I think his assertions are not so much as to be considered seriously as examined, like a disease. But seriously, note his manner in calling you “dear”! That’s him working his magic on you, no doubt… so perhaps you could describe how your inner-femininity is responding to this powerful display of masculinity on Delaney’s part, as he condescends to you. Are you swooning yet?
lol
Also, if masculinity is simply being attracted to women, there’s not much more to be said there.
As I use the term, masculinity is rooted in the fact of one’s maleness, and in his attraction to the opposite sex. But there’s a lot more to it than that.
I think these discussions, at least those that make positive claims, shouldn’t even happen without solid, undisputed definitions for both of those concepts – or lack of concepts, as it may turn out to be.
If by “undisputed” you mean “not disputed by anyone,” or that which cannot be disputed, then discussion of any number of topics is impossible.
All members of a particular discussion should agree on fundamentals, including basic definitions. In simplest essence, masculinity is the state of appropriate mental/psychological functioning for a man in the area of sex and related matters , assuming always a heterosexual context. Femininity can be defined similarly.
The need for these concepts arises from the fact that, in sex, men and women are not identical — that there are key biological differences, as well as important psychological/emotional differences which exist between the sexes. Men and women occupy differing perspectives in sex, which crucially affect their respective experiences in the sexual arena, and in connected aspects of life (e.g., romantic love).
It’s at this level that many of my critics ostensibly have their greatest difficulty with me. If you don’t agree that men and women are different, and that’s it’s valid to talk about a man’s perspective in love and sex versus a woman’s, then anything I say which follows from that will seem like gobbledygook.
I don’t know how I could prove this premise to someone who doesn’t accept it, other than to say: Look at reality. A 15 year-old boy going forth in dating doesn’t need to be told that guys and girls are different; he slams up against the fact repeatedly. His concern (if he’s intelligent) is to refine his awareness of these differences, to understand what they mean for him, and to determine what course of action he should pursue as a result.
The need for these concepts arises from the fact that, in sex, men and women are not identical — that there are key biological differences, as well as important psychological/emotional differences which exist between the sexes.
… …
It’s at this level that many of my critics ostensibly have their greatest difficulty with me.
… …
I don’t know how I could prove this premise to someone who doesn’t accept it, other than to say: Look at reality.
… …
I that your detractors will agree that, when taken as a group, there are important differences between men and women. Their contention is that these do not come from biology, but from “environmental” factors. That’s why they liken this to “racist” ideas, e.g. where lower average IQ of one “race” is taken to indicate biological differences.
Even though there are so many studies about IQ and biology, experts still disagree. I imagine testing the influence of environment versus biology on sex and gender is far more difficult. Are you aware of any studies that have tried to tease out how much of this comes from biology?
I that your detractors will agree that, when taken as a group, there are important differences between men and women. Their contention is that these do not come from biology, but from “environmental” factors. That’s why they liken this to “racist” ideas, e.g. where lower average IQ of one “race” is taken to indicate biological differences.
Even though there are so many studies about IQ and biology, experts still disagree. I imagine testing the influence of environment versus biology on sex and gender is far more difficult. Are you aware of any studies that have tried to tease out how much of this comes from biology?
Though perhaps Delaney will be willing to follow this line of thought now – and I’d be happy for it – I’d like to mention that this particular dance had been danced before, as here:
What’s your evidence for all this? Do you have formal studies to back you up? Professionals who make such claims (including Freud and Branden) say they reach their conclusions from on-the-job therapeutic observation. This has problems of its own, but it’s better than nothing. As far as I can see it’s better than you’ve given us.
I polled 5,000 women, asking them: “Do you, or have you at any time, ‘tested’ your boyfriend or husband, in order to determine his level of internal fortitude relative to you?”
Every one insisted that they do not do this, that they never have, and they called me the devil for daring to suggest such a thing.
That was when I knew that it was true! :smartass:
So . . . you got nothin’ then?
bluecherry: Indeed, I have nothing. Less than nothing, in fact.
JASKN: I posted my article because I think that it would be of interest to those who are familiar with Ayn Rand’s ideas.
I’m not aware of how one “argues” points such as those made in my article.
At minimum you’d provide anecdotes, ideally you’d have studies to back it up, with science explaining brain chemistry, along with any other up-to-date information available. If there’s room for speculation or uncertainty, those caveats would be noted.
You did specify heterosexual relationships, but other than that, you haven’t even tried to support your assertions concerning “every” woman. Why would anyone believe you or take any interest unless they’ve at least had some personal experience as a small base from which to draw that meshes with what you’re saying?
