Again, its odd that you can say this so blithely about children, but not see exactly the same with women (and trans, and people of colour, and the disabled, etc). If images of suffering can be abused to make a buck, then what does that tell us about the campaign for trans acceptance, for example (worth about a million dollars per unit to the pharmaceuticals for a lifetime of hormone therapy)? Are you equally prepared to water down their message with such words of caution? — Isaac

That's not my callousness -- I care about anti-capitalist politics. I care about the state of the world, and it bothers me that we are so callous towards the suffering of others in what we do. But I can lay out the viewpoints of others as they would. This is a common sentiment you had to have encountered when talking about private money and the plight of the poor across the world? (Have you read Peter Singer's essay The Solution to World Poverty?)

The point of my demonstration is to show how we all come from a different perspective. Surely you are acquainted with the attitude I've laid out from your time as an activist? Anti-capitalism is about as popular as feminism.

When talking organizing usually all this theory is put to the side and you talk bread-and-butter, which means connecting what your organization is doing to what is important to a person.

If you can point to a single example where any of these campaigns have helped the poor be less poor, I'm all ears, otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking at best, apologetics at worst. — Isaac

Women and trans people are included in the working class and proletariat.

The fight over birth control is a salient example that links class and patriarchy -- though I listed some other examples for the thesis that included other inter-linking systems.

And as long as people working at a call center that requires nothing more than a high school diploma counts, then I'd say I've worked with several trans working class people who have benefited from having their stories told.

Further, any workplace organizing I've done frequently runs into problems of both gender and race. So in practical terms it's required if one wants to do something about class, such as form a union or pull off a strike, because these identities will be utilized to divide your group otherwise.

The reason the left is weak isn't because we're different. It's because thems who own are good at divide-and-conquer.

But the way to overcome that isn't to say "You're issue doesn't matter, money is what matters!" -- it's to say "Your issue is connected to money in this way, and this is what we're doing about it"

The middle class don't need these protections as much as the working class -- they have the money to find private solutions to these problems. But working class people includes women, trans individuals, LGBT, and racial differences. With respect to patriarchy I think this is most prominent on the issue of abortion -- there was all of one abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas (the city I did most of my organizing in), and it helped working class women more than the middle class women who could afford a plane ticket get it taken care of. Keeping open that clinic was helping working class women deal with the facts of life in a practical way that's not Industrial Action -- but it's certainly a resource the poor need and use (and is being fought against by the patriarchs who want women to be baby factories).


As for why labor and the left are fractured -- I think it's giving up on class politics. I certainly think class politics are important. But for that I wouldn't blame the feminist organizations or trans groups or race-based organizing. I'd blame the unions and the labor leaders who are comfortable enough to be so callous. (Or, really, the whole thing. The big tamale. The international order of capital which is under no one's control -- how do you control something which no one controls?)

Then is any claim to oppression deniable? On any grounds? — Isaac

Aren't they all deniable on any grounds?

"Oppression" is pretty abstract. And history can't be falsified. So, depending upon how we tell the story, the fact that child labor is being utilized is the fault of the employer and those individual companies which utilize that stream of value. Helen Mirren's private money is her's to keep and do with as she wills. For all her wealth she is only an individual, and even if she gave it all away the systemic problems would remain. The culpability is at the level of the company, and so our buying slave-labor goods is a private decision in a market whereas the companies decision is the one that makes that market in the first place.

That is, "responsibility" is an elastic concept that changes with the story-teller -- or historian.

In this age pictures of the suffering are utilized primarily to manipulate us. Someone is making a buck somewhere with the images of the suffering -- be it state departments, NGO's, or private charities.

This is neither inevitable, nor was it always the case. I agree that there's a barrier to cross here, but you're writing a thread a masculinity. Is that not also embedded? why not take the same "'twas ever thus" resigned attitude when it comes to feminism, or race, or homophobia? If we can fight against those entrenched cultural values, then why are you advocating we just accept this one? — Isaac

Hrmm... I don't believe I've said something to that effect. Though let me just be clearer then: I accept we can fight against entrenched values, including the entrenched values of capital.

In the above I'm telling the story from a particular viewpoint to demonstrate the elasticity of responsibility -- how "responsibility" is a view-point dependent concept. Or, relative to a point-of-view.

I'm certainly an anti-capitalist. Some of the value I see in intersectionality is there are some common resonances between the Big Structural Problems. But that's about as specific as I can think it right now on the conceptual level -- the proof of intersectionality, that capital and patriarchy interlink, is in the fights which won by overcoming barriers.

Now, in the true history of things that's a bit rosy. There are some fights that won because of that, and some which won because they were ruthlessly selfish and closed fort. The Fraternal Order of Police is a great example of the latter. The trades are barely more liberal than them, and the original AFL was formed around the notion of skilled labor being more valuable than unskilled labor.

But this is history again -- not conceptual. As clear as I can be about intersectionality is I perceive resonances between these social structures -- but there's a lot of intellectual work that I don't even know how to do to make that make sense. (hence, philosophy)

I don't see any evidence of that. The working class seem more divided now than they've ever been, the left wing has been effectively neutered by it's own internal divisions. the rift in the American working class between the white working men and the 'identity politics' groups is basically responsible for the surge in populism (with the liberal response to covid and trans issues just deepening that divide). In my country the rift between anti-semitism and support for Palestine has effectively killed off left wing opposition with differences over trans issues between traditional feminists and modern views mopping up any remaining unity there might have been.

The world, particularly the left, is at each other's throats. Ukraine, covid, trans,... not a single big issue has been tackled recently without dividing into two warring camps with division enforced with an iron fist (or as 'iron' as lefty politics gets, anyway). I've been in left wing politics for three decades, fighting pernicious taxation, racism, environmental destruction, etc...the usual. I took a different position on covid - I was regularly called a 'murderer' (right here on this site, with absolutely no consequence). I took a different position on Ukraine - I've been listed as a war crimes collaborator, friends have had far worse. I took a different position on trans issues - I'm a bigot, again, others I know have had worse. This is all in the last three of four years, after over thirty previous years of left-wing activism with nothing of the sort happening (despite some absolutely tempestuous disagreements).

So unless you've got something to hold against that impression, I'm not buying this story that these new forms of identity politics unite. Not from where I'm standing. If they do, they unite by simply crushing dissent. — Isaac

Identity politics goes further back than the last three or four years. Trans issues have become more prominent in that time, but the notion of particular groups facing different pressures that are simultaneously related goes back at least to Martin Luther King, Jr. in his address The Three Evils of Society. I'd also claim that the LGBT alliance is an example of functional intersectionality. Both go back to the era of Feminism I've been references, 2nd wave. That whole era had an outgrowth of minority positions advocating for themselves in the public which resulted in cultural change. And I'd say that gold old fashion working class union politics is an example of intersectionality-at-work.

So what's different?

Information technology has changed our social landscape to a point that we're unable to deal with the flow of information, and economic pressures of capital are driving people into their tribal identities because of a constant state of fear and anxiety due to swimming in propaganda 24/7 is my guess.

But it's just a guess. And all the old forms are still around, on top of this new, exciting, odd, and terrifying technology.

That is -- I'm still a good Marxist. It's the material conditions!

But the specifics can matter sometimes from the perspective of organizing people, at least.

And due to the elasticity of responsibility, depending on who you are talking to, they really are in a different world and probably have a learned callousness to some issue or another because care is abused by propaganda so we're all out of it.

It takes effort to care, and there are mouths to feed, hours to clock, bills to pay, or in a word -- the grind. They grind the care out of people to the point that they have to look at what's directly ahead of them. But if they hear a story that they can connect to -- such as a sense of solidarity with women who have to endure patriarchy -- you can lift people up out of that grind so they can dare to care about something more.

At least that's the idea.

But not according to your principle above. You seem to see patriarchy as something entrenched but resolvable and private property sacredness as something entrenched but not resolvable. I'm not sure why — Isaac

Hopefully this goes some way to erase that impression.


There's more I want to say -- but I can tell when I'm starting to cross over into "oh shite this is a real project" and I think that's where I'm almost at now. I'm really good at over-promising because I get caught up in the excitement of an idea so no promises -- but now I want to write an essay on Brandon Darby and Fight Club as a critique of the masculine identity in activist spaces. (It will be a best seller with that riveting title, surely)

My question is open-ended. You're free to say what you like. This isn't a yes-and-no style of questioning.

You're allowed as much nuance and context as you wish -- that's philosophy. Redefine the question, or however you wish to express your position.

It's fair, I think, at this point to ask you to say something about what you want when it comes to masculinity. I have and others have.

I redirect you to the question because thus far you're only complaining about feminism.

But the topic is masculinity.

The entire reason why this is even a discussion is that the word "man" is written into laws, it's part of social codes, and who qualifies as a man within those contexts is relevant for transgender people.

Or will you pretend that you're unconcerned about the ramifications of the answers? Would you define masculinity in a way that promotes behaviours you don't want? — Judaka

No.

I think it obvious I'm concerned about ramifications.

But I also don't think I'm The One, or somehow have a special knowledge. I'm reflecting on what I've done thus far and on what I see in the world. It's philosophy, but it's perspectival.

I certainly would not define masculinity in a way that promotes bad behaviors. I think, with everything I've said thus far, that's also obvious.

I think men are good. I think masculinity is good.

I certainly don't want to define them in a way that's against what I see good in the identities.

So -- the entire reason may not matter.

That's a thought about me, and not masculinity.

What makes a real man?

Thank goodness. — Judaka

Heh.

I wouldn't want to make anything I've said thus far a law.

I'm attracted to the political, but not in that way.

I'll ask again, though -- what is a real man? Or even simply a man? Or a masculine gender identity?

Those aren't laws. They're how we identify and feel.

