Man all these tough non-PC people certainly require a shitload of soft caressing to bother evaluating their actions. Which is weird! Because of how thick skinned people who aren't all PC usually are.
What? Nothing of that has anything to do with what I said.
I am specifically talking about why people are reacting how they're reacting to the accusation of sexism. I specifically said that the post was not about who was right, but why it's problematic to pretty much everyone who does not share your exact world view. You're acting like the stereotypical American tourist who just can't understand why his mannerisms are simply not appropriate in his new environment.
Environmental considerations fall under the "tricking" aspect. Rather than having a direct and honest conversation, people have to be verbally coerced and seduced into it.
What does this have to do with the discussion on why the accusation of sexism is more upsetting to most people than most feminists intend it to be? I should again point out, I avoided any mention of which side is correct because it is irrelevant to the conversation.
We are now talking about cause and effect. What is your problem with this? Where is your disconnect?
They are upset because someone is being direct about their faults rather than manipulating them.
Amazing. It's as if taking the time to answer a question that's been bandied about for the past page or so does not, in fact, bring forth discussion on the merits and flaws of said answer. Rather, it brings forth snarky comments that have literally nothing to do with the arguments presented.
Please, tell me what one is supposed to do to generate intelligent discourse. I assume that is still the object of this thread?
What? Nothing of that has anything to do with what I said.
I am specifically talking about why people are reacting how they're reacting to the accusation of sexism. I specifically said that the post was not about who was right, but why it's problematic to pretty much everyone who does not share your exact world view. You're acting like the stereotypical American tourist who just can't understand why his mannerisms are simply not appropriate in his new environment.
Environmental considerations fall under the "tricking" aspect. Rather than having a direct and honest conversation, people have to be verbally coerced and seduced into it.
What does this have to do with the discussion on why the accusation of sexism is more upsetting to most people than most feminists intend it to be? I should again point out, I avoided any mention of which side is correct because it is irrelevant to the conversation.
We are now talking about cause and effect. What is your problem with this? Where is your disconnect?
They are upset because someone is being direct about their faults rather than manipulating them.
No, they are upset because they have a significantly different world view from the person criticizing them. It's like an American telling two Brazilians they're engaging in statutory rape, when the rules governing said crime differ between the two countries.
That's the answer to the question. It's not that people are hypersensitive, it's that you have an utterly different perspective, and you're unwilling to consider that you could possibly be the problem.
EDIT: The problem being a proper exchange of ideas. That's what we're discussing here, not who's right and who's wrong.
Amazing. It's as if taking the time to answer a question that's been bandied about for the past page or so does not, in fact, bring forth discussion on the merits and flaws of said answer. Rather, it brings forth snarky comments that have literally nothing to do with the arguments presented.
Please, tell me what one is supposed to do to generate intelligent discourse. I assume that is still the object of this thread?
Yours is the only snarky comment. I'm being direct with you. It upsets you.
Actually, that was directed at Durandal. I was upset with you because you were trying to assign motive and intent to a simple cause and effect analysis... and this instead of actually discussing the mechanics of what I was saying (which are obviously up for discussion). Again, I do not care who is wrong or right in our equation, it doesn't matter right now.
EDIT: I'm interested in discussing the disconnect between what feminists are saying and what other people are hearing. IF you're not interested in doing so, or can't doing so without continually trying to assert the moral correctness of your position, just say so and we can change the damn subject.
I think I understand the disconnect here in regards to Sexism being taken as a serious accusation: it's only trivial if your view is that sexism is ingrained in every interaction between the sexes. Most of you arguing this point seem to feel this way. I see the argument very often presented, "Oh, don't worry. It's something we all do. We're all sexists, doing sexist things, and we should all help each other to stop."
The thing I don't think you're recognizing or acknowledging is that this is merely an opinion. This is not a fact. This is a point of view that most people you interact with do not share. At this point it doesn't even matter why they don't share that viewpoint, all that matters is that you're leveling what equates to a pretty serious assault on their character.
Now, this should not be taken as an argument against calling out sexist behavior. I'm all for that. But I think this should be taken into account when you receive the sort of reactions you're getting. Because what you're doing now means that a person has to practically accept your entire belief structure regarding the state of humanity before your statement is not a nasty insult, and that should not be necessary.
Unfortunately, it is necessary, because the bolded is wrong. It is, in fact, a fact. Just as many people once believed the earth to be flat, many people have not investigated things far enough to understand the problems that the study of feminism seeks to address. When a "feminist" says "Oh, don't worry. It's something we all do. We're all sexists, doing sexist things, and we should all help each other to stop," it's because they've been engaged in studying the subject for quite some time, and do in fact see how sexism is scrawled across every surface of society.
You say it's an opinion because you believe wrongly. You say it's an opinion because that lets you hold on to your erroneous belief longer, without any need to examine it and find the flaws.
And while you're just going to respond with a dressed-up version of "nuh-uh!", you're still just denying a round earth. Unfortunately, no one can drag you around it to prove it; you're just going to have to start walking if you care to prove it to yourself.
I think I understand the disconnect here in regards to Sexism being taken as a serious accusation: it's only trivial if your view is that sexism is ingrained in every interaction between the sexes. Most of you arguing this point seem to feel this way. I see the argument very often presented, "Oh, don't worry. It's something we all do. We're all sexists, doing sexist things, and we should all help each other to stop."
The thing I don't think you're recognizing or acknowledging is that this is merely an opinion. This is not a fact. This is a point of view that most people you interact with do not share. At this point it doesn't even matter why they don't share that viewpoint, all that matters is that you're leveling what equates to a pretty serious assault on their character.
Now, this should not be taken as an argument against calling out sexist behavior. I'm all for that. But I think this should be taken into account when you receive the sort of reactions you're getting. Because what you're doing now means that a person has to practically accept your entire belief structure regarding the state of humanity before your statement is not a nasty insult, and that should not be necessary.
Unfortunately, it is necessary, because the bolded is wrong. It is, in fact, a fact. Just as many people once believed the earth to be flat, many people have not investigated things far enough to understand the problems that the study of feminism seeks to address. When a "feminist" says "Oh, don't worry. It's something we all do. We're all sexists, doing sexist things, and we should all help each other to stop," it's because they've been engaged in studying the subject for quite some time, and do in fact see how sexism is scrawled across every surface of society.
You say it's an opinion because you believe wrongly. You say it's an opinion because that lets you hold on to your erroneous belief longer, without any need to examine it and find the flaws.
And while you're just going to respond with a dressed-up version of "nuh-uh!", you're still just denying a round earth. Unfortunately, no one can drag you around it to prove it; you're just going to have to start walking if you care to prove it to yourself.
Again, whether you're right or wrong does not matter. My post was not about who was right or wrong. I was specifically responding, as I have detailed, to the question, "Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" and it's variants. This can and should be discussed without bringing, "But they're wrong!" into the equation, because the whole bloody idea is about engaging others on a level that doesn't make them want to flip you off, right? Changing hearts and minds?
Now for all I know, you don't care if what you're saying to a person is communicating something entirely different then what you intended. Maybe you're cool with that. But other people in this thread have demonstrated that they do care and they don't understand why this happens.
I'm not sure what you want to discuss. You hit it on the nose; they only view sexism as a vile thing, and feel that it is an attack. As stated, though, it's not.
If you have any ideas on how to make people stop arguing against facts, I'm pretty sure every rational person in the history of the world is all ears.
I agree largely with the assessment in your post (i.e. the "answer" to the question of " "Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" ")
I have some minor quibbles, which I will put in a spoiler at the end of this post because I think they are mostly semantic complaints and not wholly relevant to the post.
What you seem to have missed is that everyone commenting on this has gone one step farther- that is, they either already knew the answer your post gave, or your post provided them with it. Then, they moved on to attempting to answer the question "what do we do about this?"
Durandal made a snide comment about how it is ironic that the stereotypical person who would misinterpret challenging something as sexist often claims they hate "PC language". This is ironic because your post essentially is explaining why they are offended, and implying that we should consider their offense when we choose our words which is the exact argument, but reversed, that these stereotypical individuals tend to make in regards to criticisms of sexism.
Incenjucar's point followed a similar thread, as did Houn's.
So my question is this, then- if we accept this reality as true, what do we do then? Can we stop criticizing things as being sexist? You seem to say "no" as implied by this quote
Now, this should not be taken as an argument against calling out sexist behavior. I'm all for that. But I think this should be taken into account when you receive the sort of reactions you're getting. Because what you're doing now means that a person has to practically accept your entire belief structure regarding the state of humanity before your statement is not a nasty insult, and that should not be necessary.
How then, do we deal with the bolded? You seem to be setting up an impossibility- that the only way cries of sexism in word and deed aren't seen as a personal insult is if the individual accepts "our" worldview that sexism is rampant....and yet you say that it should not be necessary to make them accept this.
Which leaves us back at the original place- since we can't make them accept "our" view, they will always be insulted and miss the actual point of sexism critiques (see: Pitchford at gearbox), and thus we shouldn't be surprised at the reaction and thus we make no social progress?
I just don't get it.
Otherwise, if you think we should still call out sexist behavior, I don't see the point of this post because again, the fatality of it is inescapable. That is, the people we are criticizing will always be insulted. If it is inescapable then who the fuck cares whether they are insulted or not? Again, ironically, this is the exact same argument put forward against listening to sexism critiques because "feminists will always be insulted by something."
So really, the ultimate question here is- given your post, how do we go about combating sexism? If the answer is "calling out sexist behavior", then I think we did a good job with this gearbox thing and all deserve a pat on the back.
SEMANTIC QUIBBLES
Like houn, I disagree that "sexism is everywhere!" is an opinion. You are correct that it doesn't really affect your post. I also think your question is misworded: ""Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" should really read "Why do people get so upset when I call their behavior sexist?" It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would get insulted when you call them a sexist, but the subtitles of the second question are more difficult- i.e. people assume the first scenario (i was called a sexist) when really the second is happening (what I did was called sexist).
I'm not sure what you want to discuss. You hit it on the nose; they only view sexism as a vile thing, and feel that it is an attack. As stated, though, it's not.
If you have any ideas on how to make people stop arguing against facts, I'm pretty sure every rational person in the history of the world is all ears.
I take issue with your statement of fact, for one thing. As has been so often been stated in these threads, "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so."
I'm glad we're on the same page as to why there's a disconnect. So my question is, what do you mean to do with it? The end-all goal of feminism is not to call people sexists. There's a higher purpose (that much is obvious). So if we can conclude that a huge majority of the people you are engaging see your form of engagement as an attack, what are you going to do about it? Do you feel you need to continue in your current line, or that adjustments are needed?
