GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently October 20 19, 3:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 222 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: July 11 19, 1:13 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 20092
Location: Low A Minors
thrill wrote:
Arthur Dent wrote:
thrill wrote:
Testosterone is a helluva drug.

Do men have more fragile psyches or just more power to multiply the impact of pathological behavior?

On the pro side of that, male pathology tends to go unexamined or be normalized, but I wouldn't put that down to biology per se.

I think it's mostly the unexamined/cultural norms of the traditional male gender role, but I do think there's a chemical component to how the unexamined pathology manifests itself in the physical sense.


I'd have to look it up but that book does talk about testosterone. There was some activity that, according to conventional wisdom, increases T in men more than women (firing a gun, maybe? I'd have to look it up to be sure), but it turned out to be negligible when they actually studied it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 11 19, 1:36 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 20092
Location: Low A Minors
G. Keenan wrote:
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
33anda3rd wrote:
Big Amoco Sign wrote:
Which is also a symptom of capitalism and the passed down classical conditioning rather than some inherent thing in men.


I don't think you can pin this on capitalism when so much toxic masculinity exists in Communist Russia, third-world African nations, Latin/South America, the Middle East and beyond.

Russia isn't actually communist. Capitalism in disguise (there's still a ruling class).

In regards to your other countries, like I said, classically conditioned in humans from ancient Egyptian days and before. If you want to argue "inherent" then fine. But I pin a lot of that behavior on environmental factors, with some conditioning sprinkled in.


Capitalism encourages a particularly brutal and lonely version of masculinity, but the subjugation of women is not unique to capitalism or Christianity or the "West." Where it comes from, I don't know. Perhaps from the immoral brutality of nature from which our species emerged. There are many ways to achieve and maintain power depending on the system in question, but at its most elemental, power is the ability to dominate, control, and kill. What power does the Law have, ultimately, but the threat to take away your life and liberty? To the extent that any hierarchical society like ours and like all of the civilizations that have preceded us wields power over the individual, the Law, underpinned by the threat of sanctioned violence is the mechanism. To the best of my knowledge in every civilization the Earth has witnessed, the Law is administered by men. Why? Perhaps there is a biological component to male violence. We can observe it in the males of many other species of mammals and in our closest evolutionary cousins like chimpanzees -- who murder each other and wage war on other groups and demonstrate sexual violence. You don't see females in most animal species fighting each other for social dominance.

As an aside, perhaps the reason that a certain kind of man feels so threatened by homosexuality is that homosexual men, by nature and by temperament, have no interest in participating in and therefore perpetuating the system of male dominated social violence and as such are considered traitors to the group. Why else the pressure to conform to "traditional" masculinity? Shouldn't straight men be glad they have fewer other men to compete with for women? So why so threatened, unless it is the psychological threat posed by another version of masculinity gaining social capital.

Back on topic -- what white people fail to realize about themselves is that the privileged social status our ancestors created for themselves and their posterity was forged through incredible, centuries-long violence, degradation, and exploitation. White supremacy is the ideological DNA of the United States and pervades every single person's (not just white people) psychology and dictates our legal and economic systems. This monstrous ideology was the product of European colonialism and we are still living and grappling with its consequences. Violence and brutality will disfigure your soul. Rather than confront this and face it, most white people instead just look away, which is a psychological luxury that social power affords. Who will force white people to confront the past and its legacy? Other white people? It's just easier not to look under that rock. But as other voices and perspectives gain more cultural, economic, and political power they can shape the conversation and increasingly force white people to confront all this. For some whites this not acceptable and their reaction is to try to dominate and control the language, in order to maintain the illusion that their social privilege derives from their own inherent goodness and not from three centuries of American slavery and repression. How else can the simple phrase, "Black Lives Matter," feel like a threat or a challenge to your status? Why are athlete protests against police brutality so bothersome to you? Fox News and now Trump have made a good living at helping white people avoid looking in the mirror.



I think the entire problem is hierarchy, which is not unique to capitalism. Its basically that we too often let violent people rise to the top of hierarchies. In many cases we don't "let" them, they just do it by force. I am not sure about the men vs women thing, as to why we don't see violent women at the top of hierarchies. This is what I think: at some point in the past, a small group of violent men got a ton of power and instilled these gender roles into our society - that men are strong, stoic, and their only emotion is anger. And women are more emotional and supposed to be moms and housekeepers. And then they enforced these norms by force and it just became ingrained.

Regarding socialist or commies also falling into this trap of violent patriarchy...Look at the recent violence in Venezuela. Their crack down on political opponents is largely a reaction to the fact the USA and allies are trying to overthrow them. They had to resort to violence to keep their regime in tact. If we hadn't been encouraging this violence from the outside, there likely would have been less violence (probably not zero, but less). Extrajudicial killings are never good but I'm just saying some of this violence doesn't happen in a vacuum. The USSR also resorted to violence to preserve their regime.

