I would have appreciated it if you'd actually responded to my points rather than just making a vague soap box response. But seeing the sexist and racist rhetoric you've been using an honest discussion with you may not be viable. I'll keep trying though.
crypticracer said:
The reason many like to use the Anita versions of sexism is because their opponents. Most of you. Use terms like sexism and racism simply to further devalue the arguments of minority groups.
You mean because people call out sexism and racism when it is happening to people who aren't minorities too? Do you think a white guy not getting hired because he is male or white is OK because he happened to be born both of those things? Do you honestly think that someone in the power to hire a male who doesn't because they are male isn't showing a system in which power+prejudice is being executed? Clearly the government pursues cases of sexism and racism against minorities and women but has historically been pretty lax on discrimination against whites and males. So wouldn't that imply an institutional prejudice that would favor Anita more than males? That's not even bringing up other institutional preferences like divorce and custody hearings or even how men face longer sentencing than females for committing the same crime. Now, keep in mind, I understand the reason for this preferential treatment is because of a tradition of white males having authority and that this is to help level the playing field. Something absolutely needed to be done. But you have to understand that in practice, this absolutely can and is being used against people because of how they were born rather than to help people regardless of what they were born as. What does a child have to do with the sins of his ancestors? Why would it be OK to give anything less than an equal opportunity to a white boy born ten years ago because society didn't really start growing up until the 60's? Can you explain why he should be held accountable? I grew up in a world where men and women of all races were in the same place and were equal. Where we didn't even consider seeing a black kid as different because we'd never been taught to and so it wouldn't even occur to me to tell my parents that the kid I was bringing home was black because they wouldn't care. I grew up in a world where the teachers made sure that girls knew they could do everything that boys could do and we saw them competing with us in races and sports and everything else. I literally grew up in a world where the racists and the bigots were the villains in my media. They were the evil nut jobs that had to be stopped.
So I've got to think that if that was my childhood, what about younger kids? Wouldn't they be even less conscious of race or gender or even wealth?
The world has changed. It isn't your grandfather's world and really isn't even your parent's world anymore and might not be yours depending on your age. It is our world and that world is multi-cultural and anti-prejudice. You should be ashamed of supporting prejudice in any form against any group.
But you've got to answer this, why is pushing for equality and anti-discrimination for women mutually exclusive for pushing for equality and anti-discrimination for men too? Why are we automatically seen as opponents of females if we are pushing for equality on both sides of the fence? I think you're discriminating, you are being prejudiced here and her definition helps prevent you from being called a sexist or a racist because of those acrobatic defining of terms. What's sad is that you're fighting against the wrong people if you believe in equality. You need to be fighting against the people who don't believe that sexism is happening to women or needs to be stopped. Not the people who simply think sexism is a major problem that needs to get stopped. We are literally with you in the fight against inequality and somehow you are deciding we can't be if we care about equality for all groups. That's pretty bad and you should give that some serious thought.
To those who agree with OP and disagree with "power + prejudice" you should understand that the primary principle in understanding this definition is to prevent people who are part of an oppressor group from ignoring their association with the oppressor group and the associated privileges.
Part of an oppressor group? We are oppressors because we were born male or born white? God forbid Anita ever claim racism being enacted against her since she was born white and is therefor part of the oppressor group. That would be just as prejudiced as thinking of a black person as part of the "murderer group" just because the black population accounts for 72.5% of homicides.
You can't do that, not ethically. You have to evaluate people based on their own actions and their own efforts. People are not guilty by association. That is pivotal to justice in this country and central to anti-discrimination. You are basically explaining to us what their motives are and that they are racist. They don't want us to be able to use the term sexist or racist because we were born male or white. That's them being sexist (classically defined). They are literally just trying to disenfranchise us on the basis of race or gender. This is text book prejudice.
How in the world are you not seeing this as racist and sexist rhetoric. I am not responsible for other people. I do not support racism or sexism and I actively support equality. If you think I'm part of the "oppressor" just because I was born a certain way then shame on you. That kind of rhetoric will only harm the cause of equality. You don't achieve equality by supporting inequality.
Have you considered that in order to be part of the "oppressor group" that you first and foremost have to oppress? Have you forgotten so quickly that the definition of sexism that Anita used is Power+Prejudice and if either of those are absent then you aren't sexist by her standards? I don't have power and I don't give a fuck what you look like or where your genitals reside. On the macro institutional level I have already explained that minorities and women have significant power and also support from many males who can make a difference. This is how things like affirmative action, the emancipation proclamation, the 14th, 15th, and 19th amendments, and any other pro-equality things are in place. Us humans working together to stop the oppressors.
This anti-man rhetoric is sickeningly sexist. We are not oppressors merely because we are men. I acknowledge fully that white males still hold the majority of power. Seeing as around 72.4% of the nation identifies as white (64% if you don't regard white hispanics like Cameron Diaz as being part of the white population you deem oppressive), I'm not shocked that they'd be the most represented. As far as the "males" side of that equation where congress is concerned, that is a problem and it has been improving nearly every election cycle as more women continue to get elected. They've increased 192% from 1991 to 2012. This past election alone saw 6 more women elected to congress and 5 less men elected. Regardless though, I'll remind you that more women vote in elections than men. Barring rigged elections, those men are elected only because women allow it.
So at what point are we going to start acknowledging that women do have meaningful power and are increasing in power? That the system is largely fixed and is correctly adjusting with time?