Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?
- Thread starter KissingSunlight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Indeed, but being called "penis" by your CEO and her defending with "white men aren't a protected class" is definitely the former. I mean, how'd she like it if they took to calling her "vagina"? I bet that'd spark all kinds of outrage, I mean, man how mean and assholeish would those men be if they did so!K12 said:
Appeal to worse problems isn't generally something we want to resort to in cases such as this. When it comes to the topic at hand, that CEO is being undoubtedly sexist, and worse, she thinks that she's entitled to it, and it's very much done by a singular person in this case. Problem is that sometimes individuals from a disadvantaged group adopt the following attitude:
"If I'm offended by something you did/said, that's because you're a bigoted asshole.
But if you're offended by something I did/said, that's because you're a bigoted asshole."
That's not an attitude that will solve problems.
And the award for most sexist thing I've read today goes to...144 said:
Your analogies are totally messed up. Being Healthy is objectively better than being ill, being rich is objectively better than being poor, and being educated is objectively better than being uneducated. In each of these cases someone from the objectively worse group would almost always say "YES!" if offered the change to switch sides.
So what you're suggesting is that being male is objectively better than female. You're suggesting that being straight is objectively better than homosexual, and you're suggesting that being white is objectively better than Black, Asian, or Mixed Race. You're then turning around and saying that because they are objectively better they need to be punished down to everyone else's level and treated like shit without sympathy... That's a pretty interesting world view you've go going on there.
If you actually wanted to use power as a benchmark for who can complain then wouldn't the boss, the person who controls the other people's employment, have the most power?
This is a horrific case of gender focused discrimination, and deserves to be treated as such. If the genders were reversed and it was a male boss calling all his female employee's '****' then nobody would suggest otherwise. That's a good way to tell if something's sexist by the way, reverse all the genders and look at it again. If they answer to "Is it gender discriminating?" changes you need to rethink your opinion of one of the situations.
I've played FFX twice through, but never spent much time with the Metal Gear series. Tidus I would dispute (a strip of bare chest doesn't rival the examples I gave), but I'll concede Vaan.Austin Manning said:You clearly haven't played many Final Fantasy or Metal Gear games then. Though it ultimately depends on the character designer, male Final Fantasy protagonists are often designed to look "appealing" to women. Both Tidus and Vaan show a lot of skin, to the point where Vaan looks like he works part time as a male stripper:
In Metal Gear Solid 2 there is a level where the bishounen protagonist runs around completely naked. In games where you play as the character Naked Snake, there is always the option to run around naked from the waste up. Furthermore, for a franchise that you say does not sexualize men, the uniforms the protagonists wear are all skin tight and the camera is almost always focused on their backside.
For Lineage, Tera, Guild Wars, and World of Warcraft, I simply remembered that they existed and looked up their armour sets, both female and male, and compared. The last four examples I got from the blog, "Repair her armour [http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/]". I gave one example from a pr0n game, among many others I could have given from non-pr0n games.Austin Manning said:
I have experience of both Guild Wars and World of Warcraft.
How is my observation demeaning to males?chadachada123 said:
I've been intentionally steering away from comics, because when I initially weighed in, I was specifically talking about video games (and said as much).chadachada123 said:But as a final argument:
Not only that, but here, too: Clearly it is the female here that is sexualized here. Totally not the male hero:
That said, I could outnumber Namor a hundredfold with overly revealing female superhero/ supervillain costumes. Psylocke, Sky Sapphire, Power Girl, Poison Ivy, Enchantress, the Insect Girls, Supergirl (not always, but see her in the Brainiac/ New Krypton storyline), to name only ones I can recall from comics I've read.
There are plenty of things that could change my mind, Chada. I simply haven't seen evidence I find convincing (and I do read a lot of comics, & play a lot of games). Don't mistake that for closed-mindedness.
In my previous comment I tried to distance the example situation for the overall "which groups can be offended" because of almost the exact thing you said in the first paragraph.Vegosiux said:
In the global sense, her calling her male colleagues "penis" is not comparable to gender reversed situation of her being called "vagina". I don't know enough about the specific situation to know whether I think they were right to sue and if she is actually being a ***** but it's the over-arching debate that interests me.
Some gay bars don't allow straight people in. That is not comparable to a bar which excludes gay people. A white guy being called "Whitey" is not comparable to black guy being called "Blacky".
Discrimination happens when one group has power over another which they abuse. This is different to an individual with power abuses their power with respect to a specific group. The former is a symptom of a larger problem while the latter is just the problem on its own.
You can be offended by both situations but in the latter case there is a sense that you should be able to get over it because it's an isolated case that you could walk away from. The first type is something that it is impossible to walk away from and you have to live with it or fight it.
I don't know, but if I boss repeatedly kept referring to me with a demeaning name, I'd not see it as "an isolated case I could walk away from". After all, if it's constantly present in an aspect of my life that takes up quite a large part of my like, like a job tends to be, then it's entirely different from not being allowed into that gay bar that one time. It's harassment.K12 said:
Well the statement was true in the fantasy world of the status quo as of late white men aren't protected the protected class nonsense only applies to everyone else. It's a ludicrous double standard that would only be proveable with something like 80 white men who all worked at her place who said she was derogatory against them and caused emotional harm and only then they might not be laughed out of the lawyers office. But if she had said the word to anyone nonwhite they'd be on the case in no time just from one guy. I've got another insane one a white male's boss is racist against him black listed him and tells every employer he sends to him in that field all kinds of lies his ex-employer was Irish and he can't sue because no lawyer will touch the case even if all the white guys this Irish man blacklisted ended up going to the same lawyer with the same claim I doubt they'd get any traction cuz you can't be racist against whites only everyone else so the standard goes. He had to change fields completely because he couldn't get any work due to the ex-bosses lies.
From what I understand of this standard and the whole "not protected" idea its simply white like fat is ok to be crap to cuz its the last baston that the elites and special interests groups say you can't be offended cuz they say so,they have dibs on outrage. There is a second social code that goes along with it too in some groups if the guy is white to them its justified/payback/revenge culture so with this second mindset they feel unspokenly he deserves whatever bad thing they can toss at him because of his skin tone and by his preceived status in life (aka richer then the person who hates him)regardless of weather he or she even has this status. I guess you could say in both cases those who control speech in the largest areas use white, rich, man for dehumanizing an entire group because to those that do such things its revenge or somehow they just deserve it but oddly enough ask those same people if they too are inferior if they're white they'll say nope they're special and ok and the ones they decide aren't its a click elite mentality and those people are running the main show which then trickles down into the average normal people's worlds.
Now to me if you're offended you're offended you can choose it sometimes like if you allow words to have power over you then they do but other times its an ingrained thing that just happens you might not even know you've got that issue on the matter till it comes up you then have to consciously clamp down on it if you want to maintain control or don't and say how its offending to you. But despite what clicks say everyone can be offended there is no reserved seating for offense for anyone in the world of reality. Too bad no lawyer wants to touch their case if they could made one on facts and evidence that was true the courts should be able to hear both sides unbiased and figure it out so long as the close it off to outside interference.
From what I understand of this standard and the whole "not protected" idea its simply white like fat is ok to be crap to cuz its the last baston that the elites and special interests groups say you can't be offended cuz they say so,they have dibs on outrage. There is a second social code that goes along with it too in some groups if the guy is white to them its justified/payback/revenge culture so with this second mindset they feel unspokenly he deserves whatever bad thing they can toss at him because of his skin tone and by his preceived status in life (aka richer then the person who hates him)regardless of weather he or she even has this status. I guess you could say in both cases those who control speech in the largest areas use white, rich, man for dehumanizing an entire group because to those that do such things its revenge or somehow they just deserve it but oddly enough ask those same people if they too are inferior if they're white they'll say nope they're special and ok and the ones they decide aren't its a click elite mentality and those people are running the main show which then trickles down into the average normal people's worlds.
Now to me if you're offended you're offended you can choose it sometimes like if you allow words to have power over you then they do but other times its an ingrained thing that just happens you might not even know you've got that issue on the matter till it comes up you then have to consciously clamp down on it if you want to maintain control or don't and say how its offending to you. But despite what clicks say everyone can be offended there is no reserved seating for offense for anyone in the world of reality. Too bad no lawyer wants to touch their case if they could made one on facts and evidence that was true the courts should be able to hear both sides unbiased and figure it out so long as the close it off to outside interference.
I think Wakka and Jecht are probably better examples of my point, what with their muscled, permanent shirtlessness. (Yes I know that's not a word, no I do not care)Silvanus said:
Ah, okay. It's just that in discussions like these, I tend to see a lot of statistics or statements thrown around with no citations or sources and it really annoys me. It reminds me of that one Family Guy skit where Peter says: "anyone can make up statistics to support their claims, 85% of people know that".
I want to thank everyone who have posted. Also, I want to thank everyone for keeping this thread civil.
I want address one thing that has been asked to me, "Why did I bring up the male power fantasy debate as an example to this topic?" I keep hearing that we as a society need to have discussion on social issues like gender equality, race, gay rights, etc. I agree with that sentiment. Even though, I agree with people who are politically correct on these issues. I sometime disagree with them when take an issue and try to declare it a social injustice. Like sexism in videogames. I can understand why a woman would get upset and offended by how female characters are portrayed in videogames. However, when people who are advocating that this rises to the level of sexism and list the reasons why. It's obvious that it doesn't seem to be sexism because male characters are portrayed the same way. The problem lies more with videogames being an immature medium than sexism. The problem is when pro-PC people are confronted with any disagreement with their position they are too quick to accuse the person disagreeing with them as being a bigot. In essence, trying to quell any dissent to what they believe is the morally superior position they have in the discussion. Also, they do it in a way that is quite bigoted. Like using the term "mansplaining". Which seems to be defined as a man who disagrees with a feminist is automatically wrong based on his gender.
I thought the power fantasy debate was a good example. The implication of that argument is that men don't have a right to point out how they might be objectified and sexualized in videogames because they are men.
I want address one thing that has been asked to me, "Why did I bring up the male power fantasy debate as an example to this topic?" I keep hearing that we as a society need to have discussion on social issues like gender equality, race, gay rights, etc. I agree with that sentiment. Even though, I agree with people who are politically correct on these issues. I sometime disagree with them when take an issue and try to declare it a social injustice. Like sexism in videogames. I can understand why a woman would get upset and offended by how female characters are portrayed in videogames. However, when people who are advocating that this rises to the level of sexism and list the reasons why. It's obvious that it doesn't seem to be sexism because male characters are portrayed the same way. The problem lies more with videogames being an immature medium than sexism. The problem is when pro-PC people are confronted with any disagreement with their position they are too quick to accuse the person disagreeing with them as being a bigot. In essence, trying to quell any dissent to what they believe is the morally superior position they have in the discussion. Also, they do it in a way that is quite bigoted. Like using the term "mansplaining". Which seems to be defined as a man who disagrees with a feminist is automatically wrong based on his gender.
I thought the power fantasy debate was a good example. The implication of that argument is that men don't have a right to point out how they might be objectified and sexualized in videogames because they are men.
Metal Gear Solid is beyond the squabbles of sexual pandering. Everything is done to Kojima's tastes and the guy just has a thing for weird torture scenes followed by the protagonist being left under-equipped and vulnerable in some manner, 2 just took it to its logical conclusion with Raiden being completely stripped down.Austin Manning said:
Also he is an ass man in the purest form, he cares not for the gender of the one with a nice ass, he simply appreciates all nice asses.
In a more serious sense, Metal Gear Solid gets a bit of slack on that manner because it is most certainly created with the vision of a single artist and not built to pander to markets like many many other examples are.
Also that artist is a weird bastard.
And people wonder why Kojima is praised, guy has a firm grasp on lunacy.... and fine male booty.Cybylt said:
OT:
Yup.
If I get called out for not liking football (or futbol since I'm hispanic and despise the damn sport) to where they go as far as to say my hobbies in dancing and animation are dumb in comparison, then hell yeah, I have every right to be offended!
Normally in those kinds of situations I try not to get up in arms about it though, sometimes you just can't let things get to you. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't argue against something if it's incredibly offensive to you/many, subtlety is key in situations such as those.
(Unless you're the internet... then f*** subtlety thats for losers. /sarcasm)
Oh wait... we live in an age where men should "grow a pair" cause emotions are NOPE on our turf.
Go home misandry, you're drunk again.
How is that true by my logic? Having more power and having no power are very different. You don't have to be in one the higher or lower group to sue. It's a right we all have. And, while according to me, men currently have objectively more swing than women (something which is changing in some countries faster than others, but hopefully soon), also according to me is that being higher up on the socioeconomic class also grants power.Austin Manning said:
So, do you have more sway if you're a lower-level employee man, or a higher-level employee woman? I imagine it's the latter, which is good, because it means that inequality between men and women is decreasing. And that's why I say it would've been better to sue for employee mistreatment, as that's a more distinct difference in power than gender.
In your post you said this:144 said:
I was trying to point out that what you were saying comes across as: "these men have no right to complain about their mistreatment by their boss because they are men and therefore do not deserve our sympathy because they have more power than her."
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.
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.
Yes, they have the same right as all humans. The CEO is sexist, this thread will be locked for the flame wars and I've been Evil Smurf.
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?sweetylnumb said:
It just seems self-contradictory is all.