As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Daniel Tosh and the use of Rape in Humour

18910111214»

Posts

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    If the catchphrase for a phenomena or item implies things that aren't inherent to the thing being described, it is being created for intellectually dishonest purposes. To that point, "the patriarchy" isn't technical nomenclature, but rather political branding.

    So you feel that somebody has been using the term "patriarchy" in an intellectually dishonest way?

    If so, whom?

    I feel it's been designed and chosen in a dishonest way, right down to the use of "the" before it. Everything about the word and its usage implies coordination, rule, and malevolence.

    Who is using it in that way?

    I'm not really interested in fighting over what somebody said somewhere but it was totally a feminist and they were totally an asshole and maybe this isn't the worst feminism argument in the world (this is only a tribute) and you gotta believe me.

    I mean the close usage/grammatical placement. The patriarchy is doing X. The Patriarchy is doing Y.

    At least part of the issue is that "feminism" is a political movement, a broad grouping of people who believe that women shouldn't be shot on sight (which mainly seems to be brought up when someone is attacking the other meanings/categories of feminism), a branch of sociology and literary criticism with its own vocabulary (which is what I'm mainly criticizing, as the vocabulary is often taken from or driven by the political movement type of feminism that it often overlaps with), and a school of thought within each discipline (which has it's own problems, such as asserting that our prioritizing of data and evidence over impressions is due to our prioritizing the masculine over the feminine).

  • UltimanecatUltimanecat Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    Again, you're comparing a theory on social interactions to actual scientific theories. When someone has no factual evidence for their theory but insists on holding it up as something you must believe in or you're an ignorant asshole, I will point out how absurd it is. I find no problem with highlighting some of the more ridiculous assertions and saying, "This is what you're holding up as fact."

    So, just so I'm clear, are you rejecting all social sciences as unscientific?

    Because that's a broad claim.

    I'd hope not, and I don't see that in his statements.

    Feminism is not a social science. Gender studies is a social science (under the umbrella of sociology). All those studies about wage disparity and the like from a few pages back? I didn't actually read them, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they were scientifically carried out. They're studies about how the world already is, and while the motivation for doing them might have arisen from a feminist desire, they're not completely concerned with how the world ought to be.

    Feminism is a package of ethics and values based around ideas of gender and sex - it's not just concerned with how the world is but how it ought to be. It's the difference between my saying I'm a political scientist and my saying I'm a Republican.

    I can also be an ignorant Republican, an unprincipled one, or one that came to that after examining things rationally. I could be self-interested or I could honestly believe in the righteousness of Republican ideals. I could only nominally care about Republican issues as they affect me, or I could have so much of my identity wrapped up in them that I feel like I'm at war with the culture around me.

    But I'm not practicing science by doing any of that.

    Ultimanecat on
    SteamID : same as my PA forum name
  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Personally I will always hold the onus on the person who raises the conflict, in this case the person who was offended. They are the ones standing up and saying "I have a problem, we both cant exist the way we want. You need to change your actions so I can be happy."

    We are giving a default winning position to the offended and that makes no sense to me. As I would do it the opposite way. If you are asking someone to change, you need to prove your case. You cant expect someone to alter their life to meet someone's expectation that they cant understand. If they come from a different perspective and I see the validity of their problem then it is up to them to show me where they are coming from.

    Nobody has yet to explain why the offended person is being any less selfish and a goose for expecting others to enjoy their life less so they can enjoy theirs more. Especially once you consider the fact that they are actually the one raising the conflict in the first place and not just letting it go.

    If I go to the movies and see some good seats and walk up to the people and say "can you move, I wanted to sit there?" Arent i being a dick? Why should I expect them to move just because I want those seats?

    On the flip side, if I forgot my glasses and ask them "OH, can I sit there, I forgot my glasses and I cant see back from where I am." I gave them a valid reason to hold my situation above their own. They can look at it and decide overall yeah, the world is a better place with me sitting here because they can see fine from back there. But even then they arent a bad person for declining. And up until that point, Im sort of a selfish asshole for even asking.

    I apply the same logic to folks being offended. Until you can tell me why your feelings are hurt more by that joke existing then others were raised by the humor, I dont see any reason why I should hold your feelings in any high regard. In fact, I will think you are selfish for complaining.

    To put it shortly, I a moderator used this hand signal to have the mic of an East African who had gone way over time cut off, he shouldn't be held responsible for said African taking it as a threat (the hand signal refers to decapitation in much of Africa)

  • QinguQingu Registered User regular
    I would like to see more discernment between so-called "rape jokes" in general and the specific thing that Tosh said to that woman.

    I think jokes about rape or other sensitive subject matter can be very funny. The "point" of jokes is often to draw attention to some sort of absurdity or injustice. Some rape jokes are simply in it for shock humor, which is less funny to me, but whatever. Then there are "rape jokes" that are supposedly funny because they belittle victims of rape, which is just creepy. Likewise, racism jokes run a similar gamut, and we laugh at different jokes for different reasons. (I also understand completely if people find such jokes too offensive to deal with.)

    But ... I'm not even sure what Tosh said to that woman was a *joke.* "Wouldn't it be funny if you got gang-raped right now?" — what is supposed to be the joke, exactly? You could be charitable and call it bullying.

    And yes, Tosh has the god-given right to say this to the woman in a free society, just as you have the god-given right to tell a black man that it would be "hilarious if you got lynched right now." But I don't see what criticizing such statements has to do with free speech, or even with humor.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    If the catchphrase for a phenomena or item implies things that aren't inherent to the thing being described, it is being created for intellectually dishonest purposes. To that point, "the patriarchy" isn't technical nomenclature, but rather political branding.

    So you feel that somebody has been using the term "patriarchy" in an intellectually dishonest way?

    If so, whom?

    I feel it's been designed and chosen in a dishonest way, right down to the use of "the" before it. Everything about the word and its usage implies coordination, rule, and malevolence.

    Who is using it in that way?

    I'm not really interested in fighting over what somebody said somewhere but it was totally a feminist and they were totally an asshole and maybe this isn't the worst feminism argument in the world (this is only a tribute) and you gotta believe me.

    I mean the close usage/grammatical placement. The patriarchy is doing X. The Patriarchy is doing Y.

    At least part of the issue is that "feminism" is a political movement, a broad grouping of people who believe that women shouldn't be shot on sight (which mainly seems to be brought up when someone is attacking the other meanings/categories of feminism), a branch of sociology and literary criticism with its own vocabulary (which is what I'm mainly criticizing, as the vocabulary is often taken from or driven by the political movement type of feminism that it often overlaps with), and a school of thought within each discipline (which has it's own problems, such as asserting that our prioritizing of data and evidence over impressions is due to our prioritizing the masculine over the feminine).

    Feminism is a not a literary theory or a branch of sociology. It generally falls under the term "continental philosophy" or "critical theory". It can be applied to anything and it not limited to any one discipline nor is it a school of thought within each discipline. It's not even a singular theory, but a grouping for the various branches of feminist thought.

    New Criticism is a literary theory. Russian Formalism is a literary theory. Feminism is not.

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Again, you're comparing a theory on social interactions to actual scientific theories. When someone has no factual evidence for their theory but insists on holding it up as something you must believe in or you're an ignorant asshole, I will point out how absurd it is. I find no problem with highlighting some of the more ridiculous assertions and saying, "This is what you're holding up as fact."

    So, just so I'm clear, are you rejecting all social sciences as unscientific?

    Because that's a broad claim.

    I'd hope not, and I don't see that in his statements.

    Feminism is not a social science. Gender studies is a social science (under the umbrella of sociology). All those studies about wage disparity and the like from a few pages back? I didn't actually read them, but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they were scientifically carried out. They're studies about how the world already is, and while the motivation for doing them might have arisen from a feminist desire, they're not completely concerned with how the world ought to be.

    Feminism is a package of ethics and values based around ideas of gender and sex - it's not just concerned with how the world is but how it ought to be. It's the difference between my saying I'm a political scientist and my saying I'm a Republican.

    I can also be an ignorant Republican, an unprincipled one, or one that came to that after examining things rationally. I could be self-interested or I could honestly believe in the righteousness of Republican ideals. I could only nominally care about Republican issues as they effect me, or I could have so much of my identity wrapped up in them that I feel like I'm at war with the culture around me.

    But I'm not practicing science by doing any of that.

    Of course, gender studies is often referred to as "feminism" and "feminist studies" by the lay public and some older institutions, at least partly because you also have "feminist history," "feminist physics," et cetera (is that "ect" or "etc?" I always forget).

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Bagginses wrote: »
    If the catchphrase for a phenomena or item implies things that aren't inherent to the thing being described, it is being created for intellectually dishonest purposes. To that point, "the patriarchy" isn't technical nomenclature, but rather political branding.

    So you feel that somebody has been using the term "patriarchy" in an intellectually dishonest way?

    If so, whom?

    I feel it's been designed and chosen in a dishonest way, right down to the use of "the" before it. Everything about the word and its usage implies coordination, rule, and malevolence.

    Who is using it in that way?

    I'm not really interested in fighting over what somebody said somewhere but it was totally a feminist and they were totally an asshole and maybe this isn't the worst feminism argument in the world (this is only a tribute) and you gotta believe me.

    I mean the close usage/grammatical placement. The patriarchy is doing X. The Patriarchy is doing Y.

    At least part of the issue is that "feminism" is a political movement, a broad grouping of people who believe that women shouldn't be shot on sight (which mainly seems to be brought up when someone is attacking the other meanings/categories of feminism), a branch of sociology and literary criticism with its own vocabulary (which is what I'm mainly criticizing, as the vocabulary is often taken from or driven by the political movement type of feminism that it often overlaps with), and a school of thought within each discipline (which has it's own problems, such as asserting that our prioritizing of data and evidence over impressions is due to our prioritizing the masculine over the feminine).

    Feminism is a not a literary theory or a branch of sociology. It generally falls under the term "continental philosophy" or "critical theory". It can be applied to anything and it not limited to any one discipline nor is it a school of thought within each discipline. It's not even a singular theory, but a grouping for the various branches of feminist thought.

    New Criticism is a literary theory. Russian Formalism is a literary theory. Feminism is not.

    I'm pretty sure "theory" is the only thing I didn't say "feminism" has been used as a moniker of.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    saint2e wrote: »
    This is very well written, and I believe a very accurate summary of the effects of rape on men and women.

    My question then is: Is there an equivalent act that is as devastating to Men as rape is to Women, in general?

    I feel like Men need some sort of basis of comparison to fully understand the situation.

    The closest thing I can think of is castration. But that is a very different scale in terms of being an actual thing a man has to worry about.

    But I think you kind of missed the point. I think part of the problem is wrapped up in how we view the crime to begin with. I don't think we should be defining a woman so much in terms of her sexual capabilities or sexual purity.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    That stupid cunt got what she deserved. Nobody goes to a comedy show to hear the opinions of some attention seeking asshole in the audience. Sit down and shut the fuck up, or leave. Hell, if you're really offended, go ask for your money back. But what kind of self-obsessed asshole decides to take it upon themselves to disrupt a show.

    And why is a comedy venue the only place where people think this is acceptable? I guarantee you that if this had been a Broadway play that offended her, she wouldn't have shouted her displeasure at the actors on stage. If this had been a movie, she wouldn't have yelled at the screen. If it was a concert, she wouldn't have tried to interrupt the musician. In every other case, she would have just left and went home to impotently whine about it on her stupid blog. And that's exactly what she should have done here.

  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    But ... I'm not even sure what Tosh said to that woman was a *joke.* "Wouldn't it be funny if you got gang-raped right now?" — what is supposed to be the joke, exactly? You could be charitable and call it bullying.

    I dunno...I do find the concept of a woman complaining about rape jokes why she herself is being raped kinda funny. Like, doesnt she have bigger problems to worry about? She is literally being raped right now, maybe that should be her focus, rather then worrying about Tosh offending someone. Like I could see her stand up, raise her hand and be like "excuse me? Some of us are actually being raped right now. So, its not cool to make that joke."

    Its an entertaining and ridiculous concept. I also imagine the men raping her backing off and letting her complain to Tosh, or perhaps even nodding in agreement and expressing their own offense that his joke crossed a line.

    616610-1.png
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Alright so yeah, my PTSD comments in retrospect were pretty easy to take out of context because I didn't give them any, and I've clearly lost a lot of faith in the medical establishment to know WTF they are talking about, and not dilute every disorder and syndrome down to a point where anyone can get diagnosed with anything if they shop around enough.

    I wasn't trying to claim that PTSD doesn't exists, or that people don't suffer from a very real or debilitating condition. I was saying we all have our damage. I've seen people with no severe impairment get diagnosed with PTSD who exhibit none of the debilitating symptoms traditionally packaged with PTSD. I wouldn't have thought that person had PTSD, but some doctor somewhere did. So whatever. One the one hand I have the internet yelling at me that only certain people qualify to have PTSD, and your personal mental demons have to be this tall to go on the ride. On the other hand I've seen (possibly shitty) doctors diagnose someone with demonstratibly mild depression as suffering from PTSD, a far cry from the severe condition that you guys tell me is the only thing that qualifies as PTSD.

    Whatever, it's a point I'm willing to concede.

    What I'm finding ironic is that, when I talked about the wage gap, I re-iterated time and again that what's interesting isn't the causes, because they are mostly a result of womens choices to take time off from work or work in lower paying fields with more flexible schedules, but why they felt they had to make those decisions. After pages of people screaming that I don't believe in the wage gap, we come full circle to approved feminist voices here saying pretty much exactly what I said.

    It's all quite amusing to me.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Changing your behavior - at all, even in the slightest - would mean that you're not 'comfortable' and you can't 'enjoy your life the way you want?'

    We all mold our behavior in certain ways to uphold the expectations of people around us. I don't curse in front of my mom. I have to wear pants to work. My girlfriend hates it if I kiss her after eating onions. I use my signal light before changing lanes. I don't cry that I'm not "comfortable" if I have to brush my teeth after eating onions; I'm happy I get to kiss my girlfriend. I don't ask for dotted-line, rock-solid, deductive proof that signaling before changing lanes will reduce the likelihood of a car accident; I do it because traffic flows smoother when everybody signals and because it is of nearly negligible burden to me to signal.

    And some of us have to change our behavior more than others. There's a whole population of women out there who are saying that they have to mediate their behavior constantly in response to misogyny and the threat of rape. In terms of rape alone, women have to worry far more about wear they walk, what social engagements they go to, who they date, how they dress, and how they treat men; than the other way around. In terms of misogyny, they feel like they have to scream far louder than men to have their voices heard, and when they do, they're accused of being bitchy. They don't feel comfortable in certain social situations - not necessarily just because of the threat of assault, but because they're treated as second-class citizens.

    There are some people out there who say, "Don't make rape jokes at all. Ever." I, personally, don't believe that. However, I do think that it's fair to say that some rape jokes, at the very least, make some rape victims relive their trauma. At the very worst, they contribute to an atmosphere of misogyny that is associated with higher rates of sexual assault.

    In comparison, the onus on you (and me) to think about the context and audience of your (and my) rape jokes is far less than the onus on women who have to deal with rape as a real, life-altering, traumatizing event. To ask them to keep changing their behavior to suit us is deeply unfair.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Bagginses, in case it got missed on the bottom of the page:


    Feral wrote: »
    By the way, Bagginses, Judith Bennett agrees with you with the construction "the patriarchy." From History Matters:
    Patriarchy has often been understood in simplistic terms. My students sometimes talk about 'The Patriarchy,' which always evokes for me a committee of white-haired men, nastily scheming to keep women in their place. Not so, of course. The concept of patriarchy might be singular, but its manifestations certainly are not.
    (Emphasis mine.)

    This is why feminists don't typically use the phrase "the patriarchy", but rather "patriarchy." It's not a specific regime, but a general descriptor of attitudes and roles. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchy#Feminist_theory):
    Most forms of feminism characterize patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. As feminist and political theorist Carole Pateman writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection."[26] In feminist theory the concept of patriarchy often includes all the social mechanisms that reproduce and exert male dominance over women. Feminist theory typically characterizes patriarchy as a social construction, which can be overcome by revealing and critically analyzing its manifestations.[27]

    Or even better, from Feminism 101: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/
    Patriarchy: one of the most misunderstood critical-theory concepts ever, often wilfully misunderstood. Patriarchy is one form of social stratification via a power/dominance hierarchy – an ancient and ongoing social system based on traditions of elitism (a ranking of inferiorities) and its privileges. Societies can be (and usually are) patriarchal, oligarchal and plutocratic all at the same time, complicated by current and/or legacy features of sectarianism, imperialism and colonialism, so the gender hierarchy is only one source of social disparity. Because of the limited capacity of the word “patriarchy” to describe the full operation of intersecting oppressions, some now prefer to use the word “kyriarchy” instead, but it is not yet in common use.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • DisrupterDisrupter Registered User regular
    Changing your behavior - at all, even in the slightest - would mean that you're not 'comfortable' and you can't 'enjoy your life the way you want?'

    Slightly, yes.

    So it comes down to evaluating the pros and cons of each side. Obviously its worth me not traumatizing a rape victim by not making a rape joke. And god, this sounds like its trivializing rape, but I swear Im not: is it worth me not traumatizing someone who stubbed their toe by not making a stub your toe joke? If so, when does it stop? When does my behavior become way more negatively impacted than the gain they get from me changing it?

    Thats the point. We default to the position that the offended is always right. But the situation needs to be fluid, we cant just blanket say that, because otherwise we get to the point where the cost outweighs the benefit, and we cant just default to the cost at that point.

    616610-1.png
  • AutomaticzenAutomaticzen Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Bagginses wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Personally I will always hold the onus on the person who raises the conflict, in this case the person who was offended. They are the ones standing up and saying "I have a problem, we both cant exist the way we want. You need to change your actions so I can be happy."

    We are giving a default winning position to the offended and that makes no sense to me. As I would do it the opposite way. If you are asking someone to change, you need to prove your case. You cant expect someone to alter their life to meet someone's expectation that they cant understand. If they come from a different perspective and I see the validity of their problem then it is up to them to show me where they are coming from.

    Nobody has yet to explain why the offended person is being any less selfish and a goose for expecting others to enjoy their life less so they can enjoy theirs more. Especially once you consider the fact that they are actually the one raising the conflict in the first place and not just letting it go.

    If I go to the movies and see some good seats and walk up to the people and say "can you move, I wanted to sit there?" Arent i being a dick? Why should I expect them to move just because I want those seats?

    On the flip side, if I forgot my glasses and ask them "OH, can I sit there, I forgot my glasses and I cant see back from where I am." I gave them a valid reason to hold my situation above their own. They can look at it and decide overall yeah, the world is a better place with me sitting here because they can see fine from back there. But even then they arent a bad person for declining. And up until that point, Im sort of a selfish asshole for even asking.

    I apply the same logic to folks being offended. Until you can tell me why your feelings are hurt more by that joke existing then others were raised by the humor, I dont see any reason why I should hold your feelings in any high regard. In fact, I will think you are selfish for complaining.

    To put it shortly, I a moderator used this hand signal to have the mic of an East African who had gone way over time cut off, he shouldn't be held responsible for said African taking it as a threat (the hand signal refers to decapitation in much of Africa)

    If the African said, "hey, this is what that hand symbol means where I'm from, could you maybe stop using it?" and the moderator continued? I'd consider the moderator a dick.

    To one, it's a legit callback to something horrible. To the other it's a hand sign. Why not be empathetic and use a different one?

    It's a case-by-case thing. You're just a much a goose in either extreme.

    Automaticzen on
    http://www.usgamer.net/
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Disrupter wrote: »
    And god, this sounds like its trivializing rape, but I swear Im not: is it worth me not traumatizing someone who stubbed their toe by not making a stub your toe joke? If so, when does it stop?
    Where reasonable expectations of trauma stop.

    This slope really isn't all that slippery.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • JuliusJulius Captain of Serenity on my shipRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    If there is one thing feminist aren't it's intellectually honest. Some of the biggest controversies in social science have been feminist forging, skewing, or unfairly framing their data. But it's for the greater good! So it's ok to lie or mislead.

    Care to link some examples? That's a pretty lofty accusation to make against a whole lot of people.

    Well the most famous example is that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man makes. But it's the most sloppy aggregate of data ever. It compares all men with all woman, and disregards profession, experience, hours worked, etc. When you control for those factors, women make 95 cents to every dollar a man makes, with variance according to region. For example, in urban areas, single, unmarried, women with no kids make MORE money than single, unmarried men with no kids. Of course, it's a whopping 3 cents more so who really cares?

    You have provided no links. Here are links which dispute your claims:

    (links snipped)

    I also want to point out that some of the aggravating factors Namrok mentions (for example, getting hired to less lucrative positions, or getting less hours) may also be the result of gender roles that push women away from lucrative fields and into part-time work or even outright discrimination. Even if we were to determine that 100% of the wage gap is due to different working schedules and professions among women (which, by the way, Vanguard aptly demonstrated that it's not) that doesn't mean that everything is all hunky-dory in the realm of female employment.

    still makes it fundamentally dishonest to say shit like "even to this day women only earn 77% of what a man earns."

    because that doesn't read as "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such", it reads like there is massive discrimination against women that we're totally ignoring I bet you that your female colleague with the same jobs earn only 70% of what you make you monster!

    and that's bullshit. it's illegal to pay women less for the same job, and companies know this. Women just choose to work less, and astonishingly they're happy about it. They don't want to work full-time, and honestly I can get behind that. Who does want to work full-time?

  • TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    Qingu wrote: »
    I would like to see more discernment between so-called "rape jokes" in general and the specific thing that Tosh said to that woman.

    I think jokes about rape or other sensitive subject matter can be very funny. The "point" of jokes is often to draw attention to some sort of absurdity or injustice. Some rape jokes are simply in it for shock humor, which is less funny to me, but whatever. Then there are "rape jokes" that are supposedly funny because they belittle victims of rape, which is just creepy. Likewise, racism jokes run a similar gamut, and we laugh at different jokes for different reasons. (I also understand completely if people find such jokes too offensive to deal with.)

    But ... I'm not even sure what Tosh said to that woman was a *joke.* "Wouldn't it be funny if you got gang-raped right now?" — what is supposed to be the joke, exactly? You could be charitable and call it bullying.

    And yes, Tosh has the god-given right to say this to the woman in a free society, just as you have the god-given right to tell a black man that it would be "hilarious if you got lynched right now." But I don't see what criticizing such statements has to do with free speech, or even with humor.

    It absolutely was bullying. And if he had just randomly attacked her for no reason, it would have been a super shitty thing to do. But when you decide your opinion matters so much that you need to make yourself part of the show, you deserve whatever verbal beating you have coming to you.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Julius wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    If there is one thing feminist aren't it's intellectually honest. Some of the biggest controversies in social science have been feminist forging, skewing, or unfairly framing their data. But it's for the greater good! So it's ok to lie or mislead.

    Care to link some examples? That's a pretty lofty accusation to make against a whole lot of people.

    Well the most famous example is that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man makes. But it's the most sloppy aggregate of data ever. It compares all men with all woman, and disregards profession, experience, hours worked, etc. When you control for those factors, women make 95 cents to every dollar a man makes, with variance according to region. For example, in urban areas, single, unmarried, women with no kids make MORE money than single, unmarried men with no kids. Of course, it's a whopping 3 cents more so who really cares?

    You have provided no links. Here are links which dispute your claims:

    (links snipped)

    I also want to point out that some of the aggravating factors Namrok mentions (for example, getting hired to less lucrative positions, or getting less hours) may also be the result of gender roles that push women away from lucrative fields and into part-time work or even outright discrimination. Even if we were to determine that 100% of the wage gap is due to different working schedules and professions among women (which, by the way, Vanguard aptly demonstrated that it's not) that doesn't mean that everything is all hunky-dory in the realm of female employment.

    still makes it fundamentally dishonest to say shit like "even to this day women only earn 77% of what a man earns."

    because that doesn't read as "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such", it reads like there is massive discrimination against women that we're totally ignoring I bet you that your female colleague with the same jobs earn only 70% of what you make you monster!

    and that's bullshit. it's illegal to pay women less for the same job, and companies know this. Women just choose to work less, and astonishingly they're happy about it. They don't want to work full-time, and honestly I can get behind that. Who does want to work full-time?

    If you actually read the links I posted, this is exactly what's happening. They compared people working in the same field at the same level (part time, full-time etc) and still found wage inequalities.

    Try again.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Disrupter wrote: »
    And god, this sounds like its trivializing rape, but I swear Im not: is it worth me not traumatizing someone who stubbed their toe by not making a stub your toe joke? If so, when does it stop? When does my behavior become way more negatively impacted than the gain they get from me changing it?

    You are trivializing rape with that comment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but that's how it came out. You clearly know that rape is not closely comparable to a stubbed toe; that's why you used that analogy.

    If somebody asks you to not make a stubbed toe joke, then we can talk about that. But we're not talking about that right now. We're talking about rape jokes.

    And, no, there isn't going to be some universal rule that applies to every single situation regardless of content and context.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • ArchArch Neat-o, mosquito! Registered User regular
    I never thought I would see the thread wherein people actually have issues with the wage gap data

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Julius wrote: »
    still makes it fundamentally dishonest to say shit like "even to this day women only earn 77% of what a man earns."

    because that doesn't read as "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such", it reads like there is massive discrimination against women that we're totally ignoring I bet you that your female colleague with the same jobs earn only 70% of what you make you monster!

    It doesn't read as "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such" because it doesn't just mean "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such." It means "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such" and "there is discrimination against women across all fields" and "there are cultural barriers to women fitting in to management and executive positions" and a whole host of other shit.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    And god, this sounds like its trivializing rape, but I swear Im not: is it worth me not traumatizing someone who stubbed their toe by not making a stub your toe joke? If so, when does it stop? When does my behavior become way more negatively impacted than the gain they get from me changing it?

    You are trivializing rape with that comment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but that's how it came out. You clearly know that rape is not closely comparable to a stubbed toe; that's why you used that analogy.

    If somebody asks you to not make a stubbed toe joke, then we can talk about that. But we're not talking about that right now. We're talking about rape jokes.

    And, no, there isn't going to be some universal rule that applies to every single situation regardless of content and context.

    I think he's talking about thresholds here

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    If there is one thing feminist aren't it's intellectually honest. Some of the biggest controversies in social science have been feminist forging, skewing, or unfairly framing their data. But it's for the greater good! So it's ok to lie or mislead.

    Care to link some examples? That's a pretty lofty accusation to make against a whole lot of people.

    Well the most famous example is that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man makes. But it's the most sloppy aggregate of data ever. It compares all men with all woman, and disregards profession, experience, hours worked, etc. When you control for those factors, women make 95 cents to every dollar a man makes, with variance according to region. For example, in urban areas, single, unmarried, women with no kids make MORE money than single, unmarried men with no kids. Of course, it's a whopping 3 cents more so who really cares?

    You have provided no links. Here are links which dispute your claims:

    (links snipped)

    I also want to point out that some of the aggravating factors Namrok mentions (for example, getting hired to less lucrative positions, or getting less hours) may also be the result of gender roles that push women away from lucrative fields and into part-time work or even outright discrimination. Even if we were to determine that 100% of the wage gap is due to different working schedules and professions among women (which, by the way, Vanguard aptly demonstrated that it's not) that doesn't mean that everything is all hunky-dory in the realm of female employment.

    still makes it fundamentally dishonest to say shit like "even to this day women only earn 77% of what a man earns."

    because that doesn't read as "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such", it reads like there is massive discrimination against women that we're totally ignoring I bet you that your female colleague with the same jobs earn only 70% of what you make you monster!

    and that's bullshit. it's illegal to pay women less for the same job, and companies know this. Women just choose to work less, and astonishingly they're happy about it. They don't want to work full-time, and honestly I can get behind that. Who does want to work full-time?

    If you actually read the links I posted, this is exactly what's happening. They compared people working in the same field at the same level (part time, full-time etc) and still found wage inequalities.

    Try again.

    I read the links you posted. That's not what they said at all. There is a wide, wide gap between hours worked even in full time. Full time is just 35+ hours. There would be a flexible work schedule, or not. The articles you posted controlled for everyone working full time, not working the same number of hours. When actual hours are controls for, men work vastly more overtime (coincidentally about as much overtime as women spend doing chores around the house over men).

    I know you are hung up on links, so here is this one.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296.html

    Not that I think it'll change your mind. It's not a comprehensive dealing of the data, rather is just examines a single facet of it, hours worked. It doesn't address the fields women choose to go into naturally paying less than fields men choose to go into. So frankly, it's not up to my standards either. But whatever, it is what it is. Maybe if I care enough at some point I'll troll through the Department of Labors statistics myself and see what there is to see.

  • JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Changing your behavior - at all, even in the slightest - would mean that you're not 'comfortable' and you can't 'enjoy your life the way you want?'

    We all mold our behavior in certain ways to uphold the expectations of people around us. I don't curse in front of my mom. I have to wear pants to work. My girlfriend hates it if I kiss her after eating onions. I use my signal light before changing lanes. I don't cry that I'm not "comfortable" if I have to brush my teeth after eating onions; I'm happy I get to kiss my girlfriend. I don't ask for dotted-line, rock-solid, deductive proof that signaling before changing lanes will reduce the likelihood of a car accident; I do it because traffic flows smoother when everybody signals and because it is of nearly negligible burden to me to signal.

    And some of us have to change our behavior more than others. There's a whole population of women out there who are saying that they have to mediate their behavior constantly in response to misogyny and the threat of rape. In terms of rape alone, women have to worry far more about wear they walk, what social engagements they go to, who they date, how they dress, and how they treat men; than the other way around. In terms of misogyny, they feel like they have to scream far louder than men to have their voices heard, and when they do, they're accused of being bitchy. They don't feel comfortable in certain social situations - not necessarily just because of the threat of assault, but because they're treated as second-class citizens.

    There are some people out there who say, "Don't make rape jokes at all. Ever." I, personally, don't believe that. However, I do think that it's fair to say that some rape jokes, at the very least, make some rape victims relive their trauma. At the very worst, they contribute to an atmosphere of misogyny that is associated with higher rates of sexual assault.

    In comparison, the onus on you (and me) to think about the context and audience of your (and my) rape jokes is far less than the onus on women who have to deal with rape as a real, life-altering, traumatizing event. To ask them to keep changing their behavior to suit us is deeply unfair.

    Art about things is better than silence about things for creating a climate where said things, if bad, happen less. Daniel Tosh's status as an "artist" is ... shall we say...highly subjective... I admit...but still.

    I don't think there's very many people who would walk away from this comedy routine with a newly diminished sense of the importance of rape.

    I think that IS a slippery slope argument.

    Were it not a private club, for over 21 patrons, but say a children's show, there might be such an argument, but in a for adults, by adults venue? It's pretty much a question of "was this an actually call to action"

    And I don't think it was, nor do I think a reasonable person would think so.

    Similar jokes have been made at hecklers (who are universally and justly reviled) - for example, joe rogan once famously threatend to "wrap his dick around [the female heckler's] neck and pull-start [her] like an old-time lawnmower" and I don't think anyone took that as a remotely serious threat of sexual assault.

    I understand the notion of a standard of internal offense, but I think that standard belongs more in a workplace and not in an artistic space. The fact is, at the end of the day, it's a justly protected expression some people disagree with, and the law has shielded worse - and that's actually, deep down, a good thing.

    Daniel Tosh already wasn't getting my money, though, so I guess my opinion doesn't matter.





  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    Arch wrote: »
    I never thought I would see the thread wherein people actually have issues with the wage gap data
    Given how many reports amounted to lying with statistics, it's really not surprising.

    ...and of course, as always, Kill Hitler.
  • spacekungfumanspacekungfuman Poor and minority-filled Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Changing your behavior - at all, even in the slightest - would mean that you're not 'comfortable' and you can't 'enjoy your life the way you want?'

    We all mold our behavior in certain ways to uphold the expectations of people around us. I don't curse in front of my mom. I have to wear pants to work. My girlfriend hates it if I kiss her after eating onions. I use my signal light before changing lanes. I don't cry that I'm not "comfortable" if I have to brush my teeth after eating onions; I'm happy I get to kiss my girlfriend. I don't ask for dotted-line, rock-solid, deductive proof that signaling before changing lanes will reduce the likelihood of a car accident; I do it because traffic flows smoother when everybody signals and because it is of nearly negligible burden to me to signal.

    And some of us have to change our behavior more than others. There's a whole population of women out there who are saying that they have to mediate their behavior constantly in response to misogyny and the threat of rape. In terms of rape alone, women have to worry far more about wear they walk, what social engagements they go to, who they date, how they dress, and how they treat men; than the other way around. In terms of misogyny, they feel like they have to scream far louder than men to have their voices heard, and when they do, they're accused of being bitchy. They don't feel comfortable in certain social situations - not necessarily just because of the threat of assault, but because they're treated as second-class citizens.

    There are some people out there who say, "Don't make rape jokes at all. Ever." I, personally, don't believe that. However, I do think that it's fair to say that some rape jokes, at the very least, make some rape victims relive their trauma. At the very worst, they contribute to an atmosphere of misogyny that is associated with higher rates of sexual assault.

    In comparison, the onus on you (and me) to think about the context and audience of your (and my) rape jokes is far less than the onus on women who have to deal with rape as a real, life-altering, traumatizing event. To ask them to keep changing their behavior to suit us is deeply unfair.

    You have a good reason for each of those sacrifices you make though. You want to kiss your girlfriend, so you brush your teeth after eating onions. But I assume you don't refrain from eating onions out of fear that some stranger may be offended by your breath. Even if one of your coworkers told you they don't like it when you eat onions because they can smell it, would you feel obliged to change your behavior, even if you really like onions? What right does he have to control what I eat based on his sensitivity to the smell of onions?

    I see things like demanding trigger warnings or banning the words lame and stupid to be exactly the same. You want me to cater to your extreme and unusual sensitivity? Then you'd better give me a reason. Living your life in a way that almost everyone you encounter does not find offensive doesn't make you an asshole when one person does and tell you they are offended. Taking actions to intentionally offend people, or doing things which offend most people on the other hand, generally make you an asshole by default, I would say.

  • VanguardVanguard But now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Namrok wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Julius wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Namrok wrote: »
    If there is one thing feminist aren't it's intellectually honest. Some of the biggest controversies in social science have been feminist forging, skewing, or unfairly framing their data. But it's for the greater good! So it's ok to lie or mislead.

    Care to link some examples? That's a pretty lofty accusation to make against a whole lot of people.

    Well the most famous example is that women earn 70 cents for every dollar a man makes. But it's the most sloppy aggregate of data ever. It compares all men with all woman, and disregards profession, experience, hours worked, etc. When you control for those factors, women make 95 cents to every dollar a man makes, with variance according to region. For example, in urban areas, single, unmarried, women with no kids make MORE money than single, unmarried men with no kids. Of course, it's a whopping 3 cents more so who really cares?

    You have provided no links. Here are links which dispute your claims:

    (links snipped)

    I also want to point out that some of the aggravating factors Namrok mentions (for example, getting hired to less lucrative positions, or getting less hours) may also be the result of gender roles that push women away from lucrative fields and into part-time work or even outright discrimination. Even if we were to determine that 100% of the wage gap is due to different working schedules and professions among women (which, by the way, Vanguard aptly demonstrated that it's not) that doesn't mean that everything is all hunky-dory in the realm of female employment.

    still makes it fundamentally dishonest to say shit like "even to this day women only earn 77% of what a man earns."

    because that doesn't read as "we should think about how to get women more interested in profitable fields and such", it reads like there is massive discrimination against women that we're totally ignoring I bet you that your female colleague with the same jobs earn only 70% of what you make you monster!

    and that's bullshit. it's illegal to pay women less for the same job, and companies know this. Women just choose to work less, and astonishingly they're happy about it. They don't want to work full-time, and honestly I can get behind that. Who does want to work full-time?

    If you actually read the links I posted, this is exactly what's happening. They compared people working in the same field at the same level (part time, full-time etc) and still found wage inequalities.

    Try again.

    I read the links you posted. That's not what they said at all. There is a wide, wide gap between hours worked even in full time. Full time is just 35+ hours. There would be a flexible work schedule, or not. The articles you posted controlled for everyone working full time, not working the same number of hours. When actual hours are controls for, men work vastly more overtime (coincidentally about as much overtime as women spend doing chores around the house over men).

    I know you are hung up on links, so here is this one.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303592404577361883019414296.html

    Not that I think it'll change your mind. It's not a comprehensive dealing of the data, rather is just examines a single facet of it, hours worked. It doesn't address the fields women choose to go into naturally paying less than fields men choose to go into. So frankly, it's not up to my standards either. But whatever, it is what it is. Maybe if I care enough at some point I'll troll through the Department of Labors statistics myself and see what there is to see.

    Again, this is an article that was published in the "Opinion" section. It's also from an author who wrote a book titled Manning Up: How the Rise of Women Has Turned Men Into Boys. Until I see some sources, I'm going to need something more.

  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    Feral wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Changing your behavior - at all, even in the slightest - would mean that you're not 'comfortable' and you can't 'enjoy your life the way you want?'

    We all mold our behavior in certain ways to uphold the expectations of people around us. I don't curse in front of my mom. I have to wear pants to work. My girlfriend hates it if I kiss her after eating onions. I use my signal light before changing lanes. I don't cry that I'm not "comfortable" if I have to brush my teeth after eating onions; I'm happy I get to kiss my girlfriend. I don't ask for dotted-line, rock-solid, deductive proof that signaling before changing lanes will reduce the likelihood of a car accident; I do it because traffic flows smoother when everybody signals and because it is of nearly negligible burden to me to signal.

    And some of us have to change our behavior more than others. There's a whole population of women out there who are saying that they have to mediate their behavior constantly in response to misogyny and the threat of rape. In terms of rape alone, women have to worry far more about wear they walk, what social engagements they go to, who they date, how they dress, and how they treat men; than the other way around. In terms of misogyny, they feel like they have to scream far louder than men to have their voices heard, and when they do, they're accused of being bitchy. They don't feel comfortable in certain social situations - not necessarily just because of the threat of assault, but because they're treated as second-class citizens.

    There are some people out there who say, "Don't make rape jokes at all. Ever." I, personally, don't believe that. However, I do think that it's fair to say that some rape jokes, at the very least, make some rape victims relive their trauma. At the very worst, they contribute to an atmosphere of misogyny that is associated with higher rates of sexual assault.

    In comparison, the onus on you (and me) to think about the context and audience of your (and my) rape jokes is far less than the onus on women who have to deal with rape as a real, life-altering, traumatizing event. To ask them to keep changing their behavior to suit us is deeply unfair.

    You have a good reason for each of those sacrifices you make though. You want to kiss your girlfriend, so you brush your teeth after eating onions. But I assume you don't refrain from eating onions out of fear that some stranger may be offended by your breath. Even if one of your coworkers told you they don't like it when you eat onions because they can smell it, would you feel obliged to change your behavior, even if you really like onions? What right does he have to control what I eat based on his sensitivity to the smell of onions?

    I see things like demanding trigger warnings or banning the words lame and stupid to be exactly the same. You want me to cater to your extreme and unusual sensitivity? Then you'd better give me a reason. Living your life in a way that almost everyone you encounter does not find offensive doesn't make you an asshole when one person does and tell you they are offended. Taking actions to intentionally offend people, or doing things which offend most people on the other hand, generally make you an asshole by default, I would say.

    To be fair, what people are trying to say is that women finding references to rape offensive is not extreme nor unusual.

  • FeralFeral MEMETICHARIZARD interior crocodile alligator ⇔ ǝɹʇɐǝɥʇ ǝᴉʌoɯ ʇǝloɹʌǝɥɔ ɐ ǝʌᴉɹp ᴉRegistered User regular
    edited July 2012
    You have a good reason for each of those sacrifices you make though.

    "Don't contribute to the trauma of rape victims" and "don't contribute to a culture of misogyny" aren't good reasons to you?

    Or are you just talking about trigger warnings?

    Because I'm talking about rape jokes, not trigger warnings. I know this thread devolved into a general-purpose 'let's bitch about feminists' thread for a while but I'm not really prepared to defend everything that every feminist or kinda-sorta-resembles-a-feminist everywhere has purportedly done.

    Feral on
    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.

    the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
  • AutomaticzenAutomaticzen Registered User regular
    edited July 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    We can unpack the quote above to mean, basically, "I will be more likely to respect somebody's opinion if they come from the same perspective as me." While that's a natural human tendency, it is not something to be proud of.

    But again, it comes down to a choice over who gets to be comfortable and enjoy their life the way they want. Yes they may have a different perspective, but it doesnt make it any more valid of a perspective then me. So ONE of us has to lose out. We both cant win. There is a conflict that ends with one person being made to feel less happy then the other.

    Changing your behavior - at all, even in the slightest - would mean that you're not 'comfortable' and you can't 'enjoy your life the way you want?'

    We all mold our behavior in certain ways to uphold the expectations of people around us. I don't curse in front of my mom. I have to wear pants to work. My girlfriend hates it if I kiss her after eating onions. I use my signal light before changing lanes. I don't cry that I'm not "comfortable" if I have to brush my teeth after eating onions; I'm happy I get to kiss my girlfriend. I don't ask for dotted-line, rock-solid, deductive proof that signaling before changing lanes will reduce the likelihood of a car accident; I do it because traffic flows smoother when everybody signals and because it is of nearly negligible burden to me to signal.

    And some of us have to change our behavior more than others. There's a whole population of women out there who are saying that they have to mediate their behavior constantly in response to misogyny and the threat of rape. In terms of rape alone, women have to worry far more about wear they walk, what social engagements they go to, who they date, how they dress, and how they treat men; than the other way around. In terms of misogyny, they feel like they have to scream far louder than men to have their voices heard, and when they do, they're accused of being bitchy. They don't feel comfortable in certain social situations - not necessarily just because of the threat of assault, but because they're treated as second-class citizens.

    There are some people out there who say, "Don't make rape jokes at all. Ever." I, personally, don't believe that. However, I do think that it's fair to say that some rape jokes, at the very least, make some rape victims relive their trauma. At the very worst, they contribute to an atmosphere of misogyny that is associated with higher rates of sexual assault.

    In comparison, the onus on you (and me) to think about the context and audience of your (and my) rape jokes is far less than the onus on women who have to deal with rape as a real, life-altering, traumatizing event. To ask them to keep changing their behavior to suit us is deeply unfair.

    You have a good reason for each of those sacrifices you make though. You want to kiss your girlfriend, so you brush your teeth after eating onions. But I assume you don't refrain from eating onions out of fear that some stranger may be offended by your breath. Even if one of your coworkers told you they don't like it when you eat onions because they can smell it, would you feel obliged to change your behavior, even if you really like onions? What right does he have to control what I eat based on his sensitivity to the smell of onions?

    I see things like demanding trigger warnings or banning the words lame and stupid to be exactly the same. You want me to cater to your extreme and unusual sensitivity? Then you'd better give me a reason. Living your life in a way that almost everyone you encounter does not find offensive doesn't make you an asshole when one person does and tell you they are offended. Taking actions to intentionally offend people, or doing things which offend most people on the other hand, generally make you an asshole by default, I would say.

    Your insistence to find a better reason that directly relates to you means extreme feminists are seemingly the only way forward. Your annoyance at the rage may get a person to change behavior more than attempting to convince you that another is actually having a problem.

    Especially since when the fact that another is having a problem is brought up civilly, the answer is "suck it up".

    Either we push and shout each other hoarse, or we give and take. Part of that will probably be you deciding "yeah this doesn't effect me much, but not doing doesn't really effect me either" and giving in a bit.

    Automaticzen on
    http://www.usgamer.net/
    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/
    I write about video games and stuff. It is fun. Sometimes.
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    Paladin wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    Disrupter wrote: »
    And god, this sounds like its trivializing rape, but I swear Im not: is it worth me not traumatizing someone who stubbed their toe by not making a stub your toe joke? If so, when does it stop? When does my behavior become way more negatively impacted than the gain they get from me changing it?

    You are trivializing rape with that comment. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but that's how it came out. You clearly know that rape is not closely comparable to a stubbed toe; that's why you used that analogy.

    If somebody asks you to not make a stubbed toe joke, then we can talk about that. But we're not talking about that right now. We're talking about rape jokes.

    And, no, there isn't going to be some universal rule that applies to every single situation regardless of content and context.

    I think he's talking about thresholds here

    Yes but then we have to actually discuss his point and talk about what in his post was good or bad and can't just dismiss it!

  • TubeTube Registered User admin
    Ok, we've passed the point of what constitutes a reasonable amount of time to talk about Daniel Tosh. If you still have things to say about Daniel Tosh, please contact your therapist.

This discussion has been closed.