The future of Men and Families
We should try to turn back the clock
10.4% (8)
10.4% (8)
We should not turn back the clock
63.6% (49)
63.6% (49)
Other
26% (20)
26% (20)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: The Manosphere and the future of Men and Families

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

the December King:
So the whole "sicker, dumber, shorter-lived men" thing I'm seeing now is completely societal? I'd be happy to hear it was. I would then be happy to contribute towards a change in society.

For the most part, I'd say it is. There are some health concerns that are more likely to affect men than women, but society has much to answer for.

For example, men being reluctant to seek help is a serious male health issue. The pressure to literally "man up" and ignore the problem means it goes untreated.

Thaluikhain:

the December King:
So the whole "sicker, dumber, shorter-lived men" thing I'm seeing now is completely societal? I'd be happy to hear it was. I would then be happy to contribute towards a change in society.

For the most part, I'd say it is. There are some health concerns that are more likely to affect men than women, but society has much to answer for.

For example, men being reluctant to seek help is a serious male health issue. The pressure to literally "man up" and ignore the problem means it goes untreated.

I wonder how to fight that particular sentiment. A lot of men (perhaps rightly) believe they are admired for strength (meaning trying to be strong, reliable, etc. as well as physically strong), and going to the doctor inherently feels like an admittance of weakness.

Also, sorry if I came across as snarky.

erttheking:

Can be. But it isn't. There's no nebulous organization organizing all of this.

I honestly don't think that matters in this case. A person or org. can be at war with someone without coordination or even forethought. Often them may think they are less anti something than pro something else that has the same result: injustice to a given party.

And you're confusing your terms.

I'm just trying to point out when you refer to "war" you're not necessarily talking about maps with movable figures and tactics and budgets, etc. The term can be used metaphorically.

Thaluikhain:

In any case, what does "saving me" mean? From what exactly? As it stands, men are experiencing an amount of unnecessary hardship, sure, but this is something society has tolerated for ages, one could says it's one of the cornerstones of modern society. If nothing is done, the problem won't get fixed, but society can ignore it and muddle on, just like it's currently spending its time doing.

Save you from injustice and exploitation for starters.

"the elite" aren't (on the whole) propagating harmful ideas of masculinity as part of some conspiracy for their own benefit, they are doing so for much the same reasons other people do, because that's what they believe. They've been taught by others and turn around and teach it in turn.

Now, having said that, any number of people have been trying to push their own ideologies into things, of course, which muddies the issue, but there was no clear plan set down by someone for much of it.

As I wrote above, I don't think there needs to be to consider there to be a social war on (non-elite)men ongoing.

In what ways are they different? That is, inherently different, not possessing differences imposed upon them by society, which is, after all, the problem.

Saying that men are inherently different, promoting gender essentialism...well, "separate but equal" didn't work in practice, despite sounding nice in theory.

That's why gender is infinitely more complex than race. There is no difference between me and someone of another race but aesthetics. But gender? Huge.

You appear to have implied earlier that boys arguably are defective girls. The things that made you think that: those are real differences.

Though in a cosmic sense you have a point. In a different thread in this forum, EviltheCat pointed out that XX vs. XY do not have inherent differences on their own. But in a reality of our genetic/environmental/hereditary/social evolution? I think substantial measurable differences exist.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

Can be. But it isn't. There's no nebulous organization organizing all of this.

I honestly don't think that matters in this case. A person or org. can be at war with someone without coordination or even forethought. Often them may think they are less anti something than pro something else that has the same result: injustice to a given party.

And you're confusing your terms.

I'm just trying to point out when you refer to "war" you're not necessarily talking about maps with movable figures and tactics and budgets, etc. The term can be used metaphorically.

Then why did you argue that the elite were doing so?

You're missing the point. I, nor did anyone else, argue that this was a literal war. I was arguing that it was a massive oversimplification of a complex matter that can't be streamlined down to the simple parameters that a war would imply.

Gorfias:

erttheking:

See, that's why turning this into a "war" is a bad idea. It takes thousands of years of inherited ideals and simplifies it down to "the elite bad guys are manipulating the majority good guys." Things are more complicated than that. No one got up and said "I'm going to make up a bunch of BS to manipulate the male gender." This is the way men have been acting for centuries, it can't be pinned on some elite group that forced it on us. My dad pushed it on me, guys at school pushed it on me. It has a massive presence on the individual level. Without even meaning to, I may have contributed to it when I was young and didn't know bettter. This is a complicated problem inherent with flaws in our culture. Not good guys vs bad guys.

I think it can be both. I doubt if China said, ?let?s mess with America by helping North Korea? They set out to help North Korea and defacto went to war with the USA. And the term war is used for motivation: the war on poverty, drugs, etc. It suggests the need for massive, sustained concerted efforts. I think saving men is going to require such efforts if it can be done at all.

evilthecat:

Do you think ordinary men are at war with themselves?
After all, ordinary men are far more likely to kill themselves than they are to be killed by other "elite" men (who exactly is an "elite" man, anyway?) Ordinary men are not only responsible for almost all of the violence in our society, but most of that violence is directed against other men, against the rank and file, as you put it. Ordinary men live much less healthy lives than women of the same social class and die younger. If anyone seems to be out to destroy ordinary, rank and file men, it's ordinary men.

You have a point but people do not live in a vacuum. If, as an elite, I design a giant swindle that impoverishes many while enriching me, the guy that commits suicide when ripped off did the violent deed but I?d be the one that set events in motion.

You talk about not treating boys as defective girls, but in a very real sense they are defective girls. Girls are, on average, less violent than boys, less criminal than boys, more healthy than boys, less suicidal than boys, more studious than boys, more careful than boys, more genial than boys, less prone to addiction problems than boys. The inevitable result of this is that, unless something changes very soon, girls will soon be more successful than boys.

Are they? I agree with Camile Paglia on the issue. They are different than girls and those differences can be channeled into new heights of creativity. (She writes of the pursuit of sex and beauty were historically huge motivators for men).

We can do one of two things. We can argue that boys will be boys, that boys can't help being like this and that they need more special accommodations for their behaviour, but to do that will be to essentially admit that being male is a disability. That we shouldn't discriminate against men not because they actually are as capable as women, but because they can't help not being equally capable.
Alternately, we can say that it isn't men who are the problem, but the social pressures and expectations which men are faced with. For example the demand that they act like "real men" and not sissified "girly" men who do such dreadful and unmanly things as talking about their emotional problems with others or studying hard like a nerd instead of focusing on how far they can kick a ball.
I believe in the radical position that men are people and that, as people, they have the power to liberate themselves from the restrictive confines of patriarchal society and to be whatever they choose to be. I reject the notion that men are a separate species of degenerate, childlike half-people doomed to forever play out the suicidal impulses of their inferior biological programming. Apparently, believing this means declaring war against men..

I disagree. Another option is to see that men have power and potential. They may be different than women but in the name of justice and a wealthier, freer society, we need to be able to see them as different than women and make use of those differences. Right now, too often, we?re just, again, treating them like defective women. They aren?t. They are different and as a society, we should come to terms with what that means.
Doing otherwise feels like a perpetuation of a war against them.

What differences specifically and how have you determined that their origin isn't cultural or societal?

renegade7:
I just want to comment on something here. Artificially increasing population through immigration is meant to solve the problem of "depopulation relative to skills", ie brain drain, not to solve the problem of depopulation in terms of raw numbers (we are in no danger of this). Looking, for instance, at the engineering sector, the US just isn't producing enough graduates on its own to meet the labor demand, primarily because there just isn't enough interest among American natives to work in technology.

Of course you're right. Can you believe that as a German of all things I forgot first world countries only allow the most qualified and skilled individuals in to revitalize our stagnant and failing economy?

renegade7:
And your solution to this is what, exactly?

Phasmal already made a suggestion. It would be a good start.

renegade7:
It's already been asked why you're only taking women to task on this, so I'll ask a different question here. What, to you, constitutes a "proper mother" and how do you expect that this "societal pressure" will be implemented?

Obviously there are many different ways to raise a child. Its not like there is one singular "right" way. However, I think presence, interest, patience and a certain degree of competence (you'd be surprised as to how many parents are unable to teach their child how to brush teeth properly) are always needed. All too often you see abscence, disinterest, apathy and cluelessness instead of those things.

Perhaps its not so much a matter of implementing a societal pressure to live up to that, but rather of lightening pressure elsewhere? If parents were not pressured into both working full time, if we were not permanently reinforcing some ways in which we view and raise children which haven't changed for close to 400 years and started teaching basic life skills in schools instead of burdening every pupil with a buttload of things they will literally never need again in their lives that might go a very very long way on its own.

And if it doesn't go far enough? Hey controversial opinion here: if you're a shitty mother you deserve to get shamed for it big time. That can motivate people too.

Wrex Brogan:
Really? Are you entirely sure that is the horse you want to be backing there?

Yes.

Wrex Brogan:
...not to be rude, but you kinda suck at reading comprehension if you take 'we keep reporting on men who do the bare minimum instead of the men who actually do go above and beyond' as 'let's write about deadbeat dads'. Unless you've got some weird biases about single fathers, in which case, the fuck dude. I'm literally saying 'if we're going to praise a father for being a 'great dad' then we should make sure they're actually being a great dad and not just doing the bare minimum of acceptable parenting'. You shouldn't get a gold star for a 5/10, you know?

And pulled it out of my ass? Dude, it's fine, you can admit to when you don't know about something, I'm not gonna drag your balls over the fire for not knowing something, maybe it doesn't happen where you live but in Australia and America it's a pretty frequent occurrence. The media's approach to covering/discussing motherhood and fatherhood is a bit of problem that gender rights groups have been trying to sort out for a while now, but not necessarily a universal problem.

Blablabla. Look, I went through the trouble and took 5 minutes to look up some "dad of the year" articles from American news outlets. Half of them were humorous ("Watch this video where a moron almost drops a baby, LOL!") and the other half were serious, about fathers who went well beyond the bare minimum. Philantropy, beating cancer against the odds, that kind of thing. You are talking out of your ass.

Wild guess: you once saw a tongue in cheek article about a "dad of the year" who built a cool waterslide and thought it was ridiculous. Then you blew it up into a giant trend because it suits your world view even though its not. Whatever man. Its just that anyone with an internet connection can look this stuff up in like 2 minutes.

Phasmal:
I can't believe this is something I have to clarify, but here:

I was not referring to or insinuating anything about your penis. Until now I lived in a magical time in which I had never had to reference your penis at all. A simpler time. A happier time. Let's go back there.
By "knowing women", I don't refer to having sex with them. I refer to talking to them. I was surprised anyone who knows women would suggest there should be more pressure on them to be "proper mothers".

Hey, it doesn't bite. (^:

I'm not ripped enough to get laid without holding a conversation first. Yet. Give me 5 more months at the gym, some bloke over on a PUA website promised muscles are enough to make women just spread their legs automatically.

Phasmal:
Professional to professional, that's fucking insane.
Staying home every time your kid has a snotty nose is going to lose you your job.
Recently we just had a big ol' bout of chicken pox, so all the mums stayed home. Then a cold started to go around. Just a regular cold, bit of a snotty nose, no big deal. To suggest these people take all that time off of work and put their jobs in danger is ignorant. It's better to provide a home for a child than to lose your job because you take time off every time their nose runs.

No Phasmal, I'll tell you whats ignorant and if you honestly work this job and believe otherwise its a fucking tragedy: its ignorant to believe you can minimize your time with your kid to a few hours a day and stick him or her into daycare for the rest of the time without causing damage. Its ignorant to shit out a baby, throw it into a room with 30 other kids and one child care worker, drive to the office and expect that to replace proper parenting. Its ignorant to ignore the strongest fucking instinct you have because serving processed crap at your fast food joint job is more important than doing the absolute best you can for the next generation.

