24 ms·

Please cite the section of the article that "collectively blames all men with some universal gender sin".

by vyhd 9y ago

KingMob 9y ago
Every time I see this, I suspect it's a misreading of systemic privilege. "Universal sin" evokes the idea of "original sin", the idea that because of Adam and (especially) Eve's actions, humanity fell from grace. If you reject the idea that you are to blame for the sins of your ancestors, you don't immediately see the need to fix the imbalances that resulted from their actions. This is not wrong, per se (e.g., children shouldn't go to jail if their father commits murder), but it confuses responsibility with culpability. Men bear responsibility for eliminating sexism even if not personally culpable for creating it.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  I think one of the biggest arguments that plays itself out today is whether the appropriate action is to stop sexism or to actively reverse/invert it. For example, in the case of affirmative action and diversity hiring. I don't think many people would argue for the continuation of sexism (even if they act it out) but the real contention is whether we should call full stop or put the ship in reverse.
  - KingMob 9y ago
    Are they truly separate alternatives? Stopping sexism without redressing the inequalities that have arisen so far still seems pretty unfair. It would benefit future generations of women while telling current women they just have to put up with the results of past sexism...which is sort of sexist, itself.
erikpukinskis 9y ago
I think this is an interesting question, and I was curious if there was any substance to your OP's takeaway, so I went and looked again: > shaming girls for having visible bodies and prioritizing the education of boys over girls, rather than teaching boys to pay attention and not objectify girls. ... implies that boys specifically do not pay attention to girls, and instead objectify them. > in an industry that continues to raise up and pat the most historically powerful and privileged amongst us — white men — on the back ... constructs white men as a group who is generously risen up and patted on the back > Instead of being recognized for the complex, multi-dimensional individuals we are — a privilege white men are afforded at birth ... constructs white men as collectively understood as complex and multidimensional. These all strike me as somewhat accurate, to a degree. However I somewhat agree with your OP that this kind of essentialism, when used to fight sexism is counterproductive. I would prefer we try to stop essentializing altogether. We don't need to say "men are X" in order say "I would like to make sure women are afforded opportunity Y". I think there's a path here where we can talk about the specific behaviors we want to discourage, without constructing those behaviors as typical of men. Not because they are atypical of men, but because we are trying to construct men who are not doing those behaviors, and we need a definition of manhood that works for those men too. Unless the plan is for men to disavow manhood entirely, but I don't see a lot of feminists advocating for that yet.
- vyhd 9y ago
  And my position is that the effort needed to move past those implications is so miniscule, especially in comparison to the problems they address, that we can afford to suck it up. Tone arguments are so often used for concern trolling around women's issues (and doubly so on HN) that I don't have much patience for them. Frankly, there is no way these problems can be phrased that will both make everyone happy and not omit crucial facts of the scenario (i.e., that women cannot achieve equality without men who are both aware of these problems and willing to act on them).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - erikpukinskis 9y ago
    Sadly, I've been hurt in conversations like this and a couple things you did make me feel unsafe, so I'm going to stop. I appreciate your feedback though, I will do some soul searching on the places where I am concern trolling and tone policing.

Please cite the section of the article that "collectively blames all men with some universal gender sin".

by vyhd 9y ago

Please cite the section of the article that "collectively blames all men with some universal gender sin".

Every time I see this, I suspect it's a misreading of systemic privilege. "Universal sin" evokes the idea of "original sin", the idea that because of Adam and (especially) Eve's actions, humanity fell from grace. If you reject the idea that you are to blame for the sins of your ancestors, you don't immediately see the need to fix the imbalances that resulted from their actions. This is not wrong, per se (e.g., children shouldn't go to jail if their father commits murder), but it confuses responsibility with culpability. Men bear responsibility for eliminating sexism even if not personally culpable for creating it.

beaconstudios 9y ago
I think one of the biggest arguments that plays itself out today is whether the appropriate action is to stop sexism or to actively reverse/invert it. For example, in the case of affirmative action and diversity hiring. I don't think many people would argue for the continuation of sexism (even if they act it out) but the real contention is whether we should call full stop or put the ship in reverse.
- KingMob 9y ago
  Are they truly separate alternatives? Stopping sexism without redressing the inequalities that have arisen so far still seems pretty unfair. It would benefit future generations of women while telling current women they just have to put up with the results of past sexism...which is sort of sexist, itself.

erikpukinskis 9y ago

I think this is an interesting question, and I was curious if there was any substance to your OP's takeaway, so I went and looked again: > shaming girls for having visible bodies and prioritizing the education of boys over girls, rather than teaching boys to pay attention and not objectify girls. ... implies that boys specifically do not pay attention to girls, and instead objectify them. > in an industry that continues to raise up and pat the most historically powerful and privileged amongst us — white men — on the back ... constructs white men as a group who is generously risen up and patted on the back > Instead of being recognized for the complex, multi-dimensional individuals we are — a privilege white men are afforded at birth ... constructs white men as collectively understood as complex and multidimensional. These all strike me as somewhat accurate, to a degree. However I somewhat agree with your OP that this kind of essentialism, when used to fight sexism is counterproductive. I would prefer we try to stop essentializing altogether. We don't need to say "men are X" in order say "I would like to make sure women are afforded opportunity Y". I think there's a path here where we can talk about the specific behaviors we want to discourage, without constructing those behaviors as typical of men. Not because they are atypical of men, but because we are trying to construct men who are not doing those behaviors, and we need a definition of manhood that works for those men too. Unless the plan is for men to disavow manhood entirely, but I don't see a lot of feminists advocating for that yet.

vyhd 9y ago
And my position is that the effort needed to move past those implications is so miniscule, especially in comparison to the problems they address, that we can afford to suck it up. Tone arguments are so often used for concern trolling around women's issues (and doubly so on HN) that I don't have much patience for them. Frankly, there is no way these problems can be phrased that will both make everyone happy and not omit crucial facts of the scenario (i.e., that women cannot achieve equality without men who are both aware of these problems and willing to act on them).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- erikpukinskis 9y ago
  Sadly, I've been hurt in conversations like this and a couple things you did make me feel unsafe, so I'm going to stop. I appreciate your feedback though, I will do some soul searching on the places where I am concern trolling and tone policing.