3 ms·

No. I'm sick of this game. You clarification of the definition isn't clarification. It's unnecessary linguistic prescriptivism. If you want to talk about the

No. I'm sick of this game. You clarification of the definition isn't clarification. It's unnecessary linguistic prescriptivism. If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as "institutional sexism" then that's fine. If you want to call it just "sexism" thats fine too (but puts an unnecessary complication on the reader). But "sexism" is an overloaded term whether you want it to be or not. Just like I can't say "Bi-monthly now and forever forward only means every other month, and never means twice a month," you can't just wave away the regular-prejudice definition of sexism just because you want to. Also, this "academic definition" meme is bullshit. Academic writing is about clarity and making sure the reader understands the author's meaning. So, if at the beginning of the paper the author clarifies when they use "foo" they only mean one of the 3 possible definitions of foo, that's just good writing. But if they say "definition 2 of foo isn't actually foo, it's just bar. For any and all uses of foo, including outside this paper" they're a hack.

pron 11y ago
> If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as "institutional sexism" But I was not talking about institutional sexism. Sexism can be individual (and often is), but unlike misogyny it does not imply disdain towards women; simply behavior (that can feel neutral or even positive) that results in increasing the imbalance of power. > But "sexism" is an overloaded term whether you want it to be or not. OK, but it also a term that was coined by a feminist professor fifty years ago and considered a well-accepted academic term regardless of its colloquial meaning(s). > Academic writing is about clarity and making sure the reader understands the author's meaning. Academics seem to understand that writing just fine. You can't claim that physicists' definition of energy is unclear merely because it is also used colloquially to mean other things, and you can't expect an academic to clarify what they mean by "sexism" just as you can't expect them to explain what they mean by "energy", because those are well-established, commonly used academic terms. If you find them confusing, you can either learn the relevant subject or choose not to. Unlike energy, the word sexism started with its academic definition and was only later overloaded (due to confusion) by laymen, rather than the other way around. > But if they say "definition 2 of foo isn't actually foo, it's just bar. For any and all uses of foo, including outside this paper" they're a hack. I didn't say that. I just clarified the original and academic definition of the term, because it is the colloquial term that causes confusion. The academic term is quite clear. Do with it as you like. You're obviously very angry about something.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  You can't claim that physicists' definition of energy is unclear merely because it is also used colloquially to mean other things No, but I also don't see lab scientists bustle when they're in a conversation where it's used colloquially.
  - theseatoms 11y ago
    You should hear militant (physical/philosophical) materialists react to the use of the word "energy" in a yoga class. ;)
  - pron 11y ago
    I didn't bustle. A commenter expressed confusion about the meaning of the term, and I provided the common academic definition. Others are welcome to list the full range of colloquial uses. I would, however, note that a physicist would bustle if someone tried to use the word energy with a different meaning when trying to understand a physical process. In this case, the only way to understand what it is that feminists want when it comes to sexism, is to understand what we mean when we use the word, which is also its academic meaning. For example, if you think feminists are against sexism (which we are), but also understand sexism to mean "treating men and women differently", then you'd be completely confused as to our goals. Perhaps you'd think that our goal is to erase the differences between the sexes. That would indeed be a silly goal, and you may be right in getting angry that intelligent people think such rubbish. While in fact, our goal is very clear: correct the gross imbalance of power between the sexes. To achieve that, we seek to uncover the mechanism which perpetuates it, which we call sexism. Thankfully, the academic community has been studying sexism for a few decades, and we now know a thing or two about it. No reason to be angry. In fact, if you understood what feminists mean when we say sexism (which hopefully you now do), I think you'd be far less angry.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The term was defined by Pauline Leet in 1965. She defined it as: "...both of them [racism and sexism] are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant." (This is in the context of a poetry group, so "value" most likely refers to ability to create good poetry.) The first time it appeared in print (by Caroline Bird) it was defined as: "Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Etymology_and_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Etymology_and_definitio... If you think this is wrong, by all means cite some sources and update wikipedia. It may be the case that academic usage has shifted, but lay usage has not.

pron 11y ago

> If you want to talk about the type of sexism also often refereed to as "institutional sexism" But I was not talking about institutional sexism. Sexism can be individual (and often is), but unlike misogyny it does not imply disdain towards women; simply behavior (that can feel neutral or even positive) that results in increasing the imbalance of power. > But "sexism" is an overloaded term whether you want it to be or not. OK, but it also a term that was coined by a feminist professor fifty years ago and considered a well-accepted academic term regardless of its colloquial meaning(s). > Academic writing is about clarity and making sure the reader understands the author's meaning. Academics seem to understand that writing just fine. You can't claim that physicists' definition of energy is unclear merely because it is also used colloquially to mean other things, and you can't expect an academic to clarify what they mean by "sexism" just as you can't expect them to explain what they mean by "energy", because those are well-established, commonly used academic terms. If you find them confusing, you can either learn the relevant subject or choose not to. Unlike energy, the word sexism started with its academic definition and was only later overloaded (due to confusion) by laymen, rather than the other way around. > But if they say "definition 2 of foo isn't actually foo, it's just bar. For any and all uses of foo, including outside this paper" they're a hack. I didn't say that. I just clarified the original and academic definition of the term, because it is the colloquial term that causes confusion. The academic term is quite clear. Do with it as you like. You're obviously very angry about something.

forgottenpass 11y ago
You can't claim that physicists' definition of energy is unclear merely because it is also used colloquially to mean other things No, but I also don't see lab scientists bustle when they're in a conversation where it's used colloquially.
- theseatoms 11y ago
  You should hear militant (physical/philosophical) materialists react to the use of the word "energy" in a yoga class. ;)
- pron 11y ago
  I didn't bustle. A commenter expressed confusion about the meaning of the term, and I provided the common academic definition. Others are welcome to list the full range of colloquial uses. I would, however, note that a physicist would bustle if someone tried to use the word energy with a different meaning when trying to understand a physical process. In this case, the only way to understand what it is that feminists want when it comes to sexism, is to understand what we mean when we use the word, which is also its academic meaning. For example, if you think feminists are against sexism (which we are), but also understand sexism to mean "treating men and women differently", then you'd be completely confused as to our goals. Perhaps you'd think that our goal is to erase the differences between the sexes. That would indeed be a silly goal, and you may be right in getting angry that intelligent people think such rubbish. While in fact, our goal is very clear: correct the gross imbalance of power between the sexes. To achieve that, we seek to uncover the mechanism which perpetuates it, which we call sexism. Thankfully, the academic community has been studying sexism for a few decades, and we now know a thing or two about it. No reason to be angry. In fact, if you understood what feminists mean when we say sexism (which hopefully you now do), I think you'd be far less angry.
yummyfajitas 11y ago
The term was defined by Pauline Leet in 1965. She defined it as: "...both of them [racism and sexism] are making decisions and coming to conclusions about someone’s value by referring to factors which are in both cases irrelevant." (This is in the context of a poetry group, so "value" most likely refers to ability to create good poetry.) The first time it appeared in print (by Caroline Bird) it was defined as: "Sexism is judging people by their sex when sex doesn't matter." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Etymology_and_definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexism#Etymology_and_definitio... If you think this is wrong, by all means cite some sources and update wikipedia. It may be the case that academic usage has shifted, but lay usage has not.