Yeah I get it. Reality meets idealism, you have to hold a job because children aren't exactly better off homeless. But perhaps we're barking up the wrong tree here? Perhaps you should spend less time asking why mothers are expected to wipe their kids noses and more time asking why, in this society of plenty we live in, so many things take priority over parenting? And why we all just accept it as the way to go?

Phasmal:
And also, notice how I said "mums", not parents. Because while all are two-parent homes, the mums stayed home. You can use gender neutral language but that won't change who is expected to stay home. As someone who is aware of the pressure on women, I'm sure you agree it's usually them who ends up doing it.

Generally the man will have the better paying job and since careers are so important, thats self explanatory? Since we're prioritizing careers here and all...

This is a whole different can of worms though. Yes, I agree its usually them who end up doing it. I'm not convinced its good at all. If men were expected to stay home just as often I wouldn't have a problem with it.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Wrex Brogan:
Really? Are you entirely sure that is the horse you want to be backing there?

Yes.

Oh thank god, I thought I was going to have to take you seriously for a moment there. Phew. Crisis averted, at least.

Wrex Brogan:
...not to be rude, but you kinda suck at reading comprehension if you take 'we keep reporting on men who do the bare minimum instead of the men who actually do go above and beyond' as 'let's write about deadbeat dads'. Unless you've got some weird biases about single fathers, in which case, the fuck dude. I'm literally saying 'if we're going to praise a father for being a 'great dad' then we should make sure they're actually being a great dad and not just doing the bare minimum of acceptable parenting'. You shouldn't get a gold star for a 5/10, you know?

And pulled it out of my ass? Dude, it's fine, you can admit to when you don't know about something, I'm not gonna drag your balls over the fire for not knowing something, maybe it doesn't happen where you live but in Australia and America it's a pretty frequent occurrence. The media's approach to covering/discussing motherhood and fatherhood is a bit of problem that gender rights groups have been trying to sort out for a while now, but not necessarily a universal problem.

Blablabla. Look, I went through the trouble and took 5 minutes to look up some "dad of the year" articles from American news outlets. Half of them were humorous ("Watch this video where a moron almost drops a baby, LOL!") and the other half were serious, about fathers who went well beyond the bare minimum. Philantropy, beating cancer against the odds, that kind of thing. You are talking out of your ass.

Wild guess: you once saw a tongue in cheek article about a "dad of the year" who built a cool waterslide and thought it was ridiculous. Then you blew it up into a giant trend because it suits your world view even though its not. Whatever man. Its just that anyone with an internet connection can look this stuff up in like 2 minutes.

What, no 'trying not to be a dick' this time? Nothing? C'mon, you did it twice before to cover your ass, couldn't muster the effort a third time? Disappointing.

And please, if you're going to make assumptions about me, at least be a little more dramatic about it. Make it worth my time, don't just play the 'mountain out of a molehill' card, that's just such a disappointing card for you to play. Assume I'm planning on hunting fathers down predator-style or working on eliminating the Y chromosome, you know, something a little heftier than 'I saw a news story and figured 'yes I shall make this a bigger deal than it is with zero research or examination what-so-ever, because I am clearly a moron who lacks higher brain functions and thus simply reacts to external stimuli with no forethought'. At least then you're not assuming I'm a massive idiot compared to you and your amazing 5 minutes of googling skills.

Christ, what a fucking joke.

also 'blew it up into a giant trend because it suits your world view even though its not' while simultaneously having a go at feminism? Oh, you are just a treat.

Gorfias:
If, as an elite, I design a giant swindle that impoverishes many while enriching me, the guy that commits suicide when ripped off did the violent deed but I'd be the one that set events in motion.

Well, that would be a solid Marxist analysis.. but again, what defines "elite" men? How can you tell which men are "elite" and which are not?

Gorfias:
Are they? I agree with Camile Paglia on the issue. They are different than girls and those differences can be channeled into new heights of creativity. (She writes of the pursuit of sex and beauty were historically huge motivators for men).

Well, that's a very sanitised way of putting it..

She writes that men want to fuck their mothers, and that the fact that they want to and yet can't traps them in a state of terrible anxiety which they have to perpetually try and escape by frenzied intellectual and physical action, but also through subjugating, controlling and raping women who become substitutes for their mothers. That is men's essential nature, according to Paglia. You're rapists. You were made to be rapists. You spend your lives (as all men through history have done) trying desperately to convince yourselves that you're not rapists, and from those efforts we get society, but you will never ever really escape what you are.

It doesn't sound so nice when I put it like that, does it? But just think, it could be worse, you could be a woman..

Gorfias:
I disagree. Another option is to see that men have power and potential. They may be different than women but in the name of justice and a wealthier, freer society, we need to be able to see them as different than women and make use of those differences.

But here's the thing.. a society in which women cannot exist without enduring the constant risk of being raped by "beauty seeking" men is not a freer society, not for those women anyway.

Heck, I'll lay off Paglia and her laughable Freudianism for a bit, but as I said, men are responsible for almost all of the violence in our society, and most of that violence is directed against other men. Male violence is not just a way to control women, it's also a way to control other men, to demonstrate superiority to other men, to establish dominance over other men. Does that sound conducive to a freer society? Should freedom mean the freedom to be victimised, to be assaulted for dressing the wrong way, or walking the wrong way, or not living up to someone else's standards.

Since this is a gaming forum, I'm guessing a lot of the guys who will read this were violently bullied at some point in their lives, almost inevitably by other men, because they didn't live up to some jocky masculine stereotype. How exactly is that commensurable with freedom? How exactly is that beneficial for men?

Because if we know that someone can't help being violent because their brain just works differently, we don't just let that person walk around. We don't laugh as they're stabbing someone repeatedly in the face and say, "oh, psychopaths will be psychopaths, we need to accept and make use of his natural differences." We put those people in hospitals where they can't hurt anyone. Is your argument that essentially we should accept the risks of living under a class of violent, controlling neurotics as the price for "creativity", because from what we can actually see the differences between men and women do not actually seem to be good for men. Even Paglia thinks you're a bunch of insecure literal mother-fuckers, and that doesn't sound like a very happy way to live.

the December King:
I wonder how to fight that particular sentiment. A lot of men (perhaps rightly) believe they are admired for strength (meaning trying to be strong, reliable, etc. as well as physically strong), and going to the doctor inherently feels like an admittance of weakness.

You're not wrong, we'd only fight that with great difficulty.

Gorfias:
Save you from injustice and exploitation for starters.

Ah, but you have to take a look at society and decide which parts are unjust and exploitative.

Gorfias:
You appear to have implied earlier that boys arguably are defective girls. The things that made you think that: those are real differences.

That wasn't me. In any case, while those are real differences, that's not to say that they are inherent differences. Our society pressures boys and girls in different ways, there are different shaped holes they are hammered into.

For example, boys aren't supposed to cry, nor show much in the way of emotion in general, beyond cartoony action hero rage. That's a terrible thing to tell boys, something that doesn't get told to girls. It's be a terrible thing to tell girls as well.

Hell, boys are insulted by people calling them girly. They are supposed to reject being feminine. If society was to stop banging on about the rejection (and inferiority) of the feminine, it'd help both genders immensely.

So "manosphere" isn't a funny term for especially rotund gentlemen?

Sexual Harassment Panda:
So "manosphere" isn't a funny term for especially rotund gentlemen?

Sadly not. If it were we could use it as a description of Ian McNiece

CyanCat47:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
So "manosphere" isn't a funny term for especially rotund gentlemen?

Sadly not. If it were we could use it as a description of Ian McNiece

It tickles me that he's the example you chose.

*High five*

Sexual Harassment Panda:

CyanCat47:

Sexual Harassment Panda:
So "manosphere" isn't a funny term for especially rotund gentlemen?

Sadly not. If it were we could use it as a description of Ian McNiece

It tickles me that he's the example you chose.

*High five*

The only trustworthy news-source

erttheking:

Then why did you argue that the elite were doing so?
You're missing the point. I, nor did anyone else, argue that this was a literal war. I was arguing that it was a massive oversimplification of a complex matter that can't be streamlined down to the simple parameters that a war would imply.

1. Because there is a cultural/social/education/religious/political elite that makes such choices the rest of us have to live with. I doubt the desire to drug rambunctious school age boys came from the rank and file. Have you ever tried to influence city hall into doing something other than what it wants to do? Not easy.
2. Again, its about seeing this in terms of a force/forces that are having a concerted, catastrophic effect upon a populace akin to war.

The Decapitated Centaur:

What differences specifically and how have you determined that their origin isn't cultural or societal?

Geez, where to begin? I referenced above that EviltheCat once schooled me in the fact that there are no inherent differences between XX and XY. I suppose in an oppressive totalitarian society with eugenics you could get men and women over time to be identical, regardless of their DNA.
But you could find all sorts of statistical disparities, including who takes more time off from work to rear children. That has an impact.

Thaluikhain:

Ah, but you have to take a look at society and decide which parts are unjust and exploitative.

Big part of why I oppose ERA. ERA would have let courts decide what those injustices are.

Gorfias:
You appear to have implied earlier that boys arguably are defective girls. The things that made you think that: those are real differences.

That wasn't me.

Opps. Honest, happened in this thread. My bad.

If society was to stop banging on about the rejection (and inferiority) of the feminine, it'd help both genders immensely.

I can support that and I think increasingly it is happening. I wonder if women are similarly repulsed by being told they are boyish?

evilthecat:

Well, that would be a solid Marxist analysis.. but again, what defines "elite" men? How can you tell which men are "elite" and which are not?

That could start a whole other thread! Long story short: are they relatively isolated from the negative effects of a policy they would impose on others? Are they actually benefited by something that does great social harm? Do they have power disproportionate to their representation in society? That would be a start.

Well, that's a very sanitized way of putting it..
She writes that men want to fuck their mothers, and that the fact that they want to and yet can't traps them in a state of terrible anxiety which they have to perpetually try and escape by frenzied intellectual and physical action, but also through subjugating, controlling and raping women who become substitutes for their mothers. That is men's essential nature, according to Paglia. You're rapists. You were made to be rapists. You spend your lives (as all men through history have done) trying desperately to convince yourselves that you're not rapists, and from those efforts we get society, but you will never ever really escape what you are.
It doesn't sound so nice when I put it like that, does it? But just think, it could be worse, you could be a woman..

That sounds non-responsive to what I wrote. And is she really that polarizing? Sounds like Katherine McKinnon type non-sense. Nasty syllogism. 1. All sex is rape. 2. Women want sex. Ergo 3. Women want to be raped? Nonsense, literally.

But here's the thing.. a society in which women cannot exist without enduring the constant risk of being raped by "beauty seeking" men is not a freer society, not for those women anyway.

Would those women feel freer in a society where all men have been turned into lobotomized eunichs? I don't think so. And what of Gender power feminists?[Edit: may be the wrong ideological group.. Sex Positive Feminist? I forget.) They see their beauty as a source of power: they can get men to do things for them. Wipe out appreciation for the beautiful (as if that can be done) and you reduce their power.

Heck, I'll lay off Paglia and her laughable Freudianism for a bit, but as I said, men are responsible for almost all of the violence in our society, and most of that violence is directed against other men. Male violence is not just a way to control women, it's also a way to control other men, to demonstrate superiority to other men, to establish dominance over other men. Does that sound conducive to a freer society? Should freedom mean the freedom to be victimised, to be assaulted for dressing the wrong way, or walking the wrong way, or not living up to someone else's standards.
Since this is a gaming forum, I'm guessing a lot of the guys who will read this were violently bullied at some point in their lives, almost inevitably by other men, because they didn't live up to some jocky masculine stereotype. How exactly is that commensurable with freedom? How exactly is that beneficial for men?
Because if we know that someone can't help being violent because their brain just works differently, we don't just let that person walk around. We don't laugh as they're stabbing someone repeatedly in the face and say, "oh, psychopaths will be psychopaths, we need to accept and make use of his natural differences." We put those people in hospitals where they can't hurt anyone. Is your argument that essentially we should accept the risks of living under a class of violent, controlling neurotics as the price for "creativity", because from what we can actually see the differences between men and women do not actually seem to be good for men. Even Paglia thinks you're a bunch of insecure literal mother-fuckers, and that doesn't sound like a very happy way to live.

Being treated like defective girls, exploited and tyrannized isn?t much fun either.
Would it be a freer, more just society if men were rounded up and put into death camps? Their sperm harvested for procreation and with new technology, maybe not even that? I don?t think so.
Instead, my take from Paglia is that beauty seekers are steered, with assistance from Western society, to not rape but be constructive. Rather than burn out pieces of men's brains, help them achieve for the good of all.

Gorfias:
1. Because there is a cultural/social/education/religious/political elite that makes such choices the rest of us have to live with. I doubt the desire to drug rambunctious school age boys came from the rank and file. Have you ever tried to influence city hall into doing something other than what it wants to do? Not easy.

One person influencing the government, sure. Masses and masses, not so much. In any case, why should the elite have radically different ideas about gender that they have to enforce upon everyone else? Why should they not hold much the same views, being brought up in much the same culture.

Gorfias:
But you could find all sorts of statistical disparities, including who takes more time off from work to rear children. That has an impact.

Ah, but why assume that isn't social or cultural in origin? Now, society tells us that men are just different (or are supposed to be), but would men be different if they weren't told they should be?

Gorfias:
I can support that and I think increasingly it is happening. I wonder if women are similarly repulsed by being told they are boyish?

Yes and no. On the one hand, women are condemned for appearing to be too mannish, on the other "you X like a man" or "you aren't like the other girls" is supposed to be a compliment.

Gorfias:

The Decapitated Centaur:

What differences specifically and how have you determined that their origin isn't cultural or societal?

Geez, where to begin? I referenced above that EviltheCat once schooled me in the fact that there are no inherent differences between XX and XY. I suppose in an oppressive totalitarian society with eugenics you could get men and women over time to be identical, regardless of their DNA.
But you could find all sorts of statistical disparities, including who takes more time off from work to rear children. That has an impact.

Just citing a statistical disparity doesn't mean the source isn't social or cultural.

The issue I have with this is that you want these differences treated as unchangeable and something that cannot be judged. That's outright absurd if they are in some way learned.

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

No Phasmal, I'll tell you whats ignorant and if you honestly work this job and believe otherwise its a fucking tragedy: its ignorant to believe you can minimize your time with your kid to a few hours a day and stick him or her into daycare for the rest of the time without causing damage. Its ignorant to shit out a baby, throw it into a room with 30 other kids and one child care worker, drive to the office and expect that to replace proper parenting. Its ignorant to ignore the strongest fucking instinct you have because serving processed crap at your fast food joint job is more important than doing the absolute best you can for the next generation.

Y'know, I was under the impression we lived in the same country. Now I'm guessing we don't. I must have you confused with someone else.
You can't stick a kid into daycare with "30 other kids and one child care worker". We have ratios we need to stick to. Also I'd be very fucking surprised if someone working in fast food could afford full-time childcare. Shit's expensive.

I'm surprised that you think it's a tragedy that I think my job should exist. Why would I do this job if I thought it was damaging to children? Why would ANYONE?

But hey, maybe childcare is completely different where you live. Where I live, it helps to socialise children with other children and we have to provide, and be able to show we provide, an early years curriculum- including documenting a child's development and planning the next steps.

I'm really not convinced you have anything insightful at all to offer about this.
But I suppose demonising working parents is just easier.

Thaluikhain:

In any case, why should the elite have radically different ideas about gender that they have to enforce upon everyone else? Why should they not hold much the same views, being brought up in much the same culture.

I think it was Gertrude Stein that said ?we have to lie to women. Otherwise they would never support us.? Also think of David Horrowitz?s work on Betty Freidman and the Communist position on women. Get women out of the home and into the work place and you double your manpower.
I don?t doubt many, even most people benefit from what elites are doing to the West regarding gender but I doubt the changes are ?bottom driven?.

Ah, but why assume that isn't social or cultural in origin? Now, society tells us that men are just different (or are supposed to be), but would men be different if they weren't told they should be?

I think you could create a society and culture in which they would not be so.
1. Would you even want that to happen;
2. Would it be necessary to create a hostile, totalitarian environment that includes eugenics with which to do it? I think so.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Just citing a statistical disparity doesn't mean the source isn't social or cultural.
The issue I have with this is that you want these differences treated as unchangeable and something that cannot be judged. That's outright absurd if they are in some way learned.

Actually, I think nature and nurture have components in making people who and what they are. EDIT: I'm concerned that much of what a ruling elite thinks it will take to modify men to their liking will be/is cruel, draconian and ultimately harmful.

Gorfias:

Thaluikhain:

In any case, why should the elite have radically different ideas about gender that they have to enforce upon everyone else? Why should they not hold much the same views, being brought up in much the same culture.

I think it was Gertrude Stein that said ?we have to lie to women. Otherwise they would never support us.? Also think of David Horrowitz?s work on Betty Freidman and the Communist position on women. Get women out of the home and into the work place and you double your manpower.
I don?t doubt many, even most people benefit from what elites are doing to the West regarding gender but I doubt the changes are ?bottom driven?.

Ah, but why assume that isn't social or cultural in origin? Now, society tells us that men are just different (or are supposed to be), but would men be different if they weren't told they should be?

I think you could create a society and culture in which they would not be so.
1. Would you even want that to happen;
2. Would it be necessary to create a hostile, totalitarian environment that includes eugenics with which to do it? I think so.

