5 ms·

> She was already projecting her ideological biases on her unborn son, not just fretting over his education. We know that we are all a little bit sexist, just

by Latty 10y ago

> She was already projecting her ideological biases on her unborn son, not just fretting over his education. We know that we are all a little bit sexist, just like we know we are inherently racist. That's a reality of the culture we live in (still affected by a history of heavy sexism and racism) and evolution (where different == bad and gender roles were necessary). She is worrying about the very hard issue of how you deal with that. It's incredibly hard to inspect and manage your own biases. You are projecting malice onto her that doesn't exist in the article. > Clearly imply she was going to raise her son very differently from a potential daughter. Why is the above concern any different from raising girls? "(casual and ingrained sexism, anyone?)" Of course - because we know that there is a difference in how the world treats boys and girls (to the advantage and disadvantage both ways, in different amounts on different issues). This is the classic 'by noticing sexism or trying to change it you are sexist' argument. Clearly it is a difficult thing to understand the differences between your viewpoint and experience of the world and other people - she is talking about how to help her son with that, and it is going to be different for a boy over a girl. > This kid is never going to be left alone. Kids are never left alone! The point of parenthood is to support them and pass on the knowledge they need to succeed in life. You simply think that feminism is a bad thing to teach a child when it isn't.

Chris2048 10y ago
> We know that we are all a little bit sexist Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn. > 'by noticing sexism or trying to change it you are sexist' argument No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born? We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son. > it is going to be different for a boy over a girl So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men? All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it. > You simply think that feminism is a bad thing to teach a child when it isn't There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with. this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting.
- Latty 10y ago
  > Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn. I'm not American. You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't possible you have subconscious bias in line with what we see in studies. > No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born? > We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son. What? So you are saying because the child hasn't experienced sexism yet because it isn't born, planning for it to experience it and how to handle that is worthless? That makes no sense. > So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men? I imagine so - but she has experience being a girl as a child, and so it's going to be easier for her to teach a girl about the issue. The article was about her struggle to understand how she was going to do that with a boy - a situation she is unfamiliar with. > All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it. The article is literally all about how she is worried about being able to teach someone (her son) when she hasn't lived that perspective. That's literally the point of the piece - her trying to understand how she'll teach her son about this aspect of the world. > There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with. Are you really arguing we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning? I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true. It's not an argument that somehow the idea is invalid. Feminism has a definition, and it doesn't involve discriminating against men. > this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting. You seem to think that assuming your child will have to deal with sexism is in some way judging it - that's not true. We all deal with it in some way or another, this is just a good parent trying to prepare their child and educate them. They aren't blaming the child or "interpreting it's behaviour in bad faith" - they are talking about how to educate about an issue. You just want to paint all feminists as crazy, and then use that as an excuse in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad. It's horseshit. Sexism is real. Feminism is a force for good in the majority form it's encountered.
  - 10y ago

by Latty 10y ago

Chris2048 10y ago

> We know that we are all a little bit sexist Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn. > 'by noticing sexism or trying to change it you are sexist' argument No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born? We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son. > it is going to be different for a boy over a girl So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men? All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it. > You simply think that feminism is a bad thing to teach a child when it isn't There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with. this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting.

Latty 10y ago
> Speak for yourself. I'm not American, so I'm not force-fed this proposition at every turn. I'm not American. You'd also have to be a fool to think it isn't possible you have subconscious bias in line with what we see in studies. > No it isn't. This argument requires that sexism to exist. What sexism is there to notice in the experiences of a child yet to be born? > We are talking of the authors own experiences here, and how those are being projected on her son. What? So you are saying because the child hasn't experienced sexism yet because it isn't born, planning for it to experience it and how to handle that is worthless? That makes no sense. > So she also worries that her girl might not see things from the perspective of men? I imagine so - but she has experience being a girl as a child, and so it's going to be easier for her to teach a girl about the issue. The article was about her struggle to understand how she was going to do that with a boy - a situation she is unfamiliar with. > All her viewpoints and experiences and from one direction, she never considers enlightening herself with another perspective. That's why I'm skeptical of appeals for objectivity from someone who thinks they already possess it. The article is literally all about how she is worried about being able to teach someone (her son) when she hasn't lived that perspective. That's literally the point of the piece - her trying to understand how she'll teach her son about this aspect of the world. > There is no such thing as singular 'feminism'. This becomes clear when you confront one feminist with the views of another feminist that they disagree with. Are you really arguing we can't categorise things because people disagree on their exact meaning? I mean, you could replace 'feminism' with almost any word and have that sentence be technically true. It's not an argument that somehow the idea is invalid. Feminism has a definition, and it doesn't involve discriminating against men. > this type of feminism is bad. This kid will have its behavior interpreted in bad-faith - that is not normal parenting. You seem to think that assuming your child will have to deal with sexism is in some way judging it - that's not true. We all deal with it in some way or another, this is just a good parent trying to prepare their child and educate them. They aren't blaming the child or "interpreting it's behaviour in bad faith" - they are talking about how to educate about an issue. You just want to paint all feminists as crazy, and then use that as an excuse in your reasoning to decry all feminism as bad. It's horseshit. Sexism is real. Feminism is a force for good in the majority form it's encountered.
- 10y ago