BenTheDemon
Banned deucer.
So because I'm white, I'm "one of them"?
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Serious A Women's Group Wants to Ban the Word "Bossy"
- Thread starter BenTheDemon
- Start date
Don't really want to step into this cesspool again, but why are we lumping all "men" into one huge entity? Most of the men in this day and age didn't create shit; they were born into it. That's like blaming the whites of today for slavery when they probably never even met any slave owners during their lifetimes, let alone were slave owners. Those who created the system are most certainly not the ones living in it nowadays; to mix the two seems simplistic at best and downright harmful at worst.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
This is like an arms race of people trying to out-miss-the-point each other.
AND WHY ARE WE STILL ON THIS SHITTY SLAVERY ANALOGY. STOP IT. NO MORE SLAVERY TALK.
AND WHY ARE WE STILL ON THIS SHITTY SLAVERY ANALOGY. STOP IT. NO MORE SLAVERY TALK.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
If only I could like posts.
really slavery is not at all relevant to this conversation and im not gonna respond to it again but i will say that while i dont blame whites of today for inventing the slave trade, i can blame whites who do things to perpetuate the inequality and damage that the slave trade did to black people, this argument is so bad and overplayed it has been refuted a million times
men who participate in sexist or misogynistic systems and systems of thinking can also be blamed- i lump men because it is irrelevant to say "some men", men as a whole created the system and participate in the system and i will address them as an entity
being born into a system of inequality doesn't give you a pass to participate in it, i think the phrase "if you aren't a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem" fits pretty well in this situation. if you arent actively fighting a situation, you are allowing it to pass and continue: non-action is always in favor of the system in power and is giving the go ahead to continue
also valk your little quips about how bad the thread is arent making it any better
BTD-- I think you need to actually read NJ's posts and think about them carefully before responding...
It's a hard opinion to express-- but I will say that I don't think that society ever will (or really, ever need to) treat women and men exactly the same; because there are biological and psychological differences that always will exist. The majority of rapists will never be women-- they'll always be men. The majority of construction jobs will always likely be for men. Companies always will, and should be obligated to make accomadations to women for maternity. I also think it's FINE that women get custody most of the time as long as it's in the children's best interest as best judged by the presiding authority (ie. Mom's not a terrible parent compared to Dad).
The point is not to de-gender society (in the process also removing "humanity" from society-- ignoring our basic needs and nature), but we want a society where everyone believes that justice is being done by their gender/ethnic/religious/etc. groups, and where people can believe that society is trying it's best to do good by everyone in terms of equality.
It's a hard opinion to express-- but I will say that I don't think that society ever will (or really, ever need to) treat women and men exactly the same; because there are biological and psychological differences that always will exist. The majority of rapists will never be women-- they'll always be men. The majority of construction jobs will always likely be for men. Companies always will, and should be obligated to make accomadations to women for maternity. I also think it's FINE that women get custody most of the time as long as it's in the children's best interest as best judged by the presiding authority (ie. Mom's not a terrible parent compared to Dad).
The point is not to de-gender society (in the process also removing "humanity" from society-- ignoring our basic needs and nature), but we want a society where everyone believes that justice is being done by their gender/ethnic/religious/etc. groups, and where people can believe that society is trying it's best to do good by everyone in terms of equality.
^Also, what this man said-- maybe this needs to go to a new thread if everyone wants to outright argue about feminism-- but as NJ said, it's pretty ridiculous to discuss when the vast majority of our Pokemon gaming community is male.
Last edited:
This seems to be the heart of your contention, and it really is a lousy way of looking at it. It doesn't take long to see that there are many men in society who either through smaller forms of discrimination or outright sexism continue to help to reinforce the system we have today, and saying that they were "born into" the culture is not a good enough reason for excusing the behavior. With logic like that, you could justify any sort of immoral human behavior by saying how people were simply born into a time that condoned it. Such an explanation might explain why people continue to do whatever the bad thing is, but it can never act as a means for justifying the actions or rendering them ok.
If your statement is simply saying that they've not enforced any sexism at all and have instead taken a passive stance, I would say that if society did treat women as equals, then how things were in the past wouldn't matter as much since you'd be seeing more systematic change on the issue. The reason it is still a problem is not simply because people were "born into it", but because they continue to, in ways both large and small, model the behavior of those before them despite the fact that it is shown to be discriminatory. That is why the system continues as it is, so most modern men cannot be absolved of blame regarding the issue, despite how convenient it is to say "it's how it's always been".
Seems like a pretty fitting analogy imo
But...
I agree with misogynistic men as well, but "misogynistic systems" is also ridiculously broad; do you include pornography as misogynistic? If yes, pornography as a whole, or only certain kinds of porn? How about teaching, when most elementary-level teachers are females because they deal better with kids, while higher levels are more usually male? What's the status on misogynistic women? I find that, particularly in times where housewives were more common, it was more often than not the women of the household drilling submissiveness into their daughter's heads than anything the males ever did. I honestly found that my father was more absent than anything, and while my parents were indeed divorced when I was eight years old, I can't help but think that men would be largely absent from the average girl's day as she grew up learning how to do housework with her mother and female siblings while her male relatives worked in the fields.
[so i guess i'm now partially blaming women]
I'd say "some men" is very relevant to add to the conversation unless you think the vast majority of males in the western world are intentionally, blatantly sexist, which I simply don't think is true unless you're referring to "old white men" in the sense of those 50+ year old staunch conservatives who watch FOX news and have their wives make them sandwiches etc. Maybe I just don't get out much, maybe I don't live in the right area, but I usually see a lot of sensitivity towards women in particular.
I'd also like to know what your opinion is on women who actually want to be housewives/mothers instead of employed/generally "traditional" in their roles. Are they bringing themselves or other women down by doing this and not taking charge, or are they actually taking charge by having the choice and still choosing to do what they want.
Define "actively fighting" for me as well. I dislike the hatred of homosexuals strongly, and I don't typically tolerate blatant showing of it when I see it [not that I see it that often, surprisingly], but if I don't do things like go to parades and campaign for equal rights, am I part of the problem? I'm not really an "outgoing" person in any way, shape, or form. Does that mean I'm just a burden who rides on the waves of the status quo?
No, I'm not trying to say that shitty behaviour is excused by upbringing; what I am trying to say, though, is that they didn't make the system and shouldn't be blamed for the fact that it exists; people in here, at least, seem to be at least somewhere convenient of its existence. People that don't want the system to remain as it is shouldn't be blamed for its upkeep just because they're part of the group that started it; being male doesn't suddenly make you part of the problem unless you choose to be.
But...
Who the fuck is blaming the women? Maaaybe Reverb, who you never addressed and didn't call out as "stupid shit"? Ben's certainly not. I'm certainly not. Newtonja and Trax are not. Nobody's blaming the women nearly as much as the backwards system that we still have left in place from that.
"Perpetuate the inequality and damage the slave trade did to black people" - elaborate what you personally mean by that? I've seen a lot of different definitions of those, ranging from not perpetuating racism to white people being oppressive simply by existing.
I agree with misogynistic men as well, but "misogynistic systems" is also ridiculously broad; do you include pornography as misogynistic? If yes, pornography as a whole, or only certain kinds of porn? How about teaching, when most elementary-level teachers are females because they deal better with kids, while higher levels are more usually male? What's the status on misogynistic women? I find that, particularly in times where housewives were more common, it was more often than not the women of the household drilling submissiveness into their daughter's heads than anything the males ever did. I honestly found that my father was more absent than anything, and while my parents were indeed divorced when I was eight years old, I can't help but think that men would be largely absent from the average girl's day as she grew up learning how to do housework with her mother and female siblings while her male relatives worked in the fields.
[so i guess i'm now partially blaming women]
I'd say "some men" is very relevant to add to the conversation unless you think the vast majority of males in the western world are intentionally, blatantly sexist, which I simply don't think is true unless you're referring to "old white men" in the sense of those 50+ year old staunch conservatives who watch FOX news and have their wives make them sandwiches etc. Maybe I just don't get out much, maybe I don't live in the right area, but I usually see a lot of sensitivity towards women in particular.
I'd also like to know what your opinion is on women who actually want to be housewives/mothers instead of employed/generally "traditional" in their roles. Are they bringing themselves or other women down by doing this and not taking charge, or are they actually taking charge by having the choice and still choosing to do what they want.
Define "actively fighting" for me as well. I dislike the hatred of homosexuals strongly, and I don't typically tolerate blatant showing of it when I see it [not that I see it that often, surprisingly], but if I don't do things like go to parades and campaign for equal rights, am I part of the problem? I'm not really an "outgoing" person in any way, shape, or form. Does that mean I'm just a burden who rides on the waves of the status quo?
No, I'm not trying to say that shitty behaviour is excused by upbringing; what I am trying to say, though, is that they didn't make the system and shouldn't be blamed for the fact that it exists; people in here, at least, seem to be at least somewhere convenient of its existence. People that don't want the system to remain as it is shouldn't be blamed for its upkeep just because they're part of the group that started it; being male doesn't suddenly make you part of the problem unless you choose to be.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Oh really they aren't?
Then perhaps I should point out how you saying "Men" perpetuate the system is patently false SINCE YOU ARE ACTIVELY PERPETUATING IT IN THE WAY THAT YOU ARE ARGUING.
You fought vehemently that women are still the victims of patriarchy even when they are receiving positive benefits from patriarchy as Ben was pointing out. And while he may have been wrong about various points, you still managed to miss the core issue he was driving at which was recognizing inequality, and instead favored portraying women as defenseless creatures who cannot overthrow the maniacal evilness of Patriarchy (Even in situations where women are getting exactly what they want). By overplaying women's victimhood and trying to turn it into some kind of guilt trip weapon only shows an innate buy in on the idea that women really cannot gain their own equality and need it to be given to them, or in other words a further perpetuation of the patriarchal culture. Even if you don't consciously think that's what you are doing, that is the effect those types of arguments have. Understanding the Patriarchy is a flawed system is one thing, to blatantly disregard the few inequalities biased towards women and represent them as still somehow being against women is simply disingenuous and arguably negative to the feminist cause.
Whether you like it or not there will always be a difference between women and men.
As women are considered to be the more important gender (at least nowadays) They will always receive a bit more leniency in court and always be the first to be rescued from an accident.
As men are generally the stronger gender they will get hired more and generally get more responsibility shifted on their shoulders.
Take it and bloody role with it. This woman doesn't want to ban the word. she wants to ban the connotation it receives. Whether she will succeed or not is a different story all together.
Sure in an ideal world the judicial system does not favour either gender and women get paid the same as men.
BUT THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL WORLD.
There will always be gender differences and as long as they don't get too out of hand you're just gonna have to role with them.
And if you support equal rights call yourself a humanist not a feminist as the word feminist makes you sound like you think females should be superior.
As women are considered to be the more important gender (at least nowadays) They will always receive a bit more leniency in court and always be the first to be rescued from an accident.
As men are generally the stronger gender they will get hired more and generally get more responsibility shifted on their shoulders.
Take it and bloody role with it. This woman doesn't want to ban the word. she wants to ban the connotation it receives. Whether she will succeed or not is a different story all together.
Sure in an ideal world the judicial system does not favour either gender and women get paid the same as men.
BUT THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL WORLD.
There will always be gender differences and as long as they don't get too out of hand you're just gonna have to role with them.
And if you support equal rights call yourself a humanist not a feminist as the word feminist makes you sound like you think females should be superior.
She didn't "blatantly disregard" these things as you so put it. She acknowledges them in his previous post. In fact, she goes on to say that she neither considers them to play in the favor of men or to be fair. She simply said that an argument that society is somehow being put in the favor of women is illegitimate, as these things spring up as unforeseen consequences of a system that was created and encouraged by men to put another segment of the population at a disadvantage.
In addition, she isn't trying to make women seem overly vulnerable at all. I honestly don't know what you mean with a statement like "get your own equality". Equality doesn't work like that. Without a consensus from all areas of society that people are equal, an end to discrimination can never be reached. Imagine if African-Americans had tried to get their own equality without attempting to change the minds of any other subsets of society. Segregation would have continued on since the rest of society would refuse to acknowledge them as equals, effectuating no change. In a similar way, women trying to get their own equality without trying to shift public discourse and thought regarding women's rights would achieve nothing, as they would still be discriminated in all the areas of life they currently are. So don't attempt to twist his argument with rational such as saying that the idea of women and men working towards better equality is somehow perpetuating the idea that "women really cannot gain their own equality and need it to be given to them" (especially when shifting the thought process of a whole nation in regards to how the group you are a part of is perceived is a much less passive activity than you're making it out to be). Trying to encourage thoughtful dialogue on a topic will never be a means of perpetuating a flawed system. Using warped logic to justify not having said dialogue, such as insinuating that needing help from others is a sign of weakness (a chauvinistic attitude anyways) and is somehow a slight to women everywhere, a statement which only sets back any progress on the issue, is something to be avoided.
edit: thanks for the catch Chou, wasn't aware of that
Last edited:
last wall of text im gonna sludge through before i go to bed...
i said i wasnt going to respond to the racial issues in this thread anymore and im not, take it up with me in pm if you are really that interested in pursuing further conversation (im not)
blaming women, not blaming men, trying to argue the good things women have over men, trying to show the scales as tipped towards women- whatever way you wanna split the hairs of my language, im getting to the same point: men created a system of inequality to oppress women, and trying to argue otherwise is avoiding the heart of the issue. why else would this thread be created other than to vilify a woman trying to do something good... so far most of the posts in this thread have been, in essence, "lets try to deflect the blame away from men, look how women overreact to simple words, women have it better in some cases, etc etc"
misogynist systems referring to most everything, western culture is based in a patriarchy. trying to dissect everything and look at it separately is not seeing the world for how it is. everything is impregnated with sex inequality and everything connects
yes porn is misogynistic. most of it is created by men for men and treats women as objects, not to mention to extreme conditions most female porn workers must go through- eroticism of this type only very recently in human history has been so readily available and creates and atmosphere in which nearly everything is sexualized- when i see sexy hot pocket ads and images of 12 year old girls modeling clothes in a sexual manner, i think it indicates a problem that has been caused by a culture that has been shaped by the degradation of women as sexual objects- the sex industry is a multi billion dollar industry and a powerful one at that. please do not mention the fact that men are sometimes sexualized as well, as i know somebody is bound to try and make this argument- the fact that occasionally exceptions to the rule of female objectification are made does not invalidate what i have said... it is such a broad and sweeping issue that branches out over so much of our culture that i would need a few months of free time to fully explain all of the details of it, so i will leave it here for the time being
yes, the teaching system is misogynistic as well... (im running out of steam ah... im so tired i have work to do in the morning i should go to bed...) the younger grades are often taught by women because such teaching is essentially based upon the activity that occurs between a child and a parent (historically woman) while higher education is male dominated because it moves away from the supposed "maternal" and into areas that, until recently, women have been not been able to tread
misogynistic women are a sad case. i see very misguided people who oppress themselves... they are victims of a system meant to keep them in a certain inferiority, they believe in the system because they cannot see themselves as anything but inherently inferior or different. they are certainly a different beast than a misogynistic man due to the fact that the system is not tipped in favor of them
i cannot blame the victims of a system designed to make them inferior for passing it onto their children, it doesnt make it right, but it still isnt the fault of the women... again, its tricky enough and detailed enough that i would need time i dont have to tackle the issue with the delicacy it needs
intention doesn't mean anything in this case, men do not have to be purposely sexist to be blatantly sexist, it doesnt make them any less at fault, just possibly more ignorant... i find it hard to believe that most people are in the dark about most sex issues anyways, even if they don't understand the exact nuances of it
women do not need to learn the nuances because we experience them every day... it is up to men to be more aware of themselves and what they do, not a woman's responsibility to teach a man what he does is sexist (even though we do and are often ignored or mocked)
women can do what we like. we can be housewives or CEOs- it speaks to our individuality, not our sex as a whole. the acceptance of some women over others is archaic in the feminist movement and i dont know any serious feminists who still follow the model of burn your bras and never have children or else youre perpetuating the patriarchy
active fighting is a refusal to participate in systems that you recognize as problematic (or, in cases where participation cannot be avoided, you work to overcome and educate others about things that are problematic within the system). passiveness is never neutral... i would go on but ive run out of steam for this particular post
maybe you should have stayed with your useless quips, because your "real" posts are even worse, your grasp of sex relations is pathetic
YOU seemed to have missed MY point that by dismantling the patriarchy, we achieve equality between the genders- without patriarchy, women would not be perceived in the certain lights that grant them favor in the courts (something which, for the thousandth time, i do not agree with, however, it is caused by a male system)
if you think that men are "giving" women equality, or that i am portraying women as weak, you are dead wrong- women have fought every step of the way. those in power never willingly give it up, women are victims, but this does not mean they are not strong and capable- we are so strong and capably that DESPITE being victimized, we continue to work towards what is right. we are strong because we continue to achieve despite having the scales so unbalanced against us.
you have misread what i have said so completely and utterly you honestly shouldnt have even bothered
"WE APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE FOR THIS STUPID POST."
your post is basically "its bad but whatever just take it up the ass and be happy"
change does not come from contentedness, you are clearly content enough if you view the world this way
not even going to tackle humanist vs feminist this late at night especially since this post has even less sensitivity to sex relations than the others in this thread lol
goodnight, all... sorry if some things arent clear enough or whatever im too tired to fix things right now haha
Not sure how important or relevant, but Audiosurfer-- NJ is a woman.
edit: probably a post made even more unnecessary by the essay NJ ninja'd on me. :P
edit: probably a post made even more unnecessary by the essay NJ ninja'd on me. :P
Last edited:
Because this has pretty clearly become a discussion about feminism as a whole, I don't feel to bad about posting this. I feel like we have two extreme sides posting here (men are just as disadvantaged vs men are not disadvantaged at all) where I think the "answer" is somewhere in the middle. I'm not in the wall of texting posting mood, but the tl;dr of it is that its undeniable that men created a patriarchal western society that continues to disadvantage and objectify women to this day. A primary method of this oppression is the concept of gender roles, essentially things women are supposed to do because they're women. However, gender roles go both ways, and they also created roles of what men are supposed to do because they're men. These roles are objectively better than the gender roles for women (hence the patriarchy), but they're gender roles none the less and they're societal constructs that pressure men to behave in certain ways. There's a really great feminist post about the ways patriarchal society hurts men (majority of suicides and far more likely to drop out of school are things I remember off the top of my head) and while the issue of feminism primarily combats gender roles for the disadvantaged women's sake, a good number of feminists (yes women too, not just men being whiny) agree that while we're at it we can help out the men that don't buy into the concept of "manliness" as defined by the society we live in right now.
I'd just like to end this post by saying my views on feminism have changed massively in the past 8 or so months, and I'm always open for reevaluating them. I highly encourage everyone to be similarly open because its highly unlikely that we're individually right about everything, but maybe if we work together we can get close to the truth ^_^
I'd just like to end this post by saying my views on feminism have changed massively in the past 8 or so months, and I'm always open for reevaluating them. I highly encourage everyone to be similarly open because its highly unlikely that we're individually right about everything, but maybe if we work together we can get close to the truth ^_^
I feel it's important to recognize that within a culture and mindset that overwhelmingly benefits men, that not all of these "advantages" are in the same league. If I have 99% and I see you taking 1%, I can tell you that you have an advantage somewhere in there-- you do, because it's not 0%-- but I would look very silly doing that.
In a vacuum, when I see people firmly arguing over something that isn't resonating with me, I feel it's wise to let them have their say and consider it carefully. When we start believing that things don't exist, or that masses of people aren't experiencing something when they say they are, that's a bit of a red flag to me to slow down a bit.
I only know how I feel. When someone next to me says they aren't feeling well, how do I know for certain they are telling the truth? I can't be positive, but I can get an idea by examining things that I can objectively measure such as their described symptoms. Maybe I should go so far as to trust them.
Objectively, there is an overwhelming lack of female leadership in the modern world. There is a wage gap. There are messages regarding body image that assault women so early in life that it's scary. (Why do women have to be one flavor of attractive, for example? Why do they have to worry about having a perfect body or being attractive at all? What about those times you've seen someone angry at a woman who has resorted to evaluating her appearance to try to put her down?) Maybe those examples aren't objective to you-- we can debate them in detail elsewhere if needed-- but instead of explaining these inequalities away, maybe we should figure out what the ideal end goal entails and work backwards. We aren't there right now, and this fight is going to have to happen somehow.
