Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

Racial, Gender and Sexuality Issues Flipped (or Flipping)?
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=11229		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  MikeMcG [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:50 am ]
Post subject:  Racial, Gender and Sexuality Issues Flipped (or Flipping)?
Do you think eventually racial, gender, sexuality, whatever issues are going to flip?

For example, it already seems like men aren't as equal to women. Both have the same rights, but when it comes down to it people are afraid to treat women like regular people. I've seen a couple of news stories on women who claim to be raped by Guy X when Guy X was clearly innocent. In one article they explained that the guy could not have raped the woman because he was in crutches and had a neck brace.

Equality is great, but I think we're over compensating for the previously mistreated group.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 3:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Happens a lot already. Look at folks like Al Sharpton: jumping on the back of any White person they perceive to have made a comment that could be even remotely construed as racist. I've already said my piece on this sort of counter-racism, based on the whole Sins of the Father persecution.

I've grown up feeling that the single worst word I could ever utter was "n*gger"--NOT "f*ck," as one might assume. I get fearful around Black people, not because I'm racist, but because I'm afraid that I'll do something that they'll construe as racist and persecute me for it.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 4:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Meh... try being a white, Christian, conservative straight male in America. I'm as un-PC as you can get. Yeah yeah I know, my white, male, straight Christian forefathers persecuted everyone else and built their wealth and empires on the backs of minorities. That wasn't me. Don't see the need to compensate for the injustice of the past, really.

(Waits for the comments like, "Oh yeah, nice persecution complex, moron," that are going to come from other forumers.)
Author:  barwhack [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:21 am ]
Post subject: 
It's a good topic, and a touchy one. Sins of the father persecution is exactly what it is. Unfortunately, actual racism is not dead in any group. White, browns, reds, yellows, blacks; you name it. I'll probably get flack just for saying red/yellow. Taboo is the real bugbear here. Once we can no longer even address the issue without making a big flap, there will never be peace -- it won't even be conceivable.

I personally rate obscene language by meaning rather than convention: there are vulgarities, curses and profanities. Vulgarities talk about body parts and body actions (has a limited place in society -- like "poop"); the f-bomb falls in here too, as among the worst of this type by convention (here again in the bedroom ... may have a place). But to my mind this is the least wicked category of obscenity. Curses, however, are wishing supernatural harm on someone (this doesn't have a constructive place); at best this is an expression of something a will wants to do, but doesn't have quite the gumption or power to carry out. This expresses something bad that is part of of the will, by invoking something bigger than it. Profanities are the very worst, because they represent an expression of a will that has lost its place; the person using a profanity is profaning (making common) something that deserves respect. Nobody likes a punk, and there's absolutely no place ever for this. So if the scale of badness looks like this: "least(1)(2)(3)most", then this is how I'd rank some of the common words:
poop (1) s-word f-word (2) d-word (3) geez, n-word, j*s*s, g*d, omg

This isn't a consensus list; it is based on the meanings expressed. And it has the advantage of explaining why a black man -- born and raised a patriotic America -- would find the n-word (which is inaccurate AND dehumanizing AND derogatory) to be completely unacceptable. First, he's an American, second he's a human, third -- and both the popular culture and the taboo fall down here -- he's our brother. Yes, everybody's in the same family; regardless of the theory of origin that you choose to believe, the fact that we can -- any male and female of us -- mate and make babies, means we're the same species; species is a hiding-word for "really extended family"; maybe "kind" would be better, but "family" (in the common sense) works. The keys are these: we are all family, and neither taboos nor obsenity helps. Race is a construct, and a bad one. Extended family is both more accurate and healthier.

[EDIT]: Lim, no bad mouthing from me: but there is rightfully quite a backlash against any kind of "white advantage" in the US. It is often a disadvantage for me, being white; especially in application processes (which I've had MANY of). It will pass (I hope), and we can settle into "equal advantage", which is best.
Author:  Amorican [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Racial, Gender and Sexuality Issues Flipped (or Flipping
MikeMcG wrote:
Do you think eventually racial, gender, sexuality, whatever issues are going to flip?

For example, it already seems like men aren't as equal to women. Both have the same rights, but when it comes down to it people are afraid to treat women like regular people. I've seen a couple of news stories on women who claim to be raped by Guy X when Guy X was clearly innocent. In one article they explained that the guy could not have raped the woman because he was in crutches and had a neck brace.

Equality is great, but I think we're over compensating for the previously mistreated group.


In certain ways, I think women's issues are a bit mixed up. They fought long and hard to be treated as equals by men. There is still much work to be done to make things truely equal. However, for some reason, many women still expect men ask them out, hold doors for them, pay for a date (dinner, movie, etc), help them carry heavy things, give up their jacket when the woman is cold, and much more. I'm all for equal rights, but women will need to give up these priviliges before there can be any true equality for the genders.
Author:  barwhack [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Racial, Gender and Sexuality Issues Flipped (or Flipping
Amorican wrote:
... women's issues are a bit mixed up ... fought long and hard to be treated as equals ... many women still expect men ask them out, hold doors for them, pay for a date (dinner, movie, etc), help them carry heavy things, give up their jacket [for cold] ...

Here's where there might be some conflict. You see, women are different than men. It's obvious, and it won't change. It was actually an accepted precept of some parts of the Women's Movement for a time, that there was NO difference. EEEEEhhh<beep> wr0ng. Doesn't mesh with reality. Women are physically weaker in general (though not in many specific comparisons), because of hormonal differences; this also makes their bones less robust, and it may account for why it is reasonable to have a "hold the door" or "carry this stuff for me" custom. Because average men are more capable of enduring that stress. Women have different parts, needs, timings; even their brains are wired differently (there is a more substantial cross linking of the hemispheres); this may explain the custom of "dating" (taking especial care of her, not him) -- female brains don't wall off experiences like male brains; little things add up to emotionally significant sums. Women get cold easier in general, because their basal metabolic rate is lower (less testosterone), and because they're smaller (less growth hormone early on). So -- I guess -- cut The Girls some slack.

Having said all that, I am for equality (opportunity) in the work place, not parity (outcome). When the requirements are put out, they should be the same for both sexes; not lower for one or the other.
Author:  Amorican [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 7:45 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Meh... try being a white, Christian, conservative straight male in America. I'm as un-PC as you can get. Yeah yeah I know, my white, male, straight Christian forefathers persecuted everyone else and built their wealth and empires on the backs of minorities. That wasn't me. Don't see the need to compensate for the injustice of the past, really.

(Waits for the comments like, "Oh yeah, nice persecution complex, moron," that are going to come from other forumers.)


The injustices of the past (slavery, Jim Crow, etc) have a direct influence on the distribution of wealth today. White men have virtually all the wealth, while blacks and other minorities have proportionally nothing. The terrible schools, abject poverty, and crime in black communities is a direct result of this. Maybe you haven't personally done anything wrong, but you have benefitted from those atrocities by lving in a country where whiteness is valued and where people like you are easily found in positions of power.

Compensation? I'm not sure how that would work anyway. In terms of populations as a whole, (not individuals, cuz there are very poor whites as there are some very rich blacks), the white population feels entitled to their inherited wealth and the safety and security that it brings. Blacks were never really able to acquire any wealth until very recently. There was nothing for them to inherit because they were descended from slaves. They have essentially had to start from zero. How can anybody expect a population of people who were economically 400 years behind be able to catch up in only 40 years since the Civil RIghts era? Especially when wealth is becoming even more concentrated in the hands of so few.

Don't worry, I'm not a socialist. But the disdain that blacks are treated with concerning this subject is just sickening. When black people complain about such things, or try to change them to help their own people, they are considered reverse-racists.

As for weather this issue will every "flip," it won't until minorities are truely on equal economic footing with white people.
Author:  StrongCanada [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 2:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Racial, Gender and Sexuality Issues Flipped (or Flipping
Amorican wrote:
In certain ways, I think women's issues are a bit mixed up. They fought long and hard to be treated as equals by men. There is still much work to be done to make things truely equal. However, for some reason, many women still expect men ask them out, hold doors for them, pay for a date (dinner, movie, etc), help them carry heavy things, give up their jacket when the woman is cold, and much more. I'm all for equal rights, but women will need to give up these priviliges before there can be any true equality for the genders.


I don't "expect" a man to hold a door for me, etc. But it's nice when he does. The only thing I "expect" a man (or a woman, for that matter) to do for me is respect me and treat me with kindness. As a woman who fancies herself a mild-feminist, there are still things we can do to improve, but I DON'T think that persecuting men, attacking them, or making them feel otherwise inferior will help. If women TRULY want equality, we have to get men on our side, fighting WITH us. You could say the same for racial issues. Rather than alienate a certain race, get them on your side, ally with them. THEN you'll see change.
Author:  barwhack [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 5:08 pm ]
Post subject: 
AMEN! I say!

The problem with actually getting this done is that some advocacy groups/philosophies are evidently against allying, because it diffuses the issue for the future. How often do you see pictures of any white marchers in the Civil Rights parades of the 60s? There were many, but that isn't taught; and even Martin Luther was a little leary of calling for "color blindness". Same for the Women's Movement; mostly the image of "burning braws" comes to mind, not men marching with women, all for equality of opportunity.
Author:  MikeMcG [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 8:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
The term "color blindness" is lame. You can still see black and white if you'e color blind.
Author:  barwhack [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:02 pm ]
Post subject: 
MikeMcG wrote:
The term "color blindness" is lame. You can still see black and white if you'e color blind.


