awright awright. I do want to say: I didn't think your intention was to try to put me in my place or anything, I'm not that self-conceited. I thought you were making a broader point about the flow of the thread, and fitting me in it in a certain way, one post among others, all illustrations of that point. If you weren't doing that, then that's my bad.

Interesting. I'm kind of skeptical. How much of that is because part of social dominance is keeping people tied to their gender roles? — T Clark

My point was that we can't really look to nature for a rudimentary form of male/female conflict (as latter day sexists would have us believe). Among socializing mammals, that kind of conflict isn't about building social hierarchy. It's something else.

I think it's probably harder for men. Even sensitive new age guys like me have a hard time surrendering our stereotypical masculine roles. — T Clark

If you're a baby boomer, the patriarchy is probably a permanent part of you.

Strongly disagree. It's a sign of disrespect and sloppy philosophy not to take the OP seriously. — T Clark

Sloppy philosophy? LOL.

awright awright. I do want to say: I didn't think your intention was to try to put me in my place or anything, I'm not that self-conceited. I thought you were making a broader point about the flow of the thread, and fitting me in it in a certain way, one post among others, all illustrations of that point. If you weren't doing that, then that's my bad. — csalisbury

Well, maybe I was. I was caricaturing your position as a way to lead into my point. Is that what you meant? Is that a bad thing.

If you're a baby boomer, the patriarchy is probably a permanent part of you. — frank

Yeah, well. I'm not a baby boomer just because I was born in 1951. I don't care what they say. You're thinking of @Bitter Crank. Saying "patriarchy" is just another way for me to avoid taking responsibility for my behavior.

Well, maybe I was. I was caricaturing your position as a way to lead into my point. Is that what you meant? Is that a bad thing.

I don't think its a bad thing, necessarily. Caricatures help sharpen the edges and make the point more palpable. It can be a good thing. But if you caricature to make a point, you have to falsify what the person you're caricaturizing was actually saying. That's ok, but they might have legitimate complaints about being fit into that mould.

For example: Take men.

It appears to be easy to make them look ridiculous. I don't like that — tclark

None of us do!

That sounded like a knee-jerk.

That sounded like a knee-jerk. — frank

The baby boomer thing was serious, but automatic. There is no baby boom. It's just a phrase people use to make themselves feel significant. To make themselves sound as if they know something. The patriarchy thing is more important. If someone from the outside wants to say I'm subject to the patriarchy, I may argue about it, but knock yourselves out. If I say it, it's a lie and a cheat.

Uh huh.

But if you caricature to make a point, you have to falsify what the person you're caricaturizing was actually saying. That's ok, but they might have legitimate complaints about being fit into that mould. — csalisbury

If a caricature is not true to what it is describing, it loses its point and its power. If your point is that, in this particular case, it wasn't an effective literary device, fine. I thought it was. I don't think I really misrepresented what you said, I slanted it for my own rhetorical purposes. And I thought it was amusing without being disrespectful. If you thought it was disrespectful, I will be more careful in the future.

But humor is a double-edged thing. — csalisbury

I hope to see that your discussions with TC is enough to understand why I responded accordingly; I have been frustrated on many occasions with people where it can be hard to tell if they are genuinely being unpleasant or being humorous, but my relationship with TC over the last several months has enabled me to understand that he has a good nature and is insightful with a sense of humour. We built on that, it took time and communication for that to form. It also took trust and that sometimes we need to have faith that adequate dialogue can be achieved and that we can manoeuvre that dialogue into the right direction if we take the responsibility with maturity.

I use humour as a balancing act, to build on culture and strengthen friendships so that when we have discussions, we learn to overcome the rigidity of impressions that causes unnecessary tension. My humour serves as a reminder that we are just people and there is no need for egos to interact aggressively, that I am just a girl who travels, works in a great job and bakes cakes. Dialogue is not pure logic, it is about recognising the humanity behind the content and I softened this aggression in others - including people that hated me - when they realised I was not a sword-yielding Amazonian with massive breasts that I use to suffocate men.

That being said, there is a time and place for it and sometimes my fellow jokers post humorous repertoires on posts that I take very seriously. Bad timing. Is that the fault of being humorous where people no longer take what you say seriously, or is it a nasty way of shutting you down? I smile and laugh and have fun, but it is not all the time. I can be serious, and dedicated or committed to a project, deeply philosophical and passionate about justice or righteousness too. Sometimes jokes are used as an underlying passive-aggressive nastiness, but you can always tell.

