Women Are Not Inferior: Morgan Rielly and Being a Girl About It (Article)

[thejazz97]

Obviously in this context its bad

Yes and no. If someone is more biased towards a certain gender, that's not necessarily bad. It's only bad if they start degrading the other gender. For example, Meninists and Feminazis. Meninists are highly biased against women, feminazis are highly biased against men. This is bad.

Feminism, on the other hand, is more biased towards females. Not bad, and it actually does a lot of good for society, too.

Bias isn't wrong. You'll find everyone is biased. Either that, or they're apathetic.

Side Note: People should be opinionated, no matter what their opinions are. See their side of the story. If their allegations against a group are unfounded, then show them a better way. If what they say makes sense and/or has proof, just warn them that people can get offended at what they say.

[poetica]

I am not offended that you are offended, rather, I recognize that you have the right to feel however you want regarding another individual's personal opinions or statements and encourage you to express those feelings.

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire

The only thing I find 'offensive' about this whole fiasco is the presumption that certain words and ideas are not okay. I am in control of my life, and nothing anyone says about me or my gender is going to affect what I do with my life. I can choose to let someone's else opinions affect me, or not. To say otherwise is to deny the individual's ability (at least in the developed world) to their own self-determination. Everyone will be judged by another at some point, whether it be by race, gender, appearance, material possessions, etc. I find it self-serving and somewhat delusional to believe that individuals cannot overcome these obstacles should they wish to. The idea reeks of professional victimhood, another idea I do not subscribe to.

“My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line, and kiss my ass.”

― Christopher Hitchens

More often than not, phrases like "professional victimhood" indicate someone who suffers from it themselves rather than someone who's actually identified it in others. It's often the kind of phrase used by people who don't face all of the challenges others face but still feel not only qualified to sit in judgement of those people but pat themselves on the back, congratulating themselves for winning a rigged game.

Whether you find it offensive or not, some ideas and words are NOT okay. Sometimes that's because the ideas are just vile, like the people who claim molesting kids is okay because "they like it." Sometimes that's because the words themselves are dangerous, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Sometimes that's because we recognize that words have power to influence other people's feelings and lives in very real ways. In the more extreme version, it's not okay (or legal) to say to someone, "I'm going to kill you." And in the more common version, it's not okay (though it is legal) to make racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks because those words come from and call to mind a long historical background of mistreatment, violence, and bias. It's not "professional victimhood" to point out the reality of the context, meaning, and effects those loaded words have. It's amateur victimhood to feel victimized that someone said something you didn't like about how you said something that hurt an entire group of people.

[thejazz97]

Ugh. This is just a mess.

Everyone try not to offend people and try not to be offended. It may not be the best at first but it's a step in the right direction.

[Butters Stoch]

What do you propose we use instead?

Don't be such an inferior being about it. Rolls right off the tongue doesn't it?

[Mustapha]

No one is asking anyone to walk on eggshells lest they accidentally say a phrase that could somehow be misconstrued as derogatory.

Nobody huh? I find the irony to be most humourous.

I guess 'nobody' gave Morgan Rielly so much heat over one innocent comment that he was forced to apologize, because we all know his statement was targeting women, not his team's play.

Reminds me of Dr. Matt Taylor having to apologize for his 'offensively sexist shirt' He happened to be wearing a shirt with some women in suggestive outfits. He was later pressured (some would call it bullying) into apologizing. You can argue whether or not you think it's appropriate - the fact remains that he gave into social pressure, I am assuming he feared for his reputation.

There are some ugly, nasty movements out there that say they are in favour of human rights and equality, but in reality they have an agenda that involves an erosion and redistribution of individual freedoms. Censoring ideas is generally a red flag for me, as is gender or group specific movements like third wave feminism or men's rights activism. If a movement or idea cannot include everyone equally and engage with people as individuals (not just man or woman, black or white, etc) it's bound to create divisions between groups of people with different perspectives.

[Mustapha]

More often than not, phrases like "professional victimhood" indicate someone who suffers from it themselves rather than someone who's actually identified it in others. It's often the kind of phrase used by people who don't face all of the challenges others face but still feel not only qualified to sit in judgement of those people but pat themselves on the back, congratulating themselves for winning a rigged game.

Whether you find it offensive or not, some ideas and words are NOT okay. Sometimes that's because the ideas are just vile, like the people who claim molesting kids is okay because "they like it." Sometimes that's because the words themselves are dangerous, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Sometimes that's because we recognize that words have power to influence other people's feelings and lives in very real ways. In the more extreme version, it's not okay (or legal) to say to someone, "I'm going to kill you." And in the more common version, it's not okay (though it is legal) to make racist, sexist, or homophobic remarks because those words come from and call to mind a long historical background of mistreatment, violence, and bias. It's not "professional victimhood" to point out the reality of the context, meaning, and effects those loaded words have. It's amateur victimhood to feel victimized that someone said something you didn't like about how you said something that hurt an entire group of people.

The arguments you make involving yelling 'fire in a theatre' or death threats are not relevant, as those are both actions committed directly against a person or persons, they are not opinions or beliefs. I have stated that people have a right to their beliefs, opinions, and even statements, however ludicrous they may be. However, let's not confuse opinions with actions.

Furthermore, pedophilia is a condition that isn't entirely understood, as it may be (in certain cases) a mental disorder or a sexual orientation, and in either case, although society cannot (and should not) condone their actions against children, their beliefs and opinions about who or what they find attractive should be protected as either a mental disorder or an orientation, whatever the case may be. It carries a terrible social stigma, so there is comparatively little sympathy or assistance for those afflicted by it. Keep in mind that many of them have never committed a crime, they are simply trying to find a way to function.

As for words influencing others, I can agree that words can have power, should one choose to listen to them. There are movements that espouse many different values. Regardless of what framework you see the world in, you must understand that the laws that protect free speech and association allow you (and myself) to have those views and express them.

If you truly believe that some ideas/speech are not OK, who would you trust with the power to censor society? Is there a group, a political party, a church, a person who could be given the task of holding the key to allowed expression?

I believe that any choice other than open exchange of all ideas will eventually lead to another metaphorical Bonfire of the Vanities.

[BI3KSA-]

Nobody huh? I find the irony to be most humourous.

I guess 'nobody' gave Morgan Rielly so much heat over one innocent comment that he was forced to apologize, because we all know his statement was targeting women, not his team's play.

Reminds me of Dr. Matt Taylor having to apologize for his 'offensively sexist shirt' He happened to be wearing a shirt with some women in suggestive outfits. He was later pressured (some would call it bullying) into apologizing. You can argue whether or not you think it's appropriate - the fact remains that he gave into social pressure, I am assuming he feared for his reputation.

There are some ugly, nasty movements out there that say they are in favour of human rights and equality, but in reality they have an agenda that involves an erosion and redistribution of individual freedoms. Censoring ideas is generally a red flag for me, as is gender or group specific movements like third wave feminism or men's rights activism. If a movement or idea cannot include everyone equally and engage with people as individuals (not just man or woman, black or white, etc) it's bound to create divisions between groups of people with different perspectives.

It wasn't an innocent comment. A public figure, a role model, said a sexist, derogatory phrase that implies women are inept, lazy and weak. That being a girl or women is negative and makes you inferior and less resilient than a man. Him getting backlash for that is not the same thing as having to walk on eggshells because any comment you make could be misconstrued as derogatory. His comment wasn't misconstrued, it has clear derogatory connotations and he should pick his words better if he doesn't want offended people to give him flack. It's doesn't matter where it was directed, the implication is very, very obvious and easy to grasp.

Saying he was forced to apologize is a complete assumption. For all we know he actually cares and apologized because he realizes what what he said means and feels bad for offending people.

[Tiger-Hearted]

Bleeding-heart feminism(ie. Gloria Steinem) is just as bad as male chauvinism. And male chauvinism and male pride are not the same thing.

[Mustapha]

It wasn't an innocent comment. A public figure, a role model, said a sexist, derogatory phrase that implies women are inept, lazy and weak. That being a girl or women is negative and makes you inferior and less resilient than a man. Him getting backlash for that is not the same thing as having to walk on eggshells because any comment you make could be misconstrued as derogatory. His comment wasn't misconstrued, it has clear derogatory connotations and he should pick his words better if he doesn't want offended people to give him flack. It's doesn't matter where it was directed, the implication is very, very obvious and easy to grasp.

Saying he was forced to apologize is a complete assumption. For all we know he actually cares and apologized because he realizes what what he said means and feels bad for offending people.

Let's be real. Rielly has to protect his image, and that of his team. That is why he apologized.

His comment is harmless in my opinion, but there are those who want to blow it out of context.

If you don't think SJW groups have anything to do with this, think again. Had Rielly used 'little boy' instead of girl, no one would give a crap, and that's the way it should be in my opinion.

[thejazz97]

Had Rielly used 'little boy' instead of girl, no one would give a crap, and that's the way it should be in my opinion.

Exactly. Why isn't this brought up more?

[poetica]

The arguments you make involving yelling 'fire in a theatre' or death threats are not relevant, as those are both actions committed directly against a person or persons, they are not opinions or beliefs. I have stated that people have a right to their beliefs, opinions, and even statements, however ludicrous they may be. However, let's not confuse opinions with actions.

Furthermore, pedophilia is a condition that isn't entirely understood, as it may be (in certain cases) a mental disorder or a sexual orientation, and in either case, although society cannot (and should not) condone their actions against children, their beliefs and opinions about who or what they find attractive should be protected as either a mental disorder or an orientation, whatever the case may be. It carries a terrible social stigma, so there is comparatively little sympathy or assistance for those afflicted by it. Keep in mind that many of them have never committed a crime, they are simply trying to find a way to function.

As for words influencing others, I can agree that words can have power, should one choose to listen to them. There are movements that espouse many different values. Regardless of what framework you see the world in, you must understand that the laws that protect free speech and association allow you (and myself) to have those views and express them.

If you truly believe that some ideas/speech are not OK, who would you trust with the power to censor society? Is there a group, a political party, a church, a person who could be given the task of holding the key to allowed expression?

I believe that any choice other than open exchange of all ideas will eventually lead to another metaphorical Bonfire of the Vanities.

Actually, those examples were perfectly relevant in response to your statement: "The only thing I find 'offensive' about this whole fiasco is the presumption that certain words and ideas are not okay." (Apparently the catch-22 of being offended by the idea that some ideas are offensive hasn't occurred to you.) They were examples of words that are not okay. (All words represent ideas. That's the very foundation of language.)

But speaking of not confusing actions with words, I never said anything about pedophiles specifically, only people who claim molesting children is okay. By definition of my deliberately chosen words I was talking about people who defend the act of molesting children. (You'll notice I didn't use the example of fictional stories or Japanese anime depicting the rape of children. Those would have been examples of mere ideas absent any actual action.) Despite your assumption, I didn't even specifically reference pedophiles. I referenced people who defend molesting children. Only about half of the people who molest children are actually pedophiles. The rest are just rapists who target children. And, as you pointed out, not all pedophiles actually act on their feelings or, I would add, even hold the belief that it's okay to molest children. As it happens, I actually do know a little about the subject, including how it may be a brain issue (confusing the protective instinct with the sex drive), the legal barriers they face almost everywhere in the world for getting treatment unless they have actually harmed a child, the groundbreaking work they're currently doing in Germany to treat non-offending pedophiles, and even that there are apparently online communities where pedophiles have essentially created support groups to help one another not harm children. Ironically, they have created those groups because they fully understand that it's not okay to harm children regardless of how they feel.

But isn't it interesting that you seem offended by what I said, worried that my words both reflect and contribute to the very real bias against pedophiles. Ignoring the fact that the comment I was offended by was specifically about "girls" whereas my comment was not specifically about pedophiles, how is that different from me being offended at a comment I believe both reflects and contributes to the very real social bias that can affect a group's daily lives?

Again, you may be confusing actions with words. Except where we prove a person's right to say them is outweighed by a greater concern (e.g. public safety, so you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) people have the right to say whatever they want. The law only limits certain actions against protected classes of people, including women btw. So, even if pedophiles were a protected class people would still be free to lack empathy and understanding, to be mean and hurtful and say things that both reflect and contribute to the social bias against them that harms them in very real way as a group. You know, just like you're arguing people should be free to do in regards to women.

But, here's the great news: We already have the "open exchange of all ideas" you were talking about. Rather than censoring, or disallowing people from saying things all together, we instead have conversations with one another to explain why certain words hurt and how they contribute to biases and how those biases affect people in real ways. Everyone still has free speech so it's still up to all of us to decide whether or not we care to listen, to continue to not say mean or hurtful or biased things. But by speaking out when we see bias, when we hear harmful words, we can help educate one another and hopefully help create a better society where everyone can find the empathy they need.

As is the case in any exchange, though, to get empathy you have to be willing to give it. So, if you're willing to ask for empathy for how pedophiles feel, maybe consider giving a little empathy to how women, or members of any other group, feel as well. We don't need censorship or government oversight, we just need more basic human empathy. There will always be jerks who don't care how anyone except themselves feel, but I believe that people are basically good and that when you tell them how what they say or do is harmful many will choose to at least try to not be hurtful. None of us is perfect and no one has the right to expect perfection, but what's the harm in asking people to at least try?

[thejazz97]

Actually, those examples were perfectly relevant in response to your statement: "The only thing I find 'offensive' about this whole fiasco is the presumption that certain words and ideas are not okay." (Apparently the catch-22 of being offended by the idea that some ideas are offensive hasn't occurred to you.) They were examples of words that are not okay. (All words represent ideas. That's the very foundation of language.)

But speaking of not confusing actions with words, I never said anything about pedophiles specifically, only people who claim molesting children is okay. By definition of my deliberately chosen words I was talking about people who defend the act of molesting children. (You'll notice I didn't use the example of fictional stories or Japanese anime depicting the rape of children. Those would have been examples of mere ideas absent any actual action.) Despite your assumption, I didn't even specifically reference pedophiles. I referenced people who defend molesting children. Only about half of the people who molest children are actually pedophiles. The rest are just rapists who target children. And, as you pointed out, not all pedophiles actually act on their feelings or, I would add, even hold the belief that it's okay to molest children. As it happens, I actually do know a little about the subject, including how it may be a brain issue (confusing the protective instinct with the sex drive), the legal barriers they face almost everywhere in the world for getting treatment unless they have actually harmed a child, the groundbreaking work they're currently doing in Germany to treat non-offending pedophiles, and even that there are apparently online communities where pedophiles have essentially created support groups to help one another not harm children. Ironically, they have created those groups because they fully understand that it's not okay to harm children regardless of how they feel.

But isn't it interesting that you seem offended by what I said, worried that my words both reflect and contribute to the very real bias against pedophiles. Ignoring the fact that the comment I was offended by was specifically about "girls" whereas my comment was not specifically about pedophiles, how is that different from me being offended at a comment I believe both reflects and contributes to the very real social bias that can affect a group's daily lives?

Again, you may be confusing actions with words. Except where we prove a person's right to say them is outweighed by a greater concern (e.g. public safety, so you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) people have the right to say whatever they want. The law only limits certain actions against protected classes of people, including women btw. So, even if pedophiles were a protected class people would still be free to lack empathy and understanding, to be mean and hurtful and say things that both reflect and contribute to the social bias against them that harms them in very real way as a group. You know, just like you're arguing people should be free to do in regards to women.

But, here's the great news: We already have the "open exchange of all ideas" you were talking about. Rather than censoring, or disallowing people from saying things all together, we instead have conversations with one another to explain why certain words hurt and how they contribute to biases and how those biases affect people in real ways. Everyone still has free speech so it's still up to all of us to decide whether or not we care to listen, to continue to not say mean or hurtful or biased things. But by speaking out when we see bias, when we hear harmful words, we can help educate one another and hopefully help create a better society where everyone can find the empathy they need.

As is the case in any exchange, though, to get empathy you have to be willing to give it. So, if you're willing to ask for empathy for how pedophiles feel, maybe consider giving a little empathy to how women, or members of any other group, feel as well. We don't need censorship or government oversight, we just need more basic human empathy. There will always be jerks who don't care how anyone except themselves feel, but I believe that people are basically good and that when you tell them how what they say or do is harmful many will choose to at least try to not be hurtful. None of us is perfect and no one has the right to expect perfection, but what's the harm in asking people to at least try?

So, question. If someone's whole viewpoint is harmful to society and they refuse to change, should they be allowed to have a voice? Because if you do allow them to air their ideas, hatred can be fuelled. If not, you're taking away free speech.

[poetica]

So, question. If someone's whole viewpoint is harmful to society and they refuse to change, should they be allowed to have a voice? Because if you do allow them to air their ideas, hatred can be fuelled. If not, you're taking away free speech.

People have freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences. So, for example, despite the very real harm it does to society and particular the lgbt community and their loved ones, homophobes have the right to protest outside of funerals of military veterans. Other people have the right to counter-protest or write opinion pieces in the paper calling them the disgusting, ungrateful pieces of dog feces that they are. If they choose to act on their free speech, especially in public ways, they will have to live with the consequences of other people choosing to act on their right to free speech in response.

Of course, there is a threshold where someone's right to say something is outweighed so heavily by the harm they do that they're not allowed to say it. Again we can use the example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Short of that extreme, however, people are free to say what they want even if it's harmful. But again, everyone else has the right to tell them that their words are harmful and hateful and mean.

Does biased or hurtful language contribute to hate? Yes. Is that bad for society? Yep. That's why it's important for us to have conversations with people, to respond when we think something is offensive to say, "I find that offensive and here's why." Hopefully people will change because they want to be decent people. If not, well, we're hardly the first society to have to realize some people are just arseholes.

[dank.sinatra]

Was astounded at the huge amount of posters here who don't understand this at all. Then I realized where I was. The hockey community is light years away from recognizing gender equality.

[Erik Karlsson]

As opposed to a little boy? That's the writers point. The female gender is still used as an insinuation of weakness.

Girls are physically weaker then guys, I don't see a problem here. People are so sensitive and annoying these days.

Try putting a female in the NHL, see what happens.

[thejazz97]

Girls are physically weaker then guys, I don't see a problem here. People are so sensitive and annoying these days.

Try putting a female in the NHL, see what happens.

Someone would sue for gender discrimination because she'd keep getting hit

[ckamo]

If you don't think SJW groups have anything to do with this, think again. Had Rielly used 'little boy' instead of girl, no one would give a crap, and that's the way it should be in my opinion.

Like I said, Rielly very unlikely meant for his comments to be derogatory towards women/girls. It's a phrase that is commonly used in society. The original article was harsh and over-reactionary, but it does make a point in that people should consider if they really mean what they are saying or implying.

And of course if he had said "little boy" there wouldn't be an uproar, but isn't that exactly why people were upset?

Girls are physically weaker then guys, I don't see a problem here. People are so sensitive and annoying these days.

Try putting a female in the NHL, see what happens.

Nobody should be questioning whether females on average are physically weaker than males. Mental toughness which IMO varies on a person-to-person basis and when people saying "stop being such a girl about it", that's what is being called into question.

Also, Manon Rhéaume says hi...even if it seemed like a bit of a publicity stunt. Realistically, I don't think a female skater could ever make it in the NHL.

[thejazz97]

Also, Manon Rhéaume says hi...even if it seemed like a bit of a publicity stunt. Realistically, I don't think a female skater could ever make it in the NHL.

Honestly, if anyone could, probably Hilary Knight (practiced with Anaheim once). But I'm guessing she'd stick around for maybe one season.

Even if females do make it to the NHL, they wouldn't be able to stay very long. There'd be too much pressure on them to succeed.

[Webster6]

Article? More like blog nazi.

[etsen3]

Girls are physically weaker then guys, I don't see a problem here. People are so sensitive and annoying these days.

Try putting a female in the NHL, see what happens.

He wasn't talking about physical strength though. He was talking about work ethic and mental toughness. Just because women's bodies are on average genetically weaker doesn't mean they mentally fold when facing adversity.