4 ms·

Excellent writing. I think one thing women don't always realize is that men have many of the same feelings toward other men the author describes. I identify a

by sho_hn 2y ago

Excellent writing. I think one thing women don't always realize is that men have many of the same feelings toward other men the author describes. I identify as male, and if I meet another man while out travelling, I am exactly as wary and careful at first (and so are they). You mentally calculate your odds, etc. Of course, most end up being a great meet and good company. Some of the conversations I've had with fellow hikers have been some of my best. But I share her feeling of tiredness about that initial stage.

jacknews 2y ago
Right, I think the whole 'patriarchy' thing is a complete mis-characterisation. It's a dominance hierarchy, of course mostly dominated by men since men are physically stronger and more aggressive or competitive. And it can be just as uncomfortable, possibly even more so, for men. For example as reported by trans-men, who suddenly, as men, find themselves bullied, put-down, hazed and dominated, rather than dismissed, not taken seriously, harassed, etc, as they may have experienced as women.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  What you describe is what the word "patriarchy" means, in feminist theory. It's jargon, and doesn't literally mean "rule by fathers" or "rule by men". Anecdotal evidence from people who hormonally transition (I don't know of any studies, sorry) supports the theory that men being “more aggressive or competitive” is cultural – or, at least, isn't caused by testosterone.
  - jacknews 2y ago
    "supports the theory that men being “more aggressive or competitive” is cultural – or, at least, isn't caused by testosterone." Right, and the same cultural influences are having identical, in fact more extreme affects, in horse culture, elephant culture, dog culture, bull culture, chicken culture, etc. Ridiculous.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo > In the wild, among males, bonobos are half as aggressive as chimpanzees, while female bonobos are more aggressive than female chimpanzees. > There is one inferred intraspecies killing in the wild,[129] and a confirmed lethal attack in captivity.[130] In both cases, the attackers were female and the victims were male. Humans have very different mating rituals as compared to chickens. We have very different social behaviour to cattle. We have barely any instincts at birth, as compared to a fawn. We have planet-spanning societal structures, unlike dogs. There are many ways in which humans differ from the animals you've listed. Why do you think we are necessarily the same as them in this particular respect? (There's a reason we look at evidence in science, rather than discarding ideas out-of-hand.)
      - jacknews 2y ago
        Sorry, you can't completely escape biology. Look at any number of studies on the effects of testosterone. We have many of the same instincts as animals, since we are, animals. Of course we have consciousness and culture, so we can tame ourselves to an extent, but that is not the same as being a blank slate. Your example of bonobos still does not show males are less aggressive (note that I'm saying aggressive and competitive, not necessarily violent), just less than chimps. I know it's very attractive to deny biology so that any imagined society becomes a 'simple' matter of rewriting culture, especially for certain groups, but it just isn't so. And in fact I find this argument quite specious. It's the same one used to justify 'correction programs' for gay people for example. I mean if sexual orientation is just culture, then we could 'fix' gayness with boot camps, or more-masculine/feminine upbringing and role models etc, no? It's very clear to me that sexual orientation or desire is more of an inherent collection of traits or instincts, at most merely 'colored' by culture, and there is nothing to 'fix', quite apart from any argument of why would we want to anyway. We can at best tame our instincts, but they are there.
        wizzwizz4 2y ago
        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31785281/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31785281/ > Testosterone is often considered a critical regulator of aggressive behaviour. There is castration/replacement evidence that testosterone indeed drives aggression in some species, but causal evidence in humans is generally lacking and/or-for the few studies that have pharmacologically manipulated testosterone concentrations-inconsistent. […] > Baseline testosterone shared a weak but significant association with aggression […] in men […] but not women […] Changes in T were positively correlated with aggression […] in men […] but not women […]. The causal effects of testosterone on human aggression were weaker yet, and not statistically significant […] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309817/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309817/ > The behavioral tendency to react aggressively increased in three studies out of four (at three months follow-up), whereas only one study out of five found angry emotions to increase (at seven months follow-up). In contrast, one out of three studies reported a decrease in hostility after initiation of testosterone therapy. The remaining studies found no change in aggressive behavior, anger or hostility during hormone therapy. You're arguing that humans are not “blank slates”. I do not dispute this. I do dispute that it's as simplistic as you claim: the evidence that my quick PubMed search turned up is consistent with the idea that testosterone increases arousal in humans, and the effects of that depend on the person and how they believe they're expected to act. This is the case with alcohol (which https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403295/ and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-020-00321-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-020-00321-0 seem to support). People without the concept of a violent drunk tend to get happy and sleepy when taking alcohol, without exhibiting violent behaviour, whereas people who usually get violent when they're drunk will get violent even if they're not drunk, if they think they are. Does alcohol cause violence, in humans? Well… depends what you mean by those words – but it's true to say that it's cultural.
quesera 2y ago
> men have many of the same feelings toward other men This is absolutely true. But it overlooks her premise, which is summarized in: > And usually, what men in these situations actually want is closeness. They’re trying to get closer to me, physically or emotionally, in the only way they know how. That combination of poor emotional skillsets and a desire to get closer is exactly what puts me in danger. As a male on the trail, you do have to watch out for the rare aggressive evildoer. But you generally do not have to watch out for ordinary maladjusted humans (most of them) who just want closeness, and react to disinterest with escalating hostility. You see this on the street too, in public. A woman who does not respond with brightness and cheer to a man's (perhaps gentle, but unwelcome) attention will often get yelled at or called names. On the street. In public. Men almost never have to deal with demands placed upon them by strangers that are anything like this.
- sho_hn 2y ago
  Agreed; I just wrote a reply elsewhere in the discussion where this also occured to me.
  - quesera 2y ago
    I'm in awe of her skillset. It sounds like being a hostage negotiator, with yourself as the hostage. I know I would be terrible at it. It might be the height of male privilege to be able to simply ignore annoying people.
- luckylion 2y ago
  > ordinary maladjusted humans (most of them) who just want closeness, and react to disinterest with escalating hostility That sounds insane. "Most humans" are maladjusted, "just want closeness" and "react to disinterest with escalating hostility"? Just no. > Men almost never have to deal with demands placed upon them by strangers that are anything like this. "What are you looking at?", followed by some combination of humiliation, violence, robbery. It's pretty common with the type of aggressively useless person that would also yell at women for not appreciating attention from some random person.

by sho_hn 2y ago

jacknews 2y ago

Right, I think the whole 'patriarchy' thing is a complete mis-characterisation. It's a dominance hierarchy, of course mostly dominated by men since men are physically stronger and more aggressive or competitive. And it can be just as uncomfortable, possibly even more so, for men. For example as reported by trans-men, who suddenly, as men, find themselves bullied, put-down, hazed and dominated, rather than dismissed, not taken seriously, harassed, etc, as they may have experienced as women.

wizzwizz4 2y ago
What you describe is what the word "patriarchy" means, in feminist theory. It's jargon, and doesn't literally mean "rule by fathers" or "rule by men". Anecdotal evidence from people who hormonally transition (I don't know of any studies, sorry) supports the theory that men being “more aggressive or competitive” is cultural – or, at least, isn't caused by testosterone.
- jacknews 2y ago
  "supports the theory that men being “more aggressive or competitive” is cultural – or, at least, isn't caused by testosterone." Right, and the same cultural influences are having identical, in fact more extreme affects, in horse culture, elephant culture, dog culture, bull culture, chicken culture, etc. Ridiculous.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo > In the wild, among males, bonobos are half as aggressive as chimpanzees, while female bonobos are more aggressive than female chimpanzees. > There is one inferred intraspecies killing in the wild,[129] and a confirmed lethal attack in captivity.[130] In both cases, the attackers were female and the victims were male. Humans have very different mating rituals as compared to chickens. We have very different social behaviour to cattle. We have barely any instincts at birth, as compared to a fawn. We have planet-spanning societal structures, unlike dogs. There are many ways in which humans differ from the animals you've listed. Why do you think we are necessarily the same as them in this particular respect? (There's a reason we look at evidence in science, rather than discarding ideas out-of-hand.)
    - jacknews 2y ago
      Sorry, you can't completely escape biology. Look at any number of studies on the effects of testosterone. We have many of the same instincts as animals, since we are, animals. Of course we have consciousness and culture, so we can tame ourselves to an extent, but that is not the same as being a blank slate. Your example of bonobos still does not show males are less aggressive (note that I'm saying aggressive and competitive, not necessarily violent), just less than chimps. I know it's very attractive to deny biology so that any imagined society becomes a 'simple' matter of rewriting culture, especially for certain groups, but it just isn't so. And in fact I find this argument quite specious. It's the same one used to justify 'correction programs' for gay people for example. I mean if sexual orientation is just culture, then we could 'fix' gayness with boot camps, or more-masculine/feminine upbringing and role models etc, no? It's very clear to me that sexual orientation or desire is more of an inherent collection of traits or instincts, at most merely 'colored' by culture, and there is nothing to 'fix', quite apart from any argument of why would we want to anyway. We can at best tame our instincts, but they are there.
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31785281/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31785281/ > Testosterone is often considered a critical regulator of aggressive behaviour. There is castration/replacement evidence that testosterone indeed drives aggression in some species, but causal evidence in humans is generally lacking and/or-for the few studies that have pharmacologically manipulated testosterone concentrations-inconsistent. […] > Baseline testosterone shared a weak but significant association with aggression […] in men […] but not women […] Changes in T were positively correlated with aggression […] in men […] but not women […]. The causal effects of testosterone on human aggression were weaker yet, and not statistically significant […] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309817/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309817/ > The behavioral tendency to react aggressively increased in three studies out of four (at three months follow-up), whereas only one study out of five found angry emotions to increase (at seven months follow-up). In contrast, one out of three studies reported a decrease in hostility after initiation of testosterone therapy. The remaining studies found no change in aggressive behavior, anger or hostility during hormone therapy. You're arguing that humans are not “blank slates”. I do not dispute this. I do dispute that it's as simplistic as you claim: the evidence that my quick PubMed search turned up is consistent with the idea that testosterone increases arousal in humans, and the effects of that depend on the person and how they believe they're expected to act. This is the case with alcohol (which https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403295/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403295/ and https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-020-00321-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11469-020-00321-0 seem to support). People without the concept of a violent drunk tend to get happy and sleepy when taking alcohol, without exhibiting violent behaviour, whereas people who usually get violent when they're drunk will get violent even if they're not drunk, if they think they are. Does alcohol cause violence, in humans? Well… depends what you mean by those words – but it's true to say that it's cultural.

quesera 2y ago

> men have many of the same feelings toward other men This is absolutely true. But it overlooks her premise, which is summarized in: > And usually, what men in these situations actually want is closeness. They’re trying to get closer to me, physically or emotionally, in the only way they know how. That combination of poor emotional skillsets and a desire to get closer is exactly what puts me in danger. As a male on the trail, you do have to watch out for the rare aggressive evildoer. But you generally do not have to watch out for ordinary maladjusted humans (most of them) who just want closeness, and react to disinterest with escalating hostility. You see this on the street too, in public. A woman who does not respond with brightness and cheer to a man's (perhaps gentle, but unwelcome) attention will often get yelled at or called names. On the street. In public. Men almost never have to deal with demands placed upon them by strangers that are anything like this.

sho_hn 2y ago
Agreed; I just wrote a reply elsewhere in the discussion where this also occured to me.
- quesera 2y ago
  I'm in awe of her skillset. It sounds like being a hostage negotiator, with yourself as the hostage. I know I would be terrible at it. It might be the height of male privilege to be able to simply ignore annoying people.
luckylion 2y ago
> ordinary maladjusted humans (most of them) who just want closeness, and react to disinterest with escalating hostility That sounds insane. "Most humans" are maladjusted, "just want closeness" and "react to disinterest with escalating hostility"? Just no. > Men almost never have to deal with demands placed upon them by strangers that are anything like this. "What are you looking at?", followed by some combination of humiliation, violence, robbery. It's pretty common with the type of aggressively useless person that would also yell at women for not appreciating attention from some random person.