4 ms·
I'd say that is only sexism if you consider it biologically wrong. If you believe that it's a correct description of an effect caused by genetics, then it would
by fxtentacle 6y ago
I'd say that is only sexism if you consider it biologically wrong. If you believe that it's a correct description of an effect caused by genetics, then it would be descriptive instead.
But what your comment nicely illustrates is that whether someone considers something sexist depends on whether or not they believe it to be true. As a result, people who are unwilling to accept certain objective truths might consider descriptive science to be sexist.
If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree.
- throwaway_dnadu 6y agoI think you've missed what they were complaining about. > Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. Dispassionate factual statement. Not sexist. > Ever think a dog is dumb for growling at his reflection in the mirror? Comparing men to dogs and implying they're dumb. Sexist.
- grillvogel 6y agothat's a bit of a stretch. more like "here's an example of something that animals do that most would consider dumb, it turns out that humans actually do something similar"
- throwaway_dnadu 6y ago> that's a bit of a stretch Nah people do this all the time when making comments designed to put people down. Yes they didn't explicitly say they think men are like dogs... they just gently popped those two things together next to each other and left them there for people to quietly pick up what they mean, but keeping themselves clean if anyone points it out. It's called (ironically in this case) a dog whistle. Keep an eye out for them!
- maroonblazer 6y agoAre you arguing against the example or the idea? More generally we call these illusions. There are any number of examples we could swap out and the point wouldn't change.
- polotics 6y agoNitpicking brigade here, sorry: In my understanding a dog whistle is something else, it's a code phrase used to refer to some opinion that's unsavoury and know transgressive to communicate out-of-band to your supporters that you share that opinion. An actual dog whistle for calling dogs produces ultrasound, that humans cannot hear...
- irrational 6y agoI don’t know. I’m a man and in my experience men are pretty dumb. I wasn’t offended by the dog comparison.
- throwaway_dnadu 6y agoOne individual in the target group not being offended doesn't mean it's not sexist. Many women are ok with deeply sexist things towards women. Doesn't make it right.
- Draiken 6y agoNot being offended by something does not make it sexist or not
- mensetmanusman 6y agoYour statement assumes there is an objective ruler/measure of what is sexist or not. It is likely that such a measure does not exist. People’s perception therefore take precedent.
- jedimastert 6y ago> Human men can become aroused looking at flat images of nude women in black and white. The author makes it sound like human women can't also get aroused by a black and white image of nude men.
- AnonHP 6y ago> If I say "women are biologically different which causes them to have different skills", that can be argued both ways. Some people might focus on lactation and agree. Others might think about mental skills and strongly disagree. I have a disagreement on one word choice here: “skills”. I don’t think that’s the best word to use in this context since it could be understood for one of its dictionary meanings, which is expertise.