Men's Rights/Gender Issues category

[dsayers]

Correct. I did not assume what you were thinking.

 

So when I share my interpretation of what I'm seeing, I'm presuming what others are thinking, but when you share your interpretation of what you're seeing, you're not presuming what others are thinking? Even though to say that I'm presuming what others are thinking is presuming what I'm thinking? This thread is almost like a black hole of consistency.

 

You put forth the standard that people have to care about something in order to have a discussion about it. I pointed out that whether or not somebody cares cannot change the truth value of a statement. Somebody else spoke up saying that they cared. You continued as if no correction was made. The only time I've seen somebody behave in this manner is when they're on the attack and landing a blow is more important than being honest.

 

And here come the downvotes. Kind of like getting a youtube channel shut down instead of making a counter-argument. I really nailed it when I observed the bias in the title and the potential for emotional responses in lieu of productive discussion. Arguably the top three members of the community resorting to ad hominem with my position remaining unassailed. Y'all flatter me.

[Frosty]

My opinion is that the title is functionally fine.

 

This whole debate for me seems to be analogous to this new wave of "triggering" we've seen in feminist dialogue, some people seem to be upset by arbitrarily gentle wording and are demanding trigger warnings in popular discourse and science papers among other things.

 

It's simply a matter of practicality that we draw a line somewhere and say its unreasonable to change language because some fringe group is upset by words or interpret them in some way that the masses don't, primarily because you'll always find someone who is upset by the most gentle of language and always misinterprets the most clear language.

 

That's not meant to be insulting, this is point of view that's primarily concerned with practicality over anything else.

[James Dean]

I don't want to weigh in too much on personal interactions between other members of the forums, and of course what I'm saying could be utter nonsense. In my opinion, it would be productive to acknowledge and attempt to address the emotional experience of the other people in the exchange. Dsayers feels uncomfortable, feels as if he's being put into an impossible situation, yet no one said, "tell me more" or really explored that with him, at least publicly. James, Kevin and others (it seems, corrections if I'm wrong) honestly feel angry with Dsayers for being passive aggressive and assuming what they are thinking, yet Dsayers doesn't really address this either and is now, rightly or wrongly, getting defensive. Again, this is just opinions of mine but wouldn't it be better to address this more openly? Maybe it's not appropriate here, but it seems like both parties are not being listened to. 

 

I still think the question on the title is important, so if we get back on track discussing that, I'll make another argument.

 

Dsayers, corrections welcome of course, is the principal you are putting forward is, 'If a title contains specifics that are reasonably subsumed within other titular concepts, this constitutes a non-philosophical title." ? Then the title of this topic would not be the only violator of that principal. There is a subtopic called "Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Economics." By that principal should we also rename this topic "economics" or "politics" because Libertarianism and Anarchism are, at least in part, economic systems? Using your (persuasive!) example of the 'math textbook about 2, 18, and all other numbers," why wouldn't this also constitute a non-philosophical title? Furthermore, is it unphilosophical that all threads are not posted in the "philosophy" subtopic because all pursuits are reasonably subsumed under the concept of philosophy? That's why we often refer to this show as a philosophy show, because it's all inclusive. 

 

It comes down to a system of competing values. There is value in the convenience of using a large concept that covers all possible sub topics. For instance, referring to FDR as "a philosophy show", as opposed to "a politics, self-knowledge, gender issues, metaphysics, epistemology and philosophy show."There is also a great value in specificity, especially in this instance. Using your example again, the oddly named math textbook seems redundant to us because the number 2 isn't an important enough concept to warrant a specification in the title. It might not even warrant a chapter heading. However, the reverse is true in that all textbooks shouldn't therefor be called 'math' we often subdivide it into "algebra" and "calculous" and so on, because these concepts are of important to the author, he/she felt it needed to be specified. While it would be technically correct to name a calculous book "math" we can see how that would be so general as to cause inefficiency. You could take it even further and say math is too specific and all textbooks of all subjects should be titled "knowledge" for maximum accuracy. And in fact, the chapter headings should all be simply "knowledge" and all sub chapters titled, "knowledge" as well. 

 

It may just be a weakness in my argument, and I'm happy to hear all about that, but it seems to me that there's just a value judgement made by the author of an work about what concepts deserve specifications based on the competing values of the author. I think in this case, you can make a reasonable assertion that both Men's issues and Feminism are salient enough topics in the real world, have a large enough personal effect across swathes of the population, carry enough name recognition, and (more referring to men's issues) are discouraged from public discourse enough to warrant a specification in the title. 

 

This is why I defer to Mike and other staff when making this call, at the end of the day it's a value judgement. I made one when I proposed a title in the original post, mike made one when he renamed it to include feminism and gender issues, you're making one when you suggest a different title, that's how the show grows out of the richness of diverse ideas. I think the best we can do is make the best case for whatever title we think would work for whatever reasons and defer to the (I think well earned) authority of Mike and other people who's job it is to worry about stuff like "are titles too specific or general." (I'm not sure, but I think this is what Kevin was hinting at with the "pick your battles" sentiment.) 

 

P.S. I'm running late for work so this was a little rushed, I'm sure I might have missed something obvious, be kind with me for any fallacious logic I might have used.

[dsayers]

is the principal you are putting forward is, 'If a title contains specifics that are reasonably subsumed within other titular concepts, this constitutes a non-philosophical title." ?

 

Not exactly this, but that's a fair starting point. Gender doesn't just encompass men's issues and feminism, it represents them without bias. As we saw earlier in the thread, some people view men's issues/feminism as positive and others as negative. I think it's compounded by the wording disparity: It doesn't say men's issues and women's issues; it doesn't say masculism and feminism. This provokes one's bias even before entering and to what end?

 

On a side note, I had asked a friend of mine who's not particularly philosophically inclined what he thought between the two options. He said that both sounded like they were talking about gay's rights or sex-change operations. So it could even be argued that my suggestion isn't particularly clear either. The problem is that no counterargument has been offered at all.

 

Thank you for weighing in on the personal interactions. In my defense, in response to a rational case being made, I was met with "I spend my time more productively than you," "why is it a problem/why spend more time," and "who cares?" These are not rigorous, so I reject the claim that I'm obligated to listen when somebody is talking about a square circle, or otherwise not addressing the topic at all. If you'll look closely, none of them answered a single direct question of which they had many to choose from. This sort of makes me chronologically immune to blame, yet I maintained a dignified position just the same (up until the y'all flatter me remark).

 

Furthermore, I've been forthcoming with my feelings and have not been met in kind. Double entendre intended. I know that I have not been acting passive-aggressively and I know that even if I had, it would not be as important as the personal attacks that provoked it. The claim of passive-aggressive was an appeal to insecurity in lieu of addressing the topic/case at hand. I have a history of passive-aggressive behavior, so I'm adept at preventing it and identifying it. Do you not agree that it is a square circle to be claiming to know what somebody is thinking while holding it against them for what is perceived to be claiming to know what somebody is thinking? Or accusing somebody of putting somebody in a catch 22 when the one being accused had bee placed in the catch 22?

[PatrickC]

Hey dsayers, why not suggest a natter with Stef sometime. I'm concerned this conversation isn't going anywhere for you at the moment and the board can be the worst place to try and have it.

[dsayers]

To what end? I'm secure enough that I can withstand personal attacks. I only bother speaking on it at all because in this place, I think the need for integrity, honesty, and rational discussion is paramount. I think those who resort to personal attacks or pretend to refute rationality irrationally need to be held accountable, if only by it being pointed out that "who cares," "why spend more time," "I spend my time more productively than you" are not arguments and cannot lead to understanding the truth value of an objective claim.

[JamesP]

Wait a second. YOU spent more time on the name of the forum by adding to it, claiming it's a problem. When I pointed out that it's not a problem and asked you questions, you ignored that you put words into my mouth, ignored my questions, and are now asking me why spend more time on it, the very act of which is spending more time on it.

 

This is incorrect. Asking, "Why spend more time on this?" is not spending time on the name of the forum, but asking you why you are so motivated to make several multi-paragraph posts on something that, frankly, very few people will ever care about. Further, you're claiming to not be reacting emotionally but have spent some considerable time writing posts which include insults to Mike and myself, which is fairly indicative of some emotional reactivity going on.

 

My unsolicited advice: take a break and figure out what's going on. Or, let's have a call on the call-in about it. Either way, please stop posting in this thread, at least for a little while.

[dsayers]

Asking, "Why spend more time on this?" is not spending time on the name of the forum, but asking you why you are so motivated to make several multi-paragraph posts on something that, frankly, very few people will ever care about.

 

And the post you made it as a response to wasn't spending more time on the title of the forum, it was time spent addressing what I felt (and continue to feel given escalation of the same) is manipulation. Here, you're implying that lack of brevity denotes emotional reaction and that emotions are somehow bad. I've been forthcoming with my emotional experience, while remaining rational. On the other hand, you are trying to use that against me while continuing to not answer a single question I've asked of you. Meanwhile, you're suggesting I stop and figure out what's going on when a) I've already done this and b) you don't appear to be willing to. It's contradiction after contradiction and I think it's beneath you.

 

Also, what insult? If saying you did not answer direct questions and provided no counter-argument is insulting, this has nothing to do with me. Meanwhile, I think putting forth "it's not important," "why is this (non-problem) a problem," and "why spend more time on this" is dismissive, and therefore insulting. What about that? Can you answer this or will you maintain the double standard? If you are unwilling to have a discussion here, what reason would I have to suspect that a phone call would go better? This isn't subject material that is private. In fact, I thought the audience was part of your motivation. After all, I highly doubt I'd be getting downvoted for putting forth that challenges to you that I have if the person I was challenging said the things you've said and didn't have a staff badge. I realize that is highly speculative, but being called to task and wanting it to be moved into private, complete with a veiled order to be silent certainly lends credence to that theory.

 

Again, I ask of you, James, directly: What is the purpose of offsetting/marginalizing my input? If you did not care for my suggestion, you could go about your day. You made several efforts to quash it without merit, so it's important that you're able to answer that question.

[AustinJames]

Perhaps accuracy in reference to subject matter is not paramount in selecting a title.

 

I once titled a blog, "Sex, God, and Coke."  The forthcoming article had little to do with either Sex, God, or Coke (it was about propaganda and data manipulation); I just thought this title would grab people's attention.  It also set me up to draw a few ironic speculations about the subject matter, in reference to the audience's reaction to the title.

 

The point is, perhaps the most accurate title, according to the subject matter, is not optimal for the purpose of evoking a desired response.  A controversial title may be more effective in producing a meaningful conversation, or attracting more members and potential donators.

[cynicist]

I don't understand why a forum dedicated to Men's Issues in particular is automatically denigrating women, or how it is 'unphilosophical' in any way. Stefan talks about men's rights on his show more because feminism is pretty well explored everywhere else, why wouldn't the same principle apply here? I think the current title/description is great but the fact that this turned into an 'issue' is very strange.

[cynicist]

What I also did not do is accuse James of being manipulative. I told him that what he said struck me as if it were manipulative. I didn't phrase that as an accusation because I accept my own capacity for error. What I did do is express the discomfort I felt. I was also open with how *I* felt as if I was a damned if I do damned if I don't because I could either let him control the narrative, claiming it was a problem, or I could respond as if I was the crazy guy getting bent out of shape over nothing. As far as I understand it, this is an example of RTR.

 

Accusing someone of being manipulative and saying that their words "struck you" as if they were manipulative (aka you "felt" they were manipulative) is the same thing. Expressing feelings of discomfort would be saying something like "I felt hurt when you said that". You actually never once mentioned your feelings in this entire thread, instead you chose to mention what you thought was occurring to you or what you thought others were doing in the thread. (ex. 'marginalized', 'alienated', 'manipulated', 'shame me', etc)

[Kevin Beal]

*bump*

[WasatchMan]

I am confused why debating the naming of something on a philosophy forum would receive so much push back, to the point of what I perceive as evasion. 

 

While I can see why debating a title would regularly be considered nitpicking, when it comes to philosophy I find proper naming and identification extremely important. If we can't even properly identify things, how can we be expected to discuss anything deeper?

 

"Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification.." Ayn Rand

 

Just some food for thought...

[Kevin Beal]

While I can see why debating a title would regularly be considered nitpicking, when it comes to philosophy I find proper naming and identification extremely important. If we can't even properly identify things, how can we be expected to discuss anything deeper?

Calling taxation theft clarifies in that it brings to light the moral nature of what is going on. Calling circumcision "genital mutilation" is similarly clarifying. The proper naming is important for particular reasons, not simply because it is more accurate.

 

Bubbly wine that doesn't come from the province of Champagne cannot accurately be called "champagne". If you call it "champagne" and not bubbly wine, then you are simply wrong. But who the hell cares? Wine snobs mostly. If you call it bubbly wine, you are more likely to confuse people than help them, that being the opposite result of the previous examples.

 

What are we talking about in this sub forum? Well, the kinds of stuff you think about when you hear "men's rights", it doesn't have to be confined to that, but I think it's pretty obvious that's what we're talking about. That's what was requested.

 

Having the standard that we should be precise with our language is all good and great, obviously. Who can argue with that? But I think, there are better uses of the mods' time, personally.

 

Make sense?

[dsayers]

who the hell cares?

 

Anybody who makes an effort to communicate is also communicating 1) that they care enough to communicate and 2) they desire for their communication to be received. Communicating, receiving a valid correction, and answering with "who cares" is backpedaling. It's like saying "it was just a joke" or "why so serious?" It's essentially jettisoning responsibility while simultaneously claiming the other person is the one who erred. In other words, it's emotional manipulation and evasion of self-knowledge.

 

If you call it bubbly wine, you are more likely to confuse people than help them

 

How do you know? How is that relevant? Are you saying that you think there are people who will be confused by the proposition that the word gender encompasses male and female? Hell, it technically includes transgendered, hermaphroties, etc. The existing title doesn't, despite using five times as many words.

 

You say who cares and that precision is unimportant when you decide so, but look again. Nobody just disagreed. A few people experienced such an emotional reaction that they behaved in an uncharacteristically unphilosophical manner. When this was pointed out, they doubled down. People who don't care or disagree that precision is valuable just shrug their shoulders and move on. They don't actively try to shame another person for offering a valid correction.