Feminism

[gimmepie]

I have nothing against feminists, I have friends that are feminists. I just don't think that feminism is even close to relevant in modern Western society. In studies like that one, the case studies chosen are often specially picked just to support the evidence. That's a small fraction of rapists, I'm not concerned.

 

[Grey Wind]

I take it by your lack of a response that you're conceding the point re: Blurred Lines.

I have nothing against feminists, I have friends that are feminists. I just don't think that feminism is even close to relevant in modern Western society.

Mind explaining why? I can provide numerous reasons as to why this view is ridiculous but I'm interested in hearing your actual reasoning first.

In studies like that one, the case studies chosen are often specially picked just to support the evidence. That's a small fraction of rapists, I'm not concerned.

I... don't really know what this is in response to, sorry.

e: Oh, is this talking about the study I mentioned? Um, it'd be great if you could provide more of an argument than "I don't agree with that study" (especially since you believe your beliefs are "stooped in facts" or whatever).

 

[maccrash]

I always thought Blurred Lines was kinda satirical. no one can make something that blatantly creepy and, like, expect there to not be any harsh reactions. and, also, there are a ♥♥♥♥ing multitude of songs that say things like "I know you want it" and stuff. this is not a new thing in pop culture. the reason this one's been blown out of proportion is mainly because of the video, methinks. it's actually ridiculous that people have picked this song and made such a gigantic stink over it. as far as pop goes, I actually think it's a pretty decent song as well. gonna give you a couple examples of articles that defend this song.

"There is a WORLD of difference between 'I know you want it,' and 'I know you wanted it.'"
-KC Schmitz, Blurring the Lines of Feminism: a Criticism of the Criticism of "Blurred Lines"

Spoiler:

The backlash to this song was one of our pop culture's more dimwitted and inadvertently pretentious exercises of 2013. Everyone and their dog suddenly felt like they were given a half-assed excuse to vent about how pop music today is, like, so shallow, man - and how, like the new Australian neo-drone-wave album is totally where it's really at - because the song itself is so obvious, so purposely obvious. Y'see, the spartan-ness of the beat means you have to pay attention to the actual words being sung, so go figure that throngs of people would latch on to it and call it everything from a rape anthem to...well, pretty much a rape anthem, period. It's easy to understand, so a lot of easy people saw an opportunity to look smart/open-minded and grabbed it.

Except I don't get any 'rape-y' vibes from "Blurred Lines". Y'know why? Because it's so ♥♥♥♥ing obvious. It's so goofy, so devoid of any pretension, that it seems clear to me that the people who jump all over its 'morals' (ha) generally seem to be doing it because (a) they've finally been forced to clue in, and (b) they're made uncomfortable by the fact that the steely-blue-eyed guys in suits and aviators tend to get more pussy than the ragged-trousered acoustic guitar troubadours with the 'indie principles.'

'Hear that, man?!?!? They're saying "I know you want it" to some hot girl at the club!!! And they're wanting to make that "good girl" go bad!!!' Yeah, I get it, brainiacs. Welcome to pop music in the 21st century. Better to show up late to the party than never, I guess.

Not that the discussions surrounding "Blurred Lines" aren't topics worth bringing up — they are. And if the argument is that pop music's subject matter and wittiness of same has gotten way dumber the last 50 years, no arguments. (Obviously.) I just wish people could've saved their wrath for a song that actually sucked, because what even the most cluelessly dedicated hater looks foolish denying is that this groove is pretty ♥♥♥♥ing awesome. The way the double-tracked cowbells move faster under the slower, simple bass line (yeah, it's bitten from Marvin Gaye — at least they steal from a good source) as it returns over and over again to its root...I mean, it just creates a cool, laid-back groove bed for the little percolations of little-boy excitement about getting-laid work their dopey magic. It's such a goofy song, so unthreatening, that in the end it's just so likeable, with a shaggy-dog quality that I'd much rather embrace than hate.

It's by no means a classic. The tune isn't much of a tune at all, especially when we had "Get Lucky" near the top of the charts all summer. Some of the lyrical choices are downright stupid. ('Dakota to Decatur' is not an impressive distance, and '♥♥♥♥ me' doesn't rhyme with 'hug me.') And the relentless 'uh-huh's and slapdash noises to fill out the sparse beat - and Thicke's own lack of, shall we say, 'soul' - reveal themselves as automated or rote, so since I'm not often in clubs I usually find myself getting a little bored with the song by the halfway point. And T.I.'s rap sounds like it was recorded in a shoebox.

But moreover, I find something funnily endearing about the very idea of this track. I mean, a Pharrell-produced beat with T.I. rapping and a Justin Timberlake wannabe on lead vocals? And it was on the charts the same time as a Daft Punk song with Pharrell and a Timberlake song produced by Timbaland? Like, is it 2004 all over again? Every time the bass line sinks back to that root note, and then hits it again, and again, it just pushes the song's lyrical sentiment directly into your line of vision, so that nobody could (you'd think) mistake this song for being anything more than what it is. Anyone who wants some kind of medal for reading and understanding the very large print has already failed. There are no blurred lines.

-LimedIBagels, from rateyourmusic.com

that second one is especially potent, imo. let me know what you think.

 

[Aurora]

I personally feel that all -isms are flawed in the same way. While the majority of adherents to -isms are moderate enough to not actively seek to cause detriment to other societal groups, most extreme members of -isms are so outspoken that they overshadow the majority and tar the entire movement with the same brush, which can result in their views slowly seeping through the rest of the movement until they are universally accepted. We see something like this in Islamism, where the exposure that militant Islamists receive far surpasses that of moderates, causing the (ill-informed) populations perception that all Islamists want to kill all infidels in the name of the Quran or something.

Feminism is no exception, having transformed (in the public eye) from a movement that merely campaigned for gender equality to a movement that espouses the supposed inferiority of males and concepts such as 'reel womyn' (which, incidentally, happens to be extremely problematic for trans people; ever heard of Camp Trans and the fiasco surrounding its establishment?). Because of this, I support the concept of gender equality, but not feminism. I cannot support a movement that has a history of marginalising people like myself in an effort to make a point.

 

[Grey Wind]

You know what, yeah, I am privileged! In fact, I think the majority of the population in my country are (Australia). Feminism and Gay rights advocates in first world countries being oppressed? Everyone of any conceivable group has problems, but please, tell me how hard done by women or gays are in a first world country. I think they have just as much chance at success in life as anyone else. Yay for you, fighting for your "rights" (from a legal standpoint I believe everyone has 99% of the same rights, what you are really fighting for is societal change). I think an excessive amount of crying is being done over what are comparatively small issues.

Are... are you being serious? Like, I could maybe forgive you for believing that being a women in the 21st century is easy (eta: I just want to clarify that I mean that less people are educated about women's issues and that homophobia is recognised by more people in general), but are you really going to say the same for LGBT people? Even ignoring the emotional trauma that comes with being a gay teen (hiding yourself, fear of being outed, family/friends reactions etc.),there are still a large variety of homophobic attacks happening worldwide. I'm actually appalled that you could call these "small issues" (and I'm not even getting into stuff like it being legal to be fired for being gay or even touching on trans issues).

And yes, there are a wide variety of issues that women face in our society (stereotyping, sexual harassment (and that doesn't just mean rape; I'm talking about the way a lot of men talk to women in general), media and female body issues, wage gaps, ♥♥♥♥-shaming, birth control...). The list really does go on.

Just because someone isn't starving and diseased doesn't mean they're not oppressed.

It's not that I don't care or won't acknowledge some genuine problems of women at all. Yes, it's terrible that women are at risk of being sexually assaulted and that they are sexually objectified in the media but as a man I would probably be at just as much risk if not more of being regularly assaulted due to our culture of violence and ridiculed if I don't follow the guidelines for masculinity. You claim that feminism aims to abolish all gender roles and expectations.

Feminism does want to abolish gender roles and such. They're harmful to both men and women.

Sorry, but the name itself does not give that impression, i'd prefer to be known as an 'equal rights campaigner'.

I addressed this in a previous post. Trying to label yourself as an "equal rights campaigner" is honestly just petty and childish. I don't know why you're so insistent on saying that feminists don't actually want equal rights because you haven't really proved that at all lol. It's right there in the definition. It literally says equal rights. It's focused on women because *gasp* women are the oppressed ones.

I don't think that's the right way to go about building a more positive and inclusive society for everyone.

