Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Just to regulate this a bit, a couple of wrinkles:
1) As I mentioned, there's plenty of things that are consent violations (and creepy, and rape-ish) without involving penetration.
2) Many jurisdictions still define consent negatively - consent is a thing that must be explicitly revoked, not a thing that must be explicitly given. This is still reflected in a lot of people's attitudes - that doing X action (going on a date with somebody, having a drink with somebody, going into a private room with somebody) implies consent until it is explicitly revoked.
The enthusiastic consent model was borne from the positive consent model, which was a deliberate attempt to reverse the latter notion, which is called "implied consent" in sex geek circles. But positive consent alone is not sufficient, because plenty of people in sex work / kink / anti-abuse / feminist / etc. communities have pointed out times when they "consented" to sex reluctantly out of fear of some kind of reprisal if they didn't.
I don't disagree with you, I'm just trying to point out that the (federal) legal definition of rape is sex without consent and not explicitly demonstrating consent is not consent. Sexual assault as a broader category should include the other things as well.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
This definition of rape is the most clear cut example of sexism so far in this thread.
I mean, my point is frankie that I am not making things up out of whole cloth
I and others have worked through in multiple ways from the simple to the complex as to how this was sexist, and the arguments against it being so are incredibly poor.
I still remain confused as to what criteria you use to determine if something was sexist or not, because everytime something has come up that is pretty much undeniably sexist, you deny it was.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
And well, if you find my arguments poor.. I guess that's that. There's not much I can say there. It all seems rather simple to me: it was a gendered meme used to describe a non-gendered situation. The meaning was non-gendered, ergo, not sexist. The meaning of the meme is separate from how it was used.
And any time one edges into using this argument, it makes your arguments that much weaker
I fail to see how. I specifically answered that my disagreement had nothing to do with the severity of the issue, and that my motivations here stemmed from what I would probably refer to as Anti-PC thought.
You're incorrectly identifying my statement as an argument. It was a clarification of purpose, a, "I'm not against it for X reason, but I do find it worth arguing about for X reason." If you want to get technical about it, I don't like seeing people labeled as sexist when I don't see their actions as sexist. I dislike a group that applies the label with such ease and then refuses to acknowledge the possibility that they were in error.
Naturally, I don't expect you to admit error if you don't agree. It would be irrational of me to expect otherwise, and the same could easily be said of me. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere between you and me. The problem I have is, I feel you suspect the truth lies exactly where you stand.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
"She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
This is the thing that makes it sound the most weird to me. My imagination may be too limited, but I have a very hard time picturing a world in which everyone always, even if they've been together for a year, are asking each other "do you wanna have sex?" instead of doing things like waking up, starting to kiss each other and then going at it. I understand why it could make it harder for rapists to get away with their crimes, but it seems so bizarre.
This means that you don't get to freak out and say "we've been dating for a year and she lives with me so it's not rape even though she really didn't want to have sex as soon as we woke up every day and only went with it because she had no real other options for a place to live or any of that" when your girlfriend files charges.
I... but so are you saying that there would still be people who don't ask each other explicitly whether they want to have sex every time? If so, how is that any different from what we have now? Or is it kind of like more of a law change you want, where if someone's going to say "no I didn't rape her/him", they have to be able to say "s/he said yes"?
The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The EC model does not require this and I'm pretty sure I already covered this upthread.
I mean, my point is frankie that I am not making things up out of whole cloth
I and others have worked through in multiple ways from the simple to the complex as to how this was sexist, and the arguments against it being so are incredibly poor.
I still remain confused as to what criteria you use to determine if something was sexist or not, because everytime something has come up that is pretty much undeniably sexist, you deny it was.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
And well, if you find my arguments poor.. I guess that's that. There's not much I can say there. It all seems rather simple to me: it was a gendered meme used to describe a non-gendered situation. The meaning was non-gendered, ergo, not sexist. The meaning of the meme is separate from how it was used.
It is simple! THIS IS WHY IT WAS SEXIST!
Intent does not make something not sexist
This isn't an "agree to disagree" thing, and I know you hate to hear that.
It is spectacular how close you come to this and then run the other way
Like, fuck
Using a gendered descriptor of a non gendered event is almost the textbook definition of sexism.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
If you want to get technical about it, I don't like seeing people labeled as sexist when I don't see their actions as sexist.
Good! WE ARE NOT SAYING HE IS SEXIST
Argh
Naturally, I don't expect you to admit error if you don't agree. It would be irrational of me to expect otherwise, and the same could easily be said of me. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere between you and me. The problem I have is, I feel you suspect the truth lies exactly where you stand.
And you, naturally, are not guilty of this as well?
"The truth" is pretty well defined here. Dude used a gendered joke to refer to a non-gendered event. This is sexist. Dude was called on on saying sexist shit, responded with "I am totally not a sexist!", which shows he missed the point, other people join in and say "Also that totally wasn't sexist!" without really explaining why (as we saw when you tried to explain it). And then here we are.
I mean, my point is frankie that I am not making things up out of whole cloth
I and others have worked through in multiple ways from the simple to the complex as to how this was sexist, and the arguments against it being so are incredibly poor.
I still remain confused as to what criteria you use to determine if something was sexist or not, because everytime something has come up that is pretty much undeniably sexist, you deny it was.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
And well, if you find my arguments poor.. I guess that's that. There's not much I can say there. It all seems rather simple to me: it was a gendered meme used to describe a non-gendered situation. The meaning was non-gendered, ergo, not sexist. The meaning of the meme is separate from how it was used.
It is simple! THIS IS WHY IT WAS SEXIST!
Intent does not make something not sexist
This isn't an "agree to disagree" thing, and I know you hate to hear that.
It is spectacular how close you come to this and then run the other way
Like, fuck
Using a gendered descriptor of a non gendered event is almost the textbook definition of sexism.
Except you ignored the next sentence.
The meaning was non-gendered, ergo, not sexist. The meaning of the meme is separate from how it was used.
There's a difference that you keep ignoring. I don't care if the original meme was gendered or not, it was used in a non-gendered way, with the name being left-over shorthand that had literally nothing to do with the actual meaning.
For example, there would be some who would take the words, "Die Bitch!" to mean something rather nasty if you say it to a woman. To me and a friend of mine, it's how we say good night. Our history and shared context allows us to use this rather gendered insult in an entirely different way then the words actual meaning.
From my perspective, this whole thing is like you getting on my case for calling her a bitch. You are ignoring the very thing that changes the meaning.
If you want to get technical about it, I don't like seeing people labeled as sexist when I don't see their actions as sexist.
Good! WE ARE NOT SAYING HE IS SEXIST
Argh
Naturally, I don't expect you to admit error if you don't agree. It would be irrational of me to expect otherwise, and the same could easily be said of me. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere between you and me. The problem I have is, I feel you suspect the truth lies exactly where you stand.
And you, naturally, are not guilty of this as well?
"The truth" is pretty well defined here. Dude used a gendered joke to refer to a non-gendered event. This is sexist. Dude was called on on saying sexist shit, responded with "I am totally not a sexist!", which shows he missed the point, other people join in and say "Also that totally wasn't sexist!" without really explaining why (as we saw when you tried to explain it). And then here we are.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
@Frankiedarling The message is sexist even if the intent wasn't. However, the lack of intent means that the guy isn't a sexist person (well yeah he could be, but benefit of doubt and all that). It's not a huge deal that requires a press conference apology or anything, at the most the guy would just need to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. I'll try to phrase things better in the future" if he were to be confronted about it.
The reason people keep discussing it is so more people spot it and try to understand why it was offensive.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
"She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
This is the thing that makes it sound the most weird to me. My imagination may be too limited, but I have a very hard time picturing a world in which everyone always, even if they've been together for a year, are asking each other "do you wanna have sex?" instead of doing things like waking up, starting to kiss each other and then going at it. I understand why it could make it harder for rapists to get away with their crimes, but it seems so bizarre.
This means that you don't get to freak out and say "we've been dating for a year and she lives with me so it's not rape even though she really didn't want to have sex as soon as we woke up every day and only went with it because she had no real other options for a place to live or any of that" when your girlfriend files charges.
I... but so are you saying that there would still be people who don't ask each other explicitly whether they want to have sex every time? If so, how is that any different from what we have now? Or is it kind of like more of a law change you want, where if someone's going to say "no I didn't rape her/him", they have to be able to say "s/he said yes"?
Ohhhhhh it issssssss why didn't people just say that from the beginning?
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Uh, you know @Frankiedarling these last few posts have made it pretty clear. You are your own Fox News. No Cambiatas required.
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I've explained multiple times how saying that behavior is sexist is basically calling the guy a sexist if he does not divorce himself from said behavior. All you're doing is giving him an out, an opportunity to repent and separate himself from what he did. If he views what he did as normal and correct behavior, you are indeed calling him a sexist.
And you, naturally, are not guilty of this as well?
I actually feel I'm more open-minded on this sort of thing than you are, in that I'm actually willing to consider other possibilites and explanations besides "that was sexist". But that's irrelevant. It means nothing to any of your arguments, or mine. Expressed frustration, if you will, and I'm sorry if it was out of line.
"The truth" is pretty well defined here. Dude used a gendered joke to refer to a non-gendered event. This is sexist. Dude was called on on saying sexist shit, responded with "I am totally not a sexist!", which shows he missed the point, other people join in and say "Also that totally wasn't sexist!" without really explaining why (as we saw when you tried to explain it). And then here we are.
You can claim not to like my explanations, you can't claim I didn't explain why.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Consent is not the issue. The issue is your narrow definition of consent. The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea. There's definitely times where I've felt it was necessary to ask out loud, and there's definitely times where it wasn't. The only problem I have is you demanding that everyone do exactly as you say or be labeled rapists, and honestly, fuck that.
Where in the definition does it have to be verbal?
1. Body language is a thing.
2. And if you're unsure on 1, ask.
3. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask, then don't participate.
4. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask and still want to participate, then we're getting into the grey area.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
@Frankiedarling The message is sexist even if the intent wasn't. However, the lack of intent means that the guy isn't a sexist person (well yeah he could be, but benefit of doubt and all that). It's not a huge deal that requires a press conference apology or anything, at the most the guy would just need to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. I'll try to phrase things better in the future" if he were to be confronted about it.
The reason people keep discussing it is so more people spot it and try to understand why it was offensive.
But how can we say it's a sexist thing if we understand how it was not sexist? It seems somewhat pedantic to say that it's sexist, but only when divorced from context. You cannot divorce meaning from the literal words he said, communication doesn't work that way.
Like I said earlier, calling my friend a bitch is something, when seen from the outside, that would seem pretty bad. But there's context there, reasons why it's a term of endearment. And it would be somewhat odd to say that it doesn't matter what the context is, what I'm saying to her is wrong. I would certainly apologize for the misunderstanding (as the guy did), but that's different from what people are are asking for. They're asking that he divorce his statement from all the context, and admit it was sexist.
I don't see how that's reasonable.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
The context here being that in a world permated with sexism, in a particular career path that is even more permeated with sexism than the mainstream, a public-facing professional guy relied on a gendered stereotype.
Seems like the context only makes it more sexist?
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
+2
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
Except "we" didn't divorce it from context, he did.
(Again, I'm giving the dude the benefit of a doubt here, doesn't mean what he said wasn't stupid)
Edit: This is assuming the context is the in joke about a very select group of people that are all fine with using a shared group noun (within that group) that ties together the people that fall into the other non-related grouping that required game mode.
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Consent is not the issue. The issue is your narrow definition of consent. The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea. There's definitely times where I've felt it was necessary to ask out loud, and there's definitely times where it wasn't. The only problem I have is you demanding that everyone do exactly as you say or be labeled rapists, and honestly, fuck that.
Where in the definition does it have to be verbal?
1. Body language is a thing.
2. And if you're unsure on 1, ask.
3. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask, then don't participate.
4. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask and still want to participate, then we're getting into the grey area.
I'm specifically talking to Jakeman on this. He's defining it very narrowly, down to verbal exchanges. I agree with your list. Though I again feel the need to point out that this is not some sort of "enthusiastic consent" this is just regular consent.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
Context =/= Intent
The context is that he referred to the mode for newer players as "girlfriend mode".
The intent was to praise this new mode and explain how it can get inexperienced players into the game, using a well-accepted stereotypical joke as well as his own personal experiences.
The context was sexist!
The intent was not!
(And the context behind his joke is ALSO sexist!)
There is someone ignoring context, but it ain't the "feminists"
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
I want you to first decide if you want to stick with intent or context as the reason why it's not sexist because you're changing the reasoning inside of two posts here and it doesn't work with either.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Consent is not the issue. The issue is your narrow definition of consent. The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea. There's definitely times where I've felt it was necessary to ask out loud, and there's definitely times where it wasn't. The only problem I have is you demanding that everyone do exactly as you say or be labeled rapists, and honestly, fuck that.
Where in the definition does it have to be verbal?
1. Body language is a thing.
2. And if you're unsure on 1, ask.
3. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask, then don't participate.
4. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask and still want to participate, then we're getting into the grey area.
I'm specifically talking to Jakeman on this. He's defining it very narrowly, down to verbal exchanges. I agree with your list. Though I again feel the need to point out that this is not some sort of "enthusiastic consent" this is just regular consent.
Eh, I guess this is where we come down to nuance. To some consent can be "not no", or at least going along with it.
I like the "enthusiastic" part. It makes everything clearer, and doesn't take away anything.
TMI:
I notice when my wife is not into it, but still going along because she wants to be nice. That's "consent", but not "enthusiastic consent". When that happens, I stop and ask her how's she feeling, if she's tired etc. (I'm too shy to ask, even my own wife, silly Afrikaans/Christian upbringing) But I have weasel words to determine the level of consent.
@Frankiedarling The message is sexist even if the intent wasn't. However, the lack of intent means that the guy isn't a sexist person (well yeah he could be, but benefit of doubt and all that). It's not a huge deal that requires a press conference apology or anything, at the most the guy would just need to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. I'll try to phrase things better in the future" if he were to be confronted about it.
The reason people keep discussing it is so more people spot it and try to understand why it was offensive.
This is why it's a good idea to discuss incidents like this when they occur. Unintentional sexism is the most insidious kind. If people don't realize they're doing it, they'll never stop unless someone corrects it. Devil's greatest trick... etc. etc.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
Context =/= Intent
The context is that he referred to the mode for newer players as "girlfriend mode".
The intent was to praise this new mode and explain how it can get inexperienced players into the game, using a well-accepted stereotypical joke as well as his own personal experiences.
The context was sexist!
The intent was not!
(And the context behind his joke is ALSO sexist!)
There is someone ignoring context, but it ain't the "feminists"
We just did this. We're going in bloody circles. I have no problem with saying that his phrasing was problematic for you, but what he said was not problematic if viewed from his interpretation and perspective. You're taking away the meaning he saw them to have and replaced it with your own, then called it sexism.
That's ridiculous. That's why this is subjective. It's Star Wars Sexism (only from a certain point of view).
@Frankiedarling The message is sexist even if the intent wasn't. However, the lack of intent means that the guy isn't a sexist person (well yeah he could be, but benefit of doubt and all that). It's not a huge deal that requires a press conference apology or anything, at the most the guy would just need to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. I'll try to phrase things better in the future" if he were to be confronted about it.
The reason people keep discussing it is so more people spot it and try to understand why it was offensive.
But how can we say it's a sexist thing if we understand how it was not sexist? It seems somewhat pedantic to say that it's sexist, but only when divorced from context. You cannot divorce meaning from the literal words he said, communication doesn't work that way.
Like I said earlier, calling my friend a bitch is something, when seen from the outside, that would seem pretty bad. But there's context there, reasons why it's a term of endearment. And it would be somewhat odd to say that it doesn't matter what the context is, what I'm saying to her is wrong. I would certainly apologize for the misunderstanding (as the guy did), but that's different from what people are are asking for. They're asking that he divorce his statement from all the context, and admit it was sexist.
I don't see how that's reasonable.
It's a case of what you show to the public and what you don't. My girlfriend makes lots of racist jokes at my expense in private, because I love offensive humor and she knows where the line is drawn. However, you'll never hear one of those jokes if there's people who aren't "in on it" listening. It still wouldn't offend me, but we can't assume that it won't offend others.
With race, we have plenty of history as a society of what's acceptable and what isn't to which audience. With genders, there's just not that much history yet.
(Apologies if the last line doesn't make sense. I'll expand on it if needed. I just can't figure out how to say it correctly)
Again, you've said that the idea of making sure you have explicit consent before having sex and doing otherwise is rape (fucking someone without their consent) is literally the formation of a malfunctioning brain.
That you have said this not once but twice makes me seriously concerned for the well-being of those in contact with you.
Except, your idea of Enthusiastic Consent does not equal Consent in its entirety. I do not need to conform to your model or be a rapist. Framing it that way is stupid. Really stupid. As is your implication that I'm a rapist. Really stupid.
So your invisible implied consent is sufficient for you? You know that's the number one defense for rapists, right? "She wanted it." "She was asking for it" "The way she was dressed showed she wanted it" "if she didn't want to have sex she wouldn't have gotten so drunk." "She didn't fight back, so I thought she wanted it." "She's my girlfriend, of course she wanted to have sex."
Not only that but that's the most common theme in that reddit thread linked earlier about rapists stories, where the rapist just assumes that they were doing the right thing and only find out later they weren't.
Only explicit, obvious consent ("Hey you wanna fuck?" "Yes") is unequivocally Not rape. Everything else is in that shitty grey area that rapists use to excuse their actions, sure maybe some of it isn't rape, but who fucking cares that grey area shouldn't exist or be an excuse for rapists to get out of it. The only way to solve that is to make it all rape unless you spend the ten fucking seconds to say "hey would you like to fuck?" and respect that person's answer.
Seriously this is not a debate. This is not up in the air for argument. The legal definition of rape is “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
Consent is not the issue. The issue is your narrow definition of consent. The idea that anyone who does not verbally ask to penetrate and receive a verbal "please put your penis in my body" is a rapist is retarded. God, all those poor married couples who were raping each other all these years because they didn't know that all other ways of showing consent were invalid in the face of Jakeman's ultimatum.
The funny thing is, I'm not opposed to the idea. There's definitely times where I've felt it was necessary to ask out loud, and there's definitely times where it wasn't. The only problem I have is you demanding that everyone do exactly as you say or be labeled rapists, and honestly, fuck that.
Where in the definition does it have to be verbal?
1. Body language is a thing.
2. And if you're unsure on 1, ask.
3. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask, then don't participate.
4. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask and still want to participate, then we're getting into the grey area.
I'm specifically talking to Jakeman on this. He's defining it very narrowly, down to verbal exchanges. I agree with your list. Though I again feel the need to point out that this is not some sort of "enthusiastic consent" this is just regular consent.
Eh, I guess this is where we come down to nuance. To some consent can be "not no", or at least going along with it.
I like the "enthusiastic" part. It makes everything clearer, and doesn't take away anything.
TMI:
I notice when my wife is not into it, but still going along because she wants to be nice. That's "consent", but not "enthusiastic consent". When that happens, I stop and ask her how's she feeling, if she's tired etc. (I'm too shy to ask, even my own wife, silly Afrikaans/Christian upbringing) But I have weasel words to determine the level of consent.
Ok, so we're getting away from the topic of Rape and onto Enthusiastic Consent. I like that.
So that's what EC is? Some earlier posts were making it sound like something more complicated than that. I always thought that using certain gestures/words/etc was the normal way to consent.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited August 2012
So @Frankiedarling I haven't seen you actually address this argument directly, and I would like to know what your response is.
If someone makes this statement, is it racist? Why or why not?
The design team was looking at the concept art [of the Mechromancer class] and thought, you know what, this is actually the most athletic character we’ve ever had. I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the black friend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is
(we'll add, in this hypothetical situation, that this game has had a really hard time finding a black audience, and dudes are known to have tried to get black friends in to the game and failed, so it's a stereotype within the community)
Cambiata on
Peace to fashion police, I wear my heart
On my sleeve, let the runway start
@Frankiedarling The message is sexist even if the intent wasn't. However, the lack of intent means that the guy isn't a sexist person (well yeah he could be, but benefit of doubt and all that). It's not a huge deal that requires a press conference apology or anything, at the most the guy would just need to say "I'm sorry, I didn't mean it in that way. I'll try to phrase things better in the future" if he were to be confronted about it.
The reason people keep discussing it is so more people spot it and try to understand why it was offensive.
But how can we say it's a sexist thing if we understand how it was not sexist? It seems somewhat pedantic to say that it's sexist, but only when divorced from context. You cannot divorce meaning from the literal words he said, communication doesn't work that way.
Like I said earlier, calling my friend a bitch is something, when seen from the outside, that would seem pretty bad. But there's context there, reasons why it's a term of endearment. And it would be somewhat odd to say that it doesn't matter what the context is, what I'm saying to her is wrong. I would certainly apologize for the misunderstanding (as the guy did), but that's different from what people are are asking for. They're asking that he divorce his statement from all the context, and admit it was sexist.
I don't see how that's reasonable.
It's a case of what you show to the public and what you don't. My girlfriend makes lots of racist jokes at my expense in private, because I love offensive humor and she knows where the line is drawn. However, you'll never hear one of those jokes if there's people who aren't "in on it" listening. It still wouldn't offend me, but we can't assume that it won't offend others.
With race, we have plenty of history as a society of what's acceptable and what isn't to which audience. With genders, there's just not that much history yet.
(Apologies if the last line doesn't make sense. I'll expand on it if needed. I just can't figure out how to say it correctly)
No, that makes perfect sense.
I'm fairly comfortable with this explanation, I think it fits well with my line of thought. Like, I have no problems with the idea that what he said could have offended others who did not share his context, and that's something he could apologize for. I don't think he needs to apologize for what he said, but only for the misunderstanding.
To expand my personal example, there have been times when people have found it abusive at how me and my friend communicate. But after the explanation they no longer feel it's abusive. It's still perfectly right for me to apologize for the misunderstanding, but that doesn't make what I did abusive or wrong.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
Context =/= Intent
The context is that he referred to the mode for newer players as "girlfriend mode".
The intent was to praise this new mode and explain how it can get inexperienced players into the game, using a well-accepted stereotypical joke as well as his own personal experiences.
The context was sexist!
The intent was not!
(And the context behind his joke is ALSO sexist!)
There is someone ignoring context, but it ain't the "feminists"
I still want a response , too Frankie! It feels like I was SO close to making you understand what we mean!
Here's a definition of sexist from freedictionary.com
1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
Would you say that "girlfriend mode" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?
If you think the definition is too broad/narrow/strict, then please specify in what way you think it is.
I just made a post refreshing my view on the situation, hopefully the answer is in there. If not, please feel free to ask for more clarification.
It doesn't really answer what I asked, no, so please clarify that. Would you say that "girlfriend mode" does not promote stereotyping of girlfriends, ie of persons based on gender, among players/fans of the game?
Only if you ignore the context of the situation. If you understand where he's coming from, you realize he's not talking about girlfriends (or women) at all. If you take "girlfriend mode" as literally meaning "a mode for girlfriends" then yes, it would be sexist.
The term was used as shorthand for "not being able to get someone into gaming".
It's a shame that the "girlfriend mode" part from my pre-edit post hung around since that term was supposedly a false quote, but let's look at the original quote of what Hemingway actually said:
“The design team was looking at the concept art and thought, you know what, this is actually the cutest character we’ve ever had,” said Hemingway. “I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the girlfriend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is.”
We can infer that he is calling the "girlfriend skill tree" because he thinks of "girlfriend" as someone who "suck[ s ] at first-person shooters". To me, that does promote stereotyping of "gilfriends" as "suck[ing] at first-person shooters", even within context. Remember we're not talking about intent here. I liked this article on the incident over at PCGamer (I haven't read them in 7+ years but it seems they're still rocking)
So @Frankiedarling I haven't seen you actually address this argument directly, and I would like to know what your response is.
If someone makes this statement, is it racist? Why or why not?
The design team was looking at the concept art [of the Mechromancer class] and thought, you know what, this is actually the most athletic character we’ve ever had. I want to make, for the lack of a better term, the black friend skill tree. This is, I love Borderlands and I want to share it with someone, but they suck at first-person shooters. Can we make a skill tree that actually allows them to understand the game and to play the game? That’s what our attempt with the Best Friends Forever skill tree is
(we'll add, in this hypothetical situation, that this game has had a really hard time finding a black audience, and dudes are known to have tried to get black friends in to the game and failed, so it's a stereotype within the community)
As has been stated earlier, the examples are not equivalent. And if there was one person I would not discuss this with, it would be you. If I had to have the conversation, I'd rather it was with someone like Arch who may disagree with me, but does not assume bad faith.
We just did this. We're going in bloody circles. I have no problem with saying that his phrasing was problematic for you, but what he said was not problematic if viewed from his interpretation and perspective. You're taking away the meaning he saw them to have and replaced it with your own, then called it sexism.
That's ridiculous. That's why this is subjective. It's Star Wars Sexism (only from a certain point of view).
Listen.
The definition of sexism we're operating from means that stuff like this is sexist. The definition is broad in that it does not care about intent or context. It is objective in that it says "using any gendered language to describe something where gender isn't necessary is sexist".
Now, you can dispute that definition, but by doing so you are probably going to make it less objective. When people immediately dispute the sexism of sexist remarks, they're probably starting out from this sort of position, because they cannot divorce the subjective moralizing from the objective truth.
I have, historically, been super critical of allegations of sexism and the like. I still feel that some people occasionally try to have it both ways, saying their judgment of a situation is objective but not recognizing either their perceived or actual intended moralizing.
But I've learned to accept this objective view of sexism because it's much, much easier to objectively arrive at a consensus of what is and isn't sexist. From there, you can have an actual, possibly productive conversation about why we should or should not care that some isolated thing is sexist.
Posts
I still am confused about what it actually entails
I don't disagree with you, I'm just trying to point out that the (federal) legal definition of rape is sex without consent and not explicitly demonstrating consent is not consent. Sexual assault as a broader category should include the other things as well.
This definition of rape is the most clear cut example of sexism so far in this thread.
That can easily be turned around. "Every time I show how something wasn't sexist, you inevitably claim it was, indeed, sexist." This sort of thinking doesn't get anyone anywhere.
And well, if you find my arguments poor.. I guess that's that. There's not much I can say there. It all seems rather simple to me: it was a gendered meme used to describe a non-gendered situation. The meaning was non-gendered, ergo, not sexist. The meaning of the meme is separate from how it was used.
I fail to see how. I specifically answered that my disagreement had nothing to do with the severity of the issue, and that my motivations here stemmed from what I would probably refer to as Anti-PC thought.
You're incorrectly identifying my statement as an argument. It was a clarification of purpose, a, "I'm not against it for X reason, but I do find it worth arguing about for X reason." If you want to get technical about it, I don't like seeing people labeled as sexist when I don't see their actions as sexist. I dislike a group that applies the label with such ease and then refuses to acknowledge the possibility that they were in error.
Naturally, I don't expect you to admit error if you don't agree. It would be irrational of me to expect otherwise, and the same could easily be said of me. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere between you and me. The problem I have is, I feel you suspect the truth lies exactly where you stand.
I... but so are you saying that there would still be people who don't ask each other explicitly whether they want to have sex every time? If so, how is that any different from what we have now? Or is it kind of like more of a law change you want, where if someone's going to say "no I didn't rape her/him", they have to be able to say "s/he said yes"?
http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I know you did. Jakeman missed the memo.
It is simple! THIS IS WHY IT WAS SEXIST!
Intent does not make something not sexist
This isn't an "agree to disagree" thing, and I know you hate to hear that.
It is spectacular how close you come to this and then run the other way
Like, fuck
Using a gendered descriptor of a non gendered event is almost the textbook definition of sexism.
You haven't done this. You've called it a joke, shorthand, a metaphor, and not intended to be sexist. None of those things make it not sexist.
Good! WE ARE NOT SAYING HE IS SEXIST
Argh
And you, naturally, are not guilty of this as well?
"The truth" is pretty well defined here. Dude used a gendered joke to refer to a non-gendered event. This is sexist. Dude was called on on saying sexist shit, responded with "I am totally not a sexist!", which shows he missed the point, other people join in and say "Also that totally wasn't sexist!" without really explaining why (as we saw when you tried to explain it). And then here we are.
Except you ignored the next sentence.
There's a difference that you keep ignoring. I don't care if the original meme was gendered or not, it was used in a non-gendered way, with the name being left-over shorthand that had literally nothing to do with the actual meaning.
For example, there would be some who would take the words, "Die Bitch!" to mean something rather nasty if you say it to a woman. To me and a friend of mine, it's how we say good night. Our history and shared context allows us to use this rather gendered insult in an entirely different way then the words actual meaning.
From my perspective, this whole thing is like you getting on my case for calling her a bitch. You are ignoring the very thing that changes the meaning.
Naw, he probably isn't.
The truth is never between two randomly selected goalposts.
Is it beyond the realm of human imagination that a term can be used for something beyond its original meaning while referencing the original mechanics for context? Like, is that some wacky science fiction?
The reason people keep discussing it is so more people spot it and try to understand why it was offensive.
Twitter
Ohhhhhh it issssssss why didn't people just say that from the beginning?
@Arch: This post/lawyer... note thing explained the point of EC and what it is very well I think (thanks Feral!) http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/radicalizing-consent-towards-implementing-an-affirmative-consent-model-in-new-yorks-rape-law/
Edit: Oh. I guess you did say that Feral, I just missed your post. Sorry.
No, but that has not been achieved here. How he or you personally want the word to mean, or intend it to mean, does not change what the word actually means to everyone else in the world.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
I've explained multiple times how saying that behavior is sexist is basically calling the guy a sexist if he does not divorce himself from said behavior. All you're doing is giving him an out, an opportunity to repent and separate himself from what he did. If he views what he did as normal and correct behavior, you are indeed calling him a sexist.
I actually feel I'm more open-minded on this sort of thing than you are, in that I'm actually willing to consider other possibilites and explanations besides "that was sexist". But that's irrelevant. It means nothing to any of your arguments, or mine. Expressed frustration, if you will, and I'm sorry if it was out of line.
You can claim not to like my explanations, you can't claim I didn't explain why.
Where in the definition does it have to be verbal?
1. Body language is a thing.
2. And if you're unsure on 1, ask.
3. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask, then don't participate.
4. And if you're unsure and don't want to ask and still want to participate, then we're getting into the grey area.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
So in other words, it's only sexist if you divorce it from its context. That's what I've been arguing all along.
"Because" and "He didn't mean it." are not explanations.
On my sleeve, let the runway start
But how can we say it's a sexist thing if we understand how it was not sexist? It seems somewhat pedantic to say that it's sexist, but only when divorced from context. You cannot divorce meaning from the literal words he said, communication doesn't work that way.
Like I said earlier, calling my friend a bitch is something, when seen from the outside, that would seem pretty bad. But there's context there, reasons why it's a term of endearment. And it would be somewhat odd to say that it doesn't matter what the context is, what I'm saying to her is wrong. I would certainly apologize for the misunderstanding (as the guy did), but that's different from what people are are asking for. They're asking that he divorce his statement from all the context, and admit it was sexist.
I don't see how that's reasonable.
The context here being that in a world permated with sexism, in a particular career path that is even more permeated with sexism than the mainstream, a public-facing professional guy relied on a gendered stereotype.
Seems like the context only makes it more sexist?
On my sleeve, let the runway start
Except "we" didn't divorce it from context, he did.
(Again, I'm giving the dude the benefit of a doubt here, doesn't mean what he said wasn't stupid)
Edit: This is assuming the context is the in joke about a very select group of people that are all fine with using a shared group noun (within that group) that ties together the people that fall into the other non-related grouping that required game mode.
And also the cutest character ever.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
I'm specifically talking to Jakeman on this. He's defining it very narrowly, down to verbal exchanges. I agree with your list. Though I again feel the need to point out that this is not some sort of "enthusiastic consent" this is just regular consent.
Context =/= Intent
The context is that he referred to the mode for newer players as "girlfriend mode".
The intent was to praise this new mode and explain how it can get inexperienced players into the game, using a well-accepted stereotypical joke as well as his own personal experiences.
The context was sexist!
The intent was not!
(And the context behind his joke is ALSO sexist!)
There is someone ignoring context, but it ain't the "feminists"
I want you to first decide if you want to stick with intent or context as the reason why it's not sexist because you're changing the reasoning inside of two posts here and it doesn't work with either.
Eh, I guess this is where we come down to nuance. To some consent can be "not no", or at least going along with it.
I like the "enthusiastic" part. It makes everything clearer, and doesn't take away anything.
TMI:
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
This is why it's a good idea to discuss incidents like this when they occur. Unintentional sexism is the most insidious kind. If people don't realize they're doing it, they'll never stop unless someone corrects it. Devil's greatest trick... etc. etc.
We just did this. We're going in bloody circles. I have no problem with saying that his phrasing was problematic for you, but what he said was not problematic if viewed from his interpretation and perspective. You're taking away the meaning he saw them to have and replaced it with your own, then called it sexism.
That's ridiculous. That's why this is subjective. It's Star Wars Sexism (only from a certain point of view).
It's a case of what you show to the public and what you don't. My girlfriend makes lots of racist jokes at my expense in private, because I love offensive humor and she knows where the line is drawn. However, you'll never hear one of those jokes if there's people who aren't "in on it" listening. It still wouldn't offend me, but we can't assume that it won't offend others.
With race, we have plenty of history as a society of what's acceptable and what isn't to which audience. With genders, there's just not that much history yet.
(Apologies if the last line doesn't make sense. I'll expand on it if needed. I just can't figure out how to say it correctly)
Twitter
Ok, so we're getting away from the topic of Rape and onto Enthusiastic Consent. I like that.
On the spoilered, that's a good example.
Twitter
If someone makes this statement, is it racist? Why or why not?
(we'll add, in this hypothetical situation, that this game has had a really hard time finding a black audience, and dudes are known to have tried to get black friends in to the game and failed, so it's a stereotype within the community)
On my sleeve, let the runway start
No, that makes perfect sense.
I'm fairly comfortable with this explanation, I think it fits well with my line of thought. Like, I have no problems with the idea that what he said could have offended others who did not share his context, and that's something he could apologize for. I don't think he needs to apologize for what he said, but only for the misunderstanding.
To expand my personal example, there have been times when people have found it abusive at how me and my friend communicate. But after the explanation they no longer feel it's abusive. It's still perfectly right for me to apologize for the misunderstanding, but that doesn't make what I did abusive or wrong.
I still want a response , too Frankie! It feels like I was SO close to making you understand what we mean!
As has been stated earlier, the examples are not equivalent. And if there was one person I would not discuss this with, it would be you. If I had to have the conversation, I'd rather it was with someone like Arch who may disagree with me, but does not assume bad faith.
Listen.
The definition of sexism we're operating from means that stuff like this is sexist. The definition is broad in that it does not care about intent or context. It is objective in that it says "using any gendered language to describe something where gender isn't necessary is sexist".
Now, you can dispute that definition, but by doing so you are probably going to make it less objective. When people immediately dispute the sexism of sexist remarks, they're probably starting out from this sort of position, because they cannot divorce the subjective moralizing from the objective truth.
I have, historically, been super critical of allegations of sexism and the like. I still feel that some people occasionally try to have it both ways, saying their judgment of a situation is objective but not recognizing either their perceived or actual intended moralizing.
But I've learned to accept this objective view of sexism because it's much, much easier to objectively arrive at a consensus of what is and isn't sexist. From there, you can have an actual, possibly productive conversation about why we should or should not care that some isolated thing is sexist.
Err, sorry. I've been trying to climb out of quite the dogpile here
Do you mean reply to Arch, or to your post below? Because I'm sure I replied to both, Arch's just this page.
So far Turkey's perspective (assuming I'm not misunderstanding again, and I hope not) is making the most sense to me.