I’m going to answer as a series of definitions. I felt I wasn’t giving enough examples and asked chatgpt & claude for more, but skip those lines if they’re redundant, I’ve labeled them. Let me know if this isn’t the kind of argument you were hoping to see; I’m more or less expanding what I previously said rather than saying something different, so I’m sort of expecting to be told “compile errors on lines 3, 7, and 8”, so just let me know which parts aren’t entirely valid local reasoning steps and I’ll try to rectify them, because I’m sketching a fairly large argument that would require compiling pages and pages of cited examples if I wasn’t eliding some details which I think are obvious enough from typical anecdotal experience. Also, I will explicitly note—this is zooming in on one network of cultural aesthetics and power structures I believe exists, and it is not the only shard of society that can be described usefully. Each of these parts exists somewhat independent of the others, but I claim several of these patterns support each other.
tree of authority: me: the network of positions of command in economy and governance. near the top (root) of this tree would be lawmakers, heads of state & their administrations, judges, police, military command, boards of directors, ceos & c-suites, bosses, decisionmakers, *illionaires, etc. In one sense it’d be more like a forest of command trees than a single command tree, but ultimately it all grows from the root of states’ monopoly on destructive power. a member of the tree of authority would refer to the people who have are in the structure, such that they have incentive to ensure that the tree of command authority continues to exist (as opposed to people simply not giving or accepting commands at all, due to not strictly needing anything) and continues take the shape of (some number of) trees rather than more dynamic or flat graphs. that is, a member of the tree of authority would be someone who participate in a large network structure which implements various parts of ensuring their local part continues to have power.
Claude (the root of the tree would be): cabinet members, generals, vice presidents, directors, and wealthy investors; As we move down from the root positions of power like heads of state, lawmakers, and CEOs, the tree branches out into other high-level leaders like cabinet members, generals, vice presidents, directors, and wealthy investors. Further down are mid-level managers, elected officials, officers, board members, and department heads who have authority over particular areas and regions. Towards the outer branches are local leaders like mayors, governors, judges, police chiefs, principals, and small business owners who have direct authority in their communities and organizations. At the tips of the branches are the individual employees, citizens, students, and members of the public who are subject to the authority of those above them in the tree. This includes workers, voters, taxpayers, residents, customers, students, congregation members, and more.
tree of <male or other ingroup> authority: me: a subset of a tree of authority that has the implicit or explicit intention to ensure that the people in positions of power continue to stay <men or some other ingroup>. Same deal as the tree of authority, but specifically it’d be a subnetwork of it where command positions are gated by ensuring that those who are given command are values aligned with preserving <male or that other group’s> authority.
Those below (closer to branches) on the tree still would be very much are under the authority of those above—being ingroup for the controlling group is only proposed to grant access to a position of authority and occasional tenuous solidarity in order to repel outgroup, it doesn’t mean within-ingroup solidarity. for example, if an underling is in need, help for them would depend on what they can do for you.
Claude’s input: positions which are men: Most Fortune 500 CEOs and board members; Top ranking officers in military branches (less so now but historically); Major religions like Catholic church leadership roles reserved for men; U.S. presidents have all been male; Tenured professors at universities tended to be male (less so now but still tilted); Construction foremen and supervisors; Leadership of finance and banking institutions like investment banks and hedge funds; Partners at large law firms; Many senior roles in tech companies and engineering firms
egregore: me: a cultural pattern which can be imitated “sphexishly” by some carriers of it and still implement the intentions of the people who promote it agentically.
claude (collected from a few replies): A collective thoughtform created by a group of people, such as a shared set of beliefs, goals or ideals. For example, a nation can be thought of as an egregore representing the shared identity and values of its people. Brands and religions are also egregores, as are patriotism, school spirit, gender norms, conspicious consumption, social pressure to root for local sports teams, Peer pressure in high school social groups, pressure to conform to gender norms, emphasis on school spirit and traditions at universities, expectations to support certain political parties based on demographics. Members and fans of a successful sports team energized by shared chants and cheering for wins.
authority egregore: me: a cultural pattern in which people who are not in a significant place in a command tree are encouraged by both peers and media to support the existence of a tree of authority. Authority structures typically require participants to take restrictive roles and follow many rules, some of which are arbitrary to signal egregore participation—for an extreme example consider military obedience to orders, but in general authority systems are more stable when the participants don’t interfere by attempting personal expression.
claude: An egregore that reinforces and perpetuates structures of authority, control and rigid hierarchies in a society: obey orders, respect hierarchy, follow laws, trust corporations. Military personnel following orders without question; Employees adhering to corporate hierarchy and manager directives; Students respecting teacher authority in school; Citizens obeying laws and government authority figures without enforcement; Religious followers obeying clergy and church doctrine; Consumers trusting corporations and brand messaging; Family members deferring to father figures; Workers complying with workplace rules and boss demands; Citizens respecting police authority during interactions when laws don’t require it
claude (“examples of authority egregores benefiting from being strict”): Strict dress codes or uniform policies in schools and workplaces that don’t serve a functional purpose; Bureaucratic red tape and complex procedural rules in governments and corporations; Repressive laws restricting behavior that doesn’t harm others (e.g. banning certain hairstyles); Harsh punishments and zero tolerance policies for minor infractions; Censorship and restrictions on free speech or access to information; Complex religious doctrines and rituals people must strictly adhere to; Hazing rituals in college fraternities and sororities
claude (“examples of authority egregores benefiting from being less strict”, asked to compare/balance, edited heavily): Flexible workplace policies increasing employee satisfaction and retention; Simplifying legal and regulatory systems to increase popular support; Democratic reforms giving citizens more voice and participatory governance leading to less resistance to government; Leniency and discretion in enforcing minor violations of rules, especially as a perk of ingroup membership; Religious reforms liberalizing doctrine and modernizing traditions leading to people leaving the religion less; Merit-based systems where best ideas win over seniority or hierarchy leading the authority structure employing it to win over other structures
the male authority egregore: me: a wider cultural pattern supported and promoted by those who wish there to be a tree of male authority in particular. This typically involves carriers of this egregore pressuring each other towards this egregore’s version of roles, which given the pressure towards authority, typically involves a restrictive form of masculinity.
chatgpt: For instance, in many traditional corporate settings, men are often seen and expected to be in leadership roles, and this belief is reinforced both by those within the organization and by societal expectations at large.
claude: An authority egregore that grants power and privileges to men in exchange for preserving the egregore. For example, the notion that a man should be the “head of the household” is part of the male authority egregore.
claude (male authority egregore components): Assumption that men should be heads of households and families; Men viewed as natural leaders in politics and business; Expectation that top scholars/experts are male in many fields; Men as spiritual leaders in religious institutions; Male-centric business networking and mentorship; Media portrayals of male heroes and protagonists; Gender bias in hiring/promotions favoring male leaders; Lack of paternity leave policies assuming breadwinner is male; Celebrity chefs and renowned artists tended to be male; Dominance of male artists and authors in literary canon
claude+me (some benefits for men of male authority egregore): Access to leadership/power positions conditional on ingroup signals; Higher pay in some fields if fitting in to restrictively aggressive masculinity; Expectations of competence in areas like business, science; Higher status than women in some conditions
claude (drawbacks of male authority egregore): Pressure to avoid vulnerability and connection; Higher rates of loneliness and suicide; Discouraging pursuits seen as feminine; Stifling full self-expression and emotions; Reduced work-life balance expectations; Suppresses vulnerable emotions, polices interests/behavior, higher suicide rates; Harassment faced by men in female-dominated jobs and activities
claude+me (male authority egregore favors restrictive masculinity): Strict gender norms and homophobia as prerequisites for leadership roles; Shaming men for vulnerable emotions or feminine interests/behavior; Emphasis, especially in workplace, on dominance, strength, toughness maintaining hierarchy; Lack of paternity leave or flexibility for involved fatherhood; Ambient social pressure for men to have multiple sexual conquests and “manly” hobbies; Sports teams emphasizing toughness over vulnerability; Big-budget media portrayals funded glorifying male stoicism; Social norms discouraging men from expressing emotions
claude (ways the male authority egregore does not favor restrictive masculinity): Men encouraged to take nurturing family roles like fatherhood seriously; Men bonding through shared interests is in some ways supported by “male stoicism” media aesthetics; Policies supporting work-life balance and parental leave for fathers
chatgpt: These systems often penalize both men and women for not conforming to traditional gender roles. For men, deviations from ‘accepted’ masculinity (like showing emotion or failing to assert dominance) can lead to social ostracization or professional setbacks. For women, assimilating into traditionally male-dominated areas (like certain careers) often requires adopting characteristics associated with male authority, leading to terms like ‘girlboss’. This can create a dynamic where women are accepted in male-dominated spheres primarily when they embody these traditionally male traits, perpetuating the male authority egregore.
