[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42994809]you can be white and privileged and not be a white asshole.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware but that's not what they're saying ie
[QUOTE=lurkylurker]Even if it is not the intended reading, it is still the correct one. If you are male, you are an oppressor and that's all you will ever be. It is that simple.[/QUOTE]
troll or not, their posts are hilariously bad :v:
[QUOTE=Elspin;42994846]I'm aware but that's not what they're saying ie
troll or not, their posts are hilariously bad :v:[/QUOTE]
i wouldn't say bad, i'd just say a little bit of an exaggeration.
one could argue that somebody who is in a privileged position is an oppressor if they don't make an attempt to help others. that's how i see it.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42994917]i wouldn't say bad, i'd just say a little bit of an exaggeration.
one could argue that somebody who is in a privileged position is an oppressor if they don't make an attempt to help others. that's how i see it.[/QUOTE]
...but that's literally the direct opposite of what they're saying, which is that you are an oppressor because of your genes no matter what good you ever do (which is also something they've said). That includes you.
oh my god stop please
[QUOTE=Elspin;42994936]...but that's literally the direct opposite of what they're saying, which is that you are an oppressor because of your genes no matter what good you ever do (which is also something they've said). That includes you.[/QUOTE]
uh
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;42994945]uh[/QUOTE]
In fairness, that IS what he said.
[quote]If you are male, you are an oppressor and that's all you will ever be.[/quote]
That doesn't leave much to interpretation, does it?
I'll be honest, I'm completely at a loss as to why ANYONE is agreeing with LurkyLurker given what he's saying. Assuming he's NOT trolling, calling him an extremist would almost be understating it.
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;42995119]In fairness, that IS what he said.
That doesn't leave much to interpretation, does it?
I'll be honest, I'm completely at a loss as to why ANYONE is agreeing with LurkyLurker given what he's saying. Assuming he's NOT trolling, calling him an extremist would almost be understating it.[/QUOTE]
We've been over this a thousand times. There is a difference between active oppression, meaning participating in a hate crime, and passive oppression, which is just having certain views, social preferences, or inherited values and norms, no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential.
He is not saying that all men are rapists and want to kill all women or whatever, he is just saying that all men have been socialized to behave in a privileged manner and to have interests in remaining privileged in society. We grow up with this stuff embedded in us, and those of us that realize it and "wake up" must unlearn everything we've known to be true.
So yeah all men are complicit in femicide just as all rich people are complicit in poverty. It is not like all rich people directly stole money from the poor or anything, but they are benefiting and helping continue a culture and economy of inherent inequality. So being rich or male makes you an oppressor, yes, but it's not what it sounds like.
Also if you think anyone is saying that being white or make inherently makes one an oppressor without society to create those roles, then my god you are dense. Everything argued here is based on Sociology, not genetics. Wow. Nobody is genetically an oppressor.
[QUOTE=person11;42995398]We've been over this a thousand times. There is a difference between active oppression, meaning participating in a hate crime, and passive oppression, which is just having certain views, social preferences, or inherited values and norms, no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential.
He is not saying that all men are rapists and want to kill all women or whatever, he is just saying that all men have been socialized to behave in a privileged manner and to have interests in remaining privileged in society. We grow up with this stuff embedded in us, and those of us that realize it and "wake up" must unlearn everything we've known to be true.
So yeah all men are complicit in femicide just as all rich people are complicit in poverty. It is not like all rich people directly stole money from the poor or anything, but they are benefiting and helping continue a culture and economy of inherent inequality. So being rich or male makes you an oppressor, yes, but it's not what it sounds like.
[editline]26th November 2013[/editline]
Oh wait you guys think he is saying it based on GENES? Fucking hell how can I even win this that is so idiotic. It is based on socialization not on genes. Jesus christ.[/QUOTE]
I hate to break it to you but what you're posting is more idiotic than any of the people criticizing you. I mean even if you want to take the stance that it's socialization that makes literally ALL MALES oppressors then you're still implying that literally the entire male population is raised a certain way which is pretty funny
Well I would not say ALL males, it depends on what society you are raised in. Although, most, if not all societies happen to be patriarchal, so it actually turns out that most men are raised in that type of atmosphere.
I'd love to be wrong about the fact that most men are raised in a patriarchal society because most societies are patriarchal. I'd love to be an idiot, and for the world to therefore be a much better place. I am not proud to know what is true. It's not like I came up with any of this. I just picked up a Sociology book and kinda repeatedly copy pasted parts of it into this thread.
I am literally ad-libbing a Sociology 101 textbook and being laughed at for it. Maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining basic things? Or assuming too much about how much people know about the field? People always think I am being arrogant when I mention the fact I am basing a lot of my arguments on Sociology, especially when I tell them to educate themselves, but the truth is everything can be found in a 101 textbook, it is not high intellectualism.
[QUOTE=person11;42995514]Well I would not say ALL males, it depends on what society you are raised in. Although, most, if not all societies happen to be patriarchal, so it actually turns out that most men are raised in that type of atmosphere.
I'd love to be wrong about the fact that most men are raised in a patriarchal society because most societies are patriarchal. I'd love to be an idiot, and for the world to therefore be a much better place. I am not proud to know what is true. It's not like I came up with any of this. I just picked up a Sociology book and kinda repeatedly copy pasted parts of it from it.
I am literally ad-libbing a Sociology 101 textbook and being laughed at for it. Maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining basic things? Or assuming too much about how much people know about the field? People always think I am being arrogant when I mention the fact I am basing a lot of my arguments on Sociology, especially when I tell them to educate themselves, but the truth is everything can be found in a 101 textbook, it is not high intellectualism.[/QUOTE]
People think you're being arrogant because you are being arrogant. I'm not trying to be mean here but you're literally a cliche of a student thinking their basic knowledge makes them right in an argument and you're not even great at getting your own arguments straight. You off-handedly agreed with a statement saying that all males with no exceptions are oppressors, then tried to call us idiots because we didn't get it was because of "socialization" without even considering that some people could in fact be raised by feminist parents aware of current issues. Not to mention socialized or not you can correct problems with yourself by studying them which would further invalidate the claim that all males are oppressors without exception, socialization or not.
Basically you'll be able to convince people better about your side of things if you never do the following 2 things:
A) assume you're right because you're more educated, or at least think you are because you have no way of knowing
B) assume you have the moral high ground - while there's some things any sane person can agree on morality is somewhat subjective by nature and it would be totally asinine to assume you're always morally right
I mean I still prefer you by a landslide the kind of shit posters that start off every thread with a woman in it by saying "[would or would not] do her", I at least appreciate you try to better yourself as a person, but you need to stop pretending that your opinion is always right because you've taken some classes
[QUOTE=person11;42995398]We've been over this a thousand times. There is a difference between active oppression, meaning participating in a hate crime, and passive oppression, which is just having certain views, social preferences, or inherited values and norms, no matter how small or seemingly inconsequential.
He is not saying that all men are rapists and want to kill all women or whatever, he is just saying that all men have been socialized to behave in a privileged manner and to have interests in remaining privileged in society. We grow up with this stuff embedded in us, and those of us that realize it and "wake up" must unlearn everything we've known to be true.
So yeah all men are complicit in femicide just as all rich people are complicit in poverty. It is not like all rich people directly stole money from the poor or anything, but they are benefiting and helping continue a culture and economy of inherent inequality. So being rich or male makes you an oppressor, yes, but it's not what it sounds like.
Also if you think anyone is saying that being white or make inherently makes one an oppressor without society to create those roles, then my god you are dense. Everything argued here is based on Sociology, not genetics. Wow. Nobody is genetically an oppressor.[/QUOTE]
getaloadofthisguy.jpeg
Dude, I agree that videogames this far have been terrible at creating more interesting female characters, but it really boils down to the idea of the biggest consumers of big AAA titles up until recently have been male. As said, yes, the industry has not been quick enough to "grow up" with the diversification of the player base, what with it changing from hormone filled teenage boys to more mature players of both sexes who demand more interesting and well developed characters. But calling everyone who enjoys games with badly written (and stereotypical) female characters is dumb.
I mean, I enjoy stuff like Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street. And I fully agree that they are (for the most part) terrible movies with terrible characters that serves one function, to get horny and blood thirsty teens in the cinema. But, I just enjoy them for what they are, just like I enjoy "sexist" games like Mario. Does that make me a terrible white overprivileged man who wants nothing more than to destroy the rights of women in society by brainwashing younger generations with terrible media? If that where the case, wouldn't games like DoA be way more popular than they are?
[QUOTE=Elspin;42995564]People think you're being arrogant because you are being arrogant. I'm not trying to be mean here but you're literally a cliche of a student thinking their basic knowledge makes them right in an argument and you're not even great at getting your own arguments straight. You off-handedly agreed with a statement saying that all males with no exceptions are oppressors, then tried to call us idiots because we didn't get it was because of "socialization" without even considering that some people could in fact be raised by feminist parents aware of current issues. Not to mention socialized or not you can correct problems with yourself by studying them which would further invalidate the claim that all males are oppressors without exception, socialization or not.
Basically you'll be able to convince people better about your side of things if you never do the following 2 things:
A) assume you're right because you're more educated, or at least think you are because you have no way of knowing
B) assume you have the moral high ground - while there's some things any sane person can agree on morality is somewhat subjective by nature and it would be totally asinine to assume you're always morally right
I mean I still prefer you by a landslide the kind of shit posters that start off every thread with a woman in it by saying "[would or would not] do her", I at least appreciate you try to better yourself as a person, but you need to stop pretending that your opinion is always right because you've taken some classes[/QUOTE]
not to rain on your inverse high-horse but you called him idiotic, arrogant, and condescended him. how about you address his statements and stop twiddling each other with boring insults and meta-commentary. Thus Yawned Zarathustra.
[editline]26th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Muggi;42995688]Does that make me a terrible white overprivileged man who wants nothing more than to destroy the rights of women in society by brainwashing younger generations with terrible media?[/QUOTE]
nooneeverseriouslysaidthat.jpg
[QUOTE=Elspin;42995564]People think you're being arrogant because you are being arrogant. I'm not trying to be mean here but you're literally a cliche of a student thinking their basic knowledge makes them right in an argument and you're not even great at getting your own arguments straight. You off-handedly agreed with a statement saying that all males with no exceptions are oppressors, then tried to call us idiots because we didn't get it was because of "socialization" without even considering that some people could in fact be raised by feminist parents aware of current issues. Not to mention socialized or not you can correct problems with yourself by studying them which would further invalidate the claim that all males are oppressors without exception, socialization or not.
Basically you'll be able to convince people better about your side of things if you never do the following 2 things:
A) assume you're right because you're more educated, or at least think you are because you have no way of knowing
B) assume you have the moral high ground - while there's some things any sane person can agree on morality is somewhat subjective by nature and it would be totally asinine to assume you're always morally right
I mean I still prefer you by a landslide the kind of shit posters that start off every thread with a woman in it by saying "[would or would not] do her", I at least appreciate you try to better yourself as a person, but you need to stop pretending that your opinion is always right because you've taken some classes[/QUOTE]
Not calling anybody idiots here. Being raised by feminist parents is an improvement, yes, but inevitably friends or media or coworkers will rub off on someone. Growing up is not a vacuum with just you and your family. And I did say that you can correct issues with yourself, but you can't completely unlearn all subconscious preferences and social cues. My studying this does not keep me from being a passive oppressor, there have been plenty of times in which I have acted in a way I realized later was privileged. It's trial and error, and may not ever end.
It's true that I enter these threads knowing what's true beforehand, but it is because I have seen the statistics and I have worked out the logic behind leftist rhetoric, and also because no argument in any of these threads has managed to convince me otherwise. So it does look like I am assuming a lot, but I've been working this out for a long time, slowly working my way up from being an MRA, to being neutral and ignorant, to becoming a "male feminist", and now someone who knows radical feminism and hopes to help and self repair.
The moral high ground thing is tricky. I used to hate people who brought morals into arguments, since I followed Camus into moral nihilism. I've recently started to give certain schools of objective ethics a chance at convincing me, especially Utilitarianism and neo-Kantianism, but I am still a nihilist for now. What has changed is that I read that Camus spent his entire life being an activist. His lack of moral framework was not some sort of intellectual suicide in which he never evoked morals or moral ideas in his arguments and actions. He fought in the French resistance and taught Jewish kids illegally. He did not believe in objective morality but he still knew that the Nazis were wrong. My arguments are morally motivated, and I am usually convinced they are on the "right" side of morality, but I do not consider myself an especially good person. All the years I lived in ignorance or even in hate will never be erased by what I am doing now. So I really do not see myself as some sort of moral paragon shining light upon the peasant Facepunchers who should be grateful to hear my mighty eloquence.
So yeah, I did not mean to sound that way. But still, listening to SOME established basic academia is still good, despite how much more advanced stuff tends to be proven and disproven by various studies over the years. Obviously always listening to the academic status quo would impede progress, so I am definitely not saying that we must all listen only to our professors no matter what, but that the basics have barely changed in the last few decades. Maybe it's that my realizing I was so horribly wrong is tied directly to my reading, and that that is what therefore informs my arguments?
Okay, going off on a tangent there nevermind.
[editline]27th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=thisispain;42995707]not to rain on your inverse high-horse but you called him idiotic, arrogant, and condescended him. how about you address his statements and stop twiddling each other with boring insults and meta-commentary. Thus Yawned Zarathustra.
[editline]26th November 2013[/editline]
nooneeverseriouslysaidthat.jpg[/QUOTE]
Yeah we are getting pretty far from the topic again oops
didn't feminist back then prised the hell out of ms.pacman because its the better game?
and i like how she said that dixie kong is just a carbon copy of diddy kong even when she plays way more different (and better) and she starred in her own game
even if ms. pacman was better than the original pacman gameplay wise, it wouldn't really matter because the game objectifies women (just look at the original arcade cabinets of ms. pacman to see what i mean)
[QUOTE=thisispain;42995707]not to rain on your inverse high-horse but you called him idiotic, arrogant, and condescended him. how about you address his statements and stop twiddling each other with boring insults and meta-commentary. Thus Yawned Zarathustra.
[editline]26th November 2013[/editline]
nooneeverseriouslysaidthat.jpg[/QUOTE]
Ehh, your right, I didn't quite think that through.
I find the fact we can somehow objectify a fictional round yellow thing with a huge mouth and infinite stomach to be extremely unsettling
[QUOTE=person11;42995514]Well I would not say ALL males, it depends on what society you are raised in. Although, most, if not all societies happen to be patriarchal, so it actually turns out that most men are raised in that type of atmosphere.
I'd love to be wrong about the fact that most men are raised in a patriarchal society because most societies are patriarchal. I'd love to be an idiot, and for the world to therefore be a much better place. I am not proud to know what is true. It's not like I came up with any of this. I just picked up a Sociology book and kinda repeatedly copy pasted parts of it into this thread.
I am literally ad-libbing a Sociology 101 textbook and being laughed at for it. Maybe I am doing a bad job of explaining basic things? Or assuming too much about how much people know about the field? People always think I am being arrogant when I mention the fact I am basing a lot of my arguments on Sociology, especially when I tell them to educate themselves, but the truth is everything can be found in a 101 textbook, it is not high intellectualism.[/QUOTE]
Whats the name of the book? I would like to look it up.
[QUOTE=person11;42995964]I find the fact we can somehow objectify a fictional round yellow thing with a huge mouth and infinite stomach to be extremely unsettling[/QUOTE]
i'm pretty sure it was done on a marketing stand point considering how popular the original pacman was
make the gameplay better and turn pacman into a sexy girl version to help market it better!
[QUOTE=NomadicNinja;42995931]even if ms. pacman was better than the original pacman gameplay wise, it wouldn't really matter because the game objectifies women (just look at the original arcade cabinets of ms. pacman to see what i mean)[/QUOTE]
[img]http://arcadeartlibrary.com/arcade_art/data/thumbnails/5/MsPacStencils_2.jpg[/img]
the only thing that objectifies is how it makes the original pacman cabinet art look horrible
[t]http://www.droptargets.com/ebay/game_specific/Pac_Man_Side_Art_Set.jpg[/t]
[QUOTE=Muggi;42995971]Whats the name of the book? I would like to look it up.[/QUOTE]
I did a thing in case you want to become an arrogant douche like me
Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. 1st American ed. New York: Knopf, 1953. (Introduced the world to the concept of Women as Other, which is what Anita is talking about, I read it in the original language)
Brodribb, Somer. Nothing Mat(t)ers: a feminist critique of postmodernism. North Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Spinifex Press, 1992. (This is what got me to be somewhat critical of subjective morality)
Giddens, Anthony. Introduction to Sociology. Seagull 8th ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2012. (This is the textbook)
Massey, Garth. Readings for Sociology. 7th ed. New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 2012.
Those books are what I've used most when arguing here, but I have also learned stuff from Dworkin, Marx, and Bakunin.
reading continental philosophy in a different language than its original is impossible
It is always better to read in the original language, but I'm not about to tell someone to learn French to read a book.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.