Mercury Thing 05/09/16

[ShadeTail]

Racism is prejudice against race.

Sexism is prejudice against gender.

There is nothing more to it.

[cursormortis]

I know I said I was done, but this has to be said:

When it comes to issues like racism, sexism, etc; LadyObvious is the flip side of edward18. Either she's a troll or she's so close-minded that nothing will ever get through to her. Just like edward18, she will not change her points of view, she will not engage in actual debate but will instead repeat herself constantly. She will also keep branching off in an effort to derail arguments.There's nothing to be gained from arguing with her. Really, the best thing to do is wash your hands and walk away.

[BenjaminT]

I'm sorry if I started all of this hub bub. I honestly did not intend for the use of the word gay to come across as an insult and really didn't even mean to "speculate" that Fitz was gay other than to say it's a leap to assume he and this lady either already have had or soon will engage in "hatefuck" when we don't have any real clue that he can be interested in any woman much less this type of woman. It's not meant to disparage Fitz in any way and it's not meant to imply that he'd have to be gay to turn down this woman. I certainly would turn down this woman and I hope he does, too.

[Campor]

Racism is prejudice against race.

Sexism is prejudice against gender.

There is nothing more to it.

This.

I know some places/communities have made an effort to change what those words entail to try and 'claim' them for a subset of people, but it's just factually not the case. Those words are general and apply to any prejudice formed based on sex or race. It's the same for ageism, where it applies to any prejudice drawn from the target's age. Is someone young? They must not know anything. Is someone old? They must be infirm. Ageism applies to both.

Is someone a man? I am inherently worried about them being a predator of some kind.
Is someone a woman? I believe they are overly emotional and unable to make clear decisions.

Both of those are examples of sexism, no matter what certain communities might claim about positions of power.

[Edit for lack of forethought: I don't actually believe the things I'm using as examples.]

[Tuitsuro]

Wow, interesting thread digression. You're right that the standard dictionary definition is simply viewing your own race as superior while treating others as inferior; where 'race' in that definition can be pretty much any broad categorization like gender, age, status, so on and so forth. But thats a very simplistic view. An asteroid can view itself as superior to a planetoid, but if they collide the much-larger planetoid still wins out. Viewing yourself as superior is only part of the equation.

What makes racism, and really any -ism, a thing is the belief in categorical superiority; and the power or ability to hinder any other category you deem inferior. That's not to say that it can't ever happen with a category of less power, but you have to consider your society's make up as it is now, versus some hypothetical with no current application. Make no mistake, prejudice and -isms are not nearly the same thing. You can have prejudice and not act on it, or prejudice and be conscientiously aware of it, and that's completely normal. An -ism is much more active, and the systemic power behind it is what makes it dangerous.

[Starline]

Racism is prejudice against race.

Sexism is prejudice against gender.

There is nothing more to it.

Oh no no nono... this is incorrect. So much so.

::sigh::

Racism and Sexism are "Prejudice + Institutional Power". The institutional power part is a BIG factor in the definition.

Everyone experiences prejudices that are unfair and suck, but racism and sexism aren't about individual people... it's more about society as a whole and who generally benefits from those institutions.

I know most of you all mean well when you're talking about stuff like this, but there's a lot of miscommunication that's happening because people aren't aware of the definitions of things. (And not like just the basic dictionary definitions... that doesn't explain the entire context of things.)

Here's a good video about the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eTWZ80z9EE (Please please watch this.)

Actually the entire Decoded series is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SKsusjn0Z6

[Starline]

Wow, interesting thread digression. You're right that the standard dictionary definition is simply viewing your own race as superior while treating others as inferior; where 'race' in that definition can be pretty much any broad categorization like gender, age, status, so on and so forth. But thats a very simplistic view. An asteroid can view itself as superior to a planetoid, but if they collide the much-larger planetoid still wins out. Viewing yourself as superior is only part of the equation.

What makes racism, and really any -ism, a thing is the belief in categorical superiority; and the power or ability to hinder any other category you deem inferior. That's not to say that it can't ever happen with a category of less power, but you have to consider your society's make up as it is now, versus some hypothetical with no current application. Make no mistake, prejudice and -isms are not nearly the same thing. You can have prejudice and not act on it, or prejudice and be conscientiously aware of it, and that's completely normal. An -ism is much more active, and the systemic power behind it is what makes it dangerous.

This. This. THIS. All of THISSSSSS. Yes.

[LadyObvious23]

Racism is prejudice against race.

Sexism is prejudice against gender.

There is nothing more to it.

Oh no no nono... this is incorrect. So much so.

::sigh::

Racism and Sexism are "Prejudice + Institutional Power". The institutional power part is a BIG factor in the definition.

Everyone experiences prejudices that are unfair and suck, but racism and sexism aren't about individual people... it's more about society as a whole and who generally benefits from those institutions.

I know most of you all mean well when you're talking about stuff like this, but there's a lot of miscommunication that's happening because people aren't aware of the definitions of things. (And not like just the basic dictionary definitions... that doesn't explain the entire context of things.)

Here's a good video about the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eTWZ80z9EE (Please please watch this.)

Actually the entire Decoded series is worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SKsusjn0Z6

This is exactly what I was trying to convey. Cuz this is exactly what I meant. I should have been clearer.

[Starline]

And I guess to clear up some other stuff:

Fitz is physically attracted to Ellen, but he hates himself for it because they fundamentally disagree on SO MANY THINGS.

[LadyObvious23]

Well she is a gorgeous woman. Even if she's a bit obnoxious.

[Warrl]

Racism is judgment based on nothing but race. (This extends similarly to any other form of bigotry.) It can exist without regard to who has, or is perceived to have, power over whom.

Racism is *a problem* when combined with power.

But power can take many forms.

When a sole white kid is being pelted with rocks by a bunch of black kids, the white kid is not the one with the power. Thus, even by the strange non-standard definition that racism requires race-based judgment plus power, this is clearly a case of anti-white racism.

When any accusation that a male college student sexually harassed a female is presumed to be true and the male student is subject to penalties, but the university says it is impossible for females to sexually harass straight males, the females have power - and this situation can only come about by systemic anti-male sexism, because a system that treats both sexes equally would give equal weight to accusations in either direction (and, one would hope, expect some sort of evidence and give the accused an opportunity to counter that evidence).

[LadyObvious23]

No it cannot. This is literally the point. You're so friggin wrong. Like. Stop.

[Starline]

When a sole white kid is being pelted with rocks by a bunch of black kids, the white kid is not the one with the power. Thus, even by the strange non-standard definition that racism requires race-based judgment plus power, this is clearly a case of anti-white racism.

No. It's a case Anti-white prejudice. Again, racism isn't just about the individual. It's about an entire societal system of power + prejudice. That doesn't mean what that white kid experienced isn't shitty or wrong, but it's not racism. It's not just "power" it's "institutional power".

In general, to keep going with your example, statistically if that white kid reports the violence he experienced to the authorities, the black kids that hurt him would receive greater punishments by the judicial and/or school system than if they were white kids. They wouldn't be judged as just "individuals", but how society judges their entire race. Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kim-farbo ... 78586.html

When any accusation that a male college student sexually harassed a female is presumed to be true and the male student is subject to penalties, but the university says it is impossible for females to sexually harass straight males, the females have power - and this situation can only come about by systemic anti-male sexism, because a system that treats both sexes equally would give equal weight to accusations in either direction (and, one would hope, expect some sort of evidence and give the accused an opportunity to counter that evidence).

This is also statically false. In most cases of reported rape on campus (if they even get reported) NOTHING happens to male student.

-For female rape survivors, 98.1% of the time a man was the perpetrator (Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, & Merrick, 2011).

-For male rape survivors, 93% of the time, a man was the perpetrator (Black, Basile, Breiding, Smith, Walters, & Merrick, 2011).

- Rapists are almost always (98%) men (Sedgwick, 2006).

- Approximately 11% of college women who experience rape report it to the police (Kilpatrick, et al., 2007).

- Of those cases reported to the police, less than 10% of rape cases result in criminal charges against a defendant (Alderden & Ullman, 2012).

Source: http://www.oneinfourusa.org/statistics.php

There literally isn't "systemic anti-male sexism". There ARE VERY FEW cases of female to male sexual assaults, especially ones that get reported, (and that doesn't diminish how shitty that experience is), but not a "system" at all.



Does this make sense? I know a lot this stuff is complicated because no one likes feeling like they are being treated unfairly or that they are treating people unfairly. But a lot of this stuff comes from people thinking that everyone is on an equal playing field, but it's unfortunately not the case. Context is very very VERY important.

[Tuitsuro]

You're right that actions can be racially motivated from any group, minority or not. But there's a larger issue you need to consider. Statistically, if such a thing happened in the states, then the white child already has the defense of the media and the legal system. Staying with statistics, the offenders will most likely be caught quickly, and given more punishment than their white counterparts. That's systemic, and that's racism. It's not that it's okay for the black children to have done what they did; not at all. But the reaction to what they did will be proportionally magnified by systemic racism. In your example, the black children have power over a white child at one point in time, and that's racial. But unless they continue to have that power supported by a culture and society at large, then it simply can't be racism because their power was momentary at best. I'm not arguing that it can't ever be racism for the black children to beat up the white child, but unless you're flipping the entire society's race, then it's simply not going to work in the larger context.

In the case of your university example, there's another problem involved in that men tend to look down on other men if they don't exhibit a certain type of machismo; socially speaking. What this means is that in your example, it isn't just that women don't believe that women can rape men, it's that men *also* don't believe women can rape men, and historically laugh at the concept. Of course, men can be beaten by women, abused physically, emotionally, sexually. This happens. Your argument is that 'systemic anti-male sexism' occurs when females have power, but historically that doesn't bear out at all; as 'systemic anti-male sexism' of the type you described happened just as often in male dominated institutions as female ones. Precisely because men are expected to have control over women. That attitude is so pervasive that it affects both genders negatively. It also spills out into gay and transgender rights as well, simply because in those cases the genders in question aren't following their prescribed societal roles.

[Campor]

The issue is the words sexism and racism don't mean what people are stretching them to mean. They're adding specific requirements which don't match the definitions of the words.

You can certainly have institutionalized forms of sexism, racism and every other form of prejudice, but they're still called sexism and racism. Prejudice based on sex is sexism no matter what sort of authority/power is behind that prejudice. Now it's always possible to make arguments that a NEW word should be made that represents that specific brand of prejudice, but that's why there are modifiers like institutionalized -ism. Institutionalized racism for instance is what you described, where black individuals assaulting a white individual are more likely to have an extremely harsh punishment compared to the other way around, where the racism is built into the institution. That can't really occur to someone in a power position because generally they're favoured by the institution because they're part of the power base. But racism on its own can occur no matter what races are involved, because racism on its own is simply prejudice based on race.

TL:DR- Racism in America can be attributed to any race. Institutionalized racism doesn't apply to white people (and white men in particular) because it's their own race that are the majority institution.

It'd be the same sort of system in Japan for instance- You can of course be racist against a Japanese person even though they're in the majority, their institutions and laws tend to back them, etc. But institutional racism wouldn't usually be held against them. Other prejudices might, certainly, but race not so much.