Aziz Ansari - Accused of Sexual Misconduct; Guilty of not being a mindreader

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Thaluikhain:
snip

Agema:
snip

I gotta side with Silentpony here.

I could take a charitable interpretation of evilthecat's statement and assume that "good chance" means "maybe one in ten." And I'd agree with that; out of any group of ten random human beings, there's probably going to be garbage person in there. But colloquially, "there's a good chance" is synonymous with "it's likely" or "it's probable." The simplest interpretation of what evilthecat was saying was "it is probable that any given straight man is trash." And I can't agree with that.

Silentpony:
Also the phrase really does mean high likelihood of happening:
http://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/theres-a-good-chance-that-a-hrefhttp-wwwphrasemixcom-languag

bastardofmelbourne:
I gotta side with Silentpony here.

It's totally bogus to impose your personal quantitive measure to that sort of qualitative statement.

For instance, if someone you knew nothing about said they got "a big salary", you can't go round saying you know what sort of sum they're paid. If it's some scion of the upper middle classes with a Harvard degree, he might mean $1M p.a. If it's a working class guy with no education, he might mean $50k p.a.

I literally could not care less about a random internet source of no appreciable credentials - it's about as compelling as a random guy in a bar whilst you were out on the razz last night.

Agema:

Silentpony:
Also the phrase really does mean high likelihood of happening:
http://www.phrasemix.com/phrases/theres-a-good-chance-that-a-hrefhttp-wwwphrasemixcom-languag

bastardofmelbourne:
I gotta side with Silentpony here.

It's totally bogus to impose your personal quantitive measure to that sort of qualitative statement.

For instance, if someone you knew nothing about said they got "a big salary", you can't go round saying you know what sort of sum they're paid. If it's some scion of the upper middle classes with a Harvard degree, he might mean $1M p.a. If it's a working class guy with no education, he might mean $50k p.a.

I literally could not care less about a random internet source of no appreciable credentials - it's about as compelling as a random guy in a bar whilst you were out on the razz last night.

Yeah, you don't get to pick and choose what phrases mean. That's not really how phrases work. To use your salary example, yeah, 'big salary' doesn't mean much because its not a common phrase.
Now if someone where to say "I'm making bank" or "making a mint", or "I'm printing money!", then yeah we don't get a numerical value, but the implication is that its a very large amount of money. That's safe to assume because they used a phrase used when referencing large sums of money.

And by appreciable credentials, I assume you mean commonly known and understood? I mean its just obtuse at this point to be trying to parse alternative meanings from such a commonly used and understood phrase as 'good chance'

the December King:

I thought that was the point, that this was a conclusion, or at least the obvious inference, that could be derived from these kinds of statements? No one wants to be regarded as garbage simply because they are men, right?

But it's not the obvious inference. It's an extrapolation which goes beyond the content of the original statement.

Again, not saying that the statement itself is fine.

Silentpony:

Is this the part where I get to ironically ask you if you read these posts? Sad that someone else beat me to the punch, but lessons should be reinforced, so here:

Christ, how condescending.

Silentpony:

I underlined the parts you had trouble reading. And yes, it is the fucking same. If someone says its safe to assume ALL straight men are trash, its safe to assume they mean all straight men are trash. That's the intent, the conclusion, and the words typed.
And your words were 'anything approaching this' And they're wrong. Someone did say something approaching what I said. Very close to what I said, actually. Damn near identical, now that I'm re-reading what I posted earlier.

"It's safe to assume all straight men are trash" are not the words typed, and that message is not present in the original post. You extrapolated that in order to get your knickers in a twist.

I'm not defending the statement made. But that was not the statement made. "Good chance" simply does not indicate that all members of the group are the same, and he specifically said that's not the case.

Silentpony:
But 'good chance' means higher than even chance. Meaning higher than 50%.

There's no reason to equate "good chance" with 50 percent. That's nonsense.

Silvanus:
SNIP

OH! I get it. when you tell me to re-read the posts again, you're just being polite. When I do it, its condescending. Totally didn't know you were immune to hypocrisy.

And yes, good chance does mean high probably. That is the meaning of the phrase. Go ask anyone if there is a 'good chance of X happening' what they think that means, and if they could put a probability on it, what would it be.
The majority of people are going to say higher than 50% because that's what the phrase means. You don't get to redefine it because its inconvenient for you.

Silentpony:

OH! I get it. when you tell me to re-read the posts again, you're just being polite. When I do it, its condescending. Totally didn't know you were immune to hypocrisy.

It was more to do with the rest of the post. "Lessons should be reinforced", "you had trouble reading", etcetera. It sounds like something a school bully in a cartoon would say.

Silentpony:

And yes, good chance does mean high probably. That is the meaning of the phrase. Go ask anyone if there is a 'good chance of X happening' what they think that means, and if they could put a probability on it, what would it be.
The majority of people are going to say higher than 50% because that's what the phrase means. You don't get to redefine it because its inconvenient for you.

Why don't you let Evil tell you whether he meant 50% of all men? After all, your accusation is that that's what he meant, so surely he can clarify for us both.

You already know the answer.

Silvanus:

It was more to do with the rest of the post. "Lessons should be reinforced", "you had trouble reading", etcetera. It sounds like something a school bully in a cartoon would say.

Why don't you let Evil tell you whether he meant 50% of all men? After all, your accusation is that that's what he meant, so surely he can clarify for us both.

You already know the answer.

Actually it was more like someone trying to correct bad behavior in someone else.

And why do you keep trying to make sexist comments work? Why do you want it to be okay to say that? Or, more accurately, what percentage to you isn't sexist? 25%? 30%? 10%?
And as I've asked other, I'll ask you. Change it up:
any black man has a good chance of being trash
any straight woman has a good chance of being trash
any Mexican has a good chance of being trash

Are those phrases okay? What if I put a number on it, say...20%. There's a 20% chance any given black man is trash. That cool with you?
Since when did commonly used phrase become such a point of misinformation for people? When did we forget what words mean?

Silentpony:

Actually it was more like someone trying to correct bad behavior in someone else.

Why are you writing as if you have some kind of authority over me? Is it a sexual thing?

Silentpony:

And why do you keep trying to make sexist comments work? Why do you want it to be okay to say that?

I don't, which is why I said I have no problem with people objecting to what was said, and later said again that I wasn't defending the statement itself. I don't agree with the statement.

