4 ms·

There's no contradiction. Sexism can express itself both in putting women down and in putting women in a pedestal. There's no contradiction, if the witch had l

There's no contradiction. Sexism can express itself both in putting women down and in putting women in a pedestal. There's no contradiction, if the witch had led an evil and improper life, she was guilty; if she had led a good and proper life, this too was a proof, for witches dissemble and try to appear especially virtuous. After the woman was put in prison: if she was afraid, this proved her guilt; if she was not afraid, this proved her guilt, for witches characteristically pretend innocence and wear a bold front. Or on hearing of a denunciation of witchcraft against her, she might seek flight or remain; if she ran, that proved her guilt; if she remained, the devil had detained her so she could not get away. From Friedrich Spee von Langenfeld, the Cautio Criminalis ('prudence in criminal cases') in 1631.

RodericDay 10y ago
I see you posting your libertarian stuff all over HN. I'm not very surprised you also think the real victims here are her coworkers, whom you are unironically trying to liken to prosecuted witches. You've turned this story about a woman being harassed at Apple into a story about her numerous anonymous male coworkers, and dudes at large, being targeted. It's fascinating.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  When did I say the real victims were her coworkers? The fact that I think your reasoning is deeply flawed does not imply I hold what you believe to be the opposite view. Pointing out logical flaws in the reasoning of the inquisition doesn't make me a Satanist (or a libertarian, for that matter). (Hint: I'm neither a satanist nor a libertarian.)
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    In a sibling post you're comparing this woman's experience with a friend retelling a drunken story incorrectly in Amsterdam (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13193171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13193171) Maybe you think your "Draw your own conclusions ;) / Just my 2c" baiting is super clever, but I think it's pretty transparent.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
diyorgasms 10y ago
I don't think that the witch trials, which were effectively a small genocide against women, are a particularly effective metaphor for refuting manifestations of sexism.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  I suppose that would be true if you think arguments are soldiers in favor of women or against them. You think I believe I raised a +1 for men, while you think I raised a +1 for women by mentioning a time they were victims. In fact, I believe arguments are attempts to converge to truth. The fact that women were victims in 1631 has no bearing on this discussion. RoderickDay made an argument that happened to be flawed (here's a more formal argument illustrating the flaws: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence... ), and his argument paralleled the Inquisition's arguments which were flawed for the same reason. Now that his incorrect argument is rejected, we can make better arguments and approach the truth.
  - RodericDay 10y ago
    "This man did a sexist thing to curry favor with a woman. This other man did a sexist thing against her. Clearly, the woman must have been lying in one of the two scenarios." You're an idiot dude. Linking to a wikipedia fallacy page lmao you're like a caricature.
    - sctb 10y ago
      You can't make personal attacks like this here! We've already asked you not to do this. Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - diyorgasms 10y ago
    I think what you were trying to say in your original comment was that "positive" sexism doesn't exist. That the author was being unreasonable when she interpreted her co-worker standing up for her as sexism. I will assert that such "positive" acts can be and often are sexist. Negative actions can also be sexist. It is possible to take a sexist action while you think you're being helpful. Not all sexism is manifested in malice. Consider similar racial stereotypes like "Asians are good at math" or "black people are good at sports." You might think that someone is positive, but those beliefs are deeply rooted in racism and racial stereotypes.

RodericDay 10y ago

I see you posting your libertarian stuff all over HN. I'm not very surprised you also think the real victims here are her coworkers, whom you are unironically trying to liken to prosecuted witches. You've turned this story about a woman being harassed at Apple into a story about her numerous anonymous male coworkers, and dudes at large, being targeted. It's fascinating.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
When did I say the real victims were her coworkers? The fact that I think your reasoning is deeply flawed does not imply I hold what you believe to be the opposite view. Pointing out logical flaws in the reasoning of the inquisition doesn't make me a Satanist (or a libertarian, for that matter). (Hint: I'm neither a satanist nor a libertarian.)
- RodericDay 10y ago
  In a sibling post you're comparing this woman's experience with a friend retelling a drunken story incorrectly in Amsterdam (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13193171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13193171) Maybe you think your "Draw your own conclusions ;) / Just my 2c" baiting is super clever, but I think it's pretty transparent.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

diyorgasms 10y ago

I don't think that the witch trials, which were effectively a small genocide against women, are a particularly effective metaphor for refuting manifestations of sexism.

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I suppose that would be true if you think arguments are soldiers in favor of women or against them. You think I believe I raised a +1 for men, while you think I raised a +1 for women by mentioning a time they were victims. In fact, I believe arguments are attempts to converge to truth. The fact that women were victims in 1631 has no bearing on this discussion. RoderickDay made an argument that happened to be flawed (here's a more formal argument illustrating the flaws: http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/ii/conservation_of_expected_evidence... ), and his argument paralleled the Inquisition's arguments which were flawed for the same reason. Now that his incorrect argument is rejected, we can make better arguments and approach the truth.
- RodericDay 10y ago
  "This man did a sexist thing to curry favor with a woman. This other man did a sexist thing against her. Clearly, the woman must have been lying in one of the two scenarios." You're an idiot dude. Linking to a wikipedia fallacy page lmao you're like a caricature.
  - sctb 10y ago
    You can't make personal attacks like this here! We've already asked you not to do this. Please comment civilly and substantively or not at all. https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  I think what you were trying to say in your original comment was that "positive" sexism doesn't exist. That the author was being unreasonable when she interpreted her co-worker standing up for her as sexism. I will assert that such "positive" acts can be and often are sexist. Negative actions can also be sexist. It is possible to take a sexist action while you think you're being helpful. Not all sexism is manifested in malice. Consider similar racial stereotypes like "Asians are good at math" or "black people are good at sports." You might think that someone is positive, but those beliefs are deeply rooted in racism and racial stereotypes.