2 ms·

> Identifying strength as solely being a 'manly' attribute is pretty sexist. No, you're missing this completely. Let me try something different, but analogous

> Identifying strength as solely being a 'manly' attribute is pretty sexist. No, you're missing this completely. Let me try something different, but analogous. Back when I was in high school, I ran track. My sister (in 8th grade at the time) was fast enough to have been 4th on the men's varsity team. So people told her, wow, you're as good as a guy! Did we value speed as a "solely" male attribute? No, it was valued separately in its own classification (men and women race separately). However, the fact that my sister was good enough to actually compete with the men (who are overall much faster than women), came across as a compliment. I would go so far as to invoke "isomorphic" as the most apt term in describing the type of compliment involved in mine and scrapcode's scenarios. > Taking attributes and ascribing them to gender is useless at best. Useless at best? I see this phrase a lot on the internet lately, and it must be a fad because it wasn't in popular usage a few years ago. Men and women have different traits. It is a completely, scientifically, undeniable fact. Men will be better at certain skills, and women will be better at other skills. The latest social trend cannot change that. If a woman is good enough to play in the NFL, great for her, we'd all be glad to see that! But that doesn't change the fact that the odds are ridiculously stacked against her being capable of doing such a thing. Maybe start a separate women's NFL? Alright, but since no one's done that, let's use common sense and say football is a man's sport. What is an activity that's typically only associated with females only: ballet dancers. Sure, there are male ballet dancers but until the ratio is close to 50/50, the term "ballet dancer" will continue to be associated with females, and for good reason.

untog 14y ago
(I had edited my comment so that your quote doesn't apply any more- apologies) This is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example, people were saying quite specifically that "you can run as fast as a man, and men tend to be faster runners than women". The OPs post said nothing of the sort. You are inferring that they were referring to strength, but there's nothing to indicate that. Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Maybe it's physical strength. Maybe it's mental strength. Maybe it's tool making. Maybe it's hunting. But saying that she is "more of a man" basically puts any and all of these things under the bracket of "man's activities", which is indeed, sexist. To use the inverse, would you have said that someone who tried to live in the wild and failed was "more of a woman than any woman I know"?
- Xcelerate 14y ago
  > Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Yes, men are more likely to live in the woods by themselves than females. I haven't looked up this fact anywhere, but I guarantee I can find you a reference if you want one. > But saying that she is "more of a man"... ... means she is better than most men at something they typically perform "better" (in a quantitive sense, mind you) than females. Which is completely the same as the situation I provided above. Perhaps you are getting confused by common American phrases. I might guess that you are not a native (American English) speaker? EDIT: Just checked out your Twitter from the link on your HN profile and confirmed what I thought with regards to American vernacular. And "somebody dunk that nerd's head in a toilet. It'll put hair in his chest. Like a real man!" Wow, seriously? This kind of hypocrisy? May I ask why it's okay to discriminate/oppress only certain groups? I am certain your (and your friend's) views are highly abnormal, OR you are both greatly misinterpreting what scrapcode said (hint: this is the more likely explanation). Check out the definition of sexist: "Discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men" I do not adhere to this definition one bit, and quite frankly, I'm upset that you are having fun at my expense (with something that is not true) on Twitter. Anonymous HN users on are people too.
  - untog 14y ago
    It should be pretty self evident that that particular Twitter reply was sarcastic. And I would say that my view is highly normal, but I suspect that we will never agree with each other. Attributing gender as a broad label is sexist because it creates a gender definition where there is not one. There are women stronger than the average man, it does not make them "more of a man", it makes them "stronger than the average man". There is an important distinction. Again, nothing would have been lost if the original post described her as "strong" instead of "more of a man". (And yes, I understand American English perfectly, thank you. It is not difficult.)
    - cowpewter 14y ago
      Thank you untog, that was exactly my issue with the original phrasing. It's not that she was praised for being stronger than all the men the OP knew, but that she was being praised for, essentially, being better at being a man than all the men the OP knew. A small distinction, that makes the original sentiment come off as very sexist. I don't think the OP was being sexist on purpose, or maliciously, or even consciously. I just wanted to bring attention to it, because this is the sort of casual sexism that pervades a lot of people's thinking without them even realizing it.

untog 14y ago

(I had edited my comment so that your quote doesn't apply any more- apologies) This is an apples and oranges comparison. In your example, people were saying quite specifically that "you can run as fast as a man, and men tend to be faster runners than women". The OPs post said nothing of the sort. You are inferring that they were referring to strength, but there's nothing to indicate that. Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Maybe it's physical strength. Maybe it's mental strength. Maybe it's tool making. Maybe it's hunting. But saying that she is "more of a man" basically puts any and all of these things under the bracket of "man's activities", which is indeed, sexist. To use the inverse, would you have said that someone who tried to live in the wild and failed was "more of a woman than any woman I know"?

Xcelerate 14y ago
> Living by yourself in the woods is apparently manly. Yes, men are more likely to live in the woods by themselves than females. I haven't looked up this fact anywhere, but I guarantee I can find you a reference if you want one. > But saying that she is "more of a man"... ... means she is better than most men at something they typically perform "better" (in a quantitive sense, mind you) than females. Which is completely the same as the situation I provided above. Perhaps you are getting confused by common American phrases. I might guess that you are not a native (American English) speaker? EDIT: Just checked out your Twitter from the link on your HN profile and confirmed what I thought with regards to American vernacular. And "somebody dunk that nerd's head in a toilet. It'll put hair in his chest. Like a real man!" Wow, seriously? This kind of hypocrisy? May I ask why it's okay to discriminate/oppress only certain groups? I am certain your (and your friend's) views are highly abnormal, OR you are both greatly misinterpreting what scrapcode said (hint: this is the more likely explanation). Check out the definition of sexist: "Discrimination on the basis of sex, esp the oppression of women by men" I do not adhere to this definition one bit, and quite frankly, I'm upset that you are having fun at my expense (with something that is not true) on Twitter. Anonymous HN users on are people too.
- untog 14y ago
  It should be pretty self evident that that particular Twitter reply was sarcastic. And I would say that my view is highly normal, but I suspect that we will never agree with each other. Attributing gender as a broad label is sexist because it creates a gender definition where there is not one. There are women stronger than the average man, it does not make them "more of a man", it makes them "stronger than the average man". There is an important distinction. Again, nothing would have been lost if the original post described her as "strong" instead of "more of a man". (And yes, I understand American English perfectly, thank you. It is not difficult.)
  - cowpewter 14y ago
    Thank you untog, that was exactly my issue with the original phrasing. It's not that she was praised for being stronger than all the men the OP knew, but that she was being praised for, essentially, being better at being a man than all the men the OP knew. A small distinction, that makes the original sentiment come off as very sexist. I don't think the OP was being sexist on purpose, or maliciously, or even consciously. I just wanted to bring attention to it, because this is the sort of casual sexism that pervades a lot of people's thinking without them even realizing it.