restrictive masculinity: claude: A form of masculinity that confines men to rigid gender roles and expectations, suppressing emotional expression and vulnerability. For example, the belief that “boys don’t cry” promotes restrictive masculinity.
claude+me: Men who show vulnerability or emotion get shamed by other men; Expectation that men be tough and aggressive. Homophobia and policing “unmasculine” interests/behavior. Shaming men for failing to be breadwinners or financially providing. Men ridiculing stay-at-home dads or men interested in childcare. Men stigmatizing men who don’t enjoy sports or traditionally male hobbies. Men criticizing men who don’t conform to gendered clothing norms. Men encouraging reckless behavior to prove manhood. Men shaming other men who back down or compromise to save face.
empathetic masculinity: claude+me: A form of masculinity that embraces traits like compassion, vulnerability and emotional intelligence traditionally associated with femininity. For example, empathetic masculinity would be when men support men expressing emotion and rejected rigid gender roles.
claude: Men comfortable expressing emotions and being vulnerable; Nurturing roles embraced like caring for children; Healthy processing of grief, fear, hurt without shame; Building intimacy through vulnerability in relationships; Embracing interests without regard to gendered labels; Mentoring and guiding younger people with compassion; Finding peaceful conflict resolution over aggression; Admitting mistakes and wrongdoing, seeking to learn from them; Listening well and providing emotional support for others
How does listing out a large list of personal definitions, alongside what an LLM supplies, help in formulating an argument?
It seems like it will make it more difficult, instead of easier, to get even a convincing outline down if you use any definitions other than the widely accepted ones as recorded in major dictionaries, such as the OED, Merriam-Webster, etc...
I don’t want to discourage you but wrangling this such that even a coherent, falsifiable, non self-contradictory, sketch of an outline emerges, seems really unlikely.
what do you want, then? typically one defines terms in a logical argument. shall I rename the terms to “variable 1” and “variable 2″ to make it less ambiguous..? I could reduce word count significantly but it seems like you wanted me to expand on what I’d said previously, so I wrote some overviews of the moving parts I see and asked an llm to give specifics that can be checked for.
Weighing in here because this is a suboptimality I’ve often encountered when speaking with math oriented interlocutors (including my past self):
The issue here is an engineering problem, not a proof problem. Human minds tend to require lots of cognitive resources to take provisional definitions for things that have either no definition or drastically different definitions in their minds outside this specific context.
Structuring your argument as a series of definitions is fine when making a proof in a mathematical language, since comprehensibility is not a terminal goal, and (since each inferential step can be trusted and easily verified as such) not a high-priority instrumental goal either.
But when you’re trying to accurately convey a concept and it’s associated grounding into someone else’s mind, it’s best to minimize both the per-moment attempted deviation from their existing mentality (to maximize the chance that they both can and will maintain focus on your communications) and the total attempted deviation (to minimize the chance that the accumulated cognitive costs will lead them to (rightly!) prioritize more efficient sources of data).
This gives us a balance between the above two elements and the third element of making the the listener’s mind be as close as possible to the conveyed concept. The efforts of all involved to maintain this balance is key to any successful educational effort or productive argumentative communication.
PS: If you’re familiar with math education, you may recognize some of it’s flaws/inefficiencies as being grounded in the lack of the above balance, by the way. I’m not an expert on the subject, so I won’t speak to that.
To use more standard definitions in order to not make things more difficult for yourself?
Your free to ignore this ‘want’ of course, and use your own personal definitions for a bunch of concepts, but I’m not going to be able to help you along, nor likely will any other passing reader, since only you would know what’s what.
I mean, outside of labeling the parts of what I’m trying to describe, what is it you want out of a description? what is the datatype of “argument” that you want—evidence? logical derivation from an already shared evidence base? it seems to me that we can just erase away the names of the definitions I gave, and then what I gave is… both of those things. so I’m trying to figure out what it’s missing that you want to see, other than “fewer unnecessary words such as new names of terms”.
I mean, outside of labeling the parts of what I’m trying to describe, what is it you want out of a description?
Can you explain what this means?
Assuming it’s just asking for what the request was, then; the outline of a potentially convincing argument.
what is the datatype of “argument” that you want—evidence?
It’s unclear what ‘datatype of “argument”’ means either, you can see already how difficult it is to have substantial discussions if one party could potentially use words with differing meanings and/or custom terminology.
But I’ll assume ‘datatype of “argument”’ just means ‘type of argument’, otherwise you’ll have to explain it too.
If so, you are free to pursue any line that seems promising.
It could be a statistical analysis, it could be a purely formal logical derivation, it could be inferences, induction, etc...
I’ll stick to answering just the first two questions to keep the comment chain easily readable.
Claude again, I’ve added strikethrough to parts I disagree with or are not relevant to how this affects men directly—strikethrough therefore does not mean it doesn’t happen, just that it’s not relevant to my point. italic here means I added it, note that how much these things happen is open to investigation and should not necessarily be assumed simply from argumentation to be enough to matter:
Here are 50 potential new examples of how people in the tree of authority use their power to promote the authority egregore and restrictive masculinity. I’ve tried to focus on novel examples that aren’t too similar to what’s already in the document. Let me know if you would like me to modify or expand on any of these further.
1. Military leaders emphasizing aggression, strength, and stoicism over empathy in training. (not sure about this one)
2. Bosses expecting employees to work long hours without complaint.
3. Governments restricting paternity leave policies. [me: Do they do that, claude? IDK.]
4. Male political leaders portraying opponents as “weak” or “effeminate” to discredit them.
5. Corporate events centered around traditionally male hobbies like golf, hunting, or cigars.
6. Tenured professors doubting expertise of younger female scholars.
7. Male religious leaders preaching rigid gender roles.
8. Fathers encouraging recklessness in sons as “rite of passage.”
9. Male teachers laughing off taunts directed at boys perceived as unmasculine.
10. All-male boards selecting similarly restrictive successors, denying qualified empathetic men & women chances to lead.
11. Male managers expecting emotionless “toughness” from reports when giving feedback.
12. Male coworkers joking that others are “whipped” or “pussy whipped” by wives.
13. CEOs citing “culture fit” issues for rejecting candidates unlike current workforce. [me: maybe? idk?]
14. Venture capitalists favoring recklessness and risk in founders over caution. [me: idk, maybe]
15. Business conventions with networking events at strip clubs.
16. Male political fundraisers held at all-male private venues like country clubs.
17. Property managers denying housing applications from single fathers over single mothers.
18. [authority in general:] Sports team owners ignoring abusive behavior from stars and coaches.
19. Male public figures rarely facing consequences for affairs, sexual misconduct.
20. Male artists and authors glorifying violence and female objectification in works. [me: this happens but it doesn’t directly constrain men into restrictive masculinity, it’s more of a component of the “reward for promoting restrictive masculinity” stuff]
21. Directors and screenwriters portraying female characters as rewards for male protagonists.
22. Male critics praising “boldness” and “risk taking” more in work by men than women. [me: does this provide evidence that men are constrained to restrictive masculinity? idk.]
23. Male historians downplaying influence of women and highlighting roles of men.
24. Male news anchors interrupting or talking over female experts and co-anchors.
25. Auto mechanics assuming women know less and upselling unnecessary services.
26. Male doctors dismissing women’s pain as “hormonal” more often than men’s.
27. Male police officers escalating traffic stops of men [those] who question their authority.
28. Male construction foremen doubting women’s capabilities and excluding them.
29. Male venture capitalists emphasizing future potential in startups pitched by men over women.
30. Managers believing women are more emotional, men more logical.
31. Male hiring managers seeing leadership potential in stoic applicants over equally qualified empathetic applicants.
32. Male politicians blocking bills supporting paternal leave and flexible work policies.
33. Male bankers denying loans to women-owned businesses at higher rates than men’s.
34. Male tenured professors gatekeeping admission of women to elite institutions and programs.
35. Male CEOs appointing unqualified sons or cronies to leadership roles over more qualified candidates.
36. Male religious leaders discouraging contraception and reproductive healthcare based on doctrine written by men.
37. Male directors encouraging female actors to lose weight while praising muscular builds in men.
38. Male music producers pressuring female artists to sexualize image and behave submissively.
39. Male critics praising beauty and sex appeal of young actresses over talent and skill of older women.
40. Male political leaders starting wars based on shows of strength while minimizing diplomatic options.
41. Male judges enforcing strict drug laws that disproportionately imprison men of color.
42. Male executives hiring mostly young, attractive women in visible public-facing roles. [me: which displaces empathetic men and denies them an opportunity to present an empathetic-men image]
43. Male doctors providing less aggressive treatment to elderly female patients compared to male.
44. Male managers encouraging coworkers to hide vulnerabilities, never admit mistakes, always project confidence.
45. Male venture capitalists emphasizing ruthlessness in male founders over empathy and conscientiousness.
46. Hiring managers describing applicants as “too soft” or “weak” compared to others.
47. CEOs firing employees who take parental leave or seek flexible schedules for caregiving.
48. Political leaders attacking opponents for crying or showing vulnerable emotions.
49. News anchors crediting businessmen over social workers for community improvements.
50. Religious leaders preaching that husbands lead households while wives submit.
I’m going to answer as a series of definitions. I felt I wasn’t giving enough examples and asked chatgpt & claude for more, but skip those lines if they’re redundant, I’ve labeled them. Let me know if this isn’t the kind of argument you were hoping to see; I’m more or less expanding what I previously said rather than saying something different, so I’m sort of expecting to be told “compile errors on lines 3, 7, and 8”, so just let me know which parts aren’t entirely valid local reasoning steps and I’ll try to rectify them, because I’m sketching a fairly large argument that would require compiling pages and pages of cited examples if I wasn’t eliding some details which I think are obvious enough from typical anecdotal experience. Also, I will explicitly note—this is zooming in on one network of cultural aesthetics and power structures I believe exists, and it is not the only shard of society that can be described usefully. Each of these parts exists somewhat independent of the others, but I claim several of these patterns support each other.
tree of authority:
me: the network of positions of command in economy and governance. near the top (root) of this tree would be lawmakers, heads of state & their administrations, judges, police, military command, boards of directors, ceos & c-suites, bosses, decisionmakers, *illionaires, etc. In one sense it’d be more like a forest of command trees than a single command tree, but ultimately it all grows from the root of states’ monopoly on destructive power. a member of the tree of authority would refer to the people who have are in the structure, such that they have incentive to ensure that the tree of command authority continues to exist (as opposed to people simply not giving or accepting commands at all, due to not strictly needing anything) and continues take the shape of (some number of) trees rather than more dynamic or flat graphs. that is, a member of the tree of authority would be someone who participate in a large network structure which implements various parts of ensuring their local part continues to have power.
