...I have no dog in this fight: I have already said I am not personally offended BUT a lot of women were. So I don't buy the argument that some arbitrary number of people need to be offended before it becomes real...
I completely follow. I generally don't have a dog in the fight either. As I noted in one of my earliest post, I/we in general expect a certain level of judgement at these high echelon positions.
However, I think there really is a number/critical mass of "offended" that needs to be considered. Say, 1, 2, 3 or 20 individuals (male/female/ethnic/non-ethnic/etc...) were offended where several thousands found no offense. Do the numeric minority of offended determine and/or sensor the topics of discussion? Do they determine the termination of an individual's career? I don't have the answer, but I think we need to be realistic and absolutely must consider the real extent of "offense" if any? I would hate the ACS to become so politically correct that it/we are paralyzed because some PART of some segment may become offended.
...What I was referring to were the comments above and elsewhere from *men* who said either that women shouldn't find it offensive, it wasn't offensive, etc. I don't think that's one's place to say. Just as it would not be right for me to say, "those women shouldn't be offended", it isn't right for men to do so, especially when I think it reasonable to view this as more relevant to women...
Again, I follow that. But, the point is that men can and should have an opinion too. The issue of sex is two way streak. Men may be donating the fluid and women receiving. I find it a mistake to presume this is purely a "woman issue". The fact is that the complaints circle around the idea of bodily fluid from MEN to WOMEN. Men caan have an opinion and their right to opinion should not be contingent upon agreeing with those offended. This article aside, we all see things in which we formulate an opinion as to whether someones reaction is appropriate. The world of PC seems to dictate everyone's feelings absolutely must be accepted and/or validated as if reasonable. Short of winning a court battle, it seems we are no longer able to rationaling consider data and/or formulate an opinion that someone is overeacting or oversensitive or simply out to lunch. Curiously though, such PC limits only apply to public issues... because, otherwise we would be socially paralyzed. I want to meet the individual that walks through daily life fully validating, accepting, and affirming everybodies opinions/feelings... Hell, that isn't even happening in this thread... at the exact time that we are told we can not judge the opinions of others (i.e. form our own opinions).
...My concern is that we shouldn't be deciding for OTHERS what is offensive and what isn't. If someone is offended, it is NOT "their problem" but rather we need to evaluate why they are offended and what role we play in that...
But, we do decide everyday on a regular basis. And, while not always, it is not uncommon that someone being offended is actually "their problem". That is part of why we "evaluate why they are offended and what role we play in that". We may play no substantive role other then we spoke reasonably. Again, the specific article aside, there are many with numerous issues that generate a sense of "offense". We should consider why. We should consider if the "offended" individual/s is an outlier or not. I have seen individuals offended when I was talking to buddies about a great drinking night out.... On differing occasions, the offended individuals then informed us how they were recovering alcoholics or their friend/family/etc... was an alcoholic or their friend/family member was in a DUI. The examples go on and on... should we take a poll and/or screen the population for general discussions. I would argue, in the case of individuals with personal background issues, their being offended is more to do with them then the general conversation. And, again, I am speaking generally and not directly to the Greenfield editorial.
...so why are we trying to determine for other people...what they should be offended about? Should Greenfield have gotten a free pass because of his position, his fame? If anything, he deserves a harsher punishment because the expectations are higher for someone of his reputation...
That is simple.... because that really is the determinant of the assuring the "punishment fits the crime". I don't believe anyone should get a "free pass" because of reputation or wealth or social/political status. But, this does in general terms boil down to someone charged with committing an improper act and as a result paying a penalty. We are a professional community (ACS). "We" should set standards, which by their nature establish what may be proper or ~respectable determination of violation of standards, i.e. "what [someone] should be offended by" in order to expect some justice/social restitution/etc.... That is life.
...So my point was not to imply that men shouldn't comment on this topic but rather I don't think they should be assuming they know what the majority of women really think or are offended by, nor does anyone here know what Greenfield *really* thinks and believes...
I generally agree. I don't know what anyone else thinks male/female/transgender/etc.... I definately don't know what LG thinks or thought when writing that article (though it is sad that it appears little effort was put into clarification on that front). I can only go by life experience and use that to hopefully form ~educated judgements of what is reasonable. I can tell you that every female I have spoken to [including WS] has expressed a lack of offense to the editorial.
...I do get tired of the narcissistic attitude that "because I think X, so does everyone else"...
Me too. But, sadly, we often find that position, IMHO, most pronounced in the feminist/PC/"I'm a victim" ranks of society. I prefer to hear people out but will not be forced/paralyzed in just accepting....
...Plenty of people were offended and regardless of Greenfield's accomplishments, he *and the editorial board* deserved censure and as I noted above, the writing was on the wall for his position with ACS days ago.
The statement of "plenty" and "deserved" are fairly definitive judgements to make. It is even more interesting for such a definitive indictment to be made by someone that self-proclaims a lack of offense at the conduct. It begs a question as to what facts that definitive position/conviction is based upon.....
I guess it would be nice to define "plenty"? Do you have an estimate/number? Was it accross the board groups offended? Again, such a comment presumes facts I don't have, do you? Cause, most of the discussion on this forum suggests, even from female posters defending the right of others to be offended, that they are NOT offended. Honestly to say someone or some group deserves a punishment really needs a basis more then just a generalize assumption. The ACS has repeated significant replies/complaints. Have they reported anything on the counter as to those that did not find offense? I don't know. But, I think we should act rational and behave in more of an "evidence based" fashion. I would hope ACS sets policy and positions on a broader basis then simply the loudest group at a given time. Maybe they did just that in this situation... however, NOBODY has presented any data/facts/details to support such an assumption. Rather, this discussion and the topic in general seems more based in emotional outrage by some unknown number of unknown composition. And, as I noted, I do find it offensive to presume that this, from an "offense" perspective is mostly owned by women.... that position is tiresome, especially when it comes to sex issues that require male and female.