Ah, McG, but I tend to be wordy usually (and I was trying to be concise): and by "color blindness" I wanted to say the kind of "brotherly kindness that extends to whomever is human, without regard to family". If I had to say that without encapsulating it in a smaller phrase, nobody'd understand me. "Let's all have some BKTETWIHWRTF over here!" Hmm; not too catchy.

As for you, yeltensic: punk. ;)
But seriously, Hitler's not funny.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:28 pm ]
Post subject: 
barwhack wrote:
But seriously, Hitler's not funny.


You've obviously never seen Mel Brooks' parodies on Hitler, such as "Springtime for Hitler" (from "The Producers") or "Hitler on Ice!" (from "History of the World Part 1").
Author:  MikeMcG [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 9:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
barwhack wrote:
MikeMcG wrote:
The term "color blindness" is lame. You can still see black and white if you'e color blind.


Ah, McG, but I tend to be wordy usually (and I was trying to be concise): and by "color blindness" I wanted to say the kind of "brotherly kindness that extends to whomever is human, without regard to family". If I had to say that without encapsulating it in a smaller phrase, nobody'd understand me. "Let's all have some BKTETWIHWRTF over here!" Hmm; not too catchy.


Well, SBLOUNSKCHED! caught on and at least BKTETWIHWRTF means something literally. Joe A. will come along and see "color blindness" and go "So we should think of everyone as one race? Uh, alright."
Author:  MikeMcG [ Thu Apr 19, 2007 11:48 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yletensic is right, look at Hitler work the crowd... I think you can hear someone peeing themselves.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Racial, Gender and Sexuality Issues Flipped (or Flipping
MikeMcG wrote:
Do you think eventually racial, gender, sexuality, whatever issues are going to flip?

For example, it already seems like men aren't as equal to women. Both have the same rights, but when it comes down to it people are afraid to treat women like regular people. I've seen a couple of news stories on women who claim to be raped by Guy X when Guy X was clearly innocent. In one article they explained that the guy could not have raped the woman because he was in crutches and had a neck brace.

Equality is great, but I think we're over compensating for the previously mistreated group.


Except false rape allegations have nothing to do with equality "flipping", and everything to do with the effectiveness and even-handedness of the justice system.

Believe me, if a conviction did arise from these examples you gave - where the defendent was locked up just for being a man - I think we'd all have something to worry about.
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Mon Apr 23, 2007 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
Yesterday, I had this exchange with a random woman (in real life, I mean):

ME: I like your shawl. :D
WOMAN: Thanks. I designed it. I'm an artist. A real one.
ME: Cool, so am I! I'm a cartoonist. Except some people say it's not a legitimate art form. D:
WOMAN: That's because you're a woman, honey.
ME: ...no. That's not it at all. ._.

I hate how some people are all anti-male now. They claim to be against sexism, but...sexism against males is still sexism.

At my school, we occasionally have the same problem with racism. It's a charter school, so you get in by lottery, and they're talking about having a separate lottery for minorities to "increase diversity". Which, in my opinion, is racism. The reason we don't have as many blacks or Hispanics or Asians or whatever at my school is because NOT AS MANY ENTER THE LOTTERY. Which prolly has something to do with the fact that Santa Cruz is a predominantly white and Hispanic town. (We actually have a fair few Hispanic students here, so I don't think they should really be included in the whole diversity argument.) We do have some Asians, but I've met, like, a grand total of 5 black people in Santa Cruz. It's not like we'll get more people of other races by having a separate lottery, and I really do think that by giving them a better chance at getting in, we're discriminating against whites who also have every right to go to this school. Of course, no one here at my school listens to my argument. -_- (One kid actually told me that it was impossible to be racist against white people. Ridiculous? Totally.)

The really annoying thing, though, is that by saying things like this, I have to worry about being pegged as a white supremacist. :/ Which, of course, I am not. I just think we should all have EQUAL rights.
Author:  barwhack [ Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:29 pm ]
Post subject: 
Shippinator Mandy wrote:
... annoying thing ... by saying things like this, I have to worry about being pegged as a white supremacist ... I am not ... we should all have EQUAL rights.
This is a problem with discussions like this: taboo enters in.

What's Her Face wrote:
Except false rape allegations have nothing to do with equality "flipping", and everything to do with the effectiveness and even-handedness of the justice system ... locked up just for being a man - I think we'd all have something to worry about.
Hmmm. If the rape allegation is false (so the accuser lied) and the man is convicted and much later exhaunerated (so the system failed), isn't that "locked up for being a man?" Here's one case; for another, consider the Duke lacrosse players recently, although (perhaps because of coverage) their case was eventually dropped -- only their academic careers have been ruined, and that for nothing. A vocal American subculture HATES men in my opinion, and is exemplified by groups like NOW (see the section on CEA). I don't vouch for these sources, by the way. Just saying the stories and ideas are out there for you to see.

I agree with you, S.M. So in addition to "color blindness", we might also add ... maybe ... "booby blindness"? Like not telling the difference between girls and boys? Naw. (=no more kids! or maybe just half as many, since mating would be RANDOM.)

I think the real answer is still reality -- we're all one family; even with girlz being different than boyz. Each person should treat each other person -- whatever their family or sex -- like they want to be treated: equitably. The idea is to consider each person you meet with care and respect (presumably just how you would want to be considered by them).
Author:  lahimatoa [ Mon Apr 23, 2007 10:56 pm ]
Post subject: 
Excellent post, Mandy. Equality needs to be the goal.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Mon Apr 23, 2007 11:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
barwhack wrote:
If the rape allegation is false (so the accuser lied) and the man is convicted and much later exhaunerated (so the system failed), isn't that "locked up for being a man?"


Or as is more likely to be the case, a man in the wrong place and the wrong time amidst the wrong set of circumstances. Take that guy that was convicted of raping that child - now, this is only a wild hunch, but I don't see any difficulty imagining that he might have been singled out because of his unorthodox lifestyle. Or maybe he behaved strangely, or seemed threatening to people, or whatever else. Maybe, maybe not, but it seems very unlikely that they could have tried him by virtue of his gender alone.
Author:  Wesstarrunner [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:03 am ]
Post subject: 
MikeMcG wrote:
The term "color blindness" is lame. You can still see black and white if you'e color blind.

Stop being so literal! You're killing me your so funny! But literally, "color blindness" (and being blind on the grounds of what gender you are to) in the hiring of people is much less racially derogatory then having a certain percentage of whites, and a certain percentage of blacks, and etc. You will be looked upon by what you can do, not what you look like.
Author:  MikeMcG [ Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:15 am ]
Post subject: 
Here's a good example of the rape thing. There was no evidence to support Zoe's claim, yet Phillip Young was still charged.
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 6:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
barwhack wrote:
Shippinator Mandy wrote:
... annoying thing ... by saying things like this, I have to worry about being pegged as a white supremacist ... I am not ... we should all have EQUAL rights.
This is a problem with discussions like this: taboo enters in.


...I really don't understand what you mean by "taboo". :|
Author:  barwhack [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:23 pm ]
Post subject: 
Shippinator Mandy wrote:
barwhack wrote:
Shippinator Mandy wrote:
... annoying thing ... by saying things like this, I have to worry about being pegged as a white supremacist ... I am not ... we should all have EQUAL rights.
This is a problem with discussions like this: taboo enters in.
...I really don't understand what you mean by "taboo". :|

Just that someone ... anyone ... might fear reprisal just for talking about a subject. In other words, a taboo is a custom that excludes a subject from consideration, ever. If a subject is taboo, you can't talk about it. You feel guilty thinking about it, if you have absorbed the taboo. It's a moral of sorts; like all morals, it's learned -- and this one is BAD. Knowing involves discussion and some sort of exploration -- not necessarily experience (so you don't have to kill to know it is bad) -- but you do have to have considered the idea of killing, to know it's bad.

Example (modern day): child moestation. It's hard to even say it, or think about it, or anything. We've decided (as a society) to teach that this is so bad that you can't even discuss it. And it should be discussed, and taught against. Openly.

You were saying that you felt you might get pinned because you spoke up and wanted to talk, not because you believed the idea you were gonna get pinned for, but simply because you spoke...

Does any of that help? If not there's this and this. And if I misunderstood you, just put it down to my thick head, and re-ask a different way...
Author:  Shippinator Mandy [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ahh, now I get it. Thanks, Barwhack! :)
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:31 pm ]
Post subject: 
barwhack wrote:
If a subject is taboo, you can't talk about it. You feel guilty thinking about it, if you have absorbed the taboo. It's a moral of sorts; like all morals, it's learned -- and this one is BAD. Knowing involves discussion and some sort of exploration -- not necessarily experience (so you don't have to kill to know it is bad) -- but you do have to have considered the idea of killing, to know it's bad.


I agree completely. We shouldn't have to be afraid of reprimand for bringing up a topic, no matter how vile the topic seems to be. We should be allowed to live in an open market of ideas. Ideas do NOT equal action, and so ideas--even offensive ones--should be freely expressed. It's like that kid who recently got arrested for speaking (during a classroom discussion) his idea on how he could sympathise with the gunman from Virginia Tech (link).
Author:  furrykef [ Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:25 pm ]
Post subject: 
PianoManGidley wrote:
It's like that kid who recently got arrested for speaking (during a classroom discussion) his idea on how he could sympathise with the gunman from Virginia Tech.


Huh, without knowing what he said, exactly, it's difficult to objectively judge that situation. But my first impression is: WTF.

- Kef
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/