fuck yourself, Lord knows you're never going to find someone else to do it for you.

Obviously... but kids aren't going to stop watching because of some tut tuts and wags of the finger. That just makes them like it more.

If you don't understand the concept of cancel culture, there's not much I can explain, sorry.

This just popped up on my feed. I can show more but I'm really not feeling like it.

I wonder what the comment that was replying to looks like…

"I hate it when misandry pops up on my feed" Word for word. I posted that 5 weeks ago and I'm still getting hate for it.