Giving preferential treatment completely goes against being fair.

Ok I've seen stuff like this brought up in a few threads (not so surprisingly by people who don't face oppression) and it really baffles me. What does it even mean, what do you want to do? Equality campaigns are focused towards oppressed because... y'know... they're the ones who are oppressed. Women campaign for equal rights because they don't have equal rights. LGBT people campaign for equal rights because they don't have equal rights. Equality campaigns are exclusionary of people who are straight/male/white/whathaveyou because they are already in a privileged position. If we don't educate people about the inequalities out there and the problems these groups face then how to you expect a difference to be made?

Want an actual group that is disadvantaged far worse than the rest of us in first world countries? Try Australian Aborigines:

Spoiler:

For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population born in 2010–2012, life expectancy was estimated to be 10.6 years lower than that of the non-Indigenous population for males (69.1 years compared with 79.7) and 9.5 years for females (73.7 compared with 83.1).

That's just their life expectancy, education, income, health problems etc are all far lower than other groups across the board. This is perhaps the one case where I would approve targeted assistance, their problems are systemic and are neglectful compared to the rest of our society, whereas nobody is expected to live 10 years less because men are sexist pigs or gays can't get married.

I'm... not really sure why this is relevant? Like congrats on not being ignorant of racial issues but you can't really expect people who live in the UK to be totally educated about Australian Aborigines.


Also I'm not sure why you keep referring to radical feminists. I agree that there are many problems within the movement (especially in regards to trans women like Aurora said and WoC) but I don't see why that makes you think its goals in general are unimportant.

 

[oocyst]

The whole argument that women don't choose higher paying jobs because they 'just aren't interested' is total bs as well. These higher paying jobs are all traditionally jobs for men, and mostly men will work in these fields because society tells them these are jobs for men. Girls are told from a young age that they're just not fit for these jobs (for example the difference between boy and girl toys), which leads to a lessened interest or motivation to pursue these kinds of work. We also see the same with men having set roles. Men and women both get ridiculed or patronized for stepping outside their gender role (who doesn't know the oh so hilarious male nurse shtick?) what has been said time and time again in this thread is that feminism seeks to erase these gender roles for the benefit of all genders.

What annoys me is that actual feminists in this thread are explaining exactly wat the movement is and what its goals are, and people who are not feminists are just going: "nah, I think it's something else."

 

[twocows]

The whole argument that women don't choose higher paying jobs because they 'just aren't interested' is total bs as well. These higher paying jobs are all traditionally jobs for men, and mostly men will work in these fields because society tells them these are jobs for men.

So in other words, they're not interested.

Female enrollment in math and computer programs at higher education is extremely low. That's a matter of interest, no matter how you try to color it. I'm sorry, but if you go out there and ask women if they're interested in learning how to program, 99 times out of 100 the answer's going to be "that sounds boring." Maybe it is a problem with how men and women are raised differently, but it's still a problem of interest, whatever you think the cause may be.

This meshes with my experience because I seem to have a far better time getting men interested in programming than women when I try to get people interested.

 

[Keiran]

I looked through most of those links and there wasn't much of value. From what I saw, none of them denied that women are paid less than men but gave excuses and opinions on why the wage gap exists. None of them mentioned the wage gap between races, either, which is highly relevant.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

It doesn't surprise me that you don't think the links are of "much value". Oh, pish posh. I find that most of the sources that are presented by the other side are not of "much value" and I actually read them. An important thing to note that I've noticed in these "omg women are soooooo ~ oppressed!1" articles is that it's almost like as if they are designed to make the evidence fall into place. We expected an outcome, and we will get it.

Regardless.

It's interesting that you bring up the point about races, because that's something that actually does have a lot of weight. It's not necessarily always rooted in racism, it's actually a lot more deeply rooted in classist structures that stop people financially from obtaining the requirements of being able to earn more. College is indeed a financial burden, which is something that ends up striking on families with lower income, which, on average, are minorities, due to a long history of difficulty with rising through the class ranks. This bleeds back into racism since some people associate a colour or ethnicity with a certain kind of financial class, which, while not always true, does usually end up not falling in the favour of the prospect employee. It's a sticky issue that is way more than just one issue.

Part of the reason why I roll my eyes at the whole "women get paid less" ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ outside of my own personal experience (again, a dude tells me that apparently I'm oppressed as ♥♥♥♥ but I don't experience it and most women I know don't experience this oppression you're oh so dearly trying to outline to us like as if we're retarded) is that, unlike jobs and racism, there isn't much of a "connected social class" issue going on here. Women can be born of any race, any location, any financial standing, and there is no real imbalance in women being born into these groups in comparison to men, because women are roughly half of the population.

Going back to the "chosing degree" thing, there are literally no things that obstruct a woman from obtaining a degree that is usually obtained by men. Nothing. Financially, most of these degrees cost about the same in the long run, so it's not a financial obstruction (and sometimes, degrees like Teaching and Nursing are more expensive than things like, a Bachelor's in Computer Science). Education-wise, women have the same chance as men to be born into an area with a rich educational environment that will encourage them to learn. Going back to Computer Science, there is no physical obstruction that prevents women from having more difficulty from obtaining a degree, unlike certain kind of "handyman" trades like construction. Several other degrees, like Engineering, also share this trait. It seems overall that for whatever reason, women, in general, are not interested in "male degrees" like Computer Science. I think a small part of it is because of gender roles, although society outside of the family is making very big strides to put those to the side. I went to a well received high school (well, according to the state lol) and most women from this school are not attending degrees that are often taken up by men, although they had every educational opportunity to do so.

On the business side, while not every employer is the same, it is not good business practice to shove aside half of your potential employees due to your own sexist attitudes. While it's true that employers are certainly not immune to prejudice, and they inflict it a lot, it is more about how you present yourself, what you have to bring to the table, and what you will provide for the company, potentially. Now, again, due to the classist/racist issues regarding ethnic minorities, this actually does result in segregation against them, because they are less likely financially able to afford to look presentable, provide an education, or have experience in the field. Women do not have this disadvantage as a general group in comparison to men.

Again, you fail to address the underlying reason to why you believe this apparent segregation exists. Segregation of course exists, even against women, however, it's nowhere near as bad as you people are imagining, and I am explaining this from my personal experience and from the experience of many other women I have talked to personally.

Now please, continue to tell me about how I have no idea what oppression I face as a woman and how I need to be educated on the supposed oppression that we women apparently face every day.

 

[Keiran]

Consider this: your experiences are not reflective of or similar to experiences of other people. No one is telling you in what ways you may or may not be oppressed, but merely the power imbalances between different groups of people are being highlighted.

as if we're retarded)

Please do not use ableist slurs.

 

[Grey Wind]

Anyways, as a woman, reading this thread is literally giving me a headache. It's somewhat humorous that many of the people blindly supporting feminism are dudes telling me how I should feel, which is extremely hypocritical and actually pretty ♥♥♥♥ing sexist.

I'm... not telling you how to think? It's called a debate???? I'm just arguing my stance like everybody else in this thread so I've no idea why you're singling me out. Like by this logic your post is telling ME what to think, and as we all know that is sexist against The Men.

Very few people here are honestly arguing over the definition of feminism itself. Dictionary-speaking, you're right, it is people who support equal gender rights. But in practice this is simply not the case. Again, this thread shows some fantastic examples of how this is NOT true, such as Salamence's post. The problem is that feminism has drifted from what the dictionary has said, and become an entity boiled in hatred, disgust and vengeance. This is not what equality is about.

Radical members of a movement do not invalidate it entirely. Yes, there are many problematic opinions within the movement but to say that they make feminism a Bad Thing is ridiculous.

Please go outside for an hour, talk with real people, and then come back to me, and then tell me how oppressed I am.

Just because you personally are do not feel oppressed does not mean that women as a whole aren't. I've already given a few examples of the sexism and double standards that exist in society today (as have other people in this thread) and I'd love to somebody actually reply to these instead of just glossing over them.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Consider this: your experiences are not reflective of or similar to experiences of other people. No one is telling you in what ways you may or may not be oppressed, but merely the power imbalances between different groups of people are being highlighted.

Exactly, so why do you feel that you have the right to explain to me how oppressed that all women are? In fact, like I stated previously, this is not based on only my own opinion, but every woman that I've ever met in real life. And maybe it's also based on the fact that a lot of the "studies" people are going around and quoting contain milked statistics that don't accurately represent the current environment. Again, I listed a list of tens of articles that list why the wage gap is questionable, and you simply glossed over it saying "these stats don't seem reputable". Perhaps stats from both sides are not reputable and we need to look at what both sides are saying in order to come to a justified conclusion, because this is one of those debates that clearly has a segmented bias based on opinion.

