If you’re saying ‘pick your battles’, then fine but what I’m getting at is stuff now that is deemed far less controversial once upon a time was far more so and would have fit your description of being too unrealistic a battle to fight.
Economically, not everyone has the option, realistically, of walking away from a job. In academia I’ll ideally have some degree of choice for a job, but it’ll be fairly limited and made with the knowledge that I have tens of thousands of dollars of student loan debt hanging over my head. And I’m someone without a mortgage or kids to worry about. It’s also difficult to know what the internal culture of an employer is like until you’re in it, and job-hopping too many times is seen as a negative for a lot of potential new employers. And that’s before bringing things like active discrimination or harassment that might make it more difficult for some people to say “I’m out of here, good luck to the next person.” Relying on the capitalist solution of trusting the market to solve social problems can be a part of that (see the bus strike) but doesn’t necessarily work out on its own - especially since, by definition, the people most negatively affected are often a small enough part of the population that they can easily be ignored.
A quote misattributed to Groucho: “I will never belong to a club that will accept me as a member.”
People are strange.
That is precisely my point: The difference between “now” and “once upon a time” is the time that has passed in between those 2 periods. Sometimes you just need to let time do its job. Yes, I know it’s not optimal for people who want change “now”, but sometimes it’s just inevitable.
Well yeah but that’s really just a question of how much you care about an issue vs how much you care about your own well being, isn’t it? Historically, people who have effected change, have also sacrificed. They’re called “hard choices” because they’re hard, after all.
Sure, it’s not an optimal solution, but no solution is. In the end, as much of an anti-capitalist as I might be, even I know that if you really want something to change, you need to target the money, because it’s all about the money.
Now, you do you (I mean generally speaking, not you specifically) of course, but my opinion is that if it’s something you really care about, you should also be able to find a way. If for you that means trying to change stuff from the inside, well I guess good luck, but don’t get your hopes up, 'cause that doesn’t work all too often, unfortunately.
Sure, but again I think that’s overstated. The men only clubs that we’re talking about are less about doing business and keeping horrible girls away and instead more about forgetting about the world for a few hours and keeping horrible girls away. I’m talking mostly about golf places for 50 something white rich guys. Hiring on the golf course or avoiding talented women isn’t what it used to be.
While discrimination in the workplace isn’t completely resolved I think it’s already significantly reduced. Given the social media narrative of the last few years you’d think it was rampant and growing rather than rare and dying.
Vigilance is important to be sure, to make sure when this generation retires things don’t revert back. Not that I can see that happening. I think there’s an over vigilance though, catching up folks and places that are perfectly innocent.
Bigoted white men is starting to feel like radical Muslims, where a swathe of regular people are targeted for the action of a tiny minority. Language isn’t used to couch attacks on white men in the same way at one time is wasn’t couched on attacks on other groups. I also think rich white guys have become the convenient scapegoat for this generation where almost every problem is pinned on them as the cause. Maybe the tables are just turning, but I can’t help but think fighting fire with more fire is a bad idea.
I try to start from a point of assuming ignorance (not in the pejorative sense of the word), which is where my “how hard is it to apologize?” question comes from. I’m not assuming that Hart is a raging homophobe, or that most old white guys are racist/homophobic, just that in some cases they might have never had reason to consider things from another perspective, so saying something might motivate that (whether on social media, in groups, or in the work place). I’ve changed my perspective on a lot of things out just become far more conscious of my own behavior through those things - everything from being one of those “chicks are crazy/wah! Friend zone” guys to not being aware of talking over women in classes or meetings.
And not everyone is patient about it (and I’m not always, either) so there’s obviously some overvigilance at times.
Time by itself tends to favour the status quo.
When there are fundamental shifts in social or cultural attitudes over time, it’s usually not because they were intrinsically inevitable, it’s the cumulative effect of thousands of small changes reaching a tipping point.
(Lorax philosophy if you like)
I think time stopped fairing the status quo around the start of the Industrial Revolution.
That’s absolutely not true and you only need to look at something as mundane as fashion trends to see how time definetly favours change always (the time it takes might’ve varied in the past, but it still favoured change in the end).
That’s usually what we mean by the effects of “the passing of time”, though… not that “time” itself reaches out to change stuff, obviously… u_u
Exactly. It’s not “time doing its job” inevitably, it’s people standing up to make things change.
If there are no people making the small changes, then the big fundamental social and cultural changes don’t follow.
Yeah, this is getting circular. So instead of going back to my argument of “pick your battles” and “pick the scale of your battles”, I’ll just go ahead and leave it there… I said my piece, you’re all free to agree or disagree with it.
I think it’s more that we aren’t saying anything particularly different to be honest. I’d rephrase this:
as “Sometimes you just need to let other people do the job for you” perhaps.
Yes, sometimes… nothing wrong with that. As Monk said, some people are not in a position to do it, for x or y reason.
Changes come in all shapes and forms, not all of them are intentional either. Something as natural and inevitable as death is also part of change and time. Eventually a lot of problematic CEOs and people in power will just die and younger, different people will take charge, and so on and so on. Yes, small changes will pile up eventually… and each one of us decides how much change you’re willing to contrubute to.
My inital point is that it’s VERY HARD to change a person. In any context. So, sometimes it’s just easier to wait them out (as in to wait for them to die OR to be out of power/influence in case it’s not clear).
Do you think some of that might also be the passage of time and maturity at play? I probably (Sadly) made gay jokes when I was in high school in the 90s; I wouldn’t now regardless of who I was around.
To an extent there’s natural “code-shifting” though, right? I know for a fact that women talk differently around exclusively other women than they do in mixed company. I speak and act differently at work than I do at home with the wife, and differently again with my family.
It’s also long been a narrative that men need to get involved - but apparently not like that!
“You taped over Taggart” is one of my favourite suggestions
(admittedly might need a bit more British-specific context to work )
No; I came out to most people relatively recently so that wasn’t really a factor.
As I said, I do a bit of work in this area, mainly focused on LGBT+ people’s health outcomes and access to healthcare. Because I’m a paediatrician, a lot of that is then further focused on children and young people. Again, despite all the social and legal advances, LGBT+ children and teenagers can still have a pretty rough deal of it in 21st century Britain (or America, or Australia…)
In the UK, Stonewall produce research around this. Their School Report gives an overview of what life is like if you’re a child or teenager who identifies as LGBT+ in the UK today. You can get an overview of it here: https://twitter.com/i/moments/1041368123302141953
and the whole report is here: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/the_school_report_2017.pdf
The “It Gets Better” movement in the US rose from similar data looking at poorer mental health in LGBT+ teenagers, driven mainly by the significantly increased risk of self-harm, and attempted and completed suicide, in LGBT+ teenagers compared to their peers.
Absolutely, and that’s the principle I think Gadsby is talking about, just applied in this context (and again, why I’m surprised Jim hasn’t seen it at all)
Speaking of sexism and all that - I watched Rush Hour 2 with the kid yesterday, and man for a late nineties movie, that film’s attitude towards women was terrible. Not to mention that it’s really hard now to watch a Brett Ratner movie now and not think about all that stuff anyway.
Are you refer to the original RH? RH2 is 2001 movie I think. Speaking of Rush Hour, I watched those movies countless times but always forgot them, despite Tucker and Chan have good chemistry.
Reportedly, in RH2, Brett Ratner told Tucker to call Zhang Ziyi character “bitch”, during their final confrontation. The line “you’re one crazy ass bitch!” is not even in the script. Though I gotta admit, I lmao on that.
Yeah, I confused the years of origin, but 2 was the one we saw.
Had a dinner conversation last night about 80s movies and how all of the sex scenes in our favorites were basically rape scenes.
I forgot to mention in best movies of the 80s thread, some of the tropes and jokes were pretty much common then, and would probably be considered dated or rude now. Don’t say for sure, but maybe. Like one guy written on youtube how he went to see Beverly Hills cop 2 in theaters with his gf; the latter complained about “women” line from the movie, saying it is sexist, all way back to home. The man concluded “that was the last time I’ve been with that girl”.