[UA] Re: [UA][OT] UA unintenionally sexist? (LONG!)

[Patrick O'Duffy]

Steve Dustin wrote:

> I apologize if I appear hot-headed, sometimes I hit the send button before I
> definitely should.  Once I got home, after a nice long drive, I definitely
> realized nothing would be gained from me jumping into the middle of a
> discussion I wasn't very familiar with, especially if I was going to be
> perceived to be belligerent.

I think the internet encourages angered or impassioned debate, unfortunately.
You can't put a face or an identity to the person you're talking to, so it's
easier to ignore or dismiss them as not being entirely real.

On the plus side, though, you can't just yell at people; you have to spend at
least some time thinking and typing.  And hopefully that cools you down and
gives you distance.

If I've offended anyone during this discussion, I apologize.  That's never my
intent.  If you feel that I've done so, email me and we can talk about it.

> This discussion has just hit upon one of my major sore-spots, and its
> something that's currently not very tangible, but is slowly starting to
> emerge in society.  Susan Faludi just put out a book about how a
> disproportionate amount of American males are beginning to feel powerless,
> and yet, can't quit figure out what's making them feel this way.

What's the book called?  Sounds interesting.

>  She got
> raked over the coals about it; men in this country don't even want to admit
> its happening.

Maybe it's a cultural thing.  I certainly don't feel powerless; I'm a white male
in a society created by white males for the empowerment of white males.  If I
was richer (I live below the poverty line), I'd be King of the world.

> Yet, men are four times more likely to succeed at suicide.  Fathers are less
> likely to win custody of their children, unless the mother is obviously
> deranged or psychopathic.  Fathers are treated like pedophiles if they are
> openly touchy-feelie with small children.  Men are taught to substitute love
> for sex--walk into any strip club and tell me what you see; men paying to
> talk to naked women.  True, porn and prostitution is an overly complicated
> issue, but I think this is part of it.  Men are expected to go to war and
> die--that's how much we value them.  We kill them.

All that stuff is true; no argument.  I think, though, that while men have
problems, women (as a whole) have bigger ones.

> Unfortunately, there's this climate of fear that has
> grown from labeling things *sexist* or *racist* in America.  The end result?

Don't forget that I'm not American.  Things are a little different over here.
Right now, for instance, racism is a pretty big topic, and a lot of people are
discussing it on a regular basis.

> If you can't or refuse to voice your own point of view,
> how can society learn from that?

Good point.
I like putting qualifiers into my speech and writing.  I think it's important
that I be clear about _what_ I'm saying and _why_ I'm saying it, and qualifiers
help me get that across (along with the point of whatever I'm saying).
But if we lose the content or point of something because it's over compromised,
that's a bad thing.

> I mean, in the big scheme of things, UA, Greg and John are a small pindrop.
> Why go after them?

Well, this isn't some organized campaign to destroy UA.  It's one woman
commenting on the game and her impressions of it in a semi-private forum.  No
one's "going after" anyone.

>  A lot of sexist and racist issues are actually class
> issues--something you don't talk about in America.

Absolutely.  Not all, but a large amount.  We're a little more comfortable
discussing class here in Australia, but only a little.

> Once again you're right again.

I love it when I get comments like that.

>  I should have placed one more statement in
> that list--if we are going to improve, we have to know our failings.  My
> point was that until we all acknowledge that we have biases, we won't be
> able to fix the problem.

Agreed.

>  There has to be a social *jump* in society to
> acknowledge the problems of the past.  We have to move forward.  But I
> always find these conversations going in a round-robin of "You're sexist!"
> "No, I'm not!" "You're sexist!" "No, I'm not!".  It solves nothing.

I don't know that this discussion is going that way, though.  It's more like
"Are you sexist?" "I don't believe so." "Is the topic debatable?" "Well, maybe."

As long as tempers don't flare, as long as discussion stays worthwhile, this
kind of thing _is_ moving forward.  At least in my opinion.

--
Patrick O'Duffy, Brisbane, Australia

Some days it's like some bastard nailed a ticket for the bus tour
down to fucking Hell to the front of my brain.

 - Spider Jerusalem, TRANSMETROPOLITAN #26



_______________________________________________
UA mailing list
UA at lists.uchicago.edu
http://lists.uchicago.edu/mailman/listinfo/ua