Feminism discussion

[Tryhard]

None of the main comments I read really discussed safe spaces much? Is there a specific comment on there you can point to?

I suppose that in most feminist discussions I've had in women-dominated groups, the wage gap is almost never discussed, and rape is sometimes discussed (depending on the demographic, sometimes it's too sensitive a topic to delve into much). However, in a mixed/men-dominated group, the wage gap is always highlighted as being a major issue. I get the impression that most women aren't really concerned with a wage gap, and that it's an issue that largely gets brought up by people as a way to dismiss feminism.

I sorted by controversial and saw a couple. They are however, controversial for a reason.

Really? Because I've seen it put forth often. Admittedly, most of my experience isn't with everyday feminists but feminist writers like Jessica Valenti who often write about it. In the same token, people also write against it. Not sure how much of a source everydayfeminism is, but it can be put forward (as well as the numerous other articles on it on that site).

Edited September 30, 2016 by Tryhard

[Crysta]

I suppose that in most feminist discussions I've had in women-dominated groups, the wage gap is almost never discussed, and rape is sometimes discussed (depending on the demographic, sometimes it's too sensitive a topic to delve into much). However, in a mixed/men-dominated group, the wage gap is always highlighted as being a major issue. I get the impression that most women aren't really concerned with a wage gap, and that it's an issue that largely gets brought up by people as a way to dismiss feminism.

I suspect it's because among each other we're more inclined to discuss immediate concerns which affect us much more routinely (like all those health problems) while men are more inclined to discuss the issues they're more familiar with/affect them more (and that's why you get the "what about men!?" retort a lot).

[eclipse]

Hmmm. . .if one of the issues with feminism discussions is "but what about men?", perhaps the more strident voices arose BECAUSE they felt like they were being silenced by such discussion. If so, I can agree with the reason why they're loud, even if I think their message is terrible.

[Time the Crestfallen]

Hmmm. . .if one of the issues with feminism discussions is "but what about men?", perhaps the more strident voices arose BECAUSE they felt like they were being silenced by such discussion. If so, I can agree with the reason why they're loud, even if I think their message is terrible.

Perhaps, but my forays into r/MensRights (back when I didn't really know what all the hubbub was about) has pretty much killed me on that argument. Pretty much every one of those sorts of arguments is now something that I associate with the worst kinds of blatant, unapologetic hypocrisy.

[DemolisherBPB]

I'm going to be short and hope I don't yelled at for this but Feminism isn't an Ideology, It's a equal rights movement, which is just as good, I think everyone of every gender, race, religion, what ever else you can think of, should have the same rights, that's just fair, and is Equality. Just because I'm a man doesn't mean that a woman should get less than me, in the same way, just because she's a woman doesn't mean she should get more than me.

That's all's I'm adding to this because I could see myself digging a hole I cant get out of otherwise.

[Phoenix Wright]

that in itself is an ideology.

[Snowy_One]

Ehhh...? Kind of.

I have noticed groups have been more... cautious of letting girls join, especially if they're a player's girlfriend. I'd say that's fine, they don't want an unfair advantage, but they let someone bring in his boyfriend into the group like fine.

Left that group at least. Others have been surprised that I was a girl into DnD, but I haven't personally experienced much. One I"m in now is filled with people I've been friends with for a while, at least.

I can kind of understand them at least some bit. In general when you have someones boyfriend/girlfriend play any game, Tabletop RPG or not, they tend to only be playing the game for them, be disinterested, and be inept at the game. Top that off with having to teach a newbie (which plenty of groups dislike), a character that's likely underwhelming (can cheese off serious RP'ers), and potentially being favored by the GM, I'd be wary too. Course I don't have a problem with girls joining. Heck if it wasn't for Sara-pookums I'd not even know what stuff like Exalted and Warhammer are in the first place. I don't care so much if a relationship between players develops in the group either. Just if someone is only playing for their boyfriend/girlfriend.

[Rezzy]

I actually met my spouse from my D&D group, so there's that.

