Please Sign This Petition, Racism/Sexism Isn't Okay If Its Against Straight White Men

Recommended Videos

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
Two arguments I have against her, the first entitled "Power from everywhere", the second "You're still a douche".

Power
It is a common mistake to call our culture misogynistic; our culture is chauvinistic. The prejudice we experience, at least here in the U.S, does not simply wish to advocate the suffering of women and minorities out of irrational sadism. The truth is far worse.

See, hatred is simple and straightforward. It's very easy to identify your enemy when they simply intend to destroy you with force of arms. It is much more difficult to orient yourself in the face of a tyrant; one who attempts not to destroy, but assert control.

Our culture most certainly has affection and respect for women and minorities, as long as they behave in the way it wants them to behave. Not only are they punished for disobeying it, they are rewarded for reinforcing it.

And in a power relationship this unfair, a structure of lies that equals it's unfairness in complexity must support it. Because these rules are so complex, unintended results are common place.

I would say, with only mild tentativeness, that the structure still favors white men, even today. Nonetheless, there are many sources of power that women and minorities can access due to their lower standing in the structure that those who occupy the top cannot, even if the power they gain is comparatively small.

In violent domestic situations, women are assumed to be the victim, and thus people are more prepared to help them. Women cannot be drafted. In social situations, many people will work to avoid prejudging African Americans, for fear of being seen as racist. These are perhaps small victories, but the circumstances of their existence is what must be understood.

When someone plays into these stereotypes, they play into the web of lies just as much; the idea that a woman cannot be violent, or a black man powerful and corrupt, and more importantly the collective assumptions that birthed them, are reinforced.

"Of course women can't be violent, their biology and psychology are just oriented towards different things than a man's."

This is the same logic that is used to create ALL double standards, not just the ones that shake out in favor of women.

And this says nothing of how dangerous it is to hold someones word as truth simply because of where the web of lies would place them. People use their connections with women and minorities to obfuscate their oppression all the time.

"I don't hit women no matter what; that can't be sexist, my mother is the one who taught me not to do it."

"My friend is black, and he thinks this is okay."

The validity of an argument is not determined by it's source, and women and minorities are just as capable of making flawed arguments as anyone else. The argument does not become correct because it was argued by the right person.

Encouraging this kind of reasoning, these fallacious shortcuts to understanding human nature, is in and of itself an act of prejudice, because it is weaver of the aforementioned web of lies, the corner stone in the unjust structure: The idea that people should be judged based on where they came from instead of who they are.

Douchebags
Here's the bottom line; treating people differently because they had the audacity to be born with a certain amount melanin in their skin, or with one set of genitals as opposed to another, is a shitty thing to do. It's small minded, it's shallow, it's illogical, it's obnoxious, it's unfair, and it's destructive. Even if doing didn't serve to create a narrative of oppression, it would still be a shitty thing to do, and you'd still be a shithead for doing it, sexist and racist or not.

People like this are not our friends and they are not on our side. We may have a common enemy in the form of the modern power structure, but they aren't fighting it because they want to do what's right, all they care about is how it inconveniences them. All they do is make the cause seem more and more unwelcoming and unreasonable to the outside world.

If in 200 years, we've reached the end of this conflict, and the ideas of treating a woman as less than a man, or an African American as less than a Caucasian, are relics of the past, I don't want future generations to deal with the same problems in a different skin because we compromised our ideas and lost sight of the true goal; because the only lessons we taught them were "Respect women" or "Respect black people", instead of teaching them to respect all people.
 

Bat Vader

Elite Member
Mar 11, 2009
4,997
2
41
JoJo said:
Ugh, racism and sexism have no place in our United Kingdom, I hope this woman loses her position soon.
It has no place anywhere. I have never heard of this woman before.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
JoJo said:
Ugh, racism and sexism have no place in our United Kingdom, I hope this woman loses her position soon.
Nah, we're just not so negative about it. We tend to favour positive discrimination if anything.
 

Blood Brain Barrier

New member
Nov 21, 2011
2,002
0
0
sumanoskae said:
Our culture most certainly has affection and respect for women and minorities, as long as they behave in the way it wants them to behave. Not only are they punished for disobeying it, they are rewarded for reinforcing it.
Replace 'women and minorities' with 'people' and the statement is still true. Why single out those two?
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,184
0
0
No one should be a dick to another person based on their gender/sexuality/ethnicity.
Ideally, no one should be a dick to anyone at all, but as a species we're struggling with the former as it is.

I haven't read the article or the OP because I fear it will be trying to navigate a room full of biased detection lasers.
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
AccursedTheory said:
EDIT: Is queer an acceptable term in the UK?
It's not really UNacceptable, it's just quite a dated expression here, i'd say it was kind of neutral. Depends on how you use it, we usually jut use gay here and not much else.

shrekfan246 said:
ITT: The internet outrage machine rages on.

You wouldn't think this would be a controversial statement, but white men don't need to be welcome in literally every discussion that's ever held anywhere. A term that's often mockingly applied to people is "mansplaining", which is particularly relevant in such situations as having a ton of white guys talking about how to diversify a large body of people.
It was a diversity promotion rally. How do you promte diversity if you exclude a whole bunch of people and then insult them? That's fucking mental! Especially excluding the people you really want to be preaching diversity to? Like or not, white men are the ones that /make/ the rules, they're the ones you need to convince and spread the word through, not the minorities, because that's just masturbating. It's not doing anything, it's just people sitting in a room agreeing each other. Shall we take it to the people in charge? Nope, lets just sit in a room complaining about how oppressed we are. Martin Luther King didn't it in a room whining, the gay rallies didn't lock themselves out of non-gay supporters, no, they took it to the fucking streets and the people running things.
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
Language changes.

Definitions change.

What she's calling racism and sexism, was taught to people my age as institutionalized racism and sexism.
Sometimes there is even disagreement between peers within a field of study on what definitions should be accepted as standard.
If it transpires that the definition for sexism and racism shifts, or has already shifted to this definition, then that is even acceptable.

What is NOT acceptable here is that she is being publicly prejudiced towards a group of individuals based on elements of their identity which lay beyond their control.

There is no need to attempt to argue she is racist and sexist.
No need at all.

She is proudly bigoted and unrepentantly prejudiced.
That's what matters.

If people try to turn this into an argument over whether she can be racist and sexist or not, then that's all the argument will be about.
What matters here is showing that NO bigotry or prejudice is acceptable, no matter who it comes from and no matter how they wrap it in a gordian knot of justifications.
 

Alleged_Alec

New member
Sep 2, 2008
796
0
0
Morti said:
An important concept that needs to be used carefully to avoid it being associated with crap like this. This is, for example, why it's not so bad to call a white person a cracker (one persons feelings get hurt, they grab a coffee to cheer themselves up and forget it happened)(personally wouldn't do something like it, as it is still dickish), but racist to call a black person the N word (reinforces negative stereotypes in all those within earshot, unlikely to be the only incident that day, hard to forget).
That's not how this shit works, for fuck's sake. Apply this simple test: invert the genders/sexualities/skin colours of the people involved. Does this make it sound like a bad thing? If so: it's not a good thing to say.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,308
2
43
sumanoskae said:
snip

In violent domestic situations, women are assumed to be the victim, and thus people are more prepared to help them. Women cannot be drafted. In social situations, many people will work to avoid prejudging African Americans, for fear of being seen as racist. These are perhaps small victories, but the circumstances of their existence is what must be understood.

snip
I don't think these are victories in the ways you may mean. Women always being assumed to be the victim is damaging to any male victims as well as portraying an image of helplessness upon women which doesn't exactly help them to be seen as equals by some subsets of the population who argue that they need to be 'protected' by either enforced dress codes like the Burqua or intrusive government.

Women being able to serve in the military is a good step but at the same time. Being unable to be drafted for service is therefore, an anachronism that should be done away with.

Often the effects of not wanting to be seen as racist can go far further than not prejudging people or discriminating against them, for example in the United Kingdom there was the case of the Rotherham Scandal where police did not prosecute the victimizers of 1,400 children for fear of being labeled as racist "Council and other officials sometimes thought youth workers were exaggerating the exploitation problem. Sometimes they were afraid of being accused of racism if they talked openly about the perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers"(The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-sexual-abuse-children).

It's extreme cases like that which need to be cracked down on while the moderate benefits need to be promoted.
 
Oct 12, 2011
561
0
0
Scarim Coral said:

Yeah, it doesn't matter what her background is, racism is STILL racism!
Wow. Just wow. After watching that video, I cannot honestly tell who is the more morally reprehensible person: Bahar Mustafa or Evan Delshaw. Both of them seem to be two sides to the same self-righteous, gee aren't the people I disagree with just asininely stupid?-type of coin.
 

Zontar

Mad Max 2019
Feb 18, 2013
4,931
0
0
davidmc1158 said:
Wow. Just wow. After watching that video, I cannot honestly tell who is the more morally reprehensible person: Bahar Mustafa or Evan Delshaw. Both of them seem to be two sides to the same self-righteous, gee aren't the people I disagree with just asininely stupid?-type of coin.
Care to elaborate on why you have an issue with Evan Delshaw? He may be a bit of an asshole, but I can't imagine how that puts him on the same level as an openly racist and sexist person who is trying to hid behind the redefining of words to make their bigotry not be 'officially' racism or sexism.
 
Oct 12, 2011
561
0
0
Zontar said:
davidmc1158 said:
Wow. Just wow. After watching that video, I cannot honestly tell who is the more morally reprehensible person: Bahar Mustafa or Evan Delshaw. Both of them seem to be two sides to the same self-righteous, gee aren't the people I disagree with just asininely stupid?-type of coin.
Care to elaborate on why you have an issue with Evan Delshaw? He may be a bit of an asshole, but I can't imagine how that puts him on the same level as an openly racist and sexist person who is trying to hid behind the redefining of words to make their bigotry not be 'officially' racism or sexism.
I think the two main issues I have with him is the cracks about higher education being nothing more than a bastion of "Marxist divisive identity politics way of thinking" and his lumping everything he disagrees with under "feminists" think that way bull.

All in all, I think she wins out on being the bigger ass because of her position and the influence that comes with it, especially the way she has chosen to use that influence. However, he still comes across as a raging hemorrhoidal asshole to my. I teach college classes and roughly half of my colleagues are liberal and the other half conservative. His blanket claims really rub me the wrong way.
 

L. Declis

New member
Apr 19, 2012
861
0
0
elilupe said:
I logged in just to ask, What the Hell is wrong with all of you people
I have logged in to ask, could you be a bit clearer?

Otherwise, you're being self-righteous (not a problem, everyone on the Escapist is) and contributing nothing to the conversation (which is against the forum rules, and annoying)
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
Blood Brain Barrier said:
sumanoskae said:
Our culture most certainly has affection and respect for women and minorities, as long as they behave in the way it wants them to behave. Not only are they punished for disobeying it, they are rewarded for reinforcing it.
Replace 'women and minorities' with 'people' and the statement is still true. Why single out those two?
...Because we're talking about racism and sexism. The topic of conversation is how women and minorities are treated differently, and more specifically, how that fact does not prevent them from negatively influencing the situation.

The overall point of the comment is a unifying one; remember who the enemy is. It isn't the particular shade that prejudice takes today, it's prejudice itself. And, judging by your response, you know that. When I mention the web of lies, the fact that it affects EVERYONE is precisely my point.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
vallorn said:
sumanoskae said:
snip

In violent domestic situations, women are assumed to be the victim, and thus people are more prepared to help them. Women cannot be drafted. In social situations, many people will work to avoid prejudging African Americans, for fear of being seen as racist. These are perhaps small victories, but the circumstances of their existence is what must be understood.

snip
I don't think these are victories in the ways you may mean. Women always being assumed to be the victim is damaging to any male victims as well as portraying an image of helplessness upon women which doesn't exactly help them to be seen as equals by some subsets of the population who argue that they need to be 'protected' by either enforced dress codes like the Burqua or intrusive government.
The fact that these inequalities are just as damaging as any other is exactly what I said. When I say victories, I am not referring to anything that should be celebrated; I am referring to the times when the system, in order to preserve it's structure, behaves in strange ways, and that it ultimately doesn't care anymore about the people at the top than the people on the bottom, it just needs them to perform different services. This is why we have to fight the mindset of prejudice, not just the result of it. And anyone who believes what the topic of this forum believes, is doing the exact opposite.

Women being able to serve in the military is a good step but at the same time. Being unable to be drafted for service is therefore, an anachronism that should be done away with.
All things being equal, I certainly don't think women are any more or less qualified to serve in the military. I simply count this as a benefit because the last time the U.S.A drafted it's citizens, it was in the name of a pointless war. Nobody needed to be defended, the war was a losing proposition, countless people died, countless more were wounded or psychologically scarred beyond repair. Not only that, the draft essentially only applies to people who can't afford college, so only the most disenfranchised citizens were marched off to kill or be killed. (By the way, look up the statistics on the number of African Americans who were drafted into Vietnam as compared to the rest of the population.)

The United States government acted like fucking tyrants, and I don't trust them; I don't want them to have the right to force ANYBODY into military service. So when it comes to women never being drafted, I say, good for them.

Often the effects of not wanting to be seen as racist can go far further than not prejudging people or discriminating against them, for example in the United Kingdom there was the case of the Rotherham Scandal where police did not prosecute the victimizers of 1,400 children for fear of being labeled as racist "Council and other officials sometimes thought youth workers were exaggerating the exploitation problem. Sometimes they were afraid of being accused of racism if they talked openly about the perpetrators in the town mostly being Pakistani taxi drivers"(The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/26/rotherham-sexual-abuse-children).

It's extreme cases like that which need to be cracked down on while the moderate benefits need to be promoted.
Same basic argument as the issue with women, the results are just worse.
 

vallorn

Tunnel Open, Communication Open.
Nov 18, 2009
2,308
2
43
sumanoskae said:
Ahhh it seems I misread that then, my apologies. However, while I do agree that the government should not be able to force people to go to was, I was forced to sign up for Selective Service like everyone else and so, if women are capable of serving in the armed forces as all evidence suggests, wouldn't equality under the law dictate that they should also have to register into selected service? Either the government treats everyone equally under the law or it should be thrown out.

As well as that, you cannot fight a mindset, you cannot fight an idea (*Rolls to resist a V for Vendetta reference*). As soon as you do that it gets ugly very quickly. Because there will ALWAYS be people who either take it too far and make a smaller and smaller list of what 'acceptable' mindsets are and you don't want to give those people even a taste of power. Not only this but there will always be the opposite people as well. The UK shows well that attempting to shut down opposing views forcefully (The BNP and UKIP) often increases support for them as some people defend the group they see as a 'victim' of the establishment. Not that those people are right but human minds are tricky things and lead to odd results like this.

And... well Prejudice is natural. Call me a cynic but the Ingroup-Outgroup response is damn near hardwired into our minds and it requires an awful lot of knowledge and willpower to overcome it. These responses will always lead to prejudice of some degree against the 'other', the people outside of the 'ingroup' even more so if they can be classed as an 'outgroup' or, an 'enemy' for the ingroup to rally against. Whenever you eliminate some kind of prejudice these pieces of the human psyche will always ensure that we have some kind of division between groups. Managing these divisions so that multiple groups can work together within a larger group is called Civilisation and/or Politics.

But still, even knowing that such things are natural. The person who decided to make such divisions a core part of the rhetoric towards her student body was simply stirring such problems and making them much stronger than they needed to be.
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,685
0
0
A spit in the face of every great white man in history known or unknown who who fought for equality. Abraham Lincoln? The great emancipator? fuck him! Fred Hollows? Helped cure a million peoples blindness most of whom were from poor communities aboriginal or in third world countries? Who gives a shit.

Do you think women and minorities would have the rights they do today if they didnt have allies in the ones with the social advantage to help change hearts and minds? A white man had to sign those laws saying black people could vote in America...

Theres thousands upon thousands of stories of sacrifice and struggle behind all these changes and freedoms we enjoy today and white men are in those stories too. The KKK were just as happy to murder '****** lovers' as they were minorities. You defend a gay man from street violence and you can end up getting bashed too.
 

sagitel

New member
Feb 25, 2012
471
0
0
Fallow said:
Wait, it's a woman? Named Mustafa? No wonder she all mad. The first that comes to mind when I hear that name is a swarthy moustache in an Indiana Jones movie (the real movies, not that alien freakshow).
mustafa is her family name. her first name is bahar which is a common female name in countries like Iran, Afghanistan and turkey (which i believe her family is from)
OT: she is white. (i dont care if she has a Turkish name. she is as white many other Europeans) she is racist. she is most probably heterosexual and we dont know if she IS a woman (i mean... have you seen the ..... woamnhood?) so for our we know she can be a white cis male!

but jokes aside i really hope something bad happens to her and anybody else who thinks like that.
 

Morti

New member
Aug 19, 2008
187
0
0
Alleged_Alec said:
Morti said:
An important concept that needs to be used carefully to avoid it being associated with crap like this. This is, for example, why it's not so bad to call a white person a cracker (one persons feelings get hurt, they grab a coffee to cheer themselves up and forget it happened)(personally wouldn't do something like it, as it is still dickish), but racist to call a black person the N word (reinforces negative stereotypes in all those within earshot, unlikely to be the only incident that day, hard to forget).
That's not how this shit works, for fuck's sake. Apply this simple test: invert the genders/sexualities/skin colours of the people involved. Does this make it sound like a bad thing? If so: it's not a good thing to say.
Didn't say it was a good thing (in fact, I explicitly stated the opposite).

I was just explaining why "N..." is so much worse than "Cracker". Both bad, but the former much more so than the latter.