But more to bullying -- and toxic masculinity. I just wanted to point out that I wave a similar flag to good old Street, though we had different modes of expression.

I've touched on toxic masculinity in the thread because I figured it'd come up and it needs acknowledging. It's a real phenomena. I'm not sure I'd put the various stances of political actors in that box, though. The conflict isn't coming from a sense of the masculine as much -- we aren't bullying people because that's what men do, I mean, even in a toxic masculinity. Resentment is the emotion of toxic masculinity moreso than the pleasure of bullying.

I think that bullying can become pleasurable for anyone in the same way that the use of power can be pleasurable. pointed out Trashing, the Dark Side of Sisterhood which describes a similar phenomena. Some people are unable to distinguish between the boss and the loyal opposition, and some people don't even want to bother because they're not there to build a world-wide movement. They just don't want that person there anymore for whatever reason.

-- my guess is that masculinity probably isn't related to where we landed, though it's important to talk about with respect to trans discourse because it shapes where our present thoughts are probably reflecting from, at least.

There's some stuff here. One is that the behavior we all deplore -- because Street's gone, so there's no one to take the other side -- among certain groups of young progressives has a name: bullying — Srap Tasmaner

Heh. I'll note that I don't deplore violence in principle. Context matters, and the series of sins goes back and forth. While I dislike violence, I don't deplore it because it's so much a part of our world that when it comes to politics it's impossible to do without (and those who are most attracted to non-violence are often ones who aren't aware how much violence their own society requires to function). It's like deploring lying -- sure, Kant, it's bad to lie, but we're all going to do it anyways. So goes violence.

I often look to Nelson Mandela as a person who managed to express the perfect pitch on the question of violence -- he never condemned it on principle, but also didn't pursue it as his main tool.

But I also think there are some incredibly large egos out there that could use deflating, and that the stakes are too high to allow egos to be the reason why we engage in political activity. I'm not up to the point of being able to say something as specific as J.K. Rowling -- she has really shown her ass in public on trans issues as far as I'm concerned, but then I wonder why in the world we're talking to a popular author about an issue she doesn't have to live with in the first place. It's probably because she said some dumb stuff, and it got amplified, and she then doubled down, and the back-and-forth created these hard-division identities -- you're either with JK Rowling or against her!

Which is the exact choice you have to make if a political campaign is underway -- you have to stay in the picket line or go to work, there is no in-between. But this isn't the same kind of political campaign because we're dealing with the personal psychology of J.K. Rowling and whether or not that is a good psychology or if she is a bad person, and this is why she's good/bad, and if you do/not like her then you're also good/bad. There is no demand hooked to the decision which can be debated. It's her, and reflectively our own, moral character that's at stake.

There's a place for that level of demonizing, even. But you have to be like a holocaust denier or a legitimate member of a white supremacy organization or a cop before I even think about it. And it has to be for a purpose rather than because I think this person is a bad person (there are a lot of bad people in the world, and I have a life to live not chasing them all)

(we won't go into why I believe that, here, as that really would totally derail the thread, and I suspect we're on thin ice in that regard already!) — Isaac

:D

I'm still looking for the loop back -- but I can see the relation due to the timing of trans issues becoming more prominent in popular discourse aligning with changes in norms of discourse. This not really talking about trans issues but rather the media form which all of these political views get disseminated through. I've enjoyed the reflections you've shared.

Any sense that some of these folks have taken such a view of themselves? — Srap Tasmaner

You ever heard the expression that the media is a mirror?

I think it works especially well for Twitter-- it's tailored for you. You can block who you want, follow who you want, report who you want, and even set your profile to private so that you're only seen by your close circle.

Looking at it objectively I think we have real cases, but ones selected for us through what is effectively a black box to us. We have reason to believe it maximizes engagement. Which means what I'm seeing is even more about me, and now without as much of an audience that needs to be catered to -- it caters to me and my individual tastes as determined by what I "like" (a button on a post) or spend time on.

So if we want to find this case we will, and we can then daisy-chain through the follows/retweets/links/likes to find more. So it feels like "Yeah! This is exactly what I've been talking about!" -- hence why it's very easy to write reflective think-pieces about cultural trends on Twitter because you'll probably find confirmation. Even more the subject of identity is complicated not just by anonymity but the ease with which sock-puppets can be created, as well as bot networks. There is no way of confirming even if your positive confirmation is a genuine confirmation of some niche network of individuals, or some trolls having fun on twitter making fun of people that don't really exist anywhere but inside their own heads. There's enough of them that are genuine, but enough of them that are not to cause doubt.

Which is all to say: I can't say, and this is why. It's almost impossible to gauge a person based upon their tweeting habits if we're just reflecting on our own experiences. It breaks how we normally communicate.

Is that the difference between authoritarian and anti-authoritarian politics? No superheroes but plenty of supervillains? — Srap Tasmaner

I think the idea is that we're the superheroes in the story -- rather than a jefe who brought order, the anti-authoritarian wants leaderless order, the order that comes from people working together as a group.

But given human nature with our particular history it's really hard to get that idea across to people. People are so used to hierarchy, which does have the advantage of efficiency of action, that the notion seems like a contradiction.

I suppose we could say that's a good thing, it's just that the other thing going on is that the crazy left seems to have agreed that everyone not a hero-activist is not a bystander, not an opponent, not a villain, but in fact a supervillain. The right still seems to distinguish between the evil masterminds of the new world order and the gullible cucks and libtards that they've taken in. — Srap Tasmaner

I can't deny what I've seen. There's a lot of interpersonal problems which get mistaken for political stances -- the great irony of the left is its belief in solidarity in conjunction with its tendency to factionalize over things that don't matter to the people at large.

Maybe some take that "we are the heroes we're waiting for" line a little too egotistically. It's supposed to shake someone to realize that they, all of us, are the adults in the room and no one else is going to take care of our collective problems other than ourselves.

But your notion of superheroes would make sense of righteous fury. Especially if someone hasn't really encountered their own failures and weaknesses. (it's this latter part that usually keeps my ego in check -- anytime I start to think some self-righteous crap I can usually think of a time when I was basically doing the exact same thing)

My first thought is that people who are afraid, guilty, disgusted, and anxious probably are low on trust.

If bad things are also happening to you, as will be the case under capitalism, you'll search for explanations for why there are bad things when you're overwhelmed from fear, guilt, disgust, or anxiety.

And those are the emotions which work to control people, which means that most successful propaganda will invoke those emotions.

If we live within propaganda echo-chambers, as my thought goes, then paranoia is a natural reaction to living in that kind of an emotional environment.

Then when you get your paranoia confirmed from a friend who you trust.... another feed-back loop.

True, but, when have the stakes been lower? — Isaac

I'd say the stakes are about constant, but that relative-power fluctuates. Or maybe the perception of relative-power changed as people began to seek information from the big information machine rather than from a trusted organization. With a change in technology that allows for different actors to take stage, so there can also be sour grapes in the mix from that, but my guess is more along the lines of people perceiving themselves as powerless while simultaneously perceiving the ends as high-stakes, and screaming at people who you disagree with serves as an outlet for that kind of rage.

Or, as @fdrake pointed out while I was typing this out, there has always been dirty laundry to air. Another good thing to keep in mind.

I think to explain the change you need to add in what you were talking about earlier, the low cost of the key form of verbal action. It's too cheap to take actions that's too weak to work. — Isaac

Or, from the perspective of a campaign director, it's too cheap to not invest in. :D

With a bit of well-designed propaganda -- or, really, lucky guesses -- the media form takes care of the costs of propagating propaganda. Propaganda has been a tool for awhile. My explanation relies upon the costs of propaganda being lowered. With anonymization not even a reputation is at risk unless you spend a lot of time in an online space. But if you can write the right words -- the virus propagates.

But I remain suspicious. This all does sound like a reasonable explanation in terms of human nature, unforeseen consequences of new tech, etc. but are we really saying that it all just so happens to act to remove meaningful opposition to capital? Did they just get lucky? — Isaac

Partly! Though that's also partly true of a lot of significant social changes -- most social changes are unpredictable because of this multiplicity of causes. That's part of why revolutions are fascinating to historians -- they are the moments when the everyday is suspended, and it doesn't seem like they should work. (and, often, they don't -- being the weaker party rebellions are usually suppressed)

I wouldn't want to lower your suspicion of social explanations, especially mine -- this is a guess, and I believe in multiple causes even if a social explanation happens to make sense. Social explanations are the sorts of things we should always remain suspicious of because it can be too easy to think that a position is right. Since we cannot rely upon falsifiability in even a tangential sense -- politics, and history, can't even be a soft science -- it's pretty easy to add auxiliary beliefs to auxiliary beliefs to auxiliary beliefs and then have them co-refer and help each one make sense but in a vapid way. (one of the reasons I like to read the histories of multiple perspectives is to counter some of this tendency). Plus my explanation is far too clean -- it's very much a theory and not a history, which is always messier.


I've offered a Marxist explanation for the change in norms of discourse: Before the internet mass media was a fairly reliable way states retained identities across such large territorialities, after the internet (especially with social media tuned with an algorithm to maximize engagement) not so much. But that explanation doesn't change the fact that under capital people seek to dominate (and sought, prior to social media). And the media is and has been largely privately owned -- it's already produced by thems who own about what thems who own's parties care about, and the way to make waves and changes is to persuade thems who own that there's more out there to be owned in a politically acceptable way. Or, at least, it's a pretty common method. (hence the concern for the middle class: they have disposable income). So I wouldn't go so far as to say it's only luck, and the desire for a billiards-ball style causal explanation probably won't be satisfied if we decide to at the same time treat our explanations to a critical examination. Politics is done by people after all.

So it's not all dumb luck and just the movement of technology. There are also intentional plans put in place, unintentional plans put in place, consequences upon consequences from plans to counter previous plans -- and most of how we got here in the present has already faded from memory.

It's just a part. And it seems like there's something to it...

But there's also something to @fdrake's point. It's a lot harder to contain dirty laundry in an era when people vent in public on the internet.

That's fair enough. So let me put it the other way round. If all that I've just alluded to is the "low cost propaganda", but intersectional approaches are intact, then where are they, on the ground? Which campaign approaches are not "low cost propaganda"? Which have sprung from the loins of the intersectional analysis? — Isaac

OK, that's a good question. I don't think we're at that level. The only people I've known who take intersectionality seriously are people who have tried to put it into practice in building alliances between organizations, and to be at a level of commitment of organizing people you kind of already have to be a believer at some level. You have to have conviction from something or you'd go off to do something else.

Conceptually all I got is "resonances" which isn't clear at all. It's in this space where philosophy is good because it's so unclear to me. All I can do is point to examples, as I've done, to try and explicate. And @fdrake is right to point out there are several conceptual steps from the thought to what I'm reflecting upon.

And I can certainly acknowledge the self-righteousness that's arisen. For that I think it's a mixture of things, but often times when people are disagreeing so harshly it's either because the stakes are high and we have no power or the stakes are incredibly low and all that's at issue is some personal beef. I'm going with the first explanation as a guess.

Or is it more like...

Would that the left had enough power that our quibbles over intersectionality had any impact on society's "melting into air". We just don't.
— fdrake

...for you too? — Isaac

Oh yeah. I recognize how unpopular basically all of my commitments are

So where is all this "low-cost propaganda"? If it's not Helen Mirren's speech, if it's not the bulk of #MeToo posts, if it's not the BLM knee-bending, or the the drag queen reading groups....

If we're to say all that is honest toil in the service of equality, then what's left to be your "low-cost propaganda"? — Isaac

It's all of those things. I wouldn't discount those as propaganda. I mean -- if it's in a newspaper it's probably propaganda, even. It's the media-form which has changed.

I'm not saying these are an honest toil in the service of equality. I'm directly answering your question. I don't think it's the fault of intersectionality, or Feminism, if that's what you're driving at.

Though that's different from persuading you that intersectionality is a Good Thing, too. I couldn't think of anything else to say on that account so dropped it, and went to directly answering your question. In some ways, though, it feels like the old debate between radicals on which problem is the most radical when the underlying concern was trans issues in public, to which I think Feminism is pretty clearly related even if I cannot make the case to your standard for it being related to concerns of international labor.

This new thing. "There's no new thing" is perfectly possible, but it leaves as much unanswered as answered. If there's no new thing, why do so many people think there is? — Isaac

What helped Occupy take off was the internet. It was an emulation of the Arab Spring. The new thing is the form of media has changed -- it's the material conditions, only the material is tracked through the value form rather than through mass. People interact on the internet differently than they do in meat-space. But as the media grew -- as measured through the value form, again -- so our ways of interacting on the regular changed up to and including meat-space.

Before you could have your everday conversation evaporate into the air. Now it's cemented in the flows of electrons across the world.

Mix that in with some self-righteous moralism, which left-wing views are as easy to moralize as right-wing ones, and badda-bing: you have low-cost propaganda set up with people ready to spread it like a virus. The irony here being we had to offload this emotional work onto algorithms that really didn't care at all about the emotional effects on us but just efficiently selected the emotions which are good at spreading information regardless of ideology or effect: fear, guilt, disgust, anxiety.

Machiavelli made much the same observation a long time ago and was punished for it, so it's little wonder that we needed machine-thinking and efficiency to overcome our emotional hurdles.


At least -- this is my guess as to an explanation for the more recent phenomena. I think it's the media-form and how it relates to the flows of capital. But this is hand-wavey and uncertain (hence, philosophy).

That's the first time for me. Fucking awesome.

Thanks for sharing it.

The recent campaigns for women's rights has benefited mostly middle class women (less sexual harassment at work, higher pay). Its done fuck all for Afghan women whose lives have deteriorated thanks to the fickle warmongering of the US.

The campaign for trans rights have benefited middle class Westerners, who now can express themselves with less fear of reprisal. Trans Yemeni's aren't any less hungry though.

The recent crap about white privilege has maybe improved job prospects and education opportunities for middle class people of colour. It's done fuck all for the massive 'people of colour' community in Sudan who still find themselves on the brink of starvation.

If you can point to a single example where any of these campaigns have helped the poor be less poor, I'm all ears, otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking at best, apologetics at worst. — Isaac

Addressing this more specifically -- I'm pointing to examples that I'm familiar with. In terms of the international order: they don't exist.

That's a problem of capitalism, or at least my thoughts go there.

But my final question was meant to point out how capital isn't controlled by anyone, and the various factions of the world are all wanting to be The One Who Controls. Currently the global south is the easiest to exploit by the powers that be, so we have fights over the middle-east and oil reserves to ensure trade lines for our various economic systems that are preferred -- NATO, CIS, or China. All over being able to exploit S. America and Africa.

Bringing it up is important.

What to do about it given the attitudes of most people, though?

I don't know. Feminism, as unpopular as it is, is still easier to explain to people than Marxism. Too many anti-bodies against Marxism still exist.

Again, its odd that you can say this so blithely about children, but not see exactly the same with women (and trans, and people of colour, and the disabled, etc). If images of suffering can be abused to make a buck, then what does that tell us about the campaign for trans acceptance, for example (worth about a million dollars per unit to the pharmaceuticals for a lifetime of hormone therapy)? Are you equally prepared to water down their message with such words of caution? — Isaac

That's not my callousness -- I care about anti-capitalist politics. I care about the state of the world, and it bothers me that we are so callous towards the suffering of others in what we do. But I can lay out the viewpoints of others as they would. This is a common sentiment you had to have encountered when talking about private money and the plight of the poor across the world? (Have you read Peter Singer's essay The Solution to World Poverty?)

The point of my demonstration is to show how we all come from a different perspective. Surely you are acquainted with the attitude I've laid out from your time as an activist? Anti-capitalism is about as popular as feminism.

When talking organizing usually all this theory is put to the side and you talk bread-and-butter, which means connecting what your organization is doing to what is important to a person.

