If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
While I disagree with large chunks, if not all, of what Spliffe has to say, this appeal to emotion of "i was offended" or "so-and-so was upset by" shouldn't wash; you can find someone who's offended by pretty much any statement ever made. I'm probably derailing a bit, and i don't really mean to, but i've had a number of people revert to the "that's offensive to me" tact in recent debates i've had, and if i'm frank, i find it often to be a diversionary move played in an attempt to negate the necessity for cogent rebuttal. Now i'd like to stress in this case i think spliffe is pretty much, out-and-out wrong, but i really think it detracts from the debate to start shutting it down by announcing how offended people feel by statements made.
But it's also worth mentioning that what has really ended debate in this thread is the offensive comment - not people's reaction to it. Which is pretty understandable - why debate in a thread if you and your friends are going to be insulted in it?
But that doesn't mean the thread can't move on past that comment.
A point of view can be offensive to some people, but I hardly see the statement and argument for it as an issue of tact. It was an attempt to defend a biggoted view which was challenged by other people.
If it were making a point (which it wasn't, other than to be homophobic), then fair enough, but was it really?
It is all very easy to make accusations against some groups because they are already made vulnerable by a society which favours some groups more than others. Nobody needs to add to that hate and it is easy to see why a gay woman would be offended by such a statement which has no relevence to a debate on feminism... Unless of course, the debate were on lesbian feminism, or the life of Audre Lorde ect ect
It is also very easy to question whether or not a statement is offensive if you are not an individual who that statement is directed to.
But there is surely no grey zone with whether or not the statement was a shitty thing to say.
Of course, more people probably would have responded if somebody made a comment about Jewish people, or black people in the same vein.
I don't think we disagree all that much. I don't defend anything Spliffe has come out with; i think a lot what he's said was ill-informed - at best - and a some of it was verging on bigotry. What does make me baulk is when people state they've taken offence, as i mentioned before. Also, I do disagree with the insinuation as i'm not a lesbian, my opinion matters little about whether the statement is offensive; taking offence in general just doesn't hold much truck with me; I certainly think it holds little water in a debate.
Still, as Jim mentions it's against the rules and i guess that's a trump-card. I shan't pursue the matter any further.
Some people can move past offensive comments though, some people just need to make a point about being offended (I'm not pointing the finger at Namaste here either). I've seen more than one thread 'shut down' because people got offended by one comment, or even one word in a string of comments. Let put this in context, before spliffie tried to back up his statement he had only referred to the fact that she was a lesbian. Yes there is grounds to take offense if you want to but you can be the bigger man/woman and move past it.
And if you think about it logically spliffie does actually have an idea (feminist seperatists more likely to hate men, also feminist seperatists more likely to be lesbians). It doesn't wash because it's not applicable to every lesbian but (again this really isn't pointed at Namaste and I hope you don't feel like it is
I was at a comedy show tonight, for example, and he made a joke about eastern european immigrants washing his car, and then the bit that had everyone in stitches was him pretending to be an observer and overreacting and checking the 'guardian handbook' as to whether it's offensive or ok to laugh at.
The thread was derailed long ago so I'm not too worried about taking it off in a different direction, but there are no two ways about it. Some people love to get offended. There are plenty of examples on thesite, but it's not the kind of thing you put out in the open because if you make a comment (like, about babies) you will get absolutely flattened by the weight of every offended person in what seems like the universe.
I think it was made worse by his defending himself, but what's he to do? He only used the word lesbian. Stargalaxy got similarly accused of 'gender politics' when he used the word 'woman'.
But then I suppose the rebuttal is I don't belong to any of these parties that have ever been offended, so I don't know what it's like to be offended and how things can be offensive. But then anyone saying that has probably never met me, and any judgements are probably grossly misguided.
I am a feminist, as is my mother and the majority of my friends. yes, i do have a lot of friends who are lesbians, a couple who are stereotypical in appearance but not in attitude. I myself am bi-sexual and before you get on your high horse- yes i have had sex with another woman, but no i haven't been in a relationship with another woman.
i am very much part of the riot grrl school of feminism- not man hating but empowering and highlighting female issues. i won't say that the stereotype of feminist isn't around, because it is and some of the chants going on when i went on the million woman rise were horribly sexist.
i think that there is becoming a split in the ranks of where there are those who want to work with men in achieving positive goals that benefit and don't alienate all, and then there are those who do see men as evil creatures, and want to punish the majority for the wrongs of a minority. I'll admit, there have been times in my life where i have hated particular men in my life, and i only had a positive male role model in my life for a short period of time, but i do still love men as i love women in both platonic and non platonic contexts.
I personally believe that those that still follow the writings of germane greer and such are following a highly outdated path. only way to get feminist issues raised is to work with all parties, and if people don't realise this soon, they are going to be made a laughing stock of. feminism isn't still a subject only for women scorned/lesbians/students/victims of abuse, i see many men getting involved and i think its brilliant. I felt very angry that men weren't allowed on the march, and i also feel that we live in an inclusive society so why can't feminism be inclusive too?
so to sum it up, yes, the stereotype is very much alive and they need to update or move on.
i'm not sure i'm very much liked for my feminist stance by the other women in my college, but i think the male staff apreciate that theres someone standing up for us rather than them having to deal with issues they feel they are a little out of depth with.
Now you're playing dumb. Naomi Wolf isn't relevent here - that's another thread. Why don't you take the same offence over the bile from Greer and Dworkin? Surely Greer's claim that men "dream of a world without women", not to even mention what Dworkin claimed, is far more bigotted than I anything I have posted?
What? That black people or white people hate men? :rolleyes:
Good post.
It is not something that i see in my life ...not something my wife sees either.
I'm surprised that spliffy has had so much flak as well.
I admit I haven't read any literatue specifically about feminism, but if there is any that directly depreciates men, then it would have to be asked if such a stance can really hold ground after serious thought. My bet is that if ever there has been any such literature, it has been greatly surpassed by other, more intelligent thought that considers that for the advancement of womens' place in society everybody's contribution is needed, no matter their gender. As I understand it, this is what feminism is about.
Please, quite with the victim 'poor me' card.
Women have been oppressed for thousands of years, it is still not safe in most places of the UK for people to express their sexuality.
Comments like the ones you have made only make the world feel less safe for a lot of people.
If you can't grasp that and accept it then fine. Your ignorance, not anyone else's.
Take the thread about overweight people... People who were overweight get offended. Why? Because they're likely to deal with prejudice every day.
If somebody says something or stereotypes members of gay, religious or ethnic communities, some people will be hurt... Why? Because they're likely to deal with prejudice every day.
It is not a case of loving to be offended. People need to face up to the fact that prejudice hurts and at times can be terrifying. People react because it reflects, even if on a minor level being a messageboard, the bigotry they experience every day when they just want to wind down and feel chilled for a while...
And I'm not talking about people who are not members of the aforementioned groups so much, but the people who are in those groups.
If that makes sense...
Meh, I don't have the energy for this.
The post upset a few people, maybe I shouldn't have said... Let's make another thread to discuss what is offensive?
Back on topic for this or not at all?
That would at least be worth a laugh until it gets closed.
I think Spliffie was pointing out your inconsistancy, that you happily recommended somebody who's been shown to make offensive generalisations about men and failed to be critical of it, and yet a couple of posts later, complained about being offended at a generalisation he made.
Exactly.
You recommend Greer as reading material and you've never spoken out against either of their comments.
Eh?
People in general have been "oppressed" for thousands of years. What you're basically arguing is that people who, in your eyes, have been historically "oppressed" more than others deserve special rights which prevent any criticism or negative comment made against them, while the same or worse can be said against the other groups - groups, in your eyes, which are historical oppressors.
That's not what most people would recognise as 'equality'.
bit over the top me thinks.