:lol:

I like the part where the took the defensive feminist position about a comment which had no indications to suggest it had anything to do with her gender.

Yeah in hindsight my initial post should have explained the motivation for using this definition which is standard in advocacy groups as well as academia and is implicitly standard in out groups when interviewed and studied about their understanding of these issues. Hopefully my follow up posts clarified things


yeah here I disagree - understood and used by who. It'd be weird for people who have not had any experience with war not only defining war but having a different definition to those who had experienced it and insisting their definition is the "standard one".


The English language already does have different words for the system (racism/sexism) verse individual events (prejudice discrimination) when the language is being used by the out group, academics and advocacy groups. At the very least you should understand this if you are ever in a situation where someone says you are sexist or racist when you think you haven't said or done something with any prejudice in your heart. Their anger might be momentarily directed at you but if you ask enough questions and listen long enough you eventually realize that their complaint is actually with the system/culture and your words just happened to remind them or you were defending/promoting the system

I think this shows the importance of at least understanding these definitions even if you don't come to use them yourself.
Its not degree of prejudice (minor or major) but system verse intention. The former being the ism the latter being prejudice. This does not minimize prejudice or say its ok its just different. In fact all of the sources I cited in the previous page (there were a few posts with different sources) explicitly talk about the difference between racism/sexism and prejudice. At the very least if you understand the definition you understand what advocates are saying

Edited by grazorblade: 15/5/2016 08:14:55 PM

You may have a point. I agree that those who decide on the definitions often come from the groups in power.

But don't you see that it's incumbent upon you, from the outset, to say you think the definitions (as per dictionary and how they're commonly construed) are wrong?

Instead you've suggested that those who've used the definitions correctly (at least as things stand) don't understand the definitions and are confusing concepts. We're not doing that. We're simply using language in the way it is currently understood and used.

I agree that different people have different experiences of racism, sexism, etc. Maybe the English language needs separate terms to describe more flagrant instances of racism, sexism, etc. But that doesn't invalidate the argument that the more minor instances can still amount to sexism, racism, etc. For those concerned, it's still fairly shitty. And nobody wants to be the victim of prejudice, discrimination, or whatever on any scale.

I will only read it if it wasn't written by a white middle aged male anglosaxon protestant! :lol:

Reactions like that take the fun out of trolling.

You're wrong...he's got a job waiting for him at MamaMia

Aikhme is more on the money than you think. North Queensland would be a hotbed of masculinity. Weak fools don't survive up there with no bravery and knowhow.

if you dont want to read a long article perhaps watch "dear white people"
it deals with racism rather than sexism but the concepts are similar

1. A common definition of racism and sexism used by scholars and advocates is
a system of advantage based on race
a system of advantage based on gender
2. This is not the same as prejudice
3. Groups with power will tend to think of these isms as prejudice. When a group without power who is a victim of racism/sexism brings it up the intentions of people involved is usually of limited importance. A white or male person will see an event, the black or female person will be complaining about the system
4. This often leads to miscommunication between the group with power and the group without. A black person or a woman might say when something happens that racism/sexism happened. The white bloke might try and explain away the event saying that the intentions may not be prejudice. An argument often happens, the white bloke then will often accuse the black person/woman of racism/sexism saying its prejudice to assume the other person is prejudiced. But the white bloke has missed the point
5. It is therefore better to use the definitions that women and black people implicitly use when talking about sexism and racism (that doesn't mean 100% of women/black people 100% of the time. It just means academics and advocates study what is being said by listening to the whole picture.)
6. By the definition of racism and sexism being a system of advantage based on race/gender a black person cannot be racist in a western country and a female cannot be sexist
7. They can still be prejudiced and that is still bad. But this is a separate issue. Predjudice goes both ways, sexism and racism go only one way.

For further reading I recommend "why are all the black kids sitting together'
also many feminist sources will say what I'm saying on the sexism side. See for example
http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/01/sexism-vs-prejudice/

:lol:

Look at the dudes in that crowd- it's like a "who's who" of fedora wearing/ neck bearded beta's...

I took it as one and must thank you sincerely.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It wasn't one.

-PB

the problem is the writers of the dictionary are white males with no experience of these isms. To be blunt who cares what definitions are used by people with no experience of the subject in question. This is the linguistic version of "history is written by the winners". What advocates and academics try to do is translate what the group is saying. And the problem is not that the definition is too broad, its that its wrong. Everyone is different and this doesn't apply universally but genrally if someone from the out group is accusing someone from the ingroup of an ism they are not claiming to know their intentions and whether they are predjudiced

But if you think I'm just misusing the word then so are these people
Van Dijk, Tuen (1992). Analyzing Racism Through Discourse Analysis Some Methodological Reflections in Race and Ethnicity in Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. pp. 92–134
Why Are All The Black Kids Sitting Together Beverly Daniel Tatum, PH.D.
the national education association http://www.nea.org/tools/30417.htm
This example of a university course on racism
http://accounts.smccd.edu/wongk/tatum.htm
Routledge's textbook on diversity and social justice
Shirley Steinberg from university of calgary
david wellman from ucsc
advocate Paula S rothenberg
gender and race scholar Andrea Ayvazian

I could of course go on but surmise to say it includes every advocate and academic in this subject I know and tends to be the definition that resonates with the groups with less social power

Yes, but those are the definitions. I've provided them above. You may not like the definitions. You may think they're too broad. But what you've done is you've tried to alter the definitions subtly and imply that those sticking to the definitions are misusing terms. Those are the definitions provided by dictionaries and, imo, mainstream academia.

