What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[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.

The thing is "Men should denounce rapists" is a subclass of "People should denounce very bad behavior done by members of their group."

Why is the former proper and the latter improper?

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

That was me. I'm still following the conversation, but seeing as tempers have flared and and I've been pretty busy and very short on sleep lately, it's been hard for me to really gather my thoughts into coherence for such a group here ... you guys are pretty sharp.

And you're right, it may be that feminists who demand that men denounce Kavanaugh et al may have the same blind spot to the male denunciations that have already been issued. I do think that given that male and female American cultures are probably closer than the cultures of Christendom and Islam, it seems more likely to me that Christians would be ignorant of Muslim denunciations than would American females of male denunciations -- but that's speculation and nothing more, and I don't have solid information to confirm or dispel it. It's just a possibility that occurs to me. I have no certain knowledge explaining why some people don't know what they don't know ... you could say I don't know why I don't know.

For the record, I see what Jarwhyn is asking -- consistency in the application of ethical standards -- as being a fair question. But I'm not interested in joining in on a tense conversation between two folks neither of whom I know very well.

Finally, RS, if I post something publicly, feel free to name me. It's already public knowledge and I will be happy to either explain why I think I'm right, or disavow a poorly-thought position if I'm shown wrong.

 

[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.

The thing is "Men should denounce rapists" is a subclass of "People should denounce very bad behavior done by members of their group."

Why is the former proper and the latter improper?

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

Me, Ruby, Thump, to some extent, JP...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is a good example of tribe trumps principle.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a good example of tribe trumps principle.

And I am sure the irony is lost on you.

 

[Toni]

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.

The thing is "Men should denounce rapists" is a subclass of "People should denounce very bad behavior done by members of their group."

Why is the former proper and the latter improper?

This is supposed to be a thread about what it means for men to be a man.

If you want to make a thread about Muslims or terrorists or terrorism in general, please go ahead and do so. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

 

[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.

The thing is "Men should denounce rapists" is a subclass of "People should denounce very bad behavior done by members of their group."

Why is the former proper and the latter improper?

This is supposed to be a thread about what it means for men to be a man.

If you want to make a thread about Muslims or terrorists or terrorism in general, please go ahead and do so. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

We aren't talking about terrorism. We are talking about a general philosophical principle which pertains directly to the topic at hand. while you keep bringing up the title, though, maybe you should look at the WHOLE title?

 

[Toni]

This is supposed to be a thread about what it means for men to be a man.

If you want to make a thread about Muslims or terrorists or terrorism in general, please go ahead and do so. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

We aren't talking about terrorism. We are talking about a general philosophical principle which pertains directly to the topic at hand. while you keep bringing up the title, though, maybe you should look at the WHOLE title?

Loren keeps bringing up Muslims and terrorism.

And yeah, maybe you should read the entire title of the thread.

And notice who started it.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is supposed to be a thread about what it means for men to be a man.

If you want to make a thread about Muslims or terrorists or terrorism in general, please go ahead and do so. Nothing is stopping you from doing that.

We aren't talking about terrorism. We are talking about a general philosophical principle which pertains directly to the topic at hand. while you keep bringing up the title, though, maybe you should look at the WHOLE title?

Loren keeps bringing up Muslims and terrorism.

And yeah, maybe you should read the entire title of the thread.

And notice who started it.

Then you should notice the What Do Men Think. Yes, it was started by RavenSky. But just because the question was asked by a woman doesn't mean that the What Do Men Think part just goes away. So yeah, about that thread title, eh?

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?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

Me, Ruby, Thump, to some extent, JP...

So, nobody.

Go start a thread about the principles of categories.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is a good example of tribe trumps principle.

And I am sure the irony is lost on you.

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.

 

[ruby sparks]

Finally, RS, if I post something publicly, feel free to name me. It's already public knowledge and I will be happy to either explain why I think I'm right, or disavow a poorly-thought position if I'm shown wrong.

Yeah. Sorry. Looking back I overdid the not naming thing, especially in your case. I guess I was trying to keep the discussion on ideas rather than individuals but by repeatedly referring to 'the anonymous person' I kinda screwed that up. Lol.

 

[ruby sparks]

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.

The thing is "Men should denounce rapists" is a subclass of "People should denounce very bad behavior done by members of their group."

Why is the former proper and the latter improper?

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. Earlier in the thread, when citing catholics being seen as not denouncing IRA terrorism sufficiently here in NI, I said that I thought the issue has a lot to do with where one's sympathies lie. And I might add to that that I think sympathies are often deeply intertwined with perceived self interest or shared interest (for example one group who feel they are unfairly disadvantaged having sympathy with another group they feel are also disadvantaged) and shared interest is arguably a version of or related to self interest, imo.

But I think that while this might, possibly, lead us to say that for example muslims and other 'underdogs' should be fully included in the rule, it does not mean that the rule being applied to men is improper. In other words it's not (necessarily) that some people are being too hard on men, it's that they're arguably being too soft on other groups. 'Men' are just included in the rule which, apart from some exceptions (which may be argued to be dubious) applies generally to most groups.

That is unless you want to say that men are, independently (ie not just in relative terms) unfairly targeted. Iow that what it means to be a man is to belong to a group that is deemed to have more of an obligation to denounce (or alternatively apologise or be held responsible for) the attitudes and actions of the minority in the group than is reasonable.

Some have made the case for this. And not just men. Some women and some feminists, if I recall things I've read correctly, have said that in modern society, men (and boys) are sometimes unfairly demonised. So it's arguably a valid pov, and some men may feel that part of what it means to be a man nowadays is to be unfairly demonised. That said, and while I might have some sympathy with this view (because of perceived self interest perhaps, ha ha) I personally would not invoke it to avoid totally agreeing that the rule should apply. Men should denounce rape, sexual assault, harassment and sexism perpetrated by men. Period. And to be fair, most would, and do, agree with this, including you I'd guess. And pointing out that some are inconsistent when applying the rule to other groups does not, imo having thought about it during the last few pages of this thread since it came up, impact on this in any significant way, imo, even if we were to feel hard done by or demonised by some, at some times, in some ways. We should still say that we agree with the statement that men should denounce rape, sexual assault, harassment and sexism perpetrated by men. Right?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK?

Me, Ruby, Thump, to some extent, JP...

So, nobody.

Go start a thread about the principles of categories.

I'm thinking your arithmetic may need some review. Four is clearly not equal to none.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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

 

[Jarhyn]

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

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

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. 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. It is not that responsibility comes before or independent to access but rather that responsibility is a function OF cultural access.

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

 

[laughing dog]

This is a good example of tribe trumps principle.

And I am sure the irony is lost on you.

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.

 

[laughing dog]

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?

 

[Jarhyn]

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.