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

[maninahat]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power. Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

There are two main issues here: first, the newspaper isn't interested in explaining this precise distinction being made between prejudice and racism/sexism, so to the lay person, her coming out and saying "women can't be sexist!" without any context will sound totally absurd. The second issue is that, her justifications aside, she clearly was still being unprofessional, exclusionary and pointlessly insolent.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power. Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

There are two main issues here: first, the newspaper isn't interested in explaining this precise distinction being made between prejudice and racism/sexism, so to the lay person, her coming out and saying "women can't be sexist!" without any context will sound totally absurd. The second issue is that, her justifications aside, she clearly was still being unprofessional, exclusionary and pointlessly insolent.

The problem is that the Academic definitions bear no resemblance to a real world and Dictionary definitions in this case:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Racism: 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Sexism: 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

 

[maninahat]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power. Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

There are two main issues here: first, the newspaper isn't interested in explaining this precise distinction being made between prejudice and racism/sexism, so to the lay person, her coming out and saying "women can't be sexist!" without any context will sound totally absurd. The second issue is that, her justifications aside, she clearly was still being unprofessional, exclusionary and pointlessly insolent.

The problem is that the Academic definitions bear no resemblance to a real world and Dictionary definitions in this case:

Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

Racism: 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

Sexism: 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women

2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

Academia is the real world too; much like how the word "theory" means different things depending whether you are within academia or not. The problem is that if you are going to address lay people with the academic, esoteric use of a word, you should realise that they are not going to understand what you are really saying unless you clearly explain the distinction.

 

[Zontar]

Snip

I wouldn't say it's Academia, it's really just a small subset of Academia, and one of the (if not the absolute) least respected ones at that due to the nature of their work.

 

[maninahat]

Snip

I wouldn't say it's Academia, it's really just a small subset of Academia, and one of the (if not the absolute) least respected ones at that due to the nature of their work.

I wouldn't say it is totally disrespected. Sociology related stuff has practical applications in stuff like HR and recruitment. In a time where affirmative action is seen as necessary in a lot of industries, seemingly poxy definitions and race/sexism theories have a value.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

Academia is the real world too; much like how the word "theory" means different things depending whether you are within academia or not. The problem is that if you are going to address lay people with the academic, esoteric use of a word, you should realise that they are not going to understand what you are really saying unless you clearly explain the distinction.

The real problem with the academic definitions even when used within academia is they set up an seriously negative double standard. No matter how you look at it, pointing to one set of bad behavior does not excuse another. Saying blacks can't be racist, and women can't be sexist is a racist and/or sexist double standard, as well as a logical fallacy.

 

[maninahat]

Academia is the real world too; much like how the word "theory" means different things depending whether you are within academia or not. The problem is that if you are going to address lay people with the academic, esoteric use of a word, you should realise that they are not going to understand what you are really saying unless you clearly explain the distinction.

The real problem with the academic definitions even when used within academia is they set up an seriously negative double standard. No matter how you look at it, pointing to one set of bad behavior does not excuse another. Saying blacks can't be racist, and women can't be sexist is a racist and/or sexist double standard, as well as a logical fallacy.

In theory, a black can be racist or a woman be sexist by this academic definition, as long as they are coming from a position of power. It's just that, historically and presently, they rarely do in many countries. That doesn't mean blacks or women can't be discriminatory, prejudicial assholes - it's just a misnomer to say they are being racist or sexist (when those words mean more than just being prejudicial).

Incidentally, this happens to be the reason why black comedians and women can get away with making derogatory jokes about white people and men all the time, whereas the reverse would be met with scorn; the former are punching up and the latter are punching down.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I honestly kind of pity her.
It takes effort to foster her kind of irrational bigotry and bile for so long, and the result is plain hideous.

In theory, a black can be racist or a woman be sexist by this academic definition, as long as they are coming from a position of power. It's just that, historically and presently, they rarely do in many countries. That doesn't mean blacks or women can't be discriminatory, prejudicial assholes - it's just a misnomer to say they are being racist or sexist (when those words mean more than just being prejudicial).

And pray tell, what the reasoning was to redefine such terms with those distinctions?
Because the only logical reason I can find is to morally justify establishing double standards for treatment and social expectation.

You can assert it's a misnomer all you want; but that does nothing to explain WHY anyone should accept the new meaning. (Nevermind that power as a social dynamic is far more complex than "white guys have it too good". Power is HIGHLY contextual and transient from all levels of society, from nations down to individuals.)

I reject those redefinitions because even conceptually, they implicitly reinforce discrimination by providing special privilege based PURELY on a person's race/gender/minority trait.

It doesn't matter if someone is "punching-up" or "punching-down", what we should be doing is stopping the metaphorical "punching" entirely and focus on organizing around merit of action (because without proper action society is meaningless).

So really, the term "punching-up" is just a convenient euphemism to mask the inherent hypocrisy behind an ideology. Taken more broadly, it's just another form of "The ends justify the means". Once we accept that as reasonable and acceptable, inevitably, someone is going to leverage it in terrible ways.

We're already seeing the start of that; radical feminists are now "punching-up" to an extreme; like this crazy lady calling for the literal deaths of white men, IN PUBLIC, UNIRONICALLY.

While I doubt she will succeed in convincing anyone to actually take such action against men at large (we aren't that crazy and socially suicidal yet), the fact that we're seeing public figures push that kind of thought in the developed world is just pathetic.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

In theory, a black can be racist or a woman be sexist by this academic definition, as long as they are coming from a position of power. It's just that, historically and presently, they rarely do in many countries. That doesn't mean blacks or women can't be discriminatory, prejudicial assholes - it's just a misnomer to say they are being racist or sexist (when those words mean more than just being prejudicial).

Incidentally, this happens to be the reason why black comedians and women can get away with making derogatory jokes about white people and men all the time, whereas the reverse would be met with scorn; the former are punching up and the latter are punching down.

This is also the issue with political correctness. It's a constant shifting of standards by elitist idiots in position of power to redefine words so they can get a freaking pass. For instance most KKK members, Neo-Nazis, and Skinheads are poor as dirt, they are not coming from a position of power, they may be representative a majority in a local area, but being underprivileged economically actually removes them form being in positions of power. It's all circular logic designed to excuse bad behavior when it comes from people with the right color skin, sexuality, gender identity, or biological sex. This is counter productive in human nature.

The whole comedy thing is actually a good highlight of "acceptable targets" versus "unacceptable targets," that being excusing behavior using prejudicial logic. If it's because of race, it's still racist, if it's because of sex it's still sexist. Due to the elite, which academic establishments are, redefining these words for political correctness, you get this spiral of flawed logic that encourages bad behavior from one group, while demonizing another group for any thing outside the established lines. It's basically special treatment for groups based on disadvantage from a position of "they can't help them selves"

That's why it's a damaging double standard. It's racist/sexist against the more advantageous by allowing the less advantageous to spew vile vitriol against the first group. Then it's the racist/sexist against the disadvantaged by automatically assuming they need special treatment. That makes it a form of biased social censorship as well, which is also a very damaging thing. The real options are to basically decry all hate speech, or none of it, but selective enforcement and changing words for the sake of bias is just cynical political bs.

Edit: To make it absolutely clear the line of thinking that the academic world is using works out in only one way, and it's not a good one. They're shifting racism, sexism, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination from one group to another, instead of actually working to eliminate the problem it self. Academics is not the real world, it's a sheltered echo chamber any more, in that vein it's damaging to society, what needs to change is academics need a reality check, they need to be objective. Right now all they're doing is being subjective and dishonest.

 

[maninahat]

In theory, a black can be racist or a woman be sexist by this academic definition, as long as they are coming from a position of power. It's just that, historically and presently, they rarely do in many countries. That doesn't mean blacks or women can't be discriminatory, prejudicial assholes - it's just a misnomer to say they are being racist or sexist (when those words mean more than just being prejudicial).

Incidentally, this happens to be the reason why black comedians and women can get away with making derogatory jokes about white people and men all the time, whereas the reverse would be met with scorn; the former are punching up and the latter are punching down.

This is also the issue with political correctness. It's a constant shifting of standards by elitist idiots in position of power to redefine words so they can get a freaking pass...To make it absolutely clear the line of thinking that the academic world is using works out in only one way, and it's not a good one. They're shifting racism, sexism, bigotry, prejudice, and discrimination from one group to another, instead of actually working to eliminate the problem it self. Academics is not the real world, it's a sheltered echo chamber any more, in that vein it's damaging to society, what needs to change is academics need a reality check, they need to be objective. Right now all they're doing is being subjective and dishonest.

"Actually working to eliminate the problem itself". The generally accepted way to eliminating the problem is to not pretend that society is fair and egalitarian, just because you've removed the laws and institutions that make it unfair and prejudicial. There is a quote I like to trot out to describe this phenomenon: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Laws that are aimed at everyone equally will not necessarily effect everyone equally; specifically, if a society has long pushed minorities and women into a second class citizen status, suddenly changing the laws so that everyone gets equal treatment will do a little to actually get those minorities and women out of that position. It's sort of like putting lead weights on certain runners in a race to ensure they hang behind; removing the weights will not mean those runners will magically catch right up with those way out in front.

That is why we have affirmative action, why we hold races and other marginalized groups to different standards, and why we recognize there is more to racism than simply being a dick to other races - relative social power and a broader context will always be a factor beyond the immediate prejudicial behaviour of the individual. Racism and sexism won't go away until we recognise that gap that institutionalised racism and sexism created, and that we take additional measures to close that gap - even if it means giving advantages to those formally oppressed groups.

 

[maninahat]

And pray tell, what the reasoning was to redefine such terms with those distinctions?
Because the only logical reason I can find is to morally justify establishing double standards for treatment and social expectation.

You can assert it's a misnomer all you want; but that does nothing to explain WHY anyone should accept the new meaning. (Nevermind that power as a social dynamic is far more complex than "white guys have it too good". Power is HIGHLY contextual and transient from all levels of society, from nations down to individuals.)

It doesn't matter if someone is "punching-up" or "punching-down", what we should be doing is stopping the metaphorical "punching" entirely and focus on organizing around merit of action (because without proper action society is meaningless).

So really, the term "punching-up" is just a convenient euphemism to mask the inherent hypocrisy behind an ideology. Taken more broadly, it's just another form of "The ends justify the means". Once we accept that as reasonable and acceptable, inevitably, someone is going to leverage it in terrible ways.

See my post above. It explains a few concepts as to why it is necessary to regard prejudice and racism/sexism as distinct terms, and also why society sees fit to resort to affirmative action and different standards for dealing with formerly oppressed groups.

We're already seeing the start of that; radical feminists are now "punching-up" to an extreme; like this crazy lady calling for the literal deaths of white men, IN PUBLIC, UNIRONICALLY.

I don't think she was being literal, otherwise she would have killed some white men. It is known as hyperbole, though I can agree her choice of words were totally inappropriate. If the worst thing feminists are doing is writing provocative slogans, I am not terribly worried about our developed society.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

"Actually working to eliminate the problem itself". The generally accepted way to eliminating the problem is to not pretend that society is fair and egalitarian, just because you've removed the laws and institutions that make it unfair and prejudicial. There is a quote I like to trot out to describe this phenomenon: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." Laws that are aimed at everyone equally will not necessarily effect everyone equally; specifically, if a society has long pushed minorities and women into a second class citizen status, suddenly changing the laws so that everyone gets equal treatment will do a little to actually get those minorities and women out of that position. It's sort of like putting lead weights on certain runners in a race to ensure they hang behind; removing the weights will not mean those runners will magically catch right up with those way out in front.

That is why we have affirmative action, why we hold races and other marginalized groups to different standards, and why we recognize there is more to racism than simply being a dick to other races - relative social power and a broader context will always be a factor beyond the immediate prejudicial behaviour of the individual. Racism and sexism won't go away until we recognise that gap that institutionalised racism and sexism created, and that we take additional measures to close that gap - even if it means giving advantages to those formally oppressed groups.

You mean the politically accepted way of eliminating the problem. If you believe in laws that censor what you can say will help such things, you're actively supporting fascism, because the right to free speech is the first right a free people lose. As to your analogy, it's flawed in the fact that if you give a racer who had weights on their feet a motor bike it's cheating, specifically cheating the other racers, along with the disadvantaged one..

Affirmative action doesn't do anyone any good, at least not in the way it's used, that being to enforce diversity to win votes, all it serves to do i put poorly equipped people in situations they can't handle. That pushes quality down for everyone, instead of closing the gap. Now things like minority scholarships which work to give people the tools they need to equip them for the wider world is a thing that does help, but it requires the underprivileged person in this case to put in effort. Most affirmative action requires no effort on the part of the oppressed, it's a freebie, that cheats both the people who will require their services and the disaffected person at the same time. A weak justification for a bad double standard does not make the double standard correct. The idea is to give a hand up, not a handout, a double standard is a handout. It's not elevating people to hold them to different standards in the name of social justice, it's disadvantaging someone who worked for theirs to make it easier for a disaffected person. It hasn't worked up to now, it's continuing not to work to day, and it won't work in the future.

Simply put double standards aren't healthy for society in general, and they uplift no one. They just give disadvantaged people the justification to become the next set of oppressors. What does work is holding everyone to the same standard and giving those with disadvantages tools that help them in their quest to be in a better place. Moving the goal posts doesn't help people.

Edit: In this way you can use a Commodore 64 or a emulator for one to demonstrate how changing standards works in humanity:

10 print lower standards for disadvantaged groups
20 print lowered standards rob disadvantaged group if initiative
30 print disadvantaged group remains disadvantaged
40 goto 10
run

 

[Atmos Duality]

See my post above. It explains a few concepts as to why it is necessary to regard prejudice and racism/sexism as distinct terms, and also why society sees fit to resort to affirmative action and different standards for dealing with formerly oppressed groups.

Pfft yeah, no.
I've seen the kind of people that abuse the shit out of those programs because it gives them an easy ride.
So I'll spare you the sermon and just state that I don't buy a word of it.

You give people special privileges for incidental traits, they will eventually abuse those privileges; either by aiming to further their own ends directly, or by tearing down others who have done nothing to actually deserve harm.

I don't think she was being literal, otherwise she would have killed some white men.

Well, yeah.
Admitting to literal murder in public would have her arrested.

It is known as hyperbole, though I can agree her choice of words were totally inappropriate. If the worst thing feminists are doing is writing provocative slogans, I am not terribly worried about our developed society.

Openly and repeatedly preaching for the death of white men everywhere just for being white men is not even a CONCEPT that has ANY value to society; hyperbole be damned.

You want to convince me that rhetoric has any rational basis, you had better try fucking harder than that.

 

[WhiteNachos]

"I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender and therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist, since we do not stand to benefit from such a system."

Racism [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist]
Sexism [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexist]

Uh huh...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I can't...I don't....

This is who the students of that university appointed as Diversity Officer?

Ugh, this is giving me a headache. I think I've had enough internet for one day.

You find a lot of this in tumblr feminists, also feminist frequency tweeted this sentiment once.

I use this as a measuring stick as to whether or not to take a feminist seriously.

Patriarchy and rape culture may be vague things and they may not be falsifiable but saying that women can't be sexist or only white people can be racist is just a blatant denial of reality.

 

[WhiteNachos]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power.

Can you give me a source that those are the academic definitions.

But that aside, even if we go by that definition it's still possible for women to be sexist or non-whites to be racist, because there's tons of them that have power. Parents, teachers cops, judges, prison guards, all sorts of stuff.

Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

You can argue that women and minorities also have privileges. It's not clear cut, and I suspect any attempt to redefine it to make it clear cut is just there to excuse someone's prejudices.

 

[maninahat]

snip

You mean the politically accepted way of eliminating the problem. If you believe in laws that censor what you can say will help such things, you're actively supporting fascism, because the right to free speech is the first right a free people lose. As to your analogy, it's flawed in the fact that if you give a racer who had weights on their feet a motor bike it's cheating, specifically cheating the other racers, along with the disadvantaged one..

I'm not sure where free speech even comes into it. As to the motorbike being introduced to the analogy, are you trying to tell me that black people and women have been given a ridiculous advantage that has allowed them to race far ahead of white males?

Affirmative action doesn't do anyone any good, at least not in the way it's used, that being to enforce diversity to win votes, all it serves to do i put poorly equipped people in situations they can't handle.

I am quite familiar with the diversity and positive action laws in the UK (I work in recruitment). The law does not permit positive discrimination to the point that we can automatically give jobs freely to totally incompetent minority workers - that would actually be illegal. At their most generous, the legislation stipulates three main things: 1) If given two equally viable employees for a new post, it is better to pick the one from an under-represented, protected group (but only if all else is the same). 2) Any efforts to prioritize one group over another for a job has to be thoroughly justifiable (i.e., looking specifically for a black Councillor to work at a business that exclusively deals with black people's social issues). 3) The two ticks scheme, which permits a disabled person a guaranteed automatic interview for a job (if they wish it to be so), but only as long as they meet the selection criteria for the job.

