<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Glen -</p>
<p>Avoiding my usual hydra-expansion of larded point by point
responses and tangents I'll try two succinct (hah!) points I take
from what you said here while extending lots of implicit nods and
tacit agreements and a few stifled quibbles:</p>
<p>1) Testosterone: As an "old man" who is not (as) plagued by the
hormonal drives which at one point felt grounded out in "Fight or
F*ck", somewhat rooted in my olfactory/pheremonal level I think.
And a pet familiar (dogs, dogs, dogs, cats, cats, chickens, geese,
fish, arachnids, insects, worms, foster-horses, mules, goats) over
the years, I've never kept amale *mammal* intact past one year,
and the one who kept his manhood to death had some pretty
difficult habits or propensities that came with/from that. I do
not recommend. I know few people including/especially livestock
people who think maintaining an intact male mammal is generally a
good idea. I think Kristy Noem had to kill a dog and goat because
she didn't realize what she'd
created/allowed/failed-to-raise-right. Many things *can* be
solved with a bullet it seems. If you want to be a bull or bronc
rider, sure, keep one or three around to compete with in that
way... go ahead... it's your male birthright to dominate other
males who would in fact stomp your useless monkey ass into the
dirt if you weren't so upright, opposably thumbed, clever and
having of tools (like braided horse hair nooses or bridles,
etc). Or if/when/as you want to manufacture more of the beasts
through natural procreation and need a sperm donor (I think most
Bulls and Race/Show horses are not even allowed the benefit of
exercising their God given right to mount and hump, it is handjobs
and turkey basters all the way?) I'm sure I'm off base in some
fundamental way and most of the men (which are most of the
constituency here) might cross their legs and turn their backs
when I say this, but I suspect/wonder at whether we (humans) will
be able to achieve the peaceful, egalitarian, collective
aspirations we claim while we still have so much testosterone (and
it's familiars) coursing and spiking in our bodies and brains.
Perhaps if men were only allowed (by whom exactly? some fascist
govt/society, "liberal self loathing principle"?) to remain
"intact" past puberty if they and their community, more to the
point had a good plan to manage them (as farmyards and ranches
with intact male animals do or should). Some (not just RadFemmes
I have known) might think Lorena Bobbit had the right idea (only
she mistook the offending organ next door for the real "root" of
the cause... I doubt that compulsory or widespread eunuch or
drone-creation will be in our future but I find it a
confrontational hypothesis to offer in some circles. I want to
believe this circle of circles (jerkers? sorry, wordplay not
passive-aggressive attack) is a venue who can take it for what it
is intended (at least the few who can/do read this deep into my
rambles). China had their one-child, the first world has our
ZPG, techbros have their meritocratic technophilic procreationism
(while LDS and Catholics have or have-had their own variant),
Japan (and parts of the West) have a spiraling (to the point of
being problematic demographically?) population, so I don't feel
like my "proposal" is that far out of line for both population and
collective attitude control?</p>
<p>2) (redoubling attempt to be succinct) Is anyone an "integrated
self" without therefore/also being a psychopath, narcissist or
both? I do think something about the "distributed self" might
well be more (w)holistically healthy in the same way worshiping a
pantheon of god(desse)s to try to understand human and Gaia nature
might be a better fit than the typical Ibrahamic Yahweh, Allah,
God-the-Father. Even the Catholics (and other sects) try to do
the Trinity thing Father/Son/Holy-Ghost-Toasty thing to allow for
more nuance? Minsky's <i>Society of Mind</i> touched on this
from a cognition/intellect aspect, why not emotional/spiritual as
well? Even the Moon Lander (apocryphal?) had 3 computers who had
to agree to make any decision (error detection/correction in a
high cosmic-ray flux environment)?</p>
<p>BTW has anyone helped Gil? I don't really feel able... not
grounded or focused enough to fully understand his plight? Since
this is my fray from the thread, I suppose I could ask: Gil, <i>Mansplain
;^) us your lost data/archive.org-recovery-aspiration-problem
again in other terms?</i></p>
<p>- Steve<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/21/24 1:32 PM, glen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:92df8f6b-31c0-4dc7-b487-9d3b603520f4@gmail.com">Along
these same lines (I think, anyway), I heard Candice Owens strawman
"toxic masculinity" such that the descriptor "toxic" translates
across all masculinity. I.e. she thinks when people use the
phrase, they're saying that all masculinity is toxic. Of course,
that's not what they're saying. But if it *were*, her inference is
reasonable, if vapid: Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
<br>
<br>
To me, mansplaining is the same as it ever was boorish behavior of
the know it alls we all know ... and love. I've come to lump all
this deceptive fine-graining under the concept of the (Jungian?)
"integrated self". We've trod this road before with Strawson's
Against Narrativity. But people just don't seem that well
integrated, to me. And when I meet someone who does seem to have
it all together in that way, they exhibit narcissistic or
psychopathic tendencies ... like their natural intra-personal
diversity has been sacrificed to some unitary ideal of some kind.
<br>
<br>
Given that, some lecturers are fantastic and I could listen to
them all day long rant their gospel. Some are good, but insist on
explicit consent. Once you say "Yes, that's what I'm here for ...
to listen to you drone on for hours", the string is pulled and
they do what they're good at. So the key to the denigrating use of
"boor" and "mansplaining" has something to do with implied consent
and Dunning-Kruger. There's a sweet spot in there somewhere that's
difficult to hit. And continuing in the Gellmann amnesia vein,
when you navigate these waters a lot, you're gonna be sensitive to
the uncanny valley. E.g. while Curtis Yarvin sounds, to the
untrained ear, just like any other blathering dork, if you spend a
lot of time around *competent* blathering dorks, you can hear the
difference.
<br>
<br>
On 10/21/24 09:55, steve smith wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">glen sed
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Yes. It can be frustrating. My latest
pet peeve are the foodies. No matter where I go, what group
I'm hanging out in, the discussion of food absolutely
dominates. They'll talk about which pizza place is the best in
town for like, an hour. Or they'll talk about risotto for a
half an hour then move on to some other obscure dish. It's
exhausting. It's even worse when the foodies start
mansplaining beer to me. I've been home brewing longer than
most of these people have been alive. But they'll yap to no
end about it while I remind my self of Gellmann amnesia
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect"><https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_Amnesia_effect></a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
(apologies to Gil for (also) not helping to answer his original
plea for help with archive.org and lost-data retrieval, and
kudos to Glen for offering the Gell-Man reference, new to me)
<br>
<br>
Let me offer some mansplaining about mansplaining:
<br>
<br>
My favorite 3rd wave feminist (my numbering scheme, starting
from 1 not 0) is Rebecca Solnit and I credit her both with the
mansplaining adjacent precedent in an essay ( circa 200x) titled
"Men explain things to me" where she recounts the experience of
attending a cocktail party invited by a friend (in San Francisco
I think) where the hostess introduced her to a man who had just
read the (first?) book she had published on Edward Muybridge.
The man was head over heels in love with the subject and the
book but didn't listen to the introduction well enough to
realize he was being introduced to it's *Author*, and proceeded
to explain everything he had learned from the book about
Muybridge and his work. My understanding of Solnit is that she
is nobody's fool an anything but a wallflower, but being "third
wave" not known to be a "firebrand" styled feminist. I don't
know if she deliberately kept paying out rope to hang himself
with or not but by the time she extracted herself from the
conversation, I think she never interrupted him (effectively?)
enough to correct or inform him on the nature of his travesty of
the moment.
<br>
<br>
I do believe that "mansplaining" as a verb grew popular out of
that incident/recount (maybe not, "all anecdotes are wrong, few
are interesting, none are useful?")
<br>
<br>
She also coined (FWIW, more self-fact-checking indicates she did
not coin but merely amplify) the hashtag #yesallwomen in
response to the #notallmen hashtag of roughly 2013(fact-check
sez 2014)... I was not a hashtag-kinda-guy but knew the idiom at
the time... it was after the (before the name existed?) incel
living with several (asian-american?) roomates (he being
pasty-white) knifed three to death, drove to a sorority house
(where he had been ignored/excluded), shot several women, then
went on a shooting/hit-run rampage until he self-anhillated.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>