You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: May I “Mansplain” Something for a Minute, Please?
Please read my replies to @techslut and see if you still think I’m promoting toxic masculinity. If so, I’d appreciate a rational explanation rather than engaging in ad hominem by throwing out a useless label. Maybe you’ll actually change my mind that way. At least you’d have a chance.
Here's the thing. Once you call toxic masculinity a "useless label," it makes discourse difficult. I don't consider it an ad hominem attack when the views you espouse are what the label you call useless is meant to describe. I'm afraid we may simply be too far apart in our view of the world to have a useful and helpful discussion on this topic.
Here’s the thing. If you truly understood what I was saying and the explicit intentions behind it (to liberate women and topple the patriarchy), then there is no way it could be fairly characterized as “toxic” or even “masculine” by anybody who is interested in freeing women and toppling male dominance. So the fact that the label was instinctively and reactively thrown about in an irrelevant way that doesn’t address either my statements or the intent behind them makes the label both useless and ad hominem.
When you write "To blame that disparity on men or “the patriarchy” without giving due consideration to natural, innate interests of each sex is to both deny reality and to create a scapegoat," it does not give the impression that you have any interest in toppling the patriarchy.
Further, people can disagree while, in fact, understanding the other party.
Are you suggesting that there are no significant differences in outcomes between males and females that are attributable to genetically determined differences in preferences, interests, goals, etc? If so, then you are
Arguing contrary to a great deal of science. For a summary of just a little bit of that science, please watch Steven Pinker‘s debate (you can find a video online) on this subject. Students of the “hard“ sciences (as opposed to the so-called social sciences) really have very little doubt on this point.
For instance, there is simply no doubt among scientists that testosterone contributes to risk-taking behaviors. This difference in risk tolerance between men and women plays out in a number of different ways – – everything from which profession they choose and how they perform in those professions and in many more things. If you plot outcomes on a bell curve for essentially anything, the male bell curve will be shorter and flatter (greater variance) than the female bell curve. In other words, men will tend to be over represented among both the most exceptional and least exceptional in any population while women will tend to congregate more around the mean (lower variance).
This is exactly what one would expect to occur with higher risk taking. The risk either pays off in which case the person ends up being in the most exceptional group, or it doesn’t pay off and they end up in the least exceptional group.
So, A great many of the observed differences in outcomes between men and women can be attributable to this difference in risk tolerance alone, not to
mention other sex-based differences. If you nonetheless deny that genes play any meaningful role in such outcomes, then we are at a standstill.
However, if you accept the science that suggests that some of these differences in outcomes are strongly genetically influenced rather than socially conditioned, then isn’t it important to take that fact into consideration when determining how to best topple the patriarchy? In other words, if our goal is to free women to act in a manner more consistent with their natural unconditioned interests and desires and to overcome the social conditioning (the patriarchy) that prevents that, then assuming that all differences in outcome are culturally conditioned when they are in fact not, and striving to reverse those differences through laws and shaming, had precisely the opposite of the the intended effect. Rather than freeing women from male-dominated social conditioning and allowing them to feel great about that it continues to force women to conform to social and cultural goals (that day outcomes “should” be equal) that are built upon wrong assumptions thereby making them feel even more traumatized, victimized and abused. Right?
Here's a link to the Pinker debate I mentioned earlier:
Money quote: "The truth cannot be sexist."
Yeah, @didic , give it a go. You have a penis so he might actually listen. I am seriously done trying to fix the world by talking to camels that can't see their own hump.
I'm curious what you think of my response to Sean above. I also have a penis. :)
Too tired got a long reply. Upvoted at 100% instead. Now use that penis to mansplain to Sean that women are humans, just like men.
Okay, you don't actually have to use your penis, but apparently it helps to have one so men listen to your opinion.
Thanks. :)
I have the luxury of being somewhat emotionally disconnected from this discussion because I'm already in a place of security, and I know Sean in real life to be a good person, so I can give him the benefit of the doubt. Not only that, I see the actual results of his worldview in his family's life and I see how much good is there. I'm willing to suspend some judgement in hopes of learning something I don't currently understand.
That said, I recognize how often someone's solution makes a problem worse. In this case, I think both sides of the discussion could get frustrated thinking the other side's "solution" is making things worse when in reality aspects of both solutions can be helpful.
You're being a sheep @lukestokes, seriously, I don't mean it as an insult, for goodness sakes look at what you're going/giving into here by excusing the post that @seanking wrote. It is in itself just excusing and normalising, and not just accepting, but promoting the macho bullshit that's been a long hard fought battle for by many people, and one that still needs pushing a good bit further to be anywhere near to being tamed, never mind overturned.
I feel this is this very fear of being being pegged back down to our real value in a fair and equally balanced workplace/society/family life, whether he realises it or not, Seanmore or less says it's wrong of us, and that it's losing the battle if we ackowledge that there's a raw nerve there to be touched. That if we see ourselves as a victim, we become one. Really?? Fair?? No FFS, but very convenient! This viewpoint can only come from the viewpoint of a mysogynistic mind, not the scientific/biological arguement that he suggests.
The whole jist of the post won't hold an ounce of water for any fair-minded reasoning man, even if he occaissionally displays some of that behaviour, sometimes seen when people get drunk. It's behaviour they'd be normally ashamed of which means we do have the ability not to act like competitive cavemen in suits. Not that I wear a suit.
It sounds to me that this post is about desperately needing power or fearing the loss of it, and then being barefaced greedy enough to excuse bad masculine behaviour, that is institutionally entrenched in many of the older ruling elite, in order to keep it.
Seriously, this is not intelligent debate by a long shot, it's more like a minor politicians, who haven't been totally corrupted yet, having to go out giving uncomfortable statements in arguements/debates for their masters, as they slowly get ground into being a part of the sorry system. I've seen tamer 'mgtow'posts on youtube than this. please at least hit
I can't believe you're conscienciously only giving yourself a 100% upvote, seeing as you're being good enough not to make your own seperatepostabout this sad 'discussion' you're having.
There is some serious sickness at steemit, but you have to remember, all you say here is always here for people to delve into, and steemit isn't always going to be the same.
I wonder what the 'anonymous. think to all this this wanton greed that abounds. :)
Ps how on earth can you afford to be emotionally detatched from the world and the plights of others. It's a bit like saying I'm emotionally detatched from the homeless, because I'm secure in my nice house, no?
I also recommend you both listen and watch the video of Sublime performing the song Daterape.
If you're attempting to have a rational discourse with me, starting with name-calling is not a good approach.
You're making a moralized judgement about Sean's motivations and intentions. Do you know him personally? Have you met his wife? Do you know what good he's brought to the world? It's possible you're labeling him based on generalizations you've seen in the past without knowing him personally. That's a composition/divison fallacy.
You misunderstood my statement about emotion. I'm a deeply passionate person (ask anyone who knows me). My comment was about being less attached to this specific discussion because I'm not in the category of the oppressed as a privileged, white male. I am deeply engaged emotionally or I wouldn't bother responding at all, but I am less triggered by this discussion because I don't have the negative personal experiences we're discussing as part of my history.
I'm sorry you think I should "hit" more. I prefer logical discussions. Though you may not see it, some of Sean's ideas are actually empowering for women and his own wife is an example. She has overcome quite a bit by embracing her own sexuality and getting rid of so much shame and judgement.
A wise person listens to others and learns from them, especially people they don't agree with.
Did you really just say that he was "name-calling?" What in the world? I agree with some of what you are saying , Luke, but he has a point. Because you and others are treating sean-king with kid gloves when his entire post is taking them off. I was supposed to refrain from posting here. In fact i was all but begged. Its getting more and more difficult.
Yes. I was called a sheep. How is that in any way unclear?
Who said you were supposed to refrain? I'm confused by that. If you have opinions, please share them. Take the gloves off if you think that's the appropriate way to have a civil discourse. Personally, I prefer discussions with reason, logic, and evidence.