What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nobody said they refuse to condemn rapists. Certainly condn them. I am pretty certain Loren does too. You would have to be an ass no to, or to presume or project that somebody doesnt. Loren was just pointing out a blatant inconsistency.

 

[Jarhyn]

So in the wake of some stunning ignorance embedded in a post by another person here who may or may not run a fundamentalist IRC channel...

The term "man" is meaningless, except to others. It depends on whose opinions you wish to respect. Because the fact is, you don't need a dick or balls to be a man. You don't need to have a flat chest. You don't need to smush bugs or protect those weaker than yourself to be a man. Arguably you DO need to protect those who cannot protect themselves to be a PERSON, but this is about being a "man". Instead, to be a man, you need to convince those around you that you are a man, enough that they call you as such. That's it. Because in reality, the class is something we invented.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I didn’t demand you or Loren do anything. You want to be a rape apologist: go ahead. Go ahead and create some artificial condition by refusing to condemn violence against women if people are not as a pre-condition demanding some other group condemn bad behavior/faulty ideology of some other group. Just don’t expect not to be called out on it. Especially if you pretend that violent behavior towards women isn’t a choice that transcends all racial, religious, cultural, socioeconomic groups isn’t a choice. A conscious choice. An invalid choice.

We aren't rape apologists.

We are saying you are applying a double standard here--expecting men to denounce rapists while not expecting Muslims to denounce terrorism. If one should denounce acts done by members of your group then one should denounce acts done by members of your group.

And while we are at it, how about you denouncing rapists that are members of your group? "American" comes to mind.

 

[ruby sparks]

Just for clarity (partly because I don't think Jahryn's original parallel had anything to do with pointing out double standards) Toni, would you not say that muslims should denounce Islamic terrorism?

 

[Jarhyn]

Just for clarity (partly because I don't think Jahryn's original parallel had anything to do with pointing out double standards) Toni, would you not say that muslims should denounce Islamic terrorism?

As I have life and breath, I do believe I can speak for myself. My point was simply that groups have an obligation to eject those who do not behave with the minimum amount of decency that should be expected of any person.

Everyone everywhere should be capable of rejecting members of their culture who do or say awful things. Democrats should be capable of impeaching democrats. Republicans should be capable of impeaching republicans. People who wear diapers recreationally should reject those who shit their pants recreationally in public (I had this argument before, though not here). Ideally, all groups should reject members for bad behavior. But because we are humans, we generally end up blind to our own group members' sins against society, defending them against arguments against their behavior... even going so far as saying members of their group would never bear such fault.

 

[Politesse]

Just for clarity (partly because I don't think Jahryn's original parallel had anything to do with pointing out double standards) Toni, would you not say that muslims should denounce Islamic terrorism?

As I have life and breath, I do believe I can speak for myself. My point was simply that groups have an obligation to eject those who do not behave with the minimum amount of decency that should be expected of any person.

Everyone everywhere should be capable of rejecting members of their culture who do or say awful things. Democrats should be capable of impeaching democrats. Republicans should be capable of impeaching republicans. People who wear diapers recreationally should reject those who shit their pants recreationally in public (I had this argument before, though not here). Ideally, all groups should reject members for bad behavior. But because we are humans, we generally end up blind to our own group members' sins against society, defending them against arguments against their behavior... even going so far as saying members of their group would never bear such fault.

I know a lot of Muslims, and I don't know any who defend terrorism.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What about any of that do you think explodes anybody's head? They're both absolutely accurate. Muslims should denounce Islamic terrorists and men should denounce abusers. These are both non-controversial statements.

I think Loren's point is that many of the same people who constantly urge Muslims to denounce terrorism are men who will not denounce male assaulters.

Heads might explode if they grasp the extent of their double-standard.

That, and those on the left that call on males to denounce assaulters won't call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

A fair point, and thanks for the correction.

You were LPetrich on Rants'n'Raves around eight years ago, right? I think I remember Koyan from there too.

 

[ZiprHead]

That, and those on the left that call on males to denounce assaulters won't call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

A fair point, and thanks for the correction.

You were LPetrich on Rants'n'Raves around eight years ago, right? I think I remember Koyan from there too.

LPetrich is a differant person and an administrator here.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Either men should denounce assaulters and Muslims should denounce terrorists, or men don't need to denounce assaulters and Muslims don't need to denounce terrorists. It should be consistent.

The right wants Muslims to denounce but doesn't say men need to. The left says men need to but doesn't say Muslims need to.

Those are independent of each other. It’s not a tit for tat.

I think the mind-blower is that folks often hold the mirror-image double-standard. As pointed out above, sexism is far more prevalent than terrorism, but that doesn't obviate the double-standard on either side. If a person expects a group to speak up against injustice, then ought they not lay that expectation globally?

I think that's what LP is getting at, and it does resonate with me.

- - - Updated - - -

That, and those on the left that call on males to denounce assaulters won't call on Muslims to denounce terrorism. There are plenty of people on both sides of this double standard.

A fair point, and thanks for the correction.

You were LPetrich on Rants'n'Raves around eight years ago, right? I think I remember Koyan from there too.

LPetrich is a differant person and an administrator here.

Ah, thank you.

 

[Toni]

I didn’t demand you or Loren do anything. You want to be a rape apologist: go ahead. Go ahead and create some artificial condition by refusing to condemn violence against women if people are not as a pre-condition demanding some other group condemn bad behavior/faulty ideology of some other group. Just don’t expect not to be called out on it. Especially if you pretend that violent behavior towards women isn’t a choice that transcends all racial, religious, cultural, socioeconomic groups isn’t a choice. A conscious choice. An invalid choice.

We aren't rape apologists.

We are saying you are applying a double standard here--expecting men to denounce rapists while not expecting Muslims to denounce terrorism. If one should denounce acts done by members of your group then one should denounce acts done by members of your group.

And while we are at it, how about you denouncing rapists that are members of your group? "American" comes to mind.

Da fuck?????

I’m not Muslim. Did you think that I was?

You are, I believe, a man. As a man, I believe that you are in a position to exert influence and lead other men towards a less violent way of living. Men are also victims of violence, much stay at the hands of other men. It seems in everybody’s best interests.

I’m not Muslim and while I know a number of Muslims and have Muslim friends, (and Jewish, atheist, agnostic, all different varieties of Christian) generally speaking we are all mostly non-violent and work towards nonviolent means of living, a number include vegetarianism as part of that.

We pretty much gang up to advocate for peace.

(Some) men prefer to gang up and rape. Me and my friends are against that sort of thing.

How about you quit fucking around and actually quit acting like a rape apologist.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are, I believe, a man. As a man, I believe that you are in a position to exert influence and lead other men towards a less violent way of living.

Moreso than if he was a woman?

How about you quit fucking around and actually quit acting like a rape apologist.

How about you quite fucking around and stop accusing people of what they aren't?

 

[phands]

You are, I believe, a man. As a man, I believe that you are in a position to exert influence and lead other men towards a less violent way of living.

Moreso than if he was a woman?

How about you quit fucking around and actually quit acting like a rape apologist.

How about you quite fucking around and stop accusing people of what they aren't?

Well, JP, how come you stop fucking around and stop appearing to condone rape? Which your posts imply.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

appearing to condone rape? Which your posts imply.

I don't condone rape. Your insisting that I do is entirely on you.

 

[phands]

appearing to condone rape? Which your posts imply.

I don't condone rape. Your insisting that I do is entirely on you.

Then change what you post.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

appearing to condone rape? Which your posts imply.

I don't condone rape. Your insisting that I do is entirely on you.

Then change what you post.

No. You don't get to tell me what I post. And I have never once written anything condoning rape. I have stated plainly that I do not condone rape. If you need to read that in, that is again, entirely on you.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn’t demand you or Loren do anything. You want to be a rape apologist: go ahead. Go ahead and create some artificial condition by refusing to condemn violence against women if people are not as a pre-condition demanding some other group condemn bad behavior/faulty ideology of some other group. Just don’t expect not to be called out on it. Especially if you pretend that violent behavior towards women isn’t a choice that transcends all racial, religious, cultural, socioeconomic groups isn’t a choice. A conscious choice. An invalid choice.

We aren't rape apologists.

We are saying you are applying a double standard here--expecting men to denounce rapists while not expecting Muslims to denounce terrorism. If one should denounce acts done by members of your group then one should denounce acts done by members of your group.

And while we are at it, how about you denouncing rapists that are members of your group? "American" comes to mind.

Da fuck?????

I’m not Muslim. Did you think that I was?

