4 ms·

> Systematic sexism systematic Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systemati

> Systematic sexism systematic Done or acting according to a fixed plan or system; methodical. Source: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/systematic If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how? > thousands of men telling women to "smile more" at work to look prettier Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? If these are the biggest problems we have, I would say we are in a really great place. Also, what about women telling women the same thing? > Is it acceptable to be openly racist? Yes, in certain parts of America. My grandparents' county courthouse had a KKK rally to celebrate census results showing no minorities lived there. This was early 2000s. Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side. > Also, I'm not going to keep discussing this with you mich further So these were your best arguments? > as all your responses are not conveying a genuine desire to discuss and consider arguments you disagree with, which is frankly a waste of both our time. I have no idea where you got that idea from, I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering. You can't expect me to accept the existence of things like "Systematic sexism" if you can't define what it is, and prove it. If your views are on solid ground, you should have no trouble defending them.

blorginator 9y ago
> If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how? https://goo.gl/ceakLN https://goo.gl/ceakLN "relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part." Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system. > Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration. > Also, what about women telling women the same thing? What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too. > Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side. People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.
- whitemale 9y ago
  > Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system. The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down? > It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems? > including seeing and treating women as decoration. Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things). Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo > Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too. Or maybe it's just not really sexist. > People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously. What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.
cjslep 9y ago
I of course was mistaken to choose the word "systematic". I intended to use the word "systemic". Though I am not surprised you did not offer me the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong. I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective. Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition. Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further. I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from"). So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions: - "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman) - "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman) - "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?) - "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?) - "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won) Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion: - "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering." Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win. Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do. At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.

blorginator 9y ago

> If this is systematic, then I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system? What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how? https://goo.gl/ceakLN https://goo.gl/ceakLN "relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part." Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system. > Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today? It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions, including seeing and treating women as decoration. > Also, what about women telling women the same thing? What about them? Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too. > Do reports on it. Call them out and protest there instead of places where there is hardly any racism. Call out specific regions and people, don't just say that, well everybody's racist, because this will not get people on your side. People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously.

whitemale 9y ago
> Systemic doesn't imply directed, it can also be used to mean it is deeply embedded in the system. The original comment used the wrong word. So what does this mean? are all white males part of this system that is designed to keep women down? > It is one common example of a pervasive mindset that informs all kinds of actions Can you name those all kinds of actions? If I go today and tell a female to smile more, can you tell me what dark path will that lead to? I would be also keen on seeing solid proof that connects telling women to smile more to the tragedies that women have to endure on a daily basis. Also, is telling women to smile less the way to fix all these problems? > including seeing and treating women as decoration. Treating them as decoration where and how? Also, are you familiar with this thing called biology and evolution? Members of species of the opposite sex judge potential mates based on a appearance (among other things). Did you also stop to think that women might be equally or more judgemental about looks. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ylmg9zrEDo > Women can be sexist and perpetuate sexism too. Or maybe it's just not really sexist. > People do. This isn't zero sum though - people can protest that and other issues that are ongoing simultaneously. What I meant is: protest against racism in areas where there is actual racism and don't just point the finger at anyone, you won't win people that way.

cjslep 9y ago

I of course was mistaken to choose the word "systematic". I intended to use the word "systemic". Though I am not surprised you did not offer me the courtesy of possibly being mistaken and instead cast my position as a strawman prepared to burn for being wrong. I'm not going to response here with my views in a well-articulated response. Instead, here is a meta discussion of what we have discussed so far, from my perspective. Forgive me if I am seeking to have a discussion at a level higher than pedantry. All your arguments thus far against what I have set out to say are based on technical definitions of words, what a particular word actually means and entails at a nuanced level, all in an attempt to disprove, disregard or avoid dealing with my original core point: we are not in a post-race society. For instance, your middle response (whether you are aware of it or not) excuses insults as exempt from being racist simply because the objective is to maximize harm, which is itself a pretty inflammatory proposition. Furthermore, you are keen on tearing my viewpoint apart without providing evidence of your own to show that yes, America is living in a post-race society. Notably, you actually did do this with the original anecdote about having a black president. And, to disprove your point, the burden is on me to find a proof by contradiction, which I supplied also in the form of an anecdote. Which is actually a valid argument when needing to supply a proof by contradiction (by definition of the proof, N=1 contradiction is all that is needed). Rather than acknowledge this, you instead replied that I was a hypocrite, a response I figured was not one worth responding to. If your defense is an ad homenim, I see no reason to engage further. I understand that the arguments worth having are with people that genuinely seem to want to explore ideas together in a debate instead of convince "the wrong side they are wrong". I even opened up to the former by sharing a very vivid, personal anecdote to hopefully invite reflection. Instead, I was called a hypocrite, so please consider yourself informed (re: "I have no idea where you got that idea from"). So please forgive me not continuing to answer the following questions: - "I guess you can tell me who is in charge of this plan or system?" (Rooted in strawman) - "What is the goal of this plan or system and who does it benefit and how?" (Rooted in strawman) - "Is this the biggest issue in women's lives today?" (Who are you to dismiss their concerns when they give a clear signal this is a problem?) - "What about women telling women the same thing?" (What is the implication behind this question? That you think I believe only men can be sexist? Another strawman setup?) - "So these were your best arguments?" (A question that is a huge signal to your underlying intentions: to signal you disapprove of my viewpoint and never a chance to exchange ideas, and that you have won) Finally, the kicker, to really embody and summarize this whole meta discussion: - "I was just raising genuine questions and counter points that most people with the same opinion as you are having trouble answering." Casting this as a me-versus-you is disengagement and disinterest on your part. I want to share, you want to win. Language matters. The questions you pose to "people with the same opinion as me" that we have trouble answering are, to be frank, bad questions and heavily loaded. The real kicker though, is whether your response to this post is "Yep, he had trouble defending his view, so he is attacking me and avoiding to answer the question", because that is the strongest signal to me that there was never going to be a chance of having a good-faith exploration of ideas, and to me justifies why I will keep disengaging from people who try to have arguments the way you do. At best, I hope we can have a different discussion in the future. At worst, you think I'm an unreasonable person (to put it lightly). I accept these ranges of outcomes, hence me writing this response. But please do not expect any more from me on this thread.