Who are you trying to make this point to? Me now? Or me as a youth?

What is masculine about senseless violence? — Tzeentch

It does not seem senseless at the time. You are protecting your tribe and all it stands for.

Ironically, the view you profess fuels the problem. Apparently senseless violence is considered manly, and therefore naive, young men trying to be manly will be drawn towards it. — Tzeentch

You better believe they will! Unless they are educated and taught how to avoid the darker sides of unfettered masculinity and patriarchy. Mankind was initially taught 'jungle style,' we can outdo the savagery of any current animal species. Do you still think it's wise to defend the excesses of unfettered masculinity with such an ineffectual defence of it, as Misandry?

I appreciate the correction.

My sister and I are not related by blood. Her mother married my father when I was about 30. The decision had very negative impacts on the family - my sister and her husband were devastated. It took them years to come to terms with what seemed like a complete rejection of their family. This was not a moral or religious reaction on their part, it was emotional, personal. I've tried to be supportive to both my sister and brother-in-law and their child. It's true though that it angers me that my sister has had to go through all that for a reason I can't understand — T Clark

So your sister in your step sister and not a blood relation and you are saying that your step sis and her husband are 'devastated' by the 'non-binary' status of their child, is that correct?
That's a tough situation. Outside support would seem to me to be the way to go but, I have had no personal or familial experience of such circumstances so my comment is only based on what advice I have heard stated by trans people on the Trans Atlantic Call In Show.

"...maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that." What the fuck does that mean? — T Clark

Yeah, I pondered over the words to use for that question for a while, My choice of words were obviously not well received.

Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.' — universeness

I will try again, but first, a little backstory. From an early age, I experienced a male culture that was very anti non-heterosexuals.
Any suspected non-heterosexual who came anywhere near the territory or orbit of the youths I hung with and was very much a willing part of, were in serious danger of being physically attacked or verbally abused or both.
When I was around 14, I was ordered by one of the older guys (about 16) to attack his younger gay brother (who was 15 but bigger than me), I did attack him, he did not fight back, and I beat him up pretty badly. I have been involved in other nasty acts against non-heterosexual people in the past.

When I look back in shame at these acts and my thought process during my youth. I do wonder to what extent I was a product of my environment, in that a non-heterosexual was something I could not understand or at least, I had never tried to, they were alien to me and I was told their behaviour was vile. It was expected by most of my peer group, that I should hate them and hurt them, as much as I should hate and hurt a non-white or a catholic or an English guy or those who were in a rival street gang etc, etc. I would now say, I was involved in, and was influenced by, a violent manifestation of masculinity and patriarchy. I was also just a stupid, f***wit child.

I am not trying to tar you with the same brush as me, but I am intrigued by your comment 'I have a hard time understanding that.' I suppose, rather than dance around as I did, and tried and failed to find the right way to ask, I should have simply asked, Why do you have a hard time understanding that?

I am an old man and my feeling is that, compared with sixty years ago, there is too much of everything. — jgill

It is estimated that there are more planets in the universe than there are grains of sand in all the deserts and beaches of Earth. I bet old human people in the very distant future who have visited or looked at pictures /vids of more and more real exoplanets (rather than artists impressions), will still love the Earth most of all, cause its home!
I think it's the art you produce yourself that is the best art ever, be it a doodle or a painting loved by others. You have to be alive to do art! I love my oil paintings as the best paintings ever. I accept that it's only me that thinks so, but I love that wonderful personal delusion/illusion, as unlike many delusions, that one does not hurt the life of anyone else.
Here is one of my oil paintings so you can love it as I do, old man! :lol:

One of my sister's children, a biological male, identifies as non-binary. I must admit I have a hard time understanding that. — T Clark

I have to ask, but you can of course decide not to answer, as you may feel that it's 'none of my business!' Do you have any feelings of 'disappointment,' towards this sexually non-binary person, that you are a blood relative of? Do you think that they are aware of your current status of having a hard time understanding their current sexual status?
Do you feel that it's important that you don't demonstrate any bias against this relation, in comparison with any other niece or nephew you have, purely on the basis of their non-binary sexual status?
Do you feel a 'current social pressure' to not demonstrate any such bias or do you feel you must reject any such current societal pressure and maintain/conserve the factors that contribute to your status of 'hard time understanding that.' Or, are my interpretations way off the mark here?

So you want to shift the argument from the general syntactical point – the conventions of mathematical logic - to one of social pragmatics? — apokrisis

Not necessarily 'shift the argument,' more to highlight social realities, so as people don't get totally restricted to thinking in mathematical logic modes.

So the human use of naming as a semantic act is going to reflect the pragmatics of human discourse rather than the absolutism of mathematical logic. — apokrisis

I would not choose to use the word 'semantic' in the context you use it, in the above sentence, as semantic rules are representations of mathematical logic. I taught how to learn programming languages by mostly ignoring syntax and concentrate on understanding the general semantic rules of all procedural programming languages as opposed to object oriented programming languages or RAD based programming languages, for many years.

Naming a human is not a semantic act, it's an emotive act, and as you say, it's not a product of mathematical logic. It's a reference to the job, birthplace, patriarchal birth line (ie, 'son of') etc of the person or it's a statement of an aspect of the observed nature of the person, such as butch (butcher/tough guy) or Sophie (wisdom), Stephen (Crown/wreath), Mary (rebellious woman), these names are all in the same tribal tradition as 'Raven hair' or 'dances at dawn' etc.
Human naming can indeed be directly associated with societal drivers such as patriarchy so, my reasons for harping on about human naming to you is merely in response to my interpretations of some of your sentences such as:

And how useful is it to label yourself? Who benefits exactly? — apokrisis

So labelling yourself is counterproductive in that it over-constrains your sense of self in a mechanical fashion. — apokrisis

But then on the other hand, at the level of humans as part of a social collective, encouraging self-labelling is useful. — apokrisis

My own view is shaped by systems science. — apokrisis

But the question for you is do you want to argue that the names that humans give other humans, or even the names that humans give themselves, must come with the force of strong necessity? — apokrisis

No, my point is that human names reflect societal influences. Many children are named after that which influenced their parents. Some kids got called 'Neo' because of the Matrix films.
Johnny Cash wrote a song about a boy named 'Sue,' with the line:
'I gave you that name and I said goodbye and I knew you'd have to get tough or die.'
How's that for masculine, patriarchal reasoning or perhaps even Johnny's notion of 'strong necessity'?

To say that the arbitraryness relation can be instead merely somewhat weakened – for the obvious reason that humans have semantic grounds for wanting to signify hereditary connections, job occupations, religious conventions, boastful claims about their children's supposed qualities or social status, or whatever else – is quite something else, and is already covered by my semiotic approach. — apokrisis

Well, no, I don't think it is 'quite something else,' I think naming children can be very strongly influenced by the notions of masculinity/femininity held by the father and mother.
Signs and symbols have meanings yes. I am just trying to be very clear on what those meanings are, and to clearly establish the motivations of their source.

Thanks for your answers. It's interesting to get the viewpoint of (I assume) a white, male, American father of son's, on the questions I asked.

Interesting....
So in your opinion, was Tiny Tim a willing participant in an overall wish by a patriarchal American culture to parody/ridicule homosexuality?
Why do you think John Wayne acted the way he did on stage, as the host of the show guffawed at the scene?
Do you think there are any parallels between this and going to see/laugh/be entertained, at the freak show where you could be smug and self-righteous, that at least you were not as low as a gay person or a black person or a woman or a 'freak,' you were a powerful white male that could laugh at all the 'freaks'/people with disabilities? The UK had it's own equivalents, with the horrific treatment dished out to people like John Merrick (The elephant man).

Are these complaints justified and accurate, as examples of what can happen when male masculinity is unchecked, and male patriarchy is allowed to become a main societal driver?
Should such behaviour or parodies of those who are not white, heterosexual, Christian males ever be acceptable in any humane society?
Does male masculinity and how it has historically manifested in patriarchy, have any place in the future world, you would like for your children?
Do you see any parallels here with the complains I am outlining, and the current treatment of many folks in the trans community?

Should posters here, be allowed to accent only, whatever evidence they think they have, for a future positive role, for traditional/historical male role models in a patriarchy, without counter points and red flags being raised by other posters?
Do these counter points/complaints have no power or validity to them, because certain jobs in the past and even today are mainly male dominated?
Should a heterosexual man, cosplaying as a trans person or a woman (drag Queen), to entertain an audience be ok, as it means they can make a living and provide for their children (if they have any), or do you;

I have with TT is the one I have with drag performers - men wanting to steal something from women without ever having to pay their dues. I've always found it disrespectful. — T Clark

think men should never parody women? or vice versa? Does it change your mind in any way, if the person in the drag Queen outfit is trans? and does identify as a woman and has had hormone treatments, professional psychological conformation/support and top and bottom surgery?
Do you have a personal 'cut off point' where you insist that any who fall below your line cannot be allowed to cosplay as a drag Queen, but it's ok for anyone above your line?
Is there anyone who should be allowed to perform a drag queen act, that was born as a male, that would get a thumbs up from you?

I am only asking you for such clarifications, to gain a clearer picture, of how your notion of your personal masculinity may affect others, perhaps even one of your own sons, if you found out they made a good amount of money, doing that extra job you never knew about, when they entertain others at the weekend as Princess Patrice. Such a person has to be someone's son, right? Would the fact that they loved the work and enjoyed the job very much, sway you in any way?
Would any members of your immediate family and friends enjoy attending such a show?
If they did, would this impact your relationship with them?
Sorry to throw all this at you in particular TClark, but you were the only one to respond to my post regarding the Tiny Tim caricature in comparison to the John Wayne caricature and how they are viewed by current American males of all ages?
My questions/probes here, are not intended as any kind of personal attack on you.
I am just interested in the issues involved.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I think most teachers connect best with the minds of their students when they teach the subject content, almost as a side show to the 'personality' or 'showmanship,' they can manifest and present to the pupils. I found that my constant attempts to entertain pupils as well as deliver course content was absolutely key, to what I would consider a successful lesson.
This often meant that getting through the course content involved was a challenge. I mostly managed, but the energy and time input required became unsustainable, so early retirement was the best move I ever made. I was totally burnt out by then.

FWIW, I think your attempts (with the contributions of Unenlightened and Caldwell,) to dilute the 'competitive' aspects of a writing competition, is very laudable.
As a school teacher of 30+ years experience and as a person who marked, final exams and was an examiner (checked and could alter the marking of other markers) and a setter (wrote sections of final computing exams, at Scottish higher grade and advanced higher grades). I came to despair of the Scottish exam system and all 'final exam' systems. I wont go into my reasons here, which are many and detailed (probably another thread). But the competition aspect of final exam systems is very very negative, towards the mental health of the majority of able and less able pupils imo.
Imo, a final exam should only contribute a max of around 25% of a continuous course assessment of the skill level a pupil demonstrates, within a particular subject.

How's this for a play on masculinity, from a heterosexual man, married three times, has a daughter, his father was a catholic priest, his mother, the daughter of a rabbi. Got his first paying entertainment job:
From wiki:
In 1963, he landed his first paying gig at Page 3, a gay and lesbian club in Greenwich Village, playing 6 hours a night and 6 nights a week for $96 per month.
'Tiny Tim,' or 'Herbert Butros Khaury' died in 1996.

Here is the masculine icon, 'The Duke Wayne' kneeling before him, for comic effect I'm sure, or perhaps Marion secretly liked one of the backing group in the picture.

Is this masculinity at it's best, as its comfortable in showing its femininity?
Or will people just do what ever pays well?
What do you think John Wayne said to his 'macho' pals when they ribbed him about him bowing to Tiny Tim? Do you think they would have ribbed him about it?
If you knew nothing about the life of Tiny Tim, would you be certain he was not a manly man after watching this?:

Was this all just good clean Amurican fun? or does it exemplify American cultural confusion as to their national notion of patriarchy and masculinity. Was it always, in truth, fluid?
Is the American notion of a man still fronted as John Wayne style or do most of them in truth (or even secretly) prefer the tiny Tim persona today compared to The Duke Wayne?
I merely refer to America in this because the Tiny Tim and the John Wayne caricatures are American products.

Clearly I was talking about predicates and not names when talking about self-labelling. A name makes no claim about the qualities you possess. — apokrisis

Just, in thinking about this a little more. Would you not agree that a human name was not normally arbitrarily chosen? It was related to your job or your place of birth or who your father was (rather than your mother) Mac Donald, O' Donnal, Von Don, etc. Indigenous peoples often named their children related to qualities they possessed such as 'Raven Hair,' or 'Sitting bull' or perhaps even 'dances with wolves.' Perhaps it could be claimed that human names can even be chosen or influenced by how patriarchal a society is, certainly the 'son of' idea would suggest this. I have not heard a name such as Mac Mary, Mac Agnes or Mac Catherine in Scotland anyway? Do you know of any strong matriarchal influences on the 'son of' method of naming children?

Yeah, useful things these labels!

Misrepresenting and misinterpreting people aren't investigative techniques dumbass, you can't just assume anyone saying something you don't like is guilty of some heinous view, isn't that obvious? — Judaka

I don't think I have misinterpreted or misrepresented you in any way. But you can keep throwing your toys out of your pram if you want.

Why are you so insistent on taking me out of context? The top 1% or 10%? That was in reference to things like fucking card games, board games, computer games and other competitive environments. In what way is your response even remotely appropriate? Why do you refuse to interpret my words in the manner that I meant them, rather than whatever random bullshit makes me look bad? — Judaka

It's unfortunate you find my probes so personally painful. Your posts on this thread are open to a range of interpretations. I like to try to find out which one(s) is/are the most accurate.

I know I said what the evidence was intended to explain, but I can see you don't care about that. — Judaka

No, you did that quite poorly imo. It's the fact that I do care, that compels me to probe further.
I am not too concerned that you become uncomfortable and start to spit.

I'm the furthest thing from a supporter of "historical traditional conservative values". — Judaka

Glad to read that this is your position. I hope your future posts are better at backing this position up.

Your moral indignation is so disingenuine, you couldn't care less who it's aimed at, just enjoy the feeling of power, do you? Well, no point trading insults, a worthwhile discussion with you is impossible. — Judaka

No, my aim is very good. Try to experience scrutiny as an opportunity to clarify your position more succinctly. But if you need to spit then spit, I am quite capable of spitting back, If I feel the need or I feel justified in doing so. I have no interest in 'feelings of power,' that merely manifested in your head, but I accept it as a probe and reject it as false.

This is all irrelevant. I was not arguing that 100% of men outcompeted all the women, or anything close to that. This is about the top 1% or 10% being male-dominated, not male-exclusive. — Judaka

But to me, you type as if you don't seem to understand that the reason this is still true, in some areas of the human experience today is because historically, women were deliberately forced to comply with men's will, via physical threat and physical force, and that lever is now considered pathetic, by the majority of intelligent people imo. So why are you harping on about this top 1% or 10% who exist, only due to a nefarious history of the pathetic imposition and abuse, of a no longer important biological advantage, of male physical strength used in an imbalanced competitive manner?

Reading your reply, it seems you've entirely taken me out of context. As if, I didn't bring up any of what I said for a particular point, I was just trying to explain why men are superior to women or some shit. The entire problem with this argument of patriarchy is that there's zero effort to look at alternative explanations. If there's an unequal gender outcome, assume sexism caused it, and if anyone objects, address them as sexist, amazing. Though, wasn't your position AGAINST the critique of the West as a patriarchy? — Judaka

Patriarchal 'pressure,' and notions of manly men masculine identity, is a strong factor towards why any man who identifies as a woman might consider killing themselves. The 'group think' mentality of such, results in a great deal of vitriol being directed against trans folks in very nasty ways. Every bit as bad as the vitriol thrown at homosexuals in the past.
Is your use of these 1% or 10% male dominance exemplars, intended as evidence to explain why the imagery invoked by:

I grew up in what most would call a conservative environment. To the point that upon expressing I wanted long hair as an ~10 year old kid (I had a male friend who had long hair and liked it) my parents responded "Do you want to be a girl?!" to dissuade me. Something so innocuous as a child thinking his friend was cool and wanting to be like that was interpreted as a bad thing that needed to be avoided. I don't know how Morman's congregate now -- but in my youth they had separate classes at church for men and women. Sex was the excuse, but gender was the rule. — Moliere

is imagery we should all find ridiculous? Or are you using such exemplars, in support of such historically traditional conservative values, regarding masculinity and how it should dictate what is socially or sexually acceptable?

'Real Men Do Whatever The Fuck They Want' — Amity

Do you think 'real women do whatever the fuck they want,' would offend those on this thread who consider themselves manly men?: :lol:

:up:

You probably know that there is more to 'Patriarchy' than simple definitions. — Amity

Yes, I do. But that does not invalidate the existing definitions, it just means that none of them are a prefect fit, for any given exemplification of patriarchy. This is often the case with any such terms, yes?

And how useful is it to label yourself? Who benefits exactly? — apokrisis

It's as useful as giving yourself a name. What's in a name? Human intelligence is my answer.
Humans use labels to clarify and categorise etc, we all benefit from that, as it gives us a better ability to reference and it enhances or ability to memorialise. Can we have language without labels? Even glyphs and ancient cave paintings are labels.

So labelling yourself is counterproductive in that it over-constrains your sense of self in a mechanical fashion. As a system, that makes you brittle. It is a shallow strength that breaks suddenly rather than a supple strength that adjusts. — apokrisis

So why do you use your own name or 'apokrisis' if you believe the above quote is true?
The Greek word apokrisis
Found only in Lk. 2:47; 20:26; Jn. 1:22; 19:9, the Greek noun “apokrisis” meant “separation,” “secretion,” and “answer” (Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged Edition, p. 474). In the New Testament this word always means “answer” (ibid).
Do you use the label apokrisis to invoke what luke 2:47 states?
"Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers."

But then on the other hand, at the level of humans as part of a social collective, encouraging self-labelling is useful. — apokrisis

I agree.

Society wants to fix people into predictable roles and attitudes so that they can play parts within larger political and economic scripts. — apokrisis

People want/need to be understood by other people regardless of personal notions of what 'society' wants. Who are you talking about when you use the label 'society?'

This is how it is. Society finds life simplest when we do answer to labels. But society functions best when our behaviour is intelligent and expresses a dynamical balance. Labels then become the dichotomous signifiers of the conventionalised limits of behaviour. We can dance within the space defined … or step back to critique the settings of social system that is seeking to over-simplify us. — apokrisis

It is also unwise to over-complicate us. Many folks on TPF use their language skills to appear to be saying stuff that's deep and meaningful, when in reality, when you 'decode' the fancy terms they employ, they are not saying anything deeper or more meaningful, than the local yokel with an average education, who has lived for long enough to come to some conclusions about some issues.

Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ... — 180 Proof

At least 'maybe' offers hope. :up:

No one likes an asshole. — Hanover

Yet we all have one! Where would you be without yours?

In virtually every competitive environment, men dominate, whether it's board games, card games, e-sports, cooking, or whatever really. Why is that? Is it a global conspiracy against women? Or is it because men have a proclivity towards engaging more seriously with competitive activities, and have characteristics that produce success in comparison to women? When your benchmark for talking about patriarchy is equal outcomes in competitive environments, you've already completely misunderstood what you're dealing with.

It's just a question of equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. I think almost all social groups agree, that if a woman can pass the fitness tests, and displays sufficient competence, just as any man would have to, then she should be considered for a position. If she's the best choice, then she should get the position. Just don't be surprised if these conditions don't produce equal participation in armies by gender. — Judaka

Patriarchy:
a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line:

a system of society or government in which men hold the power and women are largely excluded from it: "the dominant ideology of patriarchy"
You keep describing 'competition' as if it's always 'fair and honourable' competition. It's nothing to force another to comply with your dictates due to you possessing superior physical strength, and such is easily nullified by technological development.
You also keep attempting to cite examples of where you claim men excel over women, when the truth is that women's contribution and women's achievements are often deliberately diluted or are just not mentioned.

board games, card games, e-sports, cooking, — Judaka

I could not think of 4 less important areas! and in each of those area there are women representatives, every bit as good as the men involved, especially in cooking.

Even if you were given your claim that (men are better than women), (Edit: sorry, just noticed I had typed this the wrong way round, an hour after I posted it :yikes: ) at competing (which you should not be imo) are men better than women at cooperation in your opinion? Cooperation produces far better results than competition imo.
Do you consider education a competition?
Do you think men have proven themselves more intelligent than women?

As @BC posted:
"A focus on masculine aggression and competitiveness ignores the extensive cooperative behaviors that are required to maintain a functioning complex society"

Success in competition might be part of masculinity itself, the desire of having the best things and being the best, fits the ultra-masculine alpha types pretty well to me. — Judaka

War is the traditional, historical competition that matters most, yes?
Which image do you think we should nurture, for how masculinity should progress?

