1 Comment

One way to engage such reflections is to address the particular issues raised in an article. This is typically what an author will prefer, because the particular issues addressed in an article are there because they are top of mind for the author.

Another way to address the concerns being explored by an author is to "go up a level" and examine the larger context in which the author's concerns reside. Such an approach can be more efficient than getting bogged down in the details of particular situations. As example...

I'm currently working on an article series built upon the claim that the marriage between violent men and the knowledge explosion is unsustainable, and thus we must achieve world peace by creating a world without men. The argument goes on for pages, but this is it's simplest form.

In a world without men, many or most of the concerns of "me too" activists, feminists, and decent people in general are swept off the table. There's no longer a need to spend the next couple of decades or centuries engaged in the endless details of gender wars. The source of the problem has been removed, and all the related controversies are resolved. Of course this assumes that we want all such gender controversies to be resolved, which is perhaps a dubious proposition.

Another larger point. The behaviors of men which rightly cause us such concern are hundreds of millions of years in the making. The source of such problematic behaviors go back to long before we were even human.

This is not to excuse such behaviors, but to instead point to the futility of trying to "fix men" with social constructs like religion, philosophy, morality, social pressures etc, which are only thousands of years old. All moralizing is likely to accomplish is to make decent men a little more decent. No society in history has figured out how to fix violent men, and today's woke culture warriors are being naive if they think they will be the ones to accomplish this.

Expand full comment