The past affects the present, and anyone who claims otherwise has never studied history. When you deprive a group of intergenerational mobility and citizenship for hundreds of years it affects their income today. When you herd a group onto a reservation to "civilize them" it affects them today. When a group's homeland is destroyed 2,000 years ago and they're forced to settle across the globe in a diaspora it affects them today.
Umm, the thing is there are tons of groups that could be described here throughout human history and some of them are doing great. Hell, many groups of Europeans fit the description of having been oppressed.
Are Jewish studies and tribal studies "race baiting?"
Whiteness studies does not celebrate the accomplishments and culture of white people like those studies seek to it denounces "whiteness" as the source of all evil and as its creator stated does not seek to deconstruct whiteness but to destroy it.
Here are some of the claims made by people I've talked to that have gone through whiteness studies...
-White people have never invented anything other than racism (something they went on to explain didn't exist prior to white people creating it) and whites stole all their technology from POC (the monolithic group that whiteness was created to oppress).
-We live in a white supremacist nation where simply being white makes you a racist.
-White people alone have practiced slavery.
-Other bat**** crazy nonsense that is eerily similar to Nazi black propaganda about jewish people.
Having an intelligent discussion about race in this country isn't race baiting. But to people who would rather sweep hundreds of years of history under the rug and sing kumbaya like hippies it is.
There is nothing intelligent or honest coming out of these discussions (see above). No one is claiming we should ignore the past we should just recognize THAT IT IS THE PAST!
If you want to discard all that privileged white males accomplished maybe start with the works of Marx and Engels!
Warning for Ignoring a Moderator's Request - Jay13x
African African-Americans(do I call them AA-A's?) have the dubious honor of having to deal with American perceptions and treatment of our native Black population AND their own ancestor's potential colonial and/or tribal issues.
I really think this attitude IS a huge problem for AA and AA-A's. I remember sitting in on a meeting for sex offenders on a local reservation and things were going well with people talking about the need to take responsibility for their actions and the need to address their communities problems and what would happen if they didn't and then suddenly someone said "Because that's what the white man wants" and it all went down hill from there. Africa was no utopia when white people arrived and there is no reason to believe it would have improved if they had never arrived at all, it is 100% within the power of the people there to make huge improvements.
Heres an article from Thomas Sowell on the dangers of victim-think... http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120313.php3
It addresses how the American left uses race and the British left uses class to define victimhood and the stark similarities in outcome.
I confronted my college room mate who was ultra christiany about the huge amounts of gay porn sites I found in the history of his computer when I was looking for a site I had previously visited.
I guess I didn't out him since it was just the two of us who talked about it.
He was terrified and gave me an otherworldly excuse. I was like "I really dont care, I wont tell anyone".
Then he moved out like a week later without telling me.
Just a while ago I learned he was in jail for child pornography involving his two kids and his father killed himself out of grief.
So hmmm I dont know if its right to out someone. Probably most of the time no, but some of the time maybe. If the person is marrying a friend of the opposite sex and that person is oblivious that they are just a beard maybe.
Batteryrevenge-Show me an instance where people delight in calling themselves "porchmonkies" and wear that badge with pride.
Comedy skits centered entirely about "You know you're a porchmonkey if..."
A "porchmonkey" subculture. (Porch-sitting is enjoyed by people of many backgrounds in the South, but it's a dying art with the advent of air conditioning.)
Someone on Shark Tank trying to trademark the phrase "Porch Monkey."
Have you ever listened to those black comedians that use N**** rather gleefully? Remember the Chapelle show were there was a skit called the meet the N****s were it was a family with the last name N****.
Its one thing to hear a member of a group you belong to making jokes using a slur and another for a member of another group to degrade you with that same slur.
Timothy Mimeslayer-Your argument is fallacious just like if I listed political movements and stated Nazism and Liberalism are political movements. It doesnt mean Im saying they are equally bad they just both fall into the category of "political movement".
