one of us is stupid. Others can be the judge. Bye

The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so
— Possibility

Sorry, I didn't follow this, can you explain a bit more? — _db

Any ‘self’ is constructed as a perceived distinction of logic, quality and energy in relation to one’s conceptual reality. A construction of self always relates to a corresponding construction of reality. So a rationally perceived construction of self corresponds to a irrationally perceived reality.

If you acknowledge that any fears or desires you experience are an aspect of self, you have no need to appear entirely rational. But if you don’t appear entirely rational, then someone who will NOT acknowledge the fears or desires they experience is going to try to attribute theirs to you (the corresponding reality) in any perceived interaction.

In what way do I seem uncritical of it? — _db

Thank you for clarifying. It was because in the OP you expound the men's reasoning ("key reasons", "Hence why..") without pointing out any faults in it. In the OP you don't seem to concur with the reasoning and you don't seem to reject it. So it's uncritical. It's worryingly uncritical because it leaves open the possibility that you concur. Clearly (now) you do not. Which is a relief.

Women are equally as delusional too when it comes to projecting their desires on others. Anyone who has been in a relationship knows this is not really about men or women it is about some people having certain expectations and then being met with reality. — I like sushi

I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself, within the context described. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this really has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. It’s more about the lengths to which some people will go to maintain their delusions in the face of reality.

I remember someone talking a while back (maybe a good few years ago now?) about romanticism being a blight on modern sensibilities. Romance in the terms of ‘knight in shining armour’ and the ‘happily ever after’ mindset. I didn’t agree with it over all but there were some good points to consider that may have had an adverse effect on western society at large. — I like sushi

I think the initial idea behind ‘romantic love’ was quickly subsumed. It originally refers to a recognition of non-commutable values in perceived potential: the quantitative efforts of a knight in relation to the qualitative values of beauty and nobility. It was turned into a value transaction: on one hand it was an opportunity for women to effect change, but it quickly became an expectation that beauty and nobility - values a woman possessed in her own right - can be reduced to a quantifiable potential or value. With women prevented from also possessing economic, political or even academic potential, any quantifiable value they were deemed to possess was subject to negotiations by the men around them.

But Romanticism in general used language to develop conceptual structures of qualitative value, potential and power - which motivated Scientism to reduce these conceptual structures to their quantifiable aspects. So, yes - I do agree that it’s a much broader issue than gender.

I was very careful not to make any generalisations about either men or women. I specifically referred to ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’, unless describing the delusion itself. Yes, I agree that women can be equally delusional, and that this has nothing to do with any apparent differences between men and women. — Possibility

Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.

Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better.

Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it).

Saying ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ is a general comment directed at men and women. So it was a specific reference to a general category.

Saying ‘some,’ ‘a minority’ or ‘for example’ as an instance to explain a point would have worked better. — I like sushi

Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology.

Anyway, my original point was referring to Bill Burr’s joke in which he outlined several different situations where those women acted in a manner that deserves contempt and/or hatred. There are valid reason to have a strong dislike towards someone and Burr was not saying you SHOULD hit women at all, the joke was that to say there is no reason to is wrong - obviously if you haven’t seen the piece then this may sound insane (comedy is not exactly meant to be quoted I just assumed most people had seen it). — I like sushi

I hadn’t seen it before, no. Having now watched it, I do get what you’re trying to say, but you’re deflecting.

Let me try to give you a clearer picture of how many women argue. It’s honestly not about winning arguments - it’s about getting him to recognise that his supposedly ‘rationally justified’ position is distorted by affect before he’s even chosen his words. It may appear rational in his head, but it is impossible to present it as such. Because there is an established structure of affect between them that cannot be ignored, isolated or excluded in ANY interaction. Especially in disagreements. Every time he presents an isolated rational argument against her position, he disregards this. So, in order to bring this aspect of the interaction back to his attention, she presents the affected structure of her position, which he interprets as ‘crazy shit’ because it has no logical (or temporal) relation to his argument. That’s true, it doesn’t - but that’s honestly not the point. The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding.

Burr’s statement that “there are plenty of reasons to hit a woman” is deliberately worded to rationally justify the potential for violence against women without inciting actual violence. And if you’ve ever witnessed how that potential for violence, hatred, etc is used to force compliance from a woman without ever hitting her, then you would understand how sinister it can be.

Burr considers his anger and violent thoughts towards his partner to be rationally justified. I don’t. As far as I’m concerned (and I may be in the minority here) there is no reasonable justification for contempt or hatred, let alone violence, between two people who love each other.

