|
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. And your language is not nuance at all : a nuanced concept is a concept that has value in specific contexts, used and valued in relation to the event / field you are studying. There is no "sexism" outside of all context, just like "men" and "women" is a diverse group impossible to define outside of all context. When I write that Angela Merkel has more power than me, I put context - a politician powerful woman is more powerful than a nameless man. In this regard, the concept of sexism as defined by sarkisian has no value.
|
On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well.
I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work.
Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means.
On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago.
People who study the related fields?
|
On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +[quote] Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields?
So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ?
|
On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:
[quote]
Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ?
Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about?
|
On March 11 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:[quote] Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ? Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about?
I'm saying there are shit ton of work that would go against your definition of sexism. I'm saying it's a poor vision on reality, made by good for nothing academics. I'm saying you can both accept that our society is structured around masculine domination without necessarily make it seem like gender relations is the only sociological eye needed to interpret what is happening. Not all men have power, sexism can go both ways, and in fact, women are more often than not the vehicule of gender stereotype and sexism.
|
On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +[quote] Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means.
The tweet, black on white, says that sexism against men doesn't exist. What word should a man use, if a he experiences discrimination on the basis of his sex?
Also, is today intent-is-magic day?
|
On March 11 2015 12:12 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ? Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about? I'm saying there are shit ton of work that would go against your definition of sexism. I'm saying it's a poor vision on reality, made by good for nothing academics. I'm saying you can both accept that our society is structured around masculine domination without necessarily make it seem like gender relations is the only sociological eye needed to interpret what is happening. Not all men have power, sexism can go both ways, and in fact, women are more often than not the vehicule of gender stereotype and sexism.
As far as I know nothing about the intended use of the new definition interferes with your objections to it.
The point is not to limit ones sociological eye through a single lens but to be aware of how many of the lenses get in front of ones eye without our knowledge and sometimes despite our fiercest objections.
The power being referenced isn't an "individuals power" as in "position of authority by title".
The difference in power is the type of power that kept women and blacks from voting.
Individual situations like a black/female president/boss doesn't reverse that underlying dynamic.
On March 11 2015 12:14 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:
[quote]
Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. The tweet, black on white, says that sexism against men doesn't exist. What word should a man use, if a he experiences discrimination on the basis of his sex? Also, is today intent-is-magic day?
"Gender based discrimination" or some variant.
|
Hey this thread is supposed to be about some women feeling discriminated by some men while playing video games... If you read the last few pages without the title, you will never draw that conclusion.
|
On March 11 2015 12:14 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:
[quote]
Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. The tweet, black on white, says that sexism against men doesn't exist. What word should a man use, if a he experiences discrimination on the basis of his sex? Also, is today intent-is-magic day?
I doesn't. Just like racism against whites as a whole doesn't exist. Specific men can be treated in a sexist manner, but sexism as a whole does not effect men as a whole. I can treated poorly by someone of another race based on the fact that I am white. Whites as a group so not have to deal with racism, as a group.
It's really not a difficult concept to understand that when dealing with large, socioty sweeping issue that broad statements are made complex topics like sexism. Getting upset about it because of a tweet just shows you really haven't read up on the subject.
|
On March 11 2015 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:12 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ? Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about? I'm saying there are shit ton of work that would go against your definition of sexism. I'm saying it's a poor vision on reality, made by good for nothing academics. I'm saying you can both accept that our society is structured around masculine domination without necessarily make it seem like gender relations is the only sociological eye needed to interpret what is happening. Not all men have power, sexism can go both ways, and in fact, women are more often than not the vehicule of gender stereotype and sexism. As far as I know nothing about the intended use of the new definition interferes with your objections to it. The point is not to limit ones sociological eye through a single lens but to be aware of how many of the lenses get in front of ones eye without our knowledge and sometimes despite our fiercest objections. The power being referenced isn't an "individuals power" as in "position of authority by title". The difference in power is the type of power that kept women and blacks from voting. Individual situations like a black/female president/boss doesn't reverse that underlying dynamic.
Yes it does. That's simple logic.
Also, you're spouting nonsense, women do not vote less than men. And man is not a title, it's a status, but society is not structure around one dimension and even if it was it is more complicated than that. Simplifying reality to no end is not the best way to resolve problems.
|
On March 11 2015 12:31 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Hey this thread is supposed to be about some women feeling discriminated by some men while playing video games... If you read the last few pages without the title, you will never draw that conclusion.
Well I'm more familiar with the racial explanation than the gender one (for obvious reasons) it's about people misunderstanding what someone says and using it to bolster the "feminist propaganda" narrative.
|
On March 11 2015 11:19 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. The quote is: "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." Now if you don't understand why this is not a given, I probably can't help you (with this, or with anything else, really). But let me explain. She makes an argument that has these 3 parts 1- Premise: Sexism = Prejudice + Power 2- Men have all the power (women have none) 3- Therefore, sexism against men is impossible because women cannot have power There are at least two problems 1- The premise does not refer to EVERY definition of sexism, in fact I don't know that any widely agreed upon definitions of sexism which necessarily require power (nor do they define what power is, but from my poli sci background (and just common sense really), power goes beyond "domination", which is my next point) 2- If we agree with the premise, then we have to consider that there are many forms of power. Power is not only complete domination - power can exist in the workspace, for instance (obviously). If a woman runs a business, she can exert her power (in that arena) and her prejudice, thus making her sexist against men. It may not be systemic sexism to the extent that the one women face, but it's sexism nonetheless. So no I don't agree that the notion of sexism, or racism, should always be from the majority to a minority. That's just a weird way to try to gain points in an argument, by preventing others from turning it back against them, by preventing nuances from being brought up. And God knows the people of the Internet don't deal in nuances. Nuances are too hard to some of these people. My point is, in the end, if we were to settle for a definition of the word "sexism" which only applied in the way which is suggested here, we'd definitely need a more neutral word to replace it, because "sexism" would've been hijacked by the proponents of a certain ideology, and would become tainted for any use by intellectuals.
I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained.
There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's [The Everyday Language of White Racism[/i] takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there.
"Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women.
"Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics.
|
^Thank you. It's going to take more than that though lol.
On March 11 2015 12:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 12:12 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ? Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about? I'm saying there are shit ton of work that would go against your definition of sexism. I'm saying it's a poor vision on reality, made by good for nothing academics. I'm saying you can both accept that our society is structured around masculine domination without necessarily make it seem like gender relations is the only sociological eye needed to interpret what is happening. Not all men have power, sexism can go both ways, and in fact, women are more often than not the vehicule of gender stereotype and sexism. As far as I know nothing about the intended use of the new definition interferes with your objections to it. The point is not to limit ones sociological eye through a single lens but to be aware of how many of the lenses get in front of ones eye without our knowledge and sometimes despite our fiercest objections. The power being referenced isn't an "individuals power" as in "position of authority by title". The difference in power is the type of power that kept women and blacks from voting. Individual situations like a black/female president/boss doesn't reverse that underlying dynamic. Yes it does. That's simple logic.
No it doesn't. I presume you'll want an example.
Think about when women travel to the middle east. It's like that only less obvious and dramatic.
|
On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on.
I'm not sure it's an issue of "oh I was once like you, you just need your eyes opened," that the tweet in general conveys a good idea. The statement is just wrong, and in an obvious and ironic way. There is a sex that sexism can't apply to? Does this make sense in any other context? Is there a race that racism doesn't apply to? A religion you can't discriminate against? A gender you can't sexually assault?
This is like the rhetorical version of haggling. It's not enough to just point out that the majority of sexism affects women, you make a hyperbolic statement that there's no such thing as sexism against men and hope the result is more people notice?
It's a pretty random tweet but I guess coincidentally it must be an important idea since you threw your weight behind it so readily.
|
On March 11 2015 12:37 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 11:19 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:01 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 10:57 Djzapz wrote:I've had this conversation too many times and it's a waste of my time. But you asked for antagonizing statements from Anita Sarkeesian, look, I don't keep a log, but if you just google "Anita Sarkeesian quotes", you get some of the more crazy generalized shit. I picked literally the first one I found, and it's pretty mild in comparison to some others. + Show Spoiler +It's not trivial, but it's not a quality statement when trying to have an intellectual discussion about the topic. I've said this several times already, but people profiting off of serious societal concerns (or "playing the race card", or falsely accusing men of rape, or any other similar issue) are a very small minority, and by mentioning it, you aren't being intellectual or profound or more nuanced. All you're doing is attempting to derail and trivialize the very serious matter that is being discussed. Ridiculous. At WORST it's part of the topic. But I think it's a bigger picture argument. This microcosm of the battle for equality is derailing the real argument. Edit: I'm fairly certain it's a fake tweet, but I'm not entirely sure. Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. The quote is: "There’s no such thing as sexism against men. That's because sexism is prejudice + power. Men are the dominant gender with power in society." Now if you don't understand why this is not a given, I probably can't help you (with this, or with anything else, really). But let me explain. She makes an argument that has these 3 parts 1- Premise: Sexism = Prejudice + Power 2- Men have all the power (women have none) 3- Therefore, sexism against men is impossible because women cannot have power There are at least two problems 1- The premise does not refer to EVERY definition of sexism, in fact I don't know that any widely agreed upon definitions of sexism which necessarily require power (nor do they define what power is, but from my poli sci background (and just common sense really), power goes beyond "domination", which is my next point) 2- If we agree with the premise, then we have to consider that there are many forms of power. Power is not only complete domination - power can exist in the workspace, for instance (obviously). If a woman runs a business, she can exert her power (in that arena) and her prejudice, thus making her sexist against men. It may not be systemic sexism to the extent that the one women face, but it's sexism nonetheless. So no I don't agree that the notion of sexism, or racism, should always be from the majority to a minority. That's just a weird way to try to gain points in an argument, by preventing others from turning it back against them, by preventing nuances from being brought up. And God knows the people of the Internet don't deal in nuances. Nuances are too hard to some of these people. My point is, in the end, if we were to settle for a definition of the word "sexism" which only applied in the way which is suggested here, we'd definitely need a more neutral word to replace it, because "sexism" would've been hijacked by the proponents of a certain ideology, and would become tainted for any use by intellectuals. I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained. There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's [The Everyday Language of White Racism takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there. "Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women. "Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics. [/i]
And in the end you've said NOTHING and you didn't adress his point which was that sexism is not necessarily from men to women because not all men in all context have power over all women in all context.
On March 11 2015 12:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:34 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 12:12 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ? Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about? I'm saying there are shit ton of work that would go against your definition of sexism. I'm saying it's a poor vision on reality, made by good for nothing academics. I'm saying you can both accept that our society is structured around masculine domination without necessarily make it seem like gender relations is the only sociological eye needed to interpret what is happening. Not all men have power, sexism can go both ways, and in fact, women are more often than not the vehicule of gender stereotype and sexism. As far as I know nothing about the intended use of the new definition interferes with your objections to it. The point is not to limit ones sociological eye through a single lens but to be aware of how many of the lenses get in front of ones eye without our knowledge and sometimes despite our fiercest objections. The power being referenced isn't an "individuals power" as in "position of authority by title". The difference in power is the type of power that kept women and blacks from voting. Individual situations like a black/female president/boss doesn't reverse that underlying dynamic. Yes it does. That's simple logic. No it doesn't. I presume you'll want an example. Think about when women travel to the middle east. It's like that only less obvious and dramatic.
What are you talking about really ?
Being a young boy in french school is harder because you are more punished and usually get less point for the same answer in test. Does it mean boy are dominated in our society ? No. Just think a little. It's really basic sociology that nothing is falsifiable and everything is always linked to a context. Sexism is not an exception.
|
On March 11 2015 12:25 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:12 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:53 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. On March 11 2015 11:42 WhiteDog wrote:
I like you're condescending tone, especially considering how empty your comment is.
Which academic community are you talking about ? Anita Sarkisian and her click ? Just because a dumb community use a dumb concept doesn't mean I have to acknowledge nor understand.
Btw, even you're exemple is dumb ; you're comparing state racism to a racist interaction. And racism =/= gender inequalities. Black feminism adressed that like forty years ago. People who study the related fields? So tell me who are those people I'm eager to know. Like Philippe Bourgeois, P. Bourdieu are not relevant ? J. Butler ? Not sure what you're trying to say? Are there specific work/quotes you are talking about? I'm saying there are shit ton of work that would go against your definition of sexism. I'm saying it's a poor vision on reality, made by good for nothing academics. I'm saying you can both accept that our society is structured around masculine domination without necessarily make it seem like gender relations is the only sociological eye needed to interpret what is happening. Not all men have power, sexism can go both ways, and in fact, women are more often than not the vehicule of gender stereotype and sexism. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:14 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 11:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:42 Millitron wrote:On March 11 2015 11:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:14 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 11:13 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:11 Djzapz wrote:On March 11 2015 11:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 11:06 Djzapz wrote:[quote] Here's another one. Took me 15 seconds. But she makes those kinds of statements fairly often. + Show Spoiler + Wait do people think that tweet is saying men can't be sexually harassed or abused or whatever? Because if you do you're wrong. No one thinks that. It's just a broad statement that's not true. She's essentially saying it's impossible to be sexist against men because sexism requires power and prejudice. As if women couldn't ever have power and prejudice toward a certain man under certain circumstances. But it has nothing to do with sexual harassment or abuse, I don't know how in hell you came to those terms. Ok, I once was like you. This message can get confused pretty easily but at the core it's really a simple concept that we should all agree on. No we should not ? It's a dumb vision. Angela Merkel have more power than me. Heck Sarkisian have more power than me. This is missing the entire point. I'll just try to get to the nitty gritty because as I said I had all the same objections you guys are thinking because the way it's said and spread isn't attached with a freakout kit. First the new definitions of racism and sexism within the academic community are not universally agreed upon. The point though, is that we need more nuanced language to distinguish the differences between hanging innocent black people in public with the not so silent nod of approval from local authorities and some black guy using a racial epithet toward a white guy on the bus. With the old definition they are both "racist" but one is a hell of a lot different than the other. It's not that one is "okay" and one isn't it's just that difference needs language. The whole "They can't be ___ist" is an (accidental) campaign to get people like you guys to learn that language. That being said some people might not understand what they are saying around this stuff regarding the new language, but the point of it isn't to try to make it seem that the group in power can't suffer the same types of direct abuse. I'm sure someone can explain it better or more thoroughly or people could do their own research but my optimism is measured lol. It seems either stupid or dishonest to use terms that the general populace will almost certainly not understand to mean what you are trying to say. Either she's really bad at getting her message across, or she is actively trying to obfuscate things. Or I guess its possible that none of your argument is true as well. I agree trying to explain the importance for nuanced language to deal with the difference between society-wide, institutionalized, subconscious, etc.. ism's in a tweet isn't going to work. Rest assured it doesn't mean what you guys think it means. The tweet, black on white, says that sexism against men doesn't exist. What word should a man use, if a he experiences discrimination on the basis of his sex? Also, is today intent-is-magic day? "Gender based discrimination" or some variant.
And this is where you have a double standard. And I'll stand by calling it vile. Ironically, it's a sexist definition of sexism.
|
I honestly don't have the patience to deal with this without getting warned or worse so I'll just let you guys do your thing. Hopefully Rui has more patience and rhetorical skill than me.
|
On March 11 2015 12:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
I honestly don't have the patience to deal with this without getting warned or worse so I'll just let you guys do your thing. Hopefully Rui has more patience and rhetorical skill than me.
To be fair, that's because you have no argument at all and lack understanding of the validity of statements in social sciences.
The idea that the society is structured around masculine domination does not mean that everything equal women are dominated in all context in our societies, nor that violence, sexism and discrimination always goes from men to women. Men can be dominated by masculine domination too, just like women can be favored by masculine domination. If you can't understand that, I'm not sure what to say.
|
On March 11 2015 12:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:37 RuiBarbO wrote:
I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained.
There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's The Everyday Language of White Racism takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there.
"Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women.
"Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics. And in the end you've said NOTHING and you didn't adress his point which was that sexism is not necessarily from men to women because not all men in all context have power over all women in all context.
To clarify, I suggested that sexism is a factor in how power is distributed---not the only factor. The observation that some women are more powerful than some men does not contradict that.
Think of it like a role-playing game: MALE gives +1 social power, FEMALE gives +0. WEALTHY gives +2 (or whatever), POOR gives -1. Add other social factors (race, sexuality, etc) as you will. A wealthy female is probably more powerful than a poor male. A poor male is probably more powerful than a poor female. Being a female is still disadvantageous, even if some women are more powerful than some men.
|
On March 11 2015 12:51 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:43 WhiteDog wrote:On March 11 2015 12:37 RuiBarbO wrote:
I agree that the comment is problematic in a context like Twitter, but more because Twitter is not the environment in which the theoretical basis for that claim can actually be explained.
There are actually several theoretical approaches to sexism in which power is very clearly a central concern. A fairly readable example is C.J. Pascoe's Dude, You're a Fag, and the additional literature is extensive. Jane Hill's The Everyday Language of White Racism takes a similar approach to racism. Again, plenty of lit out there.
"Power" is also an ambiguous term, but I think here it can be clarified. Yes, Hilary Clinton has more power than your average American man. But what we're interested in as social scientists is "how does being female affect Hilary Clinton's political, social, economic, and cultural power?" It is one thing to say, "Hilary Clinton is more powerful than I am," and another to say, "Hilary Clinton's power follows from the fact that she is female." The first is usually a given, the second is quite possibly false. In fact, one might suggest that Hilary Clinton is powerful despite the fact that she is female, a traditionally power-deprived social group. This leaves room for both sexism and powerful women.
"Men are the dominant gender with power in society" is also misleading. It can easily be interpreted in the way that you did, which is unfortunate because I'm pretty sure it means something else: that while being a female is often not helpful when one seeks power, being a male often is. This doesn't mean that all men are powerful and all women are powerless. It just means being male often reduces barriers to power. When and how this happens tends to vary based on the context, which is one reason for why people focus their gender studies on specific areas and topics. And in the end you've said NOTHING and you didn't adress his point which was that sexism is not necessarily from men to women because not all men in all context have power over all women in all context. To clarify, I suggested that sexism is a factor in how power is distributed---not the only factor. The observation that some women are more powerful than some men does not contradict that. Think of it like a role-playing game: MALE gives +1 social power, FEMALE gives +0. WEALTHY gives +2 (or whatever), POOR gives -1. Etc. Wealthy female probably more powerful than poor male. Sexism still present.
Remember, you aren't trying to show that sexism exists, but that sexism against men doesn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://manboobz.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/jbfakesarkqu.png)
