4 ms·

His criticism of feminism is terrible and nothing new at all. I wish he would just shut up and try to draw inferences from his data instead of speculating on a

His criticism of feminism is terrible and nothing new at all. I wish he would just shut up and try to draw inferences from his data instead of speculating on a movement he hasn't made any actual attempts to understand. Feminism deserves competent critique from outside its own movement, but it's sure not coming from him. Feminism has more than enough explanation for the expendability of males, he just doesn't know that because he's working from a caricature.

graeme 12y ago
Could you link a feminist discussion of the expendibility of males, skewness of male outcomes, or a critique of Baumeister? I read Baumeister's essay a little while ago, and went looking for critiques. All I found was name calling. I'd like to read an actual response. (for anyone reading, I'm actually very interested in reading a critique. I'm not just passively calling out the parent post.)
- A_COMPUTER 12y ago
  I don't have any offhand but let me give you one. The social construction of "men" is that men are made (this is in contrast to social construction of women as natural e.g. babymakers.) You have to work to be a man, you don't have innate value. To be a man you compete with other males for resources and reputation. This is the basis of hierarchy, part of male society, the so-called Patriarchy. In competition there are of course losers. They are not men, so much as they are failed men. This is a natural state, there are winners and losers in life. So the theory goes, feminism wants to free men from this destructive social order. This is a feminist theory that explains why there are men on the top and men on the bottom but masculinity is still the underlying principle. That is one theory, there are other theories. You can poke holes in this theory, but it's not just a handwave that feminists haven't thought about this or recognized that men are disposable. I mean, feminism knows about this thing called "war." My major problem with feminism is that there is a large gap between theory and activism which results in time and energy being spent on CEO equality and ignoring feminism's own arguments about how mistreated many males are in the lower rungs of society. But that is a problem with practice, not theory.
  - graeme 12y ago
    This sounds very similar to Baumeister's idea. See the Earning Manhood section in his essay. Excerpt below. So perhaps Baumeister's essay wouldn't be a revelation to some feminists. But is Baumeister wrong? Perhaps I am missing the difference. The main difference seems to be the feminist take is more normative. -------- http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm " The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive. Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level. Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement."
    - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
      If you'll note, I didn't trash on his work, I think it has a lot of value. My problem was his characterization of feminism as not having talked about these things and therefore implying they are a bunch of boobs. [edit] What is the cause of this system? What ideology is sustaining it? Is it on the whole good or bad? Normative description is not enough for many feminists, who have identified it as a problem and want to change it. It may be enough for him for his work, so that's a pretty significant difference.
      - 12y ago

graeme 12y ago

Could you link a feminist discussion of the expendibility of males, skewness of male outcomes, or a critique of Baumeister? I read Baumeister's essay a little while ago, and went looking for critiques. All I found was name calling. I'd like to read an actual response. (for anyone reading, I'm actually very interested in reading a critique. I'm not just passively calling out the parent post.)

A_COMPUTER 12y ago
I don't have any offhand but let me give you one. The social construction of "men" is that men are made (this is in contrast to social construction of women as natural e.g. babymakers.) You have to work to be a man, you don't have innate value. To be a man you compete with other males for resources and reputation. This is the basis of hierarchy, part of male society, the so-called Patriarchy. In competition there are of course losers. They are not men, so much as they are failed men. This is a natural state, there are winners and losers in life. So the theory goes, feminism wants to free men from this destructive social order. This is a feminist theory that explains why there are men on the top and men on the bottom but masculinity is still the underlying principle. That is one theory, there are other theories. You can poke holes in this theory, but it's not just a handwave that feminists haven't thought about this or recognized that men are disposable. I mean, feminism knows about this thing called "war." My major problem with feminism is that there is a large gap between theory and activism which results in time and energy being spent on CEO equality and ignoring feminism's own arguments about how mistreated many males are in the lower rungs of society. But that is a problem with practice, not theory.
- graeme 12y ago
  This sounds very similar to Baumeister's idea. See the Earning Manhood section in his essay. Excerpt below. So perhaps Baumeister's essay wouldn't be a revelation to some feminists. But is Baumeister wrong? Perhaps I am missing the difference. The main difference seems to be the feminist take is more normative. -------- http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm http://denisdutton.com/baumeister.htm " The phrase “Be a man” is not as common as it once was, but there is still some sense that manhood must be earned. Every adult female is a woman and is entitled to respect as such, but many cultures withhold respect from the males until and unless the lads prove themselves. This is of course tremendously useful for the culture, because it can set the terms by which males earn respect as men, and in that way it can motivate the men to do things that the culture finds productive. Some sociological writings about the male role have emphasized that to be a man, you have to produce more than you consume. That is, men are expected, first, to provide for themselves: If somebody else provides for you, you’re less than a man. Second, the man should create some additional wealth or surplus value so that it can provide for others in addition to himself. These can be his wife and children, or others who depend on him, or his subordinates, or even perhaps just paying taxes that the government can use. Regardless, you’re not a man unless you produce at that level. Again, I’m not saying men have it worse than women. There are plenty of problems and disadvantages that cultures put on women. My point is just that cultures find men useful in these very specific ways. Requiring the man to earn respect by producing wealth and value that can support himself and others is one of these. Women do not face this particular challenge or requirement."
  - A_COMPUTER 12y ago
    If you'll note, I didn't trash on his work, I think it has a lot of value. My problem was his characterization of feminism as not having talked about these things and therefore implying they are a bunch of boobs. [edit] What is the cause of this system? What ideology is sustaining it? Is it on the whole good or bad? Normative description is not enough for many feminists, who have identified it as a problem and want to change it. It may be enough for him for his work, so that's a pretty significant difference.
    - 12y ago