What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[laughing dog]

I get it. You are here doing your standard guard dog routine for Toni, and I don't think even you know what you are saying at this point. That's very tribal too.

Instead of dealing with the underlying issue of you and others bullying another poster, you engage in your usual "tribal" routine of passive aggressive attribution of mindless intentions in order to obscure the vapidity of your position.

You are very clearly trying to defend her from the perfectly reasonable expectation of logical consistency.

Except
1) your straw man example negates the expectation of logical consistency, and
2) your bullying negates the reasonableness.

 

[ruby sparks]

We should still say that we agree with the statement that men should denounce rape, sexual assault, harassment and sexism perpetrated by men. Right?

Yes we should, but that wasn't the question.

Well, it was my question. To Loren. But good to see you answering in the affirmative.

The question was if the group member has a special and added responsibility moreso than non-group members to criticize individuals in the group.

Ok I'm not sure what you mean by 'the' question other than that it's the question you are most interested in, but on that question, I think we can all agree, as per what Jahryn is saying, that 'inner' access would mean that men, for example, or muslims, might be able to help in ways that non-group members can't so easily. Whether this adds personal responsibility to ingroup members or not, or if it does how much it adds, is something I'm not yet sure if I have a settled view on.

And the key difference in our examples is that Muslims opted into their grouping and men did not. I would argue that puts more of a onus on Muslims than on men.

Maybe. I'm not sure that even if true it would make all that much difference. Also, whilst muslims were validly cited as one alternative example of the 'rule' I'm wary of making the discussion a muslim's versus men's issue. Or to put it another way, even if (if) muslims did have more onus on them than men, men would still have 'more onus' (even if less than muslims), using the same argument, and it's starting to sound like someone saying, 'well I might have an onus to go visit our mother more often, at least once a week, and so do you, but you should be visiting her midweek as well'. I don't necessarily mind tu quoqe if there's a point to it, but what's the point of that one, other than haggling about who has more of the extra obligations when both have more (at least when using the same argument)?

 

[Jarhyn]

Anyway, do you care to answer about philosophical principles, or are you just going to keep whining that people are being meanies because you keep refusing to answer to whether your view is based on a general principle or special pleading?

This thread is not about "philosophical" principles.

It seems that everyone agrees that men should speak out against sexual assault. So what difference does it make whether one's view on the actual issue at hand is based on a general principle or not? Especially a "philosophical principle" that has been shoe-horned to "fit" the situation.

So, is the hounding and bullying a poster into responding to a straw man also another "philosophical principle" or is the just an example of men showing what they think it means to be a man?

I'm a philosophical person. So are many people here. Any question of what responsibilities and expectations are to be expected of a group, from my perspective, should stem from philosophical principles, rather than arbitrary declaration or just-so claims. So yeah, it is about philosophical principles. Toni has claimed that she expects certain things of men as a function of their masculinity. We are over here talking about WHY that may be a real thing and what other things must be real as a result of that being a real thing. If she doesn't think that the other things are real (responsibilities with respect to other populations self-policing), then we expect her fully to at least make that belief clear, so that we can talk directly about the special case she has pleaded for WRT men.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Whataboutism.

 

[Jarhyn]

You are very clearly trying to defend her from the perfectly reasonable expectation of logical consistency.

Except
1) your straw man example negates the expectation of logical consistency, and
2) your bullying negates the reasonableness.

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer. Or do you think it's unreasonable when I "bully" Trausti or RVonse to answer questions THEY have been attempting to dodge, with respect to "Trust but Verify" or "would you accept the appointment of a racist and/or liar to the Supreme Court?"

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You are very clearly trying to defend her from the perfectly reasonable expectation of logical consistency.

Except
1) your straw man example negates the expectation of logical consistency, and
2) your bullying negates the reasonableness.

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer. Or do you think it's unreasonable when I "bully" Trausti or RVonse to answer questions THEY have been attempting to dodge, with respect to "Trust but Verify" or "would you accept the appointment of a racist and/or liar to the Supreme Court?"