But if you caricature to make a point, you have to falsify what the person you're caricaturizing was actually saying. — csalisbury

I've been thinking about this more. It is true, I was ridiculing your point, I thought in a gentle and friendly way. Teasing is a rhetorical device I use often. That doesn't seem like the bad kind of humor to me. If it does to you, I'll at least plead nolo contendere.

I hope to see that your discussions with TC is enough to understand why I responded accordingly; I have been frustrated on many occasions with people where it can be hard to tell if they are genuinely being unpleasant or being humorous, but my relationship with TC over the last several months has enabled me to understand that he has a good nature and is insightful with a sense of humour. We built on that, it took time and communication for that to form. It also took trust and that sometimes we need to have faith that adequate dialogue can be achieved and that we can manoeuvre that dialogue into the right direction if we take the responsibility and maturity. — TimeLine

That means a lot to me.

That being said, there is a time and place for it and sometimes my fellow jokers post humorous repertoires on posts that I take very seriously. Bad timing. Is that the fault of being humorous where people no longer take what you say seriously, or is it a nasty way of shutting you down? I smile and laugh and have fun, but it is not all the time. I can be serious, and dedicated or committed to a project, deeply philosophical and passionate about justice or righteousness too. — TimeLine

I can't separate the humor from the seriousness. My serious philosophy is playful just as much as my joking. My joking is just as serious as my philosophy. I think if you look at the substance of my ideas, you can see that. I can't say what I believe without humor, even when I am being deeply philosophical and passionate.

I'm rarely intentionally disrespectful. When I am, it's almost always a mistake. I've started using emojis even though I do hate them because I don't want to be misunderstood. I am significantly more careful about what I write than I was when I started on the forum a year ago.

I've been thinking about this more. It is true, I was ridiculing your point, I thought in a gentle and friendly way. Teasing is a rhetorical device I use often. That doesn't seem like the bad kind of humor to me. If it does to you, I'll at least plead nolo contendere.

It's ok. & Actually this might be an fortuitous thing, one way to get at this. So I wasn't personally offended (or, ok, maybe just a little) but I saw that you were offering a certain view of things that I didn't agree with, and wanted to counteract it. I got frustrated when the response to my version was that you were just joking. Going over this, I totally believe you, that that's how you saw it.

My experience was something like: He's saying I'm doing this to make a point, or to bolster a point already made. but when I say I'm not, he says he's just making a joke. So what moves are left me? I think this is kind of the same experience, right, that we're talking about?

For instance: Someone could respond to what you're saying by: we’re just laughing, wacky men etc. it's a joke and so forth

So I think we both kind of have a common place to start from: what is it about that 'wacky men' thing that irks?

@Bitter Crank

That dude is awesome. Never heard of him, but that song has a way of making you take a hard look at yourself. Thanks for that.

So I think we both kind of have a common place to start from: what is it about that 'wacky men' thing that irks? — csalisbury

I am really interested in talking about how men and women interact in our societies and the world. It's something I've thought about a lot, but not something I've discussed much. I need some reality checking. Here's my starting position:

I live in a middle class community in a liberal state in the northeast US. Most of my friends are middle class and liberal, at least socially. Most of the women I know work. Most of the couples I know both work. A lot of, but not all, the women are nurses. The men are engineers, geologists, doctors, accountants, etc. Pay scales of men vs. women are comparable. Since I became an engineer 30 years ago, I've worked in offices which were about 50/50 men and women. Most of the engineers were men, most of the scientists were women, almost all of the admin staff were women. I have had men and women bosses. I have worked for men and women project managers. I have worked as project manager with men and women project staff.

I look out over the landscape of my life and I don't see the that, in general, women are treated with less respect than men. No one I work with or live with would tolerate it. I don't think there are fundamental issues of fairness. I do see differences between women and men in life roles which seem pretty natural. My wife has worked half-time since my first child was born 36 years ago so she could be at home all but two days a week. I've always worked 40 hours. I do feel the weight of my wife's and society's expectations of me in terms of how I act as a man and husband. Sometimes its very hard for me to deal with. I'm sure she feels the weight also, although I think she buys it more than I do. I do not always fit the ideal vision of what a man is supposed to be.

That's enough to start.

So I think we both kind of have a common place to start from: what is it about that 'wacky men' thing that irks? — csalisbury

Oh, right. Left out "wacky men." To me, because of the differences in roles between men and women, it is acceptable to treat men with less respect than women without justifying it. I think our society dislikes and distrusts men. That bothers me.

Thank you, no I think this is an awesome place to start. I saw a study somewhere, can't remember where, that talked about how classical gender differences are more pronounced in lower-middle class families. I wish I knew where - I'll try to find it - but that mirrors my experience as well.

