Society/Culture Feminism - 2016 Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Blommerz said:
Everyone. Online. My point is that I'm instantly dismissed on the assumption that I am straight. But if I preface my conversation with "as a gay man", the attitude towards me is far more placating and far less hostile. People seem more open to a conversation without the need for derision.
Click to expand...

I am a straight male, and I have never felt dismissed due to it.
Maybe I need to create an alias account, and pretend to be a homosexual, to open my eyes to just what I'm missing?

I've had plenty of great conversations with a lot of people online, even thought they know I'm a straight male.
I'll try and find some posts (Later today if time permits) that I believe show that the opinion of a homosexual is considered less, because they are homosexual.

I'm very happy for you, that you are finding things the way you are. But it seems to fly in the face of what I have seen, in terms of discrimination against homosexuals.

Blommerz said:
This conversation happened quite awhile ago, so I cannot. But the point stands that I was abused and belittled - attempted to be silenced - because I was allegedly straight.

Insofar as free speech is concerned - any speech that impinges upon the right of others to express their own right to free speech over steps the bounds of same. Of course, free speech doesn't extend to hate speech.

Insofar as religion/tradition being a reason is concerned - it is a right to hold the view that slavery should be allowed (no matter how disgusting it is). It is not a right to attempt to force that right upon others.
Click to expand...
But, is using your free speech to tell someone to shut up, not free speech?
Where do we draw the line?
When free speech begins impeding on the safety or wellbeing of others, don't we have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

You seem capable of protecting yourself, but You couldn't protect yourself completely from this abusive female online. What about people who don't have your cognitive abilities?

Should we allow people to state that gay marriage is a sin, and that it is shameful? And let it be a running narrative?
What happens to the children who are questioning their own sexuality? What about the children who have realised they are homosexual, but they feel it's bad, and they are ashamed. Even to the point that they might take their own life?
 
DemonTim said:
I don't think that's trolling, I think that's people who aren't able to articulate their opinions thinking these are valid discussion points.
I mean you've spent your last few posts discussing me, instead of the topic, that's probably no more beneficial than youtube links

I'm still waiting for you to show where i've said feminism is unnecessary, or that I don't understand it's origins...
Click to expand...
If you believe people genuinely think that Milo and Hugmungus are 'valid discussion points', then you are more generous than me.( amongst other things)
Never made that claim, lighten up -the funny bone is your friend Demo.
 
romeohwho said:
If you believe people genuinely think that Milo and Hugmungus are 'valid discussion points', then you are more generous than me.( amongst other things)
Never made that claim, lighten up -the funny bone is your friend Demo.
Click to expand...
You asked if i now understood those two points, clear implication. Not sure why i'd assume it was meant to be funny either way, you've never been particularly civil with me before.

I acknowledge that some people gain their opinions from random s**t they see online, things that match their bias, from the history of the posters I'd say it's more likely that than a deliberate attempt to troll.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

CM86 said:
I am a straight male, and I have never felt dismissed due to it.
Maybe I need to create an alias account, and pretend to be a homosexual, to open my eyes to just what I'm missing?

I've had plenty of great conversations with a lot of people online, even thought they know I'm a straight male.
I'll try and find some posts (Later today if time permits) that I believe show that the opinion of a homosexual is considered less, because they are homosexual.

I'm very happy for you, that you are finding things the way you are. But it seems to fly in the face of what I have seen, in terms of discrimination against homosexuals.


But, is using your free speech to tell someone to shut up, not free speech?
Where do we draw the line?
When free speech begins impeding on the safety or wellbeing of others, don't we have a responsibility to protect those who cannot protect themselves?

You seem capable of protecting yourself, but You couldn't protect yourself completely from this abusive female online. What about people who don't have your cognitive abilities?

Should we allow people to state that gay marriage is a sin, and that it is shameful? And let it be a running narrative?
What happens to the children who are questioning their own sexuality? What about the children who have realised they are homosexual, but they feel it's bad, and they are ashamed. Even to the point that they might take their own life?
Click to expand...
That's probably because you have a view that conforms with the majority, CM. Someone who holds a view that happens to not be in line with the majority is immediately lynched online. Their view suppressed, their character defamed, and their ideas belittled. Me saying I'm a gay lad as a preface to such an argument - in any thread, it doesn't even have to be about homosexuality - softens the blow. Whilst people disagree with me, they no longer demean me or otherwise engage in disgustingly dirisive behaviour due to my automatically presupposed heterosexuality.

Insofar as your statement regarding free speech is concerned, my view is pretty simple. Free speech only exists so far as to have your voice heard, deliberated upon, and rejected or affirmed. No one should have the right to quash another's right to express their view. They can rebut it, but drowning it out with ad hominems, and sardonic and belittling replies does not serve to add to the debate, only detract.

Regarding your "vulnerable" notion, I would recommend that they remove themselves from the situation.
Don't get me wrong, I can handle myself. But when I can't, when it all becomes a bit too vitriolic, I leave the discussion. However, my point isn't about what I'd do, my point is to detail my observations over the past few years - particularly this year - in relation to people exercising their free speech.

Regarding your point about gay marriage, particularly, they are entitled to that view. I know that they are coming from a religious stance on the issue, and their religious beliefs happen to encode within them a notion that homosexuality is a sin. Almost all Christians I have encountered disagreeing with same-sex marriage repeat that they don't hate the sinner, they hate the sin. Whilst I disagree with these Christians, any discussion on the matter with them is usually polite, civil, and courteous.

But I don't want to detract from the issue, which is that as soon as someone posits and unpopular belief - no matter how thoroughly researched or logical that belief is - they are immediately attacked online by a lynch mob. Whilst both sides are guilty of it, being staunchly left-wing when it comes to politics, I have to concede that I've seen it happen far too often with my side of politics. There is a faction of us that take it too far. I call them regressive, rather than progressive, because they set the cause back.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
Blommerz said:
That's probably because you have a view that conforms with the majority, CM. Someone who holds a view that happens to not be in line with the majority is immediately lynched online. Their view suppressed, their character defamed, and their ideas belittled. Me saying I'm a gay lad as a preface to such an argument - in any thread, it doesn't even have to be about homosexuality - softens the blow. Whilst people disagree with me, they no longer demean me or otherwise engage in disgustingly dirisive behaviour due to my automatically presupposed heterosexuality.

Insofar as your statement regarding free speech is concerned, my view is pretty simple. Free speech only exists so far as to have your voice heard, deliberated upon, and rejected or affirmed. No one should have the right to quash another's right to express their view. They can rebut it, but drowning it out with ad hominems, and sardonic and belittling replies does not serve to add to the debate, only detract.

Regarding your "vulnerable" notion, I would recommend that they remove themselves from the situation.
Don't get me wrong, I can handle myself. But when I can't, when it all becomes a bit too vitriolic, I leave the discussion. However, my point isn't about what I'd do, my point is to detail my observations over the past few years - particularly this year - in relation to people exercising their free speech.

Regarding your point about gay marriage, particularly, they are entitled to that view. I know that they are coming from a religious stance on the issue, and their religious beliefs happen to encode within them a notion that homosexuality is a sin. Almost all Christians I have encountered disagreeing with same-sex marriage repeat that they don't hate the sinner, they hate the sin. Whilst I disagree with these Christians, any discussion on the matter with them is usually polite, civil, and courteous.

But I don't want to detract from the issue, which is that as soon as someone posits and unpopular belief - no matter how thoroughly researched or logical that belief is - they are immediately attacked online by a lynch mob. Whilst both sides are guilty of it, being staunchly left-wing when it comes to politics, I have to concede that I've seen it happen far too often with my side of politics. There is a faction of us that take it too far. I call them regressive, rather than progressive, because they set the cause back.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
A view that conforms with the majority? On everything?
I think you're being subjective. In that an unpopular opinion is unpopular only because there is oppression.

If I'm having a drink with someone I've met with a friend, and they start talking about how Aboriginals are actually still cavemen, and we'd be better off without them. There is only so long I can try and be reasonable.
Is that hate speech, or should they be free to form groups with a common opinion and belief, due to this freedom of speech?
Get it going in an echo chamber, ratcheting up the hate.

What are your thoughts on the free speech during the Cronulla riots?

How would a child remove itself from the situation, where the parents are the ones informing the child that homosexuality is a sin?
Or if it's on every forum, on tv, on the radio, common 'knowledge' at school.
Suicide could be the only way to remove itself from that situation.

I'm not talking about a single individual moment of harassment, I'm talking about an ingrained culture.
I'm glad that you, as a homosexual, haven't seemed to have ever suffered from this! It's fantastic.
But it doesn't seem to be a common scenario.

As for the lynch mob, yes that happens. And it isn't right. You're agreeing with my earlier post.
But the lynch mob are exercising their 'freedom of speech', aren't they?

Gough. Sorry to tag you. I was wondering if you have found a similar scenario to what Blommerz has found.
i.e. That you are given more respect online, and a higher status, because you are a homosexual?
They don't demean you?
"Whilst people disagree with me, they no longer demean me or otherwise engage in disgustingly dirisive behaviour due to my automatically presupposed heterosexuality."
 
cartwright said:
sounds like a pretty poor business plan, to not cater for womens barbershop style haircuts -- in Newtown.
Click to expand...
They're quite a successful business from what I've read. I'm not sure catering to certain markets is poor business.
It's why fernwood get away with ridiculous pricing and trainers with no idea.
 
DemonTim said:
This is a bit more on topic, and is an illustration of the type of feminism I dislike:
http://www.news.com.au/finance/smal...e/news-story/96b3dfab677fee8c5c4a3bbca4eebabb
Click to expand...
It's interesting that the feminist's complaining about this business made assumptions about how the business would treat homosexuals/transgender people. The business then subsequently confirmed they cater to homosexuals (make up almost 50% of their clientele) and transgender people.

cartwright said:
sounds like a pretty poor business plan, to not cater for womens barbershop style haircuts -- in Newtown.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, catering to niche markets can be very profitable. It's actually quite smart to tailor your business model around specific customers and focus on their specific needs. I am sure there are plenty of other barbershops/salon's women (and people who identify as a woman) can go to in Newtown.
 
CM86 said:
A view that conforms with the majority? On everything?
I think you're being subjective. In that an unpopular opinion is unpopular only because there is oppression.

If I'm having a drink with someone I've met with a friend, and they start talking about how Aboriginals are actually still cavemen, and we'd be better off without them. There is only so long I can try and be reasonable.
Is that hate speech, or should they be free to form groups with a common opinion and belief, due to this freedom of speech?
Get it going in an echo chamber, ratcheting up the hate.

What are your thoughts on the free speech during the Cronulla riots?

How would a child remove itself from the situation, where the parents are the ones informing the child that homosexuality is a sin?
Or if it's on every forum, on tv, on the radio, common 'knowledge' at school.
Suicide could be the only way to remove itself from that situation.

I'm not talking about a single individual moment of harassment, I'm talking about an ingrained culture.
I'm glad that you, as a homosexual, haven't seemed to have ever suffered from this! It's fantastic.
But it doesn't seem to be a common scenario.

As for the lynch mob, yes that happens. And it isn't right. You're agreeing with my earlier post.
But the lynch mob are exercising their 'freedom of speech', aren't they?

Gough. Sorry to tag you. I was wondering if you have found a similar scenario to what Blommerz has found.
i.e. That you are given more respect online, and a higher status, because you are a homosexual?
They don't demean you?
"Whilst people disagree with me, they no longer demean me or otherwise engage in disgustingly dirisive behaviour due to my automatically presupposed heterosexuality."
Click to expand...
It seems to be that, on particularly divisive and polemic issues currently sweeping over the Australian political sphere, your view is in line with the "accepted" view. The majority view. Which is great - I happen to agree with most of that. But I don't agree that views differing to our own should immediately be shutdown and silenced.

As I've repeated, almost to the point of ad nauseum, a right to free speech does not imply or otherwise necessitate a right to silence opposition. Demeaning and belittling people because they have a different view (one that they haven't presented hatefully, mind you) is offensive and really only serves to set the cause back. That doesn't mean that I believe hate speech - or speech that incites violence - is okay, either.
Take the actual circumstances described above by DemonTim and myself - we noted that we did not believe use of the word "hysterical" was sexist or gendered anymore as it has moved from its etymological roots. We proceeded to get abused because of such a belief, our viewpoints belittled, and our arguments trivialised because we allegedly fit the "straight white male" paradigm - a dismissal that is based off no logic or rational thought and demeans the individual due to characteristics that remain relatively stable and unchangeable. Thereby oppressing that class of people.

Insofar as children who cannot remove themself from that situation is concerned, I believe that that is a horrible situation. If people are spewing hate, which is vastly different to exercising their right to free speech, then they should be pulled up on that. But still, fighting hate with hate/abuse never really solves an issue - it simply seems to escalate it by silencing the perpetrator and thus allowing the resentment to fester. Instead, methods need to be taken to instil upon them a more conciliatory method of dealing with such polemic matters.

But in essence, I think you're misunderstanding me. I have been demeaned because I am homosexual. I have never claimed that that hasn't occurred. I am simply saying that, when I present an unpopular opinion online (which, given my political leanings, is always on left-wing or central articles), I receive far less abuse, derision, and demeaning attitudes prefacing my statement with "as a gay man", or otherwise introducing to the reader that I am gay.
The reason for this is simple psychology: people are angry. People feel victimized and powerless, and thus resent those who do have the power - being "straight white males". Therefore, they lash out at that group of individuals (or otherwise misidentify them and thus demean them) when they posit a belief that is contrary to the "popular" one. The situation regarding hysteria elucidated above exemplifies this. People can hold the opinion that the word hysteria no longer attracts sexist connotations and still NOT be sexist themselves. Unfortunately, if you fit the "straight white male" paradigm, and you present such an argument, you are lynched, belittled, demeaned, and silenced. If you are a "lesbian ethnic woman", people may still disagree with you, but will treat you with far more respect than they do your straight white male counterpart. Because they automatically see the latter as attempting to reify their "privileged" position in society when, simply, they have a different opinion. And thus the historically oppressed become the oppressors.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
LFTWNG11 said:
It's interesting that the feminist's complaining about this business made assumptions about how the business would treat homosexuals/transgender people. The business then subsequently confirmed they cater to homosexuals (make up almost 50% of their clientele) and transgender people.



On the contrary, catering to niche markets can be very profitable. It's actually quite smart to tailor your business model around specific customers and focus on their specific needs. I am sure there are plenty of other barbershops/salon's women (and people who identify as a woman) can go to in Newtown.
Click to expand...

Oh there are. Its also where most of Sydney's lesbian community are.

For the life of me,can't see what the specific needs are, but whatever.
 
cartwright said:
Oh there are. Its also where most of Sydney's lesbian community are.

For the life of me,can't see what the specific needs are, but whatever.
Click to expand...
They clearly outlined it, like explicitly explained why it's men only
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Blommerz said:
It seems to be that, on particularly divisive and polemic issues currently sweeping over the Australian political sphere, your view is in line with the "accepted" view. The majority view. Which is great - I happen to agree with most of that. But I don't agree that views differing to our own should immediately be shutdown and silenced.

As I've repeated, almost to the point of ad nauseum, a right to free speech does not imply or otherwise necessitate a right to silence opposition. Demeaning and belittling people because they have a different view (one that they haven't presented hatefully, mind you) is offensive and really only serves to set the cause back. That doesn't mean that I believe hate speech - or speech that incites violence - is okay, either.
Take the actual circumstances described above by DemonTim and myself - we noted that we did not believe use of the word "hysterical" was sexist or gendered anymore as it has moved from its etymological roots. We proceeded to get abused because of such a belief, our viewpoints belittled, and our arguments trivialised because we allegedly fit the "straight white male" paradigm - a dismissal that is based off no logic or rational thought and demeans the individual due to characteristics that remain relatively stable and unchangeable. Thereby oppressing that class of people.

Insofar as children who cannot remove themself from that situation is concerned, I believe that that is a horrible situation. If people are spewing hate, which is vastly different to exercising their right to free speech, then they should be pulled up on that. But still, fighting hate with hate/abuse never really solves an issue - it simply seems to escalate it by silencing the perpetrator and thus allowing the resentment to fester. Instead, methods need to be taken to instil upon them a more conciliatory method of dealing with such polemic matters.

