If I may ask, what do you think of people that uses words like feminism/sexism in order to back arguments that are not really related to feminism/sexism/etc.. but to their own personal/religious/political/whatever agenda? (not saying this thread is the case, neither it isn't)
There are people who use all forms of -isms as a scapegoat for why they don't get something they want, when in reality, it's because it's something else. For example, I had a co-worker at an Interfaith organization who once insisted he was laid off because he was Catholic, when the reality he did not do his job well, and there was ample evidence of that (and other employees there were Catholic and had no problems). The reality was he could not acknowledge his own poor behavior, and scapegoated discrimination instead.
That kind of behavior is dangerous, because it belittles and draws attention away from genuine acts of discrimination. So yes, if there is a woman who is clearly incompetent and she gets fired and says it's because of gender discrimination, her argument may undermine another woman who is very good at her job but IS getting fired because, say, she refuses to sleep with her boss, and her boss gets other people to believe she's playing the "feminism card"--because of people like woman#1--to delegitimize her case. (And believe me, that does happen.)
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who refuse to take responsibility for their own actions, and will place the blame on all manner of things, from other people to ideologies, and others are left to suffer for it.
But that's all the more reason why we must push for responsible use of the word "feminism"--and other discussions of civil rights efforts, civil treatment (such as how we depict people of different demographic groups in the media) and discriminatory issues. We can't allow the irresponsible to make it easy to discount legitimate discussions of these concerns.
Now, this is getting a little off topic. If you want to discuss it further, should we take it to email/another thread?
(emphasis mine)
I think I get the point, and I pretty much agree with everything you said.
I will refuse your kind offer for further discussion, I only post now and then and I can't really think on any argument to add.
For the record I never implied that women shouldn't complain if they get a raw deal because others have it worse. What I am saying is if I was a woman in the middle east and I could be stoned to death for taking off my head scarf and I saw waht others are so mad about I would be wondering "hey are you done I could use some help over here".
In other words: The message was right, the wording was just a bit off?
Because that's exactly the same: "Only those in the most dire straights have a right to complain, to them, everyone else is having it good!"
Nobody said men were oppressed but we have been getting brow beaten for the simple act of finding females attractive. Oddly enough for enjoying the feminine form we get labeled misogynists and get the "to catch a predator " treatment.
It's rarely just about "finding females attractive." There are a hell of a lot more variables that play into it. (See: what Deathquaker said about people using discrimination and/or ideologies as scapegoats to dodge accountability.)
Lastly have you ever seen how we are portrayed in media geared towards women? Where are all the strong male role models on the limetime network? Men are either cast as the stalking psycho or the incompetent husband that can't understand house work.
I can't answer this, because I refuse to argue in favor of the Lifetime channel (and the majority of television in general) not being a bad joke on many subtle and not-so-subtle levels.
That said I'm done with this thread. I think I'll find one about "gaming".
I'm actually inclined to agree, unless we're actually going to be talking about whether or not Amiri's exposed belly is an issue. (As far as I'm concerned: she's Amiri, and it's probably a deliberate taunt.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding equating feminism with misandry: Most of the time, that seems to fall into one of three categories: anecdotes, deliberate strawmen, or second-and-third-hand accounts of one or the other.
This. Bears repeating.^
Talk about thread necromancy. Personally I don't care about the amount of cheesecake in Paizo products, i like to play the game. Us, the players and the DM, decide how the game is played, not the amount of skin shown in paizo products. If it offends you then simply do not purchase these products. Use some of the older 3.5 material or move onto 4th edition.
Sex sells. In reality, humans as a whole are perverted creatures. It's not in our nature to be perfect, model citizens. At the end of the day it's our choice. We reflect back, look over our actions and ask ourselves: "Is this who we want to be?" "Does what we've done accurately reflect the person we are inside?" Sure, Paizo isn't perfect. But im still glad it's a gamer's game and not a business like the one that made 4th edition. For that i will continue to buy pathfinder content and use it in campaigns.
If Paizo can reflect on what they've accomplished and still have a clean conscience, then I can't say I don't wish them luck. Continue to take Pathfinder where you want to go.
Just remember, your fans are always watching.
Please, somebody kill this stupid thread with fire.
Regarding equating feminism with misandry: Most of the time, that seems to fall into one of three categories: anecdotes, deliberate strawmen, or second-and-third-hand accounts of one or the other.This. Bears repeating.^
Is this to say that misandry is so rare that it doesn't exist?
Nobody said men were oppressed but we have been getting brow beaten for the simple act of finding females attractive. Oddly enough for enjoying the feminine form we get labeled misogynists and get the "to catch a predator " treatment.It's rarely just about "finding females attractive." There are a hell of a lot more variables that play into it. (See: what Deathquaker said about people using discrimination and/or ideologies as scapegoats to dodge accountability.)
Lastly have you ever seen how we are portrayed in media geared towards women? Where are all the strong male role models on the limetime network? Men are either cast as the stalking psycho or the incompetent husband that can't understand house work.I can't answer this, because I refuse to argue in favor of the Lifetime channel (and the majority of television in general) not being a bad joke on many subtle and not-so-subtle levels.
Increased variables do not excuse churlish behavior on either end. And silence is often taken for acquiescence at the very least.
Is this to say that misandry is so rare that it doesn't exist?Regarding equating feminism with misandry: Most of the time, that seems to fall into one of three categories: anecdotes, deliberate strawmen, or second-and-third-hand accounts of one or the other.This. Bears repeating.^
No. It's to say that accusations of it accompany any mention of feminism so frequently, the "man-hating feminist" is a common stereotype.
Taking the writings of Andrea Dworkin and saying that she represents most feminists is akin to saying that the actions of Scott Roeder are acceptable to most anti-abortion activists.
Yet, that's what you see whenever the conservative talkers get worked up into a lather. You'll never see a "fair and balanced" (lol) discussion of anything or anyone having to do with feminism on Faux news. They say it with the same disdain they usually reserve for things like "class war" and "liberal."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as racism/feminism etc are concerned... I'll take it more seriously when those that use it as a scapegoat get called out by the people on their side. I.E. when I hear of racism in the news, I assume that it is a lie and that there is no racism, until I see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson get on the camera and say that in this particular case it is not racism. Same with any other form of -ism. Until then, my attitude is "yeah, riiiight".
ThingsWhitePeopleSay.txt
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have that failed actress Jeneane Garofalo with this lovely quote...
So, with so many sound bites like this, I can't take racism or feminism seriously.
With casual and unnecessary personal attacks like the one you made about Janeane Garofalo, it's hard to take you or your position seriously.
That may be true, but I was commenting on her career as an actress, not her as a person. There is a difference.
It doesn't matter if you're commenting on her acting career, her choice of eyewear, the color of her hair, or her voting record. The point is it's mean-spirited and irrelevant to the actual topic--the content of her quote--and it negatively colors the reader's impression of you.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in conclusion, I think the answer is not "too much", but rather "not enough, along with some beefcake for those who enjoy it."
So, in conclusion, I think the answer is not "too much", but rather "not enough, along with some beefcake for those who enjoy it."
+1
Come on...cheesecake alone is awesome, but too much of it by itself will make anyone sick. But add beefcake to the meal and it's a nice balance! ^_-
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as racism/feminism etc are concerned... I'll take it more seriously when those that use it as a scapegoat get called out by the people on their side. I.E. when I hear of racism in the news, I assume that it is a lie and that there is no racism, until I see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson get on the camera and say that in this particular case it is not racism. Same with any other form of -ism. Until then, my attitude is "yeah, riiiight".
You're destroying your own argument.
If some celebrity-mouthpiece was out yelling about anti-redhead discrimination they'd be laughed off the podium.
Accusations of sexism still sting, still have power, are still sometimes abused because sexism is a real issue which genuinely effects people's lives.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as racism/feminism etc are concerned... I'll take it more seriously when those that use it as a scapegoat get called out by the people on their side. I.E. when I hear of racism in the news, I assume that it is a lie and that there is no racism, until I see Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson get on the camera and say that in this particular case it is not racism. Same with any other form of -ism. Until then, my attitude is "yeah, riiiight".You're destroying your own argument.
If some celebrity-mouthpiece was out yelling about anti-redhead discrimination they'd be laughed off the podium.
Accusations of sexism still sting, still have power, are still sometimes abused because sexism is a real issue which genuinely effects people's lives.
Phishing sites still work, still have power, are still sometimes abused because credit card numbers are a real issue which genuinely effects people's lives.
Sexism is just another fraud. The public figures make money off it and any real sexism gets lost among the unsupported allegations leaving real victims worse off.
Your last two sentences directly contradict one and other.
If there are real victims then how can it be 'just another fraud'?
Maybe the fact that some people lie about sexism does not actually discredit genuine sexual inequality?
Maybe?
Increased variables do not excuse churlish behavior on either end.
Yes, jumping on a guy's case and calling him a "misogynist" just for finding women attractive would be, as you put it, churlish. The thing is that it's rarely, if ever, just about finding women attractive; it's about expressing one's attraction in a disrespectful manner.
Is it still a thing where racist white people think that Al Sharpton is, like, Black People Pope? Because I'm seeing it here and I thought that had been found to be too overt to fit in with modern subversive racism.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People claiming sexism or racism is a "fraud" or otherwise claiming they don't exist are... Really out there, to put it politely and not break any forum rules. Seriously, that claim is beyond ridiculous. Sexism and racism are EVERYWHERE, and I live in a country famous for having higher equality than most (Sweden). I see it every day, have seen immigrants being subject to racial slurs from both private and public institutions on a regular basis, seeing women and men treated as vastly different beings (the classic "a sexually active woman is a slut, a sexually active man is a stud" is still as relevant as ever, for example).
Those claims are a whole new category of stupid, and I assume people who advocate them either simply likes a fair bit of of sexism (and to a lesser extent, racism; racists don't usually deny being racist as much as sexists deny being sexist) or they don't know crap about the society they live in.
|
People claiming sexism or racism is a "fraud" or otherwise claiming they don't exist are... Really out there, to put it politely and not break any forum rules. Seriously, that claim is beyond ridiculous. Sexism and racism are EVERYWHERE, and I live in a country famous for having higher equality than most (Sweden).
Those claims are a whole new category of stupid, and I assume people who advocate them either simply likes a fair bit of of sexism (and to a lesser extent, racism; racists don't usually deny being racist as much as sexists deny being sexist) or they don't know crap about the society they live in.
Yes, racism and sexism do exist. But so too do false claims of racism and sexism. And to deny that is also beyond ridiculous. Hell, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have based their entire careers in the past decade or so on fanning the flames of racism in cases where it was often exceedingly minimal, if it existed at all.
Yes, racism and sexism do exist. But so too do false claims of racism and sexism. And to deny that is also beyond ridiculous. Hell, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have based their entire careers in the past decade or so on fanning the flames of racism in cases where it was often exceedingly minimal, if it existed at all.
So who, exactly, defines what accusations have and/or lack merit?
Yes, racism and sexism do exist. But so too do false claims of racism and sexism. And to deny that is also beyond ridiculous. Hell, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have based their entire careers in the past decade or so on fanning the flames of racism in cases where it was often exceedingly minimal, if it existed at all.
But nobody is saying false claims don't exist. Of course they do, nobodys saying they don't. That's the big difference to those calling sexism a "fraud" when it permeates every inch of society.
|
|
Yes, racism and sexism do exist. But so too do false claims of racism and sexism. And to deny that is also beyond ridiculous. Hell, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have based their entire careers in the past decade or so on fanning the flames of racism in cases where it was often exceedingly minimal, if it existed at all.So who, exactly, defines what accusations have and/or lack merit?
Well, the unfortunate tendency for cases involving "isms" is to assume guilt until innocence is proven. Despite the fact that the opposite is supposed to be true.
I suggest we assume innocent until proven guilty, since, you know, that's the standard for other types of criminal behavior.
Well, the unfortunate tendency for cases involving "isms" is to assume guilt until innocence is proven. Despite the fact that the opposite is supposed to be true.
I suggest we assume innocent until proven guilty, since, you know, that's the standard for other types of criminal behavior.
That doesn't really answer my question.
Let's say that the facts of an incident are known. Again, who decides whether or not anyone was actually wronged?
Just my two cents, I haven't read the whole thread, but in the Kingmaker AP *not a spoiler* you can find a leather armor suit that consists of bracers, pants and cloacks and functioned as a +2 leather armor, so its not much of strech that magic armor armor can be made to reveal the kill box at no real penalty to wearer.
OTOH, the most "striperiffic" female NPC was wearing a glammered armor and it made sense, so no complains there.
Humbly,
Yawar
So, in conclusion, I think the answer is not "too much", but rather "not enough, along with some beefcake for those who enjoy it."+1
Come on...cheesecake alone is awesome, but too much of it by itself will make anyone sick. But add beefcake to the meal and it's a nice balance! ^_-
I think we need to create a food group pyramid for cheesecake, beefcake and all things in between. Only then can there be a balanced diet of eye food, which includes protein, dairy, fruits, vegetables, and oils/fats/sugars/candy(which we still need!).
Is it still a thing where racist white people think that Al Sharpton is, like, Black People Pope? Because I'm seeing it here and I thought that had been found to be too overt to fit in with modern subversive racism.
I think I've pointed out in other threads that he's often viewed as a drunk uncle showing up at a family event. You don't necessarily want to throw him out, but do you want to keep him away from the spirits in case he causes another "incident".
People claiming sexism or racism is a "fraud" or otherwise claiming they don't exist are... Really out there, to put it politely and not break any forum rules. Seriously, that claim is beyond ridiculous. Sexism and racism are EVERYWHERE, and I live in a country famous for having higher equality than most (Sweden). I see it every day, have seen immigrants being subject to racial slurs from both private and public institutions on a regular basis, seeing women and men treated as vastly different beings (the classic "a sexually active woman is a slut, a sexually active man is a stud" is still as relevant as ever, for example).
Those claims are a whole new category of stupid, and I assume people who advocate them either simply likes a fair bit of of sexism (and to a lesser extent, racism; racists don't usually deny being racist as much as sexists deny being sexist) or they don't know crap about the society they live in.
This continues to bother me. Women have every right to enjoy sex as much as men do, with as many partners as they wish, hell, at the same time if they want. Good on her/them. The more I hear women being called sluts for such activity, the more I think it is sour grapes.
Well, the unfortunate tendency for cases involving "isms" is to assume guilt until innocence is proven. Despite the fact that the opposite is supposed to be true.
I suggest we assume innocent until proven guilty, since, you know, that's the standard for other types of criminal behavior.
That doesn't really answer my question.
Let's say that the facts of an incident are known. Again, who decides whether or not anyone was actually wronged?
Usually it's up to the individual it was aimed at.
This continues to bother me. Women have every right to enjoy sex as much as men do, with as many partners as they wish, hell, at the same time if they want. Good on her/them. The more I hear women being called sluts for such activity, the more I think it is sour grapes.
Of course women have and it bothers me to. It's better these days than it was fifty years ago, but it's still a common attitude,
Usually it's up to the individual it was aimed at.
That's what I'd think, but I've seen a surprising amount of disagreement on that count.
Wow, you completely ignored what I and others have said.
I have posted some questions, and they have been ignored. Looks like there is a double standard. Say something against the left and you get called on it. Someone on the left says something disparaging about a person on the right and nothing.
Excactly what have I ignored?
What questions are you talking about? The only thing I could find was something about affirmative action, which doesn't have anything to do with my post at all. Affirmative action is a complex matter that can take several different forms and I'm not comfortable debating how it works in a country where I don't live in a language that isn't my native. It isn't relevant to my post and some people's stupidity anyway.