Are Men Allowed To Be Offended?

[Austin Manning]

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.

You clearly haven't played many Final Fantasy or Metal Gear games then. Though it ultimately depends on the character designer, male Final Fantasy protagonists are often designed to look "appealing" to women. Both Tidus and Vaan show a lot of skin, to the point where Vaan looks like he works part time as a male stripper:

Spoiler

In Metal Gear Solid 2 there is a level where the bishounen protagonist runs around completely naked. In games where you play as the character Naked Snake, there is always the option to run around naked from the waste up. Furthermore, for a franchise that you say does not sexualize men, the uniforms the protagonists wear are all skin tight and the camera is almost always focused on their backside.

Again, that's romance, not sexualisation.

No, that's sexualization to a T. The covers of those kinds of Harlequin romances are meant to show the protagonist that the female reader is supposed to project on to, and the sexually attractive man who will spend the novel wooing her.

Ah, that's fair enough, I wasn't aware. It says a lot that many of the others i found are just as revealing, though.

I'm not actually sure it does. I'm not saying you're wrong, you could be right for all I know, but I question how you found the images. Did you just image search "scantily clad females in gaming"? The reason why I think this is because it's clear that you don't have experience with the games or the larger context within them. Seeing as you didn't realize that Terra has character models for providing "fanservice" to women and that one of your examples was from a freaking porn game.

 

[Austin Manning]

People that are male, white, well-employed, heterosexual, Christian, educated, not adopted, from a 1st-world country, fit, and free of medical conditions...

...can't be offended. If you are in the group that people complain to, you can't complain back.

Men can't complain to women about gender inequality.
White people can't complain to non-whites about racial inequality.
The upper class can't complain to the lower class about economic inequality.
Straight people can't complain to LGBT people about sexual inequality.
Privileged people can't complain to those less fortunate about educational inequality.
Healthy people can't complain to the sick and injured about medical inequality.

Whether or not these people can complain about other groups is a different matter. But these people should neither expect nor deserve sympathy.

i.e., those with more power can't complain to those with less.

Regarding the example with the CEO and employees, for the employees to sue for gender discrimination was a mistake. A lawsuit regarding employee abuse would have made a better case.

Wait, by your logic, shouldn't they not be able to sue? After all they are men and, according to you, have more power than their boss since she is female.

 

[chadachada123]

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.

I disagree with your observation, and find it demeaning to males, but I doubt anything I say will get you to open your mind on the matter.

But as a final argument:

Spoiler

Not only that, but here, too: Clearly it is the female here that is sexualized here. Totally not the male hero:

Spoiler

 

[Random Argument Man]

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.

The word you're looking for is not "Feminist". It's "misandry". Feminist means "A person who's for equality of rights between genders and equal representation of the genders".
"Misandry" means "hatred or prejudice against men".

Sadly, I can't blame you since no one uses the word. I've learned about it yesterday...

 

[Cecilo]

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.

The word you're looking for is not "Feminist". It's "misandry". Feminist means "A person who's for equality of rights between genders and equal representation of the genders".
"Misandry" means "hatred or prejudice against men".

Sadly, I can't blame you since no one uses the word. I've learned about it yesterday...

I don't really believe so. Misandry doesn't exist apparently.

 

[Lightknight]

As a white man who once worked in an office with 50 employees of whom only 3 were white males (and all three worked in the mail room by ourselves), I'm going to go with no, we can't be offended or cry racist/sexist since clearly we are not only directly responsible for all racism/sexism perpetrated by our gender/race combination but are still obviously part of the problem.[/pessimistic sarcasm]

FYI, the job was not in any area of business or area of town that would have warranted that kind of demographic spread.

 

[Random Argument Man]

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.

The word you're looking for is not "Feminist". It's "misandry". Feminist means "A person who's for equality of rights between genders and equal representation of the genders".
"Misandry" means "hatred or prejudice against men".

Sadly, I can't blame you since no one uses the word. I've learned about it yesterday...

I don't really believe so. Misandry doesn't exist apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

It shows that education has still ways to go.

*Although, that video's a bit Sarkeesianish.

 

[Seieko Pherdo]

People will always get offended by things, no matter how silly or logical. Some are valid some are not.

 

[K12]

I think the thing that people constantly seem to forget in these issues is that prejudice and discrimination is a society wide issue and not something that's done by singular people.

The whole "white men are not a protected class" thing is true (sort of) because there are very few places where white men are disadvantaged. There are definitely some (sexism is bad for men as well) but they aren't a disadvantaged group.

Anyone is allowed to be offended about anything but the issue is whether their grievance is a serious issue that is disadvantaging them or whether they are just being thin-skinned. I think there's a tendency to see "discrimination against men" as the latter because white men as a group still have most of the power in the world.

 

[Cecilo]

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.

The word you're looking for is not "Feminist". It's "misandry". Feminist means "A person who's for equality of rights between genders and equal representation of the genders".
"Misandry" means "hatred or prejudice against men".

Sadly, I can't blame you since no one uses the word. I've learned about it yesterday...

I don't really believe so. Misandry doesn't exist apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

It shows that education has still ways to go.

*Although, that video's a bit Sarkeesianish.

No. My friend, I know that Misandry exists, but I am constantly told it doesn't exist. That it can't exist. Because men are the ones in power.

 

[Vegosiux]

I think the thing that people constantly seem to forget in these issues is that prejudice and discrimination is a society wide issue and not something that's done by singular people.

The whole "white men are not a protected class" thing is true (sort of) because there are very few places where white men are disadvantaged. There are definitely some (sexism is bad for men as well) but they aren't a disadvantaged group.

Anyone is allowed to be offended about anything but the issue is whether their grievance is a serious issue that is disadvantaging them or whether they are just being thin-skinned. I think there's a tendency to see "discrimination against men" as the latter because white men as a group still have most of the power in the world.

Indeed, but being called "penis" by your CEO and her defending with "white men aren't a protected class" is definitely the former. I mean, how'd she like it if they took to calling her "vagina"? I bet that'd spark all kinds of outrage, I mean, man how mean and assholeish would those men be if they did so!

Appeal to worse problems isn't generally something we want to resort to in cases such as this. When it comes to the topic at hand, that CEO is being undoubtedly sexist, and worse, she thinks that she's entitled to it, and it's very much done by a singular person in this case. Problem is that sometimes individuals from a disadvantaged group adopt the following attitude:

"If I'm offended by something you did/said, that's because you're a bigoted asshole.
But if you're offended by something I did/said, that's because you're a bigoted asshole."

That's not an attitude that will solve problems.

 

[Single Shot]

People that are male, white, well-employed, heterosexual, Christian, educated, not adopted, from a 1st-world country, fit, and free of medical conditions...

...can't be offended. If you are in the group that people complain to, you can't complain back.

Men can't complain to women about gender inequality.
White people can't complain to non-whites about racial inequality.
The upper class can't complain to the lower class about economic inequality.
Straight people can't complain to LGBT people about sexual inequality.
Privileged people can't complain to those less fortunate about educational inequality.
Healthy people can't complain to the sick and injured about medical inequality.

Whether or not these people can complain about other groups is a different matter. But these people should neither expect nor deserve sympathy.

i.e., those with more power can't complain to those with less.

Regarding the example with the CEO and employees, for the employees to sue for gender discrimination was a mistake. A lawsuit regarding employee abuse would have made a better case.

And the award for most sexist thing I've read today goes to...

Your analogies are totally messed up. Being Healthy is objectively better than being ill, being rich is objectively better than being poor, and being educated is objectively better than being uneducated. In each of these cases someone from the objectively worse group would almost always say "YES!" if offered the change to switch sides.

So what you're suggesting is that being male is objectively better than female. You're suggesting that being straight is objectively better than homosexual, and you're suggesting that being white is objectively better than Black, Asian, or Mixed Race. You're then turning around and saying that because they are objectively better they need to be punished down to everyone else's level and treated like shit without sympathy... That's a pretty interesting world view you've go going on there.

If you actually wanted to use power as a benchmark for who can complain then wouldn't the boss, the person who controls the other people's employment, have the most power?

This is a horrific case of gender focused discrimination, and deserves to be treated as such. If the genders were reversed and it was a male boss calling all his female employee's '****' then nobody would suggest otherwise. That's a good way to tell if something's sexist by the way, reverse all the genders and look at it again. If they answer to "Is it gender discriminating?" changes you need to rethink your opinion of one of the situations.

 

[Silvanus]

You clearly haven't played many Final Fantasy or Metal Gear games then. Though it ultimately depends on the character designer, male Final Fantasy protagonists are often designed to look "appealing" to women. Both Tidus and Vaan show a lot of skin, to the point where Vaan looks like he works part time as a male stripper:

Spoiler

In Metal Gear Solid 2 there is a level where the bishounen protagonist runs around completely naked. In games where you play as the character Naked Snake, there is always the option to run around naked from the waste up. Furthermore, for a franchise that you say does not sexualize men, the uniforms the protagonists wear are all skin tight and the camera is almost always focused on their backside.

I've played FFX twice through, but never spent much time with the Metal Gear series. Tidus I would dispute (a strip of bare chest doesn't rival the examples I gave), but I'll concede Vaan.

I'm not actually sure it does. I'm not saying you're wrong, you could be right for all I know, but I question how you found the images. Did you just image search "scantily clad females in gaming"? The reason why I think this is because it's clear that you don't have experience with the games or the larger context within them. Seeing as you didn't realize that Terra has character models for providing "fanservice" to women and that one of your examples was from a freaking porn game.

For Lineage, Tera, Guild Wars, and World of Warcraft, I simply remembered that they existed and looked up their armour sets, both female and male, and compared. The last four examples I got from the blog, "Repair her armour [http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/]". I gave one example from a pr0n game, among many others I could have given from non-pr0n games.

I have experience of both Guild Wars and World of Warcraft.

I disagree with your observation, and find it demeaning to males, but I doubt anything I say will get you to open your mind on the matter.

How is my observation demeaning to males?

But as a final argument:

Spoiler

Not only that, but here, too: Clearly it is the female here that is sexualized here. Totally not the male hero:

Spoiler

I've been intentionally steering away from comics, because when I initially weighed in, I was specifically talking about video games (and said as much).

That said, I could outnumber Namor a hundredfold with overly revealing female superhero/ supervillain costumes. Psylocke, Sky Sapphire, Power Girl, Poison Ivy, Enchantress, the Insect Girls, Supergirl (not always, but see her in the Brainiac/ New Krypton storyline), to name only ones I can recall from comics I've read.

There are plenty of things that could change my mind, Chada. I simply haven't seen evidence I find convincing (and I do read a lot of comics, & play a lot of games). Don't mistake that for closed-mindedness.

 

[Random Argument Man]

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.

The word you're looking for is not "Feminist". It's "misandry". Feminist means "A person who's for equality of rights between genders and equal representation of the genders".
"Misandry" means "hatred or prejudice against men".

Sadly, I can't blame you since no one uses the word. I've learned about it yesterday...

I don't really believe so. Misandry doesn't exist apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZAuqkqxk9A and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misandry

It shows that education has still ways to go.

*Although, that video's a bit Sarkeesianish.

No. My friend, I know that Misandry exists, but I am constantly told it doesn't exist. That it can't exist. Because men are the ones in power.

Miscommunication is the root of a lot of problem. I didn't get that. My bad.

 

[K12]

I think the thing that people constantly seem to forget in these issues is that prejudice and discrimination is a society wide issue and not something that's done by singular people.

The whole "white men are not a protected class" thing is true (sort of) because there are very few places where white men are disadvantaged. There are definitely some (sexism is bad for men as well) but they aren't a disadvantaged group.

Anyone is allowed to be offended about anything but the issue is whether their grievance is a serious issue that is disadvantaging them or whether they are just being thin-skinned. I think there's a tendency to see "discrimination against men" as the latter because white men as a group still have most of the power in the world.

Indeed, but being called "penis" by your CEO and her defending with "white men aren't a protected class" is definitely the former. I mean, how'd she like it if they took to calling her "vagina"? I bet that'd spark all kinds of outrage, I mean, man how mean and assholeish would those men be if they did so!

Appeal to worse problems isn't generally something we want to resort to in cases such as this. When it comes to the topic at hand, that CEO is being undoubtedly sexist, and worse, she thinks that she's entitled to it, and it's very much done by a singular person in this case. Problem is that sometimes individuals from a disadvantaged group adopt the following attitude:

"If I'm offended by something you did/said, that's because you're a bigoted asshole.
But if you're offended by something I did/said, that's because you're a bigoted asshole."

That's not an attitude that will solve problems.

In my previous comment I tried to distance the example situation for the overall "which groups can be offended" because of almost the exact thing you said in the first paragraph.

In the global sense, her calling her male colleagues "penis" is not comparable to gender reversed situation of her being called "vagina". I don't know enough about the specific situation to know whether I think they were right to sue and if she is actually being a ***** but it's the over-arching debate that interests me.

Some gay bars don't allow straight people in. That is not comparable to a bar which excludes gay people. A white guy being called "Whitey" is not comparable to black guy being called "Blacky".

Discrimination happens when one group has power over another which they abuse. This is different to an individual with power abuses their power with respect to a specific group. The former is a symptom of a larger problem while the latter is just the problem on its own.

You can be offended by both situations but in the latter case there is a sense that you should be able to get over it because it's an isolated case that you could walk away from. The first type is something that it is impossible to walk away from and you have to live with it or fight it.

 

[Vegosiux]

You can be offended by both situations but in the latter case there is a sense that you should be able to get over it because it's an isolated case that you could walk away from. The first type is something that it is impossible to walk away from and you have to live with it or fight it.

I don't know, but if I boss repeatedly kept referring to me with a demeaning name, I'd not see it as "an isolated case I could walk away from". After all, if it's constantly present in an aspect of my life that takes up quite a large part of my like, like a job tends to be, then it's entirely different from not being allowed into that gay bar that one time. It's harassment.

 

[wulf3n]

In my previous comment I tried to distance the example situation for the overall "which groups can be offended" because of almost the exact thing you said in the first paragraph.

In the global sense, her calling her male colleagues "penis" is not comparable to gender reversed situation of her being called "vagina". I don't know enough about the specific situation to know whether I think they were right to sue and if she is actually being a ***** but it's the over-arching debate that interests me.

Some gay bars don't allow straight people in. That is not comparable to a bar which excludes gay people. A white guy being called "Whitey" is not comparable to black guy being called "Blacky".

Discrimination happens when one group has power over another which they abuse. This is different to an individual with power abuses their power with respect to a specific group. The former is a symptom of a larger problem while the latter is just the problem on its own.

You can be offended by both situations but in the latter case there is a sense that you should be able to get over it because it's an isolated case that you could walk away from. The first type is something that it is impossible to walk away from and you have to live with it or fight it.

They're all instances of discrimination regardless of how you try to spin it. Ironically Discrimination doesn't discriminate.

 

[white_wolf]

Well the statement was true in the fantasy world of the status quo as of late white men aren't protected the protected class nonsense only applies to everyone else. It's a ludicrous double standard that would only be proveable with something like 80 white men who all worked at her place who said she was derogatory against them and caused emotional harm and only then they might not be laughed out of the lawyers office. But if she had said the word to anyone nonwhite they'd be on the case in no time just from one guy. I've got another insane one a white male's boss is racist against him black listed him and tells every employer he sends to him in that field all kinds of lies his ex-employer was Irish and he can't sue because no lawyer will touch the case even if all the white guys this Irish man blacklisted ended up going to the same lawyer with the same claim I doubt they'd get any traction cuz you can't be racist against whites only everyone else so the standard goes. He had to change fields completely because he couldn't get any work due to the ex-bosses lies.

From what I understand of this standard and the whole "not protected" idea its simply white like fat is ok to be crap to cuz its the last baston that the elites and special interests groups say you can't be offended cuz they say so,they have dibs on outrage. There is a second social code that goes along with it too in some groups if the guy is white to them its justified/payback/revenge culture so with this second mindset they feel unspokenly he deserves whatever bad thing they can toss at him because of his skin tone and by his preceived status in life (aka richer then the person who hates him)regardless of weather he or she even has this status. I guess you could say in both cases those who control speech in the largest areas use white, rich, man for dehumanizing an entire group because to those that do such things its revenge or somehow they just deserve it but oddly enough ask those same people if they too are inferior if they're white they'll say nope they're special and ok and the ones they decide aren't its a click elite mentality and those people are running the main show which then trickles down into the average normal people's worlds.

Now to me if you're offended you're offended you can choose it sometimes like if you allow words to have power over you then they do but other times its an ingrained thing that just happens you might not even know you've got that issue on the matter till it comes up you then have to consciously clamp down on it if you want to maintain control or don't and say how its offending to you. But despite what clicks say everyone can be offended there is no reserved seating for offense for anyone in the world of reality. Too bad no lawyer wants to touch their case if they could made one on facts and evidence that was true the courts should be able to hear both sides unbiased and figure it out so long as the close it off to outside interference.

 

[Austin Manning]

I've played FFX twice through, but never spent much time with the Metal Gear series. Tidus I would dispute (a strip of bare chest doesn't rival the examples I gave), but I'll concede Vaan.

I think Wakka and Jecht are probably better examples of my point, what with their muscled, permanent shirtlessness. (Yes I know that's not a word, no I do not care)

For Lineage, Tera, Guild Wars, and World of Warcraft, I simply remembered that they existed and looked up their armour sets, both female and male, and compared. The last four examples I got from the blog, "Repair her armour [http://repair-her-armor.tumblr.com/]". I gave one example from a pr0n game, among many others I could have given from non-pr0n games.

I have experience of both Guild Wars and World of Warcraft.

Ah, okay. It's just that in discussions like these, I tend to see a lot of statistics or statements thrown around with no citations or sources and it really annoys me. It reminds me of that one Family Guy skit where Peter says: "anyone can make up statistics to support their claims, 85% of people know that".

 

[KissingSunlight]

I want to thank everyone who have posted. Also, I want to thank everyone for keeping this thread civil.

I want address one thing that has been asked to me, "Why did I bring up the male power fantasy debate as an example to this topic?" I keep hearing that we as a society need to have discussion on social issues like gender equality, race, gay rights, etc. I agree with that sentiment. Even though, I agree with people who are politically correct on these issues. I sometime disagree with them when take an issue and try to declare it a social injustice. Like sexism in videogames. I can understand why a woman would get upset and offended by how female characters are portrayed in videogames. However, when people who are advocating that this rises to the level of sexism and list the reasons why. It's obvious that it doesn't seem to be sexism because male characters are portrayed the same way. The problem lies more with videogames being an immature medium than sexism. The problem is when pro-PC people are confronted with any disagreement with their position they are too quick to accuse the person disagreeing with them as being a bigot. In essence, trying to quell any dissent to what they believe is the morally superior position they have in the discussion. Also, they do it in a way that is quite bigoted. Like using the term "mansplaining". Which seems to be defined as a man who disagrees with a feminist is automatically wrong based on his gender.

I thought the power fantasy debate was a good example. The implication of that argument is that men don't have a right to point out how they might be objectified and sexualized in videogames because they are men.