I agree that Santa is a truly bizarre lie we tell children. My nieces are toddlers and their grandfather dressed as Santa and came out to see them. They sobbed and screamed for fear and discomfort. Santa is a stranger who breaks into your home, eats your sweets, and leaves you with presents but would dump coal on your floor if you were naughty... I don’t know how damaging it is, but it is a truly bizarre lie, mostly because we gaslight children’s reality. People could easily teach Santa as a fiction, but instead they legitimately convince children that he is real and they need to behave to please him because he is always watching them.. it’s just so strange..

I can’t stop listening to this song. The personification of the Mississippi River reminds me of ethical subjectivity and the indifference of the universe, paired with the beautiful vocals of an inspirational figure this is one moving tune.

One version, from the original 1936 movie Showboat, has the lyric “get a little drunk and you lands in jail”. Another version on Spotify has the changed lyric that Robeson would sing to workers, including a famous impromptu performance to the workers building the Sydney Opera House, has the lyric as “show a little grit and you land in jail” which I strongly prefer.

yeah when I say mod I meant, whoever is moderating the game.

Your game sounds fun too

There are a few variations. I prefer the grab bag variation:

Each participant submits a music category in the thread, if there are five players there are five unique categories. Examples: “early 2000s pop music” or “songs to move your body to” or anything you want.

Each participant submits a song for each category via pm to the mod.

The mod distributes the submissions to each player according to their category. Participants then rank their category subjectively (can be on fit, enjoyment, novelty etc), revealing publicly in the thread with a short response about each song placement. Since this is a philosophy forum it might be nice to try to connect it back to philosophy in the write ups.

First place earns 1 point. The objective is to have fun and hear new music— the “winner” is whoever has the least points.

At the end we tally up everybody’s scores and reveal who submitted what.

I was thinking masculine/feminine.

I wonder what this means for trans men, who I know worry a great deal about their masculinity. Is trans masculinity different from “masculinity”?

It’s becoming obvious that we are dealing with a false dichotomy.

In any case, the OP has asked a question and hasn’t engaged with a single person answering it. Now Harry is responding to every person and showing his bum a bit.

I don’t know Jack, I think we can say that since houses are social constructed, marriage is socially constructed, and economics are socially constructed, it’s hardly logical to suppose our maneuvering of those things is genetic.

Men worry about their masculinity when they're anxious or concerned about it, e.g. when they are concerned they're lacking in it or anxious because others may be insufficiently impressed by it. — Ciceronianus the White

Would it be fair to say that masculinity becomes toxic when men are insecure about their masculinity? Insecurity implies that it is precisely when their masculinity is altering their perception of themselves and their place in the world and in relation to others. Worry indicates self-consciousness or self-awareness, which perhaps is not always toxic. One could worry about their masculinity in that they worry they are behaving negatively (not helping around the house, for example) and that worry would cause a behavior that is not toxic but pro-social.

I hadn’t heard of that, that’s neat. Thank you :)

Do you mind if I ask: what is masculine assertiveness? How does it differ from general assertiveness? Is there a feminine assertiveness? Is there prepubescent assertiveness?

If there is any interest in a subjective music sharing game, I know a fun one called Walrus. Not sure if games are allowed on this forum but it might be something people here would enjoy.

We could ask if it makes sense to identify as a 'feminist man', or is it a contradiction in terms? — Jack Cummins

I wouldn’t consider that a contradiction, since feminism is characterized by a desire for equality of the sexes. Is desiring equality a contradiction to what it means to be a man? If so, that would probably be quite a toxic thing.

As for the question posited by the OP, “toxic masculinity” to me seems to me when the expectations of masculinity limit or degrade positive social functioning. For example, when expectations of being a man prevent men from expressing emotions in a healthy way. Some refer to this as “emotional castration” that is inflicted on little boys who grow to find themselves in a world where they cannot express emotions effectively, leading to outbursts of anger or aggression. That is toxic for them, and for their communities.

