A thing will have masculine and feminine aspects. Take one of the masculine aspects. Does that masculine aspect have feminine meta-aspects? This is a way of saying, that while an object level phenomenon has masculine and feminine aspects, the aspects themselves are dichotomously masculine or feminine. — fdrake

And what can we say about the superordinate concept imparting to ‘masculine’ and feminine’ their intelligibility? How is it grounded, and what is its genesis?

Phenomenology-wise it would be a collection of experiences starting in infancy, probably diverging significantly around puberty. Some of it is imposed, some of it one actively seeks out.

Maybe it isn't really one concept. It's a fusion of ideas, some related to biology, but in some cases male and female are used sort of metaphorically. In other words gender and sex are like a psychic lightning rod, pulling in whatever clouds of charged air happen to need expression. So in one generation blue is feminine, in the next it's masculine.

I have no idea I'm being an interlocutor for @javra

And what can we say about the superordinate concept imparting to ‘masculine’ and feminine’ their intelligibility? — Joshs

I don't understand what "the superordiante concept" might be. This in relation to the yin-yang. Here addressed as though it in fact occurs.

BTW, if you're talking about awareness per se, though it can become a concept we as aware-beings become aware of and thereby think about, awareness of itself is nevertheless not a concept. This likely deviates from the thread's topic significantly, though

... unless one gets into the issue of whether awareness is of itself masculine or feminine ... to which I'd maintain something along the lines of it being neither but instead a perpetual hybrid of both: You can't have spatiotemporal awareness without any agency (yang), and spatiotemporal awareness is perpetually penetrated by information (yin) - both simultaneously. (I here specify "spatiotemproal" to allow for the metaphysical possibility of things such as the notion of Nirvana when construed as a non-spatiotermpral and nondualistic awareness - hence one which no longer wants/wills/etc. and no longer is penetrated by information.) But again, all this is awfully distant from the thread's intents.

I should've also said, I imagine we'd going to see 90% eye to eye on this. With constructionist/post-structuralist sympathies regarding gender.

I don't understand what "the superordiante concept" might be. This in relation to the yin-yang. Here addressed as though it in fact occurs. — javra

For instance , one could take as the ground of one’s superordinate concept of the masculine-feminine binary a biologically determined , universal set of behavioral traits. One always knows what masculine or feminine mean, because their biological origin makes them
impervious to cultural influences. One could, on the other hand, view the superordinate concept as socially produced. In this care we only know what the words masculine and feminine mean via our participation in specific cultural contexts and historical eras. These are just two of many possible ways of understanding the superordinate concept.

These are just two of many possible ways of understanding the superordinate concept. — Joshs

OK, but - as per all that I have written in this thread - I reject both these "superordiante concepts" (in sum: that of biology and of culture) as being foundational to the masculinity / femininity dichotomy. Instead adopting the more metaphysical notions of yin and yang. For which, I personally cannot so far think of any possible "superordinate concept".

Did you ever experience a baseline of suspicion otherwise?

I come at this from a very left wing angle. I get frustrated with the above because of how patriarchal it is, and people don't notice. Seeing men as latent predators is precisely part of the patriarchal norms feminist critique is supposed to attack, it reinforces the idea that only women should work with and care for children, as well as alienates kids from male role models and authority figures — fdrake

[/quote]

I hate it too, for the reasons you give.

Most colleagues are / have been cool. I think it likely the few people I've worked with with a 'baseline of suspicion' of men were angry with men for personal reasons. But I also think they are often given a pass by those around them.

I always wonder if I come across as having a political ideology? I describe myself as a conscientious objector, but I was strongly left my entire adult life until getting turned off by the dogma.

I smoke, and so I overhear conversations all the time on my porch. The other night, I heard this young girl and mom duo stopping at the neighbour's 'treasure cupboard' - think those local book libraries where you can grab or leave something, but for kids toys and such.

Nighttime, so I don't recognize them, but this girl was obviously young enough to want to stop and look at the toys. The daughter asked her mother 'remember when you told me life was harder for girls'?

Not to judge - I do not know these people - but anecdotally, I find this illustrative. Why teach young children to be so suspicious of their peers?

Speculating over which teachers - almost always male - are paedos is a favourite pass time — fdrake

That's terrible. I knew a guy, an older gay man, a retired principal, whose career was cut short due to a false accusation. I've known others who were saved only due to ironclad alibis. Obviously, there are bad apples, and I knew one of them too (that I know of).

But teaching suspicion, given what we know of social psychology, the availability heuristic, feels likely to poison the well. I hope Weinstein spends the rest of his life in jail, but the kids who are going to run afoul of this aren't generally 'powerful' - it's going to be the awkward, the weird, the marginalized boys, for whom whatever 'male privilege' they have is outweighed by the reality of their lives, that run afoul of this?

Most colleagues are / have been cool. I think it likely the few people I've worked with with a 'baseline of suspicion' of men were angry with men for personal reasons. But I also think they are often given a pass by those around them. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah. I think it intersects awfully with racism too. I've heard more speculation about people of colour's sexual deviancy than white blokes. Here in the UK it's mostly men who look vaguely middle eastern that receive the worst excesses of this moral panic.

I always wonder if I come across as having a political ideology? I describe myself as a conscientious objector, but I was strongly left my entire adult life until getting turned off by the dogma. — Jeremy Murray

You're going to count as having a political ideology based on how you speak about this. And it's going to appear "right wing" in some circles. Don't you know this already? I generally don't speak plainly about this stuff any more in person 'cos of one too many times losing acquaintances/friends for appearing like a far right ideologue.

The incredibly irritating thing about this, from my perspective, is that there are ways of talking about this dispute which are "internal" to the liberal left discourse. Like what I said regarding patriarchy typecasting women as carers and men as latent criminals getting in the way of men having careers in childcare.

Nighttime, so I don't recognize them, but this girl was obviously young enough to want to stop and look at the toys. The daughter asked her mother 'remember when you told me life was harder for girls'? — Jeremy Murray

I do think it's important to teach young girls to be careful in a way that boys don't have to be - like what to do to avoid a drink being spiked. I think it would also benefit young girls to be taught about the differences in gendered performance in the workplace - the way blokes describe themselves tends to make us be seen as more qualified on job applications etc.

But my impression is that doing this in the wrong way exacerbates a sense of threat. I think there is a reductive way of speaking about these issues in the media - both left and right wing - which amplifies the exacerbation. In the UK there are perpetual moral panics about people of colour sexual predators, the left liberal media sees this as a sign of rape culture {it is} but emphasises that it's all men's responsibility to change ourselves on an individual basis to address these crimes. The right media explicitly racialises the issue. Rather than talking about, say, including a lot of material on establishing consent in sex ed.

The commonality between the narratives is that they're difficult to present in a way that doesn't attribute that behaviour to all men based on a stereotype of masculinity. A reductive kind of essentialism. People can do better if they're given more space than a Tweet or a small newspaper column that needs to optimise clickthrough.

I don't think there's a way to read the right wing ones charitably. What they do is plain to see. I can however read the left wing ones charitably due to spending a lot of time reading feminist literature. You can find a lot of feminist literature that laments this pervasive essentialism outside and within feminism itself.

Which isn't to say these societal problems are feminism's fault - that's absurd, and regrettably a common response among reactionaries - it's just to say you're not going to get men on board with that message, unless they're already onboard and invested in learning feminist deep lore.

What I do wish was more commonplace was men describing their negative experiences of patriarchy - the same system that women are exposed to -, and some of it really is this stuff. Being taught that we're latent predators, ought be violent and domineering and so on. I find it incredibly ironic that these absurd masculinity grifters like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson actually agree with the reductive left liberal construal of masculinity on what makes a man a man. They just disagree on whether it's a good thing.

mostly men who look vaguely middle eastern that receive the worst excesses of this moral panic. — fdrake

This sucks, and speaks to a left-wing failure, which will be couched by institutions as attempting to combat this exact form of prejudice. The 'grooming-gang' scandal seems beyond dispute a failure of this sort, and if the police had had the guts to address this issue, seemingly of Pakistani men with shared family ties, then 'vaguely middle eastern' looking men wouldn't have as much suspicion around them.

