Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[oreso]

]Zero. But even the existence of one proves that the supposed boys club is more than willing to promote women to the highest level (and also every level below that, as it happens), and that doesn't happen accidentally or through trickery; it requires a lot of respect over a long period of time. And Margaret Thatcher isn't some freakish anomaly whose vagina was merely politely ignored; she's one of many high-profile and highly successful female politicians. As I've mentioned before; if there's discrimination there, it doesn't appear to be very effective.

Why? Because one, out of all the PMs of the UK has been a woman? Discrimination doesn't exist unless it is 100% effective?

Of course not. But I'd say a conservative party freely volunteering to promote a woman to be their boss for years allows for substantially less effective discrimination than 100%. ^_^

This wasn't an attempt to prove that discrimination doesn't exist generally (if nothing else, it is very difficult to prove a negative).

This was an example of a single decision where discrimination could not have been a factor, and yet there was a heavily gender-trended response. I gave this example in order to show that heavily gender-trended decisions don't necessarily require discrimination, in counter to this point:

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

Cheers.

Oh, sure, I got that was your intent, but I fail to see how it proves anything.

By comparison, there hasn't been an actual rule against black people being PotUS, at least not for quite some time, but there's a reason why it's taken so long.

To be clear, I'm talking about discrimination more generally, not just where it would be codified into written rules.

But my point proves what I stated: that free decisions can fall along gendered lines without necessarily entailing discrimination. If we are to find and combat discrimination, we don't just need to look at gendered outcomes and assume discrimination caused them, but we need to look a little more carefully.

I think this point alone is worth mentioning, since Esotera (and I'm sure many others) disagree with it. However, if we agree on it, then that's fine. ^_^

 

[zxvcasdfqwerzxcv]

Sticking to the main story (rather than galavanting into more Escapist gender debates), clearly the CEO is in the wrong.
Refusing to refer to someone by name is dehumanising and using an offensive substitute based on their gender is even worse. This should be considered workplace bullying through gender discrimination. She sounds like an incredibly immature (I mean 'penis' is only funny for 5 year olds) and possibly quite unstable person. Either that or she has been spoiled by her position (inheriting her dead husband's job) and wealth and has become what seems like a TV character!

 

[Thaluikhain]

Of course not. But I'd say a conservative party freely volunteering to promote a woman to be their boss for years allows for substantially less effective discrimination than 100%.

Sure. How effective does it have to be to be a problem?

But my point proves what I stated: that free decisions can fall along gendered lines without necessarily entailing discrimination. If we are to find and combat discrimination, we don't just need to look at gendered outcomes and assume discrimination caused them, but we need to look a little more carefully.

Er, why is assuming that it isn't discrimination better than assuming that it is? You've given no actual evidence that discrimination isn't involved, you've just said it wasn't.

 

[Tom_green_day]

You know what we call a man who is offensive to women? Misogynistic.
You know what we call a woman who is offensive to men? A feminist. At best. Most of the time nothing at all.

 

[Silvanus]

I think that a person's millage can vary on that. I know quite a few women who do like playing as the sexy, ass-kicking females that are seen frequently in games, as they view the overt sexuality of the character as part of their power fantasy.

Men are also very often intended to titillate, though you may not have noticed if the "fanservive" wasn't aimed at you. Pick any Metal Gear protagonist, any male Final Fantasy protagonist (or character for that matter), any character that could be labelled as "bishounen" and you have an example of a male character that's meant to titillate. Even if you want to say that western developers to create male characters that are attractive you'd be wrong. Male characters such as Thane from Mass Effect were created to be sexual fanservice for women and I wouldn't be surprised if Nathan Drake has a lot of female fans.

Attractive does not equate with sexualised. Most Final Fantasy male characters, the metal gear protagonists, Nathan Drake-- as attractive as they may be, they do not tend to walk around nearly naked.

Oh. Yes. Because female sexual fantasies are totally not the same as a male power fantasy. Of course not.

Again, that's romance, not (EDIT: gratuitous) sexualisation.

Besides, we're talking about video games. You get cast as the man in such scenarios. A woman's sexual fantasy is not to fight through hordes of orcs as a man and then save herself in a cutscene.

If it's just the outfits, then I definitely suggest giving a good hard look at the pictures above, because comics overemphasize everything and make both sexes stereotypically attractive

Attractive, yes. That's not what I've been talking about. Attractiveness =/= sexualisation.

Comics make both sexes stereotypically attractive... and then, for women only, they make their outfits near-nonexistent, and consistently pose them so the camera can get a good long look at the cleavage or ass.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Yes, one. How many others?

Well three of the four best known monarchs for the UK are female (Henry 8, Elizabeth 1, Victoria and then our current Lizzy) and it's not like they have no power at all...

 

[AngloDoom]

Only if you believe smaller issues can't exist in the shadow of bigger ones.

My brother-in-law is a gypsy and he's been refused entry into several establishments local to him because he's gypsy - this does not mean my sister (white British female) cannot complain to him about being sexually harassed by a co-worker.

Just because women suffer worse discrimination, doesn't mean men don't suffer any at all; it certainly shouldn't mean that we ignore one type of discrimination because worse ones exist.

 

[Doclector]

Men should be allowed. They aren't, though. Not in this society.

Ain't gonna stop, though. The majority has already decided that men will not be allowed to be offended. May as well just try to stay out of the issue until things change again.

 

[oreso]

Of course not. But I'd say a conservative party freely volunteering to promote a woman to be their boss for years allows for substantially less effective discrimination than 100%.

Sure. How effective does it have to be to be a problem?

Perhaps the percentage analogy isn't the best. Discrimination isn't a general malaise, but specific acts of injustice where people have been unfairly targeted because of their gender et al, and obviously each one of those acts is a problem.

But my point proves what I stated: that free decisions can fall along gendered lines without necessarily entailing discrimination. If we are to find and combat discrimination, we don't just need to look at gendered outcomes and assume discrimination caused them, but we need to look a little more carefully.

Er, why is assuming that it isn't discrimination better than assuming that it is? You've given no actual evidence that discrimination isn't involved, you've just said it wasn't.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I would propose that we don't assume either way, and that we need to look a little more carefully.

For example, I'd ask these questions:

It would be more interesting to compare alike numbers: Of the absolute number of women who are interested in going into politics, what percentage succeed and to what level? Of the absolute number of men, what percentage succeed and to what level? How do politicians tend to perform, regarding their gender? Etc. At least, these are interesting questions to me.

Cheers.

 

[Phasmal]

Of course they are allowed.
Generally they are not supposed to be, though.
Cause they have to be all strong and sing along with me now, go by traditional bullshit gen~der roles.
But I'm sure this is feminist's fault, riiiight?

 

[oreso]

Yes, one. How many others?

Well three of the four best known monarchs for the UK are female (Henry 8, Elizabeth 1, Victoria and then our current Lizzy) and it's not like they have no power at all...

Yes. ^_^

During the recent campaign to get a woman on English bank notes, I did find it amusing that no one had thought to turn those bank notes over. ^_^

I do believe that Jane Austen is as good a choice as any though.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Do men have a right to be offended by being treated discriminatorily (spelling), yes they do.
Do they have the right to to act with outrage as if its institutionalised discrimination, no.

 

[Blunderboy]

Of course they are. Hell everyone is allowed to be.
Where people go wrong is thinking that being offended somehow gives them unalienable rights or access to some kind of special treatment.
You're offended? That sucks. Oh well. Move on with your life.
In fact, Stephen, would you mind finishing this, as I need to make a cuppa? Thanks.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Perhaps the percentage analogy isn't the best. Discrimination isn't a general malaise, but specific acts of injustice where people have been unfairly targeted because of their gender et al, and obviously each one of those acts is a problem.

Well, yes, though there are trends to be observed.

My point was, there are always going to be exceptional cases, but these don't invalidate general trends.

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but I would propose that we don't assume either way, and that we need to look a little more carefully.

My point was, you said:

This was an example of a single decision where discrimination could not have been a factor,

without giving any reason why it could not have been a factor...that looks like you've just assumed it was (possibly on the basis that there is no official rule being involved as you mention earlier).

Certainly, it is best to avoid assumptions, but the problem usually is that we don't know we are making them, it doesn't occur to us that things could be another way.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Of course you are, you can be given shit about your race/sex no matter who you are. Some groups obviously are given more shit then others but assholes tend to be assholes to everyone.

Also, remember guys: men's rights=/=anti-woman's rights.

 

[oreso]

My point was, you said:

This was an example of a single decision where discrimination could not have been a factor,

without giving any reason why it could not have been a factor...that looks like you've just assumed it was (possibly on the basis that there is no official rule being involved as you mention earlier).

Ah, I'm sorry, I thought I made that clear originally:

I'm sure each of those 79 women had their reasons; but discrimination wasn't one of them: no one could've stopped them from standing.

In the leadership election, there's no procedure by which the decisions of others can stop you from putting your name forward. You simply have to decide to do so.

 

[Stu35]

Of course. In my opinion, no one is allowed to be offended. I take the "Stephen Fry" or "Steve Hughes" approach to people getting offended.

Steven Fry's argument wasn't that people aren't allowed to be offended, it's that you can't just say "I'm offended" and expect someone to do something about it.

Steven Fry himself has been offended quite recently by the treatment of homosexuals in Russia that's currently going on. Is he not allowed to be?

Of course you're right. That's the sentiment that I was going for, and I failed to word it in that fashion.

Let me rephrase (in a manner completely contradicting my original post):

Everyone has the right to be offended, but so fucking what?

 

[Thaluikhain]

In the leadership election, there's no procedure by which the decisions of others can stop you from putting your name forward. You simply have to decide to do so.

Nobody can stop you stop you, but that's not to same as discrimination playing no part. If women believe they are unlikely to receive the necessary support, or are going to have to put up with an intolerable amount of sexism, for example, they can be stopped from running without actually being stopped from running.