Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Honestly this is a horrible philosophy -- the notion that anything can be sexist if someone chooses to be offended.

But it's the exact opposite. Being offended has nothing to do with sexism. Sexism is an objective situation of an unequal distribution of power. Sexism would exist even if everyone in the world thought it was great, and no one was ever offended in the slightest.

> but isn't the ability to recontextualize any bad behavior as sexist just because of the participants involved a huge source of power in of itself?

I don't know what "bad" behavior is. I do know what sexist behavior is: behavior the creates or perpetuates an unequal distribution of power. There is no "recontextualization" involved; sexism would exist or not regardless of how it's contextualized; like gravity. The only ethical question is whether you believe that this imbalance of power needs to be rectified.

But do people who fight sexism have power? Sure, they have some, but clearly, the imbalance of power between men and women is so large, that there is still no question about which side has more power.

In this context all we really know is that the moderator was rude, and the person he was rude to was a woman. We have no way of knowing for certain if he acted that way because of her gender. Saying this is sexism is pure speculation.

To brand someone as sexist is very damaging to their reputation. That women in general suffer from a power imbalance is no excuse for attacking a persons reputation with no strong evidence.

> We have no way of knowing for certain if he acted that way because of her gender. Saying this is sexism is pure speculation.

It isn't speculation, and why he acted the way he did is completely irrelevant. Sexism is a quality of a (social) situation where women's power is diminished compared to men. It doesn't have to be nefarious or intentional.

> To brand someone as sexist is very damaging to their reputation.

No, it isn't. We're all sexist. To brand someone as misogynistic may be damaging.

> That women in general suffer from a power imbalance is no excuse for attacking a persons reputation with no strong evidence.

No one here was attacked. The moderator did something sexist, as we all sometimes do. It happens. The only way to fight sexism is to point it out. I understand that the moderator must have been embarrassed by being called out, but we should all learn to be less sensitive about such things.

> Sexism is a quality of a (social) situation where women's power is diminished compared to men.

Or the other way around. Not super relevant for this discussion, but I feel it's important in the understanding of sexism to keep in mind that the discrimination can swing both ways. (In fact, sexism where men are discriminated against often _also_ end up hurting women, which is a phenomenon that holds for many issues related to sexism -- it's in the interest of both genders to get rid of this problem).

> it's important in the understanding of sexism to keep in mind that the discrimination can swing both ways.

It could (and may even happen in small systems), but in reality, women are the ones with significantly less power. But it's also important to remember that not every discrimination is sexism. For example, sexual discrimination designed to correct an already existing imbalance of power is the opposite of sexism (regardless of whether or not you find it just).

> but clearly, the imbalance of power between men and women is so large, that there is still no question about which side has more power.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, as of 2006 only 3.6% of alimony recipients were men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony#History

Mothers are granted custody in ~80% of cases and are the recipients of 94% of child support dollars paid: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08/15/latest-u-s-custody-...

Men make up 93% of the current prison population: https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gende...

Men are assumed to be sexist by default: https://amberskyeforbes.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/1240542_...

Men have no reproductive rights. If a woman decides to cede responsibility for her child, she can abort it or give it up for adoption. If a man decides to cede responsibility for a child, he is labeled a "deadbeat" and on the hook for child support payments anyways.

Only men are required to register for the United States Selective Service.

According to a 2012 CDC study, more men than women suffer from domestic violence and psychological aggression: http://www.saveservices.org/2012/02/cdc-study-more-men-than-...

But when the very first domestic violence shelter for men opened in the US it was panned as a misuse of nonprofit money: http://www.xojane.com/issues/domestic-violence-shelters-for-...

More than double the available scholarships for women than for men: https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh... https://www.scholarships.com/financial-aid/college-scholarsh...

So yeah, there's a pretty clear imbalance of power.

Bad and unfair things happen to everyone. But power is a well-studied, and rather specific concept[1], and there's really no question here. None of the things you mentioned change anything about the very clear imbalance of power. Bill Gates may suffer from an ingrown toenail, but that has little to do with the fact that he's richer than you.

Also, men are sexist, as are women. Being sexist is not being bad; it's being a human born in a sexist society. Just as it takes effort to learn about germs and how to fight infection, it takes effort to learn to see sexism and fight it.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)

The gp just gave evidence of structural sexism against a group. It just happened to be men. Saying that "life is unfair" when one group suffers, while rushing to the defense of the other group is hypocrisy and clearly a double standard.

> The gp just gave evidence of structural sexism against a group.

No, he mentioned things that happen to men[1]. That is not sexism any more than a rich man's illness is called "poverty". He may be sick; he may be miserable; he may be worse-off than just being poor -- but his condition is still not called poverty.

> Saying that "life is unfair" when one group suffers, while rushing to the defense of the other group is hypocrisy and clearly a double standard.

But sexism isn't about suffering; it isn't about taking offense; it isn't about unhappiness or general unfairness. It's an imbalance of power. I'm not rushing to anyone's defense, just explaining what sexism is. Sexism is not the only bad thing in the world, nor is it the worst, but it is what it is.

What is interesting to me is why is it when we discuss such an important issue, others find it necessary to point out that there are other problems, too. We know there are. But now we're talking about sexism.

[1]: Some of them are because men have more power.

This is just arguing semantics at this point, but even if we didn't agree that it's sexism or gender discrimination that male victims of domestic violence don't get help or that only men can be compelled to die or get mutilated in war, we would presumably be close to agreeing that these are good examples of power imbalances.

> This is just arguing semantics at this point

I disagree. If someone responds to an imagined accusation, it is important to explain to him that no one has accused him of what he believes he's been accused, because once people understand that, they become less defensive and angry.

> male victims of domestic violence don't get help

That's certainly very bad and requires addressing, but it isn't a problem on the same scale at all. The fact that women outnumber men significantly as victims of domestic violence clearly demonstrates that the problem as a whole harms women much more.

> or that only men can be compelled to die or get mutilated in war

If you think that on the whole men lost more power than women in wars, then you need to review your history. Although, it is true that in some cases male absence did lead to an increase in power to women back home, but the scale still tips very strongly in men's favor. It is also true that women today have more power than 100 years ago, but we're still far from achieving equality, and the gains were precisely due to constant political struggle against sexism.

> we would presumably be close to agreeing that these are good examples of power imbalances.

If we both start with ten toys, I take five of yours and you take one of mine, we cannot say that the one you took from me is an example of an imbalance of power in your favor.

There can certainly be conflicts where a man is more harmed than a woman, but sexism is a global quality of the system, not necessarily a property of each and every interaction.

I agree with your assessment. You are quoting a lot of examples that are blatant examples of sexism, it just varies in which contexts each gender has more power.

This just underscores the need for fighting sexism in all its forms! And it is also a good idea to not get stuck in the mindset that sex discrimination is something that only impacts women negatively -- this is far from the truth.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com