3 ms·

> Yes you do. Your comment to which I am replying advocates for sexism. No matter what you say or do, someone will find a way to call it sexist.

by hasenj 9y ago

gizmo686 9y ago
>Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. Please explain how this is not sexist.
- hasenj 9y ago
  Please explain how it's sexist?
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male employees. That seems to be a clear example of sexism. We can disagree on what the consequences of this sexism is; and even if this is good sexism or not; but I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t
    - hasenj 9y ago
      > attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different. There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender. For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye. > I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. Because you are implying it's a bad thing. You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics.
      - comstock 9y ago
        Many things are true on the level of groups, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to apply them as general rules on an individual level. Women maybe weaker than men in general. There are however many women stronger than many men. Where possible it is therefore better to evaluate individuals based on their individual merits. This is not only more efficient, but creates a fairer and hopefully happier society.
      - gizmo686 9y ago
        >Because you are implying it's a bad thing. Where did I imply that? If you go back one clause, I explicitly said that there can be disagreement on if it is a bad thing or not. [0] I do not know how my opinion came across, but I believe this should make it clear that I am at least open to the possibility that the behavior under discussion is good behavior. [0] >You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics. What context? I was replying to a post describing his approach to avoid "overstepping with women" [2] and how "it's really not all that difficult". In doing so, I was pointing out how non obvious the solution was. If a central tenet of your approach is "don't be sexist", and you proceed to make recommendations that are, on their face, sexist, it is not just a matter of semantics to point this out. It means that the standard of "don't be sexist" is seemingly useless because I cannot determine what types of technically sexist behavior don't count as actually sexist unless I have some independent test of what is acceptable. If I do have an independent test, then why bother saying don't be sexist, when you can just say to use my independent test of acceptability. >For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye. At this point, I hope I have made it clear that there exists (in my opinion) good sexism and bad sexism. I feel confident is saying that this is, unambiguously, bad sexism. [1] Women are not so week that they are incapable of committing assault; or that there is no damage done to the victim when they do so. [0] To clarify my position somewhat, I have no idea if it is good behavior or not. In an ideal world, it would be bad behavior, and it has easy to articulate downsides. However, it has potential upsides of reducing bad sexism. I do not have the tools necessary to make a confident decision on the net effect. [1] Or rather, the double standard you describe. Your observation itself, while potentially overstated, is simply a non sexist observation of sexist behavior. Or maybe the observation itself is biased by the sexism of the observer; again I do not have the tools to determine that. [2] Pulled directly from from the submission title to avoid editorializing.

> Yes you do. Your comment to which I am replying advocates for sexism. No matter what you say or do, someone will find a way to call it sexist.

by hasenj 9y ago

> Yes you do. Your comment to which I am replying advocates for sexism. No matter what you say or do, someone will find a way to call it sexist.

gizmo686 9y ago

>Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. Please explain how this is not sexist.

hasenj 9y ago
Please explain how it's sexist?
- gizmo686 9y ago
  Sexist: relating to, involving, or fostering sexism, or attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender. [0] The quote under discussion (bracketed comments added): >Incidentally I regularly break some of these rules with male employees, such as remarking on haircuts ("looking good", etc.), but it's different. This quote admits to blatently treating his female employees differently than his male employees. That seems to be a clear example of sexism. We can disagree on what the consequences of this sexism is; and even if this is good sexism or not; but I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sexist?s=t
  - hasenj 9y ago
    > attitudes and behavior toward someone based on the person's gender That's only relevant if you hold the unscientific belief that men and women are interchangeable and that the reproductive organ is the only thing that's different. There are many ways where attitudes towards a person must be adjusted depending on the person's gender. For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye. > I do not see how there can be disagreement that this is sexism. Because you are implying it's a bad thing. You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics.
    - comstock 9y ago
      Many things are true on the level of groups, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea to apply them as general rules on an individual level. Women maybe weaker than men in general. There are however many women stronger than many men. Where possible it is therefore better to evaluate individuals based on their individual merits. This is not only more efficient, but creates a fairer and hopefully happier society.
    - gizmo686 9y ago
      >Because you are implying it's a bad thing. Where did I imply that? If you go back one clause, I explicitly said that there can be disagreement on if it is a bad thing or not. [0] I do not know how my opinion came across, but I believe this should make it clear that I am at least open to the possibility that the behavior under discussion is good behavior. [0] >You can't just take away the context of the conversation and pretend that we are arguing about semantics. What context? I was replying to a post describing his approach to avoid "overstepping with women" [2] and how "it's really not all that difficult". In doing so, I was pointing out how non obvious the solution was. If a central tenet of your approach is "don't be sexist", and you proceed to make recommendations that are, on their face, sexist, it is not just a matter of semantics to point this out. It means that the standard of "don't be sexist" is seemingly useless because I cannot determine what types of technically sexist behavior don't count as actually sexist unless I have some independent test of what is acceptable. If I do have an independent test, then why bother saying don't be sexist, when you can just say to use my independent test of acceptability. >For example, women are physically weaker than men, so if a man was to hit a woman in public, he would be arrested, where as if a woman was to hit a man in public, no one would blink an eye. At this point, I hope I have made it clear that there exists (in my opinion) good sexism and bad sexism. I feel confident is saying that this is, unambiguously, bad sexism. [1] Women are not so week that they are incapable of committing assault; or that there is no damage done to the victim when they do so. [0] To clarify my position somewhat, I have no idea if it is good behavior or not. In an ideal world, it would be bad behavior, and it has easy to articulate downsides. However, it has potential upsides of reducing bad sexism. I do not have the tools necessary to make a confident decision on the net effect. [1] Or rather, the double standard you describe. Your observation itself, while potentially overstated, is simply a non sexist observation of sexist behavior. Or maybe the observation itself is biased by the sexism of the observer; again I do not have the tools to determine that. [2] Pulled directly from from the submission title to avoid editorializing.