tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post7209847410848828339..comments2024-01-23T17:14:04.067-05:00Comments on Jaltcoh: What are the disadvantages of being male?John Althouse Cohenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comBlogger86125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-85570817629121178182014-05-27T11:34:00.963-04:002014-05-27T11:34:00.963-04:00The best prison created, is where the prisoners gu...The best prison created, is where the prisoners guard themselves. This is not some macho comment...although I feel a tinge of irony of having to write that. I suppose that might be one of the problems being male. You have to immediately dull down a thought because people will immediately think you are taking the extreme view. Being a male means that you will pay for the sins of the father. Sure, previous generations have participated in some pretty heinous gear. It does seem as though equality....in all regards...requires a measure of payback, even though the ones that have been charged interest on the initial amount, never actually participated in said behaviour. <br /><br />I suppose this is what makes the social pendulum swing. In a few years dudes will get so pissed off they will flex their muscle (figurative....there is that disclaimer again...) and some other poor person who never had a word in this debate will cop the thick end of the stick, and their fire will be kindled....ad infinitum. There is one bad thing about being...to quote the Ben Folds Five Song, and that is you have been deemed to have had your turn on the social stage. Like every other situation ever, you will never realise you are in a hole until you have to look up to see the sky. Those slightly above you never complain about the view.<br /><br />If I am truly the master of the universe, and I hold the future of my fellow beings in the palm of my hand, and I decide how the random chips fall. Is it possible....please, that I might be able to improve my life just once, as it seems to be just as full of bills, hassles, crazy women, and rejection as every other person I seem to speak to, regardless of their weight, age, colour, sex, creed etc????<br /><br />Is it just possible that the world is kinda tough and shitty for most, except a few elite, and that the grass is just as brown and dead on my side of the fence as it is yours. I think that might be it. I just wish I could join in the complaining, because the last, great, free pleasure is having a well deserved whinge, but then again, does the colour of my skin, or what I have between my legs deny the compassion that I might be given otherwise?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-1165004728099815972011-10-10T01:21:15.235-04:002011-10-10T01:21:15.235-04:00I saw your comment about "desperate for page ...I saw your comment about "desperate for page views" at The New Republic, so I wondered if you were at least eager, but as you have 85 comments that I haven't read you seem to be doing fine.<br /><br />Anyway as far as the "disadvantages" of being a male goes, I think the more serious question is: are there disadvantages to being a human being, as compared to (perhaps) a dolphin or an orca, for example?<br /><br />Are you familiar with the writings of Ernst Becker? Author of <i>the Denial of Death.</i> and <i>Escape from Evil</i>? I take from his writing:<br /><br />As the only animals capable of abstract thinking and conscious of our own mortality, we suffer in a unique manner compared to say starlings, rats, coyotes, crows, and other delightful bright creatures.Steve Kahnhttps://collapseofcivilization.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-59845144258339698032009-04-12T19:01:00.000-04:002009-04-12T19:01:00.000-04:00Just want to say that I had never been to Metafilt...Just want to say that I had never been to Metafilter before I read this post (linked here from elsewhere - I don't know the author).<BR/><BR/>After reading all these comments, I can't believe people pay to post on that site. Granted, Cortex's responses have gotten more thoughtful and less self-righteous with every post on this thread, but DAMN, his first comment epitomizes the Internet Mod Napoleon Complex.<BR/><BR/>"You haven't learned your lesson," he says. "You're stubborn, you're playing the righteous victim...take a damn breath and try approaching the situation objectively."<BR/><BR/>Whew.<BR/><BR/>Thank you, Cortex, for showing me where *not* to spend my money on the internet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-12327858776716544742008-06-30T15:37:00.000-04:002008-06-30T15:37:00.000-04:00Just surfed in from the Dr. Helen link and found s...Just surfed in from the Dr. Helen link and found something here that I've been thinking about recently...<BR/><BR/>My job is lonely so I have the TV on to keep me company, and I've developed an unhealthy addiction to the Maury Show, which 90% of the time deals with DNA paternity test results. <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I guess being gay I haven't thought much about the whole male-female thing in a long time, but after several weeks of twice-daily viewings of Maury (yeah, it's unhealthy--but I can't help it), I have come to the conclusion that it's a real disadvantage for men that women control the decision whether or not to abort an unplanned pregnancy. <BR/><BR/>In college, or when I was just younger and more self-consciously liberal, I would have figured all the significant disadvantages attached to the woman, but that's not really true, is it? When two people are being promiscuous or careless or whatever, they do it together—-the two of them. Is it really fair that only one of them has the power to turn it in to a lifelong situation? <BR/><BR/>I know the abortion decision isn't easy for a woman, but clearly different women feel differently about it, and the decision to have an abortion does not leave a lifelong emotional mark on all women. But the decision to have the baby does, and it marks both of them, and she has the power to make that decision alone. <BR/><BR/>I would call this a disadvantage for him, but contra your logic, I would NOT exactly call it an advantage for her.<BR/><BR/>(Am I wrong?)<BR/><BR/>I searched the page for "pregnancy" and "abortion". Summer Anne is incorrect to say the man can choose to not be involved. He can choose to be "not involved" emotionally, but she can sue him for paternity and compel child support payments.chuck b.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00882763861745236443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-2172340066592346432008-06-07T12:24:00.000-04:002008-06-07T12:24:00.000-04:00Yes Stomper, and when visiting those sites we shou...Yes Stomper, and when visiting those sites we should all be wearing the proper formal attire as well.Kimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09697629733634727065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-88423643851466121302008-06-06T13:56:00.000-04:002008-06-06T13:56:00.000-04:00Just on the off-chance that my points might benefi...Just on the off-chance that <I>my</I> points might benefit from some context, anyone who cares should know that I am also a mod for a completely unrelated forum. There are enough of us that I haven't been too active lately (work has been very busy since February), but I started modding there at least 5 years ago.<BR/><BR/>I have deleted posts and I have edited out strong language (per our stated policy, in view of the number of kids who participate with the adults), but I have never done so without at least one clear, objective reason. I also hold the other mods to the same standard.<BR/><BR/>Sounds like mefi is a much larger operation, and therefore ought to be operated at least as professionally as our little hobby site. Particularly when people pay for the privilege at mefi (our site is free), then the mefi mods should be accountable to those people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-49226826904952635172008-06-06T12:53:00.000-04:002008-06-06T12:53:00.000-04:00Wow, if I'd realized Cortex was the guy who wrote ...Wow, if I'd realized Cortex was the guy who wrote <A HREF="http://music.metafilter.com/25/matthewchen-is-spamming" REL="nofollow">"Matthew Chen Is Spamming"</A>, I would have had a <I>much more</I> positive attitude toward him all along. Wow. Amazing. And I remember it from long ago. It's not just something I'm checking out today.Ann Althousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-58216925358785216372008-06-06T12:44:00.000-04:002008-06-06T12:44:00.000-04:00Wow, what a wealth of thoughtful responses to the ...Wow, what a wealth of thoughtful responses to the post. As I said in my follow-up post, I haven't had time to read every word of these comments yet, but I'll certainly be looking through them when I do a later post on this topic.<BR/><BR/>And wow, what a train wreck, with Metafilter's cortex posting at least 12 long comments in a desperate attempt to justify the thread deletion -- and that's not counting his comments over at the Althouse blog. Just to reiterate, no one from Metafilter has presented a single reason to delete my question but not delete the other question, and nothing they've said would lead me to change anything in this blog post. Thanks to the various commenters here who thoroughly refuted his arguments.<BR/><BR/>Cortex, you help run one of my favorite websites of all time. You probably have access to administrative records from Metafilter and can see that I check it every day. I've been reading Metafilter long enough to remember following the thread where people were responding to the Sept. 11 attacks. Your "matthewchen is spamming" song was one of the funniest things I've ever seen/heard on the internet. But I would stick to the concise, humorous posts over at Metafilter if I were you -- for someone who moderates a website full time, you have surprisingly little to say about moderating websites.John Althouse Cohenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11703450281424023177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-30974212397454033932008-06-06T09:14:00.000-04:002008-06-06T09:14:00.000-04:00Cortex: now you are trying to change the question...Cortex: now you are trying to change the question. That's called "intellectual dishonesty."<BR/><BR/>I'm not interested in deciding whether all mefi moderation is systematically biased. I'm only interested in Jac's post, and I'm not asking you to prove a negative.<BR/><BR/>If you say <I>the specific decision to delete Jac's post</I> was not biased, then you should be able to provide at least one non-biased reason for that specific deletion. A reason that makes sense, I mean.<BR/><BR/>Ad hominem attacks on me are a further sign of weakness. You imply that your failure of proof is somehow my fault, because I refuse to be diverted into an evaluation of the entire mefi site.<BR/><BR/>Just so we're clear, I will concede (or at least assume) that the mefi site is not <I>generally</I> biased. There. Now explain why I need to go look at mefi, and what I need to look for, that would be relevant to Jac's suggestion of bias <I>as to his specific post.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-57596994503840653072008-06-05T23:37:00.000-04:002008-06-05T23:37:00.000-04:00"Cortex didn't delete the post. A different modera..."Cortex didn't delete the post. A different moderator did."<BR/><BR/>It should be rather obvious this is irrelevant to my point. The point is that an individual is directly responsible, so claiming that impersonal policies mechanically did all the work is dubious.Mortimer Breznyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16964027337144379262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-4211320258856694192008-06-05T23:06:00.000-04:002008-06-05T23:06:00.000-04:00Cortex didn't delete the post. A different moderat...Cortex didn't delete the post. A different moderator did. I think she chose to bow out of the conversation when it became fairly clear that reasonable discussion wasn't going to happen with Jac, here or on MetaFilter. He's clearly just looking for traffic to his blog, and scoring a cheap shot against Metafilter got him that.