I am willing to ask, do you think I over-reacted to his kind of statements? The situation I've described is verbatim, but it shocks me that he would have such a vitriolic response against a female fictional character. Granted, it's contextual if you watched Breaking Bad, which Bronzdragon admitted.
Yes, I can't really say whether you over-reacted without the specific context of the situation.
(And I can agree, I don't like the women in that show, but I think they are within the realm of realistic personalities/opinions).
Being an utter twat is also a realistic personality ^_~
I do think trying to backpedal and calmly say how there's a difference between "twat" and "woman," just shows that he's trying to logically okay to call women offensive words.
Perhaps, but it's also possible that the choice of the word "twat" was related entirely to the character's personality and not their gender, which is why the distinction was brought up - the meaning of the word "twat" is still quite similar regardless of the gender it is being used on.
Also, re: "logically okay to call women offensive words" - the main issue with the word "twat" is not who it's directed at but the conceptual linkage behind the word (i.e. the culturally ingrained link between offensiveness and female genitalia).
Given the fact that this particular piece of offense was directed at a fictional character, I wouldn't take it as anything serious unless I had other evidence to suggest that this was part of an underlying attitude, and that is something you're in a much better position to judge than anyone else on the forum.
I want to read a study about the 1 out of 10. I also want someone to study the .2 percent of convicted rapists who are female. Not taking sides here, just that if anyone knows of such things, it would be awesome if they could post the link.
It always bugs me when I am trying to bring up a problem that faces women and a man goes "but what about this other problem that faces men?"
This, to me, is like if a chair in the room has caught fire and, while I am calling attention to it and trying to put it out, someone runs over to me and says "The sink is leaking all over the floor!" I'm like "I'm trying to deal with the chair here!"
So you bring up a problem, say it's a problem, and then are bugged when people respond with more problems? Are you saying female problems are more important than male problems?This is a stupid statement. Removed. It's ok to have priorities, but don't get upset when people point out injustices.
I am willing to ask, do you think I over-reacted to his kind of statements?
No clue. I know barely anything about you, and even less about your brother. I've also only heard your side of the story, so there's that as well. You might have overreacted, you might have even be spot on, can't say really.
I do think trying to backpedal and calmly say how there's a difference between "twat" and "woman," just shows that he's trying to logically okay to call women offensive words.
Have you asked if he would describe a male character of similar personality as a twat? Because if he would, then the second half of this sentence does not apply at all, and you might then be overreacting on that point.
Can't we just say rape is bad? Don't rape. Does it really matter whether they are male or female victims? I don't see how likelihood really matters apart from trying to show which group "has it more difficult".
So either males are 9+ times less likely to report rape and have it considered, or women get raped more than men.
I don't think anyone would be surprised when I mention that not all female rape victims report the rape even with all the support groups for female rape victims out there, so it shouldn't be surprising that not all male rape victims report the rape especially with the taboo on it.
So either males are 9+ times less likely to report rape and have it considered, or women get raped more than men.
I don't think anyone would be surprised when I mention that not all female rape victims report the rape even with all the support groups for female rape victims out there, so it shouldn't be surprising that not all male rape victims report the rape especially with the taboo on it.
Did I say it was surprising? The relevant question is this: how much less likely is it that, having been raped, a man reports being raped than a woman?
In any case, wouldn't the main reason that women get raped more be that men are vastly more likely to be rapists than women, and that men are much more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual?
Can't we just say rape is bad? Don't rape. Does it really matter whether they are male or female victims? I don't see how likelihood really matters apart from trying to show which group "has it more difficult".
I think discussing it like we are, we're pretty much constantly saying that rape is bad.
HEY GALLS READING THIS, RAPE IS BAD. DON'T RAPE! HEY GUYS READING THIS, RAPE IS BAD. DON'T RAPE!
Wouldn't the main reason that women get raped more be that men are vastly more likely to be rapists than women, and that men are much more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual?
Holy shit, dude, I've been trying to stay uninvolved, but wow.
There are so many problems with that statement. Christ.
1) Rape is gender-independent. Men and women both commit rape. 2) Rape is orientation-independent. Rape is about power, NOT about sexuality. 3) No gender is more likely to be oriented one way or the other. Indeed, sexual orientation is tremendously more complex than just "homosexual or heterosexual," without even beginning to discuss gender.
1) Rape is gender-independent. Men and women both commit rape.
I didn't say otherwise, but the statistics show that men are vastly more likely to commit rape than women.
2) Rape is orientation-independent. Rape is about power, NOT about sexuality.
The main driving force is generally to exert power, yes, but I think it would be ridiculous to say that sexuality doesn't play a role.
3) No gender is more likely to be oriented one way or the other.
I did not say that this was the case, but as men constitute the vast majority of rape offenders, we're focusing on male rapists (and not in comparison to female rapists, though the comparison is an interesting one).
Indeed, sexual orientation is tremendously more complex than just "homosexual or heterosexual," without even beginning to discuss gender.
I know that as well. Nonetheless, it is a fact that human sexuality is statistically weighted toward heterosexual sex.
Prison rape is a significant source of male rape victims, and presumably quite a lot of them unreported. Once again, it is definitely an expression of dominance, but I think it would be ridiculous to suggest that sexuality - particularly the lack of ability to express it normally given the circumstances - didn't play a role.
So either males are 9+ times less likely to report rape and have it considered, or women get raped more than men.
I don't think anyone would be surprised when I mention that not all female rape victims report the rape even with all the support groups for female rape victims out there, so it shouldn't be surprising that not all male rape victims report the rape especially with the taboo on it.
Not only is there the ridiculous stigma for being a rape victim, male rape victims are also prone to common social stigma against homosexuality, which definitely makes them less likely to report being raped, and so I don't doubt that the actual proportion for rape victims is less than 9:1 female:male. The question is, how many rapes go unreported or are ignored?
Generalizations are made about groups. Your life is still an individual point of data within a group.
Perhaps this will help with the concept: Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. It doesn't mean you automatically win over every other group. It just means that your difficulty setting is a little lower; you can still get fucked over by the game.
I read that article the other day and found it incredibly condescending. First off it makes several assumptions. The most glaring is the concept that the goal is to "Win the game". What exactly does that mean? Furthermore, if I win the game as a Straight White Male, does that make my victory less meaningful that that of a gay black woman? Are my accomplishments less impressive?
I mean, in the gaming community, those who play on easy are generally looked down upon as lesser players (not saying it's right, just the way it is). Is that the type of analogy you want to make?
Finally, I don't need to be addressed as a five year old to understand the concept of privileged.
EDIT: Furthermore, I still don't understand why such issues even need to be brought up other than to either invalidate one's opinions because "They have a privileged point of view" or to assign some sort of guilt complex to people. What real good or benefit has come from this sort of social stratification? Obviously there are inequities in social systems, but these are better addressed through active work, charity, and proper legislation.
Well, you were complaining about a generalization of your life, when its not a personal generalization but a group one. Perhaps you are a little too sensitive about the issue, or perhaps someone has been a dick to you about privilege because they didn't understand the concept of group advantage versus individual advantage. It's not about YOU. It's about statistics.
Granted, a lot of people don't understand the difference between statistical data and individual performance. Society can make that mistake a lot, and it can be really irritating for those who fall victim to it (like the white male teacher with shitloads of accomplishments that gets passed over for promotion because there is a less deserving but black female teacher they can promote instead).
It's not that your personal accomplishments are less impressive than a specific minority person's accomplishments. That's like saying a specific woman can't lift as much as a specific man just solely based on gender. But statistically, men are stronger than women. Likewise, statistically it is easier for straight white men to accomplish goals than minorities. It doesn't mean anything about your personal comparison to another individual.
P.S. In the analogy, winning the game is equivalent to achieving the goals you set for your life. I found that pretty simple to understand.
The sad part is, I now want to play a game that is a simulation of real life designed like that article...
I don't think there is a way to win at life. It's like WoW with a gift subscription (if for some reason you can't renew it): you can try to level up and complete all the quests, but you'll just be locked out of playing.
Society can make that mistake a lot, and it can be really irritating for those who fall victim to it (like the white male teacher with shitloads of accomplishments that gets passed over for promotion because there is a less deserving but black female teacher they can promote instead).
What do you expect when you have blog posts titled "Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is"? Do you honestly think that this sort of post is a net good for the disenfranchised?
Obviously the problem is insanely more nuanced and complicated than just skin color and gender. Economic status is probably much more of an indicator of life difficulty than those metrics. However, it's much easier to categorize based skin color than financial planning of one's parents or economic conditions. When you generalize broad groups of people into little boxes, there are going to be people who use those generalizations in negative ways. I understand it's well intending to educate people on social inequity, but it's not the way to go about it.
If you think that's what that article was doing, then I don't think you got it. The whole point of that article was to try to get people to understand that it's not 100% about where you start out; your success is heavily dependent upon your efforts as well.
The title could be better phrased to sound less condescending, I agree.
The sad part is, I now want to play a game that is a simulation of real life designed like that article...
I don't think there is a way to win at life. It's like WoW with a gift subscription (if for some reason you can't renew it): you can try to level up and complete all the quests, but you'll just be locked out of playing.
Note: haven't read the bullsh--I mean, article.
There's a game, called Real Lives, and I use the word "game" loosely here, but it randomly puts a baby somewhere in the world with a bunch of the associated problems and benefits that brings (mostly problems). Then you live your life. Grow up, go to school (maybe), work, date, marry. And die of diarrhea. Or gonorrhea.
I was staying out of this discussion, but I'm not a fan of that article. Both the content, and the intent. I do not see how the article accomplished what it was setting out to do. Was the goal to convince people that were not convinced of a thing by avoiding the word privileged and instead calling it easy mode? I'm sure that's going to work...
Yeah, most people apparently totally missed the point of the article and instead got offended because playing a game on hard mode is a point of pride. Also, you guys focus way too much on the minutia of the metaphor, which kind of kills most metaphors. I know gamers love to point out and nit pick little tiny details of rules, but that's not the point here.
If you actually read the entire article through to the end, it closes the metaphor by saying that you don't get to choose your difficulty setting or the resources/points you are born with. Life just randomly chooses those for you. And yet people can't get over feeling offended by the fact that they are apparently playing on easy mode.
The point of the article was to show that as a group, it is generally easier for those in one group to achieve a set goal that is is for those in another group. I don't care if this OFFENDS you; it is the truth. It is easier for straight white men to get on the Supreme Court of the United States than it is for gay black women to do the same. That doesn't mean that it will be easier for Dirt Poor Harry born into poverty with a high-school dropout mom to get on the Supreme Court than a gay black woman with lots of money and an influential family. It means that all other things being equal, the white guy would have the advantage over the black lady. This is, of course, absent affirmative action programs, which are designed to combat this disadvantage. Poorly designed, but come up with a better solution.
Comments
Also, re: "logically okay to call women offensive words" - the main issue with the word "twat" is not who it's directed at but the conceptual linkage behind the word (i.e. the culturally ingrained link between offensiveness and female genitalia).
Given the fact that this particular piece of offense was directed at a fictional character, I wouldn't take it as anything serious unless I had other evidence to suggest that this was part of an underlying attitude, and that is something you're in a much better position to judge than anyone else on the forum.
9 of every 10 rape victims were female.
[data from America, 2003]
At least in terms of getting raped, it sure sucks to be female. The odds are against you for sure.
Anyways, I think what's been said has been said on the topic.
It always bugs me when I am trying to bring up a problem that faces women and a man goes "but what about this other problem that faces men?"
This, to me, is like if a chair in the room has caught fire and, while I am calling attention to it and trying to put it out, someone runs over to me and says "The sink is leaking all over the floor!" I'm like "I'm trying to deal with the chair here!"
In any case, wouldn't the main reason that women get raped more be that men are vastly more likely to be rapists than women, and that men are much more likely to be heterosexual than homosexual?
HEY GALLS READING THIS, RAPE IS BAD. DON'T RAPE!
HEY GUYS READING THIS, RAPE IS BAD. DON'T RAPE!
There are so many problems with that statement. Christ.
1) Rape is gender-independent. Men and women both commit rape.
2) Rape is orientation-independent. Rape is about power, NOT about sexuality.
3) No gender is more likely to be oriented one way or the other. Indeed, sexual orientation is tremendously more complex than just "homosexual or heterosexual," without even beginning to discuss gender.
Perhaps this will help with the concept: Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is. It doesn't mean you automatically win over every other group. It just means that your difficulty setting is a little lower; you can still get fucked over by the game.
I mean, in the gaming community, those who play on easy are generally looked down upon as lesser players (not saying it's right, just the way it is). Is that the type of analogy you want to make?
Finally, I don't need to be addressed as a five year old to understand the concept of privileged.
EDIT: Furthermore, I still don't understand why such issues even need to be brought up other than to either invalidate one's opinions because "They have a privileged point of view" or to assign some sort of guilt complex to people. What real good or benefit has come from this sort of social stratification? Obviously there are inequities in social systems, but these are better addressed through active work, charity, and proper legislation.
Granted, a lot of people don't understand the difference between statistical data and individual performance. Society can make that mistake a lot, and it can be really irritating for those who fall victim to it (like the white male teacher with shitloads of accomplishments that gets passed over for promotion because there is a less deserving but black female teacher they can promote instead).
It's not that your personal accomplishments are less impressive than a specific minority person's accomplishments. That's like saying a specific woman can't lift as much as a specific man just solely based on gender. But statistically, men are stronger than women. Likewise, statistically it is easier for straight white men to accomplish goals than minorities. It doesn't mean anything about your personal comparison to another individual.
P.S. In the analogy, winning the game is equivalent to achieving the goals you set for your life. I found that pretty simple to understand.
I don't think there is a way to win at life. It's like WoW with a gift subscription (if for some reason you can't renew it): you can try to level up and complete all the quests, but you'll just be locked out of playing.
Obviously the problem is insanely more nuanced and complicated than just skin color and gender. Economic status is probably much more of an indicator of life difficulty than those metrics. However, it's much easier to categorize based skin color than financial planning of one's parents or economic conditions. When you generalize broad groups of people into little boxes, there are going to be people who use those generalizations in negative ways. I understand it's well intending to educate people on social inequity, but it's not the way to go about it.
The title could be better phrased to sound less condescending, I agree.
There's a game, called Real Lives, and I use the word "game" loosely here, but it randomly puts a baby somewhere in the world with a bunch of the associated problems and benefits that brings (mostly problems). Then you live your life. Grow up, go to school (maybe), work, date, marry. And die of diarrhea. Or gonorrhea.
If you actually read the entire article through to the end, it closes the metaphor by saying that you don't get to choose your difficulty setting or the resources/points you are born with. Life just randomly chooses those for you. And yet people can't get over feeling offended by the fact that they are apparently playing on easy mode.
The point of the article was to show that as a group, it is generally easier for those in one group to achieve a set goal that is is for those in another group. I don't care if this OFFENDS you; it is the truth. It is easier for straight white men to get on the Supreme Court of the United States than it is for gay black women to do the same. That doesn't mean that it will be easier for Dirt Poor Harry born into poverty with a high-school dropout mom to get on the Supreme Court than a gay black woman with lots of money and an influential family. It means that all other things being equal, the white guy would have the advantage over the black lady. This is, of course, absent affirmative action programs, which are designed to combat this disadvantage. Poorly designed, but come up with a better solution.