Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[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.

 

[tzimize]

I saw this report in the news, female CEO of Archie Comics is being sued by her male employees for repeatedly calling them "Penis". The CEO dismissed the seriousness of the lawsuit by saying, "White men are not a protected class."

It got me to thinking. It seems like everytime someone brings up a complaint regarding gender. He get shouted down. The best example that occurs on this website is when men bring up that male videogame characters who match the same description as the female videogame character that some people are complaining about as sexist. They get womansplained that those characters are a male power fantasy. (By the way, I am just being cheeky with the obnoxious term "mansplaining". No need to get upset by that.)

I can't think of one thing that men can complain about. (Without being about race, religion, sexuality, etc.) That people will side with men and say, "Hey! That is a serious problem we should address."

Are men allowed to be offended?

Of course men can be offended. Not by being called penis of course, thats just silly, but by the tone in the voice. Words are just words, its the meaning behind them that is offensive.

 

[Thaluikhain]

you think that's exclusive to "Men's Rights" ?

there are plenty who consider themselves advocates of "Woman's Rights" who are just as bad.

Yes, there are some that consider themselves advocates of "Woman's Rights" who are as bad as the totality of Men's Rights Advocates. The Men's Rights Movement is to actual men's rights (which is a serious issue) along the same lines as North Korea is to a Democratic Republic, or PETA is to ethical treatment of animals.

 

[Random Argument Man]

A lot of Vine videos discriminate male whites?then again?.Vine does have a "it's ok the to be racist if it's funny" mentality.

Besides, do we finally have a chance to educate people about the difference between the word "feminist" and "misandrist"? Oh thank you!

 

[BNguyen]

Of course men are allowed to be offended. Everyone gets to be offended. Yeah, it's going to get more heat if someone offends a person in a lower social status than they are, but that's just how it is, I guess. 'z like the idea in comedy that you only punch upwards.

As far as the gender debates in games, people almost exclusively bring up how men are mistreated only when it's brought up that women are mistreated, and it's generally to try and end the conversation as one big "shut up!"
And they pretend it's equal to what women go through. It just isn't, IMO. As bad as it might get, males have variety to balance it out, bluntly. It's likely part of why people rarely complain about male representation.
That said, the complaints about male representation are generally aired on a pretty poor battleground.

If you have grievances to air, go for it, IMO. I see occassional complaints, and being offended, but not a whole lot. Society puts a lot of pressure on guys to not complain, too.

actually, I'd have to disagree with you on male representation in video games - males do not have variety in the sense that I think you believe that they do. I've heard of Street fighter being used a lot as an example - sure, there may be multiple ethnicities represented on the male side of the scales, but when you take that away, every one of them is a musclehead powerhouse - when you break it all down to image, all men in video games are basically bodybuilders and women are sexualized eye candy.
Of course this is all just how I see it so if it's wrong, oh well.

 

[viranimus]

Of course they are allowed to be offended. That is the intended purpose. How else will the scales of equality ever be balanced if they are not perpetually reminded of how much offense they have wrought in their wake? /eyeroll

 

[FallenMessiah88]

Of course they are. Discrimination is discrimination. Gender, race, sexual orientation is irrelevant.

If a woman is allowed to be offended by a dongle joke, then men are certainly allowed to be offended by the word "penis".

 

[Silvanus]

There's nothing wrong with being straight and male, but the fact that you could type that with an apparent straight face makes you probably the straightest male I've ever met.

...I'm not straight.

Then, the idea that a "power fantasy" is something distinct from sexualization is also bullshit in itself, sexual iconography's secondary purpose narratively has always been the indication of control/power. Most of designing a female character with iconography indicating she's desirable is a "power fantasy" as well... women think of being attractive as a means to wield power over the opposite sex just as much as men do.

I feel pretty confident in saying that the following designs;

Spoiler

...Were not designed to appeal to a female power fantasy. That they were, in fact, designed to titillate men. Male designs may be handsome (because people want their characters to be handsome), but they are rarely near-naked (because most people don't want their characters to be perpetually near-naked, if their characters are the same sex as them).

I think you know this too, but you're seeing equivalence where none exists.

 

[oreso]

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.

I think you might be moving the goal posts a little here.

My claim was not that "politicians aren't sexist", nor that "sexism plays no part in party politics". In fact, I believe both of those claims are false, and I most certainly do believe sexism is an issue. I'm puzzled how you were drawn to questioning this from my example.

My claim was only that in this specific instance there was no discrimination, because any sexist people simply did not have a (plausible) opportunity to do so, and yet the result was heavily biased. And I used this as an example to show that such a thing is possible; and so that the claim "heavily gendered results require discrimination" is false.

And I feel we're drifting further away from the topic. If you're interested in pursuing it further perhaps we could make a new thread? Please send me a PM if you do, so I don't miss it.

Cheers

 

[Boba Frag]

If they get to yell back C bombs at her, then fair enough, I'd be ok with that.

That said, being called 'penis' every day at work is not fucking on either.

 

[Thaluikhain]

My claim was only that in this specific instance there was no discrimination, because any sexist people simply did not have a (plausible) opportunity to do so, and yet the result was heavily biased. And I used this as an example to show that such a thing is possible; and so that the claim "heavily gendered results require discrimination" is false.

Ah, well, I think that that example doesn't hold true, that discrimination was still likely a factor, and thus you can't draw conclusions from it, but yeah, getting a bit off-topic.