Are All Men Trash? Discussion

B: Did you just say eat the rich?! That's a call to violence!
P: Well, it's a rhetorical construct, intended to propagate the idea that the capitalist class are to blame for many of our problems.
B: Uh, wow, where to begin. Firstly, I am rich but you can't seriously believe I deserve to be--
P: --it's just a rhetorical device--
B: --cannibalised and it's completely inappropriate of you to use this awful, murderous catch-phrase. In this 300-page thesis "Why Poor People Shouldn't Be Mean To Me" I will discuss

Tafdolphin wrote:

OrangeRKN wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:So I feel we're getting away from the main thrust here. Men are trash as, as a social and cultural force, they are the creators and perpetrators of a system of norms and practices that have created a great deal of discrimination and inequality. This is often termed toxic masculinity. If we're talking about one, and the effect it has on other demographics, we cannot do so without involving the other.

My argument is really that you're attributing problems specifically to men where I think they are better burdened on humanity in general (our ecological impact the most obvious imo). That's not to say some problems are specific to toxic masculinity, and I would also agree that the same exacerbates some issues especially where there is a per-disposition towards violence, but I think underneath those problems would exist anyway, so placing all that blame directly on men alone is unfair.

I think the reason I object to "men are trash" as a statement in general is because it reads as an overall value judgement of the group, rather than a criticism of some typical male characteristics. Putting aside the absurdity of assigning a good/bad value to the set of all men, if I was forced to do so I would side with the positive, much the same as I am not (as much as I sometimes think it) a misanthrope, and on balance I believe in the good nature of (hu)mankind.

Again, I don't really have a detailed response to this as its another take on the matter I don't agree with.

The problem with assigning the negative traits to all of humanity rather than a subset is that this ignores the specific and targeted discrimination of some sections of humanity by the dominant group of humanity. Is it humanity as a whole that codified the inequality of the sexes, or was it that group that sought to gain said dominance? It's an important distinction and I think handwaving it as an almost genetic eventuality is ignoring important cultural signifiers.

But a blanket statement like “men are trash” will also blanket the oppressed in that group.

Are gay men also part of the trash? Black men living in the Deep South? Trans men? Aboriginal men?

The other major problem with making blanket statements about large groups is it will never result in the people you want to listen actually listening. Saying “there’s a problem with Muslims” when you mean ISIS is not a great way of getting Muslims onside.

I do get what you are saying and I don’t really disagree, but I am always uncomfortable with making blanket statements for innate characteristics. Specifying the problematic traits (in this case toxic masculinity and millennia's of oppression) will result in less pointless arguments than just a straight “bloody men eh, what a bunch of bastards”.

Well B's obviously Green Gecko. Who is P ....Peter Crisp?

Karl_ wrote:B: Did you just say eat the rich?! That's a call to violence!
P: Well, it's a rhetorical construct, intended to propagate the idea that the capitalist class are to blame for many of our problems.
B: Uh, wow, where to begin. Firstly, I am rich but you can't seriously believe I deserve to be--
P: --it's just a rhetorical device--
B: --cannibalised and it's completely inappropriate of you to use this awful, murderous catch-phrase. In this 300-page thesis "Why Poor People Shouldn't Be Mean To Me" I will discuss

This. I mean.

This.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Jenuall wrote:Firstly the temporal aspect: Society as it stands today is a product of thousands of years of development - we are undoubtedly more civisilised today than we were 500 years ago. Similarly the failings of today are in many ways the result of the actions that were taken by individuals and groups far in the past - can the people of today be held accountable for the sins of the past? Is that a fair judgement. We should learn from them, and we have been and are continuing to do that (and absolutely should be taken to task if we are not doing so) and admittedly there is a long way to go, but it feels a bit much to say all men today share a responsibility for the shaping of society caused by groups of men throughout history. <!major simplification warning!>I wouldn't put a son on trial for something his father did for example. The father may have been a twat, and he may have begat a twat, but the son still needs to be given the opportunity to prove whether or not he is a twat before we condemn him!

So firstly, in my finest politician voice, I want to address the unspoken assumption here: that we as a society have consistently advanced as time has moved forwards. You say the failings of today are the result of the past but societal development isn't a straight line. Take a cliched example: homosexuality was commonplace in ancient Greece. Even in many western societies it is still a controversial topic, largely due to Judeo-Christian ideas of morality introduced and spread by, yes, men*. We have regressed here. I'm sure historians on here will have further examples similar cultural regressions.

Yes, there are always going to be elements of regression (hopefully temporary) I don't doubt that and civilisation is not a straight line progression, but to simplify things and look at the whole it IS an upward trajectory. (Not 100% the subject of it but the book I referenced above, Factulness, is worth a look on this topic)

Tafdolphin wrote:But to talk to your actual question, we're not talking about people. We're talking about a societal construct, the foundational group behind western society. You mention 'groups of men' which, again, is a classification that I at least am not talking about. It's true that if you dig down then yes you can differentiate these smaller groups but this then ceases to become a discussion about men and becomes about the 'groups of men'. Men as a classification is, as mentioned, a largely negative driving force. This is what I'm talking to. I'm not suggesting the placement of blame on individuals, just like I wouldn't call a member of Labour antisemitic whilst quite happily calling the Labour party itself antisemitic.

Okay, but this feels to me like stopping at a point before the inspection becomes truly valuable. If my goal is "remove the antisemitic aspects of the labour party" then saying "the labour party is antisemitic" doesn't help me - it just reaffirms that there is a problem - yes I know, but I need more detail if I am to fix that problem! Who is antisemitic? Why were they allowed in the party? Why did they get to be like this in the first place? etc.

Yes the world at large needs reminding that the "foundational group men" are in need of attention - goodness knows too many people are still wilfully in denial about this, but we aren't going to fix that problem if we don't dig deeper than that. Labelling men as trash doesn't further the conversation.

Tafdolphin wrote:

Secondly the grouping issue: You've already said that you don't think every man is evil, so is it acceptable that they are held account for the problems of those men who are - that they are given the same "trash" label? Just because they share a gender? What are the circumstances where a "tarring all with the same brush" like this is acceptable - when we believe there is a sufficient percentage of the group in question that is 'guilty'? When the results of those who are the problem are of a large enough scale? I'm trying to think of a suitable analogy - possibly the teacher who gives detention to the entire class for the actions of only one, or a small group of students? Is that right? The distinction here is that generally in those situations the teacher punishes the whole because the don't know who the culprit is, if they can find out who the guilty parties are they would only punish those responsible. Do we know enough about who the "problem men" are that we don't have to blame everyone? Or is there sufficient grey area and lack of clarity that is is okay to say we are all trash?

Or is this a problem so large that it requires everyone to hold some responsibility regardless of their personal contribution to that problem? A similar example may be the slavery reparations debate in the US (which is back in the limelight again I believe) - is this a situation of sufficient significance that the people of today, who may not personally be responsible, need to take ownership of the situation to "correct" the actions of those in the past?

Again, I feel we're talking about different issues here. I'm not talking in any way about individuals. I'm talking about men as a classification. To use your analogy of a classroom, if one class is underperforming that identity is assigned to the class as a whole. High performing students could certainly make a case as to why this doesn't apply to them but that's a seperate discussion; the class itself as its own entity is still in trouble.

Yes, I take this point - this is what I'm saying above. Labelling the class as underperforming is a top level analysis that lets us know more attention is required (in the same way that identifying men and masculinity is something that needs more attention) but without looking deeper - are all the kids just thick? are there behavioual issues? is there a high percentage of SEN in the class? is the teacher gooseberry fool? etc. - we can't do much about it, and possibly more of a concern - we may do the wrong thing about it!

I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

It’s like the opposite version of the dead cat thing Boris Johnson likes to do. In trouble over some posh nonsense? Just claim you paint model buses in your spare time!

Want to make a point on toxic masculinity? Avoid giving people the easy “not all men!” line by being more specific.

Karl_ wrote:B: Did you just say eat the rich?! That's a call to violence!
P: Well, it's a rhetorical construct, intended to propagate the idea that the capitalist class are to blame for many of our problems.
B: Uh, wow, where to begin. Firstly, I am rich but you can't seriously believe I deserve to be--
P: --it's just a rhetorical device--
B: --cannibalised and it's completely inappropriate of you to use this awful, murderous catch-phrase. In this 300-page thesis "Why Poor People Shouldn't Be Mean To Me" I will discuss

If your rhetorical construct isn't working as intended however it's probably most pragmatic to stop using it

You gotta play the propaganda war

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Is it?

If we are taking "Men are trash" as the "eat the rich" statement equivalent then Karl's post is saying the issue is that people are trying to undercut the point of "eat the rich" (a signal, a call to arms - a way to raise an issue) by deconstructing it ad infinitum, rather than engaging with the topic.

My post is that "eat the rich"/"men are trash" is nothing more than a statement and we need to go further if it is going to do anything of value.

additionally as a general comment if a brand of messaging is only ever achieving a response like that in Karls post then maybe, regretably perhaps, the answer is to rethink your messaging and work out if there is a better way to convince people that you have something valuable to talk about

The mistake there is thinking the statement is somehow an invitation for discussion.

It's not. More often than not it's an expression of rage against, if you will, the machine. Or, you know a rhetorical device as Karl already covered.

The discussion of the last few pages has involved a lot of #notallmen which yes, is the usual uninvited and unnecessary response.

What is the step beyond the deployment of the rhetorical device?

That is what I've been trying to get at - what is the point in raging against a machine if you have no plan to enact any real change? Yes it may make you feel better I suppose.

It may inspire others who actually do have a plan I guess?

Men are trash? Okay that's a statement - what do we do about it?

Karl_ wrote:--it's just a rhetorical device--

I can see your point, Karl, although I do feel that - were someone to use that conversational style - it may be at risk of provoking some of the kind of "fallout" issues we've seen occasionally.

I'm not suggesting that people should mince their words but I do believe that it's often beneficial to be reasonably careful in presenting a point. Using offhand phrases could lead to words being misinterpreted or re-quoted in an "extreme" manner that was not intended.

Tl;dr Wording can be critical for subjects that some may perceive as being divisive. And I'm not saying that horrible views should be more attractively presented in order to gain acceptance.

There is a space in the world for rhetorical expressions of rage, yes?

It's that.

Tafdolphin wrote:The mistake there is thinking the statement is somehow an invitation for discussion.

It's not. More often than not it's an expression of rage against, if you will, the machine. Or, you know a rhetorical device as Karl already covered.

The discussion of the last few pages has involved a lot of #notallmen which yes, is the usual uninvited and unnecessary response.

If you publicly make a statement like “men are trash” then you are inviting a discussion and comments. Whether you want them or not.

Jenuall and OR said it best, if your branding is always receiving negative responses then you better look at improving that brand because otherwise you will lose the propaganda war.

Tafdolphin wrote:There is a space in the world for rhetorical expressions of rage, yes?

It's that.

Of course.

But if you want change then you need to work towards the change, not just howl in the dark alone.

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:I feel the natural to that response, which is a valid response!, Is Karl's post.

Karl’s post is great.

But it doesn’t change the fact that when you say “men are trash” all that happens is pages of arguments about “not all men!” rather than the actual topic.

If men were less trash, then they'd understand the point, and there would be no argument.

Tafdolphin wrote:There is a space in the world for rhetorical expressions of rage, yes?

It's that.

Indeed. But if you are content to simply employ a rhetorical expression of rage then you have to accept that if that is all you do then it may have limited impact, and may in fact have a detrimental effect on your cause.

If someone cares about an issue why would they not want to either contribute in a way that may help to solve it or, if they are unable or unwilling to do that then to find a way to raise the profile of it in an effective way?

Moggy wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:There is a space in the world for rhetorical expressions of rage, yes?

It's that.

Of course.

But if you want change then you need to work towards the change, not just howl in the dark alone.

That... happens...too?

Of course men are going to respond. They read a statement that "all men are trash" and jump to it being a personal attack because they identify as a man and therefore think you've just called them trash. It's a predictable and not unreasonable response from someone who doesn't understand the context or rhetoric behind that statement.

"Uninvited and unnecessary" could equally apply to the person making the statement in the first place, so that's neither here nor there!

I'm going to step out now as we're getting dangerously close to the justification of #notallmen, which I'm not prepared to deal with in my current state.

It was an interesting discussion, and I think I've said all I wanted to say!