User Tag List

First 31112131415 Last

Results 121 to 130 of 189

  1. #121
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The same thing has occurred with Racism. The reason these terms are defined down is that relaxing the definition makes the term relevant in the modern age. If the only people who were, considered misogynist, racist etc.. were those who fit the original definition, then racists and misogynists would be so vanishingly rare that people would have nothing to be outraged about, and therefore no one could fund raise as effectively as they do now.

    Think about it this way, the job of the army or cops is to render themselves useless by either ending crime as we know it, or preventing any need to go to war. Obviously this is a hypothetical, but stick with me. Now there is no arguing that there is nowhere near the amount of crime there used to be, or the threats from abroad that there used to be (USSR). Despite that all we ever hear is that we need more military and police spending etc... The reason for that is that some of these people (especially the higher ups) care about their jobs more than they care about curing the social ills their professions are aimed to combat. I'm not blaming anyone here, its just the way things work.

    The same thing occurs in the civil rights and gender issues. Despite how far we've come, those who benefit from racial/gender outrage can never let the battle be over, because then they would have no job, no way to fund raise, and hardly any emotional narrative to spoon feed to their captive audience.

    In my view, the battle will never be over, as long as they can define down racism and misogyny until both are nebulous thought crimes.

    This tactic is too effective to argue on their terms. Saying things aren't as bad as they were will never sound as strong as an accusation or racism or misogyny.

    You've gotta fight fire with fire, and play their game from the other side.
    I dont believe that at all.

    Up until that you might have had a point, I dont like what you've described previously as the grievance industry and this post made a number of good points but equally I wouldnt want to lose sight of that the fact that these are real issues, some of them really serious, over stating them is a problem, understating them is too and mistating them is something else altogether than no has even begun to try and address.

    I'd also seriously question why, if it is "done", anyone would want to carry on at those particular grindstones, as opposed to doing anything else. That in itself is a question too. Maybe there's nothing else meaningful available for them to do? I've seen that in social and voluntary services too, its probably mirrored in other sorts of work too, people take up a bunch of different posts in a particular field because they are on a serious dodge, avoiding alternatives rather than being any good at, suited for their line of work.

  2. #122
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont believe that at all.

    Up until that you might have had a point, I dont like what you've described previously as the grievance industry and this post made a number of good points but equally I wouldnt want to lose sight of that the fact that these are real issues, some of them really serious, over stating them is a problem, understating them is too and mistating them is something else altogether than no has even begun to try and address.

    I'd also seriously question why, if it is "done", anyone would want to carry on at those particular grindstones, as opposed to doing anything else. That in itself is a question too. Maybe there's nothing else meaningful available for them to do? I've seen that in social and voluntary services too, its probably mirrored in other sorts of work too, people take up a bunch of different posts in a particular field because they are on a serious dodge, avoiding alternatives rather than being any good at, suited for their line of work.
    Because money matters more to some than it ever being done.

    More importantly, they'll have to find something else to motivate people to vote and donate, and they are more afraid of that than anything.

    I wish it wasn't such an effective tactic. But there is no response to it that's culturally accepted. Any disagreement makes one a moral failure.

    So fuck it. White folks will be a plurality before too long, and mens issues are going to be gaining ground.

  3. #123
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,648

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Because money matters more to some than it ever being done.

    More importantly, they'll have to find something else to motivate people to vote and donate, and they are more afraid of that than anything.
    I dont think its as simple as that. If it were they'd just follow the example of some of the more selfish and jump ship to the tea party, plenty of money in the pity the millionaires camp.

  4. #124
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I dont think its as simple as that. If it were they'd just follow the example of some of the more selfish and jump ship to the tea party, plenty of money in the pity the millionaires camp.
    And your hate blinds you.

    This convo is over. Impressed you made it this far thanks for playing.

  5. #125
    Senior Member Pseudo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4 so/sx
    Posts
    2,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    A predator's a predator.
    I agree it's predatory but say some one is feeling emotionally vulnerable and has sex with someone they normally wouldn't. Their vulnerable state is being preyed upon but that doesn't mean it's rape.

    I guess the question is how responsible are you for your impaired judgement? If you can't say yes because you are incapacitated or too inebriated to speak its very clear you can't consent even if it seemed like you would earlier. However if you can say "yes" and proposition someone for sex how much responsibility is on you partner to determine whether you really mean it? Obviously you can regicnize that someone tipsy/drunk may not be using their full judgement (and in my opinion you should stay away), but I don't think you can call it rape if they are agreeing to it (assuming you haven drug them or otherwise s coerced them). Drinking is a councious decision to impair your judgement and people have to accountable for that. If I get drunk and choose to sleep with someone I normally wouldn't that doesn't make that person a rapist


    If I get drunk an punch a window, I'm responsible.
    If I get drunk and hve sex, I'm responsible.

    Just writing that it occurred to me that a lot of the language about this is written as if women are passive and having sex done to them. That also might be a good dividing line. If you are just passive having sex done to you that would fall into rape. If you are having sex (willfully interacting in sex acts, not under cowrcion) if would think that's not rape, though it could be "taking advantage" which is still shitty.


    Doing something against your better judgement is not the same as doing something against your will.

  6. #126
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I understand what you're saying. Something that frustrates me is the redefinition of terms for ideological reasons. Misogyny meant the hatred of women in the past and that's how I've always viewed it. Calling someone a misogynist is a very serious accusation, IMO, and feminists throw it around like it's nothing. And now you say it's watered down to mean the same thing as sexism? Oh wait, the definition of sexism has been watered down, too, to making someone of the other gender uncomfortable (according to the Everyday Sexism Thread). This sort of redefining of terms is counter-productive, at best. It does not lead to understanding, it leads to confusion and arguments.
    Yeah, I get frustrated at language being changed too. It happens everywhere, not just in this context, and it adds needless bickering over terms to practically every argument. I'm not sure it's avoidable, though. For every person who thinks the dictionary definition should be followed, there's another person who thinks the most popular use should be followed (prescriptivism vs. some other word? struggling to remember my old language classes). I'm not sure if there really is a solution, beyond making sure that everyone is clear which definition is being used, as much as possible. (ex: feminist means a person who supports equal rights of men and women, according to the dictionary, but many people don't identify as feminist as they consider the word to have a different definition)

    Is there a word other than misogynist that means "sexist towards women"? Sexist is a good word too but it does get stale after a while, and it's useful to be able to specify the gender involved. I assume that's why "misogyny" has come to mean "sexist against women" rather than hatred of women. Language tends to evolve to fill a need.

    Traditional gender roles are clearly obsolete because selective pressures have changed due to our technological advancement. They were necessary for survival for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. But the thing that so many feminists fail to acknowledge or even recognize is that gender roles do not bestow privilege. They enslave both genders by their very nature.
    I agree and disagree. I don't really like the idea of privilege that some people have, where you add up all your privilege and there is some kind of ranking between "most privileged" and "less privileged" with the inference that we need to take from the top and give to the bottom.

    My view of it is more that different groups have different amounts of privilege in different situations. Things like:

    -as a white person I have privilege that I am not harassed by cops for the colour of my skin (being female helps here too, I'm guessing)
    -as a person from a Western country I have privilege that my first language is one that is near-universally useful and my home country is a place that people want to immigrate to, rather than escape from
    -as a fairly thin person I have privilege that my weight does not usually provoke hurtful comments from strangers (or non-strangers!)
    -as a fairly smart person I have privilege that no careers are really closed to me
    -as a person from a family who encouraged education, I have privilege that I have the foundation in place to teach myself anything
    -...many others, but you get the point
    -and of course I'm less privileged than other people in many other areas as well, which I won't bother whining about here, lol

    You could say that some people are "more" or "less" privileged overall by adding up the number/severity of situations where you have privilege, but I don't think that this is a useful or accurate thing to do, because people are way too complicated for that. Factors influence each other, and different personalities will respond differently to a given disadvantage (as you can immediately see by comparing siblings in a family). I think it is useful to be aware of the ways in which you are privileged, so that you can help others who didn't have the same advantages, or at least not judge them for not being as successful as you. A lot of the time "privilege" can mean "doesn't get X bad thing happening to them" and I think it's important to recognize that privilege so that you can be aware that other people's experiences might be different from yours without either of you being "wrong".

    If you've never seen X racist/sexist thing happen, it could mean that that behaviour doesn't happen, or it could mean that you're not seeing it, either because it happens when nobody else is around, or because you aren't interpreting it the same way as someone with a different set of experiences. Ex: if I got hassled at the border, I'd be like "damn, bad luck". If my brown friend gets hassled at the border (like every other time he crosses) he's probably not going to think it's luck, even though it's the same treatment that I got that day.

    I didn't know Men's Rights groups even existed until recently when someone accused me of being "MRA" (I had to google what that meant) because I dared to question the existence of patriarchy. When I looked in to what they were, I didn't stay long. I don't think I had ever seen so many hateful comments made toward women. Even in the instances where they had the semblance of a good argument, it was laced with too much misogyny (real misogyny, not the watered-down definition).
    It's too bad, because they do raise a couple really good points about areas where men/boys are disadvantaged, where improvements could be made, but then they crucify themselves by attacking feminism as a whole, and with flimsy arguments, too. It's really clear that for a lot of them it is really more about dislike of women/fear of a version of feminism that exists only in their minds than about actual mens' issues.
    It's a clip of a CBS daytime show called The Talk. They made fun of the guy who had his penis cut off and thrown into a garbage disposal by his wife. Sharon Osbourne gave a forced apology the next day, where she couldn't keep a straight face...she kept trying to hold back laughter. She said was against genital mutilation, but her facial expressions and laughter betrayed her true feelings.
    Yeah, I'm not cool with that. That kinda thing is horrific. I've never really understood why people joke about it - I've heard a lot of guys joking about that stuff too. I'm not convinced it's a specifically sexist/misandrist thing, but I agree that it's a pretty offensive thing to be joking about - on par with joking about rape, I'd say. Although I suppose relative frequency might also be relevant here - it seems like freak accidents are often joked about, whereas more common things aren't. She's pretty unlikely to offend any guys that have been mutilated like that since it hardly ever happens. Joking about rape or female genital mutilation, on the other hand, is likely to offend some of the millions of women (or their loved ones) who have been affected by them.
    I have a problem with you saying this joke was directed at the "powerful'. The guy who had his penis cut off was not Lloyd Blankfein or David Koch. The most powerful people in the world are male, but most males have very little power, if any.
    I said "historically more powerful". I'm sure you wouldn't argue that men have historically held far more power than women, although things have evened out considerably in recent years (and with the exception of a few important situations, "average" men and women are fairly equally non-powerful these days). Kinda like how white people have historically been more powerful than minorities, even things are considerably more equal these days. That kind of history takes time to die, and it also takes a better level of equality (for both sexism and racism) before the history is truly not relevant to things like how jokes are received.

    I think encouraging people to step outside of traditional gender roles (both on an individual and societal level) will go a long way towards achieving this equality, although I do think that things like physical differences, subconscious sexism/racism, and history mean that true equality will take more than just scrupulously treating everyone absolutely identically in every case. (ex: should a black person and white person be treated equally for their use of the N-word?). The effort should be more on achieving equal results, rather than strictly equal treatment, because equal treatment ignores the fact that we don't all start on equal ground. This isn't limited to gender, either - an analogous situation could be providing free lunches to kids who are starving (but not the rich kids), or a teacher spending an extra 20 minutes with the kid who's having a hard time getting that math problem (and less time with the kids who already understand).
    -end of thread-

  7. #127
    insert random title here Randomnity's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    9,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I'm very curious about this myself.

    Are 80% of the assaults being committed by 3% of men, or is it more widespread? (80/80? Certainly not. 80/40? Doubt it. 80/20? Maybe?)
    It's really hard to measure because so much is unreported (particularly non-violent, alcohol-related, or spouse/date rape), let alone convicted.

    I came across a fascinating study somewhere awhile ago showing that a tiny proportion of men (college students, I think?) admitted to raping in the past in an anonymous survey, but an alarmingly high proportion of (the same? different men from the same group?) men admitted to raping in the past when the word rape was not used, but situations which were unambiguously rape were described using other words. I can't remember the proportion in the latter case, but I remember being surprised. Not the majority but a sizable minority. If anyone knows the one I'm talking about and links it, that would be wonderful. I don't remember how rigorous the study was, but the results were interesting enough for me to remember, anyway.

    It seems like a lot of people (like the men in this survey) think that rape needs to be in a dark alleyway with a stranger who is struggling against you, even though this is the minority of rape. That's why I think posters like this might do some good.
    -end of thread-

  8. #128
    Senior Member cafe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    9w1
    Socionics
    INFj None
    Posts
    9,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bamboo View Post
    I agree with your reasoning, but if you don't mind me asking...was he really upset with you?

    I suppose there are some times I'd be upset (maybe I'm injured?) but I can't really think of them (with a girl I'm already cool being with).
    He wasn't bothered in the least and he has given consent for any future situations that may occur. I, on the other hand, would prefer that he attempt to wake me up if there is some indication that I might be making moves on him in my sleep. I'm not prone to the same kind of sleep problems he is, though, so baring my having to take some kind of drug, it's unlikely to be an issue.
    “There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
    ~ John Rogers

  9. #129
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    The consequences of sex when you're not thinking straight can include things like unplanned pregnancy, STDs, and ruined relationships, all of which easily involve other people. The first two are especially likely if being drunk leads you to forget or misuse protection. Drunk sex and drunk driving are also equivalent in that the harms are statistical, not guaranteed on an individual basis. In the case of sex, the law is involved only when actual harm results, while for driving, one can be punished just for the probability. No doubt just because it is possible.
    The things you mentioned are all indirect harms, not direct harm; it would be possible to justify any law on the basis of indirect harm by the standard you set forth, with no limiting principle outside of might (in the form politically dominant coalitions) makes right. Furthermore, the direct harm caused by drunk driving is much more likely to result in death, bodily injury, and economic damages than the self-inflicted harm of unwise sexual decisions while intoxicated.

  10. #130
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    IOh wait, the definition of sexism has been watered down, too, to making someone of the other gender uncomfortable (according to the Everyday Sexism Thread). This sort of redefining of terms is counter-productive, at best. It does not lead to understanding, it leads to confusion and arguments.
    I prefer the term "gender bias", which I take to mean treating people one way or another just because of their gender, when there is no good reason. Similarly, racial bias would be treating someone a certain way just because of their race, again without good reason.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Traditional gender roles are clearly obsolete because selective pressures have changed due to our technological advancement. They were necessary for survival for tens or hundreds of thousands of years. But the thing that so many feminists fail to acknowledge or even recognize is that gender roles do not bestow privilege. They enslave both genders by their very nature.
    Traditional distributions of labor may once have been necessary for survival, but traditional distributions of power/authority were certainly not. Though both men and women were limited by these roles, men have had the upper hand for centuries. Two adages apply: power corrupts; and greater rights come with greater responsibilities. Removing gender bias entails women taking on their share of both rights and responsibilities, and similarly sharing that power more evenly.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Think about it this way, the job of the army or cops is to render themselves useless by either ending crime as we know it, or preventing any need to go to war. Obviously this is a hypothetical, but stick with me. Now there is no arguing that there is nowhere near the amount of crime there used to be, or the threats from abroad that there used to be (USSR). Despite that all we ever hear is that we need more military and police spending etc... The reason for that is that some of these people (especially the higher ups) care about their jobs more than they care about curing the social ills their professions are aimed to combat. I'm not blaming anyone here, its just the way things work.

    The same thing occurs in the civil rights and gender issues. Despite how far we've come, those who benefit from racial/gender outrage can never let the battle be over, because then they would have no job, no way to fund raise, and hardly any emotional narrative to spoon feed to their captive audience.

    In my view, the battle will never be over, as long as they can define down racism and misogyny until both are nebulous thought crimes.
    Your analogy is good in that, however much progress we make on world peace and domestic tranquility, there will always be at least some crime, and some threat from enemies outside our border. However much progress we make on racial equality, gender equality, religious equality, etc. there will always be prejudice, and people willing to act on it in however subtle ways. We can already see cycles of addressing these "-isms" or forms of bias. We started first with racial bias, with the abolition movement. Next came women's rights/suffrage, then LGBT and rights/access for the disabled. Somewhere in there we began to address biases against the many immigrant groups who came to the US: Irish, Italians, Polish, Chinese, Latinos, etc. and of course the Native Americans who were there before all the rest.

    @Wind-Up Rex observed on another thread somewhere that this was tackling prejudice and discrimination piecemeal, one "special interest group" at a time, rather than addressing the broader issue of individual respect and equality. I told her she was right in a sense, but our diversity itself worked against that somewhat, and the piecemeal approach was what actually worked. Eventually as we bring more and more groups into the fold of the common "us" I hope we do come to look beyond these distinctions altogether, and learn to see each individual person simply for the human being he/she is.

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    The things you mentioned are all indirect harms, not direct harm; it would be possible to justify any law on the basis of indirect harm by the standard you set forth, with no limiting principle outside of might (in the form politically dominant coalitions) makes right. Furthermore, the direct harm caused by drunk driving is much more likely to result in death, bodily injury, and economic damages than the self-inflicted harm of unwise sexual decisions while intoxicated.
    You have odd definitions of direct and indirect. An unwanted pregnancy or an STD are just as unwanted as broken ribs or the forced sex act itself. In any case, the law doesn't hesitate to punish people for indirect harm. Just look at those bartenders or party hosts held accountable for the damage done by the drunk driver, or even now handgun manufacturers held accountable for shootings. I don't agree with this attempt to shift culpability, but the law does recognize harm even more indirect that my examples.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

Similar Threads

  1. "Don't be that guy" / "don't be that girl"
    By asynartetic in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 65
    Last Post: 01-27-2016, 11:21 PM
  2. Don't be that guy, please...
    By Rail Tracer in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-13-2013, 10:47 PM
  3. ISFJ girl....please don't be afraid!
    By Little Laura in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 11:55 AM
  4. BroRape Awareness: Don't be a Victim!
    By Nonsensical in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-23-2009, 10:14 PM
  5. To Be or Not to Be...That is the Question!!
    By Winds of Thor in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-11-2009, 05:06 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO