Tactical Question - Haley

[GrayGriffin]

Interestingly, it seems that it's easier to accept magic and dragons as believable than some changes in human nature. Perhaps it's generally easier to accept big differences to the real world, or perhaps it's because we intrinsically know humans better than we know the laws of physics.

That doesn't mean one can't or shouldn't try to portray a world that's different regarding humans. It just means that people are more likely to find such a world 'unrealistic' than a world with dragons.

Reminds me of how some people will call fantasy stories "unrealistic" for having diverse casts. Even when said fantasy stories actually take place in places that were historically very diverse and that the complainers simply didn't bother to research.

[Reddish Mage]

This may be because I'm not a native speaker, but the jump from panel 2 to 3 seems rather... Odd. Where did V bring up the soul selling? V told the imp to scatter, then Qarr replied, sarcastically, that he wasn't able to help the elf teleport, and suddenly, V talks about soul selling. [/QUOTE]

I think it is your language issues. V didn't talk about soul selling but implies it by talking about wanting to make a deal for supernatural power. V says "get me what I require [a teleport or some other means to stop the dragon] or go" after Qarr responds sarcastically "like I have that kind of power." V "Isn't that what devils do? Grant deals for power" The deal V is suddenly talking about dealing with devils for power in general terms, so a soul-selling deal would come to mind to any western reader familiar with "dealing with the devil." That is why it is perfectly understandable when Qarr asks if V is implying a "literal" soul-selling deal.

[wootage]

Well, "tramp" in this sense is a female who has looser-than-is-considered-proper standards of sexual behavior, and some people consider this a moral issue* - even going so far as to class the behavior as Evil.

So it gets extended to females who are Evil, without regard to their sexual behavior.

And by that strange several-steps-removed-from-origins standard, both Laurin and Tsukiko are tramps.

* I understand why loose sexual behavior was *originally* classed as a moral issue. It was all about damage to the man that the woman belonged to, and simply being thought to be sexually "loose" was damaging to a man - it cast doubts on the validity of heirs the woman might birth for her husband, which would also reduce the benefit a father could gain from marrying his daughter off.

...wow. You don't think that loose sexual behavior by a woman, in a time when there was virtually no birth control (the Earl of Condom's invention notwithstanding) nor cures for potentially deadly sexual diseases, might in any way be damaging to the WOMAN's life?

What are they teaching people in schools these days...

[Poppy Appletree]

...wow. You don't think that loose sexual behavior by a woman, in a time when there was virtually no birth control (the Earl of Condom's invention notwithstanding) nor cures for potentially deadly sexual diseases, might in any way be damaging to the WOMAN's life?

What are they teaching people in schools these days...

Well, the Earl of Condom is a non-person, so you may wish to review your own education.

And yes, warrl has it right. Women were considered nothing more than chattel, and their lives were not considered important. You're essentially trying to ascribe a benevolent (and deeply anachronistic) rationale to the treatment of women in a time period where people didn't care about the treatment of women. Modern perspectives of sexual diseases are far removed from historical ones, which tended to view them as the result of sin.

[Mightymosy]

Well, "tramp" in this sense is a female who has looser-than-is-considered-proper standards of sexual behavior, and some people consider this a moral issue* - even going so far as to class the behavior as Evil.

So it gets extended to females who are Evil, without regard to their sexual behavior.

And by that strange several-steps-removed-from-origins standard, both Laurin and Tsukiko are tramps.

* I understand why loose sexual behavior was *originally* classed as a moral issue. It was all about damage to the man that the woman belonged to, and simply being thought to be sexually "loose" was damaging to a man - it cast doubts on the validity of heirs the woman might birth for her husband, which would also reduce the benefit a father could gain from marrying his daughter off.

So a woman being - or deliberately dressing as if - sexually loose was, at best, engaging in a reckless disregard for the well-being of the man she belonged to and any sons she might already have or give birth to in the future. Which would be reasonably considered Evil.

But this originates from treating women as property and from punishing children for what their parents did (or for that matter are incorrectly suspected of having done).

Why it is still considered evil now that we recognize that women are not men's property, particularly in the case of unattached women where there's no legal presumption of paternity, totally escapes me. The availability of cheap highly-effective contraception doesn't help clarify.

People are stupid and insecure, that's why.

Slut is used by

A) Girls who envy other girls because they percieve them as sexual competition either because the other girl is more attractive or the other girl is for some other reason more successful. Often even because the jealous girl could but does not pursue her own sexual dreams or satisfactory needs, be it because she is simply to timid and insecure and/or she was raised to be prude and can't/won't go against her education.

B) Boys who are afraid of female sexuality and/or wish to be f*ed by the girl in question rather than the boy(s) she is actually having. Again, jealous and insecure.

C) People who just use the word as an insult without actually thinking much about the actual meaning, but they know the word as an insult, so they just use it.

You usually don't see people who are sexually satisfied and confident in themselves (read: happy) use the word as an insult to sexually active girls.

[GrayGriffin]

You usually don't see people who are sexually satisfied and confident in themselves (read: happy) use the word as an insult to sexually active girls.

You might want to add the corollary that people don't need to be "sexually satisfied" in order to be happy (asexuals exist!), although I guess the "confident" part still applies.

[Aard_Rinn]

I dunno, I always considered myself to be just "sexually satisfied" by no sex - sum zero is still sum, right? But that's a discussion for elsewhere...

See, I think C is the most common one, tbh. And I don't find it terribly insulting - I've never been a big fan of calling an insult 'an insult against someone's womanhood' when the intent was 'an insult against someone I (the insulter) don't like.' That just bothers me - it feels very much like ascribing malicious intent where none exists. I mean, yeah, I call people bitch all the time, if they piss me off - I'm not doing it because I'm trying to be anti-woman, I'm doing it because it's a rude term and they've pissed me off! And it does bother me, a lot actually: there are so many real problems with gender in the world - actual things that are really hurting people like job disparity, rape culture, stuff like that - that having people focus on swear words? That's the least of what we need to worry about.

Now, you can argue that they represent that sort of oppressive culture - maybe! But they only represent it - they'll fade with it, too: instead of worrying about the symptoms, we need to treat causes, work on pro-equality legislation, work on making sure that crimes against women are treated with the dignity and regard that they deserve in the legal community, work on making sure that hate crimes based on gender are punished.

If you look at the civil rights movement in the US, black people didn't start fighting for freedom by complaining about how use of the term n***** was offensive - they made bold attempts at policy change, they fought for their rights in the courts and in the public eye! Women should do the same: once we've proven that we can stand up for ourselves, that we can and will fight for change, the use of offensive terms like bitch and slut - that'll end. Don't forget, n***** and f*g were once accepted too, but they've faded as hating and repressing blacks and gays became unacceptable... That's how to get rid of words you don't like. Until then... I really don't care if someone calls me a bitch, especially if it's only meant as an insult without considering possible feminist implications.

[Mightymosy]

Humor is naturally offensive? Do we have the same definition of "humor"? Go into any children's section of any bookstore and you'll find books upon books of child-friendly jokes that are completely unoffensive and yet amusing.

This is a really interesting point.

It is often noticed that different people have different kind of humor.

In my experience there is a more "male" kind of humor, and a more "female" kind of humor. I put "" there because it is not at all a clear cut difference, but I have experienced it as a 70% or 80% thing, maybe. For me there seems to be a strong gender association, but still enough way for it to go either way in individuals.

So, "male" humor is the kind of humor that is directly or indirectly connected with a harm to someone. In German it is called "Schadenfreude" (malicious glee).
The classic being the person walking in the garden, stepping on a rake and getting hit in the face by it (probably several times).
To my knowledge it has been shown that even apes laugh when they see something like that - malicious joy seems to originate from "I'm glad I wasn't the one being hit" and it seems to be deeply anchored in the human soul or even ape soul.

At least for some individuals. Because here comes the thing. Some people just don't find things like that funny. They simply can not.
They cannot feel it. No matter how funny I personally find movies or comics or jokes with the above kind of humor, some people (usually girls) just cannot understand how someone can find this funny.

These people still laugh at some things, though. Other things.
This is the "female" humor. I wish I could tell you what it is, but I simply cannot understand it. Loriot falls into this category. I never understood how people laugh at that, still I know lots of people (especially women) who find that guy exquisitely hilarious.

For theoretic purpose, I'd like to identify the underlying factor which makes "female" humor funny, but this is something I am stuck with. I just don't get it, maybe the same way other people just don't get the Schadenfreude humor bit.

So, back to the quote above, I think most of the "male" humor does have some kind of offensiveness in it. It is definitely part of the reason it is funny.
That said, there is another kind of humor (my female kind) that appaerantly works without it. Maybe that is why it doesn't work for me?

I realise that things aren't totally black or white. There may be lots of grey areas, and there may be intersections of the two types I mentioned, maybe even more types.
But from my experience, one can group humor and most of the time the same person will find the same things funny that belong to the same group, and will likely find the other kind boring.

Most of the time. Because what I really find impressive is when a cartoonist like Rich Burlew or any comedian can deliver to both kinds of humor. For me, I just cannot comprehend it. But some people seem to be able to comprehend both lines of thought, and even deliver to an audience! There are lots of jokes in Oots for example, that just don't work for me, so I believe they must be for the "other" audience. Still, there are lots of jokes I find really funny.

[Aard_Rinn]

I think that it may be less inherently male vs. female, and more that one is considered more socially acceptable for males vs. females. Men are 'allowed' to laugh at physical humor - there's no stigma against a guy finding a joke based in violence, sex, or bodily functions humorous; for a woman, that's considered unladylike and frowned upon. Meanwhile, women are expected to prefer (or at least claim to prefer) more genteel humor - jokes that are less offensive, at least. The female shock comic is a fairly new thing, and one originating fairly firmly from the stereotypical 'feminist'. Meanwhile, men who complain about rude humor, or prefer femme humor, are considered less manly then guys who make crude jokes.

Personally, I'm a big fan of 'male' humor, although I prefer satire over anything....

[Grey Watcher]

But if Elan happened to be Elaine, she might also be perfectly OK with that.

Now I'm imagining some bizarre crossover fic in which Haley and Elaine Marley from the Monkey Island series run off and have adventures together.

[eras10]

Fair enough. If such is your wish to portray one such world, I have no objection to that. I had felt from your first post that you were acquiescing to the wishes of a society that doesn't accept the portrayal of some behaviors, even when it's an accurate one. I see that I was wrong, and it makes all the difference that you actually believe what you preach.

I'm not going to upend anyone's take on gender relations in one blog post, nor do I really want to. And while I hope that a discussion on what is or is not offensive, in abstract terms, is appropriate for this forum, maybe it's not, in which case, apologies. But I don't think Haley's prior jokes in this comic [edited for clarity] were inappropriate, or a bad example.

Someone tell me where I am wrong with the following set of analogies:

First, we make fun of our friends sometimes for their poor decisions. We're not always even nice about it.

Second, it can be a poor decision - in a completely genderless way - to be too quick to engage in sexual relations with someone else. It can be a bad idea for people of all genders and sexual orientations to be a little too quick on the trigger.

Third. Rich's Haley jokes did not involve Haley tearing down a young woman in love over her choices concerning physical intimacy. It wasn't a realistic depiction of any aspect of "slut-shaming" that is actually problematic in practice. In at least the ones I remember, she was mostly mocking Roy, a guy, while he was a girl. It was not being used to promote a double standard of behavior that I can see (if there weren't enough comments of that kind about men, maybe it suffices to have a sexually promiscuous male character, who is made fun of for it, as well - this would also help salvage, for example, Sabine as a character, from this critique)

Fourth. Anyone who thinks we're going to eliminate friends making fun of friends' poor choices in sexual partners, or even general lack of selectivity in mating partners, is not being realistic.

Fifth. If the goal is unrealistic, perhaps it's not the right goal. The fact that hurting people with words and judgment of sexual behavior has been used to perpetuate gender oppression, patriarchy, and so on and so forth - has been used in a way that is in practice sexist, used in a double-standard, and so on, is wrong. But the alternative moral standard of eliminating all judgment of the sexual proclivity patterns of others is not the correct alternative moral standard. The appropriate remedy is to begin judging men by the same standards as women, or maybe not to judge people for sexual frequency per se, only to judge them for sexual frequency leading to empirically negative consequences for themselves or others, i.e. a case by case basis.

I think Haley's behavior was okay. There is a gender-neutral and nonsexist concept of 'tramp'. It's a redeemable concept. A work of literature lacking in judgment of people by people is an empty work of literature, and there's no particular reason why sexual behavior should be excluded. This is confused with sexism when directed at women, but it should not be so confused.

Update/Edit: It occurs to me that Julio Scoundrel himself, in SSDT, in his story, basically the last joke in the strip is, indirectly, a joke on Julio's promiscuity. His go-to-method is seduction, he uses it loosely, and... well, hilarious consequences ensue. All it needed was a mean crack from a woman to be an excellent example of what I'm trying to demonstrate - there's no need to eliminate digs at other people's choice of sexual partners, or even digs at someone whose standards are subjectively perceived as humorously not high enough, in order to be gender equitable. There are reasons why someone might be a little too quick to have sex with people that are inherently gender-neutral reasons.

[Sir_Leorik]

It's my decision about how I want my work to be perceived. I've come to my own conclusions about what I want my work to say, and without exception, I want to stand against racism and sexism and homophobia and classism and all the other forms of discrimination and dehumanization that take place in our society. I want to be part of the solution. And if that means taking a hard look at what I wrote in the past when maybe I didn't think as much about these things, then that's what it means.

I'm writing a fantasy story here, which means I can pretty much do one of two things if I want to make a difference: I can either relate the situations in the story allegorically to situations in the real world and use them to make a larger point, or I can use the fantasy world that I'm making to show a world that doesn't have those problems. I managed to do this with race, but I fell down on the job when it comes to gender.

It sounds to me like you're being a little harsh on yourself. The Sapphire Guard, for all their faults when it came to Goblinphobia, were a very egalitarian organization when it came to gender. The highest ranking member was a woman, the force that attacked Redcloak and Right-Eye's village seemed to be made up of equal numbers of men and women, and when the Sapphire Guard make their final stand against Xykon there are also equal numbers. The Azurite army was also egalitarian, with male and female archers, pikemen and swordsmen. Even eight months pregnant Kazumi was more effective than Daigo at fending off Kubota's thugs.

Sabine and Tsukiko were the "flying skanks" Haley was mocking (along with Samantha. Oh, man, Samantha. Seriously, what were you thinking when you came up with her? ). Sabine and Tsukiko are/were well rounded characters, and both were not afraid to engage in combat and talk smack back at Haley. Samantha was pretty much a one dimensional joke, whose death at the hands of Miko was better than she deserved.

Part of Roy's character growth in book two is clearly the scene at the Inn, where Roy puts on the Girdle of Feminity/Maculinity to save Elan. Without Haley's jibes at Roy's expense, Roy would not have become a better person. That doesn't mean Haley's impulse to make fun at Roy becoming a woman isn't a character flaw, but it did serve the plot as part of Roy's growth as a hero.

Given that you've shown how Haley and Crystal interacted as teenagers, it can be understandable that Haley picked up this style of speech from growing up in the criminal underworld. Not everyone in the Greysky City Thieves' Guild is as cultured as Hank. If you want to address the issue in the future, maybe Crystal could make a return appearance, though honestly I don't expect her to. Or you could have Haley's encounters with Tarquin make her voice regret at referring to other women in a demeaning manner (and she could give Roy the apology she doesn't seem to have ever given him for the ribbing she gave Roy while he was a woman in book 2).

A character flaw is only a flaw if it is acknowledged and addressed within the narrative as being so. If it's just left to stand in a heroic character without comment, it becomes something that is transmitted to audience as being acceptable. If I had other characters looking at Haley and pointing out the problems with what she's doing, that would be wholly valid as a character flaw for her. I haven't done that. I have done that with her greed, or her trust issues, or Roy's early sexism toward Miko, or V's pride, or any number of other intentional character flaws. So, no, this isn't a case of an intentional character flaw, this was a flaw in me, the author, that I simply failed to screen out.

But there are different ways to address the fact that a character trait is a flaw. It could be another character voicing displeasure with the character, the character themselves wishing they could stop doing something, an omniscient third-person narrator could announce that it's wrong, (speaking of which, did that guy ever escape that monster guarding Dorukan's castle? ) or the author could Show the audience why it's wrong, rather than Telling us why it's wrong. Sometimes you need to beat a moral, even one you think is obvious, into your audience's heads with a sledgehammer, other times you need to be more subtle. There's no hard and fast rules. I think that you were very subtle in Start of Darkness and it worked very well, but maybe you needed to be less subtle when it came to Familicide. You weren't particularly subtle with Roy's sexist attitude towards Miko or the way he learned his lesson, and it worked. But maybe given how long Haley's been referring to Sabine, Samantha and Tsukiko in gender-related derogatory ways, you need to be less subtle about why that was wrong, and if do decide to highlight this I feel it should be addressed in the story.

Here's the thing: The reason it took "so long" for anyone on-panel to acknowledge that yes, killing a bazillion black dragons is wrong is largely because I thought it was self-evident from the narrative. From the dwindling size of the panels in that strip that blurred together into an unnumbered massacre to the following strip where the literal incarnations of Evil are stunned by the scale of it, I was under the impression that I had made a clear statement about whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. Maybe Vaarsuvius him/herself was unclear, but I didn't consider it even slightly ambiguous on the part of the narrative. Indeed, the very point of the scene was that it was an unjustifiable atrocity. That so many people continued to argue that it wasn't was completely unforeseen on my part, and perhaps fueled largely by feelings from their gaming experiences—not by what I had drawn.

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

Sometimes subtlety flies over the heads of some people. You made an artistic decision not to have an omniscient third-person narrator (seriously, did that monster eat him or something?) announce that V was doing something wrong, though maybe you could have had the IFCC directors mention that this was a pretty impressive bit of villainy. But it was your call to make, regardless of how the audience decides to interpret it.

The Empress is fat because she is dumb, not dumb because she is fat. Her fatness is the direct result of being fooled by Tarquin. You'll note that in the flashback panel where Tarquin is fighting Nale (just two years ago), she's still skinny. Her defining characteristic is thus her stupidity, not her weight, and in no way does her weight actually impede her functioning. And she's not lazy at all—she's actively pursuing a regimen of self-improvement, day in and day out. She's just totally wrong on how that works.

So while I get what you're saying, I feel like the fact that her size is willfully self-inflicted muddies the water.

But it's not self-inflicted. She's a victim of Tarquin and Malack's deceptions. If they'd tried convincing her to fast two days a week in hopes of gaining spells, she'd do that instead of gorging herself. Tarquin probably figured a morbidly obese dragon was more terrifying than one that was wasting away. Either way, they did this trick to make her easier to control. She's fat because Tarquin took advantage of her stupidity, and because she wanted to be fat.

I have no idea how displaying an accountant that is good with numbers is in any way supposed to be a problem, but I would point out that this accountant is still secretly conspiring in an evil world domination scheme, and is in fact a flying kobold, so I feel pretty safe that I managed to step outside the box on that one.

I think the race issue—that an unusual race doesn't have to be a monster or a bandit, but can have a normal everyday job and be good at it—is a far more important point than whether or not I am stereotyping accountants as being efficient. If I make him some sort of weird non-typical accountant, the audience assumption would be, "Oh, that's because he's a kobold. Kobolds shouldn't be accountants, then." Heck, the fact that it didn't even register in your mind that it was unusual to put a kobold as an accountant means I achieved exactly what I wanted to!

See! This is the kind of racism Kobolds have to put up with! I played a Kobold PC in the dying days of the RPGA's "Living Greyhawk" campaign, and my PC was barred on pain of death from entering the City of Greyhawk (and many other places). Kobolds are reviled as monsters when they live in dungeons and set traps, but when they try to get real jobs, as adventurers, accountants or Oracles, everyone still gets on their case! They won't let the Kobold adventurers in the city (my PC had to disguise himself as a Gnome!), the Kobold accountants are "too good with numbers" or "too sneaky", and the Kobold Oracle gets dangled out a window! Seriously, Kilkil, despite the fact that he is part of the machinery Tarquin set in motion to run his Empire, is not sneaky, just hard-working.

[Math_Mage]

I think Haley's behavior was okay. There is a gender-neutral and nonsexist concept of 'tramp'. It's a redeemable concept.

Not the way it was used here. That's why the Giant responded as he did.

A work of literature lacking in judgment of people by people is an empty work of literature, and there's no particular reason why sexual behavior should be excluded. This is confused with sexism when directed at women, but it should not be so confused.

First, 'tramp' comes loaded with particular meanings that are not gender-neutral, even if there is a gender-neutral variation on the term.

Second, just because some kind of judgment must be made does not lend this particular judgment any merit.

Third, there is good reason to, not exclude, but criticize the judgment being made here: to avoid propagating the shameful stigma associated with sexual behavior. (As a note, since said stigma is disproportionately leveled at women, this is a matter of gender. Just want to reinforce that.)

This is not to say that there's nothing wrong with the behavior associated with a 'tramp', but the problem is not the sexual behavior, and definitely not the gender. And this is not to say that everyone will agree with the value system leading to this conclusion, but the Giant evidently does.

Fourth, this doesn't mean Haley shouldn't be allowed to make that judgment. It means Haley's judgment shouldn't be presented uncritically, as a heroic characteristic.

I hope this clarifies the Giant's position.

One final comment:

Third. Rich's Haley jokes did not involve Haley tearing down a young woman in love over her choices concerning physical intimacy. It wasn't a realistic depiction of any aspect of "slut-shaming" that is actually problematic in practice. In at least the ones I remember, she was mostly mocking Roy, a guy, while he was a girl. It was not being used to promote a double standard of behavior that I can see (if there weren't enough comments of that kind about men, maybe it suffices to have a sexually promiscuous male character, who is made fun of for it, as well - this would also help salvage, for example, Sabine as a character, from this critique)

The bolded situation is actually extremely relevant in the real world, albeit to a fairly small segment of the population. I would not be so quick to dismiss it as not a realistic depiction of any aspect of, if not slut-shaming, then attaching undeserved shameful stigma to sexual choices in a more general sense.

[AKA_Bait]

Now I'm imagining some bizarre crossover fic in which Haley and Elaine Marley from the Monkey Island series run off and have adventures together.

I'd read that.

See! This is the kind of racism Kobolds have to put up with! I played a Kobold PC in the dying days of the RPGA's "Living Greyhawk" . . . Seriously, Kilkil, despite the fact that he is part of the machinery Tarquin set in motion to run his Empire, is not sneaky, just hard-working.

Maybe the Giant gets a pass on the accountants. But what about his totally unfair and demeaning description of intellectual property lawyers. This is obviously a joke y'all.

[eras10]

Third, there is good reason to, not exclude, but criticize the judgment being made here: to avoid propagating the shameful stigma associated with sexual behavior. (As a note, since said stigma is disproportionately leveled at women, this is a matter of gender. Just want to reinforce that.)

It's not clear to me that, sans gender, this is a necessary thing to do. An analogy, again, would be to avoid criticism of your friends' very poor business decisions, in order to avoid propagating the shameful stigma associated with business.

Now, we definitely have a problem with people, mostly but not exclusively kids, shaming other kids in insanely cruel ways, usually in packs. But that is, again, very much a domain-spanning problem. Eliminating sexual-habit criticism won't fix it, or even make it better.

It is wrong to disproportionately criticise women for being excessively quick to have sex with people. It's a criticism that should, in my personal book, be applied to both genders, and in the case of each gender, should only be applied when the behavior leads to, subjectively, generalized poor decision-making about other things casually entangled with this topic in the person's life. Frankly, I've never felt this way about a person I've actually met. It's more of a trope I feel to be defensible when I see it in sitcoms, usually directed at guys. Anyway, I don't think that sexual behavior is presented as inherently stigmatic in mainstream culture. Maybe fifty years ago. Sexual behavior of particular characters is subject to satire and criticism, and this seems okay to me, as a subcategory of "poor decision-making".

So, I am politely challenging the point of view that Haley's prior statements were wrong. I recognize this as inconsistent with Rich's prior statements.

[Math_Mage]

It's not clear to me that, sans gender, this is a necessary thing to do. An analogy, again, would be to avoid criticism of your friends' very poor business decisions, in order to avoid propagating the shameful stigma associated with business.

Criticism of poor choices in the realm of sexual behavior is fine.

Criticism of same that implies sexual behavior itself is shameful is not fine.

Nobody (outside academia) criticizes their friends' poor business decisions in a manner that suggests their friends should be ashamed for getting involved in business in the first place.

Now, we definitely have a problem with people, mostly but not exclusively kids, shaming other kids in insanely cruel ways, usually in packs. But that is, again, very much a domain-spanning problem. Eliminating sexual-habit criticism won't fix it, or even make it better.

This particular criticism is hardly confined to kids, teenagers, or twentysomethings.

It is wrong to disproportionately criticise women for being excessively quick to have sex with people. It's a criticism that should, in my personal book, be applied to both genders, and in the case of each gender, should only be applied when the behavior leads to, subjectively, generalized poor decision-making about other things casually entangled with this topic in the person's life.

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion, but it's a valid basis for a value system. However, just because you think such criticism should be applied equally does not mean the reality changes to fit your norms. Rich is not basing his comments on a hypothetical where such criticism is applied equally--he is dealing with a real world where it is applied unequally. This informs his opinion about how to use such criticism.

IF words like "tramp" did not come loaded with gender...IF sexual criticism was not loaded by gender...but it does, and it is.

[The Giant]

Look, I understand that everyone wants to reassure me for some reason, but if I've identified something that I think I need to improve on, then that's my call. I'm not flogging myself publicly over it, I'm saying that I made some decisions without really examining them and now I am. Self-examination is a good thing. I'm sure there are lots of you who were OK with it the way it was, but then there were lots of people who were OK with a gag strip focused entirely on D&D rule jokes, and that didn't stop me from changing it when I thought I needed to.

The point is, now that I'm aware of this (and other issues), there's no way I'm going to knowingly write something problematic anyway, so it's sort of a moot point to argue about it with me. The past is the past, mistakes were made, going forward I hope to do better. That's it.

[King of Nowhere]

I don't understand what was the big problem about the joke. just because it may have been presuming secual promiscuity about laurin. so what? it was just a joke. I actually laughed at it, but even if I hadn't, I still think intention matters in those cases: the op didn't intend to make a sexist remark, he intended to make a joke. that joke contained a sexist remark, but that's not a problem, because jokes are not supposed to be taken seriously.
I make plenty of sexist and racist jokes myself, and i see no problem with it, as long as it is clear they are just that, jokes. In fact, I also make jokes on italians, nerds, or chessplayers, all categories I belong to.
And I really don't understand this "politically correct" stuff. so, calling someone a ****ty ******* is ok, but calling them a ***(EDIT: it was a gay slur, but it got censurated automatically; you can understand it from context) is not? why? is there a book of allowed insults? in fact, if i am actually trying to insult someone, i prefer racial slurs, because they are more effective: to me they say "you're casting a bad light on your people, you're shaming your family". so a racial slur is not insulting to the ethnic group. Saying "you horrible ***" do not mean "gay people are bad"; it means "you are a bad example of a gay person, and are staining the reputation of all your community". same for ******(EDIT: it was a racist slur, got censurated automatically) or jew or anything. Or maybe I'm just calling him a *** because I know many straight people will take offence at that. But again, it is just the intention that matters: it don't matter that i called someone a ***, but that i meant it to be an insult. in fact, i've known two gay guys, and both of them called themselves **** and made gay jokes and laughed about it.
EDIT: the automatic censor made this baely readable. I don't think there's anything insulting in me writing those words to analyze the exact meaning and circumstances; they are only insults if used against other people (again, circumstances).

Ok, I realize I'm a bit confusing here, cause every time I start to form an argument i get sidetracked. But the point I'm trying to pass is that intention matters, not words; if it's clearly meant as a joke, it should not offend. if it is meant as a personal offence, it should not be read as racist. if it's meant as racist/sexist/whatever, then the exact words don't matter.

Second point, it's especially strange with insults used against women and indicating sexual promiscuity. I don't see why calling a woman "slut" would be offfensive to women. I called slut that one woman, not all women. if i call a woman "dumbass", it's not offensive to other women. I'm not implying they are dumbasses too. So why with slut is different? No idea.
and also, sexual promiscuity is ggenerally accepted in our society. So why is it used as an insult? And why is it considered sexist? why "slut" do not mean "emancipated female that is free to do with her body as she wishes, as per the rights granted by the constitution and advocated by the sexual liberalization of the sixties"? Again, only because it is meant as an insult. So why the fact that it is meant as an insult matters, while the fact that it is not menat as a sexist remark do not matter?

And third point, about all the people taking offence for perceived sexism/racism/discrimination. When I was twelve, other kids insulted me. I got angry, a couple of times I got into fistfights over it. The adults told me that I was being immature and that if people insulted me, I should just ignore them, because people insulting other people are stupid and shouldn't be given consideration. And they were right. Now, if people insult me, I just look them with a mixture of scorn and pity.
So why perfectly grown up adults are taking offences at insults that aren't even thrown at themselves? And why do society consider this as normal? Why being oversensitive to some insults is considered childish, but being oversensitive to other insults is considered responsible?

Don't get me wrong: I know that sexism and racism are real issues, and some people are propagandating them on media, and that has to be fought. But it's really not the case here. no one intended anything to be insulting at all.
EDIT: I'm also not trying to insult anyone, and I hope it's clear. But On hot topic like this, I feel it's practically impossible to express opinions without someone taking offence over them

[GrayGriffin]

And I really don't understand this "politically correct" stuff. so, calling someone a ****ty ******* is ok, but calling them a *** is not? why? is there a book of allowed insults? in fact, if i am actually trying to insult someone, i prefer racial slurs, because they are more effective: to me they say "you're casting a bad light on your people, you're shaming your family". so a racial slur is not insulting to the ethnic group. Saying "you horrible ***" do not mean "gay people are bad"; it means "you are a bad example of a gay person, and are staining the reputation of all your community". same for ****** or jew or anything. Or maybe I'm just calling him a *** because I know many straight people will take offence at that. But again, it is just the intention that matters: it don't matter that i called someone a ***, but that i meant it to be an insult. in fact, i've known two gay guys, and both of them called themselves **** and made gay jokes and laughed about it.

Note the "called themselves" part. As people who have been hurt and insulted by these terms, they have the right to reclaim them.

Second point, it's especially strange with insults used against women and indicating sexual promiscuity. I don't see why calling a woman "slut" would be offfensive to women. I called slut that one woman, not all women. if i call a woman "dumbass", it's not offensive to other women. I'm not implying they are dumbasses too. So why with slut is different? No idea.
and also, sexual promiscuity is ggenerally accepted in our society. So why is it used as an insult? And why is it considered sexist? why "slut" do not mean "emancipated female that is free to do with her body as she wishes, as per the rights granted by the constitution and advocated by the sexual liberalization of the sixties"? Again, only because it is meant as an insult. So why the fact that it is meant as an insult matters, while the fact that it is not menat as a sexist remark do not matter?

Because of all the negative connotations now associated with that word. It has been used as an insult for far too long for it to have positive associations now.

And third point, about all the people taking offence for perceived sexism/racism/discrimination. When I was twelve, other kids insulted me. I got angry, a couple of times I got into fistfights over it. The adults told me that I was being immature and that if people insulted me, I should just ignore them, because people insulting other people are stupid and shouldn't be given consideration. And they were right. Now, if people insult me, I just look them with a mixture of scorn and pity.

I assume you do not actually belong to any social minority group. Thus, you've never been treated as lesser from someone's first impression of you, and you don't know what that feels like. It's invalidating and hurts deeply.

[Ramien]

Don't get me wrong: I know that sexism and racism are real issues, and some people are propagandating them on media, and that has to be fought. But it's really not the case here. no one intended anything to be insulting at all.
EDIT: I'm also not trying to insult anyone, and I hope it's clear. But On hot topic like this, I feel it's practically impossible to express opinions without someone taking offence over them

Because the problem isn't that people are necessarily trying to hurt women by their comments - they do it unthinkingly, and don't realize what they're doing. It doesn't matter if you are trying to hurt someone when you use a hurtful term or phrase or make jokes about something that really isn't funny, if the end result still adds to the same oppressive feeling as the people who are trying to be hurtful. Most of the problems with sexism aren't from people trying to hurt women - they're from people who don't realize that they're doing it anyways by the way they keep treating them.

[King of Nowhere]

I assume you do not actually belong to any social minority group. Thus, you've never been treated as lesser from someone's first impression of you, and you don't know what that feels like. It's invalidating and hurts deeply.

I've been victim of mobbing from around age 7 to 13. I was never insulted for my racial group, but I've been insulted cause I didn't fit in the group. And by that I mean groups of 10-20 people rounding up on me and calling me names and slurs. I had repercussions in my life for it until age 18. So I think I know pretty well how it feels.
But it felt bad only because I was a child. Then I grew up, and I'm so glad those other kids never let me mingle with their group of *******s. I have to thank their mobbing for becoming a better person.
Yes, that surely influenced a lot the way I feel about the topic. Probably, since I grew calluses over it and became stronger, I wrongly assume that everyone else can and will do the same.

Still, I think people should react with a laugh and dismiss those who insult them. I generally think that in the world there are bad people, and no matter how hard you try to educate them, there will always be bad people. So good people cannot hope to eradicate evil; they should learn to become stronger to live with evil and not be hurted by it. It's a sort of life philosophy for me. Not taking offence if people insult me is one specific case of it. Another case is, for example, to lock my bike well against thieves.

Anyway, I realize that being a writer, rich has to be more careful than me, because
a) what I say, I say to a specific number of people. I know I can make racist jokes with them, cause they know me and know I don't do it for offence. If they misunderstand, I can clarify. what rich writes, will be read by hundreds of thousands of people. most of them will never bother to read some clarification if they feel offended, and
b) what he writes will actually have an effect on what people think. Just because there will always be bad people, it's not a good reason to not try to keep their number as low as possible (by persuasion).
So I understand rich taking issue with haley's vocabulary.

EDIT:

Because the problem isn't that people are necessarily trying to hurt women by their comments - they do it unthinkingly, and don't realize what they're doing. It doesn't matter if you are trying to hurt someone when you use a hurtful term or phrase or make jokes about something that really isn't funny, if the end result still adds to the same oppressive feeling as the people who are trying to be hurtful. Most of the problems with sexism aren't from people trying to hurt women - they're from people who don't realize that they're doing it anyways by the way they keep treating them.

THat's exactly my point: if they don't intend to offend you, how can they offend you? sometimes they do cause their comments make clear they are sexist people, even when they are not trying actively to hurt you. but when they are clearly meant as jokes, they should not be interpreted offensively. And when the situation is unclear (for example, a joke posted on the internet by an unknown guy), I prefer to assume for the best until proven wrong.
Otherwise, if you focus on feeling oppressed, you will feel oppressed no matter what, even when people around you aren't doing anything wrong.

[oppyu]

Spoiler

Show

I don't understand what was the big problem about the joke. just because it may have been presuming secual promiscuity about laurin. so what? it was just a joke. I actually laughed at it, but even if I hadn't, I still think intention matters in those cases: the op didn't intend to make a sexist remark, he intended to make a joke. that joke contained a sexist remark, but that's not a problem, because jokes are not supposed to be taken seriously.
I make plenty of sexist and racist jokes myself, and i see no problem with it, as long as it is clear they are just that, jokes. In fact, I also make jokes on italians, nerds, or chessplayers, all categories I belong to.
And I really don't understand this "politically correct" stuff. so, calling someone a ****ty ******* is ok, but calling them a ***(EDIT: it was a gay slur, but it got censurated automatically; you can understand it from context) is not? why? is there a book of allowed insults? in fact, if i am actually trying to insult someone, i prefer racial slurs, because they are more effective: to me they say "you're casting a bad light on your people, you're shaming your family". so a racial slur is not insulting to the ethnic group. Saying "you horrible ***" do not mean "gay people are bad"; it means "you are a bad example of a gay person, and are staining the reputation of all your community". same for ******(EDIT: it was a racist slur, got censurated automatically) or jew or anything. Or maybe I'm just calling him a *** because I know many straight people will take offence at that. But again, it is just the intention that matters: it don't matter that i called someone a ***, but that i meant it to be an insult. in fact, i've known two gay guys, and both of them called themselves **** and made gay jokes and laughed about it.
EDIT: the automatic censor made this baely readable. I don't think there's anything insulting in me writing those words to analyze the exact meaning and circumstances; they are only insults if used against other people (again, circumstances).

Ok, I realize I'm a bit confusing here, cause every time I start to form an argument i get sidetracked. But the point I'm trying to pass is that intention matters, not words; if it's clearly meant as a joke, it should not offend. if it is meant as a personal offence, it should not be read as racist. if it's meant as racist/sexist/whatever, then the exact words don't matter.

Second point, it's especially strange with insults used against women and indicating sexual promiscuity. I don't see why calling a woman "slut" would be offfensive to women. I called slut that one woman, not all women. if i call a woman "dumbass", it's not offensive to other women. I'm not implying they are dumbasses too. So why with slut is different? No idea.
and also, sexual promiscuity is ggenerally accepted in our society. So why is it used as an insult? And why is it considered sexist? why "slut" do not mean "emancipated female that is free to do with her body as she wishes, as per the rights granted by the constitution and advocated by the sexual liberalization of the sixties"? Again, only because it is meant as an insult. So why the fact that it is meant as an insult matters, while the fact that it is not menat as a sexist remark do not matter?

And third point, about all the people taking offence for perceived sexism/racism/discrimination. When I was twelve, other kids insulted me. I got angry, a couple of times I got into fistfights over it. The adults told me that I was being immature and that if people insulted me, I should just ignore them, because people insulting other people are stupid and shouldn't be given consideration. And they were right. Now, if people insult me, I just look them with a mixture of scorn and pity.
So why perfectly grown up adults are taking offences at insults that aren't even thrown at themselves? And why do society consider this as normal? Why being oversensitive to some insults is considered childish, but being oversensitive to other insults is considered responsible?

Don't get me wrong: I know that sexism and racism are real issues, and some people are propagandating them on media, and that has to be fought. But it's really not the case here. no one intended anything to be insulting at all.
EDIT: I'm also not trying to insult anyone, and I hope it's clear. But On hot topic like this, I feel it's practically impossible to express opinions without someone taking offence over them

1: Making jokes like that is hurtful. Just because you don't mean to offend a woman when you infer that her sexual history makes her a terrible human being, it does not mean that the last twenty times she's heard it were also happy friendly jokes. People face hurtful discrimination on a regular basis, is it really that funny for you to reinforce that?

2: These jokes reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with the jokes. Want to know why women in the sex industry are still considered gross, or why African-Americans are harassed for buying clothes from expensive upmarket places? Because the prejudicial culture survives through 'jokes'. The thing about these jokes is that you're making the minority the victim of the joke. When you say these hilarious things in public, you're subtextually reassuring people that it's fine to hold those beliefs because look how funny they are. It's not that bad to refer to Asians by some racist term! Look how hilarious it was when I did it ironically! For the most alarming example of this, look up 'rape culture', then prepare to feel bad. (Actually, most people choose to lash out at the feminists with sexist remarks instead. It's pretty sad. But it's absolutely fine, because when they refer to us as female dogs and tell us to shut up, they're being totally funny and joking.)

[Math_Mage]

I don't understand what was the big problem about the joke. just because it may have been presuming secual promiscuity about laurin. so what? it was just a joke. I actually laughed at it, but even if I hadn't, I still think intention matters in those cases: the op didn't intend to make a sexist remark, he intended to make a joke. that joke contained a sexist remark, but that's not a problem, because jokes are not supposed to be taken seriously.

I think the issue is awareness. A good joke involving racism or sexism, besides being funny, is conscious of the fact that it's dealing with a serious subject, even if it's treating the subject lightly in the given context. (In a group of friends, one may substitute the people's consciousness of that fact for the joke's consciousness; this is why a lot of jokes are acceptable among friends that aren't acceptable in a vacuum, why people can make jokes about their own ethnicity or gender, and so on. But there is no assumption of such consciousness in an anonymous environment.) A bad joke involving racism or sexism trivializes the issue.

And I really don't understand this "politically correct" stuff. so, calling someone a ****ty ******* is ok, but calling them a ***(EDIT: it was a gay slur, but it got censurated automatically; you can understand it from context) is not? why? is there a book of allowed insults? in fact, if i am actually trying to insult someone, i prefer racial slurs, because they are more effective: to me they say "you're casting a bad light on your people, you're shaming your family". so a racial slur is not insulting to the ethnic group. Saying "you horrible ***" do not mean "gay people are bad"; it means "you are a bad example of a gay person, and are staining the reputation of all your community". same for ******(EDIT: it was a racist slur, got censurated automatically) or jew or anything. Or maybe I'm just calling him a *** because I know many straight people will take offence at that. But again, it is just the intention that matters: it don't matter that i called someone a ***, but that i meant it to be an insult. in fact, i've known two gay guys, and both of them called themselves **** and made gay jokes and laughed about it.

First, the same issue with jokes pertains to slurs.

Second, "You horrible ***" generally does not mean "You are a bad example of a gay person." That may be how you wish it were used, or how you intend to use it, or how you think it could be acceptably used. But that's not going to change how people receive such a remark.

Second point, it's especially strange with insults used against women and indicating sexual promiscuity. I don't see why calling a woman "slut" would be offfensive to women. I called slut that one woman, not all women. if i call a woman "dumbass", it's not offensive to other women. I'm not implying they are dumbasses too. So why with slut is different? No idea.
and also, sexual promiscuity is ggenerally accepted in our society. So why is it used as an insult? And why is it considered sexist? why "slut" do not mean "emancipated female that is free to do with her body as she wishes, as per the rights granted by the constitution and advocated by the sexual liberalization of the sixties"? Again, only because it is meant as an insult. So why the fact that it is meant as an insult matters, while the fact that it is not menat as a sexist remark do not matter?

It also simply doesn't mean that. As in, the dictionary definition is something completely different from that.

If 'our society' is the US, our relationship to sexual promiscuity is a lot more complicated than "generally accepted," and if I were to try to boil it down, I would call it a love-hate relationship. 'Slut' currently falls on the 'hate' side of that relationship, and again, just because you think it could become what you described does not make it so.

And third point, about all the people taking offence for perceived sexism/racism/discrimination. When I was twelve, other kids insulted me. I got angry, a couple of times I got into fistfights over it. The adults told me that I was being immature and that if people insulted me, I should just ignore them, because people insulting other people are stupid and shouldn't be given consideration. And they were right. Now, if people insult me, I just look them with a mixture of scorn and pity.
So why perfectly grown up adults are taking offences at insults that aren't even thrown at themselves? And why do society consider this as normal? Why being oversensitive to some insults is considered childish, but being oversensitive to other insults is considered responsible?

Because not all insults are created equal, so not all insults should be responded to in the same way. Side note, a kid being insulted by other kids should not necessarily ignore the insults, either; it depends on the situation.

[GrayGriffin]

Hey guys, thanks for explaining it better. I have to admit that I was holding back a bit since this is at least a little more personal for me, and I didn't want to end up lashing out.

[eras10]

I think that I'd like to uphold the principle that there are definitely circumstances in which 'perfectly harmless jokes' and condemnation of individual behavior reinforces stereotypes in bad ways, and avoiding this is admirable. Sometimes these jokes and stereotypes are unique to a single person; sometimes they are broader. So, I'm not on the boat with King of Nowhere.

I think that it's okay to make fun of poor choices in sexual behavior, including of someone who might, to use the exact same language as last time, be a little quick on the trigger.

I'd probably only do it to make fun of someone who I thought, socially, wasn't actually going to be deeply wounded by it. If I was actually angry about someone's behavior and actually wanted to condemn them, I wouldn't use a vulgar epithet. And I don't endorse being angry or scornful of someone's sexual behavior simply because they have sex with more people than you do. There should probably be something specific about what's going on that is specifically harmful.

Part of the problem, I would agree, with bygone eras was the condemnation of excessive sexual behavior for its own sake. Again, outside the era of teenagers, I don't see this as a going concern these days. The "hate" in the love/hate relationship is, I think, mostly a factor in forums where there's a high level of baseline hate, rudeness, and general pie-flinging. The more sensitive a topic is, the more it will be seen by trolls as the right topic on which to base terrible things to say. People that want to hurt other people with words aren't going to fail at that because of a changed topic.

Also, at this point I'm discussing the topic as a question of abstract interest. Rich has weighed in to say that he's made up his mind on how he feels and what he wants to do, which is fine. I'm not posting in an advocacy campaign to keep Haley's sexual insults alive. I just feel like expressing opinions.

[King of Nowhere]

2: These jokes reinforce the negative stereotypes associated with the jokes. Want to know why women in the sex industry are still considered gross, or why African-Americans are harassed for buying clothes from expensive upmarket places? Because the prejudicial culture survives through 'jokes'. The thing about these jokes is that you're making the minority the victim of the joke. When you say these hilarious things in public, you're subtextually reassuring people that it's fine to hold those beliefs because look how funny they are. It's not that bad to refer to Asians by some racist term! Look how hilarious it was when I did it ironically! For the most alarming example of this, look up 'rape culture', then prepare to feel bad. (Actually, most people choose to lash out at the feminists with sexist remarks instead. It's pretty sad. But it's absolutely fine, because when they refer to us as female dogs and tell us to shut up, they're being totally funny and joking.)

(emphasis mine)
Well, yes and no.
If those jokes were only on the minority, there could be a point. but as i said, i make jokes on just about everything, including me and my ethnic/cultural groups. the message is not "look how funny they are. It's not that bad to refer to Asians by some racist term (because they actually deserve it)"; the message is "look how funny everyone is. It's not that bad to refer to any of us by some racist term (because we take ourselves way too seriously)". My opinion has always been that we should strive to see the humorous side in all things in life, and especially in ourselves and in our shortcomings.
But then, people in the minority will often feel oppressed even when they are not. So confirmation bias sink in. Even if they hear potentially insulting jokes against pretty much everyone, they only remember the ones against them. That's why, if a man and a woman are having an argument on the street, and the men yells "all women are sluts", you can be sure that plenty of people will intervene to tell the man that he's a sexist, while if the woman states "all men are pigs" probably no one will give a damn about it. And that's a big part of why many men lash out at feminists with rage(1): because they are called pigs at least as much as the women are called whores, and they suffer many things that could be called discrimination(2), but they don't give a damn about it, they go on with their life without problems, so they just can't understand why women are so offended.

So, I remain of the opinion that most of the discrimination (of any kind) is perceived, not real; the rest can be avoided by hanging up with more progressive people.
After all, if I were looking into it, I could find reasons to take offence every day. I just prefer to let them pass. And the world would be an happier place if everyone did the same.
I know many people will still disagree with me, and my position is not accepted by the mainstream culture, but I feel I had to give it the best defence I can.

1 sexist remarks are only meant as generic insults in that case: it is assumed that a feminist will be hurted more by a sexist insult, so it's the "weapon of choice"; no sexism in it, just insult effectiveness

2 some examples of cultural sexual discrimination against males: some researchers made an experiment, where they pretended to be a dating couple, then one of them would go the the toilet, and the other would overtly slip something into his/her drink. when the man slipped something in the glass of the woman, every time someone told it to the woman, or offered to defend the woman, or accused the man of trying to drug her and rape her. When the woman slipped something in the glass of the man, only half the times people reacted. the other half, no one said anything. some even found it funny.
It is generally considered ok for a girl to slap a man. the reverse is not true.
My department in the university where I work got specific instructions, when hiring new researchers, to prefer females to males. Just for that, no other reasons given. And we already have around 50% of women researchers.
I could make many more examples. And I'm not arguing that there is discrimination against men. I'm arguing that sexism goes both ways.

[GrayGriffin]

(emphasis mine)
Well, yes and no.
But then, people in the minority will often feel oppressed even when they are not. So confirmation bias sink in. Even if they hear potentially insulting jokes against pretty much everyone, they only remember the ones against them. That's why, if a man and a woman are having an argument on the street, and the men yells "all women are sluts", you can be sure that plenty of people will intervene to tell the man that he's a sexist, while if the woman states "all men are pigs" probably no one will give a damn about it. And that's a big part of why many men lash out at feminists with rage(1): because they are called pigs at least as much as the women are called whores, and they suffer many things that could be called discrimination(2), but they don't give a damn about it, they go on with their life without problems, so they just can't understand why women are so offended.

But the only consequence of a man being called a pig is slightly hurt feelings. A woman being called a whore receives a heavy social stigma associated with that word, as well as being more likely to be mocked or attacked further. There's a big, big, big, BIG difference between these two insults, and if you don't understand that difference, you're not going to be able to participate very well in this discussion.

[ti'esar]

I'm just going to throw this out there: when you start blaming things on "mainstream culture" or "feminists" or going on about "male sexual discrimination", I automatically find myself becoming verrrrry suspicious of the motives behind your position.

[jere7my]

And that's a big part of why many men lash out at feminists with rage(1): because they are called pigs at least as much as the women are called whores, and they suffer many things that could be called discrimination(2), but they don't give a damn about it, they go on with their life without problems, so they just can't understand why women are so offended.\

You answered your own question. "They go on with their life without problems." That's a privilege we (straight white men) have—we can laugh off the insults and go on with our lives, because we know the store owner isn't going to call the cops after we spend our own money on an expensive belt (as happened to a young black man in New York recently). We're not going to be shot for knocking on a door and asking for help (as happened to a young black woman here in Massachusetts). We're not going to be beaten to death because we're gay or trans (as happens too often to mention). We're not going to have our opinions dismissed out of hand because of our sex. We're not going to get roofied so some fratboy can get himself off, then laughed out of the police station when we try to report it.

Yes, life can be hard for straight white men. But we don't have to justify our position in society every day of our lives. Unless we're poverty-stricken or homeless or have some other disadvantage, we can wake up and walk out into the world feeling confident that the people we encounter, the police and the store owners and the strangers on the street, are going to treat us like regular folks. The people you think it's funny to insult don't get to feel that way. Sometimes they do, sure. Sometimes they can go a whole day without being patronized or insulted or stalked or sneered at or hit or dismissed. But every time they hear a slur coming out of the mouth of someone like you, like me, it makes it harder for them.

This is a true thing. You can choose to ignore it if you want. That doesn't make it less true.

(Edited to comply with Rich's instructions.)

[Rakoa]

I'm just going to throw this out there: when you start blaming things on "mainstream culture" or "feminists" or going on about "male sexual discrimination", I automatically find myself becoming verrrrry suspicious of the motives behind your position.

Why is that?