Welcome to Hell

[Miss Hunter]

I'm confused by your reply. You make a "quasi-intellectual pontification", I respond, and you ask me to stick to the point? I was sticking to the point. I contest your conjecture that there is white male hate speech in this thread. Could you be more specific about what you believe is hate speech here?

Edit to add: I was suggesting the only way a white male could interpret this thread as hate speech was via a fragile ego. And while obviously you are not a white male and I fully understand you didn't feel personally targeted, I was suggesting that maybe it was overkill to empathise to such fragility.

"I contest your conjecture" what does that mean? There are multiple posts on this thread making negative generalizations about a group called "middle aged white men" Read the thread and you will find them. Stop changing the subject.

Let's substitute "black", "brown, "yellow" or "red" for white and see how far that gets you. Why not substitute "middle-aged white women."

 

[Miss Hunter]

Im bringing this up for the sake of discussion. I enjoy a debate once in awhile.

 

[clu]

"I contest your conjecture" what does that mean? There are multiple posts on this thread making negative generalizations about a group called "middle aged white men" Read the thread and you will find them. Stop changing the subject.

Let's substitute "black", "brown, "yellow" or "red" for white and see how far that gets you. Why not substitute "middle-aged white women."

Where am I changing the subject? Your statement is not self-evident. That's why I asked for examples.

Saying "women are bad drivers" (don't believe it, but as an example) is a negative stereotype, but it is not hate speech. There's a difference. Hate speech is threatening.

 

[felixthecat]

I'm confused by your reply. You make a "quasi-intellectual pontification", I respond, and you ask me to stick to the point? I was sticking to the point. I contest your conjecture that there is white male hate speech in this thread. Could you be more specific about what you believe is hate speech here?

Edit to add: I was suggesting the only way a white male could interpret this thread as hate speech was via a fragile ego. And while obviously you are not a white male and I fully understand you didn't feel personally targeted, I was suggesting that maybe it was overkill to empathise to such fragility.

Miss Hunter's message was more nuanced than you give it the credit for. She did not say there was hate speech here.

Indeed, there wasn't. That would require "abusive or threatening" attributes, per Oxford dictionary.

What she said, there would be people who would call it hate speech if it was about a different race/age/gender demographics.

I tend to agree with that. I believe "middle-aged white men lack compassion" would not face the same scrutiny as, say, "Native women lack compassion", even though both statements are discriminatory, unfairly general, and racist. Why not set a good example and avoid making discriminatory statements based on protected attributes (including race/gender/age).

Update: other than fairness, it's a question of solving a problem vs. creating a new one. Explaining hardships a certain group faces is one thing. Blaming people based on their race/age/gender is quite another, it only adds to the divide and takes some credibility away.

 

[clu]

Miss Hunter's message was more nuanced than you give it the credit for. She did not say there was hate speech here.

Indeed, there wasn't. That would require "abusive or threatening" attributes, per Oxford dictionary.

What she said, there would be people who would call it hate speech if it was about a different race/age/gender demographics.

I tend to agree with that. I believe "middle-aged white man lack compassion" would not face the same scrutiny as, say, "Native women lack compassion", even though both statements are discriminatory, unfairly general, and racist. Why not set a good example and avoid making discriminatory statements based on protected attributes (including race/gender/sex).

Fair enough. I'll accept I missed her nuance in phrasing. But I do maintain that anyone who did call it hate speech is fragile, which is all I was really saying.

As to there being a smattering of negative stereotypes in this thread, sure, but it's not dominant and personally I don't find it any more an offensive generalisation than "men's brains are wired to objectify women."

In an ideal world one would should probably say something like "those oblivious of their privilege" rather than "generally, white middle-age males" (where I think even then Ms. Dawson acknowledged it wasn't universal, if that's the post we're talking about).

 

[felixthecat]

In an ideal world one would should probably say something like "those oblivious of their privilege" rather than "generally, white middle-age males" (where I think even then Ms. Dawson acknowledged it wasn't universal, if that's the post we're talking about).

We can agree on that. I wouldn't get too deep into specific posts (and you have to appreciate how Miss Hunter avoided doing that), since a few of the posters were banned and cannot respond.

 

[clu]

So here's where I'm coming from: I know I don't speak for all of "my kind" but as a white middle-age male, I'm not particularly offended by the negative stereotypes in this thread. All "the other groups" have to deal with negative stereotypes on a daily basis, and ones with a lot more consequences.

I'm getting off easy. Me, I'm still happily able to walk alone at night, I can go into a business meeting without anyone commenting on my body, my clothes, groping me, or questioning who I slept with to get where I am, and they listen to me. If I see the police, I'm not the least bit afraid how they're going to treat me. I'm not going to get people yelling at me to go back where I came from or fear racist slurs about me spray painted around the places I frequent. I'm not going to be rejected because of the gender I find attractive. I don't have to worry if each election is going to result in policies that will threaten my way of life.

So if I do have to hear someone mentioning a demeaning stereotype that I don't feel is me, I'm not going to sweat it (a) because hopefully I can prove them wrong if they get to know me and (b) the way this world is set up, they can't really avoid having to accommodate me anyway. Sticks and stones, as they say. Only I never deal with the sticks and stones.

So I just try to be humble about it to people that do, and I try to treat others the way I'd want to be treated if I were them. And if that means letting them blow off a bit of steam about the advantages I know I have vs. them, then so be it.

In an ideal world there would be no negative stereotypes. But if that's not going to happen then me not being exempt from those negative stereotypes is at least a little more fair, so to speak.

 

[Miss Hunter]

Fair enough. I'll accept I missed her nuance in phrasing. But I do maintain that anyone who did call it hate speech is fragile, which is all I was really saying.

As to there being a smattering of negative stereotypes in this thread, sure, but it's not dominant and personally I don't find it any more an offensive generalisation than "men's brains are wired to objectify women."

In an ideal world one would should probably say something like "those oblivious of their privilege" rather than "generally, white middle-age males" (where I think even then Ms. Dawson acknowledged it wasn't universal, if that's the post we're talking about).

In regards to my comment, "men's brains are wired to objectify women" I was referring to the cognitive processing of visual sexual stimuli in the male brain. A Billion Wicked Thoughts is great book that goes into detail about it. It was written by 2 cognitive neuroscientists.

Another thing I find interesting about the visual processing in the male brain is theres a separate circuitry that activates depending on whether a man is looking at random attractive women vs a woman he's grown to care for. I remember a comment made in another thread months ago in regards to men "putting women into boxes" In a nutshell, it's true they actually do put women into boxes. Helen Fisher's Why We Love is another great book.

Anyways, back to the white male privilege discussion...Your "oblivious about their privilege" comment is interesting. There are many white middle aged males living in Oppenheimer Park, even some who look like they are in their eighties. What privilege do they have?

And not all middle aged while males were once children of privilege. Not everyone is blessed with social status. Many got to where they are now through hard work and intelligence.

 

[Sub-Slut]

In regards to my comment, "men's brains are wired to objectify women" I was referring to the cognitive processing of visual sexual stimuli in the male brain. A Billion Wicked Thoughts is great book that goes into detail about it. It was written by 2 cognitive neuroscientists.

Another thing I find interesting about the visual processing in the male brain is theres a separate circuitry that activates depending on whether a man is looking at random attractive women vs a woman he's grown to care for. I remember a comment made in another thread months ago in regards to men "putting women into boxes" In a nutshell, it's true they actually do put women into boxes. Helen Fisher's Why We Love is another great book.

Anyways, back to the white male privilege discussion...Your "oblivious about their privilege" comment is interesting. There are many white middle aged males living in Oppenheimer Park, even some who look like they are in their eighties. What privilege do they have?

And not all middle aged while males were once children of privilege. Not everyone is blessed with social status. Many got to where they are now through hard work and intelligence.

The wonderful thing about "those oblivious to their privilege" is that it falls into Dunning-Kruger territory (that should be in one of those books, Miss Hunter). A white, middle-aged man like some of the morons I work with are completely oblivious to any privilege they have because they can't fathom how they're lucky. They have it too good to realize how good they have it. These idiots I'm surrounded with can't understand why being a woman, getting laid at the snap of your fingers, having a shirt you can look down any time you'd like, and fucking their way to the top, could ever been seen as a disadvantage. They don't have privilege, they just wake up everyday like anyone else, put their coveralls on one limb at a time, and take their tools to work. They aren't handed an education or free housing or drinks at the bar, how are they privileged?! Well, they also got their good-paying union job from the connections their daddy had, went to school where they couldn't fail because their uncle ran the shop course, and so long as they could manage to not spill their whiskey in the cab of the truck on their way to work, they're golden.

They lack the awareness of how lucky they are because that's not something they've ever considered from someone else's perspective. The idea that they have also had bad days or dark times, in their mind, disqualifies them from being privileged. They don't think that calling the girl working at the bar cute, or telling her to smile more, could be offensive because it's nice to be called cute. They're just honest, nice guys who are being nice because they had a good day. It's her fault she can't take a compliment. The stuck up bitch.

Although, it could be me tiring of the phrase "yeah, well men have it bad too!" when I see women being passed over for opportunities they are more than qualified for because of some mans preconceived notion. Watching a female apprentice bust her ass only to be sent home in place of a guy who takes a fifteen minute smoke break every hour. Hearing the foreman say "well, at least she was good to look at".

Yes, the world is stacked against everyone, nobody will ever argue that. It's just stacked against certain people more.

 

[Miss Hunter]

The wonderful thing about "those oblivious to their privilege" is that it falls into Dunning-Kruger territory (that should be in one of those books, Miss Hunter). A white, middle-aged man like some of the morons I work with are completely oblivious to any privilege they have because they can't fathom how they're lucky. They have it too good to realize how good they have it. These idiots I'm surrounded with can't understand why being a woman, getting laid at the snap of your fingers, having a shirt you can look down any time you'd like, and fucking their way to the top, could ever been seen as a disadvantage. They don't have privilege, they just wake up everyday like anyone else, put their coveralls on one limb at a time, and take their tools to work. They aren't handed an education or free housing or drinks at the bar, how are they privileged?! Well, they also got their good-paying union job from the connections their daddy had, went to school where they couldn't fail because their uncle ran the shop course, and so long as they could manage to not spill their whiskey in the cab of the truck on their way to work, they're golden.

They lack the awareness of how lucky they are because that's not something they've ever considered from someone else's perspective. The idea that they have also had bad days or dark times, in their mind, disqualifies them from being privileged. They don't think that calling the girl working at the bar cute, or telling her to smile more, could be offensive because it's nice to be called cute. They're just honest, nice guys who are being nice because they had a good day. It's her fault she can't take a compliment. The stuck up bitch.

Although, it could be me tiring of the phrase "yeah, well men have it bad too!" when I see women being passed over for opportunities they are more than qualified for because of some mans preconceived notion. Watching a female apprentice bust her ass only to be sent home in place of a guy who takes a fifteen minute smoke break every hour. Hearing the foreman say "well, at least she was good to look at".

Yes, the world is stacked against everyone, nobody will ever argue that. It's just stacked against certain people more.

There is no mention of the Dunning-Kruger effect in either of those books but I am familiar with what it is. You are showing a perfect example of it. Assessing your cognitive ability as greater than it is, displaying a bias of illusionary superiority and an inability to recognize that it can be a lack of ability, and not someone else's privilege, that causes the world to be stacked up against you.

In regards to your comment about tiring of the phrase "yeah, well men have it bad too!" and seeing women being passed over for opportunites they are qualified for... What do you think about the #metoo movement? From my perspective, I see it as something very dangerous and detrimental to women's rights. I feel the original intent behind it was good, but it rapidly spiralled out of control. Nowadays is seems anything is considered "sexual harassment" according to the mob, and, the justice system, although it has room for improvement, is now altogether being bypassed. Men's lives are being destroyed by accusations on social media alone. Because of this, I suspect it will potentially become even more challenging for women who work hard to get into positions of power. Men, understandably, will become even more weary of hiring women. These days something as simple as a glance, a compliment or the holding of a door can be misconstrued as something sinister.

 

[Deguire]

Agree completely, women are the losers in this. I'm now retired but I worked at a place where most of the management (including me) were male and most of the folks doing the work were female. I was always looking for bright, educated, ambitious women to promote and did so on several occasions. May I emphasize there was never any hanky-panky. I really did want to see women move up. Now, though.....I would be ultra cautious and avoid interacting with female employees except when absolutely necessary. I would never be in a closed office with a female employee, take one out for coffee or lunch, have a drink after work, travel on business or go to the office Xmas party. Ain't worth it, I'm not taking any chances. If she ever complained that I touched her on the knee, (whether true or not) I'm finished, fired, unemployable. IMHO, I don't think women are better off now. Pity.

 

[MissingOne]

... Men, understandably, will become even more wary of hiring women. These days something as simple as a glance, a compliment or the holding of a door can be misconstrued as something sinister.

That's very true. Back in the distant past I often did field work and travelled for extended periods with young professional women. There were times when we were away from home together for as much as two months. I had a switch in my brain that tripped whenever I was working with a woman. She became off limits for romantic or sexual interest, no matter how attractive she might otherwise have been. Nevertheless, spending so much time together, little things would happen. I'd accidentally catch a momentary glimpse of forbidden flesh while we leaned over a work table together, or I would spontaneously complement a woman on her outfit before my brain caught up to my mouth. Neither the women nor I ever thought anything of it in those days. Most of the women I worked with in the distant past are still good friends, just like most of the men I worked with.

Never again would I work and travel alone with a woman the way I used to. Catch an accidental glimpse of flesh or say something that is misconstrued and my career could be over and I'd be a social pariah.

I'm sure that the attitude I express contravenes labour law, but fortunately I have no employees and never will again, so I can't be accused of unfair hiring practices. Just a bad attitude.

 

[Sub-Slut]

That's very true. Back in the distant past I often did field work and travelled for extended periods with young professional women. There were times when we were away from home together for as much as two months. I had a switch in my brain that tripped whenever I was working with a woman. She became off limits for romantic or sexual interest, no matter how attractive she might otherwise have been. Nevertheless, spending so much time together, little things would happen. I'd accidentally catch a momentary glimpse of forbidden flesh while we leaned over a work table together, or I would spontaneously complement a woman on her outfit before my brain caught up to my mouth. Neither the women nor I ever thought anything of it in those days. Most of the women I worked with in the distant past are still good friends, just like most of the men I worked with.

Never again would I work and travel alone with a woman the way I used to. Catch an accidental glimpse of flesh or say something that is misconstrued and my career could be over and I'd be a social pariah.

I'm sure that the attitude I express contravenes labour law, but fortunately I have no employees and never will again, so I can't be accused of unfair hiring practices. Just a bad attitude.

Yes, women marching in the streets in pussy hats because they were upset with the compliment of "grab 'em by the pussy."

The idea that sexual assault will be replaced with sexual discrimination is fascinating.

Are we so wrapped in defensiveness that you can't concede that many women have faced sexual harassment and attacks? You're one of the good ones, so you couldn't hire women ever again? Did anyone ever accuse you of harassment? No, because you didn't? That isn't the problem. Maybe that you can't believe that a woman has ever been victimized is part of the problem though?

That you see women as women and have a sexual feeling isn't an issue, it's that you didn't act on it is how you didn't cause one. You did a good job. Take a bow.

We need to believe that people aren't as good as you were. Women are saying that in mass numbers. Govern yourself accordingly.

 

[theimp]

My industry went into panic mode, when this started. I admit, we are probably the worst offenders. We had meetings, individual and group. Drew up guidelines and handbooks. I ended up firing two guys that just wouldn't control themselves, and actually got worse. I recused myself from any input, as to female staff. I had slept with a few (not while they were working with me). Things have, basically, gone backward since, and last week I caught one of the girls flashing my second in command. Her excuse was "he was having a bad day, and now he's not". We are a, ridiculously, randy bunch. Staff parties are, frequently, drug and alcohol fueled orgies. We spend our downtime at strip clubs and after hours places. Our industry, frequently, crosses over with the sex industry. I had met, and partied with, many of the local sp's long before I started seeing them, personally.
Now I have the staff self regulating. Everyone gets a vote, they make the rules and enforce them. Seems to be working well...so far. By that I mean, they seem happier, there have been only minor complaints which were swiftly dealt with, and fairly dealt with, or so it seemed to me.

 

[Miss Hunter]

Yes, women marching in the streets in pussy hats because they were upset with the compliment of "grab 'em by the pussy."

The idea that sexual assault will be replaced with sexual discrimination is fascinating.

Are we so wrapped in defensiveness that you can't concede that many women have faced sexual harassment and attacks? You're one of the good ones, so you couldn't hire women ever again? Did anyone ever accuse you of harassment? No, because you didn't? That isn't the problem. Maybe that you can't believe that a woman has ever been victimized is part of the problem though?

That you see women as women and have a sexual feeling isn't an issue, it's that you didn't act on it is how you didn't cause one. You did a good job. Take a bow.

We need to believe that people aren't as good as you were. Women are saying that in mass numbers. Govern yourself accordingly.

I'll admit, one benefit of the #metoo movement is it (initially) brought awareness to a serious issue. But do you think all women who make accusations or claim to be victims should be believed? This is where, in my opinion, it gets messy.

As I already mentioned, there definitely is room for improvement in the criminal justice system. And there is a lot of current research and work going into improving it. The problem is that changes take time.

I am strongly against bypassing the criminal justice system completely with social media lynch mob justice.

Did you know that ~75% of exonerations by DNA evidence were initially convicted by eyewitness testimony? Countless innocent people have lost months, years, DECADES of their lives because of this. And this is pre-#metoo. Rape and sexual harassment causes trauma, but so does being accused and convicted of serious crimes... while innocent.

 

[jgg]

My industry went into panic mode, when this started. I admit, we are probably the worst offenders. We had meetings, individual and group. Drew up guidelines and handbooks. I ended up firing two guys that just wouldn't control themselves, and actually got worse. I recused myself from any input, as to female staff. I had slept with a few (not while they were working with me). Things have, basically, gone backward since, and last week I caught one of the girls flashing my second in command. Her excuse was "he was having a bad day, and now he's not". We are a, ridiculously, randy bunch. Staff parties are, frequently, drug and alcohol fueled orgies. We spend our downtime at strip clubs and after hours places. Our industry, frequently, crosses over with the sex industry. I had met, and partied with, many of the local sp's long before I started seeing them, personally.
Now I have the staff self regulating. Everyone gets a vote, they make the rules and enforce them. Seems to be working well...so far. By that I mean, they seem happier, there have been only minor complaints which were swiftly dealt with, and fairly dealt with, or so it seemed to me.

Sounds like a strip bar or an Earl's.

 

[theimp]

Lol. I am far from being intimidating, so strip club...nah and Earl's? Gack, mediocre swill, from bucket to plate.

 

[ElsiDawson]

Anita Hill interviews? Who was she again?

 

[MissingOne]

Anita Hill interviews? Who was she again?

So far as I know she isn't deceased. So who is she? As I recall, when Clarence Thomas was nominated for a position on the US supreme court, she came forward and accused him of sexual harassment in the workplace. For her trouble, she was dragged through the mud. If we can assume that she was being honest, that's a high-profile example of the reasons behind "me too".

I'm going from memory here; I'm an old fart and it was years ago, so if I've gotten it wrong, no doubt the PERB fact-checkers will correct me.

 

[ElsiDawson]

So far as I know she isn't deceased. So who is she? As I recall, when Clarence Thomas was nominated for a position on the US supreme court, she came forward and accused him of sexual harassment in the workplace. For her trouble, she was dragged through the mud. If we can assume that she was being honest, that's a high-profile example of the reasons behind "me too".

I'm going from memory here; I'm an old fart and it was years ago, so if I've gotten it wrong, no doubt the PERB fact-checkers will correct me.

Yeah, the video linked goes over that.

It's eerily similar to what happen to Christine Blasey Ford during her testimony about being attacked by Brett Kavanaugh--she sought therapy and support, she didn't go to the police to press charges (as someone who has, I will never ask another human to do that, it's a traumatizing and awful experience). Then he gets tapped to join the Supreme Court and she decides that she needs to come forward and testify. She does, he defends himself with "I like beer, though!" and she can't return home because misogynist nut cases have been stalking her and threatening her life since.


Edit: Happy 500th post, Elsi.