Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The problem of SJWs

Page 46 of 108 [ 1723 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 ... 108  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

TheSpectrum
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,121
Location: Hampshire

12 Jan 2017, 5:57 am

That image has been quoted far too many times.. :hic:


_________________
Yours sincerely, some dude.


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Jan 2017, 6:52 am

Alliekit wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Image
Who cares to be honest. It is nice for someone to feel as though they are smart, right and tolerant why should we take away that feeling that can be good for someone.
Why should they take it away from anyone else?

You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.

No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
You can avoid said scenario by avoiding confrontation with an SJW. Its simple the SJW keeps his opinion and the other person keeps his own.

But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.

This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
True. Very true.

If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.

As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.

I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?

I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.

I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
If we don't debunk them from behind their backs we may end up humiliating SJWs. If they do things like invade our own personal space we can just ignore them but challenging one's viewpoints is different. It is undermining their insight and making them look stupid. I am in favour of letting SJWs debate through the media but they have got to be willing to do it. I do not like the thought of us confronting SJWs who simply want to express their voice and be part of a movement.

In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Perhaps you're right. We should ignore them.

Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.

For example
Image
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.

Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
I actually do see where you are coming from to be fair and i would be uncomfortable with any body shape of gender doing this when im on the train
She thinks it's justified because she's "in the right".

If I guy did that the SJWs wouldaccuse him of sexual harassment but she thinks nothing she does is ever wrong.

They use some unbestowed moral authority tell everyone to follow an extremely narrow set of rules but if someone dares tell them to follow a rule they're oppressing their freedom to do literally anything they want.

Even if a guy stood in that position while fully clothed, they'd accuse him of using his male privilege to "take up too much space" (both physically and emotionally). Yet it's ok for her to take up that much space?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

12 Jan 2017, 7:02 am

Part of the reason they can be openly hypocritical is because they think they're "compensating". So they can openly say it's wrong for males/whites/etc to do something (like take up space) and when they do the same exact thing, they say it's to get even with all the times males did it.

They literally think preferential treatment is "compensating". No problem if they compensate in a perfectly balanced way but if they grant themselves privilege after privilege they'll end up overcompensating.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of affirmative action. Within reason. I'm in favour of certain ethnic minorities getting affirmative action, particularly the aboriginals here in Australia (they still have some serious disadvantages so I think giving them a career is a balanced way to compensate and allow them to escape poverty).

This is in my own country but I expect there are similarly disadvantaged minorities in other parts of the world. So I'm fine with aboriginals or other natives getting a career boost to help them escape poverty.

When I don't like affirmative action is when it's used by middle class white women to get promoted to upper middle class.

If some middle class white woman uses affirmative action to get promoted to executive, that's not going to help an unemployed aboriginal women one bit.

(substitute "unemployed black woman" if you live in America)


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Darmok
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,030
Location: New England

12 Jan 2017, 12:10 pm

Here's a perfect example of the vicious abusiveness of the SJW crowd, driving an 18-year-old college student close to suicide:

Bryn Mawr College student hounded after asking to share ride to Trump event

Andi Moritz couldn't get the comments out of her head. A Facebook post the Bryn Mawr College freshman made on the school's ride-share page earlier that September day had drawn harsh backlash from dozens of students, most of whom she didn't know.

"Nobody has the right to an opinion of bigotry. 0 tolerance for fascists!"

"You want to go campaign for a man who has systematically oppressed entire ethnic/racial groups not to mention the LGBTQIA+ community and many others."

"Why y'all doing this free labor for white supremacists tho."

Moritz called the college's suicide hotline.

"I just needed to talk to someone," said Moritz, 18, of Hershey. "I was very sad. I wanted out of that college."

Two days later she dropped out.

http://www.philly.com/philly/education/ ... event.html


_________________
 
There Are Four Lights!