Efforts like the one shown in the OP are attempts to bring--if nothing else-- awareness of something that many people aren't aware of. As others have said, "word bans" definitely get our attention, and certainly get us talking, if this thread is any example.
It's in our nature to stand our ground. We do not want to believe that our own ideas are wrong or flawed when we've had them for so long-- least of all in the midst of a heated argument-- but if there's a part of you that gives the smallest sense of curiosity from conversations like these, I would encourage you to listen to that and just see where it takes you.
Sorry if this comes off as patronizing; that's definitely not the goal :(
Last edited:
My guess is that the "ingrain-ment" goes even deeper than something like gender roles-- I think the male-rooted-mindset can be found at even the most basic roots of values and ethics in western (or at least American) society.
Recently (well, a year ago-- recently), I had the opportunity to study business ethics as part of my MBA degree. One of the schools of thought that my professor (who was female, and excellent) introduced to us was ethics of care.
For those who don't know, Ethics of Care is a normative ethical theory introduced by feminists in the second half of the 20th century (from Wikipedia because I can't say it better), though it's important to also keep in mind that not all feminists agree with Ethics of Care. (Some view it as self-re-inforcement of gender-minded thinking, but those who made the theory believe that they're addressing a fundamental difference in the way men and women view ethics) Hard to say which is right-- a feminist who believes in ethics of care would probably say an anti-EoC feminist is trying to re-invent herself as a man by male-ingrained principles and not realize ethical truths apparent to women; ah it's too complex and sensitive for me to get it right. ANYWAY...
What you need to know about the important ideas in Ethics of Care is that there is an emphasis on the importance of considering relationships and context in order to determine the "right" and "wrong" in any given situation. You have to address the "vulnerability" and the "influence" that various parties have on each other that may affect the outcome of situations-- and give special attention/consideration for those in a more vulnerable position.
This contrasts starkly with many traditional ideals of ethics-- Kant: "All rules of ethics must apply to every person everywhere and always."
But the absolutist ideas of traditional ethical ideologies are created by-- guess who? Male philosophers. Older schools of philosophy are ruled by pure logic, but Ethics of Care also acknowledges the emotional and relational aspects of ethics.
For instance in western society we put immense emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy, individual strength, individual responsibility. In our society, if a person-- male or female-- lacks the psychological strength to stand up for themselves, then it's their fault for being stepped on. The freedom to say or do as we like, and only protecting the "right to pursue happiness," but not equality of wealth or protection of the weak. Putting responsibility on THE WEAK to stand up for themselves. These are born from values invented by philosophy invented by men, and I wouldn't consider it surprising that they seem very... well.. MALE-minded.
When I was first taught about Ethics of Care, it seemed absolutely absurd-- in fact, I sneered at it. Special consideration for the weak? Favoring them just because they're weaker? Only in absolute fairness is their justice.
But then I stopped myself and thought-- wait, maybe the only reason why these ideas seem absurd to me is because I've been raised on values that are also completely construed by philosophy invented by men. What if this whole time, 60% of the human race experienced a sense of ethics totally different from the principles that drove philosophical, and therefore legal and political thinking? What if women had equal standing with men as ethical scholars and philosophers this whole time-- all those centuries-- maybe our entire ideology of what is ethical would be different. Maybe ethics without ethics of care would have been seen as absurd. AND MAYBE, given centuries and centuries to mature and develop, instead of just 50-60 years, these ideas, theories, and principles would have evolved into something even greater, even more influential, and something truly good for society?
It's hard to conclude anything from this-- and one certainly can't guess at what "could have been,"-- but the one thing I did get was that we are influenced far more than we realize; that the discussion is pre-framed from the get-go in ways we often don't even perceive, and that there are more ways of thinking about ethics and ALL of it that we can't even begin to wrap our brains around.
At least that's how I feel about it.
In conclusion there's no solution-- it's impossible to rewind the clock; but trying to be aware of the limits of the framing as we try to fix things is something that can be done. Meanwhile, just intellectual exercising in the idea of ethics of care "being right" makes me want to roll my eyes impulsively, but I'm trying to stop that, because I do see its strong points as well.
Recently (well, a year ago-- recently), I had the opportunity to study business ethics as part of my MBA degree. One of the schools of thought that my professor (who was female, and excellent) introduced to us was ethics of care.
For those who don't know, Ethics of Care is a normative ethical theory introduced by feminists in the second half of the 20th century (from Wikipedia because I can't say it better), though it's important to also keep in mind that not all feminists agree with Ethics of Care. (Some view it as self-re-inforcement of gender-minded thinking, but those who made the theory believe that they're addressing a fundamental difference in the way men and women view ethics) Hard to say which is right-- a feminist who believes in ethics of care would probably say an anti-EoC feminist is trying to re-invent herself as a man by male-ingrained principles and not realize ethical truths apparent to women; ah it's too complex and sensitive for me to get it right. ANYWAY...
What you need to know about the important ideas in Ethics of Care is that there is an emphasis on the importance of considering relationships and context in order to determine the "right" and "wrong" in any given situation. You have to address the "vulnerability" and the "influence" that various parties have on each other that may affect the outcome of situations-- and give special attention/consideration for those in a more vulnerable position.
This contrasts starkly with many traditional ideals of ethics-- Kant: "All rules of ethics must apply to every person everywhere and always."
But the absolutist ideas of traditional ethical ideologies are created by-- guess who? Male philosophers. Older schools of philosophy are ruled by pure logic, but Ethics of Care also acknowledges the emotional and relational aspects of ethics.
For instance in western society we put immense emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy, individual strength, individual responsibility. In our society, if a person-- male or female-- lacks the psychological strength to stand up for themselves, then it's their fault for being stepped on. The freedom to say or do as we like, and only protecting the "right to pursue happiness," but not equality of wealth or protection of the weak. Putting responsibility on THE WEAK to stand up for themselves. These are born from values invented by philosophy invented by men, and I wouldn't consider it surprising that they seem very... well.. MALE-minded.
When I was first taught about Ethics of Care, it seemed absolutely absurd-- in fact, I sneered at it. Special consideration for the weak? Favoring them just because they're weaker? Only in absolute fairness is their justice.
But then I stopped myself and thought-- wait, maybe the only reason why these ideas seem absurd to me is because I've been raised on values that are also completely construed by philosophy invented by men. What if this whole time, 60% of the human race experienced a sense of ethics totally different from the principles that drove philosophical, and therefore legal and political thinking? What if women had equal standing with men as ethical scholars and philosophers this whole time-- all those centuries-- maybe our entire ideology of what is ethical would be different. Maybe ethics without ethics of care would have been seen as absurd. AND MAYBE, given centuries and centuries to mature and develop, instead of just 50-60 years, these ideas, theories, and principles would have evolved into something even greater, even more influential, and something truly good for society?
It's hard to conclude anything from this-- and one certainly can't guess at what "could have been,"-- but the one thing I did get was that we are influenced far more than we realize; that the discussion is pre-framed from the get-go in ways we often don't even perceive, and that there are more ways of thinking about ethics and ALL of it that we can't even begin to wrap our brains around.
At least that's how I feel about it.
In conclusion there's no solution-- it's impossible to rewind the clock; but trying to be aware of the limits of the framing as we try to fix things is something that can be done. Meanwhile, just intellectual exercising in the idea of ethics of care "being right" makes me want to roll my eyes impulsively, but I'm trying to stop that, because I do see its strong points as well.
Last edited:
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
First, that is PRECISELY what I thought you were saying. In fact, I almost corrected benthedemon on his poor understanding of the difference between feminism and egalitarianism but decided on a quip instead. And for the record, I completely agree with Patriarchy being a thing that we should dismantle. What I DON'T agree with, is the portrayal of women as helpless victims. Understanding that a people is a victimized is good. Raising awareness of the victimization to shift public thought is good. Trying to blame and shame men from not victimizing women, however, is not at all good. It only (albeit unintentionally) perpetuates the idea that women are not people who can act on their own. That it is entirely on men to stop being oppressive. Because men have all the power. None of these statements are true, but they are the foundation of the idea of blaming and shaming and over-dramaticizing victimization.
If that doesn't ring true, or if I'm not making it clear, just remember what happened when that NFL player was being bullied on his team. The guy was 6'5" and 300+ lbs... yet he was being victimized. You know what he didn't get from anyone? Respect. He doesn't fit the part of a person being victimized. No one believed he was really getting bullied, and he caught a lot more flak for even mentioning it publicly. Now if he was a 5 year old boy being bullied by high schoolers everyone WOULD LOSE THEIR MINDS. The more defenseless and innocent the victim is, the better the blame and shame/victim card tactic is at inspiring allies. So in attempting such a tactic you're either going to incite more criticisms from people who recognize that you aren't innocent and defenseless creatures but have a poor grasp on the reality of the situation, or inspire allies who do think of you as innocent and defenseless. You at once manage to piss off strong potential allies and gather apologist allies who perpetuate the very ideals you're trying to fight.
Then keep working towards what is right! Don't cop out and start trying to fight people on how bad you have it versus others. That is a pissing contest that is entirely detrimental to your cause.
TheValkyries
proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Zracknel I'm pretty sure you just elegantly told me what I'm trying to say to Nastyjungle. So I totally and completely understand where you're coming from, but you've got it all wrong mate. To be clear, I don't disagree with Nastyjungle at all, I just disagree with how she's arguing with those I do disagree with. Because as you say, "We do not want to believe that our own ideas are wrong or flawed when we've had them for so long". Which is why attacking people, blaming, and vilifying them isn't a way to inspire them to reconsider.
Um I know that whites probably 'created' the slave trade. But to be honest, most of the time they didn't forcibly take people from Africa. Black people enslaved other black people and then traded the slaves off for supplies(mostly weapons). There have been white slaves and black slave owners as well.
Anyway... I typically shake my head at all this feminist pot stirring. There really is not a problem. Arguably if there is a problem, its that feminists label all men misogynists if they don't agree with feminism. That's textbook sexism.
I like to use Julie Borowski, a well informed political activist, as a barometer on a lot of these type of 'issues' to make sure I'm not just speculating. Yes the person I look to for political information(for a lot more important thing than feminism as well btw) is in fact a woman.
I don't take most feminists seriously because most, like NastyJungle, are self-righteous women that have a vendetta against men labeling them all as misogynists rather than giving raw facts. Most of Nasty's comments have been riddled with "are you kidding me?" or "these posts are ignorant" and I feel mind will be treated the same.
I have great respect for a lot of women. Many are hard-working, smart and successful. But people who feel they are owed something because 'society is unequal' really don't make sense to me and is probably the reason women in similar jobs to men make more money.
I understand some feminists have a problem with gender roles(man must be manly, girl must be girly), but I want to elaborate on the issues it causes for men that some people are brushing past. Not all guys want to be super manly. Some guys enjoy shopping and fashion, some guys enjoy staying home to raise their kids, some guys hate sports, etc. Guys that don't want to be manly are ostracized just as much as girls who don't want to be girly IF NOT MORE. Women perpetuate gender roles just as much as men do. I don't have exact stats, but if I had a penny for every time time a female said "be a man" to a male, I'd be the richest guy on the planet.
And to be honest, I find it appalling that a woman can abort a baby without consent of the father and yet the father can't opt out of child support. This is actually part of the reason that I am anti-abortion. Equally appalling is that it is an uphill battle for a father with a steady job has to fight an uphill battle to take custody of a child from a drug abusing mother on welfare. I really don't see how these issues are just brushed off as "your fault guys, you made this stereotype bed now lie in it. This is the least of my worries as a feminist."
Also, can guys please stop jumping on the feminist bandwagon just to avoid being seen as sexist? It is possible to be against feminist movements and not be sexist.
Aiight I'm done. I hope people check out some Julie Borowski videos btw she is very smart :)
You can also opt to consider what the other side (hear what they have to say...) without "jumping on the bandwagon" :|
Doesn't mean you have to agree with them but...
Doesn't mean you have to agree with them but...
Stratos
Banned deucer.
i know im late as hell but like fuck im reading twenty posts that sprung up overnight, i want to address this
men account for 99% of convicted rapists, but you have to remember that this is in the culture that let Jerry Sandusky get away with sexually abusing boys for decades because they didn't want to expose themselves and be seen as "weak" or whatever the fuck. Can you imagine the response a man would get if he claimed "my wife/date/female acquaintance raped me?" There's a very good chance their case would simply be laughed out of court, not to mention the comments from their "friends" about handing over their mancard, stop being a pussy etc. Now i'm not saying that a majority of the rapists of the world aren't men—they probably are, if just for physiological differences (it's a lot easier to avoid being raped when you're the one who has to stick the big wobbly bit in)—but i wouldn't throw that statistic around willy-nilly as if only and all men were evil sexual criminals and all women were constantly in fear of being assaulted by those awful men.
This is a misinterpretation of nj's very clear point. If you look at that line she is making her point explicit.
The underlying reasons for men being afraid to talk about their rape (and please forgive me if this does not apply to you, the reader, and your experience(s)—I myself have experience with sexual assault and am aware that oversimplistic narratives are unhelpful):
- Fear of not being believed. Women are very, very afraid to report rape because of the low rates of conviction, the history of it being ignored or mishandled by the police and law, and social stigma. Some of this applies to men too, with the additional point that some people believe men cannot be 'legitimately raped'.
- This belief stems from patriarchal ideas of masculinity (and aggressive and constant masculine sexuality is a key point in toxic masculinity) as well as misguided beliefs about rape: that your physiological reactions determine whether you can be raped. It also has to do with notions of rape as solely being an act of physical force and social views on sexual dimorphism (which I am not going to get into here). Your post itself falls into this fallacy.
- Relevantly, similar ideas have been held about women of colour, mentally ill people, sex workers, and queer people, etc. We can see this manifest in all kinds of ideas: that marital rape is not true rape, that women of colour (who tend to be viewed through a very sexual lens and, in many cultures, have a long history of being sexually exploited by, yes, white people) are particularly sexually accessible, 'she was asking for it', 'she enjoyed it [because such and such a woman is inherently sexual]', corrective rape for lesbians, etc.
- This belief stems from patriarchal ideas of masculinity (and aggressive and constant masculine sexuality is a key point in toxic masculinity) as well as misguided beliefs about rape: that your physiological reactions determine whether you can be raped. It also has to do with notions of rape as solely being an act of physical force and social views on sexual dimorphism (which I am not going to get into here). Your post itself falls into this fallacy.
- Fear of mockery, which usually comes from the things above.
- The underlying theme here is that patriarchy has very diverse effects, some of which seem benevolent (and which some love to tediously and irrelevantly harp about, I must add) but are pretty much all toxic. The views Pwnemon outlines in good part come down to misogyny and homophobia; it might sound absurd that a men's issue comes down to misogyny, but a lot of men's issues can be considered in at least part due to toxic gender essentialism and characterisation of certain traits as feminine (and therefore girly or gay, and therefore undermining masculinity).
- A specific issue here is that society does not take sexual abuse seriously. Why not? Well, how many reasons could I give you for that that I haven't already given? But, seriously, consider why we make a mockery of the things I've listed above, and why people delegitimise certain forms of rape, and how rape has been historically perceived and dealt with.
- Other problems in the justice system.
- Rape being a highly personal and invasive experience and the social taboos around it, especially non-tropey rape.
- Also, the psychosocial tropes of rape and the inability of your average rape survivor to control their personal narrative.
...You can say the exact same thing about male rapists! Hell, your Sandusky example is really good here (think about the context, think about the systematic and premeditated targeting of particularly vulnerable, marginalised boys and the use of institutional and communal power to groom, exert influence, and cover it up). You see, a huge thing with going to the police or talking about rape, other than the humiliation of it and the very personal nature of it, is that there are power dynamics. Men having more (generally speaking) institutional power than women, who are often seen as liars, manipulative, spiteful, and vengeful. White people having more institutional power than black people. Class divides. Positions of authority being abused. etc. etc.
Finally, sorry, but while nobody can speak for all women, you certainly can't speak for any of them. The epitome of white male abled privilege (yes, I used the p word) is that as a social stratification you are more or less oblivious to the nuances of anyone else's experience, in part because your PoV is the default and in part because you hold the power to not know the fear and oppression other people experience as a daily matter. Walk alone in the dark, what are you really afraid of, being mugged? Attacked by a black kid going to buy Skittles? If she walks alone in the dark, what was she doing there in the first place?
White male abled privilege is being unaware of the silent nature of power dynamics.
BenTheDemon:
(I normally wouldn't bother with this topic because the discourse is bad, repetitive, infuriating, and personal to me, but I really wanted to post that comic to BenTheDemon)
Last edited:
Just for reference, while it's not nearly as well researched as male on male or male on female rape, one of the stats I've come across has ~5% of men reporting via anonymous polling that they've been forced to have sex with a woman. Of course, this contradicts the oft repeated (via research) statistic of 1 out of 32 men have been raped in total. I would assume that the ambiguous wording of the question ("forced" can mean different things to different people) would make the 5% of men raped by women stat less accurate than the 3% of men raped by any gender, since the latter studies tend to be more specific with their questions by using the legal definition of rape. That said, I'd imagine it implies 5% as an absolute maximum (remember, rapists tend to not stop at one victim, the rapist to rape victim ratio for male rapists is supposed to be between 1:5 to 1:10 on average) and 1% as the minimum. Who knows, though. Guesstimation isn't good science.
I'd also argue that if you're really worried about the issues facing men, instead of just whining about those stupid feminists and how they need to shut up because almost everything is equal except for mens stuff, you could maybe do something to support organisations dedicated to supporting male victims of rape, domestic violence and other shit like that? Like I see this all the time, guys complaining about how gender bias affects men negatively too (which any feminist worth their salt already knows), disproportionate sentencing, all that sort of shit... but when the WHY FEMINISTS COMPLAIN SO MUCH discussion is over, these same guys go back to having a good old laugh about men being raped in prison and lol what 13 year old boy WOULDN'T want to fuck their hot teacher, good on him and all that sort of thing. If you're the kind of person who laughs about prison rape, I recommend you stay right the fuck away from discussing gender biases in either direction because you clearly give no shits and just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Like I completely understand being pissed about these issues affecting men and considering them more important just due to being a dude, and I absolutely encourage everyone to get involved with trying to lessen these problems one way or another... but I cannot see any fucking reason for needing to come into a thread regarding a problem facing women and shitting all over it and saying THERE IS NO PROBLEM or THERES A PROBLEM BUT THESE MENS PROBLEMS ARE BIGGER! DONT TALK ABOUT THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE MEN HAVE PROBLEMS TOO! Come the fuck on, people. Surely working together is a better way to reduce gender bias.
Edit: K I just found some more stats which found a male/female rapist split approximately 94% to 6%. Research methodology is a fucking pain in the ass when it comes to sociological studies, obviously. But yeah, something to keep in mind.
I'd also argue that if you're really worried about the issues facing men, instead of just whining about those stupid feminists and how they need to shut up because almost everything is equal except for mens stuff, you could maybe do something to support organisations dedicated to supporting male victims of rape, domestic violence and other shit like that? Like I see this all the time, guys complaining about how gender bias affects men negatively too (which any feminist worth their salt already knows), disproportionate sentencing, all that sort of shit... but when the WHY FEMINISTS COMPLAIN SO MUCH discussion is over, these same guys go back to having a good old laugh about men being raped in prison and lol what 13 year old boy WOULDN'T want to fuck their hot teacher, good on him and all that sort of thing. If you're the kind of person who laughs about prison rape, I recommend you stay right the fuck away from discussing gender biases in either direction because you clearly give no shits and just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
Like I completely understand being pissed about these issues affecting men and considering them more important just due to being a dude, and I absolutely encourage everyone to get involved with trying to lessen these problems one way or another... but I cannot see any fucking reason for needing to come into a thread regarding a problem facing women and shitting all over it and saying THERE IS NO PROBLEM or THERES A PROBLEM BUT THESE MENS PROBLEMS ARE BIGGER! DONT TALK ABOUT THIS PROBLEM BECAUSE MEN HAVE PROBLEMS TOO! Come the fuck on, people. Surely working together is a better way to reduce gender bias.
Edit: K I just found some more stats which found a male/female rapist split approximately 94% to 6%. Research methodology is a fucking pain in the ass when it comes to sociological studies, obviously. But yeah, something to keep in mind.
Last edited: