Gender Essentialism

[Immanuel Can]

No, I only brought him in as an example of research that gets "tabooed." I have no particular interest in his thesis beyond the question of how academics are treated when they publicize politically-incorrect data.

Gotcha. Ok, point ceded, to an extent. Yet I can understand why people were up in arms. Some did it more eloquently by pointing out how the way he went about it was problematic. Of course there are going to be people that don't react so well, sure.

Well, that's fine for ordinary human affairs. But it cuts into the issue of academic freedom, and particularly, it stops certain kinds of research from being encouraged, and makes some downright impermissible. The free inquiry for truth cannot be fettered with prejudices against data which compels or refuses tout court particular conclusions...not without destroying the search for truth itself.

Okay. "Increase representation" is your first idea.

How do we achieve that? What specific policies do we need to put into place to make that happen? Or is it more a matter of women having to change their own attitudes? I'm open to suggestions of all kinds.

One way that this is being done is that the media picks up stories about women breaking out in fields. In a perfect world the response should be "so what," but for right now, I think it's a good thing.

Okay. That should be unproblematic to make happen. The media's very sympathetic to that sort of story.

Women appearing in entertainment in more diverse roles is already being done as well, and I think that's helping.

I'm not really sure how.

You don't mean we should distort the truth, as through the classic "125 pound woman who beats up 250 pound men," or the classic "gay friend who is always wise and wonderful," or something like that, do you? Those are less "entertainment" than propaganda tools, and they always ruin the verisimilitude of any show they're in. They've become recognizable as stock-preaching characters, and such characters actually don't fool anybody much.

At the same time though, I'm not a policy-maker for a reason. I don't know what sorts of policies should be done.

That's crucial, though.

Without a definite plan of reform, women's complaints stay just that -- complaints, and mere complaints without possiblity of remedy. Everything really hinges on our ability to change what needs to be changed.

My interest in this thread has been to answer the questions, "why are there fewer women in STEM, and is there something essential about being a woman that shoulders the bulk of the blame?"

It's a good question.

My answer to the first has been because of the unequal psychosocial hardships women endure thanks to implicit biases in the culture both at home and at work.

And my response is that women's hardships at home are products of their own choices, not of STEM. And I still don't believe "implicit bias" means anything. An "explicit bias" would be useful to identify; we would be able to design strategies to deal with it. But this "implicit" thing handicaps us beyond remedy.

My answer to the second is that it sure seems a lot more like cultural aspects are more at play than anything essential to being a woman.

And I'd say I don't know what "cultural aspects" those are. Like "implicit bias," they seem to float away as generalizations, devoid of specifics or remedy.

As I have argued before, I don't even outright reject the possibility that being a biological, phenotypic woman skews some kind of temperamental curve and might serve as a seed for the emergence of the biases that harm women overall. Maybe x out of y women, raised in a vacuum, would prefer a nurturing field over a STEM field, compared to some lower x out of y men that would prefer the same. I don't know. Yet I don't think the nature side of the effect is dominant, I don't think that on its own it would nearly account for the sorts of cultural biases that we see. My evidence for this is that many women show an initial interest in STEM, but something causes them to back out.

I get why you are drawn to that assumption. But the problem is that we don't know it's more than that. To tie this back to your idea of "biological, phentypic women," what if this thing they call 'the biological clock" or even "nesting instinct," is real? What if women don't WANT to work the 80 hour shifts every week, because they happen to feel that their families are more important than their money-making? What if they're right: that quality of life is better than career advancement? And would they be lunatic for taking that view? Should we criticize them for it? I think we'd both say, "no."

The deciding factor is going to be data, not ideology. What we "think" women should be or do is really less important than what they DO want to do, or what really will give them the fulfillment they're seeking. So it's possible that getting more women into STEM could actually be a bad thing -- if, say, we found it necessary to propagandize, bully or harass them into doing it, because really, they just didn't want to, at the end of the day.

My evidence includes the fact that they don't report they're leaving for greener pastures (answering some feminine call to nurture instead of analyze, so to speak): they report they're leaving because of workplace/school place gendered hostilities, both implicit and explicit. My anecdotal experience aligns with this interpretation.

Well, I'm open to that story. But I think the most useful feature of it will not end up being the feelings (the "I didn't feel appreciated," or "nobody gave me a hug when I balanced the accounts" sort of stuff), but rather the specific incidents of hostility and unfair treatment, however many and however small, that we can identify and remedy. Absent such specifics, as I say, we're all at a loss for fixing anything.

My goal here is simply to combat the idea that nature plays a more significant role than nurture in the gender gap in STEM,

In your own case? Plausibly. But why would we presume your experience to be average? Have you not already numbered your "spoons" and said your case is different from the average? So plausibly, nature might play a much more significant role in, say, somebody who was more drawn to traditional marriage and children. Either way, it's the data we'd need, not our hunches.

But maybe I can also ask you what inclines you to want more women in STEM? Perhaps you could be happy being extraordinary -- a real black swan, even -- would that be so bad? Is there some reason we need to usher women who are not going into STEM into the field against their wills? Or do we have to entice them to stay if they prefer to go? Why not just be fine with whatever they choose?

Oh. So you mean, "Make the women more aware they've been making bad choices?"

Yes. But also the men. These implicit biases are held by both women and men. Women need to be more aware that they're making bad choices and men need to be more aware not to hold the biases themselves. This is really complicated though. A common problem I've noticed in heterosexual relationships is that men sometimes aren't straightforward about what kinds of beliefs they hold about women, or it just doesn't come up, or whatever, until the couple is emotionally invested when it finally rears its head.

I've got something for you. You're going to love this, I think.

It's a video conversation between a man and a woman, incorporating different styles. See what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg.

Relationships are tough because nobody's ever perfect. You have to kind of decide what negative things about your partner aren't dealbreakers in any relationship. So I can understand maybe how to some women, if a man holds some of these biased gendered beliefs while she does not, she may tolerate them. I think it's hasty to call her stupid or weak because of that. So none of this has a really clear cut answer.

"Relationships are tough." That's a phrase we can all carve over the mantlepiece.

I think men and women have different burdens. And they react differently to those burdens. But in the society we now have, men are massively discriminated against, though largely, they do not complain because complaining is not a masculine mode. So there are many men under all kinds of stresses, who could use lots of help, but do not ask for it because asking is a kind of defeat.

On top of that, they have no reason to expect any sympathy at all from a culture as feminized as ours clearly is. In fact, in the media and the academy, they've already been told that just for being born male, they're "complicit in oppressive patriarchy." They can't expect any help from people who accept that version of things, can they?

These different burdens are often cultural, though. I know many fantastic men that could and would speak up about injustices towards men. I would join in with them. There is nothing un-masculine about addressing injustice: but cultural norms sure can make a man feel like it's un-masculine. It doesn't have to be that way. It isn't that way for many men.

And yet it is, for many, many more. You were asking about the suicide rates. We could add in the risk behavior, the violence, the addictions, the culture of gangs and guns, the fact that young men, in particular, are now told they're all misogynists and potential rapists and abusers, the nihilism that issues from the loss of teleology and faith,..all the things that are part of a man's world.

Now me, I have it good...I'm not world's wealthiest man, but I've had more than my share of successes in this world. I'm educated enough, have had a good career, and need no sympathy. And I have the Lord: I can't possibly be down. Moreover, if anybody wants to take a poke at me, they can try and see if it works. But I know a lot of men who are drifting, angry, embittered, demoralized, and down on their options; for them, I have sympathy. The business of being a man -- particularly a young man today -- are pretty heavy sometimes.

I don't see a lot of women who really get that. Most seem to talk as if men live blessed lives, sheltered under a golden umbrella called "The Patriarchy." Those who think that's a real thing should read more history, or try living for a few days in a man's world. They'd be very surprised.

On the other hand, if the majority of working women continue to get pregnant, have bad home-life balances, work shorter hours and take too many leaves, you can't blame the employers for hedging their bets. They never know, going into a job interview, whether the woman they're looking at will turn out to be a work dynamo or a "fertile Myrtle" in a year or two. With the male candidates, they have a much higher chance of getting a worker that will not be leaving soon. But there are never any guarantees, of course.

