What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[laughing dog]

From this thread, one could draw the reasonable conclusion that some men think browbeating an answer to a derailing straw question is part of being a man.

No, sorry. You can't hide Toni behind her skirt on this one.

The only people hiding in this thread are those who are hiding from reason and logic by persisting in an attempt to bully someone into answering a stupid derailing question.

 

[Toni]

And again, all you have to do is say it without hedging, that members of a population have a duty to reject those among them who are engage in unacceptable conduct, not in regards to specific populations, but in general.

As to your bloviating about what you think men think, I have known many very intelligent women. By in large they are per capita in my friend pool more common than intelligent and logical men. I just don't think YOU are intelligent or logical here.

Also, good job blaming it all on masculinity. 100%.

Good job on not understanding what I write?

I mean, seriously, dude.

"I am against violence, I am a pacifist" has no leverage against or for "groups have an obligation to reject bad behavior". They do not speak to each other AT ALL.

"Men should reject violence", "terroism is violent", and "terrorists are violent men" do not act as a confirmation of the general case "groups have an obligation to police bad behavior". You have singled out exactly ONE group with an explicitly stated obligation to self-police bad behavior: men. You have not made any affirmation here that the obligation is general.

"Men think they are logical, and women are not logical, stop criticizing me" is not an answer to the general case in any fashion. Instead it's an utterly sexist and frankly insulting position based on a gender stereotype. I called you a low information feminist, not a leftist. I'm a leftist. I'm a feminist.

I made a statement to help others see how their views that "muslims have an obligation..." induct to "men have an obligation...".

Edit: hell, When it comes down to it, I'm not sure I see myself strictly as a 'man'. It's just easier to say that I am than to explain the reality of who and what I am, with respect to gender.

Whatever you are, logic and reading comprehension are not your long suit.

But hey, whatever.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I made a statement to help others see how their views that "muslims have an obligation..." induct to "men have an obligation...".

I see it too, and I'm on the flipside of the answer. I don't think either have a special obligation to "police their own" or to speak out against those who share their characteristics who do bad things. I think we all have equal responsibility for that whether we share characteristics or not. I don't hold a random peaceful muslim more responsible than myself for denouncing Islamic terrorism. I can see why they would want to, to distinguish themselves and save themselves from the ire directed at the Islamic Terrorists. I can also see why well behaved men would especially want to denounce men who misbehave and distinguish themselves. #notallmuslims #notallmen. It is the toxicity of identity politics.

I do feel that everyone has a obligation to police our own to a varying degree depending on how close one is to their group and how large the group is. For example, I have a family; belong to a tribe; own a company; live in a local community; live in a country; and am male. If my daughter commits a crime, I'm going to take responsibility. I'll drive her to the police station along with an attorney. But I'll make sure that appropriate justice is done. Further, I spend a lot of time with my kids to prevent them from committing a crime. I do the same in my company. But I take less responsibility because it's a larger group and I have less influence. I do the same in my tribe. But I have even less responsibility because it's bigger than my company, giving me less influence. And etc. Does that make sense?


Would you not feel responsible (not directly responsible of course) if your child committed a crime?

I guess what I'm trying to say that I feel my level of responsibility increases in direct ratio to my ability to influence. I have very strong influence on my kids (not absolute though) and thus would feel very responsible if one of them committed a crime. I would feel some responsibility if a co-worker committed a crime but far less than if my kid committed a crime because I have some influence on co-workers (maybe I could have listened more?) but obviously a lot less influence on what my kids think. That make sense?

Therefore, to make a long winded answer, I feel that as men we do have some influence over how men in general treat women. We can take some responsibility for it, but it's a decreasing amount.

 

[Jarhyn]

From this thread, one could draw the reasonable conclusion that some men think browbeating an answer to a derailing straw question is part of being a man.

No, sorry. You can't hide Toni behind her skirt on this one.

The only people hiding in this thread are those who are hiding from reason and logic by persisting in an attempt to bully someone into answering a stupid derailing question.

It isn't stupid and it isn't derailing, especially at this point. The discussion turned to 'men have an obligation', then we talked about whether an obligation is part an parcel with what it means to be a man. I come down on the position that I you claim membership to a remotely insular culture, yes, it is an obligation to do so. Toni has claimed the same, and now I'm attempting to ascertain whether she is going to be intellectually honest and accept the corollary, or dishonest and evade it. I will FULLY admit to bullying her to answer the damn question, largely because she has been trying to be slippery, which is a behavior I find disingenuous, but further in the hope that she make an attempt in the future to look at things with a more general perspective with mind to the corollaries of her declarations.

