6 ms·

That you are unable to distinguish between an instance of sexual discrimination (called sexual discrimination) and systemic sexual discrimination (called sexism

That you are unable to distinguish between an instance of sexual discrimination (called sexual discrimination) and systemic sexual discrimination (called sexism) does not mean anything political or Orwellian is afoot. Words have meanings. Ignorance of the meanings of words is easily solved. Stubborn refusal to recognize your own errors is rather less so.

svlasits 14y ago
+9000 Cause upvoting this comment just isn't enough.
philwelch 14y ago
I don't accept redefinitions of words that pack in political assumptions. Lots of people use "socialist" to mean "anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan" but we have no problem dismissing that as biased hyperbole. What you're essentially doing is trying to pack into the word "sexism" the notion that everything in society is systemically biased in favor of men, at the expense of women. But rather than establishing and defending that notion, you pack it in as an unquestioned assumption so that you don't have to defend it explicitly. As a result, you deliberately minimize any injustices suffered by men to the benefit of women, implicitly saying that it doesn't matter as much when a man faces sexual discrimination. Again, you could simply argue this point explicitly, but for some reason you're trying to pack it into your language. Steve Klabnik's point, stated explicitly, would be something like this: "that instance of sexual discrimination against men, in favor of women, doesn't really count for much, because on aggregate, society still discriminates against women in favor of men." As far as I can tell that's what he meant, and it's even a defensible argument from a feminist perspective, but it also lays bare a lot of assumptions that not everyone might agree with, so it's couched in the superficial form of a semantic argument. This not only makes the controversial premises of the argument easier to swallow, but renders them in a form of a simple factual claim giving the illusion of certitude. As far as the scope of this discussion is concerned, I don't have a problem with Mr. Klabnik's point, but simply the dishonest way he expresses it.
- king_jester 14y ago
  The term sexist has its roots in talking about systemic forms of inequality: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/feminism-friday-the-origins-of-the-word-sexism/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/feminism-... Since you claim that there is a redefinition, what exactly do you think sexism meant in the first place?
  - philwelch 14y ago
    "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex" (Google) "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women" (Merriam-Webster) "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (Wikipedia) I think these are all perfectly acceptable "plain English" definitions of "sexism". Definitions are nothing but arbitrary convention anyway--my point is that when you explicitly unpack the feminist definition of "sexism", seemingly semantic arguments like Mr. Klabnik's are packing in a lot of assumptions that deserve to be unpacked. Generally, I don't favor definitions that pack in tendentious assumptions for political purposes.
    - king_jester 14y ago
      As you noted, those definitions are all arbitrary, but needless to say they leave out the entire history of the origin of the word, an origin which seeks to critically describe both individual instances of sexism as well as the systemic, social factors of sexism. It should be noted though that the Wikipedia definition does include something about more than just individual instances of sexism. I disagree that there are extra meanings being packed into the word sexism beyond the meanings you cited. That you are unaware of the origins and issues that go into sexism doesn't remove the meanings of the word. To be fair, no mainstream outlet or publication tends to talk about things at that length and level for a variety of reasons, many of which are due to systemic sexism, but don't confuse common understanding for the only understanding. Common understandings that lack depth or more rigorous information are what contribute to a common understanding that promotes racism, sexism, and other issues. For more on sexism as a definition, see: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-de...
literally 14y ago
Steve, you are a marxist[^1]. Marxists like you have mastered the dishonest art of redefining a connected web of words, achieving petty positions of power at universities, then insisting you definitions are academically accepted. You use the emotional charge of the original (actual) word to "win" arguments. To you, a group of black students at an predominantly-black (American) elementary school who routinely harass and tease and assault younger white students for being white are _not at all_ racist, because in those white students' society [as defined by marxists], whites are the oppressor [as defined by marxists] class [as defined by marxists]. Is this a fetish for you? [1]: blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2011-12-15-marx-anarchism-and-web-standards

svlasits 14y ago

+9000 Cause upvoting this comment just isn't enough.

philwelch 14y ago

I don't accept redefinitions of words that pack in political assumptions. Lots of people use "socialist" to mean "anyone to the left of Ronald Reagan" but we have no problem dismissing that as biased hyperbole. What you're essentially doing is trying to pack into the word "sexism" the notion that everything in society is systemically biased in favor of men, at the expense of women. But rather than establishing and defending that notion, you pack it in as an unquestioned assumption so that you don't have to defend it explicitly. As a result, you deliberately minimize any injustices suffered by men to the benefit of women, implicitly saying that it doesn't matter as much when a man faces sexual discrimination. Again, you could simply argue this point explicitly, but for some reason you're trying to pack it into your language. Steve Klabnik's point, stated explicitly, would be something like this: "that instance of sexual discrimination against men, in favor of women, doesn't really count for much, because on aggregate, society still discriminates against women in favor of men." As far as I can tell that's what he meant, and it's even a defensible argument from a feminist perspective, but it also lays bare a lot of assumptions that not everyone might agree with, so it's couched in the superficial form of a semantic argument. This not only makes the controversial premises of the argument easier to swallow, but renders them in a form of a simple factual claim giving the illusion of certitude. As far as the scope of this discussion is concerned, I don't have a problem with Mr. Klabnik's point, but simply the dishonest way he expresses it.

king_jester 14y ago
The term sexist has its roots in talking about systemic forms of inequality: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/feminism-friday-the-origins-of-the-word-sexism/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/feminism-... Since you claim that there is a redefinition, what exactly do you think sexism meant in the first place?
- philwelch 14y ago
  "Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex" (Google) "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women" (Merriam-Webster) "prejudice or discrimination based on sex; behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" (Wikipedia) I think these are all perfectly acceptable "plain English" definitions of "sexism". Definitions are nothing but arbitrary convention anyway--my point is that when you explicitly unpack the feminist definition of "sexism", seemingly semantic arguments like Mr. Klabnik's are packing in a lot of assumptions that deserve to be unpacked. Generally, I don't favor definitions that pack in tendentious assumptions for political purposes.
  - king_jester 14y ago
    As you noted, those definitions are all arbitrary, but needless to say they leave out the entire history of the origin of the word, an origin which seeks to critically describe both individual instances of sexism as well as the systemic, social factors of sexism. It should be noted though that the Wikipedia definition does include something about more than just individual instances of sexism. I disagree that there are extra meanings being packed into the word sexism beyond the meanings you cited. That you are unaware of the origins and issues that go into sexism doesn't remove the meanings of the word. To be fair, no mainstream outlet or publication tends to talk about things at that length and level for a variety of reasons, many of which are due to systemic sexism, but don't confuse common understanding for the only understanding. Common understandings that lack depth or more rigorous information are what contribute to a common understanding that promotes racism, sexism, and other issues. For more on sexism as a definition, see: http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/ http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-de...

literally 14y ago

Steve, you are a marxist[^1]. Marxists like you have mastered the dishonest art of redefining a connected web of words, achieving petty positions of power at universities, then insisting you definitions are academically accepted. You use the emotional charge of the original (actual) word to "win" arguments. To you, a group of black students at an predominantly-black (American) elementary school who routinely harass and tease and assault younger white students for being white are _not at all_ racist, because in those white students' society [as defined by marxists], whites are the oppressor [as defined by marxists] class [as defined by marxists]. Is this a fetish for you? [1]: blog.steveklabnik.com/posts/2011-12-15-marx-anarchism-and-web-standards