Here’s a tip: acknowledge affect as a significant aspect of the interaction, and construct a mutual reasoning with this in mind.

Actually, it was a specific reference to specifically described delusion that results in misogyny and violence, so I stand by my terminology. — Possibility

I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one.

Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!).

I won’t waste any more of my time trying to discuss this then. Your reply shows such a oddly skewed idea of how men and women interact that I cannot take anything you say seriously. You literally just repeated this idea of men rationally justifying something and stating that women don’t want to win an argument? This is a generalisation, and I would add I very, very poor and inaccurate one. — I like sushi

I was saying that many women argue in this way when men attempt to rationally justify their position - not that ALL women do, or that ALL men rationally justify. And I didn’t say that women don’t want to win an argument - only that when they argue this way, it isn’t about winning the argument - despite what even they might think.

But hey, don’t take my word for it. Next time you find yourself trying to have a rational argument with someone who keeps getting defensive or personally attacking you, try being honest about how you feel at their remarks, and acknowledge your established relationship as part of your reasoning. You’d be surprised at how quickly it diffuses the situation. Male or female, doesn’t matter. Because a disagreement with someone whose interactions you value should never be about winning.

Bill Burr is a comedian. He was making a joke and ‘specifically’ states he is not justifying violence against women. It is utterly stupid to suggest that if you actually watched the entire artistic piece (which is brilliant!). — I like sushi

No, he specifically states that you shouldn’t actually hit women, but then argues that it’s perfectly reasonable to wish that you could. Except it’s just a joke, so don’t think too much about. Brilliant! What an artist! At least he acknowledges his own ignorance.

@Possibility Not interested in your drivel. Bye

I think power relations mean that any group of people can become the target for oppression.

However sexism seems to have flourished under religion.

As a gay man I do think I can appreciate women better without the frustration of falling into lust. Maybe.

Thank you for clarifying. It was because in the OP you expound the men's reasoning ("key reasons", "Hence why..") without pointing out any faults in it. In the OP you don't seem to concur with the reasoning and you don't seem to reject it. So it's uncritical. It's worryingly uncritical because it leaves open the possibility that you concur. — Cuthbert

You're on this ice here.
Psychology works with statistical averages as the normative. That which is statistically average is the norm that all must comply with (lest they get branded as abnormal).
If the type of behavior as described in the OP is found to be statistically average, then it is normative, normal, and thus not to be criticized.

I think the initial idea behind ‘romantic love’ was quickly subsumed. It originally refers to a recognition of non-commutable values in perceived potential: the quantitative efforts of a knight in relation to the qualitative values of beauty and nobility. It was turned into a value transaction: on one hand it was an opportunity for women to effect change, but it quickly became an expectation that beauty and nobility - values a woman possessed in her own right - can be reduced to a quantifiable potential or value. With women prevented from also possessing economic, political or even academic potential, any quantifiable value they were deemed to possess was subject to negotiations by the men around them. — Possibility

Where in the world (geographically) did this take place?

I take objectification to mean the fixation/fetishization of the parts of a person's body and the ignoring of the person to whom this body belongs. Objectifying women == perceiving her as meat to be fucked in whatever way. — _db

But women objectify themselves and other women in this same way. Pick up pretty much any "women's" magazine, book, tv show, seminar, webinar, and there it is: "see yourself as a piece of meat to be fucked".

It's a bit of a stretch to say that women do this because they are the poor victims of patriarchy.

Not interested in your drivel. Bye — I like sushi

:lol: No offense Possibility

The main delusions here are that a man is the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and women have subjective intention ONLY in relation to him. This assumption gives the false impression that a woman’s actions are determined in a necessary relation to men. Men who delude themselves that their own intentions are entirely rational, maintain this delusion by projecting all their fears and desires onto the world as external ‘forces’ against his rationality. A man acts on his reasoning, but a woman acts on her relation to a man’s desires? Nope. It is too common a misconception that a woman chooses (or should choose) her action, clothing, etc as a direct and intentional response to the fears and desires of the men around her. So when a woman acts contrary to his desires, or fails to allay his fears, she presents as a chaotic force to be subdued by his efforts.

Is it too much to recognise that both men and women act on AFFECT, translated from reasoning and inclusive of fears and desires? The fact that a woman may be sufficiently self-aware to NOT feel the need to appear rationally unaffected does not give men permission to do so - a man’s fears or desires are NOT a woman’s manipulation, responsibility, or fault. His inability or unwillingness to reason amidst his own fears or desires has nothing at all to do with women. — Possibility

I think this is how people are in general, so I would replace all "man" and "woman" in your text with "person". Ie.

Each person tends to think of themselves as the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and other peoplen have subjective intention ONLY in relation to them. (And amended for the rest of your text.)

Yeah it's an all-too-common phenomenon that women are physically abused by men for not conforming to the expectations projected upon them by men. If you don't see women as people with intentions of their own then when they seem to express these intentions, they must be violently put back in their place. — _db

Men treat other men that way as well. Women treat other women that way too. It's how parents treat their children, employers their employees, teachers their students, the government its citizens.
It's a basic pattern of power dynamics among people. (It extends to how they treat animals as well.)

The actual use of physical force seems to be more a matter of convenience and the actual differences in physical prowess in any given situation.

Incel and its offline branch.

Let me try to give you a clearer picture of how many women argue. It’s honestly not about winning arguments - it’s about getting him to recognise that his supposedly ‘rationally justified’ position is distorted by affect before he’s even chosen his words. It may appear rational in his head, but it is impossible to present it as such. Because there is an established structure of affect between them that cannot be ignored, isolated or excluded in ANY interaction. Especially in disagreements. Every time he presents an isolated rational argument against her position, he disregards this. So, in order to bring this aspect of the interaction back to his attention, she presents the affected structure of her position, which he interprets as ‘crazy shit’ because it has no logical (or temporal) relation to his argument. That’s true, it doesn’t - but that’s honestly not the point. The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding. — Possibility

People are generally like that, this isn't limited to men-women interactions.

The point is that their interaction has another aspect, which he is ignoring, isolating or deliberately excluding.

Which happens when one or both of them don't actually want to be in the relationship, but refuse to acknowledge this and to act accordingly. This is also a tactic to break up a relationship, or the individual interaction; it's a tactic intended to create psychological distance between people (which can then translate into physical distance).

Burr’s statement that “there are plenty of reasons to hit a woman” is deliberately worded to rationally justify the potential for violence against women without inciting actual violence. And if you’ve ever witnessed how that potential for violence, hatred, etc is used to force compliance from a woman without ever hitting her, then you would understand how sinister it can be.

Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men.

Here’s a tip: acknowledge affect as a significant aspect of the interaction, and construct a mutual reasoning with this in mind.

But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level.

'so it is with women: [...] 'Ah, you want us to be merely objects of sensuality - all right, as objects of sensuality we will enslave you.'
— Dworkin, "Intercourse"

What Dworkin says here is basically what I outlined in the initial post of this thread. — _db

Bah. I don't believe this. I find men generally to be too aloof toward women for the above kind of reasoning to apply.

Where in the world (geographically) did this take place? — baker

:lol:

If the type of behavior as described in the OP is found to be statistically average, then it is normative, normal, and thus not to be criticized. — baker

False reasoning and bad behaviour may be common and even sometimes the norm. I guess that it is so. But it may still be criticised.

Criticized on the grounds of what? With what justification?

Criticized on the grounds of what? With what justification? — baker

The men's reasoning that is expounded in the OP and not concurred with by the author can be criticised thus (to save repetition):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/666354

I'm saying that for criticism, one must have some philosophy, a stance that is _not_ rooted in the idea "the statistical average is the norm", and that, moreover, this philosophy or stance needs to be generally accepted as being superior to psychology.

For example, a humanist worldview, or some religious views.

False reasoning and bad behaviour — Cuthbert

How can you tell whether some reasoning is false and some behavior is bad?

Psychology, as a (scientific) discipline can say at most that the statistically average is the norm. For everything else, some other worldview, philosophy, stance is needed and the supremacy of which is implicitly taken for granted.

I think this is how people are in general, so I would replace all "man" and "woman" in your text with "person". Ie.

Each person tends to think of themselves as the central, rational subject of a chaotic reality - and other peoplen have subjective intention ONLY in relation to them. (And amended for the rest of your text.) — baker

I was specifically addressing the OP - but yes - I agree, and have said said, that the issue ultimately has nothing to do with gender.

People are generally like that, this isn't limited to men-women interactions. — baker

Agreed. Did I make any claim that it is?

Which happens when one or both of them don't actually want to be in the relationship, but refuse to acknowledge this and to act accordingly. This is also a tactic to break up a relationship, or the individual interaction; it's a tactic intended to create psychological distance between people (which can then translate into physical distance). — baker

Well, I wouldn’t assume they didn’t want to be in the relationship, although I would agree that it’s a possibility. I was referring specifically here to an ongoing relationship. My point is that I don’t think people are necessarily aware of this structure of affect while they’re in a conceptual-level discussion. And if they are aware, they don’t necessarily think it should factor into the discussion. Which I think is fine as long as there is no ongoing relationship between affected positions, or any chance of actual interaction.

Women do that to women as well. In fact, even more frequently than men, insofar a woman has more interactions with other women than with men. — baker

Sort of. Hatred, yes. Violence, no.

But that would either make an end to the power game, or take it to a whole new level. — baker

I agree with the first part - that’s kind of the point. But what ‘whole new level’ are you referring to?

How can you tell whether some reasoning is false.......... — baker

By considering the premisses stated or implied and the conclusions purportedly derived from them.

......and some behavior is bad? — baker

I can tell that it's wrong to rape a woman either because she refuses sex or indeed for any other supposed reason. You can do this too. You don't need to ask me how. You're already there.

I can give you deontology and utilitarianism and intuitionism if you need the philosophical bases. But for this thread topic it really is not necessary.

Just change the Op to "I hate men". Saves time. and you don't need to justify your position with all the bullshit.

Just change the Op to "I hate men". Saves time. and you don't need to justify your position with all the bullshit. — Book273

I skim-read recipes and think "That just means chuck it all in, heat it up and stir a bit." The results are less than impressive. That's another example where careful reading can not only help but is even necessary to understanding.

I don’t see how anyone can make such vast generalizations about women.

True, I think women are far more likely to be dehumanized— but that’s a product of culture.

I believe that one of the key reasons why a man will hate women is because of the power they seem to hold over him as sexual objects of desire. A woman can make a man want (to possess) her and yet also deny him access to her, thereby frustrating his desire. Women are perceived to be intentionally taunting men with their bodies, like a carrot on a stick, and men resent this. Hence why men often see sex as a form of conquest, in which a woman is finally dominated and put in her place — _db

So, you give one reason for 'a man hating women'. I haven't read all the discussion, so what are the other key reasons as to why women might be seen as posing some kind of a threat to the power of men? How do they frustrate the power of men? Which men are most dominant in society and in a position to pass regressive laws concerning all those they might fear or wish to control?

Incel and its offline branch. — Agent Smith

Thanks. A long and informative wiki article with 187 references.
Points I found interesting re the ambiguous title 'Women hate':

1.

A subgroup of incels who frequent websites run by Nathan Larson, a perennial political candidate and active participant in incel communities, work deliberately to convince other incels that they are justified in raping women if they are rejected sexually.[36] Some incels describe women's sexual rejection of them as "reverse rape", a phenomenon they consider to be equally harmful as rape.[75]

How on earth can a woman showing lack of interest in having sex be seen as 'reverse rape'?
What does that even mean?
It is not an assault on their bodies, incurring physical harm. Can any psychological trauma be as great?
How would that justify raping a woman? Isn't that false reasoning just a handy excuse for criminal behaviour, they get what they want by any means. 'Men hate'.

2.

Women who identify as incels share some similarities with their male counterparts, such as belief that physical appearance is the most important factor in finding a partner. In other ways they tend to be different; for example, according to journalist Isabelle Kohn, rather than being angry at the men who reject them, they empathize with the men for not wanting to date them. Kohn notes the tendency for female incels to turn their rage inwards, rather than outwards like males.[113] Journalist Arwa Mahdawi hypothesizes that the fact female incels do not go on violent rampages like some male incels is the most obvious reason why female incels have not received much attention in mainstream media.[119]

An important difference in attitude. Apparently, incel women don't hate men for not wanting them sexually.
Why not? Is it about low self-esteem? Or are women generally less violent than men?
That's not to say that some women don't hate some men for other reasons...

***
Today, an article shines more light on the subject. The rising threat of violence and causes:

A new US Secret Service report details a rising threat from men who identify as “involuntary celibates” or “incels”, due to their inability to form intimate relationships with women.

The report released on Tuesday and prepared by the National Threat Assessment Center (NTAC) highlights behavioral threat assessment themes identified in years of research examining targeted violence.

Themes include concerning and threatening communications, concerning online content, chronic and acute stressors, elicited concern in others, interpersonal difficulties, history of being bullied, financial instability, failed life aspirations and lack of consequences.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/16/involuntary-celibates-incels-threat-us-secret-service