What Do Men Think It Means To Be A Man?

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's when it comes to being held accountable for, being seen as responsible for and as a consequence being expected to apologise for that I find myself flip-flopping. One minute I agree with these and the next I don't.

Why would you ever agree with these? If you are not enabling them, pushing any of their objectionable views, etc? Just being grouped together with them because you share a physical trait with them (skin colour, height, gender, etc) would never do that.

To analogise, and hey let's use muslims as an analogy again, Christoper Hitchins, among others, was, I believe, of the opinion (and many atheists agreed with him) that moderate muslims provide cover for islamic extremists. He was therefore clearly of the view that the moderate majority were to some extent accountable/responsible for the actions of the offending minority in their 'group' (muslims). I was always dubious about this view, even though I heard it promoted quite regularly at various secular/atheist internet sites. And, to be honest, I don't think it derives from any tiptoeing around muslims, or theists generally. It just struck me as awry.

I think that was more Harris than Hitchens. And his point wasn't that moderate muslims (as people were calling them in those discussions) were responsible for or had special requirement to speak out against radical violent muslims, and special blame for not doing so, though he did see utility in that. It was more that moderate muslims still pushed faith and obedience as virtues, and still pushed the Quran as a book of perfect truth; a book that explicitly calls for violence on a straight forward reading of it (as does the bible).

So, I'm wondering if it similarly awry to extend 'oughts' in the case of men beyond merely saying 'it would be helpful if you did decry (and perhaps step up and fight) the offenders in your group' to 'you should do these things because you are in some way responsible'.

No. Not if you don't share their ideology, push their sacred texts (which may be some frat code of groping?), etc. Just happening to have a penis doesn't make you guilty or responsible for them in any way whatsoever.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As you point out, any decent person should speak out against sexual abuse/harassment. I don't think that requires a deep philosophical rationale in order to adopt as some sort of behaviorial guideline.

It doesn't, and we'd hope that the person would apply that consistently and speak out against sexual abuse/harassment regardless of who it is against or who is doing it. If they don't, then we do indeed start to wonder if that is actually the basis.

But holding X especially responsible for and blameworthy for not standing up against people who share more characteristics with X (maleness, religion, whatever), more than others who don't share those characteristics, requires a deeper philosophical rationale. And that is what we were talking about.

 

[ruby sparks]

I was myself sexually abused as a toddler and speak up against it already...

You have my sincere sympathies man.

 

[laughing dog]

But holding X especially responsible for and blameworthy for not standing up against people who share more characteristics with X (maleness, religion, whatever), more than others who don't share those characteristics, requires a deeper philosophical rationale. And that is what we were talking about.

That is not the issue of the OP and deserves another thread. And no one ought to be bullied into engaging in a derail.

 

[ruby sparks]

Anecdote: My dear wife has a thing about our house being tidy and spotlessly clean. It's not quite OCD or an obsession, but it's a 'thing' if you know what I mean. It has caused a few disagreements over the years. Whatever. She's a diamond and I'm lucky to have her.

The odd thing is, she doesn't have the same 'thing' about her car (or should I say the second family car that she mainly drives). It just doesn't bother her anywhere near as much if the car gets a bit dirty on the outside or a bit untidy on the inside. Mostly, on the occasions I use it, I notice that there is usually empty crisp packets in the door pockets and maybe papers on the passenger footwell and maybe a few bits of stuff lying in the back seat.

So of course, naturally, it occurs to me to wonder, often while I'm making sure the kitchen is spotless and tidy before she gets home from work (I work from home, she doesn't) lest there be a minor incident about it, why there aren't the same expectations for the car as there are for the house.

Which I think is a reasonable question.

 

[Toni]

Anecdote: My dear wife has a thing about our house being tidy and spotlessly clean. It's not quite OCD or an obsession, but it's a 'thing' if you know what I mean. It has caused a few disagreements over the years. Whatever. She's a diamond and I'm lucky to have her.

The odd thing is, she doesn't have the same 'thing' about her car (or should I say the second family car that she mainly drives). It just doesn't bother her anywhere near as much if the car gets a bit dirty on the outside or a bit untidy on the inside. Mostly, on the occasions I use it, I notice that there is usually empty crisp packets in the door pockets and maybe papers on the passenger footwell and maybe a few bits of stuff lying in the back seat.

So of course, naturally, it occurs to me to wonder, often while I'm making sure the kitchen is spotless and tidy before she gets home from work (I work from home, she doesn't) lest there be a minor incident about it, why there aren't the same expectations for the car as there are for the house.

Which I think is a reasonable question.

Women are judged by how their homes are kept.

Less so, their cars. Especially if their cars are used to haul children/teens and their gear and to do the thousand errands women routinely do in order to keep their homes and children tidy and in order. I would never judge someone for a candy wrapper or an empty bag of chips on the bottom of their car or in the door cubby. If I saw the same in the middle of their living room floor, I’d wonder what was up. Regardless of gender or marital status.

 

[ruby sparks]

Why would you ever agree with these? If you are not enabling them, pushing any of their objectionable views, etc? Just being grouped together with them because you share a physical trait with them (skin colour, height, gender, etc) would never do that.

Well, I guess I sometimes feel a responsibility because I'm a member of society and I'd like society to be better and I can't just expect others to make this happen.

Other than that, perhaps it is irrational of me to sometimes feel I should apologise, on behalf of my sex.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Other than that, perhaps it is irrational of me to sometimes feel I should apologise, on behalf of my sex.

If you are going to have that impulse, why stop there? Maybe we should all be apologizing to the dolphins, penguins, and bears on behalf of humanity. That actually feels kinda right come to think of it... hmm..

 

[ruby sparks]

Women are judged by how their homes are kept.

Less so, their cars.

Yes. I believe that is, in fact, the explanation.

But my point, which was aimed at LD, was that the relative differences between two things which may seem separate can be compared in the same discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

Other than that, perhaps it is irrational of me to sometimes feel I should apologise, on behalf of my sex.

If you are going to have that impulse, why stop there? Maybe we should all be apologizing to the dolphins, penguins, and bears on behalf of humanity. That actually feels kinda right come to think of it... hmm..

Exactly.

 

[Jarhyn]

Anecdote: My dear wife has a thing about our house being tidy and spotlessly clean. It's not quite OCD or an obsession, but it's a 'thing' if you know what I mean. It has caused a few disagreements over the years. Whatever. She's a diamond and I'm lucky to have her.

The odd thing is, she doesn't have the same 'thing' about her car (or should I say the second family car that she mainly drives). It just doesn't bother her anywhere near as much if the car gets a bit dirty on the outside or a bit untidy on the inside. Mostly, on the occasions I use it, I notice that there is usually empty crisp packets in the door pockets and maybe papers on the passenger footwell and maybe a few bits of stuff lying in the back seat.

So of course, naturally, it occurs to me to wonder, often while I'm making sure the kitchen is spotless and tidy before she gets home from work (I work from home, she doesn't) lest there be a minor incident about it, why there aren't the same expectations for the car as there are for the house.

Which I think is a reasonable question.

As Toni posed, I think the philosophical basis may be a fear of judgement, rather than a wider fear of messiness.its a fantastic example of what I've been talking about, insofar as there are multiple philosophical bases for the imperative rule (keep the house clean), some of which have corollaries to the car, and some which don't; hers does not have this corollary, and so the apparent contradiction is in fact not a special pleading. It's just one example of how philosophical principles extend.

Now, I would personally not judge anyone without children about the cleanliness of their home (or hole, as my phone almost fat-fingered me into saying; the latter describes my own much better than the former); I'm a pretty messy slob, but I wouldn't tolerate that of myself in presence of a child for which I was responsible.

 

[ruby sparks]

its a fantastic example of what I've been talking about, insofar as there are multiple philosophical bases for the imperative rule (keep the house clean), some of which have corollaries to the car, and some which don't; hers does not have this corollary, and so the apparent contradiction is in fact not a special pleading.

And I suppose, by extension, it may not be special pleading (or at least it may be explainable special pleading, if there is such a thing) to hold men to a higher standard than, say, muslims, when it comes to expectations to denounce?

And I think we have at least 3 candidate explanations. Differences in prevalence, differences in levels of sympathy, and LD's difference about higher motives.

Whether any of those are sufficient or laudable justifications, I don't know.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

But the rationale for following that imperative does not usually depend on what someone thinks ought to happen in some other case. And, one can give a rationale without actually advocating the rationale. As you point out, any decent person should speak out against sexual abuse/harassment. I don't think that requires a deep philosophical rationale in order to adopt as some sort of behaviorial guideline. And I don't think my view on whether Muslims should speak out against Islamic terrorism has anything to do with whether my dictum based on your observation is a good rule to adopt or follow.

With the exception of the last sentence, I have no argument. Regarding the last sentence, we disagree, and I'm not interested in nettling anyone by insisting they're wrong or I'm right.

I am sorry to hear about your history. No one should ever have to deal with that.

Indeed. In a sense, I'm a lucky one because it happened so young, and wasn't ongoing, so it hasn't come to define me. Had it been ongoing, or happened when I was older and had a clearer sexual self-definition, no doubt it would have been more destructive. At any rate, it informs my willingness to speak up whenever and wherever. I do not feel compelled to speak out against crimes committed by other men simply because of shared gender, though.

 

[ruby sparks]

If you are going to have that impulse, why stop there? Maybe we should all be apologizing to the dolphins, penguins, and bears on behalf of humanity. That actually feels kinda right come to think of it... hmm..

Exactly.

On second thoughts, that's probably not exactly the same, because as a human you have, inevitably, played a part when it comes to the natural environment.

On the other hand, even the most ardent and green-living environmentalist might at least 'feel like' apologising (for others). Irrational? Sentimental? Guilt complex?

And, I sincerely doubt I'm completely blameless as a man regarding gender issues. Imo, I benefit from invisible privileges for starters. That's before we even get to my minor transgressions.

I have a feeling that this comes down, not to whether men should have responsibility, but to how much responsibility they should have. And I doubt there's ever been many other than a miniscule proportion who've never had any.

ETA: And then, other days, I flip flop and say that what the arsehole down the street does is not something I need to apologise for to the women he wolf whistles at.

 

[Jarhyn]

its a fantastic example of what I've been talking about, insofar as there are multiple philosophical bases for the imperative rule (keep the house clean), some of which have corollaries to the car, and some which don't; hers does not have this corollary, and so the apparent contradiction is in fact not a special pleading.

And I suppose, by extension, it may not be special pleading (or at least it may be explainable special pleasing, if there is such a thing) to hold men to a higher standard than, say, muslims, when it comes to expectations to denounce?

And I think we have at least 3 candidate explanations. Differences in prevalence, differences in levels of sympathy, and LD's difference about higher motives.

Whether any of those are sufficient or laudable justifications, I don't know.

I can pretty much discount prevalence and sympathy in that both are differences in extent, not quality; this may reasonably justify a difference in the extent of the output of the function with regards to responsibility, but not in quality. As to LD's higher motives, this exhonerates many freedom fighters from criticism, but it does not exhonerate, for example, Daesh, which attempted a coup in Iraq and to set up a fundamentalist theocracy; if this were seen as a reasonable goal by Muslims in general, that's a pretty scathing indictment against all of Islam.

At any rate, you are right in that it MAY not be special pleading to apply some different principle to drive the argument than the one I proposed. But at any rate, it's down to the person arguing to account for undesirable corollaries.

 

[ruby sparks]

Error. Post inserted as ETA in previous.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I can pretty much discount prevalence and sympathy in that both are differences in extent, not quality; this may reasonably justify a difference in the extent of the output of the function with regards to responsibility, but not in quality.

I think that if you switch from a grouping that is considered oppressed to one that is considered oppressing (ie, women to men, black to white, western to muslim) it often does change the quality, by going from a positive to a negative sentiment. If a black man is kicked when he's down, by a white man, that's seen as a horrible racist act. If a white man is kicked when he is down, by a black man, that is seen as fighting back against the man. If we actually consider all four men as individuals, rather than as members of groups, this difference dissipates.

 

[Jarhyn]

I can pretty much discount prevalence and sympathy in that both are differences in extent, not quality; this may reasonably justify a difference in the extent of the output of the function with regards to responsibility, but not in quality.

I think that if you switch from a grouping that is considered oppressed to one that is considered oppressing (ie, women to men, black to white, western to muslim) it often does change the quality, by going from a positive to a negative sentiment. If a black man is kicked when he's down, by a white man, that's seen as a horrible racist act. If a white man is kicked when he is down, by a black man, that is seen as fighting back against the man. If we actually consider all four men as individuals, rather than as members of groups, this difference dissipates.

Personally, I think that the races don't matter here, but rather the context of the act. If a man kicks a woman, I want to know WHY before proclaiming ethical judgement, same as if a woman kicks a man. I don't accept that group identity EVER is more important than context. (Edit: unless the group identity IS context through some tortured attempt to form the context into group identities, and even then they would be equally important, because they would then be the same thing)

 

[Toni]

Yes. I believe that is, in fact, the explanation.

But my point, which was aimed at LD, was that the relative differences between two things which may seem separate can be compared in the same discussion.

Kind of like people may be willing to discuss the topic of a thread and be uninterested in participating in straw men, red herrings, non sequiturs or just turns in the conversation that don't interest them?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Well, ironically, one thing is clear; we know what does NOT make a man thanks to certain DK fuckheads itt.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm not sure what a "DK fuckhead" is, but it's interesting to me that emasculation would be used as a tool in this discussion. Using stereotypes would appear counterproductive to meaningful discussion, it seems to me.