Surely I've posted this before -- it's just hitting the good notes tonight for me.

Legislate?

No.

I'm certainly nowhere near to making a proposition for laws, at least. Not at all.

Cool :)

Heh. That's the second prophet who some consider false!

Sorry. I couldn't help myself with the "Smith" name.

Maybe a forgotten politician Smith who lived in comfort and safety and cranked out many healthy children with a pneumatically admirable wife counts himself wiser and brighter than either Shakespeare or Newton — plaque flag

Oh I know of one Smith who not only thought of himself that way, but also convinced enough people to start a religion.

Though he had wives.

Also I should say that the above is merely with respect to intersectionality, since it's understandably been brought up.

I think that Feminism counts as a serious body of thought that's not just doing politics -- but it is doing philosophy, rather than science. I'm not sure what a feminist science would look like other than pushing out the patriarchal forms and reflections that still reside there (especially in the physical sciences)

Looking at, sure. I'm trying (but clearly not doing a good job) to draw distinctions between the data which informs a strategy, and the strategy itself. The risk factors for oppression, and the actual groups oppressed. — Isaac

Good reflections and arguments, Isaac. At least from my vantage. I'm glad to have something meatier to think through.

A measurement isn't always a good measurement, and it's particularly difficult to tease out what a good measurement is with respect to oppression because history is not repeatable in the same way that other experiments are. "Oppression" has no units, after all. It's a story. Further I'd say your measurements are good at assessing an individual's circumstances, but that the individual isn't always an appropriate place for understanding group dynamics -- so the metrics of oppression you list won't capture all of what a group faces. It's a part of the story, and important to check up on because hey maybe one day the world really will be different and our metrics will display that, but not the whole. Politics isn't done with stats as much as it's done with relationships and stories.

I think that's a pretty common point of disagreement that's missed. What these political philosophies are doing are not enforcements of a law or a principle for individuals, nor laying out some universal truth, but rather binding people together in spite of differences that seem important. Intersectionality isn't a scientific law as much as it is an organizer's tool which has already been proven. Through the history of social movements the more successful ones are usually ones that can break through group barriers: this is as true in labor as other social movements. When sexism or race can be overcome in the workplace then people can find it in themselves to bind together -- or, on the flip side, if sexism or race are not overcome then it's pretty easy to divide and conquer. And these social phenomena are so common that anyone actually organizing had better be aware of their patterns or they'll fail -- these structures are so common that even going into organizing with an open mind towards nominalism you'll wonder just why you're seeing the same patterns so often. They aren't group-wide, mind. But noticeable, and effective at disrupting anyone trying to pull a group together.

If governments acted in accord with ethical principle then it would make much more sense to look at international disparity. But governments, like people, don't have that perspective really. We are generally much more short-sighted than that. What people do care about are usually a little more homely -- stability for self and children, access to material goods, community respect and a place in the world. And that changes with our social systems such that a USian will be attached to much more material wealth as a "base line" than the poorest of the earth.

Which isn't an excuse on the ethical front -- but this is politics, and to be effective you have to understand what people really care about. The international poor just isn't that big of a rallying cry, I'd hazard that's because in our particular social system we've erected a public/private property distinction. While it's certainly true that if Helen Mirren cared about the plight of the poor she'd act differently, the fact is that not only does she not care -- most human beings don't either, but not because we're callous, but because this is how we're trained to be with our private money, and people really believe they "earned" it. (EDIT: Or, perhaps it'd be better to call it a learned callousness -- we don't perceive ourselves as callous, though I think what I've said describes a callous attitude towards others in an "objective" sense)

Now I don't think I'll ever see the likes of the wealthy and published get down into the political truth of things. But I know that there's others who see that story and like it, and it's not because there aren't people worse off -- most people, if pressed, will fess up to that.

But what people care about is themselves and theirs, and not some kind of universal ethic or geopolitics, for the most part. At least insofar that they have yet to realize that, indeed, we're all interdependent upon one another and what nations do effects what our families do.

In a big sense people will care about others they don't know, but if we're talking about what we do -- it's just a bit too far out there for most of us to reach for.

And on the international stage I'd say that's too far out of grasp for anyone to reach for. We're still basically tribal at this point, but with bigger weapons and better information technology. The only way to even have a hope of being able to control something as large as the world economy such that global disparity could be addressed is going to take something huge -- because no one really knows how to do it. No one is in charge at all, at this point, though NATO and the CIS and China are all vying for that position.

Those organizations are primarily run by men.

So on the other hand I'd say that a discussion of gender isn't sideways to the issues, but is digging at one of the many causal reasons the world is as it is now. Patriarchy -- the rule of men -- is still quite common. And healthier gender identities -- ones not obsessed with maintaining power at home or at work -- will undermine that.

The part where I'll come closer to what you say is that I agree replacing the face with a woman doing the same thing is basically a non-starter. That's patriarchy, but now a woman is doing it. It reminds me of the cartoon where the brown people celebrated a woman president because they were finally being drone-bombed in an equal world.

