Is there anything good about men?

[DGS]

No, it's not a rhetorical question

I'm sure a lot of you will have come across Roy Baumeister's essay - he has expanded this to a book of the same name last year. I think it's popular with a lot of MRA's but they seem to miss the point of what he's trying to say (in my experience, to date anyway) in that the 'battle' of the sexes doesn't have to be played as a zero sum game.

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

[LMU]

Q: Is there anything good about men?

Men are people. For me that is enough. Of course I came from a UU background that would have forgiven Hitler, Stalin, and PZ Myers, so maybe that view isn't popular.

[DGS]

UU?

[LMU]

UU?

Unitarian Universalist, sorry.

[DGS]

:? Still none the wiser..(my bad)

Its a good read. I liked the book - I think his heart is in the right rationalist place but I think his premises were a bit flawed in the opening chapters. Also he didn't reference a good deal of material he could have which would have stoked his argument beyond the 'different buy equal' hypothesis, which isn't radical at all. But I also can see that he is tip-toeing in a minefield and is trying to build bridges not reach the bridge as a rationalist, turn allahu akbar and then try to blow the bridge up flashback to Team America - always makes me giggle). He is a social psychologist who also sees the value of evolutionary theory so his hypotheses are radical to his social psych cohorts.

[LMU]

:? Still none the wiser..(my bad)

I was refering to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism but it's not actually important. No worries :)

Its a good read. I liked the book - I think his heart is in the right rationalist place but I think his premises were a bit flawed in the opening chapters. Also he didn't reference a good deal of material he could have which would have stoked his argument beyond the 'different buy equal' hypothesis, which isn't radical at all. But I also can see that he is tip-toeing in a minefield and is trying to build bridges not reach the bridge as a rationalist, turn allahu akbar and then try to blow the bridge up flashback to Team America - always makes me giggle). He is a social psychologist who also sees the value of evolutionary theory so his hypotheses are radical to his social psych cohorts.

It was an interesting link. I felt like I had read or heard very similar arguments before. If MRAs like it, then it was probably when I investigated MRAs more after Elevatorgate. I don't have the book, but if they were present in the linked article, then which premises did you perceive as flawed? If you already posted about this on your blog, then I apologize (and a link would be appreciated :D ).

It's off topic, but in case you find it interesting: Are you aware of genomic imprinting and the parental conflict hypothesis?

[DGS]

:? Still none the wiser..(my bad)

I was refering to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism but it's not actually important. No worries :)

Ah, how interesting! That's something new to me, thanks - and useful. (I'm from the UK - apols)

It's also interesting (in a pedantic way not a really interesting way) in that from your link I linked to the word 'creed' which is one of the main flashpoints of mine and Ophelia's past hook ups. I asked her what 'creed' of feminism some A+ petition was and was told - as I now find are typical rational, terms to "fuck off" and that I was a calculated taunter (not putting that in "" as I can't be arsed to go check - but am pretty sure it was and thanks to the wonders of western progressive liberal (patriarchal!!) democracies, can easily find it if I need to. Can I find the same convo on Ophelia's FB page? No. Go figure..) Anyways...no, I'll get back to you... (and read the rest of your post

PS: I think the Pyt should have a 'Scream' mask emotion as a symbol for 'misogynistic, anti feminist, "blah, blah, blah" (hehe, you should do that sometime Justinhttp://www.movieweb.com/movie/hotel-tra ... 5UPzLgZLIK) chatter' then you'll actually be able to spend more time talking rational, kind of important stuff? Or, you know, whatever...if you actually have something to talk about ( :!: A theist could reasonably think: could that be at the heart of this schism...that the atheists don't actually have a bigger cause to align themselves to, so they are just falling apart, worshipping false idols (no more wine for me!) and all we have to do is wait for them to fall apart under their own bad management and lack of cohesiveness (a bit like feminism!). ...yeah, putting son to bed now...lost the daft thread...soz..

[DGS]

It's off topic, but in case you find it interesting: Are you aware of genomic imprinting and the parental conflict hypothesis?

Yes, I have. I had the wondrous opportunity to partake in a postgrad module called: Philosophy of Natural Science: Evolution and Human Nature taught by none other than the great Helena Cronin. http://www.amazon.com/Ant-Peacock-Altru ... 0521457653

Genomic imprinting was featured heavily in the reading and seminars. Critical thinking 101. No linky needed (but will of course provide if requested)

[Altair]

Its a good read. I liked the book - I think his heart is in the right rationalist place but I think his premises were a bit flawed in the opening chapters.

Interesting read, thanks for the link.
What do you think are the flaws in his opening arguments?

Also he didn't reference a good deal of material he could have which would have stoked his argument beyond the 'different buy equal' hypothesis, which isn't radical at all. But I also can see that he is tip-toeing in a minefield and is trying to build bridges not reach the bridge as a rationalist, turn allahu akbar and then try to blow the bridge up flashback to Team America - always makes me giggle). He is a social psychologist who also sees the value of evolutionary theory so his hypotheses are radical to his social psych cohorts.

Taking into account this part of the linked document (a transcript of a talk, apparently?)

You’re probably thinking that a talk called “Is there anything good about men” will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like “Men Are Not Cost Effective” speak for themselves. Maureen Dowd’s book was called “Are Men Necessary?” and althoughshe never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer wasno. Brizendine’s book “The Female Brain” introducesitself by saying, “Men, get ready to experience brain envy.” Imagine a bookadvertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior malebrain!

it would seem to me that the "different but equal" is actually radical at this point, since there seemst to be a tendency to accept without hesitation or protest any point made that says men are useless or inferior. As Baumeister says, can you imagine the outrage at a book saying that women should be envious of the male brain?
Or the recent controversy about the "Keep calm and rape" t-shirts being sold at Amazon which generated a swarm of protests, while those "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t-shirts are sold with no one complaining.

[DGS]

Its a good read. I liked the book - I think his heart is in the right rationalist place but I think his premises were a bit flawed in the opening chapters.

Interesting read, thanks for the link.
What do you think are the flaws in his opening arguments?

Just his 'imaginary feminist' premise. I think he's pulling his punches. He's being diplomatic. I can understand why though, but I think it weakens the argument.

Also he didn't reference a good deal of material he could have which would have stoked his argument beyond the 'different buy equal' hypothesis, which isn't radical at all. But I also can see that he is tip-toeing in a minefield and is trying to build bridges not reach the bridge as a rationalist, turn allahu akbar and then try to blow the bridge up flashback to Team America - always makes me giggle). He is a social psychologist who also sees the value of evolutionary theory so his hypotheses are radical to his social psych cohorts.

Taking into account this part of the linked document (a transcript of a talk, apparently?)

You’re probably thinking that a talk called “Is there anything good about men” will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like “Men Are Not Cost Effective” speak for themselves. Maureen Dowd’s book was called “Are Men Necessary?” and althoughshe never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer wasno. Brizendine’s book “The Female Brain” introducesitself by saying, “Men, get ready to experience brain envy.” Imagine a bookadvertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior malebrain!

it would seem to me that the "different but equal" is actually radical at this point, since there seemst to be a tendency to accept without hesitation or protest any point made that says men are useless or inferior. As Baumeister says, can you imagine the outrage at a book saying that women should be envious of the male brain?

It is radical to the social psych and orthodox feminist/social science brigade, I agree. Just not to anyone else. They have all been fighting the war against biological determinism for decades without knowing the war ended ages ago. It's like those stories of Japanese soldiers being found in Borneo in the year 2000 who never realised WW2 ended!

Or the recent controversy about the "Keep calm and rape" t-shirts being sold at Amazon which generated a swarm of protests, while those "Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t-shirts are sold with no one complaining.

That's a controversy that passed me by...but I can spy a utility... Imagine if all rapists took to wearing t.shirts with the word 'rapist' on them. How easy for us daft women to be able to spot them and avoid them. I'd have thought orthodox feminists would be very supportive of such t.shirts.

[Vital Signs]

I hate when people make a post with a link to either read a book or a really long essay in order to properly reply to them. If you really have read and understood the material would it really be too hard to type a synopsis in your own words instead of just linking us to someone else's opinion and asking if we agree?

[DGS]

I hate when people make a post with a link to either read a book or a really long essay in order to properly reply to them. If you really have read and understood the material would it really be too hard to type a synopsis in your own words instead of just linking us to someone else's opinion and asking if we agree?

I hate taking my dog for a walk on cold mornings. But I know it's good for me - and her. If you want to join this discussion, read the [short] link.

Otherwise where would it end on the Axiom? (one for the pub quiz!) The lazy fuckers would demand a presis to the wik page as well!

Don't be one of them brother!

"Take the bland pill - it gets more exciting the longer you survive!"

[TheMan]

I'm totally useless and need to man-up is the most recent feedback I got.... and that was from my dog.

[Altair]

That's a controversy that passed me by...but I can spy a utility... Imagine if all rapists took to wearing t.shirts with the word 'rapist' on them. How easy for us daft women to be able to spot them and avoid them. I'd have thought orthodox feminists would be very supportive of such t.shirts.

The skepchicks would probably complain about the rapists wearing the same t-shirt several days in a row, but other than that, sounds like a good idea.

[LMU]

I'm totally useless and need to man-up is the most recent feedback I got.... and that was from my dog.

"Wow what a bitch!"
:rimshot: