The thing with sexism is that it's very hard to make it truly consensual. There are many individuals who greatly enjoy being treated in a manner associated with their gender, but there's no reason to apply that to people who don't enjoy that as well.
A hetero married couple could easily adopt roles which have traditionally been associated with gender, but just because the husband mows the lawn while the wife cooks in one household doesn't mean either of them should push that on their neighbors or their offspring. But if you have two consenting adults picking up those roles without applying them to others... it's not sexism, anymore than a teacher/student relationship is sexism.
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.
I'm really not sure what you're arguing against then.
Either of those structures are still informed by your values. Viewing the reduction of harm as something to pursue is informed by your values, as would similarly seeing the evasion of unpopular scenarios. There is literally no ethical simplification you can boil this down to that means we've left the realm of values.
Our hapless accused can hold whatever ethical system he wants. I'm assuming he holds a broadly similar one to the accuser because I'm not really engaging in a meta-ethical discussion. The point is, according to whatever system you choose, his values inform him that his act was not wrong. Calling him sexist won't work to convince him he was wrong, because (see my little modus tollens above) he does not feel he is wrong.
I speak only for myself, but my general method is to identify what someone's actual values are, reveal them to that person, and then show them how their values apply to the behaviors under discussion.
If someone values "No Harm", then I show them how sexist behaviors cause harm.
If someone does not value "No Harm," I try to change that. Often people THINK they value "No Harm," but they instead have a different set of values, but they DO value valuing "No Harm", and so I can lead them to it.
If someone values "No Unpopularity," and they cannot be convinced to value "No Harm," then I show them how harm is unpopular, and then show them how sexism causes harm.
If harm is not unpopular, I seek to make it so.
This is all because I value "No Harm" very strongly.
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.
The problem there though, is that the nature of discourse lends itself to discussing "little stuff" but tends to avoid discussing bigger stuff.
Like, I mentioned earlier how if the debate is about some relatively minor controversy like rape jokes you'll get like 10 pages of conversation as people go back and forth. (And then of course the accusation will be levied "why are you so worried about jokes when REAL RAPE is happening")
If the discussion is about horrifying rape statistics, people will go "oh yeah, of course that's uncontroversial, everyone agrees thats bad" and not a lot of discussion will happen.
And apparently, you can't bring up the latter when you're talking about the former.
So we just don't really bring it up at all.
e; I was thinking about chick-fil-a yesterday as another example of how debate tends to happen around these minor "flashpoints". I mean on one hand, a fucking chicken restaurant owner said something bigoted, who cares. But on the other hand to understand why half the country is drawing up battle lines around a goddamn chicken restaurant you need to put it in the context of the gay rights debate as a whole.
In general most people don't just wake up and say "hmm, gonna join the culture wars today" until some little issue happens to drag them in.
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.
The problem there though, is that the nature of discourse lends itself to discussing "little stuff" but tends to avoid discussing bigger stuff.
Yeah, I mean, this is kind of what discourse analysis is. I find it somewhat odd that one would have a problem with it, as such.
Has anyone even made direct comparisons between areas of discourse and actual events? It seems spurious to conflate discourse analysis in general with someone making comparisons as mentioned.
This is kind of the standard "Oh other people do bad things, but what I'm doing isn't bad!" reaction to pretty much any ethical discussion.
Stopping people from from doing bad things is a goal, they need to be talked to in an effective manner. It may seem like a courtesy that has not been earned, but I am asking that they be separated from the criticism. Specifically i want complaints to be written so that at no point are any separating distinctions made between the audience and the author.
Composing an effective complaint is very difficult; while there are many things that can be done that are easy the more important aspects can be quite difficult. Chief among those hard things to do is figuring out how to separate "the problem" with "the audience". If the audience is not separated from the criticism the probability that the reader will be in the mood to receive the message will drop dramatically.
The reason for this really comes down to how people perceive being separated into groups, and more importantly, opposing groups. When the audience is lumped into the criticism and the author is not a part of that same criticism then two groups have been set up by the author; groups that are implicitly at odds with each other. This essentially means there are now two "teams" with the author on one side and the audience on the other. Teams support their own members and oppose the members of other teams.
Doing this is not easy, though making the effort is. This is because "the problem" typically is "the audience". It is either something they did, said, supported, or are. It is the social systems their actions inadvertently uphold; it is their privilege that they cannot see; it is their worldview which is inconsistent if that privilege is known. Exacerbating this is the fact that the author wants something from that person. This does not necessarily have to be an apology or recompense, imply changing behavior or a re-evaluation surroundings are often enough.
Either way, these things do not come easy to most people. Many times entire worldviews are being challenged in ways they are not comfortable with. Things that seem small to authors can be large to the audience and while an initial request may look only like a small trifle, changing it can require the person to think harder about other actions which were not complained about.
So the next time that something like this has to be written, remember to separate the audience from the criticism.
OK. So semi-formal example a-ma-jig over back to my less disciplined self. I haven't been paying as much attention to this discussion as is probably warranted. I only really know that the borderlands two people did something sexist and I looked at it and it was sexist and then, predictably people complained about them being called sexist and now we are having a discussion about whether or not its right to call people sexist.
Do not do it. It is dumb, wrong, it does not work; it is not ok. Its very hard to not call someone sexist when you're complaining that they did a sexist thing. But it still has to be avoided. The few articles I've read on the subject did not do a particularly good job in avoiding it.
You know who did do a good job of avoiding it? Martin Luther King. Yea i went there. Read "i have a dream". Tell me how many times he says "white people are the problem". [ I will give you a hint, its zero]. He never mentions white people except inclusively and the only time he mentions racism is either systematically or as others clearly not in the audience.
But let us be absolutely 100% clear that the audience for "i have a dream" definitely was white people[and powerful white people at that] and white people were 100% most certainly absolutely the problem [and even more so powerful white people]. The audience for criticism about the borderlands 2 sexism is most definitely male nerds and/or men. And the problem, in general and specifically, is most definitely a problem with male nerds and/or men.
You still don't "get to call them" sexists, especially not in an article that is meant to inform people that are not in the know, about this sexist thing.
Martin Luther King was a bridge builder, and that's wonderful. Ideally we need more people like that who can do the whole saint-like-patience thing when it comes to expressing a problem in a way that is inclusive and not alienating towards your audience.
