for great justice
Yes, don't actually respond with anything substantial. Just dismiss me. That is how its done! Progress!
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
I meant, among only black people, Like, if a black person said nigger to another black person it'd probably be ok but I'm sure the occasional awkward moment would arise, in comparison to nigga, which would be accepted more often. Of course I've only heard this from various random black people, so I suppose my source is arguably questionable.
Or at least that is what I assume that what you are freaking out about (I suppose its a legit thing to freak about about too). May I remind you that I don't say either of the words.
Farren lost me a little here. I actually do think this is something that is right to be defensive about this (or, at the risk of sounding silly, anything you believe in) assuming 'defensive' is defined as arguing your point the best one can and being persistent. Both of those things should have a net positive outcome on the world (if such a thing could be measured). Discussion is good.
I know your responses were aimed at farren, but I'd like to respond as well, I hope that is ok.
You're only looking at the most extreme examples here, and completely ignoring institutionalized sexism/racism/etc. It's not just a matter of law either, public opinion absolutely ties into it. The biggest example is of course rape. Women are essentially blamed for their own rapes most of the time. "What were you wearing", "did you lead him on", "did you say no", "did you say no again", "did you try to fight him", etc. This isn't something that just happens in court, this happens in PUBLIC. I mean, pretty much all you've said is that SLURS aren't acceptable, the viewpoints behind them absolutely are. Catcalls are seen as compliments instead of harassment. Out of the top Fortune 500 companies, only 18 CEOs are women (and that's after the numbers went up last year ! ! !). I don't have time to list more but sexism is in every part of our society. Whether you see it as blatant or not, it's still crippling. However, these things are just seen as normal. They don't feel like blatant sexism because we're raised to accept them as perfectly normal.
I know there are fucks that blame the woman for their own rape, but I've literally never met someone like this. So so its hard to imagine they are so common. But maybe they are, all I have is anecdotal evidence (personal experience). I've also yet to actually HEAR catcalls outside of a movie or TV show. But again I know it occurs. My inexperience with these 2 aspects of your argument does make it difficult to respond with anything. I can't judge cat calls unless I actually hear some real ones. I can assume that those that do them are rude twats though.
Are you seriously blaming women for sexism? Yes, some women do sexist things. This is called internalized misogyny. This is because women are raised in a horribly misogynistic society. They're raised to hate and be uncomfortable with certain aspects of themselves and other women because (MALE-DOMINATED) society tells them that those things are bad. I honestly don't see how you can blame women with a straight face for being the instruments of their own oppression. Would you blame the Hitler Youth? Or would you blame the system that educated them? What if women ARE the real misogynists? Does that mean you need to be one too? Or should you do your part to stop misogyny?
Actually another thing that Farren lost me a little on. but outside of that, there is this: Then couldn't the same be said of many sexist men who have grown up in a misogynist culture? That they aren't completely to blame? Also, there are those that still think that anyone that was part of the Hitler youth is an evil shit head. Like I remember the rumors that the pope was Hitler Youth and everyone that I talked to about it was very clearly disgusted at the pope or tried to deny it like it would make the pope a horrible person (though one could argue makes for a questionable authority figure). Not saying that is right. Obviously its wrong. but it people are just that way sometimes. :/ (disclaimer: I'm agnostic, I don't put any importance on the pope other than his actual power and how he uses it)
As for the other comment, privilege isn't guilt. You need to understand this right now. NOBODY is asking you to feel guilty because you're a man or white or straight or what have you. You're just being asked to recognize it, which you apparently don't based on the way you're hung up over this. The fact is, you never WILL be a woman. You will never be raised as a woman. You literally never will know what it's like. I can tell you certain things about being a woman, sure. But you've not been socialized as a woman. It's an experience you haven't and will never have. You have to just accept that, dude. By trying to make it sound like SOME ANGRY RANTING you're doing both of us a disservice. I'm not ANGRY that you don't know what it's like, I'm frustrated that you can't see past your own privilege. When you try to put yourself in my shoes, I appreciate the effort but because you've not been raised as a woman you really just CAN'T in a lot of cases. You CAN'T see why the word bitch hurts so bad. I'm not saying it doesn't hurt you too! Slurs should make you cringe no matter who you are! But it will never hurt you in the same way it hurts me. It's not about who it hurts the most, it's how. And that's something I can't give you. All I can do is explain that it hurts and try to explain why, and all you can do is listen. That's what this is about. When a black person tells me their troubles I honestly can't try to guess how I'd approach the situation because I was raised white in a white society. I can however appreciate their feelings and empathize with them and when they tell me something that would help (such as not saying a slur) I'll do it. But I won't even being to act like I understand what they've gone through, because it's an experience I'll never have and never fully get. I'm not saying DON'T EMPATHIZE.
I know men are more socially and financially privileged than women, I know white people are more privileged than all other minorities, etc. but what good does just acknowledging it do exactly? Are you supposed to act a certain way? Is one (a white or a male, or a straight person) supposed to just accept minor injustices because major injustices inflicted apon others with less privilege? Major injustices that one (personally) had nothing to do with even? IDK, honestly. IDK if that is right. Maybe that isn't what you are talking about though. But I kind of taking this thread of thought and making some assumptions on where it leads. Sorry, if I'm going in the wrong direction.
Don't get so riled up. Relax. Why does this matter to you so much? Why are you putting so much time into this? Why do you think so hard about these things?
I hear this every goddamn time I try to have a conversation about anything important to me. I've heard this shit in this thread several times. I hate to say this because it's going to make you irritated again, but you don't have to live this. It's a lot easier for you to be divorced from the emotion of this issue because you don't have to deal with being a woman in our society. You don't have to get riled up about it. I'm gonna quote something from a feminist blog here (by doing so I'm not accusing you of playing devil's advocate or that you're having tons of fun arguing this, but it touches on the emotion in this type of discussion)(the article, if you're interested http://www.shakesville.com/2009/08/terrible-bargain-we-have-regretfully.html)
I can't say that you've come off as emotional or irrational. You've been largely calm as far as I can tell. (outside of the occasional swear, but swear I casually all the time so that could be what you are doing... but this is the internet, so it is hard to tell) But I will say emotion may fuel the argument and is basically the only importance to any argument, that one feels strongly about it, but it has the worrisome potential of being illogical, destructive, and unfair if used as part of an argument itself. And that emotion should be divorced from the actual deciding arguments.
This is abstract to you. You're not being catcalled, you're not in classes where you're one of if not THE only girl and all your classmates are perfectly fine throwing around gendered slurs in your presence because hey, if you can't hack it get out of our boys club! You don't have people assuming you know nothing about certain subjects because you're a woman. You don't have people not taking your concerns seriously because clearly you're just a bitchy feminist and man I wish those feminazis would just SHUT UP right??? This is, as that blogger said, the stuff of my life. I can't divorce emotion from that. I can't sit here and speak clinically like we're in a debate team because this stuff DOES get me riled up and it SHOULD get me riled up. Why SHOULDN'T I get emotional over this? If you divorce it from its emotion, you lose the importance. If being called a cunt just made me cringe it might not be as big of a problem, but being called a cunt makes me sick. It makes me furious. Telling me to not be defensive and not get riled up about it is making it seem like it's not a problem. It's a huge problem and it affects me every single day of my life. If feminism was an accepted universal good maybe I wouldn't have to fight so hard, but it's not. It's really, really not.
Like I said, being emotional is fine, as long as one keeps their composure inside of an argument itself.
As for the pieces you've quoted from the blog (though I read the whole thing), I understand why one might become so emotional in a debate where the aspects directly affect those involved. but usually its still generally considered time to stop and come back to it if someone gets very emotional or personal. Because emotions do in fact contain the powerful ability to cloud judgement. One can (or at least should) see why such a discussion is personal, and maybe end it when it does. And yet I suppose, that runs the risk over never discussing these issues... especially never discussing with with women directly hurt by it, which is obviously not quite acceptable either... hmmm... touchy. How does one avoid the emotional cloud but still discuss it with someone directly involved with these issues?
Anyway, play Devil's Advocate IS NOT A BAD THING. If someone has holes/weaknesses in their argument, they should be revealed. I know that this was never the point but it came off as if Playing Devil's Advocate is terrible thing that one shouldn't do.
As I said, I read the entirety of the article, its a good read, the only major aspect of it that I DIRECTLY disagree with is what she said about objectivity.
"my assertion that being on the outside looking in doesn't make one more objective; it merely provides a different perspective."
Being on the outside looking in is is one of the defining aspects of objectivity. Its why we don't allow people directly involved with the victims or the prosecuted to have a hand in a investigation. Its why we don't let the victim's family decide the punishment for a convicted murderer.
This isn't to say that a man in the context of this argument IS objective. Because in such a far reaching topic, that affects EVERYONE, objectivity is literally impossible. The man in this case isn't actually on the outside, he's just got a different pair of glasses on.
e: shoulda just gone with fuckcrypt's example and done the last bit by saying "google derailing for dummies"
NO, no you shouldn't have.
Gaming World Forums
Happy New Salt + What's on your mind 2012: CHILL YOUR HEAD
