We do have common ground there.There's no merit in fostering an unnecessarily hostile competition between the sexes, maybe in that, we could agree. — Judaka
Their moronic views still have to be challenged though, for as long as they dare to promote them.I'm not going to formulate my views differently just because some morons believe they're living in a patriarchy. — Judaka
I think that was more true in the past than it is now. Certainly not in every town and city on the planet but I think caring/protectiveness/cooperation etc is valued much more than 'aggressive competition' in the minds of more and more men, in particular.Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden
Oh the casual misogyny of celebrating the little homemakers who "are really in charge" because they tend your heirs just as your wonderful mum tended you. Pass the sick bag. — apokrisis
The link. You missed the link. — Hanover
It's the same concept as the victors get to write history. The stats you highlight are the result of historical male dominance and they are not a result of what women wanted or were capable of doing. — universeness
OK, funny -- I laughed. There's too much interplay between the sexes, and cross-support (especially in a family structure) to define men by their occupation. The men may build things, but they don't do everything (there are women at the worksite who are just as capable), and they rely upon the network of women in the more traditional set-up.
One thing I'd note, though, is that you're equating men and women in terms of ability -- which I agree with -- but you're not setting out what it means to be a man, unlike Hanover. We may disagree on masculinity, but he answered the question. Do you have an answer? — Moliere
So many women wish to plumb but are held back by the bullies who force them into other professions. — Hanover
Humans need to be understood in terms of the dichotomies that give reality to the notion of life involving "choices", or at least a flexible range of options so that behaviour is not reflexive and stereotyped.
If you label yourself as X, then you are locked into "being X", and this mostly measuring yourself in terms of actually too often "failing to be perfectly X". It is a broken way of thinking when it comes to being a man, a human, an engineer, a whatever. — apokrisis
I agree, but only as the internal spectrum you suggest and not when it overspills into a patriarchal or matriarchal identity that you think should be the dominant societal driver.So you might find it useful to have a spectrum of human behaviour that runs between the masculine and feminine. Being able to move about this range "at will" – as a personally adaptive choice – seems a good thing as who wants to be stuck in the rut of a stereotype? — apokrisis
Sure, seems like a useful suggestion to me.Why not have a debate about the prosocial~antisocial spectrum? That would be a more general human level alternative to a gender-based dichotomy. And it would for instance capture more of what T Clark looks to want to claim about his personal identity. — apokrisis
I can sometimes be a pretty intimidating person for people who don't know me. I'm high energy and aggressive verbally. Women tend to be more intimidated by me than men do, so I have to be more careful.
At the same time, women tend to like me and trust me once they know me better. I treat them with respect they can sense is sincere. I'm pretty transparent. People can see I'm trustworthy and not a threat. — T Clark
In this context, terms like "human" and "humanism" seem to me about as useful as "earthling" and "geocenrrism", respectively.My earnest answer to 'what is a man or what is masculinity,' lies within the answer to 'what is a human or what is humanism.' — universeness
Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden
Success in competition might be part of masculinity itsel — Judaka
women who want to succeed in competitive environments will probably need to abandon or redefine their femininity to some extent — Judaka
Success in competition might be part of masculinity itself, the desire of having the best things and being the best, fits the ultra-masculine alpha types pretty well to me. — Judaka
So, a social system based on competition for status and material resources... ...is not a patriarchy? — Baden
War is the traditional, historical competition that matter most, yes?
Which image do you think we should nurture, for how masculinity should progress? — universeness
The relevance is that there are reasons to think that our species evolved with differences in physical attributes between the sexes, including instincts, which result in societies naturally tending towards 'patriarchy — wonderer1
what you mean by "patriarchy" — wonderer1
Is patriarchy something that would require genetic engineering and eugenics to eliminate, or a conspiracy by people in power that might be eliminated by social engineering, or...? — wonderer1
Why is that? Is it a global conspiracy against women? — Judaka
I mean what it's defined as in dictionaries, reference books eh. — Baden
patriarchy
1
: social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line
broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
2
: a society or institution organized according to the principles or practices of patriarchy
For 20 years the country was ruled as a patriarchy.
Are not the "masculine" attributes of e. g. aggressiveness and competition generally privileged in contemporary societies? Isn't social success primarily presented as being about dominance / status / material gain rather than e. g. caring / protectiveness / cooperation etc? — Baden
broadly : control by men of a disproportionately large share of power
So it isn't obvious to me how the dictionary definition helps all that much in understanding your view. — wonderer1
I'd remark on the fact that patriarchy is a very negative term to describe a society, and that is true regardless of the definition. I'm not saying that's how it should be, just that's how it is. If we use a definition that allows us to label the West as a patriarchy, then it will be our moral obligation to rectify this so that the West is no longer a patriarchy. — Judaka
To be frank, and I hope you don't think my view on this is silly, but objective definitions for these sorts of things are not possible. I won't accept any definition of patriarchy that omits the intentional design of a society aimed at accomplishing male dominance over women. Entirely because I am not interested in condemning disparities in gender-based outcomes, I'm only interested in condemning sexism. — Judaka
It must be genetics for this to work else the system would not have resulted in this clear distinction because our XXs would be just as likely to have these paternalistic behaviors to this day. This acknowledgement seems to defeat the argument that we should not assign gender distinctions on the basis of sex. From this, the conclusion we'd draw is that the common correlation we typically see between gender and sex is likely actually causative in most people. — Hanover
I have no difficulty acknowledging we live in a patriarchal society as you've described it. If our society allows men certain advantages and you insist these advantages arise from manly traits, then we're forced to that conclusion — Hanover
this is a pretty black and white binary system you've described, with women in need of help by men due to their inability or lack of desire to compete — Hanover
So let's get off the idea that men and women are just the same but for a few anatomical differences, and that it makes sense to respect some amount of gender behavior is in fact caused by basic genetics, and let's all stand behind the idea that you can't subjugate anyone, especially if it means putting your boot on a woman's neck because she'll outperform you if you don't. — Hanover
Maybe under the modern label of libertarian socialism there is "total equality" ...Does a man and a woman have total equality under the label human or humanism, in your view? — universeness
Recognising reality can be inconvenient, but that doesn't constitute an argument against doing so. — Baden
I've outlined a view against your definition and use, by explaining that there's nothing inherently immoral with a society that creates unequal gender representation in positions of power. — Judaka
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.