it happens . deal with it.

mens voices get privileged over womens. men expect to be heard. men usually think they know more than women.


if women are complaining we can listen and accept rather than act like a bunch of self righteous selfish karnts.

I'm a researcher myself (in physics but still that affects my social circles) and know a lot of advocates for various isms. Its unusual for a paper to define a word like sexism or racism but it generally seems to be how the word is used
I think you are confusing the need for two words to describe two different phenomena (racism/sexism vs predjudice) with an argument that one doesn't matter or isn't bad. There is no point having two words to describe predjudice and no words to describe the phenomena that is probably more important in terms of cost to people
It isn't necessarily true either that sexism/racism is just lots of discrimination.
Sometimes an ism can exist without any predjudice at all.
I recommend watching first contact if you haven't already
There is a good example of racism without predjudice.
Assuming everything in the episode I refer to is true for the sake of illustration:
there is an aboriginal fellow in prison with a very long prison term. They meet many like him and then they are surprised when they are told by the guards "most are here on traffic violations". One guy had his license suspended and was asked by an elder. He then explained that an elder asked him to drive him to another town and in his tribe you have to obey an elder.

Now regardless of culture it was probably still a stupid decision (although perhaps I say that because I have never lived his culture)
but the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Not only that but there is disparate impact on aboriginals with these laws. Also these laws were written by the group in power who were probably unaware of the difference in culture and the impact of these laws. Also its implausible that people wrote these laws to punish aboriginals or out of predjudice. So its an example of a system that discriminates on race without anyone involved showing any predjudice!
Of course there are many example where predjudice from the group with more social power will result in racism/sexism

But its very important to understand this distinction even if you don't accept using the same words to define them

Because otherwise what happens is there is a disconnect between what the group in power hear and what the group without power are saying.
For example with african americans in the usa when they say racism they might mean for example
1. black incarceration rates
2. police brutality
3. residual effects of slavery and jim crow giving them less networking opportunities
When a white person hears about racism they typically go
"ok don't say the N word. Don't see black and white people as different. Claim to be 'colour blind'. Don't discriminate. Treat everyone the same"
Its that disconnect which is why its necessary to have terms and a langauge to translate this difference

grazorblade

I get what you're saying. You raise some good points in alluding to power dynamics in causing sexism, racism, etc. But at the end of the day, your definition is too reductive, imo. And it's at odds with dictionary definitions as well as, imo, construed definitions in mainstream academia.

You're saying that for something to qualify as racism or sexism, it needs to be systemic and it needs to be due to unequal power balances.

I disagree. And so does the dictionary.





Where are power dynamics mentioned?

Where does it say that this is required to be perpetrated by a social group with greater power against a social group with less power?

I disagree with your initial premise that men cannot be systemically the victims of discrimination on the grounds of gender.

What about men in legal custody battles?

I think, at the very least, it has to be considered possible that men can be discriminated against on grounds of gender. It just happens more to women.

I didn't really respond to one of your comments properly before. You said that "prejudice is different from isms". You're right to draw the distinction. But the two are often inter-related. I'd say that prejudice can inform sexism. The dictionary agrees with me on that. I'd also say that prejudice tends to inform discrimination and, when this happens on the grounds of gender it amounts to a more overt act of sexism. Regardless of whether it's discrimination against men or women. As such, prejudice is a component of the phenomena with the suffix -ism, such as racism. Prejudice, often, causes phenomena with the suffix -ism, such as racism. Yes, no, sort of?

Would you accept the proposition that instances in which men are discriminated against on the grounds of gender are acts of sexism?



I'm really not confusing the two. I just disagree with your definition. I'm suggesting that discrimination is brought about by prejudice. Prejudice is basically the attitude, discrimination is the action. When this discrimination is enacted on grounds of gender, it's overt sexism (regardless of which gender suffers and regardless of which gender has greater political, social, economic or cultural power in greater society).

Is it possible for men to be discriminated against on grounds of gender? Yes. And it happens. It's just rarer than discrimination against women.

Is it possible for this to happen systemically? Yes. And it happens. Not nearly as much as it happens against women, but it still happens in the Western World.



Prejudice on the grounds of race is strongly indicative of racism. Prejudice on the grounds of gender is strongly indicative of sexism. I get what you mean; you're referring to prejudice to refer to less blatant racism/sexism. The trouble, as per most definitions, is it's still usually racism or sexism (just more casual).

My main argument is that prejudice informs acts (such as discrimination) which can be construed as clearly sexist or racist.

What you seem not to accept is differences of degree within these phenomena. There are degrees of sexism and racism.

There are more overt instances of sexism/racism which are morally worse. Does that mean that more minor instances of discrimination on the grounds of gender (influenced by the prejudice to which you refer) do not count as sexism? Of course not, it's still sexism.



Agree completely. I don't think I've ever suggested that it's necessary for there to be discrimination. We got bogged down on discrimination, but I agree that other actions can be acts of racism or sexism.

I haven't seen First Contact, so it's difficult for me to make any comment. Thanks for the recommendation.



But why can't all those things amount to racism?

When I think of racism in the States, one of my first thoughts is African-American people being shot by police. I also think of racism as treating people differently on the grounds of race beyond an attempt to be culturally sensitive (granted, it's not overt racism, but it's still racism). If a person can't view those of Vietnamese heritage in the way they view those of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic heritage, that's prejudice which is basically racism, imo. It's not overt like the kind of racism we associate with segregation, but it's still racism.



That disconnect is reflected by degree. Some things are more overtly racist and others are subtly racist.

Maybe you're right. Maybe we do need completely different words to differentiate between types of racism. But English, as far as I'm aware, doesn't really have such specific words. It seems to be a limitation of the English language. Swedish, it seems to me, has incredibly more specific words in many ways (although maybe not in this instance, no idea from me). In English, we just have to make qualification by expressing degree. What you're doing, imo, is trying to misuse English words to draw this distinction. E.g. saying x is prejudice but isn't racism or y is prejudice but isn't sexism. But that's more problematic.

If you look at genocide studies. One of the first steps towards genocide is the little, seemingly minor, acts of racism in order to condition the wider population for atrocities.

Edited by quickflick: 14/5/2016 12:58:36 AM

Edited by quickflick: 14/5/2016 12:59:55 AM

Edited by quickflick: 14/5/2016 01:19:23 AM

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

You can't be sexist towards a male?

Are you serious?

-PB

Only when you change the definitions of words.

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

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

-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 ...

Geezuz you're the polar opposite of Murdoch Rags.

-PB

Can someone summarise what grazorblade said? Tldr

I take that as a compliment. :lol:

Enjoy being unemployed for the rest of your life.

Haha. You may be right.

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

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

It wasn't one.

-PB

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I took it as one and must thank you sincerely.

:lol:

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

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/

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

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.

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

Reactions like that take the fun out of trolling.

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

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.