7 ms·

(Disclaimer: I have no idea what the author's political views are, so my comment is not about the author & his article specifically but rather about a general p

(Disclaimer: I have no idea what the author's political views are, so my comment is not about the author & his article specifically but rather about a general phenomenon I have come across various times.) > Even though his podcast is firmly rooted in the masculine space of “body optimization” While there's no doubt that self-optimization topics seem to attract more men than women, why is it that people who are into gender, equality and "toxic masculinity" topics – and, for the sake of this argument, let's assume the author is one of them – always have to put a label on everything, such as "This is male, this is female." They seem to be falling into exactly the trap they are criticizing. The author goes on to say: > Huberman is a lot less “bro-ey” than his fellow influencers. There’s a real gentleness and care to his delivery. The packaging is less aggressive, but the content does not stray far from Silicon Valley’s love affair with the tweaking of healthy human biology. Ah, so gentleness is not associated with masculinity, but aggressiveness is, got it. Ergo, women must be gentle but not aggressive. Oh and "body optimization" is clearly not for females. Why are they reinforcing the same stereotypes[0] they are fighting? Why can't we simply say > While body optimization influencers often come across as aggressive and demonstrate little care for their delivery, Huberman's podcast… ? There, gender stereotypes and labels avoided. [0]: I am aware that studies indicate that there is some truth to this specific stereotype in that – on average – men are more non-agreeable, women a bit less so (i.e. more agreeable). But this is a statistical average – an individual's personality traits can be far away from the average, and so I think stereotypes like "X is clearly male, and Y is clearly female" are doing us a disservice. Can't we all just be individuals?

skinnymuch 4y ago
Huberman is slightly more right wing which is more masculine. I could be wrong. I can’t name any of his views off the top of my head but he is considered one of the new gatekeepers of the intellectual dark web alongside contemporaries like Lex Fridman. Women are normally considered more egalitarian. I believe there’s studies on this. I run an online coworking community and keeping people who present as men is harder than people presenting as women. It’s been an issue with people noticing and commenting on the patterns of the community wrt genders. I try not to care about gender personally. > always have to put a label on everything > Ergo, women must be gentle but not aggressive. > “X is clearly male” This isn’t what people like the author who complain about “bro-ey” are normally trying to say. I don’t think they meant any extreme stuff like the above. I agree their tone could be better.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lanfeust6 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - skinnymuch 4y ago
    I could. He’s a proponent of capitalism as a working class person with various liberal views. These views overlap with a certain perspective of the world. I’m speaking of what right wing means to the world, not just America (I’m American).
    - lanfeust6 4y ago
      Liberalism in and of itself does not mean "right wing" to the world. As you would have it, the only thing disqualifying one from being a conservative is being a commie or anarchist.
      - skinnymuch 4y ago
        I didn’t say conservative. I said or meant, [leans] right wing. I wouldn’t call Huberman conservative. Would you? What do you call the Liberal Party of Australia? They aren’t left leaning at all. I’d be eager to get an answer to this because I keep getting called elitist and I don’t get it. I thought Americans like myself aren’t supposed to think the world revolves around America. “The Liberal Party of Australia is a centre-right political party in Australia,[21] one of the three[22] major parties in Australian politics” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia You can also check how Wikipedia defines liberalism.
        lanfeust6 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics You don't even understand the terms you're flinging around. Ring-wing explicitly, unambiguously, means Conservative. > What do you call the Liberal Party of Australia? They aren’t left leaning at all. And the Liberal party of Canada is. All of the Western world is Liberal. It can either be left-leaning or right-leaning. It does not make a lick of sense to suggest that the only thing that anywhere near leans left is Socialism (this is the only possible conclusion that can be inferred from your rhetoric), while you lump everything else that functionally uses Capitalism as "the right". This is not the colloquial understanding.
tum92 4y ago
> While there's no doubt that self-optimization topics seem to attract more men than women, why is it that people who are into gender, equality and "toxic masculinity" topics … always have to put a label on everything, such as "This is male, this is female." They seem to be falling into exactly the trap they are criticizing. I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Instead, I’d wager men are more into “Self Optimization,” which is more a unique subculture than a goal or activity, and societal ideas of masculinity get a lot of play in that space. I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well. Honestly I don’t think that people are always being deeply normative when they talk about these things, they can just see features of the culture around them they find interesting and may dislike, and say so. For example, for the bro culture comment - I think most people would agree bro culture exists, that it’s male dominated, and that concepts of masculinity have a lot to do with it. I’ve had lots of discussions with people, men and women, who feel excluded by that culture. It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. An example I’ve encountered in real life was my universities chemical engineering program being know for a “bro” culture, and they had some real conversations about it and the reality that it might exclude some people, and they made changes because of it. To be fair, I’m not sure what role the gender discussion played in this piece, and I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall, so I can understand your response to it. But I don’t think that makes the practice wrong, and perhaps both a couple of bros not aware of who it is we’re excluding?
- codethief 4y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response! > I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Sure, it very much depends on how you define "self-optimization". Let's just say there is a group of people interested in certain (selected?) topics related to self-optimization that predominantly attracts men. > I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well. I have no issue if someone says "This and that subculture attracts mostly men [with certain character traits] and here's why this is problematic" and then goes on to explore this topic in detail. But carelessly throwing around stereotypes of masculinity and feminity doesn't help anyone. > I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall Yes, I would say so as well. > It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. I'm not really sure I subscribe to this idea/desire of "real equality" (which I interpret as "equality of outcome", i.e. in this case a 50-50 representation of genders), at least not on a general basis. Different people have different interests and propensities, and it seems these are controlled by biological factors (e.g. sex) to some degree[0], though it is not clear how much exactly. In any case, not only does achieving a 50-50 gender distribution across all groups seem unrealistic, it would also go against freedom of will of the individual. Now this is not to say that making a given group (e.g. a university's chemical engineering program) more inclusive and welcoming to all kinds of people (and all genders) doesn't have benefits. It does. But if, at the end of the day, we don't reach a 50-50 gender distribution everywhere, I don't think this is an issue, either. [0]: See the debates about "systemizing vs. empathizing" and "people vs. things".
yarg 4y ago
> an individual's personality traits can be far away from the average Yeah, but it's a bell curve pair - distance from the mean only increases the discrepancy.
fundad 4y ago
Respectfully put so I’ll offer what helps me. Political Correctness is for politicians, policy professionals and people writing about policy. This blog author may be someone prominent. If you feel their speech has outsized influence and is using it to push stereotypes that harm vulnerable people, that’s a fair criticism. There is no PC police that’s going to arrest you, seize your property and beat you with batons. People make money convincing people there is.

skinnymuch 4y ago

Huberman is slightly more right wing which is more masculine. I could be wrong. I can’t name any of his views off the top of my head but he is considered one of the new gatekeepers of the intellectual dark web alongside contemporaries like Lex Fridman. Women are normally considered more egalitarian. I believe there’s studies on this. I run an online coworking community and keeping people who present as men is harder than people presenting as women. It’s been an issue with people noticing and commenting on the patterns of the community wrt genders. I try not to care about gender personally. > always have to put a label on everything > Ergo, women must be gentle but not aggressive. > “X is clearly male” This isn’t what people like the author who complain about “bro-ey” are normally trying to say. I don’t think they meant any extreme stuff like the above. I agree their tone could be better.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lanfeust6 4y ago
[flagged]
- skinnymuch 4y ago
  I could. He’s a proponent of capitalism as a working class person with various liberal views. These views overlap with a certain perspective of the world. I’m speaking of what right wing means to the world, not just America (I’m American).
  - lanfeust6 4y ago
    Liberalism in and of itself does not mean "right wing" to the world. As you would have it, the only thing disqualifying one from being a conservative is being a commie or anarchist.
    - skinnymuch 4y ago
      I didn’t say conservative. I said or meant, [leans] right wing. I wouldn’t call Huberman conservative. Would you? What do you call the Liberal Party of Australia? They aren’t left leaning at all. I’d be eager to get an answer to this because I keep getting called elitist and I don’t get it. I thought Americans like myself aren’t supposed to think the world revolves around America. “The Liberal Party of Australia is a centre-right political party in Australia,[21] one of the three[22] major parties in Australian politics” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia You can also check how Wikipedia defines liberalism.
      - lanfeust6 4y ago
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics You don't even understand the terms you're flinging around. Ring-wing explicitly, unambiguously, means Conservative. > What do you call the Liberal Party of Australia? They aren’t left leaning at all. And the Liberal party of Canada is. All of the Western world is Liberal. It can either be left-leaning or right-leaning. It does not make a lick of sense to suggest that the only thing that anywhere near leans left is Socialism (this is the only possible conclusion that can be inferred from your rhetoric), while you lump everything else that functionally uses Capitalism as "the right". This is not the colloquial understanding.

tum92 4y ago

> While there's no doubt that self-optimization topics seem to attract more men than women, why is it that people who are into gender, equality and "toxic masculinity" topics … always have to put a label on everything, such as "This is male, this is female." They seem to be falling into exactly the trap they are criticizing. I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Instead, I’d wager men are more into “Self Optimization,” which is more a unique subculture than a goal or activity, and societal ideas of masculinity get a lot of play in that space. I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well. Honestly I don’t think that people are always being deeply normative when they talk about these things, they can just see features of the culture around them they find interesting and may dislike, and say so. For example, for the bro culture comment - I think most people would agree bro culture exists, that it’s male dominated, and that concepts of masculinity have a lot to do with it. I’ve had lots of discussions with people, men and women, who feel excluded by that culture. It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. An example I’ve encountered in real life was my universities chemical engineering program being know for a “bro” culture, and they had some real conversations about it and the reality that it might exclude some people, and they made changes because of it. To be fair, I’m not sure what role the gender discussion played in this piece, and I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall, so I can understand your response to it. But I don’t think that makes the practice wrong, and perhaps both a couple of bros not aware of who it is we’re excluding?

codethief 4y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response! > I would disagree pretty strongly that men are more into self-optimization than women. Sure, it very much depends on how you define "self-optimization". Let's just say there is a group of people interested in certain (selected?) topics related to self-optimization that predominantly attracts men. > I find it pretty understandable that people interested in gender would have something to say about the way gender interacts with that space as well. I have no issue if someone says "This and that subculture attracts mostly men [with certain character traits] and here's why this is problematic" and then goes on to explore this topic in detail. But carelessly throwing around stereotypes of masculinity and feminity doesn't help anyone. > I’d probably say it detracted from the point overall Yes, I would say so as well. > It feels counterproductive to take “masculinity” and what comes with it off the table for that discussion in the name of the ideal of equality, especially if that discussion might win you some real equality. I'm not really sure I subscribe to this idea/desire of "real equality" (which I interpret as "equality of outcome", i.e. in this case a 50-50 representation of genders), at least not on a general basis. Different people have different interests and propensities, and it seems these are controlled by biological factors (e.g. sex) to some degree[0], though it is not clear how much exactly. In any case, not only does achieving a 50-50 gender distribution across all groups seem unrealistic, it would also go against freedom of will of the individual. Now this is not to say that making a given group (e.g. a university's chemical engineering program) more inclusive and welcoming to all kinds of people (and all genders) doesn't have benefits. It does. But if, at the end of the day, we don't reach a 50-50 gender distribution everywhere, I don't think this is an issue, either. [0]: See the debates about "systemizing vs. empathizing" and "people vs. things".

yarg 4y ago

> an individual's personality traits can be far away from the average Yeah, but it's a bell curve pair - distance from the mean only increases the discrepancy.

fundad 4y ago

Respectfully put so I’ll offer what helps me. Political Correctness is for politicians, policy professionals and people writing about policy. This blog author may be someone prominent. If you feel their speech has outsized influence and is using it to push stereotypes that harm vulnerable people, that’s a fair criticism. There is no PC police that’s going to arrest you, seize your property and beat you with batons. People make money convincing people there is.