The point, as should be clear as I have repeated it many times, is that the general category of bing male is not a sensitive, threatened or challenged identity.
The OP that began this was one of general maleness. . . .
Even if it is the case that the OP that began the "Living with XY Chromosomes" thread was one of "general maleness" (which I am not sure is an accurate description, but for the sake of discussion), how is the discussion arising from that OP not one, to quote from the Epiphanies forum heading, "where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap"?
People can be invested in anything. There are people personally invested in being white. And there are plenty of issues that identity overlaps in.
Sure, but that doesn’t answer the question I asked. I asked how the discussion in the specific thread you are challenging as inappropriate for Epiphanies does not meet the three criteria in the description of the purpose for Epiphanies—criteria that are joined by the conjunction “and,” and that don’t include a specification that the identity in question be that of an “oppressed class” (quoting your OP in this thread).
Or to put it another way, is your concern that the thread in question doesn’t meet the current remit of Epiphanies, or is that you think that remit should be amended so as to exclude the thread in question? Or is it is something else?
I think the identity of male does not meet the remit of Epiphanies. I think there are male related topics that can, but just generally being a man doesn't.
This whole thing makes me genuinely sad. Epiphanies came to be because of the way questioning identity can actually be an attack on the identity and the answer was, that whilst care would be exercised, we have to accept this in order to have a discussion.
And many of the participants in this Styx thread are losing their damn minds about having a discussion about the discussion.
Points to all the men who were drafted or shamed into going to war and the hundreds of thousands who died there while the women stayed home and knitted socks.
Points to all the men who lost custody and sometimes even visiting rights of their own children through divorce proceedings, even when the father was the "innocent party" and a much better parent.
Points to all the men who have had to do hard physical work all their lives to support their families even when they themselves were ill or unfit in some way.
Lilbuddha, perhaps you can state as clearly as possible the specific, concrete and evident harm you see will follow from having a thread on male identity in Epiphanies. As specific as possible, please. None of this "creating an unsafe environment for sharing" bollocks. Do you expect certain posters to leave? Do you think the threads on women's issues will languish? Do you think the men posters will be emboldened to start attacking women posters across the Ship?
I see no harm at all from our being consistent in allowing that thread to stay right where it is. I don't see anyone else claiming harm either. Surely the burden of proof lies upon you.
There is no freedom from attack for anyone in Epiphanies. Whilst the discussions might be more closely monitored, that is not part of the remit of the board.
According to the Epiphanies Guidelines, "Purgatory rules also apply." Purgatory rules forbid personal attacks.
I think the identity of [gender] does not meet the remit of Epiphanies.
That makes you wrong, then, doesn't it.
You can admit being wrong about that any time now. Or just that you accept that the official remit of Epiphanies does not meet your arbitrary personal preference.
As Tubbs said, in her official capacity, "Epiphanies is a forum for subjects 'where issues and identity significantly overlap'." Just generally being a man is as much an identity as just generally being a woman.
How many of you (excluding Hosts and Admins) know whether the "OK Boomer" thread is in Epiphanies, Purgatory or Hell? I'm not complaining about where it is, but it seems to me to be a good example of many threads that could be on several boards, and it really doesn't matter.
Men can walk down the high street without whistles or challenge.
On the other hand, men are massively more likely to be the victims of random violent crime.
But that’s irrelevant anyway. The issues faced by a given identity group don’t have to be the same as those faced by others for them to be real. They don’t have to be as serious or pressing as those faced by others for them to be worth discussing. This isn’t some zero sum game where caring about one group means other groups matter less.
This thread reminds me of those people who rant on about the inviolable principle of freedom of religion right up until the point where a woman walks past in a burka or a mosque is proposed at the end of their road, at which point suddenly all they want to do is ban it and prevent it. They want freedom of religion, as long as it’s not Islam. You want a place to discuss gender, as long as it’s not male. A place to discuss race, as long as it’s not white. A place to discuss sexuality, as long as it’s not straight.
No dice.
I'm trying to ignore the ridiculous posts, but seeing as you are an admin, I probably shouldn't.
As long as I’m not using the tags, feel free.
That wasn't meant 'cause you might get cross, it is because you are part of the team who made the decision and what you think affects this.
If I am thinking this zero-sum, then why did I put so much effort into the Trans threads that engendered Epiphanies?
A number of people want to frame this as me being unwilling to listen to men and this is what you are doing.
No, I’m framing it as you claiming that freedom from being attacked, belittled, etc. when engaged in discussion of issues relating to gender doesn’t apply if that gender is male.
There is no freedom from attack for anyone in Epiphanies. Whilst the discussions might be more closely monitored, that is not part of the remit of the board.
A few are actually engaging in the discussion. And though I am not very encouraged that this is going very far, at least they are making an effort.
You do not appear to be even trying.
You’re mistaking disagreement for disengagement.
How about lack of comprehension then? At best, you are responding to what you think I am thinking and not what I have been saying.
You'll all remember that the decision on the remit for Epiphanies was made by the whole Crew in response to, and taking account of, comments by people in the Styx over an extended period of time about the remit of Dead Horses and how threads discussing identity got handled.
The Crew didn't make that decision based on the views of one person, and we're not going to change it based on the views of one person.
@lilbuddha, this is a completely legitimate issue to raise in the Styx and we understand your argument. We don't agree with it. Repetition isn't going to help change our collective mind.
There are people personally invested in being white.
Which is a bad thing because...?
Tell me why it is a good thing?
If being personally invested in being the race you happen to be is a good thing for any races then it’s a good thing for all races. Personally I’d say that race, gender, sexuality, etc are all things people are rather than things they do, and therefore being personally invested in them is natural. For everyone.
You can’t deny people their identity just because you don’t like it - that’s what too many straights/whites/men have done throughout history, which is why we have a need for places like Epiphanies in the first place.
Black pride is not about black people being better than anyone else. White pride is.
You keep switching between terms. Being personally invested in being something isn’t the same as being proud of being it, which is itself a different issue to whether said pride is justified or expressed in appropriate ways.
There are people personally invested in being white.
Which is a bad thing because...?
Tell me why it is a good thing?
If being personally invested in being the race you happen to be is a good thing for any races then it’s a good thing for all races. Personally I’d say that race, gender, sexuality, etc are all things people are rather than things they do, and therefore being personally invested in them is natural. For everyone.
This beggars belief. Black pride, gay pride, etc exist because the dominant culture shat upon those identities. It is saying "I count too". Straight, white people don't need that because they count by default.
There are people personally invested in being white.
Which is a bad thing because...?
Tell me why it is a good thing?
If being personally invested in being the race you happen to be is a good thing for any races then it’s a good thing for all races. Personally I’d say that race, gender, sexuality, etc are all things people are rather than things they do, and therefore being personally invested in them is natural. For everyone.
This beggars belief. Black pride, gay pride, etc exist because the dominant culture shat upon those identities. It is saying "I count too". Straight, white people don't need that because they count by default.
Obviously I don't need to say that "I count" because I'm white. But it's important to recognize whiteness as an identity and to talk about it. If we don't talk about whiteness as an identity, being white will continue to be seen as the default setting for human. It's a specific thing that needs to be named and discussed. If I were going to start a thread on whiteness and being white, I wouldn't title it "White Lives Matter," because duh. But if white people are going to get a clue about racism, we're going to need to discuss our own whiteness and what it means.
Happily I’m not in the dating market, but I’m not sure what advice is give to my sons (if they sought it) about how best to express an interest without appearing to be a threat.
Sorry I missed this before. If you truly teach your sons to be egalitarian, there is no problem. If they truly see women as people, the only difficulties are the normal human ones.
Gay teens and adults have had to work without a syllabus, after all, and still managed to connect.
If you truly teach your sons to be egalitarian, there is no problem. If they truly see women as people, the only difficulties are the normal human ones.
That doesn't take into account the fact that those men who truly see women as people are dealing with women who haven't been seen by other men as people. Some women have learned to see all men as posing potential threats.
I think the identity of [gender] does not meet the remit of Epiphanies.
That makes you wrong, then, doesn't it.
You can admit being wrong about that any time now. Or just that you accept that the official remit of Epiphanies does not meet your arbitrary personal preference.
Wrong meaning you disagree. Disagreement will happen.
Whilst I did not write the description, I was there for the in front of the camera part of the process. My interpretation of the guidelines being a little loose was to allow to other identities that might have issues, especially as it took loads of discussion to get the collective lot to agree how damaging even questioning could be. So not locking down categories makes sense. But that should not then imply that anything goes.
Which I see the inclusion of general male being.
My position is not arbitrary in the slightest. You might disagree with my conclusion, but arbitrary is a bald misrepresentation.
Your ball, your rules. But fuck the attempts to frame this as reason vs caprice.
You'll all remember that the decision on the remit for Epiphanies was made by the whole Crew in response to, and taking account of, comments by people in the Styx over an extended period of time about the remit of Dead Horses and how threads discussing identity got handled.
The Crew didn't make that decision based on the views of one person, and we're not going to change it based on the views of one person.
I know the decision is made by more than one person. But since one of those people making that decision misrepresented my position, it is still worth making that clear.
@lilbuddha, this is a completely legitimate issue to raise in the Styx and we understand your argument.
Given that one of the crew completely misrepresented my POV and another called it arbitrary when it is anything but; pardon me for questioning whether you, as a group, completely understand it.
Not that I am questioning the sincerity of your decision making or the sincerity of your conclusion. I am not.
We don't agree with it. Repetition isn't going to help change our collective mind.
Repetition. That gets thrown around a bit too liberally sometimes. I am addressing multiple people, some of whom have the same position, so points will be repeated. Also, the level of engagement on this thread is sparse. When we throw out the "How very dare you!" whinge element, there has been very little interaction. And whilst I appreciate those of you who have actually participated, the discussion couldn't actually be classified as robust.
In the end, it is your toybox.
When you characterize the remit of Epiphanies in a way that the crew disagrees with, you call it your interpretation. When a ship's crew member characterizes something you said in a way that you disagree with, you call it misunderstanding and misrepresentation.
If you truly teach your sons to be egalitarian, there is no problem. If they truly see women as people, the only difficulties are the normal human ones.
That doesn't take into account the fact that those men who truly see women as people are dealing with women who haven't been seen by other men as people. Some women have learned to see all men as posing potential threats.
Part of dating should be evaluating the other person beyond "ooh, pretty" and that will help ameliorate that issue. Not completely, human interaction is messy.
Whilst I did not write the description, I was there for the in front of the camera part of the process.
As was RooK, as was I, as were a number of others. How many others are seeing it your way?
Whilst I find Rook less than a counter to my argument in this case*, I can load you up with examples of where majorities made decisions we now think as wrong. Whilst that association automatically make me correct, a majority against doesn't make me incorrect either.
*Generally, though I often disagree with him, I think he does actually take the time to think things through.
My position is not arbitrary in the slightest. You might disagree with my conclusion, but arbitrary is a bald misrepresentation.
Fine.
I used "arbitrary" as a low-pejorative interpretation variant. But if you want to outright own and stand behind your blatant sexism, so be it.
It is not sexism. That you think it is illustrates the level of your bias.
I can, and have, shown why merely being black is disadvantageous in our cultures. Same for being female.
The best I’ve seen from your position is that there are issues that being male brings to some men. And I’ve not denied this.
As for being a man being inherently troubling, all you’ve got is “trust me” whilst observable evidence indicates that many men navigate being a man without serious issue.
And that men create the issues for other men both makes it different and easier to change.
You can battle the status quote from within. Not an opportunity a available to the others disadvantaged by the same system.
As far as I read @lilbuddha you've bent the thread in Epiph out of shape, that you could just stop and start paying attention to the Hell thread about you. The Epiphanies thread isn't your's, isn't about you, isn't about what you want to talk about, and people are trying to have you stop. Would you please?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2019
(Comment deleted for further thought).
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Maleness doesn't even come close to the issues of trans, race, sexuality other than the fact than male culture is the cause of the problems those groups have.
