No, it proves that I don’t agree with you. Nor does most of humanity, few of whom would recognize your definition of “sexism”.
Really, the main thing that definition does is hand ammunition to the enemies of women’s rights; it’s exactly how someone who wanted to denigrate feminists would portray feminists as believing. If as a man I had said that’s what feminists think, I’m sure I’d have been accused of sexism and misogyny and dishonesty and so on.
Well, you do have a habit of telling us all the ridiculous reprehensible things that “feminists” allegedly think, based on that one conversation you had 30 years ago. Thinking that sexism can only be directed at women, but that gender discrimination can be directed at both genders is only crazy because you evidently think that logic leads to the approval of mass murder of men as being acceptable. Please, tell me which one of those two messages is insane.
But you know, we were having a nice nuanced discussion that many people were participating in until you showed up to tell us how our thinking inevitably excuses mass slaughter of men. Maybe somehow, we could go back to that before time.
I frankly don’t believe you. And even if it is true, all it illustrates is that there’s at least one woman capable of making the same exaggeratio ad absurdum conclusions that you frequently do.
That is exactly what it does. The mass murder of men is and always has been more acceptable than killing women - and your viewpoint denies that that is sexist. Your are setting up “sexism” as a privileged term that only applies to actions against the gender you regard as superior, a higher being: women. And demanding that a second, lesser term be applied to actions against men, regardless of how brutal those actions may be.
No, it doesn’t.
You’re just having the same definitional discussion we have had for 5 pages except trying to inflame the discussion by accusing me of being pro-man slaughter. It would be offensive if it weren’t so honestly disturbing. I also like how you’ve made sexism some sort of privilege, as though it’s a “special” and “desirable” term to have, ooh, so shiny and pretty, no! Only for women!
And finally disgusted me enough I had to respond.
No, that’s what your side did in trying to redefine it.
Yes, Der, we know how disgusted you are. Not about man-slaughter, but that women are the recipients of a special form of discrimination that you can’t get your hands on. However, as zweisamkeit noted, this is the sociological definition of sexism. Saying sexism is simply gender discrimination is incomplete. It requires that the discrimination have an institutional and power disparity component. My “side” isn’t trying to redefine anything. I know how much you hate it.
I’ve been unable to find a source for the “sociological definition of sexism” that states that sexism cannot mean sexism against men that is not a blog or a message board argument.
The dictionary of sociology does not define the term that way.
http://sociology.socialsciencedictionary.com/Sociology-Dictionary/SEXISM
I apologize in advance if this is a result of weak Google-fu.
…
As for an actual example of what some claim to be harmful inequality that works against males, that is said by some to be caused by (localized) power-inbalance that works to the disadvantage of males - consider the (again, alleged) rapidly declining outcomes for boys in education.
Some have claimed a cause for this is that girls are seen as the “norm” against which boys are measured to their detriment - in short, that girls are superior (at least, in studying for school), and that this superiority justifies a different outcome.
http://www.ccl-cca.ca/ccl/Reports/OtherReports/201104GenderReport.html
I’m not an educator, so I can’t say if any of this has any validity (it is hotly debated). But assuming for the moment it was true, could this not be an example of sexism based on a purely local power-imbalance - one that occurs within an educational institution? Or does the greater power-gradient of power imbalance in society generally simply overwhelm any power-imbalance that may exist within a specific, local setting?
Ah, so it’s offensive when I point out that your philosophy leads to a disdain for the slaughter of men, but just fine to imply that I don’t care about such a theoretical slaughter despite being one of them.
Which sexism* against men does. But you want to just ignore that too, naturally.
Your “sociological definition” amounts to “if we use the normal definition, we’ll have to admit that society isn’t sexist against only women, so let’s make up a new one and hope no one calls us on it”.
*Using the normal definition, naturally
Don’t bother asking about the boundaries for a system to determine power dynamics. It went unanswered earlier.
From the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Sociology:
.
No, I think the whole “man-slaughter” nonsense is a completely unrelated straw man because you like to portray people as being in favor of things of escalating offensiveness.
I was pointing out your usage of the straw man by saying that you aren’t actually disgusted by it because it’s not actually a real issue that’s happening, meaning feminists are not actually arguing that man-slaughter is morally permissible under the aforementioned definition of sexism, nor does it logically lead to that outcome in any scenario.
Right, ok.
Oh, did it really go “unanswered”?
That’s pretty well unanswered.
Why, because I said I don’t know? That’s answering and addressing it, so don’t pretend like your statement went ignored. The truth is that I don’t have an answer on it. What are your theories on the subject? Maybe we can have a discussion instead of a situation where people just ask me questions about stuff.
Wait, so this isn’t the ladyfoxfyre AMA about Sexism thread?
Knock it off, Der Trihs and people arguing with Der Trihs. This thread may have simply run its course, but this is intended to be a discussion that informs how the rules are enforced, not yet another place to run out the same garbage talking points over and over.
I’m a little dubious of this claim.
This part of your statement I agree with. The rest of your statements, however, are a huge strawman that none of the women participating in this thread advocate. I was going to dissect some of your more egregious statements, but on the direction of Marley, I will instead try to focus attention on the topic that I was attempting to continue productive discourse with in post 194.
“Unanswered” in the sense that she did not know now to answer it, but not “unanswered” in the sense of being ignored. Your use of the word in post 211 implies that she ignored you. She did not.
Says the person who thinks there’s nothing offensive or morally wrong or just freakin’ creepy about secretly filming women who he has sex with so they don’t falsely accuse you of rape, of course.
You musta been working mighty damn hard that day.
You gotta start from the beginning but it gets “good” after post 20 and post 90 is just…um…it explains Der Trihs’s position on the sexism issue here nicely.