Living with XY thread in Epiphanies

It does not belong there. Men are not an oppressed class.
Were the thread about male suicide and the mental health issues that male culture causes, I would have no issue. Toxic maculinity? Same.
But a thread that is essentially about the "challenges" of being a male is a bit much.
«13

Comments

  • We've taken whining about somebody else having a thread we don't think they deserve to a whole new level.
  • There is nothing in the Epiphanies guidelines that mentions anything at all about oppressed classes. Nothing.
  • I was there, in the threads that engendered Epiphanies.
    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.
  • I don’t see why there shouldn’t be a thread about masculinity in Epiphanies, I can absolutely see how it could be a sensitive topic that touches on the individual’s sense of identity.

    (FWIW I am female)
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    But a thread that is essentially about the "challenges" of being a male is a bit much.
    A thread about the challenges that many men face is not really the same as a thread about the challenges of being male, much less about suggesting that men are an oppressed class, which as far as I can recall no one has done in the “Living with XY Chromosomes” thread.

    It seems to me that thread fits squarely into the remit of Epiphanies: “Our space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap.”

  • Give me a freaking break.

    Must we have the Oppression Olympics?
  • My oppression is bigger than your oppression.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    I was there, in the threads that engendered Epiphanies.
    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.

    Clearly when Epiphanies was created, they decided to allow for more types of threads than you wanted them to.
  • One can walk the streets as a male anywhere in the world without problem. This is not the same as being black, being a woman, being LGBTQ+.
    Again, whilst there are aspects of male culture that are harmful to men, but merely being a male isn't one of them.
    I would not start a thread in Epiphanies about being gay in Soho, the Village or West Hollywood because it is not generally a problem.
    Epiphanies is about identity and in general, is not a problematic identity.
  • WHY THE FUCKING HELL MUST YOU JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS!???!!!
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited November 24
    Being a member of the lgbtq+ community and being male are not mutually exclusive states.

    (Also higher rates of suicide amongst males than females in the uk, together with shorter life expectancy, suggests something is causing a problem.)
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 24
    WHY THE FUCKING HELL MUST YOU JUDGE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROBLEMS!???!!!
    I am not judging any particular person's problems. I am saying that men, as a group, do not face what other groups do. And therefore, as a group, maleness does not qualify for Epiphanies. Anyone can have problems with their identity. Anyone in an identity that is not accepted in general society can have absolutely no problem with being that identity. Individual levels of comfort or problem are impossible to quantify objectively.
    Group levels are a different thing.

  • So does that mean that if I up and decide to explore aspects of a-speciesm (the linguistic parallel is to a-genderism), which is a Real Thing and incidentally one I happen to be interested in for reasons that need not concern you--

    You plan to drag me to the Styx because those who experience no internal identity-as-human are not suffering sufficiently for your sensibilities?
  • This is not very difficult to understand.
    Men as a group do not suffer. So maleness does not belong there.
    Toxic masculinity does.
    Can you not understand the difference?
    I am sure there are rich, white men who personally feel they suffer for being rich, white men. Do you think that is an acceptable Epiphanies category?
  • Our space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap. Special Guidelines apply.

    Suffering is not the prerequisite you appear to suppose.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited November 24
    Since when did the guidelines for Epiphanies say "Only for those who suffer"? Leaving aside the whole issue of just how much suffering is enough, and who gets to judge it, and so on, and so forth...

    By the way--why is it that when individual men on board say that they suffer, you automatically invalidate their shared experience?

    Oh, and by the way, thanks for that "This is not very difficult to understand." My evaluation of my own intelligence is surely due for a massive overhaul any minute now.
  • Our space to discuss issues where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap. Special Guidelines apply.

    Suffering is not the prerequisite you appear to suppose.
    Whatever word you want to use. Epiphanies came about because of the way Transphobia was being handled in Purg. (And race and LGBTQ+ issues came along)
    It was to be a space where sensitive identity issues could be more closely monitored.
    Maleness in general is not a sensitive identity and that is what the OP of the XY thread is. Maleness in general.
    Parts of male culture are and I do not think explorations of those would be problematic.
  • Since when did the guidelines for Epiphanies say "Only for those who suffer"? Leaving aside the whole issue of just how much suffering is enough, and who gets to judge it, and so on, and so forth...

    By the way--why is it that when individual men on board say that they suffer, you automatically invalidate their shared experience?

    Oh, and by the way, thanks for that "This is not very difficult to understand." My evaluation of my own intelligence is surely due for a massive overhaul any minute now.
    How about people illuminate how maleness = Trans in identity issues?
  • Does a discussion of maleness in Epiphanies prevent any of these other discussions from taking place? If not, I'm afraid I can't see it problem.
  • Does a discussion of maleness in Epiphanies prevent any of these other discussions from taking place? If not, I'm afraid I can't see it problem.
    It isn't that one thread prevents those other discussion. But if any discussion in OK, the Epiphanies doesn't need to exist. It is a space created for targeted identities to feel a semblance of care in how the topic is addressed. If anything is open to being that, that sense goes away.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    This is not very difficult to understand.
    Men as a group do not suffer. So maleness does not belong there.
    Where is there anything that says that discussions in Epiphanies is limited to discussion about groups that suffer as groups?

    As for the difficult to understand part—no, for most of us it isn’t. I don’t know why you’re having so much trouble understanding.

  • Ugh. I'm retiring to Hell. I just can't even with this anymore.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    It is a space created for targeted identities to feel a semblance of care in how the topic is addressed.

    In part. You may have liked it to have been only that, but it wasn't. Its remit is larger than that.

    You don't have to comment on the thread. It's not compulsory.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    One can walk the streets as a male anywhere in the world without problem.
    Utter bullshit, @lilbuddha. For a lot of violent assaults (obviously not sexual assaults or domestic violence though), men are more likely than women to be victims of violent crime.

    https://sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/myth-busting-the-true-picture-of-gendered-violence
  • The reason I suggested the thread be moved to Epiphanies, was because folk had been commenting in Hell that they worried the thread would be swamped by those wanting to talk about toxic masculinity etc - when they were trying to have a different kind of discussion. I believe the OP poster had intended to post there, but accidentally started it in Heaven.

    The only other obvious place for the thread, as envisioned, would have been All Saints.
  • The reason I suggested the thread be moved to Epiphanies, was because folk had been commenting in Hell that they worried the thread would be swamped by those wanting to talk about toxic masculinity etc - when they were trying to have a different kind of discussion. I believe the OP poster had intended to post there, but accidentally started it in Heaven.

    The only other obvious place for the thread, as envisioned, would have been All Saints.
    One person was worried that I saw. One person suggested the transfer.
  • And of course one is never enough.
  • Still waiting for the arguments as why the male identity needs the special consideration of Epiphanies.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    edited November 24
    Perhaps because it is an "issue where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap"
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited November 24
    I would suggest because it is an issue
    where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap.
    and it
    will be allowed to reflect all widely held views, even if they are considered offensive by some
  • Every possible issue has people who are invested in it, but that does not translate to every issue being one where personal investment is inherent. One cannot embrace being black and have all the issues with blackness go away. One can embrace being male and not feel any of the issues, and indeed benefit from them.
  • *Points to all the men dying of suicide*
  • BlahblahBlahblah Shipmate
    edited November 24
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Every possible issue has people who are invested in it, but that does not translate to every issue being one where personal investment is inherent. One cannot embrace being black and have all the issues with blackness go away. One can embrace being male and not feel any of the issues, and indeed benefit from them.

    Why are you bothered? What difference does it make to you if a thread is put here or there or somewhere else?
  • Surely the fact that the thread is making you very angry is itself evidence that it is in the right place?
  • BroJames wrote: »
    I would suggest because it is an issue
    where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap.
    and it
    will be allowed to reflect all widely held views, even if they are considered offensive by some
    As I recall, the offensive views refers to those who do not accept the identity, not those who hold it.
    And if I go down there and challenge those views on that I will get slapped by the hosts.
    Again, it is not that I fail to recognise that there are parts of the male identity that can be problematic. It is that the general nature of the thread implies more than exists because maleness is not a deficit in a male-dominated society.
    What next, The Perils of Being English in the UK?
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Every possible issue has people who are invested in it, but that does not translate to every issue being one where personal investment is inherent. One cannot embrace being black and have all the issues with blackness go away. One can embrace being male and not feel any of the issues, and indeed benefit from them.

    Please take that final sentence and substitute for "male" the term for ANY of the identity issues you've named. Doesn't your sentence still remain true? Cannot some members of an identified group "embrace being [a member of said group] and not feel any of the issues typically facing [said group] and indeed benefit from them?"

    Historically, people in such categories have entered sports, entertainment, politics, music, & the arts have "benefited" (as well as "suffered") from bringing forward to the general public awareness of their group's issues.

    Your sweepingly general insistence that men don't suffer as a group is complete nonsense.

  • If oppression of women is a legitimate topic for Epiphanies, and you cannot reasonably discuss male oppression except in the context of oppression of women, then it follows that male oppression is a legitimate topic for Epiphanies.
  • asherasher Shipmate
    I have communist friends who hate religion.....im glad religion is a protected characteristic.

    I know nut jobs who hate the gays....im glad sexuality is a protected characteristic

    I'm equally glad that gender is a protected characteristic.

    It seems here that when it comes to male gender @lilbuddha is not glad, and wishes that only gender approved by her should be awarded protected status.

    For me this undermines the foundations of her palace of wokefulness.

    This is infuriating and a little funny.

    Asher
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited November 24
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    BroJames wrote: »
    I would suggest because it is an issue
    where people are personally invested, where academic detachment just isn't possible, and where issues and identity significantly overlap.
    and it
    will be allowed to reflect all widely held views, even if they are considered offensive by some
    As I recall, the offensive views refers to those who do not accept the identity, not those who hold it.
    And if I go down there and challenge those views on that I will get slapped by the hosts.
    Again, it is not that I fail to recognise that there are parts of the male identity that can be problematic. It is that the general nature of the thread implies more than exists because maleness is not a deficit in a male-dominated society.
    What next, The Perils of Being English in the UK?

    I suppose my response to that is to say that patriarchal society in the form that was passed on to me has been harmful to men in a number of specific and clearly identifiable ways.

    Further, criticisms of patriarchy tend not to distinguish between one man and another. It is extremely rare IME to find in criticisms of men in comments about patriarchy or misogyny which recognise that not all men have caused or are causing the present situation unless the person making the statement is specifically called on it.

    Similarly generalisations about men’s inability to nurture, to care for children, to multi-task, to work collegially and relationally are as untrue for some men as any other generalisations for other groups, and men also feel the downside of the societal gender expectations of those roles. (Ask many child-carer men who have tried to join in a parent and baby or parent and toddler group, or who have had to change their baby’s nappy on the floor of the gents toilets.)

    I agree that men as a group, especially middle class, middle-aged white men are among the least oppressed. But that doesn’t mean that there are not in that group those who suffer from the strictures of patriarchal society.

    My own view is that it is more likely that men will overcome the pressures of those structures if they have some space in which it is safe to share those experiences, to learn from others facing the same challenges, and to share good practice.

    Potentially Epiphanies could in a small way be such a space.

    I have now entered my seventh decade, but I did not make patriarchy, I inherited it. With the help of my mother and sisters, and yes, my father and brother too, I hope I have done a fair amount to resist and dismantle it. But I also recognise that it can be a very hard journey for some who have had patriarchal shaping imposed upon them by their fathers and their mothers, and sometimes particularly hard for those who for reasons of class, race, or economic hardship find their only remaining source of affirmation in being a ‘manly’ man.

    As for “The Perils of Being English in the UK?”, try it in that space which is designated as Scottish.
  • {tl;dr It's not that simple, re the various perspectives posted on this thread.}

    I think LilBuddha is saying that Epiph. is supposed to be a safe place, and (to her) it isn't anymore.

    I can kind of, sort of see that. I'm trying to proceed carefully if posting in Epiph.. I think I generally only post there when a thread I'm on is moved there. While having a safe(r) space for personally-invested discussions is good, I think, it also makes discussion harder. And I'm not always sure a) what eggs not to walk on, in a particular thread; and b) how to go about that.

    I've got issues about men (individuals and group), patriarchy, etc. I've been in women-only situations to discuss childhood #MeToo experiences--a convention for that, actually. In most cases, the perpetrators had been men. No men were allowed in the building. A female security team was there to insure that. When, years later, the convention began allowing male survivors to attend, because there wasn't anything like that available to them, the place no longer felt as safe. Boys get abused, too; and they absolutely have a right to do their healing, too. But trying to do that together made something good to be less good for the people who were already there and being helped.

    So yes, while I can definitely understand wanting to keep men from (seemingly) whining or making too much of their experiences, compared to the experiences of those hurt by men, it's not that simple.

    Men are individuals, and they get hurt, too. They have a right to deal with that. There are decent men, and "trying to be decent" men, and others that aren't (yet) in those categories. (And I'm speaking of men in general, not trying to sort the men of the Ship into those categories.) TBH, everyone will be better off when men do their individual and collective healing.

    So safety can be hard to balance with other needs, and I don't have any magic answers for how to do that.

    But I don't think saying "you're not oppressed enough to be here, discussing X" fixes anything, especially in a shared environment. It just causes pain and rage.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    What next, The Perils of Being English in the UK?

    You have been trying to equate race with gender on this issue for a while now and you’re wrong.

    Being white is only a privilege*. Sadly, the state of the world is that there are no barriers, struggles, social disadvantages or difficulties that are peculiar to being white. Yes, the idea of International White People Day or some safe space to explore being white is silly - for that reason.

    The same is not the case for maleness. There are barriers, struggles, social disadvantages and difficulties peculiar to being male. And anyone who needs a safe space on the Ship to explore those kind of personal identity struggles should be able to do so without arseholes invading it and telling them their struggles don’t count. That’s why Epiphanies was a good solution for where the Ship found itself, and it is a tragic irony that from being a catalyst for its creation you are so furiously in the wrong now.