Have you ever considered the negative effect of these statistics? Let's take that 1 in 4 raped statistic, which implies that around 37,500,000 Americans will be raped. First off, that number alone is pretty ♥♥♥♥ing outrageous. But to people who don't do the math, do you think that this might encourage abuse, fear, and hatred against men? Or perhaps the "women recieve around 75% the wage that men do" statistic, which implies that a man making $50,000 salary, the woman only makes $37,500. Do you think that that perhaps shuts down women to making certain choices in their education that perhaps does eventually close down possible career paths? Do you think that perhaps spreading nonsense is also spreading fear, hatred, and disgust for something that doesn't even exist?

Please do not use ableist slurs.

Thank you for proving that you come off of tumblr, although your previous arguments made this clear prior.

Now that you bring this lovely thing into the discussion (read: one of the most irritating things I have seen on the internet), let me explain why the word "retarded" is not discriminatory against people with disabilities.

First off, "retarded" means "slow". It is true that the term "mentally retarded" refers to someone who has cognitional difficulties, and now frequently means something that is stupid. Retarded can refer to a ton of things that have nothing to do with disabilities such as a computer acting up due to viruses, a device malfunctioning, or your argument.


As someone who is moderately autistic, I think it's pretty offensive that the first thing that comes to your mind when you think of "retard" is "ableist slur", especially considering that it rarely refers to someone with a disability, and even in my post it does nothing to mock a disability in general. Perhaps I do not like being talked down to in this thread, being told that "I don't understand the oppression that women face" when I'M A ♥♥♥♥ING WOMAN (by men no less) and maybe pointing out that the modern feminist agenda online is hypocritical and perhaps exaggerating in its cause.

And wait! What's this? It seems like I don't appreciate the fact that people who feel like they have the right to determine what the entire community should treat me like because "oh my better not offend people like learning disabilities" such as MYSELF because we don't know any better or it might hurt our feewings or whatever the ♥♥♥♥.

By the way, assuming that the word is a slur to disabled people is discriminatory in of itself because you're assuming that every disabled person is offended by it. Maybe, just maybe, it's how people use a word, as opposed to the word itself! Woah, get out! Actually, no. Get off your ♥♥♥♥ing high horse.

So frankly, I don't care what your opinion is at this point because you basically just glanced over my post, found a thing to peck at, and called it that. It's a little depressing that this is literally what you have as a rebuttal.

But I digress. This is a topic about feminism. And I don't agree with what it has become. The posts in this thread make this clear enough. I believe in equality, not going around and invoking revenge, or spouting statistics to scare people into submission. I don't agree with the fact that several people here feel the urge to tell me about how oppressed women are, when most of them are scratching their heads, asking, "really"? I find it fascinating that this thread focuses more on flashy statistics that could easily be biased than, perhaps, I dunno, the opinions of women?

 

[Star-Lord]

Please go outside for an hour, talk with real people, and then come back to me, and then tell me how oppressed I am.

I like this quote because I DID go outside and talk to women which is why I became a feminist and understood the gender roles and how they act against women/men in society.

Unlike everyone who are listening to ACTUAL FEMINISTS TALKING TO YOU RIGHT NOW yet all you guys go is NO THAT'S NOT FEMINISM THIS CRAZY STORY I HEARD ABOUT FEMINISM ONCE IS WHAT THE MOVEMENT IS ABOUT.

 

[maccrash]

listen, I have no intent to get wrapped up in this horse ♥♥♥♥, but it seems like what you're doing, daigonite, is coming in here and telling everyone that their opinions on the matter are wrong because you supposedly know what it's like for every woman out there and white males have no frame of reference with which to argue that with you. but you're still speaking for one and only one person. the point of a debate is to try and get people to think similarly to you or merely express your opinions on something: not to go in and assert that you're right and that others need not respond. and I know you weren't telling people not to respond, it's just kind of implied with how you're acting as if you are The Authority on the matter, when you're not.

it's ironic that I'm posting this; I'd been reading through this thread and shaking my head and chuckling quietly to myself because of how white males are arguing with a female on how feminism is the way to go and that girls are so oppressed in this society. it's quite funny, really.

 

[twocows]

I looked through most of those links and there wasn't much of value. From what I saw, none of them denied that women are paid less than men but gave excuses and opinions on why the wage gap exists. None of them mentioned the wage gap between races, either, which is highly relevant.

I'm not sure exactly who or what you're responding to, but you don't seem to be refuting anything, here. I've highlighted several reasons as to why the numbers might be off. Regardless of what the numbers are or aren't, we should be trying to provide equal opportunity and fair wages to people regardless of their skin color or sex. That might not fix the numbers if there are things like what I mentioned affecting them, but it should be our goal nonetheless.

Consider this: your experiences are not reflective of or similar to experiences of other people.

I know a lot of women would agree with at least some of what was said. I think there are a lot of different experiences and that you shouldn't generalize too much about what you and the people you know experience.

No one is telling you in what ways you may or may not be oppressed, but merely the power imbalances between different groups of people are being highlighted.

You're suggesting "white men" hold more power. And yet, here I am, at my desk, I work 8-5 M-F and have about as much power as a wet sponge on things outside the computers I manage at work. You're making generalizations about an entire class of people based on the power held by a small few. If you have issues with the people in power, complain about the people in power, not about everyone who happens to share the same skin pigmentation and sex as them. People like us, we have our share of problems, too; it's not like we're all cruising around in sports cars and laughing at the poor. Heck, a lot of us are close to the poverty line. I'm over it, but not by a whole lot.

The rhetoric is that white males have it better by default. I'm not entirely convinced that's the case (not even in aggregate), but let's assume that's true. Bashing people over the head with the title "privileged" as so many do (an insult, as it's always used to imply ignorance, selfishness, and elitism) without knowing anything about who they are or the kind of life they live is insulting. Go up to a homeless person living on the streets (far more likely to be male, by the way) and tell them how privileged they are. If you think there's bias present in the system, then say that and work toward making the system blind. Don't say "white men are privileged" when a whole lot of us are getting by day to day just like anyone else. We're all individuals with our own circumstances.

Now, you didn't use this word specifically (thank you for that), but you did say that some "groups" have more power than others. That's true, if by "groups" you mean the "1%," as it were, but not if you mean "white men."

Please do not use ableist slurs.

This is a distraction from the discussion. I think you're trying (unconsciously, not on purpose) to establish the implication that you have the ethical high ground here by jumping on an unrelated issue. If you really have a problem with it, then you're overreacting; retarded has been used as a synonym for "stupid" since at least the 90s (I heard it a lot growing up) and I think a lot earlier (my brother used it more than I did and he grew up in the 80s). It's widely used, it's relatively socially tolerable (you wouldn't use it in a political speech, but other than that, almost nobody cares), and it's pretty clear that it is very rarely used to actually slight people with mental retardation. It also is only very, very tangentially related to the issue at hand even if you assume the absolute worst about it. If you take issue with it, you should probably be focusing your efforts to improve the public dialect elsewhere rather than taking pot-shots at people for using it offhandedly, something which will accomplish a sum total of nothing.

Not trying to be mean here, sorry if it came off as a bit severe.

 

[Keiran]

Thank you for proving that you come off of tumblr

Yes, I have a Tumblr. I mostly follow bird blogs (I love birds) and Pokémon blogs, as well as a few friends. I really don't understand the Tumblr insults, can you explain?

I'm not sure exactly who or what you're responding to

I was responding to a post (which was deleted) that linked to a Tumblr (apparently an awful place!) post containing dozens of links to news articles on why the wage gap doesn't exist. None of them denied that the wage gap existed (the titles of the articles / names of the links to them were meant to scare and demoralize people with opposing opinions but they contained nothing of value to be convincing), but instead they blamed the wage gap on the careers women chose (such as 95% of the Fashion Industry being women) and none of them talked about why "traditinal" female occupations are paid less or why any occupation is gendered to begin with.

I know a lot of women would agree with at least some of what was said. I think there are a lot of different experiences and that you shouldn't generalize too much about what you and the people you know experience.

You're asking to me to stop generalizing because I asked someone else to stop generalizing.

You're suggesting "white men" hold more power. And yet, here I am, at my desk, I work 8-5 M-F and have about as much power as a wet sponge on things outside the computers I manage at work. You're making generalizations about an entire class of people based on the power held by a small few. If you have issues with the people in power, complain about the people in power, not about everyone who happens to share the same skin pigmentation and sex as them. People like us, we have our share of problems, too; it's not like we're all cruising around in sports cars and laughing at the poor. Heck, a lot of us are close to the poverty line. I'm over it, but not by a whole lot.

And we go right back to generalizing based on personal experience.

The rhetoric is that white males have it better by default.

They do.

This is a distraction from the discussion. I think you're trying (unconsciously, not on purpose) to establish the implication that you have the ethical high ground here by jumping on an unrelated issue. If you really have a problem with it, then you're overreacting; retarded has been used as a synonym for "stupid" since at least the 90s (I heard it a lot growing up) and I think a lot earlier (my brother used it more than I did and he grew up in the 80s). It's widely used, it's relatively socially tolerable (you wouldn't use it in a political speech, but other than that, almost nobody cares), and it's pretty clear that it is very rarely used to actually slight people with mental retardation. It also is only very, very tangentially related to the issue at hand even if you assume the absolute worst about it. If you take issue with it, you should probably be focusing your efforts to improve the public dialect elsewhere rather than taking pot-shots at people for using it offhandedly, something which will accomplish a sum total of nothing.

I don't care if you think it's acceptable because it's normal in your life. How can I focus my efforts on improving public dialect when my efforts to help a few people here are completely being ignored and spoken over.
I'll tell you what's actually distracting from the discussion; people who refuse to listen. 140+ replies in this thread and people are still being told to go back to Tumblr, because anyone that recognizes power imbalances is clearly a man-hating radical. 140+ replies and we still have people defending usage of a harmful word because it's "tolerable", instead of wondering why a word meant to insult has become so normalized.


This will be my last reply until the tone of the discussion changes. Please do not quote me again (the notifications get annoying as it sends another everytime you edit) to tell me how wrong you think I am. I get it.

 

[twocows]

I was responding to a post (which was deleted) that linked to a Tumblr (apparently an awful place!) post containing dozens of links to news articles on why the wage gap doesn't exist. None of them denied that the wage gap existed (the titles of the articles / names of the links to them were meant to scare and demoralize people with opposing opinions but they contained nothing of value to be convincing), but instead they blamed the wage gap on the careers women chose (such as 95% of the Fashion Industry being women) and none of them talked about why "traditinal" female occupations are paid less or why any occupation is gendered to begin with.

I don't know anything about "traditional female" occupations. What I said is women take fewer STEM jobs, and STEM jobs are higher-paying because they're high-skill, high-demand, high-importance jobs. As much respect as I have for, say, writers, they're not really in high demand.

You're asking to me to stop generalizing because I asked someone else to stop generalizing.

Yes, that's the point, two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a problem with someone generalizing, then do what I did: say that you have a problem with someone generalizing.

And we go right back to generalizing based on personal experience.

What I said was that different people have different problems and that we should consider people on an individual basis. I know an awful lot of white males living in poverty, so what I'm saying is that it's not safe to assume all this stuff based purely on what combination of genetics they happened to have when they were born. That's the exact opposite of a generalization.

They do.

I haven't seen you substantiate that claim at all, so as before, I remain unconvinced.

I don't know if you agree or disagree with the rest of what I said, but since you haven't touched on it, I'll continue to stand by that for now.

I don't care if you think it's acceptable because it's normal in your life. How can I focus my efforts on improving public dialect when my efforts to help a few people here are completely being ignored and spoken over.

If you think people aren't being given a fair shake at talking, then quote the posts you're talking about and bring up that you think they're being overlooked. I don't see what that has to do with singling someone out for using the term "retarded" in an offhanded manner to mean "stupid."

I'll tell you what's actually distracting from the discussion; people who refuse to listen. 140+ replies in this thread and people are still being told to go back to Tumblr,

Yeah, I agree. I think the tone needs to be a bit less confrontational here, that's not only a distraction, but it pushes people out of the discussion. We're not little kids, we can have a discussion about our disagreements without getting personal about it.

because anyone that recognizes power imbalances is clearly a man-hating radical.

Again, I don't have much power, so I think your recognition of the situation is incorrect. But even if you believe that, I'm not going to call you a man-hating radical. You're misguided and wrong at the very worst and I would hope that I can show you why I believe that.

140+ replies and we still have people defending usage of a harmful word because it's "tolerable", instead of wondering why a word meant to insult has become so normalized.

Whether it's harmful or not is another topic altogether. All you're going to do by singling out people for using it is convince people you have an affinity for nitpicking. If you think you have a legitimate case for why it's harmful, then discuss that in another thread, but right now it's a socially tolerable word and it's unreasonable to expect people to curb their language just because a small few people take offense.

That said, I mentioned in another thread on this topic that I, personally, try to avoid the use of these kinds of words because there are plenty of alternatives and I don't see any reason to use them if they upset people. But I do think it's a bit silly.

This will be my last reply until the tone of the discussion changes. Please do not quote me again (the notifications get annoying as it sends another everytime you edit) to tell me how wrong you think I am. I get it.

I'll take the link out of the quote, which should stop the notifications, but I will still respond to what you said because it warrants a response. The whole point of having a "discussions and debates" section is to discuss and debate, which is exactly what I'm doing. I don't think I was particularly harsh with my tone, to be honest; if I said something that you felt was hurtful, point it out in a PM and I can either explain it or apologize.

 

[Livewire]

...

Can we collectively tone it down please? And for the love of god, stop with the "OMG SUBSTANTIATE YOUR CLAIMS FACTS LOGIC ETC" Take the personal arguments and the semantics elsewhere.

 

[Grey Wind]

Exactly, so why do you feel that you have the right to explain to me how oppressed that all women are?

We don't feel that we have the "right" or anything. It's a debate. Explaining our opinion is like... the point. I'm really not sure why you're taking such offence to this.

Have you ever considered the negative effect of these statistics? Let's take that 1 in 4 raped statistic, which implies that around 37,500,000 Americans will be raped. First off, that number alone is pretty ♥♥♥♥ing outrageous. But to people who don't do the math, do you think that this might encourage abuse, fear, and hatred against men?

Wait WHAT. If your first response to a rape statistic (which you can't just ignore because it's "outrageous") is how it affects society's view of men then I am honest to goodness lost for words.

I believe in equality, not going around and invoking revenge, or spouting statistics to scare people into submission.

So... do we. I understand that radical feminist opinions can leave a bad taste in your mouth but painting everyone with the same brush isn't going to help anything.

power imbalances, "I am not personally in power" etc.

I don't have time to reply to every part of your post (sorry) but I think you're taking the term "men are in power" too literally. It doesn't mean that every man is in a position of power or that every single man is privileged. I'm probably going to explain this badly but it's more referring to how men as a sex are privileged and do not face the sexism and oppression that women do. Similar to how one would say that heterosexual people are in a position of power over LGBT people. Being male still gives you a certain amount of power/privilege/whathaveyou the same way that being straight does.

 

[twocows]

I don't have time to reply to every part of your post (sorry) but I think you're taking the term "men are in power" too literally. It doesn't mean that every man is in a position of power or that every single man is privileged. I'm probably going to explain this badly but it's more referring to how men as a sex are privileged and do not face the sexism and oppression that women do. Similar to how one would say that heterosexual people are in a position of power over LGBT people. Being male still gives you a certain amount of power/privilege/whathaveyou the same way that being straight does.

I already explained what the argument is (basically, that being male is itself an advantage). I spoke to why I'm not convinced of that.

The real problem is that, whether that's true or not, there are a lot of problems associated with this argument. First, people are using it as an accusation or even as an insult. Second is the problem you quoted: people are generalizing from a very specific argument. It's getting to the point where, in some circles, being male alone is reason enough for some particularly awful vitriol. I don't think that's the case here, like I said, I think most people are being at least somewhat reasonable here. But I do think you have to be careful not to make too many assumptions about people based purely on factors like that.

I think the discussion needs to focus on identifying which things are problems and coming up with solutions to fix those problems. Speaking generally, there's an awful lot of vitriol over stuff people have no control over and getting caught up on the small stuff, right now. I think we need to get over that and focus on what we can do to make things better and fairer for everyone, not on accusing people of this kind of stuff.