Masculinity

[cantata]

Men are men and women are women. This is the masculinity thread is it not?

Why did you quote my post rather than the OP?

Men are tough and hard and women are soft and curvy.

And if not, that desired outcome is sought most often.

Feminists do not generally object to men and women being the shapes that they are.

Like I wrote, feminism is a failure.

One death I rejoice.

Your posts are totally incoherent.

 

[PantsMcFist]

The first was a miscarriage, The second was stillborn.

Of course I'm not. I voted McCain-Palin.

Guns, lipstick and lots of kids.

Yeah baby.

You can't possibly be right about the first and second wave, because they yielded offspring. Women can vote, and work in nearly every job that men can, as well as not be harassed in the workplace on the basis of sex. Not to mention being legally recognized as 'people'. But I forgot, you're against all these things.

There's nothing 'traditional' about your views, which have their only historical manifestation in the mid twentieth century. You're becoming a caricature of yourself PCF.

 

[PassionFruit]

No feminism is not dead, and as long injustices towards women continue, feminism will always exist whether anti-feminists like it or not.

Feminism is alive and kicking.

So, just ignore PCfan, because he doesn't know what's he's talking about. But anti-feminists aren't usually very bright in the first place, so I shouldn't be surprised. Something I've learned since the time I declared myself a feminist.

:-/

But keep up the discussion with masculinity and such.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

You can't possibly be right about the first and second wave, because they yielded offspring. Women can vote, and work in nearly every job that men can, as well as not be harassed in the workplace on the basis of sex. Not to mention being legally recognized as 'people'. But I forgot, you're against all these things.

There's nothing 'traditional' about your views, which have their only historical manifestation in the mid twentieth century. You're becoming a caricature of yourself PCF.

Interesting how my views are understood in reality my canadian neighbor. But whatever makes you sleep at night is OK by me.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

No feminism is not dead, and as long injustices towards women continue, feminism will always exist whether anti-feminists like it or not.

Feminism is alive and kicking.

So, just ignore PCfan, because he doesn't know what's he's talking about. But anti-feminists aren't usually very bright in the first place, so I shouldn't be surprised. Something I've learned since the time I declared myself a feminist.

:-/

But keep up the discussion with masculinity and such.

Hmm, let's see who and what is on the covers of most of the magazines at the market.

Lady-looking ladies.

Like Sarah Palin.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Oops, I'm sorry, the OP.

Manly-looking men too.

 

[PassionFruit]

Oops, I'm sorry, the OP.

Manly-looking men too.

Hmmm...so have you been able to live up to the standards of looking like a manly man?

I mean, do you look like the men in men's magazines?

 

[Polycarp_fan]

Hmmm...so have you been able to live up to the standards of looking like a manly man?

I mean, do you look like the men in men's magazines?

I don't feed trolls.

There are many websites you could cruise for that.

 

[PassionFruit]

I don't feed trolls.

There are many websites you could cruise for that.

Can you answer the question?

 

[morningstar2651]

I agree. For example, if you want to look for why men are more aggressive, many will naturally look at the violent stuff on TV for an answer. They'll overlook all the non-violent stuff. It is easy to forget that violence is, by the norm, normally discouraged. There is plenty of TV and movie output where male characters aren't violent and show a more sensitive side. I think the media and films tend to more reflect how humans are, rather than shape how humans are (that's not to say the media doesn't have some sort of role in shaping us though). I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at, but just my thoughts.

Good observations.

My point is that a woman can be even more violent and aggressive than a man, and that a man can be more sensitive and emotional than a woman. We've been conditioned to assume that certain traits fit certain genders, so that's what we see. We overlook what we aren't looking for.

We look, but we do not see.

A prime example is Sarah Palin (thanks for bringing her up as a prime example of a feminine woman, PCF). She hunts - an activity that is assumed to be masculine.

I used to bowhunt and participate in archery tournaments. My biggest "rival" was a girl. Fencing, a sport where you're awarded points for stabbing your opponent, is dominated by women.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Polycarp ... if you are suggesting that "sod" in the sense I used is to do with sodomy; I really didn't know that. Neither did the OED. Which is odd.

Cantata ... we seemed to have moved from determinism to moral relativism; but I suppose the two are connected.

Why do you value empathy?
Is empathy something that should be desired?
Would you still agree that the vaue you place on empathy is not because empathy is inherently or objectively desirable, but rather it gained its value for you by a series of arbitrary accidents of genetics and environment that could quite easily have rendered "cruelty" just as valuable to you?


"Have you been able to live up to the standards of looking like a manly man?"
I know it wasn't addressed to me, but the answer is "Yes, I have" by a series of very fortunate genetic and environmental events.
Unfortunately at 36, I can see the first signs that this is ending.
Boo-hoo.

 

[LittleNipper]

You are damn right it was a jab. That added NOTHING to the comment whatsoever.

Any idiot can be given a book, be told it is divine, and then shut his ears to any other information.

The Bible is clearly the most interesting book ever composed. It contains more prophecy that has come to pass then any other book. It contains prophecy that seems to be unfolding in front of anyone's eyes who sincerely studies it and isn't simply looking to discredit it.

The Bible has been a rock. While the other information has come and gone or been reevaluated over time.

The fool says in his heart there is no GOD is certainly a point that is just as disturbing today as it was the day it was enscribed.

 

[jcook922]

The Bible is clearly the most interesting book ever composed. It contains more prophecy that has come to pass then any other book. It contains prophecy that seems to be unfolding in front of anyone's eyes who sincerely studies it and isn't simply looking to discredit it.

The Bible has been a rock. While the other information has come and gone or been reevaluated over time.

The fool says in his heart there is no GOD is certainly a point that is just as disturbing today as it was the day it was enscribed.

The Quran is clearly the most interesting book ever composed. It contains more prophecy that has come to pass than any other book. It contains prophecy that seems to be unfolding in front of anyones eye who sincerely studies it and isn't simply looking to discredit it.

The Quran has been a rock. While the other information has come and gone or been reevaluated over time.

The fool that says in his heart there is no ALLAH is certainly a point that is just as disturbing today as it was the day it was enscribed.




See what I did there? It's called an opinion, your thoughts are not absolute, they are opinions. How about you respect the opinions of others instead of expecting, or even DEMANDING that people do so of yours without equal consideration?

 

[LittleNipper]

The Quran is clearly the most interesting book ever composed. It contains more prophecy that has come to pass than any other book. It contains prophecy that seems to be unfolding in front of anyones eye who sincerely studies it and isn't simply looking to discredit it.

The Quran has been a rock. While the other information has come and gone or been reevaluated over time.

The fool that says in his heart there is no ALLAH is certainly a point that is just as disturbing today as it was the day it was enscribed.




See what I did there? It's called an opinion, your thoughts are not absolute, they are opinions. How about you respect the opinions of others instead of expecting, or even DEMANDING that people do so of yours without equal consideration?

Funny, the Quran contains only one prophecy that came to pass. That one being that Mohammed would return to the city of Meca. Apparently he did --- he fulfilled it himself... The Quran contains little prophecy. Simply read both for yourself. That is all one needs to do. Allah apparently hates Jews. GOD loves the Arabs ---- they are of the seed of Abraham...

 

[jcook922]

Funny, the Quran contains only one prophecy that came to pass. That one being that Mohammed would return to the city of Meca. Apparently he did --- he fulfilled it himself... The Quran contains little prophecy. Simply read both for yourself. That is all one needs to do. Allah apparently hates Jews. GOD loves the Arabs ---- they are of the seed of Abraham...

You missed the point of the exercise, the point was that everyone has an opinion, and that you can either be a close-minded and ignorant fool, like the godless man you spoke of, or you can be open minded with conviction in your beliefs. It's your choice, but you sure as hell aren't open-minded.

 

[cantata]

Cantata ... we seemed to have moved from determinism to moral relativism; but I suppose the two are connected.

I think it's difficult to maintain an objectivist position on morality if one is a determinist, yes.

Why do you value empathy?

Because I have it, and I find that it moves me.

Is empathy something that should be desired?

"Should"? Morally speaking?

No, there's no moral reason to desire, pursue, or obey empathy. I, personally, would like it if people did desire, pursue, and obey it, but I believe that there is nothing I can say to someone with no experience of empathy which will convince them to do so.

Would you still agree that the vaue you place on empathy is not because empathy is inherently or objectively desirable, but rather it gained its value for you by a series of arbitrary accidents of genetics and environment that could quite easily have rendered "cruelty" just as valuable to you?

Absolutely. I have never said otherwise.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

No, you haven't. Which is to your credit.

What is slightly more discreditable is the fact that you do not find it disingenuous to then try and persuade others by rational argument.

Wouldn't it be a bit more honest to say for example; "My ethical standpoint that women should not be regarded as male property, is ultimately based on a series of completely arbitrary set of genetic and environemental accidents. It has no validity. The only reason I have this standpoint as opposed to the opposite is not through choice but for similar reasons to the fact that I have black hair" ?

Do you think if you started all ethical arguments with this disclaimer it would make your case more persuasive or less persuasive?

 

[cantata]

No, you haven't. Which is to your credit.

What is slightly more discreditable is the fact that you do not find it disingenuous to then try and persuade others by rational argument.

Wouldn't it be a bit more honest to say for example; "My ethical standpoint that women should not be regarded as male property, is ultimately based on a series of completely arbitrary set of genetic and environemental accidents. It has no validity. The only reason I have this standpoint as opposed to the opposite is not through choice but for similar reasons to the fact that I have black hair" ?

Do you think if you started all ethical arguments with this disclaimer it would make your case more persuasive or less persuasive?

But you seem to have missed the whoooole bit a post or two ago where I explained that most ethical discussions - including the one about whether women should be regarded as male property - are really discussions about prudence. Usually, if I had that discussion with someone, I and they would agree that we want a situation in which we and those dear to us can live in safety and happiness. We then have a basis for a discussion about how to achieve that with regard to marital relations.

If you and I agree that we have the end of human happiness (even if we desire the end for different reasons), we can have a rational discussion about how to achieve that. There is nothing dishonest about me engaging you in such a discussion just because I don't believe that it's written in the sky that human happiness is a good, any more than it is dishonest for you and I to work together to build a bridge because I want to visit your side of the river and you want to visit mine.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

No, I did get the bit about prudence in the other post. I thought it was of very little relevance though.
Before we get to discussing how we can achieve aims that are "good" I think it is important and wholly appropriate to discuss what "good" means and how we arrive at that conclusion.
It is the much more fundamental question and until it is answered, the rest is not relevant.

Plus it's fun as well as a good exercise to question one's motives for holding certain fundamental beliefs and if they have no validity then perhaps changing them.

 

[cantata]

No, I did get the bit about prudence in the other post. I thought it was of very little relevance though.
Before we get to discussing how we can achieve aims that are "good" I think it is important and wholly appropriate to discuss what "good" means and how we arrive at that conclusion.
It is the much more fundamental question and until it is answered, the rest is not relevant.

Um, I think this is a bit ridiculous You're seriously telling me that until you and I agree about why we want safe, happy lives for ourselves and our loved ones, we can't have a sensible discussion about any other issue that stems from that desire?

Plus it's fun as well as a good exercise to question one's motives for holding certain fundamental beliefs and if they have no validity then perhaps changing them.

It is fun to think about where our ideas come from.

I think your notion of validity is tied to your moral objectivism, though. I do not think moral beliefs can have a status of valid or invalid, any more than I think a feeling of sadness can be valid or invalid.