I could see people getting irritated by newbies to tabletop, but as long as people are willing to learn, I don't mind helping out new people. I'm usually the person in the group who helps out new-comers with getting a feel for the rules.

[Res]

I sorted by controversial and saw a couple. They are however, controversial for a reason.

Really? Because I've seen it put forth often. Admittedly, most of my experience isn't with everyday feminists but feminist writers like Jessica Valenti who often write about it. In the same token, people also write against it. Not sure how much of a source everydayfeminism is, but it can be put forward (as well as the numerous other articles on it on that site).

I love everydayfeminism, they aim to be really inclusive and they have some great articles. They also have written about just about everything, though, so the inclusion of any topic on their site isn't particularly indicative of how popular it is!

Also, what's the issue with microaggressions?

I suspect it's because among each other we're more inclined to discuss immediate concerns which affect us much more routinely (like all those health problems) while men are more inclined to discuss the issues they're more familiar with/affect them more (and that's why you get the "what about men!?" retort a lot).

Right!

Hmmm. . .if one of the issues with feminism discussions is "but what about men?", perhaps the more strident voices arose BECAUSE they felt like they were being silenced by such discussion. If so, I can agree with the reason why they're loud, even if I think their message is terrible.

The main issue with the 'but what about men?' argument is its usually used as a silencing/dismissing tactic.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Res

[Tryhard]

I love everydayfeminism, they aim to be really inclusive and they have some great articles. They also have written about just about everything, though, so the inclusion of any topic on their site isn't particularly indicative of how popular it is!

True, but since they've written quite a few articles about that wage gap and specifically attempting to justify the 77-100 figures, shouldn't that be evidence that they are trying to push that narrative on that site (at least)? Was just an example since you did say you didn't really see it being put forward often.

Also, what's the issue with microaggressions?

Bluntly, I don't believe they exist, or if they do, they can easily be classified under outright marginalising behaviour itself. This is an idea that says that slights are to be inferred even if they might not necessarily be there, which just seems like a way to accentuate conflict and is honestly quite insulting when essentially comparing real sexism/racism/etc with trivial perceptions of such (in my opinion). And on top of that, I haven't really heard any coherant or convincing argument for it, though I haven't gone out looking honestly.

If you have time to watch, this is a video interview about it (and other things) with Gad Saad, from a interviewer that is a progressive but feels as though concepts such as trigger warnings and microaggressions go too far, I'm a similar way. I found the idea of that the original idea/definition of it to be "perverted" particularly interesting.

Hmmm. . .if one of the issues with feminism discussions is "but what about men?", perhaps the more strident voices arose BECAUSE they felt like they were being silenced by such discussion. If so, I can agree with the reason why they're loud, even if I think their message is terrible.

I have seen the phrase verbatim or equivalent of "it's not your place to talk" a bit and that could contribute. And I could see that it could be offputting, but instead of reacting immediately with hostility to those people who say "but what about men", the response could be something to the effect of "they have issues too, but we're talking about this right now". If they act like assholes after that, well that's just that. Edited October 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[Res]

True, but since they've written quite a few articles about that wage gap and specifically attempting to justify the 77-100 figures, shouldn't that be evidence that they are trying to push that narrative on that site (at least)? Was just an example since you did say you didn't really see it being put forward often.

Yes, sorry, not trying to say they're not pushing it forward as an issue.

I was thinking about this: To be honest, I don't really follow feminism as its presented in the media, and I don't doubt that in the media, the wage gap is focused on heavily. I think it's probably an easy topic to pick on because it involves facts and figures that can be quantified.

I more meant that, the feminist issues women I know actually care about tend to be more social issues, and they're much harder to write about, because they're harder to define and the facts and figures aren't always available, and all you really have are opinion pieces and personal experiences.

Bluntly, I don't believe they exist, or if they do, they can easily be classified under outright marginalising behaviour itself. This is an idea that says that slights are to be inferred even if they might not necessarily be there, which just seems like a way to accentuate conflict and is honestly quite insulting when essentially comparing real sexism/racism/etc with trivial perceptions of such (in my opinion). And on top of that, I haven't really heard any coherant or convincing argument for it, though I haven't gone out looking honestly.

