The outset let me say I am very impressed with this discussion. I am an activist feminist who is an who fought many battles in the 70’s and it wasn’t easy!
I teach prejudice awareness and sexism is one of the isms that we discuss. Words are powerful but I think your wife might have overreacted. Sexist would be if you said,“you’re woman so you don’t like football”. That would be putting down her gender. I think there is another point and that is that men who don’t like football Are thought of being less manly.
“You like football because you are a man” is a compact way of saying ‘your interest in football doesn’t surprise me, because you are a member of a group that does, in general, tend to like football, although that’s just a statistical likelihood, and there are exceptions in both directions.’
Regards,
Shodan
Yeah but that’s typical for a woman.
I suppose that depends on your opinion on football.
You are describing advantages. The idea of privilege in the context of social inequality is that one group is the privileged group and the other group is not. Clearly, between men and women as groups, it is the men who enjoy privilege. While women enjoy some advantages, their group is never the privileged group.
The Wikipedia article on “Privilege (social inequality)” lays this out neatly: “Privilege is a way of framing issues surrounding social inequality, focusing as much on the advantages that one group accrues from society as on the disadvantages that another group experiences. Privilege differs from conditions of overt prejudice, in which a dominant group actively seeks to oppress or suppress another group for its own advantage. Instead, theories of privilege suggest that the privileged group views its social, cultural, and economic experiences as a norm that everyone should experience, rather than as an advantaged position that must be maintained at the expense of others.”
I think that’s pretty accurate. It’s the reason why people can act in ways that seem racist but don’t view themselves as racist. They don’t understand why other people can’t just act the way they do and sort of write them off as “those people”.
Although I do think there is a psychological mechanism in people where we view other people as either “like us” or “not like us”. And when people aren’t like us, it triggers certain emotional responses ranging from apathy to outright anger, hate and disgust. That can be triggered by anything ranging from skin color, socioeconomic class, geography, to mundane stuff like what sports team you like.
Like I think back to college. I went to a fairly upscale private university with a pretty homogenous student body (something like 92% white). There tended to be a bit of animosity and disdain for the local people who were more working class and ethnically diverse. But even with our own class of people, our greatest hatred was for our arch-rival, another college a few towns over that for intents and purposes, was exactly the same.
Of course that wasn’t enough either. We even had to break our own rather generic white population into Greek or GDI and within Greek into an absurd number of fraternities and sororities for a school that size. All of which seemed to form a deep resentment of each other. Which of course is ridiculous since a few months prior, most of the people involved in those groups barely knew they existed.
I think people just naturally tend to form into “tribes” and find reasons to hate other tribes.
msmith537’s post made me think of this:
Black recruit with perfect score denied entry into sororities.
There’s some truth to the idea that you can’t be sexist (or anyway, sexist-in-a-bad-way) without power. But the trope “it is ideal that a man like sports, and non-ideal for a man not to like sports” comes straight out of the patriarchal power structure, and so, is a sexist-in-a-bad-way sentiment, whether said by a man or a woman.
For most utterances of “you like football because you are a man,” this is false. The statistical sense of “because” is pretty rare in general. Outside of a clarifying further statement, or some other aspect of the context that makes the natural reading implausible, a “because” statement is most naturally interpreted as causal, not statistical or inferential.
If someone tells me I like football because I’m a man, and they don’t say anything else, and there’s no aspect of the context that makes it clear that we’re talking about statistical generalizations, then what they are telling me is that my being a man causes me to like football.
Apparently there has been a change thanks to a 22-year old college student who emailed Merriam-Webster:
So the dictionary definition of racism will now include the power component. Shame it took 45 years but there are a lot of things that should have been addressed 45 (and for that matter 145) years ago lately. Better late than never.
Millions of racists will now claim they are powerless. Changing the definition of a word will not produce positive results, it just provides more excuses.
Just because Mirriam Webster has been cowed into accepting an argument does not mean it isn’t a dumb argument.
If a homeless man stood out in front of Obama’s house shouting racial slurs would that person be a racist?
If a small business owner who refused to promote well qualified black people opened up a store in an African country and flew there for the Grand Opening, would he be racist while there?
There was recently a story in the news about a white woman with an unleashed dog in a park, she was confronted by a black person who made a vague threat. She responded by calling the police. She was fired from her job and had her dog taken away. He suffered no repercussions. Who had more power in that situation?
The power argument is just a naked justification for double standards.
That’s…not what happened.
You’ve done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
I can’t agree with this notion that racism has to involve power in order to be racist. Suppose that a black man called me a chink, a gook, used his hands to make the slant-eye gesture with his eyelids and told me to “go back to China” - is that somehow not racist because he isn’t a member of a privileged/empowered group?
You have been badly misinformed about this incident and should get new news sources.
I am relying on the gentleman’s facebook account, it is probably biased. What did that get wrong?
That’s just stupid for the editors to capitulate to a lunatic political agenda.
This is getting off-topic, so very briefly, you missed the part where she called the police and lied about him threatening her, while pretending to be increasingly hysterical and alarmed, and the part where she was choking her dog, all while using her power as a white woman with the police to try and get a completely innocent black man arrested or even killed.
If you want to open up another thread to discuss your various misconceptions on this incident, I’m sure there are many people who would be happy to discuss. I’m not going to be responsible for further hijacking this thread.
Well, as we’ve seen, there are other possible ways to define the word. But I think including the “power” concept is helpful because it takes into account the ways that different types of prejudice impact their targets differently, depending on the social history of those prejudices.
[QUOTE=Velocity]
Suppose that a black man called me a chink, a gook, used his hands to make the slant-eye gesture with his eyelids and told me to “go back to China” - is that somehow not racist because he isn’t a member of a privileged/empowered group?
[/QUOTE]
Sure it’s racist, and sure it still incorporates a “power” element. Popular prejudice against Asians in American society has historically involved a drastic power differential between Asian and white racial groups: that’s what makes it specifically racism rather than just random prejudice or bigotry.
The fact that this racist discourse is being employed against you by a person who isn’t white doesn’t erase its racism. Any more than your being Asian rather than white would make it not racist if you called the black man some racist anti-black slurs.
In fact, if another Asian person called you those anti-Asian racial epithets, that would still be racist behavior.
One of the things that we as a society are slowly and painfully wrapping our heads around these days is that racism isn’t merely a question of individual feelings and intent: it’s a whole accumulation of societal baggage, and individuals who engage in racist behaviors can’t make any of that baggage go away by choosing to selectively ignore it.
The current definition from Merriam Webster
They are changing the second definition not the entirety of the entry. The third definition is not changing. So the word racism will also continue being defined without respect to a power component. The need to disambiguate which definition of the word someone is using remains.