I'm generally opposed to victim searching, where folks go out and try to convince others they are oppressed or downtrodden. — Hanover

I dont feel oppressed or down trodden from it either, personally. I hardly even care about the fact that I'm a man, I barely consider it at all, generally only when something inqures my gender/sex.

Doesn't mean I can't see the necessity for the profoundest antagonism between man and woman attempting to assert itself within humanity...

The fact that feminism and feminity is being advocated so hard... for every action there is an equal but opposite... every hero/heroine has their enemy.

Just as slaves rose up against the values of the masters who ruled them, woman too is rising up against the constellation of the past few thousand years.

Which is certainly one of the issues Nietzsche has with feminism that dictates "woman as such." It's just another dogma. A slave morality for women, for the most part, just as Nietzsche considers Science a slave morality for most practitioners, as it's their way to deny others their beliefs based off of some calculations or another...

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.

If you want to have a conversation, let's have a conversation. What is this cramped passive aggressiveness? :lol: