# The twisting panties of gender conflict



## DemonD (Jun 12, 2012)

From what I've seen on the internet(PerC included) nothing seems to twist panties into a bunch as fast as gender issues. Not even religion. Why is that?

IRL things might be different. 

On the internet however it seems like whenever a gender issue comes up it's almost an immediate call to war!

Has anyone else observed this or am I just imagining things?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

People online seem to have WAY WAY more radical views about gender issues than I've ever seen IRL. I've never met an MRA member or a "radical feminist" and yet it seems like the entire discussion online is about the beliefs of these incredibly small minorities. I think you end up with people talking past each other where you have one group of moderates shooting down the absurd rad fem rhetoric and another group of moderates shooting down the MRA rhetoric and somehow both groups end up getting caught in the crossfire and get blamed for the far more radical versions of their views.

But let's be honest here, we've got at least 3 "radical feminists" here and at least one "MRA member" and it seems like their opinions end up monopolizing the discussion. You can't really say anything without one of them jumping on your ass about it.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Yes, people are extremely sexist and therefore want to fight for their sex to win the "war on gender roles"


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Yes, people are extremely sexist and therefore want to fight for their sex to win the "war on gender roles"


But two of the biggest feminists on this forum are MEN! It's actually really confusing and disconcerting.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> But two of the biggest feminists on this forum are MEN! It's actually really confusing and disconcerting.


There's a term for that within the feminist internet community. 
White knighting - Geek Feminism Wiki


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> There's a term for that within the feminist internet community.
> White knighting - Geek Feminism Wiki


Yeah, writing them off as white knights seems like the obvious thing and it's probably right, but I just feel like it's a little intellectually lazy to assume that without better proof.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> There's a term for that within the feminist internet community.
> White knighting - Geek Feminism Wiki


They're using White Knighting in a different sense than I've usually seen it used online. And the way they're using it offers an example of why the kind of feminism I've seen around here bugs me. 

_White Knighting is an attempt at being a feminist ally that assumes that men are better feminists than women are._

Apparently, men must never assume they are 'better feminists' than women. If they do, they're automatically committing an error, since of course a man can't really understand the problems facing women in the same way a woman can. 

What if the man in question happens to have studied feminist ideas and the inequalities facing women in-depth for years? What if he has an encyclopedic knowledge of feminism, in all its various forms, while the woman in the discussion is entirely ignorant on the subject beyond her own individual experiences? Or hell, what if he just happens to genuinely have a better argument than she does? Is he still wrong for acting as if he is in a better position to argue about it than she is? 

It reminds me of a blogger in South Korea I used to follow. He spoke and read fluent Korean, had spent years studying Korean culture and history, had lived in South Korea since the mid 1990s...and still found himself being told by Korean teenagers whose understanding of their country didn't go much beyond playing too much Starcraft that his opinions didn't count because he wasn't Korean.

Basically, it's prejudice going full circle. The actual experience and knowledge of the individuals in the discussion isn't important; opinion can be invalidated based purely on the individual's race/gender.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Quit your bitching. Just because men are feminists doesn't invalidate their opinions. <_<
White knighting, feminazi are all words that attack people and not the issue. It's completely unproductive and rather, very petty. What may stand true for a few extremist, should NOT dictate the identity of a whole. That's when you create stereotypes.

Sexism and gender equality are HUGE issues. Why doesn't it seem like so in real life? Because it's personal and political. These are issues most people avoid in typical conversations because it's heavy, intellectual and personally investing.

Friendships may be torn apart, networking in vain etc if you rub someone the wrong way. And chances are, since the majority lack the ability to debate in effectively, you'll probably piss someone off. So most people in real life keep their opinions to themselves. 

We have no strings on the internet, so people can exercise free speech. But in actuality, gender equality issues are dividing and controversial because the silence in real life conversions stunts the progress of dialogue.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

stiletto said:


> Quit your bitching. Just because men are feminists doesn't invalidate their opinions. <_<
> White knighting, feminazi are all words that attack people and not the issue. It's completely unproductive and rather, very petty. What may stand true for a few extremist, should NOT dictate the identity of a whole. That's when you create stereotypes.
> 
> Sexism and gender equality are HUGE issues. Why doesn't it seem like so in real life? Because it's personal and political. These are issues most people avoid in typical conversations because it's heavy, intellectual and personally investing.
> ...


They have no excuse. They have to debate in real life.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> They have no excuse. They have to debate in real life.


It's not an excuse for ANYONE. It's an observable behaviour in the population majority. Unless you are close to someone, people are not just randomly going to bring up the topic of gender equality let along argue for it or call their friends out on it.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

If you want to know why you see so much more about gender online than IRL I'd say just look at the demographics. Trying to push for social changes has always been a pastime of the young and online forums like this skew far younger than the general population.


----------



## Eska (Aug 18, 2014)

Religion seems to be losing power, as opposed to this recent surge on "gender equality".

"Gender equality" will be/is the new 'thought police'.

Religion disregards rational thinking.

"Gender equality" often disregards a multitude of variables before calling something "unfair".


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Eska said:


> Religion seems to be losing power, as opposed to this recent surge on "gender equality".
> 
> "Gender equality" will be/is the new 'thought police'.


Do not get your panties in a twist, good sir.


----------



## stiletto (Oct 26, 2013)

I'd also like to point out the thread title on this issue of gender equality.

I am not offended by it, but would just like to draw attention to the rather negative association women's undergarments to panic and becoming upset. The origin of getting your "knickers in a knot" was genderless, but somewhere along the line, it changed to "panties" specific to women and girls.

When one speaks with language like this, it is definitely insignificant in passing, but it adds to the schema that women = hysteria, which continues to support the female stereotype. There are those of us old enough to recognize this and try to avoid these types of languages, there are those who have felt attacked by it and will continue to use the language because they don't care about "political correctness", and there are those who are too young to have developed a strong enough schema on the matter and adopt these stereotypes into the basis of their value system.

It is this last group that we should be looking out for when in the way we speak to each other and treat one another.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

I think there is more "room" to be vocal and opinionated online, especially on a forum where most people are anonymous. IRL, I don't talk about feminism much. I am an advocate of equal rights and enact that in my daily living and opinions, but I don't discuss it much, being busy with other things like my job, taking care of my home, pursuing my hobbies, and having a good time with my family and friends. Online there are often discussions to join and there is no real, lasting negative fallout in my life if I voice opinions that are offensive or aggravating to others. I assume many people feel the same way, and many of them have even stronger opinions than mine. 

Also - I think gender issues are sort of a rabbit hole where it can be hard to delineate where general trends end and individual beliefs come in. It can be hard to decide how and where lines are crossed and each individual may feel differently. 

Hence undies in a bundle.


----------



## with water (Aug 13, 2014)

Why can't it be the twisted boxers?


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

Why are people associating panties with women, men can wear them too... Lol @ getting overly emotional and upset about stupid crap.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Ground Marshal said:


> Why can't it be the twisted boxers?


Because it's less insulting to men if you use male items in your insults. Notice, when men are called "bitches" it is more offensive to them than if they were called "dicks".


----------



## bigstupidgrin (Sep 26, 2014)

1. Some people care much more about their cause than most, especially when they're young. 

2. Many annoying sub-plots exist, even if they aren't specifically said. Internalized misogyny is my personal favorite . 

3. Many of the threads have baiting titles on them. "MRA/Feminist does a horrible thing!", "Cool down anti-feminists..." "Hey MBTI type X! How do you feel about feminism". Even this thread title is a little baiting. To compare it (gender issues) with religion, most atheists/religious people here seem respectful of each other, until a thread like "Why do Christians feel oppressed" comes along. I see this a lot in sports forums. 

4. It's the internet, so everything is blown up and extreme voices are the most heard. Moderate views get 1-2 likes before the extremists keep on arguing.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Gender is very personal. You don't know much about a person's spiritual beliefs or political leanings unless they tell you or you observe them long enough. Gender is very obvious. As a result, a lot of stereotyping goes on and historical statistics are used to justify current biases. It gets messy very quick. 

I do not think the majority of people have anything against the opposite sex. The funny thing is, feminism and MRA (at its core, not the sites like ROK or even MGTOW, which are sort of spin offs) are fundamentally different. MRA is about advocating for men's legal rights. Feminism is more of a social theory and movement than merely advocating for legal change. So the two really needn't be at odds at all. They're not even at odds with egalitarianism, they're more like specialized subsets. It's sad so many feminists shut down discourse on men's rights and it's sad so many people think feminism still means "outdated misandrist". Just misconceptions all around.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

Discussions about gender issues definitely do get heated, but I don't agree that they get any more heated than other political or religious debates on here. They are just more prevalent, at the moment. If you went back 2 years ago, or so, religious debates were just were the most prevalent on here, and they definitely got just as heated.

I'd say about midway through this summer is when I started seeing a ton of threads and debates about feminism and gender issues. Thats the current trend. I'd say if you give it maybe another 6 months, they will become less prevalent and something else will take its place.

So, basically all political and religious debates on the internet have a chance of getting very heated. Its just that it seems debates about feminism are more heated, because at the moment there are more debates about feminism and gender than anything else.


----------



## Mr. Demiurge (Jun 18, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> There's a rather fine line between victimhood and acknowledgement. Just because you see a problem or inequality or whatever you want to call it doesn't mean you have to become a victim. It becomes a problem when people use these injustices to excuse their own behavior or justify their actions/inactions/hate the world.
> 
> Denial is just as harmful as developing a victim complex. Because the problem can never be solved if no one acknowledges it.


Right, I agree. There are constructive ways to deal with social injustice and non-constructive ways to deal with it. The extreme on either end is usually not constructive: you shouldn't act like it isn't there when it is or whitewash history, but neither should you fixate so much on it that you start jumping at shadows and obsessing over how the whole of society has it out for you and has had it out for you from the beginning. 

You should neither pretend the problem doesn't exist nor wallow in it and make it part of your identity. You should fix it.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> There's a rather fine line between victimhood and acknowledgement.


The problem with feminism is that the amount of discrimination against women in 21st century America (the only place I'm qualified to talk about) is so small that it seems all the battles are over such minor things and yet the rhetoric is so incredibly loud. You could probably easily list a dozen widespread traits that are more strongly discriminated against than being a woman. Race is WAY more strongly discriminated against, but I'd say even things like obesity, height, athleticism, general attractiveness, etc are bigger. If you actually look at SAME JOB wage gaps I'm pretty sure being fat, short or ugly have a larger gap than being a woman. It's just to the point where the rhetoric needs to come way down because the problems have come way down. If you want to talk about discrimination of women then do it about women in the Middle East or Asia, not the US.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> The problem with feminism is that the amount of discrimination against women in 21st century America (the only place I'm qualified to talk about) is so small that it seems all the battles are over such minor things and yet the rhetoric is so incredibly loud. You could probably easily list a dozen widespread traits that are more strongly discriminated against than being a woman. Race is WAY more strongly discriminated against, but I'd say even things like obesity, height, athleticism, general attractiveness, etc are bigger. If you actually look at SAME JOB wage gaps I'm pretty sure being fat, short or ugly have a larger gap than being a woman. It's just to the point where the rhetoric needs to come way down because the problems have come way down. If you want to talk about discrimination of women then do it about women in the Middle East or Asia, not the US.


No, I disagree with you.


----------



## Cheveyo (Nov 19, 2010)

Mee2 said:


> Party time lol. (That's who you had in mind, right?)


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> No, I disagree with you.


Yep, that's kind of my whole point. It can clearly be demonstrated that on average tall people make more money that short people, that thin people make more money than fat people and that attractive people make more money than ugly people, but if you type the term "pay gap" into Google you will nothing except evidence of a gender differential. The fact that "feminists" only care about inequality towards women and not the hundreds of other examples of inequality is why I have a problem with it. I'd actually liken it to this famous quote about atheism:

_"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."_
...Stephen F Roberts

Well, when you understand why you dismiss all of the other issues you will understand why I dismiss your issue. It's not that I'm saying it never exists, it's just that "feminists" don't give a shit about my problems, so why should they expect me to give a shit about theirs?


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Yep, that's kind of my whole point. It can clearly be demonstrated that on average tall people make more money that short people, that thin people make more money than fat people and that attractive people make more money than ugly people, but if you type the term "pay gap" into Google you will nothing except evidence of a gender differential. The fact that "feminists" only care about inequality towards women and not the hundreds of other examples of inequality is why I have a problem with them. I'd actually liken it to this famous quote about atheism:
> 
> _"I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."_
> ...Stephen F Roberts
> ...


Dismissal and not advocating aggressively for something are two different things. Don't confuse them.

What are your problems?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

TheProphetLaLa said:


> Dismissal and not advocating aggressively for something are two different things. Don't confuse them.


Fair enough.



TheProphetLaLa said:


> What are your problems?


The sort of things society doesn't give a shit about. No point listing them because most people will just say, "oh, fuck you then you deserve to suffer".


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> 
> The sort of things society doesn't give a shit about. No point listing them because most people will just say, "oh, fuck you then you deserve to suffer".


Well, I'm not society and I'm not going to say "oh, fuck you then you deserve to suffer." So yes, I would say there is a point in listing them.


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> It can clearly be demonstrated that on average tall people make more money that short people


I'm well aware of this. Interesting little thought experiment: Two men; one short, one tall. One standard deviation either way. Everything else equal. Which is the more masculine?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> I'm well aware of this. Interesting little thought experiment: Two men; one short, one tall. One standard deviation either way. Everything else equal. Which is the more masculine?


You can try to twist everything into being part of "the patriarchy", but it's not. An attractive woman makes more money than an ugly woman (on average) and she is certainly less masculine right?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> You can try to twist everything into being part of "the patriarchy", but it's not. An attractive woman makes more money than an ugly woman (on average) and she is certainly less masculine right?


So because discrimination based on attractiveness has nothing to do with misogyny, discrimination based on height can't possibly have anything to do with misogyny either... Really?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> So because discrimination based on attractiveness has nothing to do with misogyny, discrimination based on height can't possibly have anything to do with misogyny either... Really?


It's MY OPINION that taller men get paid more because it's more attractive, not because of misogyny. Same reason why fat people (of both sexes) make less money. I think you're taking a much bigger leap of faith to assume it's somehow "the patriarchy" doing it.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

Not taking care of yourself and not looking presentable can be indicative of personal traits which may affect job performance. Being a woman, however, does not. Also, looks and attractiveness may be important in sales jobs and people-based jobs, but for other jobs it should not be a big factor.

Studies done on gender pay gap use a very large sample size, so the fact that there is a significant difference in pay gap means that despite both genders having lazy and hard-working people, women still get paid less. Why do you think women are paid less? If you were a woman, how would you deal with this knowledge?


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

marbleous said:


> Not taking care of yourself and not looking presentable can be indicative of personal traits which may affect job performance. Being a woman, however, does not.


Yeah, because every ugly person CHOOSE to look that way. Also, there are plenty of jobs where a woman would in fact be less capable (like construction). I'm an engineer and every job I've ever had contained a requirement that all employees must be able to life at least 50 pounds. Can a 95 pound woman lift 50 pounds?



marbleous said:


> Also, looks and attractiveness may be important in sales jobs and people-based jobs, but for other jobs it should not be a big factor.


Well, by this same logic there is nothing wrong with only hiring white men if that is who people trust more.



marbleous said:


> Studies done on gender pay gap use a very large sample size, so the fact that there is a significant difference in pay gap means that despite both genders having lazy and hard-working people, women still get paid less. Why do you think women are paid less? If you were a woman, how would you deal with this knowledge?


Studies done on other pay gaps have similar sample sizes. Also, if you adjust for all appropriate factors the pay gap between men and women is very small. People who try to show big pay gaps often do it by not looking at the actual job being worked or the number of years of experience. It's more normal for a woman to have less experience because many women take some amount of time off to have children. It's also more normal for women to work jobs that pay less in general because few women get degrees in STEM fields that pay well above average wages. And colleges are literally begging women to enter these degree programs, so it's not like discrimination is going on, women are just in general less interested in engineering and technology.


----------



## marbleous (Feb 21, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Yeah, because every ugly person CHOOSE to look that way. Also, there are plenty of jobs where a woman would in fact be less capable (like construction). I'm an engineer and every job I've ever had contained a requirement that all employees must be able to life at least 50 pounds. Can a 95 pound woman lift 50 pounds?


There are things that can be done to make any person look attractive. Also, attractiveness is isn't solely based on what you're born with, but personality as well. For example Paris Hilton is gorgeous but she may have a hard time being taken seriously in the professional world because of her well-known...persona.

It's true that women are born with more physical limitations, but it's effect is probably small compared with the amount of non-physical jobs. Also, I am studying engineering (good choice in profession btw) and have never been asked to work out to make me a better job candidate. XD (Although I have noticed that they ask the guys to do the more physical stuff and me to do the data stuff. I have been known to tag along with the physical tasks though, to take a break from the desk).



a1b2c3d4 said:


> Well, by this same logic there is nothing wrong with only hiring white men if that is who people trust more.


Then they are racists and need to evaluate themselves on why they think a certain race is more trustworthy.



a1b2c3d4 said:


> Studies done on other pay gaps have similar sample sizes. Also, if you adjust for all appropriate factors the pay gap between men and women is very small. People who try to show big pay gaps often do it by not looking at the actual job being worked or the number of years of experience. It's more normal for a woman to have less experience because many women take some amount of time off to have children. It's also more normal for women to work jobs that pay less in general because few women get degrees in STEM fields that pay well above average wages. And colleges are literally begging women to enter these degree programs, so it's not like discrimination is going on, women are just in general less interested in engineering and technology.


I do agree with that. Women seem to have less of an interest in STEM, and there are multiple explanations for this. Note though that it's mostly employers that are begging women to join STEM. All of the women that I have seen join STEM exhibit bravery and strength because they are doing something that doesn't have a lot of role models or societal support. Professors and fellow classmates aren't like, "pursue this field! it's really great, and your a girl so even better!" Recently, in one of my engineering classes where I am the only girl, my professor said, "This concept is so easy you could explain it to your girl-- to your younger siblings." Yeah, nice save!!


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

marbleous said:


> Then they are racists and need to evaluate themselves on why they think a certain race is more trustworthy.


How is this any different than thinking attractive or tall people are more trustworthy exactly?


----------



## Mee2 (Jan 30, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> It's MY OPINION that taller men get paid more because it's more attractive, not because of misogyny. Same reason why fat people (of both sexes) make less money. I think you're taking a much bigger leap of faith to assume it's somehow "the patriarchy" doing it.


OK, well you're allowed to reject the idea if you want. I just thought it was an interesting thing to consider. I literally just came up with this on my own. I've never heard anyone else talk about it before. You never answered my question though. It would be interesting if you thought that the taller man would generally be seen as more masculine yet thought that there would be no implications of this whatsoever. I suppose if you wanted to ponder the idea a bit further the next question you should probably ask is why taller men are seen as more attractive? It's well established that we tend to prefer average faces and healthy-looking bodies, which is hardly surprising, but why would we prefer taller men? I think it's at least plausible that patriarchy might have something to do with it.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

marbleous said:


> There are things that can be done to make any person look attractive. Also, attractiveness is isn't solely based on what you're born with, but personality as well. For example Paris Hilton is gorgeous but she may have a hard time being taken seriously in the professional world because of her well-known...persona.
> 
> It's true that women are born with more physical limitations, but it's effect is probably small compared with the amount of non-physical jobs. Also, I am studying engineering (good choice in profession btw) and have never been asked to work out to make me a better job candidate. XD (Although I have noticed that they ask the guys to do the more physical stuff and me to do the data stuff. I have been known to tag along with the physical tasks though, to take a break from the desk).
> 
> ...


Going to have to object to the assertion that any person can be made to look "attractive." You have a little room to work with what you're given, but at the end of the day, if you're ugly, you're kind of stuck ugly, and combing your hair just won't fix it. Also, personality might be somewhat more malleable, but it's almost certainly tied to what you're born with as well.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Mee2 said:


> I think it's at least plausible that patriarchy might have something to do with it.


WTF, that doesn't even make sense. Tall men are considered attractive because WOMEN are attracted to them. It literally couldn't be due to the "patriarchy" even if such a thing existed. Presumably the reason is because taller men make better hunters which was a big deal back in the day.


----------



## Apolo (Aug 15, 2014)

bigstupidgrin said:


> I think unicorns in this topic are called "special snowflakes"


But, don't you want to be a pandemiligerspecialsnowflake too?!? I know I do, so I can I can feel empowered!! Mmm empowerment...


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Cephalonimbus said:


> Well in the case of this image, a lot of these terms essentially mean the same thing so it just becomes silly. IMO they could easily reduce it to three options on okcupid: male, female and other. If people really want to know more they can always ask.
> 
> For example: androgynous, genderfluid, genderqueer, gender nonconforming, pangender and non-binary... they basically all boil down to "I don't identify as typically male or female." The difference between these labels is so crazily specific that I can't imagine it making a difference on the filters of a dating site. Can you imagine someone being okay with a potential mate being Hijra but filtering out those who are genderfluid? Because that's what that form is there for: to filter out potential matches. I'm not sure who does that kind of thing, but something must have went severely wrong in that person's life :-/
> 
> It's not a big deal to me and people can call themselves whatever they want, but I do think it gets silly sometimes and as the terms get more and more specific (at times comically so), it gets harder for me to take these people seriously. Some people advertise their bizarrely specific gender identity to such a degree that I start to question whether they have a real sense of self in the first place. I mean, if you know who you are and you're comfortable with that, why would there be a need to differentiate to such a degree? It clashes completely with the idea that we are more than our gender, which IMO we absolutely are. I know people IRL who fall outside of the traditional gender binary, but they just are what they are without assuming a gender identity that needs a friggin manual to decipher, because the rest of their identity is based on other, more meaningful things.


But again, the butthurt is disproportionate. People care way too much about this. I mean, if someone wants to identify as hijra/two-spirit/pangender, why does it matter?

Honestly, I think the people getting fired up about it are most likely transphobic themselves and don't want to admit it, so they hide behind the special snowflake stereotype to deflect any sort of criticism for calling people by the pronouns they identify with.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Torai said:


> But again, the butthurt is disproportionate. People care way too much about this. I mean, if someone wants to identify as hijra/two-spirit/pangender, why does it matter?


Where is anyone getting "butthurt" over it? I posted that picture making fun of how politically correct things have gotten these days. That might be offensive to someone, but I certainly wasn't "butthurt" over it, I just thought it was funny. I don't really see anyone on this forum (at least in this thread or others I have read) getting mad at people for identifying a certain way or saying they CAN'T identify that way. Even calling it "special snowflake syndrome" is just dismissing the issue as being insignificant, not being openly hostile towards it.

PS: But getting back to the point of the thread, I guess the fact you perceive a level of "butthurt" that certainly didn't exist when I posted that picture might say a lot about why there is so much hate in these sorts of threads. People don't like having their views misinterpreted and they certainly don't like having them exaggerated to extreme positions.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Where is anyone getting "butthurt" over it? I posted that picture making fun of how politically correct things have gotten these days. That might be offensive to someone, but I certainly wasn't "butthurt" over it, I just thought it was funny. I don't really see anyone on this forum (at least in this thread or others I have read) getting mad at people for identifying a certain way or saying they CAN'T identify that way. Even calling it "special snowflake syndrome" is just dismissing the issue as being insignificant, not being openly hostile towards it.
> 
> PS: But getting back to the point of the thread, I guess the fact you perceive a level of "butthurt" that certainly didn't exist when I posted that picture might say a lot about why there is so much hate in these sorts of threads. People don't like having their views misinterpreted and they certainly don't like having them exaggerated to extreme positions.


It's honestly that this specific issue is overblown by people everywhere, especially on places like TumblrInAction. There's way too much of a focus on "transtrenders" that is used as a blatant excuse to avoid something such as using the correct pronouns for transgender people or treating them with even the most basic level of respect. And a lot of people will misidentify others with an alternate gender name as being that "transtrender" and willfully misgendering them, when it could just be a piece of language they picked up, and it fits for them.

Plus, I define butthurt as any undue complaining or grievance, no matter how mild.


----------



## Scrabbletray (Apr 27, 2014)

Torai said:


> It's honestly that this specific issue is overblown by people everywhere, especially on places like TumblrInAction.


I've never heard of "TumblrInAction" and I'm sure 99% of people in this world haven't either. Whatever it is, I wouldn't assume it's representative of people in general.



Torai said:


> There's way too much of a focus on "transtrenders" that is used as a blatant excuse to avoid something such as using the correct pronouns for transgender people or treating them with even the most basic level of respect.


Well, it depends what you mean by the "basic level of respect". There are plenty of people who are just assholes and don't treat anyone with respect, so for them to not treat a transgender with respect is actually a sign they AREN'T discriminating. As for "correct" pronouns, that's starting to get into the "special snowflake" territory because it's trying to redefine words to accommodate a certain, very small, group of people. If you want to use a word in a way different than it's normal definition then whatever, but demanding other people do so is starting to demand special treatment, not equal treatment. Especially to label one group's point of view as "correct" (and thereby imply everyone else is incorrect) seems very closed-minded. It's like if pro-life people started saying that the "correct" term for "abortion" is actually "baby murder" and that using the word "abortion" was now incorrect and offensive. If that's their personal judgment then fine and if they want to call it "baby murder" then I can't stop them, but I'm also not going to stop calling it "abortion" just because some political group tells me to.

Also, the whole notion that we need all these new terms just strikes be as incredibly divisive. I mean, say I'm a man and I identify as male. Now let's say I don't like watching football. That means I don't 100% perfectly fit the male stereotype. Does that mean I'm now transgender? What if I don't like football, video games, and 50 other masculine things too? Now am I even more transgender? Do we need a special word for every different possible combination of likes and dislikes? Same with sexual preference. I identify as straight, but then I saw Ben Affleck nude in that one move and DAMN he's got a nice ass! Does that mean I'm not 100% straight now? Do we need a new word for only want to fuck women, but can appreciate a nice male ass? What about if I mostly want to fuck women but might cuddle an effeminate man while drunk? Does that need a special word to? Yeah, I know I'm going a little bizarre there, but the point is that "male", "female" and "other" should be enough terms without having to add 20 more and so should "gay", "straight" and "other". Nobody 100% is masculine and nobody is 100% straight and implying that everyone has to fit into one box or another just doesn't seem necessary. I'd rather unite people together than divide them into ever smaller groups. Maybe it's nice from a clinical point of view (like MBTI types), but it's a little too much for real life (presumably you don't tell people IRL your MBTI either).


----------



## WamphyriThrall (Apr 11, 2011)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> This is where I personally disagree. I think adding more labels actually reduces people's freedom to be themselves. It would be better if we could just treat everyone as an individual and not have to label everyone. I understand that many people WANT to feel like part of a group and WANT a label, but to me personally it seems a little excessive at this point. Plus, these labels never come close to defining someone anyways nor do people ever bring them up in normal everyday conversation. A website like this might ask you your gender and sex preference, but you certainly won't be asked that IRL. You can share it if you want, or you can choose to not share it and nobody will demand you explain it to them.


Well, that's easy to say when you make up a part of the majority; when you fit into the established norms. So far, the only people I've seen complaining about more labels have been those who don't need to use them, anyway (cis). Everyone else is thrilled. Because before this, your options were limited, and it was difficult to find others like yourself. 

The same way many gay or trans people feel when they discover those terms is the same way many feel when they see "genderqueer" and read the definition. They obviously had these feelings from an early age, felt out of place, but had no resources or community to identify with. It can get incredibly lonely. 

Similar to how some of us feel when we discover MBTI, right? 



a1b2c3d4 said:


> If you look around I think you will find this is quite common. You will be reading a thread about sex and see people self-identifying as "asexual" talking about how great sex is. Or reading about someone discussing one night stands and they identify as "demisexual". A lot of times I think people just WANT to identify as labels like these because they think it gives them some level of superiority. Don't everyone get too bent out of shape over this, but it seems like it's women doing it more than men and I can't help but think that instead of overcoming their gender stereotypes they are really just falling right for them. Self-identifying as "asexual" or "demisexual" because they are buying into the idea that a woman SHOULDN'T want sex and therefore want to label themselves that way. I might respect these labels a lot more if I actually saw people identifying them acting in a way that aligned more with their supposed identity.


There are degrees of asexuality, you know, and demisexual, along with grey-a, both fall somewhere along that spectrum. It's possible to enjoy sexual acts, or to feel occasional attraction, for either of the three. The difference is they probably won't experience sexual attraction as often, to the same extent, or seek out partners, as often as sexual folk. 

I've also noticed more women who self-identified as being asexual, and whether that's due to cultural reasons (male expected to be hypersexual, and women to be less so), or biology is anyone's guess. Anyway, I'm not sure why you'd think someone would purposely make life more difficult for themselves, unless they have some serious issues to work through, and I don't believe most do. 

Again, sexuality, gender, are incredibly nuanced topics, but because most people love to simplify and generalize, opening up discourse becomes heated. We're taught from an early age that there are certain things that are immutable, and they play huge parts in our identity and perceptions of the world around us, so when that's threatened... you get push back. What's worse: making someone slightly uncomfortable by being yourself, or sacrificing your well-being, just to fit in with what everyone else says you should be/do?


----------



## Sourpuss (Aug 9, 2014)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> The problem with feminism is that the amount of discrimination against women in 21st century America (the only place I'm qualified to talk about) is so small that it seems all the battles are over such minor things and yet the rhetoric is so incredibly loud. You could probably easily list a dozen widespread traits that are more strongly discriminated against than being a woman. Race is WAY more strongly discriminated against, but I'd say even things like obesity, height, athleticism, general attractiveness, etc are bigger. If you actually look at SAME JOB wage gaps I'm pretty sure being fat, short or ugly have a larger gap than being a woman. It's just to the point where the rhetoric needs to come way down because the problems have come way down. If you want to talk about discrimination of women then do it about women in the Middle East or Asia, not the US.


I hear quite a bit about bullying these days, including how it often leads to earlier death and less wealth. So I think that falls under these categories.


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

DemonD said:


> From what I've seen on the internet(PerC included) nothing seems to twist panties into a bunch as fast as gender issues. Not even religion. Why is that?
> 
> IRL things might be different.
> 
> ...


Probably depends on the particular people who are most active in discussions on this forum. Elsewhere on other forums I've been part of, it's US or international politics, religion, gay/transgender issues, etc, that lead to more debates.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

a1b2c3d4 said:


> Yeah, because every ugly person CHOOSE to look that way. Also, there are plenty of jobs where a woman would in fact be less capable (like construction). I'm an engineer and every job I've ever had contained a requirement that all employees must be able to life at least 50 pounds. Can a 95 pound woman lift 50 pounds?
> 
> 
> Well, by this same logic there is nothing wrong with only hiring white men if that is who people trust more.
> ...


There are women who are fire fighters and EMTs, women who are police officers and park rangers, and even the humble nurse frequently must lift incapacitated patients, nurses have a real horror show of a job, my cousin is a nurse. 50 pounds is doable by many women. Many women weigh more than 95 pounds. 95 pounds is rare these days, except for very petite women. Even medium height women who are very slender usually weigh in the neighborhood of 115-120, many women weigh between 130-150 pounds. A 150 pound woman can carry 30-35 pounds on her back distance hiking. Do you known how many children weigh 50 pounds?

Anyway, of course women and men might be more likely to do certain jobs. Women are more likely to be exotic dancers and food servers and nursery workers, and men are more likely to do physical labor that requires upper body strength, they are also more likely to want to do more dangerous jobs than women on average. 

Are men and women the same? No. But I am not sure how you rationalize pay gaps for the same work done. Apparently even male food servers make more than women, I remember reeling over that.


----------

