I would probably steer away from interpretations of Yinyang that are too dichotomous. If we assume yin = feminine = 'things women do' and yang = masculine = 'things men do', we have basically arrived back where we started, and I'd argue we'd be missing the point.

The main thing about Yinyang is that it is not dichotomous. People are an interplay of yin and yang energy, and these are in constant flux.

Things that appear yang on the outside must be balanced with yin on the inside, kind of in line with what suggested.

Even a very masculine man must still be capable of being receptive, calm, nurturing, etc. to be a father, husband, friend, etc.

Yinyang can be applied on micro levels, like how a single movement requires the accumulation (yin) and expenditure (yang) of energy, or it can be applied on macro levels.

Furthermore, the 'yin-in-yang' and 'yang-in-yin' principles are also fundamental (represented by the dots in the Yinyang symbol), again emphasizing it's non-dichotomous nature. A simple example: a lot of people find relaxation in exercise - yin-in-yang.

Yinyang is of course only a single element from Taoist philosophy. It is often combined with Five Elements theory (Wuxing), and that's where it becomes quite comprehensive.

You've not made an error - Socrates reigns supreme, after all. But you've simply made it clear that you're not genuinely interested in debate or understanding.

Right - and as expected, you have to pretend discernment doesn't exist and retreat to relativity.

Had you told me that 10 replies ago, we could have spared ourselves this pointless exhibition.

Absolutely nothing in our discussion so far has been about odd numbers or mountains. — fdrake

That's a bit rich, coming from someone who was expecting me to create a bridge to sushi not too long ago.

Yin is:

feminine/the female force/feminine energy
black
dark
north
water (transformation)
passive
moon (weakness and the goddess Changxi)
earth
cold
old
even numbers
valleys
poor
soft
and provides spirit to all things.

Yin reaches it's height of influence with the winter solstice. Yin may also be represented by the tiger, the colour orange and a broken line in the trigrams of the I Ching (or Book of Changes).


Yang is:

masculine/the male force/masculine energy
white
light
south
fire (creativity)
active
sun (strength and the god Xihe)
heaven
warm
young
odd numbers
mountains
rich
hard
and provides form to all things.

Yang reaches it's height of influence with the summer solstice. Yang may also be represented by the dragon, the colour blue and a solid line trigram. — Yin and Yang

It does ring a bell somewhere, though I haven't heard it expressed as a general rule. The body of Taoist literature is gigantic.

You pick universality or exceptions, not both. — fdrake

Because I have a concept of masculinity and femininity, I now have to provide explanations for all of the silly things people believe or do? — Tzeentch

Apparently you believe the answer to that question to be 'yes' - otherwise I would be 'obviating myself of the need to explain some of its manifestations'.

And then you pull up Socrates' chair and ask me "Let's hear this explanation for everything! Where does sushi come into all of this?"

It's black & white thinking at best - a dishonest trick at worst.

You're just going to double down on your cosmic strawman and ignore what I said then?

Fine, be that way.

I never pretended to provide such a thing, nor do any of the schools of thought I named. So I'm not sure what you're getting at. You're the one who started coining terms such as 'mysticism' and 'cosmic principles'.

Well, based on extensive bodies of thought that have remained consistent throughout the ages. If you want to call that 'vibes-based', sure. I'm not pretending to have some sort of definitive answer set in stone.

I think it's more a matter of which properties one thinks it's worthwhile to pay attention to, and which aren't.

If you think it is worthwhile to analyze sushi through the lens of any of these philosophies, go for it.

Funnily enough, traditional chinese medicine does categorize food preferences in terms of, among other things, Yin and Yang.

My earlier reply was meant to give you an idea of which direction I think in: Taoism, Jungian philosophy, etc. - two well-established schools of thought which provide exhaustive concepts of 'masculine' and 'feminine'.

If you're genuinely interested, you can find most if not all of it freely available on the internet.

No. But I think it makes sense to be able to provide one, if you've got an account of masculinity or femininity. Like why do the gals go for sushi and the guys go for burgers bro. I find it difficult to believe the sheer degree of affectation that goes into gender derives from any cosmic principle. — fdrake

People put great affectation into many things. Some people think they are defined by the type of sunglasses they wear, the perfume they use, the shape of their couch or the color of the rims on their car.

Because I have a concept of masculinity and femininity, I now have to provide explanations for all of the silly things people believe or do?

I'd call the account non-mystical if it tried to come up with an answer — fdrake

You weren't expecting an answer to "Where does sushi fit into all of this?", were you?

You write as if you work in an IDF command center. — BitconnectCarlos

No, I just tuned in to their Twitter feed.

Israeli intel can still locate and target them even if they aren't in uniform. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, they seem to have conceived a most genius method: look where groups of civilians are, and assume some among them must be terrorists.

No there's a target/terrorist in mind with these strikes. — BitconnectCarlos

Oh, I'm sure they have all sorts of things in mind. But you just said yourself they have no clue where the terrorists are. They blend in with the population and don't wear uniforms.

A-ha. So Israel cannot see these terrorists - they don't wear uniforms - and therefore just starts murdering civilians in the presupposition that some of them must be terrorists.

Got it.

Those who understand the deliberate murder of innocent civilians as "resistance" or as being justified in some sense are disqualified from further opinions. Their views place them outside of civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

That would put Israel outside of civilization?

At the most basic level, Yang ('masculine') represents action, and Yin ('feminine') represents rest.

Even in the most masculine man or most feminine woman the Yin and Yang principles must be in balance. There is always Yin in the Yang, and Yang in the Yin (as represented by the dots in the famous Yinyang symbol). Unbalanced Yang exhausts itself, while unbalanced Yin grows stagnant.

The reason I dislike the masculine/feminine dichotomy is because people are often unable to divorce it from biological sex, and interpret it too easily as "what men are good at" and "what women are good at", and those are the types of inflammatory and pointless generalizations that I tend to steer away from.

With that said, I quite like Carl Jung's theory of Anima and Animus, which is very reminiscent of the Yin-in-Yang and Yang-in-Yin principles.

Lastly, since we were talking about role models before, I don't think a masculine role model would necessarily have to be a man (though usually it will be). Or that masculine role models should only serve as inspiration for men.

I hadn't really thought of Ford as a 'leader of men', but if that's what you want to classify him as, then why not?

For whom? Some people absolutely love Musk - see him as Tesla or Tony Stark. People love Trump - see him as a paladin. Some people even still love Tate - see him as a charismatic masculine guru. — fdrake

Loving someone is different from them embodying a masculine ideal, which is what a societal masculine role model would have to do.

And I have no qualms with saying that I believe people are simply often wrong.

You pointed it out in a different way. You were speaking with people who generally see gender through a social lens - like as a social construction or a performance. I used virtues in a moral sense, and expectations in that social sense. So it's likely that what you were pointing out is quite a lot different from what I was saying, just based on presuppositions. Like I got the impression that you see an essential equivalence between the masculinity of Beowulf and that of Henry Ford based on what they are {men}. But please correct me if I'm wrong, and that you do see gender as principally socially constructed. — fdrake

The way 'masculinity' is used here is not the way I would normally use it. My conception is closer to that of Yin and Yang, and I don't think they're social constructions.

But for the sake of the discussion, I can accept we are talking in highly generalizing ways.

I'm not sure what masculine virtues Beowulf or Henry Ford embody - they seem quite different characters to me. Henry Ford was an entrepreneur - not something I would necessarily associate with manliness. Beowulf seems to embody the physical aspect of it - a protector against external threats.

I'm of the opinion that virtues aren't gendered, just expectations are. Some virtues are expected of men and some of women, but it's good for everyone to have every virtue. — fdrake

Normally I'd agree, but in this thread it seems 'masculinity' in used synonymously to 'manliness' or 'things that men do', so the way in which it is used here seems inherently gendered.

