Escaping the Echo Chamber

[yovargas]

Okay.... but right now our society is engaged in a discussion reevaluating all kinds of aspects of gender, gender roles, sexual relationships, ect ect, and that classic nature vs nurture question is crucial to how we have that discussion. Simply saying "everyone should try to behave ethically" doesn't really address much of the issues that are coming up.

Take an awful and extreme example: pedophiles. Nobody is going to argue that pedophilia is anything but terrible, regardless. But the questions of "how should we treat pedophiles" and "what should we do about them" are going to answered very differently depending on whether you believe that those terrible urges are something that is simply an unchangeable part of how they are wired, versus whether you believe it is a cureable disease. It would also be very different if you believe these people are born this way, or if you believe something in their environment caused them to be that way.

[Frelga]

While an extreme example, much of the confusion goes away once you focus on the reality that pedophiles hurt children who do not have the ability to defend themselves, and so any solutions should prioritize protecting children over reforming a perpetrator. As with Nazis (which used to be an extreme example), I don't care why they do what they do, I just want them stopped.

[yovargas]

That's just it though, the best way to stop it, not just now but going forward, can very much depend on the answer to that question. If you want to solve a problem, it's usually best to understand the cause of it.

[Frelga]

That's what the kids today call a privileged worldview. You can theorize about causes when you or someone you love is not the target of violence. When it is you, you just want it stopped with extreme prejudice.

[elengil]

That's what the kids today call a privileged worldview. You can theorize about causes when you or someone you love is not the target of violence. When it is you, you just want it stopped with extreme prejudice.

^ This.

[yovargas]

If thinking beyond the immediate makes me "privileged", then I will happily consider myself privileged.

[elengil]

If thinking beyond the immediate makes me "privileged", then I will happily consider myself privileged.

It's not that, Yov. It's being free to think in terms of philosophy and theory instead of being subjected to what is going on and needing it to stop now.

One can feel free to discuss the philosophical and cultural merits, the complex history, the potential social impact of, say, being able to confine family members to mental institutions. But if your daughter's husband decided she was crazy for being angry he was cheating on her and sent her to an institution, you wouldn't be willing to sit down and discuss the broader social impact of the conceptual idea, you'd be extremely unwilling to sit down over coffee and be told you aren't thinking 'beyond the immediate'.

This is something that used to happen. And while it may be okay in certain circumstances to want to debate the merits of the idea, or even pick at the details of a particular case, if it was you, your child, your circumstance, debate happens later, maybe never. The first step is get your child out of the institution. Maybe the second step is discuss the problem of how society let this happen. Third step perhaps demand a professional be consulted prior to just letting a husband commit his wife for whatever reason he can cook up.

I'm betting having a 'deep, philosophical discussion' with the husband about how history and culture combined to allow him to grow up feeling entitled enough to cheat on his wife, and then turn around and commit her for not being okay with it would not appear on your list of priorities.

So when people say they don't care about delving into the 'why' or the mental exercises, they're already dealing with a far more pressing and immediate issue.

So yes, it is a privilege to be able to take that approach, which is something some people don't have the luxury of doing.

[yovargas]

None of which has anything to do with the conversation. In fact, it seems to be arguing against having conversations. If you don't want to join the discussion, feel free to stay out. I will continue to participate in them because I think they are valuable and important.

I also think it is worth considering that in our society, we do not let the victim of a crime how the perpetrator is punished. I happen to think that is a good thing. The jury has the "privilege" to be impartial and thank goodness for that.

[elengil]

None of which has anything to do with the conversation. In fact, it seems to be arguing against having conversations. If you don't want to join the discussion, feel free to stay out. I will continue to participate in them because I think they are valuable and important.

I was trying to use a relatively uncharged example as an example. I was trying to explain why a person or group may emphatically not want to be forced to have a conversation about something that is actively damaging them, not that the conversation should not be had ever by anyone.

I also think it is worth considering that in our society, we do not let the victim of a crime how the perpetrator is punished. I happen to think that is a good thing. The jury has the "privilege" to be impartial and thank goodness for that.

You keep using privilege as if it's an insult or a bad thing. Yes, it is a privilege not to be the victim of a crime. It is also somewhat laughable to think any group of people is actually impartial, but there can be varying degrees of bias depending on how close you, personally, are to the crime in question. So yes, it is a privilege to be on a jury and not to have been the victim in a similar type of crime.

And of course we don't let the victim determine the punishment. But we also don't force the victim to empathize with or try to discuss the psychological 'why's of what prompted their abuser (or whatever) to engage in their abusive behavior. Those of us who are privileged not to be the victims do have the luxury to discuss such things from a dispassionate, removed viewpoint.

[RoseMorninStar]

Okay.... but right now our society is engaged in a discussion reevaluating all kinds of aspects of gender, gender roles, sexual relationships, ect ect, and that classic nature vs nurture question is crucial to how we have that discussion. Simply saying "everyone should try to behave ethically" doesn't really address much of the issues that are coming up.

Take an awful and extreme example: pedophiles. Nobody is going to argue that pedophilia is anything but terrible, regardless. But the questions of "how should we treat pedophiles" and "what should we do about them" are going to answered very differently depending on whether you believe that those terrible urges are something that is simply an unchangeable part of how they are wired, versus whether you believe it is a cureable disease. It would also be very different if you believe these people are born this way, or if you believe something in their environment caused them to be that way.

While an extreme example, much of the confusion goes away once you focus on the reality that pedophiles hurt children who do not have the ability to defend themselves, and so any solutions should prioritize protecting children over reforming a perpetrator. As with Nazis (which used to be an extreme example), I don't care why they do what they do, I just want them stopped.

Lots to unpack here. I've been thinking about this topic lately.. due to my history/experiences and people like Epstein & Weinstein being in the news. Ethical behavior should be viewed from the point of victims, not the abuser. Who has power, who does not? An abuser does not get to say whether or not another was injured by their actions, because they will deny it or blame it on their 'biological urges that cannot be helped,' or justify their actions as the Nazi's did during the holocaust.

Out of practical curiosity yov, what might you think a different way of dealing with pedophiles (for example), how they be treated/what should be done depending upon 'curable' vs. unchangeable wiring, would look like? What would be the difference in outcomes?

I believe there are those who are pedophiles and those who are sexual opportunists.. those who (sexually) take advantage of whomever they can, and this is most often the powerless, the young, the poor, the elderly, the institutionalized. That is the problem. It isn't about sexual preference or sex (imo) as it is about power. Sex is the vehicle for their power over another.

[River]

To borrow from Oscar Wilde, everything is about sex except sex. Sex is about power. The MeToo movement threw that into sharp relief. If you look closely, it wasn't so much about men vs. women as powerful vs. weak. But no one really managed to get there because, for one reason or another, we're not ready for it.

As far as culture and masculinity go, I think it's worth exploring because it helps distill what it means to be a man in these modern times. Once upon a time, women would pay a social price and maybe even go to jail for wearing trousers in public. Now it's such a normal thing they make maternity blue jeans. However, men can't throw on a skirt without paying a social price. Even if it's a Utilikilt, people are going to look twice. We'll have hit true gender equality when a dude can throw on a maxi dress and be taken as seriously as a chick in blue jeans. I'm not saying that to be funny, either.

Anyway, the real reason I brought it up is because, having married an immigrant, I live in a sort of weird cultural seam. The differences aren't huge, but every now and then they come around to slap one of us in the face. Expectations about gender roles. How emotions get expressed and reactions get interpreted, and so on. I'm not sure Serbian men are constantly bracing for fistfights with each other. I know they don't prize stoicism the same way the midwestern American variety does (to quote my husband, "These Protestants like to suffer"). But that protective thing...that's present in both Serbian and American men.

[RoseMorninStar]

To borrow from Oscar Wilde, everything is about sex except sex. Sex is about power. The MeToo movement threw that into sharp relief. If you look closely, it wasn't so much about men vs. women as powerful vs. weak. But no one really managed to get there because, for one reason or another, we're not ready for it.

As far as culture and masculinity go, I think it's worth exploring because it helps distill what it means to be a man in these modern times. Once upon a time, women would pay a social price and maybe even go to jail for wearing trousers in public. Now it's such a normal thing they make maternity blue jeans. However, men can't throw on a skirt without paying a social price. Even if it's a Utilikilt, people are going to look twice. We'll have hit true gender equality when a dude can throw on a maxi dress and be taken as seriously as a chick in blue jeans. I'm not saying that to be funny, either.

This is a good point River. This summer I was at our local Farmer's market & ran into an old friend & we were chatting. In my side vision I saw 2 people walk up to a vegetable stall. They were similarly dressed in very feminine blouses and long maxi skirts with sun hats. One was very obviously male. They seemed like very gentle people not hurting anyone or out to make a STATEMENT.. just two people out at the Farmer's Market. The person I was talking to kept making 'eyes' and tilting his head as if to draw attention to them in a 'hey, look at the weirdo's' kinda way. It annoyed the crap out of me and I ignored him. I live in a very conservative area, but seriously.. these people were adults out minding their own business.

[Dave_LF]

I'm not sure Serbian men are constantly bracing for fistfights with each other.

I laughed aloud when I read that quote ("to put it simply: Every social encounter between men is potentially a fistfight") because I immediately perceived the truth of it, but it is also hyperbole. We're not literally worried about getting into fistfights, at least not under normal circumstances, but there is always a delicate balancing act going on trying to simultaneously communicate "I respect you and do not intend any aggression" and "but if you decide to get aggressive with me, I can and will take you down." It's very stressful.

I know they don't prize stoicism the same way the midwestern American variety does (to quote my husband, "These Protestants like to suffer").

The connection to Protestantism occurred to me too, especially after reading this and his midwest article back to back. Though I do think that (ex) Protestant men get hit with the "there is a set amount of physical pain or self-imposed discipline that [you] owe the universe" train from two directions.

(I quibble with the word "set," though. I don't think it is possible to suffer enough to satisfy whoever makes these rules)

[Alatar]

I read about half the "Man" article and pretty much none of it applied to me. I dunno if thats cause Irish people have different priorities, or I'm just a wuss. Possibly both.

[Dave_LF]

Well maybe everything he writes about is culture then. I just did some Facebook stalking and discovered that the author I and were born 6 months apart and grew up within 80 miles of each other, both in fundamentalist Protestant communities. So it would appear there's an excellent reason his writing resonates with me.

[River]

I read about half the "Man" article and pretty much none of it applied to me. I dunno if thats cause Irish people have different priorities, or I'm just a wuss. Possibly both.

I suspect it's more of a difference in priorities, but you could pass the article on to your buddies and see what they say.

Dave, I've observed a lot of male-to-male posturing. It happens when you work in a gender-skewed environment. Sometimes it's entertaining. Sometimes it's scary, like when it's your boss and your uber-boss and the rest of the team is in the crossfire. Most of the time it's just there. While dominance games transcend culture (and gender, honestly, but in this thread we're talking about dudes) the rules of the games are cultural. Americans do it one way. Serbs do it another. And so on.

[yovargas]

I definitely did not personally connect to anything the article was saying about his experience of masculinity, but I still thought it was a really interesting peak into the experience of some men. I certainly recognized some of what he was saying from some popular depictions of maleness.

For myself, I tend to react with some confusion to this kind of thing. I can't recall ever being particularly concerned about whether I was doing the I Am A Man thing correctly. I just never knew why I should care much one way or the other. But then, as a gay dude, maybe the dynamics of that stuff is different. I think I would feel the same way even if I was attracted to women instead of men but who knows. Generally speaking, I suppose, if one were to categorize everything as masculine or feminine, I would probably say that I am personally more comfortable with masculine things - I certainly have no interest in feminine clothing and the like - but I don't generally concern myself with it and if there's something that I do or like that may be seen as feminine, well, who cares? I actually did the cross-dressing thing one time ages ago and my feelings were just that, a *shrug* I'm in a different outfit but it's still the same me underneath so who cares. I can't see why it matters.

But then, in recent years there has been a lot of of increased attention being paid to the issues facing people like the transgender or non-binary. And while I'm sitting here thinking "who cares about whether you wear pants or a skirt?", there are some people for whom it is apparently deeply, profoundly important. For the life of me I can't figure out why, but the fact that it's so important that some people are willing to put themselves through extreme social pains just to present themselves as 'masculine' or 'feminine' would seem to suggest that there's something more to all this than just the superficial stuff that it feels like to me.

[Dave_LF]

You know, I'm going to be annoyed if it turns out I'm the only one. I've been carrying the burden of some of this bullshite since first grade, and if it turns out the whole time I could have just shrugged and said "no, I don't want to do that," well...

[yovargas]

I feel like I've been saying "*shrug* no, I don't want to do that" for as long as I can remember.

[Dave_LF]

A little anecdote that's sort of related, sort of not. My five-year-old son started taking gymnastics this summer. I don't know what he thought gymnastics was exactly, but in the days leading up to his first class, he got very, very excited. The big day finally arrived, but when I drove him to the gym, he didn't want to get out of the car. "What's the matter?" I asked. "I thought you were excited about this?" And he looked me right in the eye and said "I am excited, but I'm kind of nervous too." And the utter guilelessnes of that statement completely bowled me over. Because I feel like that all the time--who doesn't?--but I would never, ever admit it to anyone. Not unless I was extremely comfortable with the person, at least, and even then it would be with a wry smile and downcast eye. But 5 didn't care--he had no concept that feeling nervous is something you're supposed to be ashamed of. I'd like to think that's because he's growing up in a world where the tyranny of social expectations is a bit less tyrannical, but I'm sure in reality it's just "the innocence of childhood", i.e. his inability to reflect and introspect. But I'd still like to think he'll have things at least a little easier than I did, at least on that front.

Also related: I also liked gymnastics as a kid, but stopped pursuing it because my peers let me know that it was for girls