You think I could replace “unfair treatment of a person based on their sex, but it only counts if their sex has been historically disadvantaged” with “unfair treatment of a woman based on her sex” ?
I am saying that the subset of feminists that are unsophisticated enough that they exclude unfair treatment of men from their definition of ‘sexism’ and yet sophisticated enough that the implicit definition in use is actually dependent on history is comparatively small.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’d wager 10-1 odds that women the “unsophisticated” feminists who ascribe to the “men can’t be victims of sexism view” have more education than the general population. The historical dependency is taught in intro WS classes and feminism 101 blogs; they call it “power plus prejudice.” Not all feminists agree with the redefinition, but more than a “comparatively small” number do.
I was talking about the subject of the context. I would now expand and simplify my claim to an assertion that your second bullet point is simply false.
I’d wager 10-1 odds that women the “unsophisticated” feminists who ascribe to the “men can’t be victims of sexism view” have more education than the general population.
I doubt you would find anyone with whom to make up such a wager—certainly not me.
Indeed. There are situations where the layers of belief-in-belief and tribe identity would cause individuals to hold this particular definition, but they most commonly split into:
“any unfair treatment where females are treated inferiorly is sexism” (while pressing the Ignore button whenever there are no women victims of unfair treatment),
“any inferred difference between genders that can be inferred to have negative connotation towards only women or positive connotation towards only men is sexism” (press Ignore when vice-versa) and
“any unfair treatment of someone based on their gender is sexism”
...in increasing order of sophistication, I guess.
...in increasing order of sophistication, I guess.
I was trying to think of the right word to use for the kind of thought on the subject. Unfortunately all the most natural descriptions that sprung to mind like “prejudiced, hypocritical, sexist, inconsistent” were far more loaded than I wanted in the context. I settled on sophistication, which is at least at least subjective enough that we could consider “sophisticated in terms of adhering to the arbitrary ideal of treating people equally independently of superficial stereotyped features”. Of course often ‘sophistication’ actually means being better at implementing convoluted and hypocritically self serving value systems so I’m still not comfortable using the word here. Should have gone with “more betterer”.
Yeah, I was facing the same problem. Perhaps a sufficient reduction would be “progress in their personal understanding of the causes and harms of sexism”.
Oddly enough, I usually don’t find the term “sophisticated” to have nearly as much negative connotation as other readers.
I am saying that the subset of feminists that are unsophisticated enough that they exclude unfair treatment of men from their definition of ‘sexism’ and yet sophisticated enough that the implicit definition in use is actually dependent on history is comparatively small.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’d wager 10-1 odds that women the “unsophisticated” feminists who ascribe to the “men can’t be victims of sexism view” have more education than the general population. The historical dependency is taught in intro WS classes and feminism 101 blogs; they call it “power plus prejudice.” Not all feminists agree with the redefinition, but more than a “comparatively small” number do.
I was talking about the subject of the context. I would now expand and simplify my claim to an assertion that your second bullet point is simply false.
I doubt you would find anyone with whom to make up such a wager—certainly not me.
Indeed. There are situations where the layers of belief-in-belief and tribe identity would cause individuals to hold this particular definition, but they most commonly split into:
“any unfair treatment where females are treated inferiorly is sexism” (while pressing the Ignore button whenever there are no women victims of unfair treatment),
“any inferred difference between genders that can be inferred to have negative connotation towards only women or positive connotation towards only men is sexism” (press Ignore when vice-versa) and
“any unfair treatment of someone based on their gender is sexism”
...in increasing order of sophistication, I guess.
I was trying to think of the right word to use for the kind of thought on the subject. Unfortunately all the most natural descriptions that sprung to mind like “prejudiced, hypocritical, sexist, inconsistent” were far more loaded than I wanted in the context. I settled on sophistication, which is at least at least subjective enough that we could consider “sophisticated in terms of adhering to the arbitrary ideal of treating people equally independently of superficial stereotyped features”. Of course often ‘sophistication’ actually means being better at implementing convoluted and hypocritically self serving value systems so I’m still not comfortable using the word here. Should have gone with “more betterer”.
Yeah, I was facing the same problem. Perhaps a sufficient reduction would be “progress in their personal understanding of the causes and harms of sexism”.
Oddly enough, I usually don’t find the term “sophisticated” to have nearly as much negative connotation as other readers.