That's all there is to it.Andrey Sirotin said:Most of us do not agree with her definition because it absolves women of any responsibility for sexist acts that should be reprehensible when they are committed by either gender.
When your movement requires making special exceptions for the most elementary definitions of words to sound more important, it's time to leave that movement in the dust.
It's farcical to even insinuate you're about "equality" when your own definition DELIBERATELY CREATES AN INEQUALITY.
And no number of strawmen, or invocations of "institutionalized" will change that.
The definition is stupid because discrimination isn't just a binary state applied to an entire demographic.
It occurs at many levels (gender, race, age, criminal background, political background, wealth) and in many different contexts; most of which intersect each other in different times and places.
Want to fix discrimination at its source? Don't discriminate.
Meaning: Don't try to make special exceptions to literary definitions.
EDIT:
No, it's a hard pill to swallow because it's completely fucking stupid.brtt150 said:Women can be prejudiced against men left and right if they want to. But they can't be sexist. I know that's a hard pill for some to swallow.
I have no idea what backwards standards the academics are imposing in political science these days, but if what you say is true, I weep for our future if this nonsense is what's being taught.
Seriously, this negates the most basic, root meaning of the word sexism.
If it catches on with the public, it will be leveraged to impose or excuse all sorts of horrible shit (towards men, or whatever fill-in-the-blank majority you imagine).
Nothing will really change; it's just the shoe will just be on the other foot.