The best that men can get..

[Scomagia]

This why I love being a white man. Everything is so good for us lads at the moment that even the slightest notion that we as a collective could or should be better people has us foaming at the mouth.

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

[The Federated Soviets of North America]

This why I love being a white man. Everything is so good for us lads at the moment that even the slightest notion that we as a collective could or should be better people has us foaming at the mouth.

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

Good thing no one actually thinks that

[The Federated Soviets of North America]

This ad essentially amounts to an anti-bullying/sexual harassment campaign, it is absolutely hilarious that people are genuinely offended by it

[Scomagia]

Again it's a disgusting thing to say but I'm not seeing the admission to sexual assault. The bit about kissing seems more like an attempt at comedic hyperbole than something he's actually saying he does or has done.

So "I did try and f--- her" isn't an admission of attempted sexual assault? Huh.

Considering that he made that comment next to a statement about showing her a store with good furniture, I'm pretty sure he meant that in the context of "I did nice things so she'd sleep with me". Vass dear, the normal response to someone saying they "tried to fuck" someone isn't to assume that they mean they tried to assault them. What bizarro universe do you come from where that's the normal way to interpret that statement?

[Scomagia]

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

Good thing no one actually thinks that

No one actually thinks that white men should behave in a specific way because of their race and sex? I mean, that's exactly what the ad is saying.

If you mean that no one thinks that's racist or sexist then you're wrong because it is actually both.

[Vassenor]

So "I did try and f--- her" isn't an admission of attempted sexual assault? Huh.

Considering that he made that comment next to a statement about showing her a store with good furniture, I'm pretty sure he meant that in the context of "I did nice things so she'd sleep with me". Vass dear, the normal response to someone saying they "tried to fuck" someone isn't to assume that they mean they tried to assault them. What bizarro universe do you come from where that's the normal way to interpret that statement?

Sure, devioid of context. When he's bragging about how easy it is to sexually assault people, on the other hand?

I'm still waiting for your comment on people using his words to justify their own sexual assaults to police.

[Scomagia]

Considering that he made that comment next to a statement about showing her a store with good furniture, I'm pretty sure he meant that in the context of "I did nice things so she'd sleep with me". Vass dear, the normal response to someone saying they "tried to fuck" someone isn't to assume that they mean they tried to assault them. What bizarro universe do you come from where that's the normal way to interpret that statement?

Sure, devioid of context. When he's bragging about how easy it is to sexually assault people, on the other hand?

I'm still waiting for your comment on people using his words to justify their own sexual assaults to police.

What do you want me to say about that, eh? People have cited The Catcher in the Rye as motivation for attempted assassinations. It turns out that fuckheads will cite a lot of things to justify their behavior. That doesn't make you personally responsible unless you specifically incited them to commit a crime.

Of all the things wrong with Trump, from mob connections (actually sort of unavoidable in N.Y. real estate and construction in the 90s) to endorsing a vampiric MLM scheme, you choose to seize on this bit of meaningless fluff. You don't have to reach this hard for reasons why he's a douchebag.

[Seangoli]

This why I love being a white man. Everything is so good for us lads at the moment that even the slightest notion that we as a collective could or should be better people has us foaming at the mouth.

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

I mean... that's how culture works and what culture is. It's a collective experience shared by people whom interact with on another, influencing each other is subtle ways over the course of their lives. It involves reinforcing certain behavior through subtle subconscious interactions. And people you hang around temd to influence you more heavily than those you don't, amd people in all cultures tend to hange around people they view as similar.

Meaning that, to a certain degree, there is a collective notion of masculinity shared by men whom interact with one another, and one aspect of this notion is ignore or forgiving certain types of shitty behavior due to viewing it as being in the realm of acceptable male behavior (even though most males don't engage in said behavior).

The same holds true for women, as well.

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

[Scomagia]

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

I mean... that's how culture works and what culture is. It's a collective experience shared by people whom interact with on another, influencing each other is subtle ways over the course of their lives. It involves reinforcing certain behavior through subtle subconscious interactions. And people you hang around temd to influence you more heavily than those you don't, amd people in all cultures tend to hange around people they view as similar.

Meaning that, to a certain degree, there is a collective notion of masculinity shared by men whom interact with one another, and one aspect of this notion is ignore or forgiving certain types of shitty behavior due to viewing it as being in the realm of acceptable male behavior (even though most males don't engage in said behavior).

The same holds true for women, as well.

