I Think I've Reached A Boiling Point When It Comes To Social Justice

[Thaluikhain]

This is deeply, deeply disturbing to me, for completely the opposite reasons. It seems to me that everywhere I turn on the Internet I see people complaining about man-hating ultra-feminists, the gay agenda taking over the world, or white people being cruelly persecuted by everyone. It seems that in many sections of the Internet people are actually beginning to believe the bullshit nonsense that states that straight white men are the most persecuted social group in the world.

If you live in the real world, you know what bullshit that is. If you don't live in the real world... well, I guess that's why some people cling to their dodgy Internet-assembled philosophies.

This has been the case for ages, though. Any move towards equality for any marginalised group will prompt a reactionary backlash from people in a privileged position...if there wasn't resistance to equality, people wouldn't have to fight for it.

Taking the US (for well known, but hardly isolated examples), look at all the men crying foul when women got the vote, or white people complaining when black people didn't have to get on the back of the bus.

 

[Proto Taco]

OP, I believe you've just stumbled onto the very reason social justice issues are such a big problem of late;

Everyone else's problems are bigger than yours.

It doesn't matter if your arm just got chewed off in a wood chipper, the guy jogging across the street just then is still going to be more concerned about whether he catches his show in 30 min, than your painful life-altering situation. That's how oppression happens, everyone has 'bigger problems' to deal with than the marginalization of large groups of people. I mean if you look at the last US presidential election a large number of voters ignored the republican party's avid and shameless 'war on women' and voted for them anyway, even women. All because the republicans were able to pitch a convincing solution for a 'bigger problem'.

It happens on both sides too. That's what you're seeing with the feminists calling for 'all men to die' and the black people saying things like 'all white people are evil/bad/etc.'. They feel their problem trumps all other problems anyone in their target of ire might be having.

So all in all, I'd say that means you're doing a pretty good job on your studies, and if you can hold it together and stay compassionate you could make some real changes. Because dealing with social justice issues is HARD, REALLY HARD, and that's what you're feeling right now.

Whatever you decide, I commend your efforts. Few people on the escapist or elsewhere will put as much effort as you have into understanding and empathizing with other people.

 

[Westaway]

Most of the problems seem to stem from the fact people are incapable of accepting that men and women are inherently different creatures in a number of ways. They also have trouble discerning criticisms from prejudice. For example, if some chap were to post "I believe Islam has a negative effect on society," it's likely that he'd be called out for racism and being anti-immigration before anyone actually addressed his opinion/point.

Another thing I disagree with is that "diversity" is an inherently good thing. Having a cast of characters of all races will not improve the game at all. Just because a character is a minority does not mean they're a good character. It certainly doesn't make them a bad character, but I think it's exceedingly juvenile to say "Oh, we'll make him a homosexual" or "Oh, this character can be a Vietnamese women" and think that qualifies as good writing.

As for games, I think women need to accept that as an audience of AAA video games, they're in the minority. However, as time progresses thing will inevitably even out, and it's probably not necessary to dismiss the new Assassins Creed just because it doesn't have a playable female character.

 

[Lightknight]

I'm only tired of social justice when it's used in crazy ways to beat people down or to do something entirely ridiculous or trivial.

But how can I be tired of social justice advocates that are actually arguing to undo real inequality? I think the OP is just tired of the groups going about it in bad ways. They certainly mar the need for the movement overall by belittling others and trashing people if ever they present another point of view for a subject that may not be so inherently clear as the typical social issue can be.

Most people who think about it long enough are tired of the kind of "social justice" that results in social injustice for others rather than just establishing equality. Social justice should never be to bring a group down but instead to bring a group up so that any group above them no longer has the power to harm them.

 

[Pierre Poutine]

I think the problem has less to do with the concept of social justice and more with the limitations of the internet.

I learned long ago that it's pointless to argue on the internet with someone you don't know and can't interact with. Not knowing who they are as a person, as well as the fact that they disagree with you just makes them harder to understand or relate with. While some civil online debates are possible, what tends to happen more often than not is any poorly chosen words [since online interaction limits the amount of tone we're able to convey] directed at one will lead to an increasingly hostile debate.

Worse still is how this toxicity carries over to other arguments. Due to anonymity, 2 completely different people who share the same beliefs on one issue can be interchangeable in the eyes of one who disagrees with said beliefs. This can in turn cement the idea that the actual issue, and not some of the people who talk about it is inherently toxic.

This isn't to say that I'm standing on a pedestal, looking down on those who advocate social justice and those who detract it and saying that they're both equally wrong. Social justice is important and essential to have a more inclusive and just society. But, not all of those who support it have flawless logic, and I have heard some very rational arguments that disagree with some aspects of the social justice movement.

I guess what I'd say is we need to move away from an "us versus them" mentality and more for one that tries to understand and learn from each other.

 

[Olas]

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me the whole SJW vs MRA war seems to be a conflict between people who mostly agree with one another on all the most important issues against the strawmen versions of the each other they've created to make the other side look extreme so they can appear as the more moderate ones. In reality both sides are fairly moderate and the things that divide them are somewhat small and trivial.

 

[Noetherian]

I don't know what happened, but I did not say this. I don't believe the words that are attributed to me in this post AT ALL. Maybe you edited wrong?

How awful-- I apologize. I don't know what happened, but I have edited my post to accurately reflect the source of the quote.

 

[RandV80]

You know the one thing I'd like to see with all this Social Justice Warriorism? If white men are at the top of the proverbial privilege tree, then when are white women going to admit their place just a step below us?

Because realistically if there was an order of ranking I imagine it would look something like this:

white male
white female



...



everyone else

If you use the US as an example a white woman has far far more 'privilege' than anyone who's black, regardless of gender.

 

[mecegirl]

You know the one thing I'd like to see with all this Social Justice Warriorism? If white men are at the top of the proverbial privilege tree, then when are white women going to admit their place just a step below us?

Because realistically if there was an order of ranking I imagine it would look something like this:

white male
white female



...



everyone else

If you use the US as an example a white woman has far far more 'privilege' than anyone who's black, regardless of gender.

I wouldn't say that that concept has never been discussed.

How well it's been received is another matter entirely.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me the whole SJW vs MRA war seems to be a conflict between people who mostly agree with one another on all the most important issues against the strawmen versions of the each other they've created to make the other side look extreme so they can appear as the more moderate ones. In reality both sides are fairly moderate and the things that divide them are somewhat small and trivial.

Not really.

Firstly, the MRM only really opposes feminism, not SJW types in general. Of course, individual MRAs can oppose equal rights for all sorts of people other than women, but that's not what it's about.

Secondly, MRM opposes feminism, rather than being "the other side of the coin" or whatever. It's a reactionary backlash against women getting closer to equality, and men losing some of their privileged position, which is frightening to some men. You see this sort of thing win any privileged group when a marginalised one gets less mrginalised. Now, that's not to say that some good can't be done by individual MRAs, but, again, that isn't the point of the movement.

By comparison, the "One Million Moms[footnote]There are, in fact, rather less than a million of them, and it's run by men[/footnote]" project of the American Family Association. They call themselves that to get themselves legitimacy, but they are just another hate group, in this case homophobic. There's a zillion things they could do to actually help families, working on education, healthcare, not being attacked by police and so on, but they only seem to care about the evil gay agenda poisoning our kids with their wanting equal rights.

Oh, and apparently, young women being seduced by pigs because bestiality is cool nowdays or something. Not sure how big this issue is, but I agree that that's not a good thing.

In both cases, there are lots of serious problems that need addressing, but the reactionary backlash against other people's rights isn't helping with that either.

You know the one thing I'd like to see with all this Social Justice Warriorism? If white men are at the top of the proverbial privilege tree, then when are white women going to admit their place just a step below us?

Because realistically if there was an order of ranking I imagine it would look something like this:

white male
white female



...



everyone else

If you use the US as an example a white woman has far far more 'privilege' than anyone who's black, regardless of gender.

It doesn't exactly work like that, but Intersectionality is an important and often discussed thing. You need to stick LGBT people in there, and Muslims, and the disabled etc. More or less everyone has some unfair advantages and some unfair disadvantages. Ranking them, however, that's a hell of a job.

White women feminists often fail to recognise their privilege for the same reasons white males do.

 

[Olas]

Maybe I'm wrong, but to me the whole SJW vs MRA war seems to be a conflict between people who mostly agree with one another on all the most important issues against the strawmen versions of the each other they've created to make the other side look extreme so they can appear as the more moderate ones. In reality both sides are fairly moderate and the things that divide them are somewhat small and trivial.

Not really.

Firstly, the MRM only really opposes feminism, not SJW types in general. Of course, individual MRAs can oppose equal rights for all sorts of people other than women, but that's not what it's about.

Secondly, MRM opposes feminism, rather than being "the other side of the coin" or whatever. It's a reactionary backlash against women getting closer to equality, and men losing some of their privileged position, which is frightening to some men. You see this sort of thing win any privileged group when a marginalised one gets less mrginalised. Now, that's not to say that some good can't be done by individual MRAs, but, again, that isn't the point of the movement.

By comparison, the "One Million Moms[footnote]There are, in fact, rather less than a million of them, and it's run by men[/footnote]" project of the American Family Association. They call themselves that to get themselves legitimacy, but they are just another hate group, in this case homophobic. There's a zillion things they could do to actually help families, working on education, healthcare, not being attacked by police and so on, but they only seem to care about the evil gay agenda poisoning our kids with their wanting equal rights.

Oh, and apparently, young women being seduced by pigs because bestiality is cool nowdays or something. Not sure how big this issue is, but I agree that that's not a good thing.

In both cases, there are lots of serious problems that need addressing, but the reactionary backlash against other people's rights isn't helping with that either.

I'm not so sure MRAs would self identify as a group who is frightened of women becoming less marginalized, regardless of whether that's how they come across to other people. Judging purely by the name alone "Mens Rights Activists" seems to suggest their simply standing up for a cause that isn't really under any sort of threat, but which we can probably agree is still a good thing.

I mean it's not like feminists are AGAINST men having rights, nor does the term Men's Rights Activists imply that they are against the rights of women. If I'm to take the traditionally stated definitions of both groups seriously, it seems they'd both be satisfied by a world of equal rights, they're only standing up for different aspects of it.

 

[Colour Scientist]

You know the one thing I'd like to see with all this Social Justice Warriorism? If white men are at the top of the proverbial privilege tree, then when are white women going to admit their place just a step below us?

Because realistically if there was an order of ranking I imagine it would look something like this:

white male
white female



...



everyone else

If you use the US as an example a white woman has far far more 'privilege' than anyone who's black, regardless of gender.

It's actually something that's discussed quite frequently in some later second and third-wave feminist literature.

Third-wave feminism, starting in the early 1990s, made a pretty big point of criticising the second-wave, particularly in the United States, for homogenising the experience of white, middle-class, heterosexual white women. It's a dialogue that does exist and I wouldn't even say it's low-key, in most recent collections of feminist essays, I imagine you'll find a few articles that deal with race, social class or sexuality.

For some reason, people tend to gloss over it though so I don't know. Maybe it's just not made public enough or maybe it's easier to attack Germaine Greer for being transphobic than it is to acknowledge the diversity of feminist thought.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I'm not so sure MRAs would self identify as a group who is frightened of women becoming less marginalized, regardless of whether that's how they come across to other people. Judging purely by the name alone "Mens Rights Activists" seems to suggest their simply standing up for a cause that isn't really under any sort of threat, but which we can probably agree is still a good thing.

I mean it's not like feminists are AGAINST men having rights, nor does the term Men's Rights Activists imply that they are against the rights of women. If I'm to take the traditionally stated definitions of both groups seriously, it seems they'd both be satisfied by a world of equal rights, they're only standing up for different aspects of it.

Well, if you are to go by what the MRAs call themselves, then yes. Also by that logic, North Korea is a democracy, and PETA helps animals.

 

[Uhura]

Ah, okay I see. Yeah, true that is pretty damn hyperbolic. I wanted it to come out more along the lines of "we frequently get articles that go into SJW territory", but that's what I typed out for whatever reason. I guess because I felt like they were everywhere-- my mind was being clouded by my own hysteria. My bad. Thank you for pointing that out.

I get why you might feel like that. I was a bit weirded out by the amount of Ubisoft-gender threads Escapist had a week ago. It can get overwhelming. I think it's just a good idea to take a breather when you start feeling overwhelmed by those articles. Take a step back and focus on articles/news stories that are not about "SJW" related material.

In closing, yeah, I agree I did make my problem seem bigger than what it was by using hyperbolic language, forgive me for that. I also got the ball rolling on this thing because I was the one who went into it. But I am not exaggerating when I say I see this stuff all the time even when not searching for it any longer. Obviously, that is because these fights still need to be fought for the people in need, but I can't really get a break from it.

Ever marathon a show all the way to the end, then when you're sick and tired of it they show re-runs on TV every time you turn it on? It's kind of like that. Does any of this help or am I just making it worse? :/

Yeah, it helped to clarify your viewpoint. I can't really comment much more on your experiences on tumblr because they differ so much from my own experiences. Only "advice" I can give is to either take a break from tumblr or use tumblr savior to weed out posts about SJW issues. In general, just try to minimize your exposure to the more extreme stuff so you don't get completely burnt out. Because getting jaded and angry doesn't help anyone :/

 

[Bruce]

All equality movements are founded upon the idea that the people they represent are people just like anybody else.

If you unpack that idea for a second, you'll find that the broad category "people" includes a whole load of assholes.

And everybody is a bit of an asshole sometimes.

Thus you have issues for example like feminists who are transphobic or whorephobic, who are racist or just generally assholes. They're like that because they're people.

It is not that the exact same personalities don't exist across the aisle either - it is just across the aisle tends towards being in power so you notice it less.

You're so used to the assholes defending the status quo they have to up their game in order to get noticed.

Consider how many religious people take deep offense at atheist billboards, and don't even notice the ones that advertise their own churches, often in more grotesque and hateful ways.

Anyway the problem is that generally the forces for keeping things exactly the same way they have always been, and these are forces that operate within all of us, demand absolute moral perfection not just from individual feminists, or anti-racists, or campaigners for religious freedom, but from all of them all the time.

They also produce the no-win state of political smarm. If you are angry - your point is invalidated by how emotional you're being, and if you are calm, well obviously it isn't bothering you all that much.

And that isn't a problem with social justice, logically it shouldn't actually impact the argument one way or the other, it is a problem with how we react to it.

That is why I find the anti-social justice warrior stance to generally populated by the worst assholes of the lot, they give in to that sort of instinct and don't see anything wrong with doing so.

 

[RandV80]

You know the one thing I'd like to see with all this Social Justice Warriorism? If white men are at the top of the proverbial privilege tree, then when are white women going to admit their place just a step below us?

Because realistically if there was an order of ranking I imagine it would look something like this:

white male
white female



...



everyone else

If you use the US as an example a white woman has far far more 'privilege' than anyone who's black, regardless of gender.

It's actually something that's discussed quite frequently in some later second and third-wave feminist literature.

Third-wave feminism, starting in the early 1990s, made a pretty big point of criticising the second-wave, particularly in the United States, for homogenising the experience of white, middle-class, heterosexual white women. It's a dialogue that does exist and I wouldn't even say it's low-key, in most recent collections of feminist essays, I imagine you'll find a few articles that deal with race, social class or sexuality.

For some reason, people tend to gloss over it though so I don't know. Maybe it's just not made public enough or maybe it's easier to attack Germaine Greer for being transphobic than it is to acknowledge the diversity of feminist thought.

Fair enough, I've never really been around this culture and the only time I tend to hear about this stuff seems to be on here, which is always focused on 'straight white male' privilege. Which makes sense since usually these topics that come up around here are about homosexual or female representation in video games.

 

[Olas]

I'm not so sure MRAs would self identify as a group who is frightened of women becoming less marginalized, regardless of whether that's how they come across to other people. Judging purely by the name alone "Mens Rights Activists" seems to suggest their simply standing up for a cause that isn't really under any sort of threat, but which we can probably agree is still a good thing.

I mean it's not like feminists are AGAINST men having rights, nor does the term Men's Rights Activists imply that they are against the rights of women. If I'm to take the traditionally stated definitions of both groups seriously, it seems they'd both be satisfied by a world of equal rights, they're only standing up for different aspects of it.

Well, if you are to go by what the MRAs call themselves, then yes. Also by that logic, North Korea is a democracy, and PETA helps animals.

So where am I wrong? I don't see much point in addressing the ridiculous comparison you made between a distant totalitarian political regime and a nebulous group of people on the internet. It feels almost comparable to using the term "feminazi" unironically. As for PETA, I may not agree with many of their methods or certain aspects of their ideology, but I think their goals of stopping animal cruelty and abuse are noble in principle, so I guess they are somewhat analogous to MRAs, despite being vastly more active.

I'm sure there are plenty people who self identify as MRAs who also either harbor or partake in considerable misogyny, but that doesn't mean that the group is misogynistic in principle. Reading up on some of the [a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement"]specific concerns of the MRA[/a] movement, I would say they range from misinformed hysteria to some legitimate issues. More importantly though I think with both MRAs and feminists the more extreme members are simply giving the whole group a bad name and giving the opposing side an easy target to attack and an easy strawman to create instead of debating the more sensible members.

I still believe there's far less real disagreement than most people will admit. For instance, the main body of both sides believe:

-All forms of domestic violence are bad
-People should be paid equal wages for equal work
-Rape is horrible, and is never justified
-Traditional gender roles and values are outdated (women can work high-paying jobs, men can stay home and raise the kids)
-Serving in the military is not something only men can or should do.

In fact I don't see any reason why someone can't be both a feminist and a MRA at the same time.