Sexism? Racism? Both?

[MrsTerryPratchett]

I'm posting here to restrain myself from again challenging someone on FB. He never listens to me anyway and he's married to someone I love...

He posted something saying that the Black actor (Dixon) in Hamilton who called out Pence is sexist. Allegedly Dixon has made comments on Twitter about 'white women' and therefore it's ironic that he challenged Pence. This posted by a man who repeatedly makes awful sexist jokes about women on FB.

Then I thought about all the men who are soooo worried about Sharia law. They only seem to care about women's safety and rights when a) the men 'threatening' them are Black or Muslim or both and b) when caring makes no impact on their own ability to be sexist. Oh and c) when the women threatened are white.

So is the main issue here racism, sexism or both? Is it just a privilege soup. Or, my favourite explanation; that men just see women as objects which they own and their racism means that they see Black or Muslim men as a threat to their 'property'.

Both mike pence and Dixon are sexist. Far as I am concerned they are just as bad as each other. Pence now has official legal power and Dixon has a new kind of power - preaching on social media. Look at what it did for trump or even for Obama when he run for president. People r saying because it was 4 years ago it doesn't matter. That's all very well if he had apologised and said his comments were wrong since the making comments.

Trump and his supporters have taken hypocrisy to a whole new level. Grab 'em by the pussy - locker room talk. Please protect diversity Mr. Pence - how dare he, a theater is a safe space, apologize to Mr. Pence now. Reaction - oh yea go Donald, let's #BoycottHamilton

Amy - "I think the issues are both racism and sexism. Maybe some white men cover their sexism through racism, in the sense they can become outraged about violence against women/misogyny when it's perpetrated by men of colour which gives them a vessel to attack those men and often their "culture", seemingly under the banner of (white) women's rights, yet those same men will often defend or not be in the slightest bothered about the same crimes committed by white men. There's also something quite patriarchal/possessive about it I find, sort of like "those" men attacking "our" women."

I have told you before, these sweeping generalizations lead to nothing. It is also not helpful to look for faults wherever you can. You view it as patriarchal/possessive when in reality it is much more driven by nationalism, which is on a steep upward trajectory in the world.

ps it is also not quite a fair assessment regarding "under the banner of women's rights" - there is institutional sexism in those countries, that is not the case here where you are equal under the law.

LOL. There you go, Amy, you've been told before, I hope you're a good girl now and listen to libprog this time!

Of course there's a patriarchal/possessive aspect to 'those men attacking our women'. And do you really think that equality under the law means that there is no institutional sexism? What a very superficial view.

Well that depends what you understand as institutional. To dismiss this as superficial shows a lack of awareness for that point.

Oh wow, you can play the victim card, how great for you! And I have been accused of straw man before...lulz. Oh no, he said something I don't like, must be because Amy is a girl, he would never say that to a man, hue hue hue.

So I am going to say it again, the more you argue in this way, the more opponents you will make. Same as happened with Brexit/Trump, call people racist/sexist over and over and they will resent you.

Very much what I was thinking Knid. I'm sure I'll learn eventually

As for the rest of it - briefly as that poster clearly just reads into things in the way they wish to suit what they want to say - it's incredible that saying "some men" is a "sweeping generalisation". Also as you said the idea there's no institutionalised sexism here because there's on the whole equality under the law is risible. As for "those countries" the thread was originally about America and incidents which reflect what I was saying going on include Cologne and Rotherham

You're funny.

I'm not playing the 'victim card'. If Amy were a boy I would have responded the same - your tone was very patronising: I've told you this already (i.e. why are you not listening).

Poor you, having to tell us again and again what's what and we're not listening. :( And it's for our own good. :(

Right, I'm calling 2 and 12, possibly 3 and 6 as well.

Sorry Amy, the 'You're funny' was directed at libprog not you. Though I'm sure you're funny as well (and probably in a nicer way). :)

I thought so Knid and thank you!

Same as happened with Brexit/Trump, call people racist/sexist over and over and they will resent you.

And if they ARE racist and sexist, the amount of fucks I give about that is precisely zero.

To get back to the OP, it's along the same lines of 'I have a boyfriend/I'm married' being the only thing that some men will accept as a 'stop' when they're hitting on someone. When a simple 'no' would not suffice, or would end up in a stream of abuse. It's very much to do with patriarchal possession. White women are a resource of white men, it's OK for them to fuck us over but hell mend anyone else who wants to use us.

For balance, I also agree that Dixon is a horror show too.

16 and 17 too.

I'm not sure you've grasped when a "sweeping generalisation" is actually class analysis, libprog.

It's impossible to talk about women's rights without performing class analysis, and if your response to that is "not all men", then you haven't got it.

The issue appears to be one of nationalism to you, but appears somewhat differently to women. Do you think telling us we're wrong enhances any possibility of understanding or a respectful mutual exchange?

Definitely a strong sense of 2.

The fucks we give about alienating the kind of man who states that if you point out sexism it will make them sad are nil.

If the world was going to change for women or PoC just by being nice, patient and asking nicely, the world would have changed by now. It hasn't, so we'll use a different tactic now.

Talks about me reading into things, goes on to i.e. What I have said. And to think I just called trump supporters hypocrites.

And yes that is exactly what I am saying, lonnyvonny. it doesn't matter if you are right or not, what matters is how you are perceived, and all I am saying is, it's not in a good way.

I have never really said anything else, but don't like something = go on the attack on here. Shame really.

Xeniphile - and in light of Brexit and trump do you not think that tactic is failing significantly?

Compared to 1000's years of the previous tactic you mean? Bit early to tell, come back when we've given it equal time. Or don't. Whichever.

Interesting though that you and others think that pointing out the bleeding obvious to Brexit/Trump voters is what made them vote that way though. Another attempt to make someone else the problem other than those that are the actual problem. Given that they voted that way, you'd think they'd proudly admit the racist/xenophobic/sexist tendencies and beliefs that they're imposing on the rest of humanity. It would be more honest if them for a start.

what matters is how you are perceived, and all I am saying is, it's not in a good way.

I honestly cannot tell you how unbothered I am about how I am perceived. We asked nicely for years and we were still perceived as harridans and harpies. My days of putting up, shutting up and smiling sweetly while I did it in case someone didn't like me or agree with me are long gone.

And if the third line of your post at 12.38 is addressed to me, I didn't attack you.

Funny I was just about to say you can learn a lesson or not and keep going on business as usual.

Maybe you personally aren't bothered. But it's not about you as a person, rather it's about your message.

All I'm saying is if you give people like Milo this kind of ammunition, don't be surprised if people lap up what he's saying.

Is it still half-term in some places?

Yea you could go on as usual and say it would be more honest of them to admit x and y, or you could ask yourself why it is that they give so little about these issues that they voted for trump anyway?

I mean I agree, it's terrible so many people openly don't reject this kind of racism and sexism. But only a fool would believe that many people are racists/sexists. I would wonde why they care so little and the argument put forth by many, either side of the spectrum, is that people are fed up, that when you say racism/sexism they immediately dismiss it.

On a separate note, try venturing outside of this confirmation bubble. I mean you are more or less preaching to the choir here.

Libprog, has it occurred to you that you might be able to 'learn a lesson' from the posters on this board if you actually listen and think about what they are saying? You are just not getting it.

Why are you so convinced that you are the one who has to teach us 'a lesson'? And why are you so bothered? Just give up on us, we're clearly hopeless cases.

Why should I give up, is that something you encourage (your kids to do)? And why would I leave, I'm having fun, are you not?

And yes it has. But my lesson is not one you would draw.

Just wondering what your motivation is for staying on this thread. (And no, that's not the same as saying you shouldn't be on here.)

Well, my lesson is clearly not one you would draw. :)