|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the guy is a bit cuckoo for coco puffs, but you do have to give him some mad props.
The craziest thing about Kucinich is that he is naively optimistic about our politics and how much 'We the People' can affect change. But he is also way ahead of his time (he warned us about the dangers of privatization before Enron - actually a big factor in why he didn't win reelection that year - and supported gay marriage at a time when speaking for equality was political suicide) and, having met him, I can tell you he is infectiously pleasant. Kucinich perfectly demonstrates the difference, for me at least, between looks and charisma.
Being chiseled, tall, and having a deep timbered voice makes things easier. But there are things that will always matter more than all of that combined. Hell - look at Prince.
I don't have much to add to the topic that hasn't been said already. All I can say is that every time a woman points out the sexism that is a major problem in our society, the MRA guys dismiss it and whine about how bad men have it. It's as inevitable as a white person crying from the halls of privilege about reverse racism. It's embarrassing.
Nothing wrong with a little Cheesecake as long as there's also plenty of Beefcake served up. ;-)
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have much to add to the topic that hasn't been said already. All I can say is that every time a woman points out the sexism that is a major problem in our society, the MRA guys dismiss it and whine about how bad men have it. It's as inevitable as a white person crying from the halls of privilege about reverse racism. It's embarrassing.just a quick point I'd like to throw in here: I find it a lot more embarrassing that the only way our society seems to come up with to battle racism, sexism, and any other ism out there, is to do the exact same thing, in reverse...
OK, take this from a fellow white man: You have no idea what you're talking about. 'Reverse' isms don't exist. Not institutionally. Are there black people who think white people are inferior? Yes. Are there women who think men are obsolete and we'd all be better off if the 'Y' chromosome disappeared? Yes. Are there people who think we should outright ban Christianity? Yes.
Do those people have any real power? No.
The people who do have power are the politicians who are claiming that 'real' rape shuts down abortion and, besides, she was "asking for it". It is the pastors of megachurches who say that gays being allowed to marry is an affront to THEIR rights. It is the criminal justice system that says it's okay to shoot unarmed black teenagers but unacceptable for an abused woman to fire a warning shot to scare off her attacker.
Blacks are more likely to be arrested for the same offenses, sentenced to harsher punishments when convicted. 1 in 5 women will suffer some form of sexual assault in her lifetime, and enormous wage gaps still exist on both fronts. More acts of terrorism have been committed by white Christian men than any other group since our nation's founding and yet we have never profiled them as terrorists nor spawned movements forbidding them from building their places of worship. Gay teens commit suicide at 4 to 6 times the rate of straight counterparts, and I won't even get into the homeless and murder rates for transgendered men and women.
When white heterosexual males complain that somehow society is being unfair to them, it is not only wrong. It's stupidly offensive and belittling to all of the REAL discrimination that is still rampant in our society.
|
I don't have much to add to the topic that hasn't been said already. All I can say is that every time a woman points out the sexism that is a major problem in our society, the MRA guys dismiss it and whine about how bad men have it. It's as inevitable as a white person crying from the halls of privilege about reverse racism. It's embarrassing.just a quick point I'd like to throw in here: I find it a lot more embarrassing that the only way our society seems to come up with to battle racism, sexism, and any other ism out there, is to do the exact same thing, in reverse...OK, take this from a fellow white man: You have no idea what you're talking about. 'Reverse' isms don't exist. Not institutionally. Are there black people who think white people are inferior? Yes. Are there women who think men are obsolete and we'd all be better off if the 'Y' chromosome disappeared? Yes. Are there people who think we should outright ban Christianity? Yes.
Do those people have any real power? No.
The people who do have power are the politicians who are claiming that 'real' rape shuts down abortion and, besides, she was "asking for it". It is the pastors of megachurches who say that gays being allowed to marry is an affront to THEIR rights. It is the criminal justice system that says it's okay to shoot unarmed black teenagers but unacceptable for an abused woman to fire a warning shot to scare off her attacker.
Blacks are more likely to be arrested for the same offenses, sentenced to harsher punishments when convicted. 1 in 5 women will suffer some form of sexual assault in her lifetime, and enormous wage gaps still exist on both fronts. More acts of terrorism have been committed by white Christian men than any other group since our nation's founding and yet we have never profiled...
Not denying the badness of the things you describe, but what has any of that to do with 'reverse discrimination'?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that when you treat people as parts of groups instead of individuals, it becomes nothing but a numbers game. A man suffering from domestic abuse is not helped by the news blaring out the story that "men beat women", even if that story is also true. Everyone should be seen as an individual, with the obvious right to live free of domestic abuse, and claiming that it's a group-related issue gives an unacceptably high rate of error.
Besides which, I fail to see how a Google Glass commercial/campaign against domestic abuse is evidence of anything. Indeed, unless the message is "wife beating men are stupid enough to beat their wives even when they are wearing camera glasses - so let's use Google Glass as our weapon of choice against domestic abuse", I fail entirely to see the point of the commercial.
|
|
Yes, there are individual cases of violence. However there are group patterns of violence, such as homophobes vs LGBT groups, and ignoring those is like purposely ignoring the forest fire because you're fixating on individual trees. It's important because group behavior is a reinforcement factor behind these individual crimes. It adds to the self-justification and motivation factor.The problem is that when you treat people as parts of groups instead of individuals, it becomes nothing but a numbers game. A man suffering from domestic abuse is not helped by the news blaring out the story that "men beat women", even if that story is also true. Everyone should be seen as an individual, with the obvious right to live free of domestic abuse, and claiming that it's a group-related issue gives an unacceptably high rate of error.
Besides which, I fail to see how a Google Glass commercial/campaign against domestic abuse is evidence of anything. Indeed, unless the message is "wife beating men are stupid enough to beat their wives even when they are wearing camera glasses - so let's use Google Glass as our weapon of choice against domestic abuse", I fail entirely to see the point of the commercial.
Again, I agree, but I don't see 'reverse discrimination' as the cure, or even part of a cure.
Again, I agree, but I don't see 'reverse discrimination' as the cure, or even part of a cure.
What "reverse discrimination" are you talking about?
|
|
Not denying the badness of the things you describe, but what has any of that to do with 'reverse discrimination'?
Simply that it's a false equivalency. People saying Reverse Discrimination is a problem are WAAAAAYYYY off base. They have no bearing that there's an ENORMOUS difference between those who have been the dominant group for centuries and benefited from systems meant to elevate them and their fellows at the expense of out-groups.
So yes, there is a huge difference between things like Affirmative Action for people of color or Affirmative Action for white people. In the first instance, it is meant to correct years of a dominant hierarchy wherein whites enjoyed the sole privilege of higher education and people of color were segregated into school systems that lacked funding, attention, or proper staff. In the second instance, it is meant to reaffirm that privileged status for people who have always had it.
Take any example you like - Women's Only Leadership Conferences, for instance - and the same principle applies.
Now I am not saying any of those are perfect solutions. There are plenty of women and people of color who don't care for either, I'm sure, and if you're so inclined you can ask them why not. But to say that the problem with these systems is that they somehow make it harder for white men is depressingly wrong.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The white guy sporting the power mullet, living in the trailer park, somehow missed this year's invitation to the Illuminati dinner. Maybe he'll get it next year.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, though we don't like to talk about it, it's really to correct for ongoning discrimination as much as past discrimination.Not denying the badness of the things you describe, but what has any of that to do with 'reverse discrimination'?So yes, there is a huge difference between things like Affirmative Action for people of color or Affirmative Action for white people. In the first instance, it is meant to correct years of a dominant hierarchy wherein whites enjoyed the sole privilege of higher education and people of color were segregated into school systems that lacked funding, attention, or proper staff. In the second instance, it is meant to reaffirm that privileged status for people who have always had it.
Sorry, I should have been more cautious with my tense. But yes, it would be correct to say ongoing discrimination.
The white guy sporting the power mullet, living in the trailer park, somehow missed this year's invitation to the Illuminati dinner. Maybe he'll get it next year.
