What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

I think we need to be very careful about equating MRA to Incel, and about painting "Men's Rights" as necessarily toxic. The CAFE event that Chanty Binx ranted at and that her group pulled the fire alarm at wasn't and isn't toxic. Her group was toxic.

There is nothing bad about feeling sympathy for men who are abused, for example. And "Men's Rights are Human Rights" is not hate speech.

We wouldn't paint "Woman's Rights" as toxic. Not even I do that, and I do paint "Feminism" as toxic, but only to distinguish from Egalitarianism. I'm all for equal and fair treatment, but not for special rights.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I think we need to be very careful about equating MRA to Incel, and about painting "Men's Rights" as necessarily toxic. The CAFE event that Chanty Binx ranted at and that her group pulled the fire alarm at wasn't and isn't toxic. Her group was toxic.

There is nothing bad about feeling sympathy for men who are abused, for example. And "Men's Rights are Human Rights" is not hate speech.

We wouldn't paint "Woman's Rights" as toxic. Not even I do that, and I do paint "Feminism" as toxic, but only to distinguish from Egalitarianism. I'm all for equal and fair treatment, but not for special rights.

I would hold that they both were pretty supportive of toxicity. Personally, I find the whole manner of extant separate gender cultures dumb, but I also realize that the precipitation of groups from a suitably broad unordered/homogenous population is inevitable; the internet proves that. Even so, we need a sea-change on how we view gender, and I'm glad that is a thing that the internet has started to enable. When I comes to "I believe her" stuff, that's more a matter of a philosophical universal to "Trust but Verify." When it comes to child support, I think that's more a societal obligation than an individual mandate, and that whatever support we give children as a society should be entirely agnostic to their parents.

But what I find worst among MRAs is not that they seek to balance perceived wrongs per se, but rather that they perceive as a wrong, that women spurn them, treat them as friends when they want to be lovers, or that they largely reject the position that rape victims should be trusted first and foremost, while claims are verified honestly and without dissembly or dismissal.

Feminism has never stood for, included, or meant anything to me along the lines of seeking special rights, and as per my ethical rule of group member responsibility, I counsel and ultimately often reject as "unfeminist" attempts to get "special" rights (largely targeting this at radfems and terfs). But it is not "special rights" to say that more money is going to be spent on "women" victims of sexual violence, because, well, if we spent the same on both genders WRT sexual violence, we would have a lot of men's shelters sitting empty and a lot of women's shelters full to bursting; and it is not me nor women nor feminists asking for a special right so much as nature placing a special burden that must be addressed, and there's no way to be egalitarian over that in our current legal structure.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

It is reasonable to expect logical consistency in an argument. It is not reasonable to impose logical consistency on issues outside of the topic. 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? Why does this logical consistency matter? This thread is about what men think about what it means to be men, not whether some poster meets some imposed and irrelevant "logical consistency" standard.

Frankly, in this case, I would not answer because you and especially JP with his asinine sniping are acting like dicks about it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But what I find worst among MRAs is not that they seek to balance perceived wrongs per se, but rather that they perceive as a wrong, that women spurn them, treat them as friends when they want to be lovers, or that they largely reject the position that rape victims should be trusted first and foremost, while claims are verified honestly and without dissembly or dismissal.

But what about issues such as male suicide, enlistment for war, how men abused by women are laughed at rather than cared for, etc? Feminists try to equate MRA with anti-woman. That's what the Chanty "Cry me a River" Binx mob was all about. Their slogans were all about presuming that CAFE hated women and were endorsing misogyny, despite CAFE being quite the opposite and having quite a few female members.

Feminism has never stood for, included, or meant anything to me along the lines of seeking special rights

It didn't start as a man hating special rights seeking movement, but that is what it has become, in stark contrast to Egalitarianism. I'm not convinced that anything needs Feminism that Egalitarianism can't cover just as well and without the toxicity.

But it is not "special rights" to say that more money is going to be spent on "women" victims of sexual violence

As a matter of practicality and addressing the most victims, that makes sense, from an egalitarian standpoint. But what it doesn't mean is that we should care more, have more sympathy for, or only fight for female victims. It doesn't mean that male victims should be discarded and it doesn't mean that there should be no shelters for abused men or that anyone should seek to shut them down where they do exist. And it doesn't mean that people who speak out for male victims, MRAs, should always be equated with Incels or anti-woman.

 

[Jarhyn]

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer.

It is reasonable to expect logical consistency in an argument. It is not reasonable to impose logical consistency on issues outside of the topic. 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? Why does this logical consistency matter? This thread is about what men think about what it means to be men, not whether some poster meets some imposed and irrelevant "logical consistency" standard.

Frankly, in this case, I would not answer because you and especially JP with his asinine sniping are acting like dicks about it.

Because mere "agreement" on the issue itself doesn't actually state i that agreement is sane or reasonable, and certainly isn't rational as a basis. 100 years ago people were in general agreement that homosexuals were awful blights on society. Instead, bringing the claim back to philosophical roots allows examination and validation of the claim independent to agreement.

