Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[miauw62]

I agree with you, Neonivek.
The first paragraph you directed at me was the point I was trying to make.

[palsch]

So this blew up. Let's try to hit some basic points here.

1) Rape reporting is still low. Artificially inflating false reporting as some sort of epidemic leads to fewer reports being treated seriously, leading to fewer people being willing to report. We already have heavy biases that work against reporting rape, and adding to these by treating false reports as even close to equal to rape is horrible.

2) Treating college hearings regarding alleged sexual assault as legal hearings is wrong. They are attempts by the institution to review what happened under their own procedures and standards of evidence. They can use whatever standards and procedures they see fit, within some guidelines. Many sets of standards used are trash, but for every school that is skewed in favour of the accuser there are a dozen which fail to take accusations seriously at all, or whose procedures are otherwise hostile towards victims who try to report.

Such hearings often use a preponderance of evidence (eg, 50%+ likelyhood they did it) as a standard rather than the legal reasonable doubt, but just because an attack doesn't reach the legal standards for conviction doesn't mean that a school or other institution is wrong for taking action. Schools don't require convictions to take disciplinary action against people who have broken the rules by their standards. And a lot of the time schools do fail to take action even when there is a legal conviction (mostly for the first example she lists, but the article is worth a read).

3) Talking about discrimination against men is one thing. Demanding it is done in topics focusing on discrimination against women is quite another. It comes off as petulant and as an attempt to minimise the other group's problems. When talking about systematic and institutional sexism, pretending that men have it as bad or somehow worse than women is flatly false. And especially in this particular topic, dealing with the video games industry and culture it would require a serious effort of will to imaging that there is somehow equal discrimination and prejudice.

[Neonivek]

I don't know Palsch

A lot of laws are passed simply to prevent institutions from taking unjust action.

For example one article I remember was titled "Ex-Criminals find it easier to find a job then non-criminals", which you want to know what it was about? People who are convicted and then appeal their conviction, are able to more easily get a job because the law prevents them from being overturned for a job for an equally qualified individual (or something along those lines).

It is a "Well how else would you do it?" situation.

Talking about discrimination against men is one thing. Demanding it is done in topics focusing on discrimination against women is quite another

The question was ultimately begged. What with the "Women are the only ones who experience sexism" talk.

It comes off as petulant and as an attempt to minimise the other group's problems

This is the part I never understand. Why must people play the suffering Olympics?

When a "Yeah, you also experience some pain. While women still have it worse I recognize what you are saying" would completely and utterly disarm the conversation. Especially when "We recognize that women have it bad and even worse. We still say men have their own issues" doesn't.

pretending that men have it as bad or somehow worse than women is flatly false

The point was that in certain spheres men have it worse. Which is true.

As well treating things as just different is just a different way of looking at things. It doesn't belittle women because it fully acknowledges their issues. It is even something that isn't contradictory to feminism, some forms of feminism believe in this POV.

[palsch]

I'm not sure what you are trying to say in the first part.

The question was ultimately begged. What with the "Women are the only ones who experience sexism" talk.

Again, I've read the comments. I can go back and pull together quotes if you need me to. But the derail started when Vector's experiences of sexism were discounted. People pointed out that yes, when talking about women experiencing discrimination, women's stories of experiencing discrimination are relevant, while men's stories of not experiencing discrimination against women are less relevant.

Then shit blew up and it rapidly became a case of men claiming to have as much or more experience of sexism, and being discriminated against as badly as women. A lot of horrible, horrible arguments were made. All of it, in effect, to justify keeping women's experiences out of the thread.

And yes, not the universal intention, but the original purpose of the argument, and then people doubling down on it so far has that effect.

[scriver]

Talking about discrimination against men is one thing. Demanding it is done in topics focusing on discrimination against women is quite another

The question was ultimately begged. What with the "Women are the only ones who experience sexism" talk.

No, it came from the "men shouldn't casually disregard women's stories of sexism just because they themselves do not notice it" talk.

