What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[Jolly_Penguin]

That's kind of my impression too. That 9pm curfew shitshow thread talked about putting ALL men on the 9pm curfew, when in actuality its very few men that are the problem. There were quite a few people who seemed to stand by that ALL men curfew rule, despite it being bigoted and quite unfair to the innocents. Imagine on the other hand, if say, we set up a thought experiment where ALL Muslims weren't allowed to fly on jets, out of fear of hijacking the plane a la 9-11. I think that would not go over well with the same people who supported the ALL men curfew rule. The "head exploding" reference is from the resulting cognitive dissonance.

Most of us got it. Its just the folks with an agenda not to that didn't. And we keep hearing them say they don't hate men generally, and then generalize about men and say "you" (addressing a poster here or men in general) instead of "they" (meaning the ones who are actually doing these things). And if you call them on it, you are declared the enemy. This is how identity politics goes toxic.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's kind of my impression too. That 9pm curfew shitshow thread talked about putting ALL men on the 9pm curfew, when in actuality its very few men that are the problem. There were quite a few people who seemed to stand by that ALL men curfew rule, despite it being bigoted and quite unfair to the innocents. Imagine on the other hand, if say, we set up a thought experiment where ALL Muslims weren't allowed to fly on jets, out of fear of hijacking the plane a la 9-11. I think that would not go over well with the same people who supported the ALL men curfew rule. The "head exploding" reference is from the resulting cognitive dissonance.

Most of us got it. Its just the folks with an agenda not to that didn't. And we keep hearing them say they don't hate men generally, and then generalize about men and say "you" (addressing a poster here or men in general) instead of "they" (meaning the ones who are actually doing these things). And if you call them on it, you are declared the enemy. This is how identity politics goes toxic.

I do agree that there are a small number who do that, unfortunately.

By the same token, routinely underplaying, querying and underacknowledging women's issue is arguably also identity politics gone toxic in a different way.

 

[Toni]

My stance is that men need to work on themselves and quit apologizing and making excuses for violent misogynistic rapists and racists. You’re a man. You can do that.

Next thing I see (still on the road btw) I’m being called on to denounce Muslim terrorism. I’m not a Muslim and I’m not a terrorist.

So: da fuck??? It’s a non sequitor.

You're not a man, either.

If you call on men to denounce rapists then you should call on Muslims to denounce terrorism.

And yet this thread has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with men.
Why don’t you come out against climate change? Why don’t you advocate for better officiating in women’s sports?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's just my tuppenceworth. I will say this though, there seems to be a lot more antagonism between the sexes expressed here, at least in the politics forum (which itself is pretty lively on gender issues apart from when it's not about leftism vs rightism) than at other secular forums I've frequented. And I do find myself agreeing partly with points raised by both 'sides' quite often, and then somehow, the same old same old ding dongs get going in every bloody thread on gender issues. Groundhog Day for axe-grinders. It's like there's very little middle ground here or something.

Nuance is hard to come by in emotionally-charged discussions, and there might be a corollary of Godwin's Law that could be phrased, the longer a charged conversation continues, the likelihood of invective replacing discussion approaches 1.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's just my tuppenceworth. I will say this though, there seems to be a lot more antagonism between the sexes expressed here, at least in the politics forum (which itself is pretty lively on gender issues apart from when it's not about leftism vs rightism) than at other secular forums I've frequented. And I do find myself agreeing partly with points raised by both 'sides' quite often, and then somehow, the same old same old ding dongs get going in every bloody thread on gender issues. Groundhog Day for axe-grinders. It's like there's very little middle ground here or something.

Nuance is hard to come by in emotionally-charged discussions, and there might be a corollary of Godwin's Law that could be phrased, the longer a charged conversation continues, the likelihood of invective replacing discussion approaches 1.

And the first person to go there loses the argument, even when there is no conflict and they have created it in their own mind.

 

[ruby sparks]

Nuance is hard to come by in emotionally-charged discussions, and there might be a corollary of Godwin's Law that could be phrased, the longer a charged conversation continues, the likelihood of invective replacing discussion approaches 1.

Yes. Another candidate maxim might be one taken from another sphere, 'the first casualty of war is the truth'. Which is all the more unfortunate given that when it comes to human affairs and behaviour, the truth has a habit of being nuanced.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My stance is that men need to work on themselves and quit apologizing and making excuses for violent misogynistic rapists and racists. You’re a man. You can do that.

Next thing I see (still on the road btw) I’m being called on to denounce Muslim terrorism. I’m not a Muslim and I’m not a terrorist.

So: da fuck??? It’s a non sequitor.

You're not a man, either.

If you call on men to denounce rapists then you should call on Muslims to denounce terrorism.

And yet this thread has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with men.
Why don’t you come out against climate change? Why don’t you advocate for better officiating in women’s sports?

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

And what's the bit about climate change? While I disapprove of things like the Paris accord that's because I recognize it as a meaningless fop, not an actual effort to deal with it. Meaningless "answers" are worse than no answer because they defuse some of the protest without actually providing benefit.

And given my lack of interest in sports in general I have no idea of the state of officiating in women's sports to have an opinion about it.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

Tu quoque whataboutism bullshit.

 

[Toni]

And yet this thread has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with men.
Why don’t you come out against climate change? Why don’t you advocate for better officiating in women’s sports?

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

And what's the bit about climate change? While I disapprove of things like the Paris accord that's because I recognize it as a meaningless fop, not an actual effort to deal with it. Meaningless "answers" are worse than no answer because they defuse some of the protest without actually providing benefit.

And given my lack of interest in sports in general I have no idea of the state of officiating in women's sports to have an opinion about it.

Really? When have I come out against Muslims or anyone else denouncing terrorism?

Of course sports and climate change have no place in this thread. Neither does any discussion of what Muslims should or should not do.

How about you just man up and say that you are willing to advocate that men abandon their misogyny and violence against women or simply agree that you’d prefer to be an apologist for such?

 

[Toni]

My impression of how this is being seen as bearing on the OP issue is that all men are (it is felt) being blamed or held responsible for the actions of a minority of raping/sexist transgressors, and that it is this which is not the case for muslims. Which is maybe slightly different from a not-denouncing thing.

I realise I'm getting quite pedantic. Lol. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this interesting point which Loren brought up in his 'heads exploding' post.

That's kind of my impression too. That 9pm curfew shitshow thread talked about putting ALL men on the 9pm curfew, when in actuality its very few men that are the problem. There were quite a few people who seemed to stand by that ALL men curfew rule, despite it being bigoted and quite unfair to the innocents. Imagine on the other hand, if say, we set up a thought experiment where ALL Muslims weren't allowed to fly on jets, out of fear of hijacking the plane a la 9-11. I think that would not go over well with the same people who supported the ALL men curfew rule. The "head exploding" reference is from the resulting cognitive dissonance. Kinda similar to what happened to this poor chap:

Show

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brVOhP5c2IE[/YOUTUBE]

Oh yeah: that was a thread about what women’s lives might be like if they didn’t have to worry about men’s ill intentions and violence directed towards them.

And instead of the guys here even considering what life must be like for a woman who is forced to consider what dangers just wearing her favorite shoes might bring, y’all got super emotional and scared we were going to lock you up!

I never thought I’d see such collective narcissism outside of an RNC or Libertarian political convention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

Tu quoque whataboutism bullshit.

I was pointing out a double standard--and showing that Toni is one of those guilty of it.

 

[Toni]

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

Tu quoque whataboutism bullshit.

I was pointing out a double standard--and showing that Toni is one of those guilty of it.

No, it was a non sequitor you were trying to use as a dodge.

You really are not fooling anyone aside from maybe JP and yourself.

Is that what you think it means to be a man?

 

[laughing dog]

My stance is that men need to work on themselves and quit apologizing and making excuses for violent misogynistic rapists and racists. You’re a man. You can do that.

Next thing I see (still on the road btw) I’m being called on to denounce Muslim terrorism. I’m not a Muslim and I’m not a terrorist.

So: da fuck??? It’s a non sequitor.

You're not a man, either.

If you call on men to denounce rapists then you should call on Muslims to denounce terrorism.

That is a non-sequitur. And bilby has shown your "double standard" is not based on logic.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet this thread has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with men.
Why don’t you come out against climate change? Why don’t you advocate for better officiating in women’s sports?

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Either show the link to support your claim or apologize.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

Tu quoque whataboutism bullshit.

I was pointing out a double standard

No, you weren’t, as it would not be a double standard. Regardless, it’s still tu quoque.

 

[ruby sparks]

As I see it, it could, yes, be argued to be a double standard and one that might have at least some relevance to the OP. That said, it's not clear yet if anyone in this forum is operating it or not. Imo yes it's a tu quoque.

 

[Jarhyn]

I was pointing out a double standard--and showing that Toni is one of those guilty of it.

No, it was a non sequitor you were trying to use as a dodge.

You really are not fooling anyone aside from maybe JP and yourself.

Is that what you think it means to be a man?

I agree that Toni Has, repeatedly, claimed one but not the other, that men must reject mysogynists (they must) while bitterly objecting to the idea of Islamic people rejecting theocrats. This IS a double standard. She should adopt a consistent philosophical position. So which way is it Toni, do groups have a responsibility to speak out against their members who do not meet the minimum bar for society, or do they not?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

As I see it, it could, yes, be argued to be a double standard

Shifting goalposts. Anything can be “argued.”

Imo yes it's a tu quoque.

Then it should be abandoned.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I was pointing out a double standard--and showing that Toni is one of those guilty of it.

No, it was a non sequitor you were trying to use as a dodge.

You really are not fooling anyone aside from maybe JP and yourself.

Is that what you think it means to be a man?

I agree that Toni Has, repeatedly, claimed one but not the other, that men must reject mysogynists (they must) while bitterly objecting to the idea of Islamic people rejecting theocrats. This IS a double standard.

No, it isn’t. First, that’s a strawman. It’s rejecting “terrorists” not “theocrats.” Second, stating that men must reject misogynists (or whatever she actually said), is an opinion. Third, “men” and “Muslims” and “terrorists” and “misogynists” are not equivalent categories, so there is no standard that is being doubled. Forth, it is tu quoque and therefore void no matter what, so now everyone itt can drop the derail.

 

[Toni]

I agree that Toni Has, repeatedly, claimed one but not the other, that men must reject mysogynists (they must) while bitterly objecting to the idea of Islamic people rejecting theocrats. This IS a double standard.

No, it isn’t. First, that’s a strawman. It’s rejecting “terrorists” not “theocrats.” Second, stating that men must reject misogynists (or whatever she actually said), is an opinion. Third, “men” and “Muslims” and “terrorists” and “misogynists” are not equivalent categories, so there is no standard that is being doubled. Forth, it is tu quoque and therefore void no matter what, so now everyone itt can drop the derail.

Yep, and there's no link so I really don't think I've said anything about demanding Muslims rejecting anything.

- - - Updated - - -

That is a non-sequitur. And bilby has shown your "double standard" is not based on logic.

- - - Updated - - -

And yet this thread has nothing to do with Muslims and everything to do with men.
Why don’t you come out against climate change? Why don’t you advocate for better officiating in women’s sports?

The thing is you have previously come out as not expecting Muslims to denounce Islamic terrorism.

A claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Either show the link to support your claim or apologize.

Well, thank god bilby spoke up! Lord knows a woman's voice means absolutely nothing.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yep, and there's no link so I really don't think I've said anything about demanding Muslims rejecting anything.

So, would you agree with both of these (below)?

"Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"
"Men should denounce abusers and reject this behavior of a minority of their members because it is unacceptable"

Ideally a simple yes or a no would be fab.

Sorry to press, but a lot of things have been expressed by various people in different ways and I'm just wanting to understand right.