<BR/><BR/>Maybe if I break it down into smaller chunks, you can see what happened here, and why cortex is upset. Firstly, MetaFilter isn't a discussion site. It's mainly a link sharing site, and this particular sub-section of the site is just a place to get questions answered by the community. It's focus is only on getting questions answered, so they remove questions that seem to just be trying to get a discussion going. They call discussion generating questions "chatfilter". There are many subtle ways of judging what is chatfilter, and some of the red lights are things like saying "I'll go first", or heavy editorializing in the question. None of these are set in stone rules, just guidelines to try and sniff out the questions that don't work well for the site.<BR/><BR/>The first question was on the fence, and they considered deleting it. It was pretty chatty, but it looked like the asker was legitimately asking a question in good faith and looking for answers. And by the time they got to it, people had already been contributing and it seemed to be going okay, so they gave it a pass. They've admitted that was probably a mistake, but there would be no point in deleting it now.<BR/><BR/>When Jac's question came up, it looked like he was just trying to get a discussion going, and probably only posting to try and make some point, and the first question barely squeeked by anyway, so it was easier to call this one as chatfilter and do away with it.<BR/><BR/>The reason cortex keeps saying the only way to understand that this isn't about bias and to go back through the MetaTalk archives is because that's really the only way to get this context. He can't point to rulebook that says why it was deleted because it's more nuanced than that. It's a decision based on years of user feedback and moderator judgment on how to keep the pool clean in Ask MetaFilter. This is how we do things over there. For Jac and others to simply say there's no explanation for a discussion site to delete one of the questions and not the other except for a bias against the second question is unfair. They're not trying to squash the discussion of the topic. The site isn't even for discussion. If you took the time to understand how the site works, it would be pretty clear that there is no bias at play here, just our regular moderation procedures. The only way for cortex to defend against the accusation of bias is to say "Go look at our history". They don't exhibit the bias they been accused of in any of their previous deletions. There's no reason to believe that bias was to blame for this one.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06179354294532564538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-71897728838921538002008-06-05T20:58:00.000-04:002008-06-05T20:58:00.000-04:00The problem I have with cortex's justifications he...The problem I have with cortex's justifications here (aside from his continual attempts to tarnish Jac's credibility by describing him as angry or upset) is that he claims the deletion was a byproduct of a complex and partially random system that operates by multifactor tests that apply in different combinations depending on the precise factual scenarios that arise. That would be a fine argument if we were discussing that the geocentric view of the solar system is incorrect, but the more complex and counter-intuitive truth that the solar system is heliocentric underlies it all, or if we were discussing in terms of macroeconomic theory why the store ran out of bread just as we got on line. <BR/><BR/><I><B>But cortex himself deleted the thread.</B></I><BR/><BR/>This is not a situation in which we would be committing a cognitive error by attributing to an individual disposition a cause that arises from the circumstances itself, or broad, impersonal forces rather than a vivid explanation, such as God made the Earth for us, His children, so our planet must be at the center of all His creation or the store clerk who loathes me hid the last loaf of bread, because cortex purposely deleted the thread.<BR/><BR/><I><B>And cortex has no rational reasons for what he did, nor any plausible explanation for why he lacks rational reasons.</B></I><BR/><BR/>I recall once on wikipedia I altered the entry on misandry by removing material from a one-page literary review of a peer-reviewed scholarly book. The previous editor had treated the one-page book review as a thorough debunking of the discourse theory of misandry, citing to the peer-reviewed journal where the book review had been published as if the one-page book review was itself a peer-reviewed scholarly refutation. When I noted in the talk section that this was misleading, the previous editor noted that the misandry book we were discussing was not peer-reviewed, either. I then went to the website for the book and found the account of the galley process for the university press that published the book, proving that it was in fact a peer-reviewed book-length publication and therefore of greater weight than a one-page book review that did not clear such a rigorous process. This led not to an apology or an admission of error, but rather a deletion of the entire section on misandry. Why this editor disbelieved the discourse theory of misandry and sought to use low-value evidence to "debunk" sources that he either negligently or intentionally mischaracterized was unclear. But it would not have been unfair to infer bias. <BR/><BR/><I><B>The question is why cortex believes that inferring bias on his part here is unwarranted.</B></I>Mortimer Breznyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16964027337144379262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-83467956919583333812008-06-05T20:18:00.000-04:002008-06-05T20:18:00.000-04:00I likewise never suggested that the decision was c...<I>I likewise never suggested that the decision was clearly an open-and-shut bullseye. Rather, I indicated that Jac made a prima facie case, and shifted the burden of proof to you. You have abjectly failed to meet that burden of proof.</I><BR/><BR/>Stomper, you imply that Jac's case was, in fact, well-formed in any reasonable sense. You want proof that from me that we did <I>not</I> make the deletion under the influence of some political motivation or bias, but Jac has provided no evidence that it <I>was</I> made under such -- neither overtly in the discussion about the deletion nor systemically in site moderation in general in a way that would belie the lack of overt evidence.<BR/><BR/>What he has presented are not facts but <I>assumptions</I> -- and a conclusory argument is a far, far cry from something that would satisfactorily shift the burden of proof to the folks being targeted.<BR/><BR/>And so we go around in a circle again: you want an argument to prove that his conclusory feint is false, but what you are asking for is proof of a negative, or some silver bullet argument that will convince you when plain, moderate reason expressed honestly apparently will not do. That your dissatisfaction with our actual plain-faced reasoning is paired with your unwillingness to actually immerse yourself in the context from which it comes leaves me in a curious pickle, but okay:<BR/><BR/>Which part of the lack of systematic bias in mefi moderation should I point you to? You don't want a body of existing moderation decisions and discussions, despite that being precisely the context in which all this is properly house, so you must want something more specific. <BR/><BR/>How would you describe the hypothetical thing I would point you to to answer your request -- you don't have to believe such a thing in fact exists on mefi (and I gather you don't believe it does), but you must at least have a fairly clear idea of what it would be, that you are confident that it could exist in a concise form to be linked to.<BR/><BR/><I>It appears to me that you are unable to formulate an adequate response, and simply wish to divert me into an endless review of unspecified comments.</I><BR/><BR/>Is this your reaction in general to ideas or procedures that are new to you? Do you balk at other unfamiliar policies with this sort of response? God forbid you take it upon yourself to either read the literature -- which, in this case, is, <I>yes</I>, a good deal of history on Metatalk -- or acknowledge that your position is, however happy you may be with your conclusions, one of ignorance.<BR/><BR/>If you would in good faith like a somewhat filtered view of things, you can certainly start with <A HREF="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Ametatalk.metafilter.com+%22deletion%22&btnG=Search" REL="nofollow">this google search</A>; I'm afraid it's not exactly a pamphlet, but it'd be a place to start. I am unconvinced at this point that effort spent trying to handcraft a reading list for you would bear much fruit, but maybe you can meet me halfway and at least dip your toes in as an incentive.cortexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439222638852171134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-65756450024067980742008-06-05T20:13:00.000-04:002008-06-05T20:13:00.000-04:00A final comment about feminism.It didn't start in ...A final comment about feminism.<BR/><BR/>It didn't start in the 60s.<BR/><BR/>It's real start was back in the 30s, with the real push in the 40s, with "Rosie The Riveter".<BR/><BR/>I'd call attention to the female leads of two movies to contrast them:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0039893/" REL="nofollow">That Way with Women (1947)</A><BR/>and<BR/><A HREF="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041659/" REL="nofollow">Mother Is a Freshman (1949)</A><BR/><BR/>(Note: If you note the similarities of the below to the review, it's not plagiarism, just re-use, since it's my review)<BR/><BR/>In TWWW, the female lead is spunky, self-assured, and fully capable... think Joan Crawford without the b**** attitude. Her clothing is loose and flowing, hair down and easy to care for, and her shoes are practical -- you could see her breaking into a run if the situation called for it.<BR/><BR/>In MIaF, however, we have a woman, played by Loretta Young, who is her polar opposite, and a precursor to 50s housewife "role model" -- helpless without a man, in tight skirts and high heels and with a Kim Novak type hairstyle that you would have to spend 3 days a week at the hairdressers to keep remotely decent looking.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Only two years apart, these films show the difference between the 40s woman and the 50s woman. The former is the feminist ideal -- capable, self-assured, and competent. <BR/><BR/>The latter is the feminist nightmare -- incompetent, helpless, and desperately in need of a big, strong, man to care for her.<BR/><BR/><B>But it's 1947, not 1967.</B><BR/><BR/>60s feminism was a backlash against the 50s devolutive depiction of women, not some new idea sprung from the heads of women magically raised to consciousness.<BR/><BR/>I thought that was an interesting observation about where Feminism really came from.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-45134766600048632952008-06-05T20:02:00.000-04:002008-06-05T20:02:00.000-04:00> You should check it out, spreading misandry is t...> You should check it out, spreading misandry is the first and it covers the terrible way in which men are portrayed on TV and in movies.<BR/><BR/>LOL.<BR/>Suggestion for a research project:<BR/>Find out when "misandry" got added to the dictionaries.<BR/><BR/>I couldn't find it prior to about 1990. It certainly did not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary, which DID have such words as "floccinaucinihilipilificator", and was supposed to contain every non-slang word in the English language.<BR/><BR/>I first noted this when I was looking for the gender-reverse for "misogyny", a commonly known word. It occurred to me that I didn't know what the word was for a "woman who hates men"... and, despite searching every "mis-" there wasn't anything there. "Misanthropy" was there, but that's hatred of all humanity, not just males. I finally figured out what it was by encountering a discussion about Polyandry-vs-Polygamy-vs-Polygyny. I knew the "missing word" was Misandry. <BR/><BR/>Apparently, others started noticing this, too, about the same time, as the word started popping up in various places, like an Asa Baber column in Playboy (yes, some men do read it).<BR/><BR/>But it seems interesting to me -- because <B>we're verbal creatures</B>. We mostly "think" by constructing conversations with ourselves. If we don't have a word for something, it means we really aren't thinking about it much. <BR/><BR/>One of the key features of Orwell's "Newspeak" is to reduce the number of words people have, so as to channel their thoughts away from "bad" ideas, like revolution, doubts about government truthfulness, etc.<BR/><BR/><BR/>So what does that say about a missing word?<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Things that make you go, 'hmmm'."<BR/>.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-56046526414411930732008-06-05T19:45:00.001-04:002008-06-05T19:45:00.001-04:00I first noted this issue myself back in the mid-80...I first noted this issue myself back in the mid-80s. <BR/><BR/>I was visiting a friend of mine in NYC, and his girlfriend at the time was an ardent feminist, writing regularly for feminist journals in the Tri-State area. Let's call her "G".<BR/><BR/>While there, they told of a story where they were at this party, and G was sitting next to this apparently boorish guy who was making comments she considered sexist and insulting. Finally, she apparently got sufficient pissed that she dumped a plate of spaghetti over his head. He subsequently apologized.<BR/><BR/>Now. I didn't argue with it at the time, but the problem that occurred to me was pretty straightforward -- <B>G was openly hiding behind her femininity</B>. The person who was owed an apoligy most wasn't the boorish sexist guy but the hypocritical feminist (mutual apologies aren't uncalled for).<BR/><BR/>Ask a simple question -- if I, a male, intentially dump something over another guy's head at a party - Do I do so while risking a fistfight or other physical altercation?<BR/><BR/>I think the answer is an inarguable yes. It's exceedingly bad form to be on either side of such, but it's certainly a possibility no matter where you are -- if you physically attack another guy, chances are, you can expect behavior in kind.<BR/><BR/>This actually holds you, a male, in check -- you learn to control those aggressive impulses, because you know they can lead to physical altercations - <I>you can get hurt</I>. So, insulted though you may be by someone's obnoxious comments, you tell them off, verbally -- you don't hit them.<BR/><BR/>G, however, was not thus encumbered. <B>She knew she would not be touched in response to her assault</B>. If, in fact, he had turned around and shoved her, knocking her down,<BR/>a) Her first response would have been <B>"You can't hit me, <I>I'm a woman</I>!!!</B><BR/>b) Several other males in the viscinity would have immediately come to her defense.<BR/><BR/>Size doesn't really enter into it. Small guys either learn to fight or learn to back down. A small guy starting a fight and then whining about getting his butt kicked because "he was smaller" would just get derisively laughed at.<BR/><BR/>I don't say this because I want the power to strike a woman -- I really want to call attention to the highly assymetrical rules going on here. <BR/><BR/>They are wrong, sexist, and unnecessarily so. I don't have an issue, offhand, with the idea "Don't strike a woman". I just think that women need to give up the reverse in return -- "Don't strike a man". A woman who strikes a man because he annoys her should be just as ill-thought of as a man who strikes a woman for same. The social stigma should be mortifying.<BR/><BR/>I believe the rule should be, "don't take it to a level you aren't prepared to deal with it on". If a man should never strike a woman, it should be for sure that a woman should never strike a man. This means that a woman is generally constrained to keep it on a verbal level. Given that women do this far more than men, that should be a field they have an advantage on, anyway.OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-30796537800127141292008-06-05T19:45:00.000-04:002008-06-05T19:45:00.000-04:00cortex:I'm saying no, I won't go look, because you...cortex:<BR/><BR/>I'm saying no, I won't go look, because you still haven't identified anything I should look for.<BR/><BR/>I'm also unimpressed with your reading comprehension skills and/or your intellectual honesty. I never once praised Jac for "blogging truth to power." Rather, I have been critical of your inability to justify the decision Jac complains about.<BR/><BR/>I likewise never suggested that the decision was clearly an open-and-shut bullseye. Rather, I indicated that Jac made a prima facie case, and shifted the burden of proof to you. You have abjectly failed to meet that burden of proof.<BR/><BR/>If you want me to conclude Jac is wrong and you are right, then you need to provide something more than (1) vague references to the context of the site, and (2) a sweeping condemnation of my refusal to go read an indeterminate number of posts there until I can somehow find the argument that you are failing to make on your own behalf.<BR/><BR/>If you, a mefi mod, cannot clearly identify that argument, then how can I? It appears to me that you are unable to formulate an adequate response, and simply wish to divert me into an endless review of unspecified comments.<BR/><BR/>Since you are a mod for a discussion site, I assume you understand the rules of logical discourse. I must therefore conclude that you are unable or unwilling to make a substantive defense.<BR/><BR/>This objective observer is thus forced to conclude that Jac's prima facie case stands uncontroverted. I'm guessing you won't be happy about that.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-16430408128166020292008-06-05T19:22:00.000-04:002008-06-05T19:22:00.000-04:00OK, this ties into multiple issues.I haven't read ...OK, this ties into multiple issues.<BR/><BR/>I haven't read all the comments, yet, but some of this idea has been discussed by Dr. Warren Farrell, in his book, <I>The Myth of Male Power</I> (he has other books on the issue of gender relations, including <I>Why Men Earn More</I> which also is relevant to the topic at hand).<BR/><BR/>In the book, he makes a lot of points, and I think they tie a lot into why it is that your question/issue with it being unacceptable to discuss male disadvantages:<BR/><BR/><I>[Feminism has] focused on the fact that women as a group earned less -- without focusing on any of the reasons why women earned less, [such as:] full-time working men work an average of 9 hours per week more than full-time working women; men are more willing to relocate to undesirable locations, to work the less desirable hours, and to work the more hazardous jobs.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>Sexism, we have been told, made men powerful and women powerless. The reality is somewhat different. For centuries, neither sex had power. Both sexes had roles: She raised the children, He raised the crops/money. Neither sex had options, both sexes had obligations. If both sexes had traditional obligations, it is more accurate to call it sex roles than sexism.<BR/> Men's roles didn't serve thier interests any more than women's roles served women's interests. Instead, both roles served the interests of survival.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>[The question men need to ask, is:] 'Is earning money that someone else spends really power?'</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>Today, when the successful single woman meets the successful single man, they appear to be equals. But should they marry and contemplate having children, she almost invariably considers three career options:<BR/>. 1) work full time<BR/>. 2) mother full time<BR/>. 3) some combination of 1 and 2<BR/> He, too, considers three options:<BR/>. 1) work full time<BR/>. 2) work full time<BR/>. 3) work full time<BR/> Enter the era of the multi-option woman and the no-option man.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><BR/><B>I consider this one to be quite relevant:</B><BR/><BR/><I>The political genius of the feminist movement was its sense that it could appeal to all women only by emphasizing expansion of rights and opportunities and avoiding expansion of responsibilities. Had the National Organization for Women fought to register 18 year old girls for the draft, it might have lost members. Had feminism emphasized women's responsibilities for taking sexual initiatives, or paying for men's dinners, or choosing careers they liked less in order to support adult men better, its impact owuld have been more egalitarian but less politically successful.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>Essentially, women's liberation and men's mid-life crises were the same search for personal fulfillment, common values, mutual respect, and love. But while women's liberation was thought of as promoting identity, men's mid-life crises were thought of as identity crises.<BR/> Women's liberation was called insight, self-discovery, and self-improvement, akin to maturity. Men's mid-life crises were discounted as irresponsibility, self-gratification, and selfishness, akin to immaturity. Women's crises got sympathy, men's crises got a bad rap.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>The U.S. Census Bureau found that as early as 1960, never-married women over 45 earned more in the workplace than never-married men over 45.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>What Feminism has contributed to women's options must be supported. But when Feminists suggest that God might be a She without [ever considering] that the Devil might also be female, they must be opposed.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>While we acknowledged that glass ceilings that kept women out of the top, we [have] ignored the glass floors that kept [them out of the bottom]. Thus the 'Jobs Rated Almanac' reveals that the majority of the 25 worst jobs 'happen to be' male dominated.</I><BR/>==================<BR/><I>The accumulated wars that formed the U.S. are another example that men are considered less important than property. Men died for property, while women lived on the property that served as their husband's graves.<BR/> Put another way, [empires] become [empires] through the deaths of men. Because men died, empires can be seen as a form of male subservience; because the intent was to protect men's families, empires can be seen as a male's contribution to survival. It is often said that women are a civilizing balance to the innately warlike male. It COULD be said that because men took care of the killing FOR women, men civilized WOMEN. When survival was the issue, men killed to protect the children that women bore; it was the male form of nurturing, their contribution to the civilizing balance. Whether killing in war or making a killing on Wall Street, men were protecting what women bore.</I>OBloodyHellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09992539380115488567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-53944789992547549652008-06-05T17:50:00.000-04:002008-06-05T17:50:00.000-04:00If you can offer some other idea about how looking...<I>If you can offer some other idea about how looking at mefi would enlighten me, then I'm still waiting.</I><BR/><BR/>You could do what most people do: go and spend some time there. Read a lot of threads. Watch, or even sign up and participate in, policy/community discussions in Metatalk. Answer some questions while you're at it, or post your own; keep up with the front page of the site for a while, to get a feel for how things proceed.<BR/><BR/>Why should you do that? Intellectual honesty. Curiousity. The scratching notion in the back of your mind that if you're willing to consider ugly implications about people or about a place, you're obliged to test those against a genuine exploration of the thing you're judging.<BR/><BR/>That may be too much work, or you may be too deadset against the idea of crediting me or the site with your attention after taking an inital dislike to my objections here. But there is no single magic spot on the site that will convince you, if that's what you're hoping for; it's a great big sprawling community with hundreds of different facets and years of history under it.<BR/><BR/>But if you say no, that's too much, I'm not going to do it, you can at least have the decency to acknowledge that assumptions you may have drawn about the place or about what we do there or why are, indeed, founded on ignorance of the context in which the things you are so willing to judge occur.<BR/><BR/><I>Jac's attribution is farfetched, but not completely unfounded.</I><BR/><BR/>Jac's attribution is farfetched. It's not unfounded insofar as I don't think anyone in this conversation disbelieves the idea that politically motivated control of discourse can and does happen in the world, and I can understand perfectly well how it could occur to someone to consider the idea.<BR/><BR/>At this point, it's not only farfetched but <I>indeed unfounded</I>, having been proposed and directly refuted by both the people to whom he's attributing the bias and a whole lot of other metafilter users who have actually been paying attention to Metatalk in far more detail than he apparently has.<BR/><BR/>That he started a metatalk thread stating his suspicions, rejected outright any refutation of same, stomped out of the thread, and then two or three days later posted a blog trumpeting without qualification his original assumptions as fact takes him well past the understandable first-blush of emotion into stubborn grudge territory. <BR/><BR/><I>In fact, the longer cortex drags his feet about providing a genuine, persuasive reason OR admitting that the deletion was a mistake, then the more likely Jac's speculation appears.</I><BR/><BR/>False dilemma. That you are unpersuaded by our reasons does not make our reasoning unfair or deceptive. I advise you not to join Metafilter if you dislike what you've seen of the moderation, but our business is keeping that site running, not altering our policies to please non-members taking drive-by potshots.<BR/><BR/>If you want to pretend we've not made (or you have simply managed still not to read) a number of comments addressing the pros and cons of the deletion decision and the context in which it was made, I cannot stop you. But I have not pretended that it was some black-and-white, brightline decision, and it'd be as disingenuous for me to offer some unqualified reversal as it is for you to suggest I've been declaring it as an open-and-shut bullseye.<BR/><BR/>I have been speaking honestly at length. It's damned discouraging to have that be dismissed as "foot-dragging" by people with no personal investment in the question of what Jaltcoh is asserting about me, my coworkers, and the site itself. If you have no interest in listening to what I have to say, you are welcome to ignore it -- there's a whole lot of Internet out there -- but don't on the one hand praise Jac for blogging truth to power and then try to cut down speech in here with lazy mockery or dismissal.cortexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439222638852171134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-19592991545677288582008-06-05T16:39:00.000-04:002008-06-05T16:39:00.000-04:00ibmcginty:Jac's attribution is farfetched, but not...ibmcginty:<BR/><BR/>Jac's attribution is farfetched, but not completely unfounded. In fact, the longer cortex drags his feet about providing a genuine, persuasive reason OR admitting that the deletion was a mistake, then the more likely Jac's speculation appears.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-43454191052475885862008-06-05T16:36:00.000-04:002008-06-05T16:36:00.000-04:00Cortex, I'm not granting myself that privilege. Y...Cortex, I'm not granting myself that privilege. You are.<BR/><BR/>Despite numerous opportunities, you have completely failed to provide anything that remotely resembles a reason to go to mefi and take a look. Vague references to mefi's context or goals simply don't offer any reason to believe that looking at mefi will enlighten me.<BR/><BR/>So here's yet anohter opportunity: please summarize or explain what I would find at mefi that would somehow make your explanations more persuasive. At this point, if I went to mefi, I wouldn't know what I was looking for. You have never explained this.<BR/><BR/>If your explanation is, "mefi is more of a how-to site, and Jac's question doesn't fit in" then save your breath. That explanation doesn't hold water, because the first question did not get deleted.<BR/><BR/>If you can offer some other idea about how looking at mefi would enlighten me, then I'm still waiting.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-1845906252658900642008-06-05T16:26:00.000-04:002008-06-05T16:26:00.000-04:00I'm not sure that you don't have the better of the...I'm not sure that you don't have the better of the argument, here, jaltcoh, that your post should have been left up. <BR/><BR/>But <B><I>attributing the deletion decision to bias is completely unfounded</I></B>.<BR/><BR/>It's too bad to see people categorizing MeFi as biased based on the word of one guy who's mad that his post was deleted. <BR/><BR/>If you're unfamiliar with how moderation there works, they often delete links at AskMe (and even at the main site) when those posts are a response to a very recent post. Experience has shown that those posts don't go as well. Dozens of posts are deleted every day in an effort to maintain the quality of the content. You can quibble with the decisions, but there's just no valid reason to attribute ones you don't like to political bias. <BR/><BR/>There is, as cortex has stressed, an interesting discussion to be had here about disadvantages of being male. The "help help, I'm being oppressed!" conversation is considerably less interesting, and less rooted in reality. It brings to mind the conservative caricature of blacks/feminists who attribute everything bad that happens to them to racism/sexism.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-51052799786707467062008-06-05T15:04:00.000-04:002008-06-05T15:04:00.000-04:00"Our reasons, torn out of context and presented in..."Our reasons, torn out of context and presented in caricature by an upset Jac, are declared bad because they're less compelling than some wholly presumed bias"<BR/><BR/>Actually, they're declared bad because they are truly, awfully, pathetically bad reasons that don't hold up under a light. As others have said, if you'd deleted both that would have been understandable. Deleting one but not the other leands one to question your reasons for doing so. The reasons given have been wholly inadequate to explain your actions. The only reasonable way to fill the "explanation gap" is emotion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-80084489105629591192008-06-05T14:38:00.000-04:002008-06-05T14:38:00.000-04:00But cortex, the stated reasons for deletion don't ...<I>But cortex, the stated reasons for deletion don't make sense, unless mefi's goal is to water-down discussion and avoid controversy. Since that is antithetical to the concept of an interesting "discussion," I don't buy it.</I><BR/><BR/>stomper, I obviously can't force you to buy it. I think you're attempting to rhetorically shoehorn a very complicated site culture into a binary where either (1) interesting discussion are never deleted or (2) the goal of moderation is to suppress controversial or interesting discussions. It's a binary that doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>It may be that AskMe is not your cup of tea. You might legitimately find it too dull or constraining in it's general focus on problem-solving rather than free-form discussion. So be it, and fare thee well. But that's what AskMe <I>is focused on</I>. We've had plenty of very controversial, very challenging threads there that have gone undeleted -- the difference, however, is in form and presentation and a little bit of luck, not any kind of cultural or political bias underlying the moderation.<BR/><BR/>And that's one part of the site. <A HREF="http://www.metafilter.com/" REL="nofollow">Metafilter proper</A> is not nearly so focused, and free-form discussion there is the standard operating procedure. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://metatalk.metafilter.com/" REL="nofollow">Metatalk</A>, too, is very freeform, and the most rough-and-tumble part of the site as well as far as what flies. As Jac says, it's not the most civil part of the site, but that is in part because <I>we very rarely put limits on what people can say there</I>. Short of outrageous personal attacks or stalkerish behavior, people, Jac included, are pretty much allowed to speak their minds and let their jerk flags fly if they need to.<BR/><BR/>So, look: buy it or don't. I've heard "I don't believe your explanations" paired with "I don't need to learn anything about the site" in this discussion enough times to be exhausted by it at this point. I can't get away with that in my job as a mod over at mefi, and I've made a concerted effort in the last few days to try and understand who Jac is and where he's coming from in a mefi context and in general, so it's kind of absurd that I'm being told what's what by a few different folks who have not only <I>not</I> made a similar effort but more or less refused to on the grounds that it's not necessary. As I said before, that's a heck of a priviledge your'e granting yourself.cortexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439222638852171134noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4464222071440015933.post-49541425349262519602008-06-05T14:24:00.000-04:002008-06-05T14:24:00.000-04:00It's only fair that someone whose post is deleted ...<I>It's only fair that someone whose post is deleted -- a fact that's publicly posted on the internet by you and the other moderators (e.g. there's a whole blog devoted to tracking Metafilter deletions and the stated reasons for those deletions) -- has the right to post about the deletion on their own blog and present the facts as they see them.</I><BR/><BR/>I've never said you didn't have the right. In fact, I said <A HREF="http://metatalk.metafilter.com/16301/Why-the-gender-discrepancy#549663" REL="nofollow">precisely the opposite</A> yesterday in the Metatalk thread -- the thread to which you have returned to link your followup blog post, the one I've been trying to do the courtesy of not popping my head (even strictly positively) into; thread in which you are seemingly trying to re-up the mefi attention to your blog despite your statement just now that you're "not particularly interested in dragging out the discussion of that Metafilter deletion any further".<BR/><BR/>You have every right to make a post about it. It's a normal enough reaction, and it's your blog -- I'd never imagine otherwise.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that you were wise to conflate the deletion with your actual content re: gender disadvantages if what you wanted here was a discussion of the latter. Separate posts, one for the issue, the other for the deletion, would have kept those things partitioned and given readers interested in the core discussion a chance to jump right into it. Editorial opinion, not something I'm spending a whole lot of time worrying about, but there it is. You say that the deletion issue as framing for the discussion was attractive to you; I think it was a mistake. We may well just fundamentally disagree here.<BR/><BR/>But while you have every right to post about your experience with the askme deletion, that doesn't automatically render <I>how</I> you choose to discuss it as reasonable. I don't think you were being very reasonable or fair in how you chose to pursue it; your language in the post is presumptive to the point of being offensive, and seemed more like a continuation/restatement of your initial complaint in Metatalk five days ago than a considered reaction to the feedback you got there. <BR/><BR/>I think that sucks, to put it plainly. I don't think you're a bad person or a jerk for it, and I'm not <I>presuming any unspoken motivations</I> for it. That's just basic courtesy in an argument, though, and part of my frustration with how you've approached all this is that it does not appear to be something you're even willing to extend to us.cortexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02439222638852171134noreply@blogger.com