Nor would the vast majority of Pakistani men who are not doing anything wrong.

I often think of this sort of framing when talking about classrooms and the needs of 'BIPOC' students.

I hate that BIPOC has been imported whole into Canada, (since we clearly should be using IBPOC, if you want to talk actual historical legacies), but over and over again I saw bad behaviour from students excused or tolerated in the spirit of equity (we have to be understanding of angry kids) coming at the expense of the average 'POC' who wanted to work in a disruption-free environment, not to mention, say, the poor white kid in the same boat.

You're going to count as having a political ideology based on how you speak about this. And it's going to appear "right wing" in some circles. Don't you know this already? — fdrake

You made me laugh out loud at myself with that question man. For sure, I know I'm 'coded' right. I guess I should have just asked if I came across that way to you, since we've been having this interesting conversation. But I am a lapsed progressive.

More progressive than the progressives? I certainly agree with Susan Neiman's thesis "Left is not woke". I am reading "No politics but class politics:" by Adolph Reed and Walter Ben Michaels, and I agree with their premise that wokeness, 'when it comes to economic inequality, is just the good conscience of the right'. It is a fundamentally neoliberal solution to inequality.

In the UK there are perpetual moral panics about people of colour sexual predators, the left liberal media sees this as a sign of rape culture {it is} but emphasises that it's all men's responsibility to change ourselves on an individual basis to address these crimes. The right media explicitly racialises the issue. Rather than talking about, say, including a lot of material on establishing consent in sex ed. — fdrake

Well said. That 'sense of threat' is, to my mind, a potentially worse outcome than naively putting yourself at risk, which is obviously also bad. And it's far too easy for people who are generally not at risk due to class privilege to 'claim' that risk of threat as equal for them as for the economically AND sexually vulnerable. The irony being what intersectionality is supposed to be good at identifying in the first place.

You can find a lot of feminist literature that laments this pervasive essentialism outside and within feminism itself. — fdrake

I am always looking for new things to read!

And I agree, it's like the right have given up on pretenses towards kindness and morality, which used to be defining traits for conservatives. But the wokists 'looking' kind is part of the problem, if I am correct that identity politics actually harms the groups it intends to help. Let's just assume that majority of wokists want to do good. But bad actors hide in the crowd.

Back in my protest days, it was an antifa tactic. hide in the crowd of peaceful protestors, sneak attack and then retreat back in.

What I do wish was more commonplace was men describing their negative experiences of patriarchy — fdrake

Default wokist thought argues that focusing on the patriarchy helps men who have had these negative experiences, but overlooks the fact that those patriarchal norms are also enforced by women

Richard Reeves talks about how woke feminists often frame debates around gender as 'zero sum' - so talking about men comes at the expense of women.

This binary, I think, is the danger of wokeness, in general. It divides the working and middle classes from one another on secondary issues like race and gender while the technocratic neoliberal class elites get away with their exploitation as long as they hold the 'correct' views.

I find it incredibly ironic that these absurd masculinity grifters like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson actually agree with the reductive left liberal construal of masculinity on what makes a man a man. They just disagree on whether it's a good thing. — fdrake

Great point, although Peterson should be in a different category entirely than Tate. I went to the University of Toronto. I followed his whole 'scandal' up close. I read '12 rules for life' since a few of my senior male students were asking questions related to it. He's a conservative academic that fit a niche the chattering classes wanted filled. Tate is vile. Peterson and Tate belong in the same category only if there are but two categories.

I appreciate all your thoughtful comments man! Sorry for being so verbose, I feel I likely have more time on my hands than you might ...

he 'grooming-gang' scandal seems beyond dispute a failure of this sort, and if the police had had the guts to address this issue, seemingly of Pakistani men with shared family ties, then 'vaguely middle eastern' looking men wouldn't have as much suspicion around them. — Jeremy Murray

Do you think there's a way to go about disrupting specifically Pakistani grooming gangs?