Well, if somebody doesn't want to answer, they don't want to answer. The reasons why can be their own business and not yours. They don't owe you any type of response and it's pointless to clog up a thread continuously demanding it. They may not want to admit a mistake, they may just not feel like it, they may feel you're being a dick and not want to engage with you, they may feel that your take on their position is wrong and don't want to constantly repeat what they said in their first answer to you or for any one of a hundred other reasons.

If your interaction with a person in a thread isn't working out, it's OK to just let the matter drop and move on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And then the question becomes "is the naturally higher access afforded to in-group members itself a 'special' responsibility?"

Before you get to that, you have to conclude that the grouped members have such natural higher access. That may not always be the case. There may be a group think going on that as soon as a group member opposes it gets them shunned even harder than non-group members. That's actually a good point you've brought up here and would be in favour of the questioning Muslims moreso than the men. Nobody gets demonized as hard as an heretic.

I would pose that it is. Men, and particularly the ones who talk and tell stories about women, only tend to do so when there aren't women about. This CREATES a higher burden for men.

It creates a for frequent burden, yes. But does it create a higher burden? When given the opportunity are men more responsible for speaking out on this, and are they more blameworthy for not doing so?

The same is true, I imagine, for those in Islam who are bordering on radicalization: you don't talk about your desire to do something about infidels with those infidels.

Another good point. Perhaps it depends on what the more prevalent view of the group is. Radicalization is radical, so speaking against it as a group member carries with it the peer pressure to stop them, and the group member has access to that peer pressure. But if the prevalent view of the group is the bad behaviour, then speaking out against it as a group member has a more limited effect and a high risk of charges of heresy.

As such I think men do have a higher responsibility. I thought we already covered this?

We are doing a deeper dive. And my own view on this isn't a firm one.

 

[Jarhyn]

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer. Or do you think it's unreasonable when I "bully" Trausti or RVonse to answer questions THEY have been attempting to dodge, with respect to "Trust but Verify" or "would you accept the appointment of a racist and/or liar to the Supreme Court?"

Well, if somebody doesn't want to answer, they don't want to answer. The reasons why can be their own business and not yours. They don't owe you any type of response and it's pointless to clog up a thread continuously demanding it. They may not want to admit a mistake, they may just not feel like it, they may feel you're being a dick and not want to engage with you, they may feel that your take on their position is wrong and don't want to constantly repeat what they said in their first answer to you or for any one of a hundred other reasons.

If your interaction with a person in a thread isn't working out, it's OK to just let the matter drop and move on.

But there is also no obligation to not. If they want to discuss the topic, it's not unreasonable to ask that someone actually discuss the WHY behind their belief, else they are just preaching. While she (and others) don't have any obligation to answer, neither does she have an obligation to participate at all (or continuing to participate) especially since her contributions thus far have been to place an onus upon men. We are well within our rights to want to her to justify and defend that belief.

Or in other words, don't say shit you don't want to be expected to defend the corollaries to.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are very clearly trying to defend her from the perfectly reasonable expectation of logical consistency.

Except
1) your straw man example negates the expectation of logical consistency, and
2) your bullying negates the reasonableness.

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer. Or do you think it's unreasonable when I "bully" Trausti or RVonse to answer questions THEY have been attempting to dodge, with respect to "Trust but Verify" or "would you accept the appointment of a racist and/or liar to the Supreme Court?"

The irony is that dog engages in little BUT bullying in the majority of his/her posts.

 

[thebeave]

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer. Or do you think it's unreasonable when I "bully" Trausti or RVonse to answer questions THEY have been attempting to dodge, with respect to "Trust but Verify" or "would you accept the appointment of a racist and/or liar to the Supreme Court?"

The irony is that dog engages in little BUT bullying in the majority of his/her posts.