Now, I'm not saying women are wrong for working less. I don't say they're wrong for having children. I don't even make them out to be wrong if they have an uneven balance of domestic duties. That's their life choice. It might even be a good one: Lord knows many men work far too much, and don't give enough psychological energy to the family. I believe that.

But I do say that if women are complaining about the work world, they cannot use their domestic decisions as a reason.

We have a choice to either live in a society that oppresses women by allowing discrimination on the basis of gender or sex (which is already illegal in much of the Western world, though as I have said this is only de jure), or to live in a society where women are able to have good careers because they aren't discriminated against unfairly based on a perception of what they "might" do, even if (for a time) they are "more likely" to do it.

Again we end up at this question: how. How are we going to change something as nebulous as a "culture of discrimination" or some vague "oppression" when it has no specific cause or origin? Absent any pratical strategy, or even the possibility thereof, where does all that get us?

They will be less likely to do it if efforts are made by the society to weed out the implicit biases:

And again: which "efforts," and "made by" whom, how, when? That's what we need to know.

I like to think that society can step up to the plate and do what needs to be done to break the negative feedback cycle.

We can be sure it won't happen without a specific diagnosis, and a consequent strategy. It's not like these things just dissolve with time: you're talking about traditions that, in some cases, go back thousands of years, at the very least. And arguably, you may even be talking about trying to fight down biology, as well.

This goes back to toxic masculinity:

Ugh. What a prejudiced phrase.

Masculinity is not "toxic." Some forms of behaviour performed by some men are bad. Just like some women are bad. They're differently bad, maybe; but they're both bad.

Much that is masculine is very good. It's different from the feminine, but it's a good thing it is. Women don't like feminine men.

It's not a prejudiced phrase (though I notice: you have detected what you feel is an apparent injustice. Aren't men supposed to be silent and manly/stoic when confronted by this? I'm of course just teasing you again, but does it make you wonder whether that's really true?)

Actually, a man's conversation style is to call out things he regards as untrue, and to do so fairly bluntly. It's not unmanly to debate, argue, or even contend vigorously. What's unmanly is to point out an "injustice" and whine for sympathy. And as I said, I have no interest in being given sympathy, and no need for any.

But "toxic masculinity" is an idea that is toxifying our society. It's as unhelpful as if we referred to all women as the "b" word. It demonizes literally half the population, in the name of the other half. And anybody who imagines that's good for society had better think again. What women who use it need to remember is that there is about an even chance that half of their own children will live with the label they're slapping on men. That should draw them up short.

Indeed, masculinity is not toxic.



As the meme notes, not all masculinity is toxic. Not even most masculinity is toxic. We've spoken elsewhere about how there is toxic femininity as well, and I wouldn't be arguing femininity is toxic either, being a mostly feminine person myself.

I have a plethora of friends that are men. Some of them are gay, some of them are more feminine (and those two don't always overlap, and that's OK! My male friends that aren't super macho or have more feminine traits still identify as men, and they are fine, wonderful men!), but most of them are masculine or very masculine. All of them, though, do not exhibit toxic masculinity. Their masculinity isn't any kind of problem.

Interestingly, as Soh has pointed out, the transers do problematize masculinity in women; they interpret it as evidence of BEING a woman, instead of a normal range of feminine or masculine actions possible to a normal female or male. And in a similar way, the encourage "tomboy" women and lesbians to assume they are secretly men....and to opt for chemicals and surgeries.

Perhaps. But again, what's the solution? To make women more angry?

Well, now that you say it out loud. Maybe women should be a lot more pissed about this.

Will it do them any good? If it will, then maybe. But anger rarely leads to much but violence. A better response might be either to find a practical, specific solution, so women don't have to be angry, or else to be more reflective on what might be different about being a woman in the first place, and work with that to produce some new pattern of life that works better for them. Both options require us to get specific, though.

But anger's an option too, if you think it's productive of something. I'm skeptical.

Good thoughts. Any more to say?

[Astro Cat]

Women appearing in entertainment in more diverse roles is already being done as well, and I think that's helping.

I'm not really sure how.

You don't mean we should distort the truth, as through the classic "125 pound woman who beats up 250 pound men," or the classic "gay friend who is always wise and wonderful," or something like that, do you? Those are less "entertainment" than propaganda tools, and they always ruin the verisimilitude of any show they're in. They've become recognizable as stock-preaching characters, and such characters actually don't fool anybody much.

Well, when it comes to fantasy and stuff like that, I really don't see why not. But I understand what you're saying. In normal dramas, of course we shouldn't distort the truth just for the sake of it. We also shouldn't virtue signal for the sake of it.

I am trying to remember what I watched recently that I really liked because it contained representation for a gay couple, I think they were women. But the plot didn't sound an airhorn and throw confetti and make a huge deal out of it: they were just two women together, doing normal character stuff that normal characters do. I like that. I don't like being preached to any more than anyone else. I will usually take representation when I can get it, but I roll my eyes as much as anyone else when something's being overly preachy about it. (There are sometimes when a plot might deal with something like discrimination where being preachy about it is a little bit of the point. I don't know how to say "this example is fine" and "this example made me roll my eyes." It's like that guy that said "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it.")

I think ideally good representation will just show people doing normal people things without making a big deal out of it. It's enough that they're there and they're seen.

I recall reading somewhere someone recalling going to see Rogue One, the Star Wars film. I don't remember the specifics, but I think there was a Hispanic character in the film (it might not have been Hispanic, I really don't remember, but I'll go with that for the point). This post, which I think was on Reddit, described how the poster took their father that barely speaks English to see the film. The poster described how on the drive home, their father was real quiet for a while, until he finally asked whether people liked this character? "Of course," said the poster. I'm not remembering a lot of details, but it really meant something to this guy's father that someone from his culture was represented on screen, that his culture wasn't made a whole big thing and that he was just a guy in the universe doing normal stuff, and people liked him. It really tugged on my lil heartstrings (I'm not crying, you're crying, shut up!)

As I have argued before, I don't even outright reject the possibility that being a biological, phenotypic woman skews some kind of temperamental curve and might serve as a seed for the emergence of the biases that harm women overall. Maybe x out of y women, raised in a vacuum, would prefer a nurturing field over a STEM field, compared to some lower x out of y men that would prefer the same. I don't know. Yet I don't think the nature side of the effect is dominant, I don't think that on its own it would nearly account for the sorts of cultural biases that we see. My evidence for this is that many women show an initial interest in STEM, but something causes them to back out.

I get why you are drawn to that assumption. But the problem is that we don't know it's more than that. To tie this back to your idea of "biological, phentypic women," what if this thing they call 'the biological clock" or even "nesting instinct," is real? What if women don't WANT to work the 80 hour shifts every week, because they happen to feel that their families are more important than their money-making? What if they're right: that quality of life is better than career advancement? And would they be lunatic for taking that view? Should we criticize them for it? I think we'd both say, "no."

The deciding factor is going to be data, not ideology. What we "think" women should be or do is really less important than what they DO want to do, or what really will give them the fulfillment they're seeking. So it's possible that getting more women into STEM could actually be a bad thing -- if, say, we found it necessary to propagandize, bully or harass them into doing it, because really, they just didn't want to, at the end of the day.

To be 100% clear, I think women should do what they want to do. I am not advocating shoving them onto a path towards STEM, I am only talking about removing systemic barriers to staying in STEM for those that have an interest in STEM. If we remove the systemic barriers and still have a gender gap of some kind, then so be it.

Well, I'm open to that story. But I think the most useful feature of it will not end up being the feelings (the "I didn't feel appreciated," or "nobody gave me a hug when I balanced the accounts" sort of stuff), but rather the specific incidents of hostility and unfair treatment, however many and however small, that we can identify and remedy. Absent such specifics, as I say, we're all at a loss for fixing anything.

First: I nearly spit out water at "nobody gave me a hug when I balanced the accounts." LOL!

Second, I don't know how to be more helpful with specific policy. I know that some of the papers I've cited have made suggestions for further research. There is often a point where research starts making policy suggestions based on the research. I think it's attainable to get real policy suggestions by people that simply understand such matters better than I do.

In your own case? Plausibly. But why would we presume your experience to be average? Have you not already numbered your "spoons" and said your case is different from the average? So plausibly, nature might play a much more significant role in, say, somebody who was more drawn to traditional marriage and children. Either way, it's the data we'd need, not our hunches.

But maybe I can also ask you what inclines you to want more women in STEM? Perhaps you could be happy being extraordinary -- a real black swan, even -- would that be so bad? Is there some reason we need to usher women who are not going into STEM into the field against their wills? Or do we have to entice them to stay if they prefer to go? Why not just be fine with whatever they choose?

My experience is probably not average due to my privilege from my parents' middle class wealth, due to my idiosyncratic strengths as a person (and my weaknesses!), due to having an overall different social experience as a lesbian (I don't have to deal with relationships where gendered culture clashes), and so on.

As for the second paragraph, it's not necessarily that I want more women in STEM "just because." I do think it would be good because I think it would help to combat the negative feedback cycle I've mentioned a few times (that fewer women in STEM heightens stereotypes against them when they are, which leads to fewer women in STEM, which leads to heightened stereotypes... round and round). But thinking it would be good isn't the same as wanting people to do something they don't want to do. However, as I've reported, the data certainly looks like women do want to do STEM, they just don't end up staying because of all the factors we've been talking about. I want to remove those negative factors so that women that want to stay in STEM will stay, and those that don't will not: at least we could be certain that they're actually getting their wishes.

I've got something for you. You're going to love this, I think.

It's a video conversation between a man and a woman, incorporating different styles. See what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg.

LMAO. I confess to having had this kind of experience with people where I just want to say "I mean you could try..." but they're just looking to vent. That's funny.

These different burdens are often cultural, though. I know many fantastic men that could and would speak up about injustices towards men. I would join in with them. There is nothing un-masculine about addressing injustice: but cultural norms sure can make a man feel like it's un-masculine. It doesn't have to be that way. It isn't that way for many men.

And yet it is, for many, many more. You were asking about the suicide rates. We could add in the risk behavior, the violence, the addictions, the culture of gangs and guns, the fact that young men, in particular, are now told they're all misogynists and potential rapists and abusers, the nihilism that issues from the loss of teleology and faith,..all the things that are part of a man's world.

Now me, I have it good...I'm not world's wealthiest man, but I've had more than my share of successes in this world. I'm educated enough, have had a good career, and need no sympathy. And I have the Lord: I can't possibly be down. Moreover, if anybody wants to take a poke at me, they can try and see if it works. But I know a lot of men who are drifting, angry, embittered, demoralized, and down on their options; for them, I have sympathy. The business of being a man -- particularly a young man today -- are pretty heavy sometimes.

I don't see a lot of women who really get that. Most seem to talk as if men live blessed lives, sheltered under a golden umbrella called "The Patriarchy." Those who think that's a real thing should read more history, or try living for a few days in a man's world. They'd be very surprised.

I want society to make progress about injustices to men just as I want it to make progress about injustices to women. I will speak up when I can in efforts to contribute to this. I think the important thing is understanding that culture can change, and it starts with the members of it. I know that the big lifting still needs to be done by people for whom that's down their alley (as I say about policymakers, and how I am not one), but we can start from the ground up, too. I will stand up for men as readily as I will for women.

But "toxic masculinity" is an idea that is toxifying our society. It's as unhelpful as if we referred to all women as the "b" word. It demonizes literally half the population, in the name of the other half. And anybody who imagines that's good for society had better think again. What women who use it need to remember is that there is about an even chance that half of their own children will live with the label they're slapping on men. That should draw them up short.

I think it is helpful for men to understand it because it helps them to de-link toxic behavior from their conception of masculinity. It doesn't demonize half of the population at all: not all men link toxic traits to their masculinity.

Now there are women that use the term wrong, and I call them out when I see them. One of my first posts on this forum, in fact, was calling out an inappropriate use of the word "mansplaining" which was unfair to men. It is a useful term describing a real phenomenon, but someone that is just happening to be explaining something while male is not "mansplaining."

