Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[LysanderNemoinis]

Ahahahahahahaha!!!! That's a good one. Of course men aren't allowed to be offended. And if you happen to be white and straight, then if you say anything, you're ripe for a sound trashing. How dare I get offended when I'm insulted! And while I would have said in the past that we should try to eliminate the double standard, I'm tired of being called every "-ist" and "-phobe" under the sun, so I give up.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Top lel, i'm pretty sure the unacceptable sexism is self-evident and it's nice to see everyone else not being bad and saying similar.

Really, Penis? Could you at least be more imaginative. Those sorts of nicknames are what friends would lightheartedly call each other, well in England at least, not sure if the US shares the same view but it's fucking bad for a workplace.

"Alright casuls"

"Alright dick'ead"

^ average greeting trade

Actually, "Penis" wouldn't even be good enough for that, it's just bizarre. :S

Sometimes i'm happy I have a very light Walsall accent, (shut up, it is light dammit I don't care what you say) it makes conversation more fun.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

There's a genuine and important difference between sexualisation and power fantasy, though. When examples of supposedly sexualised men are brought up, they usually consist of men who are mountains of muscle (hypermasculine, often to an impossible degree).

Men in video games are very rarely intended to titillate.

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

Spoiler

Spoiler

For at least a pretty large portion of both male and female audiences, there is a market for helpless-damsel-in-distress-saved-by-ultra-masculine-hero.

I do wonder, however, what a female "power fantasy" would be. I mean, I find it pretty sexist to assume that I enjoy fantasizing about being meathead muscle heroes simply because I'm male over, say, an intelligent or witty hero. It's the same manner of offense as a female saying she doesn't like seeing female heroes using manipulation to deceive to achieve her goals.

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. If it's that males use power while females use manipulation, then, well, I'd agree that it's an issue...but contend that it faces both genders in pretty equal measure.

(Edit: I forgot to bring up, as another poster mentioned, females that enjoy playing as Catwoman specifically because she's manipulative and independent and etc etc, much like men, or, more often than not, 14 year old adolescent males, that like playing as meatheads like Marcus Phoenix with biceps the size of watermelons).

 

[Esotera]

While men are in no way not discriminated against, neither are women. Issues like the example of Archie Comics you gave can show this quite well (I would like a link to this story, if possible). Such a small issue as a workplace comment is nothing when you look at how women are actually held down in society. Over 80% of congress is men. Most news reporters on TV are men. And of course, there are the gender roles forced upon children, although this effects both genders.

That 80% statistic is misleading. Even though women have had voting rights for nearly 100 years, women are not near parity with men in elected office for a simple reason: There are just not as many women in politics. The reasoning behind this, at least as the psychologists and psychiatrists try to explain it, is that obtaining power, something politics tends to give people, is something men find more alluring. Some even speculate this is why the CEO and executive divide is so high. Men and women, gasp, just prefer different things. Women tend to value security more than power. Men are the reverse. Women are attracted to men in power due to being a safer investment in the eyes of females while men are attracted to women that are, well, hot. Because men are instinctually thinking about reproducing as much as possible, i.e. we're pigs. And certain female looks are indicative on a subconscious level as desirable in a mate.

Link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/archie-boss-calls-male-employees-penis-article-1.1534462

The very fact that there's such a massive disparity between the two genders indicates discrimination. If the gender divide is above a reasonable threshold e.g. 70/30 then there is probably a social issue that is stopping women. And given that UK politics is mostly run by boarding school boys I find that way more plausible than not enough women being interested in politics.

OT: There have been a couple of articles in the news recently about how we should be trying to boost the number of women STEM undergraduates. Whilst this is probably the most pressing issue, that doesn't mean we should forget about the small percentage of men doing certain courses e.g. psychology, biology.

 

[stormeris]

I think we should just skin every single person alive and castrate them, so everyone would be equal...

Damn meatbags :|

 

[oreso]

The very fact that there's such a massive disparity between the two genders indicates discrimination. If the gender divide is above a reasonable threshold e.g. 70/30 then there is probably a social issue that is stopping women. And given that UK politics is mostly run by boarding school boys I find that way more plausible than not enough women being interested in politics.

And boarding school girls (and grammar school boys and girls). Why would a disparity necessarily mean there's discrimination? Behaviour can fall along heavily gendered lines even when nothing but free choice is involved.

For example:
We had a female PM in the 80s, in the conservative government. She was PM for a long time. At the very least, Thatcher is evidence that a woman can and has succeeded to the highest levels of government. We've had many female cabinet ministers besides. Many women have paved the way and provided role models and showed it could be done.

Some time after this, the labour party introduced gender quotas, resulting in a large influx of women who became MPs. But of the 80 or so women who could stand for the 2010 Labour leadership election, only one chose to (Diane Abbott, bless her). This included prominent female politicians and cabinet members such as Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears. 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.

I think instead of telling girls that "You will be stopped by the boys club" and "You need special help just to compete", we should tell them "If you want to stand, then stand", and if they choose not to (even in numbers as great as 80% or even 99%) then we have to let those women stand by that decision. It's as simple as free choice.

But don't take my word for it, listen to actual female politicians [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qfr-YHKWMQ].

OT: There have been a couple of articles in the news recently about how we should be trying to boost the number of women STEM undergraduates. Whilst this is probably the most pressing issue, that doesn't mean we should forget about the small percentage of men doing certain courses e.g. psychology, biology.

And thank you for acknowledging that.

Trying to convince women to go into STEM fields is part of a larger agenda however; to increase women's earnings compared to men, since those fields are generally well paid, because they're tough and so few people want to do them.

I would also mention that no one appears to be interested in convincing women to do other male dominated professions: all the dangerous and dirty jobs that lead to the workplace death rate being 90% male, for example. I wonder why that is.

Cheers

 

[Thaluikhain]

We had a female PM

Yes, one. How many others?

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.

Er, what? How does that in any way prove discrimination doesn't exist?

 

[Kyrian007]

I rarely respond on these types of topics, but I do have the viewpoint we're talking about (I'm a white male) so I can add my answer to the consensus.

I am a man, and I can be offended. I am allowed to be offended. Just like everyone else.

But I'm rarely (almost never) offended.

I think that's what's more relevent to me on this topic. Insults toward my gender, my race, my country or state of birth, kind of roll right off me. I just don't care about any of those things that others use to classify me. And I really don't feel the need to stand up for a stranger just because he shares one of those qualities with me. Insult me, that's one thing. Insult a group of people I happen to share a meaningless similarity to... really don't care. Be offended if you feel like it, but don't expect me (or anyone else) to care.

I see and understand why it's wrong to stereotype and bash people for something they had no say in. Gender, Color, Nationality... I personally don't join in the insulting of people based upon those things. I'd rather insult ignorance than race, gender, or social standing (the stupid are far less likely to zing you back with a really "good one.") And if someone is especially offended by an insult to their gender or race... well the stereotype or joke shouldn't have been made in the first place, so they have every right to be offended. Just like I do. I just usually am not.

 

[Playful Pony]

Uhm, yes? Why wouldn't a man be allowed to be offended? I see men (white men too!) being offended every day for whatever reason, be it mundane things like the high price of public transport in my town, or more 'serious' issues like how thoseevilwomenareinleaguewiththemuslimsandaretakingoverthecountryaswespeakdamnit! A lot of people seem to imply that we as a society need to really feel sorry for that poor white middle-aged man these days, and I do not understand why. He has as much a right (and ability) to be offended as anyone else in the world!

Wow, uh. That CEO is kinda immature. I'm just imagining kids on a playground. "Hahahaha you're a PENIS!"

Nu-uh, YOU are a penis!

I think we should just skin every single person alive and castrate them, so everyone would be equal...

Damn meatbags :|

Yup, It's the only way.

 

[Tarrker]

I'm a white, male and I get discriminated against all the time. But it's not because of my race or gender. Usually it's because I have the sheer GALL of being a video game player or because of my love for unusual board games. Every once in a while I treated differently because of my martial arts but that's usually just stupid people who think I have super human reflexes because they watched the Matrix or something.

 

[The Wooster]

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.)

Look at the context those arguments are used in. You want to complain about the representation of men and masculinity in video games? I'm with you, bro. There's way too few male video game characters that have any degree of emotional depth or personality outside of the occasional sarcastic line before they shoot someone. But, are you actually using those arguments to derail or somehow "disprove" similar arguments about female characters? Because that's a shitty thing to do, bro, and I see a lot of that. That's why those arguments are often met with incredulity, because they're frequently disingenuous.

As for your main question, can men get offended? Of course they can, they're very good at it. In my experience heterosexual white males are the easiest group to offend.

 

[Depulcator]

As an HR, It's stunning to think how many people think they shouldn't be.

 

[Stu35]

Are men allowed to be offended?

Nope.

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.

For those who don't know either of these approaches, just stick either of those names and "offended" into Youtube. It'll set you right.

 

[88chaz88]

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?

 

[oreso]

We had a female PM

Yes, one. How many others?

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.

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.

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.

Er, what? How does that in any way prove discrimination doesn't exist?

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.

 

[Thaluikhain]

]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?

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.

 

[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.