 

[laughing dog]

The only people hiding in this thread are those who are hiding from reason and logic by persisting in an attempt to bully someone into answering a stupid derailing question.

It isn't stupid and it isn't derailing, especially at this point.

Being a man is a biological trait as well as a psychological and social issue. Being a Muslim is not a biological trait. So the question is illogical and a straw man, especially since there is a repeated unsubstantiated claim about someone's apparent position.

 

[Elixir]

Sorry - had to post this here:

 

[Toni]

The only people hiding in this thread are those who are hiding from reason and logic by persisting in an attempt to bully someone into answering a stupid derailing question.

It isn't stupid and it isn't derailing, especially at this point. The discussion turned to 'men have an obligation', then we talked about whether an obligation is part an parcel with what it means to be a man. I come down on the position that I you claim membership to a remotely insular culture, yes, it is an obligation to do so. Toni has claimed the same, and now I'm attempting to ascertain whether she is going to be intellectually honest and accept the corollary, or dishonest and evade it. I will FULLY admit to bullying her to answer the damn question, largely because she has been trying to be slippery, which is a behavior I find disingenuous, but further in the hope that she make an attempt in the future to look at things with a more general perspective with mind to the corollaries of her declarations.

I'm not 'being slippery.' I'm being pretty direct. IRL, I'm often criticized for being too direct. But no, I'm not caving into your attempts at bullying. I'm not sure why you thought I would. I see your 'bullying' more as a temper tantrum and I've had a lot of years of experience dealing with those. That's not 'being slippery.' That's simply doing the most effective thing which is not caving.

I've stated several times that I believe the question about muslims is an off topic, non-sequitur and a red herring. I've invited people to start threads about muslims and terrorism if that's of interest to them and I've made zero promises about whether I will find such a thread to be interesting enough to read or participate in.

You are free to disagree with me and to form whatever opinions about me--or anything or anyone else that you wish to form. I certainly have formed opinions about you and your level of logic and reading comprehension and intellectual honesty. I'm sure we all form opinions about our fellow posters.

 

[Jarhyn]

The only people hiding in this thread are those who are hiding from reason and logic by persisting in an attempt to bully someone into answering a stupid derailing question.

It isn't stupid and it isn't derailing, especially at this point.

Being a man is a biological trait as well as a psychological and social issue. Being a Muslim is not a biological trait. So the question is illogical and a straw man, especially since there is a repeated unsubstantiated claim about someone's apparent position.

Non-sequitur. We are not talking necessarily about maleness, we are talking about what it means "to be a man". This entails being part of an insular culture. Or do you want to imply that my husband isn't a man? Or that his best friends aren't men? That Caitlyn Jenner isn't a woman?

Maybe you can answer the question: do YOU believe populations have a responsibility to police out undesirable behavior?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Maybe you can answer the question: do YOU believe populations have a responsibility to police out undesirable behavior?

No, YOU answer the question: do YOU believe men have a responsibility to police out undesirable behavior in other men?

THAT IS THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTION. No one gives a flying fuck about what OTHER CATEGORIES there may (or may not) be to this question. It’s NOT a question about women; it’s NOT a question about Muslims; it’s NOT a question about Blue Meanies; retarded babies; the French. Get it?

The only question relevant to this thread is that one. Answer it. Don’t answer it. No one fucking cares, just stop derailing the thread.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe you can answer the question: do YOU believe populations have a responsibility to police out undesirable behavior?

No, YOU answer the question: do YOU believe men have a responsibility to police out undesirable behavior in other men?

THAT IS THE ONLY RELEVANT QUESTION. No one gives a flying fuck about what OTHER CATEGORIES there may (or may not) be to this question. It’s NOT a question about women; it’s NOT a question about Muslims; it’s NOT a question about Blue Meanies; retarded babies; the French. Get it?

The only question relevant to this thread is that one. Answer it. Don’t answer it. No one fucking cares, just stop derailing the thread.

I already did. Both the specific and the general case. Now that you are done shouting because you are being put to a fairly reasonable question, do you accept the general case, and why? Because you're wrong -- I care about the general case, and proclaim that ALL categories are true. Because I do no accept that there can be rational specificity to this answer: it is either true to all categories or none. In the case that it is "none" there must be some other general rule which can be stated All (x) have a responsibility to because (z). That's how justification of an argument works.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I care about the general case, and proclaim that ALL categories are true.

Great. Nobody gives a shit or asked you. Are you done now with this totally pointless derail or is there more?

 

[ruby sparks]

I do feel that everyone has a obligation to police our own to a varying degree depending on how close one is to their group and how large the group is. For example, I have a family; belong to a tribe; own a company; live in a local community; live in a country; and am male. If my daughter commits a crime, I'm going to take responsibility. I'll drive her to the police station along with an attorney. But I'll make sure that appropriate justice is done. Further, I spend a lot of time with my kids to prevent them from committing a crime. I do the same in my company. But I take less responsibility because it's a larger group and I have less influence. I do the same in my tribe. But I have even less responsibility because it's bigger than my company, giving me less influence. And etc. Does that make sense?


Would you not feel responsible (not directly responsible of course) if your child committed a crime?

I guess what I'm trying to say that I feel my level of responsibility increases in direct ratio to my ability to influence. I have very strong influence on my kids (not absolute though) and thus would feel very responsible if one of them committed a crime. I would feel some responsibility if a co-worker committed a crime but far less than if my kid committed a crime because I have some influence on co-workers (maybe I could have listened more?) but obviously a lot less influence on what my kids think. That make sense?

Therefore, to make a long winded answer, I feel that as men we do have some influence over how men in general treat women. We can take some responsibility for it, but it's a decreasing amount.

Point taken. Though I would add that denouncing something does not necessarily imply being responsible.

If I denounce those who litter, for example........

 

[Jarhyn]

I care about the general case, and proclaim that ALL categories are true.

Great. Nobody gives a shit or asked you. Are you done now with this totally pointless derail or is there more?

Not a derail, and entirely relevant, do you believe the general case, or are you engaging in special pleading?

 

[Toni]

I made a statement to help others see how their views that "muslims have an obligation..." induct to "men have an obligation...".

I see it too, and I'm on the flipside of the answer. I don't think either have a special obligation to "police their own" or to speak out against those who share their characteristics who do bad things. I think we all have equal responsibility for that whether we share characteristics or not. I don't hold a random peaceful muslim more responsible than myself for denouncing Islamic terrorism. I can see why they would want to, to distinguish themselves and save themselves from the ire directed at the Islamic Terrorists. I can also see why well behaved men would especially want to denounce men who misbehave and distinguish themselves. #notallmuslims #notallmen. It is the toxicity of identity politics.

I do feel that everyone has a obligation to police our own to a varying degree depending on how close one is to their group and how large the group is. For example, I have a family; belong to a tribe; own a company; live in a local community; live in a country; and am male. If my daughter commits a crime, I'm going to take responsibility. I'll drive her to the police station along with an attorney. But I'll make sure that appropriate justice is done. Further, I spend a lot of time with my kids to prevent them from committing a crime. I do the same in my company. But I take less responsibility because it's a larger group and I have less influence. I do the same in my tribe. But I have even less responsibility because it's bigger than my company, giving me less influence. And etc. Does that make sense?


Would you not feel responsible (not directly responsible of course) if your child committed a crime?

I guess what I'm trying to say that I feel my level of responsibility increases in direct ratio to my ability to influence. I have very strong influence on my kids (not absolute though) and thus would feel very responsible if one of them committed a crime. I would feel some responsibility if a co-worker committed a crime but far less than if my kid committed a crime because I have some influence on co-workers (maybe I could have listened more?) but obviously a lot less influence on what my kids think. That make sense?

Therefore, to make a long winded answer, I feel that as men we do have some influence over how men in general treat women. We can take some responsibility for it, but it's a decreasing amount.

This is what I was looking for. All of us belong to groups and indeed, groups within groups within groups. I will take a very general example of my work unit. For the most part, everybody is a decent, hardworking person. But all of us have strengths and shortcomings. One or two coworkers and I made strong efforts to work hard at our own job duties but also to be available to help others as the need arise, whether it is because someone had an extra load of work or because we all did because things just got busier, there were instrument issues or someone was on leave. I was always flexible and cooperative, and willing to adjust my job duties and work schedule to help individuals or to help the group. This influenced my coworkers (not all, but most) to be more flexible and helpful. Even the ones who were not generally helpful would make an effort if thsed known to be helpful needed a hand. One or two coworkers are especially good at small details and are good st catching very small errors before they cause a problem. This influences everyone to be more detail oriented. A couple of my coworkers still behave as though it were the 1950’s although none of them were even born then. By which I mean one or two or three can be pretty sexist towards women and a couple can be...culturally insensitive if I’m being nice. My other coworkers know and rely on me and a few others to support them when they call out such behavior without dragging management into the fray. Over time, the general level of sexism and cultural insensitivity decreased. It’s not perfect and one or two are pretty intractable if management isn’t around but it’s better than it used to be.

 

[ruby sparks]

How about if someone said, 'men should denounce rape, just as in other similar situations where the majority can speak out against an undesirable activity perpetrated by a minority'. I can't see anything wrong with that, and in fact it seems to have been Jahryn's main point and his intention when posting. Have I just introduced a non sequitur by expanding a specific to a general? I don't think so, and illustrating the general with another example would not be a non-sequitur either.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

WHO GIVES A SHIT? It’s pure whataboutism.

I think that all humanity should always do all things always.

There, is everyone fucking happy now? Totally pointless derail.

 

[ruby sparks]

How I could see the question relating to the thread would be that if, hypothetically, someone were to apply the 'rule' to men but not to [insert alternative example of the 'rule' here] then it raises the question, would that person feel that part of what it means to be a man is "to belong to a group to whom the rule applies"? And why? One can't say, 'because it would be helpful' if that is also true of the alternative example but the rule is not applied.

 

[Jarhyn]

How I could see the question relating to the thread would be that if, hypothetically, someone were to apply the 'rule' to men but not to [insert alternative example of the 'rule' here] then it raises the question, would that person feel that part of what it means to be a man is "to belong to a group to whom the rule applies"? And why? One can't say, 'because it would be helpful' if that is also true of the alternative example but the rule is not applied.

Or in other words "it would be either special pleading or circular logic"

 

[Jarhyn]

WHO GIVES A SHIT? It’s pure whataboutism.

I think that all humanity should always do all things always.

There, is everyone fucking happy now? Totally pointless derail.

Or you could accept or reject the general case for reasons, or maybe just directly admit that you don't know/don't care and as such are unqualified to comment because you haven't thought about it enough. But expressing an opinion on men in particular means that you feel qualified to comment, which SHOULD imply you want to or are at least trying to think about the actual ethics/philosophy of making such a claim.

 

[ruby sparks]

How I could see the question relating to the thread would be that if, hypothetically, someone were to apply the 'rule' to men but not to [insert alternative example of the 'rule' here] then it raises the question, would that person feel that part of what it means to be a man is "to belong to a group to whom the rule applies"? And why? One can't say, 'because it would be helpful' if that is also true of the alternative example but the rule is not applied.

Or in other words "it would be either special pleading or circular logic"

Well, it could be but let's just play safe and say it would need an explanation. There might be one. And there might indeed be a valid and understandable one. Who knows? It would be worth exploring.

For example, a poster who shall remain nameless because he has wisely stayed out of the quagmire here, opined a few pages back that in the USA, for example, there does seem (to him) to be less urging from the left to ask Muslims to apologise for terrorism vs asking men to apologise for sexism, sexual abuse, assault, and rape. He offered one possible explanation, that such people see and acknowledge that denouncements of terrorism are already regularly made by many muslims. I queried that as an explanation, because even if true it seems to me that the same thing could be said of denouncements of rape, sexual assault, sexism and/or harassment by men.

Which then imo still leaves an interesting question about why the apparent difference in expectations?

Another explanation offered had to do with prevalence, and although I do think this can offer a potential explanation, it can also be outweighed by the fact that although islamic terrorism is less prevalent (in the USA at least) the outcomes can be fatal for multiple person from one incident. So I'm not sure (though I'm still thinking about it) that that's an adequate explanation either.

Now, note that said anonymous previous poster used the word 'apologise', whereas you used the word 'denounce'.



ETA: Open question: do some people (perhaps those cited by the previous poster) think that part of what it means to be a man is to belong to a group where the majority are obliged to apologise for and/or take responsibility for the undesirable attitudes and actions of a minority of the group, in a way that does not for some reason apply, or not apply to the same degree, in some other cases? If so, what makes some obligations 'legitimate' and others not, for those who might make a distinction (of emphasis at least) between one situation and another?

There may be nothing in this, and I myself don't know the answer (to either question). But I think it's at least interesting to explore.

How about, Jahryn, if I suggest to you that (at least in your example) it's not that men are being unreasonably 'targeted' (for this obligation we are talking about) but that muslims (for example) are being treated with extra deference, that they, not men, are the subject of the possible special pleading or are at least among the exceptions? I can't speak for the USA, but here in the UK for example, there is evidence to suggest that this is sometimes the case. For example, a long-running sexual abuse ring operated by muslim men in England (in the town of Rochdale) was, it is alleged (with some justification) not investigated properly because of a fear of authorities being seen as racist against muslims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_child_sex_abuse_ring

That might be my offered explanation. If correct, then............there may be an inconsistency which is arguably not sufficiently justified, but it may not have much to do with the OP issue.

You may have noticed that I was thinking that through as I wrote and edited.

And I wonder if there is still something in the use of the word 'apologise' that may still be relevant here.