You are, I believe, a man. As a man, I believe that you are in a position to exert influence and lead other men towards a less violent way of living. Men are also victims of violence, much stay at the hands of other men. It seems in everybody’s best interests.

I’m not Muslim and while I know a number of Muslims and have Muslim friends, (and Jewish, atheist, agnostic, all different varieties of Christian) generally speaking we are all mostly non-violent and work towards nonviolent means of living, a number include vegetarianism as part of that.

We pretty much gang up to advocate for peace.

(Some) men prefer to gang up and rape. Me and my friends are against that sort of thing.

How about you quit fucking around and actually quit acting like a rape apologist.

So you would say that muslims should denounce Islamic terrorism?

Incidentally, I won't take you not answering as meaning that you don't think it, I'm just curious and trying to get explicit clarity, and even if you do think it, even if you were guilty of what might seem like some sort of double standard, it would be separate from whether men should denounce rape. The two are independent and it's not tit for tat as you say. Me, I would say muslims should denounce Islamic terrorism (and many do) and men should denounce rape. I can't think of a good reason why it would not be a good thing in both cases and of course I'm not talking about 'should' as in coercion.

 

[ruby sparks]

appearing to condone rape? Which your posts imply.

I don't condone rape. Your insisting that I do is entirely on you.

Then change what you post.

He doesn't condone rape, or any sort of sexism. What he invariably does do is underplay and query such things, and/or their effects, when women are adversely affected, and instead prefers, explicitly or implicitly, to emphasise issues adversely affecting men, which I think he strongly feels are underappreciated, especially in relative terms, perhaps especially at this forum, in his view.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think the mind-blower is that folks often hold the mirror-image double-standard. As pointed out above, sexism is far more prevalent than terrorism, but that doesn't obviate the double-standard on either side. If a person expects a group to speak up against injustice, then ought they not lay that expectation globally?

I think that's what LP is getting at, and it does resonate with me.

But first, are there people who would be guilty of this apparent double standard?

Second, whether sexism is more prevalent than terrorism (a) depends where you live (I'm from Northern Ireland) and (b) the severity of outcomes from the latter might be said to add weight that does not necessarily come from prevalence alone.

Part of me is wondering how or why we need to be exploring this partial detour in a thread of this title, especially for something which at this point may be hypothetical, at least in terms of those actually present, but given that we are.........it's my opinion, based on experience that it has something to do with where people's general sympathies are positioned, or possibly also which issues one feels more strongly about, or which one feels are more 'cut and dried' perhaps. It's complicated. For example, here, not enough catholics were often said not to openly (key word imo) denounce IRA terrorism enough and I think the reasons were complex. I'll leave it at that, partly because it would take a lot of typing to explain what I'm trying to say and I have to go now.

In short, if one has more sympathies with, for example, what me might call the issues for muslims, one might be more sympathetic and not necessarily push so hard to ask them to openly denounce. I'm not sure I've put that very well, but I'm in a rush.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think the mind-blower is that folks often hold the mirror-image double-standard. As pointed out above, sexism is far more prevalent than terrorism, but that doesn't obviate the double-standard on either side. If a person expects a group to speak up against injustice, then ought they not lay that expectation globally?

I think that's what LP is getting at, and it does resonate with me.

But first, are there people who would be guilty of this apparent double standard?

Here in Texas, there is a large overlap of conservative males who disparage Muslims for not denouncing terrorism while at the same time voting for rather than denouncing the Pussygrabber-in-Chief. My answer to this question: here in America, certainly.

In short, if one has more sympathies with, for example, what me might call the issues for muslims, one might be more sympathetic and not necessarily push so hard to ask them to openly denounce. I'm not sure I've put that very well, but I'm in a rush.

Of course. But as I said, here in America, the overlap between the two groups is significant, because redneck bigots tend to sexism as well. You could say that they got the bundled package. No doubt Ireland is different, but I can't speak to that, given my ignorance of people and attitudes there.

 

[Toni]

Then change what you post.

He doesn't condone rape, or any sort of sexism. What he invariably does do is underplay and query such things, and/or their effects, when women are adversely affected, and instead prefers, explicitly or implicitly, to emphasise issues adversely affecting men, which I think he strongly feels are underappreciated, especially in relative terms, perhaps especially at this forum, in his view.

Underplaying and questioning the effects of rape, sexism—and racism— does not explicitly condone rape and sexism but it sure does make him an apologist for rape, sexism, and racism.