My University makes a powerful statement in support of Free Speech; yet I fear it needs more than a few paragraphs on its website to eradicate the rot that is Woke ideology.
Students coming for one of the most charitable professors in the department could be a 'red guards' moment. Perhaps I'm catastrophizing, but it's a sad day when this happens in our neck of the woods. Hopefully this may give the wider university pause for concern as to what kind of culture they've been empowering, before the golem really solidifies.
Mmm, it's sad stuff. At least now we as advocates of Free Speech, can point the University's statement as defense, when before it felt like we pointing at thin air; an abstract that didn't exist.
All of this is under the assumption that freedom of speech was more free in the past, maybe so, but only for some. I’d argue that women, people of colour and the wider gender diverse communities have historically had less access to freedom of speech.
I would wager that these minority groups recently acquired access to freedom of speech, coincides with the newly perceived reduction to freedom of speech from certain groups within society.
In my opinion, the freedom of speech movement is less about protecting freedom of speech and more about protecting their dominant knowledge producing position in society. This is being informed by a continually increasing list of people challenging their opinion—the dominant discourse.
As someone who was at that discussion, I have come to agree with them. 1/5 women who attend university have admitted are sexually assaulted by a male during their time at university. The statistics for males are less than 1/100, and often is committed by another male. The question you posed which got the most vocal response was centred around this topic. It is a sensitive personal issue for 20% of your female classmates, and only triggering for 1% of your male classmates.
Great read though JD and I appreciate the position you hold, and I will enjoy seeing how this debate unravels through the coming years. I certainly don’t agree with the student unrest against Jamin, and hope he can stay strong in the face of protest.
And indeed, what was the vehicle that gave them access to greater rights? Freedom of Speech.
I also agree that "these minority groups recently acquired access to freedom of speech, coincides with the newly perceived reduction to freedom of speech from certain groups within society".
For those being the dominant population in the society, what is inherently wrong with protecting, by way of free expression, their points of view? The irony, also, is that universities are overwhelming left wing - the dominant point of view on university is not conservative, or even centrist, but radical progressivism. And there's is heaps of research on this - psychology is far from the worst too, it's somewhere in the middle. In the States it's 16 democrats to 1 republican for professors, and even far more dramatic for students. In our survey two years ago, barely 6 percent of the student population identified as right wing. And what you saw was probably one of the most heterodox groups in the entire university, I'd wager. So in fact, it is the opposite - they are dominant group, suppressing the minority - anyone heterodox or vaguely conservative.
I'm sorry, but those stats are irrelevant. It may shift their opinion on the topic, but it doesn't justify - at all - shutting down discussion of the topic. What she said was the 99/100 woman would side with her position. That was a dramatic exaggeration. I know women in my life, who have been sexually assaulted, and as horrible and disgusting as that is, they would say the exact opposite - they would stand there, and debate fervently - not try to censor the topic. I understand the sensitivity - as you know, but as the statement on Free Speech suggests, university is not the place to protect you from ideas. I asked an empirical question, that, if we had discussed it, might have led us closer, rather than further away, from the truth. The irony is, I would have probably agreed with them on the answer - and there we would be, united!
But as I fear, they presumed my position, based on my skin colour and my sex, and that's okay; frankly. What's not okay, is to shut down the discussion, in my view.
The argument for censoring opinions comes from the drive to protect certain individuals from potentially harmful truths and ideas. The other drive is control narrative and maintain power. Who's right is it to chose for students and other demographics, what they should be exposed to? Is it left-wingers? Is it right-wingers? Is it Jesus? Is it me? Nobody is that wise, I say.
Also, two more things; The gradual exposure of painful ideas makes one stronger, not weaker. And, I believe basing policy of truth, rather than ideals, is much better in the long run, even if those truths are painful.
Thanks for another great debate though my man. You writing up Savea's move to Moana Pasifika? It's an interesting one.
I believe the vehicle was actually protest, and often those protests would be shut down. So no I don’t agree that freedom of speech was protected and therefore the vehicle that gave minorities greater FoS.
I suppose it goes back to the idea that you are not immune from the consequences of FoS. Within democratic market based societies, the power is in the polls and the current consequences ie loss of employment, are the result in a shift in polls. I think it has to be viewed from a capitalist/market lens for these businesses or institutions are competing for customers, and fear losing customers. That would only happen if the polls dictate so.
Which means that I believe the dominant discourse is not a set of beliefs or values held by the majority of the population. Or else the polls would say otherwise.
I do agree that left wing academics do make up the majority of social science academia, but that’s only a reflection of the work — it’s market forces at play, as left wing thinkers not always, but often the best readers and writers. Engineering, science and business schools contrarily are dominated by right wing academics. So I believe across universities they maintain a balance.
I don’t agree with everything or possibly anything the women in question mentioned but I do believe the way the question was posed regardless of who poses it is doing so in a provocative manner. I believe simply because of the outrageous statistics of sexual violence in favour of one sex, perpetrated solely by the other. I do believe you can ask that question but it needs to be rewritten in consideration with women who have experienced sexual violence. This should be the case with the discussion of all sensitive issues, talk to the stakeholders involved as I believe it is your academic duty.
Nice mate those are some great quotes. Ardie blindsided me with that move, I didn’t see it coming but I will have to scribble a few lines together!
I forgot to say, that what you said about the departments outside of the humanities not being long left wing, is factually incorrect, for a majority of universities. In our sample, which I can probably find for you (and I’ll get more data on this soon) every single degree was majority left wing wing.
But it is still categorically freedom of expression. They are expressing their right to voice their issues with the government or some authority.
So what are you saying - that because you don’t see a ‘freedom of speech’ rally it’s somehow less important? It’s written the American constitution. It’s the first amendment lol; the most fundamental of human rights - so once more I disagree.
Of course, I’m not denying newspaper can suppress rather than enable freedom of expression. Doesn’t mean they’ll still not a vehicle.
Of course it is - the question is still empirical, whether or not we have the current evidence on our campus. By asking the question, we would aggregate peoples opinion and arguments, which is what a survey issued of course it is not representative of the entire sample, but it is exploratory - a first step to answering the question.
You conflating two things - whether men are unfairly criticized my sexual assault messaging, and who is the main perpetrator of sexual violence. So I’m absolutely NOT opposing the question, of suggesting anything otherwise. You’re missing the mark there.
That’s awesome man can’t wait to hear. I’ll have a look at the cricket season schedule soon to plan a trip up.
You cannot say all protests from all minorities were always shutdown if they were not violent (and then by definition, against the law). Even if that were true, you couldn't claim - I don't even know where you could get that evidence. I'm sure many peaceful protests were not shut down (esp. when tide was turning), and indeed helped changed the narrative - though I agree many would have been shut down unfairly (though I would say protest is not the only vehicle for minorities to get rights through freedom of expression; there's also popular debate, articles in newspapers etc - woman's suffrage, civil rights, and the gay rights movement all benefited from freedom of speech. So I strongly disagree.) Just reread that bit and you said protest is not an attempt to at freedom of expression - then what is it exactly? I don't think I've heard someone claim it isn't.
I'm unsure exactly what you mean by citing market forces. For me if freedom of speech is operating as it should, then ideas can compete with one another in the market place of ideas; and the university campus should be the number one place where this happens. Using censorship is by definition cheating; they're rigging the game out of a fear of losing (not only the game, but power over the narrative).
But ... the polls do say otherwise don't they? Our elected politicians represent these ideas and beliefs - they may not do it well, but they're still there.
I disagree it was in a provocative manner. They find me provocative (we have history lol). The question on its own still stands. It's empirical. It is not up to me to control THEIR reactions. It is up to them to do so, I'm sorry. Once more, it is not MY DUTY to protect them from THEIR OWN minds. Because that is what is happening here.
Yeah me neither dude; you should, there's heaps of little nuanced takes to it! (The Ardie move)
Protest is often almost always peaceful, until it is confronted by law enforcement which can and often does provoke a violent response. I have read studies on the ultra football scene in Italy that support this idea. I suppose my point was that protest on a large scale is democratic and market action at work; it is putting your money where your mouth is, it is the polls in real life.
I do agree that media like newspapers have historically helped with promoting minority view, but they were also the vehicle to suppress minorities, with editors having the final say in what could be published.
Of course protest is unquestioned and I believe that is your vehicle to protest your freedom of speech. Gather all believers, take to the streets and show how important it is. Thousands of people take to the street every month to protest Israel and Palestine. How many people will turn up to a freedom of speech rally? Most people (minorities) believe their speech is as free as it has ever been, and when all of the minorities join together they become the majority in the polls.
It isn't empirical, there is NO evidence to back up your claim that "white men are being unfairly targeted by sexual violence campaigns at universities." In fact the evidence says the opposite, that men should be targeted on campus as they are the main perpetrators of sexual violence on campus; with 1/5 women likely to experience sexual violence while at University, contrarily only 1/100 men. To propose that question, is to wilfully ignore context in my opinion. If the campaign does not apply to you, simply ignore them.
I will get one going and have something by the start of next season. I have plenty of other sports related topics that are nagging at me. Cheers for the support and I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate!
You mention a "stabilising, masculine force". As a woman who was in grade school and middle school when women like Gloria Steinem were burning their bras, all while people like Phyllis Schlafly said we should all be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, I have seen the effects of women becoming part of politics and taking on other leadership roles. And I am profoundly embarrassed. Of course, I don't blame the XX chromosome. I blame education that does not teach reason to either gender. And in the case of the COVID hysteria, it was a blatant attack on our freedoms, an exercise to see how much we would take and how far they could push us. It was a LOT further than I would ever have thought, since I still hold the idea that we all cherish our individual rights (silly of me - right?). New Zealand had a woman doing that to them, but here in the U.S., MEN did it, and one of the principal men was Dr. Anthony Fauci. Time to drop gender distinctions and talk instead about individuals and the need to, as you have observed here, clean up education and kick out the rot.
I, admittedly not laying out what I mean exactly, use 'masculine' in two ways.
The first is in a technical, psychological sense. Research - though far from conclusive - suggests men when compared to women are more likely to endorse 'free speech'. One reason is that women are more sensitive to harm, indeed they are more sensitive to threats. If they believe words or an idea harms people, they are more likely to wish it not be heard. Now, what I am saying is tentative - but it is one working hypothesis, among many, as to why the universities have become strangled by censorship; their administrations are more and more, being run by women and effeminate men.
But you raise a great point - as you said, while Jacinda Ardern was a woman, what about Australia, Canada, the UK ... the United States? They all had men at their head of states. In fact, Ardern had men all around her.
For me - what really matters - is what you say; how is an individual behaving? Are they wishing to restrict speech irrationally, or not? I have women in my own life, dear to me, who are like you - fervent defenders of free speech, so I well know the sex 'split' as I have mentioned is not as great as one might imagine. It may come down primarily to education, as you say; the brainwashing at our schools.
However, the second use of that word, ironically (though I admit, didn't read that way), was to compare Winston Peters to the other men currently running the country - not Jacinda. That without him it is likely such a policy would not have come to pass. The rest of the men - like our Prime Minister Luxon, a bald headed fish without a vertebrae - seem weak, not masculine. This is not to say masculine and feminine traits are good or bad on their own; rather, that a man leading the country lacking masculine traits is a risk, I as a voting citizen, do not at all wish to take.
You raise an interesting point with the second use of the word. The term "masculine" has come to be identified with certain traits. And likewise "feminine" has been similarly endowed. To me, it is all offensive. We are individuals. We have our own personalities. As for the first use of the word, the hypothesis is discounting nurture and putting too much emphasis on nature. Our brains have little hard-wired into them. Sucking, grasping, and a few other actions at birth. The tendency to try to mimic sounds. And so on. (I started out at university as a psychology major and remember a lot of it). As for people thinking words are harmful, I cannot as a woman accept any blame for that. In fact, I follow my father's teaching: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me. Our feelings might get hurt, but that is due to a misplaced idea that such things as someone calling us names matters.
I'm sure we could happily discuss this forever (nature versus nurture), but I actually disagree - though it depends on what you mean by 'hardwired', because there's actually quite a lot that's hardwired (Blank Slate by Steven Pinker is good on this topic). Babies respond to the emotional quality of faces. They are born hyper-sensitive to attention, and it's anti-thesis, rejection. Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundation's Theory suggests morality is hardwired - babies are born to be moral creatures; what 'morality' we then follow is determined by our upbringing. Nature plays more of a role in one's behaviour than modern institutions (universities/media) admit. If you are putting genes under 'hardwired', then plenty of traits are heritable, including intelligence and personality. And then behavioural differences derived (at least in part) from biology are observed between the sexes. Men and women have slightly different psychological breakdowns. Men are more aggressive; women more compassionate. Men have better spatial intelligence; women better verbal intelligence. In fact, intelligence distributions are different. Men's distribution is longer and flatter; women's higher and narrower, meaning there's both more smart men and more dumb men, then women comparatively (there's less smart AND less dumb women than men). The differences between men and women in some cases is negligible and some cases quite big - now, some of these may because a difference in biology and some may be a difference in education. But I feel to put ALL of these differences down to nurture, and forgo millions of years of evolution, from before we were homo sapiens, just doesn't add up. Now to what degree it is nature, and what degree is nurture, it is nigh impossible to say. In regards to free speech, you may be right; the difference may indeed be because of nurture, rather than nature - and in fact, I would hope it be that way. What is true, is that preliminary findings suggest their may be an observed behavioural difference. Despite all of that; I fundamentally agree with your first point - to treat everybody as individuals. It is a universalist position I try to embody every day; and I also fundamentally agree with your second point "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me" - it was also what I got taught by my parents, and it is why i am doing my PhD on free speech! Also - I want to say - you should not take blame for what another woman or man or race or whoever has done! That's absurd; so once more I agree with you. And, if we were into taking blame - far more men have censored opinion than women over the centuries, so I'd be taking a lot more lol!
I wasn’t giving you the full list. But I could have if you had wanted, my time constraints notwithstanding. And Pinker attributes too much to hardwiring. There is also no fate, no destiny. These things are used by the weak to excuse their lack of reasoning and their abuse of volition. I mention these in case that was your next area of trying to say women think one way and men another. If we don’t accept that people are INDIVIDUALS, then we are doomed to misread them and to see them as groups and herds. And thus you will have the elites making you get suspicious jabs and wearing face masks that do nothing to protect you against some lame virus. And to say that there is “masculine” thinking and “feminine” thinking is extremely poor and misleading terminology. Words matter, as writer/philosopher Ayn Rand said. I encourage you to seek out and study both her fiction and non-fiction. It answered a lot of questions for me that you seem to be facing now. Best wishes in your studies, but be careful. My professors of philosophy at university were total pikers (by nature, not by name — and the pun is intended).
Indeed, I am a fervent supporter of free will; having biological and temperamental tendencies does not discount it. In fact, taking responsibility of one's actions is so important for me, that even when one could feel like they are an unjustified victim, one SHOULD STILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. I say as much here, with my experiences with epilepsy (which is a genetic condition) https://open.substack.com/pub/hemibowman/p/the-responsibility-of-the-victim?r=b87nb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.
When you look at the sexual psychological differences - as I mentioned - there are observed differences; though often these are negligible. As I've said - I do agree that as an ideal, we should treat people as individuals; however, the individual is not the only level of analysis. Humans are social creatures, and are a part of groups; families, communities, nations. However, I do agree with you - that if we focus on these latter things TOO MUCH, we get identity politics; intersectionality; racism; indeed, sexism. Yet, as an aspiring scientist, to discount them wholly ... is simply not scientific (in my view).
I personally don't think those terms are poor - like many words, it is just they are often misused. If someone behaves in such a way to act more like a man than a woman, one can say 'they are behaving masculine' and vice-versa. I don't mean to imply this should happen often - just in rare cases when one believes it right and necessary to do so. However, I do agree with you that often times terms are used in cases when they don't apply (or as insults), which is why I try to be very careful with their use - words do matter; once more I agree.
I have read a little of Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead) and thoroughly enjoyed it - but I felt the male protagonist, because he was an ideal, got a bit boring after a while (I liked the female protagonist though - and for some reason it annoyed me that she was a blonde! It was only revealed, I swear, like halfway through, and in my mind I had it that she was brunette! Lol).
As a political structure, individualism is superior to collectivism - and I believe that under the law individuals, where possible, should be treated the same. But politics is not the only domain where these terms can be applied. In my view, we have gone too far down the individualism route, and have been raising self-indulgent narcissists, which are being enabled by instagram and tik-tok. As I said, humans are social creatures; psychological wellbeing is most dependent upon the strength of one's relationships. In my own life, the meaning I have derived from putting my family and friends first, instead of my career (including Substack) has been wonderous for my wellbeing. https://open.substack.com/pub/hemibowman/p/resist-narcissism?r=b87nb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you for your wishes - and I thoroughly agree with your 'pikers' statement (but I had to search up it's meaning haha). Overall, it seems we agree on a lot; especially ideals.
It would be a real shame if Jamin stopped teaching his honours paper due to a tiny vocal minority. I enjoyed his paper the most out all the papers I took for my degree.
Students coming for one of the most charitable professors in the department could be a 'red guards' moment. Perhaps I'm catastrophizing, but it's a sad day when this happens in our neck of the woods. Hopefully this may give the wider university pause for concern as to what kind of culture they've been empowering, before the golem really solidifies.
Mmm, it's sad stuff. At least now we as advocates of Free Speech, can point the University's statement as defense, when before it felt like we pointing at thin air; an abstract that didn't exist.
All of this is under the assumption that freedom of speech was more free in the past, maybe so, but only for some. I’d argue that women, people of colour and the wider gender diverse communities have historically had less access to freedom of speech.
I would wager that these minority groups recently acquired access to freedom of speech, coincides with the newly perceived reduction to freedom of speech from certain groups within society.
In my opinion, the freedom of speech movement is less about protecting freedom of speech and more about protecting their dominant knowledge producing position in society. This is being informed by a continually increasing list of people challenging their opinion—the dominant discourse.
As someone who was at that discussion, I have come to agree with them. 1/5 women who attend university have admitted are sexually assaulted by a male during their time at university. The statistics for males are less than 1/100, and often is committed by another male. The question you posed which got the most vocal response was centred around this topic. It is a sensitive personal issue for 20% of your female classmates, and only triggering for 1% of your male classmates.
Great read though JD and I appreciate the position you hold, and I will enjoy seeing how this debate unravels through the coming years. I certainly don’t agree with the student unrest against Jamin, and hope he can stay strong in the face of protest.
And indeed, what was the vehicle that gave them access to greater rights? Freedom of Speech.
I also agree that "these minority groups recently acquired access to freedom of speech, coincides with the newly perceived reduction to freedom of speech from certain groups within society".
For those being the dominant population in the society, what is inherently wrong with protecting, by way of free expression, their points of view? The irony, also, is that universities are overwhelming left wing - the dominant point of view on university is not conservative, or even centrist, but radical progressivism. And there's is heaps of research on this - psychology is far from the worst too, it's somewhere in the middle. In the States it's 16 democrats to 1 republican for professors, and even far more dramatic for students. In our survey two years ago, barely 6 percent of the student population identified as right wing. And what you saw was probably one of the most heterodox groups in the entire university, I'd wager. So in fact, it is the opposite - they are dominant group, suppressing the minority - anyone heterodox or vaguely conservative.
I'm sorry, but those stats are irrelevant. It may shift their opinion on the topic, but it doesn't justify - at all - shutting down discussion of the topic. What she said was the 99/100 woman would side with her position. That was a dramatic exaggeration. I know women in my life, who have been sexually assaulted, and as horrible and disgusting as that is, they would say the exact opposite - they would stand there, and debate fervently - not try to censor the topic. I understand the sensitivity - as you know, but as the statement on Free Speech suggests, university is not the place to protect you from ideas. I asked an empirical question, that, if we had discussed it, might have led us closer, rather than further away, from the truth. The irony is, I would have probably agreed with them on the answer - and there we would be, united!
But as I fear, they presumed my position, based on my skin colour and my sex, and that's okay; frankly. What's not okay, is to shut down the discussion, in my view.
The argument for censoring opinions comes from the drive to protect certain individuals from potentially harmful truths and ideas. The other drive is control narrative and maintain power. Who's right is it to chose for students and other demographics, what they should be exposed to? Is it left-wingers? Is it right-wingers? Is it Jesus? Is it me? Nobody is that wise, I say.
Also, two more things; The gradual exposure of painful ideas makes one stronger, not weaker. And, I believe basing policy of truth, rather than ideals, is much better in the long run, even if those truths are painful.
Thanks for another great debate though my man. You writing up Savea's move to Moana Pasifika? It's an interesting one.
I believe the vehicle was actually protest, and often those protests would be shut down. So no I don’t agree that freedom of speech was protected and therefore the vehicle that gave minorities greater FoS.
I suppose it goes back to the idea that you are not immune from the consequences of FoS. Within democratic market based societies, the power is in the polls and the current consequences ie loss of employment, are the result in a shift in polls. I think it has to be viewed from a capitalist/market lens for these businesses or institutions are competing for customers, and fear losing customers. That would only happen if the polls dictate so.
Which means that I believe the dominant discourse is not a set of beliefs or values held by the majority of the population. Or else the polls would say otherwise.
I do agree that left wing academics do make up the majority of social science academia, but that’s only a reflection of the work — it’s market forces at play, as left wing thinkers not always, but often the best readers and writers. Engineering, science and business schools contrarily are dominated by right wing academics. So I believe across universities they maintain a balance.
I don’t agree with everything or possibly anything the women in question mentioned but I do believe the way the question was posed regardless of who poses it is doing so in a provocative manner. I believe simply because of the outrageous statistics of sexual violence in favour of one sex, perpetrated solely by the other. I do believe you can ask that question but it needs to be rewritten in consideration with women who have experienced sexual violence. This should be the case with the discussion of all sensitive issues, talk to the stakeholders involved as I believe it is your academic duty.
Nice mate those are some great quotes. Ardie blindsided me with that move, I didn’t see it coming but I will have to scribble a few lines together!
I forgot to say, that what you said about the departments outside of the humanities not being long left wing, is factually incorrect, for a majority of universities. In our sample, which I can probably find for you (and I’ll get more data on this soon) every single degree was majority left wing wing.
But it is still categorically freedom of expression. They are expressing their right to voice their issues with the government or some authority.
Posted too early...
So what are you saying - that because you don’t see a ‘freedom of speech’ rally it’s somehow less important? It’s written the American constitution. It’s the first amendment lol; the most fundamental of human rights - so once more I disagree.
Of course, I’m not denying newspaper can suppress rather than enable freedom of expression. Doesn’t mean they’ll still not a vehicle.
Of course it is - the question is still empirical, whether or not we have the current evidence on our campus. By asking the question, we would aggregate peoples opinion and arguments, which is what a survey issued of course it is not representative of the entire sample, but it is exploratory - a first step to answering the question.
You conflating two things - whether men are unfairly criticized my sexual assault messaging, and who is the main perpetrator of sexual violence. So I’m absolutely NOT opposing the question, of suggesting anything otherwise. You’re missing the mark there.
That’s awesome man can’t wait to hear. I’ll have a look at the cricket season schedule soon to plan a trip up.
You cannot say all protests from all minorities were always shutdown if they were not violent (and then by definition, against the law). Even if that were true, you couldn't claim - I don't even know where you could get that evidence. I'm sure many peaceful protests were not shut down (esp. when tide was turning), and indeed helped changed the narrative - though I agree many would have been shut down unfairly (though I would say protest is not the only vehicle for minorities to get rights through freedom of expression; there's also popular debate, articles in newspapers etc - woman's suffrage, civil rights, and the gay rights movement all benefited from freedom of speech. So I strongly disagree.) Just reread that bit and you said protest is not an attempt to at freedom of expression - then what is it exactly? I don't think I've heard someone claim it isn't.
I'm unsure exactly what you mean by citing market forces. For me if freedom of speech is operating as it should, then ideas can compete with one another in the market place of ideas; and the university campus should be the number one place where this happens. Using censorship is by definition cheating; they're rigging the game out of a fear of losing (not only the game, but power over the narrative).
But ... the polls do say otherwise don't they? Our elected politicians represent these ideas and beliefs - they may not do it well, but they're still there.
I disagree it was in a provocative manner. They find me provocative (we have history lol). The question on its own still stands. It's empirical. It is not up to me to control THEIR reactions. It is up to them to do so, I'm sorry. Once more, it is not MY DUTY to protect them from THEIR OWN minds. Because that is what is happening here.
Yeah me neither dude; you should, there's heaps of little nuanced takes to it! (The Ardie move)
Protest is often almost always peaceful, until it is confronted by law enforcement which can and often does provoke a violent response. I have read studies on the ultra football scene in Italy that support this idea. I suppose my point was that protest on a large scale is democratic and market action at work; it is putting your money where your mouth is, it is the polls in real life.
I do agree that media like newspapers have historically helped with promoting minority view, but they were also the vehicle to suppress minorities, with editors having the final say in what could be published.
Of course protest is unquestioned and I believe that is your vehicle to protest your freedom of speech. Gather all believers, take to the streets and show how important it is. Thousands of people take to the street every month to protest Israel and Palestine. How many people will turn up to a freedom of speech rally? Most people (minorities) believe their speech is as free as it has ever been, and when all of the minorities join together they become the majority in the polls.
It isn't empirical, there is NO evidence to back up your claim that "white men are being unfairly targeted by sexual violence campaigns at universities." In fact the evidence says the opposite, that men should be targeted on campus as they are the main perpetrators of sexual violence on campus; with 1/5 women likely to experience sexual violence while at University, contrarily only 1/100 men. To propose that question, is to wilfully ignore context in my opinion. If the campaign does not apply to you, simply ignore them.
I will get one going and have something by the start of next season. I have plenty of other sports related topics that are nagging at me. Cheers for the support and I have thoroughly enjoyed this debate!
You mention a "stabilising, masculine force". As a woman who was in grade school and middle school when women like Gloria Steinem were burning their bras, all while people like Phyllis Schlafly said we should all be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, I have seen the effects of women becoming part of politics and taking on other leadership roles. And I am profoundly embarrassed. Of course, I don't blame the XX chromosome. I blame education that does not teach reason to either gender. And in the case of the COVID hysteria, it was a blatant attack on our freedoms, an exercise to see how much we would take and how far they could push us. It was a LOT further than I would ever have thought, since I still hold the idea that we all cherish our individual rights (silly of me - right?). New Zealand had a woman doing that to them, but here in the U.S., MEN did it, and one of the principal men was Dr. Anthony Fauci. Time to drop gender distinctions and talk instead about individuals and the need to, as you have observed here, clean up education and kick out the rot.
I, admittedly not laying out what I mean exactly, use 'masculine' in two ways.
The first is in a technical, psychological sense. Research - though far from conclusive - suggests men when compared to women are more likely to endorse 'free speech'. One reason is that women are more sensitive to harm, indeed they are more sensitive to threats. If they believe words or an idea harms people, they are more likely to wish it not be heard. Now, what I am saying is tentative - but it is one working hypothesis, among many, as to why the universities have become strangled by censorship; their administrations are more and more, being run by women and effeminate men.
But you raise a great point - as you said, while Jacinda Ardern was a woman, what about Australia, Canada, the UK ... the United States? They all had men at their head of states. In fact, Ardern had men all around her.
For me - what really matters - is what you say; how is an individual behaving? Are they wishing to restrict speech irrationally, or not? I have women in my own life, dear to me, who are like you - fervent defenders of free speech, so I well know the sex 'split' as I have mentioned is not as great as one might imagine. It may come down primarily to education, as you say; the brainwashing at our schools.
However, the second use of that word, ironically (though I admit, didn't read that way), was to compare Winston Peters to the other men currently running the country - not Jacinda. That without him it is likely such a policy would not have come to pass. The rest of the men - like our Prime Minister Luxon, a bald headed fish without a vertebrae - seem weak, not masculine. This is not to say masculine and feminine traits are good or bad on their own; rather, that a man leading the country lacking masculine traits is a risk, I as a voting citizen, do not at all wish to take.
You raise an interesting point with the second use of the word. The term "masculine" has come to be identified with certain traits. And likewise "feminine" has been similarly endowed. To me, it is all offensive. We are individuals. We have our own personalities. As for the first use of the word, the hypothesis is discounting nurture and putting too much emphasis on nature. Our brains have little hard-wired into them. Sucking, grasping, and a few other actions at birth. The tendency to try to mimic sounds. And so on. (I started out at university as a psychology major and remember a lot of it). As for people thinking words are harmful, I cannot as a woman accept any blame for that. In fact, I follow my father's teaching: sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me. Our feelings might get hurt, but that is due to a misplaced idea that such things as someone calling us names matters.
I'm sure we could happily discuss this forever (nature versus nurture), but I actually disagree - though it depends on what you mean by 'hardwired', because there's actually quite a lot that's hardwired (Blank Slate by Steven Pinker is good on this topic). Babies respond to the emotional quality of faces. They are born hyper-sensitive to attention, and it's anti-thesis, rejection. Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundation's Theory suggests morality is hardwired - babies are born to be moral creatures; what 'morality' we then follow is determined by our upbringing. Nature plays more of a role in one's behaviour than modern institutions (universities/media) admit. If you are putting genes under 'hardwired', then plenty of traits are heritable, including intelligence and personality. And then behavioural differences derived (at least in part) from biology are observed between the sexes. Men and women have slightly different psychological breakdowns. Men are more aggressive; women more compassionate. Men have better spatial intelligence; women better verbal intelligence. In fact, intelligence distributions are different. Men's distribution is longer and flatter; women's higher and narrower, meaning there's both more smart men and more dumb men, then women comparatively (there's less smart AND less dumb women than men). The differences between men and women in some cases is negligible and some cases quite big - now, some of these may because a difference in biology and some may be a difference in education. But I feel to put ALL of these differences down to nurture, and forgo millions of years of evolution, from before we were homo sapiens, just doesn't add up. Now to what degree it is nature, and what degree is nurture, it is nigh impossible to say. In regards to free speech, you may be right; the difference may indeed be because of nurture, rather than nature - and in fact, I would hope it be that way. What is true, is that preliminary findings suggest their may be an observed behavioural difference. Despite all of that; I fundamentally agree with your first point - to treat everybody as individuals. It is a universalist position I try to embody every day; and I also fundamentally agree with your second point "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me" - it was also what I got taught by my parents, and it is why i am doing my PhD on free speech! Also - I want to say - you should not take blame for what another woman or man or race or whoever has done! That's absurd; so once more I agree with you. And, if we were into taking blame - far more men have censored opinion than women over the centuries, so I'd be taking a lot more lol!