Well, the idea is that a microaggression is something that by itself isn't a big deal, but when experienced repeatedly gets to be annoying.

The 'nice' thing about microaggressions is that they're easily dealt with and handled on a personal basis.

For example: I have a friend who suffers from a multitude of 'invisible' illnesses (more than one autoimmune disease). She may look perfectly fine, and some days she might feel pretty well, whereas on others she can barely get out of bed and requires the use of a wheelchair. She's always sharing articles about the microaggressions disabled people face; the daily calls of 'you don't look sick enough to use that wheelchair', people assuming her disability badge is a fake, etc. I've learned that some of the things I said in the past might be considered microaggressions, and while I obviously didn't mean to be offensive, intent doesn't always matter; it doesn't prevent her from being annoyed by and tired of hearing them constantly. I know not to say them in the future, and I know to bring up my kids not to say those things, either.

While my words are absolutely minuscule compared to the larger issues disabled people face, I probably can't do much to effect change on the larger issues (besides donating/voting), but my words are something I can change and be aware of.

I'm not really affected by many microaggressions myself: the only one that comes to mind that relates to feminism is being told to smile. I hate being told to smile. If someone tells me to smile I'm not going to retort angrily, I'll probably say nothing, but it's definitely something that irritates and it'd be great if people stopped telling other people to smile.

If you have time to watch, this is a video interview about it (and other things) with Gad Saad, from a interviewer that is a progressive but feels as though concepts such as trigger warnings and microaggressions go too far, I'm a similar way. I found the idea of that the original idea/definition of it to be "perverted" particularly interesting.

I have seen the phrase verbatim or equivalent of "it's not your place to talk" a bit and that could contribute. And I could see that it could be offputting, but instead of reacting immediately with hostility to those people who say "but what about men", the response could be something to the effect of "they have issues too, but we're talking about this right now". If they act like assholes after that, well that's just that.

Yes, this is a great response!

[Tryhard]

Yes, sorry, not trying to say they're not pushing it forward as an issue.

I was thinking about this: To be honest, I don't really follow feminism as its presented in the media, and I don't doubt that in the media, the wage gap is focused on heavily. I think it's probably an easy topic to pick on because it involves facts and figures that can be quantified.

I more meant that, the feminist issues women I know actually care about tend to be more social issues, and they're much harder to write about, because they're harder to define and the facts and figures aren't always available, and all you really have are opinion pieces and personal experiences.

Yeah, like I said, I'm not so sure I could say that everyday feminists put it forward the most, but feminist writers seem to write about it a little bit at least. I don't think opinion pieces are worthless but they are certainly perceived as less useful than statistics about disparages between genders (which can often be hard to study/find accurately).

Well, the idea is that a microaggression is something that by itself isn't a big deal, but when experienced repeatedly gets to be annoying.

The 'nice' thing about microaggressions is that they're easily dealt with and handled on a personal basis.

For example: I have a friend who suffers from a multitude of 'invisible' illnesses (more than one autoimmune disease). She may look perfectly fine, and some days she might feel pretty well, whereas on others she can barely get out of bed and requires the use of a wheelchair. She's always sharing articles about the microaggressions disabled people face; the daily calls of 'you don't look sick enough to use that wheelchair', people assuming her disability badge is a fake, etc. I've learned that some of the things I said in the past might be considered microaggressions, and while I obviously didn't mean to be offensive, intent doesn't always matter; it doesn't prevent her from being annoyed by and tired of hearing them constantly. I know not to say them in the future, and I know to bring up my kids not to say those things, either.

While my words are absolutely minuscule compared to the larger issues disabled people face, I probably can't do much to effect change on the larger issues (besides donating/voting), but my words are something I can change and be aware of.

I'm not really affected by many microaggressions myself: the only one that comes to mind that relates to feminism is being told to smile. I hate being told to smile. If someone tells me to smile I'm not going to retort angrily, I'll probably say nothing, but it's definitely something that irritates and it'd be great if people stopped telling other people to smile.

I don't really mind when it's something that you could bring up to them, especially with friends - maybe the person you're talking to is truly oblivious on how some of the things they are saying could be construed as out there. Generally, bringing them up to the person will cause them to apologise and attempt to refrain from doing so in the future, and that's fine.

The ones I was addressing is when they are used to shut down a conversation or shame a person for engaging with them even if they are unintentional, and I doubt many would agree with that interpretation. But that can really be what some people roll with as being a huge criticism of a person.

I've been told to smile as well. Though it isn't really a thing that is told to you when hanging out with guy friends lol, more so that you look glum or such.

One in particular that I hate is the drawing of attention with something along the lines of pointing out how "I'm quiet". They don't realise how that statement doesn't help at all. But that'll happen to any race and any gender and just always sucks, and just seems more like a pet peeve instead of a microaggression. Not that I could suffer any microaggressions myself as a white man, because it is specifically defined as against socially marginalised groups, originally black Americans and later expanded.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moira]

The ideas of trigger warnings and microaggressions shouldn't be completely disregarded, which a lot of people do, just because they have been perverted by some people. Also, after watching the video, I have no idea why they're including safe spaces in the same category as those terms.

[Tryhard]

The ideas of trigger warnings and microaggressions shouldn't be completely disregarded, which a lot of people do, just because they have been perverted by some people. Also, after watching the video, I have no idea why they're including safe spaces in the same category as those terms.

I think it's because safe spaces are used in a way that are to say that there can be no criticism and discussion, and is a way for no discourse to happen. If someone truly doesn't want someone to argue with their point or views, then okay, I'll oblige, if only not to force an argument where there isn't one needed, but in places like university campuses where there is supposed to be a constant influx of discussion and ideas, it's less understandable to me. Edited October 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[Moira]

I think it's because safe spaces are used in a way that are to say that there can be no criticism and discussion, and is a way for no discourse to happen. If someone truly doesn't want someone to argue with their point or views, then okay, I'll oblige, if only not to force an argument where there isn't one needed, but in places like university campuses where there is supposed to be a constant influx of discussion and ideas, it's less understandable to me.

I'm not sure how safe spaces are used in that way. They're places people go where they can be open about their identities and connect to people who are similar to them.

I feel like there are two very different ideas of safe spaces. I don't get why so many people have problems with them when they never even go to them, yet there are claims that they stifle free speech, which doesn't make any sense to me.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Moira

[Tryhard]

I'm not sure how safe spaces are used in that way. They're places people go where they can be open about their identities and connect to people who are similar to them.

I'm confident in saying that they are used like this and there's many examples of such. Here was one recently.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

I feel like there are two very different ideas of safe spaces. I don't get why so many people have problems with them when they never even go to them, yet there are claims that they stifle free speech, which doesn't make any sense to me.

I mean, I did go to university. If you mean do I go to events that I might disagree vehemently with? No, I'm not that type of person, but I think people should be able to voice their arguments. Thankfully, there was nothing as bad as that previous link. They stifle discussion, not free speech (because you are not being punished by the government).

You can really go and just google for examples of such, or of ideologically different speakers or people being hounded. Obama even spoke of it himself.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[InsaneNoire]

It was a very good concept that slowly disintegrated. I feel that a lot of modern day feminists' arguments are based purely on emotion rather than logic, i.e. the fear mongering approach to men. Also, some have attacked other women for not agreeing with their views and saying these women "hate themselves". The hive mind approach that all women need to agree with the opinions of modern day feminists is very toxic. It's as if women aren't allowed to have their own opinions and beliefs. And you can throw the dictionary definition around all you want. That doesn't justify today's actions.

[Moira]

I'm confident in saying that they are used like this and there's many examples of such. Here was one recently.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

I mean, I did go to university. If you mean do I go to events that I might disagree vehemently with? No, I'm not that type of person, but I think people should be able to voice their arguments. Thankfully, there was nothing as bad as that previous link. They stifle discussion, not free speech (because you are not being punished by the government).

You can really go and just google for examples of such, or of ideologically different speakers or people being hounded. Obama even spoke of it himself.

From my experience, a safe space is talking specifically about something like a high school gsa, and similar organizations, which is why the anger towards safe spaces to me seems way out of place. My experiences at a fairly conservative college probably impacts my views, because I never see examples such as the one discussed in the article, but that doesn't mean I should disregard it. Ultimately I feel like this could be another example of a term being bastardized, but the rhetoric opponents of safe spaces use is far more harmful because of the terms original use.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Moira

[Res]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not so sure I could say that everyday feminists put it forward the most, but feminist writers seem to write about it a little bit at least. I don't think opinion pieces are worthless but they are certainly perceived as less useful than statistics about disparages between genders (which can often be hard to study/find accurately).

I don't really mind when it's something that you could bring up to them, especially with friends - maybe the person you're talking to is truly oblivious on how some of the things they are saying could be construed as out there. Generally, bringing them up to the person will cause them to apologise and attempt to refrain from doing so in the future, and that's fine.

The ones I was addressing is when they are used to shut down a conversation or shame a person for engaging with them even if they are unintentional, and I doubt many would agree with that interpretation. But that can really be what some people roll with as being a huge criticism of a person.

I've been told to smile as well. Though it isn't really a thing that is told to you when hanging out with guy friends lol, more so that you look glum or such.

One in particular that I hate is the drawing of attention with something along the lines of pointing out how "I'm quiet". They don't realise how that statement doesn't help at all. But that'll happen to any race and any gender and just always sucks, and just seems more like a pet peeve instead of a microaggression. Not that I could suffer any microaggressions myself as a white man, because it is specifically defined as against socially marginalised groups, originally black Americans and later expanded.

Yes, I agree with gentle education/no shaming, although it's also my privilege that allows me to be that way.

My husband would definitely sympathize as a fellow quiet, glum person; also, both our kids inherited his down-turned mouth, so they'll probably hear it all their lives, too. I've actually had to work pretty hard not to constantly ask, 'what's the matter?', because that's no doubt annoying to hear!

I'm confident in saying that they are used like this and there's many examples of such. Here was one recently.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/03/student-accused-of-violating-university-safe-space-by-raising-he/

I mean, I did go to university. If you mean do I go to events that I might disagree vehemently with? No, I'm not that type of person, but I think people should be able to voice their arguments. Thankfully, there was nothing as bad as that previous link. They stifle discussion, not free speech (because you are not being punished by the government).

You can really go and just google for examples of such, or of ideologically different speakers or people being hounded. Obama even spoke of it himself.

The example in that article definitely does seem extreme.

I've always viewed safe spaces as, for example, the LGTBQ+ lounge my college student union had. I agree with Moira's latest comment, there.

[Phoenix Wright]

trigger warnings, microaggressions, and safe spaces are all good ideas that have been corrupted by people who treat social justice like a religion.

trigger warnings, to me, should literally be a synonym for ptsd warnings. if you don't wanna hear something that could offend you, that's simply censorship and you have no right to try to silence someone for it. the typical example is for racist beliefs, but i think what happens just as often is jokes, or graphic content. some people claim to be triggered by watching films or listening to music that has sexist language (eg, get in the car, bitch) or something. that is ridiculous.

microaggressions are supposed to be examples of implicit bias. "that's so gay," is an example of a microagression. it is sometimes intentional, but usually unintentional insult of a group/type of people. "you're pretty for an asian girl," or "you're so exotic," are examples where bias towards a certain kind of person isn't wholly apparent, but the phrases are clearly insulting to the receiving end.

safe spaces should be places where people can get together and not worry about racism/sexism/etc. they should not ever attempt to silence opposition...

[Tryhard]

My experiences at a fairly conservative college probably impacts my views, because I never see examples such as the one discussed in the article, but that doesn't mean I should disregard it. Ultimately I feel like this could be another example of a term being bastardized, but the rhetoric opponents of safe spaces use is far more harmful because of the terms original use.

it was at a university in my city (not the one I went to) which is why I was particularly interested in it, but I've heard this type of thing happening at US universities quite a bit, perhaps the more liberal or leftist leaning ones.

trigger warnings, to me, should literally be a synonym for ptsd warnings. if you don't wanna hear something that could offend you, that's simply censorship and you have no right to try to silence someone for it. the typical example is for racist beliefs, but i think what happens just as often is jokes, or graphic content. some people claim to be triggered by watching films or listening to music that has sexist language (eg, get in the car, bitch) or something. that is ridiculous.

I believe 'trigger warning' originally straight up was the terminology for ptsd warnings, right? I understand completely the need to preface disturbing imagery or video with such, as is often done on the news.

microaggressions are supposed to be examples of implicit bias. "that's so gay," is an example of a microagression. it is sometimes intentional, but usually unintentional insult of a group/type of people. "you're pretty for an asian girl," or "you're so exotic," are examples where bias towards a certain kind of person isn't wholly apparent, but the phrases are clearly insulting to the receiving end.

here's what I don't get, though: they are exclusively for what is considered marginalised groups in society. If someone said something to the effect that underlies a stereotype about white people, say "you dance well for a white person" because we don't, then that wouldn't be treated the same or considered a microaggression, right? why is that? i mean it does just seem like stereotyping in speech, mostly unintentionally. Edited October 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

It's because of the idea of being singled out vs not

If a black dude is called a thug or a brown dude a terrorist they're likely being singled out due to being one of the only one of their race in the room. The white person microaggression thing is different because it effectively gets lost in the crowd, and they're not being as easily singled out.

Racist jokes against white peoples really don't have any power behind them either. It's also about quantity; I doubt a white person has heard "you suck at dancing" nearly as much as I've heard "you're a terrorist" for a quick example. And microaggressions also pile up as Res pointed out. It's effectively negligible as a microaggression in the grand scheme of things.

[Tryhard]

isn't someone calling you a terrorist or a thug just a flat out insult though lol

I mean fair for the rest and I don't doubt it would be so, just that the distinction I'm not so sure about.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tryhard

[Lord Raven]

Stuff like "you can't dance" and "you act pretty white" are flat out insults too. Most stereotypes are. Still doesn't make it funny even if it's intended as a joke, especially since it's been said a million times.

But I mean this is a feminism discussion not a PC culture/microaggression discussion so I won't say much more.

[Snowy_One]

Personally I thing both trigger warnings and safe spaces are ****ing stupid. Here is why. There are certain things in life that are simply inevitable. For example, if you work in customer service, you will eventually get some hysterical customer who believes that you are, somehow, stealing from them. It's not an issue of the quality service you give, how properly you do or do not handle the situation, or whatever, you'll hit it eventually and the only way to avoid it is to stop working all together. Unfortunately there is really only one way to quit life and it's a way that pretty much everyone disagrees with doing. It's fine to be offended at something, it's fine to show warnings for certain things, and its perfectly fine to seek to avoid things; but with trigger warnings people are far too willing to take anything that even remotely upsets them and turn it into a 'trigger'. Walking down the street and seeing a white person in an african hair braiding salon? #triggered! Cultural Appropriation! Watching Lucy and the Chocolates? #triggered! Sexism! Going down to the pet shelter and seeing a cat marked 'Siamese'? #triggered! Racism! If you're willing to be triggered by anything you will be triggered by everything.

Likewise, with safe spaces... It's okay to have a place to yourself where you can be yourself without fear, be it your own room, a comic-con, a gay-bar, or whatever. However safe spaces have gone beyond that and done something that should never be done. They have disconnected people from reality and re-inforced childish tendencies. For example, a 'safe space' with cookies, coloring books, and videos of puppies. A 'safe space' where you go because some speaker you disagree with is on campus. Claiming that a rally in a place open to the public is a 'safe space' and you can kick people out. These are not the actions of an adult connected to the real world but, rather, of a child wishing to live in their private world where every day is Christmas or, in this case, a world where everyone agrees with you.

It is true that taken at their literal definition these things are not wrong; but so are many things if taken only at their literal definition (especially if you believe morality is subjective). However, in practice, things, such as trigger warnings and safe spaces, have come to mean something completely different and be used in different ways.