rocketknight
Member
Generally, I prefer that nobody call for/condone/accept/normalize rape, because I think it perpetuates a dangerous rape culture which hurts men and women alike, but I'm a feminist. So.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The "Men's Rights Movement" is apparently having a resurgence. Awkward.
- Thread starter NotTheGuyYouKill
- Start date
- Status
Generally, I prefer that nobody call for/condone/accept/normalize rape, because I think it perpetuates a dangerous rape culture which hurts men and women alike, but I'm a feminist. So.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Jesus, just say you're sorry and you learned something and won't do it again. Not hard.
Devolution
Member
Yeah, I really victimized you by pointing out your championing of the rape of a prison inmate was kind of contradictory to criticisms of feminism for diminishing men's issues.
faceless007
Member
I'm pretty sure most or all of the people in this thread are equally against any posts that advocate prison rape (or even violence against prisoners), not just yours, they just don't try to argue with them in those threads because the threads aren't much more than depressing circle-jerk torture fantasies, and it would be fighting a losing battle. (At least, that's my reason.) You got called out in this thread because you made the juxtaposition of your positions easy.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
You think way, way too highly of yourself. Nobody is "jumping" on you because you're too radical for the system. Nobody knows you. Nobody cares. If you say something stupid, people will jump on that. If you say something smart, people might comment on that. It's not about you, or your sense that you're just the free speaker in a sea of sheeple. Christ, man, get over yourself.
I never said that. Please refrain from strawmanning me.
Tell the other people in the thread to do the same, then.
Here's the thing: I'm not getting worked up over this. I'm not even angry because I know what I said and how I said it. You may not agree with it, regardless of if it was meant as a joke, was serious, or whatever (would it matter in the way I'm getting shitted on right now? You would have a problem regardless). You're the one getting worked up over a post in which YOU brought up prison rape. Not me.
If we can get that admitted, and if we can admit that other people in the thread said similar things yet I'm the only one that has to actually apologize for what I said on a message board when you're never telling anyone else to do the same, and admit that there actually were people on that thread asking for the man to be castrated too (why not PM him or her about that. I'm sure they'll get right on apologizing for that), then perhaps something can be done.
But, as it stands, you're asking me to explain myself over something where, if it was never brought up, no attention would've been given to it, so...what else is there to do? I'm not going to pretend I didn't say it or pretend that I don't regret doing so.
I'm not going to censor myself because people think I have to be PC to be accepted on NeoGAF, though. You don't ask anyone else to be, so why are you asking me to?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Other people don't make shitty rape jokes.
Somehow, in telling us about a man being raped in prison, you have made yourself into a victim.
sketchsanchez
Member
Except you are. that's exactly what you're doing, and you're rightly being shit on for it.
And I did that...how?
I made a post in this thread, someone else went to ANOTHER THREAD and posted something I said in that thread, completely out of context, however you slice it, brought it up here, then try to say that I'm somehow a hypocrite because I was serious here yet I joined in on that "sick fantasy" or whatever you called it there when you know no one in that thread would've actually wanted anything like that and they were just taking advantage of the "rules of the internet" or whatever you call them, yet when I went and did the same thing (similar to what Bill Maher joked about Jerry Sandusky on Real Time the night he was found guilty of child molestation...hesitated to bring up the relation because I know how people feel about HIM), I get called out on it in a very different thread in which posts could be taken in a different light.
If you want to call me out on it, fine. But do it IN THAT THREAD, and understand the nature of how others were posting there, and how they are posting here, and don't hold me to a different standard than you would anyone else.
Except...it could've also meant physical violence, scaring him shitless, making his life in there a living hell, whatever. You're on the notion that it HAD to be prison rape because you said so. Whether or not you could've condoned my words or not, you're seeing an absolute there.
ElectricBlue187
Member
It's time to stop posting, darkpower
Why?
I'm being calm about it. I'm not angry. I recognize that my words were wrong and that I shouldn't have said them (and I wouldn't have in any other environment). Maybe I didn't point that out because because I didn't think I had to.
That doesn't mean I don't want him to get what's coming to him or that I want to censor myself. But yeah, it might have been over the top.
