Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World

[thejeff]

Icyshadow wrote:

Andrew R wrote:

I find it highly sexist to be told that having a penis makes me a "potential rapist", like calling all muslims potential terrorists to me.

You find it highly sexist because that's exactly what it is.

So women should just trust all men until proven otherwise? Don't worry about being raped, assume there is no threat. Until a particular guy rapes you, after that you can assume he's a rapist, but still the next guy has to be trusted?

Take no precautions, don't worry about being alone with them, assume nothing will happen if you get a little drunk. After all most men aren't rapists.

It's not directed at you. It's not directed at me. It's adaptive behavior. There are enough dangerous men out there, enough of them are potential rapists and you can't tell which ones until it's too late. Women who do not treat men as potential rapists, who do not take precautions are more likely to get raped.

And yes, it hurts when I get treated like that. I know I'm harmless. But unless she already knows me well, and maybe even then, whe doesn't know that.

[Icyshadow]

Did you deliberately misinterpret me? This wouldn't be the first time someone does that.

[Tordek Rumnaheim]

A good article courtesy of AS that sheds light on the distrust of strange men tangent that has emerged in this thread.

[ShinHakkaider]

Icyshadow wrote:

So just because I'm a guy I am a potential rapist threatening all women around me?

YES.

It's just like being a black man in this country. I am automatically assumed to be a hostile or potential threat to all white people around me. On the street. In elevators. In building hallways. EVERYWHERE.

Welcome to my world.

EDIT: Not playing the woe is me lottery here or whatever it's called. I'm being serious here. This is my life and probably the life that my son (who is 11 now) is going to have to grow up and deal with.

I should also ammend and say that it's not just white people who have this fear and leeryness of Black men. But most people would probably just say "Deal. That's the price you have to pay..."

[Kryzbyn]

It's a catch 22.
We keep focusing on the differences and distinctions between the races and sexes, then wonder why we don't have equality.
We won't have equality until being, say, an atheist black lesbian doesn't mean anything anymore. It's not special, she's just human like the rest of us. Or being any other combination of race, gender or creed.

[thejeff]

Icyshadow wrote:

Did you deliberately misinterpret me? This wouldn't be the first time someone does that.

I don't think so. How do you think I did? (Or were you replying to someone else?)

[Icyshadow]

ShinHakkaider wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

So just because I'm a guy I am a potential rapist threatening all women around me?

YES.

It's just like being a black man in this country. I am automatically assumed to be a hostile or potential threat to all white people around me. On the street. In elevators. In building hallways. EVERYWHERE.

Welcome to my world.

EDIT: Not playing the woe is me lottery here or whatever it's called. I'm being serious here. This is my life and probably the life that my son (who is 11 now) is going to have to grow up and deal with.

I should also amend and say that it's not just white people who have this fear and leeryness of Black men. But most people would probably just say "Deal. That's the price you have to pay..."

Hey, be glad you aren't jewish.

You'd be getting death threats in addition to the lovely stereotypes.

Then again, few of the racists here in Finland bother to see the difference.

I'm somehow dark enough to be a black man to them, and I'm closer to a tan than any other skin tone.

[thejeff]

Kryzbyn wrote:

It's a catch 22.

We keep focusing on the differences and distinctions between the races and sexes, then wonder why we don't have equality.
We won't have equality until being, say, an atheist black lesbian doesn't mean anything anymore. It's not special, she's just human like the rest of us. Or being any other combination of race, gender or creed.

Of course, if we don't focus on those differences and distinctions we'll stop making progress towards equality, because we won't be aware of the systemic issues.

[Kryzbyn]

That's why it's a catch 22.

[meatrace]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

stuff and things

*cracks knuckles*

1)Notice that I never said any of the things you're railing against in fact I specifically SPECIFICALLY said that, no, of course we can't enforce this sort of thing. Defending the fact that LGBT people are often incredibly overrepresented in mainstream media but, hey whatcha gonna do that's the free market for you, sounds a whole lot like someone denying their own privilege. Why you don't want equality I don't understand.
2)I never once, even in passing, linked zoophilia with furries. Bringing it up, insisting that I did, and then saying that my bringing it up (which I hadn't) is a strawman, is itself a strawman argument which is either hilariously ironic or an act of cowardly bullying.
3)"I don't mean to be dismissive, but shut up and stop defending your privilege"
4)Hey look, here's where you tell me I must be wrong and I have no right to argue about how much or little I'm privileged because I'm privileged.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

meatrace wrote:

And, again, as someone who someone else has asserted has a privilege, it's fundamentally not okay for me to point out the ways in which I am, in fact, underprivileged because doing so is akin to denying my privilege which has been likened, on these boards, to a physical attack or rape. Yes, trying to engage in a discussion or debate about whether or how much any group is privileged us wholly unacceptable.

Utter-f$@%ing straw horsehit from a well-beaten strawhorse. It's your claim, so prove it; search it, find it, cite it/link it. Or drop it.

Oh darn it, I guess I'm going to have to go digging to find...oh nevermind here's some evidence in the same exact post:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I hate the term privilege, because it insinuates that those with the privilege get something special, rather than other people being denied it.

I'm sorry, but tough s@+@. On top of all your other advantages, you don't get to pick the language choice too. You do get something special that others don't. Privilege doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

Since I'm privileged, you say, I don't get to be part of the conversation about being privileged. I'm telling you that the language that has been chosen only serves to divide and provoke a defensive reaction, and you're basically telling me to shut up and take my lumps.

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

So women should just trust all men until proven otherwise? Don't worry about being raped, assume there is no threat. Until a particular guy rapes you, after that you can assume he's a rapist, but still the next guy has to be trusted?

I don't mean this flippantly, how is this different than saying we should treat black people differently because they're more likely to rob us? I know, I know, that's a horrible thing to say...but statistically it's the truth (ignoring, for the moment, the tremendous socioeconomic factors that go into making that so).

I'm not offering any sort of remedy, I'm just pointing out that unfair is unfair regardless of its appearance of reasonableness.

The difference, as I see it (and this part isn't directed at you, the jeff, necessarily) is this:

If you're a white male and you're walking down the street at night and see a black guy wearing a hoodie, your negative reaction should make you, as a white male, examine your privilege. Because, reasonable or not, it's unfair to make such assumptions we should endeavor not to do so on the basis of color.

If you're a woman and you're walking down the street at night and see a man, though, you're righteous in your fear (or at least reasonable, and no one is denying this). This situation...should ALSO make the male examine his privilege because he should know better and cross the street specifically to put the woman at ease.

I'm just saying, given this paradigm, maybe we should reexamine how we "assign" the label of privileged and what we're meant to do as a remedy to it, other than to simply blame the whitest and/or malest in the immediate vicinity.

[Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal]

meatrace wrote:

I'm just saying, given this paradigm, maybe we should reexamine how we "assign" the label of privileged and what we're meant to do as a remedy to it, other than to simply blame the whitest and/or malest in the immediate vicinity.

And again, you are assuming that blame is being layed, where it is not. The statements made were not 'It's your fault', the statements made were 'This is an ongoing problem'.

[Kirth Gersen]

TanithT wrote:

You will never be at daily risk of being catcalled or touched intrusively by people who are bigger than you...

Minor nitpick: I'm male, and almost everyone is bigger than me. Most males, and a not inconsiderable proportion of females. And apparently height counts even more than race and gender, when it comes to promotions and pay, if what I'm reading is correct. Most people subconsciously assume that because I'm small, I'm also automatically incompetent at everything.

Luckily, I received an excellent public education as a kid, and always had enough to eat, which put me WAY ahead of the people who didn't. And my personal genetic dice came up with enough brain function to capitalize on that. So I'm ahead of the game in many respects, through no particular awesomeness on my part.

[meatrace]

@Ambrosia Slaad

I think you missed the overall trajectory of my anecdotes and arguments. You keep saying "privilege doesn't make you a bad person" and that I should just be conscious of my privilege. I get that. I appreciate that. But you have to appreciate that I can be conscious of my privilege...and still not change by behavior which is exactly what I'm doing.

I reserve the right to still be a jerk to people, to say what's on my mind, to tell tasteless jokes in mixed company, etc. Because, to me, it's more important that there is a freedom of expression and thought in this world than protecting anyone's feelings, even while understanding they have the right to those feelings.

Basically, I'm saying that I recognize the ways in which I'm "privileged" to use your terminology (personally I'd prefer lucky, because luck by its nature is something you can't control, unlike privilege which is loaded in the same way that conservatives use "entitled"), and I recognize the ways in which I've been unlucky, but that on the balance, complaining doesn't help much.

I'm happy to fight alongside all the underprivileged for equality and dignity, but I refuse to relinquish my right to disagree or to find distasteful their person or their lifestyles, or to speak my mind, which includes insisting we're all honest about our "privileges."

[Kirth Gersen]

Icyshadow wrote:

And how many of us live our daily lives in prison again?

In the U.S., an unprecedented proportion -- something like 1% if all adults, currently (far more than in any other country on Earth).

[thejeff]

meatrace wrote:

thejeff wrote:

So women should just trust all men until proven otherwise? Don't worry about being raped, assume there is no threat. Until a particular guy rapes you, after that you can assume he's a rapist, but still the next guy has to be trusted?

I don't mean this flippantly, how is this different than saying we should treat black people differently because they're more likely to rob us? I know, I know, that's a horrible thing to say...but statistically it's the truth (ignoring, for the moment, the tremendous socioeconomic factors that go into making that so).

I'm not offering any sort of remedy, I'm just pointing out that unfair is unfair regardless of its appearance of reasonableness.

The difference, as I see it (and this part isn't directed at you, the jeff, necessarily) is this:

If you're a white male and you're walking down the street at night and see a black guy wearing a hoodie, your negative reaction should make you, as a white male, examine your privilege. Because, reasonable or not, it's unfair to make such assumptions we should endeavor not to do so on the basis of color.

If you're a woman and you're walking down the street at night and see a man, though, you're righteous in your fear (or at least reasonable, and no one is denying this). This situation...should ALSO make the male examine his privilege because he should know better and cross the street specifically to put the woman at ease.

Note that overwhelmingly it's not "walking down the street at night and see a man" that's the problem. It's "Go on a date with a guy", or "Have one too many drinks at a party", or "Don't watch your drink closely enough".

That's the part that men really don't have to deal with.

[meatrace]

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I'm just saying, given this paradigm, maybe we should reexamine how we "assign" the label of privileged and what we're meant to do as a remedy to it, other than to simply blame the whitest and/or malest in the immediate vicinity.

And again, you are assuming that blame is being layed, where it is not. The statements made were not 'It's your fault', the statements made were 'This is an ongoing problem'.

Regardless of your words and your fine distinction, I think I speak for Andrew R as well, I've gone through this life being told everything bad is white men's fault. Regardless of whether the conversation is meant to assign blame or assess guilt, it feels like it.

And it's a shame you ignored the rest of my post, choosing instead to harp on one ill-chosen word, because I think I made some salient points.

[ciretose]

Let me wade a bit into this minefield...

As a woman, you are much more likely to get raped and sexually assaulted. The person who is likely to do this is a man, and none of these facts are, or should be, in dispute.

On the other hand, as a Man, I am more likely to just be assaulted, as in physically attacked. Further, because of societial perceptions, it is less likely anyone is going to come help me if I am assaulted.

Girls are constantly sexualized, and they attack each other vicisiously growing up around failures to meet expectations for beauty, etc...there is a ridiculously focus on attractiveness, which is largely a discussion about sex, if you think about it.

Boys are constantly challenged for domininace and physical prowess. A question I often ask my female friends when this comes up is "How many times have you been punched in the face by a stranger, or someone who may as well be a stranger."

They generally say either none or one.

My male friends, same question, very different numbers. I personally can think of 5 times this has happened to me, am usually one of the low numbers in the room.

When a man walks into a strange environment, he will often size up the room for danger.

When a woman walks into a strange environment, she will often size up the room for danger.

The source is generally, men. We should be honest about this. On the other hand, we should also be honest when saying that Men also can get the living s+## beat out of them by an alpha on a power trip...which isn't so different an intent or profile of aggressor as a rapist.

Violence, sexual or otherwise, is about power. It is someone who feels threatened asserting dominance.

Men are taught to do this physically. Women, emotionally.

But what irritates me to no end is when the fact that I don't feel safe walking down back alleys at night either is dismissed because "I'm a guy" while a woman "should" be able to walk down a back alley and feel safe.

Everyone should be able to walk everywhere and free safe. And all babies should eat and all puppies should be healthy, and grandparents should never die...

[meatrace]

thejeff wrote:

Note that overwhelmingly it's not "walking down the street at night and see a man" that's the problem. It's "Go on a date with a guy", or "Have one too many drinks at a party", or "Don't watch your drink closely enough".

That's the part that men really don't have to deal with.

As a man who was raped by a woman he was dating, I take issue with this.

Also, one of my best friends (and I don't have a whole lot) lost his virginity when he was roughly taken advantage of by a 35 year old woman at the age of 15...after being drugged.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

New study reveals why women talk more than men

Which reminds me of an old Chris Rock (I think) joke: Women get married so they'll have someone to talk to for the rest of their life while men get married so they'll never have to talk again.

Hee hee!

[evilnerf]

It astounds me that some men object to women seeing all men as potential rapists. And then blame the victims of rape by saying things like "Well, she shouldn't have gone to that party and gotten that drunk, and wore clothing that slutty. What was she thinking?!?"

Well, the answer was she was giving all guys the benefit of the doubt and look how well that turned out for her.

Please note I am not claiming anyone here ever said both those things. I'm just pointing out the inherent mixed messages that women are forced to endure.

[Liz Courts]

I think people need to take a step back away from the keyboard for a while. Relax, chill, roll some dice, and be civil to each other please.

[Krensky]

evilnerf wrote:

It astounds me that some men object to women seeing all men as potential rapists. And then blame the victims of rape by saying things like "Well, she shouldn't have gone to that party and gotten that drunk, and wore clothing that slutty. What was she thinking?!?"

Well, the answer was she was giving all guys the benefit of the doubt and look how well that turned out for her.

Please note I am not claiming anyone here ever said both those things. I'm just pointing out the inherent mixed messages that women are forced to endure.

While the 'she was asking for it' defense is reprehensible, there are times that a victim's bad choices contribute to their victimization.

If a white man dresses up in a Klan costume, walks into a bar filled with members of an african american street gang and starts calling them n******, etc and gets his ass kicked, is he totally without responsibiltiy for being assaulted? Not that he deserves it or that his assaulters did not commit a violent crime for which they should be punished, but is he blaimless?

Less extreme, two years ago I went to a midnight show of Rocky Horror. Afterwards my friends and I were walking behind two teenage girls as walked out of the theater in their very skimpy lingere. They did not put their dresses or coats back on. As they walked past the bars next to the theater and down the street at one on the morning they taunted and teased the drunken men standing around, including flashing their breasts and posing provocatively. We had called the police by now and nothing happened, but if something had happened claiming that their dress and behavior was partly responsible is rediculous?

Another, horrifically common example from when I was in college were women who had a few drinks, got dressed in incredibly skimpy and provacative clothes, and then went to party at one of the two scummy fraternities who had a well known reputation for not being gentlemen. Then complaining the next day that they were treated like sex objects by said jerks. They then got furious when people of both genders asked them why the engaged in behaviors under circumstances that gaurantee that they'd be treated like that.

[Don Juan de Cornelius]

The Honey Cone

Reposting from a similarly-themed thread (where it was cruelly deleted!) because I know Ms. Slaad also appreciates girl group soul tunes.

Also, I am sorry I bit off your ear, Samnell.

[Listens to the song and starts crying again]

[Andrew R]

Krensky wrote:

evilnerf wrote:

It astounds me that some men object to women seeing all men as potential rapists. And then blame the victims of rape by saying things like "Well, she shouldn't have gone to that party and gotten that drunk, and wore clothing that slutty. What was she thinking?!?"

Well, the answer was she was giving all guys the benefit of the doubt and look how well that turned out for her.

Please note I am not claiming anyone here ever said both those things. I'm just pointing out the inherent mixed messages that women are forced to endure.

While the 'she was asking for it' defense is reprehensible, there are times that a victim's bad choices contribute to their victimization.

If a white man dresses up in a Klan costume, walks into a bar filled with members of an african american street gang and starts calling them n******, etc and gets his ass kicked, is he totally without responsibiltiy for being assaulted? Not that he deserves it or that his assaulters did not commit a violent crime for which they should be punished, but is he blaimless?

Less extreme, two years ago I went to a midnight show of Rocky Horror. Afterwards my friends and I were walking behind two teenage girls as walked out of the theater in their very skimpy lingere. They did not put their dresses or coats back on. As they walked past the bars next to the theater and down the street at one on the morning they taunted and teased the drunken men standing around, including flashing their breasts and posing provocatively. We had called the police by now and nothing happened, but if something had happened claiming that their dress and behavior was partly responsible is rediculous?

Another, horrifically common example from when I was in college were women who had a few drinks, got dressed in incredibly skimpy and provacative clothes, and then went to party at one of the two scummy fraternities who had a well known reputation for not being gentlemen. Then complaining the next day that they were treated like sex objects...

Also ANYONE that chooses to get sloppy drunk or too drugged to function in public is an idiot. whether it is a woman raped or a man robbed beaten and killed, making yourself an easy target is just dumb as hell.

[Ross Byers]

I cleaned up some replies to posts removed earlier. I also removed some uncivil posts and the replies to them. And a deliberately incendiary post and the reply to that.

[Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal]

meatrace wrote:

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I'm just saying, given this paradigm, maybe we should reexamine how we "assign" the label of privileged and what we're meant to do as a remedy to it, other than to simply blame the whitest and/or malest in the immediate vicinity.

And again, you are assuming that blame is being layed, where it is not. The statements made were not 'It's your fault', the statements made were 'This is an ongoing problem'.

Regardless of your words and your fine distinction, I think I speak for Andrew R as well, I've gone through this life being told everything bad is white men's fault. Regardless of whether the conversation is meant to assign blame or assess guilt, it feels like it.

And it's a shame you ignored the rest of my post, choosing instead to harp on one ill-chosen word, because I think I made some salient points.

Congratulations, you made a number of salient points...

Which you then destroyed by finishing up with effectively saying 'I don't care whether you are blaming me or not, stop blaming me, it's not my fault'.

Yes, life is not milk & honey for SWM either. Yes, things get said that can be interpreted as blame. Yes, sometimes we do get blamed for things that aren't our fault. That wasn't what happened here, what happened here was that you & Andrew came in with chips on your shoulder & acted offended when they were bumped into.
You want to be able to make the jokes you want to make, to say the things you want to say. Well fine, you can make those jokes, say those statements, but get ready to deal with people responding to you acting like a dick by being called a dick.

[Andrew R]

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I'm just saying, given this paradigm, maybe we should reexamine how we "assign" the label of privileged and what we're meant to do as a remedy to it, other than to simply blame the whitest and/or malest in the immediate vicinity.

And again, you are assuming that blame is being layed, where it is not. The statements made were not 'It's your fault', the statements made were 'This is an ongoing problem'.

Regardless of your words and your fine distinction, I think I speak for Andrew R as well, I've gone through this life being told everything bad is white men's fault. Regardless of whether the conversation is meant to assign blame or assess guilt, it feels like it.

And it's a shame you ignored the rest of my post, choosing instead to harp on one ill-chosen word, because I think I made some salient points.

Congratulations, you made a number of salient points...

Which you then destroyed by finishing up with effectively saying 'I don't care whether you are blaming me or not, stop blaming me, it's not my fault'.

Yes, life is not milk & honey for SWM either. Yes, things get said that can be interpreted as blame. Yes, sometimes we do get blamed for things that aren't our fault. That wasn't what happened here, what happened here was that you & Andrew came in with chips on your shoulder & acted offended when they were bumped into.
You want to be able to make the jokes you want to make, to say the things you want to say. Well fine, you can make those jokes, say those statements, but get ready to deal with people responding to you acting like a dick by being called a dick.

It is not a matter of i want to say what i ant and not being seen as a dick. it is a matter of you can say what you want if you are the right KIND of person. How dare you speak if you are SWM but no one dares question the same words from the right kind of person.

[Ross Byers]

I realize it's really easy to argue by deciding that everyone who disagrees with you has committed some moral fault and you can therefore disregard anything they have to say.

However, it is not a good way to have a conversation anyone can learn from.

[Freehold DM]

Ross Byers wrote:

I realize it's really easy to argue by deciding that everyone who disagrees with you has committed some moral fault and you can therefore disregard anything they have to say.

However, it is not a good way to have a conversation anyone can learn from.

a monofilament wire with no handle.

[TanithT]

ciretose wrote:

Boys are constantly challenged for domininace and physical prowess. A question I often ask my female friends when this comes up is "How many times have you been punched in the face by a stranger, or someone who may as well be a stranger."

Are you *seriously* equating rape to being punched in the face? Seriously?

[meatrace]

Irnk, Dead-Eye's Prodigal wrote:

Congratulations, you made a number of salient points...
Which you then destroyed by finishing up with effectively saying 'I don't care whether you are blaming me or not, stop blaming me, it's not my fault'.

Silly me. Being a white male I'm not allowed to express my feelings in a matter, and if I do someone like you comes along and decries me for it.

No, you personally are not laying blame on me personally. But the aggregate effect of a life long incessant nattering in the media, in education, etc., FEELS like it. If we're all supposed to be aware how our actions and our words make other feel, regardless of their intent, then why are you lashing out at me for sharing those completely legitimate feelings?

[BigNorseWolf]

TanithT wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Boys are constantly challenged for dominance and physical prowess. A question I often ask my female friends when this comes up is "How many times have you been punched in the face by a stranger, or someone who may as well be a stranger."

Are you *seriously* equating rape to being punched in the face? Seriously?

He's not, and you can't.

Thats part of the problem.

Its not possible to "keep score" about who society treats worse: men or women because the differences occur in areas that don't have direct comparisons. How many punches to the face= a sexual assault is not something you can put a number to. Nor is the encouragement to stay at home vs. the encouragement to get blown up on a battlefield somewhere, the greater ability to earn obscene amounts of money at the top of the heap vs. a greater access to social services while at the bottom of it.

The idea of male privilege is flawed and ignores half the equation.

[ciretose]

TanithT wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Boys are constantly challenged for domininace and physical prowess. A question I often ask my female friends when this comes up is "How many times have you been punched in the face by a stranger, or someone who may as well be a stranger."

Are you *seriously* equating rape to being punched in the face? Seriously?

You win the missing the point olympics!

Is getting punched in the face by a stranger as bad as rape? No.

If getting your ass grabbed by a strange man as bad as bad as getting punched in the face...I've had both happen, and I didn't like either...

Is getting beaten nearly unconscious by a group of strangers an equitable comparsion...maybe, maybe not. It has happened to a couple of my friends growing up when they walked around the wrong place at the wrong time.

What about this guy? I would recommend clicking on the raw video.Where does that fall on your attempt at equivalency spectrum?

Let me explain it even more clearly with this video.

This guys other videos show he grew up to be an insecure misogynist, which isn't surprising when you consider this is what he grew up with, and frankly it isn't that unusually.

My point isn't that the 5 times I was punched in the face by a stranger for no real reason isn't the equivalent of being raped. My point is that bad things happen regardless of gender, that they are based on power dynamics, and that men don't have magic barriers that keep us safe.

We just have to pretend we do, or else people will smell weakness and assert dominance.

[|dvh|]

meatrace wrote:

Silly me. Being a white male I'm not allowed to express my feelings in a matter, and if I do someone like you comes along and decries me for it.

If expressing your opinion amounts to mansplaining that you don't like the language used in the debate because it's too "radical" for you, then no, your feelings are probably not going to be welcome in a discussion on privilege.

meatrace wrote:

No, you personally are not laying blame on me personally. But the aggregate effect of a life long incessant nattering in the media, in education, etc., FEELS like it. If we're all supposed to be aware how our actions and our words make other feel, regardless of their intent, then why are you lashing out at me for sharing those completely legitimate feelings?

Feels like it for you. Maybe you need to examine why other men feel completely fine and rational about the topic, while it's instead invoking emotional reactions from you.

Also, nattering, really? Are you sure your emotional reaction wasn't more due to an ingrained preconception before you became aware of the issue, rather than an informed conclusion after reading the literature?

[Andrew R]

|dvh| wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Silly me. Being a white male I'm not allowed to express my feelings in a matter, and if I do someone like you comes along and decries me for it.

If expressing your opinion amounts to mansplaining that you don't like the language used in the debate because it's too "radical" for you, then no, your feelings are probably not going to be welcome in a discussion on privilege.

meatrace wrote:

No, you personally are not laying blame on me personally. But the aggregate effect of a life long incessant nattering in the media, in education, etc., FEELS like it. If we're all supposed to be aware how our actions and our words make other feel, regardless of their intent, then why are you lashing out at me for sharing those completely legitimate feelings?

Feels like it for you. Maybe you need to examine why other men feel completely fine and rational about the topic, while it's instead invoking emotional reactions from you.

Also, nattering, really? Are you sure your emotional reaction wasn't more due to an ingrained preconception before you became aware of the issue, rather than an informed conclusion after reading the literature?

So your answer is "shut up white male, others are ok with this" ? Do you tell women not to "get emotional" about things that negatively effect them?

[Sebastian]

ciretose wrote:

You win the missing the point olympics!

I object. That was a silver medal in the missing the point olympics. And even if you get a gold medal, you don't win the entire olympics, you just medal in them. Sheesh.

[ciretose]

Sebastian wrote:

ciretose wrote:

You win the missing the point olympics!

I object. That was a silver medal in the missing the point olympics. And even if you get a gold medal, you don't win the entire olympics, you just medal in them. Sheesh.

Don't you start mansplaining things to me!

[meatrace]

That's basically my point about all these discussions of "privilege" BNW.
Everyone enjoys privilege in some place, in some respect. It's all a double-edged sword.

I'd just like to be able to have an open conversation where everyone is honest about the ways in which the group(s) to which they belong, be it race, creed, sex or gender, benefits and burdens them.

I'm more than happy to cop to having it easier in my life due to the circumstances of my birth: into a (barely) middle-class white family, into a prosperous economy in the richest nation on earth, etc.

Saying "well, that's true, but look at it this other way, from another perspective..." shouldn't be shouted down.

[meatrace]

|dvh| wrote:

meatrace wrote:

Silly me. Being a white male I'm not allowed to express my feelings in a matter, and if I do someone like you comes along and decries me for it.

If expressing your opinion amounts to mansplaining that you don't like the language used in the debate because it's too "radical" for you, then no, your feelings are probably not going to be welcome in a discussion on privilege.

In other words, unless I preemptively accept your conclusion on the issue, I'm not allowed to contribute to a discussion.

I haven't seen you 'round these parts before, but I'm going to ignore you until you stop telling me my opinion doesn't matter and I don't have a right to voice it.

[Ambrosia Slaad]

Icyshadow wrote:

So just because I'm a guy I am a potential rapist threatening all women around me? <snip>

Andrew R wrote:

I find it highly sexist to be told that having a penis makes me a "potential rapist" <snip>

I'm not accusing all men, or most men, or even many men of being sexual assaulters or rapists. Yeah, I think most dudes are pretty ok, even great.

But... there are way too many guys that aren't ok. Sure, they're a minority among all men, but there are still a helluva lot of 'em. And none of them wear "Hi, I'm a rapist!" name badges. I don't immediately know who are the good guys, who are the awkward/socially-inexperienced-but-good guys, who are the completely-clueless-but-still-good guys, who-are-the-a+%*##*s-but-still-good guys, who are the normally-good-but-when-they-can-get-away-with-it-bad guys, and who are the downright evil guys. So, I have to watch for clues. Some dangerous/evil dudes are easy to identify after just a little watching or interaction. But the majority of guys are complex and take more sleuthing.

I gotta be alert and focused and vigilant. Thankfully, most awkward, still inexperienced, and forever clueless good guys reveal themselves after a bit. It's a learning process for every female, and we start learning those Sense Motive and Perception skills at an early age. And there a good portion of women that find male awkwardness charming and endearing; if they're into guys, then they might casually hook up or even date them. The bell curve of guys in the middle are decent, well-intentioned good guys. I'd bet most of the guys reading this post are good guys, even the ones I provoked defensive reactions from.

The ends of the guy spectrum are tougher to sherlock. A smooth-confident-good good guy is often very similar to a smooth-confident-bad guy. Worse, there are the normally-good-but-opportunistic-bad guys who seize the initiative if I've had too much to drink, or getting used to new meds, or he realizes just how badly I really want that promotion/raise/job/emergency lift home (but not that badly), or "hey, I've just cornered her alone in the stairwell/elevator/her apartment." There are the guys who practice The Game/pick up artistry, who mix in the subtle jabs/insults with "compliments" like some seduction rope-a-dope. There are the guys at who come up wherever/whenever and offer the unsolicited/unwelcome comments on my appearance, or are too quick to "casually touch" (or outright grope), or get right up in my personal space (often when my escape routes are blocked). There are the guys-who-seem-friendly until I drop the L-bomb, or one of my friends discloses she was born with a penis too, and then it's Mr. Hyde.And then there are "Surprise!" dudes, like that until-now-"nice" uncle, or long-time friend (guys, most good girls won't/don't deliberately friend-zone you), or the literal I-never-saw-coming-catch-me-from-behind while I'm eating/shopping/talking.

If that wasn't enough, most of you are taller (more leverage/longer reach), stronger, and heavier (harder to physically dissuade or fight off). Compared to women, guys have a s@$#load more testosterone in them, and that often leads to quickness to anger and more likely physical responses. Too often women are wearing skirts, heels, and other restrictive clothing that makes defense or escape much harder.

All but the young or very naive females know the statistics on harassment, assault, and rape. And this is often our day-to-day experience. I'm sorry if it makes you defensive if I don't know you're one of the good guys, but until I can read minds or predict PKD future crimes, I have to look out for my and my female friends safety.

[meatrace]

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

And none of them wear "Hi, I'm a rapist!" name badges.

This is a great idea!

Might be a hard sell though.

[ciretose]

meatrace wrote:

That's basically my point about all these discussions of "privilege" BNW.

Everyone enjoys privilege in some place, in some respect. It's all a double-edged sword.

I'd just like to be able to have an open conversation where everyone is honest about the ways in which the group(s) to which they belong, be it race, creed, sex or gender, benefits and burdens them.

I'm more than happy to cop to having it easier in my life due to the circumstances of my birth: into a (barely) middle-class white family, into a prosperous economy in the richest nation on earth, etc.

Saying "well, that's true, but look at it this other way, from another perspective..." shouldn't be shouted down.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that being a white man is so much more awesome than being any other race or gender, at least here in the states.

There can be absolutely no debate.

What bothers me is that if you are trying to change behaviors of men, and you start the conversation by saying they have nothing to contribute to the conversation, they leave the conversation and you are left talking to yourself.

Which isn't a very productive approach if you are trying to change the behavior of men.

If what I say is dismissed as "mansplaining", that might win you the clever olympics but it isn't going to make me want to engage with you in anything but an adversarial conversation...ironic since the problem is largely stemming from insecurity with power dynamics.

In a couple generations, the fact that women are going to be more educated and therefore more qualified is going to lead to a very interesting power shift. That is how things will change.

Not with passive aggressive broad generalizations (or generalizations about broads for that matter...)

[|dvh|]

Andrew R wrote:

So your answer is "shut up white male, others are ok with this"?

No.

Andrew R wrote:

Do you tell women not to "get emotional" about things that negatively effect them?

No.

[Don Juan de Doodlebug]

meatrace wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

And none of them wear "Hi, I'm a rapist!" name badges.

This is a great idea!

