|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period.
Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it.
|
On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that.
True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution.
On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it.
Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc).
|
On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it.
There also exists evidence against this claim. According to the census bureau, 25% fewer men graduated college than women (2009). Women do however earn less on average and remain more likely to give up profitable career aims to settle down and care for children (than men). Now I suppose any evidence to the contrary given by someone that's declared a "privileged class" is counterfeit so I shouldn't really go on this way. You seem to know that only minorities can justly discuss how and if they are discriminated against in hiring and promotion. It is very convenient to know any opposition is only by those refusing to admit their culpability in the crime.
|
On November 28 2012 19:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. There also exists evidence against this claim. According to the census bureau, 25% fewer men graduated college than women (2009). Women do however earn less on average and remain more likely to give up profitable career aims to settle down and care for children (than men). Now I suppose any evidence to the contrary given by someone that's declared a "privileged class" is counterfeit so I shouldn't really go on this way. You seem to know that only minorities can justly discuss how and if they are discriminated against in hiring and promotion. It is very convenient to know any opposition is only by those refusing to admit their culpability in the crime.
I believe that if you accept that society today discriminates against certain groups, such as women, and that you also accept that these people have the same potential for being merited, it has to follow that society would profit from affirmative action. This is because people who do not get noticed for appointment to whatever because they are (in our example) women then can't contribute even though they are more merited. It's just that patriarchy fails to appreciate the (often different) skills that women have. The skills are different not because of nature, but because of nurture. Of course, gender is very complex and there's no guarantee that a woman is less different to the next woman than to the next man. However, because of how society is socially structured, it is very often the case : )
Therefore, I don't believe in a 100 % meritocracy until these structural problems are solved. Of course, it's not only a matter of making the society "better" or "profitable", but also a moral and ethical matter.
The bad thing is that you inescapably also might punish and disadvantage people (men in this case) who had "nothing to do with the discrimination of women". However, because men are more privileged than women, it's a better trade than to keep discriminating women. Furthermore, I believe it to be a necessary step in a world where change is too slow, which I think it is : )
|
On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc).
I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on:
http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitate
Babcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier.
When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected.
That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself.
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore.
|
On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateShow nested quote +Babcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself.
If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination.
If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers.
Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women".
On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore.
Gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining.
When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England.
When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege.
|
On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency.
The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone.
|
On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege.
Hahaha this is so true.
Society isn't biased toward men, it's structured around certain masculine value, but it doesn't mean that women are always coming behind men. It's well known that school favor girls over boys, because it value a certain number of caracteristics, like discipline, acceptance of authority or social "well" behavior, that goes against some masculine traits - like competition, virility, etc.
The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone.
No, men are not suiciding themselves because masculinity is "the norm". It's because anomie is harder for men (or that it is more difficult for women to be in a state of anomie). For exemple, there are a lot of men who suicide themselves after a divorce (something that even Durkheim in the end of the XIX century already noted).
|
On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. Gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege.
What a post. 
|
On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women).
Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming.
Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men?
News flash: gender roles suck for everyone.
On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on.
On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior?
Oh, men are denying women entry into dangerous workplaces? Hmm, feminists must be fighting really hard to get quotas for women in dangerous jobs just like they do for CEOs and political representatives, right? Or trying to get government/education/corporations to encourage women to apply? Oh wait... NOT. Guess feminists don't give a shit about the glass floor. That's not even getting started on the fact that nearly all non-military jobs in first-world nations are equally open to women.
On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone.
Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't.
Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join?
I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her.
If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious.
|
On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious.
I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me.
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away.
About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't.
I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest.
|
On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me.
You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play.
On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away.
Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly?
Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you?
On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Show nested quote + Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it.
Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse.
On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet.
In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender to get special treatment and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life.
On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment.
Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way.
On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest.
It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement.
|
On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. Gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege.
Most of the statistics you cite are issues that have nothing to do with policies and little to do with outside societal pressures. Most of them are results of biological differences between man and women. Women being paid less is something that the woman herself cannot influence. Being criminal or homeless is a choice of the individual in question. In multiple threads you showed yourself as dismissive of any real issues with discrimination of women and on the other hand whining all the time about discrimination of men, where non actually exists. And you debunked nothing, as all your arguments are faulty and fallacies.
|
On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. Gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege. Most of the statistics you cite are issues that have nothing to do with policies and little to do with outside societal pressures. Most of them are results of biological differences between man and women.
Wrong.
On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:
Women being paid less is something that the woman herself cannot influence.
Wrong. Contrary to feminist propaganda, women aren't actually paid less for equal work. Women can influence their pay the same way men can: go into higher paying fields, avoid career breaks for child rearing, choose higher paying but more dangerous work, etc.
On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:
Being criminal or homeless is a choice of the individual in question.
Typical gender role bullshit: men are agents (everything that happens to them is their fault) and women are objects (everything that happens to them is beyond their control).
In reality, men are far more likely to be convicted of a crime than a woman, and there is a huge sentencing gap between the two. This gap far outweighs the gap between white men and black men. Would you argue that the reason more blacks are criminals is a choice of the inviduals in question?
The reason why most homeless are men is because there are far fewer resources available to men than there are to women. Government spending disproportionately favors women by significant amounts, especially in areas such as providing women's shelters. Similar to the above, would you argue the reason more blacks are homeless is a choice of the individuals in question?
On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:
In multiple threads you showed yourself as dismissive of any real issues with discrimination of women and on the other hand whining all the time about discrimination of men, where non actually exists. And you debunked nothing, as all your arguments are faulty and fallacies.
If you actually have a logical argument, feel free to make it. I've backed up my arguments with facts, logic, and statistics time and time again. All you have are classic feminist shaming tactics like calling men "whining" or implying they're misogynists when they point out why you're wrong.
As for the dismissive of real issues thing, I've very consistently advocated in favor of women's rights with regards to issues such as abortion across a number of threads. I am, of course, dismissive about junk like misogyny in gaming, but I make no apologies for calling out bullshit.
|
On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement.
Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women
Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine
There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine.
I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it.
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture.
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded?
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing.
|
Seriously are we seriously defending people that call people faggots and teabag. Come on guys, we should respect ourselves more than that, our community is better than that.
Male/Female/Gender queer, whoever they are, you don't need to be calling everyone you kill/get killed by in Halo 4 and Cod Black Ops and SC2 a faggot. It's freaking depressing, you should hear some of the competitive halo players talk, it's like I'm still in High School sometimes 0.o.
|
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it.
It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change.
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture.
They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege.
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded?
Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants.
Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there).
On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing.
It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes.
|
On November 28 2012 20:48 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 16:31 sunprince wrote:
I'd prefer if the Republicans reach out to minorities through their policies, not through token affirmative action-esque appointments. How about giving up the fight to criminalize abortion, or making concessions with immigration reform?
Appointing people to positions of power based on immutable characteristics reeks of cronyism, pandering, and identity politics, regardless of which party does it. Meritocracy is not only more efficient but ethically superior; choosing a candidate for any position on the basis of their gentials or skin tone is discrimination, period. Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. Gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about misogyny in gaming because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea-bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency as female privilege. Most of the statistics you cite are issues that have nothing to do with policies and little to do with outside societal pressures. Most of them are results of biological differences between man and women. Women being paid less is something that the woman herself cannot influence. Being criminal or homeless is a choice of the individual in question. In multiple threads you showed yourself as dismissive of any real issues with discrimination of women and on the other hand whining all the time about discrimination of men, where non actually exists. And you debunked nothing, as all your arguments are faulty and fallacies.
Haha... You think being homeless is questionning the individuals ? You think being criminal is due to individual decisions ? All that is determined socially, which explains why prisons are full with poor black people. Or do you consider them more dangerous by nature ?
All of this is social, I think most feminist would agree with that. Also the only one who is having a real argument on this topic is sunfire. The real domination of women is at the high end of the social ladder, where most position are kept by white men from 50 to 70. But at the bottom, one could argue the male domination is actually benefitting the women.
|
On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 18:05 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
I more or less agree with you; the problem ends up being more about how identity politics are already a key component of the Republican agenda and yet they seem to continue to fail at knowing how to play them. I'm all for meritocracy in governance; look over the resumes of those 19 white male chair heads and tell me how close you think we are to that. True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution. On November 28 2012 18:49 Nightfall.589 wrote:
[quote]
Unfortunately, meritocracy requires an even playing field - and the field is anything but level. There's plenty of scientific evidence that our society is systematically biased against women... And minorities. Although, you'd almost never someone advantaged by privilege admit it. Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes.
You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way?
How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense.
Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example.
By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked".
Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change?
|
On November 28 2012 21:30 TS-Rupbar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2012 21:12 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:41 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:19 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:On November 28 2012 20:03 sunprince wrote:On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:On November 28 2012 18:58 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
True, I'm not at all saying that they're doing things right already, only that token minority appointments wouldn't be a solution.
[quote]
Citation required for the biased against women part. Sounds like you're just repeating standard feminist ideology without any actual scientific or logical foundation. In reality, women are treated better in all aspects of the legal system (conviction rates, criminal sentencing discount, domestic violence prosecution, protection from genital mutilation, reproductive rights, parental rights, government spending, selective service, etc). I'll give you parental rights, government spending, service, and sentencing (And two of those have more to do with which parent sacrifices their carreer to raise a kid), but here's something to chew on: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/14/133599768/ask-for-a-raise-most-women-hesitateBabcock showed people videos of men and women asking for a raise, following the exact same script. People liked the man's style and said, 'Yes, pay him more.' But the woman?
"People found that to be way too aggressive," Babcock says. "She was successful in getting the money, but people did not like her. They thought she was too demanding. And this can have real consequences for a woman's career."
And I think you'll have a hard time arguing that wage negotiations are an isolated outlier. When a woman asserts herself, she's seen as a bitch. When a man asserts himself... He's doing what's expected. That's just one example of bias - and I'm afraid it's quite a disadvantage in office politics... Or politics itself. If you really insist on playing Oppression Olympics, you'll find the data is stacked against you. I specifically referred to discriminatory aspects the legal system because these are blatant examples of de jure discrimination. If you want to get into de facto or societal discrimination, I can instead point to the fact that men comprise 95% of workplace deaths, that the male suicide rate is three times as high, that the vast majority of prisoners and homeless are men, that men do worse in all aspects of the educational system from kingergarden to undergraduate, that men are assumed to be pedophiles and rapists, etc. I'll also point out that your particular example of "bias", while true, does not actually result in the discriminatory wage gap myth that feminists perpetuate. I've debunked that repeateadly here on TL and so have plenty of economists and researchers from government agencies to mainstream newspapers. Either way, it's clear that I've thoroughly debunked your claim that "our society is systematically biased against women". On November 28 2012 19:37 Nightfall.589 wrote:
I'd love to live in a colour-blind, gender-blind world, but we're carrying far too much bias for that. Hell, I could point to TL itself for it - just see what happens when a woman feminist gets vocal about one misogynistic aspect of gamer culture or other - she's drowned out by a horde of men that either tell her to shut up, and get off their internet... Or insist that there's no such thing as misogyny anymore. The reason why gamers are hostile to feminists wailing about discrimination is because it's bullshit. The core gaming community is structured around the interests of men, for the reason that the vast majority of the core gaming community is male. The games we play are competitive games of skill. There's a lot of trash-talk, proving of one's worth, showing dominance over others, etc. The community is like this because this is what men find entertaining. When a woman comes into the community, she gets trash-talked, dominated, tea-bagged, etc. just like everybody else. Some women apparently do not find this entertaining like the men in the community do. What happens is that these women then go on to say that they deserve special treatment - that nobody should be allowed to trash talk them, tea bag them, etc. These women want to be treated, not as equals, but rather as VIP guests who are so important that everybody has to regulate their behaviour around them, the same way that everybody acts polite and proper around the Queen of England. When men refuse to bend over backwards to put these women on a pedestal to accommodate their wishes, the women label it as sexism. It's a textbook example of female hypoagency. The problems that you described, with the possible exception of male suicide rates, is because of masculinity being the norm (more so for men than women). Classic feminist rhetoical tactic: victim blaming. Plenty of women's problems are due to feminity being the norm for women. So what? Does that make such discrimination against women any less real? If not, what point are you trying to make about discrimination against men? News flash: gender roles suck for everyone. On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
It is largely men, like yourself, who keep this destructive behavior, like "tea-bagging" or denying women entry into dangerous workplaces, going on. On what basis would you classify "tea-bagging" as destructive behavior? On November 28 2012 20:11 TS-Rupbar wrote:
When women try to make a change for the better, as feminists believe they do, they are believed to want to be VIP guests when the truth is that they want these changes for everyone. Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. Here's a question: why should male gamers change their behavior? I've never heard a good argument for why the gaming community should change to accommodate women. The vast majority of gamers (until very recently) were male (and in competitive gaming this is still true). This goes back really far if you count non-video-game games (like Dungeons and Dragons and the like). Now all of a sudden they're expected to just behave differently because some girls want to join? I'm not saying girls shouldn't be welcome in gaming communities, I'm just comparing them to someone who shows up, uninvited, to a house party and demands everyone go out and get blue plastic cups because red offends her. If a guy gets called a "faggot" or a "nigger" or has someone describe a sexual encounter with their mother in graphic detail... he just rolls his eyes and moves on. Yet somehow, "get back in the kitchen" and "show me your tits" are over the line? You can't be serious. I'm a male gamer and I don't like it when people are called "faggot", "nigger" or women being told to "get back in the kitchen". Because this "tea-bagging" kind of behavior makes people sad without really contributing to anything (at least that's what I think), it's destructive. That's pretty obvious to me. You're in the minority. If a majority of others agreed with you, then it wouldn't happen. If you don't like the community, then leave. Don't try to force others to play the way you want to play. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
You accept that gender roles suck for everyone. Here we agree. Yet you don't see a problem with gaming culture being so "masculine" (it's hard for anyone to create a definition, so I'm glad that we agree to generalise) it keeps women away. Is there a problem with fashion being so "feminine" that it keeps men away? Should men demand women in the fashion community to change their own community to be more male-friendly? Do you see the problem with going to someone else's community and demanding that they make changes for you? On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:About Not "women". Just feminists. Only women who demand special treatment will complain about this stuff. Women who don't think their gender has anything to do with how they play really don't. I don't really understand this paragraph. But well, it's their sex that has something to do with it. Only women who demand or expect special treatment complain about "misogyny" in gaming. A woman who expects equal treatment isn't bothered by "get in the kitchen" or "go make me a sandwich", because they realize the hostility directed towards males is equally bad or worse. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Gender is pretty much hidden on the Internet. In other words, the women who feel discriminated against are the ones who disclose their gender and then are shocked that the Internet doesn't put them on pedestals like in real life. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Also, because people are different, some deserve special treatment. Only if there's a rational basis for doing so, not because a bunch of spoiled upper middle class white princesses want things their way. On November 28 2012 20:31 TS-Rupbar wrote:
If you think that this special treatment they are asking for is that they don't want to be called "niggers" or "faggots", I really don't think it's that much of a special treatment to be honest. It's special treatment to demand that others change their culture accomodate you. Such an expectation is nothing more than privileged entitlement. Sex = the biological differentiation between men/women Gender = the social construction of sex, the masculine and the feminine There is a difference between sexism, the discrimination of men because they are men or women because they are women, and gender discrimination, the discrimination of what is masculine or feminine. I don't think it's very constructive to "just leave". How does change ever happen then? I guess you could argue that "if enough people leave, the community would have to change", but I don't think that's a very realistic nor positive process. It's better to discuss it. It's one thing to discuss change. It's another to demand others to change for you, shame them when they resist, and try to leverage government and corporate action to forcibly enact change. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Because I think that the gaming culture that you describe is bad and should change for everyone, I don't think that feminists want women to be put on pedestals. They want to "radically" change gaming culture. They want to radically change male gaming culture from something that men are happy with to cater to women. It's like showing up at a party uninvited and demanding that they start drinking wine instead of beer. It's the epitome of female entitlement and privilege. On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
Many feminists want not only to better the conditions for women, but to change gender identities as a whole and thereby improve the conditions for both men and women. Whether you agree that gender is a social construct (and hence even exists) and is bad or good is another question. You seem to agree that being locked in a gender identity is bad. Isn't it then a fail in logic to demand that gaming culture keeps being masculine and thereby excluding so many people who have (more or less) feminine gender identities when by changing gaming culture to be more accepting of non-masculine people not only makes for a better community, but also includes more people who were previously on wrongful grounds excluded? Women are not excluded from gaming culture, any more than men are excluded from fashion culture. Women who choose to join the community and fit in instead of demanding that others cater to her are certainly not excluded. As someone on TL, you should be well aware of how popular true gamer girls are. The only women who are "excluded" are the ones who want to play in a certain way and expect everyone else to do what she wants. Not to mention that if you force the community to "change", the only thing that'll happen is that those with masculine interests (most of the males and the real gamer girls) will leave and find something else (of course, feminists will then invade that new thing and try to change it too, but that's neither here nor there). On November 28 2012 21:00 TS-Rupbar wrote:
The same goes for virtually every domain of society as well. About your comment on men/women and fashion, I think that clothes have a gender and not a sex. Therefore, it's wrong to exclude men from making "women's clothes" on that basis, yes. By changing the perception of gender, we could make the fashion culture more accessible to men, which is only a good thing. It's okay for men to ask for a more male-friendly fashion culture. It's not okay for them to invade and demand that it be made more competitive, for people to trash talk each other more often, etc. in order to suit male tastes. You're wrong all the time, so it's impossible to talk to you and you make leaps in logic, never accepting that you're a hypocrite. You can't say that being forced into a gender identity "sucks" and then then not acknowledge that it sucks for others as well. And if you will say that it "sucks" for women and they should just have to deal with it, well I think you're stupid. Also, how is being "allowed" to call someone a "nigger" positive in any way? How can you compare people not being allowed to drink wine at a beer party to being asked to "show your tits"? Also, why could they not just drink their own wine and still hang out with the beer people? The gaming culture you're describing doesn't make women hanging out with men possible. Furthermore, when females are getting what feminists would call special treatment, they are not ok with that either. Real feminists want everyone to be involved in the same manner. The only special treatment that should be given is when there are structural or formal differences discriminating people. Not calling someone a "nigger" is not giving them special treatment. It's common sense. Women are not keeping men out of fashion. It's men that are keeping men out of fashion. So we should change masculinity. Femininity is not the problem in your fashion example. By looking at this thread, your argument that men are happy with the gaming culture today has been "debunked". Lastly, how do you propose change if not through the channels you dismissed, such as the government? If men are discriminating women, which you are the only one who doesn't think so, how should that change?
I think you are the hypocrite. He is not saying that being stuck in a gender identity suck only for men, he is saying it sucks for everyone hence the idea that society is biased toward men is wrong, and he at least gave statistical evidence.
Black people call themselves nigger all the time, it's called reverse stigma. For a long time, being black was something you were ashamed of, today it's something a lot of people are proud of. Words doesn't have the same meaning in every social context. A teacher saying idiot to his student doesn't have the same meaning today or a century ago. If everybody agrees that saying "suck a dick" is just a joke, then it is a joke and not an offense.
I'm also shocked that you talk about "feminism" without knowing what it is. There are thousands of different way of being a feminist today, feminist doesn't all wants to help men free themselves from their "gender", and some feminist also consider women should be above men and that some feminine qualities are biologically determined.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