Regarding your second paragraph: it is only openly gay people that are a threat. There are plenty of closeted gay people that are violent and ended up holding high positions of power in our society. Openly gay people are a threat because they are a huge counterpoint to this idea that there is some "natural" aspect to gender roles.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 11 19, 1:44 pm 
Online
Master of Hyperbole
User avatar

Joined: December 1 17, 11:05 am
Posts: 6621
If you look at cause and effect, I believe violence/abuse of power and racism are symptoms of a class hierarchical system like capitalism. The reason it doesn't feel "unique to capitalism" is because other societies have rarely been experimented with due to established power of current societies throughout history. If you study people who have truly practiced the theory of alienation (that Erich Fromm loves to talk about so much), you will not see any of this kind of violence and abuse of power. Look at small communes and the tribes/societies that practice Marxist style humanism... you will not even sniff that kind of behavior. Macrosocieital structures are usually the root because they keep reinforcing these behaviors for years with conditioning. We are so trained right off the bat from our society. We stay in lines on the road. We stop at stop signs. Etc. Remove yourself from every barrier and established rule, and you will not fall into this kind of seemingly "innate" (they aren't) behavior type.

Raoul Vaneigem wrote about this in Revolution of Everyday Life.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 17 19, 2:13 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21618
Location: Chicago


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 26 19, 8:58 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21618
Location: Chicago


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 26 19, 9:03 am 
Offline
Perennial All-Star
User avatar

Joined: April 20 06, 8:43 pm
Posts: 8662
Location: Please use blue font for the sarcasm impaired.
Yep.

I still feel no shame if someone calls me "woke". It's true!

Nor do I feel shame if someone tries to call me an SJW. Nor liberal. I am proud of all of these labels.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 26 19, 9:13 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7697
Location: Chicago, IL
G. Keenan wrote:


Pretty much. I was having dinner the other night with friends in Detroit, a 50/50 mix of black and white. One runs a nonprofit that works on clean water efforts in MI, her work is with 99.9% black citizens. She mentioned this, and the unanimous opinion at the dinner table was the same: black people don’t give half a crap about a lot of the stuff that “woke” white people who are always ready to scream at you in their assumed interests of black people care about.

There’s a philosopher, Peter Singer, I won’t link him or anything because I don’t endorse him, he says a lot of problematic things—and not problematic from a woke stance, problematic from a centrist stance. He calculated every penny that he needs—rent, food, a bit of entertainment, etc.—and argues that every penny above that should be given away to someone in need, and that not doing so is immoral. It’s a pretty hardline stance, and a good analogy for “woke” attitudes. We can’t do that. It’s too extreme. What if you birth a special needs child, or your roof caves in, or you want to save for retirement? We need to blow, or save, some money sometimes to either make us feel good or to make us feel secure, right? But Singer holds to his idea that if we blow $200 at the craps table, we’ve committed an immoral act. But if we never did that there would literally be no Las Vegas, all those folks would be unemployed, so isn’t it immoral not to go blow $200 at the craps table once in a while, or stuff some cash in a g-string? Singer, and the hyper-woke, would say strip clubs are awful. An Atlanta rapper would tell you patronage at a strip club is an act of charity and goodwill. Who’s right?

Another philosophical question is: would you cause one innocent person to suffer if you could save five other innocent lives? In our lives, we are going to commit bad deeds, kind of a lot. We are going to spend money on a baseball cap supporting a team that’s owned by a Trump enabler, thus putting money in Trump’s campaign coffers. Stuff like that. The “woke” among us need to chill with the hyper nit-picky extreme that being socially aware has grown to.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 26 19, 9:17 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21618
Location: Chicago
GeddyWrox wrote:
Yep.

I still feel no shame if someone calls me "woke". It's true!

Nor do I feel shame if someone tries to call me an SJW. Nor liberal. I am proud of all of these labels.


Pretty incredible how opening one's mind to the state sponsored violence that is all around us gets twisted into an allegation of elitist affectation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 26 19, 9:24 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: November 9 06, 6:45 am
Posts: 19958
Location: a proud midwestern metropolis
Quote:
There’s a philosopher, Peter Singer, I won’t link him or anything because I don’t endorse him, he says a lot of problematic things—and not problematic from a woke stance, problematic from a centrist stance. He calculated every penny that he needs—rent, food, a bit of entertainment, etc.—and argues that every penny above that should be given away to someone in need, and that not doing so is immoral.

I guess there's zero chance you don't listen to a podcast with David Chang and Mike Schur.

I liked Schur's take on libertarianism and almost posted about that in the labels thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: July 26 19, 9:58 am 
Offline
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7697
Location: Chicago, IL
haltz wrote:
Quote:
There’s a philosopher, Peter Singer, I won’t link him or anything because I don’t endorse him, he says a lot of problematic things—and not problematic from a woke stance, problematic from a centrist stance. He calculated every penny that he needs—rent, food, a bit of entertainment, etc.—and argues that every penny above that should be given away to someone in need, and that not doing so is immoral.

I guess there's zero chance you don't listen to a podcast with David Chang and Mike Schur.

I liked Schur's take on libertarianism and almost posted about that in the labels thread.


Yep, just listened this morning and it was fresh in my brain w/r/t this discussion.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 222 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: sparks and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group