The Internet's 'Misogyny Problem' - real or imagined?

[aelf]

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Farm Boy]

It's definitely not what you didn't say.

 

[bhsup]

Yes, yes it is... Your reply to Brennen was right on the money. I, well frankly I am not sure how I read that and initially took it to be 180 from what it actually meant. Sorry.

 

[luiz]

And multiculturalism is... diversity.

Nope, it is two distinct things. From Wiki (but also verifiable in plenty of other sources):

Multiculturalism is the cultural diversity of communities within a given society and the policies that promote this diversity. As a descriptive term, multiculturalism is the simple fact of cultural diversity and the demographic make-up of a specific place, sometimes at the organizational level, e.g., schools, businesses, neighborhoods, cities, or nations. As a prescriptive term, multiculturalism encourages ideologies and policies that promote this diversity or its institutionalization.

Diversity explains the descriptive meaning, but not the prescriptive, which is the one I was discussing. But I never denied the existence of other meanings.

It's decidedly unwise to assert that popular usage is authoritative. Popular usage is a convention, and it's useful and often beneficial to work with conventions. But that doesn't mean popular usage is authoritative, since it's likely to be fraught with contradictions, especially with the passage of time. If you're comfortable with calling something that is inconsistent and often contradictory authoritative, then I wonder if you have a natural defense against cognitive dissonance.

Besides, I think it's fairly trivial to get Cheezy to add "as I understand it" every time he mentions racism. It's just that he thinks his understanding (which is not solely his anyway) of the term is better, just as you think your understanding of the term 'multiculturalism' is better. And there are still others like Quackers or Oruc who are uncompromising in their definition of multiculturalism.

The problem is, unlike me, Cheezy never acknowledged any other definitions. He never entertained the notion that under the most accepted definitions of racism, white people can be victims too. He just stated, without any qualifications, that they can't. And that's just wrong.

 

[Commodore]

Brennan, look at who is over represented in writing, interpreting and judging the law.

I assume you are referring to white men being over-represented in "writing, interpreting, and judging the law." Now I'm not trying to single you out specifically, but comments like this really bother me because it implies the over-represented group is somehow intentionally keeping others from being represented.

As far as I can tell there is no evidence white men are actively keeping women and minorities out of government, nor are there any policies in place that passively keep them out. Has anyone ever stopped to think maybe women and minorities are not pursuing positions in government simply because not a lot of them are interested in such positions? Has any reputable organization actually studied the "why" behind the under-representation of women and minorities? Or are we as a society just going to take the "it's all the white man's fault" route?

In fact I believe I posted something about this a few years ago on this forum that showed minorities and women are, in fact, not as under-represented as you might think. Of course now the data is slightly outdated, but I'll try to dig it up anyway.

 

[Flying Pig]

As far as I can tell there is no evidence white men are actively keeping women and minorities out of government, nor are there any policies in place that passively keep them out. Has anyone ever stopped to think maybe women and minorities are not pursuing positions in government simply because not a lot of them are interested in such positions? Has any reputable organization actually studied the "why" behind the under-representation of women and minorities? Or are we as a society just going to take the "it's all the white man's fault" route?

That in itself is a systematic problem - and usually a self-sustaining one. 'Not for the likes of us' is a powerful force even today. Even given the will, though, it's difficult to find your way through a tough selection process when you and those around you have no experience of it. If ethnic-minority students rarely become lawyers, then schools in areas where those people live are going to be less experienced and capable when it comes to helping their students get into law school - even those which are as bright and suitable, or even more suitable, than those at schools with better people to help them. Similarly, if women rarely become CEOs, then it's difficult for a woman on that career path to find a mentor who has done it all before her and can give her advice. It's not necessarily anyone's fault, but it's certainly society's responsibility to fix that.

 

[Evie]

Cultural expectations play a large part in keeping these people out of government, and these cultural expectations are largely the result of the attitudes and actions of white men in both past and present.

 

[luiz]

But that's hardly all of the story, because there's no lack of Asian lawyers, doctors or engineers, at least in the US, despite Asians facing all sorts of official and unofficial discrimination in the past.

Also, I'm a Latin American living in the US and never faced any discrimination, and neither has any of my Brazilian friends who live here, for what it's worth. Which leads to me believe that claims of racism against latinos are either blown out of proportion or are in reality class-based. The mere thought that I'd be discriminated against here based on my ethnicity is laughable. And I live in the South.

 

[Flying Pig]

Racism is often impossible to separate from class discrimination - and it's not active discrimination that's usually the problem. See above for a couple of examples. If there's no lack of Asian doctors, scientists and lawyers, young Asian people identify that as something they can do and have structures in place to help them achieve that. It's not entirely true, though - there's quite the gender gap there, for much the same reasons as the racial ones I suggested.

All this despite the realities that you are an engineer and I am pretty much a thug.

In the UK that generally holds until people start talking. The British are only indirectly snobbish about birth.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But that's hardly all of the story, because there's no lack of Asian lawyers, doctors or engineers, at least in the US, despite Asians facing all sorts of official and unofficial discrimination in the past.

Also, I'm a Latin American living in the US and never faced any discrimination, and neither has any of my Brazilian friends who live here, for what it's worth. Which leads to me believe that claims of racism against latinos are either blown out of proportion or are in reality class-based. The mere thought that I'd be discriminated against here based on my ethnicity is laughable. And I live in the South.

Try the west. My observation, having lived in the south and in the west, though not as a latino or black in either one, is that discrimination against blacks is far more evident in the south while discrimination against latinos is far more evident in the west. However, you are probably right that it is always more class based than anything else.

The problem with writing it off as class based though, is that if you come out to California and you and I both dress down to a 'lower classes' level and go somewhere...you will receive the same sneering treatment as any other 'struggling immigrant', while I will be seen as 'out of place' and treated like someone who may just be 'slumming'. Then if we don our upper middle class garb and go somewhere else there will be people who pause in treating you appropriately because clothes don't always make the man, but they will unquestioningly assume I'm right where I belong. All this despite the realities that you are an engineer and I am pretty much a thug.

 

[Commodore]

That in itself is a systematic problem - and usually a self-sustaining one. 'Not for the likes of us' is a powerful force even today. Even given the will, though, it's difficult to find your way through a tough selection process when you and those around you have no experience of it. If ethnic-minority students rarely become lawyers, then schools in areas where those people live are going to be less experienced and capable when it comes to helping their students get into law school - even those which are as bright and suitable, or even more suitable, than those at schools with better people to help them. Similarly, if women rarely become CEOs, then it's difficult for a woman on that career path to find a mentor who has done it all before her and can give her advice. It's not necessarily anyone's fault, but it's certainly society's responsibility to fix that.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything you have said here. I also agree society should be doing something to fix it, but forced equality and finger-pointing isn't the way to do it. I'm not saying that is what you are doing, but there are many out there who are doing it and they are just as harmful to the cause of social equality as the most stubborn bigot.

My basic stance on promoting social equality is people have to stop blaming each other for the injustices they face, even if that blame is justified. That is something I learned as an interrogator in the Army. Taking an accusatory tone with someone, even if it is justified, makes the person being blamed a lot less cooperative and less willing to engage in dialog with you. Blaming prevents meaningful dialog because it forces the person/people being blamed on the defensive and reinforce their current attitude that you are an adversary that needs to be defeated, which leads to the blamed to entrench themselves and defend their stance at all costs.

 

[Oruc]

And there are still others like Quackers or Oruc who are uncompromising in their definition of multiculturalism.

Why am I being lumped in with quackers? We don't even share the same views

 

[Flying Pig]

That's all true. I do think there is a place for things like quotas, though, as a short-term measure. They address the problems I mentioned as well as put people from those groups on the bodies which select people to advance through various fields - people have an easier time convincing such groups of their suitability if they come from broadly the same background as the people on the panel.

 

[luiz]

Try the west. My observation, having lived in the south and in the west, though not as a latino or black in either one, is that discrimination against blacks is far more evident in the south while discrimination against latinos is far more evident in the west. However, you are probably right that it is always more class based than anything else.

The problem with writing it off as class based though, is that if you come out to California and you and I both dress down to a 'lower classes' level and go somewhere...you will receive the same sneering treatment as any other 'struggling immigrant', while I will be seen as 'out of place' and treated like someone who may just be 'slumming'. Then if we don our upper middle class garb and go somewhere else there will be people who pause in treating you appropriately because clothes don't always make the man, but they will unquestioningly assume I'm right where I belong. All this despite the realities that you are an engineer and I am pretty much a thug.

You are right that there is more discrimination against blacks in the South, but I've lived in California for a while as well and never faced any discrimination. Again, I'm definitely middle class, and while people can certainly tell I'm a foreigner if they talk to me, and my name screams "latino!", it's probably impossible just by looking at me. They usually assume I'm Irish or Russian, for some bizarre reason. But when I tell I'm Brazilian I've never noted any hostility or discrimination, quite the opposite (girls like it, be it in Cali,Texas, Virginia or Lousiana).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

They usually assume I'm Irish or Russian, for some bizarre reason.

People are hilarious in general.

Given the current view on Russia as the root of all evil you may want to get an "I am Brazilian" T-shirt.

 

[luiz]

People are hilarious in general.

Given the current view on Russia as the root of all evil you may want to get an "I am Brazilian" T-shirt.

I'm a white Brazilian, to be fair, so it makes sense they assume I'm from Europe. But why they nearly always assume my accent is either Irish or Russian is beyond me. And yes, when they realize I'm not Russian they usually look relieved
Russians seem to have a bit of a sketchy reputation around these parts.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

For one thing, there aren't that many women here to give a first-hand account from a woman's point of view.

By and large you could say the same thing about non-whites. Or at least there never seems to be much first-hand experience of racism brought into the debates (or at least when it does it's usually denounced as being physically impossible).

You're being sarcastic but yes, its true. Attempting to address old injustices so that all groups achieve success and representation at the highest levels is noble. The theory is that it becomes self-sustaining and affirmative action can be withdrawn.

Except of course that if you dare to suggest that that time might have come in certain areas, you will be dismissed out of hand as a misogynist and the discussion won't even be allowed to happen.

A man sarcastically dismisses a woman and women's points of view in a thread about misogyny.

Moderator Action: Please use the "multi-quote" button when responding to multiple posts, or edit in a new reply if nobody has made a new post since your last. This keeps the thread tidy and more readable. Thanks!

I'm not responding to the particular example in question, but I think it's worth remembering that not being a misogynist doesn't necessarily mean never, ever being sarcastic to, or disagreeing with, a woman.

 

[aelf]

Nope, it is two distinct things. From Wiki (but also verifiable in plenty of other sources):

Diversity explains the descriptive meaning, but not the prescriptive, which is the one I was discussing. But I never denied the existence of other meanings.

So there are at least two senses of the word, and the descriptive sense denotes diversity. Hardly "two distinct things", as you put it.

The problem is, unlike me, Cheezy never acknowledged any other definitions. He never entertained the notion that under the most accepted definitions of racism, white people can be victims too. He just stated, without any qualifications, that they can't. And that's just wrong.

He just thinks these definitions, though common and widely accepted, are actually wrong, which is a valid claim.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

He just thinks these definitions, though common and widely accepted, are actually wrong, which is a valid claim.

That's a very, very generous reading of Cheezy's posts in this thread.

 

[aelf]

I don't see how. Clearly he thinks that these definitions are wrong. And nowhere does he claim that these definitions are not widely accepted.