Thanks for that explanation and G'night :up: :yawn:

Thank you for attempting to clarify your point of view re masculinity.
However, I find myself confused. The source of this seems to be the ambiguity or vagueness surrounding the term 'real man'. See [*]

Starting with your:

I am still a man. I know those patterns.
But I'm not interested in being a real man.[*]
— Moliere

You say you

grew into 'something' which doesn't fit with 'real men' [*] whatever that is.

From what I understand you identify as a male. Transitioned from boyhood to manhood.
You focus on social traits (rather than physical, mental or psychological factors) related to being a woman or a man. Why?

What do you mean by 'social traits'?
Do you mean the forming of personality or character/istics including the emotions, whether or not they are masculine/feminine? How society places expectations on how people should be if they want to fit in?
The derogatory "Don't be a big girl's blouse!" when a male infant starts crying after a fall from a wall.
Even though the child doesn't know the meaning, they have been trained not to cry when hurt.

...this kind of goes to what I'm trying to do with the distinction between boyhood/manhood and feminine/masculine -- our adult selves are differentiated from our childhood selves more than they are differentiated from the other gender. We look for differences between men and women because that's part of the gender game is to find differences to confirm that we're different but complementary to one another. But in coming to understand masculinity I'm suggesting that the coming-to-age story is more relevant than the game of gender differences. — Moliere

You think that the difference between the feminine/masculine (or men and women) is less relevant than the transition from boyhood>manhood (or girlhood>womanhood) when it comes to understanding 'Masculinity'.
Have I understood you correctly? I don't think it is that simple.

Complexities arise when you consider that males (young and adult) can have a heady mix of masculinities and femininities along a spectrum of human characteristics/traits.

This becomes even more complicated in the case of Gender Dysphoria.
For example, transitioning from male to female during puberty. Growing from boyhood to womanhood.
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/
and treatment (psychological and medical):
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/gender-dysphoria/treatment/

Puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. Side-effects.
In general, people wanting masculinisation usually take testosterone and people after feminisation usually take oestrogen. — NHS

Then, surgery.

This is more than 'the game of gender differences' you suggest we play.
It is certainly relevant when exploring or understanding issues of 'masculinity'.

To journey to manhood is itself a story, and the question of what a real man [*] is is a way of differentiating one's childhood, immature, or adolescent self from one's responsible, grown-up, and mature self.

It's a Bildungsroman more than an opposition to the other sex, except when it gets ugly. — Moliere

What do you mean by 'except when it gets ugly'?

Edit to add: Fascinating as this topic is, it has taken up so much time/energy I'm exhausted!
I doubt I will participate further, thanks to you and all for this discussion !

A refreshing new direction. The site looks informative with a range of topics.
Unfortunately, time is not on my side for the next week.
I will be joined by a 'real man' - a professional - for some home improvements. Some men think they are good at DIY and refuse to countenance another man taking over - not to mention the cost. My argument is that a pro generally gets the job done more efficiently with a better outcome. So worth it. IMO.

A quick first response before I go.

So while maybe men have certain competitive advantages in society, they don't serve to promote happiness. — Hanover

Other than the well-known problems/limitations in interpreting research findings.
Measurement, reporter bias, etc.
How good are people at knowing what happiness is?
If males measure success by being a winner, then what about the perception of being a 'loser'?
Is it more about objective quantity rather than subjective quality?
How big is... a male...ego?

Thank you for being so patient, with me trying to get away without laying my worldview out in much detail. (So to speak.)

I can see I would need to start a new thread to fill in the details, and while I might be up for that, it would be a sciency explanation of how I see humans as existing within a system, and most affectingly, within a system of their fellow humans and the universe at large.

It would help motivate me to take on such a project, if I had confidence it wasn't going to feel like a waste of my time. So how interested are you? — wonderer1

First off, I'll keep this short and simple. Why? Limited time, energy and patience. I sense avoidance.
Secondly, to answer my questions, there is no need to start a new thread setting out your worldview.
That's a bit overkill.
However, if that is something you want to do, then already therein lies the motivation.
Whether or not it will be productive or a waste of your time - time will tell.

Yes, sex is a powerful reward. Being deeply in love with the other is an awesome bonus on top, but not necessary to sex being rewarding for men. — wonderer1

Sex can be viewed as transactional. Giving/receiving.
Sometimes manipulated by all parties for personal gain/cost.
How does this translate into 'women being responsible for 'the patriarchy', whatever that is?
How do you define it?

I don't know what you mean by "behaviour of a concept or thing". Would a tendency for aggressive behavior be a thing? — wonderer1

You mentioned behavioural reinforcement of 'the patriarchy' - which I think is a concept.
That is 'an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects'.
I'm interested to hear how a concept might 'behave' so that it can be changed by human action.

You think mutual and consensual love-making has such power?

How does anyone reinforce behaviour of a concept or thing?
Especially when it isn't one thing but a complexity of things.

How could it be dismantled?

Edit to add: ...and 'evolutionary success'. — wonderer1

Why stop there? We could rule the world :strong:

Should women therefore be considered responsible for 'the patriarchy'? — wonderer1

How would that follow?

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

If it coincided with doing whatever the fuck they wanted, they would be exceedingly happy, no?
Nothing quite like mutual love :hearts:

However, it might upset any partners or those with vested interests in keeping the status quo.
Some domineering/caring parents can obstruct freedom of choice/opportunity for their offspring.
Perhaps concerned with negative influences and bad consequences. For whom?

A casual quickie on wiki revealed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Women_Have_Curves

According to the Sundance Institute, the film gives a voice to young women who are struggling to love themselves and find respect in the United States.

[...] Carmen confronts Ana about her sexual activities. Ana insists that she as a person is more than what is between her legs, and begins to call her mother out on her emotionally abusive tendencies.

Later, at the factory, all of the women working there except Carmen grow exhausted of the heat and Carmen's critiques of their bodies and strip down to their underwear, comparing body shapes, stretch marks, and cellulite, inspiring confidence in one another's bodies. Carmen leaves the factory in a huff over her family and co-workers' lack of shame as Ana declares that they are women and this is who they are.' — Real Women Have Curves - wiki

I'm pretty sure I've read versions of this 'Real Men Do Whatever The Fuck They Want' story before.
A bit of the Marion Robert Morrison about it!

Real men don't.... judge a book by its cover. And read beyond its title.

Real Men Don't Eat Quiche is a best-selling tongue-in-cheek book satirizing stereotypes of masculinity by the American screenwriter and humorist Bruce Feirstein, published in 1982 (ISBN 0-671-44831-5).[1]

The title alludes to the gender associations of quiche as a "feminine" food in American culture, which causes men to avoid it [2] and has served as the basis of the title of multiple journal articles.[3][4][5] To gain free publicity the publisher sent copies of the book to radio personalities and newspaper columnists, and the witty "real men don't ..." definitions were widely quoted. Listeners and readers then bought the book for more of the definitions — Real Men Don't Eat Quiche - wiki

:cool:

Agreed. We tend to choose any definitions which best suit our purpose. Provide support for our point of view. Or help us form it.
We can see how some prefer their own narrative of what 'patriarchy' means to them. Sometimes based on limited knowledge and understanding. This discussion has been enlightening.

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" — universeness

You probably know that there is more to 'Patriarchy' than simple definitions.
@Baden provided this link earlier. It's worth reading:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy

At last. In a nutshell. Thank you :up: :100:

Appreciate your patience and perseverance :up: :100:

:cool: :sparkle: :heart:


"Four Women" by @NinaSimoneMusic
Recording session: "Sing The Truth", Jazz à Vienne 2009
performed by Lisa Simone, Dianne Reeves, Lizz Wright, Angélique Kidjo: Four Women
Featuring the Original Nina Simone Band:
Al Shackman, guitar
Chris White, bass
Paul Robinson, drums
Leopoldo Fleming, percussion
Jeremy Berlin, piano

[...] Each woman in the song thus represented an archetype or stereotype of her era. The first, ‘Aunt Sarah’, represented the painful ‘Mammy’ stereotype; a supposedly loyal and devoted servant, who was docile, maternal, asexual and unfeminine (M. Harris-Perry, 2011). The second, ‘Saffronia’, was a mixed-race woman, whose very existence evinced a long and sordid history of the rape of black women by white men. The third, ‘Sweet Thing’, was a young prostitute, who not only represented the demeaning ‘Jezebel’ stereotype of the hypersexualised black woman, but whose verse also provided a biting critique of the sexual and economic exploitation of black women. Her story reflected the painful and desperate situation of many economically disempowered women, who found their bodies to be the only economic asset at their disposal [...]
Simone, enraged by the historical, social, political and economic situation of black women, was most like ‘Peaches’, the last narrator, whose raging, shouting verse brought the song to its dramatic climax. Peaches reflected the ‘angry black woman’ stereotype, but importantly, this anger was justified, righteous, and loudly, unapologetically proclaimed. — My name is Peaches: The Story of Nina Simone - Bluestocking Oxford

@180 Proof - 'Sweet Thing' reminded me of your story. The mysterious 'Sugar'.
Sugar loves Cristal. :party:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13182/sugar-by-180-proof/p1

I agree with this line of questioning:

"As opposed to what?"
— Amity

However, I think the patterns point out that there is an oppositional notion -- the boy who couldn't become man. For many masculinities the oppositional point, to speak to apokrisis's point, isn't feminity as much as boyhood. To journey to manhood is itself a story, and the question of what a real man is is a way of differentiating one's childhood, immature, or adolescent self from one's responsible, grown-up, and mature self.

It's a Bildungsroman more than an opposition to the other sex, except when it gets ugly. — Moliere

To backtrack a little. The original question as to opposition related to your:

I am still a man. I know those patterns.
But I'm not interested in being a real man.
— Moliere

Whatever that means. — Amity

Why would you say that you are not interested in being/becoming a 'real man' in the sense of growth you describe?

The journey to a mature adult for all humans pretty much follows a natural/socio-cultural path with no clear demarcation. Unless you specify a legal age or perform a particular rite of passage.
Even then, questions remain.

What rites of passage mark the transition from adolescence to adulthood in your culture or community? These might be more traditional events, like getting your license; graduating from high school; or celebrating a quinceañera, Sweet 16, or bar or bat mitzvah. Or they could be more unconventional ones, like having the sex talk with your parents, learning how to handle a police encounter or experiencing the death of a loved one. At what age do these rites typically happen, and how do they prepare young people in your community for adulthood? — Rites of passage - NY Times

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/24/learning/what-rites-of-passage-mark-the-transition-to-adulthood-in-your-community.html

Apologies for not commenting on this in my earlier post:

Fukuyama's book, Identity, is a good example. He tracks this back to events like the "therapeutic turn" in the US psyche, as exhibited in the 1990 Californian task force report, Toward a State of Self Esteem.

Here is a chunk of my notes on where Identity directly touches on this if you want to check it out. (I'm writing from my own "ecological economics" viewpoint, so some of the jargon may be unfamiliar.) — apokrisis

I appreciate you taking the time to provide this viewpoint. I scanned it but have yet to digest it.
Brow furrowed and question marks appeared at the

So scalefree growth was what the reorganisation of the industrial revolution was about. That led to class war in a century. And it led to a deeper spiritual malaise a century later. First the psychic rot showed in the new materialistic foundations of the Maslovian enterprise, then in the self-actualisation upper levels - even as the growth seemed to answer the foundational needs of society, in the short term view at least.

For me, a squashed and unenlightening history of apparent cause and effect.
I know about Maslow's pyramid but unsure as to the 'Maslovian enterprise' and any 'psychic rot' in its 'materialistic foundations'. What is meant by this?

I hadn't seen this video before. It certainly made a strong impact on my brain.
I 'saw' it when I woke through the night and thought "Plato's Cave".

In the allegory "The Cave", Plato describes a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality, but are not accurate representations of the real world [...]
Socrates explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall are actually not the direct source of the images seen. A philosopher aims to understand and perceive the higher levels of reality. However, the other inmates of the cave do not even desire to leave their prison, for they know no better life — Plato's Cave - wiki

A brilliant ad - 'Think Different' - 1984.
But does it take violence by a single female warrior to break the illusion - the projected reality?
We are in 2023. It beggars belief that progress can be halted and new realities or rights killed off.
Is it that we know no better? Or are we convinced by others that think they do...or lie.

There is a ton of literature now analysing what is going on right under our collective noses. — apokrisis

Yes. Of that I have no doubt.
The questions

How true is this? How do you know? How helpful is it to use extreme positions of 'right' and 'left'? — Amity

related to your view of the labels 'right' and 'left' of politics.

The right of politics has turned its aggression and frustration outwards on migrants and liberalism because the political realm is simply stalled when it comes to addressing humanity's real problems of climate change, food insecurity, etc. And likewise the left has followed its own inbuilt dialectical tendency by turning its frustrated rage inwards on the question of identity within the social collective. — apokrisis

Given that there are varying degrees of 'masculinities' and 'femininities' in so-called 'lefties' and 'righties' with different areas of concern, I don't see such generalizations as helpful.

What differences are magnified? Who does this and for what purpose? For whose benefit?
— Amity

Here I'm riffing from Hanover's thread but into a separate topic to see what the differences are between the thread on defining "Woman" and a thread on masculinity. Different emphasis because of our respective beliefs, but I thought it'd be interesting to explore this notion given my various commitments.

So -- it's for my benefit. Naturally. :D — Moliere

Thanks for both your general and particular replies to all discussion participants. It helps to clarify understanding and furthers exploration.
The questions you picked from my response were not addressed to you or the motivation for your thread. Here is the full exchange:

How are we telling the truth of the world when we allow dialectical argument to drive us to opposing extremes that are mostly about just putting small tilts one way or the other under a giant magnifying lens?
— apokrisis

What differences are magnified? Who does this and for what purpose? For whose benefit?

The right of politics has turned its aggression and frustration outwards on migrants and liberalism because the political realm is simply stalled when it comes to addressing humanity's real problems of climate change, food insecurity, etc. And likewise the left has followed its own inbuilt dialectical tendency by turning its frustrated rage inwards on the question of identity within the social collective.
— apokrisis

How true is this? How do you know? How helpful is it to use extreme positions of 'right' and 'left'? — Amity

I had been thinking of the extremism/fundamentalism in politics and the need to identify and relate a hard core message. Unambiguously from an absolute and dogmatic point of view. All the better to claim or manipulate voters. So, even though most voters might have similar personal values re the economy, how money is spent - there is a strong issue on which they will not budge. Like gun control and abortion.
In the UK, it was Brexit that took central stage and won the election for the Tories. People already convinced of their specialness, holding a hatred for the 'other', and those who were swayed by lies.

What is considered to be the most pressing of 'humanity's real problems', see above, will not be properly addressed until the world sinks or burns. Or their paying customers hurt.
Short-termism is the order of the day for whoever is in power. That is part of the problem.

We can ask if concerns are related to 'masculinities' or 'femininities' - does one attitude favour environmental concerns over eternal wars? Differences are magnified for the benefit of divide and conquer. Think colonialism. Us v Them. Males v Females.

So, as to masculinities and femininities:

"Femininities" and "masculinities" describe gender identities (see Gender). They describe socio-cultural categories in everyday language; these terms are used differently in biology (see below). Because femininities and masculinities are gender identities, they are shaped by socio-cultural processes, not biology (and should not be essentialized). Femininities and masculinities are plural and dynamic; they change with culture and with individuals.

Points to keep in mind. — Gendered Innovations - Femininities and Masculinities

Read on for more...

https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/terms/femininities.html

I'm interested in the whole spectrum of masculinity and femininity. Perhaps from female masculinity to male femininity. And anything in between...

“Masculinity” refers to the behaviors, social roles, and relations of men within a given society as well as the meanings attributed to them. The term masculinity stresses gender, unlike male, which stresses biological sex. Thus studies of masculinities need not be confined to biological males. Masculinity studies is a feminist-inspired, interdisciplinary field that emerged in the last few decades of the 20th century as a topic of study. It deals with the diversity of identities, behaviors, and meanings that occupy the label masculine and does not assume that they are universal. — Masculinity - Sociology - Oxford Bibliographies

Ask a woman. Ask Science Fiction — unenlightened

Talking about stories.
Interesting to consider the enduring popularity of the Regency Romance genre. For example: The Bridgerton series. For women only?
I listened to one just t'other day - 'An Offer From a Gentleman' - by Julia Quinn.
Set in England during the period of the British Regency (1811–1820) or early 19th century.
From wiki:

Many Regency romance novels include the following:
— Regency Romance - Wiki

• References to the ton (le bon ton)
• Depictions of social activities common during the social season such as carriage rides, morning calls, dinner parties, routs, plays, operas, assemblies, balls, etc.
• References to, or descriptions of, athletic activities engaged in by fashionable young men of the period, including riding, driving, boxing, fencing, hunting, shooting, etc.
• Differences of social class
• Marriages of convenience: a marriage based on love was rarely an option for most women in the British Regency, as securing a steady and sufficient income was the first consideration for both the woman and her family.[4]
• False engagements
• Cyprians (sex workers), demireps (women of ill repute), mistresses and other women employed by rakehells and men from the upper classes
• Mistaken identity, deliberate or otherwise
• Mystery or farce elements in the plot
• The rank system of the peerage of England plays a large role in the "marriage mart" of Regency Romance.

How much has changed in the male power structure? Arguably, progress has been made in certain areas of empowerment. However, that can be swiftly swept aside.
How did ex-PM Johnson get away with telling lies in Parliament on an industrial scale? Why was it not allowed to call him out as a 'liar' in Parliament? *
Why are such individuals allowed to resign rather than be sacked? Why are dishonorable PMs allowed to produce a resignation honours list? What is that about, other than the continuation of power set in a privileged social class? The ruling classes.

The UK lives in an archaic system of structural inequalites still. But hopefully, things will change.
Listen to Dawn Butler:
https://www.channel4.com/news/our-democracy-shouldnt-grind-that-slowly-dawn-butler-on-holding-boris-johnson-to-account

* Most unacceptable is any insinuation that another member is dishonourable. So, for example, in the British House of Commons any direct reference to a member as lying is unacceptable, even if the allegation is substantively true.[1] A conventional alternative, when necessary, is to complain of a "terminological inexactitude".

I'm tempted to keep the OP this simple. But given my expressions in various posts I obviously have some thoughts on the issue...

So the opening question: What is a man?
And the titular question: What is masculinity? — Moliere

Interesting thread and conversation, so far. Mixing the analytic and the personal as in this particular exchange:

As a holist, I would ask what does masculinity seek to oppose itself to? What does it dichotomously "other".
Of course, that would be the feminine. Well perhaps. We might start down this road and start to think that the masculine~feminine dichotomy isn't that massively useful after all. It kind of gets at something, but lacks strong explanatory value. — apokrisis

For me, it's not. I'm not a man in opposition to anything. A man is what I am.

I can't say I treat women exactly the way I treat men, but I apply the same standards - fairness, friendliness, respect. I admit I feel more protective of women in general than I do of men. 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. — T Clark

It reminded me of a previous discussion and definitions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13595/what-does-real-mean/p1
@Banno introduced me to the perspective of:

To understand what "real" is doing here we ask what it is to be contrasted with, and what other term might replace "not real". Use pattern is "it's not a real X, its a Y" - "it's not a real world, its... what? imagined? fake? counterfeit? Nothing seems to fit. So we can pass such an unfounded musing by. Language on holiday. — Banno

Keeping that in mind and returning to

What is a real man? — Moliere

we can ask:
"As opposed to what?"
I like this:

How are we telling the truth of the world when we allow dialectical argument to drive us to opposing extremes that are mostly about just putting small tilts one way or the other under a giant magnifying lens? — apokrisis

What differences are magnified? Who does this and for what purpose? For whose benefit?

