General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsA gay perspective on masculine and male related issues (and leering).
Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2013, 01:40 PM - Edit history (5)
(I know this is a little long, but it is a heartfelt and I hope you take the time to read it).
I want to start this OP by recognizing something. Men do have it easier in our society generally. To be a man means to be more secure in your safety and position in society. There are few career paths where men would feel entirely out of place. To be male is to be born with an advantage in terms of possible achievement, no one is contesting that.
However, I find it incredibly offensive that some people seem to believe that, in regards to gender issues in our society, men should just shut up and listen to feminine perspective. There has been a recent blow up related to leering and unwanted visual attention from men to females, I do believe that is a very important discussion to have. Women are often subjected to unwanted sexual advances, including leering, this behavior is clearly unacceptable. That said, I'm highly disturbed by the contention that I occasionally see that states that men do not have valid input into this discussion. Some people seem to believe that women, as the vulnerable group in this instance, exclusively deserve to define the terms of what is or isn't appropriate behavior. I do not believe that is true and I believe that such a stance is highly counterproductive to actually coming up with reasonable and meaningful solutions to such problems.
I believe this, because I believe that each gender has very distinct and real issues related to what it means to male and what it means to be female. I think this belief is vindicated by the experiences of many of my transgendered friends, who often have to navigate a minefield of gender expectations that they are sometimes unprepared for (both FTM and MTF). I'm not female, so I don't believe I'm qualified to speak very expertly on the intricacies of what society expects from them. However, as a gay man I feel that I was often caught up in what society often unfairly expects from men. To be male in our society does give great advantages, but it does not impart total liberty from the negative effects of gender roles. Men are expected to bottle up their emotions and greatly punished if they do not. To be male far too much means you need to "suck it up" or "take it like a man", when in reality your soul and your psyche could be greatly wounded. To be a man in a traditional breadwinner role often means a heavy and overwhelming sense of obligation to provide at all times a comfortable life for those who depend on you. In such difficult economic times, this can be impossible. I've known good men destroyed from the inside by their inability to provide for their family, despite their best efforts, as "real men" are supposed to do no matter what. These issues are only amplified when you are a man with more feminine interests, as is often the case in the gay community (but by no means is always true). I find that in society there is a massive lack of positive representations of men with effeminate sides. Far too often are feminine men are cast as the duplicitous villain or laughable joke in our popular culture. These issues are of course a mirror of what women with more masculine traits tend to suffer, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some gender expectations that are harmful, yet mainly damaging to men (though of course the majority of gender expectations do seem to be aimed at women).
Thus, it is my contention that both genders are indeed harmed by the corrosive and overwhelming expectations that our very flawed society puts on men and women. I think it is important to keep in mind that when we discuss gender issues that men are not just the oppressor and women are not just the victim. Both men and women sometimes feel overwhelmed and unable to cope with what our society expects from them just because they have two X's or a Y chromosome. When we discuss issues related to harmful gender roles and gender based behavior, it would be best if this was a two way discussion. I want very much to hear about what in our society makes women uncomfortable to be women, because I want very badly to fix those situations. I also would like for when such issues come up, for my voice as a man to be heard and valued. I've already typed rather alot, but as a gay man sometimes I feel that such negative behavior toward females is expected. When I was growing up, I sometimes had to put on a brave face and make sexual comments about females to my friends. I was forced in many ways to look along with the group at attractive females and I'm not proud to say that sometimes I felt I needed to engage in the kind of leering/cat calling behavior that is so destructive to females, just so I wouldn't face social isolation as a result "Why aren't you checking her out, you queer or something?". I believe that most men are good people who wouldn't engage in negative behaviors toward females if in many ways they were not forcibly programmed to by society. Women get the worse end by far, but men too are damaged by these kinds of expectations.
I think that only by coming together and having open and honest discussion about masculine and feminine issues, with input from both sides, can we reach social harmony in relation to gender. Therefore, I think that any call for men to "shut up and listen" is probably more counterproductive than helpful. Lets talk frankly and honestly with each other about these kinds of negative behaviors, because that is probably the only way we're ever going to overcome them.
If you read all this I thank you, I hope you find some value in what I've said.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)their sexuality and dress and act accordingly. I don't see why our society is trying to tell people they are not allowed to be sexual. Should people respect each other? Of course. But that does not mean that you can't dress sexy and flirt with one another. My daughter is very sexual. She dresses sexy and is not afraid to talk about how much she enjoys her sex life. With all the responses I have seen on DU I worry that she will be treated badly both by the right and the left just simply by being herself.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It is a tragedy if anyone is subjected to unwanted sexual advances, but the way to rectify that situation isn't to classify all sexual advances and displays as shameful. I feel that in the gay community there is a greater openness about sex/sexuality and that the gay community is better off for it. There has to be a better way to address the concerns of people who do not want to be involved in sexual communication than to completely banish it from the public square.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)it was the women on du that called them out that the way a women dresses is not an excuse to treat her disrespectfully. as long as you recognize, who would be shaming your daughter, or stating her manner of dress or behavior warranted unwanted attention. that was one of the major battles in these threads. with the PSA from india.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I think both men and women can be victim of unwanted sexual attention from both males and females. Nor do I think that all unwanted sexual attention comes from a place of malice, sometimes it is merely the result of damaging societal expectations or incredibly misinterpreted communication (of course some of it is malicious in the extreme).
I just wish everyone could have an open and rational discussion about it, without making it into an us vs. them.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)after her daughter, when in fact we were the ones standing up for her daughter. do you not think that facts should at least be a part of the discussion.
yes. it would be nice if i did not have to make a clarification. but i am not gonna own causing her daughter issues, when in fact i was standing up for her daughter.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stop it. it is a lie. that is not what i said. a nontruth was being perpetuated. i called out the non truth and gave the fact. you step in and trow out another non truth. stop
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Like every male DUer and beyond is guilty of some perceived transgression. Your not out to persuade people. Your simply out to try and drive wedges or bash skulls.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)for a link. none are provided. quit making things up to create me in an image that makes it easier for you to dismiss what i say. address what i actually say. or dont. but, no nontruths.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)shifting blame. it is asking you to back up what you are accusing me of. that simple.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)What grammar diss? You simply wont read/understand what you write.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I rest my case. 1. you don't read your own posts. 2. it's always someone else fault.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)you lump all men in and expect a good reception, when it patently not true.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)as you see in this example. how many posts did you argue i was saying ALL men. until you agreed that is not what i said.
you can create a falsehood, with no proof of accusation to create animosity.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Your reaction is well, telling
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But this absolutely is a case where the feminist and LGBT communities can work together. It's gender roles and patriarchy that devalue men with "effeminate" interests.
The "shut up and listen" was mostly with regards to objectifying women, since we as males typically don't deal with that and need to listen to the people who do have to. It wasn't intended to mean that you can't have issues you want to deal with.
Very well written. 
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)women are telling them they are not allowed to dress or act a certain way? To me that is no better than the way the right tries to tell women what to do or not to do. I say this as a woman by the way and the mother of a young adult daughter who dresses sexy and enjoys her sex life.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)stated it gave them permission. that the dress was saying she was asking for it.
check out the threads, or do i need to hunt and link. one man is flagged for it. please do not give us this, when we were defending your daughters right.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)But I don't tolerate that behavior in the least.
I think it's great your daughter embraces her sexuality like that, and all I want is to see the world safer for both women like her who do and for those who choose not to.
/white-cis-male-talking-female-sexuality
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a discussion that we, men, have little to contribute, as well.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)It wasn't women policing what other women were wearing. It was men - saying "If you don't want to be leered at, don't wear X, Y, or Z. If you dress that way, you're asking for the attention."
In fact in one thread a few men told women to wear burkas or not leave the house if they didn't want that kind of attention.
The women at DU spoke up against that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but I must say....would you tell African Americans that somehow White people can "understand" what it is like for them?
I have often asked my White male friends...."can you relate to what it is like to be pregnant"? Which they always reply "no of course not"...which is logical because they will never be pregnant. ....then I tell them...THAT is why you can never say you "understand" what it is like for African Americans in America. They often balk that its not the same...but yes it is...they can NEVER understand what it is like....they don't have the first clue.
This is why even you as a Gay man....you cannot relate to what it is like for women...and why straight men most certainly cannot understand it...and never will....
Kurska
(5,739 posts)As a gay man, I don't think it is possible for a straight person to completely and absolutely understand what my life is like. However, I believe it is possible for people to understand it very well and even expertly. I also think the only way to accomplish that is by having a dialog where I hear them out and they hear me out. I could never just explain it to them, but if they are willing to sit down and discuss it with me. If I am willing to listen to them and they are willing to listen to me. If we are both willing to share how we differ, but also how we are the same wonderful things can happen.
It isn't always possible of course, some people are just closed minded. However, I do believe it only happens when both sides are willing to open up and really share what their experiences are.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but they can never understand. Its that simple.
Can you understand what its like to be Pregnant? No you cannot...neither can I...I am a woman who has never been pregnant. I can never understand what that is like. I can have compassion for pregnant women...but understand...never going to happen now...
Kurska
(5,739 posts)A straight person can never experience being gay fully, but if effectively communicated to a receptive and engaged person, I do believe they can understand it on some level. I've certainly met straight people who "get" being gay far more than others.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)or orientation.
Having experienced antisemitism directed at me, as well as both racial and ethnic discrimination, I can say that all three felt exactly the same. It makes you angry, ashamed, and sad all at the same time.
If someone is judging you based one of these attributes and preventing you from having opportunities it doesn't matter what the attribute is. Now, someone who has never felt ANY kind of discrimination being directed at them I would say might have a hard time understanding it. But if you've felt one kind, you almost certainly understand the other kinds.
I wouldn't doubt at all that a Christian white LGBT male or female could understand what antisemitism feels like or racial discrimination feels like. It feels exactly like being discriminated against for your orientation I'm sure.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Being judged for something you can't control or shouldn't be judged on is always a horrible feeling, no matter the reason. I would contend that most people have felt that way, at least at some point in their life.
The key question is whether they can feel empathy for other people being judged for attributes they do no share. That is what I feel that we as a society need to work on.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am a woman...and I can understand discrimination...but I can never understand what life is like for a Black woman...anymore than I can a male. Its very simple...
I also believe there is a difference between what racism feels like and what sexism feels like by the way...
by the way....no one is at as much an immediate threat of LOSING their rights to their own bodies as women are right now....No one but another woman can even comprehend that.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Then I would have very little hope for the integrated societies of the future.
I can't believe that is true. My faith in humanity won't allow it.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)A desire to transcend their egocentrism should have no problems whatsoever in understanding their fellow humans' experiences, without actually having to experience them first hand. Great OP, and interesting discussion!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Than a pessimist who doesn't believe in hope.
Not saying you are either, but those are the options I see for me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)Is that everyone thinks of themselves as a realist, often as the only true realist on earth.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Why would you think these kinds of discrimination feel significantly different from each other? They are all substantially the same. Qualitative judgments on people for reasons that judgments shouldn't be made and in many cases attempts to limit people based on those judgments.
Do you really think being called k__e feels significantly different from s__c, n____r or f_g?
Most humans have a remarkable ability to empathize and sympathize with each other. Now some people have chosen to turn that off or in a few sad folks that ability has been either destroyed or never was there in the first place, but you are selling people short if you are assuming they can't understand how you feel about something.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)its much much much more than being called names...not even in the same ballpark.
Are pregnant women being called names or experiencing childbirth?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)There is a human tendency to want to think that everything that touches us is special and unique to us or our group and that extends to things that are unpleasant and 'bad'.
- "No one has had it as bad as me!"
- "You couldn't possibly understand!"
There are actually a finite number of human emotions and the idea that we cannot imagine the intensity of one of the ones or a combination of those that other folks feel in response to a given situation makes less and less sense the more you examine it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)name calling is the least of it....
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I have finally found a stevenleser post with which I disagree ... kind of.
I can agree that discrimination feels pretty much the same regardless of flavor; but, this is not what these threads are about! These threads, at their root, would have their opinion of what a discrete group experiences, be equally as valid as that discrete groups lived experience. I can't go there.
As a Black man, I know what discrimination feels like (to me, and by shared experience, but to a lesser degree, other Black folks); but I cannot extend that experience to Jewish folks ... But more to the point, I cannot/will not engage is a discussion in which I attempt tell a Jewish person what what is, and what is not, offensive to Jewish people.
These "leering" discussions are merely men attempting to tell women, what is/should (and what is not/should not) be offensive to them.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)I wish everyone "got it" like you do!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)though I will acknowledge, my not protecting my male privilege, does not make it go away.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)makes you more in tune with the overall point...I as a White female...though I have experienced discrimination...haven't a clue what it is like to walk a mile in YOUR shoes...and I don't presume to tell you that I do. That is what these other men are attempting to say...that they can!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but I bet most of the ones that just cannot understand all this are White males...
They just cannot get it....and they don't know why...
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are, largely, choosing not to get it because once the do ... they must recognize their privilege. And once they recognize their privilege ...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and they are...in your case the homophobes are dying off...
However, Misogyny isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Even in the liberal bastion, that is DU, we find folks that would have their observations equal the lived experience of others. And folks that would use those observations to define what is/is not offensive to that other group ... observations that happen to defend/reinforce/preserve their own privilege, BTW.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)the ability to *listen* to others about what they experience instead of *telling* them what those experiences 'really' are, or mean - it should be obvious.
Nothing more infuriating that having someone who doesn't have to deal with the same things tell you 'you're being oversensitive' or 'imagining it'.
You put it much more eloquently.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)when it's "liberals" that are doing it ...we're supposed to know better.
LumosMaxima
(585 posts)Men have no first-hand knowledge of the experience of being a woman in a misogynistic society. The only source of that knowledge is the women who do experience it. So yes, until men understand it, they should shut up and listen. This nonsense about both sides listening to each other is nothing more than an attempt to water down feminism to a level that does not make men uncomfortable. But any group of people losing their privileged status and being forced to deal with others on terms of equality will inevitably experience some discomfort. It's still nothing compared to what women have been dealing with under patriarchy for thousands of years, so you'll understand if I don't feel too sorry for y'all.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I know many on here wouldn't consider me a feminist, and frankly I don't care.
LumosMaxima
(585 posts)
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)I hate to say this, but some women here seem to be reveling in victimhood. Is there misogyny in the world? Of course. But when men of good will are trying to empathize, as Kurska is with this post, it accomplishes absolutely nothing to say, "Oh, you can never understand because you're a man." If that's your attitude, then why even try to communicate at all.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)People understand things best when they engage with it. They should be free to ask questions and to provide their own perspective when it is valuable. If the objective is to achieve real understanding, then that is impossible without allowing that person to express their concerns and fit the new information into the unique contexts of their life. Of course not everything they say will be valuable and totally true, just as not everything I may say will be valuable and totally true. Perspective is the heart of the problem.
If I wasn't willing to understand straight people and listen to them, how on earth could I expect straight people to understand and listen to me?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)just shut up and listen. All that does is throw up a defensive wall and shuts down the line of communication.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Telling people to stfu and listen only does shut down any reasonable dialog.
If the stfu worked then damn near everybody should stfu, because it would never end:
- women stfu about men
- heterosexual white women stfu about heterosexual women of color
- men stfu about women
- white men stfu about men of color
- born female stfu about mtf
- born male stfu about ftm
...and on and on and on.
I think that nobody has the right to tell other people to shut up. If you tell me to stfu and listen, this means that you want to talk at me, not with me. That person has completely invalidated my opinions and feelings, and I have no interest in listening to somebody telling me how I should think.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)valuable insight they would have. Curiousity, I could see, but imparting knowledge about the gay experience- how would they know?
Anyway, if they were interrupting you and telling you that you were wrong - all the time- you might be tempted to tell them to STFU. Just saying, the kind of give and take was just not happening with those who Mr Scorpio was addressing. People were flinging whatever nonsense they could at feminists here, being completely disingenuous and playing stupid instead of attempting any dialog, and it was high time someone told those particular people to STFU already.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)It is about both of us learning to understand each other. One major thing is some straight people genuinely do have a disgusted gut reaction at any mention of homosexuallity. This isn't always because they are always evil or hateful, society was programming that into all of us not to long ago (part of why self-loathing was so common in the gay community for so long). We've overcome that a great deal, yet we still have a long way to go. I want them to understand my love is beautiful and it improves my life so much, that it isn't something gross. When they can understand my context in their context and how we both share immense love for our partners then that disgust can be overcome.
In turn, I need to understand that it isn't always something that is perfectly controlled. I can't expect perfection the first time around, there isn't a switch from bigoted to accepting. We all struggle to understand the "other".
