meatrace,
Ok. You don't like being called cisgendered. What should non-trans people be called? If we're calling transgendered people "transgendered", we need to have something to call non-trans people rather than "normal".
Why? What's wrong with normal?
Normal is not in any way shape or form a label of morality, it's one of statistics and biology. I mean, if only those of the statistically abnormal group would embrace that abnormality. Oh, wait, they do, they use the words queer, genderqueer, etc.
There's dozens of words used to describe the 4-8% of the population that are LGBT, and the variety of terms acceptable is inversely proportional to the amount of people in various subsets. But the other 92-96% of us, I'm pretty sure, can agree that "normal" is just fine.
|
Ok. You don't like being called cisgendered. What should non-trans people be called? If we're calling transgendered people "transgendered", we need to have something to call non-trans people rather than "normal".
Apparently, calling them "non-trans" works quite well ;-)
If transgendered people do not like being called "transgendered", should we use the word nevertheless when talking with them or about them ?
The same courtesy should extend to non-trans people who do not like being called cisgendered.
References to non-existent movies aside, you can study how the affected minorities do with it still in place. If they're still being held back, even counting the effects of the policy, it's still necessary.
As someone who majored in Statistics, I am quite amazed that if a policy has no measurable result, then it should be strengthened.
This sounds like dogma rather than an unbiased assessment of reality.
I will provide it when someone can back up the claim my post was toward Ambrosia Slaad :)As a (mostly) lurker in this thread, I'm going to need some quotes to back up the claim that Ambrosia Slaad has indicated privileged = aligned with evil in this thread.
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"
{notices donkey ears and tail for the first time)} Rats. How did I missing seeing that symbol of the Coachman? :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to go rally against my employer for a couple of hours, so, if someone posts definitive data that makes me lose money and I am not around, I am not avoiding fulfilling my obligations.
Be back tonight or tomorrow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will provide it when someone can back up the claim my post was toward Ambrosia Slaad :)As a (mostly) lurker in this thread, I'm going to need some quotes to back up the claim that Ambrosia Slaad has indicated privileged = aligned with evil in this thread.short for time right now, but this:
That said, when you approach the conversation with the assumption that anyone who was privileged = aligned with evil...Wait, what? At what point in this thread, any thread, did I ever take that approach or imply that? I've repeatedly made a very specific point of saying those who have (white/straight/male/whatevs) privilege, does not are not evil, or "aligned with evil?"You know, a less confrontational approach to this might have been:
"I didn't mean you, Ambrosia Slaad.
I was referring to posts like this one <insert example here> from other posters."Or you could make it clear that you weren't referring to anyone in this thread, but just making a general statement.
Of course, if you don't want to be less confrontational, please proceed ...
Actually, from what I read here, AS is the overly confrontational one. Automatically thinking that the "you" in what is clearly a general sentence "when you ..." means "you AS" seems a bit paranoid to me. Of course, rushed reading and other extenuating circumstances likely exist.
However, asking the one wrongfully accused (here, Ciretose) to make efforts to mend up the situation is quite unfair.
meatrace,
Ok. You don't like being called cisgendered. What should non-trans people be called? If we're calling transgendered people "transgendered", we need to have something to call non-trans people rather than "normal".Why? What's wrong with normal?
Normal is not in any way shape or form a label of morality, it's one of statistics and biology. I mean, if only those of the statistically abnormal group would embrace that abnormality. Oh, wait, they do, they use the words queer, genderqueer, etc.
There's dozens of words used to describe the 4-8% of the population that are LGBT, and the variety of terms acceptable is inversely proportional to the amount of people in various subsets. But the other 92-96% of us, I'm pretty sure, can agree that "normal" is just fine.
But for us LGBT folks, as we are not "normal," then we must therefore be abnormal (as you note). You maintain privilege is a divisive term; if any straight person or group referred to LGBT people as abnormal (or deviant), they'd be pilloried. LGBT "abnormality" has been used as a convenient excuse and label to tar & feather them as evil, corrupting, and mentally unbalanced. And while some LGBT people maintain "queer" has been reclaimed from its negative connotations, many would equally clam it has not (perhaps somewhat similar the N-word among the black community). This also circles back to why I'm uncomfortable with the advantaged majority, no matter how well meaning, choosing the language the disadvantage minority should use.
You know, a less confrontational approach to this might have been:
"I didn't mean you, Ambrosia Slaad.
I was referring to posts like this one <insert example here> from other posters."Or you could make it clear that you weren't referring to anyone in this thread, but just making a general statement.
Of course, if you don't want to be less confrontational, please proceed ...
Actually, from what I read here, AS is the overly confrontational one. Automatically thinking that the "you" in what is clearly a general sentence "when you ..." means "you AS" seems a bit paranoid to me. Of course, rushed reading and other extenuating circumstances likely exist.
However, asking the one wrongfully accused (here, Ciretose) to make efforts to mend up the situation is quite unfair.
King of Swamp Castle: "Please! This is supposed to be a civil discussion. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who."
Look, I don't feel insulted or wronged by Ciretose. Maybe I am partially to blame for assuming that he meant me, but at least two other posters read the same meaning. So maybe we can all just agree to try to redouble our efforts to eschew obfuscation, especially in fast-moving, often heated discussions?
But for us LGBT folks, as we are not "normal," then we must therefore be abnormal (as you note). You maintain privilege is a divisive term; if any straight person or group referred to LGBT people as abnormal (or deviant), they'd be pilloried. LGBT "abnormality" has been used as a convenient excuse and label to tar & feather them as evil, corrupting, and mentally unbalanced. And while some LGBT people maintain "queer" has been reclaimed from its negative connotations, many would equally clam it has not (like the N-word among the black community). This also circles back to why I'm uncomfortable with the advantaged majority, no matter how well meaning, choosing the language the disadvantage minority should use.
So, let me get this straight:
Because I'm privileged (which I can't participate in a discussion about, I just am and have to shut up about it) I don't get any say in the language that is used about my group, which is an overwhelming majority of human beings. It's okay for you to use derogatory terms because you're a minority? Fuh-wuh?Can you imagine if your census came and the race choices were "Hispanic/Latino, Black/African-American, Asian, American Indian/Native American, Honkey." Yeah. Letting the minority choose what they get to call the majority is a bad idea. Why can't both sides choose their own terms?
So, if you decided an appropriate term for normal gendered people was "worthless scum f%$*" I'd just have to take my lumps.
I'm not responsible for silly in-fighting in your community over acceptance of the term queer. Nor am I responsible (or even understanding) of your unwillingness to be labeled as weird or abnormal. I'm a weird motherf!!&er! Embrace it!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
White is not "normal" except maybe in specific European regions. Heterosexuality is, though.
So what if LGBT is abnormal. Geeks are abnormal. I'm a Polok. Sometime my way of thinking is abnormal.
Have you guys seen PCU, where all the different factions are having a pissing contest on who has it the worst?
Let's not devolve to that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
meatrace,
We could also call heterosexuality normal and probably get away with calling being white normal just about. I'm sure you can't see any problems with doing that. It certainly won't marginalise people with a history of being poorly treated and dicriminated againt, will it?
Heterosexuality is normal. It's normative behavior.
Being white isn't behavior at all, and white people aren't even a slim majority on this planet.It's also telling that you use the word "white". Which I don't object to, but think of the implications of white. Blank. Blank slate. Boring. Plain. It's almost as bad in itself as saying normal.
If we're not going to call behavior abnormal (again, not a moral judgement) because it might hurt people's feelings, then we can't call ANYTHING abnormal.
I have reversed circadian rhythms, which is abnormal. I have abnormally high blood pressure and cholesterol, to the point I have to take medication. I have what I'm sure many would contend is an abnormally high tolerance for spice in food.
Does anyone here have an objection to the statement that being born blind is often due to genetic abnormality? Notice I didn't say defect. LGBT people are not defective, which denotes lack of quality, they are fully functional. While I will grant that, historically, blind children have been the victims of abuse, I don't think the status quo in western civilization is to persecute them, despite being admittedly abnormal. Even a hero of mine Dan Savage says "While homosexuality is a naturally occurring abnormality, I'll cheerfully admit that it is an abnormality."
/shrug
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people who go to parties of any kind should have a reasonable expectation not to get raped. No matter what they're wearing.
The women are responsible for their actions insofar as they chose to attend a rowdy party. They are not responsible for what happened to them there while they are passed out.
Are you saying they are responsible because they didn't research the party well enough before going?
I don't want to live in a country where a person can go somewhere expecting to have a good time, have something horrible to them and have people like you saying, "Well she should have known better! The Men there wild animals and therefor she is partially at fault."
They may show poor judgement, yes but responsibility? No.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Still more than 50% of London (not that that's really relevant).
But if you're used to being called things like abomination, unnatural, freak, adding abnormal all the f~@%ing time is not a good thing. How much f!%&ing empathy do you have to have to realise that further otherising people who are already marginalised, insulted and generally treated worse than shit is a bad thing?
How is being called cisgendered a problem exactly? If it's a problem, perhaps being called transgendered is also a problem to them and you're making things worse without even thinking about it? Good grief, I know I'm not the most observant or empathetic person on the planet but is that really so difficult to understand?
EDIT: And, meat, for the record, I'm probably pastier than my avatar.
Still more than 50% of London (not that that's really relevant).
But if you're used to being called things like abomination, unnatural, freak, adding abnormal all the f~*+ing time is not a good thing. How much f#!@ing empathy do you have to have to realise that further otherising people who are already marginalised, insulted and generally treated worse than s!#% is a bad thing?
How is being called cisgendered a problem exactly? If it's a problem, perhaps being called transgendered is also a problem to them and you're making things worse without even thinking about it? Good grief, I know I'm not the most observant or empathetic person on the planet but is that really so difficult to understand?
EDIT: And, meat, for the record, I'm probably pastier than my avatar.
Did you just have an aneurism before posting this? I can barely comprehend it. I'll nonetheless endeavor to respond.
I have no idea what the comment is about London.
I enjoy being called those things, because there's nothing worse than being normal and boring. But I'm not saying we adopt the term "abomination" or "unnatural freak" as the official term for the LGBT community. Let them pick their own word.
I don't particularly like the term trans either. I didn't adopt that term. I'm happy to use something else. Suggestions?
And for the record, so am I. You edited it, but I'm still curious what a "highie" is.
|
|
Still more than 50% of London (not that that's really relevant).
But if you're used to being called things like abomination, unnatural, freak, adding abnormal all the f~*+ing time is not a good thing. How much f#!@ing empathy do you have to have to realise that further otherising people who are already marginalised, insulted and generally treated worse than s!#% is a bad thing?
How is being called cisgendered a problem exactly? If it's a problem, perhaps being called transgendered is also a problem to them and you're making things worse without even thinking about it? Good grief, I know I'm not the most observant or empathetic person on the planet but is that really so difficult to understand?
EDIT: And, meat, for the record, I'm probably pastier than my avatar.
Did you just have an aneurism before posting this? I can barely comprehend it. I'll nonetheless endeavor to respond.
I have no idea what the comment is about London.
I enjoy being called those things, because there's nothing worse than being normal and boring. But I'm not saying we adopt the term "abomination" or "unnatural freak" as the official term for the LGBT community. Let them pick their own word.
I don't particularly like the term trans either. I didn't adopt that term. I'm happy to use something else. Suggestions?
And for the record, so am I. You edited it, but I'm still curious what a "highie" is.
The London comment was to kryzbyn who I was originally replying to and forgot to delete.
The 'highie' was an attempt at humour referencing your high-blood pressure and using it to label you. In retrospect (i.e. five seconds thought) it was a stupid-arse thing to do, so I deleted it.
And yes, quite possibly that rant was a little incoherent. I just don't see how further labelling the out group and excluding them which is what calling people like us normal (which as I'm sure you'll admit is rather bizarre in itself) is not seen as a bad thing. The majority needs to be more careful of the minority for the same reason an elephanrt has to be more careful around a mouse than vice versa.
How is cisgendered a derogatory term? On the level of "Honkey" or "worthless scum f#!!"?
Queer on the other hand was definitely broadly used as an insult, along with most other terms for homosexuals. That's...
Your post is really bonkers.
The message I take is "hey, I wouldn't like to be labeled by others, so you should respect that and allow yourself to be labeled by others"I mean really.
And let's take this to a crazy place. Left handed people are the minority. Not so much of a minority that I'd call them "abnormal" (they're like 15-20% of people) but a minority. If I "identify" as right-handed, that insinuates the opposite is left-handed. Left-handed means sinister (literally, look it up). So by saying that I'm right-handed (right means just and good and correct) I'm saying everyone else is sinister.
No, normal is fine. Homosexuality IS an abnormality. A naturally-occuring abnormality. As is, I imagine, everything else in the LGBT spectrum.
But if I had to pick another term, I'd say I quite like heteronormative. It has some unwanted baggage, like association with procreation and nuclear family.
And yes, quite possibly that rant was a little incoherent. I just don't see how further labelling the out group and excluding them which is what calling people like us normal (which as I'm sure you'll admit is rather bizarre in itself) is not seen as a bad thing. The majority needs...
There are ways in which I'm very normal. There are ways in which I'm very weird. It's all good.
The majority needs to watch out for the minority. Sure. I get that. But rearranging the language and refusing to use perfectly functional words because it might hurt someone's feewings. Eff that.
I hear some people don't like homosexuality! That's weird, huh?
I don't. But, I don't care if other people do. They're not hurting me in any way.
It might. Anyone know if Michigan's state universities overly represented minorities?I'll bet $20 they weren't.
I know that within the state, U of M is the rich white guy University. (It's actually in Ann Arbor, which is like San Francisco for Michigan, though.) There are a few less prominent and private universities that are doubtless even more so, but there are limits on what a public institution can get away with. It's a bit infamous for having a subpar undergrad program that people go to just to get the cachet of a U of M degree. Or because they're football fanatics and in-state U of M is the preferred team. (I'm not kidding; I know people who made that choice.)
All of which is to say that I don't know but your money's probably very safe.
One more thing: Michigan doesn't really have a state university system like California does. U of M is one of several state universities, but they're administratively separate and each has independent admissions. I applied, at different times, to MSU (Michigan State, in East Lansing) and CMU (Central Michigan, in Mount Pleasant) but my acceptance to each didn't transfer over. They do their own things.
So looking at the affirmative action program and its results in one place doesn't tell us much about it elsewhere. I understand in California, and perhaps other states, you apply to the entire system and state preferences for location but don't get any promises about where they find a spot for you.
But for us LGBT folks, as we are not "normal," then we must therefore be abnormal (as you note). You maintain privilege is a divisive term; if any straight person or group referred to LGBT people as abnormal (or deviant), they'd be pilloried. LGBT "abnormality" has been used as a convenient excuse and label to tar & feather them as evil, corrupting, and mentally unbalanced. And while some LGBT people maintain "queer" has been reclaimed from its negative connotations, many would equally clam it has not (like the N-word among the black community). This also circles back to why I'm uncomfortable with the advantaged majority, no matter how well meaning, choosing the language the disadvantage minority should use.So, let me get this straight:
Because I'm privileged (which I can't participate in a discussion about, I just am and have to shut up about it) I don't get any say in the language that is used about my group, which is an overwhelming majority of human beings. It's okay for you to use derogatory terms because you're a minority? Fuh-wuh?
Full stop. To repeat: You, as a stakeholder, are/should be welcomed at the discussion and encouraged to participate. However, I maintain that: the advantaged majority attempting to tell the disadvantaged minority what language they can use comes across as attempts to re-frame the discussion into more euphemistic and favorable terms for that majority. It doesn't matter what your intent is, it is immediately disempowering and alienating to that minority. Yeah, I've agreed privilege (like entitled) is politically charged, divisive, and harsh; whether I agree or not, the evidence of your and others' defensive reactions is pretty convincing proof. But...
Historically, those who build society and run it shape and control it though many ways, including language. I still maintain that advantaged majority in this case is big enough and tough enough to take a little bruising to their entrenched PoV, especially when I keep f@*@ing repeating that having privilege of any sort Does Not Make You A Bad Person. And you just f&++ing argued that LGBT people (disadvantaged minority) should just accept the label of queer or abnormal of the advantaged majority (hetero people).
Why can't both sides choose their own terms?
'Cause then the argument would be even more muddied and inflammatory than it is here? Words are Power in the society, and the advntaged majority has more ways, means, and sustainability to wield that Power. And they have demonstrated in the past, and now, that they are not hesitant to use it.
I'm not responsible for silly in-fighting in your community over acceptance of the term queer. Nor am I responsible (or even understanding) of your unwillingness to be labeled as weird or abnormal.... Embrace it!
I anxiously await your attempts to confront various ethnic groups or individuals as a white dude and start telling them what to call themselves. "It's just a word. Embrace it!"
No, normal is fine. Homosexuality IS an abnormality. A naturally-occuring abnormality. As is, I imagine, everything else in the LGBT spectrum.
Depending upon definition of abnormality used. According to some definitions yes, according to others, not. Brings lots of problems. Implies being wrong or worse when used in casual speech.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This time I am talking to AS.
The problem being that the disadvantaged person telling the advantaged person what language they can use also comes across as attempting to re-frame the discussion to something more euphemistic and favorable terms for them.
Because that is exactly what both sides are doing.
You just aren't admitting it right now, which is disingenuous.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I anxiously await your attempts to confront various ethnic groups or individuals as a white dude and start telling them what to call themselves. "It's just a word. Embrace it!"
I can only find humor in the fact that you continue to pull out of my posts the exact opposite of what I've said.
You're insisting that disadvantaged minority gets to dictate all terms in any discussion. That's absolutely absurd.
You call yourself what you want. I'm happy to abide by it. Show me the same respect.
I don't particularly like the term trans either. I didn't adopt that term. I'm happy to use something else. Suggestions?
As someone natal to their gender, you don't get to tell T* people what to call themselves. And Trans is more inclusive than Transgender or Transsexual. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I repeat: tough shit.
Especially after you keep telling everyone you don't want to me labelled as privelege, but you want others to accept Meatrace brandTM labels like queer, abnormal, or trans even after being repeatedly informed that those words were historically used as slurs.
I don't particularly like the term trans either. I didn't adopt that term. I'm happy to use something else. Suggestions?As someone natal to their gender, you don't get to tell T* people what to call themselves. And Trans is more inclusive than Transgender or Transsexual. I'm sorry you don't like it, but I repeat: tough s#!*.
Especially after you keep telling everyone you don't want to me labelled as privelege, but you want others to accept Meatrace brandTM labels like queer, abnormal, or trans even after being repeatedly informed that those words were historically used as slurs.
Please listen to yourself.
Pause. Take a deep breath.You're, once again, taking out of my post the exact opposite of what I said.
What you quoted was a response to Paul Watson that said *ahem*
"How is being called cisgendered a problem exactly? If it's a problem, perhaps being called transgendered is also a problem to them and you're making things worse without even thinking about it? Good grief, I know I'm not the most observant or empathetic person on the planet but is that really so difficult to understand?"
So here, PW is saying that calling someone transgender could, in fact, be a problem and insulting to them.
In the post you quote, I am agreeing and saying that I will happily abide by whatever terminology they prefer. Which is, I'm sure you'll agree the exact opposite of asserting that my preferred terminology for them be used.
I rest my case.
This time I am talking to AS.
The problem being that the disadvantaged person telling the advantaged person what language they can use also comes across as attempting to re-frame the discussion to something more euphemistic and favorable terms for them.
Because that is exactly what both sides are doing.
You just aren't admitting it right now, which is disingenuous.
Is the 4%-8% minority allowed to bring weapons stronger than Nerf to the fight? That majority has to control the minority's words too? Yeah, word choice selection can be misused and abused by the minority. But the majority has already done, and continues to do so right in this very thread. Who is being disingenuous here?
You're, once again, taking out of my post the exact opposite of what I said.
What you quoted was a response to Paul Watson that said *ahem*
"How is being called cisgendered a problem exactly? If it's a problem, perhaps being called transgendered is also a problem to them and you're making things worse without even thinking about it? Good grief, I know I'm not the most observant or empathetic person on the planet but is that really so difficult to understand?"So here, PW is saying that calling someone transgender could, in fact, be a problem and insulting to them.
In the post you quote, I am agreeing and saying that I will happily abide by whatever terminology they prefer. Which is, I'm sure you'll agree the exact opposite of asserting that my preferred terminology for them be used.
I rest my case.
But you've also repeated that others should accept your labels of abnormal and queer. And transgender is a primarily a problem label only when used by members of the LGBT community to describe T folk; you also said you don't care about infighting about labels within the LGBT community. Your position now comes across as trying to have it both ways.
Please re-read what you have been posting and try to perceive how your own words come across to the minorities being discussed.
Apparently, minorities not agreeing to all the majority's preconditions before, and dictated terms after, sitting down at the negotiating table makes the minority unreasonable. Darn me for being uppity![/sarcasm]
But you've also repeated that others should accept your labels of abnormal and queer. And transgender is a primarily a problem label only when used by members of the LGBT community to describe T folk; you also said you don't care about infighting about labels within the LGBT community. Your position now comes across as trying to have it both ways.
Please re-read what you have been posting and try to perceive how your own words come across to the minorities being discussed.
I will restate my opinions and clarify, since you are apparently confused:
1)I don't care what people call themselves. I'll happily refer to them however they wish.
2)I never said that people should accept "my labels", I merely expressed confusion as to the queer label, and why some wouldn't but some would embrace that label. Big difference. See #1. I don't care.
3)What I would like is to have some agreement on terms. Since no two T*(is that what you're using now? that's cool. Again, I don't care.) people are going to agree on what is or isn't acceptable/preferred/offensive, I'd just like to know what I can use without causing offense. Since this seems impossible:
4)If I use a term that bothers someone individually, I'd prefer they just say so rather than getting upset. However, they should also recognize that when speaking of/to a group I'm going to use the most common term that a)is recognizable and b)offends least. Trans seems to be that term at the moment. That could change tomorrow.
5)I've not said anyone should accept a label of abnormal. That's an insinuation you insist upon based on my preferred label. You can call yourself whatever you like. See #1 and #2.
Apparently, minorities not agreeing to all the majority's preconditions before, and dictated terms after, sitting down at the negotiating table makes the minority unreasonable. Darn me for being uppity![/sarcasm]
We're saying "Let's all sit down at a table as equals."
And you're saying "Yes, and as equals, we must dictate the terms."My "preconditions" are reciprocal respect. Refusing to reciprocate respect is, indeed, unreasonable.
|
|
This time I am talking to AS.
The problem being that the disadvantaged person telling the advantaged person what language they can use also comes across as attempting to re-frame the discussion to something more euphemistic and favorable terms for them.
Because that is exactly what both sides are doing.
You just aren't admitting it right now, which is disingenuous.
Is the 4%-8% minority allowed to bring weapons stronger than Nerf to the fight? That majority has to control the minority's words too? Yeah, word choice selection can be misused and abused by the minority. But the majority has already done, and continues to do so right in this very thread. Who is being disingenuous here?
I am simply pointing out that you are also trying to frame the debate by dictating the language of the debate. Both sides are.
Which is exactly what I said.
If the minority brings guns to a knife fight, do they expect the Majority to simply say "Well, they are in the minority, so I guess it is fair..."
You aren't going to successfully argue for equality while demanding inequality.
It isn't that you are wrong (If you actually read what I said earlier rather than paraphrasing you would realize I don't disagree with most of what your saying) but it doesn't matter if you are right if you've already been tuned out by the very people you are trying to get the information to.
Do you know why Gays and Lesbians are better off now than 10 years ago?
Neil Patrick Harris.
Not him entirely or even specifically of course, but conceptually how can you oppress Doogie Howser? Or Gandalf? Or anyone else you suddenly like and relate to.
Same with Jackie Robinson, Sidney Poitier, etc...
Walking up to someone who is abusing power and pretending you are in charge enough to dictate terms gets you laughed at and dismissed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The issue I'm having with the "Me Too"-ism from a lot of the guys is that we are using men trying to knit and Brony-dom as counter-examples to women trying not to get sexually harassed in an industry. I'm sorry, but as bad as I feel for bronies and their ilk, I don't find it as high of a priority at the moment.
Let's be frank. Yes, sexual harassment can happen to guys and it is bad that it does and needs to be addressed with seriousness and respect. This is coming from a guy that had a woman that wanted to "peg" me stalk me for a good 6 months. It is no laughing matter. But the truth is that those incidents are more rare than a woman having to worry about sexual harassment. This is a norm in some industries unfortunately. I have heard all kinds of horror stories from my lady friends in both the video game industry and in the hobby and many of these are incidents guys don't have to worry about facing when coming in. Yes, a guy can get harassed in a group or in the video game industry. But the key difference is that it's not an expectation. And it really shouldn't it be for anyone of any race or gender.
In a perfect world, no one should have to expect harassment from their co-workers or be judged by employers on their differences. Personally, I don't like Affirmative Action. I'd rather be hired on my merits as a worker than because I'm Hispanic. But the sad truth is that there is still a great amount of bias in the work industry, where I have been told by co-workers and ex employees that they honestly thought I was the janitorial help or an illegal immigrant. I actually overheard one employer I had years ago saying that "this wetback must've falsified his social security card". This was in 2011. I can't speak Spanish. In fact, my parents made a full on effort to only teach me English because they didn't want anyone to assume I was an illegal immigrant and yet it STILL happens. Don't even get me started about the time a guy tried to pick me up from a local Home Depot for work. So unfortunately, I still have to rely on Affirmative Action because it's currently the only way to ensure I have any semblance of equal footing. I'd rather we change our culture here in regards to minorities and I feel that in a decade or so, it will get good enough to where we can probably remove affirmative action. But unfortunately, that time isn't now and until we have a better solution, this is our imperfect plan for an imperfect world.
I can understand what Andrew and them are saying, because as I've seen from oppressed individuals, there can be this backlash against people regarded as their oppressors that is just as bad. I can't tell you how often I've had my white friend Russel get picked on by black kids in elementary school because they were taught by their parents not to trust white people. I don't want that to happen in this case and we do need to be mindful about that when we want to find a solution to help people out. We can start by not alienating supporters with demeaning buzzwords. It's why when I have my anti-racist rants, I avoid obvious terms like "honkey" and what-have-you. So that is something we need to be conscious of.
And on Ambrosia's side, this "Me Too" -ism isn't helping to find a solution at hand. We keep getting sidetracked over a stupid word instead of trying to find a solution to an issue with women being treated in our culture. And yes, there are things guys that have to deal with in our culture. Things like ridicule for doing "traditionally female" hobbies and jobs, or not being "manly" enough for our culture, or having crimes where women are traditionally the victims (sexual harassment, rape, domestic abuse) not being taken seriously when it happens are all examples of this. And yes, this is unfair and we honestly need to deal with these issues in our culture. And yes, out there in the world, there are women that take advantage of certain privileges women have over men. But the sad truth is that all of those events aren't as common in America as a lot of the things that women have to go through in the job industry and in our gaming hobby. This is a large group of people being marginalized for wanting the same jobs that guys have, or playing the same games we play and that is a priority. We, as a community and as a culture, have to realize this and change it for the better. And honestly, I always felt (whether it's naively or not) that when we change things around for women to enter traditionally male-dominated fields and hobbies, the reverse will happen much easier.
For the love of Gygax, let's just call privileged "advantaged" and be done with this.
And someone mentioned the hypocrisy of leaving out rape in games because it's treating women as fragile... Sorry, but no. Yes, guys can be raped and sexually harassed, but when many Americans think of those, they tend to imagine the victim as a woman. Why? Because it happens more with women than with men. If it didn't, we wouldn't even have the issue of our culture not taking domestic abuse and sexual harassment cases for men seriously. That's why many women are uncomfortable about rape, because in our culture, it is primarily a act of sexual violence that is afflicted on women. It's better to simply not have it and later on, ask if it's okay, rather than assume that your group can handle it without asking them first. And I'd rather not write a treatise on why violence is more acceptable than rape...
|
|
The people who go to parties of any kind should have a reasonable expectation not to get raped. No matter what they're wearing.I should have an expectation that if I leave $1000 in cash sitting on a park bench that it will be there when I return in an hour.
I don't because I'm an adult and I understand that making poor choices increases my risk of being victimized. Why are you so insistent that women are so childlike and irresponsible that they should be absolved of all contributory responsibility?
The women are responsible for their actions insofar as they chose to attend a rowdy party. They are not responsible for what happened to them there while they are passed out.The women are responsible for attending a rowdy party and then getting so drunk they passed out. That does not excuse anyone who assaults of a crime. Recognizing that their choices are responsible for enhancing their risk of being assaulted is not blaming them for the assault.
Are you saying they are responsible because they didn't research the party well enough before going?In that specific case I was saying that dressing like an exotic dancer about to go on stage, getting drunk, then going to a party thrown by a group of guys known to be pigs and then drinking more is a bad idea. That the women I was acquainted with in college who did so were fools and that they were partly responsible when the guys at said parties acted like pigs to them. Similarly when they, while black out drunk, had sex with someone else who was drunk it's not entirely the other person's fault. It could be argued that since they were both incapable of consent (drunk) they both raped each other so they're both responsible.
I don't want to live in a country where a person can go somewhere expecting to have a good time, have something horrible to them and have people like you saying, "Well she should have known better! The Men there wild animals...
I'm going to ignore both your false analogy of leaving money and your example about your friend being falsely accused. Because while it is unfortunate it has little bearing on our discussion about a hypothetical woman who is being blamed for going to the wrong party.
Your example about the man, however is quite pertinent. In your post, I don't see you saying, "Even though he was raped, he kinda deserved it because he went to a rowdy party.". You do not say this because you are a reasonable human being. I ask only that you apply these same standards to women.
The danger of what you are saying is the very real phenomena that means that any woman who claims she is raped needs to meet a certain standard. Too many people think that unless she is jumped while walking home, she is not being raped. All the defense has to do is claim that she was simply in the wrong place because young men are ravenous animals that she should have avoided and worn a Burka while she's at it for her own protection.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
It's also a horrible thing to say because it's not true.
70% of all crime in the US is perpetrated by white people.
A randomly picked black person has a higher chance of being a criminal. But a randomly picked crime is more likely perpetrated by a white person.
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).It's also a horrible thing to say because it's not true.
70% of all crime in the US is perpetrated by white people.
A randomly picked black person has a higher chance of being a criminal. But a randomly picked crime is more likely perpetrated by a white person.
You say it's not true.
Then you agree with my assertion by saying that a randomly picked black person is more likely to be a criminal.That was my assertion. Are you saying we are justified in being more afraid of blacks since they are, as individuals, more likely to be criminals?
I'm not talking about institutional racism, which is unquestionably negative, I'm talking about each of our individual responses to stimuli.
Because it won't work. Because it isn't the word that's the problem. If everyone, including all the social scientists actually working in the field, switched to using "advantage" instead of "privilege", we'd get exactly the same responses about how "I was poor, I didn't have advantages" and "Women have advantages too" and all the other claims. Changing the word won't change the issue.
Good to know you have the crystal ball and know how people would react.
I can only speak for myself, but the term advantage doesn't make me squirm the way privilege does. Similarly, I like the term "earned benefits" for medicare and Social Security, as opposed to "entitlements."
Do you know why Gays and Lesbians are better off now than 10 years ago?
Neil Patrick Harris... how can you oppress Doogie Howser? Or Gandalf?... Same with Jackie Robinson, Sidney Poitier, etc...
And Ellen. And more importantly all the neighbors, co-workers, and family who have the courage to stand up and say "This is who I am. I am still that same good person you knew yesterday when you still thought I was straight." Yeah, inclusion has helped make things better, but inclusion by itself doesn't work.
NPK and Ellen wouldn't be where they are without standing on the shoulders of Stonewall, Harvey Milk, ACT UP, the National Day of Silence, and numerous others. Robinson and Poiter (and Freeman and Obama) wouldn't be where they were without MLK, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and numerous others cracking those walls, kick down doors, and breaking glass ceilings.
Walking up to someone who is abusing power and pretending you are in charge enough to dictate terms gets you laughed at and dismissed.
Asking meekly and respectfully for inclusion and equality doesn't work. History bears that out; Power only respects power that is actively used and demonstrated. When one political side attempts to enter a good faith discussion or negotiation with reasonable, moderate requests, it is perceived as a sign of weakness by the other side and that perceived weakness (reason and moderation) acted upon. It takes both the carrots and a real possible threat of the sticks, even sometimes using those sticks.
Do you know why Gays and Lesbians are better off now than 10 years ago?
Neil Patrick Harris... how can you oppress Doogie Howser? Or Gandalf?... Same with Jackie Robinson, Sidney Poitier, etc...
And Ellen. And more importantly all the neighbors, co-workers, and family who have the courage to stand up and say "This is who I am. I am still that same good person you knew yesterday when you still thought I was straight." Yeah, inclusion has helped make things better, but inclusion by itself doesn't work.
NPK and Ellen wouldn't be where they are without standing on the shoulders of Stonewall, Harvey Milk, ACT UP, the National Day of Silence, and numerous others. Robinson and Poiter (and Freeman and Obama) wouldn't be where they were without MLK, Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and numerous others cracking those walls, kick down doors, and breaking glass ceilings.
Walking up to someone who is abusing power and pretending you are in charge enough to dictate terms gets you laughed at and dismissed.Asking meekly and respectfully for inclusion and equality doesn't work. History bears that out; Power only respects power that is actively used and demonstrated. When one political side attempts to enter a good faith discussion or negotiation with reasonable, moderate requests, it is perceived as a sign of weakness by the other side and that perceived weakness (reason and moderation) acted upon. It takes both the carrots and a real possible threat of the sticks, even sometimes using those sticks.
While I want to believe that only through talking and peace will people find equality, I'm afraid Ambrosia is right. And honestly, I utterly hate that the threat of violence and actual violence can sometimes be more effective.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't walking up meekly. You point to Stonewall and Harvey Milk seemingly without actually the history of them.
Stonewall happened specifically because the Gay community reached a tipping point in that area where they had enough volume that the police could not stop them. They functionally had power those nights because the police could not stop them.
Let me say that again. The police lacked the power to stop them. The lesson learned, that you seem to have missed, was coalition building leads to becoming powerful.
Harvey Milk won elected office thanks to joining with a movement in the area that created a strong enough gay community that they could viably have a candidate win elected office.
That was, in both cases, a minority consolidating to become a local majority through building coalitions with others.
Don't get me started on MLK, Coalition building, and not inciting your enemy. The whole concept of passive resistance is gaining respect through the moral high ground. The opposite of what you seem to be advocating when you demand the conversation be moved to your terms.
Your approach is isolating and unproductive. You would be well served to learn from the history you cite.