The right of politics has turned its aggression and frustration outwards on migrants and liberalism because the political realm is simply stalled when it comes to addressing humanity's real problems of climate change, food insecurity, etc. And likewise the left has followed its own inbuilt dialectical tendency by turning its frustrated rage inwards on the question of identity within the social collective. — apokrisis

How true is this? How do you know? How helpful is it to use extreme positions of 'right' and 'left'?

I am still a man. I know those patterns.
But I'm not interested in being a real man. — Moliere

Whatever that means.

I've mentioned Kate Millet a few times on these forums. — Moliere

I haven't been around, so have missed this. Also, I haven't read much about philosophy and gender issues, so thanks for this thought-provoking thread. More interested now as I begin to appreciate the political implications. I found this:

Does masculinity need a makeover for the 21st century? Should your gender matter to who you are as a person? Ray thinks masculinity is a tool of the patriarchy and should be rejected, but Blakey counters by suggesting that there may be multiple definitions of masculinity that need not all rely on narrow and stereotypical expectations. Ray is skeptical of a solution that would introduce more stereotypes into the mix, and they maintain that people should simply focus on what they have in common with all human beings.

The co-hosts are joined by Robin Dembroff, Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, who argues that any idea of what someone must be or ought to be on the basis of gender is constrictive.
Ray asks how their critique differs from standard critiques of masculinity, and Robin explains that their view emphasizes the close connection between masculinity and maleness. Blakey questions the ability to separate the two concepts, which prompts Robin to define masculinity as standing in opposition to femininity. Ray then considers how men are advantaged and disadvantaged by sexism due to the intersectionality between gender, race, class, and disability. — "

[emphasis added]

https://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/what-masculinity

How many still think in absolute terms of masculinity/femininity?
Talking about being a 'real' woman or man...the extremes. Is that where we want to go, to be?

Thanks. Decision not taken lightly. But other interests beckon. Time better spent.
Take care :flower:

I think Plato the puppet-master is well aware that there will always be those who fool themselves into believing that having read about the cave that they have thereby escaped it.

It should be noted that there are several stages on the road to freedom from the cave. The image of a transcendent reality outside the cave remains a shadow on the cave wall. Perhaps the best we can do is to become aware of the image-makers, those who shape our opinions, and not mistake our images of the truth for the truth itself. — Fooloso4

I think you are right.
Thank you :sparkle:

It's time for me to take another very long break.
Talk elsewhere, as usual.

Time to go :sparkle:

Apparently, I've been here for 4yrs with 3968 posts.
Other interests beckon. Thanks to TPF, members and friends for all the good times :flower:
To @Olivier5 with 3yrs and 6168 posts - "Au revoir, mon ami!" :cool:

Edit to add:

I see banning more as an expression of incompatibility rather than a personal judgement, — Baden

I disagree. It is a judgement about the person and behaviour. But even if were the case...
The arising of a sudden 'incompatibility' issue could/should be easy enough to resolve.
Where there is a will, there is a way...
But there is no will. Therefore there is no way.

As in reply to @neomac:

↪neomac As always, we're open to suggestions, but I don't see a reason to change things at the moment. — Jamal

[...] As for suspensions, I suppose we need to work out more systematically and transparently how they are used. Anyhow, that's how I would move towards addressing the concerns raised here. — Baden

Thank you for considering all points and questions [*] raised in this helpful discussion. Most constructive feedback.

@Baden @Jamal- I've returned to edit:
[*]

For example: transparency of the 'Banning Procedure' and timing/pacing of steps within. Including the new 'Suspension' category. A sticky added to the Guidelines for the benefit of members' awareness

Look forward to the progress on:

We introduced the Suspended status last year, but we don't have standard criteria for its use. — Jamal

To all who contributed their time, thoughts and energy. Good talkin' with ya'.
Take care. :hearts: :sparkle:

"Unclean"? Then the member would be untouchable, but there would be the hope of a cure. — Ciceronianus

!!CRASH!! - SYSTEM FAILURE - NO CAN DO - OVER AND OUT - *White Noise*

Nice try, hunnikins :kiss:

I agree. I believe in second chances. People do change/acknowledge community guidelines after a ban has been employed causing them to re-evaluate their approach. — Benj96

Sorry I missed this. I'm pretty much done now but yes, there have been a few suggestions like:

Perhaps a temporary ban followed by a probation period is more apt. — Benj96

It seems that the system is unwieldy and that there is no easy solution.
Thanks again :sparkle:

My main point was that the person need not feel a stain on their character after the banning moment and any short term emotional effects of that. — Bylaw

Thanks for clarification. I am sure that in @Olivier5's case, at least, he would not see the banning as a stain on his character. His good character remains intact.
However, others might...

I wouldn't ban him. He can produce interesting things. But engaging with him is pointless, but it can take pages and for some years to realize this. — Bylaw

Yes. Bans are not always what is required. An extreme and opposing viewpoint is useful to stimulate discussion. Things are brought out that wouldn't if everyone was in a cosy exchange or agreement. It can help clarify your own position by making you reflect carefully before responding. However:

I mean, how many pages are you going to keep talking to that kind of posting? — Bylaw

It can reach the point where discussions become ego-centric attacks with knee-jerk responses. Increasing and continuing hostility over a number of threads can wear people down.
The life being sucked out of not just a thread...

I've spoken about this before but time to give it a rest now, I think.
Thanks for your contribution.
Thanks to Admin and team for doing the best they can :sparkle:

Thanks for the excellent and learned reply.
I like this:

As to the education of the philosopher - escape from the cave means to free oneself from all puppet-masters, all makers of images, be they poets, sophists, politicians, theologians, and even philosophers. — Fooloso4

It is how or where we can learn to do this effectively combined with lightness in the serious.
TPF is the best formal/informal venue or avenue I've found.
But my attention is veering towards literature. It's good when there's a combination :sparkle:
Later... :flower:

It has happened many times over the years, both on the old PF and on TPF. It normally doesn't happen without a lot of discussion first, as Hanover has described. But occasionally it does.

I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5. In that case I didn't take it to the rest of the staff for discussion. The refusal of moderation, the attitude it was received with, and his suggestion that he be banned for all he cared, are what led directly to the ban. Refusal of moderation has been a reason for such bannings before, e.g., The Great Whatever, who was a high-quality poster who refused to make a small change to his spelling habits. — Jamal

Thanks for that. I appreciate your honesty. It is as I thought.
It is not so much any original 'crime' in the thread but how the immediate, heated responses were dealt with. Without any space or time given, any consideration as to underlying reasons or circumstances, any thought other than he broke the moderation rule.

Good to know that it wasn't the result of the entire team's judgement so it wasn't their egos involved:

There was no benefit here afaict, rather the mere assuagement of the moderators' egos. — hypericin

Such a pity that there seems to be no way to resolve this.

Edit:

I know that this discussion was prompted by the recent banning of Olivier5 — Jamal

@Jamal thanks, I've edited the OP to clarify this for new readers.

But Olivier5 had thousands of posts, and more importantly, real relationships, mayhap even friendships. It seems cruel to sever those over this incident, which had multiple sides to it. — hypericin

Yes. And not only that.
@Olivier5's contribution and integrity can be had by searching his name under any discussion.
An example where he not only learned but supported the thread leader @Fooloso4 against @Apollodorus

112 results in the Euthyphro thread alone.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Olivier5&disc=RXV0aHlwaHJv

Though, possibly, too complex for the intellectually or metaphysically challenged to grasp.
— Apollodorus

You are confused and challenged because you are not looking at the right place. You are looking at the tools (concepts) used by Plato, not at what he says with these tools. You are staying at level of words, at the surface therefore.

When the wise points at the stars, you dissect his finger. — Olivier5

In this discussion, exchanges became increasingly unpleasant. To say the least.
I note on p4 of the search my departure and the reasons. The trolling so clear and yet not banned.