My 2 cents at least.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)in the conversation. But they do not have anything to share except their impressions as an outsider, and never claim to know the gay experience better than you do. That is NOT what Mr. S was talking about. Not at all.
So, what would you do when they tell you you are wrong? Or that you were imagining things (maybe because you are conceited!!) , hysterical, or dressed wrong and deserved ill treatment? That they know what gay men should be fighting for better than you do? That crap is all over those threads. It is embarrassing.
You are imagining this STFU was directed towards those who listened, and were having a respectful conversation, but I have to wonder where the heck you got that idea or even read the regressive crap that was posted?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)My experience only exists not only in terms of how I view it, but how it is viewed by others. Humans are incredibly social creatures to really understand myself, I think understanding how others view me is a prerequisite.
Now it seems to me that you're talking about people who genuinely don't get it and aren't receptive to listening initially. I contend the best way to reach such people is to not tell them to STFU (though that plays very well to the already converted), but perhaps to set the example by listening first. Of course some people can not and will never be reach, and you can't waste your time on everyone. I do not believe that being rude of dismissive to anyone is an effective teaching technique.
I still think it is the wrong approach to tell someone to stfu, even if you're dealing with a complete twit.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)"know feminism" best because of reading two paragraphs (of which they they really do not understand the implications of ) is a huge twit. And after a certain amount of that, you realize it is not worth enduring lectures anymore. It is nothing but a game to many people here. If you read much of the threads, you might have caught that.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I'd contend to the true number of twits is rather low.
There is catharsis in telling someone off, but does it really carry anyone forward?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And you can't carry someone forward when they think they already know more about your life, and your needs, than you do.
zeemike
(18,998 posts)Treat people the way you want to be treated...and there is great wisdom in what you say.
If you can convince enough people to believe that this would be a far better place to be...
K&R for all you have said.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)And I can't say that I haven't reacted badly to the "shut the fuck up and let me teach you" approach. I'm not always proud of that, but the alternative is not acceptable. Men or women should not shut up and be brow beat, especially if the "teaching" is aimed at nothing more than throwing them in a generalization, shutting them down or turning them into a punching bag
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)when i suggested civil union would be the answer. i did it with good intent. but, i was wrong. and they let me know that i was wrong. not gently, either. and that worked for me. they got a big thank you for schooling me, teaching me, letting me understand where they were coming from, shutting up to hear what they were saying.
so no. it is not a bad thing
recently the black community did the same with me. and again, a BIG thank you for educating me.
this is not hard.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not everyone has the same outlook as you. Sometimes people don't understand the problem or even that there is one. How you reach a receptive listener isn't always the same way you reach out to someone who might not even realize there is a problem. Maybe the best strategy in that instance is to listen first.
That is my 2 cents at least.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i always listen.
it isnt so reciprocal.
Gormy Cuss
(30,884 posts)closed-mindedness or the wall of misplaced victimhood. Until that happens no meaningful conversation will ever occur.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)No one group can speak for the whole gender. So people are talking about their own personal likes/dislikes/etc.
One cannot judge the hearts of every single person of a gender on an issue, but are expected (by some) to apply a one size fits all type solution. This, of course, leads to friction.
If you don't agree the solution fits all - you are sexist, uncaring, pig headed, etc.
When other women speak up and say they don't see it the same way they are simply told they are just too dumb or blinded by x/y/z to see it all clearly. One group makes women out to always be victims in most any and everything possible, and since they are victims you cannot disagree with them or you are an oppressor as well.
Staring at someone, anyone, is generally frowned upon. It is not a sexist issue. Some people like to get attention and be stared at (actors, musicians on a stage, and the list goes on and on). Some folks like to be 'noticed' and there is nothing wrong with that desire (whether male or female).
Since you cannot know every single person and their desire it is hard to put a one size fits all solution out there. Over in Italy this week they released a calendar of young hot priests for next year. I assume the people who buy it will 'stare' at the photos. I have found myself staring at John Barrowman (and I follow his blog/twitter/etc) but that does not mean I have wild desires with him or am undressing him with my eyes. My desktop background is Dr. Who, Matt Smith to be precise. If he was walking down the street in a bow tie with a sonic screwdriver you bet I would be staring.
It is odd how something so simple and natural as looking at something you see is beautiful/interesting gets turned into sex by some people. You would think I was mind raping everyone at this point.
It is not that we cannot have good discussions on it, it is just that some people want to find a way to be pissed off no matter what someone says and read into every possible negative thing they can. Perhaps they themselves are doing for the attention, since it seems to garner them that quite a bit.
RandySF
(58,823 posts)But if there is going to be a conversation, it has to be a two-way street.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)problem....maybe listening would make a difference.
RandySF
(58,823 posts)What is the difference between leering and admiration, anwayy?
eridani
(51,907 posts)It is patriarchy that devalues gay men for their supposed resemblance to women.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I'm gay, I'm Jewish and I'm a man. All these things are part of me and all of them have shaped how the world has viewed me and how I have viewed the world. I do not believe the world is neatly broken into oppressor and oppressed. There are of course some people who are indeed oppressors and there are some people who are very much oppressed, but this isn't an absolute state. I'm gay, but I also came from a fairly well off background. There are things that I most certainly wouldn't understand about poverty that a straight male who grew up poor could teach me. He isn't my oppressors for being straight anymore than I am his oppressor for coming from wealth. We come from different perspectives on life and we should strive to understand each other as best as possible.
eridani
(51,907 posts)You don't have to be actively engaged in personally oppressing someone in order to take part in it. You have male privilege and class privilege, but not straight or WASP privilege.
Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There Is
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/15/straight-white-male-the-lowest-difficulty-setting-there-is/
Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?
Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.
Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.
As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.
Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.
You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.
And maybe at this point you say, hey, I like a challenge, I want to change my difficulty setting! Well, here’s the thing: In The Real World, you don’t unlock any rewards or receive any benefit for playing on higher difficulty settings. The game is just harder, and potentially a lot less fun. And you say, okay, but what if I want to replay the game later on a higher difficulty setting, just to see what it’s like? Well, here’s the other thing about The Real World: You only get to play it once. So why make it more difficult than it has to be? Your goal is to win the game, not make it difficult.
Oh, and one other thing. Remember when I said that you could choose your difficulty setting in The Real World? Well, I lied. In fact, the computer chooses the difficulty setting for you. You don’t get a choice; you just get what gets given to you at the start of the game, and then you have to deal with it.
So that’s “Straight White Male” for you in The Real World (and also, in the real world): The lowest difficulty setting there is. All things being equal, and even when they are not, if the computer — or life — assigns you the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, then brother, you’ve caught a break.
(
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not every straight person is my oppressor, some are incredible allies who deserve all the praise in the world.
Does a straight person get a free pass through some of the stuff I had to go through cause I'm gay, of course. Do I resent or view them as an oppressor for that, how could I? They didn't choose heterosexuality anymore than I picked homosexuality.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Straight allies are engaged in fighting homophobia precisely BECAUSE they realize they benefit from straight privilege. That's why they do it.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not to try and reduce quality or "privilege" of their own existence.
I'd rather see everyone lifted up than saying others need to be brought down so that I can rise. Society isn't always a zero-sum game, our world is rich and there is much to share.
eridani
(51,907 posts)I'm just noting the existence of a real world fact on the ground, and this makes me more likely to try to do something about it.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I view "privilege" as something society forces on people whether they want it or not.
Perhaps you view it as something that society gives to people and that they can and must reject.
I'm not sure though.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)as long as you're not too feminine or dark, you'd be starting way ahead of us women. the fem thing really does you no good in a lot of areas, politics, the sciences….
Romulox
(25,960 posts)
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)As far as politics go, women are a larger voting block than men. Advantage: Women.
As far as the sciences go, women are ahead of men in both college enrollment and graduation. Advantage: Women
Men and women are both privileged in different ways. At best it's a wash.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)why are more men not politically engaged? Why are men less academically-focused in school? Why do more men not apply for college in the first place? (It's not just enrollment, it's applications; applications to four-year colleges and universities are 44% male vs 56% female). This isn't the result of "privilege".
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Is male privilege something we just have to assume?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)we have a woman in jail in Wisconsin because she is having a baby, and detoxed (past tense) faster than the doc would have liked. He crime was detoxing. That's jut the tip of the iceberg as far as our eroding rights go.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Romulox
(25,960 posts)As if the children of President Obama are playing at a "higher difficulty level". 
eridani
(51,907 posts)Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.
You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)This is mere semantics. There's no reason for race to be dubbed a "difficulty level", while wealth is dubbed a "point...initially given". It's an attempt to suggest disparity based on inherited wealth is "fair", but disparity based on race is "unfair". This assertion is not neutral, but betrays a very specific, class-based value system.
Which is why the children of wealthy persons of color strain the "difficulty level" analogy so--we all know the Obama children aren't playing at the "highest difficulty level", because of their vast wealth and connections. Somehow, characterizing the overwhelming privilege of wealth as mere "points initially given" is meant to occlude this reality: parental wealth is the single biggest determinate factor in any child's success.
eridani
(51,907 posts)Scalzi has an extended discussion on that in the link I gave.
Romulox
(25,960 posts)By making race the locus of our analysis, class based inequality is not just ignored, but normalized.
I won't be reading any links with hopes to discovering arguments you are unable to form, at any rate.
eridani
(51,907 posts)His comments, again
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/17/lowest-difficulty-setting-follow-up/
Your description should have put wealth/class as part of the difficulty setting.
Nope. Money and class are both hugely important and can definitely compensate for quite a lot, which I have of course noted in the entry itself. But they belong in the stats category because wealth and class are not an inherent part of one’s personal nature — and in the US particularly, part of our cultural sorting behavior — in the manner that race, gender and sexuality are (note “inherent” here does not necessarily mean “immutable,” but that’s a conversation I’m not going to go into great detail about right now). You can disagree, of course. But speaking as someone who has been at both the bottom and the top of the wealth and class spectrum here in the US, I think I have enough personal knowledge on the matter to say it belongs where I put it.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/05/23/final-notes-for-lowest-difficulty-setting/
The second major sticking point is the chunk of folks who really very truly believe that I should have put class/wealth into the difficulty setting in addition to or instead of race/gender/sexuality. Again, I’ve already explained why I designed the analogy as I did, and while I think it’s fine that people disagree, I haven’t been sufficiently convinced by their arguments that I was wrong in the manner in which I designed it. I think some people are suggesting that I don’t think wealth and class matter in a significant way; they need to reread the entry. It’s not about whether it makes a difference. It does. It’s about where it’s properly placed in the analogy. Some have commented this is set-up that really is specific to the US, not other places in the Western world; I’m not wholly convinced of this, but then I live in the US, not other places in the Western world.
kcr
(15,317 posts)I'm sorry, but when you have some saying things like they're not going to apologize for finding women attractive. Or, what's wrong with looking at women? And the worst, "creepshaming". Let's just say, there were some instances where there wasn't a whole lot of listening going on. And in those instances a shut up and listen was appropriate.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)But you're not going to reach anyone by telling them their opinion isn't at least, on some level, valued.
kcr
(15,317 posts)There are trolls in the mix. A lot of this, a vast majority of this, gets stirred up because of them. Respect goes out the window.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Obviously there are trolls, but the worst thing you can tell a non-troll to help them is that they are trolls with opinions that aren't genuine.
kcr
(15,317 posts)I think sometimes that happens. But far too often? Nah. Especially not in this case.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I wish you only the best.
kcr
(15,317 posts)RandySF
(58,823 posts)And what is the difference between leering admiration? And would anyone have anything to say to my female boss who spent a closed door meeting with me and leaning over in her low cut dress every other minute? And you want to talk about leering? Go to the Castro and listen to the guys cat-calling other guys. Or, is that somehow different?
libodem
(19,288 posts)A lot of gender seems to be learned 'roles' rather than innate expression of some chromosome. I try to see both sides. I've never been much of a girly girl. Maybe my sweatshirts, tennis shoes, and jeans don't rate the male oogle.
Well, when I curl my hair, once in a while, I catch people lookin'. 
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I also try to get male perspective from my husband when my female experience fails me. I want the same things for both my children. I want them to treat others with respect. I want them to be treated with respect. I want them to be free to be themselves and express themselves. I want them to date, have fun, fall in love, and find partners who will love them and treat them with respect.
libodem
(19,288 posts)Mutual respect is the bomb.
Some people seem to believe that women, as the vulnerable group in this instance, exclusively deserve to define the terms of what is or isn't appropriate behavior. I do not believe that is true...
So men deserve to help define what behavior is appropriate towards women? HIstorically, that's kinda what's been going on already, isn't it?? And women are told to shut up and accept it for various "reasons"... it's harmless, women invite it by the way they dress/look/walk/etc, boys will be boys, it's a compliment, etc. Now when women are speaking up that certain behaviors are unacceptable, they're supposed to take into consideration all the men's "forcible programming" and how men are "damaged" by society's expectations that they behave boorishly... to what end? To put up with it some more? To feel guilty about the poor overwhelmed men who are unable to cope with what women do/don't expect of them? To change the subject to the poor put-upon men?
I think if men actually did "shut up and LISTEN," women might actually feel they are being heard. Instead, we're met with a barrage of "yes, but _______" Fill in that blank with: men are victims too, sometimes women do the same thing, blah blah... all of which may be true, but belong in a separate discussion. It seems to me that your whole post is a "Yes that's not acceptable behavior, but the poor MEN are programmed/pressured/expected to behave like that, and they have to be breadwinners, and they're expected to suck it up and take it like a man, and men are damaged by expectations too, and women don't value men's input into how women should be treated..."
Seriously.... do you think that straight people deserve to help define what is or isn't appropriate behavior with regards to how they treat gay persons? I don't! How would you feel if complaints about gay-bashing were met with "Yes that's awful, but you have to understand the pressure straight people are under to behave that way, and straight men unfairly victimized too, and we deserve to be heard in a discussion of the appropriate way to treat gay people, blah blah"?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Not that exclusively men or women should be defining what is acceptable.
Just as how I believe that both gay and straight people need to come together to create the kind of inclusive and accepting society that gay people need to be safe.
if a straight person said "OK, beating up gay men is not OK, but calling someone a fag or making fun of gay people is no reason for them to get all offended" you would accept that definition of what is/isn't acceptable?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Last edited Tue Dec 24, 2013, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)
It shouldn't be one side dictating the terms of what is acceptable to the other, it is should be about coming to together to find solutions to problems.
Ino
(3,366 posts)Well then, if you won't accept a compromise of "beating up is bad, but making fun of gays is OK"... aren't you dictating terms of what's acceptable? You want everyone to discuss what they think is OK, so long as everyone agrees with you in the end?
One could argue that making fun of gays is OK... "It's harmless, gays make fun of themselves, not all gay people are offended by it, it's just lighthearted fun. You should not dictate what's acceptable to you. You have to value my opinion of what's acceptable behavior towards you."
This makes no sense to me. All people are not reasonable. They want to do what they want to do, and don't really care what you think of their gay-bashing or leering or date-raping. They'll trot out every excuse to justify it, try to guilt-trip you into shutting up about it... just re-read all the "men are victims too" statements in your original post. What does the reason for leering have to do with whether or not the leering is acceptable? I really don't get what you expect to accomplish.
Please give me an example of a solution to a difference of opinion of what behavior a gay person should/should not accept.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)No one has a right to dictate how they want everyone to treat other people in the same class. You're acting as if we're dealing with two monolithic groups here, when in reality we're dealing with millions of individuals. A conversation not only allows straight people to feel like their input is being valued (therefore making it more likely they actually adopt or modify the behavior in question), but it also ensures that the incredible variety of opinion from gay people is heard in full. I know some gay people who find "gay jokes" very funny if done tastefully without hate and I've known some that never want to hear them. That is also going to highly depend on in which ways material from the gay experience will be used to generate humor.
As a gay man, I certainly don't want to be treated according to other gay people's standards of acceptable behavior. I don't see how that is much better than the standards of a straight person being forced on me. If I find something offensive, I'd like to talk to that person. I'd like to understand why they think it isn't offensive and I'd like to be able to express why I find it so. In the end, you can only tell people how you want to be treated (and if they differ you are more to welcome to exclude them from your life).
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)gay people. Reasonable, respectful people can come together to talk about how to help one another. Straight people belong to gay straight alliances all the time. They help the cause. There are men who help women and the feminist cause. The trouble with the feminist issue is that there is no consensus about what is feminism. If one person thinks that someone is not supportive enough they tell them they are not allowed to be in the conversation. But not everyone agrees on what the level of support is. I'm a woman and I consider myself a feminist, but I know there are women on this board that don't consider me a feminist. There will be men who have differing views on feminism as well. That does not mean they can't help the cause especially if they do so in a respectful way.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)better than women do, and men who claim equal pay, abortion, and the dearth of women in elected postions are all "fixed" now, so what could feminists want?? These claims are totally moronic, self serving bullshit.
