You seem to love your role as a pompous, third-rate, unlicensed psychiatrist. It’s something you do a lot, but I think this thread was particularly egregious. I always worry someone vulnerable will take you seriously. I think what you said to TimeLine (“you still love him”) was the most disrespectful thing I ever heard said to her, and that’s saying a lot. In the good old days, she would have kicked you till you bled. You deserve to be rhetorically horsewhipped. Sorry TL, I know you don’t need me to defend you. — T Clark

Fair.

This is a philosophy forum after all. Maybe we should refocus our efforts there. I think @fdrake is partially right, but I really don't need to hear how you're really a good guy and good husband. I trust that's true and have moved on.

Let's talk about Kant or something we really don't anything about now.

This is a philosophy forum after all. Maybe we should refocus our efforts there. I think fdrake is partially right, but I really don't need to hear how you're really a good guy and good husband. I trust that's true and have moved on. — Hanover

I don't feel any need to say more along the lines of what I wrote in my post. In the beginning, I had hoped that it would be a philosophical discussion of the relationships between women and men. I think something like that could legitimately end up including a lot of personal information. I also think it could be an interesting discussion from a philosophical perspective. You're right, it took a sharp turn toward the psychological, which is why I stopped participating until now.

I stand by my judgment that what you said to TL was deeply disrespectful.

Ok, so I'm learning something new. You're saying that it is normal for a woman to be afraid of her husband. — frank

I think I have answered you're question with my own words, so there is no need to generalize what I said from a personal perspective. If it is enlightening to you, than I am glad I shared my view, gained from my own personal experiences.

However, let me be crystal clear, I had no idea who made the quote you asked me to address and I don't regret being brutally honest with you. I do however feel as though I have been slighted by myself for not reading back to who said it before I answered. I would never want to hurt someone for being honest and this is a place that I am just now reconsidering a "safe place" to share and for that reason I offer my apologies to @T Clark for not researching the quote.

I wouldn't have changed my response but I would have, WOULD HAVE addressed my honesty with him in a Private Message. Why? Because I care very deeply about how vulnerable we have to allow ourselves to be, in order for us to grow as lovingly as we can, when we are examining/extracting something that doesn't come from the most beautiful place in who we are as humans.

I trust that we are all adults here and can continue on this thread, respecting each other for who we are and what we have attempted to rise above within ourselves. Sharing, unfiltered, is the only way to live. Otherwise? We are wasting time playing games with one another.

This image came to me about the women's rights movement: imagine we're all in a bus and the driver just went insane and left. One of us needs to step up and drive the bus. All of us are a little shy about taking that role and going through the stress of maneuvering the bus-beast.

A man says: "I'm just not the person for this. I'm just a little puny when it comes to this sort of thing." He's speaking the truth, but he's defying patriarchal norms. Some people in the bus think less of him for it.

A woman says: "((( exactly what the man said )))"
She's speaking the truth, but she conforms to patriarchal norms. Nobody really thinks any less of her.

This is how norms influence events. The man has an extra push to overcome his fears and get on with it. Benefiting through his life from this kind of push, he gets used to stepping up. In fact, when the bus driver leaves, the guy thinks, "I'm going to have to drive the bus. Great."

So what this is really about is Peterson. I had been thinking it was all naturalistic fallacy crap, but the post of two people in this thread have had me rethinking it. It's not about nature, although those less likely to think things through might think that. It's about patriarchy. I think at one point we thought it was a social construction and we were so smart we could just think our way out of it and create a different world. Maybe we hadn't noticed that if we think of it as a life-form, patriarchy is at least 5000 years old. Do I see signs in my world that it's dying. I've got to be honest: no, I don't.

So to Peterson I go to pay closer attention.

And T-Clark, I'm more than happy for you to be insulted by what I said. It was totally in earnest and I really wanted Tiff's response to it. I wasn't trying to insult your wife.

I wasn't trying to be insulting to you either. I wanted your view, and it has influenced my thinking. Thank you.

However, let me be crystal clear, I had no idea who made the quote you asked me to address and I don't regret being brutally honest with you. I do however feel as though I have been slighted by myself for not reading back to who said it before I answered. I would never want to hurt someone for being honest and this is a place that I am just now reconsidering a "safe place" to share and for that reason I offer my apologies to T Clark for not researching the quote. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I hope I was clear in my post whom I consider responsible for the episode. I know how careful you are of others. And as I said, I'm grateful for your response.

Thank you for saying what I was trying to get at. You did it so much better than I could ever. It took courage. I know it also means you trust us, which means a lot to me. — T Clark

At the moment I am horrified with myself but I am honest, to a fault at times, but not this time. I am glad you can feel the words and the spirit in which they were spoken for they speak for themselves. I do trust you and those here attending this thread or I wouldn't share. Nothing in my opinion of you or anyone else here has changed except for a deeper understanding of us all. :heart:

And T-Clark, I'm more than happy for you to be insulted by what I said. It was totally in earnest and I really wanted Tiff's response to it. I wasn't trying to insult your wife. — frank

I am comfortable with my relationship with my wife and my marriage. If I say I wasn't insulted, perhaps you will think I'm rationalizing, but I've stood up for others on the forum when I thought they were being treated with disrespect. It would be foolish and out of character for me not to stand up for myself.

So what this is really about is Peterson. I had been thinking it was all naturalistic fallacy crap, but the post of two people in this thread have had me rethinking it. It's not about nature, although those less likely to think things through might think that. It's about patriarchy. I think at one point we thought it was a social construction and we were so smart we could just think our way out of it and create a different world. Maybe we hadn't noticed that if we think of it as a life-form, patriarchy is at least 5000 years old. Do I see signs in my world that it's dying. I've got to be honest: no, I don't. — frank

And so what is the pragmatic solution? Do you rise up and give the woman the chance to drive the bus in order to create a better future for better prepared women, or do you offer it to the man who already has been groomed for this moment and is for entirely unfair reasons better prepared for the dangerous task at hand and will provide a greater likelihood of success?

I've said twice now that I wanted your opinion. What I took away from it was that you really weren't able to put the words together: "I'm not afraid of men in general."

You agreed with T-Clark, that women are sort of generally fearful of men. There are some who would say you're supporting an essentially sexist view of women. I don't think you mean it that way, though. You're just saying that in your experience, women in general do harbor fear of men.


That's an opinion I needed to hear. As for the sordid politics of this forum, I'm not interested in that.

And so what is the pragmatic solution? Do you rise up and give the woman the chance to drive the bus in order to create a better future for better prepared women, or do you offer it to the man who already has been groomed for this moment and is for entirely unfair reasons better prepared for the dangerous task at hand and will provide a greater likelihood of success? — Hanover

Well Edgar is an alcoholic. He's going to crash the bus into a ditch in the middle of Nowhere, whereas Melissa actually has amazing eye-hand coordination, nerves of steel, and could fly an F-15 if she wanted to. Edgar gets up because he thinks he's supposed to. Melissa sits there for the same reason.

I don't know that there is a solution. I've just been thinking lately about how it's not in any particular person's hands. There are large social tectonics and work.

What's your answer?

@frank
I honestly appreciate you asking my opinion. I am sorry that I have been unable to convey it to you in the personal manner in which I am expressing it for you insist on making it into an untrue generalization.

So wait. Are you saying women aren't generally fearful of men?

It is my observation that relations between men and women are strongly affected by fear. — T Clark

“Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion." "Ooh" said Susan. "I'd thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion"..."Safe?" said Mr Beaver ..."Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good. He's the King, I tell you.” — C.S. Lewis

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

Shall we say then, that a relationship without fear is a relationship without investment or commitment - a complacent relationship?

I want to ask you if your wife is afraid of you. Mainly because I want to know the answer. If you feel that I must be trying to insult you for asking, then please just ignore this post.

Well Edgar is an alcoholic. He's going to crash the bus into a ditch in the middle of Nowhere, whereas Melissa actually has amazing eye-hand coordination, nerves of steel, and could fly an F-15 if she wanted to. Edgar gets up because he thinks he's supposed to. Melissa sits there for the same reason. — frank

Yeah, but this attacks the hypothetical, which is that the unfair advantages afforded certain people provide them long term benefits of success. The way you've interpreted it, the social limitations are just artificial protections for power. It would seem reasonable to believe that those with wealth and influence would be afforded real advantages for success (like better schooling, better training, etc.), so I would in fact rather have a surgeon from the US than from Timbuktu. Maybe the US surgeon is a spoiled undeserving bastard, but he's still a better surgeon. But to use the US surgeon perpetuates a prejudice against Timbuktu surgeons, who, through no fault of their own are worse surgeons.

Yes.

And as you didn't ask, I am also afraid of her. It's part of the electricity of life; we can hurt each other, and we sometimes do. I call it vulnerability.

Yeah, but this attacks the hypothetical, which is that the unfair advantages afforded certain people provide them long term benefits of success. The way you've interpreted it, the social limitations are just artificial protections for power. — Hanover

Social norms cultivate talents and strength in one population and spray herbicide on another. Our efforts to create more fairness may have limited success and be short term, not because we don't see the problem, or that we don't care, but that we don't have ultimate control of the social forms we inhabit. That's what I was trying to say. Do you agree with that?

Social norms cultivate talents and strength in one population and spray herbicide on another. Our efforts to create more fairness may have limited success and be short term, not because we don't see the problem, or that we don't care, but that we don't have ultimate control of the social forms we inhabit. That's what I was trying to say. Do you agree with that? — frank

I agree that the unfairness is all manmade and is truly unfair. I'm not trying to suggest the man ought to drive the bus because men have that God given right. I'm just saying that if the man through no credit of his own is a better driver, I'd rather him drive. The pragmatic question is how painful we will allow the transitional period to be where we afford less qualified people to become more qualified. I think the society that invests now will be in a better position later when all its members are then as fully capable as the rest, but for those living in the here and now, it could be a painful process.

Shall we say then, that a relationship without fear is a relationship without investment or commitment - a complacent relationship? — unenlightened

Does this extend to all relationships?

Well, I am nearly invulnerable on this site, but still I can be hurt by those whose opinions I respect, to just that extent that I am committed to my posts.

But how is it for you?

Phobos is necessary company in one's morality.

Shall we say then, that a relationship without fear is a relationship without investment or commitment - a complacent relationship? — unenlightened

That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about, the kind that damages relationships can kill love. Not some sort of sacred fear.

So help us out then. Describe the fear and its origins you reference.

The pragmatic question is how painful we will allow the transitional period to be where we afford less qualified people to become more qualified. I think the society that invests now will be in a better position later when all its members are then as fully capable as the rest, but for those living in the here and now, it could be a painful process. — Hanover

There is no recipe to follow. We're just making it up as we go. I think that devotion to the basic principle is pretty strong, but we would at some point need to accept that the world is never going to be perfect. I have no idea how that would look, though.

You mentioned the other factor: wealth.

So help us out then. Describe the fear and its origins you reference. — Hanover

I'm all done for now. Maybe I'll start up another discussion at a later date..

It happened on here too between Agu and someone else, I think it was Vagabond and they both looked just as stupid as the other, writing massive essays without contributing intellectually at all. When I said that they should stop and actually talk about the problem in the OP, I got 'no, we have to do this.' Women back away because we know we get brushed aside during this weird Alpha display. There is no problem in condescension as you may genuinely disagree with the content of the response you receive, but it should be as a critique and with adequate solutions the problem.

Constipatedly homoerotic ritual? :lol: :lol: — TimeLine

Oh my!

You realize, of course, this means constipated and ritualized homoerotic war!

Perhaps it is a uniquely male theme; we measure ourselves against one another to appropriately divide reproductive access to the females...

This might seem counter-intuitive, but this selection isn't entirely a one way street in humans, which is why human males have - and are - the biggest dicks of any primate species.

Men are fighty, women are picky, and I'm risen here to combat your peculiar sexual conservatism that would mock these ancient and sacred games we play...

"Did you hear that!?", Vagabond ejaculated. "Irony's afoot; I sense it all around us...".

@TimeLine

*grabs popcorn*

That's not the kind of thing I'm talking about, the kind that damages relationships can kill love. Not some sort of sacred fear. — T Clark

I'm all done for now. — T Clark

Well this is what I'm talking about. You ask an intimate question, seem to want an honest relationship, and when you get a response, walk out. It's a very small thing here, of no importance. But let's not dismiss it as mere spirituality.

I am suggesting that intimacy demands honesty, and honesty involves vulnerability. There might be a love that is invulnerable, that we could call spiritual, but whenever you are offered it, it is almost invariably not that, but bullshit. Normally, I offer you a little piece of my heart, trusting you that far, and fearing that you are not trust-worthy. And as you have proved the latter, I retreat, as you see, into abstraction.

It's not the fear that kills love, it's the running away.

Perhaps it is a uniquely male theme; we measure ourselves against one another to appropriately divide reproductive access to the females...

Men are fighty, women are picky, and I'm risen here to combat your peculiar sexual conservatism that would mock these ancient and sacred games we play... — VagabondSpectre

Women are not picky. We are confused, mostly wondering why all of a sudden that guy at the gym is flexing his chest muscles as he stands in front of us to try and get our attention, doing some random groin stretch where he thrusts his crotch about before getting up and walking away in slow motion, his arms protracted out like he is carrying two sheep in between them.

Call me peculiar, but I like a guy who makes me laugh. As in with them, and not at them.