Sexism - It's a Real Thing

[zoogs]

N

OBODY in this thread, that I remember, has said...."These things are no big deal"

 

First of all, you just made a post saying, "even if he doesn't touch the woman? Interesting." But look, this is not a straw man. The idea that this is not a big deal is EVERYWHERE. Have you heard none of the so-called apologies whose defenses are rooted exactly in "I'm just a friendly and touchy guy" sometimes? The conversation at large, the one shaping the national discussion and reaction to these events, includes a great big heaping of this, and men wondering "but can we still hug?" and, seriously, "how will the human race continue if we can't be flirty in the workplace?" 

 

I think you're interpreting the things I'm trying to argue for here as attempts to attack other posters here personally, but they are not. They are pushbacks against what prevalent, relevant arguments that I think need pushing back against. 

 

You have had the attitude all along that if an accusation comes up that is anywhere close to valid, the guy should be fired on the spot.

 

I don't think you are intentionally misreading me, so I'd like to highlight this as an example of where you are immediately leaping. I have not in fact had this attitude all along, and I feel like in particular I've responded a half dozen times this week about the workplace question and my answer has been consistent.

 

If you want to talk about hampering conversation, I think your wild extrapolations of my points bear mentioning. Again, I don't think you're trying to misrepresent me. In fact, I'm quite confident that's not the case. What I think we are seeing in your response is you're really sensitive when it comes to "millionaires/bosses/CEOs are bad guys". I don't mean 'sensitive' in a bad way, it's just something that you're really quick to see. We are obviously opposite sides of the fence when it comes to economic policy, but I'm not here to personally demonize the human beings who run companies. I'm saying that there is a deficit of leverage for the average worker, and those are the grounds on which "fairness in firing a worker for so-and-so" should be argued, IMO. People get fired for a lot of things without much chance to defend themselves. This has always been dangerous and unfair.

[Landlord]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

I think you're interpreting the things I'm trying to argue for here as attempts to attack other posters here personally, but they are not. They are pushbacks against what prevalent, relevant arguments that I think need pushing back against. 

 

 

But you're talking to BRB, not to a prevalent argument in the ethos of culture, so it's not at all unreasonable or even unexpected for him (and others) to perceive that being an attack or accusation towards him. 

[zoogs]

Yea, I understand that. @BigRedBuster, and others, I apologize if this is how I'm coming off -- it'd be my fault in communication. It's kind of like when I or someone posts something here criticizing a Republican attitude towards something. It doesn't mean people here beliieve that and I'm trying to tell them they're wrong ... although, similarly, sometimes people here do make arguments along the same lines as what I'm arguing against.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Danny Bateman]

Hard to think of a better response to a sexist shot from the president than the one Kirsten Gillibrand just gave.

 

 

[zoogs]

There are some very, very good reads in response to 'Cat Person'. This from the Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/12/cat-person-is-not-an-essay/548111/ 'Cat Person' and the impulse to undermine women's fiction.

 

Here, in The New Yorker where the short story was originally published, an interview with the author: 

And, of course, the short story itself: 

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person

 

There's even a collection of responses, to save (some) the trouble of writing those themselves: https://www.avclub.com/a-twitter-account-has-begun-collecting-mens-reactions-t-1821203037

[zoogs]

Slightly different, but connected topic. Good thread:

 

 

This isn't about sexism or racism or anything per se. Just about diversity and how to amplify voices that usually aren't. 

 

Here's an example of one such effort: http://remezcla.com/lists/film/latino-film-critics-review-pixar-coco/

 

Here at Remezcla we don’t normally publish film reviews, but this felt like a watershed moment. Someone needed to step in and uplift the voices of Latino film critics. It’s about time mainstream outlets started paying attention to our opinions since in Pixar’s Coco its our culture that’s being showcased. Below you will find capsule reviews written by five Latino film critics. Read them, share them, and follow the writers. They need our support to break through the noise.

 

Posting in this thread just because I think it touches on a lot of the same ideas, when we talk about amplifying perspectives that usually don't, listening more to people who don't generally hold the megaphones, etc. It's a way of thinking about things outside of the pitchfork mob/threat response model.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[BigRedBuster]

Ok....this is being over sensitive. 

 

 

[Landlord]

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Ok....this is being over sensitive. 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree, but it's also not a big deal that it's happening. Looks like a group of students came up with the suggestion, and the only thing actually happening is that the student handbook uses the term and the teachers are encouraging it, but not enforcing it. No harm, no foul.

[Moiraine]

On 12/16/2017 at 9:37 AM, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

 

 

This is worse to me than using his power to try to sleep with them.

There weren't many women in the movies, so I'm assuming Ashley Judd was gonna be Arwen (can't picture that) and Mira Sorvino was gonna be Eowyn.

[zoogs]

Galadriel is another possibility! (and sadly, probably the only one)

[Landlord]

5 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Galadriel is another possibility! (and sadly, probably the only one)

 

 

Is this a subtly scathing critique of Tolkien, or..?

[zoogs]

4 minutes ago, Landlord said:

Is this a subtly scathing critique of Tolkien, or..?

It's not scathing, but it is a critique. LOTR is a wonderful, timeless, deeply philosophical story. The main cast skews heavily male because, well, that's the way it used to go. It wasn't strictly necessary, but you can understand why it was made that way. Defaults are defaults, unless you purposefully take aim at them. It also bears pointing out how ornamental the few female characters that LOTR had were.

 

(Incidentally, one of the things I truly appreciate and admire about the new Star Wars franchise. It is very much actively hostile to some defaults that, in our time, it's very important to see challenged at this scale.)

Edited December 20, 2017 by zoogs

[knapplc]

LOTR features mostly men because it's an adventure tale set in a time where brawn was in greater use than brains.  Aside from super-rare characters like Brienne of Tarth (GoT), there aren't many women in sword-wielding times that could believably fight against men. 

 

In the Star Wars universe, gