Random Stuff V - The Adminpire Strikes Back

[Blaze1616 he/him]

I agree that sexism runs both ways; as there should be no stigma for girls playing with trucks there should be no stigma for boys to be emotional. But I do believe the pressure on women is far greater. 

 

In America the pressure on males is tremendous, far larger than in Europe and Australia. I suspect similar levels of pressure reside on males in Islamic societies, though the male ideal is very different.

 

 

Again, I disagree with your conclusion. Many cases of individual sexism do imply a systemic issue, because it means there is something within the system allowing for those individual cases to happen. 

 

From how I understand Kipper's argument, he's saying that discussion that often result in "many, many" women sharing these kinds of stories are specifically tailored to get those women to speak out. As such, he's suggesting that we should not jump to conclusions.

 

To pose an example that is completely unrelated to the issue of sexism; a television station focused around video gaming is currently airing a talk show:

 

Host: All right, so in other news, Nintendo has announced that Xenoblade Chronicles X will be censored for the Western release. Such censorship will include editing skimpy outfits for the female characters when they are worn by the young girl character. Panelist, censorship in gaming seems to be more popular these days. What are your thoughts on how this affects the industry?

 

Panelist: *drones on as if people care what he has to say*

 

Host: All righty. We're going to go to a commercial break. While we're gone, pull out your phones and tweet us at #gamingpoll to respond to this poll: Do you think censorship is an okay practice within the gaming industry? Yes or No?

 

*breaks*

 

Host: Welcome back! Our poll results show that 83% of you think that No, censorship is not an okay practice in the gaming industry!

 

Now, I ask you, is 83% a fair result? The answer is no, it is not a fair result, because the only people who would bother responding are people who feel incredibly passionate about the issue one way or the other. Such polls occur all the time on News programs here in the US, and the results are never surprising, but serve a purpose: to get people to feel a connection to those who agree with them.

 

This issue of people only responding when they care passionately about the issue is a major problem in statistics. This is where Kipper's concern stems from. When a discussion involving women's equal rights begins, and these kinds of stories start to emerge, all of the women who don't have stories to share don't open their mouths to say so. It's only the women who do have stories to tell.

 

With that said, I too disagree with Kipper's conclusion, but his caution is warranted. To look at your example regarding Ford's issues with their brakes on some of their models, Ford only began to look and see if there was a problem once the issue arose in "many, many" situations. After looking at the problem, Ford then went and made the decision that it is safer, as a company, to solve the issue in all of the cars sold rather than to continue fixing the problem on a case by case basis. Kipper's caution, as far as I can tell, is the same as Ford's. We should continue to examine the issue before jumping to the conclusion that, because so many women have had issues, it must be true.

 

 

I realize that there's been at least three responses since I began typing. Apologies if ninja's have rendered this post pointless.

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

I don't blame you.

As far as the world lacking empathy? I believe that is demonstrably false. But that is beside the point. Even if the world were completely devoid of empathy or good will, that does not excuse us as moral agents to conflate what "is" with what "ought to be." Otherwise, we are shirking our moral responsibilities.

 

Precisely. Just because our visions of a better world might be difficult to actualize doesn't mean we shouldn't try. We won't create a utopia anytime soon, but we will make a few things better. We may fall far short of the mark, but we will improve the quality of life and allow others to pick up where we left off. 

[Delightful]

Kipper, Blaze, what evidence would be satisfactory for you to prove any kind of trend? We've ruled out polls and personal testimonies. What will you accept?

Might I suggest talking to the girls and women you know, ask them honestly what they think, what they've experienced and see what they say. Or is that also insufficient evidence?

Also, in some Islamic societies women can't drive or leave the house or do anything without the permission of a male relative, if they are raped they will be blamed and stoned. In Saudi Arabja this week women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time; that's a very different paradigm to what I'm talking about.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Guest]

. . . I'm just gonna leave now. I don't do very well with online confrontation. Have a good discussion!

I don't plan to discuss it further.    I've had my say. I believe that I'm right, and most of the entire modern feminist movement is predicated on not raising women up, but denigrating women, and telling them that they should be the same as men to be good enough. Just a few things, and then that's it, for reals. Feel free to PM me about it.

 

@Twi, your analogy about Ford is quite different than mine. The Ford issue is based on a clear factual issue, whereas sexism is often perceived where it doesn't exist.

 

I mentioned the person's race because it was important for the background of the story, or me explaining how the issue on Twitter began. If I didn't mention her race, it would have been rather confusing. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Listen, it's not people like you and Delightful that annoy me. Your complaints are valid, your arguments sound. But the vast majority of feminists I come into while blogging (the Social Justice Warriors) are just hateful people who look for any excuse to tear down men for everything they do. I don't appreciate sexism directed at me more than anyone else appreciates sexism directed at them. Fundamentally, I don't understand second-wave feminism and its ideals. As I've said several times, they seem more anti-man than pro-woman. Even now, I'm not sure how to respond to some of the arguments you bring up. I've done several debates on this topic, but I can't follow this. You put gender roles, gender discrimination, and sexism under the same umbrella, and I can't really respond to that. Plus, this isn't the best place to respond to it. 

[Guest]

Kipper, Blaze, what evidence would be satisfactory for you to prove any kind of trend? We've ruled out polls and personal testimonies. What will you accept?

Might I suggest talking to the girls and women you know, ask them honestly what they think, what they've experienced and see what they say. Or is that also insufficient evidence?

Also, in some Islamic societies women can't drive or leave the house or do anything without the permission of a male relative, if they are raped they will be blamed and stoned. In Saudi Arabja this week women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time; that's a very different paradigm to what I'm talking about.

I think that it is a mistake to call something a trend without accepting the male arguments to the contrary. The males, the ones supposedly the ones performing this trend of sexism, are often overlooked. Our arguments are discarded all too often. It's like a one-sided trial, to be honest. I'm not denying that there are examples of sexism. No, no. I'm saying that these examples do not reflect the majority of men, and it's offensive to me and all men to suggest that men are systemically sexist.

 

I have. Rarely do they feel as if there is systemic sexism among all men. Instances of sexism, yes. Systemic sexism, no.

 

...and that is all I shall say. Better blog it.

[Delightful]

Listen, it's not people like you and Delightful that annoy me. Your complaints are valid, your arguments sound. But the vast majority of feminists I come into while blogging (the Social Justice Warriors) are just hateful people who look for any excuse to tear down men for everything they do. I don't appreciate sexism directed at me more than anyone else appreciates sexism directed at them. Fundamentally, I don't understand second-wave feminism and its ideals. As I've said several times, they seem more anti-man than pro-woman. Even now, I'm not sure how to respond to some of the arguments you bring up. I've done several debates on this topic, but I can't follow this. You put gender roles, gender discrimination, and sexism under the same umbrella, and I can't really respond to that. Plus, this isn't the best place to respond to

Is someone automatically wrong because they annoy you?

I am not anti men and I don't think anyone has a reason to be.

But think about it. People are more aggressive about things that effect them personally, about fixing things that have hurt them badly. For sure some take it to far, but I don't believe it's up to us to judge them on how they express their pain. It's not about what makes us feel warm and fuzzy inside, it's about treating people right and listening to them when they say things are wrong.

sexism is often perceived where it doesn't exist

.

I don't mean this aggressively, I don't know how to say it softer.

What gives you the right to say that? If someone is, even accidentally, subconsciously because it's in all our psyches as a society, made to feel uncomfortable, then they feel uncomfortable. How can anyone stand on the outside and say "there is no discrimination going on here because I don't think so?

Listen to people. Please.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Blaze1616 he/him]

Kipper, Blaze, what evidence would be satisfactory for you to prove any kind of trend? We've ruled out polls and personal testimonies. What will you accept?

Might I suggest talking to the girls and women you know, ask them honestly what they think, what they've experienced and see what they say. Or is that also insufficient evidence?

Also, in some Islamic societies women can't drive or leave the house or do anything without the permission of a male relative, if they are raped they will be blamed and stoned. In Saudi Arabja this week women were allowed to vote and run for office for the first time; that's a very different paradigm to what I'm talking about.

 

For the record I have no issue, and actually agree with you. I have both seen and felt society's pushing of people to conform the the perceived ideals for their sex. I do not agree with Kipper's conclusion, but felt the need to explain what I understood to be his reasoning, as this is an issue that can quickly spiral into misunderstandings.

[Delightful]

I think that it is a mistake to call something a trend without accepting the male arguments to the contrary. The males, the ones supposedly the ones performing this trend of sexism, are often overlooked. Our arguments are discarded all too often. It's like a one-sided trial, to be honest. I'm not denying that there are examples of sexism. No, no. I'm saying that these examples do not reflect the majority of men, and it's offensive to me and all men to suggest that men are systemically sexist.

I have. Rarely do they feel as if there is systemic sexism among all men. Instances of sexism, yes. Systemic sexism, no.

...and that is all I shall say. Better blog it.

Women are also sexist towards themselves sometimes, it's ingrained in society. I'm not saying that people are evil, im just saying we seem to have a problem.

You also have yet to present actual arguments and proofs, you keep talking around them. Either that or I just don't understand. Can you pick up on any of my examples, or any other example and show me how you see that perceived sexism is not actually sexism?

For the record I have no issue, and actually agree with you. I have both seen and felt society's pushing of people to conform the the perceived ideals for their sex. I do not agree with Kipper's conclusion, but felt the need to explain what I understood to be his reasoning, as this is an issue that can quickly spiral into misunderstandings.

It seems I did misunderstand what you were saying. Thanks for clarifying. Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Curious Anamaximder he/him]

Alright, this thread needs some puns.

Punography

When chemists die, they barium.p

Jokes about German sausage are the wurst

I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.

How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.

I stayed up all night to see where the sun went. Then it dawned on me.

This girl said she recognized me from the vegetarian club, but I'd never met herbivore.

I'm reading a book about anti-gravity. I just can't put it down.

I did a theatrical performance about puns. It was a play on words.

They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.

PMS jokes aren't funny; period.

Why were the Indians here first? They had reservations.

We're going on a class trip to the Coca-Cola factory. I hope there's no pop quiz.

I didn't like my beard at first. Then it grew on me.

Did you hear about the cross-eyed teacher who lost her job because she couldn't control her pupils?

When you get a bladder infection urine trouble.

Broken pencils are pointless.

I tried to catch some fog, but I mist.

What do you call a dinosaur with an extensive vocabulary? A thesaurus.

England has no kidney bank, but it does have a Liverpool .

I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.

I dropped out of communism class because of lousy Marx.

All the toilets in New York 's police stations have been stolen. The police have nothing to go on.

I got a job at a bakery because I kneaded dough.

Haunted French pancakes give me the crepes.

Velcro - what a rip off!

A cartoonist was found dead in his home. Details are sketchy.

Venison for dinner again? Oh deer!

Edited December 15, 2015 by Venture Mistborn

[Guest]

I don't even know how to respond to illogic like this, and I don't have a desire to anymore.

The same arguments that you just used to undermine the validity of what I'm saying can be just as equally applied to you. I am one person. You are one person.

 

When I see a situation where sexism is claimed, I look at the situation. Using my human knowledge, I factor in what I know about sexism. Using my human brain, I come to a conclusion. I am human. You are human. I have no "right" to conclude what I conclude. I don't need a "right" to conclude what I conclude. I feel just as uncomfortable at some of the things feminists say as anyone else does. How can you stand on the outside and tell me that my discomfort is "lesser" just because you think so?

 

I am "listening to people."

 

Now this is seriously all I'm saying. When we move to personal attacks, instead of discussing ideas, I'm done.

[ChickenPlague he/him]

Hah that's so punny.

Edited December 15, 2015 by ChickenPlague

[Orlion Blight he/him]

I'm saying that these examples do not reflect the majority of men, and it's offensive to me and all men to suggest that men are systemically sexist.

 

As a man, I'm going to have to bust your pretentious position as spokesman for all men. I do not take offense to your ill defined "second wave feminism". I do not take offense to the idea that there is a systematic sexism because I want to recognize if something I do or think is biased...I want to improve myself. I'm not so full of myself that I think I am being the best person I can be, particularly because that's a life time of effort. I also do not see smoke and think, "well gee, whatever that is, it certainly isn't fire".

So speak for yourself. Don't even think to represent what I think or feel because you got it categorically wrong.

[Seonid he/him]

I don't even know how to respond to illogic like this, and I don't have a desire to anymore.

The same arguments that you just used to undermine the validity of what I'm saying can be just as equally applied to you. I am one person. You are one person.

 

When I see a situation where sexism is claimed, I look at the situation. Using my human knowledge, I factor in what I know about sexism. Using my human brain, I come to a conclusion. I am human. You are human. I have no "right" to conclude what I conclude. I don't need a "right" to conclude what I conclude. I feel just as uncomfortable at some of the things feminists say as anyone else does. How can you stand on the outside and tell me that my discomfort is "lesser" just because you think so?

 

I am "listening to people."

 

Now this is seriously all I'm saying. When we move to personal attacks, instead of discussing ideas, I'm done.

 

Kipper, your arguments are coming off as essentially telling other people that they haven't had their experiences. That why Delightful is questioning your right to say that - she feels that you are saying "you didn't actually experience what you felt you experienced." And her response is "I'm the only one who really knows what I did and did not experience. What gives you the right to tell me that my experience didn't happen?" You seem to be conflating Delightful with a host of other (non-present) people who you disagree with. I should be working on my final paper, so I'm not interested in putting down my thoughts on this subject right now. I will just say this - feminism is a broad movement, like civil rights was. It includes both extremists and moderates, conservatives and liberals, pro-choice and pro-life, progressive and conservative, etc. If you find certain extremists distasteful, most of us do (it's in the nature of extremism to be distasteful to most folks). That doesn't mean the whole movement should be judged on the merits of the extremists.

[Delightful]

I don't even know how to respond to illogic like this, and I don't have a desire to anymore.

The same arguments that you just used to undermine the validity of what I'm saying can be just as equally applied to you. I am one person. You are one person.

When I see a situation where sexism is claimed, I look at the situation. Using my human knowledge, I factor in what I know about sexism. Using my human brain, I come to a conclusion. I am human. You are human. I have no "right" to conclude what I conclude. I don't need a "right" to conclude what I conclude. I feel just as uncomfortable at some of the things feminists say as anyone else does. How can you stand on the outside and tell me that my discomfort is "lesser" just because you think so?

I am "listening to people."

Now this is seriously all I'm saying. When we move to personal attacks, instead of discussing ideas, I'm done.

There is no personal attacking going on here. apologies if it came across that way.

I still don't understand what proof you will accept of a trend, or what examples of claimed sexism that wasn't sexism you are basing your statements on.

And I'm not saying that because you don't think there is sexism, you're wrong. I'm saying, that no one except for the woman who is saying she feels uncomfortable, has a right to say how she feels. It's impossible to tell someone that they're experiencing wrong.

Maybe there's sexism, maybe there isn't, but it's worth it to do what you can to make people feel safer and more comfortable.

I think we're just going to go around in circles here. If you can more clearly explain yourself im more than willing to listen. Until then, I bid you good day sir.

Edit: Seonid you're correct in what I was trying to say.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Guest]

As a man, I'm going to have to bust your pretentious position as spokesman for all men. I do not take offense to your ill defined "second wave feminism". I do not take offense to the idea that there is a systematic sexism because I want to recognize if something I do or think is biased...I want to improve myself. I'm not so full of myself that I think I am being the best person I can be, particularly because that's a life time of effort. I also do not see smoke and think, "well gee, whatever that is, it certainly isn't fire".

So speak for yourself. Don't even think to represent what I think or feel because you got it categorically wrong.

I didn't represent what you think or feel. Feel free to speak for yourself. Everyone, in conversation, refers to people as groups, and analyzes certain waves of thought in those groups. Don't assume that just because I say what I think of a certain group, I'm "pretentiously" dictating what you think.

If there was a personal attack in what Delightful said, it was so buried I still can't find it.

She basically told me that I did not have a right to think what I think about sexism, which is very wrong and rude, I think. I responded in turn by saying that her same arguments can be applied to her. They can. Do you agree with her? Do you think I have no right to think a certain thing about sexism? If so, why? And why am I the one that has no right?

This post is so rude I'm not going to respond to any more of its points.

I hope you understand that I didn't mean it in rudeness, and if it was a little hasty, it was because I felt that Delightful was being very rude to me. I never told anyone that their opinions were invalid.

Kipper, your arguments are coming off as essentially telling other people that they haven't had their experiences. That why Delightful is questioning your right to say that - she feels that you are saying "you didn't actually experience what you felt you experienced." And her response is "I'm the only one who really knows what I did and did not experience. What gives you the right to tell me that my experience didn't happen?" You seem to be conflating Delightful with a host of other (non-present) people who you disagree with. I should be working on my final paper, so I'm not interested in putting down my thoughts on this subject right now. I will just say this - feminism is a broad movement, like civil rights was. It includes both extremists and moderates, conservatives and liberals, pro-choice and pro-life, progressive and conservative, etc. If you find certain extremists distasteful, most of us do (it's in the nature of extremism to be distasteful to most folks). That doesn't mean the whole movement should be judged on the merits of the extremists.

I never disputed anyone's experiences. I was arguing that systemic sexism doesn't exist in the same way as is argued. I specifically said that Twilight and Delightful weren't wrong. I said their complaints were valid, and their arguments. I specifically said that I wasn't arguing against people's experiences. I differentiated people here as opposed to people I interact with while blogging.

Edit:

@Delightful

1. I don't dispute ANY of the experiences in the document.

2. I don't dispute ANY of your experiences.

3. I don't dispute ANY of the experiences that females bring up as sexism, unless they specifically involve me.

But other people do. It seems that the male side of this whole debate is shut down. Not all cases are as clear-cut as, say, yours with the Spiderman game. Most men would dispute that they are being sexist. So sure, the women can call "sexism," but if the men know that they are not being sexist, what then? What do you think feels worse, being the object of sexism, or being vilified as a sexist when you know that you aren't a sexist? Personally, I think they're about the same. And I don't like being told that there is systemic sexism when most men would strongly dispute that they are sexists. Yet there is no reasonable debate on this issue. When I say this, I get told "What right do you have to say that there isn't systemic sexism?" Well, uh...I have every right to say that.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Guest

[Seonid he/him]

I didn't represent what you think or feel. Feel free to speak for yourself. Everyone, in conversation, refers to people as groups, and analyzes certain waves of thought in those groups. Don't assume that just because I say what I think of a certain group, I'm "pretentiously" dictating what you think.

She basically told me that I did not have a right to think what I think about sexism, which is very wrong and rude, I think. I responded in turn by saying that her same arguments can be applied to her. They can. Do you agree with her? Do you think I have no right to think a certain thing about sexism? If so, why? And why am I the one that has no right?

 

I hope you understand that I didn't mean it in rudeness, and if it was a little hasty, it was because I felt that Delightful was being very rude to me. I never told anyone that their opinions were invalid.

I never disputed anyone's experiences. I was arguing that systemic sexism doesn't exist in the same way as is argued. I specifically said that Twilight and Delightful weren't wrong. I said their complaints were valid, and their arguments. I specifically said that I wasn't arguing against people's experiences. I differentiated people here as opposed to people I interact with while blogging.

 

I'm not saying that you did. I'm saying that that's how you came off. I'm saying that the way you are arguing is giving that impression to the people here. I'm saying that that's the takeaway people are getting from what you said.

[Delightful]

I didn't represent what you think or feel. Feel free to speak for yourself. Everyone, in conversation, refers to people as groups, and analyzes certain waves of thought in those groups. Don't assume that just because I say what I think of a certain group, I'm "pretentiously" dictating what you think.

She basically told me that I did not have a right to think what I think about sexism, which is very wrong and rude, I think. I responded in turn by saying that her same arguments can be applied to her. They can. Do you agree with her? Do you think I have no right to think a certain thing about sexism? If so, why? And why am I the one that has no right?

I hope you understand that I didn't mean it in rudeness, and if it was a little hasty, it was because I felt that Delightful was being very rude to me. I never told anyone that their opinions were invalid.

I never disputed anyone's experiences. I was arguing that systemic sexism doesn't exist in the same way as is argued. I specifically said that Twilight and Delightful weren't wrong. I said their complaints were valid, and their arguments. I specifically said that I wasn't arguing against people's experiences. I differentiated people here as opposed to people I interact with while blogging.

I didn't say you didn't have a right to an opinion about sexism, I said you don't have a right to tell someone they were experiencing wrong:

When I see a situation where sexism is claimed, I look at the situation. Using my human knowledge, I factor in what I know about sexism. Using my human brain, I come to a conclusion.

It sounds like you are saying that you judge the situation and you conclude wether the person speaking out about sexism is justified in speaking. And I'm saying that it's not your right, or my right, or anyone's right except the speaker to talk about what happened to her and how she experiences it.

Where was I rude?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Guest]

See my edit above, it might explain things a little better.

@Delightful That's not how any other venue works, though. In courts, the plaintiff isn't the only one who gets to talk. The judge doesn't hand down a conviction because the plaintiff says that a certain conviction is deserved. Yet when it comes to sexism, nobody seems to really care about what the male has to say. The debate is largely skewed to one side, because the offended people take to social media and express their indignation. There is never an opportunity for the alleged agressor to give their arguments to the contrary. Isn't that true?

[TwiLyghtSansSparkles she/her]

Edit:

@Delightful

1. I don't dispute ANY of the experiences in the document.

2. I don't dispute ANY of your experiences.

3. I don't dispute ANY of the experiences that females bring up as sexism, unless they specifically involve me.

But other people do. It seems that the male side of this whole debate is shut down. Not all cases are as clear-cut as, say, yours with the Spiderman game. Most men would dispute that they are being sexist. So sure, the women can call "sexism," but if the men know that they are not being sexist, what then? What do you think feels worse, being the object of sexism, or being vilified as a sexist when you know that you aren't a sexist? Personally, I think they're about the same. And I don't like being told that there is systemic sexism when most men would strongly dispute that they are sexists. Yet there is no reasonable debate on this issue. When I say this, I get told "What right do you have to say that there isn't systemic sexism?" Well, uh...I have every right to say that.

 

People don't get to decide whether or not someone was hurt. If I tell someone, "Hey, you hurt my nose when you punched it," they don't get to say "Your nose wasn't hit." They can say, "I wasn't the one who hit you," or "I hit you on accident," or any number of things, but they don't get to deny that the problem exists when I'm standing there with a bleeding nose. 

 

Sexism is harder to spot, definitely. It doesn't always leave visible marks. But if a man hurts a woman with sexism—even and especially if it's unintentional—he doesn't get to say he didn't hurt her. He can say it was unintentional, because it may very well have been, but he doesn't get to deny the problem exists. 

[Delightful]

An alleged aggressor in most cases I believe could get into social media and speak for themselves, no?

A nuance that we're seeing differently: it's possible for someone, anyone, to be sexist and not realise it. That doesn't mean they are inherently an (evil?) sexist person. Like I said, there's a lot of sexism deeply ingrained in society. You can be sexist without realising it; ignorance isn't the problem. The problem is assuming that you weren't sexist (or rude or racist or discriminatory etc etc) because you didn't think you were. Which doesn't mean that a person is always unknowingly offensive. It means that it's possible, and someone isn't immediately a villain for not understanding; when they refuse to even try understand, and/or won't listen to/disregards what the hurt person is tryinng to tell them, is when you start having a real problem.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Guest]

People don't get to decide whether or not someone was hurt. If I tell someone, "Hey, you hurt my nose when you punched it," they don't get to say "Your nose wasn't hit." They can say, "I wasn't the one who hit you," or "I hit you on accident," or any number of things, but they don't get to deny that the problem exists when I'm standing there with a bleeding nose. 

 

Sexism is harder to spot, definitely. It doesn't always leave visible marks. But if a man hurts a woman with sexism—even and especially if it's unintentional—he doesn't get to say he didn't hurt her. He can say it was unintentional, because it may very well have been, but he doesn't get to deny the problem exists. 

I realize that. But even so, if a person is hurt, that doesn't automatically mean that sexism is to blame. I'm not disputing that people are hurt. That's stupid. People are hurt, daily. Still, that doesn't mean that the person has a right to make a declarative statement saying, "You are sexist." But that's what people do, all the time. Then when (if the man gets to talk) the man gets to talk, the woman phrases his position as "denial," and says something like, "You're just denying the problem exists. You really are sexist."

 

What the man hears: "Listen to me tell you what you are. No, you can't tell me that I'm just being offended. I know what you did better than you know what you did. You didn't have a completely different reason for your action. No, it was sexist, and you are being even more sexist by denying your sexism."

 

This is what that argument sounds like when I hear it. And when a lot of other people I know hear it.

 

Again, I am not addressing any specific instance.

 

An alleged aggressor in most cases I believe could get into social media and speak for themselves, no?

 

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't quite work that way. On social media, if a man did that, the consequences would not be pretty. Men get death threats for doing things like that.

 

A nuance that we're seeing differently: it's possible for someone, anyone, to be sexist and not realise it. That doesn't mean they are inherently an (evil?) sexist person. Like I said, there's a lot of sexism deeply ingrained in society. You can be sexist without realising it; ignorance isn't the problem. The problem is assuming that you weren't sexist (or rude or racist or discriminatory etc etc) because you didn't think you were. Which doesn't mean that a person is always unknowingly offensive. It means that it's possible, and someone isn't immediately a villain for not understanding; when they refuse to even try understand is when you start having a real problem.

See what you're doing though? You're setting the terms of the debate already. You're saying to one person, "You are sexist, but you don't even realize it. In fact, you're making a mistake in assuming that you aren't sexist." That's my issue here. When people say stuff like that, and set the terms of the debate on their side from the beginning. That is not conducive to healthy conversation.

[Delightful]

That's what I'm saying, it's not a conscious reason. It's not malice. It's not a debate. It's people who feel uncomfortable based on their gender, and are asking for that to be recognised and accommodated. If I feel uncomfortable, it doesn't matter if you think I'm justified in feeling so. That's how I feel. Of course your perspective is equally valid, but any discussion has to be based on hearing and accepting the other persons view as completely valid as well. I guess a healthy discussion would be for the "aggressor" to accept the "victims" opinion and for the "victim" to accept that it may not have been intentional.

There's a difference between ascribing a motive, and saying that the action itself was hurtful. A person can easily be sexist by accident; I think it takes more effort for *everyone* to not be sexist (or racist etc) myself very much included.

Re death threats: true. Bullying is horrible. Women also get death threats for expressing opinions. That people feel free to issue death threats is possibly a separate social issue entirely.

Edited December 15, 2015 by Delightful

[Delightful]

Back to randomness, I'm sitting next to a computer that sounds like it's snoring.

[Kobold King he/him]

How I feel whenever I come back online to find the ashes of a mighty forum argument:

 

[Guest]

That's what I'm saying, it's not a conscious reason. It's not malice. It's not a debate. It's people who feel uncomfortable based on their gender, and are asking for that to be recognised and accommodated. If I feel uncomfortable, it doesn't matter if you think I'm justified in feeling so. That's how I feel. Of course your perspective is equally valid, but any discussion has to be based on hearing and accepting the other persons view as completely valid as well. I guess a healthy discussion would be for the "aggressor" to accept the "victims" opinion and for the "victim" to accept that it may not have been intentional.

There's a difference between ascribing a motive, and saying that the action itself was hurtful. A person can easily be sexist by accident; I think it takes more effort for *everyone* to not be sexist (or racist etc) myself very much included.

Re death threats: true. Bullying is horrible. Women also get death threats for expressing opinions. That people feel free to issue death threats is possibly a separate social issue entirely.

I'm not addressing whether you have a right to feel uncomfortable. It's enough that you do.

 

Where we differ is this: I view a healthy discussion as one where the "aggressor" accepts the "victim's" opinion and the "victim" accepts that it may not have been sexism. It's not enough to "accept that it [sexism] may not have been intentional." For a healthy discussion, the "victim" must not begin by assuming that the "aggressor" was sexist. The victim should start from "I was offended by x" and let the