Do you think 'real women do whatever the fuck they want,' would offend those on this thread who consider themselves manly men?: — universeness

If it coincided with doing whatever the fuck they wanted, they would be exceedingly happy, no?
Nothing quite like mutual love :hearts:

However, it might upset any partners or those with vested interests in keeping the status quo.
Some domineering/caring parents can obstruct freedom of choice/opportunity for their offspring.
Perhaps concerned with negative influences and bad consequences. For whom?

A casual quickie on wiki revealed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Women_Have_Curves

According to the Sundance Institute, the film gives a voice to young women who are struggling to love themselves and find respect in the United States.

[...] Carmen confronts Ana about her sexual activities. Ana insists that she as a person is more than what is between her legs, and begins to call her mother out on her emotionally abusive tendencies.

Later, at the factory, all of the women working there except Carmen grow exhausted of the heat and Carmen's critiques of their bodies and strip down to their underwear, comparing body shapes, stretch marks, and cellulite, inspiring confidence in one another's bodies. Carmen leaves the factory in a huff over her family and co-workers' lack of shame as Ana declares that they are women and this is who they are.' — Real Women Have Curves - wiki

You mean patriarchy doesn't denote 'a disproportionate control of national governments and multi-state/national corporations (re: resource investments, allocations, accumulations, subsidies, etc) by "wealthy" members of the male gender primarily for the benefit (i.e. maintaining "traditions" of hierarchical dominance) of "wealthy & professional" members of the male gender'? :confused: — 180 Proof

You didn't answer my question.

Regardless of whose lives are relatively better, we're all worse off. Men are not better off by being marketed a masculine ideology from a young age... we all suffer from it. — Baden

Agree with this.

So why are you harping on about this top 1% or 10% who exist, only due to a nefarious history of the pathetic imposition and abuse, of a no longer important biological advantage, of male physical strength used in an imbalanced competitive manner? — universeness

Why are you so insistent on taking me out of context? The top 1% or 10%? That was in reference to things like fucking card games, board games, computer games and other competitive environments. In what way is your response even remotely appropriate? Why do you refuse to interpret my words in the manner that I meant them, rather than whatever random bullshit makes me look bad?

Patriarchal 'pressure,' and notions of manly men masculine identity, is a strong factor towards why any man who identifies as a woman might consider killing themselves. — universeness

What the hell are you talking about? This has absolutely nothing to do with anything I've said. Typical postmodernist, aren't you? Should I apologise? Should this long chain of logic that somehow connects me to the suicide of trans people have made me realise the error of my ways? A cheap ploy.

Is your use of these 1% or 10% male dominance exemplars, intended as evidence to explain why the imagery invoked by — universeness

I know I said what the evidence was intended to explain, but I can see you don't care about that. You're a bigot, you use moral indignation as a weapon to bully others, and you use your uncharitable interpretation as a justification to judge others without evidence. I'm the furthest thing from a supporter of "historical traditional conservative values". Your moral indignation is so disingenuine, you couldn't care less who it's aimed at, just enjoy the feeling of power, do you? Well, no point trading insults, a worthwhile discussion with you is impossible.

If it coincided with doing whatever the fuck they wanted, they would be exceedingly happy, no? — Amity

Good point! :up:

Something, inspired by what you said, that I want to toss into the thread (and then run away)... :wink:

At least some women reward men for being aggressive with flirtation and/or sex. Should women therefore be considered responsible for 'the patriarchy'?

Should women therefore be considered responsible for 'the patriarchy'? — wonderer1

How would that follow?

Behavioral reinforcement.

Edit to add: ...and 'evolutionary success'.

You think mutual and consensual love-making has such power?

How does anyone reinforce behaviour of a concept or thing?
Especially when it isn't one thing but a complexity of things.

How could it be dismantled?

Edit to add: ...and 'evolutionary success'. — wonderer1

Why stop there? We could rule the world :strong:

You think mutual and consensual love-making has such power?

How does anyone reinforce behaviour of a concept or thing?
Especially when it isn't one thing but a complexity of things. — Amity

Yes, sex is a powerful reward. Being deeply in love with the other is an awesome bonus on top, but not necessary to sex being rewarding for men. (And I've been so deeply in love that I couldn't imagine wanting to have sex with anyone else, but I had to get over it.)

I don't know what you mean by "behaviour of a concept or thing". Would a tendency for aggressive behavior be a thing?

Why are you so insistent on taking me out of context? The top 1% or 10%? That was in reference to things like fucking card games, board games, computer games and other competitive environments. In what way is your response even remotely appropriate? Why do you refuse to interpret my words in the manner that I meant them, rather than whatever random bullshit makes me look bad? — Judaka

It's unfortunate you find my probes so personally painful. Your posts on this thread are open to a range of interpretations. I like to try to find out which one(s) is/are the most accurate.

I know I said what the evidence was intended to explain, but I can see you don't care about that. — Judaka

No, you did that quite poorly imo. It's the fact that I do care, that compels me to probe further.
I am not too concerned that you become uncomfortable and start to spit.

I'm the furthest thing from a supporter of "historical traditional conservative values". — Judaka

Glad to read that this is your position. I hope your future posts are better at backing this position up.

Your moral indignation is so disingenuine, you couldn't care less who it's aimed at, just enjoy the feeling of power, do you? Well, no point trading insults, a worthwhile discussion with you is impossible. — Judaka

No, my aim is very good. Try to experience scrutiny as an opportunity to clarify your position more succinctly. But if you need to spit then spit, I am quite capable of spitting back, If I feel the need or I feel justified in doing so. I have no interest in 'feelings of power,' that merely manifested in your head, but I accept it as a probe and reject it as false.

Yes, sex is a powerful reward. Being deeply in love with the other is an awesome bonus on top, but not necessary to sex being rewarding for men. — wonderer1

Sex can be viewed as transactional. Giving/receiving.
Sometimes manipulated by all parties for personal gain/cost.
How does this translate into 'women being responsible for 'the patriarchy', whatever that is?
How do you define it?

I don't know what you mean by "behaviour of a concept or thing". Would a tendency for aggressive behavior be a thing? — wonderer1

You mentioned behavioural reinforcement of 'the patriarchy' - which I think is a concept.
That is 'an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects'.
I'm interested to hear how a concept might 'behave' so that it can be changed by human action.

First off, did you see my edit?

Secondly... Thank you for being so patient, with me trying to get away without laying my worldview out in much detail. (So to speak.)

I can see I would need to start a new thread to fill in the details, and while I might be up for that, it would be a sciency explanation of how I see humans as existing within a system, and most affectingly, within a system of their fellow humans and the universe at large.

It would help motivate me to take on such a project, if I had confidence it wasn't going to feel like a waste of my time. So how interested are you?

In case it makes a difference, this youtube video conveys some of my views and ethics. However, I recommend waiting until you've got ten minutes to relax and I recommend closing your eyes and letting your mind draw it's own picture while listening.

Lmao, I can see how uninterested you are in power, your response is one big flex, you vastly exceeded my expectations. You're proud of purposefully misrepresenting the people you speak with to "probe" them, I'm sure your methods of identifying racists and sexists are just as absurd. Misrepresenting and misinterpreting people aren't investigative techniques dumbass, you can't just assume anyone saying something you don't like is guilty of some heinous view, isn't that obvious? Oh well, you keep up the crusade SJW, clean the internet of all these horrible sexists/racists, and best of luck.

Keep it civil you lot. @Judaka @universeness

So why do you use your own name or 'apokrisis' — universeness

Clearly I was talking about predicates and not names when talking about self-labelling. A name makes no claim about the qualities you possess.

But then when forced to pick a name on a philosophy site, it seems at least useful to adopt one that does reflect an area of interest and provide some context.

Apokrisis is the term for dichotomisation or symmetry breaking in the metaphysics of Anaximander, who I regard as the first recorded systems thinker.

And now you know. :grin:

Agree with this. — T Clark

Cool. One example I can think of on this site was making the short story competition less a competition and more an activity. My go to when organizing it first was to think of it as a competition but it worked better when this aspect was purposeIy downplayed. Part of this is just conceptualising success less in terms of results and more in terms of process. This is important because when processes disappear in favor of results, so does the present in favor of the future, and the self in favour of the image. Similarly in debate, when the process is denigrated in an effort to win, we lose a sense of what we're doing and why. But trying to ''win'' all the time is a very hard habit to shake.

when processes disappear in favor of results — Baden

There's also the problem of Goodhart's law.

I dispute the premise of your.question by countering it with my own.

That's it.

Sorry, but deleted a few posts as this is not the place to have a debate about any particular poster. You have every right to complain to the mod team by PM of course, but let's stay on topic, thanks.

Good point.

Here's a classic statement, from Raymond Chandler's "The Simple Art of Murder," published in The Atlantic in 1944, a defense of hard-boiled detective fiction and particularly of Hammett.

Down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid. The detective in this kind of story must be such a man. He is the hero, he is everything. He must be a complete man and a common man and yet an unusual man. He must be, to use a rather weathered phrase, a man of honor, by instinct, by inevitability, without thought of it, and certainly without saying it. He must be the best man in his world and a good enough man for any world. I do not care much about his private life; he is neither a eunuch nor a satyr; I think he might seduce a duchess and I am quite sure he would not spoil a virgin; if he is a man of honor in one thing, he is that in all things.

He is a relatively poor man, or he would not be a detective at all. He is a common man or he could not go among common people; he has a sense of character, or he would not know his job. He will take no man’s money dishonestly and no man’s insolence without a due and dispassionate revenge; he is a lonely man and his pride is that you will treat him as a proud man or be very sorry you ever saw him. He talks as the man of his age talks — that is, with rude wit, a lively sense of the grotesque, a disgust for sham, and a contempt for pettiness.

