Summations Only

You have made the claim here that a "significant number" of women consider objectification and rape to be a significant problem at atheist/skeptic conferences.I have asked you numerous times if you can support this statement. Obviously you are unable to and are now trying to change the subject.So lets move on. I said: I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick."misogynistic thoughts" was a phrase used by RW hence the "quotation marks" Given that you have effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men I'm intrigued to see how an act of sexism can be anything other than misogynistic.Could you give an example of an act of sexism that isn't misogynistic?

Well you have certainly opened a can of shit for yourself by defining discrimination and various isms the way that you have.But I'll stick to the issue of a man "disregarding the individual desires and wishes" of a woman as the qualifying criteria for an act as sexist.Sexism is a serious problem in the world. All around the world women are being denied opportunities and mistreated for no other reason than their sex. It’s a serious issue and deserves to be taken seriously.However it also needs to be recognised that people act selfishly or with little regard for the wishes of others for reasons that have nothing to do with any ‘ism’. I’ve been shitty and selfish to people (both male and female) at times. So have you. So has everyone. And no doubt we will be again at some point. Because humans are prone to being selfish and inconsiderate at times. Some people are habitually selfish and shitty to others. These people can be accurately described as ‘assholes’.So what’s my point here? I’ll tell you.It trivialises the problem of sexism to definitionally classify as you are doing any occasion where one person who happens to be a man disregards the individual desires and wishes of another person who happens to be a woman. People of both sexes go around disregarding the individual desires and wishes of others all the time rather indiscriminately.You are trivialising the problem of sexism in the world by labelling the sort of regular and insignificant acts of selfishness and inconsiderateness that we all commit at times as sexist simply because in the case in question the person being a selfish dick happens to be a man and the person adversely affected happens to be a woman.I have sometimes have bad days and disregard the individual desires and wishes of my wife (going to the pub, getting drunk, coming home late etc. etc.). This is not because I am a sexist. It’s because I am an asshole.

Are you citing the much-discussed elevator incident as an act of sexism that isn't misogynistic?

If an act of sexism perpetrated by a woman towards a man is misandrist then an act of sexism perpetrated by a man towards a woman is misogynistic isn't it?You have made it very clear that you consider the elevator incident in question to be an act of sexism perpetrated by elevator-guy. If Rebecca Watson is applying the same definitions and thinking that you are here then I genuinely don't see how you or she can be classifying elevator guy's actions, and the thinking that lay behind these actions, as anything other than misogynistic.

Then is it OK if I ask you to clarify a very specific point of confusion I am having with it? To qualify as sexist (according to your argument) does the privilege in question have to be gender privilege (rather than any other form of privilege)?If so - Can you provide a real-life example where a a woman has gender privilege specifically over a man (rather than being in possession of other forms of privilege such as socio-economic-privilege)?Because as I understand your argument a situation such as a female boss demeaning or mistreating a male employee because she considers men inferior to women wouldn't qualify as sexist because her privilege is professional-positional rather than sexual.Is this correct?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well this is exactly why I previously said that you had: "effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men".Do you agree with this or do you consider my conclusion to be some sort of misrepresentation?No matter how rare it may or may not be be in practise you seem to have defined your way into a situation where a person behaving in a way that would very definitely legally qualify as sexual discrimination (and which all of the people you are arguing with here would recognise and classify as sexist) fails to qualify as sexual discrimination simply because the perpetrator happens to be a woman.And it is this sort of broad brush appraoch to applying 'privelige' that is the catalyst for the strong reaction you have received here. It's because your position is seen as leading to obvious absurdities such as a man-hating-boss mistreating male subordinates because of her anti-male prejudice not qualifying as sexual discrimination or sexism when by any sane definition it must (regardless of how rare such a situation may or may not be).

No. I'm not saying you have eliminated some sort of Star trek alternate universe as a theoretical possibility. I'm saying that because you've told me that that in the real world men are the priveiged gender combined with your insistence that sexism can only be exhibited by the privilieged gender, that in any real-world practical sense you have "effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men". But the a man-hating-boss mistreating male subordinates because of her anti-male prejudice doesn't qualify as sexual discrimination or sexism by the terms of your argument does it?And that is why everybody else here thinks your position is just obviously silly. Because legally it would qualify as sexual discrimination and any person with a sensible approach to these matters would agree with this legal conclusion (regardless of how rare such a situation may or may not be).

Thoughts are required for prejudice. Isms are ultimately about prejudice. Dude I've made it abundantly clear that I remain entirely unconvinced that elevator guy was exhibiting "misogynistic thoughts" or being sexist rather than being a bit of a dick. Summed up by Message 372So don't start misrepresenting me now will ya....

You haven't given a real-world example of a woman being sexist that I can find. Can you repeat it if you have or provide one if you haven't? And this is why everyone thinks your bonkers. Let me try and explain. Because she is prejudiced against them on the basis of sex and is using her positional-privilege to act upon her prejudices and mistreat them because they are male.The basis of the mistreatment is sex. Thus it is sexual discrimination. The fact that the power to enact her prejudiced and discriminatory wishes is derived from a different sort of privilege doesn't change this. Do you agree that legally what she is doing would qualify as sexual discrimination? Or not?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well as I have already said if Rebecca Watson is applying the same definitions and thinking that you are here then I genuinely don't see how you or she can be classifying elevator guy's actions, and the thinking that lay behind these actions, as anything other than misogynistic.Can you provide an example of a man being sexist that didn't require any misogynistic thought processes (conscious or subconscious) at all? Well you have already said you think he was being sexist. Is the elevator incident an example (in your view) of non-misogynistic sexism?

You haven't given a real-world example of a woman being sexist that I can find. Can you repeat it if you have or provide one if you haven't? It's discrimination and mistreatment based on their sex and her prejudice against that sex. This makes it sexual discrimination. No. And your need to evade the question in that way says a lot.The a man-hating-boss in question is mistreating male subordinates because of her anti-male prejudice. Giving them the worst shifts, verbally abusing them, publicly demeaning them, making offensive comments about their appearance and sexuality.Do you agree that legally what she is doing would qualify as sexual discrimination?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You still haven't given any present-day-real-world example of a woman being sexist. Nor will you be able to without completely contradicting yourself. This is because you have to-all-practical-intents-and-purposesd effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men. You have effectively adopted the following stance:

quote:

---

Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

---

Feminism 101 Blog (one of the ones you told me to read I believe)Now you may not have realised that this was the logical consequence of your position. Apparently this was not your intended outcome.But it isn't a misrepresentation for me to say that you have "effectively defined sexism as something which can only be experienced by women and exhibited by men" just because you have failed to understand the consequences of your own arguments.But feel free to prove me wrong by providing a present-day-real-world example of a woman being sexist that meets all your definitions. If you say you are not concerned with whether or not "misogynic thoughts" were an aspect of the whole elevatorgate affair then I guess I believe you. But Rebecca Watson obviously is concerned with "misogynic thoughts" with regard to the incident and the reaction to it because it was she rather than me that raised the issue of "misogynic thought".

The one in the scenario I put forward. Well you could look up the discrimination laws in the US or UK and see if they conform to your definitions.Or you could ask a legal professional such as a member of the HR department at work.I did both and in both cases the woman in my example would clearly have been committing sexual discrimination. Did you just concede that your entire argument regarding privilege and discrimination doesn't apply to laws regarding discrimination?And you wonder why people are lining up to tell you just how wrong you so obviously are here!!!!!!!!

Yes. Of course it does.And Crash's position is reaching new levels of absurdity as he tries to take on board your real life example. So privilege is essential to any notion of discrimination but is out of scope when legally establishing what is and isn't discrimination.Mad.

You have spent this entire thread insisting that privilege is absolutely key to identifying discrimination.Yet you have now conceded that the our accepted and evidence based method of identifying whether or not discrimination has taken place (i.e. the application of discrimination laws) operate without any recourse to the notion of privilege at all (because it is "outside of scope") Yet we have these (apparently) paradoxical things called 'discrimination laws' that make no reference to privilege.(**BOOM**)That was the sound of your argument meeting reality and blowing up in your face upon impact.