3 ms·

Never understood why people use the phrase reverse sexism or reverse racism. That sort of implies that only men are capable of sexism or only whites are capabl

Never understood why people use the phrase reverse sexism or reverse racism. That sort of implies that only men are capable of sexism or only whites are capable of racism. Not picking on your comment, but it got me pondering that phrasing so just thinking out loud here. Granted, I've seen some people outright claim that minorities can't commit acts of racism because minorities don't have the the power structures in place to benefit from their prejudice. So that concept would fit in with that phrasing. But that seems like some mealy-mouthed crap to get around the idea that crimes (or acts in general if not meeting the threshold of crime) committed by minorities can't or don't have the same underlying motive simply based on race, which is simply an absurd notion. Not to mention that treating prejudice as separate from racism doesn't make sense since both incorporate a belief or preconceived idea about someone or a group of people based on a general characteristic - in this case, race.

bayfullofrays 8y ago
Whites can't be the victim of racism because they are the oppressors. When 1000 years of slavery and capitalist exploitation are reversed, then I'll stop enjoying white people tears. Men cannot be victims of sexism, because see above.
- vokep 8y ago
  But that's a racist and sexist statement. You are fundamentally seeing people as 'White' or 'Men' instead of as they are, people. A persons ability to be racist or the victim of racism is solely dependent on if they are committing racist acts or having racist acts committed against them. Their race has nothing to do with it.
  - claudiawerner 8y ago
    Although I don't really have a dog in this fight, it's important to note that the contemporary literature in the fields of philosophy, sociology and critical race theory generally considers racism to be involving not only a prejudicial element, but also "acts" (it's important to not restrict racism to acts but also to include ideologies) directed from a position of power. The characteristics (i.e qualitative differences) absolutely matter, along with the history which forms both the perception of what's being said (giving words and actions their meaning) but also may provide context for the action to point towards analysing the act critically. Regarding a related topic, there's a wonderful paper by Swanson[0] on the use of slurs (in particular racist ones) and the ideologies they hail, and the ideologies hailed absolutely depend on who's using them, in a similar way that the use-mention distinction most people would agree exists. But there's another point here: you have directly assumed a subjectivist-individualist interpretation of racism (and perhaps even race, for a fresh look at the relation between race and racism see "Racecraft" by Fields and Fields[1]), but while you may account for individual actions of prejudice based on "race", it won't account for structural (going by structure driven through ideology) interpretations of racism. [0] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ericsw/research/Swanson,%20Slurs%20and%20Ideologies%20November%202015.pdf http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ericsw/research/Swanson,%20Sl... [1] https://www.versobooks.com/books/1645-racecraft https://www.versobooks.com/books/1645-racecraft
- dang 8y ago
  Would you please not post ideological rants to HN, like this and your other recent comments? That's definitely not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of ideology, because doing it destroys the intellectual curiosity this site exists for. So if you could please (re-)read the guidelines and not use HN that way, we'd appreciate it.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  Historical period extends around 5000 years ago and has plenty of examples that disprove your theory. From the Old Egypt always in war against other mediterranean people, to how the Roman empire talked about the so called barbarians or the proto-Islamic expansion in the caucasus and south of Europe. Paraphrasing Prince, you can find snakes in every color, every nationality and size.

bayfullofrays 8y ago

Whites can't be the victim of racism because they are the oppressors. When 1000 years of slavery and capitalist exploitation are reversed, then I'll stop enjoying white people tears. Men cannot be victims of sexism, because see above.

vokep 8y ago
But that's a racist and sexist statement. You are fundamentally seeing people as 'White' or 'Men' instead of as they are, people. A persons ability to be racist or the victim of racism is solely dependent on if they are committing racist acts or having racist acts committed against them. Their race has nothing to do with it.
- claudiawerner 8y ago
  Although I don't really have a dog in this fight, it's important to note that the contemporary literature in the fields of philosophy, sociology and critical race theory generally considers racism to be involving not only a prejudicial element, but also "acts" (it's important to not restrict racism to acts but also to include ideologies) directed from a position of power. The characteristics (i.e qualitative differences) absolutely matter, along with the history which forms both the perception of what's being said (giving words and actions their meaning) but also may provide context for the action to point towards analysing the act critically. Regarding a related topic, there's a wonderful paper by Swanson[0] on the use of slurs (in particular racist ones) and the ideologies they hail, and the ideologies hailed absolutely depend on who's using them, in a similar way that the use-mention distinction most people would agree exists. But there's another point here: you have directly assumed a subjectivist-individualist interpretation of racism (and perhaps even race, for a fresh look at the relation between race and racism see "Racecraft" by Fields and Fields[1]), but while you may account for individual actions of prejudice based on "race", it won't account for structural (going by structure driven through ideology) interpretations of racism. [0] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ericsw/research/Swanson,%20Slurs%20and%20Ideologies%20November%202015.pdf http://www-personal.umich.edu/~ericsw/research/Swanson,%20Sl... [1] https://www.versobooks.com/books/1645-racecraft https://www.versobooks.com/books/1645-racecraft
dang 8y ago
Would you please not post ideological rants to HN, like this and your other recent comments? That's definitely not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: it looks like you've been using HN primarily for ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of ideology, because doing it destroys the intellectual curiosity this site exists for. So if you could please (re-)read the guidelines and not use HN that way, we'd appreciate it.
pvaldes 8y ago
Historical period extends around 5000 years ago and has plenty of examples that disprove your theory. From the Old Egypt always in war against other mediterranean people, to how the Roman empire talked about the so called barbarians or the proto-Islamic expansion in the caucasus and south of Europe. Paraphrasing Prince, you can find snakes in every color, every nationality and size.