←back to thread

254 points Michelangelo11 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
naming_the_user ◴[] No.42056718[source]
What comes across from the article to me is the class barrier more than the gender one - basically it's a posh person finding out what the "real world" looks like.

Shop talk and banter are fairly universal. Any difference is going to be a target. Thin bloke who doesn't look strong enough? Ginger hair? Tall guy, short guy? Weird tattoo, etc. Definitely the one black guy or the one white guy is going to get shit. But is it malicious? Almost certainly not.

The other thing, which in my experience is relatively common worldwide, is that working class communities are more accepting of male-female dynamics. In academia and in highbrow society the tendency is to basically sanitise every social interaction. When you're in an environment where that isn't happening then you can't suddenly ignore it any more.

replies(20): >>42056746 #>>42056800 #>>42056807 #>>42056887 #>>42057157 #>>42057392 #>>42057456 #>>42058227 #>>42059471 #>>42063467 #>>42064057 #>>42064775 #>>42064864 #>>42065506 #>>42066833 #>>42067884 #>>42069349 #>>42070085 #>>42070433 #>>42071751 #
Rendello ◴[] No.42056746[source]
It was interesting for me going from interacting with wealthy, educated developers, to working in a very physical, low-paying blue-collar job. It seemed like living in two different worlds almost.

> working class communities are more accepting of male-female dynamics

I'm curious to what you mean by this

replies(3): >>42056759 #>>42056813 #>>42057076 #
naming_the_user ◴[] No.42056759[source]
I went the other way (grew up working class) and I still, decades later, find middle class folk (in the UK) to be uptight and terribly afraid of causing/receiving offence.

I can't pinpoint exactly "what I mean" but basically traditional values. More willing to accept the fact that men and women are going to find each other attractive, that you probably don't want your wife or husband to have a "platonic" friend of the opposite sex that they meet up with one on one, etc etc.

Whereas the highbrow view is more like - okay but if we accept those things then women can't work on nuclear submarines alongside the blokes. We want women to be able to work on nuclear submarines alongside the blokes, anything else is unacceptable, so we should sanitise all of the interactions and punish everyone for being human and then we might be able to make it work, sort of kind of but not really, everyone will be miserable but we pretend.

replies(5): >>42056765 #>>42056795 #>>42057141 #>>42057198 #>>42065521 #
kreims ◴[] No.42057141[source]
I think universal conscription is a good idea for the sole reason that everyone should get a bit of this perspective. The people who’ve never left the nice-people bubble of college and professional employment will go to completely inappropriate lengths to avoid feeling offended. You said the manager’s idea was maybe not as good as the other thing in a meeting? You just made an enemy for life. Meanwhile soldiers have productive and respectful working relationships with people who they physically fight with the day before because that’s a better alternative to however UCMJ allows your commander to screw up your life.

It’s a great exercise in personal growth for coping skills.

replies(4): >>42057400 #>>42062496 #>>42062818 #>>42063280 #
boredatoms ◴[] No.42057400[source]
> universal conscription

No thanks, Ill take anything that isn’t involuntary labor

replies(2): >>42057448 #>>42059537 #
eitland ◴[] No.42057448[source]
Look at it more like part of the education system.

Because that is what it is. Nobody gets sent to Afghanistan as part of conscription.

And, in my opinion, it has been some of the most valuable education I have got and something I'd definitely recommend my kids and my friends do if offered the opportunity.

replies(2): >>42057505 #>>42057717 #
grujicd ◴[] No.42057717[source]
"Nobody gets sent to Afghanistan as part of conscription".

You should be more careful with such statements as that's more exception than rule. If you're country goes to war, and it's not just some peace keeping mission, you can bet that whoever is at the time in army could be sent to the frontline.

replies(3): >>42057731 #>>42059797 #>>42067535 #
1. eitland ◴[] No.42059797[source]
AFAIK everybody who was sent to Afghanistan was either professionals or ordinary soldiers who applied.

If we end up in an attack on our homelands thats another thing.

But even then no ordinary conscript that reads HN (ok, possible exception for russians, but even they try to maintain a veneer of "voluntary" on it when they send conscripts) will be sent to abroad.

replies(1): >>42066368 #
2. dghlsakjg ◴[] No.42066368[source]
There are hundreds of thousands of people alive in the US right now who were drafted to fight in Vietnam. The only war with conscripts that the US didn’t send people abroad for is the civil war in the US

We didn’t have any conscripts in Afghanistan because we don’t have any conscripts at the moment. I can say that there were a lot of people that were deployed in the Middle East when they didn’t want to be. Especially for second and third tours. I personally have a friend who was told he was going to be on a ship in the Navy who ended up in Iraq.