I noticed that too. Got a good chuckle out of it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer. Or do you think it's unreasonable when I "bully" Trausti or RVonse to answer questions THEY have been attempting to dodge, with respect to "Trust but Verify" or "would you accept the appointment of a racist and/or liar to the Supreme Court?"

The irony is that dog engages in little BUT bullying in the majority of his/her posts.

Then feel free not to respond to his posts and only carry on the conversation with those whom you want to interact with.

My main issue is that threads just constantly seem to devolve away from the topic and into a discussion about who exactly is the bigger buttplug.

 

[Toni]

I want to apologize for inadvertently providing an excuse to derail this thread.

I guess talking about what it means to men to be a man is hard stuff, huh, guys?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

It would also be ok if a mod were to move ALL of these utterly pointless derails to their own thread.

 

[Jarhyn]

Before you get to that, you have to conclude that the grouped members have such natural higher access. That may not always be the case. There may be a group think going on that as soon as a group member opposes it gets them shunned even harder than non-group members. That's actually a good point you've brought up here and would be in favour of the questioning Muslims moreso than the men. Nobody gets demonized as hard as an heretic.



It creates a for frequent burden, yes. But does it create a higher burden? When given the opportunity are men more responsible for speaking out on this, and are they more blameworthy for not doing so?

The same is true, I imagine, for those in Islam who are bordering on radicalization: you don't talk about your desire to do something about infidels with those infidels.

Another good point. Perhaps it depends on what the more prevalent view of the group is. Radicalization is radical, so speaking against it as a group member carries with it the peer pressure to stop them, and the group member has access to that peer pressure. But if the prevalent view of the group is the bad behaviour, then speaking out against it as a group member has a more limited effect and a high risk of charges of heresy.

As such I think men do have a higher responsibility. I thought we already covered this?

We are doing a deeper dive. And my own view on this isn't a firm one.

This is fair. I think it's important at this point to discuss whether there is a meaningful difference between "more frequent" and "higher". I don't really see that there IS any such important difference here: men have opportunities women don't have, and should be expected to take those opportunities or feel shame and castigation for not.

As to the other bit about what happens when the core of the group is bad, and the fringe is the only sane element, there are a couple options: the fringe of sanity goes their own way and abandons the group (like the reformation and Protestant movement splitting from the Catholic Church), or the wholesale rejection of the whole group from society (such as the rejection that the rest of the world made upon the Nazi party). Clearly both of these things are not perfect solutions; I don't know how there CAN be a clean solution to the mess of dealing with problematic cultures, given that the whole thing about problematic cultures is their, well, incompatibility with society.

Regardless, I think it's time to reject the MRA/incel culture as fundamentally "unmanly", while trying to solicit returners and welcoming back honest defectors.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I want to apologize for inadvertently providing an excuse to derail this thread.

I guess talking about what it means to men to be a man is hard stuff, huh, guys?

But, Toni, whatabout what it means to be a Muslim? And whatabout what it means to be a gerbil? And whatabout what it means to be a leprechaun? And whatabout what it means to be a bic pen? And whatabout what it means to be every X in category A-Z? Whatabout whatabout?

If you’re going to ask one question, then you must be ready to ask ALL questions or else you aren’t being logically consistent.

 

[Jarhyn]

I want to apologize for inadvertently providing an excuse to derail this thread.

I guess talking about what it means to men to be a man is hard stuff, huh, guys?

We're still here talking about what men think it means to be a man. You're the one who isn't. We have made a discussion around WHY we do or do not think a certain thing is part of what it means to be a man. Just because you do not seem to like talking about the WHY doesn't make it go away and doesn't make it less germane to that conversation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The best answer, so far, seems to be that some classes of people are at least partially exempted from the rule if they are deemed to be the underdog. "Everyone loves an underdog" is a fairly well studied and interesting psychological human phenomenon.

I do think that is the core of it. Sticking up for the oppressed little guy is a noble aspect of the liberal mindset. But as the focus shifts from individual to group identity and group responsibility, the risk increases of generating rather than destroying prejudice and bigotry. That's how we get people on this board writing posts hating on men, equating "male culture" to toxic male behaviour, and projecting bad views some men express onto other men, just because they are also men. It is why men who don't cheerlead everything a feminist says get turned on and declared to hold toxic views that they don't, even as they say that they don't. The mind reader knows better and will read it in. This is one reason why men may especially want to speak out, and be seen speaking out, in defence of women.

In regard to the oppression olympics and how it influences who we hold to the principle we are discussing and how consistent we are in doing so, consider the following questions:

Do blondes have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against calling redheads "gingers"?

Do blue eyed blondes have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against anti-semitism and holocaust denial?

Now contrast that with these questions:

Do MRA Jews have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against male genital mutilation? (Jews used since we already talked about Muslims, but them and FGM is another question)

Do black people have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against inner city gang violence?

 

[Jarhyn]

I want to apologize for inadvertently providing an excuse to derail this thread.

I guess talking about what it means to men to be a man is hard stuff, huh, guys?

But, Toni, whatabout what it means to be a Muslim? And whatabout what it means to be a gerbil? And whatabout what it means to be a leprechaun? And whatabout what it means to be a bic pen? And whatabout what it means to be every X in category A-Z? Whatabout whatabout?

If you’re going to ask one question, then you must be ready to ask ALL questions or else you aren’t being logically consistent.

See, THIS is what a straw-man derail looks like. We aren't talking about what it means to be a Muslim. We are talking specifically about WHY a certain facet of 'what it means to be a man' in some people's formulations of 'what it means to be man' is valid or invalid, and what wider implications that facet of 'what it means to be a man' indicates. I'm tired of your flaming, at any rate. You are going on block.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I want to apologize for inadvertently providing an excuse to derail this thread.

I guess talking about what it means to men to be a man is hard stuff, huh, guys?

You made those statements in reverse order.

 

[Jarhyn]

The best answer, so far, seems to be that some classes of people are at least partially exempted from the rule if they are deemed to be the underdog. "Everyone loves an underdog" is a fairly well studied and interesting psychological human phenomenon.

I do think that is the core of it. Sticking up for the oppressed little guy is a noble aspect of the liberal mindset. But as the focus shifts from individual to group identity and group responsibility, the risk increases of generating rather than destroying prejudice and bigotry. That's how we get people on this board writing posts hating on men, equating "male culture" to toxic male behaviour, and projecting bad views some men express onto other men, just because they are also men. It is why men who don't cheerlead everything a feminist says get turned on and declared to hold toxic views that they don't, even as they say that they don't. The mind reader knows better and will read it in. This is one reason why men may especially want to speak out, and be seen speaking out, in defence of women.

In regard to the oppression olympics and how it influences who we hold to the principle we are discussing and how consistent we are in doing so, consider the following questions:

Do blondes have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against calling redheads "gingers"?

Do blue eyed blondes have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against anti-semitism and holocaust denial?

Now contrast that with these questions:

Do MRA Jews have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against male genital mutilation? (Jews used since we already talked about Muslims, but them and FGM is another question)

Do black people have a special responsibility to and are they especially blameworthy if they don't stand up against inner city gang violence?

Yes, I would tend to believe that people have some heightened responsibility for a failure to direct their own cultures in positive ways, insofar as they are allowed. In some of those situations, there is no special cultural access. In others, there is, and still others, the problem is endemic to the culture itself, and in your final example, things get much MORE complicated, largely because a lack of access to education and opportunities, not to mention a corrupt criminal justice system, negate any effect of self-direction within the culture; I have heard plenty of black mothers doing their best to keep kids out of gangs, and plenty o black men who are trying to (I would say police, but there are reasons that term is inappropriate in this context) their communities from gang related violence, but when you are steering a ship of culture, the currents of the society around that culture, and the momentum of the ship that has been (again, I would say slave, but it isn't really appropriate...) to that cultural current is more significant by orders of magnitude.