But in essence, I think you're misunderstanding me. I have been demeaned because I am homosexual. I have never claimed that that hasn't occurred. I am simply saying that, when I present an unpopular opinion online (which, given my political leanings, is always on left-wing or central articles), I receive far less abuse, derision, and demeaning attitudes prefacing my statement with "as a gay man", or otherwise introducing to the reader that I am gay.
The reason for this is simple psychology: people are angry. People feel victimized and powerless, and thus resent those who do have the power - being "straight white males". Therefore, they lash out at that group of individuals (or otherwise misidentify them and thus demean them) when they posit a belief that is contrary to the "popular" one. The situation regarding hysteria elucidated above exemplifies this. People can hold the opinion that the word hysteria no longer attracts sexist connotations and still NOT be sexist themselves. Unfortunately, if you fit the "straight white male" paradigm, and you present such an argument, you are lynched, belittled, demeaned, and silenced. If you are a "lesbian ethnic woman", people may still disagree with you, but will treat you with far more respect than they do your straight white male counterpart. Because they automatically see the latter as attempting to reify their "privileged" position in society when, simply, they have a different opinion. And thus the historically oppressed become the oppressors.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Yep, interesting, but you are still incorrect re the use of hysterical by Price, regardless of whether its roots have changed. The connotation was quite clear.
 
romeohwho said:
Yep, interesting, but you are still incorrect re the use of hysterical by Price, regardless of whether its roots have changed. The connotation was quite clear.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you turned to ad hominem last time you two discussed this. I wouldn't go patting yourself on the back for that discussion.
 
cartwright said:
Oh there are. Its also where most of Sydney's lesbian community are.

For the life of me,can't see what the specific needs are, but whatever.
Click to expand...
As mentioned above, the needs are explicitly set out near the bottom of the article. Some men don't like to be groomed in front of a female, just like some females are uncomfortable being groomed in front of a male.

In any case, you're not the target market, so it doesn't matter if you get it or not.
 
romeohwho said:
Yep, interesting, but you are still incorrect re the use of hysterical by Price, regardless of whether its roots have changed. The connotation was quite clear.
Click to expand...
No, I am not. You may believe me to be incorrect, but because you believe something, that does not make it so.

The connotation was unclear, as the word is literally used by millions of people without gendered connotations. Price did not pause to think what would be the most appropriate statement. He simply said she was being hysterical in her view that what McGuire said was sexist. A notion I happen to agree with. And something that doesn't make me sexist.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
 
Blommerz said:
No, I am not. You may believe me to be incorrect, but because you believe something, that does not make it so.

The connotation was unclear, as the word is literally used by millions of people without gendered connotations. Price did not pause to think what would be the most appropriate statement. He simply said she was being hysterical in her view that what McGuire said was sexist. A notion I happen to agree with. And something that doesn't make me sexist.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No need to overthink everything. Pick your battles. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Sigmund. And sometimes a sexist comment is just a sexist comment.
 
romeohwho said:
No need to overthink everything. Pick your battles. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar Sigmund. And sometimes a sexist comment is just a sexist comment.
Click to expand...
You're attaching connotation which both the user and the meaning say isn't sexist, then accusing others of overthinking.
Same three or four users without fail, this thread always seems to come back to attacking those who hold differing views, not attacking the views themselves
 
romeohwho said:
Haha. Are you taking notes or something Timbo? I know I'm clever but you do seem a tad obsessed. Build a bridge young man.
Click to expand...
Recalling something means taking notes, it was one of the few times Steve has posted here, and both times the man was played. Not exactly something that takes effort to remember
 
LFTWNG11 said:
As mentioned above, the needs are explicitly set out near the bottom of the article. Some men don't like to be groomed in front of a female, just like some females are uncomfortable being groomed in front of a male.

In any case, you're not the target market, so it doesn't matter if you get it or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah. I don't really care about this at all.
It's quite insignificant.

But you know, as long as the same understanding and considerations are applied to Fernwood etc
 
cartwright said:
Yeah. I don't really care about this at all.
It's quite insignificant.

But you know, as long as the same understanding and considerations are applied to Fernwood etc
Click to expand...
Which they are. Has anyone complained to the human rights commission about fernwood?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Society/Culture The Philosophy Thread: Schopenhauer
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
Osho
Osho
Aristotle Pickett
The Law Australian Police brutality thread.
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
446
Views
12K
Ghost Patrol
Ghost Patrol
C
  • Locked
Bigfooty Censorship- Daniel Andrews thread
Replies
6
Views
680
Hava Alle
Hava Alle
HairyO
Vic Lidia Thorpe: Not the subject for every thread!
17 18 19 20 21
Replies
523
Views
13K
Northalives
Northalives
aCunningPlan
2022 Victorian Election - Prediction Thread
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Jascave
Jascave

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top