Summations Only

Yes, because she had told him.

He's objectifying. When women are objectified by men, it's sexist. I don't understand how it can be unclear, as it's been explained at least four times, now. Can you elaborate on the nature of your lack of understanding? I keep asking you that and you keep repeating that "it's not clear." Well, ok, but in what way is it not clear? Which words do you require definitions for? What concepts are you unfamiliar with?I can't help you understand if you're not willing to explain the problem. The ones where a privileged gender do it to an unprivileged gender are the ones that are sexist. Similarly, the ones where a privileged race does it to an unprivileged race are the ones that are racist, the ones where a privileged religion does it to an unprivileged religion are religious discrimination, etc. In general, when members of a privileged category completely disregard the individual desires and wishes of members of the unprivileged category, that's discriminatory to the members of the unprivileged category. When the discrimination happens along racial lines, it's called "racist." When it happens along gender lines, it's called "sexist."So what's the issue, here? The concept of privilege? We can unpack that, if you like. In situations where "being a selfish dick" seems to break such that it's usually men being selfish dicks to women, and not so much men to men, women to women, or women to men, we should suspect sexism. I'm always surprised by the people who don't see this as immediately obvious.

What's the source of your quote "misogynistic thoughts", specifically?

Well, no. Not of "others." Of unprivileged others. Almost by definition the privileged don't usually get their individual desires and wishes completely disregarded. That's what the privilege is. What do you mean, "why"? Because that's probably what has happened, is why.

If, in a situation where blacks were privileged and whites were unprivileged, a black person discriminated against a white person, yes, that would be racism.

To refer to Elevator Guy. You quoted Watson referring to a different person as "parroting... misogynistic thought" in reference to a false accusation that what Watson was objecting to was having been found sexually attractive by someone. Did you think that in doing so, you had somehow contradicted me? As I said, you quoted... somebody... as suggesting that Elevator Guy had been

quote:

---

exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts"

---

I'm asking you for the source of your quote. Who do you believe has tried to convince you that Elevator Guy had "misogynistic thoughts"? When you say that you remain "entirely unconvinced" that he did, in what is that reference to? You're responding, apparently, to a number of arguments that I can't find in this thread.Nobody's used "misogynist" to refer to the Elevator Guy except for Roxrkool, as I said. It's not anybody's contention that he "exhibited 'misogynistic thoughts.'" I just provided two such sources. What's the issue, here?

Since always. What a stupid question. What did you think "racism" meant. I don't see how that's discriminating, exactly. It's evocative of a stereotype that doesn't apply to Rwandans. The "fried chicken and watermelon" stereotype is about southern American black people. In order for me to be racist to the king of Rwanda, I'd have to be able to discriminate against him by virtue of privilege I had that he lacked. Being white in a culture where whites have privilege would be such a privilege. I never said that it wasn't. Racism is about privilege and the way it breaks down according to race.

Yes. Does any of that seem inaccurate, or inconsistent with observation? Inconsistent with your own decision to self-censor your first remark but not your second? Isn't the reaction to a white man using the n-word towards a black man much, much greater than the reaction to a black man using the "c-word" towards a white man? Wouldn't everyone you know basically laugh off the second (even as the target of the remark!) but get extremely angry about the first (even if they heard about it third-hand)?Why did you think that was, exactly, if not for the fact that the first is racist but the second isn't? How can it have nothing to do with privilege, when without the difference in privilege, discrimination isn't even possible?

Well, that can't be right. If I find out you're a white person, and I judge that your skin will not, without exposure to sunlight, produce much melanin, would that be racist? Obviously some judgements based on race - for instance, someone's race! - can't be racially discriminatory. Yes, it is. I'm sorry but that's just nonsense. There's no coherent explication of racism, sexism, or other forms of discrimination without the notion of privilege. For instance, here's the UCLA School of Public Affairs explaining the field of Critical Race Theory:

quote:

---

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained [sic] in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.[3]

---

There can be no discrimination without privilege. The notion of privilege is central to identifying what is discrimination and what is not.

No, they're substantially less racist, specifically because of privilege, and the different reaction our society has to one vs the other is proof of that. But that's privilege! Why on Earth do you think there's no privilege in that example? It's full of privilege differential. The privilege of an older adult over a younger one. The privilege of a parent over their adult child. The privilege of a man over a woman. And the privilege of a person of Asian descent over a person of African descent.It's crammed with privilege, which is why it's racist.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Yes, for instance, as a result of the privilege afforded, in the black community, to those individuals who have light skin compared to those who have dark skin. Once that was known as the "paper bag test"; if your skin was a lighter shade of brown than a paper bag, you were afforded the privilege of being considered "light-skinned":

quote:

---

There is, too, a curious color dynamic that sadly persists in our culture. In fact, New Orleans invented the brown paper bag party usually at a gathering in a home where anyone darker than the bag attached to the door was denied entrance. The brown bag criterion survives as a metaphor for how the black cultural elite quite literally establishes caste along color lines within black life. On my many trips to New Orleans, whether to lecture at one of its universities or colleges, to preach from one of its pulpits, or to speak at an empowerment seminar during the annual Essence Music Festival, I have observed color politics at work among black folk. The cruel color code has to be defeated by our love for one another. -- Michael Eric Dyson, excerpt from Come Hell or High Water.

---

In other words, privilege. Class privilege, probably. My guess, anyway. I never said that it is only ever perpetuated by white people. Where do you think I said that? The point is that racism is only that which occurs because a privileged race discriminates against a less privileged one. When a less privileged race "discriminates" against a more privileged one, it's not really racist because it can't really be racial discrimination. It's like how "Black History Month" doesn't discriminate against white people, but "White History Month", if it existed, would discriminate against everybody else.I'm surprised, I guess, that anybody who lives in the real world is surprised by this. Isn't this how it works? Does any part of this seem unfamiliar? Didn't you all notice that we have Black History Month but not White History Month, and why? Jesus, why on Earth did you think that was?

Yes. Racial privilege. And the difference in privilege thereof. Why do you think there even is discrimination associated with race, Hooah, but not with (for instance) shoe size?It's because privilege broadly accrues more to members of some races than among others, but there are no privileges associated with shoe size (beyond, I suppose, shoe manufacturers making shoes in your size.)Man, things must be all kinds of mysterious to you, if you don't know how to think about privilege. Like you have no fucking idea why there's a BET, but not a WET.

You didn't. I did. I was giving you an example of what you were talking about - racism within black communities. No, there's privilege in not being a poor Mexican. Yes, because of the privilege. Not because of the whiteness qua whiteness, but the whiteness qua privilege. In an alternate Earth, where it was more privileged to be black than to be white, if a black person discriminated against a white person, that would be racism. Here it's not, because the privilege situation is reversed. In a yet alternate-alternate Earth, where no privilege accrued to anyone because of their race, nothing would be racist, in the same way that nothing in our world is "shoe-size-ist" because no privilege accrues according to your shoe size.I just can't understand, Hooah, how you possibly make sense of when discrimination happens and when it doesn't without some notion of privilege. It's central to the very idea of "discrimination." Of course it wouldn't. Do you genuinely know even a single white person who would be upset by that? Do you know why that is? Because it's not racist. Do you know why so-called "anti-white racism" just isn't something that people take seriously? Because it's almost impossible for it to happen. It requires such a bizzarre and unlikely turn of events for any white person to be the one who is less privileged because of his race that it's just not something anybody cares about.Did you just not notice any of that? That nobody gives a shit when you try to complain about "racism" against white people? And you're calling me out of touch with reality?

Yes. Aka "discrimination that happens because of racial privilege." Asians are afforded more racial privilege than black people, yes. That seems relatively obvious. Or MTV, for that matter. Do you understand the point?

The fact that you're asking implies that you know that neither Watson nor I have yet said that it was, thus proving my contention that we're talking about things Watson did not say as though she's said them.Can we please restrict the discussion to what people have actually said, please?