And it's not fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't, — Moliere

It is for me.

Heh, well -- not for me. Not even psychological traits and characteristics differentiate gender, from what I see -- but rather how those are expressed in their respective roles. A gender is a mode of expression within a culture tied to roles, which in turn are given such-and-such rules regarding property and what to do with it, especially within the home.

At least this is where the emphasis lies. I don't want to go "all the way" in saying there's nothing psychological -- but I do prefer to look at the cultural environment that any given person might live within, which is why it's not easy to determine. There's a lot of cues in culture that can go overlooked "from the outside" of that culture, and what even counts as cultural difference is defined culturally.

Look at the sentence again:

nd it's not fairly easy to discover what aspects of the human potential are usually identified as masculine and which ones aren't, — Moliere

All you have to do is look at what things are generally identified as masculine. I think you're in the minority in not being able to do that.

All you have to do is look at what things are generally identified as masculine. I think you're in the minority in not being able to do that. — frank

A misunderstanding on the usage of "generally" then --

Generally, as in what I'd predict people to say, I have a sense for this.

Generally, as in what I'd generalize to in giving a universal (or general) theory of gender, is difficult to identify.

I've gone from totally failing to understand you to suspecting disingenuousness. I actually have a lot of respect for you, so I better just cut out of the conversation. Thanks!

I intentionally didn't use the word "oppression" in my post because it has all sorts of meanings hanging on to it. — T Clark

You're right, I read that in by mistake on account of the line of argument I was on at the time.

In that light...

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. — T Clark

I think you've answered your own question. If "She has social, financial, and personal resources most people don't" then either she isn't oppressed, or the oppression has somehow failed. People who are oppressed don't have more than those who aren't.

I've posted this before, and it's not intended as a rebuke so much as a declaration of where I stand. This is what an oppressed person looks like.



This is what Helen Mirren looks like...



I have absolutely no respect for anyone who can't tell the difference, and until the former is sorted, any space wasted on whatever minor inconvenience the latter might have to endure is a travesty. Hopefully a position you can find some sympathy for?

Okie, no worries. I can understand that feeling. I can let it go too.

While I'm hesitant to say this is a post-patriarchal masculinity, I gather I'd be better off putting some meat on the bones of what appears to be a desiccated corpse of the masculine in light of femininism, or at least this is the general feeling I'm getting. Should feminism really have the final word on the masculine? Is there a standpoint from which the masculine is better understood than the feminist critique of Identity-Property into the tripartite cultural division of Biology:Mentality:Role?

(And also: is a post-patriarchal masculinity even desirable? I think so, even for men, but there's certainly resistance here, both from men and women -- but that's a separate question)



If it's a manner of expression that makes a gender, which I've been holding, then a post-patriarchal masculinity would liberate our identity from the property-relation, at least -- a man is a man regardless of his position within a family structure and the various expectations which go with that. It's a part of who he is and his way of relating to the world and others rather than control over the bank account.

In some ways this has already taken place as @frank pointed out with respect to the vote -- and second wave feminism had waves as well that have changed culture. I think that some of the anxiety around masculinity is in part due to this -- yes we don't live in the world before women could vote and were literally a part of the man's household. But acknowledging this past is what makes sense of, say, women changing their name to join their husband's family, even as bank accounts and such are open to all.

And so the confusion over a feminist analysis in the first place is understandable. I keep to it because I believe in being honest in these conversations about who we are, and it's who I am. It's very much how I relate to masculinity. Mine is a masculinity, one attached to various Feminist principles -- but I don't know if I could go so far as to say mine is a post-patriarchal masculinity to offer. Mine is mired in our world, and from my perspective at least, patriarchy is still a living, and I'm not convinced this is only momentum when I think of how popular various mens speakers are -- like Andrew Tate, et al.

But not many men who would speak up in the name of Feminism from their own perspective as men, which is what I'm at least trying to offer in a manner that's digestible, but still forthright.

It is just a masculinity. Should you be a Feminist, too? Well, I don't know. I believe in these things. I believe in political action for a more equitable world, and in general see men as the owners of that world. But for the most part I don't believe in making others believe like me -- if the arguments float then by all means, but if not I'd prefer to hear why the arguments don't float, or if they are simply flimsy reflections that don't speak to the issue, or some such.

So, yes, it's a reflection on the masculine -- but I wouldn't post my reflections in public if I didn't expect people to take issue with them and have their say about what's wrongheaded in my view, either. I don't want the reflective aspect to detract from the philosophy too much, at least when I'm posting.

Part of my hesitancy probably draws from my philosophical perspective -- I don't want to list traits or characteristics, and I want to qualify behaviors with respect to the masculine (it's not like all of my behaviors are masculine, are they? Such as my preference for walking over bike-riding -- not gendered at all)

It's difficult to say something definitive about ways of expressing. So we get these generalities which aren't exactly identities, but observations of an identity we already recognize. (EDIT: Always-already, even! But to me this doesn't mean that what we recognize is somehow the truth, or at least the only way -- because I think of gender as enculturated, as well -- so you have to know a culture to know a gender-identity)

How is this way of thinking not inherently racist? — Tzeentch

If you don't recognize that black people are treated differently, worse, than white people, there is no reason for us to have this discussion. Also, this discussion is supposed to be about masculinity, not race.

Sounds like you need some better friends. — Tzeentch

So, you don't think people should recognize their friends for what they are - with the good and the bad? Sounds like you need some better friends.

If "She has social, financial, and personal resources most people don't" then either she isn't oppressed, — Isaac

As I said, I won't use the word oppression. Beyond that, I strongly disagree, but this is not supposed to be a discussion of race.

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who can't tell the difference, and until the former is sorted, any space wasted on whatever minor inconvenience the latter might have to endure is a travesty — Isaac

It's a point well made, but I imagine you know it's not a good argument by itself. Fundamentally though the interstitial point between "general oppression", like structural stuff, and patriarchy would be whatever norms disenable men and women the world over. Some of that's class, some of that's gender. Like if you think it's fairly shite that abortion is taboo, women aren't politically represented with great frequency in most countries, and female circumcision is a-okay in some places, trying to do something about that is less class-y and more feminist-y.

Even with the poverty porn you posted, you can come at this from a post colonial angle and it starts looking like part of what keeps people poor world over, even on a class level, is patriarchy. There's some room to be intersectional.

Broadly speaking: why not both?

Though I do share your frustration with the degree of performative bile spewed out on the topic. Why, I was called a transphobic incel racist rapist yesterday morning ! Which is a waste of time and spleen that could be better spent doing literally anything else for the group being "protected" by the discourse. I imagine @Tzeentch shares similar frustrations. Though I think it's important to contextualise them away from being a blanket rejection of modern day women's lib. And, hopefully, men's lib.

I have absolutely no respect for anyone who can't tell the difference, and until the former is sorted, any space wasted on whatever minor inconvenience the latter might have to endure is a travesty. — Isaac

It's true, you are a tanky!

For the sake of argument, someone might hold the view that the two sorts of oppression are related, and for evidence would point out that the child whose image you posted lives in world men have arranged to suit themselves.

You'll point out that it wasn't just men but wealthy and powerful men. And that's true, but that just brings us back to the same issue: the sort of wealth and power we see in the world, and the means of acquiring and accumulating them, the whole system traces back to men, since before there were such disparities.

Or so I imagine someone could argue.

I suppose there's something to be learned from anthropology here. Do we have examples of highly stratified but non-patriarchal societies? Do we have examples of patriarchal but (otherwise?) generally egalitarian societies?

I should've done more work to relate the above to masculinity. And in response to @Tzeentch. I do believe it's really reductive to say that men=oppressive and woman=oppressed by fiat. And I have seen people who sometimes behave as if that reduction is true. If you go down that root into analysing socially constructed identity, you end up having to see what is it about masculinity which is violent and oppressive. And try to walk a tightrope between the truism "it's possible for an arbitrary man to be unduly aggressive", the vague statistical generalisation "men are more violent than women", and the broadly seen "direction" of structural oppression - men as a monolith onto women as a monolith.

I'm sure you've both seen that. It's worth complaining about. It's a waste of time.

There's some good work to do though. Like it's worthwhile seeing what it is about men, women, hetero relationships, domestic abuse studying methodology etc that makes domestic violence way more common when it's men on women. There'd be a lot of work to infer anything back from that into an individual's psyche, probably the best you can do is tropes. Like "emotional dysregulation is more likely to be expressed with anger in men" and "anger is more likely to be violent in men than in women". I dunno if those are true, and I'm sure they're contestable, I'm just gesturing at the space of questions.

If you'd taken two tropes like that, you can then start asking identity trope questions, like "what if I put (this type of bloke) in (this type of relationship) with (this type of woman)? What happens to the risk factors?" and you can do that. You put poor uneducated mentally ill people together with histories of crime or substance abuse and the risks for domestic incidents goes way up. Then that's more likely to be violent when it's man on women.

That latter bit maybe needs some explanation, after controlling as much as possible for the material factors. That's the space of reasons this kind of chat can happen in.

And if we start looking at types of values people hold, coping strategies, how they differ across genders, and importantly how they interact with power, you end up in the domain of patriarchy concepts.

I kinda just approach that definitionally, label as "patriarchal" systematic sufferings doled out at least in part on the basis of gender. If they come from norms, call them patriarchal norms, if they come from identities of type X, call them patriarchal X.

It's more that you can be well fed and well dressed, but still not know what it's like to be treated as an adult human being. It's called the "talking dog" syndrome, where a woman speaks, but instead of being received the way any man would be, she's just stared at and disregarded. This is what older women report experiencing. There are aspects of sexism that don't have any comparison in other kinds of oppression. In the case of women, their oppression involves brothers, fathers, sons, and husbands.

All of that's true -- I also thought of the example of Henry Louis Gates who, even before he was arrested for trying to enter his own house, lived every day of his life knowing he carried a "risk factor" for arrest he could do nothing about.

But none of that addresses @Isaac's specific claim (I mean, he wasn't actually specific) that economic oppression is more important than any of that stuff, real though it is. He might argue that all of these other sorts of oppression are just tools of capital, and addressing that is how you deal with racism, sexism, whatever. But I don't actually know what he'll say.

But none of that addresses Isaac's specific claim (I mean, he wasn't actually specific) that economic oppression is more important than any of that stuff, real though it is. He might argue that all of these other sorts of oppression are just tools of capital, and addressing that is how you deal with racism, sexism, whatever. But I don't actually know what he'll say. — Srap Tasmaner

Historically women's rights tend to go to the back burner. As Frederick Douglass said in advocating abandoning support for women's rights after the Civil War: 'Black men are being hunted down and killed now. Women aren't experiencing that, so their problems can wait.' One of the white women answered that though the plight of black men was dire, she warranted that Frederick Douglass wouldn't change places with her. And she was probably right.

As for how we should spend our imaginary power to make the world right, I'd say that one of the most important things we can do for ourselves, the climate, and other lifeforms, is to educate women and give them equal opportunity in the workplace. Societies that do that have shown diminishing population growth all the way to zero, and in some areas it's starting to go negative. We should do that for all women all over the world. When they have opportunities to contribute as adults to their societies, they have fewer children.

OK I just re-read that exchange and I understand the confusion. I'm sorry. I'm the one who mixed up usually/generally. My bad.

So I want to say -- I know what some people usually say about masculinities, specific to a cultural milieu, but it's harder to determine gender, in a general sense.

