What's an SJW? Apart from my initials I've not seen that acronym before
Social Justice Warrior. Basically, someone who sits on the internet starting arguments and throwing around accusations of racism and sexism in order to win fake Internet points. They like to use words like 'misogynist', 'cis' and 'privilege' in order to derail arguments.
What's an SJW? Apart from my initials I've not seen that acronym before
SJW is Social Justice Warrior, generally they are regarded as people who adopt social causes regardless of their own stake in it, they look for victimhood at every turn and froth at the mouth at anyone who doesn't share their opinion. The kind of people that will start an argument in an empty room, and will make you feel like voting for anything other than pure socialist anarchy is somehow a racist/sexist/homophobic conspiracy, for further information, please contact Leuth.
What's an SJW? Apart from my initials I've not seen that acronym before
SJW is Social Justice Warrior, generally they are regarded as people who adopt social causes regardless of their own stake in it, they look for victimhood at every turn and froth at the mouth at anyone who doesn't share their opinion. The kind of people that will start an argument in an empty room, and will make you feel like voting for anything other than pure socialist anarchy is somehow a racist/sexist/homophobic conspiracy, for further information, please contact Leuth.
Leuth isn't an SJW, I have no doubt he is totally sincere about his convictions. Besides if he was trying to win fake Internet points by posing as a feminist warrior, a football forum is a weird place to try.
Gamergate was an internet shitstorm where a group of edgy teenagers raged against each other (ostensibly about sexism but really it's mainly because 14-year olds who think video game culture is a matter of life and death like being angry on the internet for no reason) for the best part of a year because of a video game review. Almost no one outside of this niche group noticed it ever happened. As such the terms 'misogynist' and 'SJW' were thrown about a lot.
Didn't some woman who developed games sleep with a gaming journalist, get a good review for her game as a result, and then claim that the when gaming industry was sexist when it was called out? I'm a shade over 14 so it wasn't as much of a highlight in my year as it no doubt was for others... I seem to remember the sexism issue being a huge distraction tactic for her own misdeeds.
Nope. Some bloke split up with his girlfriend, and had an online hissy fit about her, including claiming she'd had a relationship with a gaming website journalist. Then someone on 4 chan claimed that the relationship was why the journo had published a favourable review of her game (except he hadn't), and an existing backlash against what was seen in some quarters as an over-rated game turned into a full on feeding frenzy of harrassment and rape/death threats.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
So.. what you're proposing is a system whereby men can taxed for their "privilege" in a court of law via divorce proceedings? Many years after the initial - and already generous - settlement?
Really?
Fucking lol.
What astounding mental gymnastics have you done to infer I've proposed any sort of system, or reform?
In fairness, I have derailed the thread by placing this case within the wider context of the various benefits afforded according to gender in society as a whole, but all I've done is point a few things out.
I'm not saying either thing is okay.
It's not okay for her to sponge off her ex-husband (as on the face of it, that's absolutely what it is).
Equally, the other stuff I've listed - the stuff that overwhelmingly benefits men - is not okay.
I think that overall though, men get the better cut of the deal (by some distance), and while this has slowly been eroded, I'd like to see more change.
That's precisely what you did.
You seemed to justify this settlement in the form of the perceived injustices that women go through. i.e You justified this legal charge on a man's property and finances - something akin to a tax - and justified it based upon the perceived privileges that he possesses and she does not.
Please don't be so disingenuous as to accuse me of mental gymnastics.
Whilst it's noble to want to see more change, I'd argue it's our generation that are going to see the real benefit of the changes that have been placed before us, so I can't say I particularly agree with many of your points and I'm not entirely sure what else should be done.
Okay. Now I see what you mean, I can understand your interpretation of what I wrote, which was not my intention whatsoever. I probably shouldn't have been so belligerent in my phrasing.
I didn't mean to justify the settlement. I think it's unfair, too. Indeed, I also think that I assumed he inherently had privilege - while I do think that is the case (and I'm sure many disagree), I acknowledge there are exceptions to said privilege, and this case looks like an exception.
What I meant to do was point out that getting het up about this one case, in isolation, is a little short-sighted in a wider societal context.
Fair enough to disagree - I think there's more that can be done, but there you have it.
Then what makes you say that?
The concept of "privilege" is becoming nothing more than a way of silencing or belittling the concerns of those that a certain section of society don't agree with, and itd often backed up by dubious - at best - statistics.
I'll give you an example - you mention inequalities in salary. Mysteriously, these inequalities seem to disappear when you factor in the gender breakdown of specific industries - funnily enough certain industries pay less and are female dominated, then the average female salary is reduced. It's just maths.
So how do you fix that? To an extent you encourage schoolgirls to look towards more well paid sectors, STEM being the obvious one. But that's happening, and as I say, our generation will be the first to reap that benefit.
That's just a deeper examination of your first point.
If it exists though, then what are you doing about it?
This is the biggest issue I have, and although I'm quoting you - I'm not actually aiming at this at you. I know full well that you do a lot for good causes, and I remember being truly humbled by your recent charity thread.
Too many people yell about privilege though, and then they go on a march or sign a petition and think they've actually done something.
In actual fact, you can fight against those injustices by... simply employing common sense and being a decent human being, no virtue signalling and no drama.
As an example, after months of arguing with recruiting agents and a HR department, I managed to get a relatively large company to strip out names and genders when recruiting software developers. I didn't do it for any other reason that it was common sense.
In another office, I was shocked to see a Muslim gentleman awkwardly praying in a stairwell. After a brief chat with HR and Facilities, I was able to get him access to the room booking software, on the provision he would have a private space to pray. I didn't do it for any other reason than it was being a decent human being.
These experiences have shown me that people are accommodating and will do the right thing, worst case scenario is it will simply take a nudge in the right direction.
If you genuinely feel that modern day Britain is a place where disadvantage is dished out based upon gender then I feel quite sorry for you, as that's a depressing notion to have about the country you live in. I would also urge you never to look further abroad though.
So with regard to the gender pay gap - it's definitely closing in the UK. Indeed, the pay gap is at about 6% for younger women, sliding up to 18% for older generations. Further, much of it can be explained by what you've said:
- Women choose different career paths (that tend to be lower paying) - Women choose different educational paths (that tend to lead to point 1) - Men work higher risk jobs/overtime, while women may choose different* positions (*I'm no expert and unsure as to how this manifests itself)
But then other potential factors:
- Women are less likely to negotiate for a pay raise/less skilled at doing so - Sexism/discrimination
I reckon that of the last two points, the latter doesn't account for *much*, but certainly some. And I think the former is the byproduct of conditioning of how women are "supposed" to behave in society. That's my rationale, and fair enough if you disagree (which a lot of you will be doing).
You're probably right about our generation being the first to reap the benefits. But, we don't see them yet - so I can only try and stand up for what I believe in.
The other half of the post - fair play. Absolutely bang (EDIT: Changed cant to bang) on. For the record, I'd like to think I'm accommodating; and I definitely DON'T feel modern-day Britain is a place where disadvantage is ACTIVELY dished out based upon gender - just that yes, there's work to do.
Sex and the City also fails the Bechdel test, despite its target audience. Which goes to show that women give less of a shit about it than men.
Lol because all women watch and/or write Sex and the City. Generalisation much? (Little bit of debate anticipation: Before you cite the fallacy of "not all men" that SJWs and the like trot out overly often, I agree there, too - NOT all men x y and z. Anyway)
Only on Charltonlife can a case about a man being shafted in the divorce courts lead to a discussion about how outrageous society is for women, effectively, he deserves it because women get a raw deal elsewhere. So he is paying for the sins of his gender, great. That in itself is surely discrimination, maybe he wasn't sexist, but because some view society as sexist, this individual deserves punishment? In my eyes two wrongs don't make a right, there would definitely be justice in a poetic way if this guy was a raging sexist, but it doesn't look like that does it?
And only Leuth could go on about how much Tories discriminate on gender whilst completely ignoring the fact they have had 2 Conservative female PMs, the first one 35 years before the USA even had one as a candidate... I'm guessing it's all just a ruse to get away with even more evil Tory sexism.
Honestly sometimes I think this place, politically, just defies all logic, generally because of the type who shout the loudest at every opportunity.
Oh and any woman who agrees that the ruling wasn't fair or that divorce courts aren't fair has just bought into the patriarchy, there is always a "shut down all response" answer.
Will address in bullet points:
- "Only on Charlton Life"? This does actually happen all over the internet.
- To state this for what, the third/fourth/fifth time, I NEVER SAID HE DESERVES IT. I HAVE LITERALLY NEVER SAID IT. I USED THE TERM TRADE-OFF. IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?!?! SERIOUSLY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE YOU KNOW. I don't think he should be paying for the "sins of his gender" or anything of the sort - you're loading up your interpretation of what I wrote to make me look (extra) bad in people's eyes, please don't.
- This gets a separate big paragraph, because it's so important. I think that society, as it is now, limits BOTH women AND men. But, right now, we're seeing it hinder females more. Men of course are not expected to realise their potential as fathers in most cases; they get shafted more often in divorce courts; the mother is *perceived to be* favoured in custody battles so men rarely bother contesting (though when they do, they're more likely to win custody than the mother); men are seen as the "expendable" gender (see warfare); and so on. This is also NOT GOOD. But look at the points re women, too. Ultimately, it (society/patriarchy) is so flawed at the moment that I can't see past the necessity of change.
- Two wrongs do not make a right. Bang on.
- Leuth isn't far wrong about the Conservatives, despite Thatcher and May. To claim Thatcher/May are beacons of feminism purely by virtue of them being female is about as accurate as to say Obama is a beacon of the civil rights movement by virtue of his skin colour. They're both... *features*, of those respective movements, in a way, granted, but not necessarily proponents of.
- There's a shut down all response answer for everything. Yours, seemingly, is to claim that any response you disagree with is a shut down all response.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
@PaddyP17 you're wasting your breath. Some people are irredeemable chauvinists, if not misogynists.
EH ?????????
So @AddicksAddict you are accusing me of chauvinism and misogyny because I don't correlate this divorce case with the points PaddyP17 has brought up ?
I am not disagreeing with those points or dismissing their individual validity, I am arguing they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread.
But maybe I am wasting my breath, as some people will always have a kneejerk reaction and not read a post correctly.
@MrOneLung I give you your comment "I just used that point to highlight how I disagree with the whole post." which reads as you are disagreeing with Paddy's points and dismissing their individual validity. If you had written "they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread." the first time, there would have been less chance of misunderstanding.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
@PaddyP17 you're wasting your breath. Some people are irredeemable chauvinists, if not misogynists.
EH ?????????
So @AddicksAddict you are accusing me of chauvinism and misogyny because I don't correlate this divorce case with the points PaddyP17 has brought up ?
I am not disagreeing with those points or dismissing their individual validity, I am arguing they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread.
But maybe I am wasting my breath, as some people will always have a kneejerk reaction and not read a post correctly.
@MrOneLung I give you your comment "I just used that point to highlight how I disagree with the whole post." which reads as you are disagreeing with Paddy's points and dismissing their individual validity. If you had written "they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread." the first time, there would have been less chance of misunderstanding.
Tbf if this occasional news story* sort of thing is the tradeoff for:
- earning more money/having more earning potential; - not feeling scared to walk alone at night; - being at far less risk of sexual assault either from someone I know (much more common) or from a stranger; - having a legal and societal system that inherently benefits me; - favouritism in custody battles when men actually contest their case; - a male-dominated political system (70.6% of MPs are male; all but one of the Supreme Court justices); - living in a world where we don't need a male equivalent of the Bechdel test; - 96% of Fortune 500 companies having a male CEO; - the implicit yet societally curated expectation that women are "best" at child-rearing**); - there never having been a female President; and only two female Prime Ministers
Then I think us guys have it pretty sweet. ... Or, we have the system in our favour, at least.
----------
(*Story? Pah. It's written like shit.)
(**NB I think the whole raising children thing is very much a two-way patriarchy-limits-everyone thing because stay-at-home dads can be AWESOME etc etc)
Yep, a woman should be able to financially shaft her ex husband years after their divorce because she may feel more scared to walk alone at night than a man.
Plus the other things I mentioned.
You seem to have an amazing pair of glasses on to have only been able to read and comprehend not even the first, but ONLY the second point on my list!
Either that, or you're cherry-picking one thing here to try and make my argument seem totally absurd, but I'm sure a reasonable person wouldn't do that.
@PaddyP17 you're wasting your breath. Some people are irredeemable chauvinists, if not misogynists.
EH ?????????
So @AddicksAddict you are accusing me of chauvinism and misogyny because I don't correlate this divorce case with the points PaddyP17 has brought up ?
I am not disagreeing with those points or dismissing their individual validity, I am arguing they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread.
But maybe I am wasting my breath, as some people will always have a kneejerk reaction and not read a post correctly.
@MrOneLung I give you your comment "I just used that point to highlight how I disagree with the whole post." which reads as you are disagreeing with Paddy's points and dismissing their individual validity. If you had written "they are irrelevant to this particular case/thread." the first time, there would have been less chance of misunderstanding.
Comments
- Women choose different career paths (that tend to be lower paying)
- Women choose different educational paths (that tend to lead to point 1)
- Men work higher risk jobs/overtime, while women may choose different* positions (*I'm no expert and unsure as to how this manifests itself)
But then other potential factors:
- Women are less likely to negotiate for a pay raise/less skilled at doing so
- Sexism/discrimination
I reckon that of the last two points, the latter doesn't account for *much*, but certainly some. And I think the former is the byproduct of conditioning of how women are "supposed" to behave in society. That's my rationale, and fair enough if you disagree (which a lot of you will be doing).
You're probably right about our generation being the first to reap the benefits. But, we don't see them yet - so I can only try and stand up for what I believe in.
The other half of the post - fair play. Absolutely bang (EDIT: Changed cant to bang) on. For the record, I'd like to think I'm accommodating; and I definitely DON'T feel modern-day Britain is a place where disadvantage is ACTIVELY dished out based upon gender - just that yes, there's work to do.
- "Only on Charlton Life"? This does actually happen all over the internet.
- To state this for what, the third/fourth/fifth time, I NEVER SAID HE DESERVES IT. I HAVE LITERALLY NEVER SAID IT. I USED THE TERM TRADE-OFF. IS THAT SO HARD TO COMPREHEND?!?! SERIOUSLY PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE READ WHAT I ACTUALLY WROTE, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE YOU KNOW. I don't think he should be paying for the "sins of his gender" or anything of the sort - you're loading up your interpretation of what I wrote to make me look (extra) bad in people's eyes, please don't.
- This gets a separate big paragraph, because it's so important. I think that society, as it is now, limits BOTH women AND men. But, right now, we're seeing it hinder females more. Men of course are not expected to realise their potential as fathers in most cases; they get shafted more often in divorce courts; the mother is *perceived to be* favoured in custody battles so men rarely bother contesting (though when they do, they're more likely to win custody than the mother); men are seen as the "expendable" gender (see warfare); and so on. This is also NOT GOOD. But look at the points re women, too. Ultimately, it (society/patriarchy) is so flawed at the moment that I can't see past the necessity of change.
- Two wrongs do not make a right. Bang on.
- Leuth isn't far wrong about the Conservatives, despite Thatcher and May. To claim Thatcher/May are beacons of feminism purely by virtue of them being female is about as accurate as to say Obama is a beacon of the civil rights movement by virtue of his skin colour. They're both... *features*, of those respective movements, in a way, granted, but not necessarily proponents of.
- There's a shut down all response answer for everything. Yours, seemingly, is to claim that any response you disagree with is a shut down all response.
I should know, I am both of these apparently.