I tried to point this out earlier in the thread, but that basically just put me outside the conversation while people continued saying highly disagreeable things that I felt needed a reply.

People do use them as role models, [...] — fdrake

You can see a lot of masculine virtues in Trump, Musk, Bezos. — fdrake

Some people see Andrew Tate as a role model.

And if you heavily squint your eyes I'm sure you can find a few masculine virtues here or there, but calling them role models is a stretch.

It's also rather telling that young men flocked to Tate. It implies to me that society was unable to produce something better - which is pretty sad.

Musk or Bezos as a role model? Okay, that's a little more realistic, but are they masculine role models?

I don't think masculinity needs a 'modern update' - modernity seems to have no clue about masculinity (or just about anything it is doing in general, for that matter). It's like a dog chasing its own tail.

You'd get a healthier picture of masculinity by reading some of the classics.

Think for a moment, what public figure is going to teach you or me about masculinity? Trump? Biden? Musk? Bezos? Etc. etc.

Wouldn't you just laugh at the pretension? Being taught about masculinity by a society that so obviously doesn't possess any.

Thus I am against the patriarchy, and capitalist society in general, but I blame women equally if not more than men for it. Like 'what do you expect, girls, if that's what you go for?' — unenlightened

I think that's a bit harsh.

People do as they are taught, and if you teach kids to idolize petty criminals then that's what they'll desire and aspire to be like.

Something hundred times deadlier is a notable event. — ssu

It was a notable event, but Covid's deadliness was on par with a serious flu, and our reaction to it was one of complete hysteria which cost more lives than it saved.

The Dutch health authority estimated that the Dutch measures taken against Covid had saved, if I remember correctly some 150,000 QALY's while costing upwards of 350,000 QALY's.

You misunderstand me. Women prefer gang members. They don't choose pretty boys, they choose fighters. Women have bloodlust; look at the audience for men's boxing to see it.

And if they should change their preference, then they are "destroying the core of masculinity”.

Notice the knot in the complaint, there. Women dominate because they choose to be dominated and if they should choose not to be dominated they are trying to dominate. Men are pitiful, either way. — unenlightened

I have a seriously hard time figuring out whether you're being sarcistic or not, and/or exactly whose argument you're responding to.

Here some illustrations of the general thesis that masculinity is defined by women. — unenlightened

Men who are overly preoccupied with pandering to women are hardly ever taken seriously by their male peers. The classic "white knight" / "pretty boy" is seen as dainty, vain and well, useless - not manly.

Manliness is historically characterized by the ability to provide protection against external threats, and as that protection progressively required more and more cooperation between men, men were the primary guarantors that men continued to be capable of performing this task.

Can anyone explain to me how the male desire to dominate is other than a performance intended to attract a mate? — unenlightened

Survival first and foremost, and procreation, comfort and pleasure second. That's obviously not just a male desire. Dominance heirarchies are an almost universal thing among living beings, and they're certainly present among women as well. The strongest cub gets the most milk.


The acceptance by male peers in the context of a masculine environment is actually instrumental to men's long-term psychological well-being. Father-son bonding can create such an experience, but generally a wider context is needed.

Rituals that mark boys' transition into manhood in large part are meant to accomodate this, and the absence of it in today's society probably accounts for much of the 'masculinity crisis'.

Men who never experience it will become 'unproven men' - men who are fundamentally insecure about their manliness, and try to repair that wound in unconstructive ways; some become violent, others become resentful, overly womanizing, etc.

The pandemic was a disaster because it came from a lab, likely funded by the US and China, and therefore entirely avoidable.

As far as the death toll goes, it wasn't anything special - on the level of a serious flu. Countries went into full blown hysteria imposing measures, which, according to reports by Dutch health agencies themselves, likely cost more lives than they saved.

if men to this day are still so predatory against women in terms of sexual assaults, rape, and molestation, — Shawn

Men aren't "still so predatory" at all. Violent sex offenders are a miniscule fraction of the population.

Too many fathers were raised without fathers in the home by unwed single mothers, etc. Simplistically, my guess is that boys tend to grow-up more feminized (submissive) whereas girls grow-up de-feminized (dominant) by the 'genders imbalanced' example of their husbandless mothers and women teachers primarily in authority throughout primary school. — 180 Proof

Growing up a a single-parent household increases criminality for both boys and girls, and it is more pronounced in children who grew up without a father, so rather it implies the opposite of what you're suggesting.

The lack of a healthy male role model translates into an inability to deal with authority, not being able to accept boundaries, etc. - the typical 'out-of-control youth' archetype.

Life used to be a lot harsher, and neither men nor women had it very good.

I think this 'historical victimhood' yarn is a modern political thing, meant to grab people by their emotions by getting them to identify with a historical narrative, making them feel insecure about themselves and resentful for the other in the present day - usually based on questionable and one-sided interpretations of history that categorically paint "themselves" as the moral victim, and the "other" as the immoral abuser based on superficial characteristics.

The same is visible among groups like BLM, MGTOW, etc.

Note how grievance crowds create new grievance crowds.

It's how you play people.

Well said. :up:

It seems to me like taking a minor infraction as an excuse to ban someone with unwelcome opinions.

Apparently we're only allowed to discuss ideas here that people have positive things to say about. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Take a practical case: imagine a female newcomer logs into this forum, excited to engage with deep philosophical topics, and then stumbles across a thread where someone writes “Women are a waste of time", “They make terrible friends and even worse girlfriends." or one of the other. That’s not just distasteful – it’s a message loud and clear: "You’re not really human here. You’re a problem to be explained, not a person to be heard." — DasGegenmittel

Oh, I can almost hear the sad violins in the background.

Anyway; women need to be protected from weird opinions?

Come now.


Honestly, if people were spamming the forum with weird nonsense I'd see the point, but Gregory shared one weird opinion when half the forum was dogpiling him.

A warning would have been enough.

I'm still waiting for individuals who rejoice in the genocide in Gaza to be banned. But I suppose making weird and incel posts about women is worse than endorsing the eradication of an ethnicity. — javi2541997

Yeah, I was thinking the exact same thing.

Imo the one where he hoped every woman would die — fdrake

I don't think that's what he actually said, though.

It's a pretty silly yet common view among radical feminists that men are superfluous, and I think he was mirroring some of that.

Strange? Sure. Worthy of a ban? Not so sure; at least not an outright one.

Weird decision. Some of his comments were a bit edgy, but really nothing warranting a ban.

This is a philosophy forum. There should be a reasonable tolerance for off-beat or even strange views.

What exactly was the big "misogyny" scandal here? The "Women corrupt men" comment, or the jab at a popular radical feminist viewpoint?

legacy of absentee / abusive fathers reinforced by pervasive religious-cultural misogyny ... — 180 Proof

The Dark Triad personality: Attractiveness to women

Yeah, I wonder who keeps selecting those deadbeats. :roll:

You and nos4 defend Trump seemingly in favor of him and at the expense of everything else. — tim wood

wat

It’ll always appear as downplaying. Take a look at January 6th. What’s that, exactly? I myself don’t think it’s what the democrats make it out to be — but it’s also not what the republicans try to spin it as.

If Trump supporters were burning Teslas, I wouldn’t like it. I don’t like it now. But I would be pushing back against those that spin it. In this case I see much exaggeration. I don’t see that many people in power — or on philosophy forums — coming out in defense of it. — Mikie

Yeah, I think that's fair enough.

At the same time, amid a poisoned political climate, these somewhat low-key events are no longer so innocent.

The spin should be recognized for what it is, but simply dismissing it as 'business as usual, nothing to see here' whenever it's convenient (aka: when it's directed at one's political opponents) is the other side of the extreme, and that's what prompted my initial reaction.

Whether this trend will continue after Trump's presidency remains to be seen. I'm not convinced that it will.

It's also a question of whether the picture the media is trying to sketch corresponds with reality and the views of the average American.