Are we forgetting to let boys be boys?

[Zaras]

There's also a section in that article that tells you to say "your too privileged to understand".

How about we stop here, hmm?

There's also "you're arguing with opinions not fact".

It's quite all-encompassing as a guide.

That section actually says:

It allows you to once more diminish their experience by disbelieving it, as well as reinforces that “othering” we’ve already discussed.

If you’re in a situation with a person from a non-English speaking country who speaks, reads and writes in fluid English (particularly if so much so you assumed at first they were native English speakers) you must insist this means they received a special sort of education (probably in an English-speaking country) that is denied to their country folk and this means they’re simply not qualified to talk about life in their home country - they’re too Privileged® to really understand.

[Central Slavia]

Because "white people" never participate in wars among themselves. Good to know.

Failing to see the relevance of that.

Not particularly empathizing with enemy combatants wherever the war is going on is is not a trait tied to race.

And I like how the writer is creatively interpreting the study

Lol. It's not that much of a stretch as you imply.

It is, quite. Besides, I'd pretty much expect the same finding to apply to other races, though no studies were done ,because I much expect it's "more someone resembles yourself, more mirror neurons go do their job".

Yep. Totally an unbiased interpretation of the data. I was so enlightened I almost caught fire.

Did you stop drop and roll?

And put on some rock and roll!

The response boils down to "How dare you assert I'm a bitchy passive-aggressive person looking for things to be upset about!" . . . Which isn't really winning any points with me.

Considering the sheer intellectual quality of your counterargument, I'm not sure what would win points with you.

I elaborated with an edit.. but I'm still not finding the counterargument of "how dare you disagree" compelling.

That one was amusing too. As was just about everything on the site.

Laughing at other people for experiencing discrimination: classy as fuck.

Hey, I'm a classhole.

[Zaras]

Not particularly empathizing with enemy combatants wherever the war is going on is is not a trait tied to race.

Confusing enemy combatants with civilians isn't particularly laudable either.

but I'm still not finding the counterargument of "how dare you disagree" compelling.

That wasn't my counterargument.

Hey, I'm a classhole.

Never heard that word before. You can have copyright on it.

[The Ben Boys]

Sorry to burst your bubble, not all white people are evil, conniving jerks. And another thing...

Dude, I know that.

Wait, did you just give me an opinion article as a reference source?

Nah, there's data in it.

2. No, you completely disregarded your own argument against me, which was "you don't even know what [insert argument] is!" and went to "your white, therefore you don't know why your talking about."

I was saying I don't think your idea of a society where all verbal offences are shrugged off suggests much knowledge of discrimination, and it also kinda implies that humans are supposed to be robots emotionally, which they aren't.

Would the latter count as racism

More than white posters laughing at non-white people's experiences? Hmmm...

1. That's not what you've been saying. In fact, I'll just let that one go.

There's also "data" in Mein Kampf, but you don't see it on NY Times' bestsellers, do you? Both of them cite research of "facts" that are inherently racist.

2. No, it just hasn't been tried before and my school of thought is that it needs to be tried. We are different people since the slave era and need to take jokes and hard as we dish them out. And really, did you read your original post? Your argument was that I didn't know what microaggression was, and I attempted to disprove that.

3. You still didn't answer my question concerning "racism". And to my knowledge, I haven't been laughing at anything. And what non-white posters (no I haven't read every single page inthe thread, nor am I going to) and who's laughing?

EDIT: He's making fun of white women that bitch about microagressions.

[Central Slavia]

Not particularly empathizing with enemy combatants wherever the war is going on is is not a trait tied to race.

Confusing enemy combatants with civilians isn't particularly laudable either.

but I'm still not finding the counterargument of "how dare you disagree" compelling.

That wasn't my counterargument.

Hey, I'm a classhole.

Never heard that word before. You can have copyright on it.

Classhole is from XKCD.
Fine, ny mistake but the same applies to enemy civillians - they are rarely empathised with by the people on the other side of the conflict, since usually, their army is making a similar mess to their own population, or at the very least killing their troops. It's perfectly normal to care about your countrymen in priority to foreigners, whatever race they are.

And yes, your counterargument, the one you linked, is essentially a glorified rant of "How dare you disagree."

[Zaras]

And yes, your counterargument, the one you linked, is essentially a glorified rant of "How dare you disagree."

No, it's a guide to derailing.

[Aurumaquaria]

These days men are expecting to be floormats...

[The Ben Boys]

There's also a section in that article that tells you to say "your too privileged to understand".

How about we stop here, hmm?

There's also "you're arguing with opinions not fact".

It's quite all-encompassing as a guide.

That section actually says:

It allows you to once more diminish their experience by disbelieving it, as well as reinforces that “othering” we’ve already discussed.

If you’re in a situation with a person from a non-English speaking country who speaks, reads and writes in fluid English (particularly if so much so you assumed at first they were native English speakers) you must insist this means they received a special sort of education (probably in an English-speaking country) that is denied to their country folk and this means they’re simply not qualified to talk about life in their home country - they’re too Privileged® to really understand.

I interpreted it as an example, and another example would be "your white, therefore your superiority complex can't possibly understand minorities", or that's my interpretation, which could be entirely wrong.

[Central Slavia]

And yes, your counterargument, the one you linked, is essentially a glorified rant of "How dare you disagree."

No, it's a guide to derailing.

Indeed. A guide to "derailing" written as a caricature of certain classes of arguments used by the opposite party.
As I said already, this instance is rather neatly subversive because it quietly attempts to put the question of whether getting riled up over X is a reasonable reaction out of the playing field.

[Zaras]

I interpreted it as an example, and another example would be "your white, therefore your superiority complex can't possibly understand minorities", or that's my interpretation, which could be entirely wrong.

The dominant thrust of the website is closer to "your privilege renders you unable to understand marginalisation", I think.

[Zaras]

No, it's a guide to derailing.

Indeed. A guide to "derailing" written as a caricature of certain classes of arguments used by the opposite party.
As I said already, this instance is rather neatly subversive because it quietly attempts to put the question of whether getting riled up over X is a reasonable reaction out of the playing field.

But who is better at determining whether something is important, somebody who has experience of it, or somebody who doesn't?

[Central Slavia]

Indeed. A guide to "derailing" written as a caricature of certain classes of arguments used by the opposite party.
As I said already, this instance is rather neatly subversive because it quietly attempts to put the question of whether getting riled up over X is a reasonable reaction out of the playing field.

But who is better at determining whether something is important, somebody who has experience of it, or somebody who doesn't?

Misframing.
Everyone experiences "microassaults", it's just that most people don't get riled up over it or even notice. Hell, off the top of my head, my family nags me time to time about not having a girlfriend - pretty much the equivalent of what someone posted on that site (colleagues asking about why she doesn't have kids yet). Yet , I generally respond with something snarky back, and don't take the time to whine about it on the internet.

[Zaras]

But who is better at determining whether something is important, somebody who has experience of it, or somebody who doesn't?

Misframing.
Everyone experiences "microassaults", it's just that most people don't get riled up over it or even notice. Hell, off the top of my head, my family nags me time to time about not having a girlfriend - pretty much the equivalent of what someone posted on that site (colleagues asking about why she doesn't have kids yet). Yet , I generally respond with something snarky back, and don't take the time to whine about it on the internet.

I don't know if that's the best comparison to make... there's not that much othering in your family's questions...

[SanctusEmpire]

Its cool if thats the way you see it. Must mean that you find feminine features on a man attractive. Basically the features on a man that women find the most attractive relate to protection and virility. Confidence means a man will cover these. What woman wants a man who cant defend his woman? you?

Feminine men rock.

Lesbo

[Zaras]

Feminine men rock.

Lesbo

Brilliant contribution. Do you have an argument or just name-calling?

[Katganistan]

Feminine men rock.

Lesbo

*** Warned for trolling ***

[Polinikia]

There has been a lot of emphasis lately placed on girls feeling empowered etc. Boys are definitely being left behind. During this last election cycle in the US, so much was said about women's rights, and equal opportunities, and nothing mentioned about seeking protections for boys. Nothing was mentioned that men suffered most during the recent recession, when construction and manufacturing jobs closed or went overseas. There were several articles about women becoming the new bread winners, and the spate of men finding themselves without a job. Nothing mentioned about the incrased number of homeless men
Nothing was mentioned about boys having a far larger percentage of dropping out of school, and that females are now equal to/ or surpassing the number of males entering university/ college. Just recently I came across a scheme/programme that will assist women form their own business, and another to help women advance in their careers. I saw no equivalent for men being offered, and the ones forementioned were only available to women. There's equal opportuinty for you.

[Zaras]

There has been a lot of emphasis lately placed on girls feeling empowered etc. Boys are definitely being left behind. During this last election cycle in the US, so much was said about women's rights, and equal opportunities, and nothing mentioned about seeking protections for boys.

That's what happens when you have a party dedicated to hating women's rights.

Plus, what protections do boys need, for example?

[The Ben Boys]

There has been a lot of emphasis lately placed on girls feeling empowered etc. Boys are definitely being left behind. During this last election cycle in the US, so much was said about women's rights, and equal opportunities, and nothing mentioned about seeking protections for boys.

That's what happens when you have a party dedicated to hating women's rights.

Plus, what protections do boys need, for example?

Is not wanting government to pay for abortion really the only argument you have for "hating women's rights"? Even though Bitchy Bach and Palin both were pro-life?

Or would you rather have women support themselves and pay for their own mistake/take responsibility and cough up a few bucks? The latter is what feminism should be built upon.

[Zaras]

That's what happens when you have a party dedicated to hating women's rights.

Plus, what protections do boys need, for example?

Is not wanting government to pay for abortion really the only argument you have for "hating women's rights"?

I forgot all those bills the fundy loonies introduced in order to attack the right to have an abortion, as well as all those comments by Mourdock, Akin and the other crazy fuckers who shoved their foot in mouth about how rape isn't that bad.

Fact: when the response to "Hey, that Republican shithead who said stupid things about rape lost the election!" is "Which one?", your party hates women's rights.

Fetuses aren't more important than women.

Or would you rather have women support themselves and pay for their own mistake/take responsibility and cough up a few bucks? The latter is what feminism should be built upon.

You're not gonna let things like poverty and demographics get in the way of your "pro-life" rant, are you?

[Polinikia]

There has been a lot of emphasis lately placed on girls feeling empowered etc. Boys are definitely being left behind. During this last election cycle in the US, so much was said about women's rights, and equal opportunities, and nothing mentioned about seeking protections for boys.

That's what happens when you have a party dedicated to hating women's rights.

Plus, what protections do boys need, for example?

That's what happens when you have a party dedicated to hating women's rights ? Hmm hmm hmm. How does that tie in with boys lagging in eduaction , men losing jobs and men's health issues being ignored.
Boys like girls need protections. Do you need examples of boys needing protection from bullying http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyreg ... mself.html, lagging behind in education http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-shows-bo ... d=10128586
being assaulted, suffering from eating disorders,molestation, and such ? Do you need examples of boys suffering from high rates of depression and more likely to commit suicide .

[CVT Temp]

Plus, what protections do boys need, for example?

1. The same economic protections as everyone else.

2. More protections for men that are racial minorities.

3. More protections for men that aren't gender-conforming.

[Zaras]

How does that tie in with boys lagging in eduaction , men losing jobs and men's health issues being ignored.

The last two don't only happen to one gender, and more research needs to be made into the former but I'm confident the conclusion won't be "ebul femunists"

Boys like girls need protections.

My point above - it doesn't only happen to one gender, so this isn't something only males need.

Do you need examples of boys needing protection from bullying http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/nyreg ... mself.html

Bullying is a universal problem, mate.

lagging behind in education http://abcnews.go.com/WN/study-shows-bo ... d=10128586

More research means a better conclusion.

being assaulted, suffering from eating disorders,molestation, and such ?

None of these only happen to guys, so why should only they get protection? These need protection from for everybody.

Do you need examples of boys suffering from high rates of depression and more likely to commit suicide .

Again, that's a universal problem, not just one gender.

1. The same economic protections as everyone else.

The point of my question was what special protections do they need beyond the universal ones like these?

2. More protections for men that are racial minorities.

3. More protections for men that aren't gender-conforming.

Discrimination against racial minorities and people who don't conform to gender isn't limited to males.

[Fluffy Coyotes]

So, to me, the problem with how we treat boys (& girls) is that we aren't approaching it from a realistic, scientific perspective- we aren't recognizing that boys' gender expression doesn't need to be shaped by society but is something that emerges naturally, that it's healthy & normal for a boy to be masculine or feminine in his expression, that "roughhousing" & running around is very good for boys (& girls) & a natural inclination in them, etc. We need to just lighten up & let kids be kids.

TL;DR: let boys be boys, or let them be girls, if they want to be. Let girls be boys, too. Just leave them kids alone.

In theory this sounds like a better approach, but we should proceed with caution. Being dogmatic about gender differences isn't constructive, whether you're dogmatic about a particular set or dogmatic about there being none at all. I'm not sure we should leave it solely to scientists either; they would have their own incentives to push various perspectives that may or may not be reliable; we should leave it to everyone, looking at the different reasoning for the different perspectives, and ready to adjust our course as we go along.

In any case, that was a fairly interesting and insightful post.

[CVT Temp]

Discrimination against racial minorities and people who don't conform to gender isn't limited to males.

Yes, but discrimination against gender non-conforming males is different than discrimination against non-conforming females. As such, both are special and require specific forms of action.

I'll give you racial discrimination, though.