Print

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

[Derekristow]

They aren't saying women shouldn't stand up for themselves, they are saying that women shouldn't discriminate against men.  Discrimination is wrong, no matter who it's aimed at.

[Virex]

So you're saying people should just shut up and cater to the opinion of the majority? Because to me it looks like you're trying to tell people with valid viewpoints that they can't have them because some assholes take their opinions the wrong way?

Eh, no, I did not say that, at all. I'm saying context does not matter for discrimination. An all-female club is just as sexist as an all-male club. Having a shop where jews are not allowed is just as nazi as having a shop where only jews are allowed, etc.

Yes, but one of those is disruptive and oppressive, while the other is nearly always used as a form of protection against the majority. There's a pretty big difference there and just equating the two is extremely dangerous to say the least.

[Kay12]

So, you don't get problem with women discriminating me because of my gender?

I don't see why there should be anything wrong with that?

So, you see nothing wrong with sexism? Are you ok with other forms of discrimination as well?

Discrimination is not some magical evil, it is wrong because it disrupts society and causes oppression. You can't cause oppression or disruption by standing up to your oppressors, the worst you'll do is civil disobedience towards an oppressive group. So if you're so dead-set on branding women asserting themselves as sexism, then yes I am very much in favour of that form of sexism.
[/quote]

"Civil disobedience"? "Women asserting themselves"? They're basically telling me that I am responsible for their misery because I'm male.

Can you explain why it is right for people to brand me as an enemy simply because I am male? Why do you think it is right?

[Siquo]

Yes, but one of those is disruptive and oppressive, while the other is nearly always used as a form of protection against the majority. There's a pretty big difference there and just equating the two is extremely dangerous to say the least.

I still fail to see the difference. Elaborate.

[MonkeyHead]

Years ago (wow, pre-undergrad days... thats like 15 years!) I managed to get a job at a store for no reasons other than:

a) I was the only male that applied, and
b) This store only had female employee's.

As a result they tended to give me the "male" duties, like put things together, fix stuff, carry, unload trucks... It was incredibly patronizing, almost as if they didnt know me or my strengths and what to do with me. One of them even tried to fix me up with her daughter, and when that didnt work, tried to push the "young, pretty" employee on me (who ironically ended up with my younger, better looking brother). Looking back at it, it seems to me to be a typical reversal situation - pretty much the same would probably happen if a lone female was in a male dominated workplace, with some gender mirroring no doubt. I remember it being a horrible experience which left me feeling hollow, and some people go through this each and every day no doubt. The thing is, there was no real malice or deliberate negativity on the part of the otherwise lovley women working at that store - they seemed pre-programed to operate like that, similar to how some men are preprogrammed to be total assholes towards women.

[G-Flex]

Yes, but one of those is disruptive and oppressive, while the other is nearly always used as a form of protection against the majority. There's a pretty big difference there and just equating the two is extremely dangerous to say the least.

I still fail to see the difference. Elaborate.

Entitlement is a big issue here.

I'm a heterosexual white male. That means the deck is already stacked heavily in my favor in many ways. This is why context matters: Fairness does not always mean treating everyone the same, especially when they already aren't treated the same. A marginalized minority, for example, might require special consideration due to the fact that they already face challenges the majority doesn't.

This is especially true in cases where cultural dominance is exhibited. As the old joke goes:
"Why do we have Black Entertainment Television? Why can't we have White Entertainment Television?"
"... You mean every other channel on the TV?"

I could probably explain this better, but it's 6:20 AM and I haven't slept yet.

[Kay12]

I'm a heterosexual white male. That means the deck is already stacked heavily in my favor in many ways. This is why context matters: Fairness does not always mean treating everyone the same, especially when they already aren't treated the same. A marginalized minority, for example, might require special consideration due to the fact that they already face challenges the majority doesn't.

I'm a heterosexual white male as well. But I'm not a chauvinist, nor a sexist, nor a racist. If anyone wants to consider me lucky because of my well-stacked deck, please do so, for I do that myself as well.

But I will not stand idly and be accused of being an oppressor simply because of my sex.

[Virex]

So, you don't get problem with women discriminating me because of my gender?

I don't see why there should be anything wrong with that?

So, you see nothing wrong with sexism? Are you ok with other forms of discrimination as well?

Discrimination is not some magical evil, it is wrong because it disrupts society and causes oppression. You can't cause oppression or disruption by standing up to your oppressors, the worst you'll do is civil disobedience towards an oppressive group. So if you're so dead-set on branding women asserting themselves as sexism, then yes I am very much in favour of that form of sexism.

"Civil disobedience"? "Women asserting themselves"? They're basically telling me that I am responsible for their misery because I'm male.

Can you explain why it is right for people to brand me as an enemy simply because I am male? Why do you think it is right?
[/quote]
It's essentially a self-defense mechanism. Women have to put up with so much shit from our side that frankly there's no other conclusion possible then to assume that nearly all men are sexist idiots. It is much safer to treat someone as a potential danger and risk scaring him off then it is to hold a more neutral stance and risk the chance of getting pulled into the bushes and come home with bruises and without underwear. I can't fault women for thinking this way and we need to be considerate of their stance. Instead of immediately branding them as sexist pigs, maybe we should consider that to them reality is that way and that we're potential dangers just by being close to them. As such the only thing we can do is be very carefull and considerate and realize that letting her guard down is something she'll do when she's comfortable with it.

[ECrownofFire]

Yes, but one of those is disruptive and oppressive, while the other is nearly always used as a form of protection against the majority. There's a pretty big difference there and just equating the two is extremely dangerous to say the least.

I still fail to see the difference. Elaborate.

Entitlement is a big issue here.

I'm a heterosexual white male. That means the deck is already stacked heavily in my favor in many ways. This is why context matters: Fairness does not always mean treating everyone the same, especially when they already aren't treated the same. A marginalized minority, for example, might require special consideration due to the fact that they already face challenges the majority doesn't.

This is especially true in cases where cultural dominance is exhibited. As the old joke goes:
"Why do we have Black Entertainment Television? Why can't we have White Entertainment Television?"
"... You mean every other channel on the TV?"

I could probably explain this better, but it's 6:20 AM and I haven't slept yet.

There's a difference there between a TV station technically open to anyone to watch, and an exclusive club which is by definition discriminatory.

So, you don't get problem with women discriminating me because of my gender?

I don't see why there should be anything wrong with that?

So, you see nothing wrong with sexism? Are you ok with other forms of discrimination as well?

Discrimination is not some magical evil, it is wrong because it disrupts society and causes oppression. You can't cause oppression or disruption by standing up to your oppressors, the worst you'll do is civil disobedience towards an oppressive group. So if you're so dead-set on branding women asserting themselves as sexism, then yes I am very much in favour of that form of sexism.

"Civil disobedience"? "Women asserting themselves"? They're basically telling me that I am responsible for their misery because I'm male.

Can you explain why it is right for people to brand me as an enemy simply because I am male? Why do you think it is right?

It's essentially a self-defense mechanism. Women have to put up with so much shit from our side that frankly there's no other conclusion possible then to assume that nearly all men are sexist idiots. It is much safer to treat someone as a potential danger and risk scaring him off then it is to hold a more neutral stance and risk the chance of getting pulled into the bushes and come home with bruises and without underwear. I can't fault women for thinking this way and we need to be considerate of their stance. Instead of immediately branding them as sexist pigs, maybe we should consider that to them reality is that way and that we're potential dangers just by being close to them. As such the only thing we can do is be very carefull and considerate and realize that letting her guard down is something she'll do when she's comfortable with it.

So because men default to "sexist idiot", women default to "sexist"?

All I can see here is you white-knighting.

[MonkeyHead]

Ah yes, the tail wags the dog doesnt it?

[Kay12]

In my opinion, you're getting ridiculous, Virex.

"Women have to put up with so much shit from our side..."
What is "our side"? As if all men were a single team and women were another. I get along with women just fine - they're just friends among friends. But then there's that group of women who *choose* a side that opposes me and my sex, for whatever reason.

"It is much safer to treat someone as a potential danger and risk scaring him off then it is to hold a more neutral stance and risk the chance of getting pulled into the bushes and come home with bruises and without underwear."
Being careful is one thing. Being a dickhead is another. Ending discussions with stuff like "It's your fault because you're male and your gender blah blah, get lost" is not being careful - it's being a dickhead.

"I can't fault women for thinking this way and we need to be considerate of their stance."
I will most certainly fault women for thinking that I'm inferior to them because of my sex. I'm not going to condone discrimination.


I don't know where you come from, Virex, but at least here there is no war between the two sexes. Most women don't discriminate me and consider me stupid because I'm male, and I get along with those women. I haven't raped or otherwise abused them. I don't hurt strangers, and most of all, I don't hurt my friends. Most men don't, and it's time these male bashers realized this.

[Realmfighter]

I don't know where you come from, Virex, but at least here there is no war between the two sexes. Most women don't discriminate me and consider me stupid because I'm male, and I get along with those women. I haven't raped or otherwise abused them. I don't hurt strangers, and most of all, I don't hurt my friends. Most men don't, and it's time these male bashers realized this.

I'm sorry, but for this entire fucking paragraph all that was going through my head was "One in Six, One in Six"

If you don't know, One in Six women in America have been sexually assaulted.

[Virex]

I don't know where you come from, Virex, but at least here there is no war between the two sexes. Most women don't discriminate me and consider me stupid because I'm male, and I get along with those women. I haven't raped or otherwise abused them. I don't hurt strangers, and most of all, I don't hurt my friends. Most men don't, and it's time these male bashers realized this.

I'm sorry, but for this entire fucking paragraph all that was going through my head was "One in Six, One in Six"

If you don't know, One in Six women in America have been sexually assaulted.

I thought one in six was the ammount that reported it? The actual figure is likely to be much higher because many are too afraid to lose their job/boyfriend/honor to admit it.

[Kay12]

I don't know where you come from, Virex, but at least here there is no war between the two sexes. Most women don't discriminate me and consider me stupid because I'm male, and I get along with those women. I haven't raped or otherwise abused them. I don't hurt strangers, and most of all, I don't hurt my friends. Most men don't, and it's time these male bashers realized this.

I'm sorry, but for this entire fucking paragraph all that was going through my head was "One in Six, One in Six"

If you don't know, One in Six women in America have been sexually assaulted.

And... so? Does that make any male likely to be a sexual predator, enough so to be considered a brute rapist?

As I said, carefulness is one thing, being a dickhead is another. I understand perfectly if a woman doesn't want to take a drink I offer her or want me to take her home. But the discrimination I talked about has nothing to do with sexual violence, as far as I know. It has something to do with their attitude - anything I say is likely to be wrong, and if I consider them to be wrong, it's because I'm male and "male gender will never understand" or "your gender's behind <evil thing X>". To clarify, I'm not being taken seriously because of my gender.

EDIT: About one-in-six, just for your information... I had never heard about it, and the first thing I found when Googling about it was about *Men* with unwanted sexual experiences.

[Realmfighter]

And... so? Does that make any male likely to be a sexual predator, enough so to be considered a brute rapist?

As I said, carefulness is one thing, being a dickhead is another. I understand perfectly if a woman doesn't want to take a drink I offer her or want me to take her home. But the discrimination I talked about has nothing to do with sexual violence, as far as I know. It has something to do with their attitude - anything I say is likely to be wrong, and if I consider them to be wrong, it's because I'm male and "male gender will never understand" or "your gender's behind <evil thing X>".

That means that there is a culture of rape and misogyny in America. Your gender is behind evil things. Your gender is a intricate part of that culture who's criticism you're mocking with vague straw man argument. I'm not saying all men are brute rapists, I'm saying that you have a despicable culture and you are defending it by marginalizing feminists as vapid, discriminatory idiots.

There is something fucking wrong with the world. And if you can't see that, I relly don't know what to say.