The story is this man’s adventure in search of a hidden truth, and it would be no adventure if it did not happen to a man fit for adventure. He has a range of awareness that startles you, but it belongs to him by right, because it belongs to the world he lives in. If there were enough like him, the world would be a safe place to live in, without becoming too dull to be worth living in. Such is my faith. — Raymond Chandler

Misrepresenting and misinterpreting people aren't investigative techniques dumbass, you can't just assume anyone saying something you don't like is guilty of some heinous view, isn't that obvious? — Judaka

I don't think I have misinterpreted or misrepresented you in any way. But you can keep throwing your toys out of your pram if you want.

Yeah, useful things these labels!

One example I can think of on this site was making the short story competition less a competition and more an activity. My go to when organizing it first was to think of it as a competition but it worked better when this aspect was purposeIy downplayed. — Baden

Yes. I don't generally think of writing as competitive. Maybe that's because I have confidence in my ideas and my ability to express them and I'm not afraid of being wrong or changing my mind.

I don't generally think of writing as competitive. — T Clark

Yes... well... Perhaps I was wrong.

Yes. I don't generally think of writing as competitive. Maybe that's because I have confidence in my ideas and my ability to express them and I'm not afraid of being wrong or changing my mind. — T Clark

In my experience the writer's world is often very competitive - who gets to be interviewed and on what media, sales figures, invitations to speak, prizes. Several of my friends are successful writers and journalists. They describe a hive of competition, bitter rivalries, irrational hatreds and enmities. If it's your profession, the solitary act of writing is often subsumed by the social world of writers.

Reminds me of the poem The Book of My Enemy has Been Remaindered.

By Clive James

The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am pleased.
In vast quantities it has been remaindered
Like a van-load of counterfeit that has been seized
And sits in piles in a police warehouse,
My enemy’s much-prized effort sits in piles
In the kind of bookshop where remaindering occurs.
Great, square stacks of rejected books and, between them, aisles
One passes down reflecting on life’s vanities,
Pausing to remember all those thoughtful reviews
Lavished to no avail upon one’s enemy’s book–
For behold, here is that book
Among these ranks and banks of duds,
These ponderous and seemingly irreducible cairns
Of complete stiffs.

The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I rejoice.
It has gone with bowed head like a defeated legion
Beneath the yoke.
What avail him now his awards and prizes,
The praise expended upon his meticulous technique,
His individual new voice?
Knocked into the middle of next week
His brainchild now consorts with the bad buys
The sinker, clinkers, dogs and dregs,
The Edsels of the world of moveable type,
The bummers that no amount of hype could shift,
The unbudgeable turkeys.

Yea, his slim volume with its understated wrapper
Bathes in the blare of the brightly jacketed Hitler’s War Machine,
His unmistakably individual new voice
Shares the same scrapyart with a forlorn skyscraper
Of The Kung-Fu Cookbook,
His honesty, proclaimed by himself and believed by others,
His renowned abhorrence of all posturing and pretense,
Is there with Pertwee’s Promenades and Pierrots–
One Hundred Years of Seaside Entertainment,
And (oh, this above all) his sensibility,
His sensibility and its hair-like filaments,
His delicate, quivering sensibility is now as one
With Barbara Windsor’s Book of Boobs,
A volume graced by the descriptive rubric
“My boobs will give everyone hours of fun”.

Soon now a book of mine could be remaindered also,
Though not to the monumental extent
In which the chastisement of remaindering has been meted out
To the book of my enemy,
Since in the case of my own book it will be due
To a miscalculated print run, a marketing error–
Nothing to do with merit.
But just supposing that such an event should hold
Some slight element of sadness, it will be offset
By the memory of this sweet moment.
Chill the champagne and polish the crystal goblets!
The book of my enemy has been remaindered
And I am glad.

Don't think I've ever seen the whole poem and it's magnificent! As a bookseller, I will cherish this.

There's always Gore Vidal:

whenever a friend succeeds, a little something in me dies

Similarly in debate, when the process is denigrated in an effort to win, we lose a sense of what we're doing and why. But trying to ''win'' all the time is a very hard habit to shake. — Baden

You're not eliminating competition, you're just reducing the risk of loss so that the limited reward of winning is worth entry into the contest.

The risk of loss is the stress associated with criticism or being told you rank beneath your peers. The reward of winning is a pat on the back. To get more entrants, you either need to reduce the risk of loss (e.g. don't have an objective rating system or don't permit harsh criticism) or increase the rewards of winning (e.g. give the winner $1,000).

Since we have limited resources to increase rewards, we opt to limit risk. That is, you just rewrote the rules to your competition. You didn't eliminate it.

As to stress tolerance, a critical attribute of any competitor (arguably as critical as intelligence and conscientious), if that is more a male trait, you are correct that its reduction would benefit women. That thesis would rest on the idea that women seek stability more than men, perhaps owing to their nurturing instincts, but that's an idea based on stereotype, but maybe supportable empirically. I don't know. I've certainly known many stress tolerant women.