Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[Esotera]

The very fact that there's such a massive disparity between the two genders indicates discrimination.

I'm gonna stop you right there. Wrong. That is such fallacious reasoning, I don't even know where to start. Not enough women enter politics. To give a great example, there aren't that many Jewish sport legends. Is that evidence of anti-Semitism in professional sports? Hell no.

I said that it indicates there is a problem, not that there definitely is a problem - apparently subtle nuances are lost on the escapist as this is about the third quote I've got. Discrimination doesn't have to be at the stage of selection, it can be pressures during the job such as a 'boys-club' atmosphere, and can even be at the level of society that doesn't do enough to dispel stereotypes such as X is for boys, Y is for girls. If a disproportionate number of males are attempting to go into politics compared to females, that's something we should attempt to correct. Note that candidates are still selected on their merits, but it's a lot fairer as there is more equal opportunity at the start.

Basically when you're getting to the point that males outnumber females 2 to 1, it seems likely that there's some stereotype/discrimination going on to have such a massive effect. Although the ratio certainly isn't proof of a problem by itself.

If the gender divide is above a reasonable threshold e.g. 70/30 then there is probably a social issue that is stopping women. And given that UK politics is mostly run by boarding school boys I find that way more plausible than not enough women being interested in politics.

Considering how the UK public reacted to the death of Thatcher, it's not surprising that more British women aren't interested in politics.

That's more to do with her policies than her gender, a lot of people feel that she destroyed manufacturing and started selling off state assets on the cheap. There's a good case to blame our current housing crisis on Thatcher as she started selling social housing without building new ones. Not to mention her party's complete disregard for the North. The majority of people will focus on that, and not care that she was a woman.

 

[Saelune]

Ofcourse men are. Straight White Men included (since black and gay men exist too). As a gay person who cares about equal rights, I want EQUAL rights. You cant fight for equal rights then not give them to everyone! Too many people have become arrogant with their status as discriminated, that they act untouchable and themselves bigots. I often argue with my female feminist friend cause I worry she will cross that line. Hypocrisy is a bad thing.

 

[VodkaKnight]

Men are allowed to be offended, but to be honest we're not allowed to show it.
You're sad? You're not allowed to show weakness.
You don't know an answer? You're expected to.
You feel lonely? Deal with it.
You feel vulnerable? 'Man up'.
You hate your body? 'Men never have to deal with body shame'.

Men are always told to be strong.
We can't feel vulnerable, sad, alone, self-hatred, or anything other than strength.
Otherwise, we're shamed for having emotions.
Men are always depicted as strong, and not everyone is strong.

 

[Silvanus]

That's your belief. I know many leftist Britons share that belief with you. Doesn't make it all that accurate.

You think it was... because she was a woman?

What about all the adulation, the majority of the papers' endless fawning coverage, the state funeral? The 'death parties' were a small phenomenon, in comparison. Somehow, I find it unlikely you'll attribute the other side of the public response to her being a woman.

 

[Annihilist]

If we are striving for true equality, then men can be offended just as women can. What's the difference? If the sexes are equal, there should be no question on this front.

 

[Annihilist]

Ofcourse men are. Straight White Men included (since black and gay men exist too). As a gay person who cares about equal rights, I want EQUAL rights. You cant fight for equal rights then not give them to everyone! Too many people have become arrogant with their status as discriminated, that they act untouchable and themselves bigots. I often argue with my female feminist friend cause I worry she will cross that line. Hypocrisy is a bad thing.

Very very good point. This is incidentally the problem with the feminist movement of today, which claims special rights in the name of equality.

 

[The Great JT]

Everyone is allowed to be offended. Male, female, white, black, Asian, Latin, middle eastern...Martian, whatever. If you exist, you are allowed to be offended over someone using derogatory terms used to insult you. Case in point, the Archie boss calling her male subordinates "Penis," those men have every right to get offended over her using such a term to refer to them if they don't want to be addressed that way, in much the same way it's insulting to refer to a woman as "slut" or "*****," you get the idea. If the male co-workers are feeling insulted by the comments made by this person, they have the right to get offended and call the person out on it. If I were to use racially- or gender-sensitive words or phrases, I wouldn't blame you one bit if you got offended and called me an asshole over it. Hell, it'd probably make me take a second-look over what I said and, more than likely feeling like I had insulted you without the intent of or foresight to know I was doing so, apologize over it.

To put it another way, "Freedom of Speech means you can say what you want, but it also means I can say what I want. And knowing what you said, I have a few choice words for you."

 

[Mikkaddo]

This seems like a topic that would go better on the R&P section of forums.

Anyways, I'm assuming that by your question you are asking if discrimination effects men, and if society is ignoring that discrimination.

While men are in no way not discriminated against, neither are women. Issues like the example of Archie Comics you gave can show this quite well (I would like a link to this story, if possible). Such a small issue as a workplace comment is nothing when you look at how women are actually held down in society. Over 80% of congress is men. Most news reporters on TV are men. And of course, there are the gender roles forced upon children, although this effects both genders.

So maybe men aren't allowed to be offended about discrimination in public as easily. Women have discrimination at least equal to that of men, and even that's a stretch. That doesn't make it right, obviously, but it is not a one-sided issue as many men and women make it out to be.

As with so many things, depends on a few things:

is he white? asian? black? latino?

if he's white, then it depends:

according to radical feminists (keyword RADICAL) no. never, it's always men's faults.

according to radical political proponents/opponents (again, RADICAL) of course not,

and obviously if it's about race and he's white . . . well, it goes without saying but no one seems to think white people are allowed to be offended.


However, personally I think we're actually moving toward a more equalized society than ever before, which can be seen by the fact that most of the squabbles about race, sex, religion and all are getting less frequent. Especially religion, people really kind of don't ask anymore, and are more accepting of people of (I hesitate to use the word) "alternate" religions (hesitate since using the word "alternate" there makes me cringe as with race, sexuality, gender whatever else there is no STANDARD religion).

However, as society gets more equal, it goes uncanny valley and the problems with race/sex/religion/whatever that DO still happen become that much more obvious.

Also, I think we should adopt the all or nothing approach to race, sex, gender and everything else. If one is ok, why should any others not be?

 

[Ihateregistering1]

It's sort of a weird question. "Being offended" is just an emotional state, just like "being angry" or "being happy", so you can no more tell someone "you can't be offended" or "you shouldn't offended" than you can tell someone "you shouldn't be angry" or "you can't be angry".

But I'm guessing you mean "should a class that everyone considers to be 'privileged' be treated the same when they are offended as when 'unprivileged' classes are offended?". In my opinion, absolutely.

If the end-all, be-all goal of society when it comes to race, sex, religion, etc. is to have everyone treated equally, then the first (and by far the most important step) to achieving that is to actually treat people equally. Not "everyone is equal and should be treated equally, unless you're a _________, then you're different and it's ok to treat you differently". The more you subdivide people into groups, the more you divide them (as would be obvious).

 

[Specter Von Baren]

I think this thread is a joyful day for me. It seems the whole sexism debate on this site has finally reached a boiling point, because I'm seeing far more people speaking out against the double standards so often used here, than before. Absolutely lovely, the thing missing for so long from these discussions, numbers parity!

As to the actual discussion. I'm going to go with the snarky answer and say that, no, men aren't allowed to be offended, we're supposed to suck it up.

 

[BNguyen]

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.

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)

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.

I have experience of both Guild Wars and World of Warcraft.

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 actually think that that line was more from Homer Simpson - and I think it was "oh people can use statistics to prove anything Kent, 40% of all people know that"
I mean, I could be wrong about it being on Family Guy but I definitely heard it on the Simpsons

 

[username sucks]

This seems like a topic that would go better on the R&P section of forums.

Anyways, I'm assuming that by your question you are asking if discrimination effects men, and if society is ignoring that discrimination.

While men are in no way not discriminated against, neither are women. Issues like the example of Archie Comics you gave can show this quite well (I would like a link to this story, if possible). Such a small issue as a workplace comment is nothing when you look at how women are actually held down in society. Over 80% of congress is men. Most news reporters on TV are men. And of course, there are the gender roles forced upon children, although this effects both genders.

So maybe men aren't allowed to be offended about discrimination in public as easily. Women have discrimination at least equal to that of men, and even that's a stretch. That doesn't make it right, obviously, but it is not a one-sided issue as many men and women make it out to be.

As with so many things, depends on a few things:

is he white? asian? black? latino?

if he's white, then it depends:

according to radical feminists (keyword RADICAL) no. never, it's always men's faults.

according to radical political proponents/opponents (again, RADICAL) of course not,

and obviously if it's about race and he's white . . . well, it goes without saying but no one seems to think white people are allowed to be offended.


However, personally I think we're actually moving toward a more equalized society than ever before, which can be seen by the fact that most of the squabbles about race, sex, religion and all are getting less frequent. Especially religion, people really kind of don't ask anymore, and are more accepting of people of (I hesitate to use the word) "alternate" religions (hesitate since using the word "alternate" there makes me cringe as with race, sexuality, gender whatever else there is no STANDARD religion).

However, as society gets more equal, it goes uncanny valley and the problems with race/sex/religion/whatever that DO still happen become that much more obvious.

Also, I think we should adopt the all or nothing approach to race, sex, gender and everything else. If one is ok, why should any others not be?

I agree with what you said and all, but did you mean to quote me? Maybe I'm overlooking something, but it seems like you just answered the OP's question and my post has no relevance to anything you said. Could you clarify? I bet I'll feel stupid when you point it out but right now you have me very confused.

 

[CheeksMcGraw]

Everyone is allowed to be offended. I'm offended right now that this question had to be asked.

 

[Austin Manning]

I actually think that that line was more from Homer Simpson - and I think it was "oh people can use statistics to prove anything Kent, 40% of all people know that"
I mean, I could be wrong about it being on Family Guy but I definitely heard it on the Simpsons

Oh I definitely heard it in Family Guy. It was in one of the earlier episodes and Peter was being questioned in court for reasons I can't remember. It wouldn't surprise me to hear that it was cribbed from The Simpsons though. The Simpsons has been running for longer and was a very large influence on the early Family Guy seasons.