Feminism Thread

[Mazmaz]

except at least half the people doing it were men (there was what, like 4 examples?) And again, this was not some scientific study, it was a PSA

[NynJa]

AWWWWWWWWWW YEAAAAAAA ALL THIS MALE PRIVILEGE FEEEEEEEEELS SOOOOOOOO GOOOOOOOOOOD

Male privilege

[Ksandra]

moved gamergate talk to the gamergate thread.

[Stef]

Looong post incoming. The flamey nature of this thread is not lost on me, but bear with me

First of all, let me say that I think a lot of the posting in this thread (even though it's likely just flame bait) shows a kind of scary lack of empathy. Uninvited social interaction isn't the problem, it's the repeated, systematic exposure to it that infringes on personal space. I find it hard to think of an appropriate analogy, but I guess you could frame it in terms of someone sitting next to you on the bus. I don't think people necessarily mind someone taking the seat next to them, but most of the time they would prefer to not sit next to a complete stranger. It's even worse if the stranger tries to strike up a conversation despite your best efforts to show your disinterest (especially if you have headphones in your ears). Now imagine that every time you sit on public transportation a stranger sits next to you, leans over and incessantly pushes a conversation. It's not an exact analogy, but it should help to illustrate where the problem enters the picture.

Male privilege

While I don't deny that this can happen to men, I am almost certain that this video is staged. Some of the overacting is horribly transparent, like when the girl talks to him and he just keeps walking... she immediately backs off almost as soon as she finishes her sentence. Also, the girl who stares at him as he passes by and the guy with her physically grabs her and turns her around... come on, that is so obviously fake.

Now, when it comes to privilege I completely understand why the term generates so much anger. I personally don't like it at all and think something closer to "relative advantage" would be more appropriate. Mainly because there should be a clear distinction between moral desert and entitlement to legitimate expectations. Think of it like that line that always comes up in sitcom episodes where parents are teaching their kid how to drive: "A driver's license is a privilege, not a right." People of all genders, ethnicities, and backgrounds have a right to a set of legitimate expectations on how they should be treated in a modern society. In this sense, the majority of men and white people don't necessarily have privilege per se, but a more evenly distributed respect of their rights when compared to women and minority groups. The respect of rights is certainly not perfect in white, male populations - there are disadvantaged people in all groups, experiencing both common and unique disadvantages - but it's on average more present than the averages of other groups.

I don't think there are many people that would argue that women or ethnic minorities don't face additional hurdles and in many cases systemic disadvantage; there are historical legacies that have led to an unequal playing field today. The problem with the word "privilege" is that it fails to differentiate between different kinds of relative advantage. Professor, philosopher and author Lawrence Blum suggests three categories of "privilege" that are often obscured by use of the monolithic term.

• "Spared injustice" is probably what many modern feminists mean when they talk about privilege. This is what catcalling could be classified as. Men don't have to put up with the same inconvenience as the average woman does when they are simply walking down the street. We consider privacy and personal space to be a legitimate expectation in a modern society, so in that sense it isn't a privilege that men have, but women by-and-large aren't having their expectations met. The moral work to be done is to bring women up to the same level as men on this front, rather than taking something away from men. Having the NSA not spy on you would be another example of spared injustice.
  
  
• "Unjust enrichment" is the kind of thing that I think privilege is an appropriate term for. It's also something that I think most people can agree is wrong. An obvious example could be how Wall Street bankers get away with all the screwing around with other people's money and the economy at large; by virtue of being wealthy, they have benefits when it comes to the law that the average person doesn't have. While this type of privilege is much rarer than spared injustice, it's more insidious. At the same time, this is the kind of thing that inspires moral outrage in most people, like when we react to violations of Net Neutrality, collusion in journalism, etc.
  
  
• Finally, you have things that aren't necessarily justice related, what Blum refers to as non-injustice related privilege. He uses the example of linguistic privilege where it is legitimate to expect that speaking the language of the country you reside in grants you better chances at getting a job. I guess you could compare this to how men have, on average, an advantage over women in physically demanding jobs where body strength is a valuable attribute. Or that the average man will tend to find it easier to relate to other men, just as the average woman will be more comfortable socializing with women. This can lead to negative consequences in the workplace, for example, where men may have the upper hand in relating to male supervisors, but it's hard to identify the cause as a moral wrong and better to address the outcomes themselves where possible.

Framed in these terms I think it's easier to acknowledge relative advantage. Part of the reason is that there is a lot of relative advantage within groups of people as well. Subsets of white men have large advantages over other white men in a tiered structure best categorised by class rather than sex or ethnicity. It also can help to differentiate the experiences of various minority groups by not defining the problem as white vs. non-white; the experiences of African Americans are very different to those of Asian Americans (who themselves represent a diverse group), for example. I agree with Blum that this is generally a more productive way to view the issue.

TL;DR I think there are better ways to come to an understanding than throwing around words without acknowledging why they upset people. More empathy on both sides can help!