Earthling is ok by me, but are you including all fauna in that?
Does a man and a woman have total equality under the label human or humanism, in your view?

Humans need to be understood in terms of the dichotomies that give reality to the notion of life involving "choices", or at least a flexible range of options so that behaviour is not reflexive and stereotyped.

If you label yourself as X, then you are locked into "being X", and this mostly measuring yourself in terms of actually too often "failing to be perfectly X". It is a broken way of thinking when it comes to being a man, a human, an engineer, a whatever. — apokrisis

It's about humans understanding other humans and humans explaining and justifying themselves to other humans. It's also about self-analysis. That's why Rabbie Burns wrote:
"O wad god the gift tae gie us
Tae see oorsels as ithers see us."

A person may see themselves as X but yes, as you suggest, they then have to convince others that they are in fact X and that X is justifiable.

So you might find it useful to have a spectrum of human behaviour that runs between the masculine and feminine. Being able to move about this range "at will" – as a personally adaptive choice – seems a good thing as who wants to be stuck in the rut of a stereotype? — apokrisis

I agree, but only as the internal spectrum you suggest and not when it overspills into a patriarchal or matriarchal identity that you think should be the dominant societal driver.

Why not have a debate about the prosocial~antisocial spectrum? That would be a more general human level alternative to a gender-based dichotomy. And it would for instance capture more of what T Clark looks to want to claim about his personal identity. — apokrisis

Sure, seems like a useful suggestion to me.

I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful.

At the same time, women tend to like me and trust me once they know me better. I treat them with respect they can sense is sincere. I'm pretty transparent. People can see I'm trustworthy and not a threat. — T Clark

We would have to 'interview' the women who know Mr Clark 'well,' with the Rabbie Burns quote I used above as our measure. I have often heard friends tell me how they think they are perceived by their friends and family and then I get a very different story indeed when I have spoken to those very same friends and family as they have often also been my friends and family.
Often the way my sister thinks my other sister perceives her is incorrect and vice versa and so on and so forth. I am sure this is also true of my perceptions, that I think others have of me.

I often hear from friends and family, regarding how 'intimidating' a loved one is.
Let's call the person 'husband' for example. I have had commentary such as:

"yeah, I have to stroke my husbands ego a little, now and again. He is actually quite emotionally vulnerable and fragile. You have to let him think he is in charge and that we all respect him deeply and find him intimidating. He is a little lost boy in reality, living in the residue of a bygone age when men were men and they believed all women found them exciting, rather than merely useful."

I am editorialising of course but I think many of us have heard others say similar things.

So many women wish to plumb but are held back by the bullies who force them into other professions. — Hanover

Try to be more balanced! Does the following edit help you?
So many women wish to be educated, have equal opportunity, choose their career path etc but are held back by the patriarchal bullies who force them into other roles.

OK, funny -- I laughed. There's too much interplay between the sexes, and cross-support (especially in a family structure) to define men by their occupation. The men may build things, but they don't do everything (there are women at the worksite who are just as capable), and they rely upon the network of women in the more traditional set-up.

One thing I'd note, though, is that you're equating men and women in terms of ability -- which I agree with -- but you're not setting out what it means to be a man, unlike Hanover. We may disagree on masculinity, but he answered the question. Do you have an answer? — Moliere

My earnest answer to 'what is a man or what is masculinity,' lies within the answer to 'what is a human or what is humanism.' The answers to the question of what are the differences between a man and a woman or masculinity and femininity are just too trivial to me. Highlighting differences in genitalia/some internal workings and parts or chromosomes or aesthetics or strength or even in historical/traditional role play are just unimportant now. Old backwards thinking imo, we need to drop all that shit and declare men and women as equal, in every way conceivable and declare general differences in physical strength, as no longer of any significant value, in the age of modern technology.
Notions of a patriarchal or matriarchal dominance has zero value now and should be declared utterly dead and gone!

If you want me to answer the question of 'what is a human or what is humanity or what is humanism then I can and will, although I think I already have, over many posts in many threads.
If you want me to answer the question 'what in your opinion are the differences between men and women,' then I can only answer that from many different angles, traditionally, physically, psychologically, legally, politically, socially etc, etc. But, as I said, they all pale in comparison to the commonalities.
Masculinity and femininity should be part of each individual human, as each can balance and strengthen the other.

If an individual wants to nurture an internal patriarchy or matriarchy then fine, they can do so, as long as they don't impose it on anyone else, by force. If their internal identity results in an overwhelming need to change their physical biological sex, then that's ok to. They are still bound by laws, such as not raping a woman using a penis that they happen to still have, even though they are a woman themselves.
Sexual assault is sexual assault regardless of the sexual status of the perpetrator or the victim.

The link. You missed the link. — Hanover

There are lies, damn lies and then there are statistics.
Women were completely restrIcted to the jobs men decided they should do!
What about during WW II for example when women demonstrated they could do the heavy industrial jobs men did, just as well as men.
It's the same concept as the victors get to write history. The stats you highlight are the result of historical male dominance and they are not a result of what women wanted or were capable of doing.

There's no merit in fostering an unnecessarily hostile competition between the sexes, maybe in that, we could agree. — Judaka

We do have common ground there.

I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy. — Judaka

Their moronic views still have to be challenged though, for as long as they dare to promote them.

Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden

I think that was more true in the past than it is now. Certainly not in every town and city on the planet but I think caring/protectiveness/cooperation etc is valued much more than 'aggressive competition' in the minds of more and more men, in particular.

Well, you directed it to Baden and since I had just posted a brilliant, but angry Hazel O'Conner song, I probably didn't recognise it and assumed you couldn't spell 'rage.'

We can all probably trace our ancestry back to a Paisley buddie, who has an ancestor from Ireland, who has an ancestor from Africa. I have not heard or used the term 'radge' for too many years. It's a brilliant word! :grin: Going out for beers tonight and I now intend to call everyone I meet, a radge, even the quiet, unassuming, gentle looking folks! A&E! Save a space for me!

Nice Paisley reference. — Jamal

The question is, is @TClark related to these earlier Clarks?
"In 1755 James and Patrick Clark began a loom equipment and silk thread business in Paisley, Scotland. In 1806 Patrick Clark invented a way of twisting cotton together to substitute for silk that was unavailable due to the French blockade of Great Britain. He opened the first plant for manufacturing the cotton thread in 1812. In 1864 the Clark family began manufacturing in Newark, New Jersey, U.S., as the Clark Thread Co."

What do humans do? They build, they toil, they manipulate their environment, they brave the elements, and they protect. The vehicle that got you to work was likely designed by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system, built by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system, driven on a road laid down by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system. The building you walked into was likely designed and built by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system, the sink you used, the toilet you flushed, all built and maintained by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system. The HVAC, the elevator, the electrical system, all installed by a man or/and a woman with dirt on their hands and their name on their shirt, or/and an automated system The desk you sit in front of, also built by a man or/and a woman, or/and an automated system. And most, real people, or/and an automated system, I propose, do this less so because of the great rewards that might or might not follow, but it's because its what real people, or/and an automated system, do.

This is meant as a celebration of the human. The celebration of the woman and the man is real, and is not different. Their hands rock the cradle and therefore rule the world.

Such modern thinking I know. But I also know that many will read this and say "Thank goodness we no longer need to thank or blame non-existent gods, for anything people create, say or do." I wrote this for you.

I don't know if anyone noticed that I borrowed from the writing style of another poster to bring you this message. Please do credit them accordingly.

He seemed to create more threads than the Coats Group!

I can think of some new events to introduce — Vera Mont

Yeah, I was thinking on that as well :rofl: The 100m mince! :rofl: I hope I haven't caused any offense, but I can't help it, if I find that imagery funny. I hope trans/gay folks do to.

I think that a trans Olympics would be good fun and may solve the sports issue.
It would probably have quite small national teams but it could perhaps become as popular as the Eurovision song contest and be an event that speaks for world peace and unity in a similar way that that competition tends to.

Do you think we would reduce the female concern about competing against transwomen at say running, if we took all the gold medal fastest males at running, like Usain Bolt, and made them all race against a cheetah or even a fairly old household pussy cat? I also have no interest in competitive sports.

So, would you agree that 'what is a human?' is a much more important question, than what is a man? or what is a woman? and it always has been. To me, man and woman is almost synonymous in every way that really matters, the differences are far more trivial, compared to the commonalities.
We can still talk till the cows come home about the differences between a man and a woman BUT, they remain trivial by comparison.