10 ms·
There's a rinse and repeat pattern of denial, suiting narratives here. Anytime the modern feminism movement is faced with situations not to it's liking, there'
by writepub 8y ago
There's a rinse and repeat pattern of denial, suiting narratives here.
Anytime the modern feminism movement is faced with situations not to it's liking, there's an immediate, knee jerk, non-objective denial, and bull-shittery that casts aspersions on the truth, accuser, media, etc.
It happened with Sarah Jeong, where the feminists distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism' to suit their narrative that it only applies to those in power. It happened when Linda Sarsour was openly anti-semetic and when her troupe faced metoo accusations.
It's happening now with this case, and it's not the last time. And just so you are aware, these narratives rely on the evisceration of science, logic, reason and well established definitions of words
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- beat 8y ago^^^ Yeah, there's a rinse/repeat pattern, all right. ^^^
- doublescoop 8y agoThat particular definition of racism has been in use for at least 25 years. You might recall it as a key plot point from the first season of MTV's reality show, The Real World, for instance.
- commandlinefan 8y agoWell, even if you agree that the term "racism" has somehow been redefined to mean "prejudice + power", it's awfully hard to _still_ argue that feminists don't have more power than just about anybody in academia, the press, entertainment industry and most business as well.
- learc83 8y ago>it's awfully hard to _still_ argue that feminists don't have more power than just about anybody in academia, the press, entertainment industry and most business as well. It's definitely not. What's the ratio of male to female CEOs in fortune 500 companies (it's around 20 to 1). What's the ratio of male to female members of congress? (~4 to 1). How many Presidents were women? Supreme Court Justices?
- tothepixel 8y agoNot a women are feminists, and feminists don't represent the interests of all women.
- learc83 8y agoAssuming you're agreeing with the poster I'm replying to and not just making pointless comments. If feminists really have more power than just about anyone, why don't they put more women in positions of power?
- ben509 8y agoIt definitely has been around a while. It's important to note that the "power" is not the power the individual holds, but rather "institutional" power that a person holds simply by virtue of being of a particular collective. For instance, if you are a hiring manager at a repair shop and you decide "this Asian must be good at math, so he won't be interested in working on cars" that's racist and you hold demonstrable power. That's not the same thing as institutional power, since that definition of racism would allow a black hiring manager to discriminate against that candidate on the basis of the black collective holding less institutional power than the Asian collective. If one is simply racist or not racist because of what collective their a member of, it negates individual agency and dehumanizes everyone. This leaves us with some possibilities: One, racism is an immoral act committed by an individual, and the individual's conduct is the principal determining factor. Two, we can just blame it all on the patriarchy at which point racism as a concept is pointless. Three, you could claim that only white people have moral agency, which even white nationalists would disavow. Four, something between one and two, which is probably what the left prefers. And the moral of Jeong case is that it leads to a blatant double standard based on your political stance that is worse about undermining the notion of racism than #2.
- influx 8y agoI'd also add Evergreen State forcing a Jewish professor into hiding with violent threats because he refused to leave campus for the Day of Presence / Day of Absence.
- staticautomatic 8y agoThat was super fucked up. It's incredibly sad that in this day and age people still view one's skin color, sex/gender, or sexual preference (regardless of what it is) as some kind of original sin.
- commandlinefan 8y agoWhat's most disconcerting about this new-wave definition of "racism" is that they don't say, "well, we want to keep the word racism for prejudice against minorities, but here's another word for prejudice against white people", they just insist that the very concept itself doesn't - and can't - exist. When people refer to something as being "Orwellian" they usually mean constant surveillance a la 1984, but the book itself seemed to be a lot more concerned with efforts to control language and rewrite history to support a particular narrative.
- rosser 8y agoNo-one (who knows what they're talking about) says prejudice against the dominant group(s) isn't a thing. Anyone who does say that is, I submit, either confused, or trying to confuse. The position, whether you agree with it or not, is "Racism is prejudice plus power". Disenfranchised groups don't have the latter, but they damned well can — and often do — have at least as much of the former as the enfranchised. EDIT: Or is somehow your position that the prejudices held by enfranchised and those held by the disenfranchised have no meaningful difference in their affects?
- rgbrenner 8y agoI'm not the parent.. but I think you overstate things when you say "Disenfranchised groups don't have the latter [power]". Power is relative. A minority manager has a certain power over those working beneath him/her, for example. While there's a dearth of minorities in top positions in the economy... it's incorrect to take this generalization, and then say no minorities have any power. There are minorities in positions of power, and they can use that to take racist actions. Therefore, I disagree that minorities are incapable of racism (using the prejudice + power definition).
- rosser 8y ago> There are minorities in positions of power, and they can use that to take racist actions. Which means the definition holds. Give someone power, they can be racist, and not merely prejudiced. It doesn't matter how much power objectively. It matters that they have relative power, over someone who is the object of their prejudice. How is this so confusing? > I disagree that minorities are incapable of racism... Me too. Can you please clarify where you found a position to the contrary in my commentary?
- andybak 8y ago> distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism' I studied Sociology in the late 1980s and this definition of racism was part of the curriculum. Isn't it entirely possible that a word can have different meanings in academic and non-academic circles?
- ticviking 8y agoJust because a term is overloaded in the context of an academic specialty doesn't mean that definition has entered common use, or should be used as the legal standard.
- moate 8y agoBut if there are conflicting views about what a word should mean, isn't it a bit much to say "well your (accepted) version of the word means isn't what I meant, and therefor you're wrong"? Let's take something (presumably) less polarizing: the word "Literally". To some people, it means "an event that actually is/has happened" but it can also be used as a synonym to the word "figuratively". This can create conflict or misunderstanding when 2 people have different expected definitions of a word. Both are accepted by large populations, and if you use one in a way that has not been accepted by the person you're speaking to, you're not "wrong" you're just having a misunderstanding. You can argue the validity of each definition, but there's no objective right or wrong here. If I say "Black people can't be racist towards white people because they don't have the institutional power to do that", and you respond "anyone can be racist" we're not having the same argument. You're just arguing semantics while I'm trying to make a point about the world.
- feverfew 8y agoI think what people are truly angry about is when someone is racist (to be clear I'm using the definition involving prejudice based on race) towards someone who is of a generally privileged class (i.e. white) and when this is pointed out sometimes the answer is is that they're not being racist because their definition of it is also related to power. And so both parties are drawn into the argument over language semantics. However, it is the wrong argument to be involved in, because it is correct to point out the hypocrisy: it is not ok to be racist (using the definition without power) to anyone, regardless if in general they benefit from their race.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- staticautomatic 8y agoI generally agree with you but I disagree with your use of the term "the modern feminist movement." It is not a single, uniform set of things to which all adherents subscribe. To the contrary, "the modern feminist movement" is rife with in-fighting among factions of people who vehemently disagree with each other about what exactly it means to be "feminist" (not to mention their wildly different and sometimes conspicuously absent stated goals). A feminist who belongs to, say, the Beauvoir school of thought has a very different outlook on things than a lot of people who participate in the internet #MeToo movement, and the #MeToo "feminists" may fight vociferously with so-called "intersectional feminists." And so on.
- rosser 8y agoAny position premised on "feminists" — or any other group — being a monolithic entity one can hand-wave about as suits one's narratives should be immediately, and extremely, suspect.
- staticautomatic 8y agoI don't necessarily agree that it should be automatically treated with suspicion, but it does always warrant further inspection. One of the biggest problems with discussions about contemporary feminism is that it's often unclear who is being talked about when one talks about "feminists." Accordingly, vague invocations of "feminists" or "feminism" may not be deliberate but instead suffer merely from erroneously insufficient specificity.
- rosser 8y ago> ...but it does always warrant further inspection. That's what I mean by suspicion: scrutiny, not dismissal. What, e.g., are the narratives in play, that enable someone to speak that casually, yet confidently, about a thing they're prima facie demonstrating a flawed understanding of?
- beat 8y agoAlternately, the "erroneously insufficient specificity" might be quite deliberate, if not explicitly considered. Blanket attacks on "feminists" often have origins other than mere academic inquiry.
- pvg 8y agoIt happened with Sarah Jeong, where the feminists distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism' to suit their narrative that it only applies to those in power. It happened when Linda Sarsour was openly anti-semetic and when her troupe faced metoo accusations. It wasn't 'feminists' redefining anything, it's spelled 'semitic' and more importantly, you're just pivoting to completely unrelated culture war topics simply because women happen to be involved and you want to rant about them. That's not a great look.
- Phrodo_00 8y ago> simply because women happen to be involved and you want to rant about them. He didn't rant about women, did he? he only mentioned feminism, or are you saying that only women are allowed to be feminist?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- s73v3r_ 8y ago"these narratives rely on the evisceration of science, logic, reason and well established definitions of words" They absolutely do not. If you honestly believe that what Sarah Jeong tweeted was racism, then you have an incredibly sheltered life, and have never faced any kind of adversity.
- dev_dull 8y ago“You say that it’s impossible to be racist against a white person? And impossible to be sexist against a man?” It really is a confusing time for normal people outside of the intelligentsia / twitter bubble.
- vowelless 8y agoIt's basically a new religion with its own preachers and evangelical prosyletizers. And dare I say, religious enforcers too. Incidentally, also has a concept of "original sin" and atonement to some extent. If only they could provide an eschatology. I try to stay away from it. Brings back horrible memories.
- KirinDave 8y ago> There's a rinse and repeat pattern of denial, suiting narratives here. Have... have you actually talked to a cross-section of feminists? Or do you just watch the kind of youtube videos about them where someone who failed out at the rest of their life now is a professional video-pauser? If your exposure to actual feminist dialogues is quite sparse if you think Jeong hasn't faced substantial criticism. Her comments were pointed out as crass (if not actually structurally racist; because they're not for multiple reasons) and alienating. What's more, Jeong has a long running scandal of helping Vice totally screw over a Chinese woman who is a performative maker named Naomi Wu. The reporter there wanted to run a piece about Reddit conspiracy theories w.r.t. (that Naomi is actually, by virtue of being a woman, obviously backed by a man who is the "real" talent). Naomi's addressed this a lot and had a written contract she pointed to as violated. Sarah jumped in and helped deplatform Wu off of a variety of platforms and lead a charge to get Wu thrown off Patreon, because she wanted to defend her friend against the accusations of a woman who was angry for being dismissed as a sex symbol and nothing more. So yah, there is a lot of feminist critique of Jeong that's valid. She's also kinda shitty to sex workers even as she says she thinks it should be fine. That's unsurprising, most of us have shitty upbringings and part of the idea behind public feminist dialogue is to help people recognize that these unconscious biases need intentional correction to be stamped out. If you make jokes about how "I don't recall hearing about this plan at the last global patriarchy council" you can also make that same joke about "feminism." It's a broad movement with many adherents and to try and collapse it to a single priority set is ridiculous. The movement is not a monolith. > It happened with Sarah Jeong, where the feminists distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism' Maybe you should time travel back to 2012 when boys-club Youtube skeptics were busy losing this fight and walk through the video breadcrumbs of how this collapsed. There are multiple senses of the word racism and some are more facile than others. What's more, Jeong was ironically mimicking the tweets of someone else making racist comments. There is no doubt this is crass. It's discriminatory, even! But racist? If so, it's only in the sense that it's often misused as a synonym for "discriminatory" when in fact racism encompass a lot more than that. > It's happening now with this case, and it's not the last time. And just so you are aware, these narratives rely on the evisceration of science, logic, reason and well established definitions of words It's curious then, how if science and logic are the pole stars of the anti-feminist movement then how often actual scientists, statisticians and historians are considered to be "the enemy." Academia itself is often vilified by narratives your pushing, and the definitions you're decrying don't emerge from tumblr, but rather decades of scholarly inquiry. Many aspects of modern feminist theory have rich histories in literature that can't be easily brushed off as modern abominations. Your original complaint about "redefining the word racism" is actually a complaint about how Academia (including your reviled humanities, but also many more disciplines) have recognized that there are systemic, evidenced-based measures of how environments alter the effect and scope of people. The fact that you're upset about Jeong's words means that you actually believe in so-called "feminist bullshit" like micro-aggressions. To which I say: congrats to you for independently recognizing this is a thing, now ask yourself how that applies to others.
- IntOb23 8y ago>It happened with Sarah Jeong, where the feminists distorted the English meaning of the word 'Racism' to suit their narrative "Racism" means privilege plus prejudice. While anyone can be prejudiced, ONLY "white" people have "white" privilege. Therefore, ONLY "white" people can be - and ALL "white people are - "racist." "Racist" means "white." If once doesn't particularly like that definition of "racism" one would have to complain to the people that defined "racism" that way. Also I really hate Donald Trump.
- justAnotherNET 8y agoThis is absurd, and is literally recruitment material for White nationalists. I hope you’re just trolling.
- phjesusthatguy3 8y agoThere's a rinse and repeat pattern of denial, suiting narratives here. Anti-feminists are covering their tracks by saying we live in a world that's already equally fair to women, which is obviously false. It happened with Adam, where believers distorted the meaning of "fall of man" to suit their narrative that it only applies to women separating men from their god. It's happened for ~2000 years, documented in the founding texts of the people now calling foul. It's happening now, and it's not the last time. And just so you are aware, these narratives rely on the evisceration of science, logic, reason and well established definitions of words.
- writepub 8y agoNo one's claiming that we live in a world that's already equally fair to women. In fact, classic feminism - those espoused by Jordan Peterson and the like, are truly about uplifting women, where they aren't treated fairly. Modern feminism is in direct contrast to these founding prociples - it throws out science, reason and basic truths - in favor of unproven 'narratives'. Speaking of founding texts, God and religion, classic feminism fought for emancipation of religiously enforced garbs, head coverings, female genital mutilation, etc. Contrast that to modern feminism - where women with freedom to dress as they please don Hijabs in the name of 'freedom', while the actually oppressed women fighting the Hijab [1] are conveniently ignored. That my friend, is the evisceration of science, logic, reason and well established definitions of words - where women in the west with all the freedom do the bidding of oppressive men who cite religious text's demeaning reasons to cover one's head and body [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44040236 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-44040236