[Eurell]

You get that the only thing people are arguing about is that saying "hello" should not be considered harassment, right? I feel like everyone that comes in late completely misses that point. The thread is in 100% agreement that the dude following her, and the assholes shouting they want to fuck her or w/e they said, are complete douchebags. The entire argument for the past 10 pages has been whether or not saying "Hi" to a stranger is harassment, that's it.

[Mazmaz]

Professor, philosopher and author Lawrence Blum suggests three categories of "privilege" that are often obscured by use of the monolithic term.

Do you have a link to this article or whatever it is? Interesting concept.

[Stef]

You get that the only thing people are arguing about is that saying "hello" should not be considered harassment, right? I feel like everyone that comes in late completely misses that point. The thread is in 100% agreement that the dude following her, and the assholes shouting they want to fuck her or w/e they said, are complete douchebags. The entire argument for the past 10 pages has been whether or not saying "Hi" to a stranger is harassment, that's it.

Yeah, I know. I went back and read through the last 10 pages of comments before I posted my previous comment. My point was only that in the original "10 hours of walking..." video, the vast majority (if not all) of the comments directed at the woman were "God bless you", "Damn!", "How are you doing, beautiful. Smile!"... while an individual instance of these comments can be ambiguous or simply ignored, the fact that they happen frequently and from people you wouldn't normally expect social interaction with is what makes them trespass on overt harassment. Nobody can object to a simple "Hi" or "How are you", but when things like "Damn", or "beautiful" are added to the mix then it clearly singles her out for her physical appearance. It's the repeated singling out - especially for her appearance - that makes it uncomfortable. If you pass a single person on a country road it's perfectly acceptable to greet the person - in fact it may be considered rude not to. If you're on the same country road at night, the situation may be a bit more tense. If you're on a crowded street in New York and you only say "Hi" to one particular stranger in a sea of other strangers, it becomes an uncomfortable singling out.

It all comes down to signaling intent: which social cues do we send each other through tone and choice of words. By phrasing things a certain way or even engaging with people in certain scenarios we automatically establish an implied type of relationship with a set of expectations. The reason that it's OK to small talk with a hairdresser or a super market clerk is because there is an understood customer/service provider relationship. If a man goes up to a woman at a club, the implication can very easily be that the man is looking to hit on her. There are ways to signal that you have other intentions by selecting your words and approach carefully. The point is that the people in the video did not even try to temper their comments towards her to make her feel more comfortable.

Example: when someone stops you in the street to ask you a question people's first reaction is usually skepticism and apprehension. The person asking the question has to quickly establish their intent before it gets awkward. If they ask for directions, the tension is released very quickly... unless they seem to be asking for more assistance than can be legitimately expected from a stranger (say, asking someone to walk you half-way across town). If they instead present you with a survey, the implication is that they want something out of you that will require more of your time or even money - a greater commitment than you may feel is justified. If they ask for the time, you can comfortably oblige. If they ask to borrow your phone you may wonder if they will end up running away with it.

Now take being pulled over by a police officer in the US as an analogy. Because guns are fairly abundant in the US, police officers have no way of knowing whether the person they just pulled over is armed or not. As a driver you can choose to move carefully and signal your intent to cooperate peacefully, or you can act rashly and aggressively. The latter immediately raises red flags about your intentions, rightly or wrongly, that make the exchange that much more difficult for each party to gauge.

Again, my point is only that communication cannot only be one-sided without consideration for how the message is received. Words, intonation, situation, and body language carry baggage, as do implied relationships... it's why (as a fairly extreme example) african americans can use the N-word to refer to each other as a term of endearment while it becomes incredibly offensive for white people to do so. Or why you don't say "Hey, sexy!" to your mother. Friends might call each other "bitch", or "dickhead" knowing that it's only meant in jest because of the well-defined social relationship, but doing that to your boss (a completely different type of relationship) most likely won't go down well. Even a well-intentioned comment can cause offense if the social signals don't match the implied relationship - all people are asking for is more caution and understanding.

[Eurell]

Holy shit. So much irrelevancy over someone saying "Hi".

Yeah, I know. I went back and read through the last 10 pages of comments before I posted my previous comment. My point was only that in the original "10 hours of walking..." video, the vast majority (if not all) of the comments directed at the woman were "God bless you", "Damn!", "How are you doing, beautiful. Smile!"

Aside from "God bless you" (because that is used as often as hello in some circles) nobody was defending any of that bullshit. You said you understand that we were only defending hello, and then bring up how all the other shti sucks. We already agree on that. Dont fucking tell people to smile. Leave out Daaaaaammmmmnnnn. Don't fucking comment on strangers looks at all. Everyone fucking agreed on that.

Nobody can object to a simple "Hi" or "How are you",

Hey and Archi are LITERALLY objecting to a simple "Hi" That is what has been argued for 10 pages. Some people are claiming "Hi" as harassment.



I did read the rest of your post, but I'm not going to respond because it seems completely irrelevant to whether or not saying "Hello" and nothing else is harassment or not. I mean, Not calling your mom sexy, and having guns around cops, and calling people niggas? Nothing to do with saying "Hi"

[Charismatic]

While I don't deny that this can happen to men, I am almost certain that this video is staged. Some of the overacting is horribly transparent, like when the girl talks to him and he just keeps walking... she immediately backs off almost as soon as she finishes her sentence. Also, the girl who stares at him as he passes by and the guy with her physically grabs her and turns her around... come on, that is so obviously fake.

I dunno, got so thrown off by this that I couldn't even read the rest of your post.
I don't think its staged at all and your immediate scepticism in this case but not in the other makes me question your bias. Rewatching the video, sounds like you're just making excuses rather than having made observations that caused you to believe its staged.

[Stef]

Holy shit. So much irrelevancy over someone saying "Hi".



Aside from "God bless you" (because that is used as often as hello in some circles) nobody was defending any of that bullshit. You said you understand that we were only defending hello, and then bring up how all the other shti sucks. We already agree on that. Dont fucking tell people to smile. Leave out Daaaaaammmmmnnnn. Don't fucking comment on strangers looks at all. Everyone fucking agreed on that.




Hey and Archi are LITERALLY objecting to a simple "Hi" That is what has been argued for 10 pages. Some people are claiming "Hi" as harassment.



I did read the rest of your post, but I'm not going to respond because it seems completely irrelevant to whether or not saying "Hello" and nothing else is harassment or not. I mean, Not calling your mom sexy, and having guns around cops, and calling people niggas? Nothing to do with saying "Hi"

Ok, fair points, I didn't mean to imply that you were defending the other things, only that they made up the vast majority of the video that started this discussion. Like I said, "Hi" is generally harmless, but context does matter. On a busy street in New York a "Hi" to a single stranger among lots of other strangers carries with it a different set of implications than it would if you passed an individual in a small town. It's pretty clear the selection wasn't random (through things like body language or tone, and the fact that there were often lots of other people passing by at the same time). In the context of all the other comments she received, even something as innocuous as "hello" can become problematic. This is what made her uncomfortable.

But I see your point, it's definitely a grey area and the comments directed at her were intended to be friendly... I think what people are arguing for is that we take the feelings of the person on the receiving end into account as well, even when we don't see what we're doing as being wrong.

[tyven]

moved gamergate talk to the gamergate thread.

FINALLY

[Eurell]

Ok, fair points, I didn't mean to imply that you were defending the other things, only that they made up the vast majority of the video that started this discussion. Like I said, "Hi" is generally harmless, but context does matter. On a busy street in New York a "Hi" to a single stranger among lots of other strangers carries with it a different set of implications than it would if you passed an individual in a small town. It's pretty clear the selection wasn't random (through things like body language or tone, and the fact that there were often lots of other people passing by at the same time). In the context of all the other comments she received, even something as innocuous as "hello" can become problematic. This is what made her uncomfortable.

But I see your point, it's definitely a grey area and the comments directed at her were intended to be friendly... I think what people are arguing for is that we take the feelings of the person on the receiving end into account as well, even when we don't see what we're doing as being wrong.

If I say hi to someone (in any context, not even just a stranger on the street), I have no way of knowing what they may have gone through already. Some people like being friendly to strangers, some don't. Unfortunately for those who don't, the answer is not to just stop all human interaction unless that person gives you written consent to talk to them.

[Priran]

FINALLY

Read: She moved one post I made about female abusers because the abuser was Zoe Quinn. It had nothing to do with gamergate.

[Stef]

If I say hi to someone (in any context, not even just a stranger on the street), I have no way of knowing what they may have gone through already. Some people like being friendly to strangers, some don't. Unfortunately for those who don't, the answer is not to just stop all human interaction unless that person gives you written consent to talk to them.

This sums it up nicely. The people saying "Hi" aren't doing anything wrong. The person made to feel uncomfortable has a right to feel that way given what she has been through. The idea is that the various sides should understand each other and acknowledge that both perspectives can be valid. Maybe I failed at conveying that sentiment adequately enough but I think we basically agree.

[BaneTheBrawler]

tell that to Hey and Archi

[tyven]

Read: She moved one post I made about female abusers because the abuser was Zoe Quinn. It had nothing to do with gamergate.

i will put your post back. THE CIVIL WAR BEGINS NOW

[Priran]

if walking around for 10 hours and getting hit on a few times is harassment then what is having somebody sneak a photo of you at work, and then dox you to half a million people (at least, based on social media) because they think you're attractive?

because whatever it is, it's seeming to me like this teenage boy is a better adjusted individual than these twenty-something gender studies major feminists

edit: ksandra feel free to move this post to the ferguson thread

[tyven]

Priran deserves year end award for must underrated poster on BG

[hey]

if walking around for 10 hours and getting hit on a few times

more like 100+ times.

[BaneTheBrawler]

i fucking knew you'd get hung up on that. fucking knew it. jesus christ Hey, do you have a fish fetish?