Summations Only

Maybe you're just a cunt?- Oni

No, I disagree in the strongest possible terms. People can be racist or sexist (or any -ist) out of complete thoughtlessness. I think we all understand that, in fact we understand that it's more likely than people acting out of real racial or sexual malice. I think that's your implicit argument, as well (though I could be wrong) - that Elevator Guy was acting out of thoughtlessness, not misogyny.But I completely agree with that. Regardless, though, his dismissal of Rebecca Watson's stated individual desires and wishes because she was a woman was still sexist. So you keep saying, but again - who's asking you to be convinced that Elevator Guy "exhibited misogynistic thoughts"? Quote from the post where you were asked to believe that. And how would one "exhibit" a "thought"? I thought you said we had to be able to read minds to see thoughts.

Sure, but 500 posts in and you're still arguing with me, long after it's been made clear that you can't make the argument I've told you you'd have to make to convince me I'm wrong.So there must be some reason you're still here.

Sure, maybe, but you're a cunt, too. Did anybody hack a website you're on because of it?

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.

So then it's discrimination. Simple as that. What makes it discrimination on the basis of privilege that accrues according to sex and therefore sexism? That's what I still don't get. Well, I don't know. Is she refusing to promote men to the position of Vice-President of Bra and Tampon design?

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.

Not that I agree that this is a valid for of discussion (where you lay out some arbitrary line or argument that we are then suppsoe to meet or make in order to convince you) could you point to the post in question where you identified the argument required to convince you that you wrong?Let's forget the fact that I never intended to prove you "wrong", per se. Just to point out that you are using a definition so obscure and far removed from every day normal people usage as to render it meaningless.

We're only trying to convince you that his actions were sexist. If you really can't conceive of any way that they could have been without being misogynistic, and that his thoughts must have been misogynistic if his actions were, then I repeat my claim from before - it sounds like you're doing a pretty good job of convincing yourself that he "exhibited misogynistic thoughts". But again, how you categorize his thoughts are irrelevant to me.I'm only trying to convince you that he acted without regard to Watson's stated individual feelings and desires, out of privilege that accrued because he was a man and she was a woman. I don't care about any of the other irrelevancies you keep trying to raise.

What "man-hating boss in question" are we talking about, specifically? I'm not a lawyer. How would I know?

Right, but my position is that I'm not and you're wrong about that. I've already told you how I evaluate these models and therefore I've told you what it would take to convince me.What would it take to convince you that you were wrong, that my definition was hardly obscure or far removed from everyday, normal usage?

I just asked you where you did this. What post. Be specific. I guess you would have to change wikipedia and modify google search results. Oh, and change what people actually consider racism.edit:
Tell you what,. All you have to do in order for me to concede my point is find ONE actual person that agrees with you in full. You'll notice that ALL of your opponents agree in full and we didn't even have to "find" one another. We just agree because we are real people who know what racism is and how the word is used in real life.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

If you insist, but I've already found two: Nol A. Cazenave and Darlene Alvarez Maddern, sociologists at the University of Connecticut.So you're convinced, right?