If language affects perception, what is the effect of phrases like "toxic masculinity", "hegemonic masculinity" and patriarchy?

[–]theblatherskyte11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But isn't the fact that those terms "hypoagency and hyperagency" are only used to describe women and men respectively, suggesting that they are actually being used to attack a gender.

Accurate use of the terms to describe behaviors exhibited by both sexes can only be considered an attack on women if you think women are exempt from criticism for exhibited behavior, and if you equate feminist ideology with women. The discussion, which accurately points out examples of the phenomena discussed, does not suffer from the vagueness of the Patriarchy concept, which lacks a genuine link between the description of Patriarchy as a power structure, the description of Patriarchy as a social environment, and the claim of a societal pattern of oppression of women. In fact, feminist ideologues cannot promote Patriarchy theory without relying on the concept of female hypoagency, because without it, an oppressive patriarchal society simply could not have existed for very long without an uprising and overthrow by the oppressed. Feminists simply don't use that term to describe the concept.

Also, I'm not sure the use of the terms are very precise... I mean, (not to belabor the point), what is a "cultural tendency?" Is it commonly repeated phrases? Voting patterns? female privilege? A perception? A universal societal characteristics? A social role?

Kinda silly of you to write your question so that it contains its own answer. You demonstrate that you know what is being expressed simply by the list you give. It shows that you understand the meaning of cultural, and the meaning of tendency - so you have no real excuse for claiming to not know the meaning of the term, except maybe that as a reader of feminist literature, you are not accustomed to such straightforward use of language.

I guess my point is, I don't think the term is precise, and I don't know what you mean by "clinical"?

This makes me interested to learn your understanding of the term. What is your interpretation of the word "clinical?" Is it limited to the medical use of the word?

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This makes me interested to learn your understanding of the term. What is your interpretation of the word "clinical?" Is it limited to the medical use of the word?

What I think it means doesn't really matter. If you would like to know, I don't think clinical means anything substansive in this context, but clearly Jolly_mcfats meant to communicate something, so thus my question. Remember, (from Appelrouth, S. A. and Desfor Edles, L. (2012) Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory):

While structuralist theorists are inclined to develop theories based on the assumption of formal, patterned, and commonly shared meaning, the poststructural position expresses extreme doubt about the existence of universal patterns of meaning and culture. Thus, one of the guiding themes that unify the various poststructural thinkers is their general skepticism towards the universality of shared meaning as conveyed by signs. Instead, in one of their most influential arguments, poststructuralists argue that the meaning of signs has fragmented, resulting in "floating signifiers." They contend that the links between signified and their signifier has become destabilized. Signifiers are are no longer connected to only one signified, nor are signifieds represented by only one signifier. The internal structure of the sign has collapsed, with signifiers disconnected from any stable signified, making meaning multiplicative, open-ended, and fragmented. The cultural world described by the world described by the poststructuralists is one of inherent fragmentation, instability, and confusion.

I don't believe the term has a fixed meaning, thus my question was direct.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What I think it means doesn't really matter. If you would like to know, I don't think clinical means anything substansive in this context, but clearly Jolly_mcfats meant to communicate something, so thus my question. I don't believe the term has a fixed meaning, thus my question was direct.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/clinical

3. Very objective and devoid of emotion; analytical

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/clinical

3. extremely objective and realistic; dispassionately analytic; unemotionally critical:

From the World English Dictionary listing at that same link:

3. scientifically detached; strictly objective

The common thread of these definitions is that they denote the use of the term "clinical" as an adverb, describing the attitude with which the action described in the verb it modifies as dispassionate, objective, and analytical, something you could easily have gotten from the context of the sentence if you were not feigning confusion yet again. It isn't that you did not understand the meaning of the term because you are a post-structuralist. It is that you had a desire to pick apart the comment, didn't have the means, and were looking for a way to prod the commenter into a statement, the meaning of which you could twist or spin.

Not only is that game getting old, it is also transparently manipulative and dishonest. You are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to play it.

[–]spermjack_attack0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Look at you, selectively quoting things. But more to the point:

the use of the term "clinical" as an adverb, describing the attitude with which the action described in the verb it modifies as dispassionate, objective, and analytical, something you could easily have gotten from the context of the sentence if you were not feigning confusion yet again.

Okay, the things is, I don't believe the terms are these things, because I do not believe that the terms "hypoagency and hyperagency" are dispassionate, objective and analytical. I'll give you one example why I don't think they are objective:

Female hypoagency is what we call the cultural tendency to deny that women have agency. We are talking about imputed rather than real lack of agency.

So... stating that the subjective experiences of women are "not real." This doesn't objective at all, rather it sounds very subjective: specifically, typhonblue's experiences are that women are treated as if they have less agency then they "really" do. Furthermore, when typhonblue causally uses the term "agency," it raise the question, how do we objectively measure agency? Wouldn't we need to know how to do that before the concepts of "hypoagency and hyperagency," can be objective. It seems to me that those concepts depend on two things, the existence of a society which treats women as less then men in terms of "agency" (a patriarchy perhaps), and an operational ization of agency which corrisponsed to the socially agreed on understanding of agency... except, what was it that post-structuralists argue?

...the poststructural position expresses extreme doubt about the existence of universal patterns of meaning and culture. Thus, one of the guiding themes that unify the various poststructural thinkers is their general skepticism towards the universality of shared meaning as conveyed by signs.

Ah, yeah. Now I remember. Sorry to feigning forgetfulness in the above rhetorical question, but it's just what I do when I have to reexplain these things to you. With jolly, I was trying to come to a consensus on what was being said (and, once again, the question was asked). Like, I wanted to clear up the jargon. Because that's what clinical was being used for, to contain the ideas of "dispassionate, objective, and analytical," of which I dispute one of the components uses (and I think there is good criticism of the other two). Furthermore, I'm not going to waste my time arguing if the usage of the terms we are discussing isn't at least somewhat clear.

Not only is that game getting old, it is also transparently manipulative and dishonest. You are not doing yourself any favors by continuing to play it.

Yeah, well your not doing yourself any favors either. You repeatedly demonstrate your understanding of feminist, meaning, reality and logic are severely flawed. Furthermore, you projected malice and manipulation onto me is getting old. What you see as manipulation, I see as productive expansion of the concepts we are discussing. You just want to go around blathering about "what feminists believe" without the slightest consideration of what feminists actually do believe, and what the meaning of things are.

Feminists believe that perception is reality.

Feminists believe that representation controls perception. [NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO POST-STRUCTUALISM]

Feminists therefore believe that representation creates reality.

Oh wait... I argued that this isn't true at all. Am I not a feminist?

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is great - here you are, trying to force perception of the your opponent's side of the discussion through the filter of a philosophical viewpoint that was debunked by reference material from the article on which you are commenting. It cites multiple examples of universal patterns of meaning and culture, the easiest of those being the association of the count of a number value with the name for that number value. The concept of specific number values, when applied to the counting of objects is, at its base, the same across cultures regardless of language, reasons for the importance of counting, or arbitrary methods (such as the use of decimal places vs the use of groups of hash marks or letter groups... 11.0 = XI = ~~||||~~ ~~||||~~ |, and no matter what culture you select, there is a conceptual designation representing the number value we know as "eleven," which does not represent the number value we know as "five," or change to cease representing the number value "eleven" and begin representing the object value "teeth."

Your attempt to force others' perception of the discussion through the filter of your belief in the concept of poststructuralism really is an example of the feminist tendency I've described in the post: attempting to enforce attitudes and beliefs using structured representation designed to limit or manipulate perception of concepts.

Look at you, selectively quoting things.

Arguing that a word has more than one definition does not excuse you from being able to gather the easily distinguishable meaning from context, nor does feigning ignorance of the word's user's intent by attempting to apply your belief system to speech which you are aware was not made from the basis of your beliefs, as you do here:

the use of the term "clinical" as an adverb, describing the attitude with which the action described in the verb it modifies as dispassionate, objective, and analytical, something you could easily have gotten from the context of the sentence if you were not feigning confusion yet again.

Okay, the things is, I don't believe the terms are these things, because I do not believe that the terms "hypoagency and hyperagency" are dispassionate, objective and analytical. I'll give you one example why I don't think they are objective:

Female hypoagency is what we call the cultural tendency to deny that women have agency. We are talking about imputed rather than real lack of agency.

So... stating that the subjective experiences of women are "not real."

This is you selectively quoting in an attempt to impose a meaning on the text cited which, in context, is not contained by that text, then stating a conclusion that is not supported by the article from which you pulled that text. The article discusses society's tendency to treat the results of women's actions as if they have been inflicted by an outside source, and the results of women's inaction-by-choice as if the lack of a different result is not our fault because an outside source has failed to provide a remedy. An excellent example of this is the feminist use of the term "forced pregnancy" to describe a woman's pregnancy which occurred as a result of her choice to have sex (action) without using birth control (inaction), and which society will not help her terminate (outside remedy.) Female hypoagency is the treatment of the choice to have sex and the choice to not use birth control as irrelevant to her condition despite their combined relationship to it, while treating the lack of outside remedy as being more relevant to her condition than it is - thereby terming the condition of being unhappily pregnant "forced" when it is, in fact, not.

Furthermore, when typhonblue causally uses the term "agency," it raise the question, how do we objectively measure agency? Wouldn't we need to know how to do that before the concepts of "hypoagency and hyperagency," can be objective. It seems to me that those concepts depend on two things, the existence of a society which treats women as less then men in terms of "agency" (a patriarchy perhaps), and an operational ization of agency which corrisponsed to the socially agreed on understanding of agency... except, what was it that post-structuralists argue?

This falls right in line with my above statement, as well as the use of presentation to manipulate perception, and my post's discussion on whether perception is, in fact, reality. While at the end of your comment you attempt to distance yourself from that assertion, here, you hint at believing in it. By couching your argument in the notion that because you disagree with Typhon's assertions, you can apply your disagreement with her writing to the meaning of Jolly's statement, you again attempt to impose the post-structuralist filter on the reader's perception of the discussion.

The attempt is fakery, based on an effort to treat speech as if it were made from your perspective rather than from the speaker's perspective. It's easily transparent both in its disingenuousness, and its sneakiness... but it does provide a prime example of the feminist mind-game style of debate.

You've once again, by demonstration, proved exactly what I've said.

Feminists believe that perception is reality.

Feminists believe that representation controls perception. [NOT TRUE ACCORDING TO POST-STRUCTUALISM]

Feminists therefore believe that representation creates reality.

Oh wait... I argued that this isn't true at all. Am I not a feminist?

Again, you are again trying to filter the discussion through a limited presentation, attempting to use "I don't believe this, and I'm a feminist" as a substitute for "this is not a feminist belief" in answer to discussion on the regularly expressed feminist assertion that representation of women in various media is oppression because it controls perception of, and therefore attitudes toward and treatment of women. You're contradicting mainstream feminists on this, as their entire argument on presentation of women in media is exactly as I've laid it out.

This isn't simply an assertion, but is a belief that is acted upon, not just nationally, or in a few areas, but in fact intentionally so. As such, you really have no basis for arguing that what you claim to believe is what feminists believe. In reality, if you try to reconcile post-structuralism with a feminist-ideological outlook on the world, you are going to continually contradict yourself, or you are going to find yourself at odds with one belief or the other. If you try to argue in here from both perspectives, you're going to continually present yourself as a dishonest and manipulative debater. Again, you're not doing yourself any favors with this line of argument.

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're contradicting mainstream feminists on this, as their entire argument on presentation of women in media is exactly as I've laid it out.

OH NO! Please don't tell the feminist hive collective, oneiorosgrip! I will be in so much trouble, they'll take away my feminist cookies and my hyperagency! Feminists disagree all the time, it's not something new to me, it's just new to you. I'm glad you've come to see some sense.

Okay, I've read through your accusatory rant, and I don't really care to respond line by line. So here's a few important points:

Explaining the post-strucutralist critique, and why it leads to different conclusions then structuralist arguements is not forcing "others' perception of the discussion through the filter of your belief." I have been communicating the contents of the arguements, and demonstrating the problems with structuralism by giving examples from within this thread. If education you is forcing you to learn, that's a tragic way to be victimized.
I've read Pinker's book (I have it right in front of me), and I'll tell you what: It's a fat load of shit. It has been wildly criticed and it's premises (and conclusions) have been rejected by biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, mathematicians and sociologists. You should get away from your infatuation with his "science," especially in light of the fact that his work had been wildly derided for it's unscientific content.
Cool your jets. You jumped into my and Jolly_mcfats' conversation, where I asked him a question, he responded, and then I provided my criticism. You are the one jumping in accusing me of manipulating the conversation, when I am completely fine with what Jolly has said. We disagree, but that's okay, because for the most part, I think he understands my arguments, and we just have some differing interpretations of some things. (and in retrospect, I've wasted my efforts repeating myself to you, and could have had a much more productive conversation with Jolly, who doesn't malign my intentions and actions.)
Stop accusing me of being malicious. Seriously, if anyone's being manipulative it's you. You jump in and let jolly know I'm from /r/AMR, hoping it will 'poison the well.' Then you start spreading a ridiculous story about me "manipulating" you in some previous thread. Like you've been prancing around this thread, interjecting at ever possible moment to try to catch me being disingenuous, sneaky, selectively quoting (maybe I did that, but your blog is pretty shitty), fakery, mind-games (am I psychic?), dishonesty, feigned sincerity (though, I'll concede I've stopped being nice to you) , among other things. Chill out, you're being a manipulative asshat.

Seriously, you make yourself look a fool in the discussion about abortion, and now you're following me around this thread like a lost, bitter puppy.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OH NO! Please don't tell the feminist hive collective, oneiorosgrip! I will be in so much trouble, they'll take away my feminist cookies and my hyperagency! Feminists disagree all the time, it's not something new to me, it's just new to you. I'm glad you've come to see some sense.

Please don't stoop to the NAFALT argument. Oh, wait... you just did.

The NAFALT argument has been debunked.

The NAFALT argument has been destroyed.

The NAFALT argument has been presented multiple ways, and still doesn't hold any water.

Using the NAFALT argument doesn't exempt you from being accused of "hive mind" behavior. By virtue of it being the go-to argument used by feminists in this sub who don't like the way discussions on feminism in which they're participating are going, making that argument associates you with the ignorant grassroots feminist hivemind - the overall group whose public behavior both in groups and as individuals is used by feminist activists to effect an air of credibility. If you do not accept feminist ideology, calling yourself a feminist is dishonest. It's like claiming your dog has 5 legs because you decided to call his tail a leg. Just because you want to hold the belief does not make it so.

Okay, I've read through your accusatory rant

::claims to not be attempting to control perception by using manipulative speech::
::claims words are meaningless because philosophy::
::uses labels to impose perception of previous comment::

Do you realize how stupid you look doing that?

Explaining the post-strucutralist critique, and why it leads to different conclusions then structuralist arguements is not forcing "others' perception of the discussion through the filter of your belief."

If that had been your approach, it would have made for a much better discussion. It wasn't - instead, you started by writing as if 1) your post-structuralist beliefs defined the statement to which you replied and 2) the line of rationalizing you're now arguing occurred (commenter described specific terms as "clinical" -> "clinical" means dispassionate, objective, analytical based on the context of its use in the comment -> I have ideological disagreement with the writer's use of those terms -> Based on my opinion I do not consider use of the terms to fit the meaning of the word "clinical" -> post-structuralism -> therefore the "clinical" must have another meaning.) The reason I use the word rationalizing instead of reasoning is that you're substituting "post-structuralism" in your argument for the behavior you actually exhibited: Substitution of debate on the meaning of the word "clinical" to avoid being effectively countered on your assertions regarding the terms "hypoagency" and "hyperagency." You used feigning ignorance of the term's meaning in context as an escape from having to back up your statements of opinion, in an effort to slip that opinion in unchallenged, and to impose upon the reader the perception of the use of those words as incorrect.

Had you simply been straightforward in discussing the terms, and challenged the use of them up front, the conversation would have been much shorter, as your claim was easily countered (as I've shown in earlier comments in this thread.)

I've read Pinker's book (I have it right in front of me), and I'll tell you what: It's a fat load of shit. It has been wildly criticed and it's premises (and conclusions) have been rejected by biologists, psychologists, anthropologists, mathematicians and sociologists. You should get away from your infatuation with his "science," especially in light of the fact that his work had been wildly derided for it's unscientific content.

If you've read Pinker's book, then you're aware that it is a well-cited piece of writing that contains replies to the criticisms which have been leveled at it, descriptions of how these individuals' professional opinions are affected by their political ideology, and discussion on ways in which adherents to the Blank Slate belief contradict themselves. "Widely criticized" is not a counterargument, especially in discussion on any type of scientific topic. Most information that contradicts existing dearly held beliefs (and the "Blank Slate" idea is a centuries old dearly held belief) are "widely criticized." Your appeal to authority does not debunk the information in the book. It only shows that you're willing to pick and choose your academic beliefs based on your ideology.

Cool your jets. You jumped into my and Jolly_mcfats' conversation, where I asked him a question, he responded, and then I provided my criticism.

Oh, yes - how dare I respond to comments posted in a thread of discussion under a link to my blog. Guess what? You're not having a conversation in a booth in the back of a bar. You're on the internet. When you post shit, other people read what you wrote, and are able to reply to it. To quote one of the greats, put on your big kid panties and deal with it.

Stop accusing me of being malicious.

Stop being malicious.

Seriously, if anyone's being manipulative it's you. You jump in and let jolly know I'm from /r/AMR, hoping it will 'poison the well.'

Oh, you mean that secret publicly visible sub, the entire purpose of which is to attack this one? That sub? Aside from repeating my statement about this being the internet, and your activities here not being a secret, I should point out two things. First, having it pointed out that you are from AMR can only poison the waters if you're willing to admit that being here from AMR means that you are poison in the water. Second, that argument doesn't help as a follow-up to your argument about not being malicious. It really comes across as "How dare you accuse me of having a bias just because I admit to having a bias?" You do realize that, right?

Then you start spreading a ridiculous story about me "manipulating" you in some previous thread.

I love how you took that as talking about myself, as if I am the only reader of your comments. Guess what! When you repeatedly use the same technique in debate, someone's going to notice and call you on it. You did. I noticed. That's no fun - I get that - but you have two choices. Whining about it is only one of them. The other is to become a more honest debater. You can do that, if you decide you're willing. If you're not willing, that's on you. Again, put on your big kid panties, because you're not entitled to impunity for your exhibited behavior.

Seriously, you make yourself look a fool in the discussion about abortion, and now you're following me around this thread like a lost, bitter puppy.

That's a laugh - I provided multiple sources for the information used in that discussion. You provided opinion. When called on it, you provided a source that supported my argument, then moved the goalposts in the discussion, then abandoned the discussion when your arguments didn't pan out... and your most productive criticism was that I shouldn't have taken it on good faith that the original post contained the entire text of the experiment. Once that was remedied, you couldn't come up with another counter. As Scott D. Weitzenhoffer said of debating evolution with creationists, arguing with you is like playing chess with a pigeon; you've knocked over the pieces, crapped all over the board, and flown off to declare victory.

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]OuiCrudites6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]MRB20126 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Grapeban-5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Ascribing negative characteristics to masculinity is accomplished by multiple methods. One of those methods is to ascribe negativity to behaviors seen as typically male, despite the harmlessness of ordinary presentation of those behaviors. Beer drinking and looking at girls are two examples of this, where feminists don't differentiate between a guy having a beer, and a guy who drinks away the rent, gets drunk and beats his wife, or doesn't meet his potential in life because of his focus on drinking, and where feminists don't differentiate between a guy noticing a woman's shape, and a guy saying crude things or invasively touching women he finds attractive.

Deliberate association of a negative tone with traits associated with a group is a classic means of dehumanization. Its effectiveness is severely limited by the human ability to perceive and judge for oneself, but that hasn't stopped people from using that method. That use continues in part because it does work on individuals who wish to foster a negative perception of the group. That can easily be seen in the use of rubber concepts like "privilege," which can be twisted for the benefit of its user, as is seen when feminists state made-up "realities," such as "being able to walk down the street at night without being afraid" to place under that label. The use of "privileged" as an accusation by feminists and other victim-politics groups is nothing but a strategic method of fostering in-group resentment of the target group (in this case, men) in order to further dehumanize them.

[–]ZimbaZumba5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If anyone here actually doubts the effect of language on a debate, it's very easy to demonstrate.

Plausible and possible. Two words that are very very different, but often used almost interchangeably.

Plausible: Not only speaks to the possibility of something occurring, but also the likelihood of it occurring.
Possible: Speaks to whether or not something can occur, but does not address the likelihood of it occurring.

"By defining rape to include envelopment, it's very possible that we'll change how rape cases are handled, and risk shaming victims when their attackers point the finger back at them."

Perfectly logical statement based on the usage of the word possible. The problem is, most people see "very possible" and think "very plausible".

If, in realizing this, someone utilizes the word possible in such a way to suggest plausibility, we can easily see how it can be used to steer a conversation in whatever direction you want.

The words we choose matter immensely, because it changes the way we understand a message. When you think "Patriarchy", you think "man". When you hear "Patriarchy is the problem", you hear "Man is the problem". This is a very easy way to disguise hate speech as academic speech, quickly turning around to say "No, you just don't understand what patriarchy means"

It doesn't matter what it means academically, if it's being utilized in such a way that it makes people think "Men are the problem". It doesn't matter that "possible" does not equal "plausible", if I use "possible" to suggest "plausible", I will successfully scare people with it.

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is an excellent point, and it brings up another.

"By defining rape to include envelopment, it's very possible that we'll change how rape cases are handled, and risk shaming victims when their attackers point the finger back at them."

There is another aspect of this feminist argument, used successfully in India and attempted (I don't know the success there) in Israel, which I don't think people understand is also a means of manipulating speech to hide feminist promotion of a discriminatory concept.

Contained in the argument is an admission-by-context, and an assertion.

The admission cannot be seen without considering why there would be danger in men accused of rape counter-accusing their accusers would be a problem. After all, in a case where the evidence backs up the accusation, a counter-accusation would be easily proved to be perjury, and dismissed - might even get the accused in legal trouble, in fact. In reality, feminists have fought long and hard to reduce the requirement of evidence in rape cases. It is only because proof is not required for rape allegations to be taken seriously that feminists need fear knee-jerk counter-accusation. Their argument on this is an unrealized admission that they have gone way too far in their attempt to make it easy for an accuser to obtain a conviction.

The assertion is that with respect to male victims, it is acceptable to compromise a right feminists have asserted is a human right - the right to obtain justice after having been raped - for the benefit of female accusers. This specific advocacy on the part of feminists is the promotion of male disposability, even though the sacrifice is not men's lives. It is an area in which feminist advocate enforce male sacrifice for the benefit of women, using wordcrafting to obscure the nature of the assertion.

[–]GregoryPanic1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]GregoryPanic2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]DerickBurton4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

does post-structuralism apply when the signified is constructed by someone unfamiliar with the systems of knowledge that produced the signifier?

I've seen you mention elsewhere that you don't think that language shapes society, but rather reflects society- which would place you and oneirosgrip on the same page. I find this belief extremely puzzling though; do you believe advertising ineffective? Why do you think Frank Luntz was so successful? Was Newt Gingrich barking up the wrong tree when he urged the republican gopac to be mindful of their language?

Early in my career I worked for a marketing firm, and saw a lot of different results from focus groups based entirely on language choices in the copy that they were presented with- results that demonstrated a changed perception of a brand due to words the focus group had seen associated with that brand. This seemed to adequately demonstrate to me that language does influence perception, and it seems like we exist in a culture where this has been demonstrated so frequently that skepticism to the idea is hard for me to understand.

I'd be sincerely interested in your thoughts- but I'd also like you just to keep that possibility in the back of your head when you read this subreddit and watch which phrases meet the most fierce resistance. I really think that when a concept that someone hasn't had any exposure to is resisted, it's largely a function of what they would guess it means just from the language.

[–]spermjack_attack2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is a good question, and one I need to think on a little more. But at this moment (8am, and eating a bowl of french toast crunch), I think I can give you a somewhat thought out answer.

So, in regards to advertising (both commercial and political), I think that they do work in a fashion. But this is because advertising is more then just language. Advertising depends on a number of cultural "artifacts" in which to be "tethered to." It isn't simply that the language itself has an effect, but that the language works through cultural and social "things" to produce consumptive behaviors and political dispositions. So, in this regard, language is the most visible part of the more intricate workings of societal shaping forces.

Now, I think I understand what you mean about a constructed signified of which a person can be unaware of the signifier: That is, the terms "toxic masculinity", "hegemonic masculinity," and patriarchy "insinuate by association that dysfunction is a male characteristic" (as from the article posted). I think there are a few things to say:

1) The author actually assumes E understands the meaning of these terms. Suggesting at that feminists use these terms to demonize men, and subsequently enforce negative gender roles on them. While simultaneously hiding their "double work," the author suggest that the entire body of feminist academia is somehow caught up in an elaborate conspiracy...

Look how feminists have worked to maintain the very stereotypical gender roles to which they otherwise object, to the detriment of men, when it suits women...

These groups treat the female homemaker/male provider family model as a form of oppression of women... until the family gets a divorce, and then that male provider had better pay up, or else!...

Look at how hard feminists work to promote the concept of disposable men, arguing to treat imprisoning men on the basis of false allegations as "acceptable losses" in a war on... well, who, exactly, since they also treat the crime in question - rape - as a male perpetrated crime?...

The thing is, these are very big claims that I know just don't hold. Especially the last one, which has always astounded me. In what way have feminists worked to "promote the concept of disposable men"? I really would like to see a 21st century example which implicates the whole of feminism in the promotion of this concept? (sorry to digress)

However, the things is, these concepts are part of a large body of concepts, which admittedly a lot of MRAs (and I'd say even a fair amount of feminists) don't understand, which brings me to my next point...

2) When feminists like myself use these terms (though I don't believe I use "toxic masculinity") we are talking about things that can't be just gleaned from etymology. Selecting just "hegemonic masculinity," I will show how feminists are actually working against common sense ideas of gender and masculinity that the author seems to believe feminists are working to maintain. This term was introduced by R.W. Connell, and in her work The Social Organization of Masculinity, she introduces how to conceptualize masculinity as an object of study like this:

... 'Masculinity' is not a coherent object about which a generalizing science can be produced. Yet we can have coherent knowledge about the issues raised in these attempts. If we broaden the angle of vision, we can see masculinity, not as an isolated object, but as an aspect of a larger structure.

This demands an account of the larger structure and how masculinities are located in it. The task of this chapter is to set out a framework based on contemporary analysis of gender relations. This framework will provide a way of distinguishing types of masculinity, and of understanding the dynamics of change.

You see, the key here is that the concept of "hegemonic masculinity" depends first on gender theorists to conceptualize masculinity as masculinities, a plurality of types of masculinity. Second, these masculinities (and subsequently hegemonic masculinity) are located in and constituting social structures.

3) Which brings me to my last point, the concept of masculinities (and by extension, hegemonic masculinity) goes beyond the commons sense notion that their is simply masculinity which is collapsed into common sense ideas of being a man and being male. Rather gender theorists like Connell, go far beyond this. Just to give you a taste:

I define[d] gender practice as onto-formative, as constituting reality, and it is a crucial point of this idea that social reality is dynamic in time...

We are all engaged in constructing a world of gender relations. How it is made, what strategies different groups pursue, and with what effects, are political questions. Men no more than women are chained to the gender patterns they have inherited. Men too can make political choices for a new world of gender relations. Yet those choice are always made in concrete social circumstances, which limit what can be attempted; and the outcomes are not easily controlled.

What I mean by presenting this last piece of Connell's work is to show how by going beyond common sense notions of masculinity, not only has Connell made apparent the multiplicity of masculinity, but also that men are constituted and constitute the dynamic gender order. In this way, men are not villains. This is counter to the assertions made by this author, and in this regard, I think I have made a case against their thesis.

Now, as to you question about what can be said about MRAs (and feminists) who see these terms and don't understand them... Well, I'm not sure anything but education will help. But there could be better ways. But one way I am unwilling to do (and I see it suggested in /r/MR) is to do away with these terms because they may confuse some people. It seems to me that method is the exact opposite of education. (sorry for the long reply)

[–]oneiorosgrip3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The author actually assumes E[1] understands the meaning of these terms.

Actually, this conjecture on your part, and it's contradicted by the way the post discusses language, pointing out the terms themselves rather than their meanings. For instance, if portrayals have the level of influence feminists attribute to them, one need not have the academic definition of "male oppressor" to get from repeated use of the term that men=oppressors. It doesn't matter if feminists claim that all men are oppressors, or if feminists claim to only believe this of some men, because the term is widely used and indiscriminately applied both by academics and the grassroots of the movement. If the cultural theory that beliefs and opinions are shaped by the way concepts are presented holds true, then repeated association of "oppressor" with "male" would subtly influence the listener to link the meanings of the two in such a way as to view all men as oppressors. I contend that if one believes that the mode of presentation of concepts shapes understanding of them, then the use of terms which falsely portray a group in a negative light constitute a deliberate effort to impute malice and other negative traits.

Suggesting at that feminists use these terms to demonize men, and subsequently enforce negative gender roles on them. While simultaneously hiding their "double work," the author suggest that the entire body of feminist academia is somehow caught up in an elaborate conspiracy...

Wow, I've never seen a "conspiracy theorist" accusation contained within a statement of conspiracy theory. You've made an interesting accusation here, but you have failed to back it up with evidence. You posted a few quotes from the blog, but didn't show how they were false - simply stated that you "know for a fact" that they don't hold.

Your "knowledge" is contradicted by feminist advocacy.

Quoting part of the blog, but omitting the later parts which back up the statements made, in order to set yourself up for your claim

The thing is, these are very big claims that I know just don't hold. Especially the last one, which has always astounded me. In what way have feminists worked to "promote the concept of disposable men"? I really would like to see a 21st century example which implicates the whole of feminism in the promotion of this concept? (sorry to digress)

is a wholly dishonest, but not unexpected move on your part.

The quotes themselves are backed up by NOW's own advocacy. While feminists claim that traditional female roles are oppressive, today's standards for custody following divorce, a remnant of the Tender Years Doctrine based on mid 19th century feminist activism, are supported by the National Organization for Women, who have actively opposed attempts at reform, using negative stereotyping of men as "abusers" and "deadbeats" in their argument. NOW has also advocated to elevate the enforcement of laws that make inability in noncustodial fathers to fill the stereotypical paternal provider role a felony.

These are the actions of mainstream, world-effecting feminism, taken without being overtly, measurably opposed by any other feminist group.

Now, let's look at the work of feminist academia.
My first exposure to the term "toxic masculinity" involved its use in feminist blogs to describe any characteristic which met the following two criteria:

The blogger considered the characteristic to be a masculine characteristic.
The blogger viewed the characteristic as a negative trait.

This inspired me to search the term, which led to this paper, in which the researchers define genderless traits described as "toxic" as masculine traits for the purpose of fitting them into a discussion on masculinity. Feminist use of the term Hegemonic Masculinity does the same thing, very often attributing social value of human characteristics to gender whether those characteristics are gendered or not. Further, the term is used in debate to push the concept that valuing characteristics socially associated with masculinity is always automatically a bad thing, an assertion which does not necessarily logically follow that mandating male adoption of characteristics socially associated with masculinity is wrong. Probably one of the most blatant uses of this method, performed without the use of the term, is the creation and spread of the pejorative term "neckbeard."

The term treats outward signs of male biology - the ability to grow hair on one's face and neck - as an indication of a slew of genderless negative characteristics, including ignorance, laziness, bad hygiene, stupidity, callousness, and a hateful nature. Its use is designed specifically to associate these negative traits with the display of a physical trait that is a part of the dominant western notion of masculinity, in the treatment of having body hair as a male trait, a view which in the past associated hairiness in people's minds with greater physical and emotional strength and toughness. The term peppers online and now verbal discussion, with feminist debaters using it in place of argument, as an attempt to discredit by insinuation.

Feminist advocates have shown that their interest in social concepts of masculinity is based on on breaking those concepts down for the benefit of men, but in exploiting those concepts for the benefit of women. In advocating to maintain systems dependent on the traditional female nurturer, male provider roles, feminists have based their arguments on exactly that which they claim they're trying to eliminate. The same goes for advocacy on partner and sexual abuse (as discussed at the links provided in the blog) and their advocacy for laws and policy which infringe upon the due process rights of accused men for the benefit of female accusers.

Finally, Connell's assertions, though dependent on blaming general society for trapping men inside limited definitions of masculinity, are made in the context of feminism's Patriarchy Theory, which in short blames all aspects of societal behavior on men, with a focus on men in positions of power as the reason... so the short version of your argument is "Hegemonic Masculinity is not a term designed to impart a negative view of men, because it's only an observation that oppressive male gender roles are perpetuated by men." Contrary to your assertion, your argument makes my point.

This is counter to the assertions made by this author, and in this regard, I think I have made a case against their thesis.

You took a few quotes out of context, discussed one phrase out of the entire discussion while failing to address the full content of the post, used information which, taken in context with overall feminist theory, confirms the assertions made about the term you discussed, and claimed victory as if you'd debunked the writing. That's really not so much a case as an attempt at obfuscation.

[–]jolly_mcfats2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I can - I’d prefer to avoid debating the merit of the individual theories behind these phrases in this post, and focus on the effect of the terminology. This may not be possible as the discussion continues, but for now. I’d like to start by referencing this quote:

However, the things is, these concepts are part of a large body of concepts, which admittedly a lot of MRAs (and I'd say even a fair amount of feminists) don't understand

Because it establishes something important: many feminists, MRAs, and laypeople will not digest this terminology with the proper academic context. The effect of this language will largely be reflective of what they guess is meant.

I committed a sin in my first post, and assumed esoteric knowledge. When I refer to the signifier and signified, I am referring to terms that Saussure introduced that were commonly used in discussions of semiotics 20 years ago (when I was in college). A signifier is the sound/image/whatever used to convey an idea, and the signified is the meaning that is conveyed. For instance, I might be on the phone with you, and tell you that I was looking at a tree. In my mind, the signified is the oak tree I am staring at. The signifier would be the word “tree”, and for you who might have spent their life in a desert, the signified might be the scraggy pine that you imagine after hearing my words. The more I dressed up my signifier with description (broad, green leaves, massive trunk,etc…), the more closely your signified might resemble my intent.

I don’t think anyone would create a signified of your quote when they heard the term “hegemonic masculinity”. They wouldn’t have the tools. However, they will understand “hegemon” and “masculine”; and they will construct a new signified from that. The same goes for “toxic” and “masculinity”. And complex phrases like “smash the patriarchy with feminism”.

I don’t think it takes a multimedia environment to make this happen- printed words suffice. Clearly whatever signifier is constructed will borrow from the cultural experience of the listener.

It doesn't a conspiracy theory to explain this. I think that especially many of the earlier wave feminists felt a lot of distrust, resentment, frustration, and sometimes anger directed at men as a class. It would be hard not to, with a historical narrative that said that your male predecessors had enslaved and oppressed your female ancestors. Aggressive terminology resonated with this resentment subconsciously, and was adopted to describe more abstract thoughts. This terminology was then hallowed by usage and consecrated by time, without thought to whether the language best conveyed the concept.

If a word is frequently misunderstood, then perhaps it was poorly chosen. In a recent conversation, I was introduced to the term “critical discourse analysis” which- if I understand it correctly, is a means of studying a concept as the sum of its scholarly origins, the way it is commonly used, and the actions that are taken in its’ name. I’d maintain that the latter two are very disassociated with the scholarly root with all of these terms.

Education isn't a practical remedy to this problem- imparting abstract theory to the entire population isn't practical. I’d prefer 4th wave feminism consider the deleterious effects of the etymology, mull over the concepts, and propose another iteration of the philosophies that used less offensive terminology.

[–]spermjack_attack1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Did you mean:

Because it establishes something important: many feminists, MRAs, and laypeople will not digest this terminology without the proper academic context. The effect of this language will largely be reflective of what they guess is meant.

Because otherwise that isn't a fair summation of my point.

I committed a sin in my first post, and assumed esoteric knowledge. When I refer to the signifier and signified...

I don't think it's really that esoteric, but my background might bias me in this respect. I am familiar with french structuralism as well as structural functionalism.

Perhaps, out of this bias, I didn't make poststructuralist critique more clear, and as such, I will take a step back. This critique goes as follows (from Appelrouth, S. A. and Desfor Edles, L. (2012) Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory):

While structuralist theorists are inclined to develop theories based on the assumption of formal, patterned, and commonly shared meaning, the poststructural position expresses extreme doubt about the existence of universal patterns of meaning and culture. Thus, one of the guiding themes that unify the various poststructural thinkers is their general skepticism towards the universality of shared meaning as conveyed by signs. Instead, in one of their most influential arguments, poststructuralists argue that the meaning of signs has fragmented, resulting in "floating signifiers." They contend that the links between signified and their signifier has become destabilized. Signifiers are are no longer connected to only one signified, nor are signifieds represented by only one signifier. The internal structure of the sign has collapsed, with signifiers disconnected from any stable signified, making meaning multiplicative, open-ended, and fragmented. The cultural world described by the world described by the poststructuralists is one of inherent fragmentation, instability, and confusion.

The important thing to take away here is that whatever meaning some people are going to take from the terms "toxic masculinity", "hegemonic masculinity," and "patriarchy," these meaning are never stable, just as the meanings of "hegemonic" and "masculinity" are never stable. This means that there can never be a

4th wave feminism consider the deleterious effects of the etymology, mull over the concepts, and propose another iteration of the philosophies that used less offensive terminology.

because it would be a constant process of introducing new and refurbished words simply to fulfill some structural function in a poststructural world. Furthermore, this is why people need the education to understand the usages of these terms. Otherwise, there is no way to generate terms with true meaning, because the idea that there is true meaning in the signifier-signified pair does not hold. In fact, it is the work making clear the multiplicity of masculinity---hence, masculinities---that demonstrates this. The whole point of Connell writing a book on the subject, because the collapse of the structure of signs requires a great deal of intellectual work to make intelligible. So, I am fine about not debating the merit of individual theories, but this specific concept is apropos to the subject at hand.

I think that especially many of the earlier wave feminists felt a lot of distrust, resentment, frustration, and sometimes anger directed at men as a class. It would be hard not to, with a historical narrative that said that your male predecessors had enslaved and oppressed your female ancestors. Aggressive terminology resonated with this resentment subconsciously, and was adopted to describe more abstract thoughts. This terminology was then hallowed by usage and consecrated by time, without thought to whether the language best conveyed the concept.

I believe this is true. But it actually fails to hold in regards to the term "hegemonic masculinity" seeing as both knowing Connell is a modern feminist, and the content of Connell's work does not have "aggressive terminology resonated with this resentment subconsciously." In fact, a great deal of Connell's work shows that fluid and fracturing masculinities may produce a kind of liberation (seen in a broader variation in male sexuality, gay, bisexual, straight men), and with additional work, she suggests that men (and women) have very much an opportunity to reshape the whole face of gender relations.

If a word is frequently misunderstood, then perhaps it was poorly chosen. In a recent conversation, I was introduced to the term “critical discourse analysis” which- if I understand it correctly, is a means of studying a concept as the sum of its scholarly origins, the way it is commonly used, and the actions that are taken in its’ name. I’d maintain that the latter two are very disassociated with the scholarly root with all of these terms.

But if this is the problem, this isn't unique to feminist scholarship. People misuse biological, mathematical, and sociological language all the time. Are we to demand that these entire disciplines stop their work, step back, and reauthorize all of their terms and ideas so as to help all people to better use them? The answer to this, I suggest above, is no. There is no stable, 'common sense' meaning to these terms, so whatever "disassociation" there is comes from the destabilized signifier-signified link.

[–]jolly_mcfats1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The reason I explained what I meant by signifier and signified is that your initial response in which you alluded to a situation where someone would be "unaware" of the "signifier" lead me to believe that you had a different understanding of the terms. Being unfamiliar with the academic text is not the same thing as being unaware of the signifier.

My understanding of your statement was that many MRAs and Feminists (and, I think, almost all laypeople) have no a priori understanding of the academic text behind these offensive terms. I do think that is a fair summation of your statement. I wasn't summarizing your point, I was taking your statement and making a point of my own.

I agree with the premise of post structuralism (for example, rape victims often require trigger warnings because when they hear the signifier 'rape', they construct a signified which includes personal trauma)- but the scope which you try to take it is absurd- language isn't so unstable that communication is impossible. You seem to be arguing that the meaning of words is so wibbly-wobbly that any analysis of language is futile. Come on- you're smarter than that. Your argument is almost reducto ad absurdum to disprove the validity of post-structuralism. I refer to my initial points re: Luntz, Gingrich, and marketing and maintain that there is sufficient consensus on language to discuss its' effect.

Let's also avoid claims that this problem affects all feminist scholarship. Terms like agency and intersectionality have heavy currency, and do not fall into this trap. We are talking about gendered phrases which lend themselves to a misandristic interpretation in absence of an understanding of the scholarly text (and those terms, should they exist, which still lead to misandry even with an understanding of the scholarly text).

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've had some rather different experiences with her, including the use of verbal chicanery (feigning confusion in order to pick at details she doesn't want to directly confront, a method designed to obfuscate and distract while tricking the opponent into taking or stating on the fly a position he or she would not have come up with on a logical path from his or her original statement,) faulty logic, denial or misstatement of the nature or definition of the contents of text she's read, and ad hominem attacks instead of debating the topic. I've also seen her use the very thing I've described in that post - the use of terminology to try to shape the perception of a concept.

I agree that articulate detractors should be cherished when they are sincere. Just don't fall for feigned sincerity when faced with an individual employing manipulative techniques.

Thanks for the complement on the article, and for posting it. I think it's important for people to understand that the behavior described isn't something that is happening on accident.

[–]fractal_shark1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've also seen her use the very thing I've described in that post - the use of terminology to try to shape the perception of a concept.

That is a desirable trait of jargon. (To be clear, I'm using "jargon" in the meaning of technical terminology, in particular for an academic discipline. This differs from the more colloquial definition, tinged with negativity, of "obtuse or obscure language exclusive to a group". As an aside, this fits nicely with the theme of this thread: the understanding of "jargon" is fractured.)

Jargon is used concepts whose content is not immediately obvious. If the content was simply and easily digested, then it would already have been studied and explained by some previous academic. As it can be quite lengthy to explain these concepts (some concepts will have people write articles or even books to explain), it is helpful to have relatively short word or phrase to use to refer to this concept. Again, these concepts can be difficult to understand. It is good if the jargon used to refer to the concept helps you understand it. This of course requires it to shape your perception of the concept. For example, a proper understanding of the halting problem will change your perception of computation.

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your description of jargon doesn't really relate to what I was describing at all. Jargon involves naming of concepts, not with an intent to shape the perception of the concept, but simply to apply a method of reference understood within the group. I'm talking about substituting one word or phrase for another in order to manipulate the listener or reader's perception. For instance, during the last conversation I had with the two of you, in which /u/spermjack_attack attempted to use exclusive and inaccurate phrasing to direct attention in the discussion away from part of the subject matter and manipulate the reader into thinking only of the subject she wanted to consider. This wasn't jargon by which members of a group understand concepts which would not otherwise have definitive terms, but an attempt to exclude subject matter that the debater doesn't wish to consider in the discussion.

[–]fractal_shark1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Continuing to use the label "jargon" after it was pointed out that jargon was not employed is rather dishonest, and an employment of the described tactic, as well. You're attempting to impose on the discussion the adoption of a concept that isn't related, in order to avoid acknowledging manipulation.

Given that there has only been one conversation involving all 3 of us in the last month, I'd figure you'd remember, and are employing the "feigning ignorance or confusion" tactic I described in that discussion... but I'll feed the troll momentarily, for the benefit of other readers.

The attempt at limiting discussion on abortion to a discussion on the mother's bodily autonomy, by ignoring the other unique and separate body affected by the procedure, uses the exclusion to attempt to manipulate the reader into thinking through a filter of perceiving and taking into account only the mother when considering the reality and ramifications of the procedure.

On a side note, and this is consistent with Pinker's discussion on shaping perception of concepts... that does not work on debate opponents who already view the procedure taking both of the involved individuals into account. That it does not work does not make the effort any less of an effort. It simply demonstrates hat the method is not effective unless the reader or listener is predisposed to sympathize with the writer's/speaker's view.

[–]fractal_shark1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

"I don't think it's fair" is not a rational argument - it's whining.

Continuing to inappropriately apply the term "jargon" to the act of limiting the discussion on abortion to exclude half of the involved individuals is still as dishonest as it was in your last comment, especially if you attempt to relate the behavior to the thought experiment, which is a more blatant example of attempting to use a mode of representation to manipulate the perception of concepts. You're really not helping your point by bringing that up.

Your last sentence is priceless, as it demonstrates a sense of entitlement to use limited representation to manipulate the perception of a concept, if persuasion is the goal. Do you understand that you just told the reader you think it's okay to be dishonest in a discussion if it works in your favor?

[–]fractal_shark1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Actually, Spermjack_attack did not start out explicitly arguing that they were irrelevant, but excluded them prior to their being presented in the discussion. It was only after having attempted excluding relevant topics and being called on it that Spermjack_attack even bothered to address the topic in question, and because she (and I'm using "she" based on another commenter's use of it, so I could be wrong) expected that exclusion to work, she was unprepared to argue that point, and severely botched the argument, ending up claiming that using different words to describe the same concepts made the concepts not the same, in order to claim that those concepts didn't back up the argument that the topic was relevant. Not only did Spermjack_Attack attempt exclusion to manipulate perception, she also attempted to misrepresent meanings of terms in order to manipulation perception. Her argument absolutely rested on terminology. Again, you're failing to make your point, and in fact making mine.

[–]fractal_shark1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Your representation of the previous conversation is dishonest, and your representation of the current conversation isn't much better. If you actually remember the previous conversation, you'll remember that Spermjack_attack's initial comments were exactly as I've said - strictly limited, and for exactly the purpose I've stated. Attacking my comprehension because you don't like being called out on what you're doing doesn't make your argument any more solid. It only shows that you can't handle being confronted with your own behavior.

When abortion advocates discuss bodily autonomy in the context of that discussion, the act ignores half of the involved bodies. That isn't because there are not two bodies involved, but because abortion advocates want to frame the discussion around sympathy for only one of those bodies, in order to use that to persuade the reader/listener to agree. Opening the discussion to the acknowledgement that there are two bodies necessarily demonstrates that one is taking more than just autonomy of the body more strongly affected by the procedure (considering that it dies) in reference to not being acted upon, and pitting that against the autonomy of the other body in reference to the owner having the right to act on both bodies. Spermjack_attack's decision to open with one-liners about the mother's bodily autonomy is a method I've seen used in abortion debate since 1985 - it's specifically designed to treat the unborn human as irrelevant by excluding him or her from the discussion. You can argue all you want that the effort was not to steer the reader's attention off of consideration of the whole circumstance, and limit it only to consideration of the mother, but the actual discussion doesn't back you up.

And you failed to understand the origin of my last line - you have made my point now by first supporting Spermjack_attack's use limiting terminology to manipulate perception in discussion on the basis that it would achieve what she wanted (or as you put it "incidental to the larger argument), and second arguing that Spermjack_attack's opinion made it acceptable to do so, on the basis that she didn't like arguments based on broad consideration of the entire topic. Your statements both boil down to "using language to manipulate isn't using language to manipulate if we're using it to present what we want you to think..." which is using language to manipulate - so you've made my point by admitting that Spermjack_attack did exactly as I've described. Couching your comment in a condescending, semi-castigating tone doesn't disguise the attempt as well as you think it does. Not only are you making my point, you're personifying it.

[–]fractal_shark1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]oneiorosgrip1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]jolly_mcfats1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've been reading on the subject of feminist thought and linguistics lately (must be something in the air, it was interesting to see oneirosgrip writing on the same subject), and one of the books I bought and have been reading through is "Speaking Freely- unlearning the lies of our fathers' tongues" by julia penelope. I thought this quote relevant:

What we say is who we are. Creating a universe of discourse that reflects a different way of perceiving the world requires understanding how the language we use indicates how we think and our awareness of the conceptual framework we've learned.

As an unrelated aside, it is interesting buying feminist texts used "with highlighting", because it lets you not only evaluate the text, but see what spoke to the previous owner. In this case, it was disturbing- as if someone had gone through and cherry picked the most hateful quotes (and julia penelope certainly did not like men). It was like browsing againstmensrights, except in reverse.

[–]GregoryPanic3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]LAMFF1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Neurotikitty1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dungone1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Title	If language affects perception, what is the effect of phrases like "toxic masculinity", "hegemonic masculinity" and patriarchy?
Author	jolly_mcfats
Upvotes	36
Comments	60
Date	May 24, 2013 2:07 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1ey1qz/if-language-affects-perception-what-is-the-effect-/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/if-language-affects-perception-what-is-the-effect.1613236 https://theredarchive.com/post/1613236

Comments