That statement is an unqualified generalisation and is demonstrably untrue. Some aspect of male culture are indeed responsible for some of the problems that trans people and other sexual minorities, racial minorities, and women have had to face and still face. But they are not the only cause. So far as race is concerned, xenophobia and colour or nation prejudice are not the preserve of a male culture. So far as trans people are concerned, as the Trangender thread has demonstrated, opposition to their identity has been found and expressed by radical feminists and folks with same-sex preferences. And there are still women today who continue to express opposition on traditional grounds to women exercising leadership pastoral calling in the church.
I think you do a lot better in argument when you avoid such sweeping generalisations. Sweeping generalisations are a form of misrepresentation often to be found in prejudiced expression. You find a lot of common ground here about the damage done by prejudices of all kinds.
If you truly teach your sons to be egalitarian, there is no problem. If they truly see women as people, the only difficulties are the normal human ones.
That doesn't take into account the fact that those men who truly see women as people are dealing with women who haven't been seen by other men as people. Some women have learned to see all men as posing potential threats.
Part of dating should be evaluating the other person beyond "ooh, pretty" and that will help ameliorate that issue. Not completely, human interaction is messy.
The point stands. Enough men are threatening to make it necessary for men who are not threatening to have to think about how to present themselves without appearing threatening.
... I can load you up with examples of where majorities made decisions we now think as wrong. Whilst that association automatically make me correct, a majority against doesn't make me incorrect either.
No one else seems to remember things the way you do, and it hasn't been that long. This suggests that in this case you are wrong.
Moreover, you still haven't demonstrated any harm that the XY Chromosome thread poses to other discussions in Epiphanies. The reality is that it isn't hurting anything and won't. If you object, all you need to do is ignore the thread. You manage to ignore the Hell thread with your name on it, so you can ignore an Epiphanies thread that doesn't have your name on it.
There are people personally invested in being white.
Which is a bad thing because...?
Tell me why it is a good thing?
If being personally invested in being the race you happen to be is a good thing for any races then it’s a good thing for all races. Personally I’d say that race, gender, sexuality, etc are all things people are rather than things they do, and therefore being personally invested in them is natural. For everyone.
This beggars belief. Black pride, gay pride, etc exist because the dominant culture shat upon those identities. It is saying "I count too". Straight, white people don't need that because they count by default.
Once again, your initial comment was about being personally invested in ones race, not racial pride. Your insistence on moving to a more loaded phrase bespeaks a certain lack of confidence in your ability to argue for the initial one.
Everybody has an identity. Everybody should be free to discuss the issues that arise from their identity without being told they don’t count, don’t matter or don’t exist. And such identity issues are in no way limited to those that are caused directly by discrimination or prejudice.
My position is not arbitrary in the slightest. You might disagree with my conclusion, but arbitrary is a bald misrepresentation.
Fine.
I used "arbitrary" as a low-pejorative interpretation variant. But if you want to outright own and stand behind your blatant sexism, so be it.
It is not sexism. That you think it is illustrates the level of your bias.
Are you sure?
I am sure as I can be that sexism is not behind what I say. sexism
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex
I'm not stereotyping, in fact the opposite. I'm not discriminating against all men. Prejudice is a little tougher to clear oneself of. Especially since I have stated many times that people exhibit racism and sexism and homophobia without seeing it, or at least gain from their existence, because they are much more pervasive than people like to think. It holds true for any form of prejudice.
Maleness doesn't even come close to the issues of trans, race, sexuality other than the fact than male culture is the cause of the problems those groups have.
That statement is an unqualified generalisation and is demonstrably untrue. Some aspect of male culture are indeed responsible for some of the problems that trans people and other sexual minorities, racial minorities, and women have had to face and still face. But they are not the only cause. So far as race is concerned, xenophobia and colour or nation prejudice are not the preserve of a male culture.
Not the entire preserve, no. So the last part of that sentence should have been the cause of the problems those groups have. And some of the problems will be because of being dominant, rather than inherently male.
I think you do a lot better in argument when you avoid such sweeping generalisations. Sweeping generalisations are a form of misrepresentation often to be found in prejudiced expression. You find a lot of common ground here about the damage done by prejudices of all kinds.
I'm trying to keep up whilst doing other things and a bit annoyed and was a little loose with my language.
The intersections of identity and culture make tracing back cause to effect less than straightforward. But given the relative shallow interaction with this topic here, I don't think it is worth chasing.
And you've made your decision.
As I said, the decision is yours and I do believe that the Crew discussion leading to was made with good intentions.
How many of you (excluding Hosts and Admins) know whether the "OK Boomer" thread is in Epiphanies, Purgatory or Hell? I'm not complaining about where it is, but it seems to me to be a good example of many threads that could be on several boards, and it really doesn't matter.
I don’t fully agree in this case. The great thing about Epiphanies is that, just like as it was when Dead Horses was around, certain discussions don’t (or shouldn’t) get derailed. Threads on gender often do, and a space to discuss masculinity - under the Epiphanies umbrella - seems to me to be hugely beneficial.
Where I do agree with @lilbuddha is that a discussion about men’s hobbies etc. (which @Asher mentioned in his OP) probably doesn’t belong there. But since no-one’s discussing men’s hobbies, it’s a moot point. As it is, it’s a fruitful thread, and I’m very grateful it’s there. I’m sure if it did derail too much into Heaven / All Saints territory, the thread could be split and there wouldn’t be much of a fuss anyhow.
"How can we live well as men?" is the start of the thread that gave rise to this whinge. Just not seeing how this is threatening, or problematic, or dismissive of oppressed minorities. This thread is just manufacturing a problem where none existed, seemingly out of spite. The "scroll past" advice seems to apply very well. Don't want to read about men trying to be better men? Then don't read about it. But wanting to stop them from talking about how to be better men because other groups are oppressed and men aren't? MYOFB.
I agree. I would assume that to talk about being - not only male- but white, would be a good & healthy thing. As a woman, it makes me uneasy to see misogyny leaking out unacknowledged, unrecognized, or in a passive-aggressive way. I know that for some reason many (not all) men do harbor different levels of misogyny, and I personally would love to see more men discussing that fact.
Sixty years.
This is a conversation that has been going on for more than 60 years.
How long a transition is needed? Serious question, not snark. This is not new. The pace is only fast if one didn't notice that the bus has been in motion for more than half a century. Well longer if talking about the actual beginnings of movements for equality.
Haven't men been running things like forever? I think there are huge, important discussions to be had about that.
I don't mean to prolong this thread - I'm glad I got my own comment in before it's closed, though
And I think men should be encouraged, not discouraged or forbidden, to talk about what it's like to be male, how to be male in a changing world, how to be a man who creates and not destroys, helps and not harms. And other good ways of being a man. Saying "you've had 60 years now shut up" seems counterproductive, to say the very least.
To think that "identity" necessarily means minority or otherwise oppressed identity is a confusion of issues.
Frankly, straight/white/male folk should be encouraged to recognise that there's an identity involved. Rather than just assuming that this is the default state of existence.
And that's where I think you're confusing things lilbuddha. At one point in your argument you essentially say that straight/white/male doesn't need to be counted in a distinct way because it's always counted anyway. I say it does, precisely so that it's not considered a default standard and everyone else is considered some kind of special category that needs special treatment.
I've actually complained to FIFA that having the Women's World Cup, as they now do, is not equality. It's not equality because the male competition isn't the Men's World Cup. It's just the World Cup.
And here you are, essentially arguing that we don't need a Men's World Cup because we've got the World Cup.
If you don't want straight/white/male to be the default standard, then it's actually incredibly dumb to complain about a situation where people are trying to acknowledge that male is a specific category.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Does anyone else want this thread closed? If so, why?
To think that "identity" necessarily means minority or otherwise oppressed identity is a confusion of issues.
Frankly, straight/white/male folk should be encouraged to recognise that there's an identity involved. Rather than just assuming that this is the default state of existence.
And that's where I think you're confusing things lilbuddha. At one point in your argument you essentially say that straight/white/male doesn't need to be counted in a distinct way because it's always counted anyway.