Might be a hard sell though.

Check out the Mr. Show sketch in the "15 Rape Jokes That Work" link that is up above somewhere.

--

Never mind, I guess you already saw it.

[|dvh|]

meatrace wrote:

In other words, unless I preemptively accept your conclusion on the issue, I'm not allowed to contribute to a discussion.

No, I just hope that you don't pre-emptively dismiss it, either.

meatrace wrote:

I haven't seen you 'round these parts before, but I'm going to ignore you until you stop telling me my opinion doesn't matter and I don't have a right to voice it.

I didn't.

[meatrace]

|dvh| wrote:

meatrace wrote:

In other words, unless I preemptively accept your conclusion on the issue, I'm not allowed to contribute to a discussion.

No, I just hope that you don't pre-emptively dismiss it, either.

meatrace wrote:

I haven't seen you 'round these parts before, but I'm going to ignore you until you stop telling me my opinion doesn't matter and I don't have a right to voice it.

I didn't.

1)You don't have to hope, you have my words to go by.

2) Yes, you did. And I quote:
"Feels like it for you. Maybe you need to examine why other men feel completely fine and rational about the topic, while it's instead invoking emotional reactions from you."

Since I disagree with you, I must be wrong. I should examine yadda yadda. How about not assuming I haven't. Saying that I need to be rational...when we're fundamentally talking about how things make us feel?
/boggle

[Ambrosia Slaad]

meatrace wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

stuff and things

*cracks knuckles* <stuff snipped>

I've been working on a reply to this, but I keep deleting most of it. I admit I could be more precise in my posts, and some of my responses did carry heat from my anger and frustration. It's also apparent that you, Meatrace, and I both wield and process language differently from each other, sometimes very differently. For all my imperfections (lord, what a list), my intent was not to obfuscate or mislead or frustrate or troll.

I'm not denying that I too have privilege, and benefited from it in ways apparent and not (to me). I'm white; I generally pass as straight. I know both those things have sometimes, even often, given me an edge over "out" (or mistaken as out) people and people with darker skin. Privilege alone does not make me, or you, a bad person. If we abuse that privilege, it's bad. If we lack empathy and consideration for those without this privilege, it's bad. If we say that those without privilege only achieved their success because the system is rigged to bring you and I down, that's bad. And if we slip and abuse our privilege, that mistake does not mean we are automatically bad.

---

meatrace wrote:

Hey look, here's where you tell me I must be wrong and I have no right to argue about how much or little I'm privileged because I'm privileged.

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

meatrace wrote:

And, again, as someone who someone else has asserted has a privilege, it's fundamentally not okay for me to point out the ways in which I am, in fact, underprivileged because doing so is akin to denying my privilege which has been likened, on these boards, to a physical attack or rape. Yes, trying to engage in a discussion or debate about whether or how much any group is privileged us wholly unacceptable.

Utter-f$@%ing straw horsehit from a well-beaten strawhorse. It's your claim, so prove it; search it, find it, cite it/link it. Or drop it.

Oh darn it, I guess I'm going to have to go digging to find...oh nevermind here's some evidence in the same exact post:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

meatrace wrote:

I hate the term privilege, because it insinuates that those with the privilege get something special, rather than other people being denied it.

I'm sorry, but tough s##$. On top of all your other advantages, you don't get to pick the language choice too. You do get something special that others don't. Privilege doesn't automatically make you a bad person.

Yeah, I probably should have been less confrontational and more precise in that post. And for that, I apologize.

But I did deliberately choose "you don't get to pick the language choice too." That doesn't mean I want to exclude you (or other guys) from the discussion. That doesn't mean I just want to dictate terms. What I'm saying as that in this particular point, male privilege vs. female, historically advantaged males don't get to choose what words we are forced/limited to use. Privilege is an accurate term, even if it makes people defensive, even if it has become (and will be) used partisanly. If I were talking about racism with a non-white person, as the historically advantaged ethnicity, I don't get to tell them not to use the word "bigot" or "discrimination" or "white privilege." I have lesbian, gay, and bi (and hetero) friends who hate the term cisgendered; it makes them defensive, and they believe it is deliberately provocative and political. But it's accurate; cisgendered people shouldn't get to set the language choice with trans and intersex people discussing their equality, because cisgendered people historically have held (and hold) the advantages and have abused (and still abuse) that power. In these instances, the historically disadvantaged wielding the word choice helps prevent euphemisms, softening the realities, and dog whistling. Yes, that means the discussion will get heated, and people will get angry and defensive. Otherism and equality needs to be broken down, sometimes harshly. That's all I'm trying to say with that point.

You and other men have to be part of the discussion on male privilege, because women can't solve the problem alone (and shouldn't).