    * I’m sure that someone can come up with something, but in essence, I think you’ll agree a statement that sweeping is justified.
  • The threads are in fact completely separate; nobody needs to read a thread that makes them feel unsafe. I fear that lilbuddha's true objection is as she stated: "If I go down tbere and challenge those views on that I will get slapped by the hosts". Why, yes; because Epiphanies is not the place to get full-on aggressive on ANYBODY'S thread, as one might (nonpersonally) in Purg or even better Hell. In short, lilbuddha is objecting to even-handedness. If she wishes to post challenges on a particular subject, then by definition that thread ought not to be in a place where she is prevented from doing so. Others can just lump it.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    {tl;dr It's not that simple, re the various perspectives posted on this thread.}

    I think LilBuddha is saying that Epiph. is supposed to be a safe place, and (to her) it isn't anymore.

    I can kind of, sort of see that. I'm trying to proceed carefully if posting in Epiph.. I think I generally only post there when a thread I'm on is moved there. While having a safe(r) space for personally-invested discussions is good, I think, it also makes discussion harder. And I'm not always sure a) what eggs not to walk on, in a particular thread; and b) how to go about that.

    I've got issues about men (individuals and group), patriarchy, etc. I've been in women-only situations to discuss childhood #MeToo experiences--a convention for that, actually. In most cases, the perpetrators had been men. No men were allowed in the building. A female security team was there to insure that. When, years later, the convention began allowing male survivors to attend, because there wasn't anything like that available to them, the place no longer felt as safe. Boys get abused, too; and they absolutely have a right to do their healing, too. But trying to do that together made something good to be less good for the people who were already there and being helped.

    So yes, while I can definitely understand wanting to keep men from (seemingly) whining or making too much of their experiences, compared to the experiences of those hurt by men, it's not that simple.

    Men are individuals, and they get hurt, too. They have a right to deal with that. There are decent men, and "trying to be decent" men, and others that aren't (yet) in those categories. (And I'm speaking of men in general, not trying to sort the men of the Ship into those categories.) TBH, everyone will be better off when men do their individual and collective healing.

    So safety can be hard to balance with other needs, and I don't have any magic answers for how to do that.
    Thank you for listening enough to understand.
    Golden Key wrote: »
    But I don't think saying "you're not oppressed enough to be here, discussing X" fixes anything, especially in a shared environment. It just causes pain and rage.
    It is funny, I am accused of not being sensitive to them, but they are not even trying to see where I am coming from.

  • The very fact that lilBuddha is having this reaction proves the thread is in the right place. It seems what she doesn't like about that is she can't be as snotty and snide and nasty about men and men's suffering as she would like to be, because it's in Epiphanies.
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Hell Host
    edited November 25
    The point is, not to discuss men's suffering at the hands of women (because that would be a dick move), but to discus men's suffering at the hands of men, whether that is by their own hand (which it is, often), or by the patriarchal systems that are still in place (which is also often). Sometimes women are complicit in maintaining the patriarchal structure, but this isn't about them - it's about the system.
  • asherasher Shipmate
    This.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The point is, not to discuss men's suffering at the hands of women (because that would be a dick move), but to discus men's suffering at the hands of men, whether that is by their own hand (which it is, often), or by the patriarchal systems that are still in place (which is also often). Sometimes women are complicit in maintaining the patriarchal structure, but this isn't about them - it's about the system.

    And, in particular, to bring it back around, the effect the system has on men.
  • Agreed
  • I have worked with people of various groups to help them understand others and reduce their prejudices. I use their own experiences to do this.¹ So help women understand racism, black people understand homophobia, help one group understand their racism in the light of the racism they face, etc. It is not 100% for any group, but the group that has the most reluctance to see the problems of others is straight, white men. Why? IMO because there is nothing inherent in any of those classifications that allows an opening.
    There are SWM who do get it, of course. And there are those who feel pain, pressure, ostracised, etc because they do not conform, and they tend to be more receptive. But, as a group; straight, white males connect the least well.
    Keep in mind, that these are people who have expressed prejudices and the have the willingness to engage in a discussion about them. So SWM who already get it and those who do not wish to listen are not part of that sample.

    ¹Mine as well, but using theirs is more effective. Some more formally and some opportunistically.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    The very fact that lilBuddha is having this reaction proves the thread is in the right place. It seems what she doesn't like about that is she can't be as snotty and snide and nasty about men and men's suffering as she would like to be, because it's in Epiphanies.
    Way to miss what I actually mean. I don't want to be nasty about men's actual suffering. I've seen what men who do not conform can go through from other men.
    I don't agree, though, that merely being a man in a man's society is a thing that inherently engenders problems.
    Telling is that the first, and most common reaction is yelling at me for being horrible instead of actually arguing the case.
    Telling is that few of you are actually trying to understand where I am coming from.
Sign In or Register to comment.