As I said, prejudice is a component of both sexism and racism. Although distinct concepts, prejudice can, in certain circumstances, amount to sexism or racism. And when prejudice (an attitude) informs acts (such as discrimination) which are unfair towards, say, those of a specific race, that's overt racism.



I get that you differentiate between the casual instances of racism and flagrantly racist acts (same with sexism) or systemic racism. That's fair enough. But rather than suggest others are misusing the terms, why don't you just say you think the English language is too limited by not providing specific terms which draw the distinction that you wish be drawn?

Edited by quickflick: 15/5/2016 06:17:04 AM

Haha. You may be right.

Enjoy being unemployed for the rest of your life.

I take that as a compliment. :lol:

Can someone summarise what grazorblade said? Tldr

Geezuz you're the polar opposite of Murdoch Rags.

-PB

I got to agree with you 100%

I am all for equal rights, however, the noisy feminist movement wants to go further than this. The movement wants to degrade men, emancipate them and the last thing they are interested in is equal rights and fairness. it will continue to go further and further until men stand up for themselves.

Unfortunately, too many men are pussy whipped emancipated fairies and too eager to be Leftist back bending fools.

Not me ...

It's been shown that it wasn't the case lol.

-PB

even when the group with social power seems to be using the ism word the same way as the group without there is still subtle differences if you listen to enough people (which academics and advocates try and reflect when studying these issues)
taking the original topic mansplaining is about the practice of interrupting women and talking to them in a patronizing way as though they are stupid and childish. Well thats the same thing right?
But even there not quite. There is often a subtle difference (and individual women might mean something different of course)
Sexism in the mansplaining case is the culture that normalize talking down to women as though they are stupid and childish. An individual mansplainer may not be predjudiced at all - they could just be imitating society norms. If it gets called out as sexist then someone might get defensive "I don't see women as less then men! You don't know what I'm thinking! You are being sexist against me by assuming that" but they have missed the point.

This happens with race relations too. People hear the general cultural value not to be racist in both white and black culture. The white person interprets that the way the word is understood in white culture and learns not to say the "n" word or treat people different based on race claiming to be "colour blind" (although there is a lot of evidence that "colour blind" claims are self delusion or dishonesty). Then a discussion about race comes up where a black person gives an example of the system of disadvantage. The white person defends the example saying there could be an explanation for the example apart from predjudice missing the point. The black person uses the word racism somewhere in the conversation. The white person bristles and gets offended and says its actually the black person being racist against white people by assuming that just because they are white they are treating people different based on race. The white person with indignation claims to be colour blind. The black person wonders how being colour blind helps anyone when they need people to see the system of advantage based on colour!

Since "women can't be sexist against men" got such a cheerful reaction here is an analagous clip from dear white people explaining why black people can't be racist against white people because I'm sure it will thrill people :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrNV-3wW_mo

Edited by grazorblade: 14/5/2016 10:33:43 AM

Only when you change the definitions of words.

You can't be sexist towards a male?

Are you serious?

-PB

I have no doubt predjudice +power is a more common type of racism/sexism rather than just the system of advantage by itself. But the point is they are distinct and its not too narrow a definition. The use of different words reflects two different phenomena with the system being usually the more important complaint of those with less social power and the attitudes and individual acts being more the focus of those with power (typically). I have occasionally heard academics and advocates use "systemic ...ism" vs ism instead of ism vs predjudice if you prefer that but I think that is less common.

If you google "racism is a system of advantage based on race" https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=racism%20is%20a%20system%20of%20advantage%20based%20on%20race you will see how common what I am saying is. If you do the same in google scholar the complete definition is more rare because its too elementary for a scholarly work but you will see the phrase system of advantage quite a bit.
https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=racism+system+of+advantage&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
a similar definition is becoming popular in sexism (see for example http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tl.155/abstract you may have to open it at uni though)
Academics prefer to use the definition used by the group with less power. That the dictionary agrees with the definition and understanding of the these isms is ironically an example of such a system of advantage.
none of this is to say that prejudice isn't bad. Using one word to describe one phenomenon and another to describe another is not to minimize one or the other. Before the russian revolution the poor and working class were victims of classism. Clearly the rich were victims of a lot of class based predjudice (but not classism) since the poor and working class listened to a marxist message and then the rich suffered from a violent overthrow. What was worse in this case? Classism or class based prejudice? Probably the prejudice

the case of custody cases is interesting. Other male issues include male incarceration rates, male mental health rates etc. I would have two comments on these
1. At what scale do you talk about the system being an ism. All african american barber shops are super small scale areas where african americans might have the power dynamic reversed. When people talk about a system of advantage they tend to talk about whether such a system exists at the country level.
2. Many feminists argue that these male issues are two sides of the same coin. That the cultural system of gender based advantage has these harmful side effects on men. More details can be found in a lot of feminist writing
Not 100% sure if I personally buy everything in the 2nd point but I do agree that its more useful to have different words to describe this (since there is literally no word in the group with more power's langauge to describe what I am saying!) So I like using the phrase "male issues". Perhaps you would prefer a better word