Female gamers having a hard time in gaming communites

[Chilloutman]

He never claimed she 'banged her professors'. Just that she used her 'feminine wiles' to get 'better than she deserved' grades.

 

Oh so much discrimination, I never got good results from teachers because dont have correct cleavage

[Meshugger]

Gromnir is a professor?! 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

He never claimed she 'banged her professors'. Just that she used her 'feminine wiles' to get 'better than she deserved' grades.

 

 

Oh so much discrimination, I never got good results from teachers because dont have correct cleavage

Did you try going down on them?

[Gromnir]

 

am gonna avoid race for the time being. 

 

kid # 1: she is manipulative, condescending and  possibly psychotic. she comes from a wealthy family, dresses according to current fashions and is of average/slightly above average intelligence. she is considered attractive by whatever is the current standard o' attractiveness.

 

kid #2: is very bright and friendly but has aspergers. his family is poor. kid #2 has bad teeth and is tending towards being fat without being morbidly obese. his clothes is a hodgepodge of hand-me-downs that don't fit quite right, and donated outerwear chosen for warmth and durability rather than aesthetics. 

 

both is thirteen-year-olds... in whatever grade is typical for such age. we forget.

 

in what percentage of schools is kid #2 treated better than kid #1?

 

"well, with all things being equal..."

 

guess what, things is never equal. women, especially in certain fields, has gotta deal with glass ceilings and different expectations from male counterparts. is not fair. is not right. that being said, we suspect that most discrimination (small "d" as 'posed to big "D") people suffer in the US these days is less about race and sex than it is 'bout ... other things.

 

aside: is a girl we knew in university who always chose classes with married and male professors. she claimed that at minimum she could get her grade boosted from a C+ to a B- or from a B+ to an A-. we saw her do it too. am embarrassed to admit we dated her for a few months.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Did you dated here during she got banged by professors for B+ or after?

 

she didn't get banged by the profs as far as we could tell... at least she claimed that doing so would be stoopid. crying was most frequent ploy. go to office and cry a bit... offer to do some extra credit. actually going to prof office hours a few times and making some subtle/not so subtle insinuations were, more often than not, enough. she thought their gullibility were funny.

 

*shrug*

 

even so, it wouldn't have mattered to us if she had been with half the profs on campus. she were smart, funny, and mildly evil girl with fantastic legs and we were using each other. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps no. am not a professor. we did teach classes for a few years at some euro universities, but not as a professor per se.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Gromnir

[Drowsy Emperor]

You won't find a person who'll deny there is some level of discrimination going on, but that's about all that can be said before the discussion becomes pointless. And its just a short step away from from asking for equal treatment (a natural thing, I'd say) to asking for special privileges, which is, when you look at the people who made a career "fighting for these rights" in various generally useless, money wasting NGO's (others paying them to keep their job "a thing")- what its all about. 

 

That said, time to

 

Edited May 16, 2014 by Drowsy Emperor

[tajerio]

 

 

 

But compared to all other types of people in the world, straight white men face and have faced the fewest specific forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment.

Nah. They face less discrimination, certainly. But as to who faces "derogatory" and "dehumanizing" treatment? How can you even being to quantify that?

 

 

"Specific forms" is my real point there.  I'm not contesting for a single second that everyone in the world can be the target of terrible things done by other people.  But how many forms of derogatory and dehumanizing treatment have specifically targeted the straight white male?  Compared to, say, black people, or gay men?  That's what I'm getting at.

 

This doesn't really help your argument, though. Every white male who has ever been through US military bootcamp has been dehumanized and faced with derogatory comments. Every white male who has been through high school in the United States has been dehumanized and faced derogatory comments. You keep using these two words, but I think you want to use other words. You're basically saying that white men don't get insulted or treated like ****. Of course they do, and it is usually from other white males. Focusing on this is waste of time and effort.

 

 

I am not making the argument you think I am making.  As I've said before, and will now say again, anyone can be treated terribly by anyone else.  Can white men be victims of dehumanization and derogatory comments?  Absolutely, and many are every single day, and it is a terrible thing.  But how often are they treated like that because they are white men?  Almost never.

 

And focusing on that difference is not a waste of time and effort.  It's an enormous social problem in, at the very least, every Western country.  Anyone who is not a straight white man anywhere in the Western world is overwhelmingly likely to experience discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or sexual orientation.  Straight white men do not face that.  And the result is a type of social inequality that is repugnant no less for its extreme expressions than for its casual prevalence.

 

Note that I do not to say that white men should be treated like **** to even things out, because that would be equally stupid and reprehensible.  

[Meshugger]

But...but i thought that race and gender was a social construct...

[tajerio]

But...but i thought that race and gender was a social construct...

 

Nah, that's bollocks.

 

Making them matter, beyond whether one needs to wear sunscreen or refer to someone as he or she?  That's a social construct.

[Meshugger]

I actually agree for once.

[Meshugger]

But back to topic. I still do not get on how you want to tackle this problem, because almost every western country has, by law, anti-discrimatory measures in place. Being accused of being sexist/racist/whatnot is a stigma that no one wants, except for the racists and sexist because they do not care to begin with. 

 

//EDIT: I would go as far to say that free speech doesn't even exist, except for in the US, because of this. What's left really?

Edited May 16, 2014 by Meshugger

[decado]

But how often are they treated like that because they are white men?

Well your original argument wasn't clear.

 

In any regard, I will grant you that most white people do not face any real harmful behavior because of their whiteness. But males? They get a boatload of it. Men are subjected to a ton of real, actual abuse on a daily basis. In fact, it makes more sense to say that the abuse they receive is precisely because they are men.

 

The problem with modern narratives regarding sexism is that people look at the top and see men. And it is true, there are more men at the top of everything: more men in positions of power, more men in government, more men CEOs, and more men as managers or professors or what have you.

 

But what many people fail to do after looking up is to look down. And in the bottom rungs of society you will find far more men than women. More men in prison, more men die on the job, more men die from treatable illnesses, more men die in combat, etc. The list goes on.

 

It is my belief that a lot of these trends are dictated by our biology and the way we have evolved, since human males evolved to engage in aggressive, risk-taking behavior (thanks, testosterone!). I tend to view our position in society (however great or poor it may be) as an expression of our innate qualities as males, which are determined by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It is not so easy, then, to just throw that stuff away to conform to the demands of society. Always remember that it is only possible to have these kinds of conversations because the civilizations that allow them were built with the blood of reckless, risk-taking men, most of whom died horribly on the field of battle (or in prison, or were murdered by their governments, etc). And in some sense, they only persist because that same class of male -- the reckless, risk-taking kind -- has been socially coerced into behaving himself by the promise of regular sex (marriage) and a share of the wealth (economic opportunity). Strip that away, and I have a feeling that we would all of us very quickly begin to resemble our wild-west ancestors, settling fights with bloodshed and taking whatever we can grab.

 

In other words, I subscribe to the Robert E. Howard School of Anthropology: Civilization is nothing more than a thin veneer that barely covers humanity's animal traits. Take that veneer away, and we'll be splitting skulls like the our Cimmerian forefathers.

Edited May 16, 2014 by decado

[Gromnir]

 

It is my belief that a lot of these trends are dictated by our biology and the way we have evolved, since human males evolved to engage in aggressive, risk-taking behavior (thanks, testosterone!). I tend to view our position in society (however great or poor it may be) as an expression of our innate qualities as males, which are determined by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure.

 

 

hmmm. hate to do this, but seems necessary. your reasoning were used quite frequently as an excuse to prolong the disparate treatment o' blacks and asians and other minority groups in this country. one o' the most brilliant men o' the 20th century were a fella named william shockley. without him we wouldn't have computers and most modern electronic devices.  he were a big believer in the innate qualities o' races, and he had loads o' data to back up his beliefs.  gave up on physics during his later life and instead focused on eugenics. am really wishing he woulda' lived a bit longer-- maybe he woulda' admitted some errors. 'course he didn't have the advantage o' seeing how 21st century black immigrants from the caribbean and elsewhere who is voluntarily coming to the US in significant numbers, is testing similar to asians, and is usually beating the snot outta native whites.

 

innate qualities were used for a long time to discriminate 'gainst women in fields such as law and medicine. we finally gots women attending law schools and med schools in numbers that approach their relative population percentages, so after the good old boys finally die off in 20 or 30 years, we will probable finally see women getting treated equal in those fields. nevertheless, is disappointing that today women lawyers and doctors is still typical paid less then men doing same jobs. the largely bs innate quality stuff actual works in favor o' women lawyers rather than against. we want a person with better communication skills. our testosterone levels is not something we has ever included on a resume, and truth-to-tell, the "I AM A FIERCE HUNTER, ARGH!"  kinda thing is the last quality we want from an advocate. those innate quality studies frequent suggest that women not only have better communication skills, but also better negotiating ability. sooooo...

 

yeah, every few years some clown tries to force equality where it don't belong.  like it or not, the average woman doesn't have the same upper body strength as men. pretending otherwise is foolish. we recall reviewing tapes of prospective fireman candidates. it were frequent comical. is not sexist to want a fireman who can swing an ax properly or carry an adult male smoke inhalation victim outta a building without having to resort to dragging them by the ankles. has nothing to do with sexism. if a woman is capable o' doing the job o' a fireman, she shouldn't be discriminated 'gainst. but giving fireman jobs to women who simply cannot do the work is asinine. 

 

regardless, whenever we hear innate qualities being bandied about as a reason to explain disparate treatment o' women, we recall it has been used for a long time to validate other kinds o' discrimination... and that even the most brilliant o' men were stoopid enough to use such arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am a big robert e. howard fan our self, but ursula k. le guin deserves her due as well.

 

http://www.pacifict.com/ron/Mills.html

Edited May 17, 2014 by Gromnir

[Monte Carlo]

It's like the debate on Human Biodiversity. On the one hand, some of the science could advance our understanding of certain diseases and illnesses. On the other, too many racists and bigots find it irresistible. So you have something forbidden but potentially useful. Ethics comes into play.

 

When I studied sociology many, many moons ago we were provided with Tiger and Fox's 'Human Biogrammar' as an example of evil, determinist theory on gender. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Imperial_Animal.html?id=fg5MXnnq4u0C&redir_esc=y

 

Naturally, given that the lecturer were a slovenly, man-hating communist I found myself in full agreement with Tiger and Fox.

[BruceVC]

 

But how often are they treated like that because they are white men?

Well your original argument wasn't clear.

 

In any regard, I will grant you that most white people do not face any real harmful behavior because of their whiteness. But males? They get a boatload of it. Men are subjected to a ton of real, actual abuse on a daily basis. In fact, it makes more sense to say that the abuse they receive is precisely because they are men.

 

The problem with modern narratives regarding sexism is that people look at the top and see men. And it is true, there are more men at the top of everything: more men in positions of power, more men in government, more men CEOs, and more men as managers or professors or what have you.

 

But what many people fail to do after looking up is to look down. And in the bottom rungs of society you will find far more men than women. More men in prison, more men die on the job, more men die from treatable illnesses, more men die in combat, etc. The list goes on.

 

It is my belief that a lot of these trends are dictated by our biology and the way we have evolved, since human males evolved to engage in aggressive, risk-taking behavior (thanks, testosterone!). I tend to view our position in society (however great or poor it may be) as an expression of our innate qualities as males, which are determined by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure. It is not so easy, then, to just throw that stuff away to conform to the demands of society. Always remember that it is only possible to have these kinds of conversations because the civilizations that allow them were built with the blood of reckless, risk-taking men, most of whom died horribly on the field of battle (or in prison, or were murdered by their governments, etc). And in some sense, they only persist because that same class of male -- the reckless, risk-taking kind -- has been socially coerced into behaving himself by the promise of regular sex (marriage) and a share of the wealth (economic opportunity). Strip that away, and I have a feeling that we would all of us very quickly begin to resemble our wild-west ancestors, settling fights with bloodshed and taking whatever we can grab.

 

In other words, I subscribe to the Robert E. Howard School of Anthropology: Civilization is nothing more than a thin veneer that barely covers humanity's animal traits. Take that veneer away, and we'll be splitting skulls like the our Cimmerian forefathers.

 

 

Decardo I still don't think you are trying hard enough to not insult the intelligence of people who follow and study the causes and facts around discrimination and bigotry, so thats a D - for lack of effort

 

But lets focus  on the topic at hand, are you suggesting that nowadays and historically white, heterosexual males have been equally discriminated against compared to other minority groups? Now in the interests of clarity minority groups include non-whites, women, gays and all other groups that are typically the victim of discrimination ?

[Gromnir]

It's like the debate on Human Biodiversity. On the one hand, some of the science could advance our understanding of certain diseases and illnesses. On the other, too many racists and bigots find it irresistible. So you have something forbidden but potentially useful. Ethics comes into play.

 

When I studied sociology many, many moons ago we were provided with Tiger and Fox's 'Human Biogrammar' as an example of evil, determinist theory on gender. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Imperial_Animal.html?id=fg5MXnnq4u0C&redir_esc=y

 

Naturally, given that the lecturer were a slovenly, man-hating communist I found myself in full agreement with Tiger and Fox.

y'know, that is one o' the real tragedies concerning shockley. the guy was freaking brilliant, and his initial research had value. african-american kids did indeed have iq scores that were averaging 15 points lower than caucasian counterparts.  coulda' gone a dozen different directions form that start point.  unfortunate, America called shockley a bigot, and shockley seemed to almost revel in being cast in the role of Villain. what a waste.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Monte Carlo]

Of the 6000000 Jews murdered by the Germans during the Second World War, let's assume roughly half of them were white and male.

[BruceVC]

 

It's like the debate on Human Biodiversity. On the one hand, some of the science could advance our understanding of certain diseases and illnesses. On the other, too many racists and bigots find it irresistible. So you have something forbidden but potentially useful. Ethics comes into play.

 

When I studied sociology many, many moons ago we were provided with Tiger and Fox's 'Human Biogrammar' as an example of evil, determinist theory on gender. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Imperial_Animal.html?id=fg5MXnnq4u0C&redir_esc=y

 

Naturally, given that the lecturer were a slovenly, man-hating communist I found myself in full agreement with Tiger and Fox.

y'know, that is one o' the real tragedies concerning shockley. the guy was freaking brilliant, and his initial research had value. african-american kids did indeed have iq scores that were averaging 15 points lower than caucasian counterparts.  coulda' gone a dozen different directions form that start point.  unfortunate, America called shockley a bigot, and shockley seemed to almost revel in being cast in the role of Villain. what a waste.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Thats an interesting research statistic, what was the main reason given for the difference in IQ scores?

[BruceVC]

Of the 6000000 Jews murdered by the Germans during the Second World War, let's assume roughly half of them were white and male.

 

Not sure I get your point, I think Jews are a minority group that also gets discriminated against because they are Jewish. Not because they are white males

[Gromnir]

 

 

It's like the debate on Human Biodiversity. On the one hand, some of the science could advance our understanding of certain diseases and illnesses. On the other, too many racists and bigots find it irresistible. So you have something forbidden but potentially useful. Ethics comes into play.

