#MeToo and a Response to it

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

The Lunatic:

No I didn't. I posted a story where a little girl got sexually assaulted and will likely suffer horrible trauma for the rest of her life and people were too busy focusing on the fact I off-hand mentioned that the person who did it was transgender to pay much mind to that. It seems people only really care when it's a male perpetrator.

I don't have to say a thing, man.

Another dumb ideology. What's your point?

Dumb or not, it's the rule, especially on the internet.

@The Lunatic: "off hand"? It was literally the first word of the title of the topic.

And yeah, it seams YOU would rather sling mud and accuse than express sympathy for a child who was abused.

Catnip1024:
Not at all. I believe in a no blame culture. The system got to the point where this was allowed to happen, and it is the system that needs fixing. Whether that be Hollywood management companies or how we bring up kids.

Oh, I think you need to go back and re-read your post #67, because you are unquestionably packing out blame there.

The whole point of this campaign is to raise awareness, to give victims confidence to speak and to encourage observers to intervene. And... you're having a go at me for having an intervening mentality? Sort your argument out...

The problem is that you drop those cozy sentiments after you've spent time blaming victims for being cowards or greedy, showing approximately zero sympathy and awareness of why victims might not speak out, and criticising or being mealy-mouthed about the "#metoo" campaign that is an attempt to raise awareness and promote speaking out.

Consqeuently the feeble protestations there sound to me more like boilerplate platitudes to distract from the fact you kicked off advancing the same shit everyone does who tends to write off sexual abuse as the victim's fault.

StatusNil:

Terry Alan Crews you mean. If you're using their name, might as well avoid misracinating a Black PoC as a Hispanic PoC.

Are you sure you want to advance an argument based on the idea that black people shouldn't have Hispanic surnames?

e.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Maceo_Grajales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_Torres
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Cruz_(American_football)

Agema:

Catnip1024:
Not at all. I believe in a no blame culture. The system got to the point where this was allowed to happen, and it is the system that needs fixing. Whether that be Hollywood management companies or how we bring up kids.

Oh, I think you need to go back and re-read your post #67, because you are unquestionably packing out blame there.

The whole point of this campaign is to raise awareness, to give victims confidence to speak and to encourage observers to intervene. And... you're having a go at me for having an intervening mentality? Sort your argument out...

The problem is that you drop those cozy sentiments after you've spent time blaming victims for being cowards or greedy, showing approximately zero sympathy and awareness of why victims might not speak out, and criticising or being mealy-mouthed about the "#metoo" campaign that is an attempt to raise awareness and promote speaking out.

Consqeuently the feeble protestations there sound to me more like boilerplate platitudes to distract from the fact you kicked off advancing the same shit everyone does who tends to write off sexual abuse as the victim's fault.

A no blame culture doesn't detract from the fact that a number of people fucked up. It just means dealing with the issue should look at things from a system level, rather than a "you done fucked up" level. So, yes, the individuals involved fucked up. But the point is, it is the system that led to them acting that way, and which forced them down a particular route.

Yes, because trying to encourage people to take action is victim blaming. Therefore let's not encourage people to take action, and just leave the system in the same shit state it was to start with. Let's be all sympathetic whilst we propagate a system in which this is allowed to happen. Because it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling. And our warm and fuzzy feeling is totally worth more than the wellbeing of others.

Catnip1024:

Yes, because trying to encourage people to take action is victim blaming. Therefore let's not encourage people to take action, and just leave the system in the same shit state it was to start with. Let's be all sympathetic whilst we propagate a system in which this is allowed to happen. Because it gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling. And our warm and fuzzy feeling is totally worth more than the wellbeing of others.

Broadly, I think I'm telling you to educate yourself from the not inconsiderable weight of evidence on why people don't report assaults, because this could usefully inform how you try to convince them to come forward. As opposed to spouting personal prejudices and folk myths as if they're somehow going to be more useful at achieving the idealistic end you claim to want. Because, let's face it, spouting rubbish makes you sound to me more like the sort of person who wants to tell everyone how virtuous you are rather than do something virtuous.

Agema:
Because, let's face it, spouting rubbish makes you sound to me more like the sort of person who wants to tell everyone how virtuous you are rather than do something virtuous.

Hah, no.

Come on buddy, you've seen me around these forums. I have no interest in holding the moral high ground or in gaining admiration from some virtual entities. I don't tend to do personal anecdotes, because I don't care what you's all think of me personally.

As an aside, though, I also don't do these character digs that certain individuals around here seem to be doing with increasing frequency. It's churlish, doesn't help discussions, and clearly comes from a position of incredible ignorance.

Catnip1024:
moral high ground

Well, the thing about holding a moral high ground is that people find it much harder to argue your position when you've said something right.

FalloutJack:

Catnip1024:
moral high ground

Well, the thing about holding a moral high ground is that people find it much harder to argue your position when you've said something right.

The thing about holding a conversation is, people find it much harder to argue anything if the other person doesn't give sufficient context to actually have a point. You got anything other than genericisms?

Saelune:
@The Lunatic: "off hand"? It was literally the first word of the title of the topic.

And yeah, it seams YOU would rather sling mud and accuse than express sympathy for a child who was abused.

It's basically the default for stories to feature the gender of the suspect as the first word.

There's nothing new or particularly hateful there.

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
@The Lunatic: "off hand"? It was literally the first word of the title of the topic.

And yeah, it seams YOU would rather sling mud and accuse than express sympathy for a child who was abused.

It's basically the default for stories to feature the gender of the suspect as the first word.

There's nothing new or particularly hateful there.

To be fair...my OP isn't about #MeToo so much as it is a response to a response to #MeToo. As I said in the OP, I was scrolling through Facebook, saw a post that a relative had liked, and that post is whats in the giant quote box.
Does #MeToo refer to women and ONLY to women? Does it have to?

The Lunatic:

Saelune:
@The Lunatic: "off hand"? It was literally the first word of the title of the topic.

And yeah, it seams YOU would rather sling mud and accuse than express sympathy for a child who was abused.

It's basically the default for stories to feature the gender of the suspect as the first word.

There's nothing new or particularly hateful there.

And there's no particular reason you singled this particular case out from the 50,000+ cases of child sex abuse that happened every year?

It doesn't have anything to do with this particular case being used by the "rational" right-wing "skeptic" community to spread "we told you so" propaganda about letting trans women into ladies restrooms, despite none of that mattering, oh no.

It's #metoo, not #youtoo or #themtoo.

altnameJag:
It doesn't have anything to do with this particular case being used by the "rational" right-wing "skeptic" community to spread "we told you so" propaganda about letting trans women into ladies restrooms, despite none of that mattering, oh no.

So, we're not allowed to talk about abuse if people you don't like are also talking about it?

That doesn't sound quite right.

Now, if I had phrased the thread in some way to direct it towards that, sure, but, there was no such thing.

It used the same format as every single other sexual assault headline: [ Gender ] [ Victim ] [ Location ].

Standard practice across reporting any sort of news.

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
It doesn't have anything to do with this particular case being used by the "rational" right-wing "skeptic" community to spread "we told you so" propaganda about letting trans women into ladies restrooms, despite none of that mattering, oh no.

So, we're not allowed to talk about abuse if people you don't like are also talking about it?

That doesn't sound quite right.

Now, if I had phrased the thread in some way to direct it towards that, sure, but, there was no such thing.

It used the same format as every single other sexual assault headline: [ Gender ] [ Victim ] [ Location ].

Standard practice across reporting any sort of news.

If you'd have just said, "yes, that was a coincidence", I'd at least feel like you value my intellect enough to try and lie to me.

But fine. You found a sex crime that didn't happen to you and are bringing it up in context of #MeToo, despite it not happening to you. It is actually a huge problem, because, again, this sort of thing happens 50,000 times a year, predominantly involves a family friend in a common, relaxed environment, and is largely perpetrated by people with penises.

How do we go about fixing that.

altnameJag:
If you'd have just said, "yes, that was a coincidence", I'd at least feel like you value my intellect enough to try and lie to me.

But fine. You found a sex crime that didn't happen to you and are bringing it up in context of #MeToo, despite it not happening to you. It is actually a huge problem, because, again, this sort of thing happens 50,000 times a year, predominantly involves a family friend in a common, relaxed environment, and is largely perpetrated by people with penises.

How do we go about fixing that.

You didn't answer my question.

Please do so.

Yes, it is a huge issue, and whilst I don't agree with turning it into a gender war, as those get nowhere, and only serve as back-pats for people who're already honing their blades with that bullshit, sure, it's certainly the case that the majority of offenders are male. But, the fact people lose their shit whenever that isn't the case, and make the topic completely impossible to discuss is awful and seems a lot more like people simply want to use it as a club in the gender war than actually address the issue.

It's not like you can only "Fix" one at a time, you can address it all at once, and I don't see any reason you shouldn't.

The Lunatic:
Well, there's pretty firsthand experience of this forum not caring when the victim wasn't male.

So, I mean, cite random "Twitter"s all you want, we have it evidenced on this forum.

Look up at the title of this thread. The title refers to a hashtag.. a hashtag is a kind of metadata tag used to collate user generated content on social media into viewable trends or discussions, most famously on Twitter. Twitter is where the bulk of this social media campaign took place. It spread onto other social media platforms, but the largest by far is on Twitter. Millions of users have been involved, including celebrities and politicians, and the campaign has drawn engagement and commentary from print news around the world.

So, I mean, cite random "forums" all you want..

That said, I've been on this forum a long time, and I've witnessed a lot of the discussions on male abuse. Heck, I've been involved in a lot of that discussion, so I can at least speak for me personally. It's not that I don't care when the victim was (I assume you meant to say was rather than wasn't) male, I've been a victim of both domestic violence and sexual harassment (one instance of which I described earlier) as a man. I certainly care about that. What I don't care about is derailment, what I don't care about is attempts to shut down or silence discussion by suddenly wheeling out isolated examples which you pretend to care about, what I don't care about is people attempting to claim that substantively different things are the same because it suits their personal narrative, what I don't care about is the belief that men's feelings are more important than women's physical safety.

Again, if talking about the existence of gendered violence or discrimination upsets you more than the fact that it actually exists, then you are part of the problem. You are literally standing in the way of people trying to "address" the issue.

The Lunatic:

You didn't answer my question.

Please do so.

Okay fine

The Lunatic:

So, we're not allowed to talk about abuse if people you don't like are also talking about it?

You didn't talk about it. You didn't comment on it, you were under the assumption that the assault happened in a public bathroom, same mistake as the wastes of skin using this child's assault as an "I told you so" to trigger libs, and it wasn't until that misconception was pointed out that you tried bolting this story to the #MeToo campaign, a campaign about people talking about their own stories about sexual abuse and harassment.

You're trying to virtue signal your way into a hashtag that has nothing to do with you, and are using the assault of a ten year old you don't know to do it. You are every bit the SJW you claim to hate, and aren't nearly as clever as you think you are trying to deflect from your obvious politics.

How's that for an answer.

altnameJag:
You didn't talk about it. You didn't comment on it, you were under the assumption that the assault happened in a public bathroom, same mistake as the wastes of skin using this child's assault as an "I told you so" to trigger libs, and it wasn't until that misconception was pointed out that you tried bolting this story to the #MeToo campaign, a campaign about people talking about their own stories about sexual abuse and harassment.

I was waiting for judgement. Which did eventually come, but, until then decrying somebody whom is accused of something, yet not actually convicted is a little pointless. I was going to talk about it more when the verdict came in, as it was much more interesting then, but, by that time, it'd already been derailed by people crying about the fact the one who committed the act wasn't a man, but, instead the once-mentioned fact they're a male who identifies as a woman.

Perhaps I could have trotted out some "Oh, well, this is awful, if it actually happened" or something like that, but, I think it kinda speaks for itself, it's obviously an awful crime.

I mentioned in the thread there was conflicting reports on it. I intentionally phrased the statement to be accurate for both instances.

altnameJag:
You're trying to virtue signal your way into a hashtag that has nothing to do with you, and are using the assault of a ten year old you don't know to do it. You are every bit the SJW you claim to hate, and aren't nearly as clever as you think you are trying to deflect from your obvious politics.

Yes, the man who makes regular contributions to stopping sexual abuse has need for virtue signalling on a message board of 10-12 active users.

Do I need to know a person to empathize with their abuse? That doesn't seem like a very good requirement to me.

altnameJag:
How's that for an answer.

It was a yes or no question, so, kinda a bad one. A very non-answer.

The Lunatic:
I was waiting for judgement. Which did eventually come, but, until then decrying somebody whom is accused of something, yet not actually convicted is a little pointless. I was going to talk about it more when the verdict came in, as it was much more interesting then, but, by that time, it'd already been derailed by people crying about the fact the one who committed the act wasn't a man, but, instead the once-mentioned fact they're a male who identifies as a woman.

Perhaps I could have trotted out some "Oh, well, this is awful, if it actually happened" or something like that, but, I think it kinda speaks for itself, it's obviously an awful crime.

So what?

What makes this particular awful crime worthy of comment or discussion above and beyond all the other awful crimes which occur every single day all over the world?

Like, what conclusion are we supposed to draw, that you're so naive that you can live in a bubble where sexual assault is a special and exceptional thing that warrants an entire post to talk about a single incident, or that you're so hateful and internally biased that you specifically sought out an example of a single member of a highly persecuted minority carrying out a sexual assault, despite the fact that there are dozens of similar cases and examples every single day, in order to justify discrimination.

Because either way, you're an obstacle to actually fixing anything.

If I don't sound very "sympathetic", well, that's because you haven't earned sympathy. It's not your story, you haven't suffered. At best you've appropriated a child's suffering to try and leech some sympathy vicariously. The women (and men, and others) posting their #metoo stories are telling their own stories, and often those stories are about gendered violence. Where is your sympathy for them? If you want to do something about gendered violence and harassment, then stand in solidarity with its victims. Don't leech off them to score political points, it's gross as fuck.

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
You're trying to virtue signal your way into a hashtag that has nothing to do with you, and are using the assault of a ten year old you don't know to do it. You are every bit the SJW you claim to hate, and aren't nearly as clever as you think you are trying to deflect from your obvious politics.

Yes, the man who makes regular contributions to stopping sexual abuse has need for virtue signalling on a message board of 10-12 active users.

Do I need to know a person to empathize with their abuse? That doesn't seem like a very good requirement to me.

Nice humble brag. Feeling extra virtuous now?

Hell, you didn't empathize with their abuse. You reported it apropos of nothing, with no opinions or commentary of your own. Which means the only discussion value was about the framing of the topic.

Saelune:
Sex Offender Bill O'Reily is coming back to Fox.

Cause if you're Right-Wing and a sex offender, you get rewarded for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Oh, please. It goes beyond left right issues. You have Roman Polanski, who was accused of rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, but essentially plea bargained his way out of it (and fled the country).

You have Mel Gibson, accused of sexism, racism, anti-semitism and domestic abuse.

You have pricks right across the spectrum, and the vast majority face no significant consequences.

Catnip1024:
Oh, please. It goes beyond left right issues.

Largely, but not entirely. It's not true that the left does not have a serious problem with it, but it's also not true to say they are as bad as the right.

Saelune:
Sex Offender Bill O'Reily is coming back to Fox.

Cause if you're Right-Wing and a sex offender, you get rewarded for it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/21/business/media/bill-oreilly-sexual-harassment.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Looking at the settlements, seems like a win-win to me. Up until the right people get fed up with that shit: never, that is.

Catnip1024:
You have Roman Polanski, who was accused of rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, but essentially plea bargained his way out of it (and fled the country).

Polanski gets drawn into these threads time and time again. Is it because we actually know what he did because he admitted it? What would've been justice in his case? In my opinion something like a 12-18-month sentence out of which 3-6 served in prison would've been fair (plus monetary compensations), and possible redemption after that. I wonder if people still give a shit because Polanski fled or because of his original crime.

McElroy:
Polanski gets drawn into these threads time and time again. Is it because we actually know what he did because he admitted it? What would've been justice in his case? In my opinion something like a 12-18-month sentence out of which 3-6 served in prison would've been fair (plus monetary compensations), and possible redemption after that. I wonder if people still give a shit because Polanski fled or because of his original crime.

I think it's because he flat out admitted it, there's no accusing the victim of lying or anything, everyone agrees he did it.

Also, there've been quite a few people big on making speeches about how terrible rape is, some of them even doing some good work about it, who don't mind working with him.

McElroy:

Catnip1024:
You have Roman Polanski, who was accused of rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, but essentially plea bargained his way out of it (and fled the country).

Polanski gets drawn into these threads time and time again. Is it because we actually know what he did because he admitted it? What would've been justice in his case? In my opinion something like a 12-18-month sentence out of which 3-6 served in prison would've been fair (plus monetary compensations), and possible redemption after that. I wonder if people still give a shit because Polanski fled or because of his original crime.

He raped a child and is still part of the same Academy that Weinstein has been thrown out of.

I would argue that that is a totally legitimate reason to draw him into these comparisons.

evilthecat:
So what?

What makes this particular awful crime worthy of comment or discussion above and beyond all the other awful crimes which occur every single day all over the world?

Because it was an active case with a verdict expected soon. As such, it allows for much more discussion than "This guy did this, now he's in jail".

Which, you would have known, if you read more than the first word.

evilthecat:
Like, what conclusion are we supposed to draw, that you're so naive that you can live in a bubble where sexual assault is a special and exceptional thing that warrants an entire post to talk about a single incident, or that you're so hateful and internally biased that you specifically sought out an example of a single member of a highly persecuted minority carrying out a sexual assault, despite the fact that there are dozens of similar cases and examples every single day, in order to justify discrimination.

Specifically sought out because of its relevance to a current movement, time of starting date, time of expected verdict and because it was one of the first recent results on a search engine.

How am I justifying discrimination? I've always maintained that my stance on the whole "Bathroom war" bullshit was down to the property own's discretion given it's their bathroom and not the government's. So, it doesn't make any sense I'd actively seek to then make a statement against that.

You're turning me into a strawman rather than address the fact that somebody sexually abused a 10 year old kid. I think that kinda speaks for itself.

evilthecat:

Because either way, you're an obstacle to actually fixing anything.

Well, I mean, you're the one getting upset about the fact the abuser wasn't a man but instead male who identifies as a woman. That sounds like more of an obstacle compared to a person who donates and raises money for charities supporting that cause.

But, by all means, you do you.

evilthecat:

If I don't sound very "sympathetic", well, that's because you haven't earned sympathy. It's not your story, you haven't suffered. At best you've appropriated a child's suffering to try and leech some sympathy vicariously. The women (and men, and others) posting their #metoo stories are telling their own stories, and often those stories are about gendered violence. Where is your sympathy for them? If you want to do something about gendered violence and harassment, then stand in solidarity with its victims. Don't leech off them to score political points, it's gross as fuck.

So, your theory is that, I'm secretly working against a movement I either A: Don't care about, B: Secretly hate. I don't care about the rape of a 10 year old girl despite frequently posting how it's the thing everyone else should be paying attention to. I'm against some weird American bathroom law, despite not even living in the country, nor ever advocating an opinion against it and that because of these things, I'm trying to score political points for political values, I've expressed no desire, nor hold.

Hmm. Needs work. Maybe add in some unicorns, might make it more believable.

altnameJag:
Nice humble brag. Feeling extra virtuous now?

Compared to people who sit around bitching, never doing anything, complaining when they don't have a man to hate and actively seeking to disrupt any help men get or even being allowed to talk about the issue?

Yeah, I do actually.

There's a good many abused people who simply can't come forwards due to the attitude you present. I'm more than happy to be working against that.

altnameJag:

Hell, you didn't empathize with their abuse.

I wasn't aware you were a mind-reader. Congratulations on your new powers.

Wrex Brogan:

...wait, hang on, I have to ask - did you actually read the post the OP was quoting? Because, uhhh... that's the context here. I'm not ignoring your point, it's just that your point doesn't hold a lot of traction when the context of the situation is what it is in the quoted post.

...namely that dudes where asking for help in the wake of #MeToo. Your binary, while technically correct in a contextless situation, doesn't work within the given context, since it's her giving tips to people specifically asking how they can help address inequality.

And please don't assume what I'm mentally jumping to, that's just going to make me assume you're playing a round of silly buggers with me.

A request to address inequalities that itself involves unequal treatment can, and in this case is, still sexist by definition.

Possible answers to the question could involve reaffirming treating people equally by pointing out where such things are not equal and address that by telling people the way to address it is to treat people equally. Instead, it pushed for the other way specifically based on gender, essentially treating the problem not as "how do I solve inequality" to instead be "how do I help women". Which can be seen as a positive thing, but which is not equality.

This is also why I called it benevolent sexism.

That it is inspired from the hashtag is irrelevant, save to further highlight the motivation being how to "help" women, not how to help the problem itself that the hashtag calls for more awareness of.

...You know, this just makes it sound like you're buggered at the implication you could be a non-decent dude. And again, also ignores the context of what OP was quoting.

No wrex, the context of the situation just changes my opinion on the sexism from hatefully driven to benevolently driven.

Besides, if I recall right, though the hashtag itself was predominantly pushed for women to use, the idea of it being solidarity between survivors of sexual assault and encouraging them to speak up is not limited to women alone. Even actors like Terry Crews spoke up about the topic and rightfully so.

As such, it comes off that those wanting the hashtag to be about women alone would be sexist to start with, and using that sexist perception of the hashtag as solely a woman's issue in order to make an answer that itself is sexist in addressing the situation, well, it is not helping the context.

Of course because the OP themselves addressing specifically the males who asked her and views the requests in that light as specifically women-based, the event being driven by the hashtag but not a lot given by the quote in the OP about their thoughts on it, and the quote's own statement of "These tips can be used by people of all genders" were enough for me to not latch onto that aspect and instead just concentrate on the issue were the post. This even despite the initial buffer at the top about being able to use on all people, the quote specifically refers to how to treat women, and in many cases in reference to treating them as opposed to men, it undermines the idea that it was based in equality and supports it was specifically meant for women, and perhaps minorities with that statement.

damn, I said approach twice in 4 words, teaches me to rush things

It's pretty sterile. Yes, yes, I know the whole 'Thought Police' crap, but it is entirely possible for someones beliefs and opinions to remove them from the realm of 'decency', depending on cultural and social contexts. Actions speak louder than words, but those words don't exist in a vacuum, yeah?

Now, those self-same social and cultural contexts can cause their own whole hot mess of problems, sure, but frankly I'd rather analyze the whole picture than focus only on the parts that involve punching people.

It is possible in some case, but that is not this case here.

Disagreement with the quote in the OP does not take away someone's status as a decent person. Agreement with it does not make someone a decent person.

For someone talking bout social and cultural contexts, you seem to have sidestepped the context of my words there being directed specifically at another user using the quote in the OP as the litmus test of human decency where treating them differently because of their gender is recommended.

Furthermore, it is precisely because of examples like the one I called out and how terrible a judge of human character it is that I avoid condemning anyone for thought crimes, as motivation and reasoning for why they hold a horrible belief may still be coming from a place of good intention that has been warped. And someone who holds "virtuous" beliefs can hold them only because it supports horrible intentions. Look no further than the Weinstein example that is the subtopic of the thread. But other examples like the recent events for many journalists or even over at neogaf show that "virtuous" belief and promoting the treating of women "with empathy" is clearly not a sign of a good person. As such, I stick with how people act to start to gauge the content of their character.

...Context, again. Also a little relativistic judgement, given your judgement of falsehood relies on your binary, which is too narrow a system to accurately judge the quoted text.

No, the context doesn't change that the behavior recommended is sexist.

See, this is that point I made before, you are confusing the morality of the action with if it is sexist. While you can claim this sexism is more moral than another and grade that along a scale of what is better or worse, you can not do the same when it comes to a statement of if it is sexism. That is, and really always has been, a binary thing. It either fits the definition or it does not. In this case, regardless how much you like the idea or dislike the idea, it IS sexist.

The question is, can you accept that it is sexist and still argue in support of it as necessary? I know that many who support such positions claim they argue for equity now, and it would seem you fit that position better than claiming to support equality.

...That's not what I'm arguing. Oh, sure, by your contextless binary, maybe, but that binary is horrifically flawed for dealing with the situation at hand, and as such should not be used as any standard of judgement or basis of argumentation. Your two aspects also falter given the assumption that women are being treated equally in the first place.

You keep saying context-less, but context doesn't change the definition of if this fits it. Context here just affects how one would morally rule on it. Your reply even shows that by implying the definition needs to deal with the situation at hand or make judgement about it. A definition does not have to do either. A moral judgement would.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if women are treated equal or not previously to determine that a solution is not equal. Again, that only matters if you are judging the previous inequality as deserving of a "balancing" inequality to "right the wrong". That is not equality, that would be equity.

See, it's like this, if you want a proper argument - if women are being treated equally, then showing them favouratism over their male, intersex and non-binary counterparts is sexist.

If women aren't being treated equally, then the actions being suggested by the woman are not a form of favouratism, but are simply shows of respect and equal treatment (as defined by Western cultural and social practices), in an effort to elevate them from their position of unequal treatment so that they are on-par with their male peers.

No. Treating someone unequally based on their gender is sexism. That's it. That's the definition itself, and that is not making any argument about the good or bad of doing so. The personal moral ruling there of good or bad is irrelevant to that. You are confusing the two aspects again. Favoritism is just one of the ways that you can treat someone differently based on gender, not the only one, so you attempts to define sexism based on that just don't work.

In this case, you are saying that the sexism promoted by the quote in the OP is ok when done for a good reason. Because there is inequality, it therefore justified inequality in the opposite direction. This, however, does not prevent that behavior from being sexist, nor does it work like math where the two examples of sexism cancel each other out. All it does is create two elements of sexism instead of addressing the previous one. And you can argue that this sexism is justified or moral if you like, but when it comes to the definition, it doesn't care if it is moral or not.

It is immoral to treat women unequally. Simple as that, in either aspects of disfavour or aspects of favouratism. It is not, however, immoral to treat women in such a way that elevates them into a position of equal standing with their male counterparts. If I am pouring water into a jug such that it's water level is now equal with another jug, I am not treating one of those jugs unequally, I am simply equaling the water levels of both jugs.

Christ, this is why I always hated moralistic philosophy at University.

I agree it is immoral to treat women unequally.

I disagree that treating them unequally to counter existing "sexism" is equality.

Neither of those opinions change that treating women unequally is sexist.

As for your jug analogy, you do no you are making a "separate but equal" analogy there, which given the context of arguing equality, is, though I hate to use the term, literally "on the wrong side of history" when it comes to civil rights and human progress there. There is a reason it was abandoned in the past and it saddens me every time I see the concept pop back up with a fresh coat of paint.

Equality only comes from equal treatment. Dividing people and placing them on scales always ends up with someone's thumb weighing it down and the separation itself inherently makes them unequal. It divides people and forces tribalism, not solves problems. This is why I said one side was trying to tackle the core before, because I see pushing for equality over identity divisions how to actually solve problems.

...you know, 'I'm sorry you see' is a fuckin' weird sentence, since it's an apology, but it places the onus on me. Fuckin' weird.

It is as polite as I can get when someone reads what I said in a way that it was not meant to be yet that I do not think was done so intentionally.

The best I can do in that situation is offer sympathy and apology for the confusion that you interpreted what was said incorrectly to what I meant. I'm sorry you didn't know I didn't like that drink. I am sorry you didn't know I was allergic to the food you were making. I am sympathetic and apologize for the confusion for my part in your misunderstanding the intention of my complaint.

And you'll forgive me for this, but I wasn't saying anything about you disagreeing with people. What you did do, however, was reduce the points everyone were arguing about into a binary that failed to address their actual positions, but then went on further to have a go at someone for... supposedly reducing everyone they disagreed with into being indecent people.

Now, as said, maybe not your intention, but certainly was the outcome of that effect.

No, pointing out the definition of something fits within that definition does not reduce it at all. Nor is it commentary on the arguments going on, as those are all based on the morality of the recommended action of the quote in the OP. You are claiming that by me saying that "water is wet" I have reduced the points of everyone arguing about the ethical questions of wet t-shirt contests. This is untrue, as the only way that would be the case is if there was an inexorable tie between wetness and immorality.

Or, as I keep pointing out, you are confusing whether or not something is sexist with if it is moral or not when they are two separate things. And when it comes to arguing my position about the morality of it, I have already put forth my opinions there as being supportive of equality and opposing benevolent sexism to balance the scales, based on my desire for equality in treatment of people regardless of gender and in spite of claims that treating people different is equal.

What I called out, however, was someone saying that disagreement with the OP made them incapable of human decency, which did reduce the topic itself to a single test of their opinion on this topic to determine if people are decent or not. That is beyond simplification, that is purely moral reductionism.

I follow, but frankly, you're still assuming someone here is trying to put out the fire, or that the people scratching their asses are just scratching their asses.

And also that the people who are trying to put out the fire are actually trying to put out the fire. I know you said you didn't have any problems with the OP, but did you ever stop to think about his motivations for making this thread? Because my money says it wasn't out of the good of his heart in bringing to light the horrible inequalities this madwoman is preaching.

You are arguing that the hypotheticals I made up to demonstrate a point are assumptions that might not be true? What? They are hypotheticals, they aren't true to begin with.

As for the OP you ask why they brought up the topic, and then immediately make an assumption about their motivation. I assume they made the topic because it was a god source for one. What does that matter one way or the other though? I don't get what you are trying to argue here.

Nah, that was just good-natured (presumably good-natured, Australian humour translates poorly over the internet) ribbing based on your previous comment about snarky character attacks. You know, like:

'Snarky character attacks are wrong'
Me: 'posts something'
'AND THEN THERE'S THIS ASSHOLE'.

I figure at this point everyone still kicking around the Escapist is well-versed in snark, if at the very least to dull the knowledge that we're clinging to an ever-sinking ship that keeps crashing into icebergs.

Or because we're in R&P, and we need to snark because... well, we're in R&P.

(speaking of, it may seem I'm being aggressive this post, but that's honestly just how I tend to approach big pull-aparts like this. I bear you no ill-will or hostility, tone's just a bitch to get across on the internet. Stupid cross-cultural platform...)

Ah, I see. I tend to read things rather literally, so jokes can shoot over my head a lot.

...I mean, were they? Subjective interpretations are subjective, but honestly their post just came across as bemoaning the people objecting to treating women respectfully as opposed to a broad condemnation of all who disagree with 'em. Which is understandable, there's a definite, if fine, distinction between people who have problems with the suggestions, and people who have problems with the idea of treating women equally.

Now, I get the complaint about the devolving nature of the threads - lord knows I say it myself often enough, and tend to skim peoples responses since I can generally tell their position based solely on their presence and the topic - but it just feels... disingenuous to split everyone in the thread into two groups (when they don't fall into two groups - I mean, where do you put Inu-Kun?) and then go on further to call someone out over a perceived accusation of indecency for disagreeing with the quoted text.

Your intentions were otherwise, but the end result still came out with the connection. And hey, aren't we supposed to be judging people based on their actions? /insertwinkyfaceemoji

winkyemoji?

Alright, you are correct. It is not helping matter to encourage that notion of the split as though there is only the two sides.

I still argue the post I called out reduces the thread to agree with the quote in the op specifically about how to treat women (which is their position on the topic) or you have no human decency. And that such a stance, bemoaning or not, is terribly morally reductive (made worse by it being a short snarky potshot at a caricature of those who disagree with them, what with the "evil FEMONISS" stuff).

But my own statement was oversimplifying the thread and the usual devolving as well. And while not as egregious as reducing it to the moral absolutes of human decency determined by agreement with me on the quote from the OP, it was still discarding a lot of the nuance for the sake of complaining about the usual general tread of these sorts of threads where discussion is dominated by highly vocal opposing poles.

Catnip1024:
He raped a child and is still part of the same Academy that Weinstein has been thrown out of.

I would argue that that is a totally legitimate reason to draw him into these comparisons.

It does illustrate the brokenness of the system and the hypocrisy of those in power. I'm not sure how that in any way contradicts Saelune's point that Fox News bringing a serial sexual predator back into the fold after his public disgrace is a really shitty thing to do and illustrative of the abusive power structure present in the company. The modern American right wing does have a serious problem with hypocrisy and very toxic ideas about human sexuality.

I'mma try to keep this short, since NOW the thread's devolved to shit.

runic knight:

A request to address inequalities that itself involves unequal treatment can, and in this case is, still sexist by definition.

Possible answers to the question could involve reaffirming treating people equally by pointing out where such things are not equal and address that by telling people the way to address it is to treat people equally. Instead, it pushed for the other way specifically based on gender, essentially treating the problem not as "how do I solve inequality" to instead be "how do I help women". Which can be seen as a positive thing, but which is not equality.

This is also why I called it benevolent sexism.

That it is inspired from the hashtag is irrelevant, save to further highlight the motivation being how to "help" women, not how to help the problem itself that the hashtag calls for more awareness of.

...you're presuming it involves unequal treatment. Personally I don't find 'treat women as you do men' kinda advice very unequal.

No wrex, the context of the situation just changes my opinion on the sexism from hatefully driven to benevolently driven.

Besides, if I recall right, though the hashtag itself was predominantly pushed for women to use, the idea of it being solidarity between survivors of sexual assault and encouraging them to speak up is not limited to women alone. Even actors like Terry Crews spoke up about the topic and rightfully so.

As such, it comes off that those wanting the hashtag to be about women alone would be sexist to start with, and using that sexist perception of the hashtag as solely a woman's issue in order to make an answer that itself is sexist in addressing the situation, well, it is not helping the context.

Of course because the OP themselves addressing specifically the males who asked her and views the requests in that light as specifically women-based, the event being driven by the hashtag but not a lot given by the quote in the OP about their thoughts on it, and the quote's own statement of "These tips can be used by people of all genders" were enough for me to not latch onto that aspect and instead just concentrate on the issue were the post. This even despite the initial buffer at the top about being able to use on all people, the quote specifically refers to how to treat women, and in many cases in reference to treating them as opposed to men, it undermines the idea that it was based in equality and supports it was specifically meant for women, and perhaps minorities with that statement.

...the same as, the same as men. Specifically meant for women, but encouraging people to treat them the same as their male colleagues. That's the jist of it.

Unless you call your male colleagues 'sweety' and introduce them as 'The Lovely Bob johnson', I'm getting confused as to how you're drawing it out as unequal treatment.

It is possible in some case, but that is not this case here.

Disagreement with the quote in the OP does not take away someone's status as a decent person. Agreement with it does not make someone a decent person.

For someone talking bout social and cultural contexts, you seem to have sidestepped the context of my words there being directed specifically at another user using the quote in the OP as the litmus test of human decency where treating them differently because of their gender is recommended.

Furthermore, it is precisely because of examples like the one I called out and how terrible a judge of human character it is that I avoid condemning anyone for thought crimes, as motivation and reasoning for why they hold a horrible belief may still be coming from a place of good intention that has been warped. And someone who holds "virtuous" beliefs can hold them only because it supports horrible intentions. Look no further than the Weinstein example that is the subtopic of the thread. But other examples like the recent events for many journalists or even over at neogaf show that "virtuous" belief and promoting the treating of women "with empathy" is clearly not a sign of a good person. As such, I stick with how people act to start to gauge the content of their character.

...not quite, but ok. 'social and cultural contexts' in this regard is the fact that, socially and culturally in the Western world, what the quoted OP is describing is pretty bog-standard shows of respect - calling someone their full title, not using cutesy nicknames when you're not familiar with them, not focusing on their physical appearance, being considerate during sexual intercourse... all signs of basic respect. A solid 5/10 for following them.

Disagreement/Agreement with the OP has no impact on your morality, but, frankly, if you are enraged or incensed at the idea of treating women equally, then you're probably not a very decent person to begin with. And failing to express the bog-standard shows of respect as outlined by the quoted OP means you're probably not a very decent person either, since as they say, they can apply to anyone.

And to be fair, I did address you responding to someone else, that was just further down.

(also I think we've been conflating 'decency' with 'morality' a lot here, whoops)

No, the context doesn't change that the behavior recommended is sexist.

See, this is that point I made before, you are confusing the morality of the action with if it is sexist. While you can claim this sexism is more moral than another and grade that along a scale of what is better or worse, you can not do the same when it comes to a statement of if it is sexism. That is, and really always has been, a binary thing. It either fits the definition or it does not. In this case, regardless how much you like the idea or dislike the idea, it IS sexist.

The question is, can you accept that it is sexist and still argue in support of it as necessary? I know that many who support such positions claim they argue for equity now, and it would seem you fit that position better than claiming to support equality.

Oh boy, yeah, we really have been conflating morality and decency a lot here. Whoops.

...yes it does. If the context of the behaviour is that it is the culturally accepted standards of respectful behaviour, then failing to follow it for a specific gender is sexist, but expressing it to all genders makes it not sexist, since you are no longer treating any specific gender differently from another.

Likewise, failing to express it to all genders makes you a disrespectful prick, but not a sexist. And overexpressing it to a singular gender makes you a sexist.

Like, I'm not actually disagreeing with you that Sexism follows a binary scale, I'm disagreeing with your use of the binary to deduce that this is a sexist situation, when it's a situation that's about addressing an inequality within society, namely the inequal treatment of women.

You keep saying context-less, but context doesn't change the definition of if this fits it. Context here just affects how one would morally rule on it. Your reply even shows that by implying the definition needs to deal with the situation at hand or make judgement about it. A definition does not have to do either. A moral judgement would.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter if women are treated equal or not previously to determine that a solution is not equal. Again, that only matters if you are judging the previous inequality as deserving of a "balancing" inequality to "right the wrong". That is not equality, that would be equity.

...see above for the context.

And, uhhhhhh... it kinda does matter if women are being treated equally or not, since that would determine whether or not a solution would be something to address the inequality or whether it would be a sexist action to conduct. Nor is it a judgement of 'balancing inequalities' to right a wrong, it's upholding a standard as set by the cultural rules of social conduct in regards to respectful treatment.

Or, well... decency.

No. Treating someone unequally based on their gender is sexism. That's it. That's the definition itself, and that is not making any argument about the good or bad of doing so. The personal moral ruling there of good or bad is irrelevant to that. You are confusing the two aspects again. Favoritism is just one of the ways that you can treat someone differently based on gender, not the only one, so you attempts to define sexism based on that just don't work.

In this case, you are saying that the sexism promoted by the quote in the OP is ok when done for a good reason. Because there is inequality, it therefore justified inequality in the opposite direction. This, however, does not prevent that behavior from being sexist, nor does it work like math where the two examples of sexism cancel each other out. All it does is create two elements of sexism instead of addressing the previous one. And you can argue that this sexism is justified or moral if you like, but when it comes to the definition, it doesn't care if it is moral or not.

--------

I agree it is immoral to treat women unequally.

I disagree that treating them unequally to counter existing "sexism" is equality.

Neither of those opinions change that treating women unequally is sexist.

As for your jug analogy, you do no you are making a "separate but equal" analogy there, which given the context of arguing equality, is, though I hate to use the term, literally "on the wrong side of history" when it comes to civil rights and human progress there. There is a reason it was abandoned in the past and it saddens me every time I see the concept pop back up with a fresh coat of paint.

Equality only comes from equal treatment. Dividing people and placing them on scales always ends up with someone's thumb weighing it down and the separation itself inherently makes them unequal. It divides people and forces tribalism, not solves problems. This is why I said one side was trying to tackle the core before, because I see pushing for equality over identity divisions how to actually solve problems.

Good, I'm glad we both agree that sexism is treating one gender differently to another.

Now we're just disagreeing on whether or not this constitutes unequal treatment. You think it does, believing it asks to treat women differently to the norm.

I think it doesn't, because it's simply holding people to treat women at the same level of respect they show men, i.e. decency.

Hence why I've been banging the drum of context so much - you're not necessarily saying anything wrong, it's just that, given the contexts, you're misapplying everything to make a ruling that this is benevolent sexism. When, given the contexts, it isn't, since it's... well, just asking people to be respectful instead of wankers.

Also the water-jug analogy was the best I could do, I probably could've clarified that with 'so I can fill my big 10 litre jug later' but ehhhhh, shit happens.

No, pointing out the definition of something fits within that definition does not reduce it at all. Nor is it commentary on the arguments going on, as those are all based on the morality of the recommended action of the quote in the OP. You are claiming that by me saying that "water is wet" I have reduced the points of everyone arguing about the ethical questions of wet t-shirt contests. This is untrue, as the only way that would be the case is if there was an inexorable tie between wetness and immorality.

Or, as I keep pointing out, you are confusing whether or not something is sexist with if it is moral or not when they are two separate things. And when it comes to arguing my position about the morality of it, I have already put forth my opinions there as being supportive of equality and opposing benevolent sexism to balance the scales, based on my desire for equality in treatment of people regardless of gender and in spite of claims that treating people different is equal.

What I called out, however, was someone saying that disagreement with the OP made them incapable of human decency, which did reduce the topic itself to a single test of their opinion on this topic to determine if people are decent or not. That is beyond simplification, that is purely moral reductionism.

Ehhhh, depends on the definition, how you interpret it and how you apply it. The problem is that you're applying the definition based on your own subjective interpretation (which, to be fair, we're all doing anyway) of the matter at hand, wherein it doesn't apply so easily, and reduces the broader issue to the narrow band of your perspective. And while I can't comment on the morality of wet t-shirt contests, it could be argued that there's an inexorable tie between disrespecting women and immorality...

And I haven't been questioning your personal stance on sexism, just your application of binaries to a complex situation. And while sexism and being moral (and being decent) are separate things, given how western culture functions they are also tied closely together - it's a hard thing to be both sexist AND moral, outside of certain subjective interpretations.

You are arguing that the hypotheticals I made up to demonstrate a point are assumptions that might not be true? What? They are hypotheticals, they aren't true to begin with.

As for the OP you ask why they brought up the topic, and then immediately make an assumption about their motivation. I assume they made the topic because it was a god source for one. What does that matter one way or the other though? I don't get what you are trying to argue here.

I... was drawing your hypothetical out further, to show the problem of making swift judgements off of a cursory glance. Sorry, didn't really specify that.

winkyemoji?

Alright, you are correct. It is not helping matter to encourage that notion of the split as though there is only the two sides.

I still argue the post I called out reduces the thread to agree with the quote in the op specifically about how to treat women (which is their position on the topic) or you have no human decency. And that such a stance, bemoaning or not, is terribly morally reductive (made worse by it being a short snarky potshot at a caricature of those who disagree with them, what with the "evil FEMONISS" stuff).

But my own statement was oversimplifying the thread and the usual devolving as well. And while not as egregious as reducing it to the moral absolutes of human decency determined by agreement with me on the quote from the OP, it was still discarding a lot of the nuance for the sake of complaining about the usual general tread of these sorts of threads where discussion is dominated by highly vocal opposing poles.

Ehhhh, to be fair to you, if you'd made the complaint now it'd certainly be more accurate...

*looks up* Yikes. At least this one lasted longer than the usual threads.

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
Nice humble brag. Feeling extra virtuous now?

Compared to people who sit around bitching, never doing anything, complaining when they don't have a man to hate and actively seeking to disrupt any help men get or even being allowed to talk about the issue?

Yeah, I do actually.

There's a good many abused people who simply can't come forwards due to the attitude you present. I'm more than happy to be working against that.

...the hell are you on about?[/quote]

altnameJag:

Hell, you didn't empathize with their abuse.

I wasn't aware you were a mind-reader. Congratulations on your new powers.

I'm not a mind reader, I can only read what you (didn't) put on the page.

altnameJag:

The Lunatic:

altnameJag:
Nice humble brag. Feeling extra virtuous now?

Compared to people who sit around bitching, never doing anything, complaining when they don't have a man to hate and actively seeking to disrupt any help men get or even being allowed to talk about the issue?

Yeah, I do actually.

There's a good many abused people who simply can't come forwards due to the attitude you present. I'm more than happy to be working against that.

...the hell are you on about?

altnameJag:

Hell, you didn't empathize with their abuse.

I wasn't aware you were a mind-reader. Congratulations on your new powers.

I'm not a mind reader, I can only read what you (didn't) put on the page.[/quote]

Classic alt right deflection tactic. Just scream about how men are the true victims. Even though, as a man who has suffered through quite a bit of depression and only made through it through a combination of support from my mother and *GASP* feminist friends. In other words, he is exactly the type of person I do NOT FUCKING WANT talking about the issues I have faced, because I struggle to see him as actually giving a shit about what I've been through and not just using my trauma as ammunition against people he doesn't like.

LIKE HE DID WHEN A FUCKING TEN YEAR OLD WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED!

Yes I am very fucking mad right now!

BeetleManiac:

Catnip1024:
He raped a child and is still part of the same Academy that Weinstein has been thrown out of.

I would argue that that is a totally legitimate reason to draw him into these comparisons.

It does illustrate the brokenness of the system and the hypocrisy of those in power. I'm not sure how that in any way contradicts Saelune's point that Fox News bringing a serial sexual predator back into the fold after his public disgrace is a really shitty thing to do and illustrative of the abusive power structure present in the company. The modern American right wing does have a serious problem with hypocrisy and very toxic ideas about human sexuality.

My point is that this is not an issue which is exclusive to a particular wing. The hypocrisy is across the board.

Can I marry you, Sir Knight? Yup, everything you wrote there is what I myself believe, but never so eloquently put.

As for the OP you ask why they brought up the topic, and then immediately make an assumption about their motivation. I assume they made the topic because it was a god source for one. What does that matter one way or the other though? I don't get what you are trying to argue here.

Remember I said a relative had shared the post? Yeah, that relative is someone I like and admire...but is what I would otherwise call an SJW. I didn't want to post my thoughts on the list of tips on Facebook and cause some sort of family squabble, so thought hey I could cause a discussion here on an anonymous forum, one of the few that at the time of posting I already had an account for (as in, I wouldn't have had to go through the rigmarole of setting up a new account).

...you're presuming it involves unequal treatment. Personally I don't find 'treat women as you do men' kinda advice very unequal.

The problem is that the box in the OP does NOT just say that. There's tips suggesting to refer to women by full job titles and accolades, which is something that I for one just don't do for anyone, man or woman.
There's also advice saying cross the road if its just you (a man) and a woman. I don't see how that's calling for equal treatment of women to men.
There's also the one about approaching the young boys in your life and presuming that they think the feminine is 'lesser-than' and several ways of fixing that. Notice there's no equivalent for approaching young girls and presuming they think the masculine is 'lesser-than' and several ways of fixing that.
Besides, as I pointed out in my OP, how I myself deal with men, and the article's author suggesting I treat women the same way, would result in me calling women all sorts of dirty names. Basically, the author is applying a very broad brush solution.

...the same as, the same as men. Specifically meant for women, but encouraging people to treat them the same as their male colleagues. That's the jist of it.

That's not JUST it. Please re-read the OP. What about the last tip? It says that if one is feeling uncomfortable at a talk about sexism ...to just sit down, shut up and don't say anything. Does the author advise women to do the same?

Unless you call your male colleagues 'sweety' and introduce them as 'The Lovely Bob johnson', I'm getting confused as to how you're drawing it out as unequal treatment.

Are men really typically referred to by full job titles and accolades? Does someone say "Here's John Doe, Executive Vice President of Marketing, B.A. Business Management, B.A. Marketing, M.A. Psychology"? Wow, what a mouthful!

but, frankly, if you are enraged or incensed at the idea of treating women equally,

I'm incensed at something that is ostensibly about treating women equally, but would, in real life, mean treating them differently.
To give the quickest example...I don't cross the road if it's just myself and a man. So in the interest of equality...why should I do so if it's just me and a woman?

then you're probably not a very decent person to begin with.

Yup, do this list of things or you're a bad person. What a robust feminist argument.

And failing to express the bog-standard shows of respect as outlined by the quoted OP means you're probably not a very decent person either, since as they say, they can apply to anyone.

The shows of respect the quoted OP assumes are given to men by default, when (at least in my life) they're not.

Good, I'm glad we both agree that sexism is treating one gender differently to another.

Okay, Wrex, do you agree that tips like the quoted OP's number 11 (cross the street) or number 9 (teach young boys the feminine is not lesser than) is sexism? Treating one gender differently to another?

Now we're just disagreeing on whether or not this constitutes unequal treatment.

By sheer definition, it does. We've got one gender treated a certain way, and then calls to treat another gender differently to the first gender (while ostensibly it's to treat them the same). Note how there are NO calls or tips for a woman to cross the street if it's just her and a man, or to teach young girls the masculine is not lesser than.

I think it doesn't, because it's simply holding people to treat women at the same level of respect they show men, i.e. decency.

As long as one ignores the tips where following them would quite literally involve treating women differently to men, where it presumes the boys/men in your life are broken in some way.

it's just that, given the contexts, you're misapplying everything to make a ruling that this is benevolent sexism. When, given the contexts, it isn't,

Please explain how the following
"When a woman is walking alone and you end up walking behind her- especially in dark or secluded areas- please slow down to increase the distance between you, or, better yet, cross the street. Literally go out of your way to help her feel that you're not following her."
is NOT benevolent sexism?

Also the water-jug analogy was the best I could do, I probably could've clarified that with 'so I can fill my big 10 litre jug later' but ehhhhh, shit happens.

I found the water jug analogy distasteful, since it reads like reducing people, humans with agency, to that of inanimate objects with no will of their own.

The problem is that you're applying the definition based on your own subjective interpretation (which, to be fair, we're all doing anyway)

So is the quoted author in the OP, except she implies very heavily that if one doesn't her tips, then one is an indecent male by some sort of objective standard, and you just wouldn't want now, would you?

- it's a hard thing to be both sexist AND moral, outside of certain subjective interpretations.

Please look at how in recent years, management positions are (more or less) being held only for women, or for people of a certain race. It's considered moral to bar positions to whites and/or males, to try and solve a perceived problem of sexism/racism. Take the BBC for example, https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/668866/katie-hopkins-creative-access-lbc-row

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here