You only appear to have read point #1 of my response to Zeconte and stopped, maybe even at the first sentence without looking any further. Had you actually bothered to read point #2 you would have seen me moving on to discuss why Anita's actual statement is still wrong and still sexist even when accepting the meaning she is trying to use.
crypticracer said:
Um no. There is no authorative source on the meaning of words in America. Dictionaries use and add definitions as they are being used. They do not create definitions.
There are multiple sources that are deemed as academically accepted dictionaries that define the meaning of words. The blog of an Asian Studies major is not one of them yet that is the one that Anita cited for why she was defining the term in that way. I understand that some feminists have attempted to redefine and miss-use the term sexism to further their own narrative. I consider this action to be a travesty. An attempt to rob individuals who have suffered at the hand sexism from being part of the discussion of sexism purely because they are male.
Understand this, them attempting to redefine sexism as requiring the power to cause harm with the prejudice isn't in and of itself purely unreasonable. It's that Anita is using this definition to say that sexism (prejudice + power) cannot happen to men, that it does not exist, because society is largely controlled by men. This both trivializes the power and influence in society that real women have in society as well as bearing implications that a man facing the same sexism that a woman faces is not as bad. That a man not getting a job because he is male isn't as bad as a female not getting a job because she is female. Both are sexist. Both are prejudice + power being carried out and it is ridiculous of Anita to claim that one isn't but the other is just because one is a man.
Additionally, because sexism does have a commonly accepted and defined meaning outside of their personal sphere, trying to create a definition in which men cannot be affected by the term "sexism" actually has meanings outside of just what these people may be trying to convey. It would be like males trying to redefine something like rape to be male specific in a way that it wouldn't apply to women leaving women to have to call the action "sexual assault". That would be incredibly poorly received and anyone trying to do so would be seen as scum. Why is it acceptable when the same sort of thing happens to victims of sexism just because they're male?
How the word is used decides what it means.
How a word is commonly defined decides what the word means. Dictionaries are sources that collect and define the commonly used words.
If I tell you that the unicorn is a grand and mysterious place and you look at me confused, just because I tell you that I consider the word "unicorn" as synonymous with the word "Universe" doesn't make my usage of it correct. It still has meaning to people and me using it improperly doesn't change that and may have adverse implications when said to people who don't define the word the way I do.
You DON'T get to make up what she meant just because you hate her.
Two things here:
1. I'm not making up what she meant. I am addressing what she meant and criticizing the implications of it. You would know that if you'd bothered to read the post I made before only responding to the first sentence of my points. As to the part you are complaining about, I am also criticizing the attempt to redefine a commonly defined term in a way that robs victims of sexism from even being able to define it as such.
2. I don't hate Anita Sarkeesian. I do not wish her ill. I don't even want her to shut up. I appreciate the conversations her controversy sparks and want women to be able to enjoy video games and to be part of the video game creation process. I want stronger female characters and to make writing in gaming better. Whether she is genuine or not in her work I am grateful that this has become an issue to discuss. What I do want to be able to do is have an open and intellectual conversation about a topic she brought up. If you assumed that I somehow hate her then the guilt for that sort of bias is on your hands, not mine. I think some of her comments are sexist but this is the first time I've seen where she's far crossed the line. But there are very few people I would ever consider worthy of hatred and those are mostly murders and people who would harm children. Anita isn't even close. She says really sexist things from time to time and has espoused some seriously poor arguments that are worthy of criticism. But any hate she has received and particularly any actual harassment (only saying actual because she has called criticism harassment which isn't true) are entirely unwarranted in my book.
because she says things you make up.
No, I have explained explicitly two things in this thread. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider reading the following points and evaluate both of them in their entirety. This time, so that you don't get caught up in the first sentence of my point on semantics I'll move that to number 2 and bring my criticism of what Anita actually meant up to number 1.
1. Even if we entirely accept her definition that you are defending, there are multiple problems:
A.
I would debate against the notion that women don't have significant power or control at the higher social and government level. Not only do we see the likes of Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kaganm and Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the highest echelons of government, but we regularly see laws in clear support of equality for people of all races and genders being written into law through the efforts of both these female leaders and male leaders who support their cause. It isn't enough just for men to be in power for sexism against females to be the norm. The males who are in charge also themselves have to be sexist. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of men support equality with their votes and words. Regardless of what people believe in private, any step of sexism or racism is generally met with public outrage and is generally considered political suicide. Society itself is on the side of equality by a fair margin. As best as I can tell, the only thing that seems to be lagging is equality in marriage which again, the powers that be, are wading into it and overturning policies that were voted into law. So what area is she talking about that women haven't gained power in yet? Does she require that women be exactly 50% in control or higher before any sexism+power can take place? If it is merely as defined, then any power in the system allows room for sexism and women clearly have that and are only getting more and more in power every day (and good for that, let's please not forget that I am personally very pro-equality. My being here is because Anita is being anti-equality by what she said. She is being sexist.).
B.
Males absolutely reinforce sexism against other males too. Society itself which women do affect greatly does reinforce sexism against other males too. She is trivializing and dismissing the sort of extreme sexism we can absolutely face and that's unethical of her to do.
C.
On the more macro level of power+prejudice, some women do have power and some men genuinely have no power in ways that should meet the term's requirements in the way Anita is using it. Let's think about the extremes here. Is a female CEO capable of being sexist (Anita's Definition) towards men? She certainly has power, if she is prejudiced against males and let's that bleed into the areas she has control over then how wouldn't that meet the definition. How about a homeless man on the street? Is he capable of being sexist (Anita's Definition)? Is she claiming that the homeless man on the street has power and is privileged just because he was born a man? If so, that's her being sexist (actual real definition of sexism).
2. The article she (Anita Sarkeesian: https://twitter.com/femfreq/status/533768948185972736) linked in defense of why she believes a non-standard definition of the term is not Merriam Webster. It is not an authoritative source in defining terms. It is apparently written by a blogger named Andrea Rubenstein who went by the name of Tekanji online. She seems to have retired from writing but has also recently made two posts this year (one to Intel for removing their ads). While the other work I've seen Tekanji write is eloquent and intellectual, she is not in charge of defining terms. She does not get to take existing terms with pre-existing social connotations and decide that the way everyone uses them don't fit her own personal narrative and so she thinks it should mean "X". She has a BA in Asian Area Studies, studied Japanese, and as of 2008 had just finished 4 years in computer programming (the article Anita linked was in 2007).
Now, while she is an excellent writer and I might really enjoy her work (if I could find any games she's written on), she is not any kind of actual definition authority or scholar in the area of feminism. She cares about feminism and makes clear points in my opinion, but this is some person who basically decided that from now on the word "Universe" will be replaced with "Unicorn" because they like that more but here it's because the term change suits her agenda of being able to make sexist comments towards men without being called a sexist.
She also distinguishes between gender based prejudice and sexism. Implying that she is also trying to change the traditional meaning of the term sexism. That a woman can commit an act of "gender based prejudice" but because she's doing it to men then it's not sexism because men are privileged by the system in Anita's eyes. In a way, this is victim blaming. "Oh, she treated you poorly because you're a man? Well of course she did, you're a man. That's not sexism." That's simply incoherently offensive and should not be defended by anyone supporting equality.
And I'm sure you're a delightful person when you're not all up in arms. You could, instead of resorting to insults, calm down and try to have an honest non-confrontational discussion with me and see whether or not I'm some kind of hate monger-er bent on Anita's silence or some such strawman. Or if I really just care about equality and consider the sort of rhetoric she used and the argument she espoused to be sexist and counter-productive in the pursuit of said equality.
Maybe we could both grow from an adult conversation and critical thinking by working together here, eh?
(I did not link those saying they were authoritive. I linkedthem to show Feminists who do use that definition and how they define it to help others understand what Anita meant. But since most people have been making up what she's saying since she first appeared, it's pointless. Keep fighting people for saying things they didn't, but don't pretend your actually doing anything.)
*I wasn't responding to you linking feminism101. I was responding to Anita linking to that blog as to why she said what she said. You two just happened to link to the same place so perhaps that's why you thought I was responding to you specifically.
