4 ms·

The premise of the post by myhf (the one I'm replying to) is that the law and women's choices (not biology) that make women less valuable than men. According to

The premise of the post by myhf (the one I'm replying to) is that the law and women's choices (not biology) that make women less valuable than men. According to your definition, if this premise is completely correct, it's still sexism. Am I correctly interpreting your views? This idea of "100% provable" is also odd (and an impossible standard of proof, even in pure mathematics).

pron 12y ago
That is correct. The law is sexist, and women's choices often are, too, as they try to meet the biased demands placed on them by a male dominated society. And that's not my view, but the accepted definition of sexism. You should look it up - it's a fascinating topic. As to the standard of proof, that was me trying to simplify things. It's generally safe to assume that any discrimination against a non-dominant group is sexist/racist until proven otherwise. Speaking about choices is also often a cover for racism, as some groups are often nudged - gently or less so - towards making certain choices. Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way, you stop taking certain things for granted, and start examining society in a very interesting way.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  ...should look it [a definition] up - it's a fascinating topic...Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way This is the sign of a rhetorical sleight of hand. Previously, I (and as you noted, "many people, on HN and elsewhere") was using the word "sexism" to refer to a particular object. Now you say you are using the label of "sexism" to refer to a totally different object. There is no reason my opinion of an object should change simply because you've altered the word you use to describe it. The only thing that should change is how we interpret myhf's comment, assuming he defines sexism the same way. Specifically, if he uses "sexism" to refer to the same innocuous object you do, we should conclude that his comment is mostly unfounded. Similarly, if I redefine "murder" to mean "puppy", that shouldn't change your views on criminology. All it should do is cause you to come running, petting hand ready, in the event I scream "murder".
  - pron 12y ago
    There is nothing innocuous about the correct, and we'll accepted, definition of sexism, and it is you who complained about the correct usage of the term, which you deemed "odd". And the meaning you assign to the word is very problematic. If you want to make analogies, I would choose slavery. Someone mentions a possible solution in the fight against slavery, and you seem to think that the fact that slavery is socially accepted, makes the use of the term offensive in your eyes, because you seem to think that the intent of the slave holder matters, when, in fact, it is completely inconsequential and totally irrelevant. Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain towards women", or merely social tradition.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      You seem to have misconstrued what I attempted to say. I was confused as to what was even being discussed, hence my request for clarification. I wasn't sure if the OP was discussing "disdain towards women" (what I call sexism, henceforth sexism[fajitas]) or "women making different choices than men" (henceforth sexism[pron]). I do find sexism[pron] innocuous and I take it you disagree. I do hope to prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you disagree with. But that belief is completely unrelated to the question of whether a larger % of people will assume the word "sexism" means sexism[fajitas] or sexism[pron]. It's based solely on the underlying properties that sexism represents. Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain towards women", or merely social tradition. This is the exact rhetorical fallacy I'm describing. Let me make the fallacy obvious: "Murder must be fought whether or not it entails 'taking the life of another against their will', or merely 'puppies'." If you want to make two separate arguments that both of these concepts should be opposed, do it. But recognize that they are two separate concepts, even if you use the same word to describe them. Here are a couple of articles you might find handy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_substance/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_subst...
      - dalke 12y ago
        I agree with pron. You wrote "Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias." The question is, why do they leave the workforce? If it's because of a self-reinforcing belief that they less valuable solely because they are women, then it's sexist. If such a belief is widespread and entrenched, it means the culture is sexist. Eg, if it's because women want to take a year off after the first child, then one interpretation is that it's a choice. But the question is, why don't the men want to take a year off? Is it due to cultural expectations? Is it that mean get paid more because of a built-in expectation that they will be the ones supporting the family? If so, there's a sexist cultural component to the decision. Hence the more feminist cultures have parental leave. Sweden, where I live, has paid leave for both parents, and some of the leave can only be taken by the mother and some only by the father. That doesn't mean that the leave is split 50-50. More women take time off than men. One interpretation is that Swedish culture is still sexist. It does bring a smile to my face to see the number of fathers out with their kids, compared to what I'm used to from the US. Or as another example, consider one of the famous cases of sexual discrimination at work. Quoting from the EEOC, "In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., a shipyard company employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partially nude pictures posted by her male co-workers. The men posted these pictures not only in common areas, but also in places where the victim would have to encounter them, including her tool box. The men referred to the victim as "baby," "sugar," "momma," and "dear." In addition, the men wrote obscene graffiti directed at the victim all over the plant. The men also made numerous suggestive and offensive remarks to the victim concerning her body and the pictures posted on the walls. The victim complained about this atmosphere of harassment on a number of occasions, but the company's supervisory personnel provided little or no assistance. The court found this conduct violated Title VII because the plaintiff belonged to a protected category, was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, the harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her employment, and the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action." If most women exit the workforce in order to avoid harassment caused solely because of their gender, then it's due to sexist reasons. Hence why pron and I disagree with your assessment that "Normally the term [sexist] implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive." The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman. I have little doubt that being the most productive person in the group would still have resulted in sexist behavior, and in any case if she were not appropriately productive she would not have been promoted to first-class welder. Pron wrote "Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100% provably biologically justified." Such a definition is in close agreement with the EEOC definition of discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace. (They aren't the same; I assume that "100% provably biologically justified" is for wet nurses and surrogate mothers, while the EEOC allows a wider range of 'bona fide' reasons to discriminate on the basis of sex, like only hiring men as Chippendale dancers.) Your definition is not, which leads to the strange observation that you must think that some forms of sexual discrimination which are due to the victim's gender are not actually sexist.

pron 12y ago

That is correct. The law is sexist, and women's choices often are, too, as they try to meet the biased demands placed on them by a male dominated society. And that's not my view, but the accepted definition of sexism. You should look it up - it's a fascinating topic. As to the standard of proof, that was me trying to simplify things. It's generally safe to assume that any discrimination against a non-dominant group is sexist/racist until proven otherwise. Speaking about choices is also often a cover for racism, as some groups are often nudged - gently or less so - towards making certain choices. Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way, you stop taking certain things for granted, and start examining society in a very interesting way.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
...should look it [a definition] up - it's a fascinating topic...Once you begin looking at any discrimination this way This is the sign of a rhetorical sleight of hand. Previously, I (and as you noted, "many people, on HN and elsewhere") was using the word "sexism" to refer to a particular object. Now you say you are using the label of "sexism" to refer to a totally different object. There is no reason my opinion of an object should change simply because you've altered the word you use to describe it. The only thing that should change is how we interpret myhf's comment, assuming he defines sexism the same way. Specifically, if he uses "sexism" to refer to the same innocuous object you do, we should conclude that his comment is mostly unfounded. Similarly, if I redefine "murder" to mean "puppy", that shouldn't change your views on criminology. All it should do is cause you to come running, petting hand ready, in the event I scream "murder".
- pron 12y ago
  There is nothing innocuous about the correct, and we'll accepted, definition of sexism, and it is you who complained about the correct usage of the term, which you deemed "odd". And the meaning you assign to the word is very problematic. If you want to make analogies, I would choose slavery. Someone mentions a possible solution in the fight against slavery, and you seem to think that the fact that slavery is socially accepted, makes the use of the term offensive in your eyes, because you seem to think that the intent of the slave holder matters, when, in fact, it is completely inconsequential and totally irrelevant. Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain towards women", or merely social tradition.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    You seem to have misconstrued what I attempted to say. I was confused as to what was even being discussed, hence my request for clarification. I wasn't sure if the OP was discussing "disdain towards women" (what I call sexism, henceforth sexism[fajitas]) or "women making different choices than men" (henceforth sexism[pron]). I do find sexism[pron] innocuous and I take it you disagree. I do hope to prevent you from imposing your will on those women who behave in ways you disagree with. But that belief is completely unrelated to the question of whether a larger % of people will assume the word "sexism" means sexism[fajitas] or sexism[pron]. It's based solely on the underlying properties that sexism represents. Sexism must be fought whether or not it entails "disdain towards women", or merely social tradition. This is the exact rhetorical fallacy I'm describing. Let me make the fallacy obvious: "Murder must be fought whether or not it entails 'taking the life of another against their will', or merely 'puppies'." If you want to make two separate arguments that both of these concepts should be opposed, do it. But recognize that they are two separate concepts, even if you use the same word to describe them. Here are a couple of articles you might find handy: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nu/taboo_your_words/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_substance/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/nv/replace_the_symbol_with_the_subst...
    - dalke 12y ago
      I agree with pron. You wrote "Women are simply less productive, due to exiting the workforce. There is neither distaste nor bias." The question is, why do they leave the workforce? If it's because of a self-reinforcing belief that they less valuable solely because they are women, then it's sexist. If such a belief is widespread and entrenched, it means the culture is sexist. Eg, if it's because women want to take a year off after the first child, then one interpretation is that it's a choice. But the question is, why don't the men want to take a year off? Is it due to cultural expectations? Is it that mean get paid more because of a built-in expectation that they will be the ones supporting the family? If so, there's a sexist cultural component to the decision. Hence the more feminist cultures have parental leave. Sweden, where I live, has paid leave for both parents, and some of the leave can only be taken by the mother and some only by the father. That doesn't mean that the leave is split 50-50. More women take time off than men. One interpretation is that Swedish culture is still sexist. It does bring a smile to my face to see the number of fathers out with their kids, compared to what I'm used to from the US. Or as another example, consider one of the famous cases of sexual discrimination at work. Quoting from the EEOC, "In Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., a shipyard company employed a female welder who was continually subjected to nude and partially nude pictures posted by her male co-workers. The men posted these pictures not only in common areas, but also in places where the victim would have to encounter them, including her tool box. The men referred to the victim as "baby," "sugar," "momma," and "dear." In addition, the men wrote obscene graffiti directed at the victim all over the plant. The men also made numerous suggestive and offensive remarks to the victim concerning her body and the pictures posted on the walls. The victim complained about this atmosphere of harassment on a number of occasions, but the company's supervisory personnel provided little or no assistance. The court found this conduct violated Title VII because the plaintiff belonged to a protected category, was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment, the harassment was based on sex, it affected a term or condition of her employment, and the employer knew or should have known about the harassment and failed to take remedial action." If most women exit the workforce in order to avoid harassment caused solely because of their gender, then it's due to sexist reasons. Hence why pron and I disagree with your assessment that "Normally the term [sexist] implies some sort of (non-productivity based) distaste for women or bias against believing they will be productive." The sexual harassment in Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. had little to do with her being productive or not, but because she was a woman. I have little doubt that being the most productive person in the group would still have resulted in sexist behavior, and in any case if she were not appropriately productive she would not have been promoted to first-class welder. Pron wrote "Sexism is any gender based discrimination that is not 100% provably biologically justified." Such a definition is in close agreement with the EEOC definition of discrimination on the basis of sex in the workplace. (They aren't the same; I assume that "100% provably biologically justified" is for wet nurses and surrogate mothers, while the EEOC allows a wider range of 'bona fide' reasons to discriminate on the basis of sex, like only hiring men as Chippendale dancers.) Your definition is not, which leads to the strange observation that you must think that some forms of sexual discrimination which are due to the victim's gender are not actually sexist.