Should a proposal to eliminate men from society be allowed on the forum

T Clark

There is currently a discussion taking place which started out with a proposal to eliminate males from society called "A Plan for World Peace." Here's a link.

↪Jake

In the original post, Jake considers eliminating men from society over time by attrition - Women will continue to reproduce girls using sperm created from cells from other women's bodies. Apparently this is a technology which may be feasible in the not too distant future. Men would gradually die out thereby solving the problem of violence.

Here's a link to my initial response to the OP. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/175966

Although I say several things in the post, I think the two most important are 1) this is genocide and 2) if it were proposed that women be eliminated in a similar fashion, moderators would delete the thread immediately. @Baden responded saying "Go fry ice." Actually, no, he didn't really respond at all. @Jack responded saying of course it isn't genocide and that he wasn't willing to respond to any more comments like that.

Two issues - First, we have a poster who proposes an outrageous and vile plan that, in my opinion, shows a deep contempt for men but who refuses to discuss it's implications. Second, the forum is allowing a degrading and demeaning discussion about men that would never be allowed if it were about women or specific ethnic, national, or racial groups.

My solution - well, I wish we had a place on the forum we could all go to to have nasty, unmoderated, free-for-alls, but we don't. So....I don't know. I don't like it when discussions get stopped. Let's at least get an acknowledgement. It is forum policy that, although sexism is not allowable as it applies to women, the same restrictions do not apply to men.

Janus

It is forum policy that, although sexism is not allowable as it applies to women, the same restrictions do not apply to men. — T Clark

It is reasonable to condemn bigotry when it is directed against oppressed peoples, and not unreasonable to refrain from condemning it when it is directed against the oppressors, since bigotry is already inherent in the act of oppression..

T Clark

It is reasonable to condemn bigotry when it is directed against oppressed peoples, and not unreasonable to refrain from condemning it when it is directed against the oppressors, since bigotry is already inherent in the act of oppression.. — Janus

So, you're agreeing with my summary of the ~~actual~~ forum policy as it is actually enforced [bold text added]. Good. Let's see if the moderators will go along. Maybe we can get @Baden and @jamalrob to formally change the guidelines to match reality.

Janus

↪T Clark

Sorry, T Clark, but I can't see how, if I am agreeing with the actual forum policy, that agreeing with me would require the guidelines to be changed. Have I missed something I wonder?

MindForged

↪Janus

It is reasonable to condemn bigotry when it is directed against oppressed peoples, and not unreasonable to refrain from condemning it when it is directed against the oppressors, since bigotry is already inherent in the act of oppression..

This is all when and good when you're not talking about genociding an oppressor. "Kill all the men" isn't simple bigotry.

Janus

↪MindForged

I can't see how the proposal involves killing any actual men. Note, though, I'm not saying I agree with the proposal.

T Clark

Sorry, T Clark, but I can't see how, if I am agreeing with the actual forum policy, that agreeing with me would require the guidelines to be changed. Have I missed something I wonder? — Janus

Sorry, I was unclear. When I said "actual forum policy" I meant the policy as it is actually enforced, not as it is written.

MindForged

↪Janus

Oh, sorry, not "killing", intentional death by attrition. Because euphemisms are excellent defenses.

Janus

↪T Clark

Ah, I think I see now; you are saying that the written guideline do not make the distinction between bigotry against oppressed and bigotry against oppressors, but just condemn bigotry tout court and that the practice is thus not consistent with the rules as written?

T Clark

I can't see how the proposal involves killing any actual men. — Janus

The definition of "genocide" under international law includes forced sterilization.

Janus

↪T Clark

↪MindForged

OK, but again, no actual men would be killed or sterilized, so it could hardly be called genocide. You could say that humanity will just undergo a collective gender reassignment. Personally I think it is a ridiculous idea, and could never be carried out without either sterilizing or killing actual men. If it involved sterilizing or killing actual mean it would be morally wrong, of course. On the other hand if all women collectively decided to avoid men altogether and reproduce in the new way; that would be their prerogative. But it aint ever going to happen, obviously.

T Clark

Ah, I think I see now; you are saying that the written guideline do not make the distinction between bigotry against oppressed and bigotry against oppressors, but just condemn bigotry tout court and that the practice is thus not consistent with the rules as written. — Janus

I don't consider men to be oppressors. For that reason, I don't find the distinction you make valid.

But yes, my suggestion is we make the language of the rule match it's enforcement. If the moderators were to change the guidelines to match your language, that would at least honestly acknowledge that it is not necessary for men and women to be treated the same.

Janus

I don't consider men to be oppressors. For that reason, I don't find the distinction you make valid. — T Clark

I think it is undeniable that men have been and still are oppressors of women. They have done this throughout history simply "because they can". It may have been 'unintentional' and 'due to circumstance', but 'unintentional' and 'due to circumstance' oppression is oppression nonetheless, I would say.

MindForged

↪Janus

The proposal was to stop making men:

STOP MAKING MEN: So, to wrap up this opening post, my proposal is that we "stop making men". That is, control reproduction so as to gradually remove males from the population. — Jake

Unless men were also legally made to be unable to reproduce other men via the same method (throw in artificial wombs) then it is genocide on top of intentional mass discrimination.

T Clark

I think it is undeniable that men have been and still are oppressors of women. — Janus

And yet I deny it.

Janus

↪MindForged

Sure, if the method would allow men to reproduce men and men were stopped from doing that then it would be morally wrong. But since men hold the power it is more likely that men would stop women from reproducing women. It's a thoroughly dopey idea that shouldn't even be taken seriously. It is material only for comedy. Woody Allen comes to mind for some reason.

Txastopher

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

Surely one should be able to discuss almost anything on a forum like this? If some topics are off-limits, it reflects very poorly on the ability of philosophical enquiry to actually do anything useful. If you don't like a topic, show why it's wrong instead of shutting down debate. Alternatively, consider renaming this site as The Dogma Forum.

Janus

↪T Clark

You should have read 'undeniable' to mean that it could not reasonably be denied. No one can force you to be reasonable; it is your prerogative to be unreasonable if you so wish.

T Clark

You should have read 'undeniable' to mean that it could not reasonably be denied. No one can force you to be reasonable; it is your prerogative to be unreasonable if you so wish. — Janus

And yet I deny I am being unreasonable.

MindForged

↪jastopher

The point of the OP is the purported inconsistency of how the rules are carried out. Also, I'd argue that philosophical inquiry is hardly ever useful, it's more intellectually entertaining that anything else.

T Clark

Sure, if the method would allow men to reproduce men and men were stopped from doing that then it would be morally wrong. But since men hold the power it is more likely that men would stop women from reproducing women. It's a thoroughly dopey idea that shouldn't even be taken seriously. It is material only for comedy. Woody Allen comes to mind for some reason. — Janus

It is my understanding that Jake's intention is that the program would not be voluntary. Women will not be allowed to mate with men. Men will not be allowed to mate with women. Women will be fertilized by artificial insemination with sperm manufactured from body cells of other women. Only girls will be allowed to be born.

Janus

↪T Clark

You think that precludes the possibility that you are being unreasonable?

T Clark

Surely one should be able to discuss almost anything on a forum like this? If some topics are off-limits, it reflects very poorly on the ability of philosophical enquiry to actually do anything useful. If you don't like a topic, show why it's wrong instead of shutting down debate. Alternatively, consider renaming this site as The Dogma Forum. — jastopher

This is a moderated forum. We have pretty good moderators who try to maintain a balance between freedom of expression and stability and civility. If you've ever been on an unmoderated forum, you know how quickly even philosophy will spin off into chaos. I don't always agree with the decisions the moderators make, which is why I started this discussion, but I think they are indispensable.

Erik

Is the discussion really meant to be taken seriously? I assumed with Baden (I believe) that Jake was being playful, and I was a little surprised others engaged him in good faith.

I know Jake has denied the charge, but I still can't help thinking he's attempting to (e.g.) expose the hypocrisy of those who would deny essential differences between the sexes on the one hand - especially biological differences - and then offer their support for a proposal like his, i.e. one which is grounded in those very assumptions they'd previously rejected.

Or maybe he's attempting to see, in a playful way, how far he can go and still be taken seriously among those of us interested in philosophy, regardless of how impractical or horrific the idea hes proposing is when followed to its end. Or maybe his goal is to expose obvious double standards at work concerning what's acceptable to post (and what's not) on internet message forums like TPF, which is something you rightly identified. Or maybe a combination of all the above and even more that I can't think of right now.

My apologies to Jake if he is being completely serious. I could very well just be too shortsighted and narrow-minded to see how realistic and desirable the possibility is.

T Clark

You think that precludes the possibility that you are being unreasonable? — Janus

Look, you're making broad, meaningness statements and I'm giving useless, over-literal responses.

T Clark

My apologies to Jake if he is being completely serious. I could very well just be too shortsighted and narrow-minded to see how realistic and desirable the possibility is. — Erik

I really, really think Jake is really, really serious. Maybe I'm wrong. Hey, @Jake, can you set things straight.

Janus

↪T Clark

How do you think my statements are "broad, meaningless"? Which ones, and why?

Janus

↪T Clark

Well then of course the program would be immoral since it would be oppressive to all.

T Clark

How do you think my statements are "broad, meaningless"? — Janus

You wrote:

I think it is undeniable that men have been and still are oppressors of women. — Janus

What does that mean? You haven't even defined your terms. Do you mean that women have the same relationship with men that residents of a country have with troops from an occupying power? You're using "undeniable" the way some people use "self-evident." And it's neither.

T Clark

Well then of course the program would be immoral since it would be oppressive to all. — Janus

Which brings us back to the original question - is it ok to discuss this here on the forum?

Erik

I really, really think Jake is really, really serious. Maybe I'm wrong. Hey, Jake, can you set things straight. — T Clark

Yeah if I recall correctly he said he's being serious, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's telling the truth. I've seen people engage in these sort of "gotcha" tactics before, promulgating ideas they don't believe in one bit in order to expose blatant double standards of their perceived opponents, but maybe his case is different and I shouldn't dismiss it so cynically.

Should a proposal to eliminate men from society be allowed on the forum

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions