Hi Julie,

Looks like an interesting post, however, I need educating a little before I can discuss this in a meaningful way. As a male, I'm more likely to be interested left-brain stuff, such as technology, maths, science etc. However, I've recently become very interested in all sorts of new subjects that were previously outside my domain. I've recently been reading a little about the Hegelian Dialectic, for example, but I'm not sure what you mean by the Fichtean model, liberal equality model, the sexual difference model?

When you say that you are reading about recognition and redistribution, I presume you are talking about the redistribution of power? How does any group or movement (such as feminists) control this?

Quote from Andy Man

Hi Julie,

When you say that you are reading about recognition and redistribution, I presume you are talking about the redistribution of power? How does any group or movement (such as feminists) control this?

Hi Andy Man,

I too have become interested in things out of my normal interests. Presently I am writing about identities and am up to recognition as a psychological need. BTW, learning is on the list with recognition.

I was looking for a site or two to quote some words, but what I've come across is a history lesson around dialect models which means what you've been reading about is exactly what I am interested in.

I came across this site when searching recognition+identity.

I wasn't aware there was an identity model that involves recognition and redistribution.

From here I moved onto different types of models and theories, and medieval and modern philosophy.

I am very interested because recognition IMO is a big part on one's identity.

Would you mind sharing your thoughts?

>Would you mind sharing your thoughts?

Absolutely.

Just read the article. OK - it has some grown up words in it, and no pictures. So I'm going to have to go away and think about it for a little while. Will come back to you on this.

In the meantime, I would like to ask...

Am I correct if believing that Hegal Model basically refers to an ultimate truth which exists outside of human perception? Therefore, in relation to the Dielectic, the Hegel Dielect is a process or method with which to arive at, or to discover, an ultimate truth?

I had to spend a little time with the Nancy Fraser paper. It wasn't just something I could scan read and fire back a response to. In fact, I printed it out, took it to a coffee shop, read it, highlighted it, pulled it apart, slept on it, read it again, before finally understanding it a little (I think). I'm sorry it took me so long. Here's what I think...

From what I can discern, the paper discusses two models for individual recognition in society, namely: the "Identity Model" and the "Status Model". The identity model assumes that there is some fundamental identifying feature of individuals in a group, and members arrive at an understanding, view or acceptance of this thru interaction with wider society. In the status model, however, any inherent identifying feature is minimal, and identity is largely imposed upon its members of the group externally, i.e. from wider society.

I'm trying to think of how the status model might usefully apply in a real-world context, and the example I think of is the cultural difference between races, where significant differences are not inherent, but rather they are imposed by society (or societies) from the outside--in other words differences are primarily cultural rather than physical or behavioral. However, if individual members of different races are born into the same society and identify with that society, then differences will be limited to features such as skin color, facial features etc., and how much these affect identity will be largely a factor of the significance society attributes, rather than the features themselves. This is how I'm understanding the status model, let me know if you differ.

With the identity model, however, there is an inherent difference which exists no matter what significance society puts on it. Sex is that difference. Assuming my understanding is correct here, then my view is clearly that the identity model is applicable to the difference between male and females. It does not mean there aren't great similiarities between the sexes--we are both human, and to a large degree, we are both capable of the same things and feel the same things. However, there are some fundamental differences, and not just in terms of physical sex organs, but in terms of aptitudes in specific areas, development and emotional needs. And as the paper says, to deny these differences (to men but not to women), is to deny us recognition, and to inflict harm and injury.

For example, in her book "The War Against Boys" (which I have just read), Sommers describes efforts in the US education system to feminize the teaching of boys. I was quite disturbed by some of what I read in terms of, what I would see as, bizarre cross-gender experiments performed on children. However, the most damaging and widespread aspect (includes the UK) would appear to be the simple supression of any competive element in schools. I'm not a "gender expert", and I don't claim to know what's best for girls. But speaking as a male, I recall that I thrived in school when there was a competitive motivational aspect to my education, and I fell back when there wasn't. For a boy to grow up in an environment devoid of all healthy competition would be utterly soul destroying in my view--there would be nothing worthwhile and no reason for anything!

In recent times, men have been living under the "stigmatizing gaze" of an increasingly hostile culture, and thus according to the paper, have become prone to "internalizing negative self-images and are prevented from developing a healthy cultural identity of their own." For example, many men will see "bedsit dads", not as men who have been wronged, but simply as "failures". Moreover, when faced with society's narrative that men are [nearly all] rapists, rather than rebel against this narrative, males instead compete with each other to let women know that "they are not like that". I myself fell for this one at the age 18 when, overcome with guilt at what I was learning, wrote to a women's magazine and expressed how shocked and appalled I was at the behavior of men with respect to rape and, basically, apologised on behalf of my entire sex. It angers me now to think how I had had this view imposed on me when I was so young, and how I had been so needlessly ashamed.

Here's another example of negative self image that I suddenly became aware that I had. During a skype call, I realized that I had a subtle unconscious tendency to view middle aged men in front of a computer as potential paedophiles. This realisation was quite disturbing--I myself am middle aged and spend far too much time in front of a computer. This whole thing sucks! And that is why awakening to this whole goddamn thing has been so emotional, painful, yet fantastically liberating for me recently. Literally, it is like swallowing the "red pill" and finding out that the matrix is not real.

This is how I understood the paper, and this is how I see it.

I would be interested to know what you think, and whether you feel I've understood it properly. Certainly I think this is fascinating and I would be keen to develop this line of thinking if it appears useful to do so.

HI (again) Andy Man. I, and a MRA spent about a year at coffee shops dissecting this sort of thing before turning it into a workable workshop.

I love what you have written and thank you very much for the trouble you went to. What I have found difficult, and find difficult when dealing with MRAs, is the 'one sidedness'. This makes me feel like I can relate to men who feel WRAs are one sided.

It is my turn to take on board what you have written and dissect it and then I will come back and give a comment.

Thank you.

What I have found difficult, and find difficult when dealing with MRAs, is the 'one sidedness'.

Can you elaborate?

Certainly, I looked at it from the perspective of how it applies to males. Is this what you meant?

Quote from Andy Man

In the status model, however, any inherent identifying feature is minimal, and identity is largely imposed upon its members of the group externally, i.e. from wider society.

Good point, IMO. I gather with wider society you mean family, (as in eldest, youngest, middle child, etc), classroom, other small groups. Yes, I do believe this. In Pacific Island families any older child can hit a younger child at any time. New Zealand is known as 4th sons in European culture.

I'm trying to think of how the status model might usefully apply in a real-world context, and the example I think of is the cultural difference between races, where significant differences are not inherent, but rather they are imposed by society (or societies) from the outside--in other words differences are primarily cultural rather than physical or behavioral. However, if individual members of different races are born into the same society and identify with that society, then differences will be limited to features such as skin color, facial features etc., and how much these affect identity will be largely a factor of the significance society attributes, rather than the features themselves. This is how I'm understanding the status model, let me know if you differ.

Sure, plus, plus, plus. For some reason I see entitlement with status too. Food for thought.

With the identity model, however, there is an inherent difference which exists no matter what significance society puts on it. Sex is that difference. Assuming my understanding is correct here, then my view is clearly that the identity model is applicable to the difference between male and females. It does not mean there aren't great similiarities between the sexes--we are both human, and to a large degree, we are both capable of the same things and feel the same things. However, there are some fundamental differences, and not just in terms of physical sex organs, but in terms of aptitudes in specific areas, development and emotional needs. And as the paper says, to deny these differences (to men but not to women), is to deny us recognition, and to inflict harm and injury.

This is very well put. I see non status people finding ways to get around status. I see people searching out vulnerable people allot while I run a single parent trust. What I deal with needs allot of humour, lol. After they figure single parents aren't going to give them status, they ..... well, they look elsewhere.

For example, in her book "The War Against Boys" (which I have just read), Sommers describes efforts in the US education system to feminize the teaching of boys. I was quite disturbed by some of what I read in terms of, what I would see as, bizarre cross-gender experiments performed on children.

I have heard of this too.

However, the most damaging and widespread aspect (includes the UK) would appear to be the simple supression of any competive element in schools. I'm not a "gender expert", and I don't claim to know what's best for girls. But speaking as a male, I recall that I thrived in school when there was a competitive motivational aspect to my education, and I fell back when there wasn't. For a boy to grow up in an environment devoid of all healthy competition would be utterly soul destroying in my view--there would be nothing worthwhile and no reason for anything!

This is a good example of resistance to change. 'Something else' is unknown to you but I like that you believe in working hard for something rather than exploiting others. I think there are positive ways to motivate people rather than competition and I believe the same result as in personal gain and gain for the wider society can be achieved. But then, I come from a family of 6 children and am the eldest. Part of my identity is to care for others.

In recent times, men have been living under the "stigmatizing gaze" of an increasingly hostile culture, and thus according to the paper, have become prone to "internalizing negative self-images and are prevented from developing a healthy cultural identity of their own." For example, many men will see "bedsit dads", not as men who have been wronged, but simply as "failures".

I think we all live in a hostile culture and hostile cultures within cultures. I have learned women had groups of self awareness as a tool to change, and today I see men have groups of self awareness as a tool for them to change.

I come across single parent men who have become aware of their environment and all the things written on this site. They can write whatever they want and say whatever they want which surprises them for they are expecting hostility from single mothers...... It's fun because you see a post about single fathers be retitled to single parents when they realise they aren't getting any different treatment than women in society. It's just that women moved ahead from men because men got stuck with some of them not wanting change at all.

Moreover, when faced with society's narrative that men are [nearly all] rapists, rather than rebel against this narrative, males instead compete with each other to let women know that "they are not like that". I myself fell for this one at the age 18 when, overcome with guilt at what I was learning, wrote to a women's magazine and expressed how shocked and appalled I was at the behavior of men with respect to rape and, basically, apologised on behalf of my entire sex. It angers me now to think how I had had this view imposed on me when I was so young, and how I had been so needlessly ashamed.

I know young men and youth understand the strong effect of hormones and a good number of them don't like seeing young women they care about being raped. I have seen allot of young women including myself not tell our male friends and family members things because we knew what they would do, while I have also seen young women deliberately cause their male friends and family members to harm innocent young men.

When I was young, my brother used to make a point of reminding me to not do anything if I was raped. He was worried I would fight back and be killed. My sons and their young men friends have no pity on men who sexually abuse children, and don't buy the excuse of 'sexual entitlement' (example: I have needs). Some of the young men in my neighborhood have fathers who brag about gang raping as they did it allot and young women commit suicide because dad or uncle or even granddad raped them. One of the young men had his girlfriend commit suicide in the same week as his sister last year.

I remember when we started challenging NZ's society and feminists made the point of saying, "All men are possible rapists" with emphasis on the possible. I also learned it's not women teaching this, but men teaching women this is what men are about. This is something, IMO, men need to challenge their own sex. I think it's a bit sad to think men have sex on their mind allot, and that they think of women for what's between their legs (other men for gays).

Here's another example of negative self image that I suddenly became aware that I had. During a skype call, I realized that I had a subtle unconscious tendency to view middle aged men in front of a computer as potential paedophiles. This realisation was quite disturbing--I myself am middle aged and spend far too much time in front of a computer. This whole thing sucks! And that is why awakening to this whole goddamn thing has been so emotional, painful, yet fantastically liberating for me recently. Literally, it is like swallowing the "red pill" and finding out that the matrix is not real.

I like your honesty and you've made my day for I feel like I am on the right track. Your self awareness of your own thoughts shows compassion towards men and empathy. I spoke with a top executive of a very successful multi-national firm a couple of years ago, and he told me that males weren't given the freedom by dads to change when women's lib was big in the 70's. He said they were expected to stay the same.

This really is men's day and it's a delight to watch it unfold.

I would be interested to know what you think, and whether you feel I've understood it properly. Certainly I think this is fascinating and I would be keen to develop this line of thinking if it appears useful to do so.

I don't know if you've understood it correctly as in the 'intellectual scene' but I think you're very intelligent and smart.

I don't know if you've understood it correctly as in the 'intellectual scene' but I think you're very intelligent and smart.

What do you mean by the 'intellectual scene'? (or did you mean 'sense'?)

Tell me 'how I should have' understood in the intellectual scene/sense? I'll reply in detail when I know the answer. You can't just say something like that and leave it hanging?

Quote from Andy Man

Can you elaborate?

Sure, I think what happens is,.... you can become self centered in a negative way. Self awareness stops and awareness of others takes centre stage and blame becomes a trap, ie . "My sex is a victim". I think when you do this you become narrow minded and because you don't look at the bigger picture, you choose what you see, and know. I say this for feminists too who shut out the men in the relationships they deal with. If there's one positive change I feel I've made, or helped make, it's getting feminists to understand the men they are putting in jail have a story too.

Quote from Andy Man

What do you mean by the 'intellectual scene'? (or did you mean 'sense'?)

Tell me 'how I should have' understood in the intellectual scene/sense? I'll reply in detail when I know the answer. You can't just say something like that and leave it hanging?

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean anything negative. I mean I don't have a good amount of knowledge - I am at the beginning and that's why I asked YOU. It all sounds right to me!!!!

Sure, I think what happens is,.... you can become self centered in a negative way. Self awareness stops and awareness of others takes centre stage and blame becomes a trap, ie . "My sex is a victim". I think when you do this you become narrow minded and because you don't look at the bigger picture, you choose what you see, and know. I say this for feminists too who shut out the men in the relationships they deal with. If there's one positive change I feel I've made, or helped make, it's getting feminists to understand the men they are putting in jail have a story too.

Yup - I can agree with your general sentiments there. However, I'm wondering if your original 'one-sided' comment was made in reference to me personally? (I'm not offended even it was, but I don't think it would be true.)

Oh, sorry. I didn't mean anything negative. I mean I don't have a good amount of knowledge - I am at the beginning and that's why I asked YOU. It all sounds right to me!!!!

OK. And don't worry, I wasn't about to get all offended. I was just intrigued to think that there might be some other way to understand it.

I was to ask you about this response...