Most affirmative action requires no effort on the part of the oppressed, it's a freebie.

I'm doubtful. Do you have examples?

Simply put double standards aren't healthy for society in general, and they uplift no one. They just give disadvantaged people the justification to become the next set of oppressors. What does work is holding everyone to the same standard and giving those with disadvantages tools that help them in their quest to be in a better place. Moving the goal posts doesn't help people.

Last time I checked, black people weren't all holding the top jobs, and women are woefully under-represented in the most influential and powerful roles. They are a long way away from calling all the shots. Affirmative action legislation didn't just suddenly appear out of the ether. People saw that treating everyone equally wasn't necessarily creating an equal society; that social mobility is limited and the downtrodden and poor tend to stay poor. Disadvantaged groups generally stay disadvantaged, because removing Jim Crow laws does not fix the issues of poor access to better education, housing, protection, health, jobs and the general means of self-improvement. They saw it was necessary to even the odds to some extent, even if that means giving those minorities some advantages to catch up and mitigate the historical advantage white males have long had.

 

[maninahat]

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power.

Can you give me a source that those are the academic definitions.

Here are some sources. [http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Multicultural_Student_Services/definitionsofracism.pdf]

But that aside, even if we go by that definition it's still possible for women to be sexist or non-whites to be racist, because there's tons of them that have power. Parents, teachers cops, judges, prison guards, all sorts of stuff.

I think the definition is meant to be specifically about those groups which society has historically deemed to be the ones in power, based on arbitrary attributes (i.e. in America, being white, male, heterosexual, able bodied, wealthy, and cis-gendered), as opposed to individuals who hold positions of power (like teachers and judges). Thus, a black person might not be able to be racist in modern day America, however, they could in modern day Zimbabwe, under Mugabe's rule.

Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

You can argue that women and minorities also have privileges. It's not clear cut, and I suspect any attempt to redefine it to make it clear cut is just there to excuse someone's prejudices.

I guess it would depend on what exactly was being said. A woman could still be racist, a black man still sexist, despite both being from protected groups.

 

[KyuubiNoKitsune-Hime]

You mean the politically accepted way of eliminating the problem. If you believe in laws that censor what you can say will help such things, you're actively supporting fascism, because the right to free speech is the first right a free people lose. As to your analogy, it's flawed in the fact that if you give a racer who had weights on their feet a motor bike it's cheating, specifically cheating the other racers, along with the disadvantaged one..

I'm not sure where free speech even comes into it. As to the motorbike being introduced to the analogy, are you trying to tell me that black people and women have been given a ridiculous advantage that has allowed them to race far ahead of white males?

The whole discussion started over a matter of bigoted hate speech, which indeed is both racist and sexist, regardless of privilege.

Affirmative action doesn't do anyone any good, at least not in the way it's used, that being to enforce diversity to win votes, all it serves to do i put poorly equipped people in situations they can't handle.

I am quite familiar with the diversity and positive action laws in the UK (I work in recruitment). The law does not permit positive discrimination to the point that we can automatically give jobs freely to totally incompetent minority workers - that would actually be illegal. At their most generous, the legislation stipulates three main things: 1) If given two equally viable employees for a new post, it is better to pick the one from an under-represented, protected group (but only if all else is the same). 2) Any efforts to prioritize one group over another for a job has to be thoroughly justifiable (i.e., looking specifically for a black Councillor to work at a business that exclusively deals with black people's social issues). 3) The two ticks scheme, which permits a disabled person a guaranteed automatic interview for a job (if they wish it to be so), but only as long as they meet the selection criteria for the job.

That would then depend on finding people with the exact same amount of experience in the disadvantaged group as the non-disadvantaged group. An unlikely situation. That is unless you need a specific person for a specific job. An interview is not getting the job. Essentially this is not affirmative action, at least not as much as it is preventing discrimination due to race. Unless the White Man in a hypothetical situation is competing with an equally qualified, say, Black Woman. In which case the interview of both is required to make any determination on who is right for the job in the environment. The problem is that if the hypothetical Black Woman in this case is passed over because the White Man had a better interview, the Black Woman will likely cry racism, or/and sexism. Just because, privilege.

Most affirmative action requires no effort on the part of the oppressed, it's a freebie.

I'm doubtful. Do you have examples?

Only personal ones I'm afraid. Anecdotal evidence of Filipinos being favored by a former boss of mine over any other candidates. But affirmative action also just has a rather threatening history because people will cry discrimination if denied a job for reasons of qualification. The opposite sure happened too, but there isn't an easy fix this.

Simply put double standards aren't healthy for society in general, and they uplift no one. They just give disadvantaged people the justification to become the next set of oppressors. What does work is holding everyone to the same standard and giving those with disadvantages tools that help them in their quest to be in a better place. Moving the goal posts doesn't help people.

Last time I checked, black people weren't all holding the top jobs, and women are woefully under-represented in the most influential and powerful roles. They are a long way away from calling all the shots. Affirmative action legislation didn't just suddenly appear out of the ether. People saw that treating everyone equally wasn't necessarily creating an equal society; that social mobility is limited and the downtrodden and poor tend to stay poor. Disadvantaged groups generally stay disadvantaged, because removing Jim Crow laws does not fix the issues of poor access to better education, housing, protection, health, jobs and the general means of self-improvement. They saw it was necessary to even the odds to some extent, even if that means giving those minorities some advantages to catch up and mitigate the historical advantage white males have long had.

No but equalizing the situation is not holding one group to different standards as another either, it's actually leveling out the standards. Equality legislation isn't affirmative action, at least speaking in the vernacular of it's use, the term is usually used to classify the use of legal threat to favor disadvantaged groups. Which has happened, at least here state side at the state level.

Edit:

Claiming that because of being a minority and being female, means you can't racist and sexist, is the most racist and sexist thing you can say outside of actual slurs.

What she is getting at is a definition for racism and sexism popular in academic circles: that racism is prejudice + power.

Can you give me a source that those are the academic definitions.

Here are some sources. [http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Multicultural_Student_Services/definitionsofracism.pdf]

But that aside, even if we go by that definition it's still possible for women to be sexist or non-whites to be racist, because there's tons of them that have power. Parents, teachers cops, judges, prison guards, all sorts of stuff.

I think the definition is meant to be specifically about those groups which society has historically deemed to be the ones in power, based on arbitrary attributes (i.e. in America, being white, male, heterosexual, able bodied, wealthy, and cis-gendered), as opposed to individuals who hold positions of power (like teachers and judges). Thus, a black person might not be able to be racist in modern day America, however, they could in modern day Zimbabwe, under Mugabe's rule.

Basically the argument is that you can be a prejudicial jerk, but to be racist, there has to be a historical or societal power play involved (I.e, when when you use slurs on women or minorities, you are talking down from a position of relative social power or privilege which doesn't exist in the reverse).

You can argue that women and minorities also have privileges. It's not clear cut, and I suspect any attempt to redefine it to make it clear cut is just there to excuse someone's prejudices.

I guess it would depend on what exactly was being said. A woman could still be racist, a black man still sexist, despite both being from protected groups.

That's actually a cop out argument based on changing the standards regarding wording. It doesn't change the actual definition of the use of the words.

Edit #2: Read your source in the link provided. Saw the sorriest cop out, mentality of victimization, and justification in any piece I've ever seen in my entire life. Calling someone who doesn't practice racism a racist for being born in a privileged skin color is justification of hate. That justification of hate is fallacious at it's very core.

 

[The_Darkness]

Okay. For whatever it's worth, here's my take.

The facebook event itself:

This was, apparently, a "Safe Space" event for BME (Black or Minority Ethnic) women. In short: non-white women only, and no men. Here's the thing - speaking as a White Male, I'm completely okay with an event like that.

The purpose of this Safe Space was to ensure that any BME women who attended could be *completely* free from the discrimination that they may face. Hence, as a precautionary measure, someone like me shouldn't be there. I'm fine with that. Just as I'm fine with leaving the room when someone else wants privacy. That's what this was - a private space. I appreciate private spaces when I need them, so I really can't begrudge them to other people.

And also, the very next sentence in the event description was a promise that other events were on the way for people excluded from this one. Funny how the petition fails to include that line.

So the event doesn't bother me. The rest... DOES.

However, I will agree that the "No White and/or Male people please" message probably should have been written with a better explanation of why. Then again, maybe it was - I can't check the event itself, only the quotes that have been mined from it.

White-Cis-Male-Tears:

This was... unprofessional at best. And, again speaking as a white male, I do find it mildly offensive. Mildly, but yeah. As I understand it, this, and #KillAllWhiteMen, are in-jokes in certain corners of the equality movement. 'Die Cis Scum' is another one. And Bahar Mustafa shouldn't face the full blame for this - these in-jokes have been around for a while.

The point is supposed to be that discriminated groups face far worse than this, and these comments should remind us of that, and remind us that stuff needs to be done about that discrimination. Well, that and it's a way for them to express frustration at the privilege difference.

And, well, I can understand all that BUT that doesn't make it remotely okay. It's hypocritical to simultaneously call for an end to discrimination and then openly discriminate against a group. Negative Discrimination like this isn't okay, regardless of which group is on the receiving end.

It also sends a message to any white/straight/cis/male/privileged people that already want to help fight racism/sexism/etc. And that message is: "You aren't welcome in the equality movement." That's really not a good message to be sending out.

Bahar presumably felt that she was just using an ironic joke. And I can understand that, but it doesn't make it okay. The existence of these jokes - and the belief that they are somehow 'okay' - troubles me far more than a Safe Space event that wasn't meant for me.

Defining Racism and Sexism:

Okay, this was a painful example of dodging the point, to the extent that I'm not even sure that Bahar realised that she was doing it.

Fine. There are academic definitions of Racism and Sexism that require them to be coming from a place of privilege. And those are the definitions that Bahar wished to use. Fine. I can accept that.

It doesn't change the fact that the in-jokes are examples of negative racial/sexual discrimination. Which is what everyone meant when they were accusing Bahar of being racist/sexist.

You can't just say "that isn't what that word means to me". You have to understand what the people using the words mean, and answer to that.

I always err on the side of giving someone I disagree with the benefit of the doubt. Doing so generally makes me think my arguments through more. So I'm going to assume that Bahar felt that she was being accused of racism/sexism primarily over the event itself, rather than the in-jokes. And if so, I would agree with her that the event itself wasn't racist/sexist.

But if she thought that she was defending the event, then she was already missing the point, and I can understand further the missing the point with the definitions of racism/sexism. Either way, she completely failed to address the actual complaint.

The Internet:

For crying out loud, there have been requests for this woman to be... well, I actually don't want to repeat what I've seen. The point is that the internet outrage machine has once again jumped to harassment as its first resort against anything that offends it. Come on, people, we're better than this.

A lot of it is just hyperbole, but it is some of the sickest, most debased hyperbole around. If you disagree with someone, if you're offended by someone, that doesn't justify this. Don't insult them - that doesn't help. Explain why you disagree, why you feel offended - even if it seems blatantly obvious to you - and leave it at that. Nothing gets solved by shouting at each other - but we can solve a lot by just talking. Most people get taught this at Primary School level, and the existence of the internet is no reason to discard it.

(This last section isn't targeted at The Escapist forums, but at the internet in general. However, I guess it's The Escapist forums that that will see it, so... pass this along if you agree with it? I'm getting really tired of seeing outraged-hyperbole-harassment as the internet's weapon of first resort.)

 

[Vigormortis]

You find a lot of this in tumblr feminists, also feminist frequency tweeted this sentiment once.

I use this as a measuring stick as to whether or not to take a feminist seriously.

Patriarchy and rape culture may be vague things and they may not be falsifiable but saying that women can't be sexist or only white people can be racist is just a blatant denial of reality.

Thing is, there are forms of racism/sexism that are based around societal structures of privilege. She's not entirely wrong on that part. But for her to imply that it's the only form of "legitimate" racism and sexism is just....patently absurd, to a degree I'm ashamed to see within academia.

And for her to stand there crying about privilege-based racism and sexism, while she comes from a family of wealth and power, and is attending an expensive school of higher-learning, is just appalling.

I usually abhor violence, but if I ever met her in real life and had her insult me by saying, "Check your privilege", I might give serious consideration to slapping her. She seems like someone in desperate need of a dose of reality.