Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Just like there's nothing wrong with being a mama's boy.who says she can't do it because boys do it? i'd like to think that all the work people have done to progress our understanding and fight against bias would insinuate there's nothing wrong with a girl being a tomboy
I love you.Just like there's nothing wrong with being a mama's boy.
At least that's what my mom tells me.
When you suggest that talking about "men being *****" as clouding the issue, there's a lot of ways to derail it from what you want.
Because she's not being a girl, obv. I mean do we have a name for guys that do girly things?who says she can't do it because boys do it? i'd like to think that all the work people have done to progress our understanding and fight against bias would insinuate there's nothing wrong with a girl being a tomboy
the problem is when people use it to deflect arguments about how **** affects women, or arguments that don't even say men can't get *****, as if because both sexes can be ***** the dynamics behind them are the same so the issues aren't real issues. talking about how guys get screwed over by **** is fine (since they do, just in different ways) but theres a prevalent mentality among the ~anti-sjw types~ that because all genders have social biases to deal with feminists arent allowed to complainwhy? Why is saying "men can get *****" not contributing? I can't speak for women because I'm not one. It's still an issue that affects men, why is it important for us to stay out of the conversation unless we're speaking for women?
it's cause your momma loves youJust like there's nothing wrong with being a mama's boy.
At least that's what my mom tells me.
I'm gonna disagree here, fighting on one end is perfectly fine as long as both are acknowledged and they're acknowledged as related issues. Gender issues are incredibly broad and any given group tends to get bogged down in the specific issues that have been experienced by the majority of their members.But terms like "**** is bad for women" shouldn't exist. It should be "**** is bad", end sentence. Fighting against ****, male or female being the victim, should be fighting the issue on a whole, not fighting it for one gender or the other. Getting rid of **** should be the overall goal, not the overall goal for women or men. It shouldn't be "I need this because I'm a woman", it should be "I need this because it shouldn't happen". The issue shouldn't be gender-linked because it's an issue that affects both sides. **** is a problem, not a problem for women or a problem for men. Don't get too focused on the colors and miss the big picture of it all.
Also it's hard to understand your sentiment when you're saying things like this:
But it wasn't, I was clearly discussing it in terms of relative gender roles and how they're interrelated.
The reason it came up is, "The issue is that men ****", which would be fine if we were specifically talking about the topic of ignoring of **** of women on college campuses which has had multiple scandals but we had moved on to dealing with the issue of **** more generally. At that point saying "the issue is men ****" becomes ignoring that women also **** and in turn reinforcing gender norms that contribute to ****. "and get away with it" is not sufficient to bring it back to the original topic.
There are a lot of them, and none of them are anywhere near as nice as "tomboy". I think the girls lucked out.
i don't give a **** if you wanna complain about **** being a bad thing just don't frame it as a "it's more important because women" type of thing. **** itself is an issue. that should be the end of that statement. the way you and circus are going on, you treat that as a problem and that it's wrong that we're not putting women's problems on a pedestal.
Which is only why it's derailing if you treat them as equivalent and use it to dismiss the issue, hence my post about the difference between derailing and adding to the discussion about another group.
Neither mine or xonar's post was intended to dismiss, mine explored it as gendered violence that effects different genders differently but are interrelated.
it's not even a counterargument. it's not meant as a counterargument. it's meant as an affirmation that it affects all parties and that we all agree it's a terrible ****ing thing
where did i do thisthe way you and circus are going on, you treat that as a problem and that it's wrong that we're not putting women's problems on a pedestal.
thats fair however i see noob idiots on the internet use it as a counterargument a lot so forgive me for assuming the worstit's not even a counterargument. it's not meant as a counterargument. it's meant as an affirmation that it affects all parties and that we all agree it's a terrible ****ing thing
Okay, but then why is it bad for men to say "we don't like getting ***** either guys let's deal with it because it's a common issue"? I get that it affects far more women than it does men (at least I assume, though I'm not sure of that), but that shouldn't exclude men from the issue or give women far more leverage or whatever Ashemu and Circus would have me believe.
You know how when we were little sometimes a kid would be talking with another kid, and he or she would start to vent about something ****ty going on in their life, like, say, maybe their parents were getting divorced or something? It's really rough for them. They're bouncing between two houses now, they feel partially responsible for the break up, their parents are in WAY worse moods like ALL the time now. It really sucks for them. Let's say I'm the other kid and I respond to them with something like "hey lot's of parents get divorced, it's not a big deal" or "my parents got divorced too; you're not the only one with problems." I would be the **** in that hypothetical situation. Why? Not because what I'm saying is wrong, and not because my parents getting divorced is any better/easier for me than it is for this other kid. I'm a **** because I'm taking the focus off of the pressing issue at hand. I'm trying to wave the issue away, whether intentionally or not, rather than actually address it.why? Why is saying "men can get *****" not contributing? I can't speak for women because I'm not one. It's still an issue that affects men, why is it important for us to stay out of the conversation unless we're speaking for women?
But it affects differently parties differently and in different contexts because of different gender expectations. While it's important to discuss them both together they're not equivalent (not, not as bad, but have to be tackled separately because they have different causes).it's not even a counterargument. it's not meant as a counterargument. it's meant as an affirmation that it affects all parties and that we all agree it's a terrible ****ing thing
If someone legitimately thinks **** is not a big deal, either personally for it happening to someone or on a whole, they're an idiot. That shouldn't be a point and that's not what people are saying when they say "men can be ***** too", at least anyone with a brain.
I'm starting to see what you're getting at now, I think. The point is that the assertion that "men ****" bolsters the idea that there's something inherently about men that causes them to ****, while women inherently refrain, when in fact it would be more true to say that we attach different characteristics to men and woman, and accordingly to dominance and submission, and that is the heart of the reasoning for why anyone would assault anyone. That's fair (if I understand your point correctly). Though I never made any claims about exclusivity when it comes to these roles, I accept that I should have made more of a point to be inclusive. That doesn't change the fact that the motivations behind things like **** are very much informed by concepts of gender, which is why makes it a wider cultural issue for women (as victims) and a more narrow, individual issue for men (as victims).
That makes sense, but I don't think that really answers what I was looking for. I understand that it's important to see how it affects different parties because it is important in combating it. What I want to know is why it makes one side's issues more important on a whole, because I don't think that should exist.
The flaw with this post is that nowhere did anyone ever once say "it's not a big deal" or "you're not the only one with problems". You're accusing everyone of handwaving the issue away when they say "men get ***** too", wbut in reality, you're just handwaving them away by saying "we're not talking about men getting ***** right now, stop trying to derail the discussion."
I just don't buy into that, not because I'm a man, but because I think that the injustice itself is the issue and saying it's more important for one group comes off as invalidating the opinions of the other group(s) to an extent. Imagine that from a man who's been in those shoes, it's essentially saying that their problems aren't as important and therefore they don't have as much of a stake in the issue at hand. It's like saying racism is an issue but at the moment it's more of an issue for Mexicans in America as compared to Blacks, and as a result their problems are less important. That's horse****.
Lemme be honest, I don't think anyone's sure whether you were trolling or not.
we're talking about a 1/3 of **** victims are men at least in the last statistics I saw.Okay, but then why is it bad for men to say "we don't like getting ***** either guys let's deal with it because it's a common issue"? I get that it affects far more women than it does men (at least I assume, though I'm not sure of that), but that shouldn't exclude men from the issue or give women far more leverage or whatever Ashemu and Circus would have me believe.
Joey.... you're missing the point.
That's it, it's not that men ARE more sexually aggressive inherently. Men are TRAINED to be more sexually aggressive.
Yes precisely, by not using inclusive language you reinforce the paradigm of sexual roles, namely that men are supposed to be dominant and always want it whereas women are gatekeepers and prizes to be won.
It's not that one is more important to fix. It's that one is a direct illustration of the expectations and assumptions placed on genders in society, which means that fixing the underlying motivations that govern that type would fix everything else. Men can be and are sometimes *****, yes. But, culturally speaking, men are not expected to plan for it. Women are. They are told to dress conservatively when they go out, to never walk home alone, to carry some for of self defense on their person, etc. It effects women as a gender, even women who themselves are never actually *****. It is such a prevalent thing that all (read: ALL) women must think about it and plan for it. As such, this is where the heart of the whole problem lies—in the expectations of the differences in men and women. In how we view them differently. If masculinity and dominance were not so directly tied to being male (and therefore "better"), then people would be less inclined to seek such dire ways of expressing it. Making a show of power like that would not be considered desirable. The potential rapist (man or woman, gay or straight, and everything in-between), would not be trying to assert superiority in that way, because it would not be seen as the show of status that it currently is seen to be (to adum's point about male **** victim's not coming forward because for them the embarrassment of the incident is felt as being even greater, purely because, as a man, the victim expects himself, and is expected by society, to not allow that to happen).
i'm aware of your point. the thing i'm trying to call back to is circus essentially saying that women being ***** is more important than men being *****. i have issues with that because i think the **** itself is important, less so the gender of the victim. the things you're talking about are important to consider because it helps people understand the extents of the issue and figure out ways to combat it, but they're not what i'm trying to get at.