If you can point to a single example where any of these campaigns have helped the poor be less poor, I'm all ears, otherwise it sounds like wishful thinking at best, apologetics at worst. — Isaac

Women and trans people are included in the working class and proletariat.

The fight over birth control is a salient example that links class and patriarchy -- though I listed some other examples for the thesis that included other inter-linking systems.

And as long as people working at a call center that requires nothing more than a high school diploma counts, then I'd say I've worked with several trans working class people who have benefited from having their stories told.

Further, any workplace organizing I've done frequently runs into problems of both gender and race. So in practical terms it's required if one wants to do something about class, such as form a union or pull off a strike, because these identities will be utilized to divide your group otherwise.

The reason the left is weak isn't because we're different. It's because thems who own are good at divide-and-conquer.

But the way to overcome that isn't to say "You're issue doesn't matter, money is what matters!" -- it's to say "Your issue is connected to money in this way, and this is what we're doing about it"

The middle class don't need these protections as much as the working class -- they have the money to find private solutions to these problems. But working class people includes women, trans individuals, LGBT, and racial differences. With respect to patriarchy I think this is most prominent on the issue of abortion -- there was all of one abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas (the city I did most of my organizing in), and it helped working class women more than the middle class women who could afford a plane ticket get it taken care of. Keeping open that clinic was helping working class women deal with the facts of life in a practical way that's not Industrial Action -- but it's certainly a resource the poor need and use (and is being fought against by the patriarchs who want women to be baby factories).


As for why labor and the left are fractured -- I think it's giving up on class politics. I certainly think class politics are important. But for that I wouldn't blame the feminist organizations or trans groups or race-based organizing. I'd blame the unions and the labor leaders who are comfortable enough to be so callous. (Or, really, the whole thing. The big tamale. The international order of capital which is under no one's control -- how do you control something which no one controls?)

Then is any claim to oppression deniable? On any grounds? — Isaac

Aren't they all deniable on any grounds?

"Oppression" is pretty abstract. And history can't be falsified. So, depending upon how we tell the story, the fact that child labor is being utilized is the fault of the employer and those individual companies which utilize that stream of value. Helen Mirren's private money is her's to keep and do with as she wills. For all her wealth she is only an individual, and even if she gave it all away the systemic problems would remain. The culpability is at the level of the company, and so our buying slave-labor goods is a private decision in a market whereas the companies decision is the one that makes that market in the first place.

That is, "responsibility" is an elastic concept that changes with the story-teller -- or historian.

In this age pictures of the suffering are utilized primarily to manipulate us. Someone is making a buck somewhere with the images of the suffering -- be it state departments, NGO's, or private charities.

This is neither inevitable, nor was it always the case. I agree that there's a barrier to cross here, but you're writing a thread a masculinity. Is that not also embedded? why not take the same "'twas ever thus" resigned attitude when it comes to feminism, or race, or homophobia? If we can fight against those entrenched cultural values, then why are you advocating we just accept this one? — Isaac

Hrmm... I don't believe I've said something to that effect. Though let me just be clearer then: I accept we can fight against entrenched values, including the entrenched values of capital.

In the above I'm telling the story from a particular viewpoint to demonstrate the elasticity of responsibility -- how "responsibility" is a view-point dependent concept. Or, relative to a point-of-view.

I'm certainly an anti-capitalist. Some of the value I see in intersectionality is there are some common resonances between the Big Structural Problems. But that's about as specific as I can think it right now on the conceptual level -- the proof of intersectionality, that capital and patriarchy interlink, is in the fights which won by overcoming barriers.

Now, in the true history of things that's a bit rosy. There are some fights that won because of that, and some which won because they were ruthlessly selfish and closed fort. The Fraternal Order of Police is a great example of the latter. The trades are barely more liberal than them, and the original AFL was formed around the notion of skilled labor being more valuable than unskilled labor.

But this is history again -- not conceptual. As clear as I can be about intersectionality is I perceive resonances between these social structures -- but there's a lot of intellectual work that I don't even know how to do to make that make sense. (hence, philosophy)

I don't see any evidence of that. The working class seem more divided now than they've ever been, the left wing has been effectively neutered by it's own internal divisions. the rift in the American working class between the white working men and the 'identity politics' groups is basically responsible for the surge in populism (with the liberal response to covid and trans issues just deepening that divide). In my country the rift between anti-semitism and support for Palestine has effectively killed off left wing opposition with differences over trans issues between traditional feminists and modern views mopping up any remaining unity there might have been.

The world, particularly the left, is at each other's throats. Ukraine, covid, trans,... not a single big issue has been tackled recently without dividing into two warring camps with division enforced with an iron fist (or as 'iron' as lefty politics gets, anyway). I've been in left wing politics for three decades, fighting pernicious taxation, racism, environmental destruction, etc...the usual. I took a different position on covid - I was regularly called a 'murderer' (right here on this site, with absolutely no consequence). I took a different position on Ukraine - I've been listed as a war crimes collaborator, friends have had far worse. I took a different position on trans issues - I'm a bigot, again, others I know have had worse. This is all in the last three of four years, after over thirty previous years of left-wing activism with nothing of the sort happening (despite some absolutely tempestuous disagreements).