Still, though, I feel as though I'm being troll baited here.
Not surprised to hear it.
I don't live in the U.S. so I can't really weigh in on the topic there. But I'm getting increasingly tired of feminism and feminist rhetoric as it is presented here (Sweden) by the day. There's no "movement", but I feel a lot of other younger men growing tired too.
I'm sick of the double standards. A couple of dudes visit a strip club? Sexists! Hang them high! A group of females rent a male stripper for party? Encouraged.
As a white man, I'm sick and fucking tired of having to take the blame for everything white men has done, are doing and might do in the future. I've grown up in this country, I've gotten feminism shoved down my throat since Day One and I never did anything to anyone. I've got the "right" values. I don't care what you are or what you identify as, so stop fucking blaming me for upholding a system I was never a part of.
I'm sick of feminists calling for positive affirmation and only doing so as long as it is in their favour. Turns out women there are too few women in field X? Fuck competence, gotta ensure that 50/50 split!
I realize a lot of feminists might have different ideas of what feminism is but quite frankly I don't care. They way it is presented by leading feminists from their ivory towers leads you to believe it's not about equality, but the annihilation of all men. They own the message and it's fucking vile.
I don't live in the U.S. so I can't really weigh in on the topic there. But I'm getting increasingly tired of feminism and feminist rhetoric as it is presented here (Sweden) by the day. There's no "movement", but I feel a lot of other younger men growing tired too.
I'm sick of the double standards. A couple of dudes visit a strip club? Sexists! Hang them high! A group of females rent a male stripper for party? Encouraged.
As a white man, I'm sick and fucking tired of having to take the blame for everything white men has done, are doing and might do in the future. I've grown up in this country, I've gotten feminism shoved down my throat since Day One and I never did anything to anyone. I've got the "right" values. I don't care what you are or what you identify as, so stop fucking blaming me for upholding a system I was never a part of.
I'm sick of feminists calling for positive affirmation and only doing so as long as it is in their favour. Turns out women there are too few women in field X? Fuck competence, gotta ensure that 50/50 split!
I realize a lot of feminists might have different ideas of what feminism is but quite frankly I don't care. They way it is presented by leading feminists from their ivory towers leads you to believe it's not about equality, but the annihilation of all men. They own the message and it's fucking vile.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Because you are derailing the thread and getting nowhere.
I don't think we're ever going to change that one but there is room to fix the opposite scenario.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
You have a lot to learn about feminism.
Acknowledging your privileges doesn't mean you have to hate yourself for them.
There are endemic problems in equality that feminists want solved. You're simplifying. It's like saying affirmative action is just trying to make things 50/50 while ignoring that black people are factually more likely to be born into poverty and bad situations to begin with due to historical events and current oppression. If we left everything as it is, how many opportunities would black people and women ever have to get out of the hole we put them in?
I've dated some feminists. They're really into dudes and dick. They're just not into dick dudes.
freenudemacusers
Member
holy christ lol
Devolution
Member
Paper abortions where the man can choose not to be a parent seem logically consistent.
I honestly think the situation in the U.S. and Sweden might be a bit too different for us to be able to have a constructive discussion without just talking passed each other all the time. A lot of the (feminist) issues I see brought up in threads like these are things we've dealt with over here decades ago. For instance, being a housewife hasn't been an option for women in Sweden since the 50's.
And regarding the cock loving feminists I don't doubt that. Most people in this country under the age of 40 would probably identify as "feminists" so finding a feminists that loves the cock wouldn't be too hard.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
If you're willing to look at the root of problems and wonder why 50/50 splits don't exist in some fields, this is a good start: http://juliepagano.com/blog/2013/03/24/my-experiences-in-tech-death-by-1000-paper-cuts/
I have an ex that works as an engineer for a website. Every time she had a problem with a co-worker or work situation, she would start crying in frustration because she knew if she spoke up everyone would think she's a bitch, but if she kept quiet she'd get walked on. How are women expected to get anywhere in male-dominated fields with that sort of treatment?
Even though I never brought the quote into the thread.
Actually, the quote had nothing to do with the other thing that was being discussed, which was the case that there was a such thing as conservative feminism (believe it or not, I remember the point I was trying to make when someone invoked the quote I made in this thread).
To me, there is a such thing (it's proven: look how many of them are out there), and each, as well, think of a different thought process than others.
And thing is, some actually DO think of equal rights among all genders and don't think that things like personality traits have a gender role attached to them.
This is where context actually does matter, which was my original point to begin with. In the context of a custody case, a mother can cry "judge is sexist" if it is a case that she abuses her child and the judge strips her of custody when the father proves that he's ready, willing, and able to provide shelter, food, and love for the child.
And thus the reason, I think, for the MSM in the first place. Some men do see things like that go on in which people are so scared of being called sexist that they try to avoid that label anyway they can.
Not as extreme of a case, but look at what happened to the Injustice CE statue that was included with the US edition as opposed to what the UK edition got. It was perceived that because we are too sensitive to sexism, that we couldn't take seeing a statuette of Batman choking Wonder Woman, even if it was in the context of the game.
And thus, my point and why I think MRMs exist in the first place: people see that some will abuse the feminism movement and the sexist tags for their own personal and/or political gain, and people are too willing to let them do that.
Still an individual experience, you really shouldn't objectively paint the entire IT workforce based off personal blogs. Lot of women also work in the IT industry have done good for themselves, continue to support it while urging more females to major in IT.
If there's an environment that values shitty gender or race backed dominance, chances are they won't get far in the business anyways and they'll just self destruct. So bail the ship if you as a women or minority find yourself in such an environment.
That said, this isn't the root of why 50/50 split doesn't exist in the IT field. At least, its not enough. Whatever the real roots are, they have a lot to do with why many female dominated fields also exist.
Sucks that she got discouraged. Can't say I've seen anything like it during my years in school. Quite the opposite in fact.
I happen to be a software engineer and I can honestly say I don't know a single fucking person who would consider a woman who "spoke up" a bitch. Not a single one. I don't think I can imagine a nicer group of people than the ones I went to university with and the ones I'm now working with. In fact, I would say most of them are quite uninterested in your person. It's what you deliver that matters.
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
Well...what treatment? What you described was how she felt things would go. Those feelings are universal though. Can't speak up or you'd be called a bitch, not a team player, etc. There are a lot of examples of how women are mistreated in the workplace. Not sure that's one of them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/s...ainst-women-of-science-a-study-says.html?_r=0
hahaha what the hell are you even talking about here?? You are the weirdest troll.
She wouldn't think she WOULD be treated normally. She was so scared of getting marginalized because of her being a female if she spoke up. Which is a problem, but one that I wish was not. They already think that men will be sexist by default.
How can men prove they are not if some women already have that prejudice and are willing to act upon it?
I'm not sure what your point is? Over here affirmative action exists in various fields and is enforced. It was very much in effect on Swedish universities up until quite recently when we started having more female applicants than male... Swedish public service radio and TV enforce it when it comes to the hosts and guests they picks for their shows and keep very strict statistics. Voices were recently raised for introducing affirmative action in the nominee process for the Nobel prizes.
Ugh, it's awful seeing all those women on TV as hosts when clearly a man would be much more competent. And those statistics! They're so strict it's disgusting.
Whatever man. I don't see how anyone in their right mind could be in favour of affirmative action. Why the fuck would anyone accept having their sex held against them?
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Because they put more than a minute of thought into why it exists and is so widely supported.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
Affirmative Action exists to help balance out decades of women having their sex held against them.
Affirmative action is a necessary evil, if done right it's just a transitory policy.
Good question. One that, as the article I posted indicated, women are used to asking.
At the expense of someone else being discriminated against, yes.
Affirmative action is only treating the symptoms and does nothing to cure the root cause. Solve the problem upstream and then treat everyone equally instead. Be consequent.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It's good that you solved this easy problem that has persisted across cultures and countries worldwide for centuries.
You being so stubborn about affirmative action and being unable to understand it from the perspective of others is a good example of why we can't just do what you're suggesting.
Why not treat the symptoms while you're treating the root cause as well? That's how modern medicine works anyway to follow through with your analogy, and is how any sensible affirmative action policy should be implemented.
