You're reading the public-facing archive of the Category Theory Zulip server.
To join the server you need an invite. Anybody can get an invite by contacting Matteo Capucci at name dot surname at gmail dot com.
For all things related to this archive refer to the same person.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:05):♀ A feminist perspective ♀
(Women, both cis and trans, please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m describing this situation in good faith, but I know I don’t have the lived experience. I’m sharing what some women have told me and the concerns they’ve raised, and I want to do so without mansplaining)
I completely understand your (I am talking to the whole male community) hesitation about implementing an AI exam, as the administrative burden and the potential for new, automated biases are very real concerns. It makes sense to be cautious about replacing human judgment with an algorithm.
However, I'd love to offer a slightly different perspective on the current endorsement system, particularly the idea that "false negatives" are rare. That assumption overlooks the severe structural barriers inherent in network-based gatekeeping.
The current system relies heavily on a small pool of established gatekeepers for career advancement and endorsements. As physicist Angela Collier details in her discussion on sexual harassment in astronomy and physics (minute 13 of the video), this power structure can easily trap early-career researchers. When marginalized scholars -particularly women- face harassment, reporting or fleeing an abusive mentor often means permanently losing access to the exact professional network required to get an arXiv endorsement. These scholars aren't falling through the cracks because they lack "Ramanujan"-level genius; they are frequently pushed out by unsafe power dynamics, making these "false negatives" invisible to the established network rather than rare.
This is precisely where an AI exam could serve as a powerful tool for equity. While relying on an algorithm might feel cold or impersonal, it effectively bypasses the subjective "old boys' network." An AI evaluator does not care who your advisor is, whether you attended the right after-hours conference socials, or if you had to leave a prestigious lab to escape a hostile environment. It evaluates the work on its own merits.
For many women and marginalized researchers, having an objective, automated threshold to clear -even an imperfect one- is actually far less "dehumanizing" than being forced to beg for subjective validation from a social network that historically excludes them. While your practical critiques of the AI exam are completely valid, it might be worth considering it not as a burden on the establishment, but as a much-needed safety valve for competent researchers who are simply locked out of the room.
Angela Collier, Sexual harassment and assault in Astronomy and Physics
David Michael Roberts (Feb 24 2026 at 04:09):While relying on an algorithm might feel cold or impersonal, it effectively bypasses the subjective "old boys' network.
This ignores the problems of learned biases in AI systems, but I haven't time to read or respond to any of your other points, while acknowledging they are real problems.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:14):The AI system might be biased, but it wouldn't sexually harass a student. We can imagine a situation where a professor interprets an arXiv endorsement request as an opportunity for sexual harassment. Again, reference to Angela Collier's video.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:31):According to the provocative feminist thinker Valerie Solanas (whose actions toward Andy Warhol are not endorsed here, but whose ideas remain relevant to the complex interplay between gender and automation):
- Lack of automation. There now exists a wealth of data which, if sorted out and correlated, would reveal the cure for cancer and several other diseases and possibly the key to life itself. But the data is so massive it requires high speed computers to correlate it all. The institution of computers will be delayed interminably under the male control system, since the male has a horror of being replaced by machines.
Source: Solanas, Valerie. The Scum Manifesto. 1968.
(Solanas offered insights that continue to provoke critical reflection. While Solanas likely struggled with significant mental health challenges, her work represents some of the most original and insightful philosophical thought of the twentieth century and should not be dismissed on that basis alone. By contrast, Aristotle’s deeply misogynistic views have not prevented his continued reverence in intellectual history, illustrating a clear double standard in how male and female thinkers are judged.)
In my view, Solanas's main insight is that automation is positively correlated to the liberation of women. She stood in stark contrast to Theodore Kaczynski, often seen as a stereotypical embodiment of patriarchal resistance to modernity. For her, technology, especially automation, was not a threat, but a vital instrument of emancipation.
Kevin Carlson (Feb 24 2026 at 04:33):Hmm, never had anyone share the ramblings of a paranoid schizophrenic about to be imprisoned for multiple attempted murders as one of their favorites before.
David Michael Roberts (Feb 24 2026 at 04:35):I think I will disengage from more discussion here unless it's on the narrow focus of pointing out specific problem papers.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:35):Let's focus on the issue of AI and automation instead of attacking a tormented woman (Valerie Solanas).
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:37):David Michael Roberts said:
I think I will disengage from more discussion here unless it's on the narrow focus of pointing out specific problem papers.