I definitely agree that this is the "best" way to change peoples minds.
The thing is though, not all black people should have to be expected to be Martin Luther King, every time they talk about race.
I have a friend who would probably be regarded by this thread as the prototypical "angry feminist", I remember one particular argument I witnessed at a show between her and one of those obnoxious kind of laddish gross-out punk bands where they'd performed a bunch of songs about "trannies" and women staying in kitchens lol and that kind of stuff. She was loudly in their faces calling them a bunch of pricks.
Is this the most productive, winning-hearts-and-minds kind for her to angle to take? Probably not. But it seems incredibly counter productive and patronizing of me to turn to HER among this group of guys and say "now now, maybe if you calmed down a bit and talked nicer they might listen to you. Don't be accusatory. Maybe smile a little?".
Ultimately shes voicing her discontent, and that's whats important. Maybe its not gonna change their mind, but as far as the scene as a whole goes I think it is valuable that someones saying that stuff and letting it known that its not welcome. If I want to help I can try to be the nice non accusatory one patiently explaining to people who will listen about embedded sexism and such, but I'm not gonna begrudge someone for being pissed off as hell.
The thing is though, not all black people should have to be expected to be Martin Luther King, every time they talk about race.
Should people be required to take the time to understand an issue and change their life and worldview if they're alienated intentionally or otherwise by the protester?
People should take time to understand an issue regardless.
Practically speaking, yes its better to be nice, more flies with honey than vinegar and that. You get more people caring about say, famine relief if you can think up a catchy marketing slogan and feel good campaign, rather than the ones that show starving people and make you feel bad and guilty.
Morally speaking, you should care about famine relief regardless of the marketing. If one of those irritating charity muggers gets up in your face about it in the street, theres a certain kind of mentality that takes that as an excuse to say "well I was going to care about famine relief, but thanks to this guy now I dont!"
@Goumindong, we already established a few pages back that no one was calling John Hemingway a sexist, merely that he made a sexist remark. So, while your observation is correct, the audience may still choose to interpret the criticism as an attack on them personally, as anyone who's ever known someone who is bad as taking criticism can attest to.
"What he said was sexist"
"I've have said things like that, and I'm not a sexist, so NO U!"
I speak only for myself, but my general method is to identify what someone's actual values are, reveal them to that person, and then show them how their values apply to the behaviors under discussion.
If someone values "No Harm", then I show them how sexist behaviors cause harm.
If someone does not value "No Harm," I try to change that. Often people THINK they value "No Harm," but they instead have a different set of values, but they DO value valuing "No Harm", and so I can lead them to it.
If someone values "No Unpopularity," and they cannot be convinced to value "No Harm," then I show them how harm is unpopular, and then show them how sexism causes harm.
If harm is not unpopular, I seek to make it so.
This is all because I value "No Harm" very strongly.
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
1) Feelings affect health. Human emotional states are incredibly important for those individuals and for the world around them. This is a basic biological and social fact.
2) Sexism causes a large variety of different harms. Some are emotional, some are social, some are educational, some are political, some are economic, and usually more than one harm applies.
--
Goum: One of the big problems with forum discussions is that they involve multiple audiences who have very different levels of discourse. If Vix and Feral were talking about sexism, they could be blunt and frank and very descriptive, with lots of shared knowledge and experience to guide the way, and without the need to be personally defensive. This is completely different than the conversation between one of those knowledgable folks and someone who is not only not knowledgable, but who has sexist behavior they feel they need to defend.
I speak only for myself, but my general method is to identify what someone's actual values are, reveal them to that person, and then show them how their values apply to the behaviors under discussion.
If someone values "No Harm", then I show them how sexist behaviors cause harm.
If someone does not value "No Harm," I try to change that. Often people THINK they value "No Harm," but they instead have a different set of values, but they DO value valuing "No Harm", and so I can lead them to it.
If someone values "No Unpopularity," and they cannot be convinced to value "No Harm," then I show them how harm is unpopular, and then show them how sexism causes harm.
If harm is not unpopular, I seek to make it so.
This is all because I value "No Harm" very strongly.
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
There have been like 2 pages of discussion since then, and I think the focus of the topic has shifted out to addressing sexism in general.
You're dragging it back to the issue of girlfriend mode again, so you can say "but look how silly this issue is! No not that one you're talking about, this one I like talking about"
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
1) Feelings affect health. Human emotional states are incredibly important for those individuals and for the world around them. This is a basic biological and social fact.
2) Sexism causes a large variety of different harms. Some are emotional, some are social, some are educational, some are political, some are economic, and usually more than one harm applies.
Persons have control over their feelings, and their own reactions.
If a person is genuinely experiencing symptoms of depression as a result of someone they've never met, in an office somewhere, implying that they may not be good at video games, then perhaps there are larger issues with which the person needs to deal.
I speak only for myself, but my general method is to identify what someone's actual values are, reveal them to that person, and then show them how their values apply to the behaviors under discussion.
If someone values "No Harm", then I show them how sexist behaviors cause harm.
If someone does not value "No Harm," I try to change that. Often people THINK they value "No Harm," but they instead have a different set of values, but they DO value valuing "No Harm", and so I can lead them to it.
If someone values "No Unpopularity," and they cannot be convinced to value "No Harm," then I show them how harm is unpopular, and then show them how sexism causes harm.
If harm is not unpopular, I seek to make it so.
This is all because I value "No Harm" very strongly.
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
There have been like 2 pages of discussion since then, and I think the focus of the topic has shifted out to addressing sexism in general.
You're dragging it back to the issue of girlfriend mode again, so you can say "but look how silly this issue is! No not that one you're talking about, this one I like talking about"
Why?
I wanted to get into jucar's harm list. Perhaps I ought to have been more direct.
Edit: I guess I should ask if the use of the term "ethical" means that we are allowed to talk about "ethics", or if this is another thread where we employ ethical and moral terms, but are not allowed to talk about ethics or morality.
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.
"and that should not be necessary. "
I don't really understand what you want to say here. How do you think people should be "calling out sexist behavior" instead of saying "what you just did is sexist"?
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
1) Feelings affect health. Human emotional states are incredibly important for those individuals and for the world around them. This is a basic biological and social fact.
2) Sexism causes a large variety of different harms. Some are emotional, some are social, some are educational, some are political, some are economic, and usually more than one harm applies.
Persons have control over their feelings, and their own reactions.
If a person is genuinely experiencing symptoms of depression as a result of someone they've never met, in an office somewhere, implying that they may not be good at video games, then perhaps there are larger issues with which the person needs to deal.
No, they're upset that once again, the casual sexism of the culture is leading people to discount women. And when this gets played over and over again, it's easy to understand why people get frustrated and upset.
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
Well, that's a tough break I guess. But I suppose its that imperative that we don't hurt bigots precious "feewings".
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
J, if you don't have anything substantial to add to the thread except off-topic philosophy, supposed disinterest and lack of empathy, then you should not be posting in it, wouldn't you agree?
Our hapless accused can hold whatever ethical system he wants. I'm assuming he holds a broadly similar one to the accuser because I'm not really engaging in a meta-ethical discussion. The point is, according to whatever system you choose, his values inform him that his act was not wrong. Calling him sexist won't work to convince him he was wrong, because (see my little modus tollens above) he does not feel he is wrong.
But in many instances s/he doesn't realize the ramifications and subtler implications of their actions so even though what they did does run counter to their values, they see nothing wrong with what they did. And so you can get to discussing those things and maybe they and/or you can come away with different points of view.
@Jeedan: The way I understood the following posts was that one (the most obvious) solution would be to use other ways of describing it because your own and the "sexistically acting" person's definitions of "sexism" are likely to differ very much, and on top of that the other person is likely to consider sexism/sexist a very emotionally charged and value-laden term. So you could say "hey you know what, the thing you did there could be consider offensive because so and so and so" and then at the end maybe you could say "by the way, that is what some people consider sexist, because a lot of people define it this way" if you want to explain that too. The point is to get to constructive discussion as soon as possible by dodging an extreme reaction that might make the other person ignore anything you say afterwards. I don't really know about the whole "you're trying to challenge their whole world-view!!!" thing though, to me it's mostly a word problem.
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.
I would argue that you have it backwards - that casual sexism is the deeper problem, and forms the root of the issue. A large part of the issue in understanding this is that we tend to look at any one incident in isolation, where by itself, it doesn't appear to be a problem. But it needs to be kept in mind that it's not happening in isolation. Furthermore, I would argue that the big incidents build up from the smaller ones - this is the principle behind the concept of rape culture, for example.
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
So your position is for people to just accept being rendered a second class member via cultural mores?
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
So your position is for people to just accept being rendered a second class member via cultural mores?
The way I've understood it is that _J_ thinks people should stop arguing so much about such petty things like the female characters in games or some offensive quip by a co-worker and focus on "real" issues. I've heard similar arguments many times in many forms, like "women's right to play golf? what about the children! in Africa! STARVING! do something about that instead!". But it ignores that it's not just about one single instance of discrimination happening, it's about helping to counter-act the offensive pattern. Also, the more widespread acceptance of gender equality values is likely to lead to less rape in the world and less domestic abuse against women, which almost noone would argue is a non-issue. This is especially so in "poor starving children African countries", where increases in (especially) female education can boost the use of contraceptives and the capability of single mothers to care for their children, among other things.
Fake edit: Though exaggerated nit-picking certainly does happen sometimes.
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
I apologize for dealing in tying to read your mind here. That is presumtuos. But I really struggle to see where this statement comes from except:
1. You really fail to understand, that sexism is not an inconvenience you learn to get used to or something that happens somewhere on the internet and you just have to ignore it. Move on with your life is easier said then done. Sexism is an attack on women's lifes, a source of pain, social disadvantage and artificially limited opportunity.
2. Or, if it's not the thing above, you are very fatalistic. Like, meh, why bother, wont change anyway.
There is no move on with your life here. There is no, hey it is what it is. If you don't speak up against sexism, it get's worse and if you don't speak up then it gets even more worse and so on. Offensive things become common and makes room for the next level of offensiveness, which becomes normal again, making room for even worse offenses and so on.
This cycle does not only need to be broken, it needs to be reversed.
Casual/stealth/normal sexism needs to become identified as explicit sexism, so it goes away.
Speak the eff up.
It's hard, it's met with a lot of denial, which will lead to anger (that's where we are right now) and hopefully lead to bargaining, a phase of depression (sorry guys) and finally acceptance. That's why we need to push.
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
So your position is for people to just accept being rendered a second class member via cultural mores?
No.
If player A actually causes genuine harm to player B, then it is reasonable for player B to try to protect itself. This can be done through various means. Player B might ask Player A to stop. Or Player B might remove itself from the situation in which Player A can cause harm. Or Player B might engage in a wealth of other activities.
The difficulty with the "sexism" issue, specifically with the issue of telling people that what they said was sexist, is that a particular linguistic utterance that can be construed as sexist isn't necessarily harming anyone, or even sexist.
Now, it might be the case that the linguistic utterance belies some malevolent, interior sentiment. Perhaps Player A says something sexist because they are a misogynist, who truly and deeply loathes all women, everywhere. It might also be the case that Player A just wanted to get a rise out of people. Or Player A thought it was funny. Or Player A just combined some words together randomly, and the product happened to articulate a sexist notion.
My position is that persons tend to overreact, and mistake a particular act for "the problem" of sexism, racism, etc. It's a very confused kind of Platonism, where we take a particular linguistic utterance to be both an instantiation of sexism and sexism, itself. Rather than clearly distinguish different, particular act and assess them individually, we lump "girlfriend mode" together with "being paid less" together with "men beating their wives" together with "female genital mutilation" together with "rape jokes" together with "rape" together with "defunding planned parenthood", so all of these different things, with different consequences, and different motivations, start to be treated as heads of this hydra called "sexism", and God help us if we don't slay every particular head with the same fervor.
There are genuine problems in the world.
Not everything that pisses you off is a problem.
So, maybe, we need to think about particular acts, and the actual harm they actually cause, instead of jumping from the particular linguistic utterance to some supposed "root cause".
There are degrees of sexism. And sometimes something that you take to be sexist, or racist, or homophobic, isn't actually that.
But it ignores that it's not just about one single instance of discrimination happening, it's about helping to counter-act the offensive pattern. Also, the more widespread acceptance of gender equality values is likely to lead to less rape in the world and less domestic abuse against women, which almost noone would argue is a non-issue. This is especially so in "poor starving children African countries", where increases in (especially) female education can boost the use of contraceptives and the capability of single mothers to care for their children, among other things.
If you don't speak up against sexism, it get's worse and if you don't speak up then it gets even more worse and so on. Offensive things become common and makes room for the next level of offensiveness, which becomes normal again, making room for even worse offenses and so on.
Right. This is the hydra notion I wrote about in my post: We attack what we take to be a particular instantiation of "sexism" for the sake of destroying SEXISM.
That is a very silly strategy, when you think about it.
_J_ on
+1
Options
El SkidThe frozen white northRegistered Userregular
As I implied in an earlier post, I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying "women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public. So we're past the point of calling people out on big things, because a) people don't do it much, and b) I like to think the majority of people would call them on it.
So what we have left is "a death by a thousand cuts". Women are constantly exposed to little tiny things that in themselves are things that a lot of people would be like "it's fine, no biggie". And after a while, the same thing getting repeated gets really hard to ignore, and it does inflict harm.
Yes, the option is there to move on with your life and say nothing, but then your life is full of these little things that go on and on and on... After a while, you want to address the issue rather than trying to keep it bottled up. So some dude says something off the cuff that is just contributing to the problem, and your reaction is to say "dude, what you said wasn't cool". Even if dude's reaction is to explain why what he said was totally cool, at least you've put it out there.
If people start saying "that wasn't cool" to little stuff enough, maybe people will make an effort to understand why. Or failing that, just not say that stuff anymore because they're tired of getting called out for it. Whatever works, I guess... but it certainly seems like pointing out stuff would be more theraputic then just keeping it bottled up, even if you assume it won't help anything.
You seem to be drawing a distinction between a false sexism and a "true" sexism, even in your given example where presumably the thing that the person has said is indistinguishable.
Now, it might be the case that the linguistic utterance belies some malevolent, interior sentiment. Perhaps Player A says something sexist because they are a misogynist, who truly and deeply loathes all women, everywhere. It might also be the case that Player A just wanted to get a rise out of people. Or Player A thought it was funny. Or Player A just combined some words together randomly, and the product happened to articulate a sexist notion.
Thats ridiculous, if you say something hateful "to get a rise out of people" or because you think saying hurtful things is funny thats still being hateful. And if it was entirely accidental, well then maybe you should inform them of their mistake?
It just boils down to "well since you cant PROVE what anyone was thinking, you cant prove sexism exists"
As I implied in an earlier post, I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying "women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public. So we're past the point of calling people out on big things, because a) people don't do it much, and b) I like to think the majority of people would call them on it.
So what we have left is "a death by a thousand cuts". Women are constantly exposed to little tiny things that in themselves are things that a lot of people would be like "it's fine, no biggie". And after a while, the same thing getting repeated gets really hard to ignore, and it does inflict harm.
Yes, the option is there to move on with your life and say nothing, but then your life is full of these little things that go on and on and on... After a while, you want to address the issue rather than trying to keep it bottled up. So some dude says something off the cuff that is just contributing to the problem, and your reaction is to say "dude, what you said wasn't cool". Even if dude's reaction is to explain why what he said was totally cool, at least you've put it out there.
If people start saying "that wasn't cool" to little stuff enough, maybe people will make an effort to understand why. Or failing that, just not say that stuff anymore because they're tired of getting called out for it. Whatever works, I guess... but it certainly seems like pointing out stuff would be more theraputic then just keeping it bottled up, even if you assume it won't help anything.
Actually, I like the way you said this. The problem is that, as you've admitted, these are all little things.
The problem is not any particular little thing.
The problem is the cumulation of all the little things.
So, when a person attacks the little thing, they are doing so because of the harm of the sum total of all those little things. But they can't actually attack the sum total, which is the actual problem, so they have to go after every little thing.
As I implied in an earlier post, I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying " women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public. So we're past the point of calling people out on big things, because a) people don't do it much, and b) I like to think the majority of people would call them on it.
So what we have left is "a death by a thousand cuts". Women are constantly exposed to little tiny things that in themselves are things that a lot of people would be like "it's fine, no biggie". And after a while, the same thing getting repeated gets really hard to ignore, and it does inflict harm.
Yes, the option is there to move on with your life and say nothing, but then your life is full of these little things that go on and on and on... After a while, you want to address the issue rather than trying to keep it bottled up. So some dude says something off the cuff that is just contributing to the problem, and your reaction is to say "dude, what you said wasn't cool". Even if dude's reaction is to explain why what he said was totally cool, at least you've put it out there.
If people start saying "that wasn't cool" to little stuff enough, maybe people will make an effort to understand why. Or failing that, just not say that stuff anymore because they're tired of getting called out for it. Whatever works, I guess... but it certainly seems like pointing out stuff would be more theraputic then just keeping it bottled up, even if you assume it won't help anything.
Lee Atwater explained it best in his famous comment on how casual, subtle racism fueled the deconstruction of the safety net - just because bigotry is no longer culturally acceptable to openly display doesn't mean that it just goes away, especially if it's culturally acceptable on a more casual level.
Yeah if you can't say "that was sexist" (because people will interpet it as "you are a sexist") and neither can you say "that was sexist, but don't take it personally because society is a little bit sexist" then what can you say?
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
So your position is for people to just accept being rendered a second class member via cultural mores?
No.
If player A actually causes genuine harm to player B, then it is reasonable for player B to try to protect itself. This can be done through various means. Player B might ask Player A to stop. Or Player B might remove itself from the situation in which Player A can cause harm. Or Player B might engage in a wealth of other activities.
The difficulty with the "sexism" issue, specifically with the issue of telling people that what they said was sexist, is that a particular linguistic utterance that can be construed as sexist isn't necessarily harming anyone, or even sexist.
Now, it might be the case that the linguistic utterance belies some malevolent, interior sentiment. Perhaps Player A says something sexist because they are a misogynist, who truly and deeply loathes all women, everywhere. It might also be the case that Player A just wanted to get a rise out of people. Or Player A thought it was funny. Or Player A just combined some words together randomly, and the product happened to articulate a sexist notion.
My position is that persons tend to overreact, and mistake a particular act for "the problem" of sexism, racism, etc. It's a very confused kind of Platonism, where we take a particular linguistic utterance to be both an instantiation of sexism and sexism, itself. Rather than clearly distinguish different, particular act and assess them individually, we lump "girlfriend mode" together with "being paid less" together with "men beating their wives" together with "female genital mutilation" together with "rape jokes" together with "rape" together with "defunding planned parenthood", so all of these different things, with different consequences, and different motivations, start to be treated as heads of this hydra called "sexism", and God help us if we don't slay every particular head with the same fervor.
There are genuine problems in the world.
Not everything that pisses you off is a problem.
So, maybe, we need to think about particular acts, and the actual harm they actually cause, instead of jumping from the particular linguistic utterance to some supposed "root cause".
There are degrees of sexism. And sometimes something that you take to be sexist, or racist, or homophobic, isn't actually that.
Perhaps that ought to be factored in.
This argument was offensive and poorly thought out when Richard Dawkins promulgated it (and rightfully got raked over the coals for it). It still remains so when you do so.
Thats ridiculous, if you say something hateful "to get a rise out of people" or because you think saying hurtful things is funny thats still being hateful. And if it was entirely accidental, well then maybe you should inform them of their mistake?
You're confusing a presumed motivation for a linguistic utterance with the utterance, itself.
If a computer randomly generates strings of characters, and it happens to generate "women are terrible at video game", we do not take the computer to be sexist.
Sexism is a feeling that motivates particular actions. We assume our way from particular linguistic utterances to some supposed sexist motivation.
Sometimes people who are genuinely not sexist make linguistic utterances that can be interpreted to be sexist given their similarity to other linguistic utterances made for the sake of hurting women by persons who actually are sexist.
So, when a person attacks the little thing, they are doing so because of the harm of the sum total of all those little things. But they can't actually attack the sum total, which is the actual problem, so they have to go after every little thing.
No, they can go after a few. And so can the next person and so on. You seem to believe that those with sexist views are a massive force while feminism consists of just some guy.
And I'd still love to know why you don't just say nothing and move on with your life rather than try to reply to every single poster that points out your faulty arguments.
But it ignores that it's not just about one single instance of discrimination happening, it's about helping to counter-act the offensive pattern. Also, the more widespread acceptance of gender equality values is likely to lead to less rape in the world and less domestic abuse against women, which almost noone would argue is a non-issue. This is especially so in "poor starving children African countries", where increases in (especially) female education can boost the use of contraceptives and the capability of single mothers to care for their children, among other things.
If you don't speak up against sexism, it get's worse and if you don't speak up then it gets even more worse and so on. Offensive things become common and makes room for the next level of offensiveness, which becomes normal again, making room for even worse offenses and so on.
Right. This is the hydra notion I wrote about in my post: We attack what we take to be a particular instantiation of "sexism" for the sake of destroying SEXISM.
That is a very silly strategy, when you think about it.
As I implied in an earlier post, I think we've moved beyond the point where people are being openly sexist (obviously there will always be some exceptions to this rule, but sadly this is the case with everything). So there are very very few people openly saying "women should shut up and get back into the kitchen!". Maybe they whisper it to their like-minded friends, but rarely will it be public. So we're past the point of calling people out on big things, because a) people don't do it much, and b) I like to think the majority of people would call them on it.
So what we have left is "a death by a thousand cuts". Women are constantly exposed to little tiny things that in themselves are things that a lot of people would be like "it's fine, no biggie". And after a while, the same thing getting repeated gets really hard to ignore, and it does inflict harm.
Yes, the option is there to move on with your life and say nothing, but then your life is full of these little things that go on and on and on... After a while, you want to address the issue rather than trying to keep it bottled up. So some dude says something off the cuff that is just contributing to the problem, and your reaction is to say "dude, what you said wasn't cool". Even if dude's reaction is to explain why what he said was totally cool, at least you've put it out there.
If people start saying "that wasn't cool" to little stuff enough, maybe people will make an effort to understand why. Or failing that, just not say that stuff anymore because they're tired of getting called out for it. Whatever works, I guess... but it certainly seems like pointing out stuff would be more theraputic then just keeping it bottled up, even if you assume it won't help anything.
Actually, I like the way you said this. The problem is that, as you've admitted, these are all little things.
The problem is not any particular little thing.
The problem is the cumulation of all the little things.
So, when a person attacks the little thing, they are doing so because of the harm of the sum total of all those little things. But they can't actually attack the sum total, which is the actual problem, so they have to go after every little thing.
How do you suggest that people counter-act the harm that racism/sexism/discrimination against elders/etc. does cause, assuming that everyone ignores the "little things"? What do you want the arena to be?
Thats ridiculous, if you say something hateful "to get a rise out of people" or because you think saying hurtful things is funny thats still being hateful. And if it was entirely accidental, well then maybe you should inform them of their mistake?
You're confusing a presumed motivation for a linguistic utterance with the utterance, itself.
If a computer randomly generates strings of characters, and it happens to generate "women are terrible at video game", we do not take the computer to be sexist.
Sexism is a feeling that motivates particular actions. We assume our way from particular linguistic utterances to some supposed sexist motivation.
Sometimes people who are genuinely not sexist make linguistic utterances that can be interpreted to be sexist given their similarity to other linguistic utterances made for the sake of hurting women by persons who actually are sexist.
People are not computers generating random strings of characters. This is ridiculous.
Thats ridiculous, if you say something hateful "to get a rise out of people" or because you think saying hurtful things is funny thats still being hateful. And if it was entirely accidental, well then maybe you should inform them of their mistake?
You're confusing a presumed motivation for a linguistic utterance with the utterance, itself.
If a computer randomly generates strings of characters, and it happens to generate "women are terrible at video game", we do not take the computer to be sexist.
Sexism is a feeling that motivates particular actions. We assume our way from particular linguistic utterances to some supposed sexist motivation.
Sometimes people who are genuinely not sexist make linguistic utterances that can be interpreted to be sexist given their similarity to other linguistic utterances made for the sake of hurting women by persons who actually are sexist.
Yes, and an infinite number of rednecks firing an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs will print out the works of Shakespeare in Braille.
Occam's Razor leads me to believe they much more like explanation is that the person has been accultured in a setting where casual sexism is tolerated if not accepted.
How do you suggest that people counter-act the harm that racism/sexism/discrimination against elders/etc. does cause, assuming that everyone ignores the "little things"? What do you want the arena to be?
Well, first, we stop talking about "the harm", since it is an incredibly general, nebulous, and unhelpful category. Instead, we focus upon particular harms.
For example, if sexism motivates employers to pay women less, then we can pass legislation that requires equal pay.
Or, if sexism motivates persons to beat their wives, then we call the police, convict them by a jury of their peers, and send them to jail.
What particular harm would you like a solution to?
Posts
A hetero married couple could easily adopt roles which have traditionally been associated with gender, but just because the husband mows the lawn while the wife cooks in one household doesn't mean either of them should push that on their neighbors or their offspring. But if you have two consenting adults picking up those roles without applying them to others... it's not sexism, anymore than a teacher/student relationship is sexism.
I'm really not sure what you're arguing against then.
Either of those structures are still informed by your values. Viewing the reduction of harm as something to pursue is informed by your values, as would similarly seeing the evasion of unpopular scenarios. There is literally no ethical simplification you can boil this down to that means we've left the realm of values.
Our hapless accused can hold whatever ethical system he wants. I'm assuming he holds a broadly similar one to the accuser because I'm not really engaging in a meta-ethical discussion. The point is, according to whatever system you choose, his values inform him that his act was not wrong. Calling him sexist won't work to convince him he was wrong, because (see my little modus tollens above) he does not feel he is wrong.
If someone values "No Harm", then I show them how sexist behaviors cause harm.
If someone does not value "No Harm," I try to change that. Often people THINK they value "No Harm," but they instead have a different set of values, but they DO value valuing "No Harm", and so I can lead them to it.
If someone values "No Unpopularity," and they cannot be convinced to value "No Harm," then I show them how harm is unpopular, and then show them how sexism causes harm.
If harm is not unpopular, I seek to make it so.
This is all because I value "No Harm" very strongly.
The problem there though, is that the nature of discourse lends itself to discussing "little stuff" but tends to avoid discussing bigger stuff.
Like, I mentioned earlier how if the debate is about some relatively minor controversy like rape jokes you'll get like 10 pages of conversation as people go back and forth. (And then of course the accusation will be levied "why are you so worried about jokes when REAL RAPE is happening")
If the discussion is about horrifying rape statistics, people will go "oh yeah, of course that's uncontroversial, everyone agrees thats bad" and not a lot of discussion will happen.
And apparently, you can't bring up the latter when you're talking about the former.
So we just don't really bring it up at all.
e; I was thinking about chick-fil-a yesterday as another example of how debate tends to happen around these minor "flashpoints". I mean on one hand, a fucking chicken restaurant owner said something bigoted, who cares. But on the other hand to understand why half the country is drawing up battle lines around a goddamn chicken restaurant you need to put it in the context of the gay rights debate as a whole.
In general most people don't just wake up and say "hmm, gonna join the culture wars today" until some little issue happens to drag them in.
Yeah, I mean, this is kind of what discourse analysis is. I find it somewhat odd that one would have a problem with it, as such.
Has anyone even made direct comparisons between areas of discourse and actual events? It seems spurious to conflate discourse analysis in general with someone making comparisons as mentioned.
Stopping people from from doing bad things is a goal, they need to be talked to in an effective manner. It may seem like a courtesy that has not been earned, but I am asking that they be separated from the criticism. Specifically i want complaints to be written so that at no point are any separating distinctions made between the audience and the author.
Composing an effective complaint is very difficult; while there are many things that can be done that are easy the more important aspects can be quite difficult. Chief among those hard things to do is figuring out how to separate "the problem" with "the audience". If the audience is not separated from the criticism the probability that the reader will be in the mood to receive the message will drop dramatically.
The reason for this really comes down to how people perceive being separated into groups, and more importantly, opposing groups. When the audience is lumped into the criticism and the author is not a part of that same criticism then two groups have been set up by the author; groups that are implicitly at odds with each other. This essentially means there are now two "teams" with the author on one side and the audience on the other. Teams support their own members and oppose the members of other teams.
Doing this is not easy, though making the effort is. This is because "the problem" typically is "the audience". It is either something they did, said, supported, or are. It is the social systems their actions inadvertently uphold; it is their privilege that they cannot see; it is their worldview which is inconsistent if that privilege is known. Exacerbating this is the fact that the author wants something from that person. This does not necessarily have to be an apology or recompense, imply changing behavior or a re-evaluation surroundings are often enough.
Either way, these things do not come easy to most people. Many times entire worldviews are being challenged in ways they are not comfortable with. Things that seem small to authors can be large to the audience and while an initial request may look only like a small trifle, changing it can require the person to think harder about other actions which were not complained about.
So the next time that something like this has to be written, remember to separate the audience from the criticism.
OK. So semi-formal example a-ma-jig over back to my less disciplined self. I haven't been paying as much attention to this discussion as is probably warranted. I only really know that the borderlands two people did something sexist and I looked at it and it was sexist and then, predictably people complained about them being called sexist and now we are having a discussion about whether or not its right to call people sexist.
Do not do it. It is dumb, wrong, it does not work; it is not ok. Its very hard to not call someone sexist when you're complaining that they did a sexist thing. But it still has to be avoided. The few articles I've read on the subject did not do a particularly good job in avoiding it.
You know who did do a good job of avoiding it? Martin Luther King. Yea i went there. Read "i have a dream". Tell me how many times he says "white people are the problem". [ I will give you a hint, its zero]. He never mentions white people except inclusively and the only time he mentions racism is either systematically or as others clearly not in the audience.
But let us be absolutely 100% clear that the audience for "i have a dream" definitely was white people[and powerful white people at that] and white people were 100% most certainly absolutely the problem [and even more so powerful white people]. The audience for criticism about the borderlands 2 sexism is most definitely male nerds and/or men. And the problem, in general and specifically, is most definitely a problem with male nerds and/or men.
You still don't "get to call them" sexists, especially not in an article that is meant to inform people that are not in the know, about this sexist thing.
I definitely agree that this is the "best" way to change peoples minds.
The thing is though, not all black people should have to be expected to be Martin Luther King, every time they talk about race.
I have a friend who would probably be regarded by this thread as the prototypical "angry feminist", I remember one particular argument I witnessed at a show between her and one of those obnoxious kind of laddish gross-out punk bands where they'd performed a bunch of songs about "trannies" and women staying in kitchens lol and that kind of stuff. She was loudly in their faces calling them a bunch of pricks.
Is this the most productive, winning-hearts-and-minds kind for her to angle to take? Probably not. But it seems incredibly counter productive and patronizing of me to turn to HER among this group of guys and say "now now, maybe if you calmed down a bit and talked nicer they might listen to you. Don't be accusatory. Maybe smile a little?".
Ultimately shes voicing her discontent, and that's whats important. Maybe its not gonna change their mind, but as far as the scene as a whole goes I think it is valuable that someones saying that stuff and letting it known that its not welcome. If I want to help I can try to be the nice non accusatory one patiently explaining to people who will listen about embedded sexism and such, but I'm not gonna begrudge someone for being pissed off as hell.
Practically speaking, yes its better to be nice, more flies with honey than vinegar and that. You get more people caring about say, famine relief if you can think up a catchy marketing slogan and feel good campaign, rather than the ones that show starving people and make you feel bad and guilty.
Morally speaking, you should care about famine relief regardless of the marketing. If one of those irritating charity muggers gets up in your face about it in the street, theres a certain kind of mentality that takes that as an excuse to say "well I was going to care about famine relief, but thanks to this guy now I dont!"
"What he said was sexist"
"I've have said things like that, and I'm not a sexist, so NO U!"
I think you're confusing actual harm with "feewings hurt", at least in the case of "Girlfriend Mode".
Other instances of "sexism" can be recast as "employment inequality" or something along those lines, so that we can clarify the issue to get to the actual problem.
1) Feelings affect health. Human emotional states are incredibly important for those individuals and for the world around them. This is a basic biological and social fact.
2) Sexism causes a large variety of different harms. Some are emotional, some are social, some are educational, some are political, some are economic, and usually more than one harm applies.
--
Goum: One of the big problems with forum discussions is that they involve multiple audiences who have very different levels of discourse. If Vix and Feral were talking about sexism, they could be blunt and frank and very descriptive, with lots of shared knowledge and experience to guide the way, and without the need to be personally defensive. This is completely different than the conversation between one of those knowledgable folks and someone who is not only not knowledgable, but who has sexist behavior they feel they need to defend.
There have been like 2 pages of discussion since then, and I think the focus of the topic has shifted out to addressing sexism in general.
You're dragging it back to the issue of girlfriend mode again, so you can say "but look how silly this issue is! No not that one you're talking about, this one I like talking about"
Why?
Persons have control over their feelings, and their own reactions.
If a person is genuinely experiencing symptoms of depression as a result of someone they've never met, in an office somewhere, implying that they may not be good at video games, then perhaps there are larger issues with which the person needs to deal.
I wanted to get into jucar's harm list. Perhaps I ought to have been more direct.
Edit: I guess I should ask if the use of the term "ethical" means that we are allowed to talk about "ethics", or if this is another thread where we employ ethical and moral terms, but are not allowed to talk about ethics or morality.
"and that should not be necessary. "
I don't really understand what you want to say here. How do you think people should be "calling out sexist behavior" instead of saying "what you just did is sexist"?
Edit: Oh noooo I was too fast on the triggeeeeeer
No, they're upset that once again, the casual sexism of the culture is leading people to discount women. And when this gets played over and over again, it's easy to understand why people get frustrated and upset.
Perhaps you say nothing, and move on with your life.
Well, that's a tough break I guess. But I suppose its that imperative that we don't hurt bigots precious "feewings".
But in many instances s/he doesn't realize the ramifications and subtler implications of their actions so even though what they did does run counter to their values, they see nothing wrong with what they did. And so you can get to discussing those things and maybe they and/or you can come away with different points of view.
@Jeedan: The way I understood the following posts was that one (the most obvious) solution would be to use other ways of describing it because your own and the "sexistically acting" person's definitions of "sexism" are likely to differ very much, and on top of that the other person is likely to consider sexism/sexist a very emotionally charged and value-laden term. So you could say "hey you know what, the thing you did there could be consider offensive because so and so and so" and then at the end maybe you could say "by the way, that is what some people consider sexist, because a lot of people define it this way" if you want to explain that too. The point is to get to constructive discussion as soon as possible by dodging an extreme reaction that might make the other person ignore anything you say afterwards. I don't really know about the whole "you're trying to challenge their whole world-view!!!" thing though, to me it's mostly a word problem.
I would argue that you have it backwards - that casual sexism is the deeper problem, and forms the root of the issue. A large part of the issue in understanding this is that we tend to look at any one incident in isolation, where by itself, it doesn't appear to be a problem. But it needs to be kept in mind that it's not happening in isolation. Furthermore, I would argue that the big incidents build up from the smaller ones - this is the principle behind the concept of rape culture, for example.
So your position is for people to just accept being rendered a second class member via cultural mores?
The way I've understood it is that _J_ thinks people should stop arguing so much about such petty things like the female characters in games or some offensive quip by a co-worker and focus on "real" issues. I've heard similar arguments many times in many forms, like "women's right to play golf? what about the children! in Africa! STARVING! do something about that instead!". But it ignores that it's not just about one single instance of discrimination happening, it's about helping to counter-act the offensive pattern. Also, the more widespread acceptance of gender equality values is likely to lead to less rape in the world and less domestic abuse against women, which almost noone would argue is a non-issue. This is especially so in "poor starving children African countries", where increases in (especially) female education can boost the use of contraceptives and the capability of single mothers to care for their children, among other things.
Fake edit: Though exaggerated nit-picking certainly does happen sometimes.
I apologize for dealing in tying to read your mind here. That is presumtuos. But I really struggle to see where this statement comes from except:
1. You really fail to understand, that sexism is not an inconvenience you learn to get used to or something that happens somewhere on the internet and you just have to ignore it. Move on with your life is easier said then done. Sexism is an attack on women's lifes, a source of pain, social disadvantage and artificially limited opportunity.
2. Or, if it's not the thing above, you are very fatalistic. Like, meh, why bother, wont change anyway.
There is no move on with your life here. There is no, hey it is what it is. If you don't speak up against sexism, it get's worse and if you don't speak up then it gets even more worse and so on. Offensive things become common and makes room for the next level of offensiveness, which becomes normal again, making room for even worse offenses and so on.
This cycle does not only need to be broken, it needs to be reversed.
Casual/stealth/normal sexism needs to become identified as explicit sexism, so it goes away.
Speak the eff up.
It's hard, it's met with a lot of denial, which will lead to anger (that's where we are right now) and hopefully lead to bargaining, a phase of depression (sorry guys) and finally acceptance. That's why we need to push.
No.
If player A actually causes genuine harm to player B, then it is reasonable for player B to try to protect itself. This can be done through various means. Player B might ask Player A to stop. Or Player B might remove itself from the situation in which Player A can cause harm. Or Player B might engage in a wealth of other activities.
The difficulty with the "sexism" issue, specifically with the issue of telling people that what they said was sexist, is that a particular linguistic utterance that can be construed as sexist isn't necessarily harming anyone, or even sexist.
Now, it might be the case that the linguistic utterance belies some malevolent, interior sentiment. Perhaps Player A says something sexist because they are a misogynist, who truly and deeply loathes all women, everywhere. It might also be the case that Player A just wanted to get a rise out of people. Or Player A thought it was funny. Or Player A just combined some words together randomly, and the product happened to articulate a sexist notion.
My position is that persons tend to overreact, and mistake a particular act for "the problem" of sexism, racism, etc. It's a very confused kind of Platonism, where we take a particular linguistic utterance to be both an instantiation of sexism and sexism, itself. Rather than clearly distinguish different, particular act and assess them individually, we lump "girlfriend mode" together with "being paid less" together with "men beating their wives" together with "female genital mutilation" together with "rape jokes" together with "rape" together with "defunding planned parenthood", so all of these different things, with different consequences, and different motivations, start to be treated as heads of this hydra called "sexism", and God help us if we don't slay every particular head with the same fervor.
There are genuine problems in the world.
Not everything that pisses you off is a problem.
So, maybe, we need to think about particular acts, and the actual harm they actually cause, instead of jumping from the particular linguistic utterance to some supposed "root cause".
There are degrees of sexism. And sometimes something that you take to be sexist, or racist, or homophobic, isn't actually that.
Perhaps that ought to be factored in.
Right. This is the hydra notion I wrote about in my post: We attack what we take to be a particular instantiation of "sexism" for the sake of destroying SEXISM.
That is a very silly strategy, when you think about it.
So what we have left is "a death by a thousand cuts". Women are constantly exposed to little tiny things that in themselves are things that a lot of people would be like "it's fine, no biggie". And after a while, the same thing getting repeated gets really hard to ignore, and it does inflict harm.
Yes, the option is there to move on with your life and say nothing, but then your life is full of these little things that go on and on and on... After a while, you want to address the issue rather than trying to keep it bottled up. So some dude says something off the cuff that is just contributing to the problem, and your reaction is to say "dude, what you said wasn't cool". Even if dude's reaction is to explain why what he said was totally cool, at least you've put it out there.
If people start saying "that wasn't cool" to little stuff enough, maybe people will make an effort to understand why. Or failing that, just not say that stuff anymore because they're tired of getting called out for it. Whatever works, I guess... but it certainly seems like pointing out stuff would be more theraputic then just keeping it bottled up, even if you assume it won't help anything.
Thats ridiculous, if you say something hateful "to get a rise out of people" or because you think saying hurtful things is funny thats still being hateful. And if it was entirely accidental, well then maybe you should inform them of their mistake?
It just boils down to "well since you cant PROVE what anyone was thinking, you cant prove sexism exists"
Actually, I like the way you said this. The problem is that, as you've admitted, these are all little things.
The problem is not any particular little thing.
The problem is the cumulation of all the little things.
So, when a person attacks the little thing, they are doing so because of the harm of the sum total of all those little things. But they can't actually attack the sum total, which is the actual problem, so they have to go after every little thing.
Lee Atwater explained it best in his famous comment on how casual, subtle racism fueled the deconstruction of the safety net - just because bigotry is no longer culturally acceptable to openly display doesn't mean that it just goes away, especially if it's culturally acceptable on a more casual level.
This argument was offensive and poorly thought out when Richard Dawkins promulgated it (and rightfully got raked over the coals for it). It still remains so when you do so.
You're confusing a presumed motivation for a linguistic utterance with the utterance, itself.
If a computer randomly generates strings of characters, and it happens to generate "women are terrible at video game", we do not take the computer to be sexist.
Sexism is a feeling that motivates particular actions. We assume our way from particular linguistic utterances to some supposed sexist motivation.
Sometimes people who are genuinely not sexist make linguistic utterances that can be interpreted to be sexist given their similarity to other linguistic utterances made for the sake of hurting women by persons who actually are sexist.
No, they can go after a few. And so can the next person and so on. You seem to believe that those with sexist views are a massive force while feminism consists of just some guy.
And I'd still love to know why you don't just say nothing and move on with your life rather than try to reply to every single poster that points out your faulty arguments.
How do you suggest that people counter-act the harm that racism/sexism/discrimination against elders/etc. does cause, assuming that everyone ignores the "little things"? What do you want the arena to be?
People are not computers generating random strings of characters. This is ridiculous.
Yes, and an infinite number of rednecks firing an infinite number of shotguns at an infinite number of road signs will print out the works of Shakespeare in Braille.
Occam's Razor leads me to believe they much more like explanation is that the person has been accultured in a setting where casual sexism is tolerated if not accepted.
Well, first, we stop talking about "the harm", since it is an incredibly general, nebulous, and unhelpful category. Instead, we focus upon particular harms.
For example, if sexism motivates employers to pay women less, then we can pass legislation that requires equal pay.
Or, if sexism motivates persons to beat their wives, then we call the police, convict them by a jury of their peers, and send them to jail.
What particular harm would you like a solution to?