But, sure, it may be the case that my "what some people usually say" is a minority position -- that I find it hard could very well be a me-thing.

Sure, but here's the thing. The simplest history of power seems to go like this: first comes patriarchy, then the state, then capital. We have some reason to believe that the shift from 2 to 3 was a displacement, that the state is still around but serves at the pleasure of capital.

But what about the shift from 1 to 2? Certainly it looks like men invented the state, but what's the dynamic there? Is the state just another way of advancing men's interests, or did the state move to the top of the food chain, leaving patriarchy in place but making it subservient, using it?

Does capital just build on and make use of patriarchy as it does the state? Or is it men pursuing the good of men all the way through, using the state and using capital?

Even if the state and capital use patriarchy, are they also dependent on it as a foundation? Take down patriarchy and capital falls?

All of these options are the pretty stupidly reductionist, but it may be one of them has the main story right and just needs some nuance.

Oh, I see. I agree that there can't be a definitive definition of masculinity. It varies. In our world we associate blue with boys and pink for girls. We might think there's something fundamental about that, but there isn't. Just a couple of centuries ago it was the opposite. Little boys were dressed in pink, girls in blue. So there might be other areas where we're too close to it to see that what we're assigning to masculinity is arbitrary.

I just meant that we usually do know what our own societies dictate. The value I see in applying Jungian ideas to it is that we can be free of analyzing masculinity strictly in the framework of sexism. We could see the beauty in masculine ideals. You don't have to be a Nazi to see that beauty.

I just meant that we usually do know what our own societies dictate. The value I see in applying Jungian ideas to it is that we can be free of analyzing masculinity strictly in the framework of sexism. We could see the beauty in masculine ideals. You don't have to be a Nazi to see that beauty. — frank

True. Then you're right -- we were opaque to one another. That makes a good deal of sense to me. My bad.

But muh materialism! :D

One thing I've been thinking about as this thread rolled along is that I don't feel any desire to be a "real man" as that phrase is used today, but I'm still pretty invested in being "a good man". I don't know how women think about that sort of thing, not quite sure I could articulate what I mean by it, but I'm pretty sure I don't mean the same thing I would mean by "a good person".

That resonate with you?

Any other guys feel that way?

Sure, but here's the thing. The simplest history of power seems to go like this: first comes patriarchy, then the state, then capital. We have some reason to believe that the shift from 2 to 3 was a displacement, that the state is still around but serves at the pleasure of capital.

But what about the shift from 1 to 2? Certainly it looks like men invented the state, but what's the dynamic there? Is the state just another way of advancing men's interests, or did the state move to the top of the food chain, leaving patriarchy in place but making it subservient, using it? — Srap Tasmaner

You know how you might find yourself reading Nietzsche's assessments of history and think: "None of this is actually true, but there is valuable truth that comes from just going with it for a while?"

That's what I see going on here. It's not true that women were excluded from power in the earliest states. In fact, in Sumerian cultures, the daughter of the king was one of the central columns of the social order as the high priestess of the religion that underpinned the legitimacy of the government. Also, there was no money. Those first states were what we would understand as socialist (though that didn't exist since there was nothing to compare it to.)

But forget all that. Let's start the clock about 4000 years later, somewhere around 1000 CE in Europe. There aren't any states per se. The king has little power. It's the dukes who own everything and set out laws. The whole scene starts moving toward the rise of nation states when feudalism starts breaking down and starts to be replaced with centers of commerce. What does any of this have to do with patriarchy?

Um. :chin: Really, the only thing is that patriarchy was a feature of old Christian religion. Patriarchy was the norm in the world that religion came from. Strangely enough, early Christian women celebrated Christian values with regard to sexuality. In Rome, women were basically used as baby machines to support the population in the face of a very high mortality rate due to disease and war. Christian women didn't have to be baby machines. They could join a convent and do other interesting things. Some of the women wrote about how wonderful that was.

Northern Europeans didn't have quite as much native sexism as Southerners. Commentators would note that Northern European women had more power and freedom, but Christianity eventually changed that. When the capitalist class started taking over, they broke with the Catholic Church and started making Protestant sects. At this point, where you see female Christian leaders, it's in those Protestant sects that have more freedom to do whatever they want.

Even if the state and capital use patriarchy, are they also dependent on it as a foundation? Take down patriarchy and capital falls? — Srap Tasmaner

I don't think either does use patriarchy for anything. One of the cool things about capitalism is that money is never bigoted. It doesn't matter who you are, if you have cash, you have power. That fact is directly related to the advances we've made in putting bigotry aside.

But muh materialism! :D — Moliere

I'll have to think on it. :smile:

There aren't any states per se. — frank

Sure, my simplistic history was *not* talking about the modern nation-state, which comes after and out of feudalism, but central authority. "State" the way anarchist historians talk about it.

No matter, you're much better versed in the history than I am, I think, so my thumbnail is going to be a tough sell.

One of the cool things about capitalism is that money is never bigoted. It doesn't matter who you are, if you have cash, you have power — frank

That's the official story, certainly, and honestly I tend to agree, but I recognize that this is not the story as some people read it. I'm thinking of anti-colonial theory in particular. From one way of looking at history, the rise of capital is an incident in the history of race. And I'm sure there are people who see it as an incident in the history of patriarchy.

I tend to see capital as indifferent. If chattel slavery's working, fine, but if it becomes a source of inefficiency then it's got to go. In the long run, capital is an acid that will eat through any institution you've got. Roughly how I see it.

That's the official story, certainly, and honestly I tend to agree, but I recognize that this is not the story as some people read it. I'm thinking of anti-colonial theory in particular. From one way of looking at history, the rise of capital is an incident in the history of race. And I'm sure there are people who see it as an incident in the history of patriarchy.

I tend to see capital as indifferent. If chattel slavery's working, fine, but if it becomes a source of inefficiency then it's got to go. In the long run, capital is an acid that will eat through any institution you've got. Roughly how I see it. — Srap Tasmaner

Tankie!! I think it's really more like this: a young woman is flawless and full of life. An old woman is shriveled up with one foot in the grave. The capitalism you're seeing is the old woman. You don't see how beautiful she once was. You don't see how much hope she once embodied. She was the way to the glorious free society. She was hijacked by time. It happens to them all. Roughly, that's how I see it.

Any other guys feel that way? — Srap Tasmaner

Interesting question. I think I will be thinking about it for awhile.

I think in some sense I know what you mean. It seems I have a more clearly delineated picture associated with "good man" (or "good woman") than associated with "good person".

I see courage as strongly associated with my "good man", and I see that I have a lesser expectation of courage associated with "good person" and "good woman".

As someone who has watched a lot of chimp documentaries, it makes some sense that I would have thinking biased in such a way.

As someone who likes to think of himself as a feminist, I likely wouldn't have recognized this in myself had you not asked the question.

Tankie — frank

For the record, no, not at all. Just realistic. I tell my son, who's further left than I am, though perennially at war online with the tankies, that as far as I'm concerned there's an empirical case for capitalism and I point at Why Nations Fail. I think that analysis is pretty sound and capitalism is fundamentally inclusive. That it eats through institutions has often been a good thing. But it'll eat through ones we don't want to, that's all, as it's eaten through American democracy.

For the record, no, not at all. Just realistic. I tell my son, who's further left than I am, though perennially at war online with the tankies, that as far as I'm concerned there's an empirical case for capitalism and I point at Why Nations Fail. I think that analysis is pretty sound and capitalism is fundamentally inclusive. That it eats through institutions has often been a good thing. But it'll eat through ones we don't want to, that's all, as it's eaten through American democracy. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree. But we're always just one catastrophe away from a fresh start.

Accelerationist!