 

[Jarhyn]

But what about issues such as male suicide, enlistment for war, how men abused by women are laughed at rather than cared for, etc? Feminists try to equate MRA with anti-woman. That's what the Chanty Binx mob was all about. Their slogans were all about presuming that CAFE hated women and were endorsing misogyny, despite CAFE being quite the opposite and having quite a few female members.



It didn't start as a man hating special rights seeking movement, but that is what it has become, in stark contrast to Egalitarianism. I'm not convinced that anything needs Feminism that Egalitarianism can't cover just as well and without the toxicity.

But it is not "special rights" to say that more money is going to be spent on "women" victims of sexual violence

As a matter of practicality and addressing the most victims, that makes sense, from an egalitarian standpoint. But what it doesn't mean is that we should care more, have more sympathy for, or only fight for female victims. It doesn't mean that male victims should be discarded and it doesn't mean that there should be no shelters for abused men or that anyone should seek to shut them down where they do exist. And it doesn't mean that people who speak out for male victims, MRAs, should always be equated with Incels or anti-woman.

I strongly agree that the draft thing was a sexist abuse, as were restrictions against women serving. It's always been my view that if you can do the thing WRT military service, there should be no arbitrary and artificial barriers to being allowed to do the thing, and there should be no arbitrary limitations upon who, within that population of people so capable, is saddled with an obligation to do aforementioned thing. Male suicide IS kind of a problem, but I also support people's rights to make that decision; it would be more useful to target educational efforts surrounding suicide in general in an egalitarian way. Then again, men tend to be more successful at suicide because, well, it's a cultural expectation among men that if you are going to do something, you make sure the job actually gets done (usually with a gun). As to male rape victims, men laugh at them too. In which case, TRUST but VERIFY is as important there as ever. Nobody should ever laugh at someone who has been raped.

At any rate, these issues are being addressed by feminists, too. Women were the ones seeking egalitarianism wrt enlistment, and while some here and out in the worlds want to ask for lower standards of ability, I'm not one of them. If you want to be in the infantry, you need to be able to carry the ruck, keep up with the run, and shoot the (very large, hard-to-carry) gun. Edit: but if a standard is more about "beating face" and filtering on DISIPLINE, then make it about beating face.

I also don't see anyone shouting loudly on the left that men don't need shelters where they can go to escape abuse. I'm worried that there aren't enough such places, and I'm personally of the opinion that we need more support for "broken men", be it broken by rape, or broken by military service. In fact, I see a lot more of that (edit: ridiculing men who need help) coming from the right, and from, ironically enough, men.

A lot of the reason feminism exists is to seek egalitarian goals, today as much as ever. Perhaps your views have been tainted by discussions with the more radical/low-information feminists on these boards. But I'm a feminist, and I don't think I've been saying or pushing for much that is outside the bounds you have laid out.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A lot of the reason feminism exists is to seek egalitarian goals, today as much as ever. Perhaps your views have been tainted by discussions with the more radical/low-information feminists on these boards. But I'm a feminist, and I don't think I've been saying or pushing for much that is outside the bounds you have laid out.

I don't see anything that you've written in the post above that I disagree with. What you have written above strikes me far more egalitarian than feminist. I distinguish the two because I want a way to separate what I read above from what I read from those radical/low-information people you reference. But nomenclature aside, I don't think we disagree on a whole lot here.

 

[laughing dog]

Its perfectly reasonable to consistently and persistently demand logical consistency. It's only "bullying" because of the repeated attempts o dodge the answer.

It is reasonable to expect logical consistency in an argument. It is not reasonable to impose logical consistency on issues outside of the topic. 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? Why does this logical consistency matter? This thread is about what men think about what it means to be men, not whether some poster meets some imposed and irrelevant "logical consistency" standard.

Frankly, in this case, I would not answer because you and especially JP with his asinine sniping are acting like dicks about it.

Because mere "agreement" on the issue itself doesn't actually state i that agreement is sane or reasonable, and certainly isn't rational as a basis. 100 years ago people were in general agreement that homosexuals were awful blights on society. Instead, bringing the claim back to philosophical roots allows examination and validation of the claim independent to agreement.

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent. Moreover, the notion that men should speak out against sexual harassment can be analyzed and validated without reference to any other claim.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Because mere "agreement" on the issue itself doesn't actually state i that agreement is sane or reasonable, and certainly isn't rational as a basis. 100 years ago people were in general agreement that homosexuals were awful blights on society. Instead, bringing the claim back to philosophical roots allows examination and validation of the claim independent to agreement.

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent. Moreover, the notion that men should speak out against sexual harassment can be analyzed and validated without reference to any other claim.

the bullying negates the reasonableness

Does the dog's bullying of Jarhyn negate the dog's reasonableness?

 

[laughing dog]

the bullying negates the reasonableness

Does the dog's bullying of Jarhyn negate the dog's reasonableness?

Disagreement over an issue is not bullying. Hounding someone to answer a question is bullying.

I hope the therapeutic effect of employing straw men to snipe for you outweighs the embarrassing effect of these mindless petulance of the your posts.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I hope the therapeutic effect of employing straw men to snipe for you outweighs the embarrassing effect of these mindless petulance of the your posts.

Does this bullying negate the dog's reasonableness even more?

