is there anything good about men?

Conrad · Subject: is there anything good about men? Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:52 pm

http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm

Quote:

Conclusion
To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.

Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.

The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

Junker · Number of posts: 44 Registration date: 2008-01-16

"Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems."

Perhaps it fits the role differentiation... the women are supposed to take it over, run it, nurture it in its continuing good for the social group. The edges-- confusing, chaotic, dangerous-- stay the arena for men, the expendables.

But, how to develop to a stable idea pattern? Perhaps this author, this arena is a candidate for praxeology-like consideration.

Alex · Subject: Re: is there anything good about men? Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:41 pm

Quote:

Conclusion
To summarize my main points: A few lucky Blue Fish are able to grow larger than others and enjoy the pond 's best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. The pond uses both Blue Fish and Green Fish , but most pond s use them in somewhat different ways. Most pond s see individual Blue Fish as more expendable than individual Green Fish , and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some Blue Fish are the big losers and other Blue Fish are the biggest winners. Hence it uses Blue Fish for the many risky jobs it has.

Blue Fish go to extremes more than Green Fish , and this fits in well with pond s using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers.

Pond s are not about Blue Fish against Green Fish . By and large, pond flourishing emerged from groups of Blue Fish working with and against other Blue Fish . While Green Fish concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, Blue Fish created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling pond s to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the Blue Fish ’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Blue Fish created the big social structures that comprise society, and Blue Fish still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that Green Fish can perform perfectly well in these large systems.

What seems to have worked best for pond s is to play off the Blue Fish against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Blue Fish have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as Green Fish .

The essence of how The pond uses Blue Fish depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.

The basic social insecurity of Blue Fish -hood is stressful for the Blue Fish , and it is hardly surprising that so many Blue Fish crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than Green Fish . But that insecurity is useful and productive for The pond 's uses, the system.

Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The pond uses that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

Fixed.

-Alex

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

Dylboz · Number of posts: 2014 Registration date: 2007-09-20

One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish...

Junker · Number of posts: 44 Registration date: 2008-01-16

Opaque to me. Sorry.

Zebra Foal · Number of posts: 877 Registration date: 2007-08-16

Conrad wrote:

....Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has....

I'm guessing that the authors assert this because historically men were sent to war and did dangerous jobs like building the pyramids and coal-mining.

But--unless I am misundertanding-- it seems the opposite is true (not about the pyramids, but about caomparative valuation or "expendability." Consider this articlehttp://www.thestar.com/living/article/294643

GIRLS GLOBALLY

Facts about girls in the developing world:

62 million girls under age 15 do not go to school.

96 million young women 15-24 are illiterate.

7.3 million young women are living with HIV and AIDS.

Two-thirds of newly infected youth in sub-Sahara Africa are females.

14 million females aged 15 to 19 give birth each year.

Pregnancy leading to birth or unsafe abortion is the leading cause of death for females aged 15 to 19 world wide.

More than 700,000 teenage girls are married each day with the majority of girls in many countries married before 18.

450 million adult women are stunted from childhood protein malnutrition.

9.6 million girls are in hazardous labour including slavery, prostitution and armed conflict.

Source: Because I am a Girl, the state of the world's girls 2007, plancanada.ca/girlsrights

Alex · Subject: Re: is there anything good about men? Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:23 pm

Junker wrote:

Opaque to me. Sorry.

That could be all one needs to know of both versions. Razz

If not, I wrote more here:

_________________
If you lend someone $20 and never see that person again, it was probably worth it.

Junker · Number of posts: 44 Registration date: 2008-01-16

Alex wrote:

That could be all one needs to know of both versions. Razz

If not, I wrote more here:

Ah, thank you.

from there>"For myself, I ran the test in my mind and realized that if I were to go read the whole article that I should be wary about what is being said. It could be ’something about nothing’. Of particular interest to me was the use of ’society’ and ‘culture’. These are concepts and do not exist in the real world, yet the author ascribes potentiality to them as actors. He could be speaking metaphorically, but my alarm bells are gently ringing. Maybe now its time to read the whole article."

Yeah, usually that type of writing is slippery, oft to the point of wastage. I focused on metaphor, rather than euphemism, noting that pond<>society-a group of actors, men<>separate species, etc.

IAC, thanks for the link.

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

Is there anything interesting to the fact that this board, and many of a similar nature, are mostly populated by men? That women tend to vote for more socialistic over less socialistic candidates when they vote?

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

I don't know Alex.
The blue fish and the green fish inhabit the pond. I think both the blue fish and the green fish can swim in the same school and contribute to the pond and discuss their functions with out worrying about what color they are.

mike barskey · Number of posts: 1399 Location: CA Registration date: 2007-09-08

Also - and I suppose this is somewhat tangential - I thought LiMi had a relatively high percentage of female regular posters. I think there are 5 female posters out of the top 30 members with the most posts. Certainly that's "mostly populated by men," but if indeed 1:6 is a high ratio for women participants on an internet forum maybe a question could be "Is there anything interesting to the fact that this board has such a relatively high percentage of women?"

ExyPhylo · Number of posts: 1180 Registration date: 2007-12-12

Perhaps the blue fish have more free time than the green fish.

Conrad · Subject: Re: is there anything good about men? Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:00 pm

mike barskey wrote:

Also - and I suppose this is somewhat tangential - I thought LiMi had a relatively high percentage of female regular posters. I think there are 5 female posters out of the top 30 members with the most posts. Certainly that's "mostly populated by men," but if indeed 1:6 is a high ratio for women participants on an internet forum maybe a question could be "Is there anything interesting to the fact that this board has such a relatively high percentage of women?"

I think it's mostly my sex-appeal

also, LM's 'My little pony' section and the 'flowers and makeup and knitting and other girlie things' category was a useful addition in this respect

but yeah, I have wondered about the same thing. e.g. compared to FDR we have relatively more female posters. (and also, I've heard repeatedly that women have been instantly turned off by Stef's voice and mannerisms) but I don't really know too many other boards so can't really compare.

madvillain · Number of posts: 139 Registration date: 2008-01-25

Meh, you guys can self-congratulate all day long for having a higher ratio than SM but the point I was trying to make about all of this is, is there anything about women, which is unique to them, which contributes to the fact that they are throughly underrepresented when compared with percentage of total population when it comes to things like liberty forums and the like?

hetZaad · Number of posts: 92 Registration date: 2008-01-24

pearls to swine

_________________
pearls to swine