It is a fundamentally neoliberal solution to inequality. — Jeremy Murray

Yep!

Default wokist thought argues that focusing on the patriarchy helps men who have had these negative experiences, but overlooks the fact that those patriarchal norms are also enforced by women — Jeremy Murray

Yep! Again you can find people that talk the role women play in it. I referenced bell hooks {I think it's in "All About Love" or "The Will to Change"} and Audre Lorde {In "Sister Outsider"}. I think you can put a more left wing buzzword gloss on it, which means something a little different but only a pedant would care - women also construct and maintain patriarchal gender relations.

It's honestly baffling to me that this would be a contentious point. People are raised in families. Most families split household and work tasks. Families often split those in the old gendered way, and even gender the tasks like what used to happen - man take out trash fix car and do finances, woman hoover and cook and plan social arrangements.

Really lefty, ultra feminist couples upon hitting the workforce and getting a baby face a choice between roughly emulating old gender norms - with the woman staying home to take care of the kid, and being worse off. Due to shitty childcare costs. And at that point you're left with a structurally traditional household with feminist errata. I think this mismatch between the broad context {the household} and the intellectual commitments {explicit instruction of kids} is what keeps some of the norms "subterranean" in @Tobias sense.

While we might have a post-critical consciousness about gender, and know loads of shit is stupid about it, we still live in a gendered society and have our desires aligned with - and expressed in - the same binaries. Change in expected behaviour is slower than change in opinion, I reckon.

although Peterson should be in a different category entirely than Tate. — Jeremy Murray

I think Maps of Meaning era Peterson should be in the "kooky academically insulated scholar" category. His more recent behaviour is just culture war bollocks. He got famous for resisting a trans rights bill, after all. It wasn't his work that did it alone. Even though it fit into the zeitgeist in a similar way to the masculinity grifters.

Do you think there's a way to go about disrupting specifically Pakistani grooming gangs? — fdrake

I've got a few links if you are interested, certain journalists have been following these scandals for years, but getting no interest from the mainstream media till recently. Different parties involved in policing, child services, different areas of the country have explicitly said that we didn't want to pursue these cases for fear of seeming Islamophobic. The principal journalist behind this, name escapes me currently, was coming at this from a second-wave feminist angle.

He got famous for resisting a trans rights bill — fdrake

He got famous for resisting compelled speech, a completely different thing. And he was right too, a few years after, Trudeau tried to pass a law making 'future thought crimes' illegal.

Did you see the earliest videos, of Peterson trying to engage with protestors and getting shouted down? He was sincerely trying to engage, and they just shout him dwon.

Maps of meaning is not for me, I don't buy his Jungian stance, don't like his lectures, but '12 Rules For Life' really helped a lot of boys and young men. I even got valuable stuff out of it, although he can be a jerk even in self-help.

Then he got famous and started doing FOX, got really sick, battled addictions, and got sentenced to professional 're-education'. I support the guy on free speech principles, even though I don't much like him, and he is, at least, grifter-adjacent at this point. Tate though, that guy seems vile.

It's honestly baffling to me that this would be a contentious point — fdrake

A willful rejection of evolutionary theory and human history?

I'm going to revisit bell hooks, thanks.

I read this by Robert Jensen today, thought of your post.

Until the age of thirty, I had no way to make sense of that experience and assumed I was just an oddball. When I began reading feminism, especially the radical feminist writers whom I found most compelling, I realized that parts of my experience were common in patriarchy. I had suffered in the way many boys in a patriarchal society suffer, and as a man I had sought to escape that suffering by conforming to patriarchal norms of masculinity. Feminism offered a way out of that trap.

Should be common allies!

I've got a few links if you are interested, certain journalists have been following these scandals for years, but getting no interest from the mainstream media till recently. Different parties involved in policing, child services, different areas of the country have explicitly said that we didn't want to pursue these cases for fear of seeming Islamophobic. The principal journalist behind this, name escapes me currently, was coming at this from a second-wave feminist angle. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah that's fair I was mostly shit testing you to see if you said something racist, sorry. Should've just trusted.

He got famous for resisting compelled speech, a completely different thing. And he was right too, a few years after, Trudeau tried to pass a law making 'future thought crimes' illegal. — Jeremy Murray

Aye. I understand his intentions were good. I don't think its provisions were broad enough to warrant much worry about it - no one's been punished under it right? Last time I looked into it a couple of years ago anyway.

But we had a similar bill recently in the UK which I disliked. It's an anti hate speech bill which you can report someone based on hearsay, no witnesses required. Your name goes on a registry. No one uses it though. I live in a neighbourhood full of sectarian conflict, and there's racist football chants on game nights. Changes nothing.

Did you see the earliest videos, of Peterson trying to engage with protestors and getting shouted down? He was sincerely trying to engage, and they just shout him dwon. — Jeremy Murray

Yeah. Getting shot down by an unruly crowd is the point of a protest. If you're part of the mob you just get to shit on everyone who's not in the mob. Whether that's for good or ill really depends on the cause.

A willful rejection of evolutionary theory and human history? — Jeremy Murray

I'd diagnose it differently. The forms of political praxis that are popular are the ones where you can shout about stuff and do nothing of note. Academics who are aware of these issues are isolated from the levers of power to roughly the same degree as everyone else. They're also just workers behaving like this. I behave like this sometimes, honestly. I used to more. I'm sure I have a bit with you.

Should be common allies! — Jeremy Murray

Absolutely. Though it won't happen without a concerted effort on behalf of left politics to make anti-patriarchy cultural attitudes appealing to men. And also, frankly, appealing to be seen in men. IRL I'm a burly skinhead, I've scared a passer by just by weeping silently in public.

But we had a similar bill recently in the UK which I disliked. It's an anti hate speech bill which you can report someone based on hearsay, no witnesses required. Your name goes on a registry. No one uses it though. — fdrake

Peterson has covered this. See, for example, 57:50 of the Doyle/Linehan interview. Do you have any evidence for the claim that no one is using it? That no one is reporting or recording non-crime hate incidents?

no one's been punished under it right?

[...]

No one uses it though. — fdrake

These are strange defenses. You have highly problematic laws and practices on the books, which are newly minted, and the response is, "I don't think anyone has been punished under the law (yet)." Note too that an unjust law is causing harm even by the very threat it represents, and uneven application of a law is another problem all its own. One should oppose an unjust law even before its application begins.

I don't disbelieve Peterson when he says that he has spent a good deal of time studying the totalitarian regimes of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, and neither do I doubt that these sorts of laws parallel the seedbed for those sorts of movements. That's of course why he is so vehemently opposed to these things - he sees in them the same sort of limitations on civil liberties that precede totalitarian drift. At this point in time the thesis is alive and well.

-

He got famous for resisting compelled speech, a completely different thing. — Jeremy Murray

Yes. Construing that as opposing trans rights is dubious. But be aware that the moderators of TPF tend to lean strongly in this direction.

Do you have any evidence for the claim that no one is using it? That no one is reporting or recording non-crime hate incidents? — Leontiskos

Only anecdotal evidence. Almost no one I know is even aware of the law.

Given that one of the essential goals of the program is a lack of transparency, it's not clear to me how one would determine whether it is being used. That's much of the problem in the first place. It's a secretive program with anonymous accusations where the accused are assumed guilty, are not notified of accusations against them, and can be silently punished without ever knowing that the reason they were, say, not considered for a job is because of one of these accusations. The people using such a program are the sort of people who would not admit that they are aware of the program/law at all. That feigned ignorance would simply be an extension of the anonymity and lack of transparency inherent in the program itself.

The phenomenon of turning neighbor against neighbor with incentives to provide secret reports in favor of some ideological goal (in this case, "hate" suppression), is as I understand it a hallmark precursor of totalitarian power shifts. It undermines the organic trust structure at the most local levels of society, and that trust structure is the core source of resilience to societal manipulation. I see Peterson's warnings as salutary.