Sorry- but those people are NOT allies, never will be, and they should STFU instead of making this place a toilet where liberal ideals are mocked. They are nothing but ignorant on the topic, and intentionally show up to disrupt or play gotcha with posters they do not like. Reasonable or respectful doesn't cover the folks Mr S was addressing.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Thanks in advance for a thoughtful answer.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)No one has the perfect definition and who someone is doesn't always speak to the absolutely to the value of what they may be saying. If I want to be heard, the best first step is to listen, even if I end up disagreeing.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Back in the day here we had the big blow up over a snicker's ad during the superbowl. Two guys almost kissed in it and then made disgusting faces and recoiled.
Some called it homophobia. Others just thought it was funny. I know several folks myself who are gay, including the station owner for the radio show I do and I recently brought this up to him as well and asked him about it.
He, nor others I knew, saw it as homophobic at all and thought it was funny. Others saw it different.
So....the question becomes: who is right and who speaks for an entire group? If a straight guy said he thought it was homophobic (some did) and a gay person said it wasn't, but others did, which one 'wins' the argument?
Who defines x is based on that individual - and no individual is the single voice for a group.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)That's a far cry from someone who is *not* part of that group telling people who are what they should or should not be bothered by or find offensive.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)X finds something offensive, Y does not. X calls Y names because they don't see it the same way.
That is where the problems seem to originate here. I get some people are offended by certain things - and I respect that any individual, regardless of group, can - and does - find things which to them as a person are offensive.
When same person tells me I am 'insert label here' because I, myself, do not it seem it the same way is where arguments begin - especially when they want to use their personal feeling on it to change others and their behaviors (it is very missionary like. Reminds me of the American Indians and how people tried to convert them from their 'barbaric' ways to civilize them).
If I say I find roses offensive because they are red and have thorns I can pretty much guarantee some people will inquire as to why, say how much they love roses, and so on. It is a natural response to wonder why and I am sure some would take offense if I said they just didn't understand and they are idiots who don't care. If I go further and say those who look at roses are freaks, perverts, and roses are used by men to subjugate women does that mean from here on out I have a respected position that I should try to get the admins to enforce on my behalf?
Some men and women both like, and make, porn. Should I, as a man, tell a woman that doing so makes her a victim, sell out, and that she cannot possibly know what she is doing? Can another woman tell all women the same and then suddenly it simply is truth and to say it is not somehow means that the person not agreeing is a patriarchal dupe in need of education?
It seems not even people part of some group we define should have the right to demean the entire group because of their personal ideals. So if someone outside of the group sides with one side or the other should they be welcomed as 'getting' it? Funny how it works because when you agree with someone inside the group they respect what you have to say about it, but outside or inside the group if you don't then your voice is not one to be heard because either you don't belong or you need to be educated about why you are so wrong in not wanting everyone to accept the arguments as gospel.
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts) 
rrneck
(17,671 posts)It would be nice, particularly given the season, if people would simply look around and see other people. If we could, just for a moment, relinquish the labels, frames and pigeon holes and recognize our mutual humanity it would sure grease the skids.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)"We are all connected
To each other, biologically
To the earth, chemically
To the rest of the universe atomically"
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)we are all stardust. That's pretty cool to think about to.
Behind the Aegis
(53,956 posts)Quite frankly, I stay out of it because no matter what, I still have a penis and, for some, that seems to be the bigger issue. My sexual orientation is mocked, so I don't have time for that shit. There is certainly some who seem intent on doing nothing but fighting, but I think others are listening and sharing in a way that benefits others. I have found some people may be ferocious, but they are really no different than others when the subject is something is something close to their heart. We all have tipping points.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)And what you took from it was that I was in any way saying that I think majority groups alone should prescribe the appropriate treatment of minority groups, then you have not understood it.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)But you said:
So do white people get to dismiss the legitimate concerns of nonwhites regarding perceived racism? Do white people get input into what is and isn't racist? Because that is very much exactly what you're arguing for, only with "gender issues" in place of "racism".
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Some straight authors like to include feminine men in their stories, a very feminine gay male character can be very empowering if done correctly or homophobic and demeaning if done poorly. Obviously even individual gay people are going to differ on what to them constitutes acceptable or unacceptable. How on earth could you advocate that an author not be allowed to defend their representation of a character against accusations of it being stereotypical and demeaning? Especially in a situation where what constitutes a valid empowering representation and what is actually demeaning stereotype is rather blurred even to members of the minority group in question.
This is all ignoring the fact that men are very much damaged by the gender stereotypes and rigged roles our society forces on them (again as I've said not to the same extent as women). It seems to me that they then do deserve a voice in how our society treats gender.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)We're talking about directed behaviours in social interaction. Which is something entirely different.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Some gay people like to have their sexuality out/proud and will freely discuss it with other people. They might even be willing to answer questions about it. Others might not be willing to discuss it period and consider it an intensely private matter. Grilling an unwilling gay person about their sexuality is wrong and even oppressive, whereas inquiring politely about someone's sexual orientation (from the standpoint of wanting to understand it better) from someone receptive to such inquires could be considered tolerant and very open minded.
A behavior that could be viewed as homophobic by one person could be welcomed by another. In such a environment, I see of no reason why someone shouldn't at least be given a chance to defend their own behavior if questioned on it. Regardless, without a dialog on why they want it and why it is offensive I highly doubt you'd ever get anyone to actually stick to the behavior advocated (people respond very poorly to instructions given sans the ability to comment on or inquire about them).
