If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Cythraul]

Blue Lives Matter isn't a thing because cops weren't born with blue skin. You learn something new every day!

 

[Einherjar86]

Nah, you're just being anti-intellectual and totalitarian. The legal requirement that people be referred to by whatever pronouns they wish to be referred to by is, contrary to the transparent attempts at gaslighting the public from the people pushing this stuff, really nothing less than the demand for the public affirmation of an entire (highly questionable) ideology concerning the nature of manhood and womanhood, the metaphysics of embodiment and of the self, and so on. 'Bigotry' doesn't mean disagreement with that ideology or the refusal to reform one's speech in accordance with it. Not unless you're engaged in low redefinition of the term 'bigotry' (nothing new for the left here!) Stop abusing language and stop pretending that a manifestly ideological push to overturn plain common sense about the nature of manhood and womanhood is just a matter of tolerance or respect.

This is an excellent point, which unfortunately is far beyond any sort of useful public critique, as the public has their various ideologies and accepted metaphysical ideas without actually examining even the terminology, much less the respective philosophical roots and arguments.

This is a two-way street though. Identity politics falls apart under a critique of the metaphysics of presence, which goes back to theorists like Judith Butler (obviously the critique of presence goes back much earlier, at least to Heidegger, but Butler connected it explicitly to gender). Gender doesn't reflect any metaphysical presence, which is secret, or hidden - i.e. it is inside, interior. Rather, gender is a public cultural performance constituted by language and social context. Accepting this, it then becomes idiosyncratic to promote a politics of identity that grounds itself on presence (on what I am, on what I feel myself to be).

But, if we accept this, then it also becomes idiosyncratic to ground gender in biological sex. Gender is a matter of language and social representation, and this goes back at least to ancient Rome (every Latin word had a gender - it could be masculine, feminine, or neuter). When we try and reestablish gender's constitution via biological sex, we fall back into the trap of identity politics - that is, we make an attempt to metaphysically ground gender in the stability of biology. I'm not trying to suggest that biology is metaphysical, or that it is necessary in any way; but when we draw the line from gender to biology, we are making a metaphysical move. There is a historical association between sex and gender, but there isn't any necessary connection between them.

 

[Dak]

There is a historical association between sex and gender, but there isn't any necessary connection between them.

It's historical because it is/was necessary. It appears that the sundering of the necessity is actually rooted elsewhere: In the increasing disconnect from our humanity/biology. We are no longer concerned with our lives or those of our ancestors and descendants, and so many are less and less concerned with the traditional gender roles which facilitated the transfer of life from generation to generation.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's historical because it is/was necessary.

No, that's not true. Biology is just biology, it isn't necessary in any way. It just is. You might say that its "is-ness" makes it necessary - in other words, it's necessary because it is. But that's just another argument for a metaphysics of presence. Humans of the female sex can have children, while males can't; there's nothing necessary about this except insofar as it constitutes material conditions of behavior, the same way that cultural values constitute material conditions of behavior. The point doesn't lie in denying that only women can have children, but in denying that this means women who choose to have children are more socially valuable than those who don't.

Gender's historical representation and institutionalization have often been associated with observations of biological sex, but in ways that have also often projected necessity where there is none, and in turn have created various exclusionary conventions - from the right to vote to little girls not playing with toy guns. It's important that we be able to identify and recognize these conventions in order to make what I think are appropriate and entirely reasonable concessions.

None of this means submitting to a regime of selective identity; but it does mean acknowledging that there are many instances in which the promotion of strict gender roles serves little practical purpose, and can in fact have a negative impact.

 

[Dak]

No, that's not true. Biology is just biology, it isn't necessary in any way. It just is. You might say that its "is-ness" make it necessary - in other words, it's necessary because it is. But that's just another argument for a metaphysics of presence.

Gender's historical representation and institutionalization have often been associated with observations of biological sex, but in ways that have also often projected necessity where there is none, and in turn have created various exclusionary conventions - from the right to vote to little girls not playing with toy guns. It's important that we be able to identify and recognize these conventions in order to make what I think are appropriate and entirely reasonable concessions.

I don't know how accurate it is to describe the lack of women's suffrage as "created". Political franchise has been extremely restricted historically. The amount of time between the franchise expanding to include all men and then to all women shows relatively little lag time. If women aren't expected to engage in the dangerous occupations which require the use of firearms, it makes little sense to encourage play in those areas - particularly when looking to times of relative material want and shorter life spans.

None of this means submitting to a regime of selective identity; but it does mean acknowledging that there are many instances in which the promotion of strict gender roles serves little practical purpose, and can in fact have a negative impact.

Of course you'd need to qualify strict, practical, and negative. Broadly, I think it's clear that being overly concerned with social minutiae isn't practical. But then that is exactly a problem created by having multiple genders/pronouns/etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't know how accurate it is to describe the lack of women's suffrage as "created".

I think it's obvious there's a causal relation between gender norms and women not being able to vote. That strikes me as tough to deny.

Political franchise has been extremely restricted historically. The amount of time between the franchise expanding to include all men and then to all women shows relatively little lag time. If women aren't expected to engage in the dangerous occupations which require the use of firearms, it makes little sense to encourage play in those areas - particularly when looking to times of relative material want and shorter life spans.

Alternatively, perhaps they aren't expected to engage in dangerous occupations because they aren't encouraged to entertain such occupations in the first place.

I don't think you can ultimately trace these kinds of complex social expectations back to biology, and I definitely don't think biology holds the key to unlock a set of optimal values for the social roles of men and women. My point is that it doesn't make sense to appeal to biology to discourage men or women from pursuing careers in which their biology has minimal impact. For example, it doesn't make sense to discourage young boys from playing with Barbie dolls because it might contribute to their pursuing careers in fashion design, or some other association that is gender-based.

Of course you'd need to qualify strict, practical, and negative. Broadly, I think it's clear that being overly concerned with social minutiae isn't practical. But then that is exactly a problem created by having multiple genders/pronouns/etc.

Sure - but broadly speaking, I don't think social opportunities involving income and job description can be classified as minutiae. When it comes to the social acknowledgement of our contemporary multiplicity of genders, I personally have no problem with it beyond an intellectual one. In other words, as identity politics involves a metaphysics of presence, and/or as the backlash against identity politics attempts to reduce gender to a biological binary - both are appeals to presence and thereby subject to critique. But I consider this to be a personal stance, not one to be politically mandated, since the premise for mandating it is philosophically unsound. The responsibility lies not in political mandate but in public discourse.

 

[rms]

I think it's obvious there's a causal relation between gender norms and women not being able to vote.

don't know what you're getting at here

 

[Dak]

I think it's obvious there's a causal relation between gender norms and women not being able to vote. That strikes me as tough to deny.

Alternatively, perhaps they aren't expected to engage in dangerous occupations because they aren't encouraged to entertain such occupations in the first place.

To say that women were denied voting because of gender misunderstands political power, or power in general. The political franchise has overwhelmingly been limited to a handful of people in any given human polity, and in the earliest times there was a connection between physical power and political franchise - this is the biological necessity. Over time, this connection was weakened, to the point where democracy began to spread in Europe, not surprisingly very much in connection with the advance of mechanical technology, which appeared to render physical strength inconsequential. Once *all* men are granted suffrage in a polity, women's suffrage soon follows.

I don't think you can ultimately trace these kinds of complex social expectations back to biology, and I definitely don't think biology holds the key to unlock a set of optimal values for the social roles of men and women.

Exactly the kind of comment that would be expected as per my observation in the prior post that we have become disconnected from our biology.

My point is that it doesn't make sense to appeal to biology to discourage men or women from pursuing careers in which their biology has minimal impact. For example, it doesn't make sense to discourage young boys from playing with Barbie dolls because it might contribute to their pursuing careers in fashion design, or some other association that is gender-based.

I'm not sure there is anything that biology only minimally impacts. or maybe more accurately interacts with. I know this is not a position that is currently en vogue, and hasn't been for some time.

But I consider this to be a personal stance, not one to be politically mandated, since the premise for mandating it is philosophically unsound. The responsibility lies not in political mandate but in public discourse.

Well we can agree there. If someone wants to think of themselves as ___kin, it would be problematic to outlaw this.

 

[Einherjar86]

To say that women were denied voting because of gender misunderstands political power, or power in general. The political franchise has overwhelmingly been limited to a handful of people in any given human polity, and in the earliest times there was a connection between physical power and political franchise - this is the biological necessity. Over time, this connection was weakened, to the point where democracy began to spread in Europe, not surprisingly very much in connection with the advance of mechanical technology, which appeared to render physical strength inconsequential. Once *all* men are granted suffrage in a polity, women's suffrage soon follows.

To say that political power isn't influenced by gender misunderstands political power, actually.

First, physical power doesn't dictate hierarchy. If physical power needs to be asserted, then there is no hierarchy to speak of; the strong thrive and the weak perish. This isn't politics or hierarchy, it's simply primal, animalistic behavior - extremely primitive, evolutionarily distant behavior to say the least. And again, there's no necessity here, there's only the fact of behavior, which could be otherwise (female lions are stronger than male lions, for example).

Political power first emerged not through the assertion of physical strength, but through claims to knowledge and the ability to tell convincing stories - and gender is one such story. A physically frail or weak man could wield enormous power simply by presenting himself as the bearer of tremendous knowledge, and here we have an example of conflicting gender norms already: that masculinity is both wisdom and physical strength. Of course, early knowledge-bearers also saw the value in promoting physical strength, and so men and women began to find themselves cast in specific societal roles.

By the time advanced elections come into being, the role of social organizers and knowledge-bearers had long belonged to men. To say that gender played no role in this development is pretty myopic, to say the least.

Exactly the kind of comment that would be expected as per my observation in the prior post that we have become disconnected from our biology.

Well, I wouldn't say that observation is wrong; but I also wouldn't say that what you're observing is bad...

I'm not sure there is anything that biology only minimally impacts. or maybe more accurately interacts with. I know this is not a position that is currently en vogue, and hasn't been for some time.

I would say that biology has a more significant impact on, say, childbearing than it does on whether a woman wants to be a firefighter.

 

[Dak]

To say that political power isn't influenced by gender misunderstands political power, actually.

First, physical power doesn't dictate hierarchy. If physical power needs to be asserted, then there is no hierarchy to speak of; the strong thrive and the weak perish. This isn't politics or hierarchy, it's simply primal, animalistic behavior - extremely primitive, evolutionarily distant behavior to say the least. And again, there's no necessity here, there's only the fact of behavior, which could be otherwise (female lions are stronger than male lions, for example).


Political power first emerged not through the assertion of physical strength, but through claims to knowledge and the ability to tell convincing stories - and gender is one such story. A physically frail or weak man could wield enormous power simply by presenting himself as the bearer of tremendous knowledge, and here we have an example of conflicting gender norms already: that masculinity is both wisdom and physical strength. Of course, early knowledge-bearers also saw the value in promoting physical strength, and so men and women began to find themselves cast in specific societal roles.

By the time advanced elections come into being, the role of social organizers and knowledge-bearers had long belonged to men. To say that gender played no role in this development is pretty myopic, to say the least.

If you can find an instance of political power being waged by someone through the wielding of knowledge or stories (not saying that there aren't instances of this), you will still see that this is only effective in so far as that knowledge or power was effective over those with the physical power. And of course, I specifically stated that political power has moved away from connections to physical power(sinews/flesh) over time as technological substitutions for manpower have multiplied.

But I see no conflict in a claim that masculinity includes both wisdom and physical strength, as these things aren't mutually exclusive. However, I do see a problem with mentioning animals when we talk about human behavior, and this is a common fallback when biological interactions emerge in an argument. These comparisons aren't made when discussing other animal's behaviors, so I don't understand why are made in this context. "Why do alligators do this? Ostriches are different so alligators could be different!" However, since you mentioned female lions being stronger, if we look to see how that plays out in lion behavior, we see that the females do the hunting - they do the greater amount of physical labor involved in procuring the necessities of life. That seems consistent with pointing out that male roles in humans have tended towards the more physically demanding.

Well, I wouldn't say that observation is wrong; but I also wouldn't say that what you're observing is bad...

Well I think it will be the undoing of the species if there isn't a return to a more biologically rooted view. You've been clear that you don't find that to be a problem.

I would say that biology has a more significant impact on, say, childbearing than it does on whether a woman wants to be a firefighter.

Only to the extent that firefighting doesn't require greater size/muscle mass. This is my original point that these social role divisions seem arbitrary in many cases at this point because technology is obscuring differences. At the rate of advance in the fields surrounding IVF, even childbearing is becoming disconnected/obscured.

 

[Einherjar86]

If you can find an instance of political power being waged by someone through the wielding of knowledge or stories (not saying that there aren't instances of this), you will still see that this is only effective in so far as that knowledge or power was effective over those with the physical power.

I acknowledged this point. That doesn't mean that apparent access to knowledge played no less of a factor.

But I see no conflict in a claim that masculinity includes both wisdom and physical strength, as these things aren't mutually exclusive.

You misunderstand - I said that a physically frail man could wield power over physically strong men by proclaiming an esoteric access to knowledge. What I meant was that here we have an attribute typically associated with women (i.e. frailty) occupying a position of power.

However, I do see a problem with mentioning animals when we talk about human behavior, and this is a common fallback when biological interactions emerge in an argument. These comparisons aren't made when discussing other animal's behaviors, so I don't understand why are made in this context. "Why do alligators do this? Ostriches are different so alligators could be different!" However, since you mentioned female lions being stronger, if we look to see how that plays out in lion behavior, we see that the females do the hunting - they do the greater amount of physical labor involved in procuring the necessities of life. That seems consistent with pointing out that male roles in humans have tended towards the more physically demanding.

I don't how many different ways to explain myself; you always seem to misinterpret this.

My point was only to acknowledge the contingency of evolutionary behavior. Grounding social values regarding gender in biology such that the former are unyielding strikes me as being as fallacious as an attempt to ground identity in metaphysics, since it absolutizes masculinity and femininity with particular qualities that don't hold true in other animals. Any such grounding is simply an effort to substantiate a set of values beyond the social production of values themselves - in other words, a kind of metaphysics. I'm not trying to say that lions could choose not to eat meat because rabbits don't eat meat. I'm saying that the values that emerge from these behaviors are not necessary and can be radically different depending on how food is acquired, what kind of food, how much, and all of this can vary within categories like carnivorism or herbivorism.

In the end, so long as associating gender with biology has minimal problematic repercussions (it will always have some), then there's no problem in doing so; but it strikes me as foolhardy to institute a necessary hierarchy of values in correspondence with what we perceive to be those values in biological traits.

Well I think it will be the undoing of the species if there isn't a return to a more biologically rooted view. You've been clear that you don't find that to be a problem.

No, because it won't be the undoing of the species. It could very well change the species, though; but who knows, maybe change is an ending, I guess it depends on how you look at it.

We're always changing though, so I'm not sure what to do with that.

Only to the extent that firefighting doesn't require greater size/muscle mass. This is my original point that these social role divisions seem arbitrary in many cases at this point because technology is obscuring differences. At the rate of advance in the fields surrounding IVF, even childbearing is becoming disconnected/obscured.

Well, biology isn't an origin of anything. It's just one point. And considering the rapid changes in recent technology, who knows what to expect.

 

[Cythraul]

There is a historical association between sex and gender, but there isn't any necessary connection between them.

I don't agree with this. I think that the concepts of manhood and womanhood get their very meanings through their association with biological sex and the distinct (perceived) teloi of males and females. Even the new, made-up gender categories that I'm aware of seem to be parasitic on this connection.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't agree with this. I think that the concepts of manhood and womanhood get their very meanings through their association with biological sex and the distinct (perceived) teloi of males and females. Even the new, made-up gender categories that I'm aware of seem to be parasitic on this connection.

Yeak, Dak and I have gone back and forth about this more than once. Ultimately I don't think this is something that can be proven one way or another because to do so requires access to origins that simply doesn't exist.

I actually agree with your comments about the "meanings" of manhood and womanhood and the parasitism of new genders on the originary (not original) binary of male and female. I think the question is simply whether the man/woman gender binary was an inevitable development out of primitive, pre-civilized, even nonhuman sexual behavior, or whether it was merely a happenstance of social evolution.

For what it's worth, I wouldn't make the argument that a non-gendered, or differently gendered, social organization would be necessarily better than the one we currently have. Ursula Le Guin toys with this idea in her novel The Left Hand of Darkness; and while the gender emancipation she imagines is laudable, I don't think we can definitively say that the society in which it occurs is better than the (arguably) more developed civilization that visits it (apologies for all the pronouns - go read the book ).

I'm confident that sexual biology has played a significant role in shaping gender norms. My objection derives from the fact that certain cultural values may be extrapolated from these norms that bear a decreasingly significant relation to them (i.e. the norms), and an increasingly significant relation to various means of political and social power.

 

[CiG]

has some good things to say but comes off like an idiot on his religious beliefs

Well he's in good company then, considering Rogan is basically the epitome of a douchey card-carrying atheist.

He is hiding behind his wall of academia to defend his bigotry.

Sounds like every professor I've heard of. Not that I would expect you to call out left-wing professors doing the same exact thing, because you're a gigantic hypocrite.

 

[EternalMetal]

I'm confident that sexual biology has played a significant role in shaping gender norms. My objection derives from the fact that certain cultural values may be extrapolated from these norms that bear a decreasingly significant relation to them (i.e. the norms), and an increasingly significant relation to various means of political and social power.

I agree with you here, but only to a point. Cultural values are inherently extrapolated from gender norms, and vice versa. Gender norms seem to be changing in most places that arent remotely rural, and therefore this also means that the cultural values of such distinction will change as well. You seem to be viewing gender norms as they have been defined traditionally, but in fact they have changed in relation to cultural values - with cultural values being the prime mover, and gender norms eventually being a reflection of these values.

The reason why there is a disconnect in gender norms is because of the contrast between the rural and urban cultural values in the same collective nation. The changes you refer to are primarily those in urban environments where man's physical advantage has practically been neutralized. However there are still jobs like EMS and firefighting where the muscle strength required to move physical bodies becomes a practical necessity. As an EMT I currently have a female partner who is very petite and has problems with lifting patients, and oftentimes I need to call for backup for more heavy lifting duties. Quite honestly this should not be acceptable, but progressive cultural values tend to gloss over real issues in the workplace such as this in light of empowering women. Many jobs in rural areas still require the physical strength of a man, and the necessity of this commodity and its implication on social values are viewed as degenerate and savage among those in urban environments (because of how it fundamentally conflicts with their own ideologies). An unfair assessment considering that rural production is still a necessity for urban life. Society as a whole is not developed far enough to allow for urban ideologies to pervade, and Trump's victory in the presidential election is symbolic of this. We may be reaching a point in society where we can start to move away from the traditional gender roles that have been pervasive throughout mankind's history, but we are still far from distancing ourselves entirely from what has worked in the past to get to the point where we are now.

Biology is not only pertinent to this discussion, but the main factor. The difference between male and female have always been capitalized upon to improve our chances of survival. Men traditionally assumed leadership because of physical differences, Dak is right here. Weak and feeble people may have contributed with valuable information in the past, but this is an exception; leaders lead by example, and for the majority of our past physical attributes were essential to gain influence. You disagree with a weaker man or woman? Beat him/her up, kill them, or whatever, and you gain control. This is savage behavior, but it is our past. And present to a certain point. Survival of the fittest still reigns supreme, but there has been a paradigm shift in recent decades that reduces the impact of physical prowess. Intelligence regardless of race and gender is gradually gaining traction in modern times, and only until recently has mankind started to make this distinction. Women have already proven themselves as being capable of leadership. However there are inherent biological differences between males and females, and the small sampling in recent years in career choices show that there is not exactly an equality of interest. The next step of humanity is to capitalize on the inherent strengths and weaknesses of people in general, and not just to appease a status quo of gender or race. The various strengths and weaknesses of genders and race will make themselves apparent (if they havent already), and this is all ok imo.

 

[Einherjar86]

That's a good response, and I appreciate the point about the differences between rural and urban communities. That probably has some bearing on the perception of gender and its applicability.

I'm still not convinced on this point, though:

Men traditionally assumed leadership because of physical differences, Dak is right here. Weak and feeble people may have contributed with valuable information in the past, but this is an exception; leaders lead by example, and for the majority of our past physical attributes were essential to gain influence. You disagree with a weaker man or woman? Beat him/her up, kill them, or whatever, and you gain control. This is savage behavior, but it is our past.

Do you have some evidence for this, or some reason why you think so?

It is a past, that's for sure; but I'm not convinced it's our past. You seem to be suggesting that this form of dominance dictated political power in the earliest manifestations of civilization. While I agree that physical strength has undoubtedly been an element of political power, I don't think it's the most important aspect of it. I recall the opening scenes of 2001: A Space Odyssey when the hominids find the bone and use it as a weapon - definitely a display of (presumably) masculine strength. But this isn't civilization, and it isn't political power; it's simply tribal behavior, pack mentality, instinctive defense of natural resources. I don't think we can definitively say that there's any civilization there to speak of.

Now, physical strength certainly persists into the earliest manifestations of civil society, but the emergence of such cultures isn't dictated by the constitution of political power via physical strength: it's constituted by the invention of writing systems and knowledge production - paintings on cave walls, financial records, etc. (in other words, the historical moments that would have immediately followed the opening sequence of 2001). The people who wielded the most power in such circumstances were those who knew how to write and maintain such systems, especially if their maintenance was deemed spiritually necessary (it's widely believed that those who painted the images in the Lascaux and Chauvet caves were considered immensely important in their societies, and that their paintings served a purpose as important as hunting, which the paintings often depicted). This isn't to say physical strength and knowledge production are mutually exclusive. I'm simply questioning whether leadership positions went to men exclusively because of physical strength. They likely also were accorded to individuals intelligent enough to read, write, and speak; and such traits are not restricted to men (even if they have historically been restricted to men).

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Starting in 2019, if Your Film Isn’t Diverse, It Won’t Be Eligible for a BAFTA Award

 

[CiG]

Instead of promoting independent film making in the various "minority" communities which will inevitably lead to far superior films that represent these communities and their interests, lets just shoehorn more dykes and black women into films for no artistic reason.

Fugg yeah.

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Instead of promoting independent film making in the various "minority" communities which will inevitably lead to far superior films that represent these communities and their interests, lets just shoehorn more dykes and black women into films for no artistic reason.

Fugg yeah.

This part killed me:

Many people will undoubtedly find this move to be blasphemous, leaning on the tired crutch of “artistic freedom” to label BAFTA as intrusive. They can live and die by that sword if they’d like, but they’ll only be proving that they’re not quite as creative or imaginative as they claim to be.

Nothing says being creative and imaginative like bowing down to an institution strictly to be eligible for an award.

 

[CiG]

These retards are just repeating the war-time censor guidelines of the film industry.