 

When I studied sociology many, many moons ago we were provided with Tiger and Fox's 'Human Biogrammar' as an example of evil, determinist theory on gender. http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Imperial_Animal.html?id=fg5MXnnq4u0C&redir_esc=y

 

Naturally, given that the lecturer were a slovenly, man-hating communist I found myself in full agreement with Tiger and Fox.

y'know, that is one o' the real tragedies concerning shockley. the guy was freaking brilliant, and his initial research had value. african-american kids did indeed have iq scores that were averaging 15 points lower than caucasian counterparts.  coulda' gone a dozen different directions form that start point.  unfortunate, America called shockley a bigot, and shockley seemed to almost revel in being cast in the role of Villain. what a waste.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Thats an interesting research statistic, what was the main reason given for the difference in IQ scores?

 

that were the problem. if you took the validity of the test itself as a given (a suspect starting point) then shockley believed that he had effective eliminated environmental factors from his statistical analysis by referencing numerous twins-separated-after-birth studies that showed relative marginal importance of environmental factors. so, if it weren't environmental, it must be genetic, yes? shockley, as we said were brilliant. he had used statistical analysis during ww2 to prove german bombers didn't have radar, and his number crunching also led to a 5x increase in effectiveness of US sub-hunting techniques. and keep in mind, he were a physicist  who had probable only seen bombers and subs in picture books. the thing is, there were clearly more variables at work than he were accounting for in his studies... and of course, he opined solutions that were... 

 

*shrug*

 

observing that the least successful elements of the population were the folks breeding the most, and that enforced reproduction limits were a viable solution were clear not gonna win him fans.

 

is loads o' folks who has, after the fact, showed flaws in shockley methodology, but most reputable scientists at the time didn't want any part o' the circus that followed in the nobelauriate winner's wake. as soon as somebody started shouting, "bigot," most folks at that time chose a path o' wisdom and self-preservation-- ran like bunnies. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Meshugger]

 

 

It is my belief that a lot of these trends are dictated by our biology and the way we have evolved, since human males evolved to engage in aggressive, risk-taking behavior (thanks, testosterone!). I tend to view our position in society (however great or poor it may be) as an expression of our innate qualities as males, which are determined by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary pressure.

 

 

hmmm. hate to do this, but seems necessary. your reasoning were used quite frequently as an excuse to prolong the disparate treatment o' blacks and asians and other minority groups in this country. one o' the most brilliant men o' the 20th century were a fella named william shockley. without him we wouldn't have computers and most modern electronic devices.  he were a big believer in the innate qualities o' races, and he had loads o' data to back up his beliefs.  gave up on physics during his later life and instead focused on eugenics. am really wishing he woulda' lived a bit longer-- maybe he woulda' admitted some errors. 'course he didn't have the advantage o' seeing how 21st century black immigrants from the caribbean and elsewhere who is voluntarily coming to the US in significant numbers, is testing similar to asians, and is usually beating the snot outta native whites.

 

innate qualities were used for a long time to discriminate 'gainst women in fields such as law and medicine. we finally gots women attending law schools and med schools in numbers that approach their relative population percentages, so after the good old boys finally die off in 20 or 30 years, we will probable finally see women getting treated equal in those fields. nevertheless, is disappointing that today women lawyers and doctors is still typical paid less then men doing same jobs. the largely bs innate quality stuff actual works in favor o' women lawyers rather than against. we want a person with better communication skills. our testosterone levels is not something we has ever included on a resume, and truth-to-tell, the "I AM A FIERCE HUNTER, ARGH!"  kinda thing is the last quality we want from an advocate. those innate quality studies frequent suggest that women not only have better communication skills, but also better negotiating ability. sooooo...

 

yeah, every few years some clown tries to force equality where it don't belong.  like it or not, the average woman doesn't have the same upper body strength as men. pretending otherwise is foolish. we recall reviewing tapes of prospective fireman candidates. it were frequent comical. is not sexist to want a fireman who can swing an ax properly or carry an adult male smoke inhalation victim outta a building without having to resort to dragging them by the ankles. has nothing to do with sexism. if a woman is capable o' doing the job o' a fireman, she shouldn't be discriminated 'gainst. but giving fireman jobs to women who simply cannot do the work is asinine. 

 

regardless, whenever we hear innate qualities being bandied about as a reason to explain disparate treatment o' women, we recall it has been used for a long time to validate other kinds o' discrimination... and that even the most brilliant o' men were stoopid enough to use such arguments.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am a big robert e. howard fan our self, but ursula k. le guin deserves her due as well.

 

http://www.pacifict.com/ron/Mills.html

 

 

Wasn't all of his research refuted by Thomas Sowell and alike years ago? As in Jews having lower than avarage national US IQ's before and during the WWII, same with Japanese just after WWII, only to increase to become much greater than the national avarage within a generation? His point was that the human capital itself is was creates great societies, meaning values like craftmanship, trade, interest in learning is what creates wealth, and in such, IQ levels increase incredibly.

 

My conjecture to this is that the more human capital increased with "positive" values, all the -isms will disappear by themselves.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Meshugger

[Monte Carlo]

 

Of the 6000000 Jews murdered by the Germans during the Second World War, let's assume roughly half of them were white and male.

 

Not sure I get your point, I think Jews are a minority group that also gets discriminated against because they are Jewish. Not because they are white males

 

 

I'm not surprised, Bruce. You seldom get the point because the more open-minded you try to be, the more it closes. Intellectual curiosity is seldom a feature of the liberal Left, it tends to get in the way of prefabricated ideological certainties.

 

My point is that there are more metrics to 'diversity' than gender. Or race. Or religion. Or sexuality. You say 'white men' are traditionally not discriminated against. What if that white man happens to possess another metric that opens him up to discrimination? Of course, this leads to a politically-correct game of top trumps where we can all compare our diversity scores (You're Jewish! Yay! Gay too? thats FIVE POINTS! I'm white. Shame, take away four points). I've seen otherwise sensible, well-educated people wander off down the blind alley of gender and identity politics far too often.

 

We can all be discriminated against, and that discrimination can be for trivial things with profound circumstances. I remember once losing out an amazing career opportunity because a female colleague was a die-hard fan of the same soccer team as the boss. They went to games together and spoke of little else. I got on fine with them both but found soccer dull. My female colleague was nowhere near as experienced as me, nor suited for the assignment she was given. She still jumped on the opportunity like Tom on Jerry, totally oblivious to the obvious nepotism at play.

 

It wasn't sexist or racist or soccer-ist. It was Life.

 

I manned-up (see what I did there?) and got on with it. This is your First World dilemma, wandering around in circles crying about boob-plate and Anita whatever she's called. Meanwhile bastards kidnap girls and sell them into slavery due to their gender and religion and you still wander around in circles crying about boob-plate and Anita whatever she's called. There are millions of women who would love to have nothing more urgent to worry about that their depiction in video games that cost six months salary in their countries.

 

* sigh *

[BruceVC]

 

 

Of the 6000000 Jews murdered by the Germans during the Second World War, let's assume roughly half of them were white and male.

 

Not sure I get your point, I think Jews are a minority group that also gets discriminated against because they are Jewish. Not because they are white males

 

 

I'm not surprised, Bruce. You seldom get the point because the more open-minded you try to be, the more it closes. Intellectual curiosity is seldom a feature of the liberal Left, it tends to get in the way of prefabricated ideological certainties.

 

My point is that there are more metrics to 'diversity' than gender. Or race. Or religion. Or sexuality. You say 'white men' are traditionally not discriminated against. What if that white man happens to possess another metric that opens him up to discrimination? Of course, this leads to a politically-correct game of top trumps where we can all compare our diversity scores (You're Jewish! Yay! Gay too? thats FIVE POINTS! I'm white. Shame, take away four points). I've seen otherwise sensible, well-educated people wander off down the blind alley of gender and identity politics far too often.

 

We can all be discriminated against, and that discrimination can be for trivial things with profound circumstances. I remember once losing out an amazing career opportunity because a female colleague was a die-hard fan of the same soccer team as the boss. They went to games together and spoke of little else. I got on fine with them both but found soccer dull. My female colleague was nowhere near as experienced as me, nor suited for the assignment she was given. She still jumped on the opportunity like Tom on Jerry, totally oblivious to the obvious nepotism at play.

 

It wasn't sexist or racist or soccer-ist. It was Life.

 

I manned-up (see what I did there?) and got on with it. This is your First World dilemma, wandering around in circles crying about boob-plate and Anita whatever she's called. Meanwhile bastards kidnap girls and sell them into slavery due to their gender and religion and you still wander around in circles crying about boob-plate and Anita whatever she's called. There are millions of women who would love to have nothing more urgent to worry about that their depiction in video games that cost six months salary in their countries.

 

* sigh *

 

 

I'm sorry you have had such a tough life Monte and been the victim of discrimination, because it was unfair how you lost out on that job and I would be very  annoyed if it happened to me. But maybe thats why you can't empathize with the issues I raise, you are jaded and refuse to identify with them. But this doesn't make them any less relevant

 

Also nice Strawman with the insinuation that I don't care about "real world" issues like the Boko Haram kidnapping. You have no idea what I have done in my personal capacity to raise awareness around this appalling development. I did create the thread in the Off Topic section to stimulate debate but thats only what I have done on these forums and not what I have done outside of these forums

[Monte Carlo]

I thought you considered yourself a focus of interesting debate and that's the best you can come up with?

 

My work here is done.

[BruceVC]

I thought you considered yourself a focus of interesting debate and that's the best you can come up with?

 

My work here is done.

 

No Monte  despite what you think and how you see yourself when I raise issues of social justice its not about me at all. I am a white, heterosexual male. My life is great and I generally don't get discriminated against

Edited May 17, 2014 by BruceVC

[Nonek]

 

But lets focus  on the topic at hand, are you suggesting that nowadays and historically white, heterosexual males have been equally discriminated against compared to other minority groups? Now in the interests of clarity minority groups include non-whites, women, gays and all other groups that are typically the victim of discrimination ?

 

 

Bruce saying historically that white males have not been discriminated against is extremely foolish, I know that you feel the need to parrot the latest popular slogans but please think about what you're saying. Ceaser's invasion of Gaul for instance, with casualties and those enslaved in the millions all commited by Mediterraneans against Germanic folk, hardly a comfortable and easy life being slaughtered or condemned to a living death in the slave mines of Syria. The young Englishman and Americans starved, beaten, worked to death or beheaded during the far eastern operations of World War 2. The vast multitudes who died in agony when the Bubonic Plague swept into Europe. The working classes who slaved away in the factories of the early Industrial Revolution for a pittance, and died in their thousands, but were an acceptable statistic.

 

I could go on to cite hundreds of examples, and many of them would be present day problems amongst white heterosexual men, indeed there are millions of unemployed and unemployable men in England who must rely on foodbanks to support their families. A shameful situation in one of the richest countries on Earth. If one is rich, gainfully employed and fits within societies roles then one may indeed have an easy life, that is the benefit of having our forefathers work hard, sacrifice and die for their childrens betterment. That sacrifice should not be forgotten or looked upon as a bad thing, they gave greatly to help their countries, and were not rewarded for it. But still there are endemic problems in western society and they affect white men just as much as any minority, to say otherwise is the blinkered rhetoric of spoiled idiots with no experience of the real world.

 

There is a problem with a privileged elite ruling society in England at least, and the current state of politics ensures that whomever is voted for they will still rule, but that is a seperate matter for discussion. Saying that white men face no problems is silly, they are discriminated against in their own country, which their forefathers fought and died for. Just the same as a poor African in a shanty town is discriminated against by his own people, that is the broken nature of society. The sensible thing is to raise everybody not cry guilt and privilege, and to see a safe, orderly and respected existence as the basic right of everybody.

 

Equality not segregation as you argue for.

Edited May 17, 2014 by Nonek