We aren't in a post-patriarchal world, so probably not. I think it's important to distinguish between masculinity as the portion of the human potential we traditionally associate with males, and toxic masculinity which is the result of a pathological mindset, that is, the need to look down on someone else, or fear of women. The first is a fount of creativity. The second is something all need to be aware of.
When one decides that there is no difference between the two, that's misanthropy. — frank

I agree that it's important to make a distinction between masculinity and a toxic masculinity. I don't think all masculinities, even traditional ones, are toxic.

This is a reason I think it's an important topic for men to talk about.

It's just not what I read when I read the article. — Moliere

:up: @Tzeentch is not a careful reader.

Nope. That's why I've been careful to say men and women can have the same characteristics, and a difference cannot be found in differentiating characteristics.

So far I've been of the mind that it's a manner of expression, rather than a set of characteristics, that makes a gender-identity. But, then, some gender-identities get tied to characteristics in their particular way, so while in general it's better to say gender-identity is a manner of expression, a particular gender-identity may very well fixate on particular characteristics and act to put those on display more often, or improve them, or some such. — Moliere

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.

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.

You are a careful reader. Tzeentch is not. — Amity

Careful reading isn't going to make the sexism any less obvious. :lol:

Maybe if I read this type of garbage often and carefully enough I'll start to rationalize it too.

The article might well be considered 'garbage' but you misrepresent what is being said by whom.
You know it.

I'll blame that on your shoddy quoting.

I've edited my post re you being a careful reader!

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

Countless anti-violence campaigners say that violence against women is not about anger, it is about male abuse of power and control, in addition to men’s sense of entitlement.

In her eye-opening book Unspeakable Things, writer and activist Laurie Penny points the finger at traditional masculinity, which, like “traditional femininity, is about control.”

She writes that in reality, “most men have never been powerful. Throughout history, the vast majority of men have had almost no structural power, expect over women and children.”

“In fact, power over women and children — technical and physical dominance within the sphere of one’s own home — has been the sop offered to men who had almost no power outside of it.”

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

I may be a careful reader, but I got my wires crossed all the same :D — Moliere

All down to my shoddy quoting. Ooops! :smile:

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. — Moliere

I'm coming up blank trying to discern your message. But if it's working for you, :up: :grin:

*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.

Thank you. I'll need to read your post again later. Most of it makes perfect sense to me on a first read but there are a few bits I think I need to look at again. Later...or not :flower:

Yes. I don't always understand a point of view. Your thread has been helpful in teasing out thoughts and attitudes. Thank you :flower:

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?

What are your thoughts regarding the suggestion that 'pragmatists and feminists are necessary partners'? — Amity

I don't know much about feminist philosophy beyond what gets out in public, which I'm sure is not representative. What I see on TV and read about is anything but pragmatic. Pragmatists focus on solving problems. I don't see that in public feminism.

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.

What do you think of this?
During the Han dynasty in China, the emperors chosen females could only be guarded and communicated with, by males who were eunuchs.
The male rulers of China decided that to ensure other men did not have sex with any of their chosen women, the only ones allowed anywhere near them, had to have their penis and balls cut off.

Eventually the eunuchs themselves became a very powerful group of individuals who obtained serious power and ability to influence what was happening in the country in ways that allowed them to become very rich themselves. On occasion, the Chinese army or the mountain tribes, would rebel, slaughter all the eunuchs and overthrow the emperor. :grin:

I don't see what you're not getting, it's quite simple.

Some men oppress some women, but not all men, and nothing about their being men has anything necessarily to do with it, and some of the people doing the oppressing are women, and some of the oppressed are men, and some of the men doing the oppressing it turns out are really women, and some of the women who were oppressed it turns are really men depending on how they're feeling that day.

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.

Hope that helps.

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. — Moliere

I see that I'm as opaque to you as you are to me.

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. — Moliere

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.

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? — Moliere

Every trans person on the planet knows exactly what counts as masculine. It starts with that recognition. I think you're maybe addressing something about non-binary people? I'm not sure.

I don't see what you're not getting, it's quite simple.

Some men oppress some women, but not all men, and nothing about their being men has anything necessarily to do with it, and some of the people doing the oppressing are women, and some of the oppressed are men, and some of the men doing the oppressing it turns out are really women, and some of the women who were oppressed it turns are really men depending on how they're feeling that day.

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.

Hope that helps. — Isaac

I'm glad I can always count on you, , to shed light on things. :wink: :ok:

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 was with you till the last phrase. I think to say white people as a class do not mistrust, disrespect, and fear black people as a class is wrong. I'm a good liberal with close black friends and I see it in myself. They do too and some of them tell me about it.

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.

my purposes in exploring masculinity. — Moliere

This has been a really useful and interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think it's important to distinguish the oppressed from potential causes of oppression. The former being actual people, the latter being processes.

Racism is a form of oppression (even subconscious racism, systemic racism etc) and as such if you're of a minority race, you might be oppressed. But whether you actually are oppressed is still something to be determined, I don't think it's necessitated simply by possessing a characteristic typically used in one of the many forms of oppression.

A bit like being a wimp makes you more likely to get beaten up because that's a tool bullies use (picking on the weak), but it doesn't mean you will be beaten up, and the best way of identifying people who've actually been beaten up is still by bruises etc.

Does that make sense?

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. — Moliere

My post wasn't aimed at you specifically, my apologies if you took it that way. You will, as we all do, have to bear some of the burden of the positions you allow, or build upon. A thread 'exploring' eugenics would have to tread very carefully no matter the intention of the OP. 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.

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.

Glad to have you still along :)

But whether you actually are oppressed is still something to be determined, I don't think it's necessitated simply by possessing a characteristic typically used in one of the many forms of oppression. — Isaac

I intentionally didn't use the word "oppression" in my post because it has all sorts of meanings hanging on to it. I've told the story of one of my friends before. She is an attractive, well dressed, educated and articulate professional, my age. She lives in the northeast. She went to Hawaii with her family about 20 years ago. Her skin color is such that she was mistaken for a native Hawaiian. She told me that was the first time in her life she felt welcome - not suspected, mistrusted. Is she oppressed? She has social, financial, and personal resources most people don't and she has still spent a lifetime with that weight on her shoulders.

white people as a class — T Clark

black people as a class — T Clark

How is this way of thinking not inherently racist?

I'm a good liberal with close black friends and I see it in myself. They do too and some of them tell me about it. — T Clark

Sounds like you need some better friends.