5 ms·

>almost always a male problem That is sexist.

by mmjaa 9y ago

acc1558 9y ago
You have wholly failed to grasp the concept of sexism. "Women are bad at tech" is a sexist statement, while "men are bad at emotional labor" is not. This is no more a double standard than saying 0/1 is 0, while 1/0 is undefined. The asymmetry exists a priori, and so the balance of those statements is descriptive of sexism, not causal.
- mmjaa 9y ago
  Nonsense. Associating behaviour with sex, is sexism, pure and simple. The fact that he is a man has nothing to do with the fact that he doesn't have the same agency - nor the 'right' to complain about it - as his wife does. Making that association a part of the discussion is sexism.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - acc1558 9y ago
    With all due respect, you are mistaken. Simply associating behaviors with sex is no more sexism than associating adjectives with nouns is English. It's whether those constructions have meaning that makes the difference. In a world with a perfectly even balance of social power, it would be equally & symmetrically sexist to say "all men are X" or "all women are X." We do not live in such a world! The outcomes from those two statements are not evenly distributed, and we may find it useful to describe the factors contributing to that disparity of outcomes predominately driven by sex as "sexist." Let's look at this another way. Some how, we have managed to collectively convince ourselves that "sexism" is bad without accurately identifying what sexism is. This causes an interesting cognitive dissonance wherein the beneficiaries of sexism, who categorically do not think of themselves as bad people, must find a way to justify how they are not sexist. One particularly facile way to do so is to simply redefine the term "sexism" to something vacuous that implies no particular weight to the underlying distribution, ergo no individual bears any particular responsibility for the ongoing structural inequity. Unfortunately, while this neatly resolves the mental tension, it reinforces the cycle of "sexism is bad, but we don't actually know what sexism is -> we redefine the term to have no descriptive or predictive power".
- cjbillington 9y ago
  Nope. You're going to have to elaborate on why there's an asymmetry, not just restate that there is with big words and an unrelated analogy hoping we'll believe it.

>almost always a male problem That is sexist.

by mmjaa 9y ago

>almost always a male problem That is sexist.

You have wholly failed to grasp the concept of sexism. "Women are bad at tech" is a sexist statement, while "men are bad at emotional labor" is not. This is no more a double standard than saying 0/1 is 0, while 1/0 is undefined. The asymmetry exists a priori, and so the balance of those statements is descriptive of sexism, not causal.

mmjaa 9y ago
Nonsense. Associating behaviour with sex, is sexism, pure and simple. The fact that he is a man has nothing to do with the fact that he doesn't have the same agency - nor the 'right' to complain about it - as his wife does. Making that association a part of the discussion is sexism.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- acc1558 9y ago
  With all due respect, you are mistaken. Simply associating behaviors with sex is no more sexism than associating adjectives with nouns is English. It's whether those constructions have meaning that makes the difference. In a world with a perfectly even balance of social power, it would be equally & symmetrically sexist to say "all men are X" or "all women are X." We do not live in such a world! The outcomes from those two statements are not evenly distributed, and we may find it useful to describe the factors contributing to that disparity of outcomes predominately driven by sex as "sexist." Let's look at this another way. Some how, we have managed to collectively convince ourselves that "sexism" is bad without accurately identifying what sexism is. This causes an interesting cognitive dissonance wherein the beneficiaries of sexism, who categorically do not think of themselves as bad people, must find a way to justify how they are not sexist. One particularly facile way to do so is to simply redefine the term "sexism" to something vacuous that implies no particular weight to the underlying distribution, ergo no individual bears any particular responsibility for the ongoing structural inequity. Unfortunately, while this neatly resolves the mental tension, it reinforces the cycle of "sexism is bad, but we don't actually know what sexism is -> we redefine the term to have no descriptive or predictive power".
cjbillington 9y ago
Nope. You're going to have to elaborate on why there's an asymmetry, not just restate that there is with big words and an unrelated analogy hoping we'll believe it.