That looks much more like ‘so’ ソ than ‘n’ ン

Excellent post in general, but it should be noted that the meaning of “wine-dark sea” is still very much disputed.

They need to hurry up and tow that windmill outside of the environment.

“Does anyone else… (have trouble finishing video games/use their toenail clippings to add texture to a pot of chili/etc.)?”

I’m an older millennial and I have no idea who Cypress Hill is.

Always love Veritasium

It’s only permanent until they decide that it isn’t.

Buddhism in a nutshell

“Permanently”

You wouldn’t download a culture…

I can only speak for his linguistic works, but it’s odd how much clearer and more straightforward his earlier works are than his later ones. Syntactic structures and Aspects of a Theory of Syntax are easy enough that I’d even recommend them to Introduction to Syntax students, but starting with Lectures on Government and Binding things get increasingly obtuse to the point that I’d always recommend reading “translations” of his later works rather than the works themselves.

Edit for full transparency, since this comment is getting upvoted while Chomsky is getting blasted in the comments here: Don’t get me wrong, all of Chomsky’s linguistic work is incredibly brilliant. He single-handedly brought about a complete paradigm shift in the field of linguistics. G&B with all of the bells and whistles added by other researchers in the 80s and 90s is still the closest we’ve come to an actual explanatory theory of syntax, and X-bar theory is probably the single most elegant, ingenious innovation in the history of linguistics.

And that’s just syntax. I haven’t even mentioned how he and Morris Halle revolutionized phonology a few years later with The Sound Pattern of English, or how he also revolutionized grammar theory with the idea of context-free and context-dependent grammars the year before publishing Syntactic Structures, and all of this somehow still understates the enormous import of Chomsky’s linguistic work.

If anyone has any questions about Chomsky’s linguistic work, feel free to ask, and I’ll respond as best I can.

Ok, then stop making blanket statements that all men’s spaces are like that, when that’s clearly not the case.

In fact, to answer your original question in a more complete manner: one thing women could do to help men’s lives improve is to stop systemically demonizing men in general.

Literally nobody said anything about “comfort women”, or that male loneliness even has anything to do with sexuality, for that matter.

One thing women could do to help is to stop demonizing and dismantling male-only spaces that provide men an opportunity for bonding and comradeship while hypocritically demanding more and more women-only spaces.

Not really, since that’s just the same ill-defined “Earnings Gap” nonsense constantly peddled as a “wage gap” for decades. As this article from Forbes and the sources inside explain, and has been well-known for a decade at this point, “When comparing two people in the same profession, with the same seniority, working the same number of hours, and so forth, women earn $0.98 for every dollar that a man earns.”

Their source for that number has since updated that number to $0.99 for every dollar a man earns for the same work.

So, unless you think that women should be paid significantly more than men for the same work (which wouldn’t surprise me, given your other comments in this thread), Rejoice! for the “wage gap” is no more!

I originally wasn’t going to respond to this post, but there’s so much revisionism, omissions, and outright inaccuracies here that I ultimately couldn’t ignore it, and that’s just when it comes to the Minoans and Hittites, which I’m most familiar with. As such, I assume your comments about the others are equally one-sided in order to serve the really odd, unnecessary narrative you have going on here.

First off, we know very little about the Minoans, since, y’know, Linear A hasn’t been deciphered yet, but from what we do know, they had an incredibly gender-segregated society, far more than we have today. In lists of family members, for example, the men and the women are in completely separate lists, which would be pretty weird for a place that didn’t have “arbitrary social constructs” like gender roles, and women seem to have been forbidden from most traditionally male jobs in their society.

Their art emphasized sexual dimorphism, and for you to assume that nakedness of the breasts in clothing trends implies the same thing for them that it would in our society today just adds to the evidence that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

They did have indoor plumbing, so at least you’re right about that.

For the Hittites it’s even worse, since their code of laws enforced separate punishments for crimes against men and women, with crimes against men carrying much more stringent penalties than crimes against women. Also, Hittite men wielded a large amount of legal power over their wives, which is indicated in their marriage ritual, where the man would “take” his wife so he could “possess” her afterward. Yes, it’s better than the ancient Greeks a thousand years later, but by how much is debatable.

Further, tawananna (queens) only ruled when their kings were away, or after they had died until the next king was chosen, and not a single queen is listed in Hittite histories as a legitimate successor to the dynasty at any point. Their role in court was mostly religious, and while they did conduct diplomatic relations with other countries, to act like Hittite queens were on par with Hittite kings in any way is completely false.

So we’re operating from what’s effectively misogynistic propaganda treated as a blueprint carried forward and reinforced in the historical record. It’s not “how it’s always been” at all. It’s just how it’s been recorded as having been by one side.

While there are definitely plenty of excellent examples of strong female leaders throughout history, and their achievements should certainly be celebrated, the ridiculous Bronze Age revisionism you’ve written here sounds much more like propaganda than what’s actually attested in the “historical record”.

I’m pretty sure that by this point most reasonable people have realized that the wage gap is a myth, so that’s probably not your best example.

Exactly. Feminist terminology like “toxic masculinity” and “patriarchy” has been very carefully chosen to be misandrist enough to result in the intended widespread popular demonization of men that we’ve seen over the past few decades, while also giving feminists enough deniability to gaslight with “that’s not what the terms ackchually mean though”.

The misandry is a feature, not a bug.

Exactly. More lenient sentencing is definitely part of female privilege.

Oh wait, no, I mean part of the horrible misogynist practice of “putting women on a pedestal”, of course. Gotta make sure that we frame all of the privilege that being a woman brings as actually just more evidence of how bad men are!

Brosef, the term “patriarchy” itself is (and has always been) intentionally misleading and inherently misandrist, and has played a huge role in the modern demonization of men as a result. The “academic definition” of the term is irrelevant, as the (fully intended) real world negative consequences of the term for men in the cultural zeitgeist have been systemic and pervasive, as we can see all over this thread.

This has “mah bucket” sea lion vibes.