I wasn’t giving you the full list. But I could have if you had wanted, my time constraints notwithstanding. And Pinker attributes too much to hardwiring. There is also no fate, no destiny. These things are used by the weak to excuse their lack of reasoning and their abuse of volition. I mention these in case that was your next area of trying to say women think one way and men another. If we don’t accept that people are INDIVIDUALS, then we are doomed to misread them and to see them as groups and herds. And thus you will have the elites making you get suspicious jabs and wearing face masks that do nothing to protect you against some lame virus. And to say that there is “masculine” thinking and “feminine” thinking is extremely poor and misleading terminology. Words matter, as writer/philosopher Ayn Rand said. I encourage you to seek out and study both her fiction and non-fiction. It answered a lot of questions for me that you seem to be facing now. Best wishes in your studies, but be careful. My professors of philosophy at university were total pikers (by nature, not by name — and the pun is intended).
Indeed, I am a fervent supporter of free will; having biological and temperamental tendencies does not discount it. In fact, taking responsibility of one's actions is so important for me, that even when one could feel like they are an unjustified victim, one SHOULD STILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY. I say as much here, with my experiences with epilepsy (which is a genetic condition) https://open.substack.com/pub/hemibowman/p/the-responsibility-of-the-victim?r=b87nb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.
When you look at the sexual psychological differences - as I mentioned - there are observed differences; though often these are negligible. As I've said - I do agree that as an ideal, we should treat people as individuals; however, the individual is not the only level of analysis. Humans are social creatures, and are a part of groups; families, communities, nations. However, I do agree with you - that if we focus on these latter things TOO MUCH, we get identity politics; intersectionality; racism; indeed, sexism. Yet, as an aspiring scientist, to discount them wholly ... is simply not scientific (in my view).
I personally don't think those terms are poor - like many words, it is just they are often misused. If someone behaves in such a way to act more like a man than a woman, one can say 'they are behaving masculine' and vice-versa. I don't mean to imply this should happen often - just in rare cases when one believes it right and necessary to do so. However, I do agree with you that often times terms are used in cases when they don't apply (or as insults), which is why I try to be very careful with their use - words do matter; once more I agree.
I have read a little of Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead) and thoroughly enjoyed it - but I felt the male protagonist, because he was an ideal, got a bit boring after a while (I liked the female protagonist though - and for some reason it annoyed me that she was a blonde! It was only revealed, I swear, like halfway through, and in my mind I had it that she was brunette! Lol).
As a political structure, individualism is superior to collectivism - and I believe that under the law individuals, where possible, should be treated the same. But politics is not the only domain where these terms can be applied. In my view, we have gone too far down the individualism route, and have been raising self-indulgent narcissists, which are being enabled by instagram and tik-tok. As I said, humans are social creatures; psychological wellbeing is most dependent upon the strength of one's relationships. In my own life, the meaning I have derived from putting my family and friends first, instead of my career (including Substack) has been wonderous for my wellbeing. https://open.substack.com/pub/hemibowman/p/resist-narcissism?r=b87nb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Thank you for your wishes - and I thoroughly agree with your 'pikers' statement (but I had to search up it's meaning haha). Overall, it seems we agree on a lot; especially ideals.
It would be a real shame if Jamin stopped teaching his honours paper due to a tiny vocal minority. I enjoyed his paper the most out all the papers I took for my degree.
Yeah it would be tragic. He's certainly the GOAT of the department. Lucky to have him as my supervisor.