I was born and raised in a solid middle-class family. My parents got divorced when I was about 14 and things fell apart. Lots of social stigma (we were catholic) + dad made most of the money, so now we were poor, really poor. Actually, I'm not sure how much that matters. Because I spent time at both well-established and not-established friend houses all throughout my childhood. Just more, after the divorce.

Gender differences are real, super real, in non-middle-class families. It's hard to put it into words. It's just woven into the texture of the house. I hesitate to even call it patriarchal - the wife has tons of power. It's just --- i don't know, its this palpable unspoken thing.

One thing I noticed, shuttling back and forth between these communities: the middle (or upper-middle) class guys, a lot of them, seemed dimly aware of some.... we lived in a small town, everyone ran into each other at town events: the 4th of july parade etc. There was a lot of class criss-crossing, just because of how small the town was. The wife of so-and-so had her [x] repaired by [y] and why couldnt her husband have done it. etc.

Classes weren't separated geographically, like they are everywhere else.

So: The wives of the middle class men had a sort of nuclear weapon, which they would use. I saw it. In my own mom many times, but also with others. If the husband stood up for something then: 'oh tough guy can't even [x] like [y]'

I think this is a mean-spirited move. I don't see any benefit to it. But I've seen it happen many times. And I think it's unfair. Deeply, i do. Because the thing goes like this: If two men compete for who can do this meaningless task --- the wife looks on and says 'oh men, fighting over who's best at this stupid task"

but then in a different moment, woman and husband alone, the wife asks her husband to to do task [x] and he struggles and he says: I'm looking up how to do it. 'oh of course, he has to get the manual' the wife says, or something like that, and now it means 'you can't do it right, like the other guys can' and suddenly this meaningless thing which can be laughed at as 'oh, just men' has been elevated into a hyper-meaningful test of masculinity.

And the worst thing is when you get caught in between. Taking something seriously (because you know you'll be appraised on it seriously) but judged for it because, right now, the game is something different, where what you're doing is seen as just goofy.

I can't separate the humor from the seriousness. My serious philosophy is playful just as much as my joking. My joking is just as serious as my philosophy. I think if you look at the substance of my ideas, you can see that. I can't say what I believe without humor, even when I am being deeply philosophical and passionate. — T Clark

I am like this at home and those who live with me or who come and visit me always feels comfort and warmth because my personality is playful as much as it is inquisitive and serious. I got busted by my housemate the other day in kitchen acting like Elvis and I sing the weirdest songs in the shower, like Michael Bolton or some other weirdo I heard on the radio. My home is my happy place. But, that is my home, my world where I get to be who I am and who I am is someone that loves life.

I need to understand, however, that everyone is not like me and I need to be relativistic and respect that how they think and perceive the world could be vastly different to me. I haven't always been successful in doing this because I have a lot of trouble finding any common ground with people who are aggressive, but this is the point about eliminating ego and analysing the content just as much as it is about seeing the humanity or the person behind the post.

I do feel the weight of my wife's and society's expectations of me in terms of how I act as a man and husband. Sometimes its very hard for me to deal with. I'm sure she feels the weight also, although I think she buys it more than I do. I do not always fit the ideal vision of what a man is supposed to be. — T Clark

Can you explain this difficulty a bit further, in what way for instance? I have much to say on the subject, but I thought I would do you the respect to first explain this difficulty.

I got busted my housemate the other day in kitchen acting like Elvis and I sing the weirdest songs in the shower, like Michael Bolton or some other weirdo I heard on the radio. — TimeLine

Well, I have a friend who sings to magpies, at least you're not that bad.

I need to understand, however, that everyone is not like me and I need to be relativistic and respect that how they think and perceive the world could be vastly different to me. I haven't always been successful in doing this because I have a lot of trouble finding any common ground with people who are aggressive, but this is the point about eliminating ego and analysing the content just as much as it is about seeing the humanity or the person behind the post. — TimeLine

It's true. It is not unusual for me to be misunderstood. I am aggressive and my humor is aggressive. I remember how shocked I was when I started working in a professional situation that I could be intimidating. @csalisbury - please know this - what you see before you is what I have accomplished in more than 50 years of learning to act normal. Not an excuse now and never has been. People who know me trust me and tolerate my foibles. I hope you will too.

Can you explain this difficulty a bit further, in what way for instance? I have much to say on the subject, but I thought I would do you the respect to first explain this difficulty. — TimeLine

This is really the first time I've sat down and tried to articulate my own feelings on the matter, so I'm not sure how to express it. That's one of the reasons I want this conversation. In your writing, I think you are more articulate on the subject than I am. Although you have a focus on the way women are treated with disrespect in your own life and your work, I've always liked that you recognize that the weight of society falls on men as well as women. You have always been very evenhanded.

