Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?
- Thread starter KissingSunlight
- Start date
You do, certainly. Not every female character is sexualised, but I think it's fairly clear there's a preponderance of non-armours for female characters in comparison with male. Even personal favourites, like GW1, do it. You simply don't see male characters walking around in a chain g-string and nothing else, whereas it's a common sight on female characters.Jim_Callahan said:
I was not acquainted with Yordles, but I'm glad I now am.
On a side-note, tis a shame you didn't pick up the 'straightest male' thing again; I found that incredibly amusing. Surely we'd be more likely to want equality in the sexualisation department!
I don't know if it's "okay" or not, but I sure as hell am offended, annoyed, and angered every single time I get offended because someone makes a comment about my race, gender, religion, political views, sexual orientation, or what have you, and when I try to tell them that I'm offended, I get the attitude that I'm not allowed to be offended because I'm a Straight White Christian Conservative Man.KissingSunlight said:
News for all the liberals out there; I'm not EVERY Straight White Christian Conservative Man. I'm ONE Straight White Christian Conservative Man. I've never raped a woman, beaten a gay, oppressed a black, or crusaded against a Muslim. Why is it okay to mock ME based on what other people who share characteristics with me have done in the past? And when you insult ME, I get insulted. Not for some bizarre idea of a cabal of Straight White Christian Conservative Men that get together to oppress minorities. I get insuled for ME, who is being insulted. It's the antithesis to how whenever ONE white guy insults ONE black guy, suddenly he's a racist who was verbally warring against an entire race. It is possible for one white guy to just really hate one black guy for what that one black guy has said or done without hating every other innocent black guy in the world. By the same token, when someone mocks Christians, even if I am not the idea of Christian that they have in their mind, since I identify MYSELF as a Christian, due to my overt Christianity, I am therefore mocked.
And honestly? I don't really care to change that. This is America, you can mock me and mine as much as you want. But when I get offended, don't you dare tell me I'm not allowed to be. Tell me, "Well, I understand that you're offended, but we have the Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the first amendment here. I can offend you, and you can do the same to me in return," to which I would reply by shrugging, smiling, and saying, "Then God Bless America, you filthy Socialist D-bag."
Nope. No, we're not. We should be, it's legal for us to be but if you're a straight white man you're pretty much fair game. Doesn't matter if you're not sexist, racist, homophobic etc. It's generally assumed that you are.
Well I don't know much about american law, but here in the State of Queensland our male employee is well within his rights to take the matter to court under the anti-discrimination act under grounds of sexual harassment, work place bullying and both racial and gender discrimination. The fact that the CEO was stupid enough to voice her feelings in public would be enough for the employees council to nail the stupid person to the legal wall. Good for him, I hope he gets his moneys worth.KissingSunlight said:
To answer your underlying question...Of course men are allowed to be offended. What truly matters is how far are you prepared to let your feelings be offended. Are you the sought of douche bag who gets immediately pissed at even the slightest misdeed or are you patient enough to let things slide. In the case of our white male employee it sounds like the dude carried on like a trooper until enough was enough.
Different strokes for different folks as so far as sexual attraction is concerned, but the key difference between a more inclusive hyper-masculine power fantasy and a deliberately exclusive hyper-masculine power fantasy is immediately apparent when you glance at the character's face.Silvanus said:
If the beefcake resembles Arnold Schwarzenegger in Conan(1982), who was only an unbuttoned fuchsia shaded shirt away from appearing on the cover of a romance novel, then whatever you're looking at is probably going to be a guilty pleasure for someone.
If the beefcake resembles Kratos from God Of War, who looks like he was sat in front of the discharge port of a wood chipper while the ugly tree was fed through feed mechanism and resembles nothing so much as the physical incarnation of the will to hate fuck the universe, then it's probably safe to say they don't care if their product attracts any female fans.
Although if Pyramid Head has fan girls penning fan-fiction rape, I suppose anything is possible.
Can they? It seems like they do it all the time, whether it's merited or not.
When honestly, the reason claims like this aren't taken seriously is less because people are being mean to men and more because the claims of persecution are absurd. You haven't pointed out an example of men being unable to complain. You haven't even really pointed out an example of them being shouted down. You've pointed out an example of someone trying to drum up a reasn to say "men have the same problems!"
This argument is often used to attempt to silence a minority or other disadvantaged group. "Well, I'm objectified just as bad, so STFu!" by way of example.
So many guys talk about ho bad they have it....Wonder if they'd trade.
In short, it's not so much that men can't complain, it's that you're bringing up examples of the equivalent of 'first world problems.'
"There are starving people in Africa? Well, I skipped lunch today. SAME THING."
And honestly, men do have problems. It's just this tendency for a majority to compare themselves to a minority (or a 'higher class' to compare themselves to a 'lower' one) that is a problem. Guys have problems. They just can't expect to go toe to toe.
Here, for example. Men get the male characters tailored to them and the female characters tailored to them, and still complain that they're being discriminated against in games And when someone tries to point out that= their status is not one of objectification, they tend to complain that they're shouted down or otherwise ignored.KissingSunlight said:
When honestly, the reason claims like this aren't taken seriously is less because people are being mean to men and more because the claims of persecution are absurd. You haven't pointed out an example of men being unable to complain. You haven't even really pointed out an example of them being shouted down. You've pointed out an example of someone trying to drum up a reasn to say "men have the same problems!"
This argument is often used to attempt to silence a minority or other disadvantaged group. "Well, I'm objectified just as bad, so STFu!" by way of example.
So many guys talk about ho bad they have it....Wonder if they'd trade.
In short, it's not so much that men can't complain, it's that you're bringing up examples of the equivalent of 'first world problems.'
"There are starving people in Africa? Well, I skipped lunch today. SAME THING."
And honestly, men do have problems. It's just this tendency for a majority to compare themselves to a minority (or a 'higher class' to compare themselves to a 'lower' one) that is a problem. Guys have problems. They just can't expect to go toe to toe.
Just because it's not a serious problem doesn't change the fact that she's setting a bad example for her co workers, and should be publicly shamed for doing so. It shouldn't matter where sexism, racism or homophobia comes from it's still wrong. Fact.
This.Ishigami said:
I always find it hilarious when people cite Tera for these types of arguments. If anything, that game is a fine example of equality.
Ridiculous over sexualization for all!
Ahem. In regards to the OP, yes, males can be offended. If the internet has taught me anything, its that we can and are for many, many varied reasons. The validity of each complaint, however, is subject to criticism/context.
In this instance in particular? Yeah. CEO dun fuck'd up.
(I'm ignoring the fact that a good number of romance novels don't feature towering beefcakes on the cover)Paradoxrifts said:
Really, the face doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it. No matter what Kratos looks like, he's still the kind of sociopath that's big with male gamers. And that tells you who the fantasy is aimed at.
Romance novels have a predominantly female base, with less emphasis on the specific types of men portrayed and more on specific types of action involved. A romance character might still be described as grizzled and his face scarred, but he's designed to appeal to the romance reader through another series of actions.
The last time this came up, someone used a pro wrestling analogy. So allow me to do likewise.
I've known several girls who write WWE erotic fiction. Almost always slashfic. And the difference between the actual program, aimed at guys, and the fiction, aimed at women tends to be the way they carry themselves and the way they act. And they act like characters out of a romance novel. A troubled, softer side is one common example. And honestly? It doesn't matter if they're pretty boys or not. You'll find this repeated all over the place.
Though rape fantasies have little rhyme or reason, so the Pyramid Head thing just seems rule 34 to me.
Changing the ace doesn't make something more or less exclusive or inclusive.
I'm skeptical about this story, and not because of the penis thing. Here's what I found on Boing Boing:CardinalPiggles said:
Much of that was left out of the OP's story because it doesn't involve the victimisation of men, but it also makes the story sound like batshit crazy nonsense. And when you follow back the stories, they seem to originate from dubious sites with some really crazy, shocking, and bullshit or distorted stories.
Let's take a deep breath and stop to think before we decide to rely on the unsourced word of one dude on the internet who didn't even bother to source himself.
You're comparing a foundational basis to the fact that some people in a group can be just as bad. That's already a disingenuous and untenable position.Sleekit said:
So you dislike being painted with a broad brush, but you just painted society with a broad brush....EmilShmiengura said:
I hope you can appreciate that.
I'm reluctant to reply to this as I have strong suspicions of arguing just for the sake of it after reading your full post. Well, on my head be it.Zachary Amaranth said:
A society, or a human society, is a group of people involved with each other through persistent relations, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typically subject to the same political authority and dominant cultural expectations(...) (wikipedia)
1so·ci·e·ty
: people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values (merriam-bebster)
Thus by definition a society can be easily subjected to that said broad brush. When the same treatment is applied to individual members of a society on the other hand we get stuff like "ooh, here's Dave, he's a gamer, boy he must be immature" or "keep away from Chad, he's a white football player, he hates gays and may abuse women" etc.
Of course men can be offended. How would people react if I walked around calling women vagina? she's clearly in the wrong.
However, I find it interesting that no one mentions how men are "mistreated" until after the topic of women representation comes up. I have never, once, heard of a single man complaining about how men are represented in games. That only happens when women bring up the issue of how they are unfairly depicted in games. Unfortunately there's a massive disparity in terms of how women and men are treated in gaming culture, and it's unfair to justify sexism towards women by claiming that there is also sexism towards men. Both are wrong, but the difference is that women have to deal with it far more frequently then men do, and historically sexism has been ingrained in our patriarchal society from birth. So yes, be offended that this woman abused her power. However, you also have to be offended when the same thing happens to women, or else you're a hypocrite. To me it's not even an issue of men vs. women, it's an issue of how people in general are treated, and I'm somewhat confused about why so many people fail to understand that.
However, I find it interesting that no one mentions how men are "mistreated" until after the topic of women representation comes up. I have never, once, heard of a single man complaining about how men are represented in games. That only happens when women bring up the issue of how they are unfairly depicted in games. Unfortunately there's a massive disparity in terms of how women and men are treated in gaming culture, and it's unfair to justify sexism towards women by claiming that there is also sexism towards men. Both are wrong, but the difference is that women have to deal with it far more frequently then men do, and historically sexism has been ingrained in our patriarchal society from birth. So yes, be offended that this woman abused her power. However, you also have to be offended when the same thing happens to women, or else you're a hypocrite. To me it's not even an issue of men vs. women, it's an issue of how people in general are treated, and I'm somewhat confused about why so many people fail to understand that.
I'll be surprised if it doesn't get moved, honestly.username sucks said:
Provide even a single example of explicit legal or institutional discrimination against women in the US (since it's where we're both from -- really we could use any western democracy for this more similarities than differences). It's actually easier to find examples of explicit legal or institutional discrimination against men, if you want I could provide some examples (VAWA is only the most obvious example, it shows up more often than you think, including the Affordable Care Act). Note that differences in outcome are not, in and of themselves, proof of discrimination unless all confounding factors have been adjusted for.username sucks said:
First off, this is a fallacy of composition -- you are shaving off a tiny sliver of the population, looking at the demographic breakdown of that sliver, and making the supposition that this says anything about those demographics as a whole. Psychologist Helen Smith had referred to this particular form of fallacy of composition as the "apex fallacy."username sucks said:
Secondly, what is more interesting is that, although 80% of Congress is men, the majority of those who put them in power (voters) are women (women are more likely to vote than men, and are a slight majority of the population as well).
Thirdly, if you still feel it's a valuable piece of evidence I can counter with plenty of stats in which men and boys fare very poorly (though I suspect I wouldn't be allowed to imply the same kinds of things that most people pointing at the gender balance of Congress do, because when women are behind it is obviously sexist discrimination but when men are behind it is their own fault unless you have a smoking gun).
So long as children are raised by, well, parents children will have social roles and expectations "forced upon" them.username sucks said:
The question is whether or not the procedures and policies by which the law is executed are also as egalitarian. For example, men get longer prison sentences than women for a given crime. Another example would be domestic violence police procedures that favor arresting the man in heterosexual couple violence cases even when it's likely the man was the victim (for example by assigning traits that slant male as being factors in choosing who to arrest, such as height and weight).tangoprime said:
Equality of outcomes doesn't indicate equality of opportunity. Or lack thereof. In no small part because there are almost always a *lot* of confounding factors in play.Esotera said:
Or to put it another way, I could name a virtual cavalcade of statistics in which men and boys fall far behind girls and women, but odds are you would be unlikely to accept that those statistics in and of themselves indicate discrimination against men and boys.
The STEM thing is a matter of moving goalposts. Back in the 60s-70s, the problem was that there weren't enough women in college/having graduated college, so accordingly special benefits were given to make it easier for women (special scholarships, mostly). Today, the male:female ratio for college students is the reverse of what is was back then, so instead of making a big deal about trying to swing things back the other way to some degree, we've simply decided that number is all but irrelevant (because it now shows a female advantage), and instead focused on the only fields where a majority of students and graduate remain male (STEM), declaring that to be the only part worth looking at. There's a reason we don't talk about law or medicine or what have you, and that's because they slant female today.Esotera said:
If the workplace death rate went down to only being 90% male, it'd be all over the news media. Of course the headline would be something like "women dying at work has doubled!", with an emphasis on improving women's safety on the job.oreso said: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.
Only the ones who respond to any such complaint with the use of some combination of "mansplaining", "privilege", or "patriarchy" as a silencing tactic. I can Google a bit and see if I can find some examples if you need -- it's shockingly easy to find examples of feminists saying terrible things, but generally none of them count because "Not All Feminists Are Like That" and "Feminism Is Not A Monolith" (though ironically, MRA apparently *are* all like that and a monolith, to listen to arguments against them).Phasmal said:
Speaking of "privilege" -- I've always found it incredibly amusing and ironic to hear a female feminist talk about privilege blindness one moment and how women certainly are not privileged the next. I always wonder if they can't hear the "whoosh" because they're the one pitching.
So, men should be allowed to cost someone their job if they use the word penis in a private conversation with someone else, and the man in question eavesdrops and hears it? So long as we're on the same page.FallenMessiah88 said:
Someone else beat me to it, but that pic is from a race in TERA where both the men and women have skimpy clothing. The people who the first time around tried to make a scene about the "objectification of women" in TERA used Castanic women in all their images specifically to rely on the fact that most of the people they'd manage to rile up weren't going to have any knowledge of the game and were going to accept whatever they were presented with as "typical" without question.Silvanus said:I feel pretty confident in saying that the following designs;
...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.
Well! I stand corrected on that example. Still, it's an exception to a very noticeable trend.Ishigami said:Castanic race from Tera.
The male counterpart:
In no way a sex fantasy for women in any form or shape... obviously a power fanatsy for men.
Observe:
Also take a look here [http://www.ivory-tower.de/]. The arcana set on a male Dark Elf, for example, covers the entire body; on a female, it is mostly a transparent string-vest on the top, and the crotch is covered only by a tiny portion of metal.
(Scarlet Blade)
(Depth Fantasia)
(Heavenly Sword)
(WarTune)
My previous example was poorly chosen, though, agreed, with the male equivalent being pretty truly equal.
Snippet from OP - 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."
Just from a functional standpoint, the solution to the problem of sexism is not going to be more sexism. It's impossible to get ahead by getting even.
Just from a functional standpoint, the solution to the problem of sexism is not going to be more sexism. It's impossible to get ahead by getting even.
I was in no way implying that discrimination against men does not exist, nor that discrimination against women means that it doesn't matter. I believe I explicitly said that in my original post.I was trying to explain that it goes both ways. There are always more than just two sides to any argument, despite most politicians claiming otherwise.Schadrach said:
When I said that the workplace discrimination in the OP was a small issue, I meant that the specific example was a small issue. Name calling based on gender is horrible for men or women, but in my opinion it is relatively unimportant. And yes, you are correct that legal discrimination effects men more than women. However, sexism exists in many aspects of society, not just legal. Social, economic, entertainment, etc. There are issues for both men and women in all of those.
I understand that congress is an extremely small sample of the population. But congress are the ones with power in society, and they are designed to represent the voter (who are mainly female, as you said). I understand that there are fewer female candidates, and that is probably the main cause of the imbalance. But why is it that fewer women are in politics? Any number of factors. This is not a simple issue where its either just women or just men who are discriminated against. I can't pretend to understand everything about it either. My entire point was just that it is not a just two-sided issue.
Scarlet Blade is out and out a porn game, yo. They don't even have male playable characters and subscribers can go about naked.Silvanus said:Well! I stand corrected on that example. Still, it's an exception to a very noticeable trend.Ishigami said:Castanic race from Tera.
The male counterpart:
In no way a sex fantasy for women in any form or shape... obviously a power fanatsy for men.
Observe:
Also take a look here [http://www.ivory-tower.de/]. The arcana set on a male Dark Elf, for example, covers the entire body; on a female, it is mostly a transparent string-vest on the top, and the crotch is covered only by a tiny portion of metal.
(Scarlet Blade)
(Depth Fantasia)
(Heavenly Sword)
(WarTune)
My previous example was poorly chosen, though, agreed, with the male equivalent being pretty truly equal.
Not that I'm defending it, it's shitty on all fronts. Just saying I'm not sure how it fits in the argument when it's explicitly meant to be pornographic.
Anyway, in my experience the only truly equal representation in the male/female armor thing have been Monster Hunter, and maybe FFXIV.