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)here's how it works: gay people get to decide what they consider unpleasant and homophobic behaviour; women get to decide what they consider to be creepy and offensive behaviour; people of colour get to decide what they consider to be racist and discriminatory behaviour. That's how it works. Straight people don't get to tell gay people "don't be so sensitive!", men don't get to tell women "it's your own fault, you shouldn't be dressed like that", and white people don't get to tell people of colour that they're "playing the race card". If you think that any of these things are perfectly acceptable responses to cultural prejudice and oppression, then you are part of the problem.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)I don't if know you're gay, but if you aren't I'd rather like you to stop. I actually do find it rather offensive that you seem to think that gay people can come up with some monolithic standard of straight behavior toward us. We're individuals with likes and dislikes, everyone has different tolerances for "offensive" material". I entirely reserve the right to have a conversation with my straight friends if they say something I find offensive. I don't want to dictate absolutely how people treat me, my lord why not just remove all choice from personal interactions. There have been remarks that I have found offensive in the past that when I actually sat down with the person and talked them over I realized didn't come from a malicious intent and in reality I probably wouldn't mind in the future having better understood the context.
I want to handle my personal social interactions however I want to. I really don't get how you can presume to tell me that is the wrong approach.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Notice that I didn't say anything about "gay people" as a monolithic group, or "women" as a monolithic group, or "people of colour" as a monolithic group. However there are certain things that most members of those groups would probably agree are offensive and unpleasant. And we aren't talking about "friends". Would you be okay with random strangers on the street muttering "faggot"? That's a much more contextual comparison to what we're actually talking about here (the impetus for this entire discussion being the blatantly creepy behaviour of men toward women they do not know in public places).
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Are there some behaviors that are blatantly offensive like muttering obscenities to minorities on the street, um yeah who said there wasn't? I'm saying that when we actually have to figure out how society is going to treat people who are gay, the individual gays should reserve the right to dictate what they find offensive personally. What you find personally offensive however isn't going to automatically translate into society wide expectations of behavior toward minorities. When you go to that level you're going to need a respectful two way dialog on what things really ought to look like, if only to ensure the diversity of opinion is heard in full (and especially if you want to actually change anything, very few people respond well to orders with no input).
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)60 years ago? Blacks were second-class citizens. 30 years ago? A majority considered homosexuality to be aberrant and immoral. Today? the USA has a black president. Gay marriage is legal in a growing number of states and federally recognised. Social attitudes and behaviours can change. Part of that change involves recognising people as people and not as "other".
But dialogue only gets you so far; is it possible to have a meaningful dialogue on the issue of race with someone who thinks black people are biologically inferior? Or to have a meaningful dialogue around gay rights with someone who thinks that homosexuality is an abomination before God? Or for that matter to have a discussion about the inherent creepiness of male objectification of women with someone who says "it's your fault for being dressed like that"? The answer to that is "probably not".
treestar
(82,383 posts)They can have their emotions if they chose to - it's themselves choosing to stick to the old rules (as some women do, seeing advantages in that).
A man can choose to be say a nurse or teacher now without too much crap. Those who would give him any are the insecure ones.
We have more Mr. Moms now.
There is greater freedom for men, some are just so afraid of sneers of other men they won't take advantage of it.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)I think one thing is left out that most males are stuck in perpetual "competition" competition for a mate, for career, everything. You can't help but strive for it, it's built into society. Maybe I am not phrasing this correctly, got knows I am on enough painkillers to tranq a horse (hip surgery, last week)
Anyway my two cents
LWolf
(46,179 posts)As I mentioned somewhere on one of those other threads, I spent my young life, from about the age of 11 through age 40, feeling like, and having been treated like, prey. Yet I LIKE men, in all senses of the word. The men who have been the most important in my life, though, are my sons and my gay male friends, because I was never their prey.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I have had a very diverse experience with men, from the men whom I dated that wanted nothing but sex from me, to my father who is a chauvinistic, sexist, evangelical Christian, to my husband who is the most respectful man I know, and my son who is socially awkward and sweet and who I hope will find a woman who will find his sense of humor attractive.
Threedifferentones
(1,070 posts)I think this post makes a very important point: Rigid gender roles harm lots of people in lots of different ways.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)The best way forward to removing those rigid gender roles from society.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)non-gay folks have equally "valid input" into defining what is, and what is not, homophobic behavior/conduct?
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Some states have statutes against sexual orientation discrimination and numerous state and federal agencies have internal policies against sexual orientation discrimination. All of it is based on a reasonable person standard.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)a misunderstanding of the standard. The "reasonable person" standard as you have defined it is incomplete, as the standard actually is "a reasonable person of the affected group." For example, in gender discrimination-female, it is the reasonable female; in race-Black, it is the reasonable Black person.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/harassment.cfm
Kurska
(5,739 posts)The worst way to convince someone to do something is to try to unilaterally dictate what is acceptable behavior to them (generally this only succeeds in getting them to do the opposite, think teenagers). This is well known psychological phenomenon.
Any discussion on acceptable behavior really does require input from both parties, no matter the topic or the participants.
adirondacker
(2,921 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)and something gay people found offensive, and we straight people said you all need to lighten up, that you should take it as a compliment, that it isn't a real problem, that you talking about it was the real problem, and that if you didn't like being offended in that way you should cover yourselves head to toe and/or never leave the house, would THAT be a problem?
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Nor do all women find the same kind looking intrusive. That is ignoring the fact that unwanted ogling isn't a male behavior exclusively directed at females.
That is the point of a dialog. There isn't one solution and every voice should valued, because every voice has a stake in it.
At least that is what I believe.