Silentpony:

Or, more accurately, what percentage to you isn't sexist? 25%? 30%? 10%?
And as I've asked other, I'll ask you. Change it up:
any black man has a good chance of being trash
any straight woman has a good chance of being trash
any Mexican has a good chance of being trash

Are those phrases okay? What if I put a number on it, say...20%. There's a 20% chance any given black man is trash. That cool with you?

Obviously not, and I find the question itself to be an ineffectual, manipulative ploy.

Why are you now demanding I defend Evil's statement? That's something I didn't set out to do, and will not do. I took issue with your statement. It's your statement we are discussing, and this is a change of topic.

Silentpony:

Since when did commonly used phrase become such a point of misinformation for people? When did we forget what words mean?

The phrase simply does not contain a numerical value. You're transposing meaning onto the words.

What part of the word "good" means "50 percent"? What part of the word "chance" means "50 percent"? Don't sit there and pretend this reading is there in the words itself.

Silvanus:

the December King:

I thought that was the point, that this was a conclusion, or at least the obvious inference, that could be derived from these kinds of statements? No one wants to be regarded as garbage simply because they are men, right?

But it's not the obvious inference. It's an extrapolation which goes beyond the content of the original statement.

Again, not saying that the statement itself is fine.

For some reason, I'm not getting any notification anymore from the site when I'm quoted. Also, thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it.

So, again, the statement:

"And to the straight guys who are nice, and care about consent, and don't do this nonsense without asking, or defend this sort of crap, or demand that we sympathise with people who behave like fucking dogs, I'm genuinely, truly sorry for lumping you in with the trash, but right now it's a safe assumption that any straight man has a good chance of being trash."

and silentpony's conclusion:

"B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically"

I'm not so sure about the genetic part, granted. However, I feel like, In the end, it doesn't matter if we think it's the obvious inference or not. After all, your original objection with silentpony was that it was nowhere near what was being said, but when the safe conclusion evil came to was is to treat all men as though they are trash, even when they said that all men aren't actually trash, well... we're still going to be treated as trash, right?

So, just to be sure (and again, I'm just clarifying the statement): we're not actually all trash, but we should be treated as such. That seems to be a safe conclusion to what is being said?

evilthecat:
I don't think it's okay for straight men to be hurt. I don't want to sexually assault or harass them, and I won't excuse it when it happens.

Why not? You've declared us enough of a threat to your safety to warrant it.

Okay, so this got interesting.. and initially I must admit it was funny, but the more I think about it, the less funny I find it, because all I'm hearing is that a bunch of straight men being way, way, way more offended by the mere possibility that people might feel nervous about them or, god forbid, not want to associate them, than they are by the behaviour that actually triggers that response, and if you read my posts carefully, that's literally the kind of thing which I've said repeatedly makes me feel that way.

Now, part of me just wants to double down, because I'm kind of really sick of doing the work on this one, but at the same time, I think you can take the fact that I'm doing it anyway as an acknowledgement that some straight men actually are worth the work. So, here we go.

Firstly, no, there is no "genetic" element to anything I said. I think, if you can genuinely imagine that's how I meant this, then you're capable of more hatred for yourselves than I could ever muster, and that's worrying. If I were talking about genetic tendencies, then there would be no need for me to address the straight men I don't think are trash, because I would be decisively that all straight men were trash by virtue of having the trash gene (which ideally, I could identify and demonstrate was a real thing, but I can't because it isn't).

Secondly, no, if you read carefully, I wasn't talking about personally taking part in abuse. If I was, then I wouldn't have used the word trash, I would have used the word "abuser". Heck, I don't think Aziz Ansari, if he did what he is accused of, broke the law. I don't think he even is an abuser in that sense. My point was that the response to this kind of story illustrates something fundamentally wrong with the sexual culture (a term I have used several times in this thread) into which the majority of straight men seem to buy. You all think sexual abuse is wrong, I can see that and that's good.. what's more disturbing is this seems to be accompanied by the idea that anything short of the legal definition of sexual abuse is fine, that noone has a right to be upset about it or even to think too deeply about what it says about the people who buy into that.

And that's what's fundamentally the problem here. It's not that most straight men are sexual abusers, it's that so many straight men (and although it's a guess, I'm not shy about the term "majority") have adopted a mindset in which the purpose of a sexual encounter is to force a woman to give you sex regardless of whether she actually wants to, and that this is okay provided it never crosses that imaginary line into having legally done something wrong. That attitude to women, to women's bodies and to women's sexuality, is what I consider to be indicative of trash, and what I consider to be (indirectly) extremely dangerous. I'm sure very, very few of you will ever rape a woman, or even sexually assault one, but be honest.. would you think anything of making a woman feel uncomfortable in order to get what you want, would you think anything of using coercion or pressure provided you never gave someone a reason to take you to court? Why is it so difficult for men to avoid crossing that line, why do so many fail to see the point where they need to stop. Could it perhaps have something to do with the fact that walking the line, getting as close to it as you need to in order to get laid, seems to be totally normal to all of you.

Look, I'm not perfect myself, and there have been times in my life where I would have fallen into my own definition of trash. I think most of us have gone through those times, because if we're male (or male bodied) we don't live in a society which expects better of us. You have been allowed to think that this is normal, that this is just something women should tolerate or have a responsibility to tolerate and that if they don't like it, it's up to them to walk away from you (and if they do, admit it, you're going to think badly of them, or get angry, or otherwise punish them because they broke the rules, you did nothing wrong).

Like, if you're frightened of being held to a standard, then yeah, that sucks. But I believe in you, I believe you can do it. I believe you can be the exception, and I want you to prove it (not to me because I don't fucking matter, but to the women who might have good reason to be afraid of you). You do not deserve to be feared, but that's not more important than other people not deserving to be afraid, and when you talk like you talk, and think like you think, then they have good reason.

the December King:

Silvanus:

the December King:

I thought that was the point, that this was a conclusion, or at least the obvious inference, that could be derived from these kinds of statements? No one wants to be regarded as garbage simply because they are men, right?

But it's not the obvious inference. It's an extrapolation which goes beyond the content of the original statement.

Again, not saying that the statement itself is fine.

For some reason, I'm not getting any notification anymore from the site when I'm quoted. Also, thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it.

So, again, the statement:

"And to the straight guys who are nice, and care about consent, and don't do this nonsense without asking, or defend this sort of crap, or demand that we sympathise with people who behave like fucking dogs, I'm genuinely, truly sorry for lumping you in with the trash, but right now it's a safe assumption that any straight man has a good chance of being trash."

and silentpony's conclusion:

"B. If you're a white man, like Aziz Ansari(thought he was Indian myself, but shows how old-school I am with trans-nationalism) you're trash and an abuser, genetically"

I'm not so sure about the genetic part, granted. However, I feel like, In the end, it doesn't matter if we think it's the obvious inference or not. After all, your original objection with silentpony was that it was nowhere near what was being said, but when the safe conclusion evil came to was is to treat all men as though they are trash, even when they said that all men aren't actually trash, well... we're still going to be treated as trash, right?

So, just to be sure (and again, I'm just clarifying the statement): we're not actually all trash, but we should be treated as such. That seems to be a safe conclusion to what is being said?

Evilcat seriously stretched way too far with what he was saying, I have a lot of problems with male culture and even I'm shaking his head at what he said.

That being said, sadly, I think I know where he's coming from. Men do not have a good chance of being sexual abusers or molesters, nah, that's a load of crap. However. There are far too many people who defend or ignore this kind of shit. Moore almost got elected in Alabama even though countless women outed him as a sexual predator and he was half assing it with his campaign. The United States of America elected a man who talked about how if you were rich you can just grab women by the pussy. Pretty much every reaction to Me Too has had people screaming about it being a Witch Hunt, despite all instances of me witnessing it being highly rich men just losing their immediate job while still having plenty of resources and contacts and nothing stopping them from getting another job, making it me wonder if the people throwing around the term witch hunt know what an actual witch hunt is. So many molesters out there that are either defended or ignored by so many people.

I don't know what point I'm trying to make, I just know that this has been boiling up inside me all day long and I need to get it out of my system. All I know is this. If a woman said to me that she was afraid to be alone in a room with men, I seriously doubt I could bring myself to tell her that she shouldn't be. The odds of said man actually hurting her would be negligible (I hope, seriously trying to be optimistic here, but reality has kind of been crushing me for the last two years on that front) but I can't help but wonder what the odds of the man not being a shit head if said woman tried to talk to her about bad experiences she's had with men. Though, to be fair, plenty of women would be shit on that front too, considering my mother was dismissive of Me Too because, and I swear to fucking Christ I'm not making this up, she said "oh, what woman hasn't been groped," so clearly something is fucking wrong with the current way the world is running or I'm going insane. I'm seriously cutting everyone massive amounts of slack after listening to that statement, and now part of me is wondering if I disagree with Evil because I think he overstretched or if I'm just lying to myself because I don't want a to face an ugly truth.

I don't take any pleasure in this. As a matter of fact, thinking through this whole mess in work made me remember the time in my life when I was dealing with depression and the incredibly dark thoughts that came with it because I am so fucking TIRED of this shit. Because we've developed a culture where this shit is considered normal and a man can stick his fingers down a woman's throat over and over again when she's noticeably trying to move away from him and people will still defend him when she complains about it, so apparently we've developed a playground where these kinds of actions are defended and I can't help but feel like that sends a green light to less than savory types. And while women do defend these kinds of crap too, I can't help but feel highly uncomfortable at the presence of certain men who seem to defend this under the pretense that the male gender is under attack, which forms a special kind of bile in my mouth and, while I disagree with Evil's statement, (Provided reality doesn't shatter what shreds of optimism I have left) I think stuff like that is where he came from.

Like I said, I have no idea what point I'm trying to make. Other than human beings fucking suck.

EDIT: Actually, now that he's clarified what he meant, I think I agree with him more than I thought I did and there goes another bit of my optimism.

Was knocking out a long as rambling PM to evil, but fuck it, might as well just throw this here.

From where I'm sitting, I'm seeing a lot of #NotAllMen posts.

I kinda feel like people are getting hung up on the plaintext of what Evil put out and not really looking any deeper than that. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong evil, what I'm seeing is that society has not only tolerated, but propagated what amounts to a (white) heteronormative male supremacy, and many of the behaviors exhibited by dudes in the day to day that are enabled by this structure are both widespread and harmful, or as he labels them, creepy.

Yo, fellow straight dudes that I usually agree with around here, much like in the way that white privilege just exists as a structure in society, and isn't negated just because one grew up poor, these 'creepy' behaviors have been a privilege that we have had access to. Not everyone does them, and not all the time, but we have been afforded the privilege of being able to act in certain ways that violate other peoples senses of self boundaries and dignity without ever really having to think about how they might be effected, and that is starting to change.

And speaking as someone that has probably made women feel uncomfortable in the past without meaning to, the fact remains that if I made someone feel uncomfortable, if I violated someones boundaries, even if I wasn't meaning to harm them, maybe my behavior needs to change anyway.

Agema:
It's totally bogus to impose your personal quantitive measure to that sort of qualitative statement.

Silvanus:
There's no reason to equate "good chance" with 50 percent. That's nonsense.

Yeah, you can't exactly put a number on it, but you're dancing around the basic fact that 'a good chance' is nearly always synonymous with 'more likely than not' or 'probable.' It's almost never used to refer to the least probable outcome.

Like I said, you can take a charitable interpretation of what evilthecat said and assume it means something non-controversial (that a small but not insignificant percentage of straight men are assholes) or you can take the simplest interpretation and assume it means something controversial (that any given straight man is probably an asshole). I try to lean towards the charitable end when I interpret other people's posts, but I will say that I do not blame anyone here for taking the simpler interpretation, and that's partly evilthecat's fault for stating his position in such an exaggerated manner.

evilthecat:
Okay, so this got interesting.. and initially I must admit it was funny, but the more I think about it, the less funny I find it, because all I'm hearing is that a bunch of straight men being way, way, way more offended by the mere possibility that people might feel nervous about them or, god forbid, not want to associate them, than they are by the behaviour that actually triggers that response, and if you read my posts carefully, that's literally the kind of thing which I've said repeatedly makes me feel that way.

I'm not offended. I can't speak for other people, but just because I disagree with a sentiment does not automatically mean that I am offended by that sentiment.

evilthecat:
Now, part of me just wants to double down, because I'm kind of really sick of doing the work on this one, but at the same time, I think you can take the fact that I'm doing it anyway as an acknowledgement that some straight men actually are worth the work. So, here we go.

