Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Not sure what I would change, unless you mean something about the wording.

There's a difference to spouting "scientists all agree that ..." when it's convenient to winning an argument vs a commitment to scientific method or accepting the scientific consensus in general.

And I've found that by far most pure humanities types that I've had contact with are very quick to rubbish science whenever a finding contradicts their established worldview. But I think those are actually the most interesting bits of research: stuff that contradicts what we think we know is where the action is.

[Frumple]

... personally, most of the humanities types I've met have been pretty quick to defend science as an institution. Staunch about it, too, as people go. They're just also a bit more aware of the actual issues with it, so, yeah, not all words spoken are glowing with acceptance and/or unlaced with criticism. Kinda' one of those things where the more attached to something you are, the more you kvetch about it.

[Baffler]

House Republicans take the next step toward repealing the ACA.

[Rolepgeek]

To be fair to humanities types, science is hard, and it's really pretty easy to find what you wanna find in it, if you're not going off large-scale studies. Even then. Making sure the science is done well and accurately depicts what you're trying to find is hard, especially when you have limited funding. Neither empiricism nor rationalism work perfectly.

Also, Reelya, you have to remember there are like five definitions of feminism. "Believing women are people too", aka the most easily defensible version. "Allowing women to do anything that only men used to be able to do", aka the overly basic version. "Not shaming or preventing people from living outside of the typical norms and traditions of gender roles and stereotyping, and allowing them as much freedom as possible in how they live their life", aka the egalitarian version. "Hating men", aka the parody version. And "Overthrowing the patriarchy as fast and as destructively as possible, without regards to whom it may harm in the process", aka the different slice of the pie version, in which you must live your life explicitly in opposition to gender norms regardless of what you may personally desire.

But yeah almost all of this stems from tribalism/groupthink and the part of your brain that doesn't care about abstract evidence, it cares about Us vs. Them. Like how fracking really isn't that bad if the companies take appropriate safety precautions on the surface equipment. (to prevent spills, basically). It's actually rather like nuclear in that sense; it's not perfect, but it's better than some alternatives (fracking for natural gas, or coal. Which would you prefer?), and is essentially safe if the procedures are followed. It's also cheaper than nuclear(which is essentially pointless to build any new plants at this point given the time and costs required compared to the likely pricing of renewables over the next 20 years), though with a larger carbon footprint. And yet people think both are terrible and awful compared to putting the resources into renewables. Which is fair, renewables would be better, but they can't do it all yet.

I see far more about genetics vs. culture than anything else, though, but that might be because it's the field I'm interested in. *shrug*

[Rolan7]

you have to remember there are like five definitions of feminism. "Believing women are people too", aka the most easily defensible version. "Allowing women to do anything that only men used to be able to do", aka the overly basic version. "Not shaming or preventing people from living outside of the typical norms and traditions of gender roles and stereotyping, and allowing them as much freedom as possible in how they live their life", aka the egalitarian version. "Hating men", aka the parody version. And "Overthrowing the patriarchy as fast and as destructively as possible, without regards to whom it may harm in the process", aka the different slice of the pie version, in which you must live your life explicitly in opposition to gender norms regardless of what you may personally desire.

*applause*
I hate when far "left" morons get really loud, and thus get noticed.

I suppose I'm a 3, the egalitarian version.  Mostly by dint of me hating gender as a concept.
But more importantly, yeah, it's a shame for "feminism" - a long-lived, successful, egalitarian movement against modernly horrible opposition - to be reduced to the last thing on that list.

MRAs do have certain points, I don't mind saying.  But the best goal is, as I think most of you agree, egalitarianism.

[Neonivek]

To be fair to humanities types, science is hard, and it's really pretty easy to find what you wanna find in it, if you're not going off large-scale studies. Even then. Making sure the science is done well and accurately depicts what you're trying to find is hard, especially when you have limited funding. Neither empiricism nor rationalism work perfectly.

I do find that kind of hilarious. Members of the soft-science want to be recognized as a hard science and complain about that term...

But here you go... Going "Ohhh, no... it isn't their fault! you see their science is a soft-science!"

Also I don't know why people would complain about the term "soft-science"... the REASON why psychology is a soft-science is easy... You can never know something definitively in psychology (sort of). Psychology is about inductive reasoning, not deductive. Yet it is JUST as valid as any other science.

Real life doesn't hand you all the answers!

[Rolepgeek]

There's a difference between MRAs, and people who are concerned with how the current iterations of sexism affects men, in my opinion. >.> One is allied to feminism, the other opposed. Even if there are some people who think giving men support in the face of domestic abuse or rape is betraying women.

Though sometimes people hate gender as a concept to the point where they don't want anyone else to be allowed to have it as a concept either, which I'm guessing/hoping you don't. :/


Also, Neonivek, I never said hard science or soft science. Science, period, is difficult. It does not matter what science it is. The Hadron Collider giving us evidence of the Higgs Boson does not make physics a 'hard science'. It means there's much more easily defined criteria, and it's still like five times in every hundred thousand or million.

Anything higher up and more complicated gets more difficult, for different reasons. Fundamental sciences are hard because it's difficult to get the tools down to that level. High-level complex sciences like economics or psychology are hard because there's so many variables it's nearly impossible to isolate one and have an unbiased experiment on it (especially if you care about ethics, as most science funding does).

Only thing I would consider 'hard science' in that way is engineering, and basically precisely because it's not a science (and hell, reverse-engineering biology/genetics is still a nightmare of epic proportions). It's the application of science. Truth is difficult to find. It can be found, and people should recognize it when it has been, but it's hard.

[Neonivek]

There's a difference between MRAs, and people who are concerned with how the current iterations of sexism affects men, in my opinion. >.> One is allied to feminism, the other opposed.

Miiiight want to change the order. Conventions suggests unfortunate things here that dumb angry people will jump at you for.

Though the funny thing about MRA is that their stink is so great that "people who are concerned with how sexism affects men" are often labeled as MRA by default.

Which isn't anything new really... Politics has never REALLY been civil... So "Hey, maaaaybe this whole sensitivity trend might be going overboard and we are losing young boys in a school setting" isn't met with "I see what you are talking about, but I disagree" (actually bad example... because... It was responded to in agreement. That the whole "getting in touch with your feelings" while invaluable for men and women was being done in a way and enough that it left male children behind.)

Right now the current hot topic among "How sexism affects men" I believe is... "Toxic Masculinity" Versus "Masculinity"... With toxic masculinity winning. (To explain this: One side believes that toxic masculinity is bad... the other that masculinity ITSELF is bad and toxic masculinity proves it... With the first side being the winner because we aren't 90s America anymore and the idea that all men must be sensitive souls is not an ideal as much)
--Double bonus: One reason why feminism is important... is this. The challenge to gender roles IS the reason why this is even a topic today. Remember that males, when the 50s happened the idea is that ALL men must be manly men! Then later that all men must be sensitive men... It is the evolution brought on by feminism that suggested "Hey, maybe we shouldn't put males into boxes and stop speaking out of our collective asses".

Or if you want a more hotly contested idea there is one about divorce and child payment and how it is outdated and existed from a time when women were believed to be victims, and that their new more proactive role in society means they shouldn't be subject to the same kinds of protections that have in the past.

(Yeah oddly enough the MRA's concerns... are typically not the concerns of... actual people who care about men's rights a lot of the time... then again the MRA are stereotypically paranoid)

[Rolan7]

Though sometimes people hate gender as a concept to the point where they don't want anyone else to be allowed to have it as a concept either, which I'm guessing/hoping you don't. :/

People can wear birdcages on their heads, if they want.  Not like I'm big in society and can call them out on it.

[Baffler]

There's a difference between MRAs, and people who are concerned with how the current iterations of sexism affects men, in my opinion. >.> One is allied to feminism, the other opposed.

Miiiight want to change the order. Conventions suggests unfortunate things here that dumb angry people will jump at you for.

Though the funny thing about MRA is that their stink is so great that "people who are concerned with how sexism affects men" are often labeled as MRA by default.

Which isn't anything new really... Politics has never REALLY been civil... So "Hey, maaaaybe this whole sensitivity trend might be going overboard and we are losing young boys in a school setting" isn't met with "I see what you are talking about, but I disagree" (actually bad example... because... It was responded to in agreement. That the whole "getting in touch with your feelings" while invaluable for men and women was being done in a way and enough that it left male children behind.)

Right now the current hot topic among "How sexism affects men" I believe is... "Toxic Masculinity" Versus "Masculinity"... With toxic masculinity winning. (To explain this: One side believes that toxic masculinity is bad... the other that masculinity ITSELF is bad and toxic masculinity proves it... With the first side being the winner because we aren't 90s America anymore and the idea that all men must be sensitive souls is not an ideal as much)

Or if you want a more hotly contested idea there is one about divorce and child payment and how it is outdated and existed from a time when women were believed to be victims, and that their new more proactive role in society means they shouldn't be subject to the same kinds of protections that have in the past.

(Yeah oddly enough the MRA's concerns... are typically not the concerns of... actual people who care about men's rights a lot of the time... then again the MRA are stereotypically paranoid)

What makes masculinity toxic?

Or rather what, to you, distinguishes masculinity from toxic masculinity?

[TempAcc]

From what I understand, a toxic behavior is a behavior that induces or causes harm or offense to people.

So ye, I also wonder how the hell can you do that with just masculinity? :U

[Neonivek]

Toxic Masculinity is hard to sort of define but a good way to put it is the inability to drop any form of masculinity and the need to defend it at all costs.

Basically you know those people who will beat you up if you even suggest they are wimps? That is basically toxic masculinity. The need to prove oneself "as a man" so to speak.

Or the inability to project one's feelings at all and willingness to put everything on your back... To an unhealthy degree.

---

The split is important if you remember the 80s and 90s "Sensitive man ideal" and how it was pushed very strongly at the time (Not as strongly as 50s "Manly Men" ideal but you get the idea).

[ChairmanPoo]

From what I understand, a toxic behavior is a behavior that induces or causes harm or offense to people.

Human behavior is toxic behavior. The particulars may vary, but competition for dickery remains a constant.  Need as well as asshattery have followed us to the stars, and the rewards of a bigger e-penis still await those wise enough to recognize this deep throbbing of our common pulse.

[TempAcc]

I don't know man, as much as I love penis analogies, me thinks a certain level of smarmyness is good. People overall seem more socially feeble as the years pass. There's a difference between friendly agressiveness and toxicity.

[Reelya]

Reading up recently on honor cultures vs dignity cultures, it might seem that what's called "toxic masculinity" is somewhat related to honor culture.

http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/honor-dignity-victimhood-and-death-of.html

Basically, if someone bumps into you in the street in an Honor Culture, you're expected to fight them / or tell them "watch where you're walking!" in a stand-off to see who's the most manly.

In a dignity culture you're both expected to go "excuse me" and let it go.

In a victimhood culture whoever has the most victim points gets to go "did you see that? he bumped me! Help help I'm being oppressed. Call the authorities!".