That's definitely a tactic of governments to appease intersectional approaches while maintaining control.

But the point of intersectionality is to build something together -- which in turn requires others to hear the grievances of others in the group.

Here, of course, we're doing philosophy and exploring ideas. So it's a bit difficult to get the notion across since it's not doing the rational thing of laying out evidence to support or deny a conclusion.

But that's politics. It's not science.

(EDIT: Or, at least, when I'm doing intersectional approaches I'm not doing science. I'm drawing on my organizer experience in addition to some philosophy -- others do it different, of course, but this is my approach)

Going back through the thread to pick up some parts that still seem relevant, that I haven't responded to, and make something of a synthesis at this point --

A good question then would be: What is left out when we dismiss both feminine and masculine traits of a human?

I think far too many human characters are defined as either masculine or feminine. Things like compassion, logical reasoning, basic feelings aren’t masculine or feminine. — ssu

For me nothing is left out, because I don't think the masculine or the feminine are defined by traits. I've been saying "the expression of traits" -- or a way of expression.

Masculinity and femininity nowadays are seen as traits present in both men and women, but when discussing the so-called 'darker side' of masculinity the discussion is always about men. Not about masculinity, and (obviously(?)) not about women.

Even still, it's unhealthy to associate these essential traits with inherently negative things. The message it sends to boys and young men is that there's something wrong with them. Sadly, I think that's a message many of them have already taken to heart.

What this reminds me of is how certain religious groups like to label the woman as inherently flawed and sinful. Forgive me for being skeptical when such a group claims to be taking an open-minded, balanced approach to things. — Tzeentch

In an attempt to bring you back, I agree with you here -- though I'll note that the discussion started as masculinity so it's worth noting the darker side, even if that's not my focus. I don't think most men are on some dark path! (obviously I'm a Feminist, but I hope to give a demonstration that this doesn't mean I hate my own masculinity, or masculine gender identities)

Especially with respect to boys and young men. One of the reasons I think it's important for men to talk about masculinity is that currently there are many people who aren't getting positive messages about the masculine, or themselves, and in fact there are positive aspects of one's masculine identity. It's important to be who you are, in my opinion, and growing men don't have a lot to look up to in this world.

To reiterate, though the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchal society are men, they are not men in general. As@180 Proof pointed out, patriarchy (as I conceive it, simply a society dominated by masculine values) funnels wealth and power to a small cadre of a particular type who happen to be men, but theoretically could be of either sex. And the solution is not to eliminate competition or demonize men or masculine values but to recognize that the way we understand our interrelationships is infused with an arbitrary self-justifying way of looking at things that, I would argue, is deficient and in some senses destructive. ( — Baden

I've been going back through the thread and this is a gem.

Here's a classic statement, from Raymond Chandler's "The Simple Art of Murder," published in The Atlantic in 1944, a defense of hard-boiled detective fiction and particularly of Hammett. — Srap Tasmaner

Raymond Chandler, and the whole hard boiled detective genre really, is a writer who knew how to appeal to men.

I love the stuff.

Did you ever see the first Sin City? I'd say that's a masculine movie, if you look at the male protagonist as a hero.

masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures. — frank

Can you or do you care to say more on this kind of archetype?

Any other guys feel that way? — Srap Tasmaner

Oh yeah. How else to explain what amounts to a thirst for justice?

Having thought about it more, I guess I would expect courage to tend to manifest differently in men and women. — wonderer1

I agree, given that expression, rather than traits, is what makes a gender. Care to say more?

Campaigns need to build solidarity, not break it down. — Isaac

Yup.

I'm no longer active, but these are some thoughts attempting to build solidarity across common division lines.

I just meant that we usually do know what our own societies dictate. The value I see in applying Jungian ideas to it is that we can be free of analyzing masculinity strictly in the framework of sexism. We could see the beauty in masculine ideals. You don't have to be a Nazi to see that beauty. — frank

True. Then you're right -- we were opaque to one another. That makes a good deal of sense to me. My bad.

But muh materialism! :D

OK I just re-read that exchange and I understand the confusion. I'm sorry. I'm the one who mixed up usually/generally. My bad.

So I want to say -- I know what some people usually say about masculinities, specific to a cultural milieu, but it's harder to determine gender, in a general sense.

But, sure, it may be the case that my "what some people usually say" is a minority position -- that I find it hard could very well be a me-thing.

Part of my hesitancy probably draws from my philosophical perspective -- I don't want to list traits or characteristics, and I want to qualify behaviors with respect to the masculine (it's not like all of my behaviors are masculine, are they? Such as my preference for walking over bike-riding -- not gendered at all)

It's difficult to say something definitive about ways of expressing. So we get these generalities which aren't exactly identities, but observations of an identity we already recognize. (EDIT: Always-already, even! But to me this doesn't mean that what we recognize is somehow the truth, or at least the only way -- because I think of gender as enculturated, as well -- so you have to know a culture to know a gender-identity)

While I'm hesitant to say this is a post-patriarchal masculinity, I gather I'd be better off putting some meat on the bones of what appears to be a desiccated corpse of the masculine in light of femininism, or at least this is the general feeling I'm getting. Should feminism really have the final word on the masculine? Is there a standpoint from which the masculine is better understood than the feminist critique of Identity-Property into the tripartite cultural division of Biology:Mentality:Role?

