Xeni Jardin at 6:44 pm Mon, Sep 17, 2012
ADVERTISE AT BOING BOING!
I have encountered his type on the internet before. (via Theremina)
Plentiful lot, those. I just hope the guy pictured in the meme is either a deserving dickwad or in on the joke.
If I had to call it (although I do have terrible gaydar), I’d probably say that’s a gay eyebrow. Or maybe I’m just jealous.
Didn’t we all go through this once before with the plague of Willy Wonka memes?
He’s not. But IIRC the alternative guy (grey suit, red tie, carrying his jacket) is in on the joke.
I was thinking the same thing…
Yeah, right, Xeni. You’re just rationalizing.
If I was only going by the words, and not the pictures, I’d think this was my kid’s science teacher. Ah, those tax funded schools… such a liberal haven.
Life is hard. You gotta have someone to blame!
This is racist against white people!
When I mentioned to a co-worker that DC was promoting a new Muslim superhero, he got upset and asked “when are they going to start promoting Christian heroes?” True story.
Lend him a copy of Battle Pope.
I think there are obviously people who do not want to admit to structural advantages. However, I also think a lot is due to a knee jerk reaction because there is no way to use the word “privilege” without being condescending.
Not to take this too seriously, but sexism against men is a very real issue.
Maybe not today, but one day it very well could be.
Hey, I said COULD.
Where, the kingdom of Venus, ruled by 8-foot tall Amazon women?
If you’re complaining about it then it’s still sexism against women because you’re obviously not taking it like a man.
I don’t think most people would deny that both sexes have their general social issues — it’s just that it’s not appropriate to use the existence of male social issues to minimize the impact of sexism towards women (which is really one the only situations I’ve actually seen a discussion on male social issues).
Nobody is free until everybody is free, but there’s a difference between unfreedom like feeling socially stultified and unfreedom like making 25% less for the same work.
Or the unfreedom of being raped because you dressed a certain way and “asked for it”. There’s an imbalance on both sides, yes, but I don’t think the previous sentence has happened to a man yet…
I completely agree. Sexism, no matter who the victim is, is not good for society.
However, using the existence of female social issues to minimize the impact of sexism towards men is also wrong.
My personal issue with men’s rights is being laughed at by three police stations while trying to report a rape (told I should be able to stand up for myself, but of course not without hitting a woman). Objectification of women, salary differences, and treatment in developing countries is not to be dismissed, but I’m not complaining about trivial things against men either.
Are you talking about the tendency for mothers to get the children in divorces etc? I’m pretty sure that’s not really “sexism against men”. That’s just sexism. (Sexism is usually bad for both sexes.)
I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Custody is a case where there is clearly discrimination against men (98% of all custody battles favor the mother). I’m not sure why that isn’t sexism against men and instead “just sexism.”
There is also clear discrimination with domestic violence (men are still to this day laughed out of the court room if they claim they’re abused even though it is downright common) and rape (same),
I’m not claiming men are some kind of oppressed group by any stretch of the imagination, but it is ridiculous to claim that there aren’t a few areas where institutionalized discrimination exists.
Custody is a case where there is clearly discrimination against men
Unless you consider that women, who are systematically paid less, are also systematically more likely to be saddled with the costs of raising children. So you’re cherrypicking one aspect of the clusterfuck of family law to make men look oppressed.
So we should completely ignore that issue.
Are you deliberately trying to define ‘concern trolling’?
I clearly stated that men weren’t oppressed. Men have privilege, but that doesn’t mean discrimination against them doesn’t exist.
Also, wouldn’t women be more likely to be saddled with the cost of raising children *because* they win nearly all the custody battles?
You’re operating on the assumption that men are as likely to want or seek custody as women and are as able to provide adequate parenting. Among heterosexual couples with children where both work full-time, in how many does the woman do the lion’s share of child-rearing such as cooking, cleaning, dealing with school work, shopping for children’s clothes, etc. In how many do the men do the lion’s share or is it equally shared? My social circle is middle class and well-educated, and yet, the women are still doing most of the child care. Maybe that has something to do with why they’re more likely to get custody – because they can show that they’ve actually been providing it.
That’s more or less true. And if you think that mothers ought to stay home with the kids, and do most of the child-rearing work, you don’t get to whine about it.
I’m oppressed by the minorities!
I believe you could find all three of those lines in old comment threads, probably more than once.
Hell, in the same *comment.*
I “liked” it because it raises an interesting point. I don’t know how bad it is these days, but in the 80s my mom worked at a legal firm that specialized in representing low-income people. They had custody cases where, quite honestly, batshit insane women would get custody of the kids, even if the father was stable, caring, nurturing, etc. It was for purely sexist reasons: fathers obviously wouldn’t make good single parents, yes, but also because women were obviously the nurturing, stable parental unit.
Having said that, there are far too many cases out there of the woman getting custody, and the man taking crappy jobs and/or just doing whatever they can to not pay child support, just to stick it to “the bitch”. That’s all that matters to some guys; why would they care about their kids when they have an ex-wife to torment?
EDIT: Whisky, Tango, Foxtrot. This was supposed to be a reply to Aloisius.
I’m very guilty of the privilege-denying-dude mise en place when it comes to melange/spice meds. If a drug makes everyone – and not just the infirm – harder/better/faster/stronger (see viagra, ambien, adderall and anabolics, respectively), you can see why the have-nots might resent their newfangled mediocrity, or call bs on the underlying disorders. I’m looking at you, everyone here. Anyway, I think mine would go something like this. Can’t have a thread about trolls without a couple trolls, right?
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?