Batterysrevenge-Seriously, WTF? Why is that relevant to anything, not to mention it's a rant from a not terribly bright person.
That being said people are getting feed up with political correctness in general, which is good. As the phrase goes you change people by conversing with them not censuring them.
My friends and I joked about exactly this... Me taking the stance that the colorless Eldrazi would try to destroy the multicolored Ravnica.
If we returned to Zendikar would we....
Get a fetchlands reprint
Get new versions of the Eldrazi titans (since reprinting the origional and leaving them out both seem REALLY lame)
Get new landfall cards/levelers etc.
Chicanos do not trust authorities, and it's not just the ones in Mexico. It's also the government that says to kick out all illegals and politicians who say Spanish is the language of the ghetto.
Seriously I'm sick and tired of liberals conflating supporting immigration laws with racism. That's total BS and really drives home the point that political correctness is first and foremost about shutting down honest discussion and demonizing opposing viewpoints. There are plenty of good reasons to want to deport illegal immigrants that have nothing to do with racism of xenophobia.
It is a country where signs were put up saying "No Mexicans need apply," a country where cops get away with dumping Mexican suspects into a bayou with handcuffs on and letting them drown, a country where house prices force them into polluted areas and when they try to get answers on what is making them sick causes them to get stonewalled. But hey, trust the government on this one.
Al those things are illegal and would outrage the vast mojority of Americans where as in Mexico the corruption is just a part of everday life, don't pretend for a second those two countries are equivalent. Allthough I will admit we have a seen a weakening of the rule of law under Obama that will lead to a great deal more corruption the two nations are still worlds apart.
Ladyluck-This is extremely dishonest privilege theory does NOT simply say there is a difference it claims to explain said difference.
Different groups are different and thus their outcomes will be different. Asians and homosexuals face discrimination but on average bring home more money then their while male counterparts.
Ladyluck-But whether or not "women are no better then men" was not the question - the question was, are women by default in charge of relationships? (Most here seem to think no) Why are you so focused on framing basic egalitarian ideas in a way that implicitly puts down women? You choose to phrase it as "Women are no better then men" - is not "Men are no better then women" or "Women are no worse then men" not equally true statement? Were this an isolated post from you, I'd probably shrug it off and not think anything of it... but it's not.
This is besides the fact that no one in this thread ever suggested that women were somehow better then men - you're the one who had to drag the idea into the conversation in the first place. Only a few people have declared "Women do X, men do Y" (which I disagree with btw), and never have anyone had a value judgment to accompany it. Literally no one else here seems to subscribe to the "Man bad, woman good" narrative that you accuse feminism of, so why are you trying to bring that into the discussion? Keep that talk in the thread that was set up for it.
But sure, some women are cruel... so those who date women need to be wise about how they pick their prospective partner, and be able to recognize when a relationship is going south, and be willing to end it (Just like those who date men have to do!). Which I'm guessing most people in this thread already knew. So. Yeah. In later news the sky is blue...
My post was in response to Lord Owlingtons and I did not phrase it as "Men are no better then women" because it would make a hell of a lot less sense in the context I was using it.
Why would "Women are no better then men" be putting women down but not "Men are no better then women"? I don't view feminism alone as the source of all men's issues or misandry by any means and I didn't bring feminism into this thread. I do however believe society angelifies women and demonizes men in many ways and relationships are one of those ways. All relationship problems are viewed as a product of a mans short comings (not sensitive enough, not good enough in bed, not good enough of a provider etc.). Can you honestly deny this? Can you give counter examples?
This issue is at the heart of who has power in relationships (heterosexual ones anyway). If it is always about the man having to prove himself worthy how can you possibly view that as balanced.
Why is it you believe referencing one nutjob constitutes a counter argument? Why is it you think ad hominem is the alpha-and-omega of debate?
Strawman noted
I could bring you a six-inch trout to debunk your belief that trout never grow over five inches and you would call it a strawman. Justice1337 provided a source to more then back up his claims.
Do note, however, @Chenjesu, that gender equality and "She's a whore because she won't sleep with me!" aren't both extremes.
Now that's a strawman! To pretend that anti-feminism has anything to do with that is the MOTHER OF ALL Strawmen!
That's a WAC argument. "Nobody realized slavery was evil until White American Christians(tm) did so and fought a civil war over it." I'm certain the slaves would disagree, and many countries had already abolished slavery in 1865.
Your argument that equality is "given" is just plain WAC!
Wow here's another whopper of a strawman and while gender roles restricted men and women, and women had legitimate rights issues in the west, to compare that to slavery is pretty desperate. Men were also forced into loveless marriages, demands were placed on them to perform their gender roles (conscription, today-child support), and they were also subject to many indiginities to be "good men".
Gender roles evolved out of necessity to ensure human survival the evidence for this is not weak or purely theoretical it's pretty ironclad actually. For example societies that move away from more traditional gender roles are seeing population growth go below the replacement rate. The variations in those roles are to be expected, there is variation in all things shaped by evolution (see pirahna and sturgeon). It was a division of labor that allowed society to exploit both men and women in the most efficient manner in a primitive society.
Lastly your analysis of my statement REEAAAAALLLLLLYYYYY shows your not getting it. I don't believe that women were as powerless as feminists claim then or now.
My great grandmother lived to be quite old I believe over a hundred. She told me about her two brothers who both died of skin cancer in their thirties. They would go out day after day and work long hours coming back bright red, often about to pass out, and often vomiting. This was expected of them because they were the male members of the family and thus viewed it as their responsibility to provide (FYI-This may blow your mind but I suspect they were motivated by love not a desire to dominate). The fact you can turn them into slave masters is well sociopathic and shows a real disconnect from basic compassion and understanding. Frankly privileged is just a slur and its use to dismiss men's issues shows a basic level of bigotry and hatred.
At least one culture in China doesn't have marriage
I believe your talking about the Na of China. Its interesting that this structure was designed by a man. An emperor who was tired of rebellions believed that he could put an end to any resistance to his tyranny by removing fathers from the family unit. Mothers became the head of the household and uncles took on the traditionally male duties and it worked resistance ended. Feminists claimed this was a matriarchy until their queen while laughing said "How can we be a matriarchy when our leaders are the buddhist monks and they are all male". It is interesting that as time goes by more and more Na homes become patrilineal or patrilineal/matrilineal homes. In fact when they were first studied the ratio of matrilineal to patrilineal was very close to what exists in the US, funny ehh. I can see why feminists dropped the "See finally a matriarchy and it's peaceful like we always said it would be" stuff like a hot potato. It also makes me wonder how long until the imposed system ceases all together.
Umm you need to learn to count. There are too many asterisks for it to be a "gendered" insult. It's a bodypart everyone has FYI.
Neckbearded
This is nothing but a shaming tactic I thought enlightened folk like you Lord Owlington were supposed to be above that and if Im not mistaken its "gendered" too.
While I don't do this to troll I do get a kick out of the fact that we now live in a time where saying "Women are no better then men" is mysoginy but people like you can say without a hint of irony that "Misandry doesn't exist".
LordOwlington-That's my point and why the feminist narative is such BS!
Noatz-If your going to repeat dogma verbatim you have no business calling others bigoted and unthinking. You have fallen into the trap of equating outcomes with opportunity for example women who enter government do slightly better then their male counterparts. I'm baffled as to why having a harder time getting promoted could be considered worse then losing your kids.
It's taken hundreds and hundreds of years for women to not get things done to them like being stoned to death in Christianity and general monotheistic religions just because they cheated on someone.
Women? I thought women were oppressed for the last 5,000 years, don't you mean MEN decided to create the modern age and move us past superstition and such?
How can it be both that women brought about sweeping change over the last few hundred years and yet were completely powerless.
Umm, the thing is there are tons of groups that could be described here throughout human history and some of them are doing great. Hell, many groups of Europeans fit the description of having been oppressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies
Heres another viewpoint on those issues...http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120313.php3
Here are some of the claims made by people I've talked to that have gone through whiteness studies...
-White people have never invented anything other than racism (something they went on to explain didn't exist prior to white people creating it) and whites stole all their technology from POC (the monolithic group that whiteness was created to oppress).
-We live in a white supremacist nation where simply being white makes you a racist.
-White people alone have practiced slavery.
-Other bat**** crazy nonsense that is eerily similar to Nazi black propaganda about jewish people.
There is nothing intelligent or honest coming out of these discussions (see above). No one is claiming we should ignore the past we should just recognize THAT IT IS THE PAST!
If you want to discard all that privileged white males accomplished maybe start with the works of Marx and Engels!
Warning for Ignoring a Moderator's Request - Jay13x
I really think this attitude IS a huge problem for AA and AA-A's. I remember sitting in on a meeting for sex offenders on a local reservation and things were going well with people talking about the need to take responsibility for their actions and the need to address their communities problems and what would happen if they didn't and then suddenly someone said "Because that's what the white man wants" and it all went down hill from there. Africa was no utopia when white people arrived and there is no reason to believe it would have improved if they had never arrived at all, it is 100% within the power of the people there to make huge improvements.
Heres an article from Thomas Sowell on the dangers of victim-think...
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell120313.php3
It addresses how the American left uses race and the British left uses class to define victimhood and the stark similarities in outcome.
Maybe the reason why this kid got attacked was because he was perceived as part of a white family and thus fair game.
I guess I didn't out him since it was just the two of us who talked about it.
He was terrified and gave me an otherworldly excuse. I was like "I really dont care, I wont tell anyone".
Then he moved out like a week later without telling me.
Just a while ago I learned he was in jail for child pornography involving his two kids and his father killed himself out of grief.
So hmmm I dont know if its right to out someone. Probably most of the time no, but some of the time maybe. If the person is marrying a friend of the opposite sex and that person is oblivious that they are just a beard maybe.
Have you ever listened to those black comedians that use N**** rather gleefully? Remember the Chapelle show were there was a skit called the meet the N****s were it was a family with the last name N****.
Its one thing to hear a member of a group you belong to making jokes using a slur and another for a member of another group to degrade you with that same slur.
Timothy Mimeslayer-Your argument is fallacious just like if I listed political movements and stated Nazism and Liberalism are political movements. It doesnt mean Im saying they are equally bad they just both fall into the category of "political movement".
That being said people are getting feed up with political correctness in general, which is good. As the phrase goes you change people by conversing with them not censuring them.
If we returned to Zendikar would we....
Get a fetchlands reprint
Get new versions of the Eldrazi titans (since reprinting the origional and leaving them out both seem REALLY lame)
Get new landfall cards/levelers etc.
Seriously I'm sick and tired of liberals conflating supporting immigration laws with racism. That's total BS and really drives home the point that political correctness is first and foremost about shutting down honest discussion and demonizing opposing viewpoints. There are plenty of good reasons to want to deport illegal immigrants that have nothing to do with racism of xenophobia.
Al those things are illegal and would outrage the vast mojority of Americans where as in Mexico the corruption is just a part of everday life, don't pretend for a second those two countries are equivalent. Allthough I will admit we have a seen a weakening of the rule of law under Obama that will lead to a great deal more corruption the two nations are still worlds apart.
Different groups are different and thus their outcomes will be different. Asians and homosexuals face discrimination but on average bring home more money then their while male counterparts.
My post was in response to Lord Owlingtons and I did not phrase it as "Men are no better then women" because it would make a hell of a lot less sense in the context I was using it.
Why would "Women are no better then men" be putting women down but not "Men are no better then women"? I don't view feminism alone as the source of all men's issues or misandry by any means and I didn't bring feminism into this thread. I do however believe society angelifies women and demonizes men in many ways and relationships are one of those ways. All relationship problems are viewed as a product of a mans short comings (not sensitive enough, not good enough in bed, not good enough of a provider etc.). Can you honestly deny this? Can you give counter examples?
This issue is at the heart of who has power in relationships (heterosexual ones anyway). If it is always about the man having to prove himself worthy how can you possibly view that as balanced.
Why is it you believe referencing one nutjob constitutes a counter argument? Why is it you think ad hominem is the alpha-and-omega of debate?
I could bring you a six-inch trout to debunk your belief that trout never grow over five inches and you would call it a strawman. Justice1337 provided a source to more then back up his claims.
Now that's a strawman! To pretend that anti-feminism has anything to do with that is the MOTHER OF ALL Strawmen!
Wow here's another whopper of a strawman and while gender roles restricted men and women, and women had legitimate rights issues in the west, to compare that to slavery is pretty desperate. Men were also forced into loveless marriages, demands were placed on them to perform their gender roles (conscription, today-child support), and they were also subject to many indiginities to be "good men".
Gender roles evolved out of necessity to ensure human survival the evidence for this is not weak or purely theoretical it's pretty ironclad actually. For example societies that move away from more traditional gender roles are seeing population growth go below the replacement rate. The variations in those roles are to be expected, there is variation in all things shaped by evolution (see pirahna and sturgeon). It was a division of labor that allowed society to exploit both men and women in the most efficient manner in a primitive society.
Lastly your analysis of my statement REEAAAAALLLLLLYYYYY shows your not getting it. I don't believe that women were as powerless as feminists claim then or now.
My great grandmother lived to be quite old I believe over a hundred. She told me about her two brothers who both died of skin cancer in their thirties. They would go out day after day and work long hours coming back bright red, often about to pass out, and often vomiting. This was expected of them because they were the male members of the family and thus viewed it as their responsibility to provide (FYI-This may blow your mind but I suspect they were motivated by love not a desire to dominate). The fact you can turn them into slave masters is well sociopathic and shows a real disconnect from basic compassion and understanding. Frankly privileged is just a slur and its use to dismiss men's issues shows a basic level of bigotry and hatred.
I believe your talking about the Na of China. Its interesting that this structure was designed by a man. An emperor who was tired of rebellions believed that he could put an end to any resistance to his tyranny by removing fathers from the family unit. Mothers became the head of the household and uncles took on the traditionally male duties and it worked resistance ended. Feminists claimed this was a matriarchy until their queen while laughing said "How can we be a matriarchy when our leaders are the buddhist monks and they are all male". It is interesting that as time goes by more and more Na homes become patrilineal or patrilineal/matrilineal homes. In fact when they were first studied the ratio of matrilineal to patrilineal was very close to what exists in the US, funny ehh. I can see why feminists dropped the "See finally a matriarchy and it's peaceful like we always said it would be" stuff like a hot potato. It also makes me wonder how long until the imposed system ceases all together.
Umm you need to learn to count. There are too many asterisks for it to be a "gendered" insult. It's a bodypart everyone has FYI.
This is nothing but a shaming tactic I thought enlightened folk like you Lord Owlington were supposed to be above that and if Im not mistaken its "gendered" too.
While I don't do this to troll I do get a kick out of the fact that we now live in a time where saying "Women are no better then men" is mysoginy but people like you can say without a hint of irony that "Misandry doesn't exist".
Noatz-If your going to repeat dogma verbatim you have no business calling others bigoted and unthinking. You have fallen into the trap of equating outcomes with opportunity for example women who enter government do slightly better then their male counterparts. I'm baffled as to why having a harder time getting promoted could be considered worse then losing your kids.
Women? I thought women were oppressed for the last 5,000 years, don't you mean MEN decided to create the modern age and move us past superstition and such?
How can it be both that women brought about sweeping change over the last few hundred years and yet were completely powerless.