The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Shaking hands, or: A question of tolerance
Posts
I would agree if this were an argument happening in the normal world, especially if it was targeting one if the involved people.
It is instead, however, being discussed as part of a larger series of discussions which take place anytime anything interesting hits the news, in a place specifically dedicated to discussing and debating things.
Society as a whole is harmed when sexism, or any other form of bigotry, is allowed to go unchecked.
Again, as long as you're opposed to shaking hands rather than being opposed to shaking hands with women, or POC, or people who aren't wearing expensive enough clothes, it's your right to handle social greetings. It's not ok to standardize bias.
Yes, to the first part. It's internalized sexism. For example If I see a black person walking up my driveway and I get nervous, where as I wouldn't if it was a white person, I don't think anyone could argue that isn't internalized racism.
If I'm not comfortable shaking a woman's hand because she's not my wife/family that speaks to internalized sexism.
e: It pays to remember that often the most vigorous enforcers of sexism against women(particularly when it comes to things like purity policing) are other women.
Ah, now I understand: this discussion has no relationship to actual situations in the real world.
Society is also harmed when racism, or any other form of bigotry, is allowed to go unchecked, and one particularly pervasive form of racism is to be disproportionately more critical of sexism when it involves people of color.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Ok? But considering I'm not doing that, I don't really get what that has to do with this conversation.
You appear to be.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Calling this interaction sexism is weak tea.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
And you appear to be defending sexism, so maybe appearances can be deceiving.
Or do some intentions matter when others do not?
If someone saying, “I respect you and look forward to working/meeting with you but am uncomfortable with physical contact” makes you jump to -isms then that says more about you than the person desiring autonomy.
As much as "I'm uncomfortable being touched by black people" as bigotry.
“A tenet of my religion is that my social conventions are different than yours” is not
It's a weird case this, because Islam does have some ingrained views that are not great on the gender front, however it's also being attacked for any and every reason on a racial front that's causing real harm and deaths.
So in situations like this, where there was no real harm done critising it because of who it involves does cause harm (not on the forum I mean, but the fact that it's news worthy)
Same needle to thread with Isreal really. World's messy.
Besides, we do have different gendered standards for when physical contact is involved. Police/security is gendered when they have to make physical contact, and that's generally seen as a good thing.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Calling a woman's right to choose what religion she follows = "sexist"
Okay.
An extremely white, predominantly Christian country is seeing a moderate increase in the population of people who are neither white nor Christian.
This is terrifying to people who have difficulty adapting to minor changes, and they’re responding by making a huge fuss over silly things like “OMG she didn’t want to shake the Prince’s hand! I’m going to faint!”
Pretending that the lady is sexist is quite frankly a cynical appropriation of social justice rhetoric.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I guess at least dont make any claims to value multiculturalism?
Don't confuse deprioritization with defense. Not all instances of sexism are equal and sometimes the concrete consequences are minor, while the criticism itself is used as a cudgel to promote Islamophobia or racism or fear of immigrants. Perhaps you don't intend to participate in a culture of fear towards Islam; you do have the opportunity to engage in this topic with more nuance and sensitivity to the complexities.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Mutual respect would look like white Christians not feeling like they are owed touch and Muslim women not feeling like they are obligated to
Splitting hairs, I guess I could grant that it is some sort of residual trauma rather than sexism. But having a codified belief system "I shouldn't shake hands with opposite gendered strangers" goes well beyond that. I'd also think it would be generalizations not absolutes. Ie: they'd be uncomfortable shaking the hand of a large adult white man with a beard, but not a small 15 year old black boy.
And there'd also be all kinds of weird corner cases were I'd interrogate the truthfulness of it being trauma versus belief. Shit like say the Prince was actually just a very butch presenting Princess, in that case would the traumatized shake their hand (because they aren't a man) or refuse to shake their hand(because they appear as a man, and thus trigger the trauma response).
I'm also not sure I'm okay with someone not being comfortable with something being sufficient to accept their refusal to do it as good/okay. If I organize a sales trip for my office, and I once had a traumatizing experience with a female coworker, that doesn't mean its okay for me to freeze out the female staff.
This feels like the true crux of the thread so far, to be honest.
I'll make the good list:
Pastafarians seem pretty okay.
This is an anti-religious argument moreso than a sexism argument.
I agree, but would you have the same response if it was a Princess and a male member of the mosque. This being the easiest case to criticize doesn't rob it of value to interrogate our beliefs and values against.
I left the woman back at the river. Why are you still carrying her?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Also, those are things that feminists actively oppose here, too.
Zen Buddhism is white appropriation of another problematic religion. It's double ungood.
EDIT: Precisely here:
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/41622686#Comment_41622686
I do not mean athiest. Anti-religion.
Its not whataboutism. Its pointing out that people are just demanding one arbtitrary cultural value system be replaced with another.
I'm hardly an expert on all the worlds religions, but all the major ones have sexism so deeply built into their core that they aren't severable. Do I hate this because its dogmatic religious sexism or sexist religious dogma, is a pretty meaningless difference.