4 ms·

> And to be perfectly transparent, I usually ignore it all. I'm one who pretty much defaults to giving women a pass because of all the stupid shit they've dealt

> And to be perfectly transparent, I usually ignore it all. I'm one who pretty much defaults to giving women a pass because of all the stupid shit they've dealt with over a long history of men being complete assholes. I mean, really. A woman could make the most sexist comment I've ever heard and I'd just give it a shrug; but I'd say shit to a man if he was even obliquely offensive. I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, but this really comes across as hypocritical. This is fostering a double standard.

bobwaycott 14y ago
You are not wrong. That was the point of the preface (on being transparent)--to make it clear that I, too, fail and trend toward auto-acceptance of charges of sexism (or other discrimination) based on the assumption that if someone is actually offended, there must be something to it and it would be best to be mindful of one's actions (including my own). I don't intend to foster a double standard, and I don't often experience women being sexist (except when they, too, objectify other men or women in homologous fashion as that for which men are derided). However, this particular case struck me as having too many exigent circumstances (many of which are recounted by Adria in her blog post) that provide very strong evidence that this was the wrong fight, and the consequences of her actions are both regrettable and deplorable.
flaviusb 14y ago
Not a double standard, because the situations are not symmetrical.
- bobwaycott 14y ago
  It is a double standard and a symmetrical situation because sexism is sexism. Outside of, say, stand-up comedy and similar entertainment, sexist comments have no place. If a man, woman, or transgendered person is inappropriately making remarks at the expense of another person because of their gender, it should not be accepted. I wanted to admit that I, too, fail, and wrongly contextualize female-sourced sexism in a historical timeline of taking a lot of unfair shit from their culture, and give them a pass. But I shouldn't. It is no less wrong, and the victim is no less deserving of protection.
  - flaviusb 14y ago
    If person A has power and person B does not, then A exerting their power against B and B exerting their (lack of) power against A are not symmetrical situations, even though both A and B are people. The 'instance level' sexist act may be the same in both cases, but the problem is the 'structural level' sexism which is reinforced only by one of those acts. So, saying that 'sexism is sexism' is an equivocation, and not a symmetrical situation. Does that make things clearer?
    - bobwaycott 14y ago
      You're rather egregiously conflating distinct issues here. You're also committing petitio principii--i.e., begging the question. You assume your premise(s) is/are true and, therefore, your conclusion is true. Laying out your initial logic, in order: p1: A has power p2: B has !power p3: A exerts power p4: B exerts !power c: if p1 and p2, given p3 and p4: asymmetrical situation Of course it is! And yet nothing is proven. It sounds an awful lot like you're either intentionally or unwittingly advancing the logically and philosophically weak argument that [undesiredThing]ism = Prejudice + Power--formulated by Bidol, spread by Katz, cornerstone of Bell's Critical Race Theory, and subsumed by Crenshaw's middle-class-feminism+CRT intersectionality fusion--as if it is inherently true and proven. There are myriad problems with that equation. This maxim has seen a surge in the last couple years as online blogging has massively repeated it ad infinitum. People encounter it and walk away, impressed that they just reduced [undesiredThing]ism to a neat equation proving racism/sexism/Xism only exists at the intersection of prejudice X and [some kind of problematically defined] power. And yet this has been repeatedly and adequately contested, while the CRT/intersectionality adherents keep moving the goal posts from one form of power to another over the last few decades (they appear to have, for the time being, settled on institutional power). Again, your logic, as offered (filling in the latent assumptions): x: ethnic+sexual group y: involuntary genetic membership in x z: x historically exerted most institutional/structural power p1: power is y + z p2: if p1, sexism is prejudice/bigotry/discrimination against a person based on sex + offender possessing p1 p3: A committed action X against B because of B's gender p4: B committed action X against A because of A's gender c1: given p3 and p4, instance-level act is same p5: if p1, and A has y + z, A has power p6: if p1, and B has y + !z, B has !power p7: 'structural level' sexism is caused/reinforced by p2 c2: if p2 and p5, given p3, A is guilty of p2 c3: if p2 and p6, given p4, B is not guilty of p2 c4: if p7, given c2, A causes/proves p7 Does that make things clearer? There are only about a half-dozen premises there that need actual proving. Oh, also, fwiw, and I'm being pedantic here: saying sexism is sexism--especially after the lengths to which I've gone to actually define sexism--is in no way an equivocation. I do not use ambiguous language; nor do I prevaricate.

bobwaycott 14y ago

You are not wrong. That was the point of the preface (on being transparent)--to make it clear that I, too, fail and trend toward auto-acceptance of charges of sexism (or other discrimination) based on the assumption that if someone is actually offended, there must be something to it and it would be best to be mindful of one's actions (including my own). I don't intend to foster a double standard, and I don't often experience women being sexist (except when they, too, objectify other men or women in homologous fashion as that for which men are derided). However, this particular case struck me as having too many exigent circumstances (many of which are recounted by Adria in her blog post) that provide very strong evidence that this was the wrong fight, and the consequences of her actions are both regrettable and deplorable.

flaviusb 14y ago

Not a double standard, because the situations are not symmetrical.

bobwaycott 14y ago
It is a double standard and a symmetrical situation because sexism is sexism. Outside of, say, stand-up comedy and similar entertainment, sexist comments have no place. If a man, woman, or transgendered person is inappropriately making remarks at the expense of another person because of their gender, it should not be accepted. I wanted to admit that I, too, fail, and wrongly contextualize female-sourced sexism in a historical timeline of taking a lot of unfair shit from their culture, and give them a pass. But I shouldn't. It is no less wrong, and the victim is no less deserving of protection.
- flaviusb 14y ago
  If person A has power and person B does not, then A exerting their power against B and B exerting their (lack of) power against A are not symmetrical situations, even though both A and B are people. The 'instance level' sexist act may be the same in both cases, but the problem is the 'structural level' sexism which is reinforced only by one of those acts. So, saying that 'sexism is sexism' is an equivocation, and not a symmetrical situation. Does that make things clearer?
  - bobwaycott 14y ago
    You're rather egregiously conflating distinct issues here. You're also committing petitio principii--i.e., begging the question. You assume your premise(s) is/are true and, therefore, your conclusion is true. Laying out your initial logic, in order: p1: A has power p2: B has !power p3: A exerts power p4: B exerts !power c: if p1 and p2, given p3 and p4: asymmetrical situation Of course it is! And yet nothing is proven. It sounds an awful lot like you're either intentionally or unwittingly advancing the logically and philosophically weak argument that [undesiredThing]ism = Prejudice + Power--formulated by Bidol, spread by Katz, cornerstone of Bell's Critical Race Theory, and subsumed by Crenshaw's middle-class-feminism+CRT intersectionality fusion--as if it is inherently true and proven. There are myriad problems with that equation. This maxim has seen a surge in the last couple years as online blogging has massively repeated it ad infinitum. People encounter it and walk away, impressed that they just reduced [undesiredThing]ism to a neat equation proving racism/sexism/Xism only exists at the intersection of prejudice X and [some kind of problematically defined] power. And yet this has been repeatedly and adequately contested, while the CRT/intersectionality adherents keep moving the goal posts from one form of power to another over the last few decades (they appear to have, for the time being, settled on institutional power). Again, your logic, as offered (filling in the latent assumptions): x: ethnic+sexual group y: involuntary genetic membership in x z: x historically exerted most institutional/structural power p1: power is y + z p2: if p1, sexism is prejudice/bigotry/discrimination against a person based on sex + offender possessing p1 p3: A committed action X against B because of B's gender p4: B committed action X against A because of A's gender c1: given p3 and p4, instance-level act is same p5: if p1, and A has y + z, A has power p6: if p1, and B has y + !z, B has !power p7: 'structural level' sexism is caused/reinforced by p2 c2: if p2 and p5, given p3, A is guilty of p2 c3: if p2 and p6, given p4, B is not guilty of p2 c4: if p7, given c2, A causes/proves p7 Does that make things clearer? There are only about a half-dozen premises there that need actual proving. Oh, also, fwiw, and I'm being pedantic here: saying sexism is sexism--especially after the lengths to which I've gone to actually define sexism--is in no way an equivocation. I do not use ambiguous language; nor do I prevaricate.