Yes, but also these are not philosophical questions. Sure we can speculate about the consequences, but those remain idle conjecture because we probably make less good guesses than geo-political strategists. Given these consequences, we may ask what the right thing to do it, or why we believe these will be the consequences and not others, or what kind of leadership may be necessary to navigate the crisis. What I keep cautioning against is idle conjecture on our part.

My intended role is to allow others to bring up the philosophical questions that ought be explored while maintaining a thread which basically respects the scientific consensus -- so less a contributor on where the conversation goes and more a contributor of where it cannot go (a moderator). We already have threads where the scientific consensus can be questioned, so this is a thread for philosophical questions under the assumption that the science is more or less right. — Moliere

Ok, fair enough. Then I will also assume that for the sake of argument at least you also accept the images of a hothouse world, the disasters, droughts, changing weather patterns etc. that accompany this narrative. (I do not use 'narrative' pejoratively, as if it were 'just a narrative'; I mean it in the sense of a coherent set of storylines that present to us a problem, its origin, the solution, and its key protagonist.) There is little more we can do in terms of truth claims. We are philosophers and not natural scientists, so basically any prediction of what will happen in detail transcends the limits of our abilities. Questions of ontology and epistemology are then mostly sidelined and the issue becomes one of ethics.

Ethical questions I can think of are questions related to whether our moral imperatives still hold under the threat of imminent catastrophe. For instance, is begetting children the right thing to do towards future generations? We know they will inherit a world of imminent catastrophe. Is such a life worth living, or are they better off not being born? Second to what extent is deontological ethics affected by imminent catastrophe? Kantian doctrine of imperfect duty holds that one should not violate imperfect duties because it will make the world unlivable, but if it already is, or becomes, are we still bound? Thirdly, to what extent may we suspend ordinary freedoms and civil rights to avert catastrophe? Does imminent catastrophe, which renders civil rights moot, present a state of exception under which civil rights should be conditional anyway?

In all of these questions, a time dimension comes in. The threat is imminent but has not realized itself yet and we do not know if there may be solutions in the future. What is the measure of certainty we need to have before fundamentally altering our legal and moral order?

I do not know the answer. No one does. Not knowing the answer also does not make a question philosophical.

There is the philosophical issue of whether humanity has it in itself to survive. — Punshhh

That is a factual question, not a philosophical one. It is just as factual as whether water boils at 100.C.

Or do we just turn on each other and collapse civilisation again like we have done many times in the past. — Punshhh

The question of what the ties that bind us are, may be philosophical, yes. The question of how we can reinforce them is more sociological or a matter of political science. Whether this might involve the widespread use of technoregulation for instance, that might be an ethical question. There are many philosophical questions relating to climate change, but that an issue is important does not make it inherently philosophical. I do not want to derail the thread to the question 'what is philosophy'. I would just like to know what philosophical issues relating to climate change would the OP like to discuss? As it is, the questio: 'how should we deal with the common disruption?' is philosophical perhaps but rather broad.

For example, how much do you value future generation compared to living generations? Or how much do you value nature, only instrumentally or is there something more inherently valuable?

Seeing this purely as a scientific question, as if we can just ask scientist what to do about it, has been one of the problems it seems to me. — ChatteringMonkey

Ohh, yes, I agree with you. There are philosophical questions related to climate change certainly. It needs a rephrasing of the question, or at least, a question more focused. 'Rights' of future generations is a philosophical question, the designation of this era as 'the anthropocene' is a philosophical question, intrinsic value of nature is a philosophical question. Indeed, the framing of the question as a scientific queestion, is a philosophical question. To me, the way the question was phrased, was unclear. What philosophical question are you (OP) after? It was phrased in scientific terms.

Dear Moliere,

I do not see how this is a philosophical topic. If you would like a scientific answer then this would be something for a science forum right? What are the philosophical questions you are after here?

Hegel seems to reenlist a lot of these terms for his own purposes. — Paine

That's the history of philosophy in a nutshell ;)

From an article I wrote a while back: — Count Timothy von Icarus

Great article Mr. Count! I will respond when it is not the middle of the night, but in any case wanted to mention it. Thanks for your thoughtful comments!~

There are some common grounds between Hegel's philosophy and Analytic philosophy. They are not totally opposite ends with no common grounds. There are many analytic philosophers who are deeply influenced by Hegel such as Robert Brandom and John McDowell. I found parts of Hegel's writings in SL and PS highly analytic in fact. — Corvus

Yes, th Pittsburgh Hegelians are indebted to Hegel. Hegel uses rational argumentation to that extent he is 'analytic'. I do think his concepts are very different though and he does not attach equal importance to conceptual definition.

Using the logical analysis on the original writings of philosophy is not just for analytic traditional folks. All philosophers do use the analysis for making the texts clearer and more understandable for us. — Corvus

I have a great admiration for Hegel, he is my favorite, but I have a hard time holding him up as an example of clear writing...

Not doing so would be seen as acts of denying the legitimate philosophical analysis, and could even be regarded as acts of unnecessary and meaningless abstraction of the original texts. — Corvus

I do not know if there is one 'legitimate' conception of philosophical analysis. The tradition includes writers who are highly mystic such as Plato or Al Ghazali, poetic like Nietzsche, logical like Russel or Wittgenstein and social scientific like Foucault. I find Hegel interesting because he seems like a bridge, his concerns are metaphysical, while he also initiated a 'historic' turn.

The "simple self-subsistent existence" is what was being sought "outside the water" by Kant. For Hegel, however, the isolated ego is no longer juxtaposed by 'true' objects.

Independent beings are seen through a process of living. the sections from 168 to 173 of the Phenomenology lay out how this Life generates our experience. In 170, Individuals are described as: — Paine

Thanks for these Paine. You are right to qualify my statement. It is not that Hegel goed beyond the limit, he does not recognize it as such. The thing in itself is a consequence of Kant's formality.

Basic rights are guaranteed by most of the Constitutions. — Ludovico Lalli

Yes, I would think that is a good thing...

Also there is the problem of customary differentiation. A System of International Human Rights can be oppressive towards customary diversification — Ludovico Lalli

A System of International Human Rights can be oppressive towards customary diversification and cultural freedom. In short, the System of International Human Rights is quite invasive. — Ludovico Lalli

I have some qualms with human rights from a legal theoretical perspective so I can sympathize with your criticism to some extent. I find it hard though to think of 'customary diversification' as if there are customs that violate basic human rights and should be considered 'customary diversification' and be upheld as just. There are different ways to ensure human rights, states have margin of appreciation when it comes to clashes between human rights. There is indeed valid criticism of human rights regimes as they are sometimes used to badger states into enacting policies they do not want. A nuanced criticism has been offered by Makau Mutua for instance. States do have quite some freedom though and community obligations may also be included. They are for instance included in the Banjuls charter of African Human Rights. The way you frame your criticism though makes me defend human rights, because you juxtapose them against some sort of absolute conception of state sovereignty. I find that far worse.

Saying God is personified spirit, that sounds like a religious claim. In philosophy, God is to be proved either via reasoning or presenting the evidence of the existence of God. — Corvus

It is more akin to a sociological claim. I do not think God is to be proved at all actually. Hegels point is not to prove or disprove the existence of God but to understand the function of God as a category of though.

This sounds ambiguous too. The expression "the movement of thought" doesn't make sense at all. Thought is always about something, and it always happens in the thinkers mind. — Corvus

I suggest that if you like to read Hegel you read him on his own terms and not provide your own assumptions as gospel. You reenact some kind of dualist philosophy of mind I guess, but that is not where Hegel is at. He does not abide by the categories of analytic philosophy.

No, there is not. Though it might be a line of argument to justify humanitarian intervention for instance. This route was more popular in the 90s though than it is now.

Are International Human Rights subversive towards the constitutional freedom of the Nation? — Ludovico Lalli

Why 'subversive'? Why would one grant a nation powers to legislate contrary to human rights? Arguably they constitute basic freedoms and make sure the 'nation' does not rule contrary to the rights of individuals.

The presence itself of an organism which is "superior" to the National states is inherently dangerous. — Ludovico Lalli

Why is that? I would argue that the presence of a nation is inherently dangerous and the power it wields over its citizens should be limited. Why would we want a leviathan?

They all have the same interest: to protect the rights of their people. If one state doesn't subscribe to those principles, it can withdraw; the institution has no jurisdiction over it. That's why some governments can oppress and persecute their own citizenry: there is no international body with the power to stop abuses. — Vera Mont

That is not exactly true. A state that violates the most basic human rights like the prohibition on slavery and torture violates 'Ius cogens', the category of rights deemed so fundamental that they are considered to rank higher than national law. Violating such norms is a violation of international law. The question who is going to enforce that is a different question, but substantially it may be a violation of law.

But almost all the philosophers after Hegel criticised Hegel's philosophy, it looks.  Nietzsche doesn't appear to have engaged with Hegel's philosophy directly, but he seemed to have disagreed on Hegel's concept of absolute spirit quite understandably.  I, myself, cannot quite grasp what absolute spirit means.  It sounds like as you said, personified God, or could it be something else. I am new to Hegel, so trying to understand as much as possible from the discussions while reading some of the articles on Hegel as well as the original texts too. — Corvus

Well, that he is criticized a lot only attests to his importance. And, according to Hegel, it is exactly how the dialectic (aka thought) works. I do not see that at all as problematic. I think you have it the other way around. Spirit is not personified God, not at all, in fact, God is personified spirit. Spirit is the idea that the movement of thought, its dialectical development in a process of position, negation and negation of the negation, permeates the whole of reality. It can also not be otherwise, because thinking is being, we cannot conceive of anything as other than thought and so the process of history works in a similar pattern as our thought process. Spirit though is itself a very empty idea, you cannot point to it and say 'hey, this is spirit', so people tend to personfy it and that personification is called God. Philosophy though is for Hegel a more fruitful endeavor and more apprehensive of spirit than religion.

Kant's thing-in-itself is only dualism, if one looks at Thing-in-itself as some concrete legitimate entity even if it is known to be unknowable.  It is contradictory, and as Hegel saw it as nonexistence and illusion, then it cannot be dualism anymore. — Corvus

Hegel is a monist. I do not understand what you mean here very well I think...

Knowledge of knowledge?  Knowledge must be true and verifiable as truth.  If not, it is not knowledge. — Corvus

Such a definition looks more like Gettier than Hegel. For analytic philosophers truth is a truth value which can be assigned to propositions. That is not what Hegel is getting at. For Hegel knowledge is much more akin to 'recognition', a recognition of the logical categories (quanitty, quality, measure, being, nothing, becoming etc) that we have imposed on the world. That was also Kant's problem. Hegel criticizes Kant but also embraces him. He tries to make Kant practical and thinks the 'modern' train of thought is capable of more than Kant thought possible.

Not many folks used the concept "spirit" in their philosophy in history. Even Aristotle doesn't appear to have used it. — Corvus

It has some commonalities with philosophical concepts like stoic anima or Aristotelian energeia I guess. Schelling was a predecessor of Hegel, he used it. The notion comes up in a specific philosophical tradition, that of German idealism. It has made marks though. In both German and Dutch the science of the humanities is still called 'Geisteswissenschaft', of geesteswetenschap.

Substance sounds like material stuff that things and objects are made of. Spirit sounds mental in its nature. Perhaps you could elaborate more on the two? — Corvus

The material that objects are made of and its mental conception are not different things. Only in our ways of conceptualizing did we find it necessary to make distinction between mind and matter. There is nothing objective about the distinction though, it is a product of mental activity. Since thought dictates all the conceptual distinctions we make, 'substance' is a mental thing. Substance is subject, 'spirit'.

So having established the viability of the masculinity/femininity dimension, and since it is pretty clear that the movement in the politics of the USA is towards the masculinity end of the scale, my next question concerns why we should have a preference for one dimension over anther - why not allow a "movement" towards the masculine end? Consequentialism would seem to provide a useable answer here - given the present environmental crisis, this is precisely a time in which cooperation is needed. — Banno

Thank you for doing my work Banno ;) It is a jocular comment but I am really thankful. It is easy to just dismiss something and saying, 'huh, I do not buy the research behind it'. It is harder to think along and I am having a hard time with the people that simply shoot the assumptions to pieces. I do not mind it, but it makes discussion so difficult. That said, I do not see why I or anyone else who contributes needs to have a normative commitment. The way I see it there are simply types of oppression, types of power wielding. The best wielder of power though, in our current society, remains unknown. As for the environment. There are two conceptions. One is shrinking and de-growth, a policy that will have enormous ramifications for the current distribution of power and wealth in society, the other one is radical technological optimism, a policy that will have enormous ramifications for the distribution of power and wealth in society. For me myself the de-growth option if probably more appealing but whether it is better... who am I to say?

OK, you, I'll take you're word for it. All the same, I can't escape the hunch that many, if not most, tend to disagree with this. "Power" being often strictly equated to control and dominance over other, and in this way with the capacity to domineer, with this capacity tending to be seen as what ought to be a strictly male characteristic, which most term "masculinity".

That said, I'll endorse your statement: yes, plenty of women are domineering and in this sense alone masculine. Moreover, though, plenty more feminine women and masculine men are, despite their gender differences, alike in being neither submissive to domineering factions nor attempt to domineeringly subjugate others. But this regards a type of power utterly different from that just specified. — javra

I would not see power in that way. In fact I think power is wielded far more efficiently when one does not know it is being wielded. "Masculine" power, as you describe it as overt power, seems to me to be a very crude way to wield power. Crudeness may well be effective though. However, I do not think that for instance the medicalization of crime is any less devoid of power relations than the retaliatory discourse. I would actually be tempted to defend the opposite thesis, that the medicalization of crime needs a far more complex assemblage of power relations then the retaliatory view on crime. Retaliation has a 5000 year history, difficult to overcome that.

Can anyone explain to me how the fear of (else the roundabout concern that) “women are taking over and are destroying the core of masculinity” is in fact not a communal projection of personally held aspirations by a certain male faction in society, one composed of individuals that themselves desire to be domineering over all others — javra

I think it is such a projection. In my view everyone, irrespective of sex, tends to 'dominate', in the sense that they favour societal arrangements that are most conducive to them. So yes, some men who feel like their favourite model of dominance is at stake, will cause a backlash against currently popular discourses of 'harmony', 'protection' or 'vulnerability'.

Re: legacy of absentee / abusive fathers reinforced by pervasive religious-cultural misogyny ...
Here's all you have to know about men and women: women are crazy, men are stupid. And the main reason women are crazy is that men are stupid.
— George Carlin
Case and point: ↪Gregory :eyes: — 180 Proof

Is there such a legacy really? The pervasive religious and cultural misogyny I understand, but what happened to the fathers in your opinion? There may well be a link. Before the second world war fathers were regularly absent, drinking in the bars. I do not know what happened in the 1960s or 1970s. There might well be something there, but how have the sins of the father influenced our current state as men and women?

For Gregory I feel pity actually. I had a discussion with him in the Hegel thread. Perhaps that caused him to come here and go on a path which led him to banning. I find it ood. Why would someone that studies philosophy go off into such an odd absolutist reading of femininity and masculinity? Well, people are strange, when you're a stranger...

edit: I also wanted to add that I miss you guys and therefore I was actually touched with @Banno brining in the literature. The forum is for me a place for off beat discussions, for 'misfit thinkers' as @180 Proof once put it. Those places are becoming rare as discourse becomes increasingly mean and self serving. Enjoy it while you can.

Excellent thread, Tobias. Gotta love Hegelian analysis. The definition of masculinity and femininity has me puzzling. Is there anything more to it than stipulation - perhaps a study that shows the traits in the table coinciding statistically, or other empirical support? — Banno

Not that I know of. They have been researched by the sociologist Hofstede and there is a lot to find online. I am sure he has elaborated on them, but whether he done so statistically I do not know. I admit it would be good to look into that, but I severely lack the time to do so... :yikes:

The funny thing is he changed his terminology from masculine to MAS it seems to make it more gender neutral.

Spirit sounds like the mind of the ghosts, i.e. the dead. Reasoning is the mind of the living. The fact that Hegel wrote about spirit sounds like he must have had believed in the life after death. — Corvus

No, not at all. He uses spirit in a similar way like he could use a concept like 'substance'. However with 'spirit' he indicates that substance is not dead matter, but living, as in a 'spirited individual'. Don't let yourself be bewitched by some modern connotations of a word or connotations a word has in contemporary engllsh but might not have in 18th century German.

In Kant, our knowledge is limited to what we can experience. Beyond that is the world of unknown. Some say that it is Kant giving room for faith alongside knowledge. Does Hegel go beyond the limit? How and what sort of knowledge is possible on the world of unknown in Hegel? — Corvus

Yes, Hegel goes beyond those limits. Somewhere, I believe in the Pheno, but perhaps in the Logik, he writes something along the lines of 'if you pull the curtains away, the room where the thing in itself is supposed to be, is empty'. The thing in itself is constructed by Kant, as a product of his dualistic thinking. There is no 'thing in itself'. 'A world of the unknown' is contradictory because how can we know of such a 'world' and in what way would something posited as absolutely unknown, constitute a world? He leaves no room for that which cannot be understood, which actually led to large criticisms of Hegel because it gives his philosophy a rather 'absolute' character. After Hegel came Nietzsche's abyss, Heidegger and the post modern emphasis on the 'finite'. Or think of someone like Vico who held that there is always something that escapes determination. I wonder how strong these criticisms are though. I think Hegel also allows for something that necessarily escapes, but not for a 'world of the unknown'. The knowledge that is possible for Hegel is knowledge of knowledge. We learn how we know, how we think and that is all there is to know. Knowledge is self knowledge.

If basically one half of humanity has been your biggest disappointment in life, that calls for reexamining your expectations from the world. Why do you think girls run the show? If their strongest quality is that they can influence men, then I doubt your claim they run the show. Perhaps you should hang out with women some more. I can really recommend it.

How does reason manifest in the world without reasoner or reasoning? — Corvus

Reasoning is going on, but what reasoning is is itself a manifestation of spirit, the flow of the idea. There is also different reasoning going on, religious reasoning, legal reasoning scientific reasoning and so on. They are however not a-priori there. The reasoner likewise is not prior to reasoning but as much constituted by reason as itself constitutive of reasoning, but perhaps I misunderstand your question.

Isn't some parts of the world is unknown, irrational and mysterious? We don't exactly know why the world exists, or how it began. Who was the first ever folk in the world? Does God exist? — Corvus

That we do not know something does not mean that we cannot know it. for Hegel we can know it as there cannot be anything apart from knowledge. How could we say something 'is' when we cannot even know it as a something? God for Hegel I believe is reason personified, but it is always a personification. My grasp of Hegels philosophy of religion is not that great though, but he sees in the elaboration of God a similar process of development as he sees in reason.

Remember how he has nothing sublate itself and being and being in turn sublate nothing and itself. Everything sublates everything else in Hegel, although thatbis not the total history of the movement — Gregory

Yes, but in that process being and nothing are not gone. They become 'moments' in this case of becoming. In a higher order being then returns as 'Wesen'.

The 'substance' of Aristotelian philosophy resulted from the Latin translation of the Greek 'ouisia' . But ‘ouisua’ is the Greek verb meaning 'to be'. So the meaning of 'substance' in philosophy was originally nearer than 'subject' or ‘being’ than the usual meaning of the word, which is ‘a material with uniform properties.’ — Wayfarer

Well possible. I think Hegel takes a lot from the ancient Greeks. He decried himself as Heraclitian all the way I believe. See also 'Hegel and Aristotle' by Alfredo Ferrarin, I only read parts of it, long ago though.

This is why i used the term "bi-reality" in the other thread. It's dualism submerged in unity. We create the world (philosophy), and the world thru atoms make us (science). Reconciling this is the goal of Hegel's entire body of work. More on this latter — Gregory

It cannot be because that already presupposes terms, such as atom or world. For Hegel it is the 'movement of the concept' that creates such dualisms.

"In this regard it must be remarked that the assertion that the [Kantian] categories by themselves are empty is certainly correct in the sense that we ought not to rest content with them and the totality which they form (the logical Idea), but to advance to the real domains of Nature and Spirit. This advance, however, should not be interpreted as meaning that the logical Idea comes to receive an alien content that stems from outside it; on the contrary, it is the proper activity of the logical Idea to determine itself further and unfold itself into Nature and Spirit." — Gregory

I read this in light of his criticism of Kant that his categories are 'formal'. Kant 'deduced' them, in some merely mental exercise. For Hegel they would show themselves both mentally as well as in the history of the world, in the emergence of spirit. The processes by which the world shows itself are the same as the operations of thought. 'Substance as subject'.

The concept "spirit" is too abstract if not unclear and esoteric in Hegel. Does it contain both mind and body? Or is it some disembodied entity? Or is it something which instantiates when body dies? — Corvus

It is not some metaphysical entity but merely the manifestation of reason in the world. The world is not without reason, in the sense that what happens is rationally understandable. There is indeed and always was a 'hole' as Gregory explained in Hegel.

That was my point. If you use terminology that has a high variance of answers and disagreement, its not good terminology to use. These words are usually emotionally biased which doesn't lead to good discussion. — Philosophim

Well, I feel emotion does not have much of a place in rational discussion, but that is an old fashioned point of view, I know. I do not know how high the disagreement pertaining to these value patterns actually is. The disagreement seems to be more centered around whether they are essential characteristic or socially constructed. For reasons I will explain later, the answer to that question interests me little, suffice to say for now, I think it is of no consequence for the thesis laid down in the OP.

Is it though? Trump was also elected 8 years ago. We had George W. Bush 8 years prior to Obama. If you want to cover that case, that's not bad, but you'll need to present why you think that. — Philosophim

It derails somewhat from the point of this thread, but it is an important question to answer to see whether one would accept the premises made in the thread. I think there is a substantial qualitative difference between the administrations of Trump and George W. Bush. Bush I take to be a rather classical conservative, gripped by the idea that free market democracy is necessarily good. He did not believe in reforming democratic institutions, he believed in exporting them for the greater good. It is debatable whether that was wise, but it is different from Trump who's reign is revolutionary. Contrary to Bush Trump admires autocratic leadership, does not seem to subscribe to the system of checks and balances as outlined in the trias politica and does not mind breaking old alliances. I am not looking for a pro or contra Trump thread so I wrote that, as a premise, I accept the point made in the earlier thread that this was a moment of crisis. You might think there is nothing new under the sun, that would mean quite a departure. I think there is though.

Utter bullshit. I know tons of women who are money grubbing evil shits who are all about their ego. I know tons of men who are humble men who sacrifice daily for their family and friends. And vice versa. There is nothing about being a man or woman that innately indicates you're going to be focused more on one or the other. You need statistics and evidence for this. — Philosophim

You 'knowing people' is also not the strongest of refutations. Perhaps I can offer an equally anecdotal defense. Why is the song 'material girl' from Madonna such a hit? My take is that she plays with gendered value norms not commonly ascribed to women. George Michael singing "I am a material man" would not have raised an eyebrow but would be dismissed as pure silliness. As I said in my earlier post, it is not tons of women, tons of men, it is about values socially ascribed. Apparently Hanover has no qualms at all on picking up on them:

It's not that I decided to be masculine or that I found it a good way to assert power. It's just the way I am. I don't buy into the notion that had society given me dolls, then I'd have been maternal. Maybe it would have changed me some, but probably I'd have used them as flying objects and subjects of war games and what not. — Hanover

I quoted just a bit, but I could quote his whole post.

Apparently to you they are enigma. I think actually, they are not at all, you just say so for the sake of argument, Watching one James Bond movie is enough to see what values have been traditionally ascribed to masculinity.

Otherwise this is punditry and pop science, not a real analysis. Honestly, this is a topic all on its own to discuss. — Philosophim

No it is not. Believe it or not there is something like interpretative science. Besides, I gave you statistics.

Then don't include it in your topic. If you don't want questions about it or it to be a possible focus, don't bring it up. — Philosophim

Maybe it was a mistake to bring it up. I use the forum for that, push and pull, see what stands the test of argument. Maybe this didn't. It is a sidenote though and not important to me.

Now this is good analysis. But is this evidence that means they're more concerned with relationships than ego? No. A lot of these ideologies are supported out of selfishness and fear, not communal interest. Just as many who don't support these policies will say its because they think the community is better off even if it might put themselves more at risk — Philosophim

Well, evidence, evidence... it depends on what your rules for evidence are. It is an indication. Supporting gun control means that you must put your faith in the collective to keep you safe rather than yourself. Welfare and equal right policies are simlar in that they put their faith in social safeguards instead of individual success, indicating more communal preferences. It also indicates more inclination for social harmony then individualist growth, preferring equality over liberty. What you do is finding 'help hypotheses', you do not like to acknowledge a point, so when someone makes one on your own terms, you find fault with the interpretation of the statistics, or if that would not work, with the collection of the data. If you do not want to be convinced you will not be.

Again, these are good statistics. But have you given ample reason to explain this? What are men concerned with more than women? Start with that instead of masculinity and femininity. — Philosophim

No, I will not start with that because it does not interest me. The topic of masculinity and femininity interests me, controversial though it may be. There may be other explanations sure, but the economy is suspect because the two nations face differing economic problems and both men and women are hit by economic recession. I just feel it is not a very sound explanation so I venture another one, in line with a subject that does interest me perse. I am interested in the context of fluctuations in gender norms and backlash to that.

Right. My feedback is telling you that you're using controversial terms without adequate argument as to why we should use them. You're going A -> B -> C and you haven't proved A or B because you want to get to C. A common desire, but I'm letting you know that you can't just gloss over A and B if you want to have C seriously discussed. This isn't Reddit. You have to build your case carefully here. — Philosophim

Ohh come one, I been in this forum for a great many years. It might not be reddit but it is not necessarily academia either. What I did was, I feel, not bad form. I cited a respected source. You do not know him, but I cannot be blamed for that. Geert Hofstede has 324875 citations and 82636 since 2020. How many do you have?

I will concede you this. He changed the name of his masculinity / femininity index to MAS. I read that he did that in response to some of his critics that accused him of treating gender as binary. I see his division still on his own website though. Like you say, it becomes too politically risky. Thing is, I am not really interested in whether masculinity and femininity actually actually exist. Hanover is convinced there are such traits. Josh is convinced there are not. I do think that in any case certain different values culturally ascribed to men and women exist. We might quibble on what they exactly are, but denying that men and women are socialized in different value patterns is I think pretty untenable. I feel it does not matter at all for my analysis. My thesis is that traditionally ascribed masculine characteristics are formally more and more conceived as problematic, but informally still revered. You still did not give me anything to go on that the ideal type I adopted, from an actual social scientist is wrong and I should accept your view because you know tons of women...

I get it. And I hope you don't take my criticism the wrong way. You've made a good attempt to discuss something you wanted. The attempt is made with intelligence, it just mistakenly glosses over too many controversial points and needs better focus on what you're trying to discuss. To your point sociology and philosophy can be pseudoscience if done improperly. I'm attempting to point out a more proper methodology that lets your post be less opinion and pop-conjecture, and more logical and reasoned points. — Philosophim

Sure, and I do not take your criticism the wrong way. A lot of it is valid. I find them sometimes gratuitous, avoiding a charitable reading but trying to pick apart minor points. Perhaps it is the way you do philosophy. It is very common in analytic philosophy. I do it at times as well, but I am aware it is more difficult to formulate a thesis than to pick it apart.

Yall just neglecting Hannah Arendt huh? Probably why yall ain't even ready to have this conversation. Too focused on masculine feminine to see the whole change. — DifferentiatingEgg

Not intentionally. I really like Arendt, but I had trouble getting a handle on this piece of text in relation to the thread and was also rather distracted with and work and trying to fend of lesser gods than Arendt. I read the piece and I found it interesting but had trouble connecting it to the topic I was writing on. Now I think there are connections and it is by no means meant disparaging, but for me the point you like to make needs more spelling out.

Ohhh I missed this:

Resentment from the masses, people project their powerlessness outwards, just as Nietzsche describes of the powerless in Gay Science (359 & 379) and Genealogy (First Essay 10, and practically all of the Second Essay) ... So the world has a bunch of weak resentful types from the masses feeling their manhood is threatened through this explosion and favoritism of femininity. And it's not just men, even some women are on board oddly enough. — DifferentiatingEgg

Might be. I do find the idea of some place where inequalities naturally exist to be slightly worrying without more flesh on the bones. Especially the familiy was a structure in which exploitation and oppression could run rife. It was also protected by law, as the state generally did not venture beyond the front door if domestic harm and not public harm was at stake. Intramarital rape is criminalized only very recently for instance. I like Nietzsche and he might well be worthwhile, but I do like to transport his ideas into current society, with a bit more sociological backing.

Anyway, I don't question that there are those fully engaged in an attack against all that is manliness. My point was that it will fail by ontological force. Masculinity isn't an idea that emerged in the 1950s and now it's at the end of its run. Masculinity, feminitity, heterosexuality, homosexuality, etc are states of being and there will be manly men regardless of how condemned it is. And it's not like it's a small percentage of folks who fall into traditional male roles. It's probably around 40%+ of the billions on the planet. — Hanover

Why would you think it will fail by 'ontological force'? the oppression of women for thousand or more years was very real, it did not fall to 'ontological force'. If masculine characteristics are problematized that might be a call for repression of them. One personal anecdote. At an institution I worked there was someone who made the sincere suggestion to sign up all men for a mandatory course on sexual violence in the work place. Having no such history, I found the idea of having to take mandatory course reprehensible. I am not saying men are oppressed, all I am saying is that norms are shifting and I like to look at how and what the consequences may be.

I generaly don't agree either that the day of the masculine man has come and gone. I have found myself quite in demand, not that others less masculine or that women are not also in demand, but I don't walk about as if a dinasaur in a changed world. We all have our roles, but not all is choice and not all is societal manipulation. — Hanover

I also do not. That part for me is truly interesting. I think that formally men and behavior associated with masculinity gets problematized, but I also see it as being revered, indeed in pop culture but also in better cinema and literature.

This ties in with Tom Storm:

I suppose that hasn’t been my experience. In my work, I encounter criminals, former prisoners, and men from gangs, yet I see no evidence that their behavior is worsening or that attitudes are becoming more patriarchal. If anything, the men I meet today - even those who are uneducated and tough as nails - are more inclusive and open to new ideas than they were 35 years ago. That’s not to say they aren’t sometimes violent or dangerous, but I see the same tendencies in many women as well. — Tom Storm

That is really interesting. I also do not think men are behaving more masculine or anything. Actually the paradox I see is closer to the paradox in environmental protection. The last ... 8 decades or so pollution as been receding quite dramatically, (with the exception of CO2, but it questionable whether you could call that pollution really) the worry about air pollution, smog, ozone episodes, has increased. Crime rates also steadily went down, but as Tzeentsch inadvertently shows, the moral panic about it increases.

I'm sure you agree that 15 year olds stabbing each other with machetes is degenerate? That's a normalcy in the Netherlands, by the way. And if you want to know where they get these ideas: it's straight from an ultra-violent fringe of the rap scene, 'drill rap'. — Tzeentch

I cannot assure Tzeentsch of anything. Apparently he is a biologist, criminologist and political scientist all rolled into one, but the other members in the forum, I can assure, no, we do not consider this normal behavior in the Netherlands.

Alright. First, I generally frown on one sided political topics in philosophy. Politics and religion are two ideologies that make people extremely defensive and shut their brains off. We don't argue for Christianity or Islam here, just like we shouldn't argue for Republican or Democrat here. Good topics are "What is God? What would prove God?" A good political discussion would be, "What is masculinity? What would prove masculinity? — Philosophim

I disagree with you but there is no surprise there. I wonder though why you see my post as on sided. I tried looking at the problem from multiple angles. I am not arguing for republican or democrat standpoints. What I would like to know is what explains the popularity of an ideology that was considered fringe only 20 years ago. If the nation suddenly turned Islamic in the space of 20 years I would try to find an explanation for that too. Mind you I would also like an explanation for the sudden embracing of identity politics among both the left and the right. I do feel one cannot ask too many questions at once though. I think the topic is indeed so politicized that it is apparently unimaginable that someone can pose questions about it without some normative appeal.

I find questions like 'what is masculinity' to be rather silly, especially on a forum such as this. You will just get people pulling some idea out of their ass. I also think the question cannot be answered because in my view what x is depends on the interaction of people with x. The question "What is masculinity?" presupposes some essentialist answer to the question. I feel it is better to ask what values are associated with masculinity. Now that is a fine question in its own right but then I would not get to the topic I think warrants discussion, namely why a certain political view that would be considered far out of the ballpark 20 years ago is very popular nowadays. Therefore I adopted an ideal typical set of values proposed by an authority figure, very commonly done in science. That he is old is correct, there may be better more up to date sociologists, If you know more convincing authors let me know.

Plenty of people will disagree with your definitions of masculine and feminine. Citing an author from 24 years ago doesn't lend credence. What is the justification for these definitions? How do we know his ideas aren't crack pot? You're coming in with something very sociological and often considered pseudoscience. — Philosophim

I could go into that of course and it would be good, but it would also extend the length of the post and not make it very suitable for a forum like this. Were I to write an academic article, sure. What I did I feel is more than most posters here do. Let me ask you, where do you disagree with Hofstede, where do you find him not convincing? Do you think these values are not commonly associated with male or female identities? Sure, if these ideal types are unconvincing then we need different ones. I am not convinced yet though.

How would I fix this? Talk about men. If men are having problems, what are their problems? Is this all men? Because plenty of men do not fit in with this definition of 'masculinity'. Define what the manosphere is. Explain what is wrong with it. Are all men in the manosphere? Is it some men? What men get drawn to the manosphere? Why does the manosphere encourage misogyny? — Philosophim

Of course plenty of men do not fit the definition. I bet not one man or woman actually embraces all these values to the furthest extent. There will be a lot of women that embrace values associated with masculinity and vice versa. That is also not the point of an ideal type. It is a way to make certain phenomena visible by simplifying and exaggerating certain traits. If it is totally out of touch with reality, then it should be dropped of course. I do not think it is. Consider this quote from the CAWP website: "Women tend to be more supportive of gun control, reproductive rights, welfare, and equal rights policies than men. They tend to be less supportive of the death penalty, defense spending, and military intervention". https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-public-opinion . The figures stated also paint a nice picture. Women are also more supportive of same sex marriage for instance and more supportive of aiding the poor. An ideal type is derived from observable reality but does not correspond fully to it, it is an analytical construct. Of course, values tend to exhibit more traits of a continuum than this dichotomy. What you can do with it is make visible certain trends by explicitly focusing on them. Not as the only explanation for something, but as a possible contributing explanation. Of course you may call sociology pseudoscience, but the very subject of this forum has been called pseudoscience so I do not find that criticism at all convincing.

As for your questions on the manosphere, all interesting questions, but not the focus of my question. It is more of a side note. If you like to provide us with answers to them it would certainly be helpful to explore the topic further. The point that it is underdefined in my post is well taken. I took it to mean the set of forums and communities that consider the male identity and actively promote traditional masculine values. I might be off base there, but the concept does not do that much for my analysis, so it can be scrapped altogether.

Are these men the only reason the right won last election? Why is it oppressive misogyny and not economic perception or people feeling like government wasn't serving them? — Philosophim

Not the only reason at all, but those questions are red herrings no? Nowhere have I said that this would be the only explanation. My question and hypothesis is far less sweeping. I wonder if appeals to a more traditional form of masculinity are one explanation and what makes these appeals attractive right now to a certain category of men. Data indicates that economic concerns were the most dominant reason for voters to vote Republican, but those do not explain for instance why there is a huge gender gap in the US among young voters. As many observers expected before the election, there was a significant gender gap among young voters. Young women preferred Harris to Trump by a 17-point margin: 58% to 41%. But young men preferred Trump by a 14-point margin: 56% to 42%. In Dutch inquiries on voter behavior we see similar patterns https://dub.uu.nl/nl/achtergrond/stemgedrag-jonge-mannen-verschuift-naar-rechts . 33% of young males voted right wing nationalist as opposed to 22% of women. We see similar trends in dissimilar economic situations.

Present to us why these terms are useful and concrete. That would be a philosophical topic worth discussing. — Philosophim

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. For me the terms are useful because they enable me to make an analysis and present it to you If the analysis goes wrong I like to know where. If the tool used is wrong (the idea type presented by Hofstede) is wrong I would also like to know it. Your point that terms like the manosphere are undefined is well taken. What is also lacking to my knowledge at least is a discursive analysis of images of masculinity and femininity among right wing populist parties. I wanted to undertake such an analysis, but alas, I want a lot of things...

Yeah I think it fits your theory somewhat well. I don't think it fits the narrative you're criticising very well. It seems a vestige of a more gender-stratified economy and society. Whereas there's no reason women shouldn't be on the front lines, wearing hard hats, or heaving metal on a rig. — fdrake

I think this is a very perplexing situation actually. I can imagine why women would not want to do this stuff. It is very risky and does not pay particularly well, especially in relation to the physical risk involved. It seems also that men do not like women to go to the front lines which is even more perplexing. The only reason I can think of is the control over the use of violence is key in any conflict.

Internet Dating, Beasley and Holmes (2021), p31 — fdrake

I will read that article when I have time. It sounds really interesting and on topic! Thank you.

I suppose we shall see. — fdrake

Yes, I take it by no means as a given. History may be rolled back.

It starts here. Values have no sex. So we are talking about values and perhaps virtues and vices that have been traditionally ascribed to and associated with masculine and feminine identities. — unenlightened

Thank you. I like that definition and with referencing you as a source incorporated it in my original post.

Then, the thesis is that these associations have been changing. The world has changed, for example, with the introduction of "the Equaliser". This charmingly lethal apparatus negates the physical advantage of strength in combat. No one can out-run a bullet, and even a delicate feminine finger can pull a trigger - hence the name. The facts of industry and technology have devalued masculine muscle. — unenlightened

Yes, I tend to agree with you. I am a social constructivist, but social construction is not 'immaterial' in the sense that some constructions are easier than others. Physical strength enables physical dominance and the threat of violence means that some groups have more opportunity to impose their social order on others. Such symbolic or discursive orders are tenacious though, even with a change in material conditions they are not upset easily. I did not bring up the issue of physical strength exactly because it tempts one to a certain essentialism.

The problem is that traditional male virtues have lost their value. And the solution is either a luddite reversion to primitive preindustrial society or a change of identification, of what it is to be a man, and particularly a good man. And of course women are involved with this re-evaluation of all values, because 'man' and 'woman' are identities in relation to each other. — unenlightened

Also very much in agreement, yet what I miss in many discussions on this subject is exactly this two way street. We are right now in a time in which is not self evident how and with what man should identify. The general consensus on the left seems to be that man should change and that since they are the problem they should figure it out while the general consensus on the right should be that men should reassert their classical role as the 'head of the table' so to speak. On the one hand, masculinity is being unreasonably problematized, on the other hand it is being reinforced by certain political groups and social media.

I would like to hear more about how you understand the relation between the social construct of masculinity you are associating with the right, and conservative populist thinking in its wider scope. Do you think the former explains the latter, the reverse, or is there some more complex relation between the two? — Joshs

Well, I do not like monocausal explanations. I think conservative thought offers the social construct of masculinity traditionally conceived as one of its proposals. A proposal that is attractive to some men and women. It is not the only one though. Another is the idea that every country should put its own citizens ahead of the rest, so there is a lot of nationalism involved. There will be many other ideas that explain its attraction. How I understand the relationship is as follows:
Conservative thought offers a vision of masculinity that is attractive to many young men. It is attractive because they feel that their position as man has become insecure and precarious. They were granted a certain set of burdens and privileges, social roles that they could follow, from times immemorial. Now it seems that following this traditional mold is frowned upon by some women, coupled with socio-economic trends that actually favour women. The result is a backlash that is formally condemned, but sanctioned to some extent in pop-culture. What this actually causes is debatable, but I think this is a pathological strain in modern society that facilitates in any case quaint reactions like the 'manosphere', but also more virulent fantasies of violence.

You did not explain anything you just thought they were a waste of time because they are used to 'slap the most ridiculous generalizations on people'. Serious scientists have written libraries full on the subject but well we have our very own Tzeentch, who explains things with one sentence.

I never spoke about insidious women I wrote: "more insidious feminine forms of control". I should have put 'feminine' between quotation marks though. That would have been better. What I alluded to is a form of control or discipline not by force but by negotiation, in line with the Hofstede's view on conflict resolution through negotiation. You are right it needed unpacking. As you are ending your participation in the thread I will not elaborate much more about it though. It is not the primary concern of the thread and from what I have seen so far, you do not bring much to the table beyond dismissive one liners.