I did not get a chance to read the posts that were deleted, but it is certain that they were not substantive or on topic. As you said, it was a moderator who thought they should be deleted.
Unfortunately, you have become a target too
— Fooloso4

Apparently they have no problem with overdrawn personal feuds.
— Olivier5

Unfortunately, the misrepresentations and lies continue. Such blatant dishonesty:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/555262

I will leave it stand. As an example.

My concern is that it will not stop - not particularly from the point of view of being a 'target' - but that any further threads concerning Plato's Dialogues will suffer the same fate.
— Amity

Fine.

How about losing the ability to create threads as phase one. Then limiting number of daily posts to 1 as phase two. Lots of simple but fun ways that could be done. — Pantagruel

I thought I was done here but...cut-off point will be in 30 mins - 19.30hrs my time.

I am sure that Admin/mods are listening carefully and then will do exactly as they please :wink:

What intrigued me about the last banning was the way it was explained but yet left a lot of questions unanswered. I still don't know what happened because, of course, posts are deleted.
This is frustrating. It is open, then, to speculation.

My thoughts were that it was a relatively sudden ban with no time given for tempers to cool.

Also, it might have been the outcome of an extended personal escalation between 2 members.

Perhaps, the trolling complained of was a case of continual subtle trolling as described in your excellent thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/13901/respectful-dialog

A reply from @Bylaw re your:

I'd question your use of 'subtle trolling' as I think the definitive characteristic of trolling is that it is intentional and premeditated.
— Pantagruel
I think subtle trolling can be premeditated, especially in heavily moderated forums. But I've noticed the seemingly oxymoronic phrase is now fairly commonplace out there. That said, I mean it as a challenging idea. And why should someone oblivious or sneaky, who can end up torturing someone for pages, be considered less a troll?

And:

It's a bit like the topic of trolling [...] the bluntly and openly rude troll is fairly easy to deal with. It's all right there on the table. You know what is happening. — Bylaw

Also from @Christoffer:

So yeah, obligation to treat others with respect is a fundamental part of philosophical discussion, otherwise the topic being discussed will never transform into new knowledge, it will just be a debate with fists that only solidifies the different opinions further into deep cognitive bias. — Christoffer

A real pity when this happens and not picked up on.
It's happened before and it will happen again.
Some expert, clever trollers are never banned...

Yet a more flexible approach concerning the banning policy might still be more beneficial than a rigid one to this forum. — neomac

I agree. It would seem to be a fairer approach.
However, it was suggested earlier that 'temporary bans' or a suspension might be troublesome.
Sometimes it's easier to apply rigid rules, I guess :chin:
The mods do the best they can on a voluntary basis.
Not everyone has the time or inclination to be flexible. Indeed, they might then stand accused of personal bias...

Enough. This time I'm out :sparkle:

In any case, even if rules is rules, sanctions for transgression are discretionary. So admins can still reason on case by case basis, and proportion sanctions to the severity of the transgression, without denying a second chance for positive long-term contributors. — neomac

You would think so.
To answer my previous question:

I'm not sure if the Banning procedure is stickied anywhere.
All the better for the sake of transparency and then there would be no need for a thread like this one. — Amity

Here's what is written in TPF Guidelines:

Bans:

Admins have the right to ban members. We don't do that lightly, and you will probably be warned about your behaviour if you are under consideration for a ban. However, if you are a spammer, troll, racist or in some other way obviously unsuited to the forum, a summary ban will be applied. Bans are permanent and non-negotiable. Returning banned members will be rebanned.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/480/site-guidelines/p1

Jesus Christ, it really not that complicated. — DingoJones

Not for the simple-minded, for sure.

Very well said :clap: :up:

Thanks for outlining what you meant by 'progressive banning'.
That makes sense. And wouldn't need to be spelled out each time, if part of a stickied procedure.

Olivier5 wasn't like Bartricks at all. — neomac

Agreed. But that doesn't seem to matter. Rules is rules.

As you might imagine, defiance is the worst response, not because it might be insulting, but because it's a refusal to play by the rules. — Hanover

I see no reason why it would be different for the recently banned individual. — Philosophim

Thank you.