4 ms·
> You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify
by Latty 10y ago
> You didn't say "possible". stop throwing out things like "we see in studies" without being a bit more specific wrt which studies you mean. You didn't specify just that we're all biased, but specifically how we are all biased - that requires more qualification.
I'm not being specific because I'm talking about a general thing. You are the one claiming that people worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it is wrong. Introspecting on your own biases is important if we want to stop sexism and racism. Google for studies (first results: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1 http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract#aff-1), there are tons. Subconscious bias is hardly a contentious point.
> The author is planning to interfere with not just how sexism is handled, but how it is interpreted also. The author has a low bar in distinguishing sexism.
"interfere" - you mean teach. That's what we do with children. You say they have a low bar - and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts' because you don't think it's important enough to care about.
> I don't
> It's the authors intended message, but not my takeaway.
Then you are misreading the article - intentionally or not - and coming away afraid from a message that is not in any way harmful to men.
> Sure, you can categorise. You just can't lean on the word to have a solid definition, e.g. "Feminism is good/bad"
So we agree then - this site that is clearly out to try and paint Feminism as bad is wrong.
> Saying this is about as meaningful as "democracy is good", for some definition of democracy - its fluffy goodspeak - not very useful unless context is supplied to define the ambiguous term.
Except it's not ambiguous, I have explained what I am talking about multiple times. You claim that most feminists deviate from that, which is exactly the fear I am talking about. Most feminists are reasonable - you and others like you just paint them as crazy by misrepresenting their points (see the article).
> Does the author believe her boy will be the victim of sexism?
Are only victims the ones that need to know about an issue? Are women the only victims of sexism? Are men who are sexist not hurt by their own sexism in some way? Are men who's loved ones are victims of sexism not hurt in some way? Your question is stupid on a number of levels. Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism.
> It's only education if its factual. If you force an opinion upon a child it's indoctrination.
Sure, and fundamental christian nutjobs would call an education in science indoctrination. You just disagree with the facts of the matter.
> No I don't, in fact I've implied the opposite in what I've written - as such please qualify this statement.
Your takeaway from that article was completely unjustified. It's clear - intentionally or not - you have, in at least one instance (which is all I can say about you personally), twisted a feminist's words in order to be outraged at what she is saying and imply it's wrong.
> doesn't sound like I'm talking about all feminism to me. In fact, if I was, it wouldn't make sense to say "this type".
Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article - you like to pretend it's a subset of only the extremists, but it isn't. You think it's wrong for a mother to teach her child about sexism, which is an attack on feminism in general.
- Chris2048 10y agoI disagree with you characterisation "worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it". There's nothing wrong with that. That's not all that's going on here. > Google for studies Googling is not research. But in any case, you seem to be speaking so generally, but the original comment was "We know that we are all a little bit sexist" - what motivated this? Give one good example. > you mean teach or indoctrinate. Are these facts or opinions? A child will see the world for itself, it's the interpretational framework that is being 'taught', and this depends on the objectivity of the teacher. The problem with teaching children is that lack skepticism towards their sources - "get 'em while they're young". > and that's just you excusing sexism you don't think 'counts' Maybe. But if it doesn't 'count' as sexism, then it isn't sexism. > Then you are misreading the article Tell the field of lit-crit that :-) > Most feminists are reasonable Can you demonstrate this? If it where true, wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists be called out more. Wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists have less influence? If you are in the majority, it's a silent majority - "Most Germans were peaceful, yet the Nazis drove the agenda and as a result, 60m died."[0] > Yes, we need to teach boys about sexism and we also need an objective, and equally applied definition of sexism. Not one that is "historically defined". > You just disagree with the facts of the matter. indeed. Hence our differing perspectives are perhaps entirely consistent. > you have twisted a feminist's words Maybe. but when you speak in generalities, you only have past behavior and implied intent to go on. > Except by 'this type' you mean normal reasonable feminism as demonstrated in that article your type? I'm not sure it's all feminism at all. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/18/islamophobia-conservative-conference-bigotry https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/18/islamo...
- Latty 10y ago> I disagree with you characterisation "worrying about sexism and teaching their child about it". There's nothing wrong with that. That's not all that's going on here. Yes, it is. That was the point of the article - but you are so scared of the feminists coming and pushing you down you have dreamed up some crazy interpretation of it. > Googling is not research. No, but it's a good place to start. >the original comment was "We know that we are all a little bit sexist" - what motivated this? Give one good example. Things like http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474.abstract - there are a lot of studies that show doing a lot of things as men and as women result in higher acceptance rate of women if gender isn't known. We know that historically and culturally we have gender roles pushed on us. It is worth inspecting when you are making decisions that affect others if you have bias. > Can you demonstrate this? If it where true, wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists be called out more. Wouldn't the 'crazy' feminists have less influence? There aren't enough of them and they have so little influence that is rare. People do call them out when they pop up online in forums and stuff, which is about the extent you see them. You are characterising normal reasonable people under the crazy banner. Show me the policies that are being implemented by these radical feminists you claim have so much influence and are so common. Show me the articles in respected publications espousing pushing men down to pull women up. It's not a commonplace thing or a big problem, that's why it's not being 'called out more'. > and we also need an objective, and equally applied definition of sexism. Not one that is "historically defined". History informs the present. I've given my definition of sexism, you have a problem with it? > your type? I'm not sure it's all feminism at all. It is. You have constructed this fantasy of the feminist oppressors as extremists because it allows you to feel persecuted, and allows you to ignore everything - as long as you aren't going around raping people and telling women to make sandwiches for you, you can't be sexist!