I don't find much else in the rest of your post to be controversial.

The problem here - insofar as there is a problem - is that you initially worded your argument in an unnecessarily exaggerated way. That was bad for two reasons. Firstly, from a logical perspective, it was wrong; most people are not asshats, and if you assume that any given person you meet is probably an asshat, you are more likely to come off as an asshat and therefore reinforce the perception that there are a disproportionate number of asshats around in a vicious cycle of cynicism and asshattery.

Secondly, it was bad from a rhetorical perspective, because it wasn't going to convince the people you were trying to convince, i.e. the straight men and Aziz Ansaris of the world. Those are the guys who are going to find themselves in sexual encounters where consent is ambiguous and who will need the self-awareness to stop and slow down. And they are not likely to listen to you if they feel like you're basically calling them garbage people.

All that said, I appreciate you taking the time to clarify and I'm glad to see that the charitable interpretation was on-point for once. So, y'know...good job. Or whatever. Pat on the back.

Jux:
I kinda feel like people are getting hung up on the plaintext of what Evil put out and not really looking any deeper than that.

Plain text is important. It's like the foundation of a good debate. When you're trying to put a difficult argument into words, you really need to stop and think 'at their most basic level, what do the words I am saying mean, and how could they be misconstrued?'

Exaggeration and metaphor can be used to great rhetorical effect, but there's a reason philosophers and lawyers and other professionally argumentative people prefer to use very clear, very clinical language to set out their argument. They are keenly aware of the risk that they may overreach and accidentally say something they cannot support, and so they circumscribe their language very carefully.

Jux:

And speaking as someone that has probably made women feel uncomfortable in the past without meaning to, the fact remains that if I made someone feel uncomfortable, if I violated someones boundaries, even if I wasn't meaning to harm them, maybe my behavior needs to change anyway.

I think this is where it is at.

As Evil so aptly pointed out, you can definitely want sex but not want the kind of sex on offer. Just like I might want to sell my car, but not want to sell it for 5 bucks and a bag of skittles, I might want to have sex but not be up for you shoving your fingers down my throat or taking a chokehold on me during the sex. These things are not illegal if both consent to sex, but they are problematic nonetheless (unless both parties agreed that it is hot and alright, of course). They are problematic because, as Evil as said quite a few times now, they reflect a sexual culture in which men see sex as an activity in which they are allowed to take their pleasure from women, instead of as a reciprocal activity in which both parties work together for the enjoyment of both.

As men, you can do what Jux does and assume responsibility for your own sexuality and your own behavior. Everyone has made mistakes, good people just make sure they don't repeat them.

bastardofmelbourne:
Plain text is important. It's like the foundation of a good debate. When you're trying to put a difficult argument into words, you really need to stop and think 'at their most basic level, what do the words I am saying mean, and how could they be misconstrued?'

Exaggeration and metaphor can be used to great rhetorical effect, but there's a reason philosophers and lawyers and other professionally argumentative people prefer to use very clear, very clinical language to set out their argument. They are keenly aware of the risk that they may overreach and accidentally say something they cannot support, and so they circumscribe their language very carefully.

I mean, real talk for a second here man, do you think it's a far stretch to say that more than 50% of straight men have engaged in behaviors that have violated womens senses of dignity or boundaries? I'm not talking intent here, I'm just asking if, in the pursuit of romance or sex, more men than not have done things that put their own goals above the autonomy of the women they were after.[1]

That's the rub here, dudes do that shit all the time. And we never really have to think about how, when we act, that might make people uncomfortable. And I dare say it's not out of bounds to label that kind of behavior creepy.

Maybe this is just a hot take on my part, but I wouldn't even call what he said an exaggeration.

[1] It's perfectly exemplified in the way we think about sex and romance. Men are pursuers, women are to be pursued. There's a pretty clear dichotomy of active and passive actors here. And when you typify men as 'active' and women as 'to be acted upon', it seems like a foregone conclusion to me that this is the state we end up with.

Thanks, everyone, that was an insightful round of responses!

evilthecat:
I'm sure very, very few of you will ever rape a woman, or even sexually assault one, but be honest.. would you think anything of making a woman feel uncomfortable in order to get what you want, would you think anything of using coercion or pressure provided you never gave someone a reason to take you to court?

(Thanks for popping in to weigh in on the discussion, and sorry I didn't include you as a link to my original post- though, I don't know if the site is currently alerting us to quotes anymore?)

I just wanted to comment on this one, and the answer is: Yes. Yes I would think about it. I would never want to do this, never have done this, and though I may want to have sex with a woman in a particular scenario, I want that feeling reciprocated in my partner. If she's not happy, I would want to know- it would be very important to me.

Otherwise, I see what you are all saying, but I feel like this concept of white male privilege isn't being fairly applied. However, I don't see any way to convince anyone that it is indeed NotAllMen when I'm being told that so many men are actually engaging in these aggressive and creepy tactics. So, from this perspective, if treating all men as offensive monsters is the safest course for women to take, at least until they somehow get to know these men better, then that is what's best. And even though it's for the best, I can still think it's a shame, too.

the December King:
Thanks, everyone, that was an insightful round of responses!

evilthecat:
I'm sure very, very few of you will ever rape a woman, or even sexually assault one, but be honest.. would you think anything of making a woman feel uncomfortable in order to get what you want, would you think anything of using coercion or pressure provided you never gave someone a reason to take you to court?

(Thanks for popping in to weigh in on the discussion, and sorry I didn't include you as a link to my original post- though, I don't know if the site is currently alerting us to quotes anymore?)

I just wanted to comment on this one, and the answer is: Yes. Yes I would think about it. I would never want to do this, never have done this, and though I may want to have sex with a woman in a particular scenario, I want that feeling reciprocated in my partner. If she's not happy, I would want to know- it would be very important to me.

I think a lot of dudes would agree with you, but at the same time, might not be actively looking for signs whether a woman is into what's going on or not. I don't think most guys want to make women feel uncomfortable, and want women to enjoy what they're doing with (or to) them, but I can also see how easy it would be to get focused on the narrative in ones own head and miss cues that are running counter to that.[1] Based on the way Ansari reacted to the text he got afterwards, it makes me think that he wasn't trying to violate boundaries, he was just acting selfishly and didn't think.

If I framed Evil's question another way, 'how active do you think most guys are in looking for lack of enthusiasm, and do you think most guys would view lack of enthusiasm as a sign to stop, or an obstacle to overcome?', does that answer stay the same? Maybe for you it does, if so, that's awesome man. I dunno if we could apply that to the majority of dudes though.

I'm not even gonna frame it as discomfort here, because honestly, I think we need to get away from a 'no means no' mindset and move to 'yes means yes'. I don't think the onus should be on a woman to say no, or even give cues to stop. If she isn't enthusiastically participating, it's time to rethink that whole situation.

[1] Edit: I think it's easy to fall into that trap. If a guy wants a girl to be into what he's doing, his focus is going to be on himself, not her. His wants, his actions. If she's not into it, I'm willing to bet a lot of dudes would just treat that like a puzzle to be solved by just doing something different and pressing ahead rather than stopping to think maybe they shouldn't be doing anything at all. I think the way Ansari acted was an example of this. When they stopped to watch tv, he waited, and then tried to press ahead again with a different approach.

Jux:
I mean, real talk for a second here man, do you think it's a far stretch to say that more than 50% of straight men have engaged in behaviors that have violated womens senses of dignity or boundaries? I'm not talking intent here, I'm just asking if, in the pursuit of romance or sex, more men than not have done things that put their own goals above the autonomy of the women they were after.

You're asking two different things here. Yes; I do believe that most straight men - and most people, really - have, at some discrete point in their lives, treated their partners or prospective partners in ways that they regret afterwards. Everyone has a skeleton or two in their closet. Everyone has accidentally (or intentionally) insulted someone or made them feel like crap at some point. Every guy who has been a teenager has probably hit on a woman a little too eagerly, or stared longer than was comfortable or polite, or jacked off at some lady's Facebook profile picture, or otherwise transgressed the delicate social boundaries of human dignity.

Do I think that makes them trash? No. There's a difference between being a fuckup and being a bad person. Maybe if you took a particularly generous interpretation of the word 'trash,' they might be comparable.

bastardofmelbourne:
Yeah, you can't exactly put a number on it, but you're dancing around the basic fact that 'a good chance' is nearly always synonymous with 'more likely than not' or 'probable.' It's almost never used to refer to the least probable outcome.

Nah. If it's something you would intuit to be very unlikely or which is a very severe departure from the outcome you'd expect otherwise, then it doesn't mean that at all. "There's a good chance that the earth will be swallowed up by a black hole tomorrow" doesn't mean greater than fifty percent chance of that happening; a 2% chance of that would be a pretty fucking good chance. "Good" isn't a number, it's a vague evaluation.

If one in ten men make a potential sexual encounter feel dangerous, I would also consider that "a good chance" that any particular man might make a potential sexual encounter feel dangerous-- because that is something which a person would want to avoid enough that a 10% chance of it is a deterrent to seeking sexual encounters with unknown men. A good chance can be anything from likely to alarmingly high (but still somewhat unlikely).

the December King:
So, from this perspective, if treating all men as offensive monsters is the safest course for women to take, at least until they somehow get to know these men better, then that is what's best. And even though it's for the best, I can still think it's a shame, too.

Yeah, there's a few issues there. It's very common for men (and women, but mostly men) to say "women should just be careful" to avoid rape, but then turn around and be insulted when women start being careful about men like them.

Another issue being that it doesn't do much to stop the problem at all, it's giving up and assuming that we are just going to have men raping women, and there's no point trying to change that.

Jux:
I'm not even gonna frame it as discomfort here, because honestly, I think we need to get away from a 'no means no' mindset and move to 'yes means yes'. I don't think the onus should be on a woman to say no, or even give cues to stop. If she isn't enthusiastically participating, it's time to rethink that whole situation.

This.

Silentpony:
Yeah, you don't get to pick and choose what phrases mean.

Actually, yes I do. It's just they cease being very useful for communication if other people don't share the same meaning, so in practice I generally try to keep them pretty close to what other people mean.

That's not really how phrases work. To use your salary example, yeah, 'big salary' doesn't mean much because its not a common phrase.

The point is not that "good chance" to mean over 50% is not commonly used, but that potentially a lot of people might also understand it to mean other values in some circumstancess.

A phrase is just a combination of words that mean something. Some of them have very specific meanings, for instance metaphors like the one you suggest "making a mint". But "good chance" is not this sort of thing: it is just the combination of the noun "chance" with the adjective "good". And "good" is highly dependent on context.

And by appreciable credentials, I assume you mean commonly known and understood?

I mean who the fuck are "Phrasemix"? Hardly the Oxford English Dictionary, are they? Why should we assume they're comprehensive, compiled by highly reputable experts who've got everything covered?

I mean its just obtuse at this point to be trying to parse alternative meanings from such a commonly used and understood phrase as 'good chance'

I really wouldn't go around claiming everyone uses words the way you think when you obviously have no useful evidence to defend the fact. There's a lot of variation in individuals and culture in the English-speaking world, after all.

Thaluikhain:

the December King:
So, from this perspective, if treating all men as offensive monsters is the safest course for women to take, at least until they somehow get to know these men better, then that is what's best. And even though it's for the best, I can still think it's a shame, too.

Yeah, there's a few issues there. It's very common for men (and women, but mostly men) to say "women should just be careful" to avoid rape, but then turn around and be insulted when women start being careful about men like them.

Another issue being that it doesn't do much to stop the problem at all, it's giving up and assuming that we are just going to have men raping women, and there's no point trying to change that.

Jux:
I'm not even gonna frame it as discomfort here, because honestly, I think we need to get away from a 'no means no' mindset and move to 'yes means yes'. I don't think the onus should be on a woman to say no, or even give cues to stop. If she isn't enthusiastically participating, it's time to rethink that whole situation.

This.

I see what you're saying- I'm more inclined to see things as bastardofmelbourne explained it, above. I was referring to how someone could get to that conclusion, is all. And I think that trying to change that is what talking about it is all about, by explaining that some women feel that they have no agency, no consideration given to them and that they are coerced into, at the very least, less than reciprocal sexual encounters, that this is a good place to start.

Jux:
Was knocking out a long as rambling PM to evil, but fuck it, might as well just throw this here.

From where I'm sitting, I'm seeing a lot of #NotAllMen posts.

I kinda feel like people are getting hung up on the plaintext of what Evil put out and not really looking any deeper than that. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong evil, what I'm seeing is that society has not only tolerated, but propagated what amounts to a (white) heteronormative male supremacy, and many of the behaviors exhibited by dudes in the day to day that are enabled by this structure are both widespread and harmful, or as he labels them, creepy.

Yo, fellow straight dudes that I usually agree with around here, much like in the way that white privilege just exists as a structure in society, and isn't negated just because one grew up poor, these 'creepy' behaviors have been a privilege that we have had access to. Not everyone does them, and not all the time, but we have been afforded the privilege of being able to act in certain ways that violate other peoples senses of self boundaries and dignity without ever really having to think about how they might be effected, and that is starting to change.

And speaking as someone that has probably made women feel uncomfortable in the past without meaning to, the fact remains that if I made someone feel uncomfortable, if I violated someones boundaries, even if I wasn't meaning to harm them, maybe my behavior needs to change anyway.

I've never done anything wrong like what Ansari or any of these black listed assholes did. I've never groped a drunk woman or raped a passed out woman or forced any person to do anything to or for me. And I feel no guilt for anything these assholes have done and I resent the idea I should, because I share a skin tone and genitalia with them.
And its bullshit to impart guilt, racial(ie genetic) guilt because of the actions of a minority of white men. There's what, 125million white men in America. How many are on the #MeToo list? 100? 200?
Lets be generous and say its 1,000
That's 1000 out of 125 million. That's about 0.0007% of white men. But someone its cool to impart race wide guilt? Even if we make it 1 million men on the #MeToo movement, that's still less than 1%.

Why does that not work for anyone else? Hitler was born to a woman, and only a woman has given birth to Hitler, that's 100%. So should all women feel guilt over Hitler? Likewise should all Germans be classified as Nazis? It is fair to treat all Germans as Nazi, even if they aren't?
Why is it whenever someone says Muslims should feel guilty for Islamic extremism, its considered Islamophobic and #NotAllMuslims, but when its white men and sexual abuse, suddenly #NotAllMen is a sarcastic, condescending term and we should just feel bad.

And regarding you unintentionally making someone feel uncomfortable, it really really depends on the situation. If you go to a party and introduce yourself as Jux, and someone has Jux-Phobia and you've made the uncomfortable, is that your fault? Should you apologize for your own name? What if they don't like men? Do you apologize, or are they sexist? Same with White, and racist? What if they don't like Christians, or Jews or blue eyes or left handed people or short people or fat people?
What is the reasonable level of guilt you should feel if you've unintentionally made someone uncomfortable for a boundary that was not spoken? When is it no longer being uncomfortable, and simply being prejudice?

bastardofmelbourne:

Jux:
I mean, real talk for a second here man, do you think it's a far stretch to say that more than 50% of straight men have engaged in behaviors that have violated womens senses of dignity or boundaries? I'm not talking intent here, I'm just asking if, in the pursuit of romance or sex, more men than not have done things that put their own goals above the autonomy of the women they were after.

You're asking two different things here. Yes; I do believe that most straight men - and most people, really - have, at some discrete point in their lives, treated their partners or prospective partners in ways that they regret afterwards. Everyone has a skeleton or two in their closet. Everyone has accidentally (or intentionally) insulted someone or made them feel like crap at some point. Every guy who has been a teenager has probably hit on a woman a little too eagerly, or stared longer than was comfortable or polite, or jacked off at some lady's Facebook profile picture, or otherwise transgressed the delicate social boundaries of human dignity.

Do I think that makes them trash? No. There's a difference between being a fuckup and being a bad person. Maybe if you took a particularly generous interpretation of the word 'trash,' they might be comparable.

I'd say those are some pretty trashy and creepy behaviors. And I don't buy into the whole thing where someones caught doing something shitty, and the defensive response is 'oh, that's not who I am, these things I did aren't reflective of who I am'. The stuff we do and say is absolutely reflective of who we are. I'm not saying people can't change, or improve, or are one dimensional, but if people are engaging in trashy and creepy behavior, let's not just write that off. People need to own that, and if they don't like what kind of person it makes them, change.

Silentpony:

Jux:
Was knocking out a long as rambling PM to evil, but fuck it, might as well just throw this here.

From where I'm sitting, I'm seeing a lot of #NotAllMen posts.

I kinda feel like people are getting hung up on the plaintext of what Evil put out and not really looking any deeper than that. To me, and correct me if I'm wrong evil, what I'm seeing is that society has not only tolerated, but propagated what amounts to a (white) heteronormative male supremacy, and many of the behaviors exhibited by dudes in the day to day that are enabled by this structure are both widespread and harmful, or as he labels them, creepy.

Yo, fellow straight dudes that I usually agree with around here, much like in the way that white privilege just exists as a structure in society, and isn't negated just because one grew up poor, these 'creepy' behaviors have been a privilege that we have had access to. Not everyone does them, and not all the time, but we have been afforded the privilege of being able to act in certain ways that violate other peoples senses of self boundaries and dignity without ever really having to think about how they might be effected, and that is starting to change.

And speaking as someone that has probably made women feel uncomfortable in the past without meaning to, the fact remains that if I made someone feel uncomfortable, if I violated someones boundaries, even if I wasn't meaning to harm them, maybe my behavior needs to change anyway.

I've never done anything wrong like what Ansari or any of these black listed assholes did. I've never groped a drunk woman or raped a passed out woman or forced any person to do anything to or for me. And I feel no guilt for anything these assholes have done and I resent the idea I should, because I share a skin tone and genitalia with them.
And its bullshit to impart guilt, racial(ie genetic) guilt because of the actions of a minority of white men. There's what, 125million white men in America. How many are on the #MeToo list? 100? 200?
Lets be generous and say its 1,000
That's 1000 out of 125 million. That's about 0.0007% of white men. But someone its cool to impart race wide guilt? Even if we make it 1 million men on the #MeToo movement, that's still less than 1%.

Why does that not work for anyone else? Hitler was born to a woman, and only a woman has given birth to Hitler, that's 100%. So should all women feel guilt over Hitler? Likewise should all Germans be classified as Nazis? It is fair to treat all Germans as Nazi, even if they aren't?
Why is it whenever someone says Muslims should feel guilty for Islamic extremism, its considered Islamophobic and #NotAllMuslims, but when its white men and sexual abuse, suddenly #NotAllMen is a sarcastic, condescending term and we should just feel bad.

And regarding you unintentionally making someone feel uncomfortable, it really really depends on the situation. If you go to a party and introduce yourself as Jux, and someone has Jux-Phobia and you've made the uncomfortable, is that your fault? Should you apologize for your own name? What if they don't like men? Do you apologize, or are they sexist? Same with White, and racist? What if they don't like Christians, or Jews or blue eyes or left handed people or short people or fat people?
What is the reasonable level of guilt you should feel if you've unintentionally made someone uncomfortable for a boundary that was not spoken? When is it no longer being uncomfortable, and simply being prejudice?

I can't even deal with this nonsense dude. If you want to have an intellectually honest discussion and not throw out bullshit equivocating all women needing to feel guilty about hitler to a culture of sexual harassment that benefits men, might want to rewrite that entire thing and just start from scratch. I ain't wasting my time on that.

Jux:
SNIP

Fine then, I'll cut to the point - what level of guilt do you, Jux, personally feel, based on your sex and the color of your skin, for the actions of Aziz Ansari?

Silentpony:
Fine then, I'll cut to the point - what level of guilt do you, Jux, personally feel, based on your sex and the color of your skin, for the actions of Aziz Ansari?

Who cares?

Like, who honestly cares about guilt, it's the most useless reaction you can have to anything.

Don't feel guilt. Don't sit around gazing at your naval and meditating on how trash you are, just don't be trash. Don't normalize trash. Don't turn a blind eye to trashy behaviour because you're so indescribably selfish that your only real concern is how it might reflect badly on you. That's literally all it takes.

Also, why the fuck are you still talking about race. I literally never mentioned it.

evilthecat:

Silentpony:
Fine then, I'll cut to the point - what level of guilt do you, Jux, personally feel, based on your sex and the color of your skin, for the actions of Aziz Ansari?

Who cares?

Like, who honestly cares about guilt, it's the most useless reaction you can have to anything.

Don't feel guilt. Don't sit around gazing at your naval and meditating on how trash you are, just don't be trash. Don't normalize trash. Don't turn a blind eye to trashy behaviour because you're so indescribably selfish that your only real concern is how it might reflect badly on you. That's literally all it takes.

So you, EvilCat, think its okay to assume, meaning treat, straight men as trash, regardless of anything they've done, regardless of any crimes they've been convicted of, based purely on their penis, but don't for a second feel guilt, because it'd be like, totally indescribably selfish of them to feel emotions associated with the actions of another?

I mean either you're indescribably sarcastic, in which case its still indescribably sexist to lump straight men together, or you're indescribably serious, in which case you're indescribably hypocritical.
Which would you prefer? 'cause at this point I'm indescribably committed to the idea you have no idea what you're talking about and are indescribably lost.

Also to answer about who cares about guilt, YOU!! Fuck me, when you make posts about who trash people are, and how its easier to assign trash-dom, meaning sexual assault guilt, to entire genders, YOU care. YOU are the one who made this entire thing about one singular sex being trash, being the bad guys, being the bearers of guilt and complicity in the crimes of others!
YOU care.

Silentpony:

evilthecat:

Silentpony:
Fine then, I'll cut to the point - what level of guilt do you, Jux, personally feel, based on your sex and the color of your skin, for the actions of Aziz Ansari?

Who cares?

Like, who honestly cares about guilt, it's the most useless reaction you can have to anything.

Don't feel guilt. Don't sit around gazing at your naval and meditating on how trash you are, just don't be trash. Don't normalize trash. Don't turn a blind eye to trashy behaviour because you're so indescribably selfish that your only real concern is how it might reflect badly on you. That's literally all it takes.

So you, EvilCat, think its okay to assume, meaning treat, straight men as trash, regardless of anything they've done, regardless of any crimes they've been convicted of, based purely on their penis, but don't for a second feel guilt, because it'd be like, totally indescribably selfish of them to feel emotions associated with the actions of another?

I mean either you're indescribably sarcastic, in which case its still indescribably sexist to lump straight men together, or you're indescribably serious, in which case you're indescribably hypocritical.
Which would you prefer? 'cause at this point I'm indescribably committed to the idea you have no idea what you're talking about and are indescribably lost.

Also to answer about who cares about guilt, YOU!! Fuck me, when you make posts about who trash people are, and how its easier to assign trash-dom, meaning sexual assault guilt, to entire genders, YOU care. YOU are the one who made this entire thing about one singular sex being trash, being the bad guys, being the bearers of guilt and complicity in the crimes of others!
YOU care.

You can never go far without finding people telling other people what they think on certain matters. Now, I'm certain Evilcat greatly appreciates you informing him what he thinks, because he was probably horribly misinformed on the inner workings of his mind, but I have to say, you seem to be taking this personally, when there's really no reason to be. Has anyone, and I mean anyone, accused you of anything? No. Has anyone accused all the men in the world of doing something? No. You are choosing to take this as a personal attack, when. It. Isn't. It's a criticism of some of the bullshit that male culture propagates, and to be utterly frank, it's some dirty laundry we seriously need to take care of.

Also, it's kind of rich that you accuse someone of not knowing what they're talking about in the same post you accuse someone of saying things they clearly never said. That whole bit where you were ranting about race when it the topic of race hadn't come up springs to mind.

Silentpony:

Jux:
SNIP

Fine then, I'll cut to the point - what level of guilt do you, Jux, personally feel, based on your sex and the color of your skin, for the actions of Aziz Ansari?

Zero. What I do feel strongly about, and I wouldn't call it guilt either, is that I as a straight white dude have benefited unfairly in the system we have. It's not about guilt, it's about a sense of fairness and justice, and wanting everyone to be on a level playing field.

Me having guilt over what Ansari did assumes some level of personal responsibility on my part for his actions. I wasn't in a position to stop him from doing what he did, why would I feel culpability for his actions?

At the same time, I recognize that the system in place that 'allowed' him to do what he did also benefits me, and every other straight dude. Why would I want those benefits? They don't align with my moral compass, I'd sooner see them gone.

Silentpony:
Fuck me, when you make posts about who trash people are, and how its easier to assign trash-dom, meaning sexual assault guilt, to entire genders, YOU care. YOU are the one who made this entire thing about one singular sex being trash, being the bad guys, being the bearers of guilt and complicity in the crimes of others!
YOU care.

Excepting, of course, evilthecat didn't actually say that, which is sorta a relevant point here.

The acknowledgement that many man are trash shouldn't be considered an insult to men, unless they happen to be trash.

Silentpony:
So you, EvilCat, think its okay to assume, meaning treat, straight men as trash, regardless of anything they've done, regardless of any crimes they've been convicted of, based purely on their penis, but don't for a second feel guilt, because it'd be like, totally indescribably selfish of them to feel emotions associated with the actions of another?

Okay, so I can't answer this question without legitimising the extent to which you've distorted my meaning, so let me ask a question in turn.

Do you think it's okay to ask people to hang around with or deal with people who are a demonstrable risk to them, and who see nothing wrong with mistreating them, simply because those people recognise limits to mistreatment? Do you think it's okay to ask people to risk their safety, and their personal wellbeing, in the name of being nice to people who, it is extremely likely, will not reciprocate that niceness or that tolerance.

I think it's okay to want straight men out of your life, or to view them as not worth the risk. I think it is okay to be wary of them. I think it is okay to view them as potentially abusive, and to be cautious around them. I don't think it's okay to abuse straight men, I don't think it's okay to hurt or attack them, I think it is okay to protect yourself from the risks that straight men pose to you, even if that means getting the fuck away from them, even if it means never letting your guard down around them.

I mean, even if I didn't think that was okay, even if I wouldn't phrase it in those terms, this kind of imposed wariness or mistrust happens. That's why the the people who are defending Ansari are very seldom saying that he's a cool person and that men don't do this kind of thing, they're saying that the woman in this case was stupid to trust him. We all know, on some level, that it's stupid for women to trust men. What do you think the logical end point of that is, that women should continue to be stupid, that women should continue to participate in a warped sexual culture that encourages men to view mistreatment of them as just a part of normal sexual relations as some kind of favour to the male sex?

No. You have no right to demand that. Noone does.

Your response to this should not be guilt. If you need an emotion to feel, feel anger. Feel anger towards men who cause women to be afraid of men. Stop defending them because you feel you are the same and then being sad because other people see you doing that and believe that you are the same. Make yourself different from other men who are trash, affirm that difference in word and in deed. Stop viewing women as scary "others" against whom you must defend yourself (and by extension all men) and other yourself from men who abuse women instead. If abusive men are not like you, then don't align yourself with them. Don't afford them protection, even the protection of your indifference to their actions. Hate them, because they deserve it. They have robbed you of trust and intimacy that you deserve, and then convinced you that it wasn't their fault but the fault of the people they abused.

And sure, look hard within yourself and recognise when you have wronged people, when you mistreated people because it seemed like a normal or acceptable thing to do, when you accepted power over people because it seemed like the right thing to do, and maybe apologise or try to make amends. But don't waste your time feeling sorry for yourself, that helps noone. You still have control over your own life, stop complaining that others have the same and start making use of your own.

If you want to be judged on your own terms, then create those terms. Make those terms real with your will and actions. It will be hard, but it will be worth it.

evilthecat:
I think it's okay to want straight men out of your life, or to view them as not worth the risk. I think it is okay to be wary of them. I think it is okay to view them as potentially abusive, and to be cautious around them. I don't think it's okay to abuse straight men, I don't think it's okay to hurt or attack them, I think it is okay to protect yourself from the risks that straight men pose to you, even if that means getting the fuck away from them, even if it means never letting your guard down around them.

I totally agree with this.

(As an aside, I also think that, if men feel this way about women, then it is completely acceptable as well)

If abusive men are not like you, then don't align yourself with them. Don't afford them protection, even the protection of your indifference to their actions. Hate them, because they deserve it. They have robbed you of trust and intimacy that you deserve, and then convinced you that it wasn't their fault but the fault of the people they abused.

That might be a part of the problem, when it's all of womankind that are labeled as the victims, then the discussion is automatically framed, or at least implied, as though all men represent the antagonists? So a natural, initial reaction to that will be to defend yourself based on those criteria (I haven't done anything wrong, therefore notallmen, and perhaps you become more receptive to the defenses displayed by the men who have assaulted women, like blaming the victim, etc.)

You still have control over your own life, stop complaining that others have the same and start making use of your own.

That's a great point. No one has taken anything from anyone, it's just an attempt to make some of us sympathetic to how some women have been denied a degree of control, and that sometimes, that fact might be taken for granted or flat out ignored. That's what this should be about, coming to an understanding, not squaring off against a perceived attack on all men. That's not what this is.

Thaluikhain:
SNIP

I don't have to, he already said what he meant. That's called reading more than one post and thinking about it.

evilthecat:
SNIP

So you ARE straight up sexist. Act as those all straight men will hurt you. Take them out of your life. View every straight man as a imminent danger at all times. They may not all be trash, but treat them as though they are and never trust a straight man, because he's straight.

Take your horrible phase and change one word:

"I think it's okay to want black men out of your life, or to view them as not worth the risk. I think it is okay to be wary of them. I think it is okay to view them as potentially abusive, and to be cautious around them. I don't think it's okay to abuse black men, I don't think it's okay to hurt or attack them, I think it is okay to protect yourself from the risks that black men pose to you, even if that means getting the fuck away from them, even if it means never letting your guard down around them."

See any problem with that? Anything...racist come to mind? I can change it to gay or transgender, and you can sound a lot like Pat Robertson if you want. I can also go Jewish, but apparently Hitler is a no-go zone because its too on the nose.

That is the very fucking definition of prejudice! You are pre-judging. You are judging all straight men by the actions of a minority and deeming them all, potentially, guilty of the same crimes. Holy fuck that is sexist and terrible!
What happens if there's a straight man working as a waiter? Is it okay to ask the boss for a gay waiter instead? What if a brother is straight? Is it cool to ask the family not to invite him to Christmas until he can prove he's not straight anymore? Is it okay to bare straight men from jobs?

I refuse your idea that because I'm straight, I've hurt people unknowingly. That because I'm straight, I somehow am not capable of understanding my own actions or social cues around me. That is a horrifically sexist thing for you to believe is okay, evilthecat.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here