If you have things to say, please go ahead. I'll try to come along. Unfortunately, it's after 1 am and I have to work tomorrow. I'm going to take a shower. I'll check in again when I'm done and then I'm going to bed.

.

Well-said, for sure.

You seem very smart and well-poised, so I want to challenge you - you can handle it. I read your post and I have nothing to say. It's all quite right. It's all exactly the thing to say. The more I try to respond, the more I slip. There's nothing to disagree with. It's all quite perfectly said.

So: I feel like I'm looking at a linguistic photograph of yourself, one you took. I go to respond to you, and I find there's no one there. But I do know there's someone there. Still: I'm confronted with a criss-cross rhetorical net of the 'right thing to say.' I know this could quickly make me the bad guy in the convo, but, w/e, its a philosophy forum:

What are you saying? I legitimately don't understand. You're talking about your posts, and how your posts, but I feel like --- it just feels like a platonic..post. I feel like I'm lacking nutrients.

Some of us, like me and thee, are old enough to remember when Transactional Analysis was the latest fad to make the rounds. As old Sister Gloria put it, "It's another lingo to learn. Every few years another fad comes along and there's another whole new batch of lingo." — Bitter Crank

Indeed, another lingo to learn, another toy to unwrap. If there is freedom from being stuck in any particular lingo, I think it depends on an exposure to lots of lingos.

My background - Middle class family. Money was never an issue. Two brothers, one 2 years older, one 7 years younger. My mother was stay at home. She died when I was 12. My father married again, but not until after I had left the house for school and life. My mother's death certainly had a big effect on my life, although I'm not really in touch with how. I'm not sure how many of the problems I've had in life are because of that and how much are just me. My younger brother had it much worse. My father was a pretty good father, but he was a stereotypical engineer. He was not touchy feely at all. He just didn't get it.

I lived in small towns so hung around with middle and working class families and children. I can't say I ever noticed any sex role differences. It's not the kind of thing I would have noticed. After I dropped out of college, I moved in with my then girlfriend, now wife, and did what I called "work for a living" for 14 years - ice cream store worker, warehouse worker, cabinetmaker. Then I went back to school and got my engineering degree.

I acknowledge my social experience is pretty limited to my middle class town and friends. That's one of the reasons I want this discussion. I want to test my understanding with a broader scope. Other communities, other countries.

One thing that I want to know, for my own purposes, is how you and your wife kept it going through all of that? For real! It's (no-irony) heroic. My girlfriend & I have been through all sorts of ups and downs. It's hard to love a person through all of those tectonic shifts (especially when you think, deep down, they might deserve something better)

.

can't help but think that, to a good extent, the content of this thread is a great showcase of its title

I'm in a weird mood tonight --down for any outside analysis, however brutal.

I think you missed the spirit of the remarks, T. I love men. Well, the best of them at their best. Even (rarely) physically, or 'phantasmatically.' I also like being a man and its journey in pursuit of the masculine ideal. Of course this 'the' where an 'a' should be is just my patriarchal claim on this ideal ---hopefully softened so that I can have friends who aren't reflections or disciples. All that's being discussed is a tendency in men to become hardened, dogmatic, condescending, and closed to other ways of thinking and feeling. My perversely 'macho' strategy is to 'bear' the terror of another's genuineness and honesty. I am 'man enough' to take it in the ear. --and to write shameless things like that.....

I hope this bridges some distance. — syntax

I went back and checked to remind myself how we got to where we are. We started out talking about games people play. Immediately, almost everything being discussed was how men behave. Not in a very complimentary way. In a way that made them seem ridiculous. My interpretation at least. It wasn't just you, it was everyone. That's what I reacted to.

I will tell you all a deeply embarrassing thing. I used to watch "Full House." Not the one that's on now, the original. I guess 25 years ago. It was the story about a widowed father, his three daughters, their uncle, and a good male friend. The opening credits showed all of them in the park; the baby and two young girls and the three men, having a picnic. Playing with each other. Laughing. It used to bring a tear to my eye to see men portrayed that way. I wish I could say it was a wonderful show, but it wasn't. It was dumb, poorly written, and poorly acted. Terrible.

I can't help but think that, to a good extent, the content of this thread is a great showcase of its title. — Πετροκότσυφας

But what could be better? :smile: And I think there's some 'adult/adult' games happening, which is nice.

I must say, it feels kinda bad that I can't be genuinely trusting and ego-free and all these nice things. — Πετροκότσυφας

Can't tell if you're playing, but I'm curious.