Okay, please let some women share their opinions on this. Are they comfortable with the current ArXiv endorsement system? Let's the women talk.
Kevin Carlson (Feb 24 2026 at 04:38):Solanas is far beyond the reach of my attack. I just consider it unacceptable to introduce her writings into reasonable discourse.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:39):This quote about how technology affects both genders differently is relevant to the topic of AI. If you don't like her, fine, just consider the quote and ignore the author.
David Michael Roberts (Feb 24 2026 at 04:51):I think this second new topic needs its own thread.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 04:52):It is entirely appropriate to examine the arXiv endorsement system through a feminist lens. Rather than shutting down the conversation, we should create space for women to speak openly about their experiences seeking endorsement in a male-dominated field.
David Michael Roberts (Feb 24 2026 at 06:47):Despite my earlier pronouncement, please allow me to invite more comments, albeit in a dedicated thread.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 06:51):If you like, we could start a thread about women in math, but I think the comments above are more relevant to arXiv’s endorsement system.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 06:52):I highly encourage everyone to watch Angela Collier: Sexual Harassment and Assault in Astronomy and Physics to gain a better understanding of the situation.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 07:07):Kevin Carlson said:
Solanas is far beyond the reach of my attack. I just consider it unacceptable to introduce her writings into reasonable discourse.
I recognize that Valerie Solanas is a problematic figure to center, yet her work raises a necessary question: how do we advocate for automation as a vital tool for gender justice without relying on her divisive legacy? I am looking for alternative frameworks, because my focus is on dismantling the systemic gatekeeping that halts collective progress. My core argument is that automating submission processes acts as a radical equalizer, stripping away the patriarchal biases and "old boys' club" dynamics that historically marginalize women. Conversely, endorsement-based strategies only force us to perform for the status quo, reinforcing the very hierarchies that prevent women from achieving true autonomy.
Notification Bot (Feb 24 2026 at 08:07):16 messages were moved here from #community: general > AI-generated papers by Matteo Capucci (he/him).
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Feb 24 2026 at 08:09):Mod hat on: moved, @José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) please keep in mind that flooding a single thread with messages isn't conducive to a productive discussion. Specifically, you are encouraged to use Zulip threading system to allow people to follow or unfollow the discussions they want to engage with.
Morgan Rogers (he/him) (Feb 24 2026 at 08:15):José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) said:
How do we advocate for automation as a vital tool for gender justice without relying on her divisive legacy? I am looking for alternative frameworks, because my focus is on dismantling the systemic gatekeeping that halts collective progress. My core argument is that automating submission processes acts as a radical equalizer...
On what basis? It's a widespread problem that automated systems reinforce existing biases while removing human accountability for a decision-making process. I don't think there is adequate evidence that automation is in any way "vital"; at any rate it wouldn't solve the systemic issues you're highlighting, since the automated systems would just be gate keeping access to the same human communities where the problems persist.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Feb 24 2026 at 08:26):Mod hat off. I think José raises good if uncomfortable questions regarding the current status of academia, I also think these are not particularly surprising or novel to anyone here, which does not mean they are not important. I'd like also to remark that the 'feminist' lens is certainly relevant but itself limited: the problems of ingroup enforcement, network effects, social inequality, and access to academia are not specifically geared toward any social group, but rather amplify existing direct or indirect discrimination dynamics which unfortunately target many different such groups. This is too rather unoriginal at this point, but nonetheless relevant.
There is another side to the coin of gatekeeping, which is the preservation of epistemic/semiotic relationships. In the impossibility of knowing and chekcing everything, our societies are built on trust networks which help us distribute the honus of, e.g., check that someone's work merits attention in the community. These systems are easy to abuse, yes, but they also provide immense value. Social media then and AI now showed very clearly what happens when these epistemic networks are strained and how precious they are in a complex world.
And, I say, one cannot 'automate away' the human aspect of it. Technical prowess is part of what made Ramanjuan great, the other part was reaching out to the larger mathematical community and becoming part of it. Moreover, the fact that there can be an objective threshold (is skill is even measured on a linear scale?) of prerequisites is completely bewildering to me, starting from the fact that the very signs of the language of mathematics are socially defined by the same epistemic group the people seeking endorsement from are excluded. I'm pretty sure Ramanjuan wouldn't have passed a Cambridge number theory exam before coming to England, in the same way I would not be able to pass an Italian history exam in Chinese.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Feb 24 2026 at 08:28):Morgan Rogers (he/him) said:
It's a widespread problem that automated systems reinforce existing biases while removing human accountability for a decision-making process.
Touching on this in conclusion, tech-positivism often has this blindspot, thinking that technologies determine social dynamics rather than the opposite. AI endorsement would let through one or two Ramanjans, maybe, but wouldn't solve any of the problems of the comunity they would 'become part of', starting from the systemic biases that excluded them in the first place.
Rather, it's about time we start to tend to our epistemic networks as the precious infrastructure they are, protecting them from those who use them to perpetrate systemic inequality and also from those who try to poison them with slop, of whatever origin.
Matteo Capucci (he/him) (Feb 24 2026 at 08:29):José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) said:
- The institution of computers will be delayed interminably under the male control system, since the male has a horror of being replaced by machines.
Anyway, aside from Solanas' personal credibility, this prediction has clearly being blatantly falsified by now, so I see no point bringing her up.
John Baez (Feb 24 2026 at 16:08):José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) said:
Okay, please let some women share their opinions on this. Are they comfortable with the current arXiv endorsement system? Let the women talk.
There are very few women speaking on this forum, alas. This is a general problem in mathematics related forums. On MathOverflow I asked
What if anything has been done, or is being done, to make MathOverflow more welcoming to women - or at least less unwelcoming to women?
and the response was somewhat depressing. The first long answer, quite popular but now apparently deleted by its author, suggested that questions of this sort should not be allowed. The best answer, in my opinion, is by Ben Webster. He actually answered the question: note I didn't ask what should be done, but what has been done or is being done. Summarizing: some things were once being done, but nothing is now being done. One moderator said they were waiting for women to offer suggestions, but none have. There are no women moderators.
The same question could be raised here. I don't feel there is as much active opposition to helping women here, but still there are very few women and no clear path toward fixing that.
In contrast, the arXiv's moderator board has a number of women.
Sofia B (Feb 24 2026 at 20:08):I don't feel like I have much constructive to say on the topic of an "AI exam". On the other hand, I can give you a hypothesis as to why women might not be particular interested in this thread.
You begin by addressing the "whole male community", then you make the argument that existing academic networks have biases, then you assert (with no evidence) that your proposed "AI evaluator" has not just less bias, but is "objective".
After a bit of back and forth you give a plea for women to give their opinion.
It would be nice if you had more clearly delimited the scope of the text where "you" refers to the "whole male community" and when it starts referring to everyone again, considering that people of multiple genders are certainly reading this. As it is, this framing feels like it is mostly asking women to specifically jump in to strengthen your side of the argument.
I think the better question would be to ask if anyone at all (not specifically women!) has found that the social-connection based vetting for arxiv has hampered their access due to discrimination.
But I feel this thread has gone too in the weeds for this to be a great place to ask that (besides the fact that this particular Zulip won't be known to many of the people who this question would be relevant to)
Alex Kreitzberg (Feb 24 2026 at 20:39):I'd be surprised if an AI could make a test it couldn't pass. And the vast majority of crackpots are men. So done poorly I also think such a system would work against feminist interests.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 22:53):Sofia B said:
You begin by addressing the "whole male community", then you make the argument that existing academic networks have biases, then you assert (with no evidence) that your proposed "AI evaluator" has not just less bias, but is "objective".
My intent in addressing men alone was to highlight a blind spot men often have regarding sexual harassment and gatekeeping, as discussed in Angela Collier's video. I don't need to tell women what they already know. Nevertheless, there are some men who genuinely do not understand their privileges.
Concerning AI, my narrower point was simply that an algorithm cannot commit sexual harassment or demand favors for an endorsement. It removes a specific, predatory interpersonal dynamic.
I think the better question would be to ask if anyone at all (not specifically women!) has found that the social-connection based vetting for arxiv has hampered their access due to discrimination.
I agree that asking about broad discrimination (like geography, race, or institutional prestige) is valuable. However, the specific gender dynamics of who is endorsing whom are critical here. As a heterosexual man, asking for an endorsement might bring professional anxiety, but it doesn't carry the underlying threat of sexual harassment. I highlighted this to point out a severe, gendered barrier that many men simply don't have to navigate.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 23:12):Alex Kreitzberg said:
I'd be surprised if an AI could make a test it couldn't pass. And the vast majority of crackpots are men. So done poorly I also think such a system would work against feminist interests.
Regarding the risk of AI taking the test, we could rely on standard online proctoring tools (webcams, browser locks), similar to measures already implemented by the Canadian government to prevent cheating.
My broader point is that the current system of human endorsements actively enables abuse. As highlighted in Angela Collier's video, the power dynamic of recommendation letters is too often weaponized to sexually harass female students. Subjective gatekeeping also forces marginalized students to navigate other prejudices, like antisemitism or Islamophobia, causing immense anxiety when asking for endorsements. It is very difficult to ask for a letter of recommendation from someone who has publicly expressed political opinions opposed to yours. Ignoring these ugly realities won't make them disappear.
We already accept objective alternatives elsewhere. For example, winning a Kaggle competition proves a person's machine learning competence regardless of their gender, religion, or ethnicity, making a traditional recommendation letter superfluous.
(Note: I already have an arXiv account and don't need any recommendation letter, so I am speaking from a position of privilege. But if I had a daughter, I would want her to be able to prove her competence on her own merits, rather than begging for approval from an "old boys' club".)
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 23:19):Example of AI-generated test
Input
A student wishes to pursue a doctorate in category theory applied to quantum processes; develop a test to verify if this student possesses the required skills. The output should be the test only. Do not use LaTeX, only unstructured plain text.
Screenshot 2026-02-24 at 18-25-12 Google Gemini.png
Output (Gemini 3 Pro)
Define a symmetric monoidal category. Explain the role of the associator and the braiding morphisms, and discuss why coherence theorems are critical when working with string diagrams.
Explain the concept of a dagger compact category. How do the abstract categorical concepts of dual objects and the dagger functor map to the physical concepts of quantum states, effects, and adjoints in the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces?
Describe the standard formulation of finite-dimensional quantum mechanics. How are pure states, mixed states, unitary evolution, and projective measurements mathematically represented?
What is a strongly complementary pair of observables in quantum mechanics, and how is this concept captured algebraically by interacting Frobenius algebras in the ZX-calculus?
Detail the Completely Positive Map construction. Why is this construction necessary for modeling quantum systems that undergo decoherence or interact with a larger classical environment?
Translate the standard quantum teleportation protocol into the language of string diagrams using cups, caps, and unitary gates. Clearly identify the categorical analog of the Bell state preparation and the Bell measurement.
Discuss the relationship between completely positive trace-preserving maps and causality in categorical quantum mechanics. How is the discarding of a quantum system represented diagrammatically, and what axiom guarantees that physical processes do not allow signaling from the future to the past?
Sketch the proof that the category of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces with the standard tensor product forms a dagger compact category. Identify the unit object and explain the construction of the evaluation and coevaluation maps.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 23:22):(In the rare case where the AI-generated test contains an error due to an AI hallucination, the student could complain and an expert could review and correct it if necessary)
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 24 2026 at 23:36):Matteo Capucci (he/him) said:
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) said:
- The institution of computers will be delayed interminably under the male control system, since the male has a horror of being replaced by machines.
Anyway, aside from Solanas' personal credibility, this prediction has clearly being blatantly falsified by now, so I see no point bringing her up.
The historical delay in the "institution of computers" under male control systems is evidenced by the mid-20th-century transition of "human computers" (a role almost exclusively held by women) into electronic ones, where male middle management frequently sabotaged automated payroll and ledger systems to maintain their status as the sole arbiters of institutional "truth." This gendered resistance manifested empirically in the "featherbedding" practices of male-dominated printing and rail unions throughout the 1960s and 70s, where technological adoption was stalled not for lack of efficiency, but to preserve the "manly dignity" of manual labor against the perceived emasculation of the machine. Even the development of the Internet was initially restricted to the hyper-masculinized spheres of military command and academic gatekeeping, delaying universal access until the "male control system" could rebrand the interface from a collaborative "feminine" network into a competitive marketplace of dominance. This empirical pattern, from the 19th-century Luddite smashing of textile frames to modern executive resistance against AI-driven decision-making, suggests that the patriarchal ego consistently prioritizes the preservation of a functional hierarchy over the speed of innovation, viewing any machine that can "think" or "act" autonomously as an existential threat to the male monopoly on social utility.
Kevin Carlson (Feb 25 2026 at 00:04):I'm really deeply bewildered by how someone could possibly produce the belief that "I don't want this machine to take my job" is a thought somehow characteristic of, or exclusive to, males.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 00:04):John Baez said:
I don't feel there is as much active opposition to helping women here, but still there are very few women and no clear path toward fixing that.
It can be argued that the most effective way to support women in specialized fields like mathematics is to prioritize the advancement of automation and meritocratic systems. By decoupling professional success from traditional, gatekept hierarchies, we minimize the reliance on interpersonal endorsements that can often be influenced by systemic hostility. While many individuals within these institutions operate with integrity, there exists a documented power imbalance where academic supervisors may exploit their positions of authority for harassment.
If women were empowered to achieve professional recognition based solely on objective talent (bypassing the need for subjective "gatekeeping" such as male-dependent letters of recommendation) motivation to pursue careers in physics, astronomy, and mathematics would likely increase. This perspective aligns with the radical critiques of Valerie Solanas, who posited that men cannot directly facilitate a social revolution for women; rather, the "male-dominated society" is fundamentally designed to preserve its own status quo. According to this framework, significant social change is only precipitated by technological necessity. Solanas’ conflict with figures like Andy Warhol can be viewed through this lens as a rejection of those who resist industrial and technological evolution. As she succinctly articulated:
No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top. The male “rebel” is a farce; this is the male’s “society”, made by him to satisfy his needs. He’s never satisfied, because he’s not capable of being satisfied. Ultimately, what the male “rebel” is rebelling against is being male. The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when “society” reaches the stage where he must change or die.
Source: Page 24 of the Scum Manifesto.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 00:50):Kevin Carlson said:
I'm really deeply bewildered by how someone could possibly produce the belief that "I don't want this machine to take my job" is a thought somehow characteristic of, or exclusive to, males.
According to (*):
female workers are at a significantly higher risk for displacement by
automation than male workers
The high rate of female displacement by automation is not an economic crisis but the definitive mechanism for the collapse of patriarchal control. Because the current labor market forces women into "stultifying," routine roles that are inherently robotic, these positions serve as the structural foundation for a male-dominated "money-work system" designed to manufacture a false sense of male utility. Automation exposes the obsolete nature of this labor, proving that the work women are forced to perform is beneath human dignity and better suited for machines. By accelerating this displacement, the technological evolution of the workforce systematically dismantles the economic leverage men use to bribe and coerce female companionship. Ultimately, the total automation of these sectors is the essential precursor to a post-scarcity society, stripping the male-centric state of its power and liberating women from the artificial necessity of work to pursue genuine, self-directed existence.
(*) Brussevich, Mariya, Ms Era Dabla-Norris, and Salma Khalid. Is technology widening the gender gap? Automation and the future of female employment. International Monetary Fund, 2019.
Kevin Carlson (Feb 25 2026 at 01:50):Oh, OK, so you're arguing that men are uniquely opposed to automation because all the unions are full of men, but also because men are particularly opposed to women losing their jobs, because once the women are all unemployed (but not, now we're apparently supposing, the men?) somehow this will lead to the women's empowerment, which men oppose? Pardon me if "inconsistent" strikes me as a generous description of the discussion here. You might try making short, simple, and unambiguous statements, which are actually clearly verifiable either empirically or via reasoning, like a mathematician, to make better progress.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 02:27):First, I would like to thank you all for your efforts to understand the social challenges women face in male-dominated fields such as mathematics. Regardless of whether my proposed solution (accelerationism of automation) is right or wrong, the problem itself is real.
Kevin Carlson said:
You might try making short, simple, and unambiguous statements, which are actually clearly verifiable either empirically or via reasoning, like a mathematician, to make better progress.
Let us formalize the argument to resolve the perceived contradiction by establishing clear definitions and axioms. First, define the money-work system as an artificial economic structure where human survival is contingent upon wage labor. Second, define patriarchal leverage as the coercive power men derive from women being forced to participate in this money-work system for survival. We can state two axioms based on these definitions. Axiom one states that male social utility and structural power are strictly dependent on the continuous preservation of the money-work system. Axiom two states that the subjugation of women requires their continuous, forced participation in this system through routine labor. From these foundational premises, we can derive the following proposition: the automation of female labor monotonically decreases patriarchal leverage.
The proof of this proposition resolves your allegation of inconsistency. Automation mathematically reduces the necessity of human labor in routine tasks. As empirical data demonstrates that women occupy a significantly higher proportion of these highly automatable routine roles, the introduction of automation disproportionately displaces women from the money-work system. If women are structurally removed from wage labor by technological replacement, the fundamental mechanism for their economic coercion vanishes. The patriarchal structure requires female participation in the labor market to exact leverage over them; as forced participation approaches zero, coercive leverage approaches zero.
The claim of inconsistency fails because it confuses local employment dynamics with global structural integrity. Men oppose automation universally because the total obsolescence of labor implies the obsolescence of the money-work system itself, which is the sole basis of their manufactured utility. They defend the necessity of labor to preserve their hierarchy. Simultaneously, the specific automation of female labor destroys the distinct vector of female economic dependence. There is no logical contradiction in observing that the beneficiaries of a hierarchical system will defend the necessity of that system, while the technological displacement of its victims systematically accelerates the collapse of that same hierarchy. The elimination of female labor is not a loss of female power, but the elimination of the specific dependency model that sustains male authority.
If my model (based on Solanas' philosophy) is right, the final result of automation will be a fierce bifurcation of the female workforce:
A significant portion of women will aggressively enter male-dominated fields like mathematics, tech, and hard sciences out of sheer economic necessity, breaking down traditional gender ratios.
Another massive portion of displaced women, who may not have access to the heavy reskilling required for advanced mathematics, will create the social conditions for Solanas's revolution. Indeed, as long as humans can migrate to care jobs, the "money-work system" survives. But if the care economy is automated, capitalism as a wage-labor system mathematically breaks down. If 95% of the population has absolutely no labor to sell (no muscle, no routine brainpower, no empathy) they cannot earn wages, and therefore cannot buy the products the machines are producing. At this point, the system must either collapse into dystopian starvation or transition into forced Universal Basic Income and eventually, post-scarcity. By eliminating the care economy, the necessity of human labor truly drops to zero, the "Wage-Labor" system is annihilated, and the patriarchal leverage built on economic coercion ceases to exist.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 02:45):According to Solanas, the end of the patriarchy should look like this:
The rest of the women will be busy solving the few remaining unsolved problems before planning their agenda for eternity and Utopia -- completely revamping educational programs so that millions of women can be trained within a few months for high level intellectual work that now requires years of training (this can be done very easily once our educational goal is to educate and not perpetuate an academic and intellectual elite); solving the problems of disease and old age and death and completely redesigning our cities and living quarters.
James Deikun (Feb 25 2026 at 03:43):I see no reason why the total collapse of the "Wage-Labor system" would not lead to "dystopian starvation"--historically this seems to be the norm when a system collapses from its internal contradictions rather than being supplanted by another system that has developed organically in parallel.
James Deikun (Feb 25 2026 at 03:49):Perhaps more pertinently, there have been many systems of patriarchal domination that were not dependent on forcing everyone into labor for wages, which was a much more recent development in human history than oppression of women by men.
James Deikun (Feb 25 2026 at 04:03):Finally, Solanas's apparent overall conviction that all that stands between current human technical knowledge and that needed for the fabled "luxury space communism" is an attitude adjustment and something like five years of serious work just doesn't pass the laugh test, given when she was writing and everything we now know about cancer, disease, and aging that we didn't know then.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 04:52):Regarding the fear of dystopian starvation following the collapse of the wage-labor system, you assume this collapse would happen in a technological vacuum. Solanas, however, argues that the replacement system(industrial automation)already exists organically in parallel but is deliberately suppressed. In her view, the technology to sustain humanity without human labor is artificially restrained because the male power structure requires the work system to maintain its hierarchy and manufacture a false sense of purpose. Ending wage labor would not be a chaotic collapse of production, but rather the unchaining of automated infrastructure currently bottlenecked by capitalism and the patriarchy. This may be the universal basic income that Elon Musk was advocating for. That would liberate a lot of women who are dependent upon abusive men for their basic needs.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 04:54):Your assertion that patriarchy historically predates wage labor is accurate but bypasses Solanas's point about the evolution of dominance. Solanas never claims wage labor invented the oppression of women; she argues it is simply the modern mechanism required to sustain it. Because brute physical force is largely obsolete in a highly mechanized society, modern male supremacy relies entirely on the complex, artificial hierarchy of the money-work system to justify its existence and enforce dependence. Therefore, dismantling this specific economic scaffolding is the necessary prerequisite for dismantling contemporary patriarchal power.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 04:56):Finally, dismissing Solanas's five-year timeline for total automation and curing disease as failing the laugh test ignores the rhetorical nature of 1960s utopian literature. Solanas uses this hyperbole to hold a mirror to a society that could fund global warfare and the space race but neglected basic human flourishing. Her timeline is a deliberate provocation meant to highlight that the barriers to post-scarcity are not technological, but political and psychological, emphasizing how rapidly exponential progress could occur if human genius were unburdened from maintaining the status quo.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 06:41):Here are the 4 examples of pathological power dynamics (of course, this is not a general law, and there are many examples of healthy power dynamics):
1772000914146.jpg
Male Professor / Female Student
This dynamic represents the maximum asymmetry in power, as the professor's absolute institutional authority is compounded by historical and systemic male social privilege. This extreme power imbalance creates the highest statistical vulnerability for the student, frequently manifesting as boundary blurring, paternalism disguised as mentorship, and an increased risk of coercion or exploitation. Furthermore, female students in this position often face stereotype threat or imposter syndrome, which can severely complicate their academic progression and their ability to self-advocate in a heavily skewed power structure.
Female Professor / Male Student
In this cross-cutting dynamic, the professor's institutional authority conflicts directly with traditional societal gender hierarchies, where the male student holds baseline systemic privilege. This intersection frequently results in "authority friction," a phenomenon where the student may consciously or unconsciously challenge the professor's expertise, grading, and boundaries more aggressively than they would a male instructor. Additionally, female professors navigating this dynamic often face implicit expectations to perform uncompensated emotional labor or adopt a "maternal" mentoring style, rather than being evaluated and respected purely for their academic rigor.
Male Professor / Male Student
This relationship is characterized by a traditional institutional hierarchy that is heavily smoothed by shared male socialization, effectively neutralizing gender as a point of friction. Because authority figures naturally tend to gravitate toward subordinates who reflect their own identities, this dynamic frequently benefits from "homosocial reproduction" or the "old boys' club" effect. Consequently, male students in this dyad are statistically more likely to receive active career sponsorship, informal networking opportunities, and relaxed professional boundaries that can rapidly and disproportionately accelerate their academic trajectories.
Female Professor / Female Student
This dyad is defined by hierarchical solidarity, where the professor's institutional power is often buffered by the shared lived experience of navigating heavily patriarchal academic systems. While this dynamic frequently yields strong, empathetic, and highly supportive mentorship, it carries its own unique set of risks, most notably the blurring of professional boundaries due to assumed in-group solidarity. Conversely, it can sometimes trigger the "Queen Bee" syndrome, where a female professor enforces excessively harsh standards on her female students under the misguided belief that she must "toughen them up" to survive in a male-dominated field.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 07:58):My main motivation: Rather than advocating for a specific theory of societal power dynamics, my motivation is to explore how these systems can be formalized using category theory, allowing us to definitively determine if two competing proposals are structurally identical. This comprehensive framework must encompass the entire spectrum of social organization, from the most moderate to the most radical, while explicitly accounting for the role of automation in shaping these power relations. Ultimately, determining which theoretical proposal best corresponds to empirical reality remains a question of statistical analysis rather than category theory
Alex Kreitzberg (Feb 25 2026 at 08:15):Important context I missed that others might've missed as well - "Valerie Solanas" is famous for shooting Andy Warhol.
I wasn't sure, but José's apparently unironic analysis of a meme, after changing their profile image into an AI generated dramatic illustration of a leftist - convinces me they aren't arguing sincerely. Something about their writing makes me suspicious it's AI as well.
But even if José were sincere, discussing sexism from the lens of a violent feminist agitates me - especially now - because it tacitly implies this extreme is useful or even necessary to understand "boys club" style sexism. The recent release of the Epstein files underscore you don't need to appeal to violence to argue boys clubs can be damaging.
I won't be able to respond here further because I'm going to mute this thread
James Deikun (Feb 25 2026 at 08:50):José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) said:
Finally, dismissing Solanas's five-year timeline for total automation and curing disease as failing the laugh test ignores the rhetorical nature of 1960s utopian literature. Solanas uses this hyperbole to hold a mirror to a society that could fund global warfare and the space race but neglected basic human flourishing. Her timeline is a deliberate provocation meant to highlight that the barriers to post-scarcity are not technological, but political and psychological, emphasizing how rapidly exponential progress could occur if human genius were unburdened from maintaining the status quo.
What she's "highlighting" is still a non-fact. The barriers to post-scarcity in the 1960s were definitively technological, and we now have the historical perspective to see that just "putting our backs into it" in the 1960s couldn't plausibly have brought about a post-scarcity utopia by the 1970s.
James Deikun (Feb 25 2026 at 09:02):José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) said:
Regarding the fear of dystopian starvation following the collapse of the wage-labor system, you assume this collapse would happen in a technological vacuum. Solanas, however, argues that the replacement system(industrial automation)already exists organically in parallel but is deliberately suppressed. In her view, the technology to sustain humanity without human labor is artificially restrained because the male power structure requires the work system to maintain its hierarchy and manufacture a false sense of purpose. Ending wage labor would not be a chaotic collapse of production, but rather the unchaining of automated infrastructure currently bottlenecked by capitalism and the patriarchy. This may be the universal basic income that Elon Musk was advocating for. That would liberate a lot of women who are dependent upon abusive men for their basic needs.
What's missing from the automation isn't the physical technology to produce goods via automation, but the social/political technology to distribute those goods to the people who need them. Automation as a replacement for capitalism is problematic precisely because it unmoors both economic and brute power from the constraints provided by their dependence on human labor, and thus doesn't provide any human leverage over the shape of society other than whatever is purposely built into the technology. Thus at best it tends to reproduce existing power structures if deployed competently, and at worst leads to total chaos or even the total elimination of humanity as technologically unnecessary.
James Deikun (Feb 25 2026 at 09:13):From this point I'm muting this thread too, as I also find José's contributions to this thread (and the prior thread) to be characteristic of trolling, and in the absence of the ability to establish a dialogue my monologue has run out.
José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) (Feb 25 2026 at 12:07):Alex Kreitzberg said:
But even if José were sincere, discussing sexism from the lens of a violent feminist agitates me - especially now - because it tacitly implies this extreme is useful or even necessary to understand "boys club" style sexism. The recent release of the Epstein files underscore you don't need to appeal to violence to argue boys clubs can be damaging.
I won't be able to respond here further because I'm going to mute this thread
If we’re going to "cancel" authors based on their relationship with violence, then Karl Marx and Martin Heidegger should be the first on the chopping block. It feels like a massive double standard: why are we holding a female author like Valerie Solanas to such rigid moral scrutiny while consistently giving influential male authors a free pass
José (Feb 25 2026 at 12:31):James Deikun said:
From this point I'm muting this thread too, as I also find José's contributions to this thread (and the prior thread) to be characteristic of trolling, and in the absence of the ability to establish a dialogue my monologue has run out.
There is a massive difference between using humor as a tool for exchanging ideas and "trolling," which is basically just mocking people's intelligence. I’m not playing games here; I genuinely believe in the points I’m defending.
First, we see a blatant double standard where female authors like Valerie Solanas are cancelled for their relationship with violence, while male authors who were far more violent or ideologically dangerous get a total free pass. Second, we have to stop ignoring the systemic problem of male professors abusing their positions to sexually harass female students. And third, implementing automatic technical skill tests would actually protect women, whereas the current "endorsement" system just leaves them vulnerable to gatekeeping, bias and sexual harassment.
It honestly doesn't surprise me that these feminist ideas are met with such resistance in a male-dominated community. I’m trying to give a voice to those who are actually oppressed, and because of that, are not here. If you go to female-dominated spaces, maybe you will find many people who agree with my analysis.
José (Feb 25 2026 at 12:58):Alex Kreitzberg said:
The recent release of the Epstein files underscore you don't need to appeal to violence to argue boys clubs can be damaging.
I’ll admit, I used to be pretty dismissive of feminism. But after seeing everything in the Epstein files, it really forced me to start taking what some feminists have been saying seriously.
José (Feb 25 2026 at 17:25):Screenshot 2026-02-25 at 12-28-42 Google Gemini.png
Maybe I am not the best person to defend the feminist agenda, because my training was in pure rather than social sciences. Anyway, here is a summary of this debate from a xenofeminist point of view.
Joe Moeller (Feb 25 2026 at 22:54):José Manuel Rodríguez Caballero (he/him/his) I removed a message you posted with a gross meme in it. Consider this a warning from a moderator.
José (Feb 26 2026 at 03:09):Thanks for deleting the meme about old professors harassing young female students. My apologies to any professors who were offended, even though I specified that the meme was about pathological power dynamics.
José (Feb 26 2026 at 03:23):A survey of undergraduate women, who attended a conference for undergraduate women in physics, revealed that approximately three quarters (74.3%; 338/455) of survey respondents experienced at least one type of sexual harassment.
Source: https://journals.aps.org/prper/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.15.010121
José (Feb 26 2026 at 03:37):Question: Why are there so few women in physics?
Answer: It's a mystery.