Dividing traits and characteristics between masculinity and femininity can serve to create a false dichotomy that limits how people move through the world. An interesting example that avoids toxicity is some indigenous treatments of gender whereby the masculine and feminine are seen to be two parts that live within each person in balance. The warrior inside represents a person’s masculine energies, while the creative and intuitive nature is drawn from their feminine energy. There is more to be said on this, but I’d have to dig up a book I’ve already packed for moving house. This treatment of masculine/feminine leaves space for the individual to exist on a spectrum of dichotomous ideas without limiting a person based on genitalia.

Masculinity really becomes toxic when it puts men in boxes that don’t actually fit who they are beyond their sexual identity. The same for femininity. I suppose the toxicity has a good deal to do with how masculinity and femininity limit people’s world and case them to interact with others in ways that are not pro-social or have negative consequences to the culture.

I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. — Uglydelicious

I’m very confused how this statement of opinion comes off as “I think you did this”. Can anyone help explain it to me?

Would you mind explaining how I did that? — praxis

I’m not accusing you of doing anything. I don’t know who you are? I really must be being very unclear tonight, probably time for bed.

Oh I see, I live in the world where “being gay” is exactly that: being. It isn’t something external that happens to you. It is part of some people’s being, just as some people are heterosexual rather than having heterosexuality happen to them. Or are you suggesting sexuality is an external force that acts upon our being rather than manifesting from our being? I suppose a case for all sexuality being socially constructed is fair to make, but it hardly seems that was the point that set off the person who said “fuck” a few times on an Internet forum.

I’ll go on to add, it is not my opinion that negative social stigmas faced by gay people for their gayness are effects of being gay. It isn’t the “being gay” that causes negative stigma, it’s rather more something wrong with the people who employ their agency to stigmatize, marginalize, and devalue others based on sexuality. The more appropriate question is then in regards to those “effected by homophobia” as I don’t believe phobias are inherent parts of being.

I hope I’m being clear. For a second I thought you had misread me.

What fantasy world do you live on where being gay is a complete non-issue that no one is effected by? — praxis

Are you talking to me?

"This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.

And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are." — tim wood

For what it’s worth, the language “effected by homosexuality” is vile and I won’t fault anyone who has a visceral reaction to it, even on a philosophy forum with high discussion standards. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. :shrug:

I'm certain fit, healthy males are the subject of dislike, if not loathing, not merely at (or did the poster mean by?) educational institutions, but at other locations as well. Perhaps someone, having done appropriate research, will start a thread inquiring why fit and healthy males are disliked at corrugated container plants or breweries-- — Ciceronianus the White

It would be interesting to explore when, if ever, healthy, fit males are “liked”... It might only be amongst themselves, in selected company, but that can probably be said about the unfit ones, as well disabled males, and non-male people.

Educational institutions like who they can extract value from, it has been a tricky business for the value of fit, healthy males since rape and assault have been brought to the forefront of late, but I suppose we wouldn’t really categorize them as healthy? The social phenomena of accountability has shed light on much abuse of power, and it is always worth discussing the concepts of power and powerlessness, and how cultural and societal shifts interact with those concepts.

My hunch is that corrugated container plants probably like most the fit, healthy males who benefit the company most, the most irreplaceable, and who works in the interest of the plant. The rest are probably looked on with indifference. One argument for collective ownership I suppose, but then I guess I’m ascribing human characteristics to a non-human entity “the factory”.

want to engage with ideas from more modern philosophers like Jordan Peterson and Alan Watts — Satyesu

Quick google search says Peterson is a clinical psychologist, not a philosopher.

Is there an area of philosophy you are most interested in, other than "modern"?

I agree with Rosie, take a class! They're riveting and a great way to begin discussing and writing about whatever topics you most enjoy.

Interesting, I wanted to comment on the "Why does academia dislike men" with an article I read in graduate school about shifts in ways boys are treated in the classroom. I haven't gotten around to digging up the the article, but I see why that thread would be locked. The phrasing of the question and the subsequent contribution to discussion by the OP seemed in bad faith. There actually is an interesting question in there somewhere, but that OP didn't start off the discussion in such a way to explore it.

