Should a proposal to eliminate men from society be allowed on the forum
There is currently a discussion taking place which started out with a proposal to eliminate males from society called "A Plan for World Peace." Here's a link.
Reply to Jake
In the original post, Jake considers eliminating men from society over time by attrition - Women will continue to reproduce girls using sperm created from cells from other women's bodies. Apparently this is a technology which may be feasible in the not too distant future. Men would gradually die out thereby solving the problem of violence.
Here's a link to my initial response to the OP. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/175966
Although I say several things in the post, I think the two most important are 1) this is genocide and 2) if it were proposed that women be eliminated in a similar fashion, moderators would delete the thread immediately. @Baden responded saying "Go fry ice." Actually, no, he didn't really respond at all. @Jack responded saying of course it isn't genocide and that he wasn't willing to respond to any more comments like that.
Two issues - First, we have a poster who proposes an outrageous and vile plan that, in my opinion, shows a deep contempt for men but who refuses to discuss it's implications. Second, the forum is allowing a degrading and demeaning discussion about men that would never be allowed if it were about women or specific ethnic, national, or racial groups.
My solution - well, I wish we had a place on the forum we could all go to to have nasty, unmoderated, free-for-alls, but we don't. So....I don't know. I don't like it when discussions get stopped. Let's at least get an acknowledgement. It is forum policy that, although sexism is not allowable as it applies to women, the same restrictions do not apply to men.
Reply to Jake
In the original post, Jake considers eliminating men from society over time by attrition - Women will continue to reproduce girls using sperm created from cells from other women's bodies. Apparently this is a technology which may be feasible in the not too distant future. Men would gradually die out thereby solving the problem of violence.
Here's a link to my initial response to the OP. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/175966
Although I say several things in the post, I think the two most important are 1) this is genocide and 2) if it were proposed that women be eliminated in a similar fashion, moderators would delete the thread immediately. @Baden responded saying "Go fry ice." Actually, no, he didn't really respond at all. @Jack responded saying of course it isn't genocide and that he wasn't willing to respond to any more comments like that.
Two issues - First, we have a poster who proposes an outrageous and vile plan that, in my opinion, shows a deep contempt for men but who refuses to discuss it's implications. Second, the forum is allowing a degrading and demeaning discussion about men that would never be allowed if it were about women or specific ethnic, national, or racial groups.
My solution - well, I wish we had a place on the forum we could all go to to have nasty, unmoderated, free-for-alls, but we don't. So....I don't know. I don't like it when discussions get stopped. Let's at least get an acknowledgement. It is forum policy that, although sexism is not allowable as it applies to women, the same restrictions do not apply to men.
Comments (103)
It is reasonable to condemn bigotry when it is directed against oppressed peoples, and not unreasonable to refrain from condemning it when it is directed against the oppressors, since bigotry is already inherent in the act of oppression..
So, you're agreeing with my summary of the [s]actual[/s] forum policy as it is actually enforced [bold text added]. Good. Let's see if the moderators will go along. Maybe we can get @Baden and @jamalrob to formally change the guidelines to match reality.
Sorry, T Clark, but I can't see how, if I am agreeing with the actual forum policy, that agreeing with me would require the guidelines to be changed. Have I missed something I wonder?
This is all when and good when you're not talking about genociding an oppressor. "Kill all the men" isn't simple bigotry.
I can't see how the proposal involves killing any actual men. Note, though, I'm not saying I agree with the proposal.
Sorry, I was unclear. When I said "actual forum policy" I meant the policy as it is actually enforced, not as it is written.
Ah, I think I see now; you are saying that the written guideline do not make the distinction between bigotry against oppressed and bigotry against oppressors, but just condemn bigotry tout court and that the practice is thus not consistent with the rules as written?
The definition of "genocide" under international law includes forced sterilization.
OK, but again, no actual men would be killed or sterilized, so it could hardly be called genocide. You could say that humanity will just undergo a collective gender reassignment. Personally I think it is a ridiculous idea, and could never be carried out without either sterilizing or killing actual men. If it involved sterilizing or killing actual mean it would be morally wrong, of course. On the other hand if all women collectively decided to avoid men altogether and reproduce in the new way; that would be their prerogative. But it aint ever going to happen, obviously.
I don't consider men to be oppressors. For that reason, I don't find the distinction you make valid.
But yes, my suggestion is we make the language of the rule match it's enforcement. If the moderators were to change the guidelines to match your language, that would at least honestly acknowledge that it is not necessary for men and women to be treated the same.
I think it is undeniable that men have been and still are oppressors of women. They have done this throughout history simply "because they can". It may have been 'unintentional' and 'due to circumstance', but 'unintentional' and 'due to circumstance' oppression is oppression nonetheless, I would say.
[quote='Jake']STOP MAKING MEN: So, to wrap up this opening post, my proposal is that we "stop making men". That is, control reproduction so as to gradually remove males from the population.[/quote]
Unless men were also legally made to be unable to reproduce other men via the same method (throw in artificial wombs) then it is genocide on top of intentional mass discrimination.
And yet I deny it.
Sure, if the method would allow men to reproduce men and men were stopped from doing that then it would be morally wrong. But since men hold the power it is more likely that men would stop women from reproducing women. It's a thoroughly dopey idea that shouldn't even be taken seriously. It is material only for comedy. Woody Allen comes to mind for some reason.
Surely one should be able to discuss almost anything on a forum like this? If some topics are off-limits, it reflects very poorly on the ability of philosophical enquiry to actually do anything useful. If you don't like a topic, show why it's wrong instead of shutting down debate. Alternatively, consider renaming this site as The Dogma Forum.
You should have read 'undeniable' to mean that it could not reasonably be denied. No one can force you to be reasonable; it is your prerogative to be unreasonable if you so wish.
And yet I deny I am being unreasonable.
It is my understanding that Jake's intention is that the program would not be voluntary. Women will not be allowed to mate with men. Men will not be allowed to mate with women. Women will be fertilized by artificial insemination with sperm manufactured from body cells of other women. Only girls will be allowed to be born.
You think that precludes the possibility that you are being unreasonable?
This is a moderated forum. We have pretty good moderators who try to maintain a balance between freedom of expression and stability and civility. If you've ever been on an unmoderated forum, you know how quickly even philosophy will spin off into chaos. I don't always agree with the decisions the moderators make, which is why I started this discussion, but I think they are indispensable.
I know Jake has denied the charge, but I still can't help thinking he's attempting to (e.g.) expose the hypocrisy of those who would deny essential differences between the sexes on the one hand - especially biological differences - and then offer their support for a proposal like his, i.e. one which is grounded in those very assumptions they'd previously rejected.
Or maybe he's attempting to see, in a playful way, how far he can go and still be taken seriously among those of us interested in philosophy, regardless of how impractical or horrific the idea hes proposing is when followed to its end. Or maybe his goal is to expose obvious double standards at work concerning what's acceptable to post (and what's not) on internet message forums like TPF, which is something you rightly identified. Or maybe a combination of all the above and even more that I can't think of right now.
My apologies to Jake if he is being completely serious. I could very well just be too shortsighted and narrow-minded to see how realistic and desirable the possibility is.
Look, you're making broad, meaningness statements and I'm giving useless, over-literal responses.
I really, really think Jake is really, really serious. Maybe I'm wrong. Hey, @Jake, can you set things straight.
How do you think my statements are "broad, meaningless"? Which ones, and why?
Well then of course the program would be immoral since it would be oppressive to all.
You wrote:
Quoting Janus
What does that mean? You haven't even defined your terms. Do you mean that women have the same relationship with men that residents of a country have with troops from an occupying power? You're using "undeniable" the way some people use "self-evident." And it's neither.
Which brings us back to the original question - is it ok to discuss this here on the forum?
Yeah if I recall correctly he said he's being serious, but that doesn't necessarily mean he's telling the truth. I've seen people engage in these sort of "gotcha" tactics before, promulgating ideas they don't believe in one bit in order to expose blatant double standards of their perceived opponents, but maybe his case is different and I shouldn't dismiss it so cynically.
It is undeniable that we live in a male-dominated society. Women are precluded from some roles in society altogether and do not do well in other spheres due to the 'boy's club' nature of those spheres. The majority of domestic violence overwhelmingly consist in men aggressing women, the vast majority of rapes are committed by men. Men are also the predominant oppressors of children, at least when it comes to child abuse and paedophilia. I mean, all of this is just so obvious I don't see how you can reasonably deny it.
I have to stand by my previously expressed opinion of the moderators, otherwise Baden won't cosign on the loan for my new car. Your take is much more cynical than mine.
I haven't read the thread in question, other than cursorily. Did @Jake specify that the program would be enforced? In any case if it were enforced it would be oppressive to all, men and women alike, so there would be no special victims. Are we precluded from discussing subjects that are not bigoted in that they are not specifically directed at any oppressed peoples?
Here we go again - yes, I do deny it. No, it is not obvious to me. I'd be happy to discuss it sometime, but that was not my intention when I started this discussion. I mainly want to focus on whether or not the way the subject is being handled on the forum is appropriate. From what you've said, I think you believe that, because of differences in history and social position, it may be appropriate to apply rules against sexism differently to men and women. Is that correct?
Yes, I think it is appropriate to apply the rules against any form of bigotry differently depending on whether the bigotry is directed against the oppressed or those who are not oppressed, regardless of whether the latter are oppressors or not.
Do you really think the question of whether women have been and are more oppressed by men than men have been and are by women is not relevant to your question about whether @Jake's thread should be moderated or not? Do you agree in principle at least that the distinction should be made between oppressed, non-oppressed and oppressor?
I don't know what I would think on the subject if I thought women are oppressed by men.
Quoting Janus
Here's the problem - oppressed people are not responsible for their lives. Do you really want women to be thought of as victims who are not responsible for their own behavior? It is really dangerous to a class of people to think of them as victims.
As Malcolm X said, the house negro has played the victim card for decades. For some women, being thought of as a victim paradoxically grants them a feeling of being powerful, seeing as they are able to influence others to think a certain way about them.
It is not black and white, though. Women as a whole have been victims of oppression by men, and I would say all the evidence seems to point to that. This does not mean that every woman has been oppressed by men, or that every man is an oppressor, though. And it does not mean women have been or are nothing but victims.
On the other hand every women is subject to the overall oppression that consists in the fact that she lives in what has been historically, and still is (although to an arguably lesser extent), a male-dominated society.
But I think if you looked closely at the questions in the thread you mentioned, the OP was constructing a puzzle. We presently have no plan for turning ourselves into pacifists, so the OP wants to paint the reader into the corner of supporting the insupportable. That's pretty philosophical.
That's fine, but I don't think that is what Jake was trying to do. I think his proposal was in earnest, although I don't think he thought it was possible.
I haven't seen that. Could you cite a specific moment when men were demeaned or degraded? I, for my part, have tried to stick with facts about the prevalence of male-perpetrated crime world wide.
If Jake had picked on something more arbitrary then I would agree with you. Like, if he said, men are hairier so we should get rid of them, that would be just discriminatory.
I can't find the discussion. Looks like it was deleted.
The fact that eliminating men from society was even proposed without it raising a ruckus was demeaning. The fact that it's ok for people to consider it as if it weren't a vile idea is degrading. The fact that you can't see that is .... disheartening. Women will never be treated the way they should be as long as men are thought about, talked about, the way they have been in these discussions.
But - now it's moot. As far as I'm concerned, they can delete this thread too.
1) No where in my posts have I expressed a deep contempt for men. I have instead specifically said I'd be happy for men to remain if the problem of violence could be solved by some method other than my proposal.
2) I have hardly refused to discuss the implications of my proposal, given that roughly half of the posts in the thread you are referring to are mine, and I've replied to as many people and posts as I can without becoming a total thread hog.
3) I said none of this either.
What you're all wound up about is that I'm not taking you seriously, and that's because you make up stuff out of your imagination and then argue against it as if somebody other than you had actually said it.
But in the spirit of cooperation, let's make a deal. I'll stay out of this thread clearing the field for you to conduct your holy jihad unmolested by reason, and in return perhaps you could stop clogging the thread I started with your imaginative reading of other people's posts.
Yes, that appears to be the case. Ok T Clark, you win, congratulations dude. The forum gets to have you instead of me.
I'm gone guys, adios, good luck, and thanks to those of you who filled my thread with intelligent comments and challenges.
Not sure I want you accolades in this particular situation.
I stated in the now-deleted thread that most men are not violent and most men do not oppress women,.
Some men do oppress women, and some men are violent toward women. In fact, a fairly small minority of men are responsible for a good deal of the violence that is committed, toward men and toward women.
Oppression is a systemic, not an individual act. As a gay man who was born and grew up in midwestern backwaters way before gay liberation arrived, I can testify that oppression takes more than one individual being shocked that gay men suck cock. Oppression of gay men involves religious narratives, family values, national values, cultural values, government policy, law, police, and so forth.
Oppression of women is also systemic, and as in the case with gay men, oppression is a package deal. Most people are systemically oppressed whether they are gay or straight, male or female, black or white. The purpose of systemic oppression is to maintain the status quo whereby a few people exploit most people for economic advantage. (That will no doubt sound familiar to some.) That kind of systemic oppression has been the dominant paradigm for a very long time -- not just since WWI, the Civil War, or QEI.
As far as the Ruling Class is concerned, we are all either house niggers or field niggers, and what we do in the slave cabins is pretty much irrelevant to the folks in the Big Housse.
Was his post offensive? No. Was his post inflammatory? Maybe, but it wasn't without merit. Was he trying to trap people in contradictions? If he was, he has lots of company here. Philosophers seem to live for finding a contradictory statement.
Is this thread worth keeping? Absolutely.
Were the nomenclatura who patrol the thread reasonable in deleting the World Peace Thread? No, but their deleting threads hardly comes as a surprise. I'm surprised Jake wasn't banned on his way out the door.
Oh look, there's Jake being banned now.
Bringing up Malcolm X here makes no sense. His point there was that the house negroes were traitors to their people, that he identified himself with his master as much as he could.
[quote='Malcolm X: "The Race Problem"']
The house Negro usually lived close to his master. He dressed like his master. He wore his master's second-hand clothes. He ate food that his master left on the table. And he lived in his master's house--probably in the basement or the attic--but he still lived in the master's house.
So whenever that house Negro identified himself, he always identified himself in the same sense that his master identified himself.[/quote]
Whatever your views about what @Janus is saying, Malcolm X isn't likely to come down on your side of it since it isn't what they're arguing about oppressed people's and the methods of expression that is acceptable for each group to use.
I respect your moderate and conciliatory tone. I might even agree with you in principle, but .... well....no. If I wrote about women the way Jake wrote about men, I would have been shut down immediately. If I persisted, I would have been banned.
This is not a matter of principle for me. It is physical and visceral. When he was talking about his ideas for annihilation of all men, I felt sick to my stomach. That much hate and disgust against men. Me. Hatred. The fact that no one spoke up against what he was saying in any substantive way made me furious. Makes me furious. The fact that moderators seemed to think it was acceptable to talk about men that way. The fact that people feel such contempt for men and won't even acknowledge it. The fact that Jake didn't even feel he had to answer for his vile ideas. As if it were self-evident.
I've tried to stand up for my friends here on the forum when I felt they were being treated with disrespect, contempt. Here, when it was me, I felt like no one cared.
As society progressed out of the jungles and both men and women enjoyed more time (to get away from the kids), there was I think some resistance by men to the idea of women stepping into what was their traditional space - I don't know if I would call it oppression though (not to say there weren't idiots or clusters of idiots, or mindset adjustments that needed to happen). I think it's sorting itself out though.
As for the discussion on whether we men should be eradicated through time, I don't think it should be banned. It would be interesting to discuss the ramifications of it. What would society be like?
Furthermore, the majority of women actually do like men so the proposal is far fetched.
I think that's naive. It's certainly getting better, but not by itself. That's what people think after the fact, but it ignores that people are actively working for it to bring that change about against a tendency to keep a status quo.
My initial view is that yes, even something as extreme as this should not be disallowed in virtue of it being extreme. Censoring bad ideas doesn't solve anything and only opens up the possibility of censoring good (and perhaps also extreme) ideas.
To a certain extent I think having a thick skin is a necessary requirement for having free speech. Let the stupid people talk. Smart people listen and know it's stupid.
If you saw it that way, I'm glad things went your way and the thread was deleted. His mistake was to locate the vileness of humanity in one portion of it. It's the whole thing that's vile. Look around you.
I would have liked for the mods to have made an exception to the rules in this case and allowed the topic to keep going, despite the questionable assumptions underlying it and the even more questionable solution brought forth.
Somewhat akin to the impractical if not impossible utopian scheme laid out in Plato's Republic, which, more than anything else, serves as the occasion to think through important topics like justice, the nature of various political regimes, the aim of a genuine philosophical education, etc.
Oh well. I'm still not convinced that Jake was being entirely serious, but I have to admit he sold it well and put some real effort into his views, however naive (imo), as did others who contributed.
Thus, it is sorting itself out.
We all have a responsibility toward how we respond and react to posts that we may or may not agree with and being a virtual platform does not give anyone - whether a moderator or a poster - the entitlement to behave irresponsibly. I appreciate and respect your opinion here as well as @Bitter Crank and wanted to advise that while Jake is new to the forums and did not adequately articulate his point of view on a subject that naturally arouses controversy, posters should flag posts that they do not agree with and patiently wait should there be no immediate response because for one we each live in different continents, and two we discuss with one another prior to deleting a thread to ensure a level playing field.
In this instance, that decision was made without me and I respect the decision and hope that Jake will reconsider his opinions and reformulate his suggestions. We do not tolerate sexism and sexism is not gender-biased.
I agree with your take personally but another mod saw fit to delete the discussion, presumably because it had deteriorated due to the level of polarization there. Waiting for an explanation to give you all.
My take is that moderation in that regards is pertinent. I was just posting yesterday in a thread about the philosophy of 'farts', so go figure.
The farts thing was deleted because fart was a multiple sockpuppet btw. If a regular non-sockpuppet poster had posted that it most likely would have been left there.
Boy, here's a bad idea for me to respond to this. But anyway. You all let him say those things about men. No one spoke up. I've always spoken up when I feel someone, anyone is being treated with disrespect, but none of you did. I feel betrayed. I love you people and you let him say what he did about me just because I'm a man. How could you have let him say those things. Is that what you think of me? You wouldn't have let him say that about anyone else but me.
:up:
I respect the decision too. This case may be one of those rare scenarios in which a topic that should have been deleted right from the start, at least according to forum guidelines, actually turns into an interesting discussion. What to do in those strange cases? Tough call but like I said I can see and appreciate why it was removed. I'm a believer in the importance of laying out rules and then applying them impartially.
Dude, I was reading that "farts" thread more thoroughly than I do most others around here, at least up until mention was made of lighting a match with a fart. :lol:
Great contributions to the topic there, though, Posty!
Hanover looks good with a baton.
Sounds good. That was a tough call for you guys and I can see the rationale behind either decision.
Appreciate your understanding. :up:
T-Clark, everyone in the world is not awake when you are awake. Some people work full time. Some people have families. Some people are getting married, others are preparing for international travel. If you are upset about a post, all you need to do is flag it and be patient, which I understand can be difficult when the subject is so controversial, but this thread you created only undermines our capacity as moderators. We will delete threads once we have had the discussions about whether it is in contravention of forum guidelines and sometimes we independently make those choices depending on the seriousness of a number of factors. You do no need to blow the trumpet like this as a little child would scream and bang his hands on the floor because he was refused ice-cream and forcing his mother to give him what he wants just to keep him quiet.
You of all people should know that I am very level-headed on controversial subjects and would have taken action had I known about the thread, as would have all the other moderators. If you felt alone, you are wrong - very wrong - for thinking that. We did not let him say anything and if you disagree with that, if you really do believe that there was some injustice here, do you really believe this thread is the best approach?
Granted, people yell when they feel like what they are saying is not being heard. Like they are not listened to. But you PM'd me asking me to look at that thread not considering that I was asleep. I would have been on your side and taken action, but you did not wait and trust me. Or us. It was inappropriate for that reason.
I lol'ed
Not just saying this, but TL is one of the more restrained of us in the mod forum.
Yet she's the only one that will tell you just how level-headed she is.
I PMd Baden and told him I was going to start the thread and asked if he had any issues. He was online at that point. I guess he didn't have a chance to read it till later. I asked you for your opinion, but you were not online. There was nothing wrong with the thread I started. I didn't want to flag the post. I didn't want it deleted. I just wanted to discuss why it was ok to say those things about men but not about women. That's beside the point - if that thread had been about women, it would have been off within five minutes, no matter who was getting married or flying to Timbuktu.
I wasn't really upset about the post. I was upset that profound contempt for men didn't even raise an eyebrow. I couldn't even get a response. I was the turd in the swimming pool while Jake was proposing erasing half the population. My half.
I'm fining you 50 points for misusing a cliché. Your discussion among yourselves whether to delete a thread ensures collusion, not a level playing field. In a contest between the members and the mods, or the members and the mob, there is no level field.
How on earth does it undermine your (plural) capacity as moderators?
Watch me. And pay up.
Anyone can start a Feedback discussion any time they want. A little patience would be helpful sometimes as it may be possible to solve the problem without a big unnecessary hooha.
Hey, I resemble that remark.
I was just going to add that you did contact me first. I was speaking generally.
Damn... :scream:
Well, I have no problem with the "big" and "hooha" parts. It's the "unnecessary" part that I question.
You were impatient because you were flustered and I should say that "online" does not necessarily mean actually online. Sometimes we are logged on but we are very busy or doing other things, as mentioned we are ordinary people volunteering our time.
For you to claim that "if that thread was about women" is a gamblers fallacy and personal opinion that you cannot verify, because I can assure you that had it been about women and I had seen it, I would have still left it and openly discussed the subject. I have experienced a huge number of sexist remarks against me by many people who are still on here and still pestering me. So, you have no right to make that claim.
As mentioned, we do not tolerate sexism and sexism is not gender-biased.
Fair enough. It depends on the discussion. I already said by PM before I even posted here that it was fine to start this one.
:100:
I wasn't flustered. I was angry. If it were someone else who was being discussed that way, I would have been much more aggressive than I was. If women were being talked about that way, I wouldn't have stopped until the discussion was shut down. I hope you know that's true.
We're all supposed to stand up for each other. We don't have to wait around for a moderator. I wasn't uncivil or abusive. Why would I wait? What happened that was so bad? I'm sorry Jake left. My first comment to him was a compliment on the quality of his post. I've PMd him telling him I hope he'll hang around. I'm guessing he won't. But people have to face the consequences of what they write. He wasn't treated badly. He just got appropriately slammed for his despicable idea.
:100:
Your taking this quite seriously. What's the prize?
You do not need to be more or less aggressive, that is the point, and while there is nothing inherently bad in your actions, your remarks that had women been the subject the thread would have been immediately shut-down is clearly unfair to both a woman and the only female mod. As if I would let something like that remain unchecked only because I would enjoy the anti-male stance and I would have easily torn his argument to pieces had I actually known about the thread until I reached your correpondence. Let's not forget that you yourself have said to me that despite being a strong woman who supports the rights of women, I never do it at the expense of men. Yes, we do need to stand up for each other, but don't pretend that there was no underlying intention in creating this thread.
Anyway, it looks like it is over now so maybe we should let it rest in peace.
I'm done if everyone else is. As the guy who started this thread, I would endorse freezing it if you'd like. Up to you.
I'm just so fucking tired of talking about women and men. It's like a week straight. Seemed like a good idea when we got started. I'm ready to go back to metaphysics where I belong. Actually, I've been thinking about a post on property rights.
I've always wondered about "et ux." That's who owns my house - T Clark et ux. It's not fair. Why can't I be the ux?