Actually, what is interesting about your choice of analogy is how perfectly it summarizes who actually holds white men back - rich white men.
Not in a Secret Cabal "Illuminati" conspiracy sort of way, but it is true that rich oligarchs have rigged the system to stagnate economic mobility and keep the lower classes - well, lower. And a big part of that is making sure that poor white men blame poor black men, immigrants, and the influx of women into areas traditionally reserved for men for their lack of economic opportunity. Pretty much anyone NOT responsible for falling wages and shrinking opportunities.
|
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Every case of discrimination has a perpetrator and a victim. It does not make discrimination 'okay' because the perpetrator is of a previously discriminated against group, nor is it 'okay' if the victim happens to be male, or straight, or white, or rich, or anything else.
Right or wrong does not vary with gender, sexuality, colour or wealth. Believing that it does is what causes the problem in the first place.
In that powerful google glass short film, the victim was a woman. The crime was horrible. I hope that we can wipe it out. But it won't be wiped out by allowing women to be violent toward men, it will be wiped out by not tolerating this from anyone toward anyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
people who claim reverse isms don't exist annoy me almost as much as those that claim male rape victims don't exist.
Your annoyance might be lessened if you understood why reverse discrimination and reverse racism are not the same thing, and why one of those can exist without the other.
See also: Glass Ceiling, Good Ol' Boys Club, Marriage Equality, Women's Sufferage, etc.
In essence, while it's totally possible for minorities to discriminate against members of a majority, in terms of a useful academic definition, that discrimination does not become an -ism until it is institutionalized and backed by overwhelming power. A good example would be the current struggle for marriage equality for the LGBT community. A gay man might hypothetically discriminate against straight people, but in many areas of the USA, the law itself is aligned against the gay man enjoying the same rights as his straight counterpart. That's the "institutionalized" aspect that forms the academic distinction between what is and isn't an -ism.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the way forward is to replace those things with a Good Ol' Girls Club, or to deny marriage to straight people.
I don't think that a man who is getting his head beaten in by his wife should take comfort in the fact that this particular assault is not defined as an '-ism'.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Domestic violence on males is a problem, on the other hand. It's much less of one than that against women, but those men who are abused have an even harder time getting help or even sympathy. On the gripping hand, it's often raised in discussions about abuse of women to torpedo the discussion, much like other "But think of the poor men" issues. This one just does happen to have a real problem attached to it.
There have been studies showing that 40% of domestic violence victims are male. If those studies are accurate, it's not "much less" of a problem, as both would be genuine, widespread issues.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can all agree that domestic violence is 'bad' irrespective of the genders of perpetrator and victim. But what about other things?
If discrimination only becomes an '-ism' if it is supported by the groups in power, doesn't 'reverse racism' become a legitimate '-ism' as soon as it becomes official policy?
Should the job be given to the applicant based on merit, or skin colour? Dark skin or light, it's equally wrong to give the job based on skin colour. It doesn't make a difference to the unsuccessful applicant that the other guy/girl belongs to a group which other people treated badly.
The same holds true if, instead of skin colour, we talk about gender or sexuality or wealth or whatever.
I don't think the way forward is to replace those things with a Good Ol' Girls Club, or to deny marriage to straight people.
Not sure if this reply was directed at my post or not, but I advocated no such thing. I was merely trying to clarify a common misconception on some of the vocabulary used in the discussion of equality issues...
We can all agree that domestic violence is 'bad' irrespective of the genders of perpetrator and victim.
No disagreement here.
If discrimination only becomes an '-ism' if it is supported by the groups in power, doesn't 'reverse racism' become a legitimate '-ism' as soon as it becomes official policy?
Correct. In the unlikely even that members of currently persecuted/repressed minorities somehow became the majority and then decided to go the route of vengeance rather harmony, that's exactly what we'd have on our hands. IMO, I think the irrational fear of such an unlikely thing is part of what perpetuates discrimination. Certainly plenty of politicians like to base their propaganda on unreasonable fears anyway...
Actually I had no idea where he was coming from.
As far as twisting the definition of "an -ism" to equate Affirmative Action with reverse racism, it doesn't work. This is because the group AA is supposed to empower lacks the overwhelming political and economic power that would make it so — at least in the areas of the world we seem to be discussing anyway. That's not a part of the definition that should be casually tossed aside thru casuistry.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think the way forward is to replace those things with a Good Ol' Girls Club, or to deny marriage to straight people.
We are also so ridiculously far away from either of these things that bringing them up really is propping up a straw man.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I had no idea where he was coming from.
As far as twisting the definition of "an -ism" to equate Affirmative Action with reverse racism, it doesn't work. This is because the group AA is supposed to empower lacks the overwhelming political and economic power that would make it so — at least in the areas of the world we seem to be discussing anyway. That's not a part of the definition that should be casually tossed aside thru casuistry.
What about the groups that enforced and enacted the policy on their behalf? It is perfectly legitimate to say that a policy against dis-empowered white males instituted and enforced by empowered white males is in fact racist.
Women can be sexist towards other women. Men can be sexist towards other men. Blacks can be racist towards other blacks. Whites can be racist towards other whites. etc.
Good Ol' Girls Club - see divorce and child custody/parental rights laws and court decisions.
|
|
Actually I had no idea where he was coming from.
As far as twisting the definition of "an -ism" to equate Affirmative Action with reverse racism, it doesn't work. This is because the group AA is supposed to empower lacks the overwhelming political and economic power that would make it so — at least in the areas of the world we seem to be discussing anyway. That's not a part of the definition that should be casually tossed aside thru casuistry.
I wasn't trying to trick you into saying something you don't believe. : )
If we want a society without discrimination, we're not going to get it by practicing discrimination! If, for example, black people are disadvantaged because of socio-economic factors (I sincerely hope any legal impediment has fallen away by now!), then the way forward is not to discriminate against non-black people but to tackle those socio-economic factors.
I have no problem with policies designed to help level the playing field in order to give everyone equality of opportunity, but I'm against any form of coercion to discriminate for or against anyone.
For example, job applications can be without photo, name or address, so judgements cannot be made on perceived race (some names are more likely to indicate race than others) or wealth (some areas are poorer than others).
Trying to cure discrimination by discrimination is like trying to cure cancer by giving every sufferer a free wig! Who gets the job, if affected by discrimination, is a symptom of prejudice, not the cause. Cure the causes!
pres man: In the case of AA, I'd say it's borderline hyperbole to classify attempts by some members of a majority to balance the scales as race/sexism. Change always has to be instigated by someone, the empowered group merely has the most tools at their disposal (e.g. political agency, economic freedom, etc.) to get the ball rolling.
On a side note (i.e. to clarify my point in even posting in this thread):
Someone saying whatever the like and twisting definitions to suit an agenda serves only to weaken the vocabulary we all have available for discourse. Dumbing down the language increases ambiguity and confusion — neither of which enlighten a conversation.
EDIT: ninja'd!
Malachi: Glad to hear it, I don't enjoy other people putting things in my mouth. ;) As far as corrective policies, I agree that it's important to pursue the most just solution possible, but I also recognize that it's not a perfect world we live in. It would be interesting to learn the actual vs. perceived discriminations that are keeping my fellow white man down. My gut (and work experience) tells me that it is predominantly an issue of politicians playing off people's fears.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The basic point here seems to me to be that groups do not feel. Groups do not suffer. Groups do not make choices.
Only individuals do. Everything else is merely statistics.
And if you put in group issues into serious decisions, like, we won't accept this poor white male student because that wealthy black male student gets us more diversity points in our policy, the problem is that while racial discrimination is a crime, affirmative action is something done to someone for reasons of their skin colour, by parts of SOCIETY, supported by the STATE. The big bad here is making policy because of skin colour, and you're certainly never going to get that better by implementing more of it.
As regards domestic violence, there have been studies that show that women are MORE violent in relationships than men, in all categories except the most grave violence including lethal violence. There are also studies that have shown that lesbian relationships have more domestic violence than gay male relationships. It's not an easy thing to know what the truth is, but the exact relationship is not very interesting either. It's enough to know that domestic violence is a significant problem to both men and women. At least enough to try and do something about it.
Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.
A lot of this violence against men is done by men not so much is done by women. Trying to dismiss sexism because men are abused too is absurd when so much of it is done by men.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, I just saw a report yesterday that showed in a study in Britain (I believe) half of all men in the study reported being sexually coerced at some point by a woman...this included unwanted touching and groping all of the way up to forced sex.
This has mostly gone unreported mainly because of male attitudes and sexual norms. Most people don't believe that a "small weak girl" could force a "big strong man" to do anything.
I think the more this issue is studied the more we are going to find that both men and women engage in predatory behavior.
I also think that if we are going to be really truthful with ourselves, we need to stop pointing to fringe cases and applying them to entire genders.
Half of all people are below average when it comes to brain power. 10% of the population is seriously below average. Approximately 10% of the population if not more is criminally inclined. There are also a certain number of people that are seriously deranged.
We live in a world with billions of people. That means that there are literally millions of people out there that are either criminal, unintelligent, deranged, or any combination of the three.
Taking a few people and applying their attitudes/ideas to everyone else is usually pretty disingenuous, especially in the age of the internet when you can always find an example of someone with an idea you don't care for.
Taking a few people and applying their attitudes/ideas to everyone else is usually pretty disingenuous, especially in the age of the internet when you can always find an example of someone with an idea you don't care for.
Then let us circle back from this tangent (which while relevant, is still a tangent), to a discussion the much more ubiquitous sexualization of women in media and advertising.
What would you do on this subject?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Men, such as myself, need to watch this video.
... especially the message starting around 3:20.
I like how she's still wearing this tight shirt with cleavage, but the camera's a little higher up showing less of her breasts than the rest of her videos.
Men, such as myself, need to watch this video.
... especially the message starting around 3:20.
I like how she's still wearing this tight shirt with cleavage, but the camera's a little higher up showing less of her breasts than the rest of her videos.
And that's probably my fault somehow.
I think this problem will go away just as soon as men stop being interested in looking at sexy scantily dressed women...and
as some one who works in West Hollywood, there are just as many giant billboards of greased up mostly naked men in bikini briefs as scantily clad women...
Which in a way is funny and pertinent because I assume that these adds are still male driven and not there because that is what women want to see.
Most perpetrators of sexual violence are men. Among acts of sexual violence committed against women since the age of 18, 100% of rapes, 92% of physical assaults, and 97% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men. Sexual violence against men is also mainly male violence: 70% of rapes, 86% of physical assaults, and 65% of stalking acts were perpetrated by men.A lot of this violence against men is done by men not so much is done by women. Trying to dismiss sexism because men are abused too is absurd when so much of it is done by men.
We were discussing domestic violence, not sexual violence. The insight that men are subjected to domestic violence in pretty serious numbers, by women, is rather new. With more effort devoted to studying the phenomenon, more evidence is discovered and the numbers are growing due to a dawning awareness. Nobody, male or female, should ever be subjected to it. And your last sentence, well, I just can't make sense of it. The idea should be to stop all domestic violence, should it not? But apparently, it shouldn't, because other men are abusing women? I is confused, Aranna.
Thank you LazarX. That is it exactly.
Oh and Sissyl, the topic isn't domestic violence either. The topic is objectification of women. In case you didn't bother to read that. Although someone stated 40% of men are victims of domestic abuse, how much of that is male on male domestic abuse you know like fathers hitting their sons? I would suspect a lot of it based on the different statistic I quoted.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
girl: sorry for hitting you in the face when I got mad
guy: it is okay, I hear the domestic abuse statistics are skewed anyway, so no big deal, my eye will heal pretty quickly I am sure
Who cares which side has it worse?
What matters is we should stop this kind of behavior for EVERYONE. The ones who get it more AND the ones who get it less!!
And how, pray tell, does one control someone elses behavior?