Monty Python's The life of Brian - I want to be a woman

> It's the priests and priestesses of postmodernism that gets people's backs up isn't it, not so much the concept(s) itself. Yes, that. Especially since the concept itself was never meant to be something one can opt to follow or not follow -- just a description of the reality we're in. It's not that we're "postmodernists" that is, but that we live in a "postmodern" world -- and so we can't be anything aside from that. As for Peterson, I see him as something orthogonal from postmodernism. He is someone that talks from a traditional values standpoint in an era where different norms are becoming the mainstream. He doesn't say anything outrageous, in the sense that what he says would be common acceptable wisdom 30 or 50 years ago (and for tons of people still is). The whole outrage is not because he's saying something inherently outrageous, but because he dares to publicly stray from the mainstream while still being mainstream. Somebody could say the same things in a 1950 classroom or the president could say them in 1970s and nobody would bat an eyelash -- even among the leftist and more progressives. Heck, the Monty Python made fun of "gender identities" for example in the late 70s, and those bunch was and is as progressive as they come: [VIDEO]

> Interesting. Citation please. I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is: "The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving. Non Parental care giving involved both relatives (kinship care) and non relatives (Day care). The NICHD study was based on the ecological theory of Uri Bronfenbrenner (1979) [29]. Analysis of the effects of family and child care revealed that the characteristics of the family and the nature and quality of the mothers relationship with the child was a significantly better predictor of childrens outcome." [LINK] Also: [LINK] Merely quoting the easiest sources, there are lots of studies to be found online. > I believe there are a certain percentage of women who either don't willingly breast-feed or are incapable. How does it affect their babies? Are their studies? [LINK] (Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point) > Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected, but I think a man by himself is capable of raising a child in a normal way(sans breast milk). It still takes a woman to give birth to a child. And while a "man is capable of raising a child in a normal way", that doesn't say much. Also an orphanage is capable of raising a child -- or "the streets", as it happen

> I don't like giving citations, because we have this thing called Google, now. But here it is: This thing called Google returns results from the web, and any crackpot can have a page indexed. You are not required to, but the onus of citing is on you when you are making a claim which isn't known to the demographic in question. > That said, the implication that a mother being close to a new born child is completely equal to a father being close to a new born child is PC ideology. >> The NICHD study of Early child care was designed to assess the long term outcomes of non parental care giving What relevance you non-parental care giving has to do with a father raising a child? [LINK] > Attachment theory describes the dynamics of long-term relationships between humans. Its most important tenet is that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for social and emotional development to occur normally. Why are you quoting "maternal deprivation" when it is superseded by "attachment theory"? Attachment theory talks about "at least one parent" and your claims are mother is more important. > [LINK] >> (Correlation != causation of course, but the other causation for the effects here would be higher quality mother time, which also furthers the point) You are conveniently ignoring the studies which didn't find causation or correlation. > Call it wishful thinking, and it's not about "we are exactly the same or interchangeable". I am willing to be corrected,

I’m not going to address much of the article directly, but I would like to address some of the undertones I’m perceiving in both the article and the comments here. Additionally, I don’t hear this kind of thing said around here much… Firstly: Equality is not a zero-sum game, nor does it mean treating everyone equally (yeah). To address the first component of this – the effects of feminism for women do not need result in a net-reduction of freedoms and happiness for men. Patriarchy[1] screws both men and women, each in different ways. Patriarchy is why for a long time I felt compelled to be the strong supportive male and hide my weaknesses, despite the unhappiness these roles caused me. In other men it can manifest differently, perhaps undirected anger at the world, but not really knowing why. Or perhaps a numb feeling that you’re just doing what you’re ‘supposed to do’. I strongly feel that feminism and masculism (?) stand side-by-side. They are different entities fighting mostly the same enemies. Sometimes they will need to have talks and make compromises with each other, but it can still be a cooperation. I get the impression that much of the male disquiet with feminism is coming for a place of, ‘yes, but what about me’. And this is totally reasonable. However, the answer is not to criticise feminism. If you’re envious of your neighbour’s new car, the rational response is not to attack it with a baseball bat. Rather it is either a) deal with your feelings and be happy for yo

That was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the headline. Some of their shows are often seen as absurd and then they become mainstream reality years later. Sort of like some of the old Monty Python works. For example there is the skit where they talk about fractious Judean (insert Israeli) politics and men giving birth: [LINK] [VIDEO]

That's tough. Mac Pro for you, if it must be Mac hardware. But why on earth Mac docker server? Obviously not for professional purposes. For play, use any x86 box you like, just because you want speed doesn't mean speed is necessary. If it must be Apple Silicon, then you can run as many virtual instances of macOS as you like on my GNU/XNU ARMac "Linux" (not actually Linux) release, and as many Docker Desktop for Apple Silicon as virtual instances of macOS. But if Docker had any decency, they'd release the source code to you, so you could build it native for Apple Silicon XNU. Have you considered working for Docker? Would make it a lot easier to get the source code, or just move through the ranks and make it a Docker initiative. Or suppose we agree while you can't actually run docker server on Apple Silicon, because the code doesn't exist, which is no one's fault, not even Apple's, but that you can still have the right to run docker server on Apple Silicon. We shall fight your oppressors for your right to run docker server on Apple Silicon because it is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.[1] [1] [VIDEO]

Born and raised in Brooklyn, and old enough to remember when the Brooklyn accent was a detriment on job interviews, yet I've bumped into a bunch of people who sound almost like they're from Brooklyn, but they have only lived there for a few years from the midwest or other areas. Southerners tend to maintain their charming lilts. There are enough transplants, that it is not because they are being inundated with the accent, so I wonder what gives? We used to mimic Monty Python episodes and movies when I grew up in 60s and 70s in Brooklyn. Hilarious stuff. Eerily relevant skit from The Life of Brian: [VIDEO]