Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[Chartic]

Whenever people tell me white people can't be treated poorly I bring up white South African farmers, who have their land taken from them, have been killed, have had their wives raped, and have had their children killed, and the government does nothing about it. Or Slavs, the origin for the term slave, not many Slavic countries doing too well at the moment. But I'm not gonna go off with examples, people who say whites can't say this or be offended do it because they believe they can classify an entire group based on a stereotype, or in other words they are racists.

 

[144_v1legacy]

Men are perfectly entitled to be offended, whether they are white and straight or any variation of it. They can complain, they can point out white men problems (which DO exist)

They have to realize though, that while everything is relative, you have everything laid out for you, and your are not going to be constantly assaulted by societal oppression like everyone else is. And most importantly, the fact that white straight problems do exist, they do not overshadow or even compare to those of other demographics. They just don't.

So complain away, just remember your empathy and perspective. It would go a long way to us all recognizing each others problems.

Your post is... confusing to say the least. On the one hand you say people need to empathize and recognize each others' problems, on the the other you generalize an entire group of people based on their gender and skin colour then dismiss all of their problems as being unable to compare to those of other demographics because of... reasons, I'm guessing?

It just seems self-contradictory is all.

Oh, stop doing this. You know that her generalization is exactly that - a generalization. It is relative. I'll say that people who post on the Escapist have more credibility when talking about videogames, as they all know about and play videogames frequently. There, I've just generalized an entire group of people. Perhaps there are people on these forums who don't play videogames at all, and simply enjoy posting in threads like these.
And granted, sweetylnumb's generalization was somewhat hyperbolic. But I think you know what she meant. From her point of view (if she's a woman - her profile doesn't say...), she may feel this way as a response to her experience in the world. I certainly don't feel like I've had everything laid out for me, but for all I know, perhaps I don't realize just how good I've got it?

 

[Pikey Mikey]

Yes, if there is a good reason for it, like the story/news-bit

 

[144_v1legacy]

Whenever people tell me white people can't be treated poorly I bring up white South African farmers, who have their land taken from them, have been killed, have had their wives raped, and have had their children killed, and the government does nothing about it. Or Slavs, the origin for the term slave, not many Slavic countries doing too well at the moment. But I'm not gonna go off with examples, people who say whites can't say this or be offended do it because they believe they can classify an entire group based on a stereotype, or in other words they are racists.

Good for you. You're bringing to light how racist you aren't. You point out that the generalizations made based on race can and frequently are misleading and incorrect.

Now let's talk about men and women. I don't think that every example of discrimination in racial examples translates to gender discrimination. Although in your post, you didn't even attempt to make an analogy.

Some word that are absent from your post:
Man, woman, men, women, boy(s), girl(s), gender(s), his, her, he, she, male(s), female(s)

After all, the thread is about gender discrimination.

 

[Austin Manning]

Oh, stop doing this. You know that her generalization is exactly that - a generalization. It is relative. I'll say that people who post on the Escapist have more credibility when talking about videogames, as they all know about and play videogames frequently. There, I've just generalized an entire group of people. Perhaps there are people on these forums who don't play videogames at all, and simply enjoy posting in threads like these.

Oh there's nothing wrong with generalization at all, especially in the your example about the Escapist where it isn't used to dismiss or marginalize. My problem with sweetyInumb's post was simply that the generalization seemed directly contradictory to what they were saying in the rest of their post.

 

[sweetylnumb]

Men are perfectly entitled to be offended, whether they are white and straight or any variation of it. They can complain, they can point out white men problems (which DO exist)

They have to realize though, that while everything is relative, you have everything laid out for you, and your are not going to be constantly assaulted by societal oppression like everyone else is. And most importantly, the fact that white straight problems do exist, they do not overshadow or even compare to those of other demographics. They just don't.

So complain away, just remember your empathy and perspective. It would go a long way to us all recognizing each others problems.

Your post is... confusing to say the least. On the one hand you say people need to empathize and recognize each others' problems, on the the other you generalize an entire group of people based on their gender and skin colour then dismiss all of their problems as being unable to compare to those of other demographics because of... reasons, I'm guessing?

It just seems self-contradictory is all.

Im talking in generalizations here, and i throught the point of my post was that they exist (so, im not dismissing them) just saying you can understand why they arn't taken as seriousluy as those of others.

But i could have spoken poorly.

 

[LetalisK]

Yes, men are allowed to be offended. That's a silly, inflammatory question. The part I find worse is her excuse for it. It shows an incredible shit attitude and/or stupidity to think protection from sexual harassment is not universal.

'z like the idea in comedy that you only punch upwards.

It's an idea in comedy criticism that is conveniently applied only when someone with a blog is offended, but not really comedy itself. I can count on one hand the comedians that give a shit about that idea.

 

[TallanKhan]

The subject of people being offended is something i have to grapple with on a daily basis. A good few years ago when i was taking my first steps into a management role I was participating in an Equality and Diversity training course, and found myself in a rather heated debate with the course facilitator which i would like to reflect on here.

The facilitator's opening statement was: "What you all need to understand is this; anyone can be offended by anything, and the person who causes the offence is at fault." (I was offended by this, but that's by the by)

I would like to clarify my thoughts regarding this statement by breaking it down.

1. Anyone can be offended by anything - Yes they can. Offence is entirely subjective, an individual?s reaction to something that offends their sensibilities. You can't dictate what people can be offended by, and who can be offended, without trying to dictate peoples fundamental values.

2. The person who causes the offence is at fault - No. Wrong on so very many levels. If you accept the first statement that anything can be offensive, then by subsequently accepting this second statement you are effectively agreeing that anyone can be at fault for anything at all. The idea that anyone can be condemned as at fault, for any action whatsoever, without an objective standard by which to measure said fault and by virtue only of somebody else's displeasure, should insulting to anyone with a sense of morality. The very concept of fault requires an objective (or at least relative) standard of right and wrong by which to pass judgment.

So what am I saying here. Yes, anyone has the right to be offended. Men included. But what I am also saying is that being offended does not automatically put someone at fault.

So when can someone legitimately claim someone is at fault for offending them? Well, you need to consider two factors:

1. Intent - Intent is straight forward. Did the person who caused offence talk (or generally communicate) to someone, or about them, in a such a way as to deliberately cause offence? - Did they mean to do it?

2. Reasonable Expectation - Reasonable Expectation is a little harder. Basically, in an instance where someone did not intend to cause offence, was it nevertheless reasonable to expect them to have considered their actions and concluded they might offend someone? In my experience, this is one that comes into play more often than not when dealing with older workers and issues of discrimination in the workplace. There are a number of older workers who still use terms that are considered derogatory by today's standards that used to be acceptable. Often these workers do not consider the connotations of using such terminology, or who they are saying these things to. There is most often no malicious intent, but on balance you have to concede that it would have been reasonable for them to foresee that their words could offend someone.

Now if we examine the case in the OP of the Chief Executive referring to her male staff as "penis" using the criteria above then this certainly qualifies as an instance where the person who has caused offence is at fault.


As an afterthought if you would like another perspective (and an excellent one at that) on causing offence and being offended see this clip from Steve Hughes: http://www.snotr.com/video/8285/Steve_Hughes_-_Offended

 

[Burgers2013]

Wow, that's really horrible. Of course they have grounds to be offended and take action. Why would anyone do that? It seems really silly. It's not even creative or funny. I really don't understand why she would think that is okay in the workplace. I work in a very small company that has pretty loose rules, and nobody would think to talk to each other like that. I sincerely hope the employees win.

I agree that there are gender inequalities that put males at a disadvantage, and it's totally acceptable for people to voice their complaints and seek change. I guess an easy example is the draft. I don't see why young women wouldn't be eligible as well. We aren't made of porcelain. There are places in the world where both males and females are required to serve in the military. Some other issues are: child custody/divorce battles, male rape victims (lack of support systems for them to come forward), and increased incarceration time for males vs females. However, the existence of these problems doesn't cancel out any women's issues. They're just different.

On the video game character power fantasy/sexualization:

While I think the male power fantasy in video games isn't the same problem as the hyper-sexualization of females in video games, it's still problematic. Although, I will say that there tends to be more variety for male characters. For example, there are sexy male characters in many JRPGs. Then there's Catherine. That dude is just ugly (great game though). The GTA, L.A. Noire, and Heavy Rain protagonists don't seem to fit the stereotypical definition of attractiveness either. While you have the meaty/simple-minded men of Gears of War, Call of Duty, and God of War, there are also a lot of pretty complex male characters out there (Silent Hill 2, The Last of Us, and most games listed above). However, it does seem like many of the top-selling games suggest that men are at their best when they're murdering people with their 20" diameter biceps and talking in a gravely voice about "doin' what needs to be dun."

So I would say that what the medium many times says about what males should do or act like is problematic.

On the female side, it just seems like a different problem; in most cases I don't even feel like I'm playing out a power fantasy (mine anyway) as a female protagonist. Bayonetta is the only game that comes to mind where the female sexualization is (successfully) part a power fantasy. Fighting games like Dead or Alive, Mortal Combat, and Soul Caliber were particularly bad in this respect; I did not find these scantily clad females very empowering. I tended to play as the most appropriately dressed female character from each game (or just play as guys), even if I liked the fighting style less. The jiggle physics are just too ridiculous. Anyway, the best you can typically hope for in females is being pretty, but maybe has an appropriate amount of clothing on. Most are at least easy on the eyes, and too many female characters tend to fall flat. Even though I loved Heavy Rain, the only disappointing playable character was the female. She lacked depth and seemed to be there mostly so she could take care of the man, have the sex, and get into a lot of strange near-rape situations. The best counter examples to this I can think of are Gone Home, Portal, and old Metroid games. Still, many games tend to suggest that females are at their best when they look sexy still manage to kick ass (either in physical prowess or some secondary, supportive function). Or not. Either way.

For females, the medium says that females should look a certain way regardless of their actions which is also problematic, but different from the male problem.

 

[Kittyhawk]

Sure, guys can be offended. Thing is we are less likely to express our feelings without potentially heightened aggression. If this card is played it can scare the meek and you end up looking like the bad guy. The solution is to keep your cool with a teardrop of rage in it.

If you are going to state your being offended, do so calmly, clearly and vocally to the offender. This is also better done with others around. Be sure your offender is actually doing what you say, as with any kind of bullying etc, few will believe you unless they see it themselves.

 

[144_v1legacy]

The subject of people being offended is something i have to grapple with on a daily basis. A good few years ago when i was taking my first steps into a management role I was participating in an Equality and Diversity training course, and found myself in a rather heated debate with the course facilitator which i would like to reflect on here.

The facilitator's opening statement was: "What you all need to understand is this; anyone can be offended by anything, and the person who causes the offence is at fault." (I was offended by this, but that's by the by)

I would like to clarify my thoughts regarding this statement by breaking it down.

1. Anyone can be offended by anything - Yes they can. Offence is entirely subjective, an individual?s reaction to something that offends their sensibilities. You can't dictate what people can be offended by, and who can be offended, without trying to dictate peoples fundamental values.

2. The person who causes the offence is at fault - No. Wrong on so very many levels. If you accept the first statement that anything can be offensive, then by subsequently accepting this second statement you are effectively agreeing that anyone can be at fault for anything at all. The idea that anyone can be condemned as at fault, for any action whatsoever, without an objective standard by which to measure said fault and by virtue only of somebody else's displeasure, should insulting to anyone with a sense of morality. The very concept of fault requires an objective (or at least relative) standard of right and wrong by which to pass judgment.

So what am I saying here. Yes, anyone has the right to be offended. Men included. But what I am also saying is that being offended does not automatically put someone at fault.

So when can someone legitimately claim someone is at fault for offending them? Well, you need to consider two factors:

1. Intent - Intent is straight forward. Did the person who caused offence talk (or generally communicate) to someone, or about them, in a such a way as to deliberately cause offence? - Did they mean to do it?

2. Reasonable Expectation - Reasonable Expectation is a little harder. Basically, in an instance where someone did not intend to cause offence, was it nevertheless reasonable to expect them to have considered their actions and concluded they might offend someone? In my experience, this is one that comes into play more often than not when dealing with older workers and issues of discrimination in the workplace. There are a number of older workers who still use terms that are considered derogatory by today's standards that used to be acceptable. Often these workers do not consider the connotations of using such terminology, or who they are saying these things to. There is most often no malicious intent, but on balance you have to concede that it would have been reasonable for them to foresee that their words could offend someone.

Now if we examine the case in the OP of the Chief Executive referring to her male staff as "penis" using the criteria above then this certainly qualifies as an instance where the person who has caused offence is at fault.


As an afterthought if you would like another perspective (and an excellent one at that) on casing offence and being offended see this slip from Steve Hughes: http://www.snotr.com/video/8285/Steve_Hughes_-_Offended

Wow. That was really well-said. Thanks!

From here on, all my further statements in this thread will be to refer to this post.

 

[Cecilo]

I really don't understand where this idea of White Male Privilege comes from. When a white male boy turns eighteen he isn't handed some magic card that instantly gets you a good job. There is no magic trick to getting into college. We aren't handed anything.

We are more likely to be homeless, or to be the victims of murder or those who commit suicide the most. Please, if you want these "Privileges" Take them. I certainly don't want them.

 

[Rebel_Raven]

Yes, men are allowed to be offended. That's a silly, inflammatory question. The part I find worse is her excuse for it. It shows an incredible shit attitude and/or stupidity to think protection from sexual harassment is not universal.

'z like the idea in comedy that you only punch upwards.

It's an idea in comedy criticism that is conveniently applied only when someone with a blog is offended, but not really comedy itself. I can count on one hand the comedians that give a shit about that idea.

It's an idea, not an rule written in gold.

Of course men are allowed to be offended. Everyone gets to be offended. Yeah, it's going to get more heat if someone offends a person in a lower social status than they are, but that's just how it is, I guess. 'z like the idea in comedy that you only punch upwards.

As far as the gender debates in games, people almost exclusively bring up how men are mistreated only when it's brought up that women are mistreated, and it's generally to try and end the conversation as one big "shut up!"
And they pretend it's equal to what women go through. It just isn't, IMO. As bad as it might get, males have variety to balance it out, bluntly. It's likely part of why people rarely complain about male representation.
That said, the complaints about male representation are generally aired on a pretty poor battleground.

If you have grievances to air, go for it, IMO. I see occassional complaints, and being offended, but not a whole lot. Society puts a lot of pressure on guys to not complain, too.

actually, I'd have to disagree with you on male representation in video games - males do not have variety in the sense that I think you believe that they do. I've heard of Street fighter being used a lot as an example - sure, there may be multiple ethnicities represented on the male side of the scales, but when you take that away, every one of them is a musclehead powerhouse - when you break it all down to image, all men in video games are basically bodybuilders and women are sexualized eye candy.
Of course this is all just how I see it so if it's wrong, oh well.

I've really gotta disagree with you on Street Fighter.

While we have Zangief, who's the musclebound body builder sort, there's Ryu, Dhalsim, Yun, and Yang, Remy, Rufus (especially him who's as far away from male body builder as a guy can get, IMO), E. Honda (Sumo wrestlers still have to be strong despite their bulk), Gen (An old man. Hardly ever see old women in fighters.), Oro (The oldest of men!) and each one of them has a pretty unique look.

Also, the women of Street Fighter aren't entirely eyecandy... well, just Makoto really.

Fighting games, due to the necessity of large rosters, are probably the most balanced, and tolerable genre in terms of gender representations, though women tend to be stuck as combo reliant, IMO.

 

[thewatergamer]

I'd say that all people are oppressed about equally just in different ways, and yeah I do find that alot of double standards like this exist and it makes me sick, Sexuality in video games exists for both men and women, but its more a problem with the women, as for the situation above, the double standard here is ridiculous, if it was the other way around the offender would be out on the street and out of the job permanently because it would be all over the media, but of course since its a woman offending a man not as many people care, which doesn't make it right, shes immature and he has every right to be offended and honestly this should be considered sexual harassment...

The fact that this is actually happening with alot of people not batting an eye is disturbing but not surprising to me...

Man I love society today!

 

[FuckAroundBeDeceased]

I really don't understand where this idea of White Male Privilege comes from. When a white male boy turns eighteen he isn't handed some magic card that instantly gets you a good job. There is no magic trick to getting into college. We aren't handed anything.

We are more likely to be homeless, or to be the victims of murder or those who commit suicide the most. Please, if you want these "Privileges" Take them. I certainly don't want them.

lol. white dudes rule america. The history of this country is basically white males assuming rule over everyone and oppressing anyone who isn't a rich white male. White males never had to lead a civil rights movement to gain voting rights. White males were never forced to use inferior facilities because of their race. White males were never denied access to better education that other races had. White males have never had to face any serious oppression over their gender or skin color. you really think that white males don't have any advantages? plus, none of the things you listed are caused by oppression based on skin color. many of the struggles that minorities face today are linked to oppression from the past.

 

[SaetonChapelle]

There's a genuine and important difference between sexualisation and power fantasy, though. When examples of supposedly sexualised men are brought up, they usually consist of men who are mountains of muscle (hypermasculine, often to an impossible degree).

Men in video games are very rarely intended to titillate.

I think that a person's millage can vary on that. I know quite a few women who do like playing as the sexy, ass-kicking females that are seen frequently in games, as they view the overt sexuality of the character as part of their power fantasy.

Men are also very often intended to titillate, though you may not have noticed if the "fanservive" wasn't aimed at you. Pick any Metal Gear protagonist, any male Final Fantasy protagonist (or character for that matter), any character that could be labelled as "bishounen" and you have an example of a male character that's meant to titillate. Even if you want to say that western developers to create male characters that are attractive you'd be wrong. Male characters such as Thane from Mass Effect were created to be sexual fanservice for women and I wouldn't be surprised if Nathan Drake has a lot of female fans.

As a female, many video games male characters are not geared towards my gender. Nathan Drake is attractive, yes, but he is considered the "stereotypical male hero" (dark hair, white, snarky, blah blah), which is not necessarily made for women (although, yes, it is enjoyable). Thane is from a game that is more geared towards male players (although again, women play it just as much). As for JRPG characters, they may be considered more attractive for Japanese audience, as they are not necessarily made to look "manly". Many look more effeminate for cultures sake. However, this is not "titillating", merely "attractive". These men do not normally walk around showing off their bare bodies, oiled up, groping at themselves sexually. A more "sexy" character could be Dante, especially from Devil May Cry 4

 

[FalloutJack]

Men are allowed to be offended by things.

Men are not allowed to be offended by stupid things to be offended about.

Men are also not allowed to be total assholes about the thing that they're being offended about, because that defeats the purpose of it all.

This comes to you from a full-blown wiseguy. Take it as you will.

 

[Chartic]

Whenever people tell me white people can't be treated poorly I bring up white South African farmers, who have their land taken from them, have been killed, have had their wives raped, and have had their children killed, and the government does nothing about it. Or Slavs, the origin for the term slave, not many Slavic countries doing too well at the moment. But I'm not gonna go off with examples, people who say whites can't say this or be offended do it because they believe they can classify an entire group based on a stereotype, or in other words they are racists.

Good for you. You're bringing to light how racist you aren't. You point out that the generalizations made based on race can and frequently are misleading and incorrect.

Now let's talk about men and women. I don't think that every example of discrimination in racial examples translates to gender discrimination. Although in your post, you didn't even attempt to make an analogy.

Some word that are absent from your post:
Man, woman, men, women, boy(s), girl(s), gender(s), his, her, he, she, male(s), female(s)

After all, the thread is about gender discrimination.

I think I posted this in the wrong thread, and I'm trying to figure out how that happened.