JASKN: It is extremely crucial that a person not accept anything I say, unless it jibes in some way with their own personal experience.
“Science explaining brain chemistry”???
Doesn’t sound to me like he’s much interested in trying “to tease out how much of this comes from biology,” though again, perhaps that’s changed…
I that your detractors will agree that, when taken as a group, there are important differences between men and women. Their contention is that these do not come from biology, but from “environmental” factors.
I don’t say that the differences between men and women in sex “come from biology.” That’s a crude misunderstanding of my position.
Masculinity and femininity have their roots in immediately observable biological fact, most basically in the anatomical differences between male and female. Man possesses a penis, and woman a vagina; man enters, and woman is entered. This has not-insignificant implications for the way we emotionally experience sex, and consequently for how each of us perceives and relates to the other sexually.
Doubtless environment plays some role in every person’s psychosexual development. But what I’m speaking about is far too basic, and much too universal to be solely or even primarily the result of external influences.
To anyone who argues that masculinity and femininity are “social” constructs, I ask: If men and women were to become liberated from society’s influence, would we then turn into psychological neuters?
Society does attempt to foist many wrong, harmful notions about what it means to “be a man” or “be a woman” upon us all the time. We need to sort through the nonsense, and arrive at reality-based concepts if we’re to achieve sanity (to say nothing of happiness) in this regard.
Society does attempt to foist many wrong, harmful notions about what it means to “be a man” or “be a woman” upon us all the time. We need to sort through the nonsense, and arrive at reality-based concepts if we’re to achieve sanity (to say nothing of happiness) in this regard.
Very good.
Can you please then explain the methodology you’ve employed to do this – sort through the nonsense – and demonstrate how your specific concepts of masculinity and femininity (“what it means to ‘be a man’ or ‘be a woman’” in your opinion) are “reality-based,” and specifically how you’ve arrived at them?
I don’t say that the differences between men and women in sex “come from biology.” That’s a crude misunderstanding of my position.
If it’s not biology and it’s not chosen, what is it exactly?
Masculinity and femininity have their roots in immediately observable biological fact, most basically in the anatomical differences between male and female. Man possesses a penis, and woman a vagina; man enters, and woman is entered. This has not-insignificant implications for the way we emotionally experience sex, and consequently for how each of us perceives and relates to the other sexually.
This is jumping into nonsense land. It’s that same argument people use to say sex isn’t proper unless it’s for procreation. So there are anatomical differences, so what? People have a huge variety of sex and people are all different in their preferences. Maybe if you could specifically state the implications you talk of…
Doubtless environment plays some role in every person’s psychosexual development. But what I’m speaking about is far too basic, and much too universal to be solely or even primarily the result of external influences.
Too basic, but not biological?
To anyone who argues that masculinity and femininity are “social” constructs, I ask: If men and women were to become liberated from society’s influence, would we then turn into psychological neuters?
There are some generalities to be made, yes. They’re just not as sweeping as you claim. I doubt anyone would be arguing with you about this if you didn’t claim you have the answers for all heterosexual people everywhere.
If it’s not biology and it’s not chosen, what is it exactly?
It’s psychological. Can’t you understand that?
I doubt anyone would be arguing with you about this if you didn’t claim you have the answers for all heterosexual people everywhere.
Again and again (and again . . . and again) you can witness my critics taking an anti-principled approach. “People have a huge variety of sex and people are all different in their preferences” — therefore no general conclusions can ever be arrived at. To say otherwise is to believe that you have intimate knowledge about every person on the planet.
Perhaps the entire science of psychology is invalid, and possibly even ethics. After all, “everyone is an individual.”
Just out of interest, what are your credentials in psychology? What department did you study in, degrees, papers, research, etc.?
“As I use the term, masculinity is rooted in the fact of one’s maleness, and in his attraction to the opposite sex. But there’s a lot more to it than that.”
“The need for these concepts [masculinity and femininity] arises from the fact that, in sex, men and women are not identical — that there are key biological differences, as well as important psychological/emotional differences which exist between the sexes.”
Biological differences, sure. But psychological ones are a lot less clear cut. There’s a lot of cross-cultural studies that turn up radically different results from one culture to another on this topic. Furthermore though, even if we accept that there are important psychological differences relevant to sex and romance stemming from biology rather than culture, you still need to provide evidence that your account of these differences is correct. Also, is this descriptive or prescriptive? Is it something you think is just how people already inevitably are? If so, what if somebody was not like that? Or is this how you think people should be? If it’s “should be” then how exactly does adopting this manner help somebody?
“. . . man enters, and woman is entered. This has not-insignificant implications for the way we emotionally experience sex, and consequently for how each of us perceives and relates to the other sexually.”
“Again and again (and again . . . and again) you can witness my critics taking an anti-principled approach.”
bluecherry, on 27 May 2013 - 21:04, said:
Principles have to serve toward the end of one’s well being and they exist for certain types of contexts. I’ve mentioned when going more slowly would be wise. This is not one of those circumstances. Going slowly at this point would just be following an out of context commandment.
bluecherry, on 31 May 2013 - 18:17, said:
I’m not against principles qua principles for anybody, I’m against pointless, counterproductive things whether somebody calls them “principles” or anything else.
“Perhaps the entire science of psychology is invalid, and possibly even ethics. After all, ‘everyone is an individual.’”
Psychology and ethics involves evidence and logic to support its claims of what things it determines are true of and applicable to all humans. You don’t have any of that.
2046, in a previous thread he’s stated that he doesn’t have any of those. (Not that those determine if somebody is right or wrong.)
Again and again (and again . . . and again) you can witness my critics taking an anti-principled approach. “People have a huge variety of sex and people are all different in their preferences” — therefore no general conclusions can ever be arrived at. To say otherwise is to believe that you have intimate knowledge about every person on the planet.
Nonsense. Of course general conclusions can, and have been, arrived at. It is upon those conclusions that your claims are rejected, taken along with those personal experiences people claim to have had, time and time again, which run contrary to your views (though you apparently do not take those as being particularly meaningful for some reason):
[Racism claims] that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.
This is principled. It is based on understanding that a man fashions his own convictions, values and character, through his choices.
“As man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.”
Perhaps the entire science of psychology is invalid, and possibly even ethics. After all, “everyone is an individual.”
Certainly any approach to psychology or ethics or anything else that denies the truth of the individuality of man is invalid, and yes, that does look a lot like you.
Or, if you think I’m wrong, then why do you seek to draw a distinction between your process and any other form of bigotry? Why can’t we start talking about the “psychology” that must come with dark skin, or a particular shape of nose, or slant of eye? And since I know that you have no credentials such that 2046 is asking for – you’ve said as much in another thread, though I don’t feel like tracking it down at the moment (iirc “If I had credentials, don’t you think I’d say so??” or something typically petulant and snarky like that) – do you think that the proper way to approach this is for people to just start, oh, speculating on what having dark skin must mean for the psychology of the black man?
Do you think that what you do is reasonable at all? In another thread that you bailed on, Dante said “Serious claims should be backed up by serious, objective evidence.”
So do you have it? Do you have “serious, objective evidence” to back up your views? If so, let’s see it. If not…
It’s psychological. Can’t you understand that?
I do have such a hard time understanding things…
Again and again (and again . . . and again) you can witness my critics taking an anti-principled approach. “People have a huge variety of sex and people are all different in their preferences” — therefore no general conclusions can ever be arrived at. To say otherwise is to believe that you have intimate knowledge about every person on the planet.
I see… Either Kevin is right or the entire science of psychology is invalid. (!)
I guess I’ll just state it plainly again: It’s your claims that people in this thread are disputing. You get belligerent when people question you instead of trying to back up what you say. If you want people to believe you, it’s your job to answer their criticisms. Just because you announce a principle doesn’t mean it’s true.
I think the strongest argument against you is plain old personal experience. Basically everyone at this point has considered alternative sexuality that doesn’t fit longstanding social norms – and big surprise, nothing outrageous happened and that experience was just like any other, to be cataloged in the brain. What you claim in these posts, compared to experience, comes across as nonsense.
Kevin’s advice - in #8 - is still very good advice. For a woman or a man. Trouble is he seems to have
evolved a philosophy, which is where he digs himself into a hole.
His principle is derived from biology, I think: ‘Naturalism’, as it might be called. i.e. “The nature of man and woman is such and such, and so they must act accordingly”.
How far is it from stating that men and women are “created” with sexual equipment, which makes it a categorical imperative that they procreate?
(In general, as Objectivist, sexuality is my one real departure from Rand; there are too many levels of genetics, psychology, experience and volitional self-interest - to be neatly subsumed under a single objective principle, I feel.)
In general, as Objectivist, sexuality is my one real departure from Rand; there are too many levels of genetics, psychology, experience and volitional self-interest - to be neatly subsumed under a single objective principle, I feel.
Once again, the anti-principled approach.
“The field is simply too complex for a principle — any kind of principle — to be established.”
Principles are man’s means of dealing with complexity. They reduce, in effect, what could otherwise be a bewildering heap of concretes, down to something much more mentally manageable.
This doesn’t prove that any particular principle which anyone chooses to advance is true. But when you begin your thinking on a given subject by saying, “There is no principle here; there cannot be one,” that’s when thinking stops.
Every process of investigation & inquiry is a quest to establish generalizations. A generalization is not a rule, a commandment, or a “categorical imperative.” It’s the means of helping you to achieve clarity on a topic; it doesn’t make you omniscient.
His principle is derived from biology, I think: ‘Naturalism’, as it might be called. i.e. “The nature of man and woman is such and such, and so they must act accordingly”.
The ideas I discuss have their roots in the biological/anatomical nature of men and women, which is necessary to examine, and can be helpful to bear in mind when attempting to understand this subject. Man is an integrated being; his physical nature cannot possibly have no bearing on his emotions, particularly in an area which so combines the physical and emotional as sex.
To say my ideas are “derived from biology” — as if I observed certain biological facts, then extrapolated “rules” for how men and women must necessarily behave as a result of them — is a horrific misinterpretation of my position. That would be rationalism, and utterly, stupidly wrong.
I often get the impression that people sort of half-read what I write.
The ideas I discuss have their roots in the biological/anatomical nature of men and women, which is necessary to examine, and can be helpful to bear in mind when attempting to understand this subject. Man is an integrated being; his physical nature cannot possibly have no bearing on his emotions, particularly in an area which so combines the physical and emotional as sex.
To say my ideas are “derived from biology” — as if I observed certain biological facts, then extrapolated “rules” for how men and women must necessarily behave as a result of them — is a horrific misinterpretation of my position. That would be rationalism, and utterly, stupidly wrong.
Anyone else here see South Park’s underpants gnomes? Delaney’s… claims remind me of that.
Step 1: Biology
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Delaney’s Beliefs
Will anyone else note that Delaney does anything, in this thread or in any other, so long as he does not have to try to explain the case for the claims he makes. (Psst… there is no case.) As he has said before:
For the record, I’m not interested in advancing “arguments” on this topic, nor in logically proving or demonstrating anything.
My writings can be taken, left, considered or ignored as each individual reader sees fit.
I often get the impression that people sort of half-read what I write.
Well, on that, I think he’s right. Anyone who thinks that Delaney will eventually participate in a sincere discussion of his views, answering criticisms, presenting evidence and the like – they haven’t been paying attention.
This doesn’t prove that any particular principle which anyone chooses to advance is true. But when you begin your thinking on a given subject by saying, “There is no principle here; there cannot be one,” that’s when thinking stops.
Every process of investigation & inquiry is a quest to establish generalizations. A generalization is not a rule, a commandment, or a “categorical imperative.” It’s the means of helping you to achieve clarity on a topic; it doesn’t make you omniscient.
The ideas I discuss have their roots in the biological/anatomical nature of men and women, which is necessary to examine, and can be helpful to bear in mind when attempting to understand this subject. Man is an integrated being; his physical nature cannot possibly have no bearing on his emotions, particularly in an area which so combines the physical and emotional as sex.
To say my ideas are “derived from biology” — as if I observed certain biological facts, then extrapolated “rules” for how men and women must necessarily behave as a result of them — is a horrific misinterpretation of my position. That would be rationalism, and utterly, stupidly wrong.
I often get the impression that people sort of half-read what I write.
I get the impression that you half-write, and then people read it! Seriously, it’s like you don’t want to explain yourself.
You’re presenting false alternatives. What about, “I’m not sure about this right now. Some evidence seems to suggest one thing, but other evidence seems to suggest something different. I may have to wait until I can figure it out further.”?
Why is “derived from biology” “horrific”? All human behavior is derived from biology. Rationalism occurs only when the biological elements at play aren’t provably linked – which, since we know little about our brains, can occur a lot.
On principles: it would be easy to argue that you are the one being rationalistic by giving generalizations but providing no facts to back them up, and that alternatively your opponents here are being principled by relentlessly asking you to back up your claims.
Every process of investigation & inquiry is a quest to establish generalizations. A generalization is not a rule, a commandment, or a “categorical imperative.” It’s the means of helping you to achieve clarity on a topic; it doesn’t make you omniscient.
Indeed, that’s why I asked about personal anecdotes of yours, or personal experience, that is, how you figured out what you say works. By asking that, it’s not even an argument. I’m just honestly curious about your experiences, to see how this all works out for you that helps you clarify the topic of romance.