Changing deep-rooted social norms takes time, affirmative action is important because it accelerates that process.
faceless007
Member
The root cause often comes down to subconscious impulses and instinctive reactions that people aren't even aware guide their thinking or the way they interact with other people. So how do you propose we fix that?
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
I think arguing against Affirmative Action more or less runs into the same problem as arguing against Feminism...it totally ignores everything that's happened up to this point, and acts like we've lived, and are currently living, in a society that's completely equal and that giving special rights to minority groups will somehow tip the scales in their favor when, in reality, they are simply trying to balance out the scales.
I think there are legitimate socio-economic problems that are disproportionately hitting (some) men, but I'd argue it's not really at the hand of other women so much as other men. Men are still overwhelmingly at the top of most power structures on the planet.
I mean, there is probably some truth to the idea that women entering a shrinking job market have probably displaced a lot of men who, in previous years, would have easily found jobs, but the problem isn't women so much as the shrinking job market. Blaming women is a shitty scapegoat.
I mean, there is probably some truth to the idea that women entering a shrinking job market have probably displaced a lot of men who, in previous years, would have easily found jobs, but the problem isn't women so much as the shrinking job market. Blaming women is a shitty scapegoat.
Affirmative action is not a simple issue and it shouldn't be treated as one. Personally, I have real issues with the concept, because it's often used to dismiss the accomplishments of all individuals in a disadvantaged group: the more that affirmative action is used, the more likely people are to assume that any achievements by a member of a disadvantage group, which traditionally benefits from affirmative action, are un-earned.
At that point, it's doing more harm than good: instead of having a few unquestionably qualified individuals, you have a higher number of individuals...but all of their qualifications are questioned.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
That would mean you're not already questioning the qualifications of the people who have silver spoons, built-in social networks, and all of the opportunity given to them to get where they are.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
Affirmative Action doesn't ignore qualifications, though. It factors them in along with race and gender.
It's a ridiculous notion to believe that companies with Affirmative Action literally pick the bottom-of-the-barrel applicants simply because they're of a minority group.
It's a ridiculous notion to believe that companies with Affirmative Action literally pick the bottom-of-the-barrel applicants simply because they're of a minority group.
"Affirmative action" is generally associated with lowered standards and this affects the way that everyone in the groups that are targeted by affirmative action are viewed.
To be clear, I say this as a woman who graduated from a top tier law school and, although no one has ever questioned my qualifications to my face, I have witnessed this effect on some of my minority classmates.
In fact, just recently I expressed to a colleague that I'd graduated from the same tier 1 law school as another attorney, who happened to be black, and the very first response was: "Oh, does [school name] have affirmative action?"
It's an incredibly unfair sentiment, but if its one that is prominent (which I fear that it is), then affirmative action will do more harm than good.
Watch Da Birdie
I buy cakes for myself on my birthday it's not weird lots of people do it I bet
But that's not the fault of Affirmative Action in and of itself, that's the fault of its detractors who believe that any minority group in a position of power obtained it solely through Affirmative Action.
I don't really know how affirmative action works in Sweden, but in the United States you are right. There are different forms of affirmative action, too, such as process-oriented or goal-oriented affirmative action. In process oriented affirmative action, you try to make the process fair; you make sure the job is widely advertised, that all applicants receive a similar treatment (questions, evaluation criteria, etc.), and so the idea is that if the process is fair, any qualified person has an equal chance of being hired. And it is better than having the "old boys network" that preemptively locked out a lot of people from being able to compete for a position. The problem with process-oriented affirmative action is that even though the goal is to have the same evaluation criteria, it has been found in experiments of white college students that they tend to underestimate the ability of black applicants (even when those applicants' abilities are identical to white applicants) and this effect becomes more pronounced the more competent the black applicant is (being exceptional does not ameliorate this). I don't know if something quite the same has been done with women, though APF's post suggests that some similar biases exist with women and men (and both men and women have these biases against women). So even though the process might look fair on paper, because there are so many chances for these biases to arise, it tends to not have the desired effect. In goal-oriented affirmative action, the same open process takes place, but as the selection of applicants has been narrowed down, the people who move the organization closer to diversity goals are favored.
I think affirmative action is necessary and important (for both race and sex!). I wasn't really comfortable with it for a long time (white male, and there's still something a bit... discomfiting about the idea of being in competition for a position and my race or gender potentially being determinative), but the more I've learned about discrimination, unconscious biases, structural advantages, and blah blah blah, the more I've gotten over it.
This seems relevant
"... One recent study indicates that the elimination of race-based admissions policies would lead to a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools. Sociologist Stephen Steinberg describes the bleak reality this way: "Insofar as this black middle class is an artifact of affirmative action policy, it cannot be said to be the result of autonomous workings of market forces. In other words, the black middle class does not reflect the lowering of racist barriers in occupations so much as the opposite: racism is so entrenched that without government intervention there would be little 'progress' to boast about."
In view of all this, we must ask, to what extent has affirmative action helped us remain blind to, and in denial about, the existence of a racial underclass?"
In view of all this, we must ask, to what extent has affirmative action helped us remain blind to, and in denial about, the existence of a racial underclass?"
What does more harm: The mistaken notion that affirmative action is the result of lowered standards - or a 63 percent decline in black matriculants at all law schools and a 90 percent decline at elite law schools? I'd argue that affirmative action is still better than the alternative - and that the notion that affirmative action is about lowered standards is one of the reasons why it is necessary. Why is it that people assume that affirmative action means lowered standards?
I think that, if you're the one having your qualifications dismissed as unearned, the underlying fault matters very little.
I think it's clear from the study you've cited, that there is still a benefit to the individuals on the receiving end of affirmative action. But, given the negative view of affirmative action, the benefit is not as great as one would imagine: the overall public perception of these groups is still that they are less qualified and skilled than others.
And the concept of "affirmative action" is often wielded as a sword against the groups it's intended to benefit (which easily breads resentment against the concept). It's incredibly disheartening to expend extraordinary effort to reach a goal, simply to have the achievement entirely dismissed.
As I was reading the quote you provided, I could hear my colleague saying: "yeah, so it was affirmative action." Unfortunately, the high rates of affirmative action, will simply be interpreted by some as confirmation that the majority of the members of that group, have not earned their position/degree.
This is why affirmative action is not a simple issue. There are still benefits to it, but as long as the public perception remains generally negative, it will have negative effects as well.
Because treating the symptoms in this case just mean you end up with another form of (albeit perhaps lesser) discrimination.
I'm not entirely against the idea of affirmative action and even think there are some fields where it's justified. For instance, we used to employ it on applicants to the police academy which I have no problems with to some extent. They did end up going a bit overboard by ensuring a 50/50 split even though the applicants where 36/64 and some voices were raised so I'm not sure that is still in action (I even think that kind of affirmative action [filling straight up quotas] might be illegal).
Some people have recently called for it to be used on applicants to the fire-fighter academy as well and I think that's a harder sell. In order to get more women to pass the physical tests the requirements have been lowered resulting in fire-fighters complaining about a more hazardous working environment etc.
I'm not suggesting that. And if the level of competence is too great you can't use affirmative action without the risk of being prosecuted here.
I think it is less evidence of a problem with affirmative action per se, and more indicative of racism and personal prejudice. When you think of your colleague saying, "yeah, so it was affirmative action," my thought is not, "Oh, well this is clearly a problem with affirmative action." My thought is, "Oh, this is exactly why we need affirmative action - because there are people like Keri's colleague who believe that black people need lowered standards and that affirmative action is a way of facilitating this." In the absence of affirmative action, what would we have? People like Keri's friend who believe that black people generally aren't capable of performing, and nothing in place to neutralize these prejudices.
I think that the issue is with uninformed attitudes like your friends', and the best thing you can do is to educate your friend about how affirmative action works, what steps are actually taken, how it differs from a quota system (and how having goals is not the same as a quota system), and why it is necessary (there's plenty of research about bias against racial minorities and women at all stages of applicant screening processes). You can at least try to complicate your colleague's understanding, even if you can't make her a supporter.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked