Fair enough. Neither am I, but that's because we're on a philosophy forum. If i was, in earnest, charged with carrying a motivation of consolidating my 'power' (I don't have any, ftr) I would definitely bristle. It's an incorrect and incredibly damaging thing to charge someone with, if taken seriously. Ironically, it is patently sexist and misandrist nonsense, which has become widespread.

Actually, this does remind me: I was falsely accused of rape at the age of 16. I was raped at the age of 18. Can you guess how each of these scenarios went? I'm sure you can. And both occasions, sexism and assumptions about me qua male only informed everyone's reactions and how I was treated. Absolutely abhorrent levels of hate, based on my sex. In both scenarios. I cannot overlook this for rhetoric around how women are so hard done-by. It wasn't even illegal to rape a minor male in my country until 2006.

We each have our own experiences in life, not all of them good. As to men and women, as I previously said of my views, both (though obviously in different way) are capable of equal ability to accomplish, of equal power. As such both can be assholes of equal degree, just as much as both can be non-assholes of equal degree. Honest cooperation tends to only occur among the latter, though.

100% true. That's not to ignore the disproportionate results of each.

Honest cooperation tends to only occur among the latter, though. — javra

Among women? Never heard that one. I was under the impression that honest cooperation is entirely feasible among both sexes.

Would you say there are light and dark versions of masculinity? For instance, Superman is clearly light. He's all good. He's all about truth and justice. And then there's a darker, morally ambiguous guy. I gang member, for instance. I would say the type of masculinity that's appearing out of the US government right now is the darker kind.

Yes, i agree with that. There's a clear area on the spectrum of 'masculine' behaviour which is pernicious and destructive. Equally with feminine behaviour (again, acknowledging that the important difference is that the in former case, people tend to die - hte latter, they kill themselves (this is a bit of jest)).

Among women? Never heard that one. I was under the impression that honest cooperation is entirely feasible among both sexes. — BitconnectCarlos

Given the context of what I expressed, this is precisely what I intended: among both sexes.

Yes, i agree with that. There's a clear area on the spectrum of 'masculine' behaviour which is pernicious and destructive. Equally with feminine behaviour (again, acknowledging that the important difference is that the in former case, people tend to die - hte latter, they kill themselves (this is a bit of jest)). — AmadeusD

I think dark femininity is more like the witches in Macbeth, allied with nature, fucking people up.

... man oh man, back to the "burning times" theme of witch hunts, devil's mark and all. Gotta hate that (mother) nature and those who deem it in any way divine. Spinoza then being here included. :roll:

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 - women very much here included as those whom they deem themselves entitled to subjugate? Entitled by Nature, by God, it doesn't much here matter. — javra

In case this was sincere - no one would think “women are taking over and are destroying the core of masculinity” as anything but that projection-disavowal complex, unless they're in one of the maligned hateful demographics or sorely misinformed.

The thing which would make people react negatively to you phrasing it like that is no one would see themselves in those terms, and it parses as an accusation rather than an attempt at understanding. And it's a disrespectful thing to think of someone you don't know.

What makes the remark inflammatory isn't that those people don't exist, it's making the point as if they're commonplace. Rather than fringe members of hate groups.

Which is probably not your fault either. It's the shitty nature of the terrain.

I think @AmadeusD is right though. In a sense, there is no feminine spectrum of power from light to dark. There are veins of our heritage where femininity in general shows up as bad: frail, muddle-headed, prone to irrationality and hysterics. In order for women to step out of the shadows, they had to be careful to avoid seeming powerful, because they would come across as bitchy. The ideal is innocent Snow White. Her powerful Step-Mother is evil.

Where is the OP finding this positive adult femininity? Where in our heritage is that supposed to be coming from?

I agree with what you say in regard to femininity. There for example is this virgin or whore theme to femininity. A damned if you do and damned if you don't proposition where women are the ones giving birth to the next generation. As points out though, its a very murky terrain.

To me it in large part pivots on what "power" is supposed to be and who it's supposed to be carried out by. Culturally speaking, that is. And, in turn, all this ties into both morals (the mores - i.e., norms or customs - of the land) and ethics (as in, for one example, what constitutes a virtuous use of power and what doesn't). BTW, to differentiate between the two - morality and ethics - one can well uphold that female circumcision is perfectly moral in such and such culture, while nevertheless upholding that it is all the same utterly unethical.

And all this to me gets exceedingly complex when philosophically enquired into.

And all this to me gets exceedingly complex when philosophically enquired into. — javra

That may be because of inappropriate generalization. Diagnosis is difficult in the case of one person. Diagnosing our society would take a vantage point around fifty years in the future. Diagnosing our culture isn't possible. It's just a living thing, doing its thing.

they had to be careful to avoid seeming powerful, because they would come across as bitchy. — frank

More specific to this one example: is a so-called "bitch" an independent women who doesn't accept being subjugated despite being of female sex (which of course means she gets penetrated during sex by some male, here assuming heterosexuality) or is a so-called "bitch" the subjugated property of some pimp (this literally or figuratively)?

Then: which of the two is the more morally correct way for a women to be in society? Then: which of the two is however the more ethically correct way for a women to be in society?

This only so as to better illustrate what I claimed in my previous post regarding femininity.

But I'll add that while some understandings of "femininity" will be at odds with what goes by the term "masculinity", yet other understandings of "femininity" will readily accommodate a cooperation of power and leadership between the feminine and the masculine.

That may be because of inappropriate generalization. — frank

What do you here have in mind?

I associate dark femininity more with Lady MacBeth - relentless manipulation of MacBeth & challenging his manhood, unbridled ambition, and complete lack of morality.

What do you here have in mind? — javra

Just trying to give one diagnosis to a bunch of people who have different ailments?

Just trying to give one diagnosis to a bunch of people who have different ailments? — frank

What one diagnosis would that be?

I associate dark femininity more with Lady MacBeth - relentless manipulation of MacBeth & challenging his manhood, unbridled ambition, and complete lack of morality. — BitconnectCarlos

She's a good one, yea.

What one diagnosis would that be? — javra

I'm not sure why you're asking me that?

I'm not sure why you're asking me that? — frank

I then misread what you intended to say, presuming there was such as "one diagnosis" which had been previously offered.

Spent enough time today online, but I'll sum up my position as being this:

Given that femininity does not equate to subservient obedience to they who are not feminine, there then is no reason for why femininity cannot increase in society to hold equal cooperative power in leadership and governance with masculinity - and this without in any way diminishing masculinity per se.

I think everyone's got good things going on in these comments.

It seems we're all on the same page of not treating anyone differently based on their sex - I guess, an issue here, is that feminine men present some other issue to discuss, as do masculine women (in terms of temperament supposedly leading to public action).

I think the worst instance of the above I heard, again just this year, is in the context of body dysmorphia. Body dysmorphia among young boys is at parity with young girls these days. The response I heard was, paraphrase, "well men will just have to get used to doing what women have all this time".

There is a lot of needless combativeness. — fdrake

I agree with you completely. I've heard and read that paraphrase, in various incarnations, more times than I can remember. Rhetorically, two wrongs do not make a right. Pragmatically, 'suck it up buttercup' alienates, rather than influences.

I just finished reading Toure Reed's "Toward Freedom", about the dangers of 'race reductionism', as a barrier to the sort of project that actually does/did provide material improvements for minority groups, with his focus on black Americans.

He sees identitarianism as a tool, wielded by neoliberals, to divide people - poor and working-class blacks, whites, others - from the fight against class inequality, which of course would threaten the status and privilege of said neoliberals. (Not to suggest some sort of Machiavellian mastermind behind the curtain - Reed argues that much of this thinking is well-intentioned).

I think this concept of 'reductionism' can be extended to consider a 'gender reductionism' trend, or really, a 'marginalized reductionism'. This might just be a fancy way of saying 'wokeness' but I think the flaws in wokeness are central to this discussion, and more predictive of a male rightward shift than misogyny.

11 points, 22 points... and 101 points. Which should be our primary concern? — Banno

The utilitarian concern should be the primary objective. But Banno, I disagree with your implication that this means it is a distraction to improve upon problems of a smaller scale.

Not that males failing in schools is small in scale. Sure, you can quote outliers such as boys in math, but to imply that there are 'mixed results' is flat out wrong. Boys graduate less, perform worse, earn fewer degrees, are punished more often and more severely than they used to be - not simply a moving target problem comparing boys to girls, but to compare boys to previous generations of boys. They dislike school more, read less. They encounter far fewer male role models - one of the only domains in which having someone who 'looks like me' teaching seems to make a difference.

My critique of Reeves is the common one that he is blaming schools for general societal problems. It's a strategy adopted by folk - politicians - so they can ignore the actual issue by blaming the teaching profession. — Banno

Have you read the book? I don't think this is a fair characterization at all. I am a high school teacher, and I'm far more likely to blame schools than Reeves.

Reeves is milquetoast ... he is as non threatening / accusatory as possible, in the book and in his public appearances, and in contrast to some of those who disagree with him, the "I bathe in male tears" types. Reeves talks about this at length in fact, his feminism, his support for the way things are changing, the political risk he was talking in even raising the subject at all. He bends over backwards NOT to point fingers.

Check out his appearance on the Daily Show a few weeks back. Check out "Are Men OK" in the Nation, March 11.

To try and tie my ramblings together, debates such as this one are driven by angry extremists, those with the 'subterranean norms', coming from both ends of the political spectrum. Reeves himself said he was writing his book for average moms with boys. Focusing on the awfulness of Andrew Tate and Donald Trump while ignoring, say, the bugbear in Hoff Sommers book, Carol Gilligan, and her ilk is clearly flawed thinking, but I would go further and say that focusing on the extremists, in any direction, as if they are informative of average people, is needless division.

Banno, when you wave at class inequality, that is where I find common ground with you. "No Politics but Class Politics"?

focusing on the extremists, in any direction, as if they are informative of average people, is needless division. — Jeremy Murray

This is it. We should do what's been discussed in some recent forum feedback - ignore. When they get louder, as they inevitably will, laws will be broken and the movement disbanded. Unfortunately, the middle-ground of intelligence (i.e about 40% of people in the middle) think the media is accurate.

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!~

He sees identitarianism as a tool, wielded by neoliberals, to divide people - poor and working-class blacks, whites, others - from the fight against class inequality, which of course would threaten the status and privilege of said neoliberals. (Not to suggest some sort of Machiavellian mastermind behind the curtain - Reed argues that much of this thinking is well-intentioned). — Jeremy Murray

I think this concept of 'reductionism' can be extended to consider a 'gender reductionism' trend, or really, a 'marginalized reductionism'. This might just be a fancy way of saying 'wokeness' but I think the flaws in wokeness are central to this discussion, and more predictive of a male rightward shift than misogyny. — Jeremy Murray

I broadly agree. I wouldn't want to call it "wokeness" in public, since that well's poisoned. I have no idea what else to call it though. I see it as a group of people who adopted left wing Twitter etiquette in real life.

My friends and I who have been part of these spaces think of it as Mark Fisher's vampire castle. Admittedly that article is 2013 and somewhat dated now, and I think somehow discourse these days is even worse than it was back then. I could go on but I'll leave it for now.

They encounter far fewer male role models - one of the only domains in which having someone who 'looks like me' teaching seems to make a difference. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah. I primarily work with 5-12 year olds in education. I'm the only bloke in my work cohort. You work with kids yourself right? Do you also think that the boys are picking up relatively traditional norms - in the playground - at the same time as being demanded to follow other ones -in the classroom-? I think it's a great thing that all the kids I'm aware of are getting eg courses on self expression and emotion language, but the boys still can't use it without stigma. There also still seems to be that element of casual violence among the working class boys, which is still socially rewarded.

I see it as a group of people who adopted left wing Twitter etiquette in real life. — fdrake

100%. Some are in government now, by concession it seems, so we may actually have to come to terms with how ridiculous that way of comporting oneself is when it comes to policy. AOC in a policy-making position comes to mind.

AOC in a policy-making position comes to mind. — AmadeusD

I think she's fine.

I think she's fine. — fdrake

"Fine" is what you can be okay with calling an itchy souvenir T-shirt or poorly-made pair of swim trunks you had to purchase at an unknown gas station at the last minute because something happened to your original ones.

Politicians, people who make real policy that affects real people and who in fact have our lives and well-being hinged in the balance of their competency and intent need to be more than "fine." They need to be exemplary -- quite literally better men and women then you or I or any average citizen picked at random, otherwise what purpose do they hold?

I think she's fine. — fdrake

I'm not entirely on Outlander's vibe here, because I think comparing reality to utopia is silly, but nevertheless, I don't think AOC is 'fine'. I would be happy to concede this on a personal ground? LOL. She seems.. nice enough? I don't think she would be fun to be around though.