Well when you put it like that, completely and utterly stripped of it's context and nuance, then you know, you are right, it is pretty sexist.
No, it is just definably sexist. There is no scale, it is simply a binary statement. See, I think that's part of the issue, you see the description "this is sexist" and mentally jump to idea it is moralizing in saying it is good or bad, and that it is based on some sort of scaling effect where something can be more or less sexist. My intent here was one of a binary state. It meets the definition, and thus is defined as such. There is no "pretty" sexist as a relative notion that can vary compared to other things, which in turn would also tie to your notion of morality based on less sexist = more moral. My point was that it simply was sexist separate of a moral ruling about it being sexist. I tied my moral judgement to the methods and tactics used in the argument instead.
But then there's the context and nuance and...
And you ignore my point in doing so to substitute the point I made for one based on a sliding scale, thus ignoring it entirely in using a definition itself.
Also, it seems like you are trying to argue that context and nuance affect the binary statement I was making, without providing the context or nuance to make that case. I am more than happy to look at it more closely to determine if it is somehow not sexist to treat women differently, but it is probably going to be a hard sell there.
...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.
I want to treat women equally Wrex. That is why I do not like the quote in the OP, as they want to treat women differently specifically because they are women. And that is why I called it sexist, because it is, as you even admit above.
What the OP quoted does not want to treat women equally. That is why it is defined as sexist.
If you wish to argue that the sexist behavior encouraged in the quote is moral, that is fine, but that is a separate thing than if it is sexist.
...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.
...what a fascinatingly sterile approach to the approach of basic human decency.
Not really sterile.
I don't think someone disagreeing with me about the quote in the OP makes them not decent human beings. I instead look at how they act and behave in the name of their belief, and what their motivation and support of that belief is to make my judgements.
It is not a sterile examination, just not a tribalism-driven one. Someone's opinion on an issue doesn't make them a good or bad person, how they behave and respond does. One's actions determine's one's character, and the actions done in the name of a belief reveal more about someone's character than simply the belief itself.
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.
Like, that's literally what the person OP is quoting is asking for, to treat women with equality
That is false.
The person the OP quoted is not asking for equality. They are asking for specific behavior towards women that is different from behavior towards men.
The OP themselves seems to oppose that, so I have no qualms with them, just the person they quoted who made suggestions toward men on how to behave toward women.
...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.
Again, that is false.
They are asking for women to be treated differently, given special consideration, and judged, aided, supported, and behaved around based on their gender.
That is not treating them equally.
You are arguing that treating women differently as the person quoted suggests is a good thing.
You seem like you are arguing that sexism is a good thing here and are claiming that not being sexist (not supporting treating women differently based on heir gender) makes you not a decent person.
There is two aspects here.
Do you want to treat women equally?
Is it more moral to treat a woman unequally as the quote proposes?
...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.
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.
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 am not reducing the judgment of morality based on disagreement, which was the point of my using that term in response to someone who was making such a moral claim with regard to being a decent human being. Disagreeing with my opinion is not the criteria of a decent human being. Pointing out a trend among the posters where one group of them is supporting treating women differently because they are women and the other opposes that notion and instead seems to want to address the core problem is also not making a moral statement about them because of their opinion on the issue (isn't making one at all at the surface, but I'll grant that the tone is disapproving of the group supporting the benevolent sexist stance, though not because of that stance itself)
Furthermore, your own personal moralizing about sexism being good when done benevolently as the person quoted by the OP supports are irrelevant. I am sorry you see my statement as moralizing against those being sexist in calling for treating women differently, that was not source of my disapproval.
...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.
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.
That source in my post was the lack of actually addressing the problem, with the supported sexist behavior of treating women differently being condemned only because it distracted and avoided actually solving the problem and was part of, as I said in that reply, devolving the discussion.
Think of it like this. If you are scratching your ass beside a burning building and I say "one side is scratching their ass, and the other side is actually trying to put the fire out", my problem is not with the fact you are scratching your ass. I am not moralizing your scratching of your ass. I am disapproving that you do it instead of actually trying to put the fire out. My moralizing extends as far as "you aren't helping fix this" or perhaps "you are actively harming attempts to fix this".
Compare that to the "if you don't agree you are not a decent person" which I called out for 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.
If you thought I was incapable of snark, I honestly don't know where you got that idea. Though I am less likely to sprinkle it in amid the points and arguments than some, I will still do so. Snark for the sake of itself is simply worthless though, and less than worthless when used in place of or in excuse for arguments and points. Perhaps that was the confusion, the large amount of times I have to call out when there is nothing but snark in a reply and it is nothing more than an ad hom instead of just a playful barbed comment amid an actual point. I suppose having to play school teacher and remind folks that snark is not a substitute for an actual argument does force me to be a lot more humorless than I would like. Snark is a sometimes food, like cookies. Some people just like to gorge on cookies.
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...)
A) I assumed you snipped it with intention, not out of misunderstanding.
B) I assume your motives based on what is presented, and what was missing.
But in fairness, I will readily admit those are assumptions that are pretty irrelevant to the overall. It is certainly not kind toward you though, and since you did seem to want to pull back from the aggressive tone, I will try as well.
Pro-tip: don't compose long-ass posts when you've only got 10 minutes to catch a train. Waaaay easier to read over what you've written and realize you might've come out of the gate swinging by accident.
My complaint was toward the devolving itself of these sorts of threads between the posters that support the notion of sexism in the name of benevolence being good because it supports women to treat them differently (several doing so while morally condemning those who disagree no less), and those who disagree with that idea who have been arguing the topic closer toward the core problems and toward actual solutions to the core problems. This was not limited to this thread, but the usual trend itself for threads on this topic.
My judgement was towards those using disagreement on the thread as a means to determine if someone is a decent person or not, judging them based entirely on if they agree and reducing the moral complexity of the issue into a single question of "do you agree with me" as if they were arbiters of human decency.
I get the idea you are trying to get across. But you are mistaken in the comparison.
On one side, you have me complaining about the usual devolving nature of these threads into sides because of the trend of specific posters.
On the other you have me calling out someone saying that disagreeing with them means they aren't decent human beings.
...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