3 ms·

The claim that there’s no empirical evidence of “reverse sexism” is particularly absurd. Women can be just as sexist as men, especially since society deems it t

The claim that there’s no empirical evidence of “reverse sexism” is particularly absurd. Women can be just as sexist as men, especially since society deems it to be socially acceptable for women to denigrate men (“men are stupid”) or to objectify men in a way that would lead to severe social consequences if a man were to make similar comments about women. I suspect what they mean is that they don’t consider such things to be within their definition of sexism because of their socialization. Nothing about empiricism.

astroid 2y ago
You are missing a key point of their worldview: *Everything* comes down to 'critical theory' in one way or another. Whether you are focusing on race, sex, or anything else that can be the subject of criticism the outcome is the same. Women CANT be sexist, because 'men' have more privilege and historically have less authority. So as the oppressed sex, they can't be sexist because they 'lack power'. So statements like "I hate all men, they are stupid violent thugs" are not viewed as sexist. The same goes for race -- while you didn't call it out specifically, it's the exact same mindset. It doesn't matter if a BIPOC person literally kills a White person and says "I hate all white people and I killed them because they are white". This is not racist to these people, because that person supposedly lacks 'power'. They (hypothetically) had and utilized the power to kill, but that isn't 'real' or 'institutional' power, so it simply does not count. Both concepts are equally stupid and fly in the face of reality. And the inevitable outcome is CONSTANT conflict. The conflict stems from being 'critical' of these different institutions and people who have 'power' or 'privilege' -- but the cycle never ends, so even if you manage to remove all Men or White people from existence, a power vacuum will exist and the criticism will be levied on whomever fills the role. It's the perfect way to perpetually conquer and divide, where you get to claim perpetual victim status, while ensuring the voice of the majority -never- matters because of their supposed 'institutional power'. The end result of this thinking will be less tolerance, less diversity, and more asinine stuff like this python situation. They mean EXACTLY what they said, take them at their word.
zadokshi 2y ago
Not that I agree with it, the argument about “reverse sexism/racism” is that the judgements are based upon the identity group as a whole not as an individual. When taken in aggregate it is deemed that the smaller group is the one discriminated against. The answer to this is to argue that it’s incorrect to take an overall statistic and apply it to an individual or smaller organisation in that group.

astroid 2y ago

You are missing a key point of their worldview: *Everything* comes down to 'critical theory' in one way or another. Whether you are focusing on race, sex, or anything else that can be the subject of criticism the outcome is the same. Women CANT be sexist, because 'men' have more privilege and historically have less authority. So as the oppressed sex, they can't be sexist because they 'lack power'. So statements like "I hate all men, they are stupid violent thugs" are not viewed as sexist. The same goes for race -- while you didn't call it out specifically, it's the exact same mindset. It doesn't matter if a BIPOC person literally kills a White person and says "I hate all white people and I killed them because they are white". This is not racist to these people, because that person supposedly lacks 'power'. They (hypothetically) had and utilized the power to kill, but that isn't 'real' or 'institutional' power, so it simply does not count. Both concepts are equally stupid and fly in the face of reality. And the inevitable outcome is CONSTANT conflict. The conflict stems from being 'critical' of these different institutions and people who have 'power' or 'privilege' -- but the cycle never ends, so even if you manage to remove all Men or White people from existence, a power vacuum will exist and the criticism will be levied on whomever fills the role. It's the perfect way to perpetually conquer and divide, where you get to claim perpetual victim status, while ensuring the voice of the majority -never- matters because of their supposed 'institutional power'. The end result of this thinking will be less tolerance, less diversity, and more asinine stuff like this python situation. They mean EXACTLY what they said, take them at their word.

zadokshi 2y ago

Not that I agree with it, the argument about “reverse sexism/racism” is that the judgements are based upon the identity group as a whole not as an individual. When taken in aggregate it is deemed that the smaller group is the one discriminated against. The answer to this is to argue that it’s incorrect to take an overall statistic and apply it to an individual or smaller organisation in that group.