1 ) If masculine values become more disincentivised on a societal level, how ought the relative stability of some aspects of gender norms to be explained over time? I have in mind that the boys at school are rewarded by peers for violence, bravado and competition, but punished by their teachers for it. They're taught to be as sensitive and emotionally aware as the girls, but the girls are not mocked in the playground for displays of emotion. — fdrake

I wonder how stable they are. I try to base myself on at least a modicum of facts and figures and for this I do not have them at hand. I do know that a lot of schools now have 'bullying protocols' and that this issue is now often discussed. The point which I tried to make though and which you also picked up on (thanks for that) is that a lot of these values actually stay the same and that overt formal condemnation and demand for change is countered by informal 'subterranean' reinforcement. I feel stereotypical male values are formally opposed and informally reinforced.

2 ) Some explanation is required for girls outperforming boys in school at every level and in every subject {up to some demographic factors}. Boys are much more likely to be suspended or permanently excluded too. — fdrake

Well, if I am write one explanation is that boys are taught to be active and hands on, girls are taught to be passive and verbal. Being hands on and active was great for most professions in the 1900s but in a service sector economy it pays of much more to be verbal. Add to that that higher education is verbal to the core and it comes as no surprise. The decreased tolerance for violence and unruly behaviour means boys (who are informally by rewarded by peers for this behaviour) get more formal sanctions.

3 ) Some explanation is required for the rigidity of gender norms in high risk and physical workplaces - the overwhelming majority of construction workers, military personnel and offshore workers are still men. Compare the overwhelming split the other way for nurses and human resources professionals. — fdrake

Why does this need explanation? It fits the theory rather well no? In a more feminine society, these are the roles ascribed to men.

Though now the economic dimension of those norms has levelled considerably as of the last 5 years, and people in general see women and men as equally capable of jobs women were traditionally excluded from. — fdrake

Yes and if I am write the pendulum will swing in women's favour. They will be seen as more capable of verbal jobs that require both rational and emotional intelligence, such as judge, university professor, upper management. It will take time, but if my theory is right it will happen.

The former highlighting that generalisations like "white man", "masculinity", "femininity" are insufficiently localised and contextualised {intersectional} to make an iota of sense... and the latter that people ought be considered on a more person by person basis without the use of stereotypes. — fdrake

Indeed! And as far as I am concerned both positions are equally detrimental.

I think we just got used to talking out of our arses about relationships between men and women, and gender in general, and selectively forget how to think about it. — fdrake

Yes, that is the point of this thread. With missteps of course as is common on a forum like this. I do agree with you though. I also think the topic is so polarized that everyone assumes there is some political agenda behind the words of another. I feel the deadlock on this topic needs to be broken. Thanks! :ok: :flower:

Then why did you write this? — Joshs

What I found interesting in that article is not so much the evolutionary psychology behind it, (but in this case it is nice it supports the point as many in this forum do seem to embrace it) what I found interesting is the correlation between perceived attractiveness as a dating partner and delinquency. I think the answer for it lies more in the concept I explained as 'subterranean values', social values that are presented but seldom 'officially' articulated, then in some evolutionary psychology.

In threads such as these, the terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' just become a fig leaf used to slap the most ridiculous generalizations onto people. — Tzeentch

You will have to generalize when you do sociology. Sure everyone is different, great but that does not explain anything. Perhaps Hofstede is not a good source, might be, do you have anything better? Or are we forbidden to analyze the subject of masculinity and femininity altogether? Yes, I accept it is a social construction, somehow I doubt you do, but hey. Analyzing these social constructions is interesting especially because it may lay bare some presupposition we might have. I do it because I find the analyses offered in the other threads one sided, so I try to take the theory a step forward.

What do you expect me to make of this? — Tzeentch

I am expecting an analysis of the question at hand. What do you make of the fact that Trump is most popular among men, that extreme right wing parties attract more male than female voters? Perhaps in your view it is a counter reaction of a power grab by women, or perceived power grab, or perhaps it has nothing to do with masculinity and femininity at all. By all means explain! Do so with something that resembles an analysis.
Of course it is easy to pick apart my proposal and you are welcome to do it, but the condescension you display is baseless unless you offer something convincing. Otherwise just pick apart my arguments, show me where I go wrong, but realize you have not put forward anything like a counter proposal yourself.

I'm guessing something is lost in translation here. If I were at work at started talking about "feminine values" as described in the OP, I'd have to run behind the corner to avoid being hit by whatever objects are in the environment. You can't predict what a person will value based on what they have between their legs, right? — frank

These are values culturally ascribed to men and women, in our western cultural context, at least according to Hofstede. They are ideal typical in the sense that one will never find them unadulterated. Also in answer to @Joshs, I hold a social constructivist view myself. However, that does not mean that such values are not constructed in such a way. Saying that x is a social construction just means that there is nothing essential about x, but not that x does not exist. That there is a difference in value patterns can also be shown in the voting behaviour of men and women. Women are more left leaning than men. Here is the voting result from the Dutch election in 2019:

Both VVD and FVD are conservative where the FVD can be considered far right (the party with the little pillar. In the US a gender gap among voters exist as well. See here: [url=http://]https://cawp.rutgers.edu/gender-gap-voting-choices-presidential-elections.[/url]

So no, you cannot predict what someone thinks but you can predict that when you see a woman it is more likely that she voted for Harris and when you see a man it is more likely he voted for Trump.

Really, if I were a woman, I would prefer Trump's approach. Don't treat me like a child who has to be protected. Tell your sexist jokes, grab body parts, but in the end, reward me for kicking ass. The far right does have a point, that when we finally stop worrying that so-and-so is a woman, so-and-so is black, latino, asian, etc., we've finally made progress. I realize that all sorts of toxic stuff gets drawn into that and if someone quotes that without this subsequent acknowledgement, I won't respond — frank

I agree with you, but I think it is not that simple. I wish the far right really didn't worry about such issues. Yet the values far right parties have embraced were all masculine values in which women as a class had little to say and their function was to beget men. Not just men though, men of a particular type favored by 'the nation' whatever that may be. In specific hiring functions it may well be that women are employed that is not the philosophy behind it. They may also employ an immigrant or refugee, yet their policies are consistently anti-immigration usually with some notion of purity or religious preference attached to it.

This says it all - "the problem of masculinity." Keeping in mind I'm a registered Democrat and a liberal who thinks Biden was the best president in my adult life, here are what I see as the root of the problem, at least in part.

White men are tired of being treated with contempt and blamed for all our society's problems.
The Democratic Party has failed to address the issues that affect working people.
More conservative people are tired of having radical changes in social and political values rammed down their throats. — T Clark

Actually I agree with you. I do not think calling it 'the problem of masculinity' says it all though, but maybe I should have been more clear. I think that masculine values as they are traditionally conceived march out of tune with the way society is developing. I think society will turn feminine as Hofstede defined it, more and more. It is not a moral claim, it is a factual claim. It may also turn out wrong. If it is not wrong though masculinity as a specific set of values runs into problems and if we have a class of people embracing values that are actually not very productive anymore, we face a problem of masculinity. It is not a moral claim at all, just a rather cold power based analysis.

I do not think that all social problems are the fault of white men, on the contrary. I dislike identity politics. What I do like to delve into is mechanisms of control. Blaming men, is, I feel, a control mechanism and is one that is equally oppressive as blaming women for everything. It is a control mechanism though that rendered progressive politics ineffective, as it has embraced identity politics to a significant extent.

100% agree. This feels more like a pop culture argument with very poor definitions of masculinity and femininity that are tools to argue a political point. — Philosophim

By all means do a better job. I tried to provide definitions actually used in sociology. Two lines are a bit disappointing, but I am happy hearing where the argument goes wrong.

One could argue that this is something structural in the human mind, except there's genetic evidence that Celtic societies were female-dominated. Navajo relationships were at the whims of women, not men. I agree with Nietzsche that good and evil can switch poles depending on a society's underlying agendas, so I don't think it's structural. I think it's a symptom, side-effect, aspect of? certain kind of cultural journeys. It's definitely a whale in the psychic sea, though. It's ancient. — frank

Well yes, I think it is a symptom, but a symptom of what? And what is the symptom exactly the emergence of the far right or the resentment of many young men? What I am curious about is, is whether traditional analyses of power structures in which the rise of the far right is simply conceived as a pathological reaction to the emancipatory struggle for equal rights, with an analysis a repression of masculinity.

If it is an effect of the kind of society we have, i.e. exclusion of a certain part of society, then you would think the way to avoid it festering in the fringes, is to change society so there are included. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, but what should change? I have the idea we hear the fringes on each side far louder than in the past?

With threads like these, I honestly have to squint to find anything I find vaguely agreeable. It's like you all are living in a different world or something. — Tzeentch

Why is that? Could you perhaps elaborate a bit more?

Problematizing 'masculinity' and men in general is no different than what certain cultures have done to women historically. It's just as archaic. Just as damaging. — Tzeentch

I do not think problematizing something is inherently damaging. Problematizing for instance climate change was perhaps necessary to get people to understand their predicament. I also do not see how I am problematizing masculinity perse as if it is some kind of fixed category. What I am pointing out is that the power grab of the far right can be considered as solely a result of a backlash of some sort of patriarchy against equal rights, but may be more fruitfully considered as both the result of anxious masculinity and other more insidious feminine forms of control through which the self image of masculinity is becoming perilous.

It feeds off the primal insecurities many people harbor for the opposite sex (those being an understandable result of unrequited desires) - it's just the pendulum swinging to the other side of the spectrum. — Tzeentch

This is actually an argumentum ad hominem. Trying to analyze and understand something is psychologized as some sort of anxious reaction of the analyzer. Or did you mean something different?

Seldom do I see more dehumanizing, less compassionate takes on what healthy societal relations between men and women would look like. — Tzeentch

Again, I have trouble following you. I did not offer any proposal on what 'healthy' relationships would look like, I am just identifying rather dehumanizing trends. I just think dehumanization is not a one way street.

The happiest and most enviable men who are those can go home to a wife and kids that love them. It's not the Andrew Tates of the world. A man must be able to integrate "feminine" values to some extent. My advice - read the Bible. Jesus was a man who managed to successfully integrate masculine and feminine traits in a way that made him such a powerful human. The choice doesn't need to be Andrew Tate or be a doormat. If the dichotomy of alpha asshole/submissive beta is causing you mental strain then step outside of it. — BitconnectCarlos

Your post show your adherence to conservative values. You state that the most enviable men are those that go home to a wife and kids. This means that in your conception of the world, the man goes out into the world, only to come home to where his wife already is. It is a simple and crude picture of happiness that never really existed. Men would not come home but when out to drink with their mates. It is simply an old recipe, adhere to some supposedly natural order given to you by the bible and all will be great. We are living in a different world though. Women also go out and work, men also do care work. It is precisely the attraction to the old recipe that fuels extreme conservative movements.

BitconnectCarlos Indeed. It's precisely because Western society failed to produce any meaningful male role models that enabled scam artists like Tate to prey on lost young men. — Tzeentch

Well, apparently Jesus Christ was one. What would a meaningful role model be in your view?

Possibly yes. I agree with you that social media is a factor, which should be taken on board in my analysis, but the post was long enough as it is. It does beg the question though why misogyny finds such fertile ground. If I would take that as a point of departure, the question: "why is misogyny rife on social media and a strong factor in the recent emergence of the far right", my analysis would be the same. There is I think an underlying problem which needs to addressed. Social media itself may inform 'us against them' sort of thinking, but does not dictate how the 'us' and 'them' are defined.

And such an informative answer it is...

That isn't the case I think, we had had emergence of far right movements in Europe for decades. — ChatteringMonkey

That is why I qualified it and stated 'recent success'.

EU countries were terrible vassals. They never paid any tribute. :grin: — frank

Of course they did. They supported the dollar as world currency, they supported the US arms industry with billions in orders, their greatest scientists went to US universities and they rhetorically backed US interventions.

Jesus. No wonder the country is broke. — NOS4A2

That list is peanuts. You also know that, please do not presume other people are silly

- $486M to the “Consortium for Elections and Political Process Strengthening,” including

This actually makes a lot of sense. Some political processes and election procedures are in dire need of strengthening.

Hopefully European leaders get their act up as they are now meeting in Paris. They have to understand (and likely do understand, but won't say it) that the Superpower status of the US just ended and Russia is achieving it's greatest victory. The US is run now by a president whose power has gone to his head and hapless weak dicks that will ruin American leadership and status in this World. — ssu

Well, the problem seems to me that the EU is basically a rather fledgling state and has indeed resided under Pax Americana for way too long. The paradox is that the EU is only capable of cooperation in times of crisis. It should drastically reorient its policies, realistically wield its economic power and turn very quickly towards building up a credible defense policy. It has to sacrifice parts of its standards of living and that will not be popular with voters.

The NATO alliance was beneficial to both sides. By keeping the EU as US vassals militarily, also benefitted the US greatly. The EU's economic power basically supported US hegemony. If the US does not support the EU militarily, the EU will also withhold its support and its resentment towards the US will have dire consequences for both blocks. The EU should also have accepted Turkey by the way. The problem is, the EU is the Roman empire at the beginning of the Middle Ages.

It's not unlike how all the mortgage interest deduction does in the long run is drive up home prices while also increasing wealth inequality between renters and owners. — Count Timothy von Icarus

As we in the Netherlands know all too well...

In the whole European Union the alarm bells go off... but they have realized too late they need more integration and should end squabbling.

Finally, it’s time to turn the tables on the persecution and rid these agencies of the political henchmen, as appears to be occurring. It’s great to see them unceremoniously removed and denied security clearance. — NOS4A2

Yep, because someone is getting kickbacks somewhere (probably true, as the world is a corrupt place) lets turn on all civil servants without due process. Haven't you been offered a post at the ministry of justice yet? Funny thing is, I am quite confident that NOS is actually a govt informant so I am refraining from too much interaction...