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'.

I'm sure you are having fun libprog, given that sexism/misogyny (and possibly racism) doesn't actually affect you. It's all an exercise in debating for you.

Why do you think men can't suffer from sexism? Do you think this statement will make people go"feminism, yea I love it"?

Men can suffer sexism; white people can suffer racism.

I appreciate there is a school of thought that white people/ men are the oppressor class and individual white people/ men are just individuals getting a hard time. UK law on protected characteristics does not work on that basis.

Why would we need to leave this "confirmation bubble" to understand that not everyone agrees with us? (it's not any kind of bubble by the way - not least because on a daily basis, people like you turn up to have a goad and a sneer - you think you're the first? You're not) We bloody well KNOW that - the world tells us that every day. Every mainstream paper and website gives us your version of the world. So we come here to talk about stuff with people who mostly stand a chance of getting what we're on about.

You don't. You so manifestly don't that it's funny. You're another of what i like to call Dunning Kruger posters. You don't even know what you don't know, but you're pretty convinced you're an expert nonetheless.

Do you really think most of us spend most of our time sitting on FWR 'preaching to the choir'? That's a bit... diminishing, isn't it? Most of us spend more than enough time outside the 'confirmation bubble'. We recognise that this space is somewhere to talk online with broadly supportive people, we come here to learn, challenge and be challenged (and sometimes just to shoot the shit) but suggesting that this is our sole output into the world is bollocks.

I didn't realise the Hamilton guy was actually a dick. How very disappointing.

My FB is full of ultra liberal, pro Muslim stuff in which nobody with darker skin than Peter Andre can ever be wrong. As a feminist I find it utterly wearing. According to my social media, I'm meant to see Islam as a Good Thing. Ironically, all the people who think it's a Good Thing are atheist and vocally opposed to organised religion if the participants are majority white.

X-post, lonny!

That accusation always baffles me. Is it projection?

I would also humbly suggest that coming into a space like FWR and poking away with 'all the things I know' isn't straying from the confirmation bubble either. You are not here with an open mind lib, your actions show you are using this board as a sort of negative litmus test for your own beliefs.

Not judging, I do the same thing with the Daily Mail comments. But at least I'm honest enough to admit it.

Because sexism and racism are the manifestations of systematic oppression - something that white, heterosexual, able-bodied men (generally) don't receive.

I wasn't talking about the law Lass. I appreciate the law doesn't recognise that. However the equality laws were put in place because of a recognition that some groups of people (women, disabled lesbian/gay, BAME) were more disadvantaged than others.

There's been a little rash goady posters on Feminist threads. I end up sort of reading round them, like using stepping stones.

Shh, children. The adults are talking.

I think stepping stones are a very good idea, Prawn. :)

Sorry, a little rash of goady posters, though rash goady posters has its merits.

I think we might need some soothing ointment for goady poster rash.

So many rashes, should get that checked out.

Two things I think here -

1. Is that there is nothing illogical about one sexist pointing out that another is being sexist. This is an attempt to say that since the Dixon guy holds views that are sexist, he's not allowed to say that anyone else is sexist. It makes him a hypocrite.

2. By extension, white men should not pass comment on islamic culture because there are perceived to be massive inequalities faced by women in the west. So they are therefore hypocrites as well.

I would assume that it's simply that like me, most "white guys" do not think either they or the culture in which they exist is anything like as sexist as Islamic and ME ones. I would say they are correct in that, of course.

Is this a safe space? Where you discuss problems you have or bad experiences? I have no problem with that, in fact I always report posts that are callous in the mental health section of my usual board. But looking at the thread, this is where you debate feminist issues. And as such, yes, I am a bit surprised that you are so incapable of objective reasoning. As to me being guilty of that same thing, where is the fun in me coming on here and just nodding along to everything said? Of course I am going to keep challenging you - until someone actually can provide sound reasoning. In addition, you always assume that I am voicing my opinions. I am not. I am just arguing points I have seen elsewhere, reactions to some of the comments you make. So if this really isn't a confirmation bubble, why are you so shocked at the idea of a debate?

Lonny: "we come here to learn, challenge and be challenged" - I have rarely met a group of people so unwilling to be challenged.

Scallops: "I'm sure you are having fun libprog, given that sexism/misogyny (and possibly racism) doesn't actually affect you. It's all an exercise in debating for you." - as long as there are 'feminists' out there saying these kinds of things, you will always get people opposing you.

FreshwaterSelkie: "You don't even know what you don't know, but you're pretty convinced you're an expert nonetheless." - so someone that doesn't give in automatically suffers from the Rumsfeld effect? (Because Dunning Kruger is about misjudging your ability, not your knowledge).

" We bloody well KNOW that" - no you don't, quite obviously: ""people like you turn up to have a goad and a sneer" - if you did know, and if you had been on other boards, you would realize that this is far from goading and sneering. If anything, if you would go over all my posts, and the replies I have received, the aggression or offending is quite clearly the other way round.

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. That's very true. And it's a habit I have found very hard to break. When there's a sniff of someone chatting me up (very rare nowadays) I mention my DH. And then think how irritatingly internalized sexism is.

And linked to the earlier discussion. You can look at the actual laws of a country and see the institutional sexism (how late rape within marriage is recognised in the UK, no rape without a fight in Germany, two examples) or you can look at how that law is applied (Ched, almost all rapes not being prosecuted and those that are often not resulting in jail time or enough jail time in the UK for other examples). Both show pretty institutional sexism.

And men finding debating sexism amusing, fun and interesting... I probably would too if I hadn't been assaulted, groped, insulted, harassed and spoken down to since I was 11. Big har-de-har-har, I'm sure.

The whole fucking world is outside the confirmation bubble. I come here for sanity.

"And men finding debating sexism amusing, fun and interesting... I probably would too if I hadn't been assaulted, groped, insulted, harassed and spoken down to since I was 11. Big har-de-har-har, I'm sure.

The whole fucking world is outside the confirmation bubble. I come here for sanity."

I find debating challenging and interesting, is that a problem?

Another 'feminist' monopolizing (sexual) harassment.

Well then I misunderstood the point of this particular forum, sorry. But I do think that talking about women' rights, what this forum is, doesn't really fit into that category, so don't blame me for that.

I think the sad fact is alot of men recognise themselves and their friends in the actions of Ched Evans and Brock Turner. They don't want to think too deeply about it because to do so might mean acknowledging that they have committed assaults too. Men of a different race and religion are 'other' and can be condemned. Unless the non white person is also someone they identify with, like a footballer.

Another 'feminist' monopolizing (sexual) harassment. Another sweary word redacted reducing trauma to a glib talking point.

The point is that it's a bit crass to come onto a discussion board where people are sharing their experiences of being part of a structurally oppressed group, as a member of a privileged group, and use it as a platform for your own intellectual masturbation. Or assume it's the women on this forum who need to learn a lesson, rather than you. Do you think we've never heard your ideas before? You're hardly original.

And as for telling feminists how to do feminism, are you familiar with the expression "concern troll?" That's why people think you're being goady.

"Another 'feminist' monopolizing (sexual) harassment. Another sweary word redacted reducing trauma to a glib talking point." "I feel so sorry for you now, where can I sign up for feminism weekly?" I have heard your post and that exact reply elsewhere. Your argument is falling on deaf ears on anyone but those who agreed with you to begin with.

venus - fair points, but then tell me, if I am not new, why do you not change your tactics? the world has moved on, there are young boys out there watching (violent) porn on the internet, being told by Milo et al on the internet that they can be offensive and that men need to take back what's theirs. And on the other side you have women like Mrs Pratchett who make ridiculous blanket statements, to which a young male is very likely not able to relate to AT ALL. So tell me, do you think your movement (which is what feminism is, right, not saying that in a bad way) is going anywhere?

In the face of repeating myself, I came here after being called a SJW elsewhere and to check this out to see if I will still side with feminists. And yes I have been challenging, but so what? Instead of seizing upon that and putting forth something sensible, I have been called a pimp or john, and a rash. It's almost as if you want to be hated, because you enjoy the victim role.

I know what the dunning kruger effect is, lib and I used it exactly as I intended. One of the things they tested is people's perception of their ability in logical reasoning, versus their competence. You are making assumption after assumption here that YOU know how to be logical, ie that your ability in this regard is superior and that your conclusions are correct, and that we don't, and our logical reasoning is inferior, and our conclusions flawed. Based on...well, nothing as far as I can see, other than that's how you gauge your ability. There are a lot of highly qualified, extremely intelligent people here (and I'm not talking about me, but of the posters that I admire), so your assessment that your skills are greater is definitely flawed.

We could just call this you being irritatingly superior, if you prefer, though. No skin off my nose.

However, if we're so intellectually limited, I'd just give up if I were you.

Selkie aso why equate knowledge with ability? Also name me one assumption I made. And shame really, because even the smarter people will look stupid if their arguments are based on personal biases.