Well, now that you say it out loud. Maybe women should be a lot more pissed about this.

Will it do them any good? If it will, then maybe. But anger rarely leads to much but violence. A better response might be either to find a practical, specific solution, so women don't have to be angry, or else to be more reflective on what might be different about being a woman in the first place, and work with that to produce some new pattern of life that works better for them. Both options require us to get specific, though.

But anger's an option too, if you think it's productive of something. I'm skeptical.

Good thoughts. Any more to say?

I was mostly kidding about the anger thing. What I do think though is that women should be more invested in understanding this stuff, men too. But I don't know how to make people care about other people. That's the age old conundrum, isn't it?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know how to say "this example is fine" and "this example made me roll my eyes." It's like that guy that said "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."

I do.

When the characters chosen serve an ideological slant, rather then being necessary or contributory to the plot, then it's a manipulation. Or if somebody tells you or reveals their sexual orientation, but it's got nothing to do with the story, then it's a manipulation. Or if it's the story of King Arthur, and we throw in a trans character, a hippie drug lord, a kickass teenage female and a robot dog, then I'm calling foul.

I think ideally good representation will just show people doing normal people things without making a big deal out of it. It's enough that they're there and they're seen.

There ya go! Exactly right. If they would just get on with telling the good story, and forget about making political points, and we'll be grand. There are good stories for lots of types of people. So there's no limit on who you represent; but you'd always better represent them in a good story, or your audience is going to bolt.

Unfortunately, Hollywood scriptwriters are unbelievably "woke" right now, and consider it a badge of honour to write stories so bad that the manipulations are all apparent. That gets them Academy Awards, but no box office. Because people don't like patronizing, didactic and soulless stories.

Characters must, above all, serve the story. If they don't, they should be gone.

(I'm not crying, you're crying, shut up!)

To be 100% clear, I think women should do what they want to do. I am not advocating shoving them onto a path towards STEM, I am only talking about removing systemic barriers to staying in STEM for those that have an interest in STEM. If we remove the systemic barriers and still have a gender gap of some kind, then so be it.

Well, that's fair. I can't argue with that. But if we are going to deal with barriers, we have to name them, locate them, and invent practical policies for eliminating them. Unfortunately for us, "systemic barriers," are ghosts. "Systemic," like "implicit," is an obscurantist coinage. It keeps us from knowing what to look for, where, and with whom. So it posits an insoluble problem.

Well, I'm open to that story. But I think the most useful feature of it will not end up being the feelings (the "I didn't feel appreciated," or "nobody gave me a hug when I balanced the accounts" sort of stuff), but rather the specific incidents of hostility and unfair treatment, however many and however small, that we can identify and remedy. Absent such specifics, as I say, we're all at a loss for fixing anything.

First: I nearly spit out water at "nobody gave me a hug when I balanced the accounts." LOL!

Second, I don't know how to be more helpful with specific policy. I know that some of the papers I've cited have made suggestions for further research. There is often a point where research starts making policy suggestions based on the research. I think it's attainable to get real policy suggestions by people that simply understand such matters better than I do.

I appreciate your frankness. But it is a problem that we don't have a unity of research and policy on this issue. There's no use for research ginning up further examples of unsolvable problems, nebulous injustices, and bad feelings we can't ever pin to anything. That's just a waste of time, at best, and at worse, a way to make oneself truly miserable, resentful and powerless.

What we clearly need is research that identifies the specifics. I think that if it did, the policies we would need would become much more obvious, and would likely suggest themselves. For example, a biased human resources person can be located and sacked; a "systemic unfairness" in regard to human resources can neither be located nor solved. A lack of scholarship opportunities for women in STEM could be remedied with a new scholarship program; but "bad feelings about how I'm being perceived" are a disease with no diagnosis or cure. So are "stereotypes" if untied to any person or entity generating and perpetuating them. But if we can locate the propagandists, we can put an end to their stereotyping.

You can see how policy becomes rather easy when the analysis of the research focuses on specifics, and impossible when it does not.

I've got something for you. You're going to love this, I think.

It's a video conversation between a man and a woman, incorporating different styles. See what you think. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg.

LMAO. I confess to having had this kind of experience with people where I just want to say "I mean you could try..." but they're just looking to vent. That's funny.

Very amusing to my wife and I, both. She will sometimes say to me, "I want to tell you about my day at work, and before I start, I just want you to know it's not about the nail." Then I know to listen, and not to make any "helpful" suggestions. She's usually quite capable of working out her own situations when I just do that. But for men, that's a tough discipline to master; we're addicted to solutions.

I want society to make progress about injustices to men just as I want it to make progress about injustices to women.

A noble goal. But men don't need much. It's just that for many of them, they're not getting even the minimum they need.

But "toxic masculinity" is an idea that is toxifying our society. It's as unhelpful as if we referred to all women as the "b" word. It demonizes literally half the population, in the name of the other half. And anybody who imagines that's good for society had better think again. What women who use it need to remember is that there is about an even chance that half of their own children will live with the label they're slapping on men. That should draw them up short.

I think it is helpful for men to understand it because it helps them to de-link toxic behavior from their conception of masculinity. It doesn't demonize half of the population at all: not all men link toxic traits to their masculinity.

True, but we have to be careful in our usage. When we say something like, "fragile women," it's all too easy for our listeners to feel we're saying something about all women, or about womanhood itself, rather than only speaking about however many or few are actually "fragile." Or if we say "lazy immigrants," then people are not likely to immediately think we mean only those few immigrants who turn out to be indolent --they're likely to see us as racist and xenophobic.

Just so, when we say, "toxic masculinity," it's all too easy for our usage to slide over into, "Being a male is toxic." And we do not practice the kind of constant vigilance on our language that makes that slide unlikely. So it's really easy to see why a lot of young males, in particular, are increasingly cynical about Feminism, and even about women altogether: the impression they're getting is that the speaker thinks "male" means "bad." And they know that's not so. Naturally, they resent the association.

Now there are women that use the term wrong, and I call them out when I see them. One of my first posts on this forum, in fact, was calling out an inappropriate use of the word "mansplaining" which was unfair to men. It is a useful term describing a real phenomenon, but someone that is just happening to be explaining something while male is not "mansplaining."

Well, imagine the screams if a man turned around and responded that the reason he had to "mansplain" was because of "womanignorance."

I don't know how to make people care about other people. That's the age old conundrum, isn't it?

If you find out, let me know.

But I think there's a great deal of good sense in this idea: that people are uncaring and hateful when they are, themselves not sorted out. Jordan Peterson caught a lot of flack from the social activist types for his aphorism, "Before you clean up the world, clean up your room." But it's actually good advice: people need to be less focused on external disorder, until they establish some internal order of their own. It's not good for people who are drifting, confused souls to take up the cause of reforming large, complex systems -- like governments, economies, institutions, etc. -- because the chances such a person will merely increase the chaos and improve nothing are astronomical. It's much easier to damage an existing system than to build a functioning one of one's own. So until people have reformed their own lives, they don't have the qualifications for large-scale social reform.

But they prefer large causes, because it staves off the need for personal reform.

Personal reform is the starting point. Happy, well-adjusted people are durable to bad circumstances, and positive in their efforts to contribute to others, even against vicissitudes. They might actually make things better. And they don't tend to be resentful of others, or bitter, or hostile, or reactive. So I think "clean up your room" is the right starting point: we all need to give real attention to exactly why we, individually, are angry, or unhappy, or resentful, or jealous, or whatever, and deal with that first. We need to make the hard decisions it takes to "clean up" our own space, our own values, our own beliefs and our own lives. That's complex enough a task for most of us.

If we do that well, then maybe we're also in a position to advise somebody else, seeing as we've had success and know the path. And if one person, perhaps more. And then maybe we can deal with national problems, and big issues of sexism, racism, etc., and we'll be the kind of people that can get that right. Then, maybe, we can tackle the world.

Right now, though, "everybody wants to rule the world," as Tears For Fears used to sing. And the confusion and conflict they're creating in the attempt stands to end up doing nobody any good.

[Astro Cat]

Right now, though, "everybody wants to rule the world," as Tears For Fears used to sing. And the confusion and conflict they're creating in the attempt stands to end up doing nobody any good.

Well what do we do now? That exchange was entirely too civil. I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of being a puppy stomper or something now to have things to post about. How dare you!

[Immanuel Can]

Right now, though, "everybody wants to rule the world," as Tears For Fears used to sing. And the confusion and conflict they're creating in the attempt stands to end up doing nobody any good.

Well what do we do now? That exchange was entirely too civil. I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of being a puppy stomper or something now to have things to post about. How dare you!

Hey, you stomp one puppy, and you're labelled for life? How is that fair?

I like that we are civil with one another. It seems to me that's exactly how we "get somewhere," meaning not that somebody "wins" an discussion or somebody "loses," but that two people work companionably on a problem they both find concerning -- regardless of where they individually end up on it.

I come away from our exchange with a real respect for you...no matter that we are different in many ways. You've handled your end of the discussion like a pro, and been very mature about it. That's an exhibition of intelligence and strength of conviction, and I think we've both advanced our thinking.

That seems totally profitable to me; and if I might say, it's an example of how all of the discussions that go on on a forum like this would be conducted, were things as they should be, and were people what they should be.

So even if we've arrived at our station on this "train," we can take another such "train" of thought together in future, when we find one we want to take.

Until then, we can relax. There will be something, sometime. Things don't say quiet on this forum for long.

[Immanuel Can]

Well what do we do now? That exchange was entirely too civil. I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of being a puppy stomper or something now to have things to post about. How dare you!

There will be something, sometime. Things don't say quiet on this forum for long.

Aaaaaand...

Here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfdV7AHIrNk&t=16s

[henry quirk]

Yep, that there is definitely a feather ruffler.

[FlashDangerpants]

My money is on that being too weak to break this odd couple thing they have where the ritual mutual exchange of compliments keeps the honeymoon going.

[henry quirk]

47505AC6-F55F-4CD5-990A-42CC8C490E25.jpeg (34.67 KiB) Viewed 4012 times

poor flash

[Astro Cat]

Well what do we do now? That exchange was entirely too civil. I'm afraid I'm going to have to accuse you of being a puppy stomper or something now to have things to post about. How dare you!

There will be something, sometime. Things don't say quiet on this forum for long.

Aaaaaand...

Here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfdV7AHIrNk&t=16s

I'm just not impressed by Peterson enough to feel like that deserves a response, it was already responded to in our conversation. No, I think we'll have the next tussle over in the thread about morality more likely

[Immanuel Can]

There will be something, sometime. Things don't say quiet on this forum for long.

Aaaaaand...

Here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfdV7AHIrNk&t=16s

I'm just not impressed by Peterson enough to feel like that deserves a response, it was already responded to in our conversation. No, I think we'll have the next tussle over in the thread about morality more likely

Excellent.

What I thought was interesting about the video was primarily two things: one, the discussion of the Sweden studies, and two, the laterally-and-up business. I also thought you'd find it interesting to see him in dialogue with two very successful second-wave-type Feminists.

[Astro Cat]

My money is on that being too weak to break this odd couple thing they have where the ritual mutual exchange of compliments keeps the honeymoon going.

Who is “they” here? From the context I was thinking IC and me, but I’m not sure?

[Astro Cat]

47505AC6-F55F-4CD5-990A-42CC8C490E25.jpegpoor flash

I don’t get this, is there context behind this?

[Astro Cat]

Aaaaaand...

Here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfdV7AHIrNk&t=16s

I'm just not impressed by Peterson enough to feel like that deserves a response, it was already responded to in our conversation. No, I think we'll have the next tussle over in the thread about morality more likely

Excellent.

What I thought was interesting about the video was primarily two things: one, the discussion of the Sweden studies, and two, the laterally-and-up business. I also thought you'd find it interesting to see him in dialogue with two very successful second-wave-type Feminists.

The Swedish studies thing came up in the discussion, so it didn’t grab my interest I guess. I also don’t know the women so maybe that is why.

[henry quirk]

47505AC6-F55F-4CD5-990A-42CC8C490E25.jpegpoor flash

I don’t get this, is there context behind this?

I was mockin' flash.