I wish I could find the articles I read in graduate school, but alas it was long enough ago and now is locked behind a paywall. From my recollection, there is data to support that in elementary schools at least something is going on in terms of how boys and girls are disciplined differently. The context however, was a goal to suss out how to meet the different needs of children and address unconscious biases in the predominantly woman dominated field, where the bias (some studies indicate) leans toward fulfilling the needs of girls while not reaching boys. There has been a lot of change over the last 50 or so years for girls in education in positive ways, the case is not entirely the same for boys (or atleast the research did not show it was, when I was in grad school). This is obviously very different than institutions of higher education, which the OP was talking about, but as an elementary educator it is the pool of knowledge I draw from.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic but that thread was not doing it any justice. I don't mind if it stays closed and someone else more well-meaning can re-ignite that topic in a more substantive way.

but I am myself, a straight white male, with interests I refuse to put second to the interests of others just because they're black, gay, women or like to pop on a frock at weekends and call themselves Veronica! — counterpunch

Oh dear. I see why you feel people don't want to engage with you.

Capitalism is necessary to a sustainable future? How do you figure that? Doesn't capitalism rely on consumerism and necessarily foster an objectification and commodification of natural resources, and unnatural resources? This seems incongruent to me and I thought I'd say so, but admittedly I'm still catching up on this thread.

It seems an odd abstraction to me to begin to attribute phenomena created by social context to innate characteristics of a gender/sex. We know the social conditions of males and females are different. It seems a dangerous path to then, as males, to try to formulate an understanding of females as innately different.

The distribution of those who "philosophize" or think philosophically, is probably even. The distribution of who is respected, supported, and encouraged in academic settings of Philosophy is probably quite skewed. Similar to the field of engineering, some women don't continue the pursuit because the uphill battle isn't worth it- this phenomena in my mind says more about culture and society than it does about innate characteristics of sex/gender, although I'm uncomfortable lumping those two words together.

Is there still a strong cultural gender-bias? — Raul

I think it's readily apparent the answer to this question is a resounding yes. This makes the more important question obvious: Why is there still a strong cultural gender-bias? (Although I think we are misusing the term 'gender' here but for conversational purposes I'll go along with it). Have we altered society and culture enough to re-shape biases away from the problematic ones we are observing? What forces perpetuate these biases? How can we cultivate human potential differently than we currently do, and historically have?

And the most interesting question is:

What is missing from the forum because of this bias? What voices are not being heard, what perspectives might they add, what anxieties might they elicit? — Banno

I wish there were more people 'doing philosophy' in general. How philosophy is discussed is often un-inviting for many, perhaps that needs to change. If the rules were made by males and for males, we can hardly be surprised when males continue to foster a space that only they feel truly comfortable in. I have a feeling many thoughtful females shrug it off as "their loss" and move on with their lives, cultivating spaces where they share their ideas and enjoy discourse. I hardly think they'd like to come to a place where questions like this are being asked:

are man more attracted to philosophy than woman, the other way around? — Raul

Which is a question that presupposes a lot, I think.

Interesting thoughts all, I hope my input is understood and welcomed. Please let me know if I am unclear.

The world has changed a lot since I was born and frankly I think it’s a pretty shit version of what humans are capable of creating. I’ve been depressed, suicidal, in existential anguish at times in my life. The reason I go on is to observe and collect thoughts on the world. I document some of my life in journals, maybe someone will read them years after I die and understand their world by my history of it.

you will inevitably be destroyed, all your reason should tell you so. You will be a corpse someday and fade from this world, this existence. When I ask “is the omnipotent being doing everything, always” I should clarify that I am asking “is everything that is done, done by the omnipotent being”. What reason have you to believe that the wind doesn’t blow because the being wills it so?

An interesting question would be “Why would an omnipotent being do anything?” Or “how do we know an omnipotent being isn’t doing everything, always?”.

Why would an omnipotent being do anything? We know the universe is rather massive, I’m sure this being is rather busy observing everything! The being is likely too busy absorbing and observing to take actions, what would be the purpose or meaning of such actions anyway?

How do we know an omnipotent being isn’t doing everything, always? could “The Big Bang” be this omnipotent being? Could the constant expansion of the universe be the action of this being? If it is omnipotent, wouldn’t everything we think exists be at the behest of this being? Perhaps it’s being is entirely consistent of “doing” everything all the time. Although I suppose then we would need to discuss if that counts as “doing” if it is really “being” and if there is time at all for such a being.

I’m sorry I haven’t read every post in this thread, I hope it is okay I just jumped in.