 

[Jarhyn]

Because mere "agreement" on the issue itself doesn't actually state i that agreement is sane or reasonable, and certainly isn't rational as a basis. 100 years ago people were in general agreement that homosexuals were awful blights on society. Instead, bringing the claim back to philosophical roots allows examination and validation of the claim independent to agreement.

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent. Moreover, the notion that men should speak out against sexual harassment can be analyzed and validated without reference to any other claim.

No, it really can't. Erhical obligations stem from ethical rules, and those themselves stem from deeper in philosophy. Here we are deciding to go for deeper, because we have people on opposite sides of the issue. We will have to go as deep as it takes to reach a shared principle, from which we can reconcile views. If you don do that, it's just pointless, masturbatory argument.

 

[laughing dog]

Because mere "agreement" on the issue itself doesn't actually state i that agreement is sane or reasonable, and certainly isn't rational as a basis. 100 years ago people were in general agreement that homosexuals were awful blights on society. Instead, bringing the claim back to philosophical roots allows examination and validation of the claim independent to agreement.

Except that philosophical principles need not be either or sane or internally consistent. Moreover, the notion that men should speak out against sexual harassment can be analyzed and validated without reference to any other claim.

No, it really can't.

We disagree. Talking about what men think it means to be a man does not require any discussion about Islam and terrorism, regardless of any underlying deeper philosophical principles. Logically, I can advocate that men ought to speak out against men sexually harassing/assaulting women and refuse to advocate that Muslims speak out against terrorism. And that has absolutely nothing to do with my position about men speaking out against men who sexually harasss/abuse.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, it really can't.

We disagree. Talking about what men think it means to be a man does not require any discussion about Islam and terrorism, regardless of any underlying deeper philosophical principles. Logically, I can advocate that men ought to speak out against men sexually harassing/assaulting women and refuse to advocate that Muslims speak out against terrorism. And that has absolutely nothing to do with my position about men speaking out against men who sexually harasss/abuse.

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, it really can't.

We disagree. Talking about what men think it means to be a man does not require any discussion about Islam and terrorism, regardless of any underlying deeper philosophical principles. Logically, I can advocate that men ought to speak out against men sexually harassing/assaulting women and refuse to advocate that Muslims speak out against terrorism. And that has absolutely nothing to do with my position about men speaking out against men who sexually harasss/abuse.

You can do that, sure. But the question about muslims and terrorism gets to the question of why you do that. It could be tribal. It could be reactionary. It could be prejudice. Or it could be a reasoned and consistent principle in action. Jarhyn has shown his/hers to be the latter. Toni's remains unclear, and no amount of hiding behind her skirt or your barking at us changes that. We still see her.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

Naw, it's all good, brotha. Your heart was in the right place.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it really can't.

We disagree. Talking about what men think it means to be a man does not require any discussion about Islam and terrorism, regardless of any underlying deeper philosophical principles. Logically, I can advocate that men ought to speak out against men sexually harassing/assaulting women and refuse to advocate that Muslims speak out against terrorism. And that has absolutely nothing to do with my position about men speaking out against men who sexually harasss/abuse.

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

Sexual harassment/abuse is a violation of a basic human right that also serves no higher purpose. Since men tend to perpetrate most of the sexual harassment/abuse, they should speak out against this violation of a basic human right.

Terrorism is also a violation of a basic human right, but sometimes terrorism serves some higher purpose (i.e. freedom fighters are usually terrorists to their opponents). Muslims may not wish to speak out against Islamic terrorism when that terrorism serves a higher purpose in their view.

The 2nd argument has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st.

In my view, your position is unnecessarily narrow in its scope.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

But a discussion of one thing doesn't necessarily translate into a discussion of all things. To use your comparison to muslims, for instance, a person might be of the opinion that the cultural and social domination of men creates a greater onus on the group as a whole to take a more proactive role in regards to oppression and bigotry by parts of that group which doesn't have a comparable situation amongst muslims as a group. Or they may not give much of a rat's ass about talking about muslims on a given day which is why they posted in a thread about men and didn't post in a thread about muslims, so your comparison is irrelevant to any subject they have an interest in discussing.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Naw, it's all good, brotha. Your heart was in the right place.

Ok everyone, GROUP HUG!

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you can't, not if you advocate for the use of rational thought rather than emotional appeal... or maybe you can produce a philosophical principle that doesn't induct the other classes, but I have my doubts. So go for it: present the philosophical basis for this claim that doesn't induct the other cases.

Sexual harassment/abuse is a violation of a basic human right that also serves no higher purpose. Since men tend to perpetrate most of the sexual harassment/abuse, they should speak out against this violation of a basic human right.

Terrorism is also a violation of a basic human right, but sometimes terrorism serves some higher purpose (i.e. freedom fighters are usually terrorists to their opponents). Muslims may not wish to speak out against Islamic terrorism when that terrorism serves a higher purpose in their view.

The 2nd argument has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st.

In my view, your position is unnecessarily narrow in its scope.

You have provided nothing o establish why, just because (some men) perpetrate abuse that (men in particular) have a duty to fight it. You have presented a non-sequitur. Good job. Try again.