1. If the differences are detrimental then yes

2. That's not much if an argument

The Decapitated Centaur:

Just citing a statistical disparity doesn't mean the source isn't social or cultural.
The issue I have with this is that you want these differences treated as unchangeable and something that cannot be judged. That's outright absurd if they are in some way learned.

Actually, I think nature and nurture have components in making people who and what they are.

That's a pretty poor defense of your notion of differences that should be encouraged. It's so vague. It fails to state the differences, why they are good, why they shouldn't be judged or challenged etc. Not all learned differences are good. As such it seems you should either be giving reasons to believe they aren't learned or that they are good and not harmful

Gorfias:
I don?t doubt many, even most people benefit from what elites are doing to the West regarding gender but I doubt the changes are ?bottom driven?.

The argument is that they aren't (on the whole) intentionally driven by anyone in particular.

Gorfias:
I think you could create a society and culture in which they would not be so.
1. Would you even want that to happen;
2. Would it be necessary to create a hostile, totalitarian environment that includes eugenics with which to do it? I think so.

1. Weren't you talking about it being a good thing to end injustice and exploitation a few posts back?
2. Based on what? Where does eugenics come into it? Over the last few generations, western societies have made huge steps into removing arbitrary differences imposed on the genders. There's a long way to go yet, but massive progress has been made, and there was no eugenics involved.

Having said that, at every step, people have claimed that society was doomed, or about to be doomed, but this happens with any social change, especially if you start giving people rights.

Wrex Brogan:
snip

You can write another 10 paragraphs of irrelevant fluff but the fact remains that the articles you cited don't exist, at least not in the frequency you claimed. Its not a trend. Have a nice day.

Phasmal:
Y'know, I was under the impression we lived in the same country. Now I'm guessing we don't. I must have you confused with someone else.
You can't stick a kid into daycare with "30 other kids and one child care worker". We have ratios we need to stick to. Also I'd be very fucking surprised if someone working in fast food could afford full-time childcare. Shit's expensive.

I lived in Britain for almost a decade so I know the country, thats probably where you got the impression from.

We also have those same ratios in Germany along with a buttload of other rules no one can afford to stick to. Perhaps the reason daycare centers in Britain can is precisely because they are so expensive. Here they're not and the state will cover any eventual fees for you if it means you can work. Doesn't matter where or how much you'll earn. The whole system is kind of dumb and contrived really, but there you go. All very German.

Anyhow, theres no money in it, so most places end up understaffed, underequipped and undertrained for their tasks. Sucks for the children but Merkels motto has always been "the future may belong to the children, but the present belongs to us" and she's sticking to it.

Phasmal:
I'm surprised that you think it's a tragedy that I think my job should exist. Why would I do this job if I thought it was damaging to children? Why would ANYONE?

Me personally? I did it because my abscence would have been even more damaging to children who are stuck there no matter what.

Phasmal:
But hey, maybe childcare is completely different where you live. Where I live, it helps to socialise children with other children and we have to provide, and be able to show we provide, an early years curriculum- including documenting a child's development and planning the next steps.

No, thats roughly the same idea here, although the second place I worked was more about making sure they got something to eat once a day.

In any case, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that parents looking after one or three children will do a better job at all of those things than one guy or gal looking after anywhere between 10 and 30, depending on ratios and whether they are enforced.

Phasmal:
I'm really not convinced you have anything insightful at all to offer about this.
But I suppose demonising working parents is just easier.

Maybe thats because you ignore entire paragraphs of what I write? Anyway..

I suppose leaving things as they are and sacrificing as little things as possible for your kids is just easier.
But I'm not convinced its doing us a world of good.

The Decapitated Centaur:

Gorfias:

1. Would you even want that to happen;
2. Would it be necessary to create a hostile, totalitarian environment that includes eugenics with which to do it? I think so.

1. If the differences are detrimental then yes

2. That's not much if an argument

See below...

That's a pretty poor defense of your notion of differences that should be encouraged. It's so vague. It fails to state the differences, why they are good, why they shouldn't be judged or challenged etc. Not all learned differences are good. As such it seems you should either be giving reasons to believe they aren't learned or that they are good and not harmful

For starters, I think the strength and aggression shown by, say Tom Brady, has its positive place and it much more likely to be a male thing (There are no women in the NFL) than female.
I'm less worried about encouraging such behaviors than becoming Draconian in the effort to snuff them out. Those differences are there: rather than cut holes into men's brains or drug them, lets find constructive ways to channel those differences. It has worked in the past.

More below:

Thaluikhain:

1. Weren't you talking about it being a good thing to end injustice and exploitation a few posts back?

Very much so. I think it is men that have to be on their guard (though "herbivore men" are supposedly also frustrating for women) to avoid injustice and exploitation. See most USA divorce law and custody rulings for example.

2. Based on what? Where does eugenics come into it? Over the last few generations, western societies have made huge steps into removing arbitrary differences imposed on the genders. There's a long way to go yet, but massive progress has been made, and there was no eugenics involved.

Having said that, at every step, people have claimed that society was doomed, or about to be doomed, but this happens with any social change, especially if you start giving people rights.

Yes, my Dad, for instance, was happy that social changes allowed him to tell his children he loved them: his father was of a mind that doing so was not allowed.".

But, for instance, I'm still likely much hairier than most women. I don't think simple social changes are going to change that.

Gorfias:

That's a pretty poor defense of your notion of differences that should be encouraged. It's so vague. It fails to state the differences, why they are good, why they shouldn't be judged or challenged etc. Not all learned differences are good. As such it seems you should either be giving reasons to believe they aren't learned or that they are good and not harmful

For starters, I think the strength and aggression shown by, say Tom Brady, has its positive place and it much more likely to be a male thing (There are no women in the NFL) than female.
I'm less worried about encouraging such behaviors than becoming Draconian in the effort to snuff them out. Those differences are there: rather than cut holes into men's brains or drug them, lets find constructive ways to channel those differences. It has worked in the past.

We're talking behaviors presumably so strength is irrelevant.

