Have you cold approached a girl?

[Da_Chief]

Originally Posted by ae118

I just want to thank Antithesis for the best comment in this thread. And I'd add, that I hope believing in equality stems not from just having a daughter, a wife, a mother, a sister, a girlfriend, or anything else, but from recognizing that 50% of the human race deserves to be treated with respect simply for being human.

Lol! What did the other 50% do to you? Shouldn't you just say 100%?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Lol! What did the other 50% do to you? Shouldn't you just say 100%?

Not sure if I'm biting at the bait...but he's saying that, as a man, 50% of the human race is already respected, and that the other 50% (the women) deserved to be respected simply because they are human, not female.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Lol! What did the other 50% do to you? Shouldn't you just say 100%?

That everyone deserves respect was implicit in the word "equality".

ETA: See Minnie's post below.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

As smart as this guy might be that just seems wrong. To me, this logic would also excuse people of being racist against whites - that it in a sense doesn't exist. Am I interpreting this wrong?

I'm definitely not going down THAT road, but to answer your question: No, you cannot be racist against white people. Racism is prejudice+power, it's societal and expansive. It's not "White people are stupid."

As with Misandry, racism against whites doesn't exist because there is no power, societal construct, or far reaching belief to go along with it.

Think about it this way (it's the same as racism): Misogyny has a long, terrible history. It is inspired purely out of ignorance, disrespect, and hate. "Misandry" however, were it to exist, and all examples people use to attempt to justify it's existence, is bred purely out of a response to hundreds of years of misogyny, simply out of reaction from the less societally dominant gender against the constant restriction from the most dominant gender.

In another, very basic example to illustrate my point:
Say a man beats his wife for years. He doesn't ALWAYS beat her, but once or twice a month he beats her pretty harshly. One night, after years of this abuse, during yet another night OF abuse, she takes a big hard swing and knocks him right in the mouth.
Now, after all that abuse from him, he goes to the police and claims spousal abuse because of that one hit.

That's Misandry. It's a lie. It cannot exist because any example of it is simply a reaction to years of oppression and misogyny.

[Minnie]

Originally Posted by Da_Chief

Lol! What did the other 50% do to you? Shouldn't you just say 100%?

Ae's point, I think, is that a lot of the vernacular used is "this could be your mother/sister/niece/aunt/daughter" when really it's that they're human and should be respected simply because of that fact, not simply because they happen to be female. If you notice, it's never framed that way for men - what happens to a man, you don't hear "see him as a brother/father/nephew/uncle/son." He is already seen as a person, and no one tells us to view him in that way in order to 'humanize' the victim and their plight and gain empathy. I believe his point is to take away the viewing of women as an abstraction and move things toward viewing her as a fellow human being.


Or I could have totally misread that....

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Ae's point, I think, is that a lot of the vernacular used is "this could be your mother/sister/niece/aunt/daughter" when really it's that they're human and should be respected simply because of that fact, not simply because they happen to be female. If you notice, it's never framed that way for men - what happens to a man, you don't hear "see him as a brother/father/nephew/uncle/son." He is already seen as a person, and no one tells us to view him in that way in order to 'humanize' the victim and their plight and gain empathy. I believe his point is to take away the viewing of women as an abstraction and move things toward viewing her as a fellow human being.


Or I could have totally misread that....

In my view it is much akin to the dreaded "gay rights", they are human rights.

As in every human has the right........

[ae118]

Originally Posted by Minnie

Ae's point, I think, is that a lot of the vernacular used is "this could be your mother/sister/niece/aunt/daughter" when really it's that they're human and should be respected simply because of that fact, not simply because they happen to be female. If you notice, it's never framed that way for men - what happens to a man, you don't hear "see him as a brother/father/nephew/uncle/son." He is already seen as a person, and no one tells us to view him in that way in order to 'humanize' the victim and their plight and gain empathy. I believe his point is to take away the viewing of women as an abstraction and move things toward viewing her as a fellow human being.


Or I could have totally misread that....

No, you put it much better than I did.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Coys1882]

Originally Posted by strombad

In another, very basic example to illustrate my point:
Say a man beats his wife for years. He doesn't ALWAYS beat her, but once or twice a month he beats her pretty harshly. One night, after years of this abuse, during yet another night OF abuse, she takes a big hard swing and knocks him right in the mouth.
Now, after all that abuse from him, he goes to the police and claims spousal abuse because of that one hit.

That's Misandry. It's a lie. It cannot exist because any example of it is simply a reaction to years of oppression and misogyny.

I understand what you're saying - I see the point; it seems like there are different ways to define the word which can cause you to get to your belief. At it's simplest it means "a hatred of men"

So when I see #killallmen that evokes a response in me that says "I've not wronged you - you've lumped me in with men who have simply because I'm male - that's unfair. I don't care how you've come to that belief - maybe it's justified, maybe it's not - but your statement now is misandric." Because misogyny exists doesn't mean I should be a victim of it's fallout.

[Red Potato Standing By]

Originally Posted by strombad

I'm definitely not going down THAT road, but to answer your question: No, you cannot be racist against white people. Racism is prejudice+power, it's societal and expansive. It's not "White people are stupid."

As with Misandry, racism against whites doesn't exist because there is no power, societal construct, or far reaching belief to go along with it.

Think about it this way (it's the same as racism): Misogyny has a long, terrible history. It is inspired purely out of ignorance, disrespect, and hate. "Misandry" however, were it to exist, and all examples people use to attempt to justify it's existence, is bred purely out of a response to hundreds of years of misogyny, simply out of reaction from the less societally dominant gender against the constant restriction from the most dominant gender.

In another, very basic example to illustrate my point:
Say a man beats his wife for years. He doesn't ALWAYS beat her, but once or twice a month he beats her pretty harshly. One night, after years of this abuse, during yet another night OF abuse, she takes a big hard swing and knocks him right in the mouth.
Now, after all that abuse from him, he goes to the police and claims spousal abuse because of that one hit.

That's Misandry. It's a lie. It cannot exist because any example of it is simply a reaction to years of oppression and misogyny.

So basically women get a free pass because some men are idiots? So if a man treats a woman with respect and she beats on him what is that called? Cause unfortunetly it happens.

[photon]

Originally Posted by strombad

I don't think it would shock anybody to see a post of mine be described as "confrontational." There are, of course, different ways to carry one's self, but that does not make them better.

It's not about being better, it's about what gets one banned and what doesn't.

Originally Posted by strombad

Is telling someone what they mean not the same as telling someone what they think?

Sure, that might not good either depending on how it is phrased. Just by responding to a post we implicitly tell someone what we think they mean, and asking someone what they mean is common (since communication can be difficult), but it's also possible to put words in someone's mouth which isn't good.

Originally Posted by strombad

Is there no irony in your final sentence, considering not a single word is in reference to the topic?

No, because obviously forum moderation supercedes such a rule.

Originally Posted by strombad

Regardless, I'll stick by my post. If the worst I did was disrupt his attack on wittynickname, then yeah, I'm pretty comfortable being disruptive.

Then find a better way to do it (EDIT: It meaning "disrupting his attack" without being generally disruptive). We can't decide what you post, but we can decide if you post it here.

But you do have a point about being on topic, if you wish to discuss it further send me a PM.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by HOWITZER

Honestly, no. I lived in Toronto and took the TTC every day of the week. I was FROM Alberta, but never had to spill the beans on how long exactly I was in Toronto. I had to break it a girl at one point when things started to get serious, but when I told her, she laughed and thanked me because it got us talking.

That's what I mean. For a big city like Toronto and just to meet and hook-up then it'll work. But if you're not getting a girl for a relationship aren't you just wasting your time?

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

I understand what you're saying - I see the point; it seems like there are different ways to define the word which can cause you to get to your belief. At it's simplest it means "a hatred of men"



So when I see #killallmen that evokes a response in me that says "I've not wronged you - you've lumped me in with men who have simply because I'm male - that's unfair. I don't care how you've come to that belief - maybe it's justified, maybe it's not - but your statement now is misandric." Because misogyny exists doesn't mean I should be a victim of it's fallout.

Which is understandable, but you're taking the example of a throwaway hashtag on twitter (which is more popular in tweets complaining about the hashtag than any tweets actually using it) as an example is Misandry. Again, Misandry doesn't exist unless you change the meaning to something incredibly basic and misrepresentative.

Let me ask: How are you affected by that hashtag? How has it affected your daily life? It doesn't have any societal impact, it doesn't change how you live your life. Some of the top music over the past 10 years has included terribly misogynistic views. Talk about killing women, them being sexually subservient, rape, etc are hugely represented in top 40 music. Why is that ok? Misogyny effects all women in multiple levels of society. Whether it be popular media, daily treatment, laws, etc. Misogyny isn't some one-off hashtag, so if that's what Misandry is, then why pretend it's even a thing?

