Dear Jamie,

Could not read your comments without offering some sort of response. I have
not been involved in this thread up to now, except as an observer, and I
certainly do not want to "grandstand" at the eleventh hour after so many
others have thoughtfully and constructively contributed to a very
worthwhile series of exchanges. But when I read in your first paragraph
that your reaction to the question was as follows, I felt that I wanted to
offer some comfort. You say, "Little is more offensive than human
sexuality. Nothing makes me as sure that this world is, for all intensive
purposes, ruled by Satan. I don't mean that literally. The universe might
be indifferent, but that indifference has all the aesthetic of evil."

I emphatically agree: that is a huge truth. But it is not the whole truth.
Nobody has or ever will have the whole truth, but that does not absolve us
from remembering BOTH how hugely true your statement is AND that it is very
far from the whole truth.

so here's my little bit of comfort, for what it is worth: your comments as
whole strike me as a generous though painful way of taking responsibility
for the fact that the whole thread started with a sadly and irresponsibly
malformed question that outright incited people to seize on partial truths
masquerading as just plain "truth." (Of course, the responsibility for the
hideously malformed question lies with its parent, in this case Dr. Yancy,
not with Gregg who passed it on primarily with the motive, as I understood
it, of an invitation to participate in the dynamics of this listerv around
the question to which "are all men sexist?" crudely gestures, the question
of the mystery of human sexuality, it all its paradoxical ambiguity,
immensely awe-inspiring and immensely terrifying) Simply put, it is
questions like that that give rise the kinds of mega-hurricanes of sound
and fury that we call the "cultural wars" (god save us all).  Someone like
Yancy, who should be in a position to know better, has to be held
professionally responsible (I say nothing of personal moral responsibility)
for prescribing a pill that is going to certainly do a lot of patients much
harm before it might perhaps do some good for a few.

I regret this particular mistreatment caused you so much pain, Jamie. You
are right not to accept the responsibility the question tries to impose,
but, as professionals of one sort or another, we all have to be careful to
what we open our hearts and how we make ourselves vulnerable. I think that
something like this is behind Gregg's most recent contribution to this
thread, though I would frame his judgment somewhat differently.

we do not know one another, so please don't be offended or feel patronized
by my concern. I have no doubt that you can take care of yourself without
my sympathy or "advice." This just happened to be the first time this
particular discussion moved me to participate.

all good wishes,
Frank



Frank




Francis J. Ambrosio, PhD
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Senior Fellow, Center for New Designs in Learning and Scholarship
Georgetown University
202-687-7441


On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 12:01 AM Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Well, I really appreciate what Helen has said. I was apprehensive about
> sending this because I find it an unhappy subject. And it's stressful how
> carefully I have to choose my words. Little is more offensive than human
> sexuality. Nothing makes me as sure that this world is, for all intensive
> purposes, ruled by Satan. I don't mean that literally. The universe might
> be indifferent, but that indifference has all the aesthetic of evil.
>
> I'm tall, white, and I've been told that I look like an alpha male. Yet
> I've been single most of my life largely because I don't fit Steve
> Quackenbush's description of "all men". I've devoted my whole life to
> thinking carefully and the search for knowledge, so I take painstaking care
> when forming judgments of any kind. And I've always been uncomfortable with
> objectifying women, a sentiment that has drawn contempt from people of both
> genders. But as a white man, I'm both racist and sexist, and nobody gives a
> shit how carefully I think. I understand that the male gender is
> sexist, but it's because biology demands it. But that doesn't mean all men
> are personally sexist. Some of us refuse to participate, and often lose a
> great deal of power because of it.
>
> If the left is going to corner white men into a demonized position, it had
> better give them a way out. If you never had any choice not to be guilty,
> something's wrong with the whole situation and it's not going to turn out
> well. Frankly, I'm worried that identity politics is ruining
> western civilization. I'm still shocked at the loss of emphasis on the
> individual these days. But anyone with strong opinions has to admit that
> this is a challenging moral dilemma. There are statistical differences
> between groups, in ways the left can be motivated or loathe to emphasize.
> On one hand, it's good to point out the vices of certain groups so we might
> change them. On the other, everyone should recognize the injustice of being
> considered guilty of something just because you're a member of some group.
>
> I'm surprised to hear people agree so easily that ALL men are sexist.
> Really? Every single one, and all to the same degree? What about a man who
> is asexual? Or a man with autism who might not even recognize much of
> gender at all? What about a man raised with the highest degree of
> conscience, devoted his whole life to resisting any and all bigoted norms,
> even to the extent of losing everything and being judged as weak by his
> community? There's so much variation in the world so I don't see how the
> statement can be justified. Is the *male gender *generally sexist? Yes,
> as is the female gender in its own ways. I'd say biology is sexist, ...but
> cultural evolution might change that.
>
> All of us were once children who had no idea what's going on and simply
> found ourselves in fortunate or unfortunate circumstances, enjoying
> our good luck or suffering our bad luck. We all simply flowed along the
> current of incentives, blaming each other and hardly ever realizing that
> it's the incentive structures ruling over us making it irresistible to harm
> each other. But each of us is responsible for the world; we are responsible
> for accepting these incentive structures or not. And because the crowd
> doesn't stand up together all at once, and almost everyone is guilty of
> simply following the current, those of us who don't accept unjust incentive
> structures often lose. The good almost always lose, it seems to me.
>
> I'll also say that the female gender is not free from responsibility for
> the incentive structures that make puppets of us, including making men
> sexist. The attached page from Brene Brown's book "Daring Greatly" supports
> my view that women have a powerful role in shaping the dominance hierarchy
> of men and in driving men to seek power over each other. Also in my
> experience, other men tend to be more compassionate and understanding of
> male weakness than women. Biologically speaking (something we haven't yet
> transcended BTW) ...It's for women that men must be strong most of all.
> Also, power is often mysterious but I have some female friends who would
> admit that if you can come to understand women's sexual preferences, you
> can understand power and vice versa. And the "good" and "power" aren't the
> same thing. While the female gender might hold some responsibility, I
> hesitate to blame actual women for being this way because doing so would go
> against all sense. We're all trapped in the roles that we play and the
> incentives they provide, and it sometimes takes a life of almost suicidal
> rebellion to really do the right thing, and even then it's probably a waste
> unless one can change the norms and change everyone.
>
> ALL people need to forever be expanding their minds to understand more
> what it's like to be others, and to understand our human nature.  We are
> always undergoing the evolution of domestication and justification. I see
> the problem of identity politics as a consequence of progressives generally
> trying to do the right thing, and I see the justice women can get from
> approaching the day men will finally understand and respect what they have
> to deal with, but it goes both ways... or in all directions. The solution
> is for all of us to increase our moral sophistication. We're going to have
> to entrust common people with the responsibility of thinking carefully, and
> it has to start with intelligent, honest leadership.
>
> Rather than getting every man to admit that he's a guilty sexist, we
> should keep in mind the incentives our roles come with and hold people
> accountable to the bigger picture. People should question the priveledges
> they get with their roles.
>
>  As culture evolves we are all continually learning what justice is, and I
> would say it is our duty as homo sapiens to continue that struggle. Every
> individual is responsible for the world.
>
> Jamie
>
> P.S. As an intellectual, of course my position is that justice depends on
> people getting better at finding out what's true... so in other words,
> yes, being more like me. But to be honest, I'm afraid of what the truth
> will do to us. I suspect culture evolves towards truth, so I hope the truth
> can one day be compatible with our feelings.
>
>> [image: Women_Patriarchy.jpg]
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1