(And also: is a post-patriarchal masculinity even desirable? I think so, even for men, but there's certainly resistance here, both from men and women -- but that's a separate question)



If it's a manner of expression that makes a gender, which I've been holding, then a post-patriarchal masculinity would liberate our identity from the property-relation, at least -- a man is a man regardless of his position within a family structure and the various expectations which go with that. It's a part of who he is and his way of relating to the world and others rather than control over the bank account.

In some ways this has already taken place as @frank pointed out with respect to the vote -- and second wave feminism had waves as well that have changed culture. I think that some of the anxiety around masculinity is in part due to this -- yes we don't live in the world before women could vote and were literally a part of the man's household. But acknowledging this past is what makes sense of, say, women changing their name to join their husband's family, even as bank accounts and such are open to all.

And so the confusion over a feminist analysis in the first place is understandable. I keep to it because I believe in being honest in these conversations about who we are, and it's who I am. It's very much how I relate to masculinity. Mine is a masculinity, one attached to various Feminist principles -- but I don't know if I could go so far as to say mine is a post-patriarchal masculinity to offer. Mine is mired in our world, and from my perspective at least, patriarchy is still a living, and I'm not convinced this is only momentum when I think of how popular various mens speakers are -- like Andrew Tate, et al.

But not many men who would speak up in the name of Feminism from their own perspective as men, which is what I'm at least trying to offer in a manner that's digestible, but still forthright.

It is just a masculinity. Should you be a Feminist, too? Well, I don't know. I believe in these things. I believe in political action for a more equitable world, and in general see men as the owners of that world. But for the most part I don't believe in making others believe like me -- if the arguments float then by all means, but if not I'd prefer to hear why the arguments don't float, or if they are simply flimsy reflections that don't speak to the issue, or some such.

So, yes, it's a reflection on the masculine -- but I wouldn't post my reflections in public if I didn't expect people to take issue with them and have their say about what's wrongheaded in my view, either. I don't want the reflective aspect to detract from the philosophy too much, at least when I'm posting.

Okie, no worries. I can understand that feeling. I can let it go too.

All you have to do is look at what things are generally identified as masculine. I think you're in the minority in not being able to do that. — frank

A misunderstanding on the usage of "generally" then --

Generally, as in what I'd predict people to say, I have a sense for this.

Generally, as in what I'd generalize to in giving a universal (or general) theory of gender, is difficult to identify.

Heh, well -- not for me. Not even psychological traits and characteristics differentiate gender, from what I see -- but rather how those are expressed in their respective roles. A gender is a mode of expression within a culture tied to roles, which in turn are given such-and-such rules regarding property and what to do with it, especially within the home.

At least this is where the emphasis lies. I don't want to go "all the way" in saying there's nothing psychological -- but I do prefer to look at the cultural environment that any given person might live within, which is why it's not easy to determine. There's a lot of cues in culture that can go overlooked "from the outside" of that culture, and what even counts as cultural difference is defined culturally.

Glad to have you still along :)

My post wasn't aimed at you specifically, my apologies if you took it that way. — Isaac

Cool, no worries. I thought it was so I thought I ought respond -- it is my thread after all.

Talk of masculinity in any sense, but particularly with regard to patriarchal oppression, is a fraught topic. Simply acknowledging the existence of these tropes carries with it commitments that entail offense to some you may not have any intention of offending. — Isaac

True. And I'll admit that my perspective isn't exactly the most congenial one with regards to masculinity. But it is the honest one I hold...

So, yes, all true. That's why I'm trying to be careful, but you're right to point out that even my approach may be too much to not offend.

We did upend how families own and pass on property around the time women got the vote. Prior to the early 20th Century, an American woman couldn't own a business unless she was married. Women would get married for no other reason than to allow them to participate in business ventures. That's all changed. In fact, all the things that Mary Stanton lamented have now changed, and the new way is taken for granted. There is no conflict between recognizing masculinity as a component of the psyche and recognizing how those images play out in dollars and cents. — frank

But the emphasis on the psyche over the role -- that's the patriarchal move identified by Kate Millet. At least this is what came to mind in reading you here:

It's fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't. So maybe we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just about entirely different subjects. This is not fundamentally about politics. — frank

I'd say masculinity is fundamentally about politics: the politics of the home. And it's not fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't, because it's a part of one's culture. So you have to be able to understand a culture to understand a masculinity.

But the important thing to remember is that it's the patriarchy.

Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics. — Isaac

I've been careful not to denigrate people who disagree with me or to intimate that they are of a lesser mind just because I happen to have some words in my head that others don't. At least, I've attempted to be careful to not insult anyone. It would definitely go against my purposes in exploring masculinity.

Hey, thanks for keeping it going! :D

Keep it up, I say.

The charge of misandry is a serious one that should be addressed, so I thought I should say something. I certainly don't want to court misandry, but I think there's room for grievance airing.

There's the aspect of reducing masculinity to psychology, which I'd say is similar to the response to feminist criticism which puts their critique of gender in the personal, rather than the political or public, realm. Rather than concrete material conditions you're saying the psyche is an ancient power which re-manifests itself throughout all culture, something which is much greater than any material analysis or political project could hope to put a dent into.

Which may be true, but then the feminist critique is always bringing the psyche back to the material -- if it's truly a psychological power, rather than a material one, then we could very easily upend how families own and pass on property. It would be of no consequence.

And then there's the aspect where you express that such determinations are easy, which I just don't hold. If it were easy to determine the masculine and the feminine then what's all the fuss about? Is gender-identity a numerology or astrology in your view?

*shrugs* No worries. I could have also read a bit slower, and all that rot. Now we know who said what.

The reality of patrarchy, to me, has always served as a kind of excuse for anger. Though, of course, it can be taken too far -- and one has to be ready to hear someone else's anger for it to really have an e/affect.

I expected and expect a number of defensive reactions to the topic. It really is one that cuts close to home for lots of people. So we're bound to make all kinds of mistakes along the way, I think.

A manner of expression? I mean, masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures. It's fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't. So maybe we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just about entirely different subjects. This is not fundamentally about politics. It's about the heavy hitters in the human psyche as that psyche has developed over the millennia. Current politics is a sniff in a hurricane compared to that. — frank

This mental move is exactly what Kate Millet describes as the patriarchal move -- the mental is the explanatory intermediary between biological sign and social role in her description of the patriarchal relationship.

Also, I'm not so sure about a psyche developing over millennia. Masculine-Feminine distinctions are common across cultures, for certain, but their mode of expression isn't rigid. Even what counts as something worth evaluating under Masculine-Feminine changes.

This is the quote from the article. Note well the comment is made by Laurie Penny, NOT Mirren. — Amity

Heh, well look at that. I may be a careful reader, but I got my wires crossed all the same :D

The fact that she takes fatherhood and equates it to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power". — Tzeentch

Well, she wouldn't exactly know it from the standpoint of a father, would she? It's an outsider perspective -- one which is valuable if we want to see who we are, or so I'd say.

I don't think any fatherhood worthy of pursuit would equate to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power" -- this is going to follow a similar patterns to the one I set out above. This isn't a statement about All Fatherhood, etc.

It's a statement from the perspective of a person whose had to live with patriarchy as a social reality which shaped her life. The acting world is particularly bad at this because it has to sell what people like to see -- that's basically the product. I'm not surprised to find an old actress who was tough enough to make it through that world express vitriol towards the institution -- though I wouldn't go so far as to say that her perspective on the institution is the whole story either.

We aren't in a post-patriarchal world, so probably not. I think it's important to distinguish between masculinity as the portion of the human potential we traditionally associate with males, and toxic masculinity which is the result of a pathological mindset, that is, the need to look down on someone else, or fear of women. The first is a fount of creativity. The second is something all need to be aware of.
When one decides that there is no difference between the two, that's misanthropy. — frank

I agree that it's important to make a distinction between masculinity and a toxic masculinity. I don't think all masculinities, even traditional ones, are toxic.

This is a reason I think it's an important topic for men to talk about.

Are there characteristics we associate with masculinity (I'm talking gender identity here) that women never have? — frank

Nope. That's why I've been careful to say men and women can have the same characteristics, and a difference cannot be found in differentiating characteristics.

So far I've been of the mind that it's a manner of expression, rather than a set of characteristics, that makes a gender-identity. But, then, some gender-identities get tied to characteristics in their particular way, so while in general it's better to say gender-identity is a manner of expression, a particular gender-identity may very well fixate on particular characteristics and act to put those on display more often, or improve them, or some such.

There's scarcely a sentence in the quoted sections that isn't overtly sexist.

Note how Mirren literally says that men are 'offered their families as sop'.

Disgusting.

And what's worse is that, apparently, there are people with a functioning(?) brain who see nothing wrong with a statement such as that one. — Tzeentch

Oh I wouldn't go so far as to call my brain functioning -- why would I continue to revisit the same questions with new answers in spite of knowing that my previous answers were unsatisfactory by this same method if I had a functioning brain?

I understand your sentiment, but can you make the argument that connects Mirren's statements with a hatred of men? It's possible, of course. Hatred for hatred is a pretty common exchange in the political world. It's just not what I read when I read the article.

