3 ms·

This feels like another flavor of "All Lives Matter" and is equally tone deaf.

gruez 1y ago
Because it's only discrimination if you're doing it against the oppressed gender? I don't think intent is to have that as a feature that someone actually uses, it's to show the absurdity of it if the roles are reversed.
- Forgeties79 1y ago
  But it’s not absurd and systems like that have to consider power dynamics before declaring “reverse discrimination”
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - general1726 1y ago
    It either is discrimination or it is not. Power dynamics plays no role.
  - Mawr 1y ago
    There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. It's just discrimination.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      I agree, reverse discrimination is not a thing, which is why it’s ridiculous when conservative politicians throw around the term as they dismantle various programs in schools and the workplace. I’m pointing it out and highlighting the absurdity of those assertions.
      - zahlman 1y ago
        > I agree, reverse discrimination is not a thing, which is why it’s ridiculous when conservative politicians throw around the term They don't throw that term around. They correctly call out discrimination that happens to go in an opposite direction from what you find politically convenient. People in your camp invented, probably unknowingly, the "reverse" terminology, because your narrative requires the premise that "discrimination" can definitionally only negatively impact certain groups of people. Which is how and why you can defend the other instances as "not a thing", even when you are shown proof of them occurring — they just don't fit your redefined terms. It is the same logic as "you can't be sexist against men", used to deny the sexism inherent in even the clearest situations. The framing is itself sexist — as it supposes that men are an inferior group not worthy of the philosophical protection of the term, nor of recognition of real and obvious harm inflicted upon them because they are men. (I have even seen attempts to spin such harms as primarily affecting women.) "Dismantling various programs" only has anything to do with discrimination where those programs are actually discriminatory. I have seen much dismantling of "programs" by conservatives that I strongly disagreed with, but not on those grounds.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - startupsfail 1y ago
    Discrimination violates equality, rule of law, etc. If there is really a problem, the situation should be dealt with recording and policing, not with discrimination or turning the place into a place where being a victim is rewarded. Otherwise it's a slippery slope.
    - Forgeties79 1y ago
      A slippery slope carries no water
  - zahlman 1y ago
    I have no idea what you mean about "systems". Discrimination is discrimination: > Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong,[1] such as race, gender, age, class, religion, or sexual orientation.[2] Discrimination typically leads to groups being unfairly treated on the basis of perceived statuses based on ethnic, racial, gender or religious categories.[2][3] It involves depriving members of one group of opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4] If you make an unfair or prejudicial distinction between men and women, that is discrimination. A policy such as this one makes the unfair, prejudicial claim that men are inherently a risk to women's safety, simply by existing in the same physical space for an ordinary business transaction. Nobody is declaring "reverse discrimination" because the people you disagree with do not use this term. People with your position project it onto others. It is absurd, because it is clearly discriminatory and people are trying to present it as not discriminatory. ("Reverse the genders" is a common rhetorical device here, but I have found that it's at least as effective to swap "men" and "black people".) "Power dynamics" have nothing whatsoever to do with what is or is not discrimination. But there is no applicable "power dynamic" here anyway. There is no reason to suppose a priori that individual men have power over individual women in an arbitrary encounter. There is at most a sloppy, sexist application of statistics.
zahlman 1y ago
You know that some men have been sexually abused by women, yes? Is their trauma not valid? When I was a child, I was taught that expecting men and women to receive equal protection of the law, and equal rights under the law, was a fundamental principle of feminism. Now I am simultaneously told by some feminists that it is "tone-deaf", while other feminists insist to me that feminism is not about women receiving special privileges that men don't have. The proposed policy is a special privilege being extended to women and not to men. (And this is without even considering how transgender status intersects with the policy.)
- startupsfail 1y ago
  Feminism, like other -isms (communism, etc) are misaligned at the core. I'd say, feminism would be best to be erased, like other -isms.

Because it's only discrimination if you're doing it against the oppressed gender? I don't think intent is to have that as a feature that someone actually uses, it's to show the absurdity of it if the roles are reversed.

Forgeties79 1y ago
But it’s not absurd and systems like that have to consider power dynamics before declaring “reverse discrimination”
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- general1726 1y ago
  It either is discrimination or it is not. Power dynamics plays no role.
- Mawr 1y ago
  There is no such thing as “reverse discrimination”. It's just discrimination.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    I agree, reverse discrimination is not a thing, which is why it’s ridiculous when conservative politicians throw around the term as they dismantle various programs in schools and the workplace. I’m pointing it out and highlighting the absurdity of those assertions.
    - zahlman 1y ago
      > I agree, reverse discrimination is not a thing, which is why it’s ridiculous when conservative politicians throw around the term They don't throw that term around. They correctly call out discrimination that happens to go in an opposite direction from what you find politically convenient. People in your camp invented, probably unknowingly, the "reverse" terminology, because your narrative requires the premise that "discrimination" can definitionally only negatively impact certain groups of people. Which is how and why you can defend the other instances as "not a thing", even when you are shown proof of them occurring — they just don't fit your redefined terms. It is the same logic as "you can't be sexist against men", used to deny the sexism inherent in even the clearest situations. The framing is itself sexist — as it supposes that men are an inferior group not worthy of the philosophical protection of the term, nor of recognition of real and obvious harm inflicted upon them because they are men. (I have even seen attempts to spin such harms as primarily affecting women.) "Dismantling various programs" only has anything to do with discrimination where those programs are actually discriminatory. I have seen much dismantling of "programs" by conservatives that I strongly disagreed with, but not on those grounds.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- startupsfail 1y ago
  Discrimination violates equality, rule of law, etc. If there is really a problem, the situation should be dealt with recording and policing, not with discrimination or turning the place into a place where being a victim is rewarded. Otherwise it's a slippery slope.
  - Forgeties79 1y ago
    A slippery slope carries no water
- zahlman 1y ago
  I have no idea what you mean about "systems". Discrimination is discrimination: > Discrimination is the process of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong,[1] such as race, gender, age, class, religion, or sexual orientation.[2] Discrimination typically leads to groups being unfairly treated on the basis of perceived statuses based on ethnic, racial, gender or religious categories.[2][3] It involves depriving members of one group of opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.[4] If you make an unfair or prejudicial distinction between men and women, that is discrimination. A policy such as this one makes the unfair, prejudicial claim that men are inherently a risk to women's safety, simply by existing in the same physical space for an ordinary business transaction. Nobody is declaring "reverse discrimination" because the people you disagree with do not use this term. People with your position project it onto others. It is absurd, because it is clearly discriminatory and people are trying to present it as not discriminatory. ("Reverse the genders" is a common rhetorical device here, but I have found that it's at least as effective to swap "men" and "black people".) "Power dynamics" have nothing whatsoever to do with what is or is not discrimination. But there is no applicable "power dynamic" here anyway. There is no reason to suppose a priori that individual men have power over individual women in an arbitrary encounter. There is at most a sloppy, sexist application of statistics.

zahlman 1y ago

You know that some men have been sexually abused by women, yes? Is their trauma not valid? When I was a child, I was taught that expecting men and women to receive equal protection of the law, and equal rights under the law, was a fundamental principle of feminism. Now I am simultaneously told by some feminists that it is "tone-deaf", while other feminists insist to me that feminism is not about women receiving special privileges that men don't have. The proposed policy is a special privilege being extended to women and not to men. (And this is without even considering how transgender status intersects with the policy.)

startupsfail 1y ago
Feminism, like other -isms (communism, etc) are misaligned at the core. I'd say, feminism would be best to be erased, like other -isms.