Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

You seem to not understand that women undergo sexism whether or not they act outside of their culturally historic gender roles.  That's what sexism is.  You can't win.  You can't escape it.  There's no particular way you can act such that you won't be seen as a lesser human being, lying, seductive, simultaneously too incapable and too dangerous.

The fact that men can do things that will make them less privileged does not mean that they're lacking a sweet spot.

I mostly cannot support that position because it makes racism acceptable... and as always a double standard that makes something wrong acceptable tends to perpetuate it.

When white folks were enslaved in the US by black folks for a few hundred years and then freed but undermined economically and socially, then I'll agree that they've undergone the effects of racism.  Not before.

[Neonivek]

When white folks were enslaved in the US by black folks for a few hundred years and then freed but undermined economically and socially, then I'll agree that they've undergone the effects of racism.  Not before.

Then there is no reason for "black folks" to receive equal treatment either is there?

There is no middle ground, there is no racism contest between white and black people, there is nothing.

If it is racist, it is racist. If it is sexist, it is sexist.

No amount of prejudice, racism, hardship, pain, or ANYTHING will erase that.

[Vector]

Excuse me?

[Willfor]

Applies pretty well to sexism too, in my opinion.

[Nadaka]

You seem to not understand that women undergo sexism whether or not they act outside of their culturally historic gender roles.  That's what sexism is.  You can't win.  You can't escape it.  There's no particular way you can act such that you won't be seen as a lesser human being, lying, seductive, simultaneously too incapable and too dangerous.

The fact that men can do things that will make them less privileged does not mean that they're lacking a sweet spot.

I mostly cannot support that position because it makes racism acceptable... and as always a double standard that makes something wrong acceptable tends to perpetuate it.

When white folks were enslaved in the US by black folks for a few hundred years and then freed but undermined economically and socially, then I'll agree that they've undergone the effects of racism.  Not before.

No, I fully recognize it. Which is why I said women are more frequently and severely affected by sexism than men. But NONE of that detracts from the fact that men can and are negatively affected by a sexist culture.

[Neonivek]

Excuse me?

Why care about equal treatment if racism isn't a big deal?

CLEARLY the blacks were more advantaged when they were out in the fields... Why should white people even give them freedom when the injustice of equal treatment gives them such a clear disadvantage?

Applies pretty well to sexism too, in my opinion.

It does but it doesn't apply to what we are talking about.

We aren't talking about systematic prejudices on groups that are still disadvantaged from incredibly racist times.

We are talking about whether or not someone who experiences racism can be racist or if someone who experiences sexism can be sexist.

[Scoops Novel]

As a black man, yes, there are varying levels of impact of bigotry, but despite the truth to the freudian excuse, it doesn't mean it should be ignored. The present is not the past or more importantly the future.

Now if you could stop using my ethnicity for strawmen, on both sides.

[Vector]

I have told you what, three times, that we're using a different definition of the word in order to understand that it is not the same fucking thing to say "hey, I hate men" and to say "hey, I think women are stupid whores and what, I've got an entire institution built up on that assumption."  I never said that it doesn't hurt one's feelings to hear the former.  I never said it wasn't prejudiced.

But they are not the same thing.

Ok then here is a definition given by feminism

"Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination"

Wow!  You cherry-picked a feminist who agreed with you!  I guess that sure negates the opinions of all the other feminists who decided to use a different definition for a reason!

I hate the acceptable targets idea.

Step one: stop stereotyping my argument and figure out what I'm actually saying and why I'm saying it
Step two: pull your foot out of your mouth and argue against me if you're still so inclined.

[Neonivek]

Now if you could stop using my ethnicity for strawmen, on both sides.

Well no apparently this is the lynch pin in the argument. We always eventually hit the point where we have to discuss if males can be affected by sexism.

Except now it is kind of one step further then usual as we are discussing if sexism towards males is sexist. Which to me is really offensive because sexism is sexism.

It would be one thing to say that the impact is minimal, yet this conversation is whether... for example saying that all men are scum and not hiring someone because they are male or not giving child custody because he is male is or isn't sexist.

You cherry-picked a feminist who agreed with you

Cherry picked? I picked the absolute FIRST ONE!

Feminism isn't generally about showing that men cannot or aren't targets of sexism. Feminism generally tries to see the ways in which women are targets of sexism beyond what we would ordinarily see, the systematic prejudice put onto them and the impositions of a male dominated world.

Feminism compares itself to males most often and the usual way they go about it isn't to say "Men don't have any issues" but rather to say that the way males and females try to go around these issues are different. For example while there are indeed gender enforced roles for males, their ability to step outside them is far greater then a female's ability to do so. Only discredited feminist theories would go as far as to say that there are no male gender enforced roles and that it doesn't affect men.

[GlyphGryph]

If she's working under definition B, A 'person' of any color can't be racist, nor can a person of either gender, because the -ism is the societal construct. It can certainly be expressed, though, by any type of individual - there are plenty of women that do their part to promote sexism, and plenty of black people that do their part to support racism. There are plenty of victims of racism that are not block. There exist environments where some groups are more disadvantaged than others, and if this is the definition we're working with we need to be well aware that things aren't as simple as Gail Dines wants us to believe.

If she thinks blacks can't be accessories to and perpetrators of institutional racism, I'm not sure she understands reality well enough to be worth listening to.

[Scoops Novel]

To be clearer, if you could stop demeaning the concept of this thread, whilst also leaving my ethnicity out of it. Limiting words such as sexism or racism to the state of the present day is irritating, while demeaning the less prevalent victims of such. Enough of semantics, and i can actually say that legitimately, which says something. I'd appreciate the other side of this argument stopping it's bandwagoning, as well.

[Vector]

Feminism isn't generally about showing that men cannot or aren't targets of sexism. Feminism generally tries to see the ways in which women are targets of sexism beyond what we would ordinarily see.

Thank you for telling me what feminism is, Neonivek.

If she thinks blacks can't be accessories to and perpetrators of institutional racism, I'm not sure she understands reality well enough to be worth listening to.

Eh.  Yes, most modern feminists understand that internalized sexism/other isms are a thing.

To be clearer, if you could stop demeaning the concept of this thread, whilst also leaving my ethnicity out of it. Limiting words such as sexism or racism to the state of the present day is irritating, while demeaning the less prevalent victims of such. Enough of semantics, and i can actually say that legitimately, which says something.

Yeah.  I am trying to back the thread out of that direction; thanks for the heads-up.

[GlyphGryph]

Don't tell me. I'm well aware most feminists understand that. I'm saying that this individual doesn't seem to.

Looking over her work, I'm pretty sure she doesn't. Most of her articles (or at least the nonrepresentative sampling I've seen so far) seem to be calling out how other feminists are wrong for disagreeing with her, mind you, but there seems to be very little understanding of how things actually work.

[Neonivek]

Yes so the discussion is

Is Systematic sexism towards males... Sexism?

[Vector]

Don't tell me. I'm well aware most feminists understand that. I'm saying that this individual doesn't seem to.

Looking over her work, I'm pretty sure she doesn't.

Yeah, what I meant was that I'm sad they picked this particular feminist, who seems to be a little bit behind the curve and just in the spot that makes her most offensive.

Yes so the discussion is

Is Systematic sexism towards males... Sexism?

I'm done arguing with you until you understand what I've been trying to say about vocabulary.