As for aggression, it's relevant to determine whether it is learned or what. I don't see how it is supposed to be positive. Also the lack of presence of women in the NFL is just shoddy justification to determine anything here.

So far the only behavioral difference you've cited is one that sure sounds like it should be discouraged for the most part. Now if you believe the only way to get people to curb aggression is drugs and cutting into brains then I think your entire point is hysteria born of ignorance.

Thaluikhain:

1. Weren't you talking about it being a good thing to end injustice and exploitation a few posts back?

Very much so. I think it is men that have to be on their guard (though "herbivore men" are supposedly also frustrating for women) to avoid injustice and exploitation. See most USA divorce law and custody rulings for example.

2. Based on what? Where does eugenics come into it? Over the last few generations, western societies have made huge steps into removing arbitrary differences imposed on the genders. There's a long way to go yet, but massive progress has been made, and there was no eugenics involved.

Having said that, at every step, people have claimed that society was doomed, or about to be doomed, but this happens with any social change, especially if you start giving people rights.

Yes, my Dad, for instance, was happy that social changes allowed him to tell his children he loved them: his father was of a mind that doing so was not allowed.".

But, for instance, I'm still likely much hairier than most women. I don't think simple social changes are going to change that.

I'm finding that you're spouting irrelevant tangents to some questions. Like am I to believe you think either of us are talking about hair?

RiseOfTheWhiteWolf:

Perhaps its not so much a matter of implementing a societal pressure to live up to that, but rather of lightening pressure elsewhere? If parents were not pressured into both working full time,

What do you mean "pressured"? Why are you thinking that the reason that men and women are both working full time is that they've been forced?

and started teaching basic life skills in schools

Such as?

instead of burdening every pupil with a buttload of things they will literally never need again in their lives

Same question: such as?

And if it doesn't go far enough? Hey controversial opinion here: if you're a shitty mother you deserve to get shamed for it big time. That can motivate people too.

See, I'm worried that this pressure to be a perfect parent is how we ended up with the "mommy blogger" culture that convinces people to not vaccinate their children. People don't make rational decisions when they're pressured.

TakeyB0y2:

FriendoftheFallen:
Trying to wave away my experiences with false equivalencies is sexist and hurtful.

But that's what you tend to do in other threads and even here in this thread as well.

Huh... That's interesting... Seems you don't really appreciate it when it gets turned back on you.

Maybe you should take a lesson from that.

So not only do you misrepresent my arguments you also try and justify an insulting and dismissive argument based on fallacious grounds. You truly do not get my positon or arguments AT ALL if you think you hurtful discourse is somehow a mirror to my logic and rhetoric. You don't get my position at all if you think it is anything like how you have so hurtfully conducted your argument.
The lesson I take is that you feel justified in being hurtful and negative because "reasons." You can't claim a position of empathy then. The other lesson I take is that you consistently misperceive me in the worst way possible and you wish to engage in tu quoque and ad hominem fallacies all while being hurtful and insulting and somehow claim a position of empathy. There are no parallels between my arguments in other forums and how you have insultingly conducted this argument here.
That isn't true at all and your attempt at a tu quoque fallacy just shows that your position is inherently fallacious in addition to being sexist and insulting. Trying to judge me based on how you perceive I conduct myself in other forums is inherently fallacious. You should judge an argument based on that argument at hand. Ad hominems and tu quoque fallacies don't negate the points. Trying to "show me what I do to others" by being terrible and hurtful to me doesn't teach me anything other than that you were willing to be hurtful and insulting and obviously misrepresented my conduct in other forums. What I said were not false equivalencies. I never tried to dismiss the concerns of others by bringing up concerns for the group you disparaged. If you felt I did that in my arguments then a good person with empathy wouldn't mirror that. A good person wouldn't try and gleefully go for perceived quid pro quo in an attempt to justify being hurtful. They would try and set an example of compassion or empathy. Your "you do it too" justification shows your arguments come from a position of vengeance or penitence rather than empathy or healing.

Perhaps you should take a lesson about not being hurtful, insulting, and dismissive of an entire gender if you wish to claim a position of empathy. My points don;t dismiss the concerns of one group, they bring up concerns of another group. Since this isn't 0-sum what I am doing isn't nearly as harmful as your dismissing of the concerns of other groups then lashing out with vitriol and prejudicial statements about men. You can learn something from this exchange and not adopt quid pro quo position to justify being hurtful (and falsely classifying my arguments for more empathy for both sides as somehow being hurtful to one side) or you can continue to lash out with hurtful generalizations and fallaciously believe you are justified in doing so. "You do it too" is not a justification to say or do horrible things as a perceived mirror unless you happen to be a toddler. If you don't see my arguments for more compassion and empathy for a position that doesn't receive as much as being quid pro quo arguments in line of the hurtful generalizations you have made then we will not see eye to eye.

Saelune:
Want less divorces? Then as I stated in the topic about if technology is hurting relationships, DATE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY!

Seriously, if you dont enjoy spending time with your partner for a few hours doing something together, how the fuck are you going to spend decades together!?

And sexism wont help that. If men have to be this way and women that way, then it wont help straight couples be happy. Men, wouldnt you prefer she watch sports with you? Maybe she helps you fix up that old car you have been working on? Helps you while you hunt like the manly man you are?

Women, wouldnt it be nice if you cooked as a couple? If he had emotions and cared about you? If he cared more about loving you than beating up people who want to love you?

Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

WeepingAngels:

Saelune:
Want less divorces? Then as I stated in the topic about if technology is hurting relationships, DATE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY!

Seriously, if you dont enjoy spending time with your partner for a few hours doing something together, how the fuck are you going to spend decades together!?

And sexism wont help that. If men have to be this way and women that way, then it wont help straight couples be happy. Men, wouldnt you prefer she watch sports with you? Maybe she helps you fix up that old car you have been working on? Helps you while you hunt like the manly man you are?

Women, wouldnt it be nice if you cooked as a couple? If he had emotions and cared about you? If he cared more about loving you than beating up people who want to love you?

Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Nah that seems pretty untrue. It's silly to have faith in silly sayings

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

Saelune:
Want less divorces? Then as I stated in the topic about if technology is hurting relationships, DATE BASED ON COMPATIBILITY!

Seriously, if you dont enjoy spending time with your partner for a few hours doing something together, how the fuck are you going to spend decades together!?

And sexism wont help that. If men have to be this way and women that way, then it wont help straight couples be happy. Men, wouldnt you prefer she watch sports with you? Maybe she helps you fix up that old car you have been working on? Helps you while you hunt like the manly man you are?

Women, wouldnt it be nice if you cooked as a couple? If he had emotions and cared about you? If he cared more about loving you than beating up people who want to love you?

Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Nah that seems pretty untrue. It's silly to have faith in silly sayings

It's true in my experience and BTW, saying exist for a reason. Feel free though, to go find yourself out there and date for as long as it works.

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

Actually, dating yourself is the bigger problem, in short time you would likely hate one another. Opposites really do attract.

Nah that seems pretty untrue. It's silly to have faith in silly sayings

It's true in my experience and BTW, saying exist for a reason. Feel free though, to go find yourself out there and date for as long as it works.

Your experience. Oh. Well then! That makes *all* the difference rofl

Sayings exist for many reasons, sure. Stupidity, bias, sometimes a bit of truth. I like to be a ratioral person instead of having faith in people just repeating sayings.

Also have had no trouble with my similarities with my gf so...

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Nah that seems pretty untrue. It's silly to have faith in silly sayings

It's true in my experience and BTW, saying exist for a reason. Feel free though, to go find yourself out there and date for as long as it works.

Your experience. Oh. Well then! That makes *all* the difference rofl

Sayings exist for many reasons, sure. Stupidity, bias, sometimes a bit of truth. I like to be a ratioral person instead of having faith in people just repeating sayings.

Also have had no trouble with my similarities with my gf so...

It's funny how you mock my anecdotal evidence at the beginning of your post and then use your own anecdotal evidence at the end of your post.

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

It's true in my experience and BTW, saying exist for a reason. Feel free though, to go find yourself out there and date for as long as it works.

Your experience. Oh. Well then! That makes *all* the difference rofl

Sayings exist for many reasons, sure. Stupidity, bias, sometimes a bit of truth. I like to be a ratioral person instead of having faith in people just repeating sayings.

Also have had no trouble with my similarities with my gf so...

It's funny how you mock my anecdotal evidence at the beginning of your post and then use your own anecdotal evidence at the end of your post.

Do you need me to explain the basic logic between the difference in evidence necessary between a statement that something never works and that something can work?

Because it's pretty laughable to think that one's personal failures means no one else could succeed at it. It's pretty reasonable to see something working for yourself and thinking that it can work.

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Your experience. Oh. Well then! That makes *all* the difference rofl

Sayings exist for many reasons, sure. Stupidity, bias, sometimes a bit of truth. I like to be a ratioral person instead of having faith in people just repeating sayings.

Also have had no trouble with my similarities with my gf so...

It's funny how you mock my anecdotal evidence at the beginning of your post and then use your own anecdotal evidence at the end of your post.

Do you need me to explain the basic logic between the difference in evidence necessary between a statement that something never works and that something can work?

Because it's pretty laughable to think that one's personal failures means no one else could succeed at it. It's pretty reasonable to see something working for yourself and thinking that it can work.

I need you to explain why you think I said 'never'. Then I want you to explain why your anecdotal evidence isn't based on faith and mine is.

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

It's funny how you mock my anecdotal evidence at the beginning of your post and then use your own anecdotal evidence at the end of your post.

Do you need me to explain the basic logic between the difference in evidence necessary between a statement that something never works and that something can work?

Because it's pretty laughable to think that one's personal failures means no one else could succeed at it. It's pretty reasonable to see something working for yourself and thinking that it can work.

I need you to explain why you think I said 'never'. Then I want you to explain why your anecdotal evidence isn't based on faith and mine is.

You need it? Do you really? Fascinating. Anyways even without never point stands. Something failing for you, for whatever reasons that could include other sources, is a silly basis to think it would fail for another.

I said faith in sayings. Do you believe your anecdotal evidence is a saying?

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

Do you need me to explain the basic logic between the difference in evidence necessary between a statement that something never works and that something can work?

Because it's pretty laughable to think that one's personal failures means no one else could succeed at it. It's pretty reasonable to see something working for yourself and thinking that it can work.

I need you to explain why you think I said 'never'. Then I want you to explain why your anecdotal evidence isn't based on faith and mine is.

You need it? Do you really? Fascinating. Anyways even without never point stands. Something failing for you, for whatever reasons that could include other sources, is a silly basis to think it would fail for another.

I said faith in sayings. Do you believe your anecdotal evidence is a saying?

So you admit that I never said 'never' and you continue with your strawman. You claim I failed at something and then attack it but I never said that I failed at something. Try not to jump to conclusions. I would like for you to clarify, do you believe that 'opposites attract' is nothing more than a saying based in stupidty or bias (your words) or do you believe it is based in some truth?

WeepingAngels:

The Decapitated Centaur:

WeepingAngels:

I need you to explain why you think I said 'never'. Then I want you to explain why your anecdotal evidence isn't based on faith and mine is.

You need it? Do you really? Fascinating. Anyways even without never point stands. Something failing for you, for whatever reasons that could include other sources, is a silly basis to think it would fail for another.

I said faith in sayings. Do you believe your anecdotal evidence is a saying?

So you admit that I never said 'never' so you continue with your strawman. You claim I failed at something and then attack it but I never said that I failed at something. Try not to jump to conclusions. I would like for you to clarify, do you believe that 'opposites attract' is nothing more than a saying based in stupidty or bias (your words) or do you believe it is based in some truth?

Well if it wasn't personal that makes it all the more silly when it comes to full knowledge of the situation.

I believe that's a false dichotomy. It's a saying. It doesn't have real evidence for it. It's mindless repetition of a common belief.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here