It comes off as petulant and as an attempt to minimise the other group's problems

This is the part I never understand. Why must people play the suffering Olympics?

It is by constantly bringing up male-targeted sexism in discussions (about, say, female-targeted sexism in video games) that you "play the suffering Olympics" in the first place.

[Neonivek]

The first part is that there is more that can be legally done to protect the falsely accused and that such laws are quite common. Having someone, for example, get a "falsely accused" mark that protects them from action from work and universities... would soften the blow.

Then shit blew up and it rapidly became a case of men claiming to have as much or more experience of sexism, and being discriminated against as badly as women. A lot of horrible, horrible arguments were made. All of it, in effect, to justify keeping women's experiences out of the thread.

We honestly went through this. No one was saying that. That was Rolepg constantly pulling argument out of what people have said that wasn't there.

People pointed out that yes, when talking about women experiencing discrimination, women's stories of experiencing discrimination are relevant, while men's stories of not experiencing discrimination against women are less relevant.

Is it? That was the major question.

The conclusion it was left at is that women are natural experts on sexism and that men aren't.

It is by constantly bringing up male-targeted sexism in discussions (about, say, female-targeted sexism in video games) that you "play the suffering Olympics" in the first place

Then just acknowledge it and move on. It doesn't belittle women. Or even acknowledge it and say it doesn't change the issue.

It would be like a police officer in a criminal harassment conversation saying "Well we police get beaten up by criminals all the time". "Yes you do. Now about police brutality".

ALL THE PROBLEMS of this has come from "Well men have issues too" being met with "HOW DARE YOU BELITTLE WOMEN AND THEIR ISSUES" met with "But I didn't mean that, I am just saying this"... "And Yet you continue to belittle them"

Want to know why men's issues keep coming up in conversations on women's issues? Because it is ultimately a conversation on equality. As well male issues DIRRECTLY related to female issues. For example how are men depicted in videogames informs how women are depicted. It is why Anita talks on length about how men are depicted and the differences between, for example, a male protagonist and female damsel (but I honestly think she dropped the ball on that... because there is a large difference between male and female damsels)

No, it came from the "men shouldn't casually disregard women's stories of sexism just because they themselves do not notice it" talk

It started off that way, and then it immediately devolved into "men's opinion on sexism is lesser of that then women" rather then just accepting that everyone has an opinion.

Neither side had moral superiority in this conversation.

[palsch]

The first part is that there is more that can be legally done to protect the falsely accused and that such laws are quite common. Having someone, for example, get a "falsely accused" mark that protects them from action from work and universities... would soften the blow.

Erm, there is no legal procedure by which someone is found to have been falsely accused. A finding of Not Guilty doesn't mean they were falsely accused, just not convicted. Police dropping the case at any stage before trial could have a number of reasons, many of which get lumped under "no crime" or the accuser recanting (sometimes under duress), but none of them explicitly mean it was a false accusation.

What you are saying basically comes back to requiring a legal conviction before a university or other establishment can legally act to remove someone who has victimised other students, which I think is obviously not a good thing. Such establishments are always going to have different (likely lower) standards required for action. Finding a good and universal set of procedures would be nice, but at the moment people are focused on the masses of schools falling short of their legal requirements under Title IX (recently raised to 62).

We honestly went through this. No one was saying that. That was Rolepg constantly pulling argument out of what people have said that wasn't there.

OK, some quick examples;

Men have equivalent things to worry about. *snip false equivalences*
If you believe that sexism directed against men is lesser than sexism directed against women, then I disagree with you strongly.

Since men are the patriarchal oppressors of women, they should have experience of performing these acts. So should be equally credible when talking about it. ...

Unless you meant 'that' as something other than what I said people were saying, or you think they were saying something other than their literal words...

[ed boy]

We honestly went through this. No one was saying that. That was Rolepg constantly pulling argument out of what people have said that wasn't there.

OK, some quick examples;

Men have equivalent things to worry about. *snip false equivalences*
If you believe that sexism directed against men is lesser than sexism directed against women, then I disagree with you strongly.

Since men are the patriarchal oppressors of women, they should have experience of performing these acts. So should be equally credible when talking about it. ...

Unless you meant 'that' as something other than what I said people were saying, or you think they were saying something other than their literal words...

That's out of context. In the very next sentence, I said that you can't compare the sums of all male-directed and female-directed sexism in such a simple manner, and in this post I clarified that comparing the sum of any forms of discrimination is problematic at best.

[palsch]

That's out of context. In the very next sentence, I said that you can't compare the sums of all male-directed and female-directed sexism in such a simple manner, and in this post I clarified that comparing the sum of any forms of discrimination is problematic at best.

OK, the full context (I left in the link for that reason though);

Seriously. Men don't typically have to worry about being raped because they go out at night whilst looking good. They don't have to worry about getting shouted down when they try to play a game online.

Men have equivalent things to worry about. A man might not worry about being raped as much as a woman, but men do have to worry about being falsely accused of rape - something which can lose you your friends, your job or get you kicked out of school, without you even knowing that such allegations are being made. A man might not worry about getting shouted down when trying to play games as much, but a man has to worry about being shouted down by people who believe that any concern for the wellbeing of an incapacitated friend or contact with non-related children is an attempt as sexual predation.

If you believe that sexism directed against men is lesser than sexism directed against women, then I disagree with you strongly. It's certainly different, and there are areas in which women are victims more, but there are also areas in which men are victims more.

I'm using this as an example of, "men claiming to have as much or more experience of sexism, and being discriminated against as badly as women".

I actually think this is worse in context. You straight up portray rape and false accusation as equivalent. It may just be sloppy wording, but certainly came across that way. You can understand why someone would be pissed off at that, right? Especially in the context of dismissing women's experiences.

[Vector]

It seems logical that men would be more inclined to support feminist movements that also campaign against sexism against men than a movement that focusses solely on sexism against women. After all, men make up about half of the population, effectively cutting the amount of supporters you have in half (in theory, I guess it'd be less in practice) is not very beneficial.

"I won't support your human rights unless it benefits me."

This is a problem. This attitude, right here. Enormous. Problem.

[Neonivek]

Unless you meant 'that' as something other than what I said people were saying, or you think they were saying something other than their literal words

Don't take a statement as going 100% in the other direction.

What you are saying basically comes back to requiring a legal conviction before a university or other establishment can legally act to remove someone who has victimised other students, which I think is obviously not a good thing

Actually... that sounds like a perfect "Innocent until proven guilty" law that protects people from vigilante justice outside the legal system.

It even stops situations where rumors about "The loner kid who dresses in goth clothing and prefers to be by themselves" actually get them expelled as well.

I am confused where the "Not a good thing" is. I mean it can easily state that "being caught" exempts this law (so a student harassing others is going to be expelled). There are a number of civets where you could tune up the law... but as a first draft it seems like it does everything it needs to.

It seems logical that men would be more inclined to support feminist movements that also campaign against sexism against men than a movement that focusses solely on sexism against women. After all, men make up about half of the population, effectively cutting the amount of supporters you have in half (in theory, I guess it'd be less in practice) is not very beneficial.

"I won't support your human rights unless it benefits me."

This is a problem. This attitude, right here. Enormous. Problem.

No it isn't. No problem whatsoever. Women's rights benefit men.

A more just society benefits everyone.

Heck one of the best arguments for the elimination of these harmful tropes in videogames is because an expanded role for women in videogames means that... videogames will get expanded roles and the variety of narratives will increase. That helps everyone.

Besides his attitude is rational anyhow. Especially since any mention of any issue presented towards men is met with extreme hostility, any attempt for a MAN to enter a discussion that is disagreeing with what a woman says is met with open hostility... and where the major belief is that a man's view on sexism is lesser then that of a woman's.

What harm, what vicious blow to women is there to believe that both men and women have issues that need to be addressed? What terrible injustice is done for someone to say "You know what, I think I'll give my support to forms of feminism that work on both sides instead of ones that only deal with only one"?

What are you really criticizing him for?

[Vector]

Women are dealing with a larger issue than men are when it comes to sexism. We are ignored no matter how much we try to get people's attention. And then, if someone does listen, they want to talk about men instead. It's always gotta be about men. Even if it would make more sense for it to be about women.

You want to talk about men? Let's talk about the issues that trans men face, because that's a hell of a lot more relevant. Men of color, gay men, disabled men. But that's not what people mean when they say "But what about the men???" They mean people who are already sitting on top of the heap and still want to be catered to the moment the little guy gets anything for themselves.

[Neonivek]

Women are dealing with a larger issue than men are when it comes to sexism. We are ignored no matter how much we try to get people's attention. And then, if someone does listen, they want to talk about men instead. It's always gotta be about men. Even if it would make more sense for it to be about women.

So what? I know it sounds harsh but so what? What does having a larger issue entitle you to?

As well you are ignored trying to get people's attention while constantly belittling them? Well I wonder why.

And when you talk about equality men constantly try to bring up men's issues? Well... So what? Everyone wants to contribute and that is their contribution to the conversation on talks about sexism. Relish the fact that men actually want to get involved and want to create equality, only the crazies are going "well women clearly don't have important issues, men do".

They outright said "Men and Women" where is women being left out? Where is their issues being ignored? Where does it MUST be all about men?

 

They mean people who are already sitting on top of the heap and still want to be catered to the moment the little guy gets anything for themselves

Yes, I understand. It isn't fair that people so advantaged and who are the major source of all the pain of the minority (or implied minority) can also claim to have issues and to want them fixed. They have everything what do they want more for?

"Why is the rich person complaining about taxes, don't they earn enough money when they aren't making people poor and destitute?"

But at the same time there is two ways you can see equality and the abolishment of sexism.

You can look at it as a equalizing of the sexes. You can also see it as eliminating the issues prevailing both genders. You cannot fix one without the other.

[Rolepgeek]

Women are dealing with a larger issue than men are when it comes to sexism. We are ignored no matter how much we try to get people's attention. And then, if someone does listen, they want to talk about men instead. It's always gotta be about men. Even if it would make more sense for it to be about women.

So what? I know it sounds harsh but so what? What does having a larger issue entitle you to?

As well you are ignored trying to get people's attention while constantly belittling them? Well I wonder why.

And when you talk about equality men constantly try to bring up men's issues? Well... So what? Everyone wants to contribute and that is their contribution to the conversation on talks about sexism. Relish the fact that men actually want to get involved and want to create equality, only the crazies are going "well women clearly don't have important issues, men do".

They outright said "Men and Women" where is women being left out? Where is their issues being ignored? Where does it MUST be all about men?

I think the point is that a lot of people feel that when men try to turn the discussion towards their own issues, they are basically trying to refocus the problem around them and make themselves the center once more, rather than simply trying to help women get to the level of equality men enjoy, for once, first. It seems like you're placing your needs above theirs, when your needs are demonstrably lesser than theirs. At least that's my take on it.

Basically, it feels rude. Men and women is fine, but for the moment, we need to solve the 'women' side first.

[Neonivek]

I know it hurts Rolepgeek. but it is a necessary evil.

It is an injustice that must be tempered for the greater good.

As well Rolepg, there is no first. "women" side can never be resolved without the "men" side being resolved. It is fundamentally impossible.

You will never fix the sexualization of women without fixing the responsibility of men over their libido.

Men's issues will never EVER be solved unless women's issues are not fixed.

The idea of men as a secondary caretaker will never be fixed unless women's issue of being the "Only proper caretaker" isn't resolved.

As well, people are allowed to split their attentions however they like. Things can still be done.