Masculinity isn't something males have a monopoly on. Women have the same characteristics, though they may be sanctioned for broadcasting it. That's why criticizing the way some males behave doesn't contribute much to understanding the animus. — frank

I agree with your first statement, but I disagree with your second. I've come around in saying difference is a part of some gender identities. And while I don't think it's the traits or characteristics that make up a gender-identity, so that men and women can share characteristics, I'm not sure I'd go all the way and say women are the same -- some are the same, sure, and they are definitely sanctioned for not conforming to expectation in those cases, whatever that expectation happens to be in the particular cultural milieu.

But there's room for trans-identity in all this, and gender-identity is connected to a world, so I don't believe that males have some kind of special position, or standpoint, from which to speak on masculinity. In general I tend to believe that it's the dis-enfranchised who have a better eye towards the truth, because their life often times depends upon it, while the enfranchised are more prone towards fantasy, because being powerful means you can indulge in the pursuit of fantasy. If you follow me this far then it's the women who have the better standpoint, but given that gender-identity isn't as clean-cut as 2nd wave feminism puts it -- well, it's not even that easy to lay out who has the better standpoint. Are we in a position at all to speak of a post-patriarchal masculinity, while the old family laws are still in place?

I don't see it as misandrist. While a stereotype, surely it's known that men can be possessive of their women? This isn't an "all men" statement, but a statement about cultural meanings and general attitudes, and she acknowledged her young-self's naivete. I'd say that's what she's attacking -- not men, but naivete, and in particular female naivete that she had once felt.

I'm not seeing the obvious misandry, at least. Feminism attacks the male power structure, not the male-identity. (Unless, of course, one comes to identify as the powerful gender)

I'd say philosophy does, too.

And the arts in general, for that matter.

What's mysterious is that philosophy progresses, but it doesn't progress in the same ways we usually measure progress -- power, fairness, abundance, stability, pleasure, tribe.

Math I can't say. But science I feel progresses in a different mode, more or less. Progress is relative to some value, at least, so I'd suggest that the difference is in values between practitioners of science and practitioners of philosophy, rather than a difference in unarguable progress.

The problem is set up by an excessive emphasis on "internal" and "external", and appears to be inherent in the phenomenological approach itself, from it's emphasis on direct experience. — Banno

I disagree -- surprise! :D

I think the phenomenologists overcome internal/external, but it's very easy to read our Cartesian assumptions into their work. I don't think a proper phenomenology can have an "out there", though.

But I do read them from a materialist perspective, or a realist perspective. It's a reading, too.

Nice reflection on anti/realism, though. Reducing anti/realism to a choice in logic in a particular context is very interesting. Not sure I can respond or even critique just yet, but it's interesting!

I've often wished math and science were taught with more of an eye to history. — Srap Tasmaner

Seconded. I feel like the scientific pedagogy tries to highlight history but it's not focused on it, so it's kind of bad history so it's definitely something you have to take up on your own if you're interested. The pedagogy is designed to teach people to be employable rather than give a deeper insight.

Maybe I spoke too soon. I like reading history. I'll just stop there. — BC

:rofl:

In authors you mentioned like Derrida, Foucault and Heidegger, a distinction is made between history and historicism. Philosophy is always historical in the sense that the past is changed by how it functions in the present. This as true of historical analysis as it is of fresh thinking. Historicism, by contrast , treats history as a static objective grid that one can traverse without altering its sense. Historicism fails to recognize that history is nothing past and gone but is immediately present and operative in the now that it co-determines. Both American Pragmatism and scientific naturalism can be treated that way, as a past that is still operative now. — Joshs

In this sense I am not a historicist, then. I mostly think about Popper when I think about the accusation of historicist, and that's the name I don't mind taking on. I just don't think there's as much poverty in history as he intimates.

But, this notion you say about history being treated as a static object -- that I do not do. It would go against everything I understand about the writing of history. History is a living subject, not a static Way Things Were, and it's nearly always addressing something present while talking about the past. My more mundane explanation for this is that history is narrative, which itself isn't a list of facts but a story which follows a trajectory of significance. (hence why I highlighted that in my post)

And, even there -- this is again in the territory that @fdrake already called attention to, where the masculine and the feminine are being defined by the patriarchal relationship rather than the space that a critique of the patriarchal relationship opens up.

But I really wanted to highlight how the material conditions of our lives are, in fact, wrapped up in gender, because so far I haven't made that very explicit, especially when the original conversation concerned an incredibly practical question -- what to do about gendered bathrooms?

Now I'm trying to think on your question, @fdrake -- the possibility of masculinities after critique.

For one, given the above, I think a post-critique masculinity will be concerned with sharing property. It can even be derived from the same traditional norm -- the desire to protect is better accomplished through distributing by need.

But, well -- this pinko commie would say that, wouldn't he? Still something to chew on for me...

Heh. I love historicism. It's kind of my schtick to understanding philosophy. Part of that is it gives me a more concrete way of understanding the relationships between ideas. The historical relationships are a good foothold for understanding the conceptual relationships, and generally I understand the idea by understanding the ideas' story. I understand that we cannot conclude that an idea is good, bad, true, or false based upon the history of that idea, though -- I think the genealogical fallacy is a fallacy. I pretty much take on the historicist label as an acknowledgement that there is a difference between philosophy and the history of philosophy -- but tend towards the historicist side to contextualize significance, rather than true/false:good/bad. Maybe that's where the history of ideas' philosophical strength lies? In characterizing significance?

