Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on April 28, 2020, 07:05:04 PM
-
A You Owe It To Him thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255181829235228678.html
-
The honeymoon's over... (https://external-preview.redd.it/B-CGFvzrH5Mp1fn6QmoY5SI48nQrrjSWVUTR_hEo1T4.png?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c722ad705df58377a506b1362c364d937242cb2f)
-
He owes it to me BIG TIME! ;D
-
A You Owe It To Him thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1255181829235228678.html
Jaw dropping.
We've certainly moved a long way over the past few decades, but casual, generalising sexism remains I'm afraid. This from Jenni Murray during her introductory section for woman's hour just this morning:
'Mid-life crisis, the American journalist Gail Sheehy coined the term in the hope it would be a chance for men and women to change their lives. How did it become an excuse for men to buy a fat motorbike or sports car' - my emphasis.
Imagine if a male radio presenter described the mid life crisis as an excuse for women to get a boob job!! There would be outrage.
-
Jaw dropping.
We've certainly moved a long way over the past few decades, but casual, generalising sexism remains I'm afraid. This from Jenni Murray during her introductory section for woman's hour just this morning:
'Mid-life crisis, the American journalist Gail Sheehy coined the term in the hope it would be a chance for men and women to change their lives. How did it become an excuse for men to buy a fat motorbike or sports car' - my emphasis.
Imagine if a male radio presenter described the mid life crisis as an excuse for women to get a boob job!! There would be outrage.
I don't find reverse sexism like that as offensive though since men still have more power than women
-
'Mid-life crisis, the American journalist Gail Sheehy coined the term in the hope it would be a chance for men and women to change their lives. How did it become an excuse for men to buy a fat motorbike or sports car' - my emphasis.
Imagine if a male radio presenter described the mid life crisis as an excuse for women to get a boob job!! There would be outrage.
Boob jobs are not the same as fast cars and motorbikes. The latter are expensive toys whereas the former is a way to change your appearance to others (assuming it's an enhancement rather than a reduction). I think it's an indictment of our society that any woman feels it's necessary to get a breast enhancement.
As for fast cars, I bought one in my late forties but not because I wass having a mid life crisis: I have always wanted one and now I could afford one.
-
I don't find reverse sexism like that as offensive though since men still have more power than women
I don't agree - I think we should work to a point where casual sexist generalisation is not acceptable regardless of the perceived 'power'. The point here is that you shouldn't generalise - so even if you might argue that as a group men have more power, that doesn't mean that all individual men necessarily have more power than all individual women. Nor does it mean that the scales are tipped in that respect for all scenarios. A good example would be who gets the kids in divorce cases, where there remains a default position that it will be the mother, unless - rather than a starting point of pure neutrality.
I think if your find a comment sexist if you change the gender then it is sexist in the first place.
-
Boob jobs are not the same as fast cars and motorbikes. The latter are expensive toys whereas the former is a way to change your appearance to others (assuming it's an enhancement rather than a reduction). I think it's an indictment of our society that any woman feels it's necessary to get a breast enhancement.
Arguably having a flash car is also about changing your appearance to others too.
But, sure perhaps not the best example. But there are plenty of more directly equivalent (and equally sexist) reverse scenarios.
So perhaps:
Imagine if a male radio presenter described the mid life crisis as an excuse for women to go out and buy expensive dresses, or jewellery.
The point remains that Jenni Murray's comment was casually generalising and sexist - and that isn't right and it is no more right if the casual generalisation is about men than it is if it about women.
-
I don't agree - I think we should work to a point where casual sexist generalisation is not acceptable regardless of the perceived 'power'. The point here is that you shouldn't generalise - so even if you might argue that as a group men have more power, that doesn't mean that all individual men necessarily have more power than all individual women. Nor does it mean that the scales are tipped in that respect for all scenarios. A good example would be who gets the kids in divorce cases, where there remains a default position that it will be the mother, unless - rather than a starting point of pure neutrality.
I think if your find a comment sexist if you change the gender then it is sexist in the first place.
I didn't say that it wasn't offensive at all, nor did I say that there are no circumstances where women might get a a 'better' deal, so not sure why you have responded as if I did.
-
Boob jobs are not the same as fast cars and motorbikes.
Oh come on Jeremy. Everyone knows if a man gets a fast car his dick automatically gets bigger.
-
Imagine if a male radio presenter described the mid life crisis as an excuse for women to go out and buy expensive dresses, or jewellery.
OK. I see your point now. The problem is that the situation is not symmetrical. Society hasn't been sexist against men for a thousand years or more.
-
Oh come on Jeremy. Everyone knows if a man gets a fast car his dick automatically gets bigger.
I certainly don't get sexually aroused by my car.
-
Oh come on Jeremy. Everyone knows if a man gets a fast car his dick automatically gets bigger.
When my husband was able to drive he was only interested in cars which suited his needs like 4x4s. He never had any interest in owning a fast car, he regarded them as a complete waste of money.
-
Oh come on Jeremy. Everyone knows if a man gets a fast car his dick automatically gets bigger.
as long as it's a stick shift.
-
as long as it's a stick shift.
And atop it is a big gear shift knob. Oooh Matron.
-
And atop it is a big gear shift knob. Oooh Matron.
I may have to work on a Rambling Sid Rumpo version of Tracy Chapman's Fast Car.
-
I didn't say that it wasn't offensive at all, nor did I say that there are no circumstances where women might get a a 'better' deal, so not sure why you have responded as if I did.
All I was saying was that we need to be consistent.
Both on the basis of principle, I don't think that casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at men are any more, or less acceptable than casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at women. Nor that casual, generalising racist comments aimed at white people are any more, or less acceptable than casual, generalising racist comments aimed at black or asian people, for example.
But there is a pragmatic element to this too - if we tolerate casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at men, then some men will see this as double standards and feel either (not unreasonably) aggrieved and will think this therefore gives them (our of fairness) the justification to make casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at women (which is not reasonable).
That's my point.
-
All I was saying was that we need to be consistent.
Both on the basis of principle, I don't think that casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at men are any more, or less acceptable than casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at women. Nor that casual, generalising racist comments aimed at white people are any more, or less acceptable than casual, generalising racist comments aimed at black or asian people, for example.
But there is a pragmatic element to this too - if we tolerate casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at men, then some men will see this as double standards and feel either (not unreasonably) aggrieved and will think this therefore gives them (our of fairness) the justification to make casual, generalising sexist comments aimed at women (which is not reasonable).
That's my point.
'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'
-
'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'
Not heard that quote before, but is it irrelevant as this is not a foolish consistency.
Rather it is a wise one - effectively that if you don't want others to make casual and generalising comments about you based on a certain group that you belong to then don't make similar casual and generalising comments about other based on a certain group that they belong to.
-
I bought an ex police car at auction a few years back it was far more powerful than I ever expected and it also taught me how relaxing it is to drive powerful cars without a need to break any speed limits.
I can understand those that are sceptical about people that chose to buy these powerful cars if they haven't had the opportunity to drive one.
I can remember I had a job to get a drive in that ex police jobbie, I couldn't get my wife out of the driving seat it was such a delightful drive.
ippy.
-
OK. I see your point now. The problem is that the situation is not symmetrical. Society hasn't been sexist against men for a thousand years or more.
Actually society has expected genders to conform to certain stereotypes and roles for thousands of years. Although, overall this has created an imbalance against women I am interested in the individual, not the generality in terms of sexism. Why, because sexism (and other -isms) affect individuals and are actually failures of generalising. So we need to be on the look out for individual asymmetries as each are just as bad as any other individual asymmetry.
So is it worse if a distribution warehouse refuses to hire a woman for a job of a 'picker' because they (consciously or unconsciously) perceive it to be a job for a man, than if a nursery refuses to hire a man as a nursery worker because they (consciously or unconsciously) perceive it to be a job for a woman. I don't think so, and for that man the notion that in generalising terms the situation is not symmetrical in favour of men is irrelevant as the individual situation is not symmetrical and not in his favour.
-
Actually society has expected genders to conform to certain stereotypes and roles for thousands of years. Although, overall this has created an imbalance against women I am interested in the individual, not the generality in terms of sexism. Why, because sexism (and other -isms) affect individuals and are actually failures of generalising. So we need to be on the look out for individual asymmetries as each are just as bad as any other individual asymmetry.
So is it worse if a distribution warehouse refuses to hire a woman for a job of a 'picker' because they (consciously or unconsciously) perceive it to be a job for a man, than if a nursery refuses to hire a man as a nursery worker because they (consciously or unconsciously) perceive it to be a job for a woman. I don't think so, and for that man the notion that in generalising terms the situation is not symmetrical in favour of men is irrelevant as the individual situation is not symmetrical and not in his favour.
Yes, gender stereotypes are wrong. No, the situation in general is not equivalent.
-
Not heard that quote before, but is it irrelevant as this is not a foolish consistency.
Rather it is a wise one - effectively that if you don't want others to make casual and generalising comments about you based on a certain group that you belong to then don't make similar casual and generalising comments about other based on a certain group that they belong to.
It is a brave or foolish person who calls themself wise.
-
Yes, gender stereotypes are wrong. No, the situation in general is not equivalent.
But the situation in general isn't relevant to the individual - what matters to them is the situation to the individual.
It would be a bit like saying that the rape or sexual assault of an individual man is less important than the rape or sexual assault of an individual woman because overall more women are victims of rape or sexual assault. Each individual case is of equal importance regardless of the gender of the victim.
-
When my husband was able to drive he was only interested in cars which suited his needs like 4x4s. He never had any interest in owning a fast car, he regarded them as a complete waste of money.
4x4s, what a complete waste of money!
-
But the situation in general isn't relevant to the individual - what matters to them is the situation to the individual.
It would be a bit like saying that the rape or sexual assault of an individual man is less important than the rape or sexual assault of an individual woman because overall more women are victims of rape or sexual assault. Each individual case is of equal importance regardless of the gender of the victim.
And no individual cases were mentioned by Jenni Murray so your point in the context is specious.
-
And no individual cases were mentioned by Jenni Murray so your point in the context is specious.
But the whole point about sexist or racist (etc) comments is that they are generalising - treating an individual not as just that, an individual, but stereotyping them in a generalising manner due to their gender or race etc.
Murray's comment was classic sexist generalising - effectively that men (generalising) use mid life crisis as an excuse to buy a sports car or big motorbike.
So it isn't a sexist comment if I say that a particular woman is unable to fix a car if there is evidence that that particular person cannot fix a car. It is, however, sexist if I presume that a person cannot fix a car simply because they are a women without knowledge of their individual skills in that regard. Likewise it would be sexist to assume I cannot multi-task simply because I am a man without knowledge of my individual multitasking skills.
-
But the whole point about sexist of racist (etc) comments is that they are generalising - treating an individual not as just that, an individual, but stereotyping them in a generalising manner due to their gender or race etc.
Murray's comment was classic sexist generalising - effectively that men (generalising) use mid life crisis as an excuse to buy a sports car or big motorbike.
So it isn't a sexist comment if I say that a particular woman is unable to fix a car if there is evidence that that particular person cannot fix a car. It is, however, sexist if I presume that a person cannot fix a car simply because they are a women without knowledge of their individual skills in that regard. Likewise it would be sexist to assume I cannot multi-task simply because I am a man without knowledge of my individual multitasking skills.
You are all over the place here. You need to sit down calmly and try and work out what you are trying to say.
-
When my husband was able to drive he was only interested in cars which suited his needs like 4x4s. He never had any interest in owning a fast car, he regarded them as a complete waste of money.
It's a bit of a running joke in my family that when I was 40 I got a mid life crisis Honda - was it this one:
https://www.bennetts.co.uk/bikesocial/news-and-views/news/2019/november/new-honda-fireblade-2020-cbr1000rrr
Nope it was a lawnmower!!
Actually I think my wife is far more likely to 'invest' in a open top sports car as a tonic for a mid life crisis than I am. I'd go for a bike (without an engine) or a guitar anytime.
-
You are all over the place here. You need to sit down calmly and try and work out what you are trying to say.
Nope I think you need to sit down and read what I am actually saying.
You do understand that the reason why sexist comments are ... err well ... sexist is that they make generalised and stereotyping assumptions and apply them to all individuals purely on the basis of their gender without considering whether the individual actually possesses those stereotypical attributes.
-
I bought an ex police car at auction a few years back it was far more powerful than I ever expected and it also taught me how relaxing it is to drive powerful cars without a need to break any speed limits.
I can understand those that are sceptical about people that chose to buy these powerful cars if they haven't had the opportunity to drive one.
I can remember I had a job to get a drive in that ex police jobbie, I couldn't get my wife out of the driving seat it was such a delightful drive.
ippy.
Yes, but what happened to your dick?
-
You are all over the place here. You need to sit down calmly and try and work out what you are trying to say.
The prof's post was clear, logical, and unaswerable. You are being insufferably pompous and patronising. Again.
-
The prof's post was clear, logical, and unaswerable. You are being insufferably pompous and patronising. Again.
Ah another man wanting to downplay sexism against women.
-
4x4s, what a complete waste of money!
Not when you have a caravan to tow.
-
Ah another man wanting to downplay sexism against women.
How the hell was I doing that? I was agreeing with the prof's argument that the essence of sexism is generalisation. You do come out with some prize gonads at times!
-
How the hell was I doing that? I was agreeing with the prof's argument that the essence of sexism is generalisation. You do come out with some prize gonads at times!
Because you and Prof D indulge in the idea that there is an equivalence in the sexism that women suffer as opposed to a comment about buying a big car
-
Because you and Prof D indulge in the idea that there is an equivalence in the sexism that women suffer as opposed to a comment about buying a big car
I never mentioned cars!
-
I never mentioned cars!
But you are agreeing with Prof D who did
-
Ah another man wanting to downplay sexism against women.
I presume you mean me - in which case stop lying.
I have never downplayed sexism against women - recognising that sexism also exists against men is not downplaying sexism agains women. Quite the reverse in fact as it recognising that sexism, in all its forms, is wrong and should be challenged.
You on the other hand clearly downplayed sexism not aimed at women and in doing so undermine the fundamental arguments against sexism. Indeed if you dismiss sexism against men you are effectively dismissing sexism as you are really not challenging sexism at all, merely challenging misogeny.
-
Give up, prof: NS is sometimes like a pit-bull terrier, latching onto your leg and never letting go, no matter how many couter-arguments you bring.
-
I presume you mean me - in which case stop lying.
I have never downplayed sexism against women - recognising that sexism also exists against men is not downplaying sexism agains women. Quite the reverse in fact as it recognising that sexism, in all its forms, is wrong and should be challenged.
You on the other hand clearly downplayed sexism not aimed at women and in doing so undermine the fundamental arguments against sexism. Indeed if you dismiss sexism against men you are effectively dismissing sexism as you are really not challenging sexism at all, merely challenging misogeny.
I'm not lying - I think you see a false equivalence in the sexism against women as opposed to a comment about men and big cars. You are following the classic tedious response of NAMALT - not all men are like that - to try to make that false equivalence.
-
I'm not lying - I think you see a false equivalence in the sexism against women as opposed to a comment about men and big cars.
Not true - I never tried to suggest an equivalence between casual sexist comments (whether toward women or men) and more serious sexist actions and crimes (for example not getting a job due to gender or the most severe example I've mentioned, rape/sexual assault).
My point has never been that within each category there is an equivalence regardless of the gender.
Jeremy fairly pointed out that my first equivalent example was perhaps not the right one, so I'll use my revised one:
So in category 1 (casual, generalising sexist comments) - I think the following are equivalent and equally wrong:
'Mid-life crisis, the American journalist Gail Sheehy coined the term in the hope it would be a chance for men and women to change their lives. How did it become an excuse for men to buy a fat motorbike or sports car'
'Mid-life crisis, the American journalist Gail Sheehy coined the term in the hope it would be a chance for men and women to change their lives. How did it become an excuse for women to buy expensive clothes and jewellery'
So in category 2 (sexism in the job market) - I think the following are equivalent and equally wrong:
A distribution warehouse refuses to hire a woman for a job of a 'picker' because they (consciously or unconsciously) perceive it to be a job for a man.
A nursery refuses to hire a man as a nursery worker because they (consciously or unconsciously) perceive it to be a job for a woman.
In category 3 (serious sexual crimes) - I think the following are equivalent and equally wrong:
Rape or sexual assault where the victim is a man
Rape or sexual assault where the victim is a woman
I've never, and to avoid any doubt do not, think that a category 3 (or 2) incident is equivalent to a category 1 one. But that has nothing to do with gender - rape of a woman is clearly far more serious than casual sexist comments aimed at men. But similarly rape of a man is clearly far more serious than casual sexist comments aimed at women.
-
You are following the classic tedious response of NAMALT - not all men are like that - to try to make that false equivalence.
But that is neither tedious nor irrelevant - the whole point about generalising sexist, racist etc etc comments is that, by their very nature, they assume 'all men are like that', 'all women are like that', 'all black people are like that', 'all gay people are like that', 'all scots are like that' etc etc. And that is wrong - they assume attributes on an individual through stereotype generalisations linked to the group they belong to (men, women, black, gay, scots) without considering whether that individual does possess those attributes. That is wrong - and that generalising and stereotypic approach lies at the very core of sexism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia etc etc.
-
My husband has never been sexist in his approach to the female of the species.
-
Not when you have a caravan to tow.
Not if you have a BMW 520d.