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

[Ostroeuropa]

This ad essentially amounts to an anti-bullying/sexual harassment campaign, it is absolutely hilarious that people are genuinely offended by it

Produce a video telling Jews not to be economically corrupt and exploitative, see how well it goes down.

By framing it around MEN failing to intervene, women are absolved of their responsibility. This is akin to saying "The reason there are homeless people is that many Jews aren't paying their taxes as much as they should be to help them, only some of them are paying taxes. Jews, this is your responsibility, pay your taxes.".

Would you scoff and say "It's just a video about anti-tax dodging, it's hilarious people are offended by it."?

[Ostroeuropa]

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

This is not supported by actual studies on the matter. Women enforce social norms more than men, who tend not to enforce them unless women are around.

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

This also. It means there is a presumption that on a social scale that a lack of this intervention is the cause of these problems, and that these problems are caused by a failure to fulfill the social obligation to intervene. Partially true, but by framing it around MEN failing to intervene, women are absolved of their responsibility. This is akin to saying "The reason there are homeless people is that many Jews aren't paying their taxes as much as they should be to help them, only some of them are paying taxes. Jews, this is your responsibility, pay your taxes.".

It facilitates a negative and demonizing view of the demographic by acting like they are the primary or sole source of a collective failure to fulfil a social obligation.

It aligns with much of the criticism of feminism; they want all of the rights and none of the obligations. This is one example of it.

[Galloism]

Sauce.

Which people have used to justify their own actual commission of sexual assault.

It's worth note this is a major issue with being in a position of power - anything you say will be used and utilized by bad people to justify their behavior.

For instance, here's a sexual assault from reddit last night that didn't get any press:

As the title says, a woman grabbed my butt without ever asking if I’d be okay with that. We were hardly even getting along to begin with. I calmly told her that I did not consent and that is sexual assault. I asked her how she’d feel if I did that to her. She came up with some BS response saying that it’s okay because it’s making up for all of the times that men have done that to women and how I, as an individual, do not matter.

When people in power say bad things, people use those bad things to justify their actions.

[Seangoli]

I mean... that's how culture works and what culture is. It's a collective experience shared by people whom interact with on another, influencing each other is subtle ways over the course of their lives. It involves reinforcing certain behavior through subtle subconscious interactions. And people you hang around temd to influence you more heavily than those you don't, amd people in all cultures tend to hange around people they view as similar.

Meaning that, to a certain degree, there is a collective notion of masculinity shared by men whom interact with one another, and one aspect of this notion is ignore or forgiving certain types of shitty behavior due to viewing it as being in the realm of acceptable male behavior (even though most males don't engage in said behavior).

The same holds true for women, as well.

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

Nobody is sayong men have an obligation, and I do not see that in the advert. The advert is saying "Wouldn't it be great if we did", not "men are evil and must be responsible for all other men."

Think of it like charity. We encourage people to be charitable, but there is nothing forcing you to be so and is not your responsibility to be so. But people being charitable helps make the world a little better. They have chosen to be responsible for others.

Same thing applies. As I said earlier, this is like taking the phrase "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." and twisting it into some bizarro interpretation of thinking it means "Good men are evil." That is not what that saying has ever meant, and that is not the message in the advert.

[Galloism]

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

Nobody is sayong men have an obligation, and I do not see that in the advert. The advert is saying "Wouldn't it be great if we did", not "men are evil and must be responsible for all other men."

Think of it like charity. We encourage people to be charitable, but there is nothing forcing you to be so and is not your responsibility to be so. But people being charitable helps make the world a little better. They have chosen to be responsible for others.

Same thing applies. As I said earlier, this is like taking the phrase "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." and twisting it into some bizarro interpretation of thinking it means "Good men are evil." That is not what that saying has ever meant, and that is not the message in the advert.

I'm trying to imagine a "black people need to stop standing by doing nothing and donate to <X> charity more" ad, with no mention of anything else.

[Scomagia]

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

This is not supported by actual studies on the matter. Women enforce social norms more than men, who tend not to enforce them unless women are around.

An anecdote to support your point: I'm a house husband. I've never gotten shit from other men about that choice. There's some lighthearted jokes about "who wears the pants" but since my wife actually does call the shots in most cases, it doesn't bother me. Those same men, by the way, usually pine for also tending home and hearth, as it were. I've never experienced actual disrespect from men over my role as a house husband, even from the rednecks on my wife's side of the family.

I have experienced actual disrespect from several different women over the course of my marriage. I've been told that "it must be nice to sit around and do nothing", the assumption being that housework isn't real work. I've been told directly that I'm not acting like a man, that a husband should take care of his wife (I guess cooking meals and keeping a cozy home doesn't count). So yeah, that's my piece on that. In general, I'm more reluctant to tell women what I do than I am to tell men because the men I've interacted with are either indifferent or kind of warm to the idea.

[Seangoli]

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

This is not supported by actual studies on the matter. Women enforce social norms more than men, who tend not to enforce them unless women are around.

Well, it is, actually. Every person in a culture to some degree or another enforce social norms, regardless of gender. "Women do it more" does not mean "Men don't do it", nor does it means "Women have more jnfluence over men than men". We are all actors in cultures, and we all reinforce cultural norms to varying degrees.


The study you are likely referring to has been widely misinterpreted, including by you in this very thread. The study found no difference in the rate of punishment between genders, but rather differences in the context. To argue that this means that women are the ones who are truly social norm enforcers is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst intentionally misleading.


It is a ridiculous assetion that completely flies in the face of anthroplogy as a field of study and human behavior in general.

[Seangoli]

Nobody is sayong men have an obligation, and I do not see that in the advert. The advert is saying "Wouldn't it be great if we did", not "men are evil and must be responsible for all other men."

Think of it like charity. We encourage people to be charitable, but there is nothing forcing you to be so and is not your responsibility to be so. But people being charitable helps make the world a little better. They have chosen to be responsible for others.

Same thing applies. As I said earlier, this is like taking the phrase "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." and twisting it into some bizarro interpretation of thinking it means "Good men are evil." That is not what that saying has ever meant, and that is not the message in the advert.

I'm trying to imagine a "black people need to stop standing by doing nothing and donate to <X> charity more" ad, with no mention of anything else.

To be blunt, that was essentially the entire premise and message of the Black Panther movie, in that the "not my problem"-ism of Wakanda was less than ideal, evem though jt wasn't their fault. Essentially that Wakanda ignored and abandoned people to rot (particularly black people) because it wasn't their problem and they weren't responsible for them.

And yet I remember that movie doing quite well and nobody seeing that part as the part being controversial.

[Ostroeuropa]

This is not supported by actual studies on the matter. Women enforce social norms more than men, who tend not to enforce them unless women are around.

Well, it is, actually. Every person in a culture to some degree or another enforce social norms, regardless of gender. "Women do it more" does not mean "Men don't do it", nor does it means "Women have more jnfluence over men than men". We are all actors in cultures, and we all reinforce cultural norms to varying degrees.


The study you are likely referring to has been widely misinterpreted, including by you in this very thread. The study found no difference in the rate of punishment between genders, but rather differences in the context. To argue that this means that women are the ones who are truly social norm enforcers is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst intentionally misleading.


It is a ridiculous assetion that completely flies in the face of anthroplogy as a field of study and human behavior in general.

Straight up no mate, the results of the study were "Men do not take norm enforcement seriously.", so it really is closer to "Men don't do it.".Gallo linked it earlier.

[Ostroeuropa]

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

Nobody is sayong men have an obligation, and I do not see that in the advert. The advert is saying "Wouldn't it be great if we did", not "men are evil and must be responsible for all other men."

Think of it like charity. We encourage people to be charitable, but there is nothing forcing you to be so and is not your responsibility to be so. But people being charitable helps make the world a little better. They have chosen to be responsible for others.

Same thing applies. As I said earlier, this is like taking the phrase "All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." and twisting it into some bizarro interpretation of thinking it means "Good men are evil." That is not what that saying has ever meant, and that is not the message in the advert.

This is in itself an issue of values and you are in a vanishingly small minority with this interpretation. Many people will read an obligation into that, and in fact a supermajority of the planet DO consider charity an obligation. On the left, where religious charity obligations don't exist, you've got social obligations in terms of action to reduce harm and uplift people, ESPECIALLY collective action through the state and so on. By framing this around an obligation men have, this is blaming them for the negative social consequences that arise from a lack of them fulfilling their obligations. That's what a supermajority of people would interpret this as. It's probably literally only feminists, a fringe viewpoint, that don't see it that way, and I have serious doubts that's due to different views about the nature of obligation and am more convinced it's due to them not considering the negative consequences of their speech and behavior on men.

[Galloism]

I'm trying to imagine a "black people need to stop standing by doing nothing and donate to <X> charity more" ad, with no mention of anything else.