But that's just the impetus for these thoughts, and the relevance of a contemplation on gender with respect to the material choices we make on gendered spaces. I think the materiality of gender is most directly experienced in the workplace and the home, in part because the public is a restrained space, and in part because the public is shrinking in the face of the ever-expanding private sphere so most of our personal experiences are at the workplace, or a home, or some other privately owned establishment rather than interacting in a public. The relationship between men and work is a good point to bring up here -- women have been working, often times harder, from the beginning of culture. But it's the man whose work counts as worthy of the name. The picture of a homemaker living a life of comfort and ease is exactly that: nothing but a picture. Traditionally taking care of the home and children is where women work, and it's not a job you get to come home from. Depending on what era we're talking here -- our gender disruptions are incredibly recent! -- the woman couldn't leave her job at home due to the stigma of divorce and a lack of skills that could be sold in the workplace. So men could have their dalliances and get forgiven not because women were forgiving, but because their access to goods is bound up in their relationship.

It's this material relationship between one's personal identity and the goods of life which makes a critique of gender relevant -- gender and property have always gone hand in hand.

The impetus for the thread began with the practical question of gendered bathrooms. Or, at least, that's how I'd put it -- the other side puts it sexual bathrooms, and holds that gender and sexuality are, if not identical, at least a tight fit, such that we can utilize sex in place of gender with respect to norms of bathroom usage. My counter-point has been that we have never used sex in place of gender, but rather the emphasis on chromosomal patterns is a novel interpretation of the traditional gender distinction - we already knew who the men were when we pointed out they had XY chromosomes. We didn't identify men from their chromosomal characteristics, but rather discovered a possible biological distinction from science which could possibly support the traditional gender bi-section, at least as a rule of thumb. (as it turns out, though, as is almost always the case in science, the picture is much more complicated than all that)

We can describe gender outside of the parameters of sexual characteristics, and we in fact do so whenever we describe a behavior or a tendency of a particular gender expression(Boys will be boys!). Further, individuals show that the sexual characteristics are in no way determinative of a person's gender, given the diversity of genders. In fact there are people who "pass", to use the straightforward but still sad term -- there are already people with different chromosomes than the traditional view of gender would predict but who are able to utilize the facilities they would prefer to use. As such I submit that we do not actually use sexual characteristics to police gendered spaces, but gender, and that gender is much older -- and more practical -- than chromosomal identifiers, given that we do not actually investigate the genome of most people we know.

So, at a minimum, we should address what we mean by gender given that this is the actual rule we use in policing.

The above should be enough to say why I think you cannot support the sex-gender link empirically. People will point out that chromosomal differences are small -- the oft-cited 99.5%/0.5%. But there are so many more genders than even these three possible chromosomal arrangements. There's the four-gender theory I pointed out which gets at a richer expression of what gender is, but it's a bit too abstract for my taste: good for research, but bad for really understanding a particular gender identity in its depth. Which is what I think a lot of this hasty generalization does is attempt to come to some conclusion based upon a small amount of evidence on a topic that, in fact, is incredibly complicated and even difficult to determine in a manner that's not merely a personal reflection on one's own life and gender. So we shouldn't be all that surprised that the traditional view of gender, a quick-and-dirty distinction that's easily filled in with the details of one's personal life so that the partner is the other gender and you complement one another, is empirically inadequate to the task.

That leaves a values approach -- which I'd say patriarchy hasn't really done all that well for itself. The pleasures of patriarchy are the pleasures of power rather than the pleasures of self-sacrifice, as the story is told. Puissance, not protection is the only rational ground to support it. That should be fairly obvious that power for its own sake doesn't exactly pass the ethical bar, or at least, not very many of them. So that leaves an aesthetic grounding -- a non-ethical value. I think most gender-identities fall into this category: they are personally rewarding in that it feels good when we do what feels right to us to do.

But in contrast to the ethical violations of patriarchy I don't think that the aesthetic grounding of traditional masculinity as provider-protector-owner of the family is strong enough. The ethical violations are seen in the statistics of violence against women. If patriarchy is not the reason -- it doesn't exist, or is a dreamed up excuse of a few political radicals with their noses in too many books -- why is it that women are disproportionally subject to violence in intimate relationships?

That is -- in setting out the traditional view of gender, given that we should set out the actual rule we use in policing gendered spaces, I think we lose any attraction said view may have. So even its aesthetic grounding is questionable.

As such I'd submit that such a traditional view of gender ought not be used in public, at least. And public restrooms are certainly public. But the public is for everyone, not just 99.5% of the population, and just because some families like to live a romanticized vision of the traditional model that's not a reason to block people from shitting in public where they'd like to.