4 ms·

> Counter devils advocate - let me remap what you're saying to race: That makes about as much sense as saying "let me remap what you're saying to hair color"

by adekok 9y ago

> Counter devils advocate - let me remap what you're saying to race: That makes about as much sense as saying "let me remap what you're saying to hair color" > If the above doesn't sound insane to you, I don't know what to tell you. It does sound insane, because it is insane. But it's your text. Not mine. The problem is that you're making the following insinuation: there are no more differences between men and women than between black people and white people That statement is simply not true. In terms of physical prowess, men are stronger, faster, etc. There is just no question: * the record for mens "clean and jerk" is as much as the womans record... plus the woman who's doing the record * national / olympic womens teams (soccer, baseball, etc.) compete with mens high school teams... and lose. * the records for swimming, sprinting, marathon, etc. show huge difference by sex What is insane is denying biological reality, while insinuating I'm no better than a racist.

idrios 9y ago
The jump from sexism to racism made perfect sense to me, they're pretty analogous; an entire group of people has significant and pervasive adverse experiences over a part of their identity. ..We don't have a systematic cultural problem over people born with red hair, but if we did there would be a word for that too. Your analogy sounds insane and his doesn't because his stays within the domain of cultural issues. More importantly, your original point dodges the issue of sexism altogether. Obviously there are biological differences between men and women, but sexism is not an issue over who is able to bear children and who has more estrogen in their body. Sexism is about an unfair social power dynamic. Nobody is denying that there is a biological reality to it; the conversation is over how to work with that knowledge to give both men and women an even playing field. Take one example that men will sometimes fall in love with women they work with, or vice versa. Without any rules or precedence you can end up with seriously messed up power dynamics, like a man in a more senior position pressuring women into unwanted sexual situations in which rejection puts them at fear for their jobs. Sexual harassment laws exist to try to protect against this, and inter-office relationships are generally forbidden as a preventative measure. Sexism is a really difficult and nuanced issue, and to say "yeah but this will always be an issue because men and women are biologically different" trivializes it and takes away from the discussion.
- adekok 9y ago
  > The jump from sexism to racism made perfect sense to me, they're pretty analogous; Except I wasn't being sexist. The re-phrasing of my comment as racism was offensive and demeaning, and entirely not analogous. > Sexism is about an unfair social power dynamic Such as men dying earlier than women? Such as 80% of homeless being men? Such as 93% of "on the job" deaths being male? Such as never-married childless women earning more than equivalent men... going back to the 1960's? I could go on. My point is that everyone touts the party line of "OMFG women are oppressed". Very few people look into the facts. And when all the facts are presented, it's a whole lot more nuanced than "think of the Women!" > to say "yeah but this will always be an issue because men and women are biologically different" trivializes it and takes away from the discussion. You're reading a whole lot more into my comment than I said. That shows rather more projection that reality-based discussion.

by adekok 9y ago

idrios 9y ago

The jump from sexism to racism made perfect sense to me, they're pretty analogous; an entire group of people has significant and pervasive adverse experiences over a part of their identity. ..We don't have a systematic cultural problem over people born with red hair, but if we did there would be a word for that too. Your analogy sounds insane and his doesn't because his stays within the domain of cultural issues. More importantly, your original point dodges the issue of sexism altogether. Obviously there are biological differences between men and women, but sexism is not an issue over who is able to bear children and who has more estrogen in their body. Sexism is about an unfair social power dynamic. Nobody is denying that there is a biological reality to it; the conversation is over how to work with that knowledge to give both men and women an even playing field. Take one example that men will sometimes fall in love with women they work with, or vice versa. Without any rules or precedence you can end up with seriously messed up power dynamics, like a man in a more senior position pressuring women into unwanted sexual situations in which rejection puts them at fear for their jobs. Sexual harassment laws exist to try to protect against this, and inter-office relationships are generally forbidden as a preventative measure. Sexism is a really difficult and nuanced issue, and to say "yeah but this will always be an issue because men and women are biologically different" trivializes it and takes away from the discussion.

adekok 9y ago
> The jump from sexism to racism made perfect sense to me, they're pretty analogous; Except I wasn't being sexist. The re-phrasing of my comment as racism was offensive and demeaning, and entirely not analogous. > Sexism is about an unfair social power dynamic Such as men dying earlier than women? Such as 80% of homeless being men? Such as 93% of "on the job" deaths being male? Such as never-married childless women earning more than equivalent men... going back to the 1960's? I could go on. My point is that everyone touts the party line of "OMFG women are oppressed". Very few people look into the facts. And when all the facts are presented, it's a whole lot more nuanced than "think of the Women!" > to say "yeah but this will always be an issue because men and women are biologically different" trivializes it and takes away from the discussion. You're reading a whole lot more into my comment than I said. That shows rather more projection that reality-based discussion.