mantlepiecek said:
Kasz216 said:
wfz said:
It's the same reason why calling a white person a cracker isn't as offensive as calling a black person a nigger. There is a systematic history of one group being held down... primarily by the other group.
That something is more offensive based on context is humerous to you?
Objectifying women is a call back to when they weren't treated like people. Which was a hell of alot more recent then you seem to think. (It hasn't even been 100 years.)
Objectifying men brings men back to... never. Men have always had at worst a majority of power socially. Such things only hurt when there is something to hurt... something to call back to.
|
Honestly, men are objectified as well. I've been objectified and felt pressured to look a certain way my entire life. And I've also been put under pressure for the way I look my entire life as well. I understand the difference - men are objectified in a powerful way and women are objectified in a softer, more sexualized manner. But both are objectified and both have pressure to look like the object portrayed in societies.
|
Congradualations for completely 100% missing the point.
First off, Men aren't pressured to look a certain way... at least not remotely near as much.
Secondly, it's not "powerful" vs "soft"
It's "Powerful" vs "For most of the history of mankind women have been more or less as property... and by most of history it's like 99% of history, since it's been less then 100 years since women have had the right to vote in this country let alone society ever getting to a point where men and women are treated equally. Therefore treating women like property sort of has a stronger implication behind it."
Basically it's like "not getting" why a black person might be upset that at a party that's 95% white, for an industry that's 95% white ... every waiter and valet is black, and emphasis is put on them being servants.
|
Well, then these women need to stop living in the past and live in the present. Giving the past as an excuse for "offense" is as weak as it gets.
Because most people live in the present. What happened in the past is in nobody's control now.
What you are doing is just supporting double standards.
|
You mean the present where women are still more objectified then men, still aren't treated as 100% equals and are often objectified and marginalized in male dominated fields like videogames?
Outside which.... no people should be aware of the past and should be consdiderate of how the fast effects people, espiecally people of marginalized groups. How could you think otherwise?
Again, do you really think it's a double standard to be mad when Michael Richards calls a black guy a Nigger, but not get upset when Chris Rock calls a white guy a cracker? If so... you REALLY need to reevaluate your priorites.
Let alone the fact that sexism is still totally a problem and women still often completely treated like property.
By the way, i'm not actually offended by the above... i'm sure many women aren't... however I think you'd have to be pretty intentionally ignorant to not understand why people would be and to think it would be no different then if a male was there.
It screams wanting to hide from the fact that there are a ton of advantages to being a dude and next to zero disadvantages.
As for the "the women agreed to do that".
I bet you can find a Jewish person to make holocaust jokes.
You can totally find black people who will say bad stuff about other black people.
That doesn't mean suddeny holocaust jokes and racists stuff are suddenly fair game and nobody can cry racism ever or even in that specific incident. Much more extreme examples, but it makes the point for sure.