#Killallmen is satire, it's rude, tasteless, misguided and idiotic satire done from a particular frustrated group of women, but it's still satire. The goal is to make you feel a similar level of offence, hatred, and frustration that women can feel every single day. You read that, and feel offended. It's one hashtag. How about #Ihatefemales? #agoodwoman? How about a line in a song that states "When you know how I need you - To beat to a pulp on a Saturday night" or "papa loved mama - mama loved men - mama’s in the graveyard - papa’s in the pen".

What you're seeing is not Misandry, it's simply misogyny having a negative affect on men. It's blowback, not some new invented hatred of men, but rather a direct reaction to misogyny. Whether you like it or not, you as a man are equally responsible for the misogyny perpetuated by other men. Do you listen to Eminem? Or Pink Floyd? Or Fall Out Boy? Do you make careless jokes or let them be said by others without reactions? Most men aren't misogynistic, they don't purposely harm women, but most men DO accept misogyny in popular culture and thus help it thrive.

Originally Posted by Zethrynn

So basically women get a free pass because some men are idiots? So if a man treats a woman with respect and she beats on him what is that called? Cause unfortunetly it happens.

It's called abuse. Misogyny is far reaching and expansive, it isn't one guy hitting one girl, it's the thing that influenced that man into thinking that was acceptable. Tell me that men being physically or sexually abused is a societal problem that stems from hundreds of years of being treated as second class citizens, and then maybe there's a case for Misandry.

[JMN]

Had a good start last night then got some liquor in me and it all went downhill - creep JMN came out. I hate myself.

Gonna need some more Dion advice.

[OzSome]

I used to work with someone who can talk to women in front of a lot of people and get her phone number just like that. Sometimes he'll make out with her within a few hours. Not a bad looking guy and physically looks fit. The guy can be an a-hole and jerk but for some reason he never have any problem picking up women. I guess it is the confidence. I am not saying every single women he talked to give their number, there are some odd women that just said no and rejected him in front of us, but the guy just shrugged it off like nothing happen. If that happens to me, i would be freaking embarrassed but not him. I wish I have at least half of his confidence.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by strombad

I'm definitely not going down THAT road, but to answer your question: No, you cannot be racist against white people. Racism is prejudice+power, it's societal and expansive. It's not "White people are stupid."

Gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Racism is defined as:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Looks like you can be racist and not be white. And that whites can experience racism.

Prejudice and power that is societal and expansive sounds more like "majority privilege" to me. Or also "Systemic racism".

[Cain]

Originally Posted by ae118

You think feminism exacerbates the problem of inequality? After you've read the definition?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I was responding to your dislike of the masculinization of language. If that bothers some people (which is fair) then we should strive to homogenize language. I simply didn't think that you pointing out that because some words have a masculine lineage that others should get a free pass.

Don't try to make this something big, I just idly said that the way the word is used bothers me. I'm not up in arms and really irritated, just that I find the usage curious a lot of the time.

Your counterpoint was along the lines of "so what, look at all these other things we have to put up with" which I find unproductive. Both could be better.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Gonna have to disagree with you on this one. Racism is defined as:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others. 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Looks like you can be racist and not be white. And that whites can experience racism.

Prejudice and power that is societal and expansive sounds more like "majority privilege" to me. Or also "Systemic racism".

Ugh, respond to this if you want with your current focus, but this thread really doesn't need to swing into racism IMO, so I'll mention it in this post as a reference point (with the current focus in mind) but I won't mention it again afterwards.

As a white male, you can experience discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, but any claims to experiencing racism (or the male equivalent of misogyny) is not fathomable, because as the fully dominant gender/race you've never experienced any hatred or oppression that was based solely on your gender/race. Have you ever been turned away from a bar because you're white? Been unable to vote because you're white or a man? Been denied health care and told you're a murderer because of a decision you make about your body? Been looked at purely as a sexual object instead of a human being? Do people write songs about drugging men and raping them? Do you get made fun of for the colour of your skin? Do they have dehumanising names for you? Names you can't even say on this forum due to their severity?

There are "women only" clubs and gyms, organizations whose members are only for people of certain races, but is that racist or sexist? Well no. Why? Because as a white man, you have EVERYTHING. For every 1 thing you can't do because you're a man, there are hundreds of thousands of things you CAN do because you're a man, for every 1 thing you can't do because you're white, there are hundreds of thousands of things you CAN do because you're white.

The problem with Misandry and "reverse racism" is that both are designed to take attention away from those who need it, and place it back upon what is already the most socially dominant and privileged gender and race. Because white men are so privileged, the slightest knock on that privilege causes uproar and accusations of the same mistreatment that they have been handing out for hundreds of years, but I have yet to see anything even remotely comparable.

[HOWITZER]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

That's what I mean. For a big city like Toronto and just to meet and hook-up then it'll work. But if you're not getting a girl for a relationship aren't you just wasting your time?

Not exactly how I see it. For me, it's all about breaking the ice. Meeting people in public is next to impossible without coming across as "creepy" in this day and age. So, unless there is a situation that warrants a "Oh man, did you hear about XYZ", or some kind of situational ice-breaker, if you want ANY chance whatsoever you need to take a risk. The risk I take is that if this is someone that I can get serious with, then I hope she forgives me for being deceptive to start, but all for a good reason.

[ae118]

Originally Posted by Cain

No, I was responding to your dislike of the masculinization of language. If that bothers some people (which is fair) then we should strive to homogenize language. I simply didn't think that you pointing out that because some words have a masculine lineage that others should get a free pass.

Don't try to make this something big, I just idly said that the way the word is used bothers me. I'm not up in arms and really irritated, just that I find the usage curious a lot of the time.

Your counterpoint was along the lines of "so what, look at all these other things we have to put up with" which I find unproductive. Both could be better.

I wasn't trying making that counterpoint, I was trying to say that feminism is in direct opposition our society's male-dominated structure, so the word makes sense to me. The thing is, it IS big, because the "feminism" vs. "equalism" question isn't new.

I'm fine with it being called "feminism" for several reasons:

1) Women are the target of sexism/misogyny. Feminism is the countermovement to that (though that's oversimplified). I'm okay with "anti-sexism" or "gender equality" as well, but overall I prefer a word that speaks directly about women in a positive way.

2) There are many forms of "equalism" so that word doesn't really apply.

3) When you are in the middle of something that is all around you, and want to talk about its counterpoint, it makes sense to create a space for that to happen and where you can talk about it through a different "lens".

And really, at a time where some women will say "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then proceed to say something positive about gender equality, I would prefer that people not be ashamed of using the word. Feminism is a big tent, and it includes much more than radical feminist theorists. Debating the word and its use is often a distraction from making actual progress.

So anyway, call it what you want, but those are my thoughts.

Or really, I could just come back with "what, we can't even name our own movement now?"

[Cain]

Originally Posted by ae118

I wasn't trying making that counterpoint, I was trying to say that feminism is in direct opposition our society's male-dominated structure, so the word makes sense to me. The thing is, it IS big, because the "feminism" vs. "equalism" question isn't new.

I'm fine with it being called "feminism" for several reasons:

1) Women are the target of sexism. Feminism is the countermovement to sexism (though that's oversimplified). I'm okay with "anti-sexism" or "gender equality" as well, but overall I prefer a word that speaks directly about women in a positive way.

2) There are many forms of "equalism" so that word doesn't really apply.

3) When you are in the middle of something that is all around you, and want to talk about its counterpoint, it makes sense to create a space for that to happen and where you can talk about it through a different "lens".

And really, at a time where some women will say "I'm not a feminist, but..." and then proceed to say something positive about gender equality, I would prefer that people not be ashamed of using the word. Feminism is a big tent, and it includes much more than radical feminist theorists. Debating the word and its use is often a distraction from making actual progress.

So anyway, call it what you want, but those are my thoughts.

Or really, I could just come back with "what, we can't even name our own movement now?"

I'm all for equal rights but I dislike some of these approaches. Women are indeed a target of sexism but lets not pretend it doesn't go both ways. I agree women have it tougher by and large for sure, but lets not turn a blind eye the other way.

I guess it just bothers me because I feel like the changes necessary are expansive and include more than just one group. I've no problem with feminists fighting for women's rights! They should! However, all groups should have their interests represented and I often find that these discussions devolve into a one sided affair.

And I wasn't trying to distract from the conversation, I just find words themselves and how they are used interesting.