Aaendi
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 363

12 Jan 2017, 7:05 pm

Image

I just felt like posting this. I'm so tired of seeing feminists using this sh***y excuse to falsely accuse men of rape. It doesn't matter how many statistics they can pull out of their ass, I'm not going to believe a word they say until they stop accusing all MRAs for being rapists.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Jan 2017, 2:21 am

Here's an article I found that demonstrates one of the many ways in which feminism can be harmful to women

Quote:

Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work

News that men are too fearful of a trip to HR to help out their female colleagues is final proof that the gender equality project has backfired, writes Martin Daubney



By Martin Daubney

A new book claims that male office workers are now so afraid of being on the receiving end of a sexual harassment case, they are reluctant to mentor, assist, befriend and even hold open doors for female colleagues.

Crushingly, Sex & The Office suggests men now view such ordinary, decent behaviours as “too risky” – and, in what will be a bitter irony for equality campaigners – claims that, as a direct consequence, women are now failing to advance at work.

This terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, “backlash stress”. It sounds like something straight out of a Claims Direct ad – where the only victims are men.

The book’s author, Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the University of California, argues that a “sex partition” has sprung up, which impedes women from building the vital network of contacts both within the workplace and socially.
And the author should know about tough working environments: she’s a former equities trader at Morgan Stanley.
Tellingly, Elsesser adds that companies themselves are contributing to this mess, as they are now so terrified of legal action they send staff on sexual harassment training courses, and are duty-bound to follow up on any allegation, however minor.

Ludicrously, Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

No s**t, Sherlock!

Just being friendly? Charlie Day and Jennifer Aniston in Horrible Bosses
Of course, despite the fact that it is men who are getting the rough end of the pineapple here, this is all being painted as Officially Bad For Women, as they are failing to get on.

But how are men meant to react when we’re informed that, despite decades of being told women don’t need or even want men’s help, now they’re falling behind because we’re not helping them?
A phrase involving “cake and eat it” leaps to mind – although don’t repeat it at work, as you’ll probably be frogmarched to HR for “fat shaming”.

Elsesser’s book echoes an insightful New York Post article from earlier this year called ‘Powerful Men Now Hide Behind Open Doors’.

The writer, Naomi Schaffer Riley, paints a depressingly familiar picture of university lecturers who won’t even close their office doors when alone with a female student.

It would be easy to dismiss this as yet more campus lunacy, yet Riley claims this rot runs to the very top of American society. And how soon before we start feeling ripples cross the Pond?

Riley cites a US National Journal survey where a male Congress aide said: “Several female aides have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.”

In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can seemingly be made on a 'he said/she said' basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness. Increasingly, they want to make sure the walls have ears – just in case something “inappropriate” is said.

How sad. And, honestly, who’s got the foggiest clue about where “inappropriate” even begins these days? Holding open a door? Saying, “nice dress?” Smiling? Making eye contact?

By carrying on like this we are nurturing and mollycoddling victimhood and it is having profound impacts. Last month in Britain, “fearless feminist” barrister [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11854660/How-to-compliment-a-woman-on-her-appearance-without-being-offensive.html]Charlotte Proudman publicly shamed Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, a senior solicitor, for complimenting her “stunning” LinkedIn profile picture – then claimed it was her career that had been “ruined”.

Amid this poisonous smog of mutual mistrust and, increasingly, contempt, is there any wonder men are becoming fearful of female co-workers?

Above all, Sex & The Office is proof, if any were needed, that The Great Workplace Equality Project has spectacularly backfired. Who, precisely, wins if men are terrified of lawsuits and women are falling behind as a consequence?

In this toxic, paranoid environment, women will never be trusted as advisers. They will be frozen out of networks – or, increasingly, create their own women-only networks, which on the surface promise advancement yet deep down increase gender separatism. Would the single-sex workplaces of the 1940s be safer for all?


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Aaendi
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 363

14 Jan 2017, 10:28 am

I can't believe any Justice Court system would be dumb enough to fall for using statistics as an excuse to not convict someone. It's like if you have a murderer claim "murderers are extremely rare, only 2% of individuals are convicted murderers" as an excuse to not be convicted for murder.



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,491
Location: Long Island, New York

14 Jan 2017, 12:50 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Here's an article I found that demonstrates one of the many ways in which feminism can be harmful to women

Quote:

Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work

News that men are too fearful of a trip to HR to help out their female colleagues is final proof that the gender equality project has backfired, writes Martin Daubney



By Martin Daubney

A new book claims that male office workers are now so afraid of being on the receiving end of a sexual harassment case, they are reluctant to mentor, assist, befriend and even hold open doors for female colleagues.

Crushingly, Sex & The Office suggests men now view such ordinary, decent behaviours as “too risky” – and, in what will be a bitter irony for equality campaigners – claims that, as a direct consequence, women are now failing to advance at work.

This terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, “backlash stress”. It sounds like something straight out of a Claims Direct ad – where the only victims are men.

The book’s author, Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the University of California, argues that a “sex partition” has sprung up, which impedes women from building the vital network of contacts both within the workplace and socially.
And the author should know about tough working environments: she’s a former equities trader at Morgan Stanley.
Tellingly, Elsesser adds that companies themselves are contributing to this mess, as they are now so terrified of legal action they send staff on sexual harassment training courses, and are duty-bound to follow up on any allegation, however minor.

Ludicrously, Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

No s**t, Sherlock!

Just being friendly? Charlie Day and Jennifer Aniston in Horrible Bosses
Of course, despite the fact that it is men who are getting the rough end of the pineapple here, this is all being painted as Officially Bad For Women, as they are failing to get on.

But how are men meant to react when we’re informed that, despite decades of being told women don’t need or even want men’s help, now they’re falling behind because we’re not helping them?
A phrase involving “cake and eat it” leaps to mind – although don’t repeat it at work, as you’ll probably be frogmarched to HR for “fat shaming”.

Elsesser’s book echoes an insightful New York Post article from earlier this year called ‘Powerful Men Now Hide Behind Open Doors’.

The writer, Naomi Schaffer Riley, paints a depressingly familiar picture of university lecturers who won’t even close their office doors when alone with a female student.

It would be easy to dismiss this as yet more campus lunacy, yet Riley claims this rot runs to the very top of American society. And how soon before we start feeling ripples cross the Pond?

Riley cites a US National Journal survey where a male Congress aide said: “Several female aides have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.”

In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can seemingly be made on a 'he said/she said' basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness. Increasingly, they want to make sure the walls have ears – just in case something “inappropriate” is said.

How sad. And, honestly, who’s got the foggiest clue about where “inappropriate” even begins these days? Holding open a door? Saying, “nice dress?” Smiling? Making eye contact?

By carrying on like this we are nurturing and mollycoddling victimhood and it is having profound impacts. Last month in Britain, “fearless feminist” barrister [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11854660/How-to-compliment-a-woman-on-her-appearance-without-being-offensive.html]Charlotte Proudman publicly shamed Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, a senior solicitor, for complimenting her “stunning” LinkedIn profile picture – then claimed it was her career that had been “ruined”.

Amid this poisonous smog of mutual mistrust and, increasingly, contempt, is there any wonder men are becoming fearful of female co-workers?

Above all, Sex & The Office is proof, if any were needed, that The Great Workplace Equality Project has spectacularly backfired. Who, precisely, wins if men are terrified of lawsuits and women are falling behind as a consequence?

In this toxic, paranoid environment, women will never be trusted as advisers. They will be frozen out of networks – or, increasingly, create their own women-only networks, which on the surface promise advancement yet deep down increase gender separatism. Would the single-sex workplaces of the 1940s be safer for all?



They are just figuring this out? It was similar in the early to mid '90's after the Clarence Thomas hearings. We were told all those things, don't hold a door, and do not under any circumstances complement a women's clothes. Posters were put up on every wall defining what sexual harrassment is. Half the women in the office were experimenting gay because they believed men no matter how they present are natural born rapists. They told us that to our face. That was not hate speech or sexual harrassment for some reason.

This is not feminism, it is overcorrection. The misogynic workplace culture in the places I worked in the 80's was brutal, and needed to go, a lot of men needed to find out we had a lot of very wrong assumptions as to what was acceptable to women. Overcorrection seems part of the American character. Now the Pendulum is swinging the other way with Trump and the alt right. A overcorrection to SJW's etc. Trump is great to a bunch of voters not based on policy or only partially based on policies because of his "political incorrectness" . Some people are taking pride in saying hateful s**t just because it is putting the "liberals" in thier place.

Whether it is regressive feminists, SJW's ,alt right, or Donald Trump, saying offensive stuff to shock people, put people in thier place, or stop hateful ideas is still bieng an offensive as*hole or worse.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


the_phoenix
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,489
Location: up from the ashes

14 Jan 2017, 1:28 pm

RetroGamer87 wrote:
Alliekit wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Shahunshah wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Image
Who cares to be honest. It is nice for someone to feel as though they are smart, right and tolerant why should we take away that feeling that can be good for someone.
Why should they take it away from anyone else?

You seem like a very tolerant person. I have no doubt that you're smart, right and tolerant but imagine if some SJW accused you of not being tolerant enough and made you feel dumb, wrong and intolerant.

No one deserves that. Not me and not you.
You can avoid said scenario by avoiding confrontation with an SJW. Its simple the SJW keeps his opinion and the other person keeps his own.

But what I don't like is us confronting an individual who may be an SJW. The fact is people don't change their minds often and it can feel awful to have your opinions and insight undermined by someone else.

This doesn't mean we can't counteract SJWS other ways. We can try to stage counter protests. Present counterarguments through the media. But confronting individuals is not a good way. Opinions are a core part of someone they help give them a sense of purpose, righteousness and intelligence. If we undermine that we risk taking that all away. What about their feelings?
True. Very true.

If I was wiser and more patient I'd just ignore them, even when they misuse statistics.

As we have seen in the media, SJWs sometimes confront other people. They sometimes invade other people's personal space without consent and shout abuse at them. They can make people feel awful by undermining their opinions and insight.

I agree that we should debunk them in the media, however, this presents a moral dilemma. Is it not wrong to debunk them behind their backs without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves?

I'd prefer to have a debate in the media because I believe all people have the right to defend their viewpoints, even people I disagree with. And I believe that the SJWs are not wrong 100% of the time. Let them debate and they'll sometimes make a good point.

I don't want to hurt their feelings. I believe that in a debate, we should treat our opponent with respect (even if they don't return the favour). I believe that in a debate, we should attack the argument and not our opponent. I.e. we should avoid the use of ad hominems even when your opponent does not avoid ad hominems. Most of all I believe that two wrongs don't make a right. While it's ok to demonstrate your opponents hypocrisy or inconsistency (double standards) if your opponent uses logical fallacies against you that does not justify your use of logical fallacies against him.
If we don't debunk them from behind their backs we may end up humiliating SJWs. If they do things like invade our own personal space we can just ignore them but challenging one's viewpoints is different. It is undermining their insight and making them look stupid. I am in favour of letting SJWs debate through the media but they have got to be willing to do it. I do not like the thought of us confronting SJWs who simply want to express their voice and be part of a movement.

In short if they don't want a debate or look as though they lack knowledge don't confront them. Sometimes when people choose to confront they don't do it to debate they do it in order to feel good about standing up for their principles.
Perhaps you're right. We should ignore them.

Some of them look like they're deliberately trying to pick a fight in public places. They're trying to provoke a negative reaction just like the meatspace equivalent of internet trolls.

For example
Image
I don't think many people would really care about it. She probably likes being able to feel unashamed of the way she looks. If being an SJW makes someone feel good about themselves we should probably leave it. People like to have opinions and views.
I see her as the provocateur. If someone got mad at her, nothing could make her happier because then she could use this as evidence that the patriarchy is trying to oppress her.

Provoking your enemy and then claiming they attacked first is an age old tactic.
I actually do see where you are coming from to be fair and i would be uncomfortable with any body shape of gender doing this when im on the train
She thinks it's justified because she's "in the right".

If I guy did that the SJWs wouldaccuse him of sexual harassment but she thinks nothing she does is ever wrong.

They use some unbestowed moral authority tell everyone to follow an extremely narrow set of rules but if someone dares tell them to follow a rule they're oppressing their freedom to do literally anything they want.

Even if a guy stood in that position while fully clothed, they'd accuse him of using his male privilege to "take up too much space" (both physically and emotionally). Yet it's ok for her to take up that much space?


If there's a law against appearing in public while only dressed in underwear, she's breaking it.
There's no law that I'm aware of against appearing in public while obese.
Law or no law, I consider it immoral to appear in public wearing clothing that skimpy.
As for whether this woman is beautiful or not, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

As for "taking up too much space" ... if she simply sat or stood in a normal pose, that's okay.
But stretching out her arms to take up as much space as possible, is just downright rude ... though I assume she put her arms back down by her sides after the photo was taken.

Oh, she's female?
So what, shouldn't matter.

Both men and women should respect basic decency, not run around in only their underwear in public, and not take up extra space in a rude manner such that innocent bystanders or bysitters are disrupted.

...

...



Last edited by the_phoenix on 14 Jan 2017, 1:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Aaendi
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 363

14 Jan 2017, 1:29 pm

Didn't Trump only get in because of the Electorial College?



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,491
Location: Long Island, New York

14 Jan 2017, 1:40 pm

Yes and no. The electoral college officially voted him in but they for the most part voted based on who won the popular vote in thier state. So even though Hillary won the popular vote overall by 2.1 percent Trump had more electoral college votes.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Diabolikal
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 15 Aug 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 304
Location: Los Angeles CA, Somewhere in Universe

14 Jan 2017, 1:59 pm

If I can step in, I think a big problem is idiots like you guys, who keep using the terms "SJW" that f*****g frame the narrative, into Manichean insanity, and we keep getting polarization and goddammit, I've had enough of this f*****g BS about "SJWs" and systems and Trumpers and arrogant as*holes, who think they're the last word (as seen on just the first page), aargh! I see boards like this and wonder "you know, maybe we should just kill all humans, then the universe will be better." Just, closed loops of thought, framing everything in pejorative language, and it's all sides, including you! I would also like to say, that after reading these, I no longer have any desire to claim spectrum stuff as part of a group I'd like to be part of.



Adamantium
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Feb 2013
Age: 1024
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,863
Location: Erehwon

14 Jan 2017, 6:04 pm

A small rant here:

There is a huge problem with language in this discussion.

Liberalism is about freedom, not enforced uniformity of thought, speech or action. Liberalism is about protection from unbridled state power, not safety from emotional distress. Social justice is about equality before the law, not regulating privilege.

I will never give up working for real social justice, but the concerns raised under the banner of social justice by these campus activists are anything but just. I have some sympathy for the original thinking behind the concept of microagressions, it could be a useful framework for understanding how a certain kind of cultural groupthink repels views from alternative perspectives, but to employ this kind of idea as tool for silencing dissenting opinion is wicked and pernicious.

The left must shake this nonsense off if it is to present a workable goal for a better future.

A country that gives itself over to the ideology of microagressions and safe spaces is of the same repulsive stripe as the taliban or phalangists--what could be more inimical to liberty than to bring an ideological eye to every aspect of civil discourse and every form of public and private intercourse?

A priority for rationalists from the left and right should be the restoration of a culture of intellectual freedom to the universtities. Universities have been at the heart of Western Civilization since the founding of the University of Bologna in the 11th century. The intolerance, obscurantism and anti-intellectualism now being promoted in the name of social justice cannot be allowed to destroy that great heritage. Such ideas must be vigorously debated and challenged wherever they arise.

I say this as a liberal and friend to real social justice: this SJW/microagression/safe space culture must be opposed wherever it arises.

A swing to the extreme right is not the answer, but rather a return to the principles of academic and intellectual freedom and the contest of ideas that made Universities great. Let's replace apologizing for microaggressions with encouraging the aggressive championing of important ideas.


_________________
Don't believe the gender note under my avatar. A WP bug means I can't fix it.


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Jan 2017, 6:14 pm

ASPartOfMe wrote:
RetroGamer87 wrote:
Here's an article I found that demonstrates one of the many ways in which feminism can be harmful to women

Quote:

Well done, feminism. Now men are afraid to help women at work

News that men are too fearful of a trip to HR to help out their female colleagues is final proof that the gender equality project has backfired, writes Martin Daubney



By Martin Daubney

A new book claims that male office workers are now so afraid of being on the receiving end of a sexual harassment case, they are reluctant to mentor, assist, befriend and even hold open doors for female colleagues.

Crushingly, Sex & The Office suggests men now view such ordinary, decent behaviours as “too risky” – and, in what will be a bitter irony for equality campaigners – claims that, as a direct consequence, women are now failing to advance at work.

This terror of being accused of sexual harassment is now so common it has its own term, “backlash stress”. It sounds like something straight out of a Claims Direct ad – where the only victims are men.

The book’s author, Kim Elsesser, a research scholar at the University of California, argues that a “sex partition” has sprung up, which impedes women from building the vital network of contacts both within the workplace and socially.
And the author should know about tough working environments: she’s a former equities trader at Morgan Stanley.
Tellingly, Elsesser adds that companies themselves are contributing to this mess, as they are now so terrified of legal action they send staff on sexual harassment training courses, and are duty-bound to follow up on any allegation, however minor.

Ludicrously, Elsesser cites examples of men who have been dragged in by their HR departments for simply opening a door for a female colleague or complimenting her on a new suit. “Stories like these spread around workplaces, instilling a fear that innocent remarks will be misinterpreted,” she says.

No s**t, Sherlock!

Just being friendly? Charlie Day and Jennifer Aniston in Horrible Bosses
Of course, despite the fact that it is men who are getting the rough end of the pineapple here, this is all being painted as Officially Bad For Women, as they are failing to get on.

But how are men meant to react when we’re informed that, despite decades of being told women don’t need or even want men’s help, now they’re falling behind because we’re not helping them?
A phrase involving “cake and eat it” leaps to mind – although don’t repeat it at work, as you’ll probably be frogmarched to HR for “fat shaming”.

Elsesser’s book echoes an insightful New York Post article from earlier this year called ‘Powerful Men Now Hide Behind Open Doors’.

The writer, Naomi Schaffer Riley, paints a depressingly familiar picture of university lecturers who won’t even close their office doors when alone with a female student.

It would be easy to dismiss this as yet more campus lunacy, yet Riley claims this rot runs to the very top of American society. And how soon before we start feeling ripples cross the Pond?

Riley cites a US National Journal survey where a male Congress aide said: “Several female aides have been barred from staffing their male bosses at evening events, driving alone with their congressman or senator, or even sitting down one-on-one in his office for fear that others would get the wrong impression.”

In a lawsuit-happy culture, where claims can seemingly be made on a 'he said/she said' basis, men are now trying to ensure their actions are always covered by a third party witness. Increasingly, they want to make sure the walls have ears – just in case something “inappropriate” is said.

How sad. And, honestly, who’s got the foggiest clue about where “inappropriate” even begins these days? Holding open a door? Saying, “nice dress?” Smiling? Making eye contact?

By carrying on like this we are nurturing and mollycoddling victimhood and it is having profound impacts. Last month in Britain, “fearless feminist” barrister [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/relationships/11854660/How-to-compliment-a-woman-on-her-appearance-without-being-offensive.html]Charlotte Proudman publicly shamed Alexander Carter-Silk, 57, a senior solicitor, for complimenting her “stunning” LinkedIn profile picture – then claimed it was her career that had been “ruined”.

Amid this poisonous smog of mutual mistrust and, increasingly, contempt, is there any wonder men are becoming fearful of female co-workers?

Above all, Sex & The Office is proof, if any were needed, that The Great Workplace Equality Project has spectacularly backfired. Who, precisely, wins if men are terrified of lawsuits and women are falling behind as a consequence?

In this toxic, paranoid environment, women will never be trusted as advisers. They will be frozen out of networks – or, increasingly, create their own women-only networks, which on the surface promise advancement yet deep down increase gender separatism. Would the single-sex workplaces of the 1940s be safer for all?



They are just figuring this out? It was similar in the early to mid '90's after the Clarence Thomas hearings. We were told all those things, don't hold a door, and do not under any circumstances complement a women's clothes. Posters were put up on every wall defining what sexual harrassment is. Half the women in the office were experimenting gay because they believed men no matter how they present are natural born rapists. They told us that to our face. That was not hate speech or sexual harrassment for some reason.

This is not feminism, it is overcorrection. The misogynic workplace culture in the places I worked in the 80's was brutal, and needed to go, a lot of men needed to find out we had a lot of very wrong assumptions as to what was acceptable to women. Overcorrection seems part of the American character. Now the Pendulum is swinging the other way with Trump and the alt right. A overcorrection to SJW's etc. Trump is great to a bunch of voters not based on policy or only partially based on policies because of his "political incorrectness" . Some people are taking pride in saying hateful s**t just because it is putting the "liberals" in thier place.

Whether it is regressive feminists, SJW's ,alt right, or Donald Trump, saying offensive stuff to shock people, put people in thier place, or stop hateful ideas is still bieng an offensive as*hole or worse.


This could explain the aggregate wage gap and why more men get promoted. At work I often benefit from help, tips and advice from more senior staff but if I was a girl and they were afraid to give me tips for fear of being accused of "mansplaining" then my technical knowledge would be far less and I'd be less like to be promoted.

The original meaning of mansplaining was explaining something the girl already knows. Like a man at work explaining a database the system to a girl who already knows about it. If the man just gives her a quick tip, how's he supposed to know she already knows? If she doesn't know and he doesn't tell him for fear of "mansplaining" then she would be at a disadvantage. I wouldn't be offended if the senior staff gave me some helpful advice, even if some of it is already known to me.

The term has memetically devolved into a catchall for any type of explaining that feminists don't approve of. It no longer means explaining things she already knows. Nowadays making any sort of counter-argument to a feminist argument could also be considered mansplaining. This demonstrates how if you overuse a word it can lose it's original meaning.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Jan 2017, 6:18 pm

Aaendi wrote:
Didn't Trump only get in because of the Electorial College?
Not quite. If everyone had voted for Hillary the Electoral College wouldn't be able to put Trump in.

I don't see why people see Trump's election as misogynist when millions of women voted for Trump as well.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,970
Location: Adelaide, Australia

14 Jan 2017, 6:26 pm

Diabolikal wrote:
If I can step in, I think a big problem is idiots like you guys, who keep using the terms "SJW" that f*****g frame the narrative, into Manichean insanity, and we keep getting polarization and goddammit, I've had enough of this f*****g BS about "SJWs" and systems and Trumpers and arrogant as*holes, who think they're the last word (as seen on just the first page), aargh! I see boards like this and wonder "you know, maybe we should just kill all humans, then the universe will be better." Just, closed loops of thought, framing everything in pejorative language, and it's all sides, including you! I would also like to say, that after reading these, I no longer have any desire to claim spectrum stuff as part of a group I'd like to be part of.
Of course we must be careful not to become as dogmatic as they are. We must be careful not to spread fear unduly as they do. We must be careful not to implicate all women for the actions of a few, even as they implicate all men for the actions of a few. Just because they lower the bar that gives us no right to sink to their level.

We must maintain the moral high ground. Not should, must. This is because we cannot call them out on their misdeeds if we've done the same things. So long as we don't lie and don't exaggerate, then eventually the truth will be revealed.

Yes I know there are redpill sites where the men turn into the stereotypical misogynists some feminists imagine all men are. Those redpill guys are overcompensating in the extreme. Just because they want to get even with women. Even if a very small minority of women truly hate men, that gives the redpillers no just cause to seek revenge.

SJW dogma can harm women just as much as it can harm men. Shedding light on the SJW disinformation machine will benefit men and women both.

I don't want to get even with women. I want to make peace with women.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short