Vintage sexist ads

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Roses]

4x4s, what a complete waste of money!

Not when you have a caravan to tow.

[Steve H]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Steve H]

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!

[Nearly Sane]

I never mentioned cars!

  But you are agreeing with Prof D who did

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Steve H]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Roses]

My husband has never been sexist in his approach to the female of the species.

[Sebastian Toe]

Not when you have a caravan to tow.

Not if you have a BMW 520d.