I think the confusion may lie in the fact that “penis” is a five letter word, and foul language is generally comprised of four letter words.
As usual, math is to blame.
2 Likes
It’s a shame, but this thread is going about the same way as almost every thread I’ve seen on the topic:
Poster #1: Now men are going to start complaining that they’re being discriminated against.
Posters #2-6: But we are! You never take us seriously!
Poster #7: Yeah, but it (the effect) is different with men. They’re privileged.
Posters #2-6, 7-10: No, it (the action) is exactly the same! Such double standards!
Poster #11: Let me clarify: we’re talking about the wider context not being the same. Nobody’s saying this is OK.
Posters #2-6, 7-10: By generalising like this you’re dismissing real abuse!
…and so on. In the end, MRAs feel that they are being dismissed, feminists feel that MRAs are ignoring male bias throughout human history and most people become a bit more validated in whatever view they started out with. It’s a shame, because most people can agree that:
This story is kind of weird, and doesn’t represent a trend of similar actions by women bosses. There are some interesting things to talk about, but we probably shouldn’t generalise too much here.
For a number of reasons, female > male abuse is less common and usually less damaging.
That doesn’t make it OK or harmless, and this is especially true when someone is using their power over someone to insult or abuse them.
The argument about the degree to which male > female abuse is more damaging than the other way around seems to be almost completely unproductive.
I’d say the best thing to do in this case would be to grant them the same trial as if the genders were reversed. We don’t want that kind of unprofessional and abusive environment, whoever is causing it, and a trial like this should address the specific case rather than trying to redress the balance in society as a whole.
13 Likes
I think you’re leaning out a bit far here. Viewing society in terms of classes is a convenient abstraction that allows us (like other convenient abstractions) to make sense of a state of affairs that would be too complex to handle otherwise. A black person in the US will - on average - face certain issues that a white person - on average - will not have to face. Without generalizations, there is no understanding of this fact.
Of course, misapplied generalization is harmful as well, and here I kind of agree with something similar to what you’re saying: I think the modern social justice discourse has a tendency to overemphasize “class struggle”, where “classes” become the actual constituents of reality, rather than a convenient simplification to be used where appropriate. This sometimes leads to contortions, like the argument made by the accused, where class membership and class politics becomes the sole determinant of what is ethical and what is not. In her mind, Silberkleit may not think of what she did as treating her male employees horribly, she may think she was helping to rectify the power inequality in favor of an oppressed group by applying pressure in “the right direction”.
4 Likes
No one said you should feel guilty. They implied you should maintain a bare minimum of perspective.
7 Likes
I think her quote more leans towards “it doesn’t matter if I treat them horribly, because I can, they deserve it, and there’s not a damn thing they can do about it.”
1 Like
If by “perspective” you mean “white guilt”, nope, I ain’t going to play that game.
1 Like
The comment was about the person who did the abusing, not the people who exposed it.
Even worse, there is Rule 34 content for Jughead out there.
Don’t ask me how I know this. I wish I didn’t know how I know.
2 Likes
No, I definitely meant perspective.
But by all means, keep providing your valuable service as “Exhibit A.”
10 Likes
Try as you might, but I refuse to base my identity on the color of another person’s skin.
Implying or assuming that I’m a racist doesn’t make it true, no matter how much you need it to be so.
1 Like
some folks on this thread seriously need to read this before they continue commenting–
5 Likes
1 Like
(Hint: admitting that your race and sex give you an advantage in society != admitting you are a racist or sexist.)
5 Likes
it might be worth mentioning that i am a white male.
As someone who has in the past written about the term “privilege” online, I find Scalzi’s article somewhat patronizing, since it seems to imply that as a white male nerd, the only reason I could potentially oppose aspects of the theoretical framework of the social justice movement is because I “lose my rationality” when I hear the term “privilege”.
I agree that everyone should get on board with the gist of what he’s saying, but that doesn’t mean that we all need to agree 100% with feminist theory (whichever one). For example, according to some feminist theory, men cannot ever be oppressed in a situation, because there is always a broader social context in which they are favored as a group. Privilege and oppression are not viewed as contextual, but are bound to the “largest possible social context”. I think this way of looking at things derives broadly from marxist theory, but I may be wrong.
Personally, I don’t think there is such a thing as a “largest possible social context”. I think it would be better to be specific and say “men have many privileges” instead of “men are members of the privileged class”. Of course this would mean that one could also identify situations where women are privileged, but this would be a big no-no according to the theory, since it is specifically constructed to only work in one direction. Why can’t we just say that “male privilege” is a bigger social issue than “female privilege”, but we can find both, and in the long run, neither should exist. Why is privilege binary and monolithic, rather than continuous and diverse? Why can’t privilege theory be “recursively applied” to any social context regardless of scale, of course keeping in mind that larger scales = higher priority? What would happen if we were to discover the a planet with 20 billion inhabitants where women oppress men? Would we have to conclude that women on earth were never oppressed, because there was a larger context in which they were privileged?
The asymmetry is everywhere in SJ discourse: men cannot be oppressed, misandry does not exist (rather than “misandry is not a big problem faced by our society”), you can’t be sexist against men, the list goes on. As a result, contradictions and shaky reasoning pop up everywhere, and the theory, in its quest to cast everything in clear black and white terms, becomes increasingly divorced from reality and “dictionary meanings” of words. The answer to questions on the appropriate forums is typically “go die in a ditch, shitlord”, which I find somewhat unsatisfactory.
4 Likes
As a white male, I find the only way to “win” in these kinds of discussions is to know when to shut the fuck up.
12 Likes
And this is the point where I tune out.
Modern feminism isn’t about equality, it’s about retribution and power tripping for all those years of oppression (or whatever injustice you believe is continued to be done to all of woman kind).
Equality is about being equal, not about reparation for injustices of the past/present. But I’m just a white male, my opinions or rights are obvious not important because of my “privilege”.
2 Likes
Well, I with you up until that point. I think it mostly just means bearing your obvious advantages in mind when dealing with others and making judgments/assessments. No need to reenforce dude’s persecution complex.
Or did you mean to type “does-not-equal”?
!=is computer code for "does not equal."
3 Likes
Jeezuz. No one is telling you to base your identity on anything, or (from what I’ve seen) calling you a racist. I certainly haven’t. Rather, people have been trying to provide some context to your hypersensitive and defensive worldview. With considerable restraint, I might add. Heck, I even had a lengthy explanation of my own experience as a disadvantaged and bitter straight white dude – and my evolution on this topic – all spooled up, as a gesture of understanding. I may have poked at’cha, but like many on this thread – I assume – I was genuinely hoping you’d take a breath and adjust your approach (if not your overall position).
Enough with the glib comments and hand-holding, I’ll give you what you clearly want to hear: Your opinion on this issue is entitled, lacking in empathy, woefully deficient in self-awareness, and divorced from even a minimal appreciation for history or sense of scale.
13 Likes
