Thank you for everyone's thoughtful and courageous comments. It's really
hard to be honest about this stuff especially if one has been insulted for
having a more controversial opinion. I think it's less important what the
opinion is and more important whether there is thoughtful and nuanced
reasoning behind it. That way we can learn.

To Jenna, I can definitely relate to wanting to be a peacemaker and have
everyone get along. It's also a bit stressful when one is about to say
something that might step on someone's toes.

To Jamie, I am touched by your posts and I also have my frustrations with
the far-left. As someone who leans psychodynamic, I tend to be less
interested in moral absolutes and more interested in understanding causes.
I hope that the more we understand, the more we can find a real solution
that doesn't involve one group shutting down another group. I also think
it's incredibly hard for people who have been hurt or harm to not respond
by having a negative reaction towards a whole group of people. I have been
harassed a couple of times in public to the point in which I fear for my
safety. This harassment was done by Hispanic and black men. Do I rationally
know that most Hispanic and black men are not dangerous? Yes. But I can't
help but get a bit anxious when I am walking around in the night and see
one walking my way. It's been long enough since the incidents that I do not
have as much anxiety, but it lingers. I can see how these self-protective
instincts can motivate someone to simply want to shame the other into
silence. Then other people who have nothing to do with the original issue
get hurt. I don't think that's the best way to approach these conflicts.

To Mark, being Chinese, I am really happy you brought up a concept from my
culture. On a related but separate note, I have always been amused by the
fact that in Chinese, him, her, and it sound exactly the same. The gender
pronouns also used the same character until recent times when it was
decided to add the female radical to the pronoun to more easily distinguish
men from women. Although China is not liberal by any means, I am amused by
the fact that transgendered people there don't have to worry about the
whole pronoun issue because it all sounds the same anyway!

Best,
Helen





On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 8:44 PM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Tokers:
>
> Reading all this in Beijing, I can't help but reflect on how terribly
> "provincial" all this seems.
>
> As the "Taiji" symbol that appears first on my Center's website shows,
> for the Chinese, "male" and "female" are simply "yang" and "ying."  To
> be "sexist," for the Chinese, that would mean "yangist," while to be
> "feminist" would mean "yinist," and that simply makes no sense at all
> . . . <g>
>
> Western concerns over "gender" are simply our reactions to the
> *effects* of our TELEVISION environment -- which "formed" us under
> "post-industrial" conditions during which men no longer could find
> industrial work and women were encouraged to no longer build families
> -- forcibly undermining the "balance" in society.
>
> In 1970, the Labor Force Participation rate (LFP -- percentage of the
> 18-65 able-bodied with any form of "employment") was 90% for men and
> 30% for women.  Now it is roughly 60% each today -- reflecting a
> radical restructuring of society in which 33% of men lost gainful
> employment along with a 100% increase for women.  From this shift in
> social *structure* comes all the "ideological" dispute that follows --
> largely because people prefer the superficial to the fundamental.
>
> This condition is a psychological defense mechanism -- outlined by
> Gregg's "Justification Hypothesis" (along with many other descriptions
> of this behavior) -- that protects us from reality.  And it continues
> in this discussion, as it must.
>
> Allowing the "ignorant" to frame this discussion -- totally unaware of
> the forces which *formed* the situation -- is normal under the
> circumstances.  Trying to find an "exit" from a malformed framework
> is, of course, impossible.  Once you accept the "premises," the
> results are already determined.
>
> Academics, alas, are trapped in this whirlpool.  As Edgar Alan Poe
> noted in his 1847 "Descent into the Maelstrom," if you accept the
> validity of the "rotation" of the ocean below you, then you are
> doomed.  But, to be an academic today, forces you to follow the stream
> into oblivion.  This is perhaps the biggest problem in the West today
> and at the root of its deepening "decline" (as well as my discussions
> with Chinese academics.)
>
> There is an "escape" but that requires rejecting the "inevitability"
> of the situation.  I encourage ToKers to read Poe's story and to
> ponder why Marshall McLuhan found it so compelling . . . !!
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting Mathew Jamie Dunbaugh <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> > Thank you Frank for your sympathy.
> >
> > Revealing my true thoughts and feelings on this subject was a tad
> stressful
> > and I had been prepared to defend myself. I've had this debate before
> with
> > certain far-left people who took great efforts to crucify me and take
> > offense to everything I said (or pretended to in order to try and win the
> > argument). Eventually, it became clear they were evading reason, and that
> > their attempts to shame me were merely a likely-unconscious attempt to
> > acquire the moral high ground.
> > That should be a perfect example of what the "truth" is always up
> against:
> > the struggle for status and power. You say that my statement was far from
> > the whole truth, yet I have a terribly hard time imagining a world where
> > the struggle for status submits to the sovereignty of reason. It would
> be a
> > world of very careful thinkers who each take maximal, personal
> > responsibility to understand the big picture as individuals. That would
> be
> > family to me. But I worry that a world dominated by understanding might
> > suck the life out of humanity, because what is life without the struggle
> > for power? It seems that the temptation of power is the worst enemy of
> > understanding. One thing we could do to change the world would be to
> > keenly expose whenever someone puts their own interests before
> > understanding.
> >
> > I have to admit I've grown very weary of being vilified for being honest,
> > yet this seems to be the human condition. For most of human history, the
> > truth must have been a scary thing to possess. It's called "the burden of
> > understanding" for a reason.
> >
> > Gregg's question only brought me back to where the epistemic gravity
> always
> > takes me. Devoting your life to understanding doesn't make many friends,
> > but it makes a few good friends. I appreciate that Gregg brought this up
> > even though it was difficult. The reality is difficult whether or not he
> > brought it up.
> >
> > The lifesaver keeping me from drowning in cynicism is that I know that as
> > culture evolves, truth and knowledge seem to grow in dominance. And that
> > keeps me going in hope and wonder.
> >
> > Jamie
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 5:42 AM Frank Ambrosio <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > ############################
> >
> > 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
>

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

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