To be blunt, that was essentially the entire premise and message of the Black Panther movie, in that the "not my problem"-ism of Wakanda was less than ideal, evem though jt wasn't their fault. Essentially that Wakanda ignored and abandoned people to rot (particularly black people) because it wasn't their problem and they weren't responsible for them.

And yet I remember that movie doing quite well and nobody seeing that part as the part being controversial.

I never even heard of it.

[Galloism]

Well, it is, actually. Every person in a culture to some degree or another enforce social norms, regardless of gender. "Women do it more" does not mean "Men don't do it", nor does it means "Women have more jnfluence over men than men". We are all actors in cultures, and we all reinforce cultural norms to varying degrees.


The study you are likely referring to has been widely misinterpreted, including by you in this very thread. The study found no difference in the rate of punishment between genders, but rather differences in the context. To argue that this means that women are the ones who are truly social norm enforcers is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst intentionally misleading.


It is a ridiculous assetion that completely flies in the face of anthroplogy as a field of study and human behavior in general.

Straight up no mate, the results of the study were "Men do not take norm enforcement seriously.", so it really is closer to "Men don't do it.".Gallo linked it earlier.

Well, men do it, but they do it a lot less when women aren't around.

That implies that they enforce norms because of a norm enforced upon them.

[Seangoli]

Well, it is, actually. Every person in a culture to some degree or another enforce social norms, regardless of gender. "Women do it more" does not mean "Men don't do it", nor does it means "Women have more jnfluence over men than men". We are all actors in cultures, and we all reinforce cultural norms to varying degrees.


The study you are likely referring to has been widely misinterpreted, including by you in this very thread. The study found no difference in the rate of punishment between genders, but rather differences in the context. To argue that this means that women are the ones who are truly social norm enforcers is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst intentionally misleading.


It is a ridiculous assetion that completely flies in the face of anthroplogy as a field of study and human behavior in general.

Straight up no mate, the results of the study were "Men do not take norm enforcement seriously.", so it really is closer to "Men don't do it.".Gallo linked it earlier.

I am well aware of the study from the Journal of Socio-Economics. I am also capable of reading their actual findings in the article itself rather than briefly glance at the fanciful title.

I suggest you actuall read the article itself and parse what it actually states on the subject than take a very flawed understanding of a very small part of their findings.

[Seangoli]

Straight up no mate, the results of the study were "Men do not take norm enforcement seriously.", so it really is closer to "Men don't do it.".Gallo linked it earlier.

Well, men do it, but they do it a lot less when women aren't around.

That implies that they enforce norms because of a norm enforced upon them.

Or we could go the Human Behavioral Ecology route, and argue thst implies they are signalling to females about their potential fitness through presenting a greater ability to achieve social cohesiveness than other males. A desirable trait, as those males more capable of existing and maintaining social cohesion are seen as having stronger networks than with other individuals with less ability to do so.

Or any number of other explanations.

The explanation "because women make men do it" is, frankly, incredibly weak in terms how anthropologists understand human interaction.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, men do it, but they do it a lot less when women aren't around.

That implies that they enforce norms because of a norm enforced upon them.

Or we could go the Human Behavioral Ecology route, and argue thst implies they are signalling to females about their potential fitness through presenting a desire for social cohesiveness.

Or any number of other explanations.

Women are also less in favor of free speech and more censorious. This is an attitude that is auto-conservative in nature as it favors those who have the power to censor those without it, and favors powerful ideologies and viewpoints. The goal is to increase conformity or appearance of conformity. Moreover women are more focused on building and maintaining consensus (I.E, uniformity.) and men are more focused on a battle of ideas when forming groups and so on.

All of this suggests a particular dynamic.

Moreover, women were the group found statistically likely to harm themselves if it meant punishing "sluts" for their behavior, whereas men declined to even if they held negative views of sluts, suggesting even more about this and the nature of attitudes and how they are enforced.

[Galloism]

Well, men do it, but they do it a lot less when women aren't around.

That implies that they enforce norms because of a norm enforced upon them.

Or we could go the Human Behavioral Ecology route, and argue thst implies they are signalling to females about their potential fitness through presenting a greater ability to achieve social cohesiveness than other males. A desirable trait, as those males more capable of existing and maintaining social cohesion are seen as having stronger networks than with other individuals with less ability to do so.

Which is still the same thing, incidentally. If they feel compelled to make these signals to women, it's because they think women will find these signals desirable. And, if you go the evolutionary aspect, this is because women have done so in the past and therefore we bred to comply with that result.

So it just moves which women are doing the norm enforcement.