4 ms·

I really don't think s/100%/95% or something thereabouts really changes the thrust of that one comment. The point is that society's definition of man is toxic a

I really don't think s/100%/95% or something thereabouts really changes the thrust of that one comment. The point is that society's definition of man is toxic and damaging to men who fail to meet its impossible standards or cannot be at the top of their local hierarchies.

mikeash 11y ago
It does make you wonder, though. If the author makes such a strong incorrect statement about something so easily researched, then what else do they get wrong? If I started out my treatise saying that the sun rises in the west, would that not be a massive caution to anyone reading it that maybe this whole thing is a bunch of nonsense? Sure, it's possible that this is an isolated failure, but how likely is that?
- danharaj 11y ago
  Well I think reading the book and evaluating its arguments and supporting evidence is the only way. I know that's unreasonable to expect in a forum discussion but I think it would be rather harsh to dismiss the book out of hand because of a slip-up in an interview. It's a failure of small degree, really. I've read other sociological works that talk about the skewed gender distribution in acts of mass violence in a similarly categorical way even though there are documented cases of mass violence committed by women. I think the difference between 100% and some slightly smaller proportion does not change the premises enough to invalidate the arguments. I think toxic masculinity is under-examined and men are disadvantaged about talking about it and recasting their identities without it because, well, a lot of men in these comment trees demonstrate a resistance to entertaining the idea it seems on principle. That principle seems to be, and I have to guess here because it's usually left implicit, is that masculinity is somehow immutable, innate, apolitical and unideological, and I think that's a harmful attitude to take in the interest of society and one's own interest. It makes violence against men at the level of identity and gender unassailable, unexaminable. But of course some guy in this comment tree found a way to blame it on feminists and women. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10683479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10683479 > And traditionally women were loath to marry down, for example, whereas for men it was pretty common. I guess to prevent mass shootings, more feminists should marry down instead of complain about male competitiveness (which is 99% driven by women's choices, as mates is part of what men compete over). I think the reading I suggested is far more constructive than everything else being brought to the table here, really.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mikeash 11y ago
    My point is not that it invalidates the argument (because I agree, the difference between 100% and 90-whatever% isn't that important here) but simply that it indicates a lack of awareness about the very thing being discussed. You're right, reading the whole thing is the only way to know for sure. But time and attention are finite resources. We can't actually read everything. When deciding what to read, I tend to lean heavily towards those things that get basic facts right, because they're more likely to be in some way related to reality.

mikeash 11y ago

It does make you wonder, though. If the author makes such a strong incorrect statement about something so easily researched, then what else do they get wrong? If I started out my treatise saying that the sun rises in the west, would that not be a massive caution to anyone reading it that maybe this whole thing is a bunch of nonsense? Sure, it's possible that this is an isolated failure, but how likely is that?

danharaj 11y ago
Well I think reading the book and evaluating its arguments and supporting evidence is the only way. I know that's unreasonable to expect in a forum discussion but I think it would be rather harsh to dismiss the book out of hand because of a slip-up in an interview. It's a failure of small degree, really. I've read other sociological works that talk about the skewed gender distribution in acts of mass violence in a similarly categorical way even though there are documented cases of mass violence committed by women. I think the difference between 100% and some slightly smaller proportion does not change the premises enough to invalidate the arguments. I think toxic masculinity is under-examined and men are disadvantaged about talking about it and recasting their identities without it because, well, a lot of men in these comment trees demonstrate a resistance to entertaining the idea it seems on principle. That principle seems to be, and I have to guess here because it's usually left implicit, is that masculinity is somehow immutable, innate, apolitical and unideological, and I think that's a harmful attitude to take in the interest of society and one's own interest. It makes violence against men at the level of identity and gender unassailable, unexaminable. But of course some guy in this comment tree found a way to blame it on feminists and women. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10683479 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10683479 > And traditionally women were loath to marry down, for example, whereas for men it was pretty common. I guess to prevent mass shootings, more feminists should marry down instead of complain about male competitiveness (which is 99% driven by women's choices, as mates is part of what men compete over). I think the reading I suggested is far more constructive than everything else being brought to the table here, really.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mikeash 11y ago
  My point is not that it invalidates the argument (because I agree, the difference between 100% and 90-whatever% isn't that important here) but simply that it indicates a lack of awareness about the very thing being discussed. You're right, reading the whole thing is the only way to know for sure. But time and attention are finite resources. We can't actually read everything. When deciding what to read, I tend to lean heavily towards those things that get basic facts right, because they're more likely to be in some way related to reality.