I explained the cause of the Ukraine war to my daughter of six as the weakness of old men as being incapable of compromise. — Benkei

"How can I save my little boy, from Oppenheimer's deadly toy"

Russians - Sting

I'm wondering though what place unadulterated fun has in competition. Some people just love what they do and become incredibly good at it. So they might like the competition but the only reason they can really compete is because they love archery, running, skating etc. — Benkei

I think unadulterated 'fun', aka love, lays at the heart of our being in the world. The world is extraordinarily meaningful to us. And yes, sex is a lot of fun as well. That is why is is often referred to as playing. Someone who wants it is often described as 'naughty'.

And it's not as if women don't compete, just in other ways. So I'm not convinced it's just a male thing (which is worrying if true, because that means there's no clear way to avoid wars). — Benkei

Me neither. Women are sexual beings to exactly the same level as men, at least as far as I know. The sexual by the way, does not have any base connotations for me. I think it is rather exalted actually. It shakes the world. So for me it binds the most serious, 'le petit mort', with the most innocent ' playing'. Giver and destroyer of life.

While consulting the latest Wyylde / Ifop survey published yesterday, I came across this data: — Olivier5

Ah, yes. Wyylde. Motto - Join the Pleasure Party. "Wyylde is the first social network where you can express your sexuality freely." Here, take a look at the source of your data:

https://www.wyylde.com/en-us/

The objectification of women isn't solely the fault of men, nor of women, but both. — baker

Nobody says that it's solely the fault of men...just that men carry most of the blame, being the ones that benefit.

Not a small amount of radical feminists are hostile to women who beautify themselves, or act in porn, or work as prostitutes, but the rage and fury is directed primarily at the men who are the ones benefiting from the system and perpetuating it.

That women can be complicit in their own oppression should not mask the fact of who is the exploiter. When the Nazis persecuted Jews in the Polish ghettos, they forced the Jews to set up Judenrätes, which were made up of Jewish people, but did the bidding of the Nazis as intermediaries. A similar thing happened in the concentration camps and death camps, where the Kapos (prisoners themselves) were used as intermediary administrators. It was easier for the Nazis to control the Jews by using Jewish intermediaries. These Jewish intermediaries often ended up being hated more than the Nazis who used them; in this way the Nazis achieved a certain degree of distance from their crimes.

Similarly, women in patriarchy is often used as intermediaries when men want to control women. So for instance FGM in Africa is frequently done by women, even though it is clearly an operation done for the benefit of men. Commercials for beauty products aimed at women are always narrated by women.

There's always token women put into a place of intermediary power in order to dispense patriarchal law. This is precisely why equality is not good enough; women participating in a patriarchal institution doesn't stop it from being a patriarchal institution.

What is crazy in this story is that men are always talking about their sexual misery, without ever realizing the misery they create in women. What do you think, guys? That we don't want to make love, that we don't want to be carried away by desire? Well, yes, we do! — Olivier5

:100:

Well that puts a different spin on this family guy clip :

The problem with women is their connections with other people, generally speaking. Otherwise they’re pretty cool.

:smile:
The gay factor and gender identity issues are something I've been thinking about, strangely enough.
After reading the fascinating discussion started by @unenlightened with excellent contributions:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12687/matrilineal-matriarchy

It is not something I've ever read about in any detail. And I probably won't now.
But so glad to see an open and non-aggressive conversation. A willingness from @unenlightened to consider all perspectives; others sharing their knowledge and experience :sparkle:

For example:

I stand corrected. ↪Cuthbert Twice.
You have not presented any kind of argument here.
— I like sushi

That's right, we are speculating and imagining. The global prevalence of patriarchy makes the evidence thin to the point where it is almost impossible to disentangle social nature from social nurture. That's why I am as interested in the fiction as much as the anthropology. There is a thread within patriarchy, of virtual nostalgia for matriarchy. — unenlightened

However, it seems to still be about an either/or arrangement. Patriarchy v Matriarchy.
I don't think this is helpful. Indeed, doesn't it play into the fear of males that women are taking control and being less than subservient? Women have their roles to play; the main one being a mother?

The 'gayness' and the horror of being seen as less than masculine. Not to mention the religious angle.
"In God We Trust" - pick your big, bad goodie. What gender must it be to be all-powerful?
The cartoon: "Anyone who doesn't want to go to war is gay!" has a ring of truth, doesn't it?

From that discussion, @I like sushi
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/669572

When it comes to leadership both masculine and feminine traits serve society. The biggest error in colloquial thought is that ‘masculine’ means ‘male’ and ‘feminine’ means ‘female’. I don’t see how society can shift this thought without destroying the truth of these reasonably distinctive categories that shed light of human psychology. I see it as rather bizarre that women who act like men - buy into power structures and act aggressively and competitively) think they are empowering women … they are neither empowering women nor disempowering women, they are merely empowering the system that is already in place.

And it's not as if women don't compete, just in other ways. So I'm not convinced it's just a male thing (which is worrying if true, because that means there's no clear way to avoid wars). — Benkei

I haven't read enough about female/male/other differences.
Not sure that philosophy has anything to offer in how to avoid wars or even domestic violence.
So many levels and aspects to consider in the fields of science, psychology, sociology...

It is one thing to have the mental and psychological power to enhance wellbeing in self, family, community- when it comes to country and global competition for resources that's another ball game.

The thought processes and 'reasoning' behind the violent...how can we ever rectify the ways of thinking in extreme groups? Even on TPF, we can see it play out. Vicious words flying instead of bullets.
Perhaps all this is necessary and who we are...we rise to the challenges...

It is from and to the extreme sections of society that would-be dictators seem to draw and give their power. Until hatred becomes mainstream, or so it seems.
Why and how do we allow the extremes to overwhelm the majority? Don't most desire peace?
Perhaps not...

I think most people if asked, would say that it is young males ( 20-ish) who are manipulated by the more powerful to carry out their fantasies of world domination. They kill and are killed.

the weakness of old men as being incapable of compromise — Benkei

But not always.
Males with extreme beliefs.
Some act as lone wolves or gang up in 'brotherhood' to get attention or a sense of belonging.
Some commit suicide after committing atrocities. Where do you see females doing that?
Think of the school killings - the causes - so many by young men thwarted, rejected.

Women are still seen as weak and men as strong.
"Don't be a big girl's blouse!"; a father to his 5yr old son crying, after a fall from a wall.
The phrase denotes a man regarded as weak, cowardly or oversensitive.

Attitudes are ingrained. Any change can be feared and desired in turn.
As to the prevention of war.
That will never happen as long as profits can be made...
It seems hopeless.
It is horrific what is happening now.
Unbelievable that humanity doesn't seem to have learned a damned thing.
Or if it has, can't do anything about it.

Ah, yes. Wyylde. Motto - Join the Pleasure Party. "Wyylde is the first social network where you can express your sexuality freely." — T Clark

Sounds like a plan.

Males with extreme beliefs.
Some act as lone wolves or gang up in 'brotherhood' to get attention or a sense of belonging. — Amity

But isn't that all weakness? Not being able to change your mind because of what? Extreme beliefs to me seem to be about clinging to what you think you know. In brotherhood we just do what everybody does because it feels safe.

Not that I necessarily need to defend my one liner because that's just an attempt to trying to make part of the world accessible to my daughter, to give a frame in which to think about a war. There's more to it.

A purely defensive war or a war to remove real evil, you know the level that makes you sick in your stomach and retch, those no longer seem to be related to competition. And that's probably because there are alternative base emotions than those related to sexual urges.

So disgust is usually a strong moral indicator as well, at the same time a lot of disgust is socially conditioned. Need to be careful with that one.

Then there's fear, which I can imagine playing a big part in the side of the Russians in the last war.

But where to go from there? What does it help if we can reduce causes for war to this. We're not capable of teaching the world to have healthy reactions to emotions. I have plenty of problems with it myself. Installed an app "in love while parenting" to become emotionally more verbal and react more appropriately to my kids in stress situations. Even in that research you do well when you react in the correct way about 1 in 3 times, which seems like we're all, as a species, lowballing our interpersonal interactions anyway.

Think of the school killings - the causes - so many by young men thwarted, rejected.

Women are still seen as weak and men as strong.
"Don't be a big girl's blouse!"; a father to his 5yr old son crying, after a fall from a wall.
The phrase denotes a man regarded as weak, cowardly or oversensitive. — Amity

And actually makes men oversensitive to feeling weak, rejected or unmanly when grown, resulting in very unhealthy reactions to them when they expedience those feelings. Repression is just a shit way of dealing with any emotion.

I still loved her but couldn't take the madness anymore. — Olivier5

One cannot simultaneously love someone and beileve they are mad. One of the two is not true.

By whom were you hit more often? By men or by women?
— baker

By men. Definitely men. — Possibility

Women. Absolutely by women.


I heard from a facilitator of women's self-defense classes that according to their internal study, in about 50% of the cases of violence of men against women, it was the woman who hit the man first (and things then escalated from there).

banged a girl — Hanover

And people who use such language should be regarded as arbiters of righteousness ........

There is something peculiar in that line of reasoning though, because the solution is so obvious, release the taboos around sexuality. — Tobias

List three examples when the lowering of standards led to a better result.

Besides, nowadays, we have more taboos around sexuality than ever. We are under the dictate of discussing the matter, but are allowed to do so only superficially.

Thank you, you are very kind. Honestly I failed her, but yes, in the end it was her choice.
— Olivier5

It pains me to read that you feel like you failed her. I don't want to try and change your mind, I just want you to know, that you do not have to carry this as a failure on your part. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Of course he failed her. She risked health and life so that she could keep the relationship with him at all, and it wasn't enough.

But isn't that all weakness? Not being able to change your mind because of what? Extreme beliefs to me seem to be about clinging to what you think you know. — Benkei

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.

In brotherhood we just do what everybody does because it feels safe.

I doubt this generally holds true. Group psychology isn't just about mediating fear, it's also about achieving mental and practical outcomes that a single person could not.

A purely defensive war or a war to remove real evil, you know the level that makes you sick in your stomach and retch

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".

But where to go from there? What does it help if we can reduce causes for war to this. We're not capable of teaching the world to have healthy reactions to emotions.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"

What we're apparently not capable of is to treat eachother with common decency and generally refuse to act in good faith. It's this lack of common decency and the insistence in bad faith that progressively worsen the situation until it deteriorates into armed conflict.

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing. — baker

Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think.

I doubt this generally holds true. Group psychology isn't just about mediating fear, it's also about achieving mental and practical outcomes that a single person could not. — baker

There can be cooperation without the trappings of inside jokes, secret handshakes and cordoning of us and them. The problem about brotherhood is that it excludes others.

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil". — baker

Every war fought by indigenous people against European invaders plus Hitler.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!" — baker

How does this even relate to my post? A healthy reaction is acknowledgment of the existence of the emotion and for your surroundings to accept that existence. So if someone if afraid, you don't tell them there's nothing to fear, because that's a dick move.

Or else, it's a matter of being self-confident, which is a good thing.
— baker

Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think. — Benkei

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?

There can be cooperation without the trappings of inside jokes, secret handshakes and cordoning of us and them.

The problem about brotherhood is that it excludes others.

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.

Do provide three examples of such wars "to remove real evil".
— baker

Every war fought by indigenous people against European invaders plus Hitler.

Ah, the noble savages argument.

And the "healthy reaction" to any emotion is to be passive. "Look, there's a man setting my house on fire! I feel so afraid! I must have a healthy reaction to fear!"
— baker

How does this even relate to my post? A healthy reaction is acknowledgment of the existence of the emotion and for your surroundings to accept that existence.

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.

So if someone if afraid, you don't tell them there's nothing to fear, because that's a dick move.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda? — baker

History is full of it.

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others. — baker

Intolerance of intolerance isn't exclusion but nice try.

Ah, the noble savages argument. — baker

No, a ius ad bellum argument. All wars of conquest were unjust, even then by our own standards. But again, history, which you've must have missed in class.

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology. — baker

I'm reflecting the latest research on the matter and you offer nothing substantive in return.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid? — baker

Indeed why? Shutting up would already be an improvement but unfortunately society is filled with people telling people what they are supposed to feel, supposed to look like and supposed to do. Usually starting with your parents.

Of course he failed her. She risked health and life so that she could keep the relationship with him at all, and it wasn't enough. — baker

We are going to have to agree to disagree.

Self-confidence is about problem ownership, admitting mistakes and being prepared to let go of beliefs when they turn out to be wrong. There's no self-confidence in dogma, only a failure to think. — Benkei

Absolutely brilliantly articulated!

I heard from a facilitator of women's self-defense classes that according to their internal study, in about 50% of the cases of violence of men against women, it was the woman who hit the man first (and things then escalated from there). — baker

Seriously? “She hit me first” - that’s the argument? What are you, five? If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt. Use your words. This is not a test of bravado.

If someone hits a person who is physically stronger, the implication is NOT the same as a physically stronger person hitting them. This is true regardless of gender. If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy.

This goes back to my original argument about acknowledging the qualitative aspect of the relationship.

One cannot simultaneously love someone and beileve they are mad. — baker

That's an odd belief, that one cannot love a mad person.

My sister-in-law is turning mad.

She is a very nice person, mother of two, hard working, funny. Covid came; she found herself stuck in circumstances that took a toll on her mental health. She blew a gasket; invented herself an alternative world.

She has lost her job. She has attacked people in the street. Now she is a diagnosed paranoid, takes medication, is followed by a psychiatrist. It is a tragedy.

But you know what? Her kids still love her; her husband still loves her; and I still love her. So something must be wrong with your theory.

That's an odd belief, that one cannot love a mad person. — Olivier5

It's incoherent to love that which one hates or despises or otherwise considers wrong or substandard.

Seriously? “She hit me first” - that’s the argument? — Possibility

*sigh*

It's not an argument, it's an anecdotal estimate by a self-defense professional.
Actual studies of these phenomena are relatively few, because the issue is so loaded, so anecdotal evidence is often all we have. Generally, victimology brings up many concepts and study findings that are unpalatable to many people.

What are you, five?

*sigh*
*sigh*
*sigh*

If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt. Use your words. This is not a test of bravado.

If someone hits a person who is physically stronger, the implication is NOT the same as a physically stronger person hitting them. This is true regardless of gender.

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill.

It's misleading to frame the matter as "man vs. woman". It's fighter vs. fighter, or fighter vs. non-fighter.

If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy.

Superficial and stereotyped relationships come at a price.

One person's "cognitive rigidity" is another person's "steadfastness" and "self-confidence".
Who gets to define the terms? Humanist liberals with their particular agenda?
— baker

History is full of it. — Benkei

Full of what? Answers to "Who gets to define the terms?" ?

Why should that be a problem? You exclude others.
— baker

Intolerance of intolerance isn't exclusion but nice try.

*sigh*

No, a ius ad bellum argument. All wars of conquest were unjust, even then by our own standards. But again, history, which you've must have missed in class.

This is a philosophy forum, not the watercooler. There should be more to one's moral arguments than "gut feeling".

You're reflecting an uncritical acceptance of liberalist pop-psychology.
— baker

I'm reflecting the latest research on the matter and you offer nothing substantive in return.

Only some of the latest research. There is other research that says that people are naturally resilient and that much of what psychology at large has been doing is actually useless or even counterproductive.

Why would one have to tell another person anything when they are afraid?
— baker

Indeed why?

It wasn't a rhetorical question.

Shutting up would already be an improvement but unfortunately society is filled with people telling people what they are supposed to feel, supposed to look like and supposed to do. Usually starting with your parents.

Can't you see that your "latest research on the matter" is doing the same thing -- telling people what to think, feel, speak, and do -- except that it does so under the guise of "science" and "latest research".

If someone hits a person who is physically stronger, the implication is NOT the same as a physically stronger person hitting them. This is true regardless of gender.

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill.

It's misleading to frame the matter as "man vs. woman". It's fighter vs. fighter, or fighter vs. non-fighter. — baker

Another example of ignoring the existing qualitative aspects of a relationship to frame one’s position as ‘logical’. There is no logical position in a power differential. Anyone who ignores this is kidding themselves to think they’re in a fair fight.

And I didn’t frame it as ‘man vs woman’. Read it again.

Another example of ignoring the existing qualitative aspects of a relationship to frame one’s position as ‘logical’. There is no logical position in a power differential. Anyone who ignores this is kidding themselves to think they’re in a fair fight. — Possibility

*sigh*

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill. — baker

And I didn’t frame it as ‘man vs woman’. Read it again.

You said:

If she’s emotionally destroying him with her fists, then he needs to tell her that, rather than pretend there’s no emotional attachment to destroy. — Possibility

If men would rather not be hit by people, then they should stop pretending it doesn’t hurt. If it hurt, then for fuck’s sake TELL her that it hurt.

You said: — baker

In specific response to this, which is ALREADY framed as man vs woman:

I heard from a facilitator of women's self-defense classes that according to their internal study, in about 50% of the cases of violence of men against women, it was the woman who hit the man first (and things then escalated from there). — baker

A fight is a fight. In any fight, it is assumed that the one who hits first is willing to fight. Regardless of perceived or real differences in physical prowess and fighting skill.
— baker — baker

Assumed by who? By the one who got hit?

There is no logical position in a power differential. Anyone who ignores this is kidding themselves to think they’re in a fair fight. — Possibility

it also incorrectly identifies "being hit" as "being in a fight". It's only a fight once the person being hit, starts hitting back.

The cartoon: "Anyone who doesn't want to go to war is gay!" has a ring of truth, doesn't it? — Amity

It's either true or false. I don't wanna go to war. Not for my fucking country, not for the gods, not in the name of science, I just don't want to. I like to fight sometimes but not with science-based technology. I'm nòt gay. So there can't be a ring of truth in the cartoon. But I get your intention. The cartoon should have been called "Most people who don't want to go to war are gay".

Let's rethink the situation (as properly as we can).

Men don't rule the roost and women aren't lowest on the totem pole as it were.

The reality is women aren't weak and men strong, women are only less powerful than men. In other words, females are simply lower in the pecking order, they are henpecking nevertheless.

Women, keep looking up!