|
On March 11 2015 12:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +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.
If the feminist agenda involves them feeling more welcome when doing something enjoyable and hobbyist, like say playing video games, that sounds like that piece at least is one we should support, right?
Men should be allowed to say they don't want to play with women if they so choose for whatever reason, like if they would like to innocently threaten other male friends with dildo slapping and whatnot for stealing your kill. But "altering" behavior around women online, if you feel like you need to, is no different than what we do in any social situation.
At work, there are things you don't say and mannerisms you shelf. With your girlfriend, you might put out a little extra charm reserved for them. Around your super-Christian grandmother, there are definitely things you choose not to say. And around your friends you are extra goofy and unfunny things are kind of funny and maybe you puff out your chest every now and then. I don't feel not being a total asshole to women for a few minutes is any more of a compromise than what we do every waking moment of our lives, except when we poop and or shower. Although there are some things you probably shouldn't do or say while pooping either. Like showering.
|
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.
Yeah and that's a false vision because being a male does not mean the same thing in all context. The concept of "power" also has no value outside of all context. A woman can be favored over a man everything equal in specific context, just like a woman can use the masculine domination as a tool to assert domination over a man. The power is not cumulative like some kind of function : different status have different power in different social fields or context.
For exemple, a woman insulting a man on his "virility" would be sexist, as the women would use the canons of the masculine domination against the man. Sexism is also possible between two woman.
|
On March 11 2015 12:53 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:51 RuiBarbO wrote: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.
Sorry, I should clarify: "sexism still present" means being a woman is still a disadvantage compared to being a man, even if some women are more powerful than some men. I'll edit that post to better reflect this.
Edit: Also, that is a fairly simplified way of thinking about things. I just wanted to clarify that that Twitter post actually did have a deeper theoretical basis to it, even if the tweet was poorly worded/presented.
|
On March 11 2015 12:53 Darkwhite wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:51 RuiBarbO wrote: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.
Just that sexism as redefined doesn't, not that the specific wrongs (which we would call sexual discrimination) don't
|
On March 11 2015 12:56 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:53 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 12:51 RuiBarbO wrote: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. Just that sexism as redefined doesn't, not that the specific wrongs (which we would call sexual discrimination) don't
Is there any utility in redefining (or perverting) the word sexism - which is a common idea - to exclude men, besides that it's easier than actually demonstrating there's no such thing as sexism against men?
|
On March 11 2015 13:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 12:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 12:53 Darkwhite wrote:On March 11 2015 12:51 RuiBarbO wrote: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. Just that sexism as redefined doesn't, not that the specific wrongs (which we would call sexual discrimination) don't Is there any utility in redefining (or perverting) the word sexism - which is a common idea - to exclude men, besides that it's easier than actually demonstrating there's no such thing as sexism against men?
It attempts to capture the difference between sexual discrimination and sexism. I think part of the problem is that people think that all the anger that 'sexism' engenders isn't captured by 'sexual discrimination'.
Perhaps some ease can be taken from the fact that people who make the distinction don't think sexual discrimination committed by one gender is a worse than when it is committed by another.
|
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake?
|
On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake?
No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination.
It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination.
Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling).
|
On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake?
Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes, talking about the terms in general, that's basically it.
|
On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling).
I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices.
And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right?
|
On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right?
Well sexism mostly exists in the media these days. There are still major barriers in institutions and one of them is pay, but we don't see them much in big companies.
In the gaming scene, there aren't many barriers for female gamers to enter into the scene per se. It's how the media or Esport analysts report on them and the sexist nature of the articles, etc is where the actual sexism is seen.
And yes, the male nurse example is due to stereotypes mainly, not really sexism. For example, the main reason why there aren't many male nurses as there are female nurses is because of the idea that nursing is a female profession and hence males have a psychological barrier to entry, but it's not actually set forth by the actual profession itself. And there aren't any tangible barriers to entry... it's from individual choice.
Another example is engineering. Not many females enter it by choice. Also the nature of the job, the highly complex mathematical and spatial problems in engineering provides a selection bias to males. Whether this is "sexist" or not is highly debatable.
The bigger and more successful the company is, the less common the incidences of sexual discrimination.
|
On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right?
It's not industry specific. If we went to a different planet exactly like ours except women and men's roles were reversed on that planet men would be the victims of sexism and men could not be sexist.
|
On March 11 2015 13:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right? It's not industry specific. If we went to a different planet exactly like ours except women and men's roles were reversed on that planet men would be the victims of sexism and men could not be sexist.
The idea of females being sexist is growing though.
|
On March 11 2015 13:58 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right? It's not industry specific. If we went to a different planet exactly like ours except women and men's roles were reversed on that planet men would be the victims of sexism and men could not be sexist. The idea of females being sexist is growing though.
As women have risen, it's true that discrimination more commonly flies both ways. More tangibly that women who discriminate can actually use that discrimination to change the victims life. It's also possible at one point that the situations could be reversed.
But the impacts of thousands of years of discrimination can't be negated indefinitely by a surge of female discrimination/power. It's not a 1:1 type calculation but it's also not something that happens in a single lifetime worth of female social superiority.
|
On March 11 2015 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:58 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right? It's not industry specific. If we went to a different planet exactly like ours except women and men's roles were reversed on that planet men would be the victims of sexism and men could not be sexist. The idea of females being sexist is growing though. As women have risen, it's true that discrimination more commonly flies both ways. More tangibly that women who discriminate can actually use that discrimination to change the victims life. It's also possible at one point that the situations could be reversed. But the impacts of thousands of years of discrimination can't be negated indefinitely by a surge of female discrimination/power. It's not a 1:1 type calculation but it's also not something that happens in a single lifetime worth of female social superiority.
True but we will reach a point that it will be almost be a 1:1 power ratio between men and women.
The only factor preventing this from reaching a 1:1 ratio is human evolutionary biology... something that wont change unless eugenics becomes institutionalized.
|
On March 11 2015 14:10 QuantumTeleportation wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 14:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:58 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right? It's not industry specific. If we went to a different planet exactly like ours except women and men's roles were reversed on that planet men would be the victims of sexism and men could not be sexist. The idea of females being sexist is growing though. As women have risen, it's true that discrimination more commonly flies both ways. More tangibly that women who discriminate can actually use that discrimination to change the victims life. It's also possible at one point that the situations could be reversed. But the impacts of thousands of years of discrimination can't be negated indefinitely by a surge of female discrimination/power. It's not a 1:1 type calculation but it's also not something that happens in a single lifetime worth of female social superiority. True but we will reach a point that it will be almost be a 1:1 power ratio between men and women. The only factor preventing this from reaching a 1:1 ratio is human evolutionary biology... something that wont change unless eugenics becomes institutionalized.
Well we have a long way between here and there so I think we'll cross that bridge when we get there?
|
GreenHorizons, the apt word to express what you're talking about would be something like "patriarchy," it's not necessary to try to prescribe a new definition of sexism that excludes men just because someone said it on Twitter.
|
On March 11 2015 14:15 oBlade wrote:
GreenHorizons, the apt word to express what you're talking about would be something like "patriarchy," it's not necessary to try to prescribe a new definition of sexism that excludes men just because someone said it on Twitter.
The message is not from twitter that's just where someone found it.
If you wanted to make the distinction by calling one "patriarchal sexism" and the other "sexism" I think that's a reasonable linguistic option it just doesn't happen to be the way the people who study it went with it.
The problem is trying to pretend they are the same thing. That's not a value judgment about which is worse just that they are distinctly different.
This is like arguing over the name of two different types of the same animal. The words we pick aren't the important part it's about making the distinction.
|
Okay, the fact that a German shepherd is not a poodle doesn't mean they aren't both dogs.
|
On March 11 2015 13:50 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? Well I don't think either explains the totality of their related issue, but yes talking about the terms in general that's basically it. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Show nested quote +On March 11 2015 13:37 QuantumTeleportation wrote:On March 11 2015 13:32 oBlade wrote:
So for example if there aren't enough women in gaming, this is a problem we can understand as sexism, and if there aren't enough male nurses, this is sexual discrimination? Or have I made a mistake? No, the numbers in themselves don't dictate any discrimination. It's the processes that take place that determines if there's any discrimination. Such as barriers to entry set up by the institutions (e.g. glass ceiling). I understand, that's a good point for those examples. So in the case of gaming it's not the populations per se, and even though more women are increasing in gaming, there's still an extra barrier to entry if they experience more hostility/harassment/abuse. Whereas it should be easy for a man to become a male nurse, but they just tend to avoid it from individual choices. And for example, if women make more money as teacher's assistants, this would be sexual discrimination. And if divorce courts favor women in custody battles, that's also sexual discrimination - am I understanding this right?
I'd suggest not thinking about it in terms of "sexism = bad for women" and "sexual discrimination = bad for men." "Sexual discrimination" isn't actually a term that I've seen used as much, but it seems like the way you're using it could be helpful. Maybe think about it more as "sexism = male is an empowered trait, female disempowered" and "sexual discrimination = cases in which sexism results in uneven outcomes for men and women."
There's plenty to think about when it comes to specific cases of what we're calling "sexual discrimination." Why might a man feel discouraged from becoming a nurse? Is it because nursing is traditionally a submissive, subservient role? Well, that's a long story for another thread. But studies of gender and masculinity have plenty to say about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