Claude (the root of the tree would be): cabinet members, generals, vice presidents, directors, and wealthy investors; As we move down from the root positions of power like heads of state, lawmakers, and CEOs, the tree branches out into other high-level leaders like cabinet members, generals, vice presidents, directors, and wealthy investors. Further down are mid-level managers, elected officials, officers, board members, and department heads who have authority over particular areas and regions. Towards the outer branches are local leaders like mayors, governors, judges, police chiefs, principals, and small business owners who have direct authority in their communities and organizations. At the tips of the branches are the individual employees, citizens, students, and members of the public who are subject to the authority of those above them in the tree. This includes workers, voters, taxpayers, residents, customers, students, congregation members, and more.
tree of <male or other ingroup> authority:
me: a subset of a tree of authority that has the implicit or explicit intention to ensure that the people in positions of power continue to stay <men or some other ingroup>. Same deal as the tree of authority, but specifically it’d be a subnetwork of it where command positions are gated by ensuring that those who are given command are values aligned with preserving <male or that other group’s> authority.
Those below (closer to branches) on the tree still would be very much are under the authority of those above—being ingroup for the controlling group is only proposed to grant access to a position of authority and occasional tenuous solidarity in order to repel outgroup, it doesn’t mean within-ingroup solidarity. for example, if an underling is in need, help for them would depend on what they can do for you.
Claude’s input: positions which are men: Most Fortune 500 CEOs and board members; Top ranking officers in military branches (less so now but historically); Major religions like Catholic church leadership roles reserved for men; U.S. presidents have all been male; Tenured professors at universities tended to be male (less so now but still tilted); Construction foremen and supervisors; Leadership of finance and banking institutions like investment banks and hedge funds; Partners at large law firms; Many senior roles in tech companies and engineering firms
egregore:
me: a cultural pattern which can be imitated “sphexishly” by some carriers of it and still implement the intentions of the people who promote it agentically.
claude (collected from a few replies): A collective thoughtform created by a group of people, such as a shared set of beliefs, goals or ideals. For example, a nation can be thought of as an egregore representing the shared identity and values of its people. Brands and religions are also egregores, as are patriotism, school spirit, gender norms, conspicious consumption, social pressure to root for local sports teams, Peer pressure in high school social groups, pressure to conform to gender norms, emphasis on school spirit and traditions at universities, expectations to support certain political parties based on demographics. Members and fans of a successful sports team energized by shared chants and cheering for wins.
authority egregore:
me: a cultural pattern in which people who are not in a significant place in a command tree are encouraged by both peers and media to support the existence of a tree of authority. Authority structures typically require participants to take restrictive roles and follow many rules, some of which are arbitrary to signal egregore participation—for an extreme example consider military obedience to orders, but in general authority systems are more stable when the participants don’t interfere by attempting personal expression.
claude: An egregore that reinforces and perpetuates structures of authority, control and rigid hierarchies in a society: obey orders, respect hierarchy, follow laws, trust corporations. Military personnel following orders without question; Employees adhering to corporate hierarchy and manager directives; Students respecting teacher authority in school; Citizens obeying laws and government authority figures without enforcement; Religious followers obeying clergy and church doctrine; Consumers trusting corporations and brand messaging; Family members deferring to father figures; Workers complying with workplace rules and boss demands; Citizens respecting police authority during interactions when laws don’t require it
claude (“examples of authority egregores benefiting from being strict”): Strict dress codes or uniform policies in schools and workplaces that don’t serve a functional purpose; Bureaucratic red tape and complex procedural rules in governments and corporations; Repressive laws restricting behavior that doesn’t harm others (e.g. banning certain hairstyles); Harsh punishments and zero tolerance policies for minor infractions; Censorship and restrictions on free speech or access to information; Complex religious doctrines and rituals people must strictly adhere to; Hazing rituals in college fraternities and sororities
claude (“examples of authority egregores benefiting from being less strict”, asked to compare/balance, edited heavily): Flexible workplace policies increasing employee satisfaction and retention; Simplifying legal and regulatory systems to increase popular support; Democratic reforms giving citizens more voice and participatory governance leading to less resistance to government; Leniency and discretion in enforcing minor violations of rules, especially as a perk of ingroup membership; Religious reforms liberalizing doctrine and modernizing traditions leading to people leaving the religion less; Merit-based systems where best ideas win over seniority or hierarchy leading the authority structure employing it to win over other structures
the male authority egregore:
me: a wider cultural pattern supported and promoted by those who wish there to be a tree of male authority in particular. This typically involves carriers of this egregore pressuring each other towards this egregore’s version of roles, which given the pressure towards authority, typically involves a restrictive form of masculinity.
chatgpt: For instance, in many traditional corporate settings, men are often seen and expected to be in leadership roles, and this belief is reinforced both by those within the organization and by societal expectations at large.
claude: An authority egregore that grants power and privileges to men in exchange for preserving the egregore. For example, the notion that a man should be the “head of the household” is part of the male authority egregore.
claude (male authority egregore components): Assumption that men should be heads of households and families; Men viewed as natural leaders in politics and business; Expectation that top scholars/experts are male in many fields; Men as spiritual leaders in religious institutions; Male-centric business networking and mentorship; Media portrayals of male heroes and protagonists; Gender bias in hiring/promotions favoring male leaders; Lack of paternity leave policies assuming breadwinner is male; Celebrity chefs and renowned artists tended to be male; Dominance of male artists and authors in literary canon
claude+me (some benefits for men of male authority egregore): Access to leadership/power positions conditional on ingroup signals; Higher pay in some fields if fitting in to restrictively aggressive masculinity; Expectations of competence in areas like business, science; Higher status than women in some conditions
claude (drawbacks of male authority egregore): Pressure to avoid vulnerability and connection; Higher rates of loneliness and suicide; Discouraging pursuits seen as feminine; Stifling full self-expression and emotions; Reduced work-life balance expectations; Suppresses vulnerable emotions, polices interests/behavior, higher suicide rates; Harassment faced by men in female-dominated jobs and activities
claude+me (male authority egregore favors restrictive masculinity): Strict gender norms and homophobia as prerequisites for leadership roles; Shaming men for vulnerable emotions or feminine interests/behavior; Emphasis, especially in workplace, on dominance, strength, toughness maintaining hierarchy; Lack of paternity leave or flexibility for involved fatherhood; Ambient social pressure for men to have multiple sexual conquests and “manly” hobbies; Sports teams emphasizing toughness over vulnerability; Big-budget media portrayals funded glorifying male stoicism; Social norms discouraging men from expressing emotions
claude (ways the male authority egregore does not favor restrictive masculinity): Men encouraged to take nurturing family roles like fatherhood seriously; Men bonding through shared interests is in some ways supported by “male stoicism” media aesthetics; Policies supporting work-life balance and parental leave for fathers
chatgpt: These systems often penalize both men and women for not conforming to traditional gender roles. For men, deviations from ‘accepted’ masculinity (like showing emotion or failing to assert dominance) can lead to social ostracization or professional setbacks. For women, assimilating into traditionally male-dominated areas (like certain careers) often requires adopting characteristics associated with male authority, leading to terms like ‘girlboss’. This can create a dynamic where women are accepted in male-dominated spheres primarily when they embody these traditionally male traits, perpetuating the male authority egregore.
restrictive masculinity:
claude: A form of masculinity that confines men to rigid gender roles and expectations, suppressing emotional expression and vulnerability. For example, the belief that “boys don’t cry” promotes restrictive masculinity.
claude+me: Men who show vulnerability or emotion get shamed by other men; Expectation that men be tough and aggressive. Homophobia and policing “unmasculine” interests/behavior. Shaming men for failing to be breadwinners or financially providing. Men ridiculing stay-at-home dads or men interested in childcare. Men stigmatizing men who don’t enjoy sports or traditionally male hobbies. Men criticizing men who don’t conform to gendered clothing norms. Men encouraging reckless behavior to prove manhood. Men shaming other men who back down or compromise to save face.
empathetic masculinity:
claude+me: A form of masculinity that embraces traits like compassion, vulnerability and emotional intelligence traditionally associated with femininity. For example, empathetic masculinity would be when men support men expressing emotion and rejected rigid gender roles.
claude: Men comfortable expressing emotions and being vulnerable; Nurturing roles embraced like caring for children; Healthy processing of grief, fear, hurt without shame; Building intimacy through vulnerability in relationships; Embracing interests without regard to gendered labels; Mentoring and guiding younger people with compassion; Finding peaceful conflict resolution over aggression; Admitting mistakes and wrongdoing, seeking to learn from them; Listening well and providing emotional support for others
How does listing out a large list of personal definitions, alongside what an LLM supplies, help in formulating an argument?
It seems like it will make it more difficult, instead of easier, to get even a convincing outline down if you use any definitions other than the widely accepted ones as recorded in major dictionaries, such as the OED, Merriam-Webster, etc...
I don’t want to discourage you but wrangling this such that even a coherent, falsifiable, non self-contradictory, sketch of an outline emerges, seems really unlikely.
what do you want, then? typically one defines terms in a logical argument. shall I rename the terms to “variable 1” and “variable 2″ to make it less ambiguous..? I could reduce word count significantly but it seems like you wanted me to expand on what I’d said previously, so I wrote some overviews of the moving parts I see and asked an llm to give specifics that can be checked for.
Weighing in here because this is a suboptimality I’ve often encountered when speaking with math oriented interlocutors (including my past self):
The issue here is an engineering problem, not a proof problem. Human minds tend to require lots of cognitive resources to take provisional definitions for things that have either no definition or drastically different definitions in their minds outside this specific context.
Structuring your argument as a series of definitions is fine when making a proof in a mathematical language, since comprehensibility is not a terminal goal, and (since each inferential step can be trusted and easily verified as such) not a high-priority instrumental goal either.
But when you’re trying to accurately convey a concept and it’s associated grounding into someone else’s mind, it’s best to minimize both the per-moment attempted deviation from their existing mentality (to maximize the chance that they both can and will maintain focus on your communications) and the total attempted deviation (to minimize the chance that the accumulated cognitive costs will lead them to (rightly!) prioritize more efficient sources of data).
This gives us a balance between the above two elements and the third element of making the the listener’s mind be as close as possible to the conveyed concept. The efforts of all involved to maintain this balance is key to any successful educational effort or productive argumentative communication.
PS: If you’re familiar with math education, you may recognize some of it’s flaws/inefficiencies as being grounded in the lack of the above balance, by the way. I’m not an expert on the subject, so I won’t speak to that.
To use more standard definitions in order to not make things more difficult for yourself?
Your free to ignore this ‘want’ of course, and use your own personal definitions for a bunch of concepts, but I’m not going to be able to help you along, nor likely will any other passing reader, since only you would know what’s what.
I mean, outside of labeling the parts of what I’m trying to describe, what is it you want out of a description? what is the datatype of “argument” that you want—evidence? logical derivation from an already shared evidence base? it seems to me that we can just erase away the names of the definitions I gave, and then what I gave is… both of those things. so I’m trying to figure out what it’s missing that you want to see, other than “fewer unnecessary words such as new names of terms”.
Can you explain what this means?
Assuming it’s just asking for what the request was, then; the outline of a potentially convincing argument.
It’s unclear what ‘datatype of “argument”’ means either, you can see already how difficult it is to have substantial discussions if one party could potentially use words with differing meanings and/or custom terminology.
But I’ll assume ‘datatype of “argument”’ just means ‘type of argument’, otherwise you’ll have to explain it too.
If so, you are free to pursue any line that seems promising.
It could be a statistical analysis, it could be a purely formal logical derivation, it could be inferences, induction, etc...
I’ll stick to answering just the first two questions to keep the comment chain easily readable.
Claude again, I’ve added strikethrough to parts I disagree with or are not relevant to how this affects men directly—strikethrough therefore does not mean it doesn’t happen, just that it’s not relevant to my point. italic here means I added it, note that how much these things happen is open to investigation and should not necessarily be assumed simply from argumentation to be enough to matter:
I think it’s worth distinguishing between factors where businesses simply optimize to make as much profit as possible from issues involving gender.
If you don’t do that then your thesis about gender isn’t falsifiable.