"However, the most damaging and widespread aspect (includes the UK) would appear to be the simple supression of any competive element in schools. I'm not a "gender expert", and I don't claim to know what's best for girls. But speaking as a male, I recall that I thrived in school when there was a competitive motivational aspect to my education, and I fell back when there wasn't. For a boy to grow up in an environment devoid of all healthy competition would be utterly soul destroying in my view--there would be nothing worthwhile and no reason for anything!"

reponse....

This is a good example of resistance to change. 'Something else' is unknown to you but I like that you believe in working hard for something rather than exploiting others. I think there are positive ways to motivate people rather than competition and I believe the same result as in personal gain and gain for the wider society can be achieved.

Healthy competition from a male perspective is not about exploiting others. If you're in a race, it spurs you to run faster. It doesn't make you want to trip the other guys up. Do you think competition is about "exploiting others"? Even if you don't see it that way, I'm wondering if some women see it that way because they are looking at it from a female perspective?

Also, what do you mean by "resistance to change"? And what are the "alternatives to competition" that can motivate boys that you would suggest? And what's the problem with competition?

I'm busy right now, but I am interested in this. This is fascinating to me. Let me think it about the other areas your response and I'll come back to you later. (If it's a while before I come back, I'll drop you a PM to let you know I've made a response.)

Quote from Andy Man

Yup - I can agree with your general sentiments there. However, I'm wondering if your original 'one-sided' comment was made in reference to me personally? (I'm not offended even it was, but I don't think it would be true.)

I am not referring to you. I have learned from MRAs - the things they advocate for. I understand the need to be one sided when advocating for a sex, but it doesn't work with groups that are both male and female because every situation is unique.

You are enjoyable to discuss things with.

Healthy competition from a male perspective is not about exploiting others. If you're in a race, it spurs you to run faster. It doesn't make you want to trip the other guys up. Do you think competition is about "exploiting others"? Even if you don't see it that way, I'm wondering if some women see it that way because they are looking at it from a female perspective?

I meant to show I see exploiting as the opposite to competing. If people are unable to compete in a healthy way,..... hmmm, perhaps they cheat.

Also, what do you mean by "resistance to change"? And what are the "alternatives to competition" that can motivate boys that you would suggest? And what's the problem with competition?

When I think of competition, I think of sport cause I can relate to this. But because it's not about sport, but rather what's happening in schools, I took the word 'motivating' from you comment and then thought about ways to motivate. I think recognition is motivating because it's giving people praise for achievements and if achievement is the end goal, then perhaps gaining confidence and encouragement will motivate too.

I'm busy right now, but I am interested in this. This is fascinating to me.

Cool.

Let me think it about the other areas your response and I'll come back to you later. (If it's a while before I come back, I'll drop you a PM to let you know I've made a response.)

Sounds good to me.

I'm off to bed, lol. It's 1.30am.

I don't know too much about the models given here, but I do like the discussion happening here. Very nice!

My take on "recognition and redistribution":

Every one has something they are better at than others, and things they are worse at. Each person should find and be allowed to discover what these differences are. Once the differences are known the contributions made to society, or even just those around them, are far better than the current model now of "what do you want to do" and preparing children to become cogs in the machine.

Some people are born tall, others short, some with logical reasoning skills, and then others with empathy skills. Does this mean one person is better than another? No. It just means that everyone has a place, they just need to find it and accept it.

Quote from FloatyBoaty

Every one has something they are better at than others, and things they are worse at. Each person should find and be allowed to discover what these differences are. Once the differences are known the contributions made to society, or even just those around them, are far better than the current model now of "what do you want to do" and preparing children to become cogs in the machine.

Excellent contribution, FB. (IMO)

I am thinking you are talking about things you are born with? Like, talents.

There's a couple of things this brings to my mind.
1. Communism used this and chose what children will be when they get older. The most famous were the figure skating ice skaters.... what were their names?

Slaves were made to be stronger by forced breeding.

2. Hmmm, how do I explain this...... you know when someone is really good at something and they say, "I am... what they do" and they are used to gaining recognition, admiration, acceptance, excitement, ect from what they do.

Well, they put all their eggs in one basket, so to speak. Their 'being' depends on being great at this one thing....... Then when someone comes along and is better than them, or they are left behind with new technology or something..... their identity is crushed. Their reason for 'being' no longer exists and......... well, I hear suicide is popular amongst gifted people.

Some people are born tall, others short, some with logical reasoning skills, and then others with empathy skills. Does this mean one person is better than another? No. It just means that everyone has a place, they just need to find it and accept it.

I think you are talking about people complimenting each other. Like, you can reach the lightbulb while I can't, kinda thing.

Yes. I agree. With all have a place and something to offer. I also think we a combination of what's in our genes, the experiences we have, and importantly, how we respond to those experiences.