That is not the base of what I am arguing. I am saying that men, as a whole, are not disadvantaged by male culture. Which is the contention, in Hell, that truly kickstarted this whole thing.
Some categories of men are, of course, but merely being a man doesn't give one a disadvantage in our male-dominated cultures.
You seem determined to enforce the idea that we are mostly the same, and mostly doing fine, if not actively enjoying our domination. Despite all the evidence on the thread to the contrary.
I am saying that men, as a whole, are not disadvantaged by male culture.
The general case actually experienced by nobody is hardly an argument against the plethora of specifically-lived examples. None of which has any relevance to the legitimacy of a particular gender-identifying group to discuss societal struggles associated with that gender identity. To even suggest such a thing is, by elemental definition, sexist.
Whatevs. I commented to orfeo to clarify my position, I did not come to restart the argument.
Though, I will rebut the sexist accusation. It is a ridiculous to say that my position is sexist as it is to say that the statement white people as a whole are not disadvantaged by being white is racist.
They are statements based on the effects of being dominant, not inherent to the sex or colour.
Folks, we are not going to re-litigate so soon the question initially raised on this thread. The "Living with XY Chromosomes" thread remains in Epiphanies here.
The other points raised in the last few hours on this thread are not Ship's business and as such do not belong in the Styx. Please take them elsewhere.
To think that "identity" necessarily means minority or otherwise oppressed identity is a confusion of issues.
Frankly, straight/white/male folk should be encouraged to recognise that there's an identity involved. Rather than just assuming that this is the default state of existence.
And that's where I think you're confusing things lilbuddha. At one point in your argument you essentially say that straight/white/male doesn't need to be counted in a distinct way because it's always counted anyway.
That is not the base of what I am arguing. I am saying that men, as a whole, are not disadvantaged by male culture. Which is the contention, in Hell, that truly kickstarted this whole thing.
Some categories of men are, of course, but merely being a man doesn't give one a disadvantage in our male-dominated cultures.
I know nothing about something in Hell. This thread is about the existence of something in Epiphanies.
Epiphanies is new to me, but I see nothing that says "disadvantage" is a requirement.
Having discussed the issues raised in @lilbuddha's OP, the Admins have come to the following conclusion:
Epiphanies is a forum for subjects "where issues and identity significantly overlap".
That includes oppressed classes, but is by no means exclusively about oppressed classes. Gender identity and the challenges that entails are appropriate for the forum.
Tubbs
Admin
This decision stands. Discussion of men's advantages and disadvantages is not Ship's business. I'm closing this thread.
Comments
This whole thing makes me genuinely sad. Epiphanies came to be because of the way questioning identity can actually be an attack on the identity and the answer was, that whilst care would be exercised, we have to accept this in order to have a discussion.
And many of the participants in this Styx thread are losing their damn minds about having a discussion about the discussion.
Points to all the men who were drafted or shamed into going to war and the hundreds of thousands who died there while the women stayed home and knitted socks.
Points to all the men who lost custody and sometimes even visiting rights of their own children through divorce proceedings, even when the father was the "innocent party" and a much better parent.
Points to all the men who have had to do hard physical work all their lives to support their families even when they themselves were ill or unfit in some way.
I see no harm at all from our being consistent in allowing that thread to stay right where it is. I don't see anyone else claiming harm either. Surely the burden of proof lies upon you.
According to the Epiphanies Guidelines, "Purgatory rules also apply." Purgatory rules forbid personal attacks.
You can admit being wrong about that any time now. Or just that you accept that the official remit of Epiphanies does not meet your arbitrary personal preference.
No, we just think you're wrong.
You'll all remember that the decision on the remit for Epiphanies was made by the whole Crew in response to, and taking account of, comments by people in the Styx over an extended period of time about the remit of Dead Horses and how threads discussing identity got handled.
The Crew didn't make that decision based on the views of one person, and we're not going to change it based on the views of one person.
@lilbuddha, this is a completely legitimate issue to raise in the Styx and we understand your argument. We don't agree with it. Repetition isn't going to help change our collective mind.
Tubbs
Admin
If being personally invested in being the race you happen to be is a good thing for any races then it’s a good thing for all races. Personally I’d say that race, gender, sexuality, etc are all things people are rather than things they do, and therefore being personally invested in them is natural. For everyone.
You can’t deny people their identity just because you don’t like it - that’s what too many straights/whites/men have done throughout history, which is why we have a need for places like Epiphanies in the first place.
You keep switching between terms. Being personally invested in being something isn’t the same as being proud of being it, which is itself a different issue to whether said pride is justified or expressed in appropriate ways.
But not if you have anything to do with it, huh?
Gay teens and adults have had to work without a syllabus, after all, and still managed to connect.
That doesn't take into account the fact that those men who truly see women as people are dealing with women who haven't been seen by other men as people. Some women have learned to see all men as posing potential threats.
Whilst I did not write the description, I was there for the in front of the camera part of the process. My interpretation of the guidelines being a little loose was to allow to other identities that might have issues, especially as it took loads of discussion to get the collective lot to agree how damaging even questioning could be. So not locking down categories makes sense. But that should not then imply that anything goes.
Which I see the inclusion of general male being.
My position is not arbitrary in the slightest. You might disagree with my conclusion, but arbitrary is a bald misrepresentation.
Your ball, your rules. But fuck the attempts to frame this as reason vs caprice.
As was RooK, as was I, as were a number of others. How many others are seeing it your way?
Not that I am questioning the sincerity of your decision making or the sincerity of your conclusion. I am not.
Repetition. That gets thrown around a bit too liberally sometimes. I am addressing multiple people, some of whom have the same position, so points will be repeated. Also, the level of engagement on this thread is sparse. When we throw out the "How very dare you!" whinge element, there has been very little interaction. And whilst I appreciate those of you who have actually participated, the discussion couldn't actually be classified as robust.
In the end, it is your toybox.
Whilst I find Rook less than a counter to my argument in this case*, I can load you up with examples of where majorities made decisions we now think as wrong. Whilst that association automatically make me correct, a majority against doesn't make me incorrect either.
*Generally, though I often disagree with him, I think he does actually take the time to think things through.
I used "arbitrary" as a low-pejorative interpretation variant. But if you want to outright own and stand behind your blatant sexism, so be it.
I can, and have, shown why merely being black is disadvantageous in our cultures. Same for being female.
The best I’ve seen from your position is that there are issues that being male brings to some men. And I’ve not denied this.
As for being a man being inherently troubling, all you’ve got is “trust me” whilst observable evidence indicates that many men navigate being a man without serious issue.
And that men create the issues for other men both makes it different and easier to change.
You can battle the status quote from within. Not an opportunity a available to the others disadvantaged by the same system.
Are you sure?
That statement is an unqualified generalisation and is demonstrably untrue. Some aspect of male culture are indeed responsible for some of the problems that trans people and other sexual minorities, racial minorities, and women have had to face and still face. But they are not the only cause. So far as race is concerned, xenophobia and colour or nation prejudice are not the preserve of a male culture. So far as trans people are concerned, as the Trangender thread has demonstrated, opposition to their identity has been found and expressed by radical feminists and folks with same-sex preferences. And there are still women today who continue to express opposition on traditional grounds to women exercising leadership pastoral calling in the church.
I think you do a lot better in argument when you avoid such sweeping generalisations. Sweeping generalisations are a form of misrepresentation often to be found in prejudiced expression. You find a lot of common ground here about the damage done by prejudices of all kinds.
The point stands. Enough men are threatening to make it necessary for men who are not threatening to have to think about how to present themselves without appearing threatening.
No one else seems to remember things the way you do, and it hasn't been that long. This suggests that in this case you are wrong.
Moreover, you still haven't demonstrated any harm that the XY Chromosome thread poses to other discussions in Epiphanies. The reality is that it isn't hurting anything and won't. If you object, all you need to do is ignore the thread. You manage to ignore the Hell thread with your name on it, so you can ignore an Epiphanies thread that doesn't have your name on it.
Once again, your initial comment was about being personally invested in ones race, not racial pride. Your insistence on moving to a more loaded phrase bespeaks a certain lack of confidence in your ability to argue for the initial one.
Everybody has an identity. Everybody should be free to discuss the issues that arise from their identity without being told they don’t count, don’t matter or don’t exist. And such identity issues are in no way limited to those that are caused directly by discrimination or prejudice.
sexism
noun
prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex
I'm not stereotyping, in fact the opposite. I'm not discriminating against all men. Prejudice is a little tougher to clear oneself of. Especially since I have stated many times that people exhibit racism and sexism and homophobia without seeing it, or at least gain from their existence, because they are much more pervasive than people like to think. It holds true for any form of prejudice.
Not the entire preserve, no. So the last part of that sentence should have been the cause of the problems those groups have. And some of the problems will be because of being dominant, rather than inherently male.
I'm trying to keep up whilst doing other things and a bit annoyed and was a little loose with my language.
The intersections of identity and culture make tracing back cause to effect less than straightforward. But given the relative shallow interaction with this topic here, I don't think it is worth chasing.
And you've made your decision.
As I said, the decision is yours and I do believe that the Crew discussion leading to was made with good intentions.
I don’t fully agree in this case. The great thing about Epiphanies is that, just like as it was when Dead Horses was around, certain discussions don’t (or shouldn’t) get derailed. Threads on gender often do, and a space to discuss masculinity - under the Epiphanies umbrella - seems to me to be hugely beneficial.
Where I do agree with @lilbuddha is that a discussion about men’s hobbies etc. (which @Asher mentioned in his OP) probably doesn’t belong there. But since no-one’s discussing men’s hobbies, it’s a moot point. As it is, it’s a fruitful thread, and I’m very grateful it’s there. I’m sure if it did derail too much into Heaven / All Saints territory, the thread could be split and there wouldn’t be much of a fuss anyhow.
I agree. I would assume that to talk about being - not only male- but white, would be a good & healthy thing. As a woman, it makes me uneasy to see misogyny leaking out unacknowledged, unrecognized, or in a passive-aggressive way. I know that for some reason many (not all) men do harbor different levels of misogyny, and I personally would love to see more men discussing that fact.
Haven't men been running things like forever? I think there are huge, important discussions to be had about that.
I don't mean to prolong this thread - I'm glad I got my own comment in before it's closed, though
Frankly, straight/white/male folk should be encouraged to recognise that there's an identity involved. Rather than just assuming that this is the default state of existence.
And that's where I think you're confusing things lilbuddha. At one point in your argument you essentially say that straight/white/male doesn't need to be counted in a distinct way because it's always counted anyway. I say it does, precisely so that it's not considered a default standard and everyone else is considered some kind of special category that needs special treatment.
I've actually complained to FIFA that having the Women's World Cup, as they now do, is not equality. It's not equality because the male competition isn't the Men's World Cup. It's just the World Cup.
And here you are, essentially arguing that we don't need a Men's World Cup because we've got the World Cup.
If you don't want straight/white/male to be the default standard, then it's actually incredibly dumb to complain about a situation where people are trying to acknowledge that male is a specific category.
Some categories of men are, of course, but merely being a man doesn't give one a disadvantage in our male-dominated cultures.
The general case actually experienced by nobody is hardly an argument against the plethora of specifically-lived examples. None of which has any relevance to the legitimacy of a particular gender-identifying group to discuss societal struggles associated with that gender identity. To even suggest such a thing is, by elemental definition, sexist.
Though, I will rebut the sexist accusation. It is a ridiculous to say that my position is sexist as it is to say that the statement white people as a whole are not disadvantaged by being white is racist.
They are statements based on the effects of being dominant, not inherent to the sex or colour.
The other points raised in the last few hours on this thread are not Ship's business and as such do not belong in the Styx. Please take them elsewhere.
Ruth, Styx Host
I know nothing about something in Hell. This thread is about the existence of something in Epiphanies.
Epiphanies is new to me, but I see nothing that says "disadvantage" is a requirement.
This decision stands. Discussion of men's advantages and disadvantages is not Ship's business. I'm closing this thread.
Ruth, Styx host