Have we reached peak saturation of guilt as a method of social change
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
using your words again "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so"
To argue that "sexism isn't everywhere" is to argue against large swathes of sociological theory*, feminist theory*, anthropological theory*, and fuck even biological theory*- something that unless you have a lot of very strong evidence to the contrary, is not an argument you can really "win".
This is one of those times where you really need to just accept that you are, in fact, wrong.
The reason we all just "state it" is because, like "the earth is round" or "evolution is real", this is a truth that most evidence supports.
This isn't really up for debate, and I really wish you and others would stop pretending that it is.
*when I say "theory", it is assumed I mean it in an academic sense- i.e. theory supported with large amounts of evidence
I'm not sure what you want to discuss. You hit it on the nose; they only view sexism as a vile thing, and feel that it is an attack. As stated, though, it's not.
If you have any ideas on how to make people stop arguing against facts, I'm pretty sure every rational person in the history of the world is all ears.
I take issue with your statement of fact, for one thing. As has been so often been stated in these threads, "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so."
I'm glad we're on the same page as to why there's a disconnect. So my question is, what do you mean to do with it? The end-all goal of feminism is not to call people sexists. There's a higher purpose (that much is obvious). So if we can conclude that a huge majority of the people you are engaging see your form of engagement as an attack, what are you going to do about it? Do you feel you need to continue in your current line, or that adjustments are needed?
The whole goal of my longer post is essentially asking you this same question, given that you seem to agree with the consensus that we need to call out sexist behavior.
Have we reached peak saturation of guilt as a method of social change
Ideally empathy would come before guilt. But that requires people to genuinely care.
guilt is empathy, you just have to hate yourself too
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
using your words again "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so"
To argue that "sexism isn't everywhere" is to argue against large swathes of sociological theory*, feminist theory*, anthropological theory*, and fuck even biological theory*- something that unless you have a lot of very strong evidence to the contrary, is not an argument you can really "win".
This is one of those times where you really need to just accept that you are, in fact, wrong.
The reason we all just "state it" is because, like "the earth is round" or "evolution is real", this is a truth that most evidence supports.
This isn't really up for debate, and I really wish you and others would stop pretending that it is.
*when I say "theory", it is assumed I mean it in an academic sense- i.e. theory supported with large amounts of evidence
Arch I am agreeing with your posts so hard right now.
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
I agree largely with the assessment in your post (i.e. the "answer" to the question of " "Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" ")
I have some minor quibbles, which I will put in a spoiler at the end of this post because I think they are mostly semantic complaints and not wholly relevant to the post.
What you seem to have missed is that everyone commenting on this has gone one step farther- that is, they either already knew the answer your post gave, or your post provided them with it. Then, they moved on to attempting to answer the question "what do we do about this?"
Houn engaged decently, I disagree with your view of the other two.
Durandal made a snide comment about how it is ironic that the stereotypical person who would misinterpret challenging something as sexist often claims they hate "PC language". This is ironic because your post essentially is explaining why they are offended, and implying that we should consider their offense when we choose our words which is the exact argument, but reversed, that these stereotypical individuals tend to make in regards to criticisms of sexism.
There's a critical difference: that difference being, what feminists are trying to accomplish. The offense is not the point. I don't care that someone got offended, I care about what that means. Random Dude #192 getting offended by a feminist does not even blip my "things to care about" radar, but the disconnect between what's trying to be communicated and what is communicated does.
So my question is this, then- if we accept this reality as true, what do we do then? Can we stop criticizing things as being sexist? You seem to say "no" as implied by this quote
How then, do we deal with the bolded? You seem to be setting up an impossibility- that the only way cries of sexism in word and deed aren't seen as a personal insult is if the individual accepts "our" worldview that sexism is rampant....and yet you say that it should not be necessary to make them accept this.
Which leaves us back at the original place- since we can't make them accept "our" view, they will always be insulted and miss the actual point of sexism critiques (see: Pitchford at gearbox), and thus we shouldn't be surprised at the reaction and thus we make no social progress?
I just don't get it.
Otherwise, if you think we should still call out sexist behavior, I don't see the point of this post because again, the fatality of it is inescapable. That is, the people we are criticizing will always be insulted. If it is inescapable then who the fuck cares whether they are insulted or not? Again, ironically, this is the exact same argument put forward against listening to sexism critiques because "feminists will always be insulted by something."
So really, the ultimate question here is- given your post, how do we go about combating sexism? If the answer is "calling out sexist behavior", then I think we did a good job with this gearbox thing and all deserve a pat on the back.
I didn't actually have a grand plan for what the answer was, I merely laid out what I felt were the essential facts of the situation. I do find it interesting, though.
That actually is the question I wanted to raise with this: what are the alternatives? Is there a way to keep improving along this line without adopting an opener equivalent to slapping someone across the nose? If your worldview dictates that you must continue to do what you do, how you do it, then I think there should be an understanding of what exactly that is. In the instance we're discussing, you're attempting to force your worldview on a majority that does not agree with you, using shame and accusation as your opening salvos.
And again, if that's what you feel needs to be done, than I guess that's what you'll do. It would at least solve the question. No more would there be need for a "But why did they react so badly to me?" lament.
The sad part to me being, the majority mostly agrees with the basics. In fact, that's why your tactics are viewed as so aggressive. Most reasonable people see sexism as a bad thing, something that has no place in modern society. Without that understanding, all of this would be meaningless.
Now for me, I understand why the idea of simply continuing is appealing. People often frame it against racism, which justifies the "at any cost" mentality. If I didn't differ so damn much on so many things that you guys seem to feel are clear-cut examples of sexism, I'd probably be on board with you. But as it stands, I just see an awful lot of unintended alienation over fairly subject things. And this saddens me.
SEMANTIC QUIBBLES
Like houn, I disagree that "sexism is everywhere!" is an opinion. You are correct that it doesn't really affect your post. I also think your question is misworded: ""Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" should really read "Why do people get so upset when I call their behavior sexist?" It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would get insulted when you call them a sexist, but the subtitles of the second question are more difficult- i.e. people assume the first scenario (i was called a sexist) when really the second is happening (what I did was called sexist).
I see behavior as inseparable from being should the person believe that the behavior is justified according to their moral code. When telling someone that their behavior is sexist, the subtext is saying, "Separate yourself from this behavior or share in the label."
If the majority of people saw sexism as a bad thing that has no place in modern society, we wouldn't be having this discussion because people would be more proactive about checking their own behavior and would be less reflexively defensive towards criticisms of sexism.
At least, in my opinion (given that your assertion was as much opinion as mine)
If I didn't differ so damn much on so many things that you guys seem to feel are clear-cut examples of sexism
This, actually, reinforces my opinion above, and I think is more the "majority view".
I'm not sure where this post is going, except where it just did.
using your words again "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so"
To argue that "sexism isn't everywhere" is to argue against large swathes of sociological theory*, feminist theory*, anthropological theory*, and fuck even biological theory*- something that unless you have a lot of very strong evidence to the contrary, is not an argument you can really "win".
This is one of those times where you really need to just accept that you are, in fact, wrong.
The reason we all just "state it" is because, like "the earth is round" or "evolution is real", this is a truth that most evidence supports.
This isn't really up for debate, and I really wish you and others would stop pretending that it is.
*when I say "theory", it is assumed I mean it in an academic sense- i.e. theory supported with large amounts of evidence
I do not deny sexism, but I deny it in many forms that you and several others here claim it manifests in. Many forms. Enough that I'd say our world-views are substantially different. From my point of view, your perspective borders on the absurd, the sort of view I would ascribe to a paranoiac who sees danger lurking behind every leaf and blade of grass. I would assume this is obvious,considering our many conversations.
(disclaimer: I do not think you are a paranoiac. I want to use that language to describe how strongly I feel about our differences on some things, but I want to clarify that I don't assign that behavior to you.)
So you can either tell me that you're simply right and all things you declare to be sexist are sexist, or you can admit that your views are not based on solid fact. That your views are, in fact, opinions.
Have we reached peak saturation of guilt as a method of social change
Ideally empathy would come before guilt. But that requires people to genuinely care.
guilt is empathy, you just have to hate yourself too
I once said to someone that I really expected that it was okay to feel guilty about something.
They corrected me and said, "I think what you're looking for is remorse. Remorse implies an understanding of why they feel bad. Guilt can be felt without really understanding why."
If the majority of people saw sexism as a bad thing that has no place in modern society, we wouldn't be having this discussion because people would be more proactive about checking their own behavior and would be less reflexively defensive towards criticisms of sexism.
At least, in my opinion (given that your assertion was as much opinion as mine)
The majority of people do see sexism as a bad thing. Most people just don't take it as far as you and others do. Others simply disagree on semantics (many, many semantics). We have had many good examples of this throughout the last little while. Of course, those probably don't count to you, because you don't see any of them as subjective.
I feel I can back up at least the initial assessment fairly solidly. Anyone taking offense to being called a sexist obviously places negative value on the idea of sexism, no?
This, actually, reinforces my opinion above, and I think is more the "majority view".
I'm not sure where this post is going, except where it just did.
I'm not sure what this last little bit means either.
I mean, the point is that the onus is on you to demonstrate that sexism is not prevalent in modern society. Sociology, psychology, neurobiology, history, anthropology, and feminist theory proper have all made very strong cases for the argument that ''sexism is very prevalent."
PLEASE NOTE: links above may not 100% contain the words "sexism is everywhere", may be behind a paywall, and most importantly and assuredly do not reflect the entirety of accepted work on the subject, because a true literature review would encompass so much material as to be impossible to pen. They serve to illustrate the larger point that the conclusion "sexism is everywhere" is much more than an opinion, and it would really behoove you to take a few days, grapple with that idea, and accept it.
Didn't I reaffirm that I do not deny sexism in modern society? The point of my "sexism is everywhere" is about the application of this knowledge. I'm attempting to show the gap between what you see as sexism and what many others see as sexism, as it relates to raising the matter to those who do not share your worldview. I've repeatedly referenced back to former conversations as context on this, trying to show a disconnect between what you feel is cut-and-dry sexism (Tosh/Hitman/Etc) and what others do.
Whatever else was inferred was not my intention, and I apologize for the ambiguity or misstatements. If I did not think sexism was a thing that happened, I would even be here talking.
EDIT: And yes, I do also mean it in relation to everyday activities and actions. There are some who have stated that our everyday actions are rife with sexism, and I disagree. As do many others. Again, this is the disconnect between those that see sexism as a trivial "cannot be avoided because it's everywhere" thing and those who do not.
If the majority of people saw sexism as a bad thing that has no place in modern society, we wouldn't be having this discussion because people would be more proactive about checking their own behavior and would be less reflexively defensive towards criticisms of sexism.
At least, in my opinion (given that your assertion was as much opinion as mine)
The majority of people do see sexism as a bad thing. Most people just don't take it as far as you and others do. Others simply disagree on semantics (many, many semantics). We have had many good examples of this throughout the last little while. Of course, those probably don't count to you, because you don't see any of them as subjective.
I feel I can back up at least the initial assessment fairly solidly. Anyone taking offense to being called a sexist obviously places negative value on the idea of sexism, no?
This, actually, reinforces my opinion above, and I think is more the "majority view".
I'm not sure where this post is going, except where it just did.
I'm not sure what this last little bit means either.
Unfortunately, my experience is that people know words like sexism, racism, and homophobia, and know that these words are bad, and that being associated with those words is bad, and that particular actions will get them associated with those words, but they don't actually internalize WHY and HOW these are bad. Instead of having a cohesive world view of how you should choose your behavior, they instead have a list of specific actions and choices they can follow to avoid the label, and because they view things as a list of restrictions, rather than a choice of behaviors, every new association is a burden rather than a refinement, and thus something to be resisted, until there's no longer any choice.
If the majority of people saw sexism as a bad thing that has no place in modern society, we wouldn't be having this discussion because people would be more proactive about checking their own behavior and would be less reflexively defensive towards criticisms of sexism.
At least, in my opinion (given that your assertion was as much opinion as mine)
The majority of people do see sexism as a bad thing. Most people just don't take it as far as you and others do. Others simply disagree on semantics (many, many semantics). We have had many good examples of this throughout the last little while. Of course, those probably don't count to you, because you don't see any of them as subjective.
I feel I can back up at least the initial assessment fairly solidly. Anyone taking offense to being called a sexist obviously places negative value on the idea of sexism, no?
This, actually, reinforces my opinion above, and I think is more the "majority view".
I'm not sure where this post is going, except where it just did.
I'm not sure what this last little bit means either.
Unfortunately, my experience is that people know words like sexism, racism, and homophobia, and know that these words are bad, and that being associated with those words is bad, and that particular actions will get them associated with those words, but they don't actually internalize WHY and HOW these are bad. Instead of having a cohesive world view of how you should choose your behavior, they instead have a list of specific actions and choices they can follow to avoid the label, and because they view things as a list of restrictions, rather than a choice of behaviors, every new association is a burden rather than a refinement, and thus something to be resisted, until there's no longer any choice.
That is a fair assessment. I know many people who are not interested in any form of meaningful social intercourse, they just want to live their lives without being bothered by people for things they don't care about. I've found that these sorts of people don't generally have specific things like "sexism" or "racism" that they don't care about: they just don't care in general. They just want to keep their heads down, do what they need to do to not stand out and go on with their lives.
But now I'm just making wild generalizations, blegh.
Wild generalizations are all we can work with in this context, alas. Only so many people on this forum have the educational background to get super in-depth and specific about this. I certainly am not one of these. That said, that's certainly not the ONLY kind of person out there. But it's the sort whom this direction of conversation is usually attached to.
Wild generalizations are all we can work with in this context, alas. Only so many people on this forum have the educational background to get super in-depth and specific about this. I certainly am not one of these. That said, that's certainly not the ONLY kind of person out there. But it's the sort whom this direction of conversation is usually attached to.
Right. Once you've settled on a broad enough definition, it's not hard to be convinced that sexism (or racism, or ageism, or anything-ism) exists and is fairly ubiquitous.
However, not everyone has settled on that definition, and a narrower, more personal, and moral-tinged outlook on the term is probably a better explanation for people's reactions than outright dismissal.
Sexist behavior isn't bad because it's called sexism.
No, it's bad because your values inform you it's bad.
Just like to some, their sexist behavior isn't bad because their values don't inform them of any wrongdoing.
And if they weren't doing anything wrong, then how could they be sexist?
Nope.
Sexism is bad because it causes harm. If sexism didn't cause harm, it would just a quirky aesthetic.
Now, you can have an ethical system that does not concern itself with harm, but that's its own thread.
You're not understanding what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing with your values, but sexism is bad because your values inform you of that. Anything is bad because your values inform you of that. The very notion of "badness" exists because of your values.
Likewise, the values of others' inform them. Most likely, these others agree with you that sexism is bad.
So, some formal logic being applied by our hapless accused:
If something is sexist, then it is wrong.
My behavior wasn't wrong.
Thus, I wasn't being sexist. (This being the contrapositive of the original conditional statement).
Now, this isn't some life-altering revelation. My original point was trying to explain why people might react like they do.
I tend to see things from the other direction. If you take as granted (as I do) that sexism is everywhere in our society to the point that everyone does it and that it's literally built into our language, then at some point shouting about minor instances of sexism becomes about as useful as shouting about every minor grammar mistake anyone makes. It's trying to dig the grand canyon by kicking at the sand.
Note that that isn't a judgement on the goal itself - a society that communicates perfectly with no errors would be ideal, just as a society that doesn't have sexism would be ideal. But you don't get any closer to either ideal by pointing out every tiny mistake individually in either case. All you do is alienate people and make them not want to be around you or your cause. Social change tends to start with whatever issues are largest and work its way down to the little stuff gradually, until there isn't anything left.
Obviously different people will have different ideas about what constitutes "little stuff." I know that for my part, I find it very hard to agree with anyone who would compare a lot of the things discussed in this thread to actual atrocities that happen to oppressed individuals. Like the thing earlier where someone felt the need to spice up their comments on sexist video games with statistics about how many women are raped every day, or people who compare the use of tropes among female characters to blackface. When I hear those kinds of comparisons I recoil, even if I'm inclined to agree with the general idea.
1) Harm is bad. The behaviors associated with sexism cause harm. Sexism is bad because it contains behaviors that cause harm.
2) Unpopular things are bad. Sexism is unpopular. Sexism is bad because it is unpopular.
1 is part of an ethical structure that is motivated to reduce harm, so even if the term "sexism" ceases to exist, the harmful behaviors are still bad.
2 is part of an ethical structure that is motivated to avoid unpopularity, so there can be an advantage to removing behaviors from the "sexism" category regardless of the harm those behaviors do.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
@Arch than you so much for posting all those scholarly articles!
Just going to post a passage here that I liked from that first one for the rest of the thread, as it kind of seems relevant to the discussion previously.
Although the content of stereotypes for women are subjectively positive, they are low in status. In a workplace situation, this means that women are favored for low-status, feminine jobs, which include support positions that serve, mainly, male superiors (eg. secretary) or paid versions of women's traditional domestic role (eg. daycare worker). When BS [benevolent sexism] spills over in to the workplace, women may be seen as warmer, but are presumed to be less competent than men, so that women are confined to feminine and low-status roles. Additionally, BS in the workplace may elicit patronizing discrimination (Glick & Fiske, 2007) which includes but is not limited to handicapping via overhelping, taking over, and limiting the responsibilities of targets.
Patronizing discrimination, which is embedded in BS, maintains the dominant group's higher status. It is not overtly hostile and, in many cases, is seemingly beneficial to the recipient. Furthermore the perpetrator may think he is helping the recipient. Women may accept paternalistic gestures either because they are not aware they reinforce the notion that women are suitable only for low-status roles, or because they understand that to cooperate and accept benevolent gestures is a better alternative to enduring overt hostility.
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Well, for one, that's why I would find the previous "spinach in teeth" analogy sort of weird. It implies that there are instances of sexism that aren't really harmful to anyone but the person engaging in it, or only harmful in that they upset social expectations - in those cases someone may want to be informed, except we also operate with this assumption that sexism is actually quite wrong. Suddenly that little corrective nudge also carries a pretty strong moral judgment. Maybe it doesn't - but then that implies some instances of sexism are less bad than others, which can in turn imply that maybe there are even instances of sexism where the harm caused is small enough to be outweighed by other factors.
Posts
They are upset because someone is being direct about their faults rather than manipulating them.
Please, tell me what one is supposed to do to generate intelligent discourse. I assume that is still the object of this thread?
No, they are upset because they have a significantly different world view from the person criticizing them. It's like an American telling two Brazilians they're engaging in statutory rape, when the rules governing said crime differ between the two countries.
That's the answer to the question. It's not that people are hypersensitive, it's that you have an utterly different perspective, and you're unwilling to consider that you could possibly be the problem.
EDIT: The problem being a proper exchange of ideas. That's what we're discussing here, not who's right and who's wrong.
Yours is the only snarky comment. I'm being direct with you. It upsets you.
EDIT: I'm interested in discussing the disconnect between what feminists are saying and what other people are hearing. IF you're not interested in doing so, or can't doing so without continually trying to assert the moral correctness of your position, just say so and we can change the damn subject.
Unfortunately, it is necessary, because the bolded is wrong. It is, in fact, a fact. Just as many people once believed the earth to be flat, many people have not investigated things far enough to understand the problems that the study of feminism seeks to address. When a "feminist" says "Oh, don't worry. It's something we all do. We're all sexists, doing sexist things, and we should all help each other to stop," it's because they've been engaged in studying the subject for quite some time, and do in fact see how sexism is scrawled across every surface of society.
You say it's an opinion because you believe wrongly. You say it's an opinion because that lets you hold on to your erroneous belief longer, without any need to examine it and find the flaws.
And while you're just going to respond with a dressed-up version of "nuh-uh!", you're still just denying a round earth. Unfortunately, no one can drag you around it to prove it; you're just going to have to start walking if you care to prove it to yourself.
Again, whether you're right or wrong does not matter. My post was not about who was right or wrong. I was specifically responding, as I have detailed, to the question, "Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" and it's variants. This can and should be discussed without bringing, "But they're wrong!" into the equation, because the whole bloody idea is about engaging others on a level that doesn't make them want to flip you off, right? Changing hearts and minds?
Now for all I know, you don't care if what you're saying to a person is communicating something entirely different then what you intended. Maybe you're cool with that. But other people in this thread have demonstrated that they do care and they don't understand why this happens.
If you have any ideas on how to make people stop arguing against facts, I'm pretty sure every rational person in the history of the world is all ears.
I agree largely with the assessment in your post (i.e. the "answer" to the question of " "Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" ")
I have some minor quibbles, which I will put in a spoiler at the end of this post because I think they are mostly semantic complaints and not wholly relevant to the post.
What you seem to have missed is that everyone commenting on this has gone one step farther- that is, they either already knew the answer your post gave, or your post provided them with it. Then, they moved on to attempting to answer the question "what do we do about this?"
Durandal made a snide comment about how it is ironic that the stereotypical person who would misinterpret challenging something as sexist often claims they hate "PC language". This is ironic because your post essentially is explaining why they are offended, and implying that we should consider their offense when we choose our words which is the exact argument, but reversed, that these stereotypical individuals tend to make in regards to criticisms of sexism.
Incenjucar's point followed a similar thread, as did Houn's.
So my question is this, then- if we accept this reality as true, what do we do then? Can we stop criticizing things as being sexist? You seem to say "no" as implied by this quote
How then, do we deal with the bolded? You seem to be setting up an impossibility- that the only way cries of sexism in word and deed aren't seen as a personal insult is if the individual accepts "our" worldview that sexism is rampant....and yet you say that it should not be necessary to make them accept this.
Which leaves us back at the original place- since we can't make them accept "our" view, they will always be insulted and miss the actual point of sexism critiques (see: Pitchford at gearbox), and thus we shouldn't be surprised at the reaction and thus we make no social progress?
I just don't get it.
Otherwise, if you think we should still call out sexist behavior, I don't see the point of this post because again, the fatality of it is inescapable. That is, the people we are criticizing will always be insulted. If it is inescapable then who the fuck cares whether they are insulted or not? Again, ironically, this is the exact same argument put forward against listening to sexism critiques because "feminists will always be insulted by something."
So really, the ultimate question here is- given your post, how do we go about combating sexism? If the answer is "calling out sexist behavior", then I think we did a good job with this gearbox thing and all deserve a pat on the back.
Like houn, I disagree that "sexism is everywhere!" is an opinion. You are correct that it doesn't really affect your post. I also think your question is misworded: ""Why do people get so upset when I call them a sexist?" should really read "Why do people get so upset when I call their behavior sexist?" It doesn't take a genius to see why someone would get insulted when you call them a sexist, but the subtitles of the second question are more difficult- i.e. people assume the first scenario (i was called a sexist) when really the second is happening (what I did was called sexist).
I take issue with your statement of fact, for one thing. As has been so often been stated in these threads, "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so."
I'm glad we're on the same page as to why there's a disconnect. So my question is, what do you mean to do with it? The end-all goal of feminism is not to call people sexists. There's a higher purpose (that much is obvious). So if we can conclude that a huge majority of the people you are engaging see your form of engagement as an attack, what are you going to do about it? Do you feel you need to continue in your current line, or that adjustments are needed?
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
using your words again "Simply stating something to be so does not make it so"
To argue that "sexism isn't everywhere" is to argue against large swathes of sociological theory*, feminist theory*, anthropological theory*, and fuck even biological theory*- something that unless you have a lot of very strong evidence to the contrary, is not an argument you can really "win".
This is one of those times where you really need to just accept that you are, in fact, wrong.
The reason we all just "state it" is because, like "the earth is round" or "evolution is real", this is a truth that most evidence supports.
This isn't really up for debate, and I really wish you and others would stop pretending that it is.
*when I say "theory", it is assumed I mean it in an academic sense- i.e. theory supported with large amounts of evidence
Ideally empathy would come before guilt. But that requires people to genuinely care.
The whole goal of my longer post is essentially asking you this same question, given that you seem to agree with the consensus that we need to call out sexist behavior.
guilt is empathy, you just have to hate yourself too
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Arch I am agreeing with your posts so hard right now.
It's actually shame that's generally used.
And as long as humans are human, it's still effective.
Houn engaged decently, I disagree with your view of the other two.
There's a critical difference: that difference being, what feminists are trying to accomplish. The offense is not the point. I don't care that someone got offended, I care about what that means. Random Dude #192 getting offended by a feminist does not even blip my "things to care about" radar, but the disconnect between what's trying to be communicated and what is communicated does.
I didn't actually have a grand plan for what the answer was, I merely laid out what I felt were the essential facts of the situation. I do find it interesting, though.
That actually is the question I wanted to raise with this: what are the alternatives? Is there a way to keep improving along this line without adopting an opener equivalent to slapping someone across the nose? If your worldview dictates that you must continue to do what you do, how you do it, then I think there should be an understanding of what exactly that is. In the instance we're discussing, you're attempting to force your worldview on a majority that does not agree with you, using shame and accusation as your opening salvos.
And again, if that's what you feel needs to be done, than I guess that's what you'll do. It would at least solve the question. No more would there be need for a "But why did they react so badly to me?" lament.
The sad part to me being, the majority mostly agrees with the basics. In fact, that's why your tactics are viewed as so aggressive. Most reasonable people see sexism as a bad thing, something that has no place in modern society. Without that understanding, all of this would be meaningless.
Now for me, I understand why the idea of simply continuing is appealing. People often frame it against racism, which justifies the "at any cost" mentality. If I didn't differ so damn much on so many things that you guys seem to feel are clear-cut examples of sexism, I'd probably be on board with you. But as it stands, I just see an awful lot of unintended alienation over fairly subject things. And this saddens me.
I see behavior as inseparable from being should the person believe that the behavior is justified according to their moral code. When telling someone that their behavior is sexist, the subtext is saying, "Separate yourself from this behavior or share in the label."
At least, in my opinion (given that your assertion was as much opinion as mine)
This, actually, reinforces my opinion above, and I think is more the "majority view".
I'm not sure where this post is going, except where it just did.
I do not deny sexism, but I deny it in many forms that you and several others here claim it manifests in. Many forms. Enough that I'd say our world-views are substantially different. From my point of view, your perspective borders on the absurd, the sort of view I would ascribe to a paranoiac who sees danger lurking behind every leaf and blade of grass. I would assume this is obvious,considering our many conversations.
(disclaimer: I do not think you are a paranoiac. I want to use that language to describe how strongly I feel about our differences on some things, but I want to clarify that I don't assign that behavior to you.)
So you can either tell me that you're simply right and all things you declare to be sexist are sexist, or you can admit that your views are not based on solid fact. That your views are, in fact, opinions.
I once said to someone that I really expected that it was okay to feel guilty about something.
They corrected me and said, "I think what you're looking for is remorse. Remorse implies an understanding of why they feel bad. Guilt can be felt without really understanding why."
Remorse is more powerful in my opinion.
The majority of people do see sexism as a bad thing. Most people just don't take it as far as you and others do. Others simply disagree on semantics (many, many semantics). We have had many good examples of this throughout the last little while. Of course, those probably don't count to you, because you don't see any of them as subjective.
I feel I can back up at least the initial assessment fairly solidly. Anyone taking offense to being called a sexist obviously places negative value on the idea of sexism, no?
I'm not sure what this last little bit means either.
Cheers.
I mean, the point is that the onus is on you to demonstrate that sexism is not prevalent in modern society. Sociology, psychology, neurobiology, history, anthropology, and feminist theory proper have all made very strong cases for the argument that ''sexism is very prevalent."
PLEASE NOTE: links above may not 100% contain the words "sexism is everywhere", may be behind a paywall, and most importantly and assuredly do not reflect the entirety of accepted work on the subject, because a true literature review would encompass so much material as to be impossible to pen. They serve to illustrate the larger point that the conclusion "sexism is everywhere" is much more than an opinion, and it would really behoove you to take a few days, grapple with that idea, and accept it.
Whatever else was inferred was not my intention, and I apologize for the ambiguity or misstatements. If I did not think sexism was a thing that happened, I would even be here talking.
EDIT: And yes, I do also mean it in relation to everyday activities and actions. There are some who have stated that our everyday actions are rife with sexism, and I disagree. As do many others. Again, this is the disconnect between those that see sexism as a trivial "cannot be avoided because it's everywhere" thing and those who do not.
Unfortunately, my experience is that people know words like sexism, racism, and homophobia, and know that these words are bad, and that being associated with those words is bad, and that particular actions will get them associated with those words, but they don't actually internalize WHY and HOW these are bad. Instead of having a cohesive world view of how you should choose your behavior, they instead have a list of specific actions and choices they can follow to avoid the label, and because they view things as a list of restrictions, rather than a choice of behaviors, every new association is a burden rather than a refinement, and thus something to be resisted, until there's no longer any choice.
That is a fair assessment. I know many people who are not interested in any form of meaningful social intercourse, they just want to live their lives without being bothered by people for things they don't care about. I've found that these sorts of people don't generally have specific things like "sexism" or "racism" that they don't care about: they just don't care in general. They just want to keep their heads down, do what they need to do to not stand out and go on with their lives.
But now I'm just making wild generalizations, blegh.
May I echo your alas?
Alas is correct.
However, not everyone has settled on that definition, and a narrower, more personal, and moral-tinged outlook on the term is probably a better explanation for people's reactions than outright dismissal.
No, it's bad because your values inform you it's bad.
Just like to some, their sexist behavior isn't bad because their values don't inform them of any wrongdoing.
And if they weren't doing anything wrong, then how could they be sexist?
Nope.
Sexism is bad because it causes harm. If sexism didn't cause harm, it would just a quirky aesthetic.
Now, you can have an ethical system that does not concern itself with harm, but that's its own thread.
You're not understanding what I'm saying.
I'm not arguing with your values, but sexism is bad because your values inform you of that. Anything is bad because your values inform you of that. The very notion of "badness" exists because of your values.
Likewise, the values of others' inform them. Most likely, these others agree with you that sexism is bad.
So, some formal logic being applied by our hapless accused:
If something is sexist, then it is wrong.
My behavior wasn't wrong.
Thus, I wasn't being sexist. (This being the contrapositive of the original conditional statement).
Now, this isn't some life-altering revelation. My original point was trying to explain why people might react like they do.
Note that that isn't a judgement on the goal itself - a society that communicates perfectly with no errors would be ideal, just as a society that doesn't have sexism would be ideal. But you don't get any closer to either ideal by pointing out every tiny mistake individually in either case. All you do is alienate people and make them not want to be around you or your cause. Social change tends to start with whatever issues are largest and work its way down to the little stuff gradually, until there isn't anything left.
Obviously different people will have different ideas about what constitutes "little stuff." I know that for my part, I find it very hard to agree with anyone who would compare a lot of the things discussed in this thread to actual atrocities that happen to oppressed individuals. Like the thing earlier where someone felt the need to spice up their comments on sexist video games with statistics about how many women are raped every day, or people who compare the use of tropes among female characters to blackface. When I hear those kinds of comparisons I recoil, even if I'm inclined to agree with the general idea.
Among the ethical positions:
1) Harm is bad. The behaviors associated with sexism cause harm. Sexism is bad because it contains behaviors that cause harm.
2) Unpopular things are bad. Sexism is unpopular. Sexism is bad because it is unpopular.
1 is part of an ethical structure that is motivated to reduce harm, so even if the term "sexism" ceases to exist, the harmful behaviors are still bad.
2 is part of an ethical structure that is motivated to avoid unpopularity, so there can be an advantage to removing behaviors from the "sexism" category regardless of the harm those behaviors do.
Just going to post a passage here that I liked from that first one for the rest of the thread, as it kind of seems relevant to the discussion previously.