Accelerationist! — Srap Tasmaner

No!!! I don't wish all that pain and suffering on the world. I just see the silver lining on the possibility.

We're even now

Even though these types of subjects aren't my cup of tea, I can actually sympathize with a few of the criticisms that are expressed here. Society certainly isn't perfect, and if there are archaic modes of behavior that cause widespread suffering they should be adressed.

If such criticisms are expressed with some wisdom and nuance, obviously I would not consider that man-hating.

However, some people seem to slip into these sorts of discussions and take it as a carte blanche to vent their personal grievances with men on the rest of the world. Suddenly gestures of genuine affection become symbols of male oppression, and fatherhood becomes a means of enacting a power fantasy (as per one of the articles that was linked earlier).

Such ideas are vile, destructive and sexist.

In any other context they would be immediately recognized as such, but here they seem to get a pass just because there might be some merit to the wider discussion. And they shouldn't.

When I see things like this going repeatedly unchallenged, I feel the need to speak up.

Having thought about it more, I guess I would expect courage to tend to manifest differently in men and women.

I would expect courage to tend to manifest differently in men and women. — wonderer1

I'm not sure I would, though it would fit nicely with that thing I posted about risk long ago.

But you hit the other thing I wanted to bring up!

Everyone agrees that masculine and feminine traits and behaviors -- whatever their proximate or ultimate origin -- can manifest in both men and women. Nobody's got dibs on anything.

But it does make a difference who's doing the manifesting. The example everyone agrees on is that women who behave in masculine ways (self-assertive, whatever) are often given a hard time for it.

But I think what I mean by being "a good man" is somewhere around here, it's the specific meaning that attaches to a man manifesting masculine traits. -- I'd almost rather say that it's about the way a man manifests feminine traits as well, but that's not quite it.

A couple reference points that resonate with me, for better or worse. If they're problematic, I stand to learn something.

There's the Raymond Chandler statement I posted earlier in the thread.

There's Jack Shaefer's novel Shane, basis of the movie. I remember reading it and thinking it perfectly nailed a certain American conception of masculinity, the reluctant hero.

In a similar vein, there are these odd pairs of generals in American military history: Grant and Sherman, Bradley and Patton. Sherman and Patton both thought of themselves as warriors in the grand European tradition, flashy seekers after glory. Grant and Bradley were somewhat business-like men who hated war.

I remember as a kid reading, probably in the American Heritage history of World War II, a story, possibly apocryphal, that German troops were a little unnerved the first time they faced Americans. They had fought the British, and the British, heirs to a grand military tradition the Germans could understand, sang as they entered battle. But these Americans were silent, grim. Americans weren't there for glory, but to do the job and get back home.

And what connects Chandler to this chitchat about war is that a good man is willing even to do unpleasant things if they must be done, and does them in part so that no one else has to. Private investigation is a nasty job, but one that needs doing and Philip Marlowe does it nobly, so far as that can be done. Shane wants never to pick up a gun again, having lived by one in the past and not happy about it, but someone has to face the bad guy and he's the only one who can. He steps up, and does what's necessary, but not for glory, and even though it costs him.

There's plenty more, these are just some things I know made an impression on me. They all involve a certain kind of resolve that others can depend on.

The other side is that I think a good man shows restraint as well, and doesn't use his strength -- within which I'd include privilege, being a man in a society where men have power and status -- recklessly or out of self interest. Chandler captures a lot of that too -- particularly in the sentence I thought would raise some eyebrows:

I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin — Raymond Chandler

The thing is, that's about power and status, rather than sex. The woman of higher station than him would have to be "seduced". The virgin is presumably young and unworldly and he would be "taking advantage". Taking advantage of his position in any sphere is not something a good man does. He doesn't lord it over his employees, doesn't smack his kids, doesn't take advantage of vulnerable young women. (There are probably no good men in The Iliad, by this definition.) This is all in the "with great power comes great responsibility" vein.

There's plenty more to say, but there's something anyway.

:up:

I loved the Chandler quote the first time I saw it, as well as reading it again just now.

The example everyone agrees on is that women who behave in masculine ways (self-assertive, whatever) are often given a hard time for it. — Srap Tasmaner

Yeah, they are given a hard time for it, but I don't see confident, competent, and assertive women as unfeminine. I have a bad habit of falling in love with them.

Sherman — Srap Tasmaner

"War is hell." William T. Sherman

American Heritage history of World War II, a story, possibly apocryphal, that German troops were a little unnerved the first time they faced Americans. They had fought the British, and the British, heirs to a grand military tradition the Germans could understand, sang as they entered battle. But these Americans were silent, grim. Americans weren't there for glory, but to do the job and get back home. — Srap Tasmaner

The silent grim rugged brave tough American soldier -- definitely an American heritage theme--the Greatest Generation, etc.



IRON GUTS -- no irritable bowel syndrome for these men!

You're probably right. It's my childhood reading of history I'm referencing.

I withdraw aspersions I cast in the direction of Sherman.

Was Patton also not the jackass I took him for? Brilliant warrior, sure, but a jackass.

You understand, right, that it doesn't matter if the idea was factually accurate? It's how Americans wanted to think of themselves, and how I learned to think of the American ideal of manhood. You didn't enjoy war or seek glory; it was something you did if you had to. Maybe that was propaganda, to distract from whether you had to. Also doesn't matter.

George Patton was apparently a great general whose mouth got him into trouble when he spoke out of turn off the topic in the wrong place. (I can relate to all that.)

A famous Patton quote:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

Quite sensible, really.

But the slapping is not apocryphal.

Facts matter, a principle you probably uphold. Fact is, propaganda is important for winning a war. Motivating the troops, motivating the domestic populace, depressing the enemy, etc.

Allied troops, including Americans, had a fairly high rate of desertion during WWII in the European theater. There was practically no desertion in the pacific theater. What was the difference? Were the American soldiers in the Pacific braver, gutsier, tougher than their brothers in Europe?

No. In Europe, there was some place to go after you walked away from the battle. In the pacific, the battles were mostly on islands, and if you wanted to leave -- well, it was a VERY LONG swim.

Right, that was very bad PR. I should read about Patton or find a PBS history program on him. SOOO much history, so little time.

I withdraw aspersions I cast in the direction of Sherman. — Srap Tasmaner

That's OK, I'm don't hold any stock in W. T. Sherman & Company.

very bad PR — BC

It was the sort of bullying that has no place in my idea of being a good man.

Well. That set the cat among the pigeons...

I hope it's not rude to lump you both into the same answer, but you touch on similar themes.

Firstly, there's a missed point to address. The point I was trying to make (from just before that 'poverty porn') is that there's a distinction - missed in Mirren's comments and woefully overlooked in today's identity politics - between the form of oppression and the victims of oppression. If I invented a tool of oppression (say a new police weapon) which targeted only the tall, it would oppress only the tall. Tallness would be a risk factor. But that would not mean that if you are tall, you are oppressed. It just means that it's one of the risk factors. And we don't need a weak proxy for who is oppressed (or at risk of it). The point of the poverty porn was to show that we can see who is oppressed - they're oppressed. There's no need to 'proxy it out' to 'women', or 'blacks' or 'trans-folk', or any other group because the effects of oppression are directly measurable themselves, and if they aren't then they're just not that important right now.

To tackle the FGM example given. We know the victims of FGM, they've been violently mutilated, we don't need the proxy identifier of saying they're 'women'. They're {the violently mutilated}, it's already a group directly the victim of a tool of oppression. Yes only women are at risk from that tool, but that has no bearing on Helen Mirren, who definitely isn't, her being a women doesn't change that. She's not at risk from that kind of oppression because she's rich and socially well-placed.

We don't need Helen Mirren to be 'slightly-oppressed' because she shares a chromosome arrangement with victims of FGM, and this is important, because the next most oppressed group to the poor victim of FGM is probably the fucking monster who just carried it out, not some wealthy actress who happens to also have ovaries.

Secondly, there's the whole space-on-the-front-page question. I get that there's some intersectionality with these issues - patriarchy, racism, capitalism - but intersectionality is not what Mirren is promoting (I'm using her here as an example, I don't want to focus too heavily on the details), there's no "...and this is what fuels the oppression of the working class" at the end. Gods, she'd have to swallow a hell of a bitter pill to add that.

No, it's quite the opposite. It's a way of avoiding talk of class oppression by looking for other groups of which the ruling classes can be members and so exculpate themselves. Mirren gets to wax lyrical in her £10,000 dress without being pelted with eggs because she's seen first and foremost as a woman, not as a bourgeois elite. That's not an accident. Keep the focus on traits which the ruling class can share and so keep the focus off them.

Women's rights have made amazing progress, we have equality enshrined in some quite powerful laws. Trans activism only really took off a few years ago and already there are laws protecting that group, and social pressure among at least the liberal classes is enormous to accommodate.

Yet...The gap between rich and poor is wider than it's ever been, we've just seen the largest transfer of wealth ever, and 50 million children are still at risk of starvation in parts of Africa.

If the two issues are so intersectional - where's the progress? Doesn't this all just smack of 'trickle-down' economics? "Oh, all this first-world whinging will eventually help out the poor via some tangential proxy (gender, skin colour, sexuality...), just give it time...". We don't need a tangential proxy, nor do we need to tackle the problem sideways by dealing with sexism, racism, or transphobia. We can tackle the problem head on.

The kid in my poverty porn was mining cobalt for smartphone batteries. This phone doesn't use them. It's not complicated, we just need to stop buying products which use conflict minerals. But to do that, the possibly needs to plastered on every front page until it's done, and the social approbation currently reserved for using the wrong pronoun needs to be applied to buying a new iPhone .. And so on...

But Helen Mirren has an iPhone, and no one cares.

But I don't actually know what he'll say. — Srap Tasmaner

Turns out you do!

But I don't actually know what he'll say. — Srap Tasmaner


Turns out you do! — Isaac

No I didn't!

I like the point about proxy victims. That's similar to points you've made before about how to understand the statistics of risk, stuff that's second nature to you but that I have to think through. This was very clear.

Not sure I buy the point about the elite trying to distract us from the real issues. I mean, of course that's a real thing, in many cases well organized and funded -- but shouldn't you apply the same statistical approach to whether Helen Mirren's mouthing off is necessarily part of such a scheme?

Maybe you see that a little differently, her speech as part of a regime of distraction by its effect, regardless of her personal status as co-conspirator. I'll leave that for you to sort out.

What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'?
— Amity

I don't know much about feminist philosophy beyond what gets out in public, which I'm sure is not representative. What I see on TV and read about is anything but pragmatic. Pragmatists focus on solving problems. I don't see that in public feminism. — T Clark

Appreciate your positive contribution. Like you, I don't know much about feminist philosophy. Haven't really been all that interested until @Moliere started this discussion. In the last 18 days, I have read and reflected on posts and useful links before attempting my own replies. Still have a lot of questions...and still to catch up on those linked to by e.g. @fdrake.

I don't know that I'd even paid attention to 'public feminism'.
What do you include in that category? Youtube videos ? Open articles by academic feminist philosophers or radical activists...? They can address or highlight problems or issues related to gender but don't necessarily solve them. Some feminists might be pragmatic, but not all are Pragmatists.

With regards to the big P of Pragmatism (philosophy) - I don't know as much as I would like.

Pragmatism carries an everyday meaning as being practical, paying attention to the particular context in which you find yourself and not being weighed down by doctrine or ideology.

[...] Pragmatism is not a methodology and pragmatic principles can inform many kinds of research. However the logical stance of a Pragmatic inquiry is to be action oriented – there is close link between pragmatism and action research for example (Hammond, 2015). Pragmatists will see knowledge as fallible. Past research can inform action however researchers cannot claim to offer ‘anywhere, anytime’ answers or incontrovertible ‘best practice’ (for example, Biesta and Burbules, 2003). — what is pragmatism?warwick.ac.uk

I don't think that feminists and pragmatists are necessary partners.
However, a combination sounds like something I want to explore further.

If such criticisms are expressed with some wisdom and nuance, obviously I would not consider that man-hating.

However, some people seem to slip into these sorts of discussions and take it as a carte blanche to vent their personal grievances with men on the rest of the world. Suddenly gestures of genuine affection become symbols of male oppression, and fatherhood becomes a means of enacting a power fantasy (as per one of the articles that was linked earlier).

Such ideas are vile, destructive and sexist.

In any other context they would be immediately recognized as such, but here they seem to get a pass just because there might be some merit to the wider discussion. And they shouldn't.

When I see things like this going repeatedly unchallenged, I feel the need to speak up. — Tzeentch

This post was addressed to @fdrake as a complaint against 'some people' and their 'vile, destructive and sexist' ideas. Apparently, they have been given a 'pass' which they shouldn't have.

I am confident that @fdrake will respond to this in his usual measured way.
If any such people and ideas are found, then action will be taken.

None of my comments were directed at you personally, but at some of the people whose opinions you shared. Nor was this an appeal to have you moderated.

But, as they say, "If the shoe fits..."

Not sure I buy the point about the elite trying to distract us from the real issues. I mean, of course that's a real thing, in many cases well organized and funded -- but shouldn't you apply the same statistical approach to whether Helen Mirren's mouthing off is necessarily part of such a scheme? — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, you're right. See our other conversation about rhetoric! Also about the way in which we can't not make judgments about motive, we can't suspend judgment here because we have to act in one way or another and that requires us to make a judgement one way or the other. I reckon Helen Mirren will probably shrug it off, I expect her $18 million mansion will help soften the blow of being unwittingly drawn as a caricature in my sketch of the bourgeois.

(as you say - fully signed up tankie, got the t-shirt and all)

I hope it's not rude to lump you both into the same answer, but you touch on similar themes. — Isaac

All good, it's how you manage bees after punching a beehive.

Secondly, there's the whole space-on-the-front-page question. I get that there's some intersectionality with these issues - patriarchy, racism, capitalism - but intersectionality is not what Mirren is promoting (I'm using her here as an example, I don't want to focus too heavily on the details), there's no "...and this is what fuels the oppression of the working class" at the end. Gods, she'd have to swallow a hell of a bitter pill to add that.

...

Women's rights have made amazing progress, we have equality enshrined in some quite powerful laws. Trans activism only really took off a few years ago and already there are laws protecting that group, and social pressure among at least the liberal classes is enormous to accommodate. — Isaac

I don't think we're avoiding (in thread) talk of class oppression, it's just not the central concern here. If you're willing to accept that some kind of feminist analysis is helpful, especially along intersectional/postcolonial lines, and that broadly speaking anti-patriarchy politics is doing Good Things (tm), then there's room to talk about what's to be done. If you're on the "we should be concerned about nothing but international class based geo-politics" boat, that is fair enough. It is a respectable boat. There's another boat, which is the "international class based geo politics would be swell, and so would emancipatory politics in political north countries"... I assume you are also in that boat.

We don't need Helen Mirren to be 'slightly-oppressed' because she shares a chromosome arrangement with victims of FGM, and this is important, because the next most oppressed group to the poor victim of FGM is probably the fucking monster who just carried it out, not some wealthy actress who happens to also have ovaries. — Isaac

That's not the framing I prefer. Do the "make poor people less poor" thing. But there's no guarantee you do change cultural norms in a desired way by making people less poor.

As for the points about hypothetical people stealing oppression points through hypothetical comparisons of injustices - I mean, some people do that. I think in practice people who just chatter about feminism do it. In another context it could easily be construed that I'm claiming current oppression of women in non-genital-mutilating-countries on the basis of some countries being genital-mutilating-countries. But I'm not doing that.

I'm using that to point out that there's a type of social concept which is required to understand and work on these things. Like a demographic. Trying to understand why people act the way they do. As men and women. Around relationships, cohabitation, sex and all that. There're problems. And they're not all addressed by throwing money at them.

If those problems are simultaneously interpersonal and systemic - which they seem to be - then you end up looking at norms and what enables people to act in accordance with them. That's the space this discussion operates in.

Then there's a sub discussion of masculinity in that - how are men expected to behave interpersonally, what problems does this cause, what advantages does it have, what disadvantages does it have - and so on. I also gave the example of a relational problematic in it, of domestic abuse. All of these things are going to tie together in one big normative-demographic clusterfuck.

Ultimately, I think your comments serve as an attempt to flip the table and play a new game. How would you flip the table and play the old one?

Enough already. This is becoming tedious. As such, I will no longer be responding to your comments.

However, some people seem to slip into these sorts of discussions and take it as a carte blanche to vent their personal grievances with men on the rest of the world. Suddenly gestures of genuine affection become symbols of male oppression, and fatherhood becomes a means of enacting a power fantasy (as per one of the articles that was linked earlier). — Tzeentch

Aye. There's a fine line between tarring proponents of these criticisms with this brush and being frustrated at how people articulate this stuff in general, too. I'm not going to pretend there are just a few "bad apples" who espouse things in this manner, but I will say that everyone who's sick of them tends to keep quiet for obvious reasons. And people are pretty sick of them.

In a similar vein, if you come in with the claim that what those kind of people are espousing is misandry, you end up behaving like one of their tropes. Entitled fucker unwilling to reflect on their position in the place of things. Which is a convenient equilibrium for both sides; you just have to pick your flavour of in-group shibboleth, edgy transgression (with an alleged core of prejudice) or righteous indignation (with an alleged core of insincerity).

Admittedly if you choose neither you end up looking like a wokescold to some and a bigot to others!

... , if you come in with the claim that what those kind of people are espousing is misandry, you end up behaving like one of their tropes. — fdrake

I don't care if people resent me for calling out their bullshit.

I don't care if people resent me for calling out their bullshit. — Tzeentch

So long as you don't resent them for doing the same, eh?

Amongst humans at least, I think that there are some objective truths, such as:
One persons deeply held conviction, is often another persons exemplar of total bullshit.
Perhaps Ocean Colour Scene had a point when they sang; There's no profit in peace.

He doesn't lord it over his employees, doesn't smack his kids, doesn't take advantage of vulnerable young women. — Srap Tasmaner

The Romans celebrated the story of a Roman farmer who, when discovering that marauders were attacking, put on his armor, went and kicked ass, and was back behind the plow in like 20 days. I think it's the same thing you're talking about: the Roman word for it was "gravitas." It means don't be a loud mouth jerk.

This is something I treasure, if you search for this poem, you'll come across versions that have it as "The Woman in the Arena." It's just as touching and meaningful. It's definitely something human, but we tend to associate it with masculinity.