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

[sumanoskae]

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]

snip

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[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.