Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[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.

 

[Daniel Ferguson]

Next time some woman asks me (drunkenly) for sex, and I say no, and she says "Are you gay?" I'm going to get all offended-like - but say something witty, like "Are you a bigot?" (because it's bigoted if a guy hits on a girl, she says no, he gets all offended and calls her a dyke).

She'll probably get offended, because the type of woman to go around asking every guy in the place for sex is probably going to be the type to get offended if I say no. They basically have every time, thus far.

 

[oreso]

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.

Do you really think such a situation is credible in this case?

Given the number of women at every level of government, and the support that Diane Abbott did in fact receive with nominations from several cabinet members, I cannot help but feel you're appealing to a conspiracy theory here. For example, I shudder to think of the pressure that must've been placed on Harriet Harman alone to stop her from deciding to stand, never mind the 78 other people. ^_^

I still think it's a little more reasonable to maintain that it was a free decision that fell along gendered lines without discrimination.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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

However, that is what Men's Rights is, and it likes pretending to be the former.

 

[TKretts3]

Everyone is allowed to be offended. Offensive statements are offensive statements whether directed towards men or women, whites or blacks, straights or gays, or any other groups. What matter is what is being said, not who is saying it/who it is being said to.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Do you really think such a situation is credible in this case?

Yes.

Given the number of women at every level of government,

Women are around half the entire population. Doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist.

I still think it's a little more reasonable to maintain that it was a free decision that fell along gendered lines without discrimination.

Ok...you'll accept, I trust, that sexism is a serious issue in wider society? That politicians have their own prejudices and biases, that more than a few are raging bigots...and yet sexism plays no part in party politics?

I'm finding that rather difficult to believe.

 

[jackpipsam]

Of course we're allowed to be.
Just because I am a man and just because I am white doesn't mean that somehow I am some douchebag with a high class life.

Racism can happen just as much to white people as much as it can happen to black people, but the media always seems keen to downplay the racism against whites and males.