So unless you've got something to hold against that impression, I'm not buying this story that these new forms of identity politics unite. Not from where I'm standing. If they do, they unite by simply crushing dissent. — Isaac

Identity politics goes further back than the last three or four years. Trans issues have become more prominent in that time, but the notion of particular groups facing different pressures that are simultaneously related goes back at least to Martin Luther King, Jr. in his address The Three Evils of Society. I'd also claim that the LGBT alliance is an example of functional intersectionality. Both go back to the era of Feminism I've been references, 2nd wave. That whole era had an outgrowth of minority positions advocating for themselves in the public which resulted in cultural change. And I'd say that gold old fashion working class union politics is an example of intersectionality-at-work.

So what's different?

Information technology has changed our social landscape to a point that we're unable to deal with the flow of information, and economic pressures of capital are driving people into their tribal identities because of a constant state of fear and anxiety due to swimming in propaganda 24/7 is my guess.

But it's just a guess. And all the old forms are still around, on top of this new, exciting, odd, and terrifying technology.

That is -- I'm still a good Marxist. It's the material conditions!

But the specifics can matter sometimes from the perspective of organizing people, at least.

And due to the elasticity of responsibility, depending on who you are talking to, they really are in a different world and probably have a learned callousness to some issue or another because care is abused by propaganda so we're all out of it.

It takes effort to care, and there are mouths to feed, hours to clock, bills to pay, or in a word -- the grind. They grind the care out of people to the point that they have to look at what's directly ahead of them. But if they hear a story that they can connect to -- such as a sense of solidarity with women who have to endure patriarchy -- you can lift people up out of that grind so they can dare to care about something more.

At least that's the idea.

But not according to your principle above. You seem to see patriarchy as something entrenched but resolvable and private property sacredness as something entrenched but not resolvable. I'm not sure why — Isaac

Hopefully this goes some way to erase that impression.


There's more I want to say -- but I can tell when I'm starting to cross over into "oh shite this is a real project" and I think that's where I'm almost at now. I'm really good at over-promising because I get caught up in the excitement of an idea so no promises -- but now I want to write an essay on Brandon Darby and Fight Club as a critique of the masculine identity in activist spaces. (It will be a best seller with that riveting title, surely)

My question is open-ended. You're free to say what you like. This isn't a yes-and-no style of questioning.

You're allowed as much nuance and context as you wish -- that's philosophy. Redefine the question, or however you wish to express your position.

It's fair, I think, at this point to ask you to say something about what you want when it comes to masculinity. I have and others have.

I redirect you to the question because thus far you're only complaining about feminism.

But the topic is masculinity.

The entire reason why this is even a discussion is that the word "man" is written into laws, it's part of social codes, and who qualifies as a man within those contexts is relevant for transgender people.

Or will you pretend that you're unconcerned about the ramifications of the answers? Would you define masculinity in a way that promotes behaviours you don't want? — Judaka

No.

I think it obvious I'm concerned about ramifications.

But I also don't think I'm The One, or somehow have a special knowledge. I'm reflecting on what I've done thus far and on what I see in the world. It's philosophy, but it's perspectival.

I certainly would not define masculinity in a way that promotes bad behaviors. I think, with everything I've said thus far, that's also obvious.

I think men are good. I think masculinity is good.

I certainly don't want to define them in a way that's against what I see good in the identities.

So -- the entire reason may not matter.

That's a thought about me, and not masculinity.

What makes a real man?

Thank goodness. — Judaka

Heh.

I wouldn't want to make anything I've said thus far a law.

I'm attracted to the political, but not in that way.

I'll ask again, though -- what is a real man? Or even simply a man? Or a masculine gender identity?

Those aren't laws. They're how we identify and feel.

Surely I've posted this before -- it's just hitting the good notes tonight for me.

Legislate?

No.

I'm certainly nowhere near to making a proposition for laws, at least. Not at all.

Cool :)

Heh. That's the second prophet who some consider false!

Sorry. I couldn't help myself with the "Smith" name.

Maybe a forgotten politician Smith who lived in comfort and safety and cranked out many healthy children with a pneumatically admirable wife counts himself wiser and brighter than either Shakespeare or Newton — plaque flag

Oh I know of one Smith who not only thought of himself that way, but also convinced enough people to start a religion.

Though he had wives.

Also I should say that the above is merely with respect to intersectionality, since it's understandably been brought up.

I think that Feminism counts as a serious body of thought that's not just doing politics -- but it is doing philosophy, rather than science. I'm not sure what a feminist science would look like other than pushing out the patriarchal forms and reflections that still reside there (especially in the physical sciences)

Looking at, sure. I'm trying (but clearly not doing a good job) to draw distinctions between the data which informs a strategy, and the strategy itself. The risk factors for oppression, and the actual groups oppressed. — Isaac

Good reflections and arguments, Isaac. At least from my vantage. I'm glad to have something meatier to think through.

A measurement isn't always a good measurement, and it's particularly difficult to tease out what a good measurement is with respect to oppression because history is not repeatable in the same way that other experiments are. "Oppression" has no units, after all. It's a story. Further I'd say your measurements are good at assessing an individual's circumstances, but that the individual isn't always an appropriate place for understanding group dynamics -- so the metrics of oppression you list won't capture all of what a group faces. It's a part of the story, and important to check up on because hey maybe one day the world really will be different and our metrics will display that, but not the whole. Politics isn't done with stats as much as it's done with relationships and stories.

I think that's a pretty common point of disagreement that's missed. What these political philosophies are doing are not enforcements of a law or a principle for individuals, nor laying out some universal truth, but rather binding people together in spite of differences that seem important. Intersectionality isn't a scientific law as much as it is an organizer's tool which has already been proven. Through the history of social movements the more successful ones are usually ones that can break through group barriers: this is as true in labor as other social movements. When sexism or race can be overcome in the workplace then people can find it in themselves to bind together -- or, on the flip side, if sexism or race are not overcome then it's pretty easy to divide and conquer. And these social phenomena are so common that anyone actually organizing had better be aware of their patterns or they'll fail -- these structures are so common that even going into organizing with an open mind towards nominalism you'll wonder just why you're seeing the same patterns so often. They aren't group-wide, mind. But noticeable, and effective at disrupting anyone trying to pull a group together.

If governments acted in accord with ethical principle then it would make much more sense to look at international disparity. But governments, like people, don't have that perspective really. We are generally much more short-sighted than that. What people do care about are usually a little more homely -- stability for self and children, access to material goods, community respect and a place in the world. And that changes with our social systems such that a USian will be attached to much more material wealth as a "base line" than the poorest of the earth.

Which isn't an excuse on the ethical front -- but this is politics, and to be effective you have to understand what people really care about. The international poor just isn't that big of a rallying cry, I'd hazard that's because in our particular social system we've erected a public/private property distinction. While it's certainly true that if Helen Mirren cared about the plight of the poor she'd act differently, the fact is that not only does she not care -- most human beings don't either, but not because we're callous, but because this is how we're trained to be with our private money, and people really believe they "earned" it. (EDIT: Or, perhaps it'd be better to call it a learned callousness -- we don't perceive ourselves as callous, though I think what I've said describes a callous attitude towards others in an "objective" sense)

Now I don't think I'll ever see the likes of the wealthy and published get down into the political truth of things. But I know that there's others who see that story and like it, and it's not because there aren't people worse off -- most people, if pressed, will fess up to that.

But what people care about is themselves and theirs, and not some kind of universal ethic or geopolitics, for the most part. At least insofar that they have yet to realize that, indeed, we're all interdependent upon one another and what nations do effects what our families do.

In a big sense people will care about others they don't know, but if we're talking about what we do -- it's just a bit too far out there for most of us to reach for.

And on the international stage I'd say that's too far out of grasp for anyone to reach for. We're still basically tribal at this point, but with bigger weapons and better information technology. The only way to even have a hope of being able to control something as large as the world economy such that global disparity could be addressed is going to take something huge -- because no one really knows how to do it. No one is in charge at all, at this point, though NATO and the CIS and China are all vying for that position.

Those organizations are primarily run by men.

So on the other hand I'd say that a discussion of gender isn't sideways to the issues, but is digging at one of the many causal reasons the world is as it is now. Patriarchy -- the rule of men -- is still quite common. And healthier gender identities -- ones not obsessed with maintaining power at home or at work -- will undermine that.

The part where I'll come closer to what you say is that I agree replacing the face with a woman doing the same thing is basically a non-starter. That's patriarchy, but now a woman is doing it. It reminds me of the cartoon where the brown people celebrated a woman president because they were finally being drone-bombed in an equal world.

That's definitely a tactic of governments to appease intersectional approaches while maintaining control.

But the point of intersectionality is to build something together -- which in turn requires others to hear the grievances of others in the group.

Here, of course, we're doing philosophy and exploring ideas. So it's a bit difficult to get the notion across since it's not doing the rational thing of laying out evidence to support or deny a conclusion.

But that's politics. It's not science.

(EDIT: Or, at least, when I'm doing intersectional approaches I'm not doing science. I'm drawing on my organizer experience in addition to some philosophy -- others do it different, of course, but this is my approach)

Going back through the thread to pick up some parts that still seem relevant, that I haven't responded to, and make something of a synthesis at this point --

A good question then would be: What is left out when we dismiss both feminine and masculine traits of a human?

I think far too many human characters are defined as either masculine or feminine. Things like compassion, logical reasoning, basic feelings aren’t masculine or feminine. — ssu

For me nothing is left out, because I don't think the masculine or the feminine are defined by traits. I've been saying "the expression of traits" -- or a way of expression.

Masculinity and femininity nowadays are seen as traits present in both men and women, but when discussing the so-called 'darker side' of masculinity the discussion is always about men. Not about masculinity, and (obviously(?)) not about women.

Even still, it's unhealthy to associate these essential traits with inherently negative things. The message it sends to boys and young men is that there's something wrong with them. Sadly, I think that's a message many of them have already taken to heart.

What this reminds me of is how certain religious groups like to label the woman as inherently flawed and sinful. Forgive me for being skeptical when such a group claims to be taking an open-minded, balanced approach to things. — Tzeentch

In an attempt to bring you back, I agree with you here -- though I'll note that the discussion started as masculinity so it's worth noting the darker side, even if that's not my focus. I don't think most men are on some dark path! (obviously I'm a Feminist, but I hope to give a demonstration that this doesn't mean I hate my own masculinity, or masculine gender identities)

Especially with respect to boys and young men. One of the reasons I think it's important for men to talk about masculinity is that currently there are many people who aren't getting positive messages about the masculine, or themselves, and in fact there are positive aspects of one's masculine identity. It's important to be who you are, in my opinion, and growing men don't have a lot to look up to in this world.

To reiterate, though the primary beneficiaries of a patriarchal society are men, they are not men in general. As@180 Proof pointed out, patriarchy (as I conceive it, simply a society dominated by masculine values) funnels wealth and power to a small cadre of a particular type who happen to be men, but theoretically could be of either sex. And the solution is not to eliminate competition or demonize men or masculine values but to recognize that the way we understand our interrelationships is infused with an arbitrary self-justifying way of looking at things that, I would argue, is deficient and in some senses destructive. ( — Baden

I've been going back through the thread and this is a gem.

Here's a classic statement, from Raymond Chandler's "The Simple Art of Murder," published in The Atlantic in 1944, a defense of hard-boiled detective fiction and particularly of Hammett. — Srap Tasmaner

Raymond Chandler, and the whole hard boiled detective genre really, is a writer who knew how to appeal to men.

I love the stuff.

Did you ever see the first Sin City? I'd say that's a masculine movie, if you look at the male protagonist as a hero.

masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures. — frank

Can you or do you care to say more on this kind of archetype?

Any other guys feel that way? — Srap Tasmaner

Oh yeah. How else to explain what amounts to a thirst for justice?

Having thought about it more, I guess I would expect courage to tend to manifest differently in men and women. — wonderer1

I agree, given that expression, rather than traits, is what makes a gender. Care to say more?

Campaigns need to build solidarity, not break it down. — Isaac

Yup.

I'm no longer active, but these are some thoughts attempting to build solidarity across common division lines.

I just meant that we usually do know what our own societies dictate. The value I see in applying Jungian ideas to it is that we can be free of analyzing masculinity strictly in the framework of sexism. We could see the beauty in masculine ideals. You don't have to be a Nazi to see that beauty. — frank

True. Then you're right -- we were opaque to one another. That makes a good deal of sense to me. My bad.

But muh materialism! :D

OK I just re-read that exchange and I understand the confusion. I'm sorry. I'm the one who mixed up usually/generally. My bad.

So I want to say -- I know what some people usually say about masculinities, specific to a cultural milieu, but it's harder to determine gender, in a general sense.

But, sure, it may be the case that my "what some people usually say" is a minority position -- that I find it hard could very well be a me-thing.

Part of my hesitancy probably draws from my philosophical perspective -- I don't want to list traits or characteristics, and I want to qualify behaviors with respect to the masculine (it's not like all of my behaviors are masculine, are they? Such as my preference for walking over bike-riding -- not gendered at all)

It's difficult to say something definitive about ways of expressing. So we get these generalities which aren't exactly identities, but observations of an identity we already recognize. (EDIT: Always-already, even! But to me this doesn't mean that what we recognize is somehow the truth, or at least the only way -- because I think of gender as enculturated, as well -- so you have to know a culture to know a gender-identity)

While I'm hesitant to say this is a post-patriarchal masculinity, I gather I'd be better off putting some meat on the bones of what appears to be a desiccated corpse of the masculine in light of femininism, or at least this is the general feeling I'm getting. Should feminism really have the final word on the masculine? Is there a standpoint from which the masculine is better understood than the feminist critique of Identity-Property into the tripartite cultural division of Biology:Mentality:Role?

(And also: is a post-patriarchal masculinity even desirable? I think so, even for men, but there's certainly resistance here, both from men and women -- but that's a separate question)



If it's a manner of expression that makes a gender, which I've been holding, then a post-patriarchal masculinity would liberate our identity from the property-relation, at least -- a man is a man regardless of his position within a family structure and the various expectations which go with that. It's a part of who he is and his way of relating to the world and others rather than control over the bank account.

In some ways this has already taken place as @frank pointed out with respect to the vote -- and second wave feminism had waves as well that have changed culture. I think that some of the anxiety around masculinity is in part due to this -- yes we don't live in the world before women could vote and were literally a part of the man's household. But acknowledging this past is what makes sense of, say, women changing their name to join their husband's family, even as bank accounts and such are open to all.

And so the confusion over a feminist analysis in the first place is understandable. I keep to it because I believe in being honest in these conversations about who we are, and it's who I am. It's very much how I relate to masculinity. Mine is a masculinity, one attached to various Feminist principles -- but I don't know if I could go so far as to say mine is a post-patriarchal masculinity to offer. Mine is mired in our world, and from my perspective at least, patriarchy is still a living, and I'm not convinced this is only momentum when I think of how popular various mens speakers are -- like Andrew Tate, et al.

But not many men who would speak up in the name of Feminism from their own perspective as men, which is what I'm at least trying to offer in a manner that's digestible, but still forthright.

It is just a masculinity. Should you be a Feminist, too? Well, I don't know. I believe in these things. I believe in political action for a more equitable world, and in general see men as the owners of that world. But for the most part I don't believe in making others believe like me -- if the arguments float then by all means, but if not I'd prefer to hear why the arguments don't float, or if they are simply flimsy reflections that don't speak to the issue, or some such.

So, yes, it's a reflection on the masculine -- but I wouldn't post my reflections in public if I didn't expect people to take issue with them and have their say about what's wrongheaded in my view, either. I don't want the reflective aspect to detract from the philosophy too much, at least when I'm posting.

Okie, no worries. I can understand that feeling. I can let it go too.

All you have to do is look at what things are generally identified as masculine. I think you're in the minority in not being able to do that. — frank

A misunderstanding on the usage of "generally" then --

Generally, as in what I'd predict people to say, I have a sense for this.

Generally, as in what I'd generalize to in giving a universal (or general) theory of gender, is difficult to identify.

Heh, well -- not for me. Not even psychological traits and characteristics differentiate gender, from what I see -- but rather how those are expressed in their respective roles. A gender is a mode of expression within a culture tied to roles, which in turn are given such-and-such rules regarding property and what to do with it, especially within the home.

At least this is where the emphasis lies. I don't want to go "all the way" in saying there's nothing psychological -- but I do prefer to look at the cultural environment that any given person might live within, which is why it's not easy to determine. There's a lot of cues in culture that can go overlooked "from the outside" of that culture, and what even counts as cultural difference is defined culturally.

Glad to have you still along :)

My post wasn't aimed at you specifically, my apologies if you took it that way. — Isaac

Cool, no worries. I thought it was so I thought I ought respond -- it is my thread after all.

Talk of masculinity in any sense, but particularly with regard to patriarchal oppression, is a fraught topic. Simply acknowledging the existence of these tropes carries with it commitments that entail offense to some you may not have any intention of offending. — Isaac

True. And I'll admit that my perspective isn't exactly the most congenial one with regards to masculinity. But it is the honest one I hold...

So, yes, all true. That's why I'm trying to be careful, but you're right to point out that even my approach may be too much to not offend.

We did upend how families own and pass on property around the time women got the vote. Prior to the early 20th Century, an American woman couldn't own a business unless she was married. Women would get married for no other reason than to allow them to participate in business ventures. That's all changed. In fact, all the things that Mary Stanton lamented have now changed, and the new way is taken for granted. There is no conflict between recognizing masculinity as a component of the psyche and recognizing how those images play out in dollars and cents. — frank

But the emphasis on the psyche over the role -- that's the patriarchal move identified by Kate Millet. At least this is what came to mind in reading you here:

It's fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't. So maybe we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just about entirely different subjects. This is not fundamentally about politics. — frank

I'd say masculinity is fundamentally about politics: the politics of the home. And it's not fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't, because it's a part of one's culture. So you have to be able to understand a culture to understand a masculinity.

But the important thing to remember is that it's the patriarchy.

Beware of the trap a lesser mind might fall into of just thinking that humans ought not oppress other humans and the best way of identifying victims is by their actually being, you know, victims, rather than by using chromosomes or skin colour which are obviously much better metrics. — Isaac

I've been careful not to denigrate people who disagree with me or to intimate that they are of a lesser mind just because I happen to have some words in my head that others don't. At least, I've attempted to be careful to not insult anyone. It would definitely go against my purposes in exploring masculinity.

Hey, thanks for keeping it going! :D

Keep it up, I say.

The charge of misandry is a serious one that should be addressed, so I thought I should say something. I certainly don't want to court misandry, but I think there's room for grievance airing.

There's the aspect of reducing masculinity to psychology, which I'd say is similar to the response to feminist criticism which puts their critique of gender in the personal, rather than the political or public, realm. Rather than concrete material conditions you're saying the psyche is an ancient power which re-manifests itself throughout all culture, something which is much greater than any material analysis or political project could hope to put a dent into.

Which may be true, but then the feminist critique is always bringing the psyche back to the material -- if it's truly a psychological power, rather than a material one, then we could very easily upend how families own and pass on property. It would be of no consequence.

And then there's the aspect where you express that such determinations are easy, which I just don't hold. If it were easy to determine the masculine and the feminine then what's all the fuss about? Is gender-identity a numerology or astrology in your view?

*shrugs* No worries. I could have also read a bit slower, and all that rot. Now we know who said what.

The reality of patrarchy, to me, has always served as a kind of excuse for anger. Though, of course, it can be taken too far -- and one has to be ready to hear someone else's anger for it to really have an e/affect.

I expected and expect a number of defensive reactions to the topic. It really is one that cuts close to home for lots of people. So we're bound to make all kinds of mistakes along the way, I think.

A manner of expression? I mean, masculinity as a kind of archetype has been around for thousands of years in multiple cultures. It's fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't. So maybe we're talking at cross purposes, or maybe just about entirely different subjects. This is not fundamentally about politics. It's about the heavy hitters in the human psyche as that psyche has developed over the millennia. Current politics is a sniff in a hurricane compared to that. — frank

This mental move is exactly what Kate Millet describes as the patriarchal move -- the mental is the explanatory intermediary between biological sign and social role in her description of the patriarchal relationship.

Also, I'm not so sure about a psyche developing over millennia. Masculine-Feminine distinctions are common across cultures, for certain, but their mode of expression isn't rigid. Even what counts as something worth evaluating under Masculine-Feminine changes.

This is the quote from the article. Note well the comment is made by Laurie Penny, NOT Mirren. — Amity

Heh, well look at that. I may be a careful reader, but I got my wires crossed all the same :D

The fact that she takes fatherhood and equates it to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power". — Tzeentch

Well, she wouldn't exactly know it from the standpoint of a father, would she? It's an outsider perspective -- one which is valuable if we want to see who we are, or so I'd say.

I don't think any fatherhood worthy of pursuit would equate to "sop offered as compensation for not having real power" -- this is going to follow a similar patterns to the one I set out above. This isn't a statement about All Fatherhood, etc.

It's a statement from the perspective of a person whose had to live with patriarchy as a social reality which shaped her life. The acting world is particularly bad at this because it has to sell what people like to see -- that's basically the product. I'm not surprised to find an old actress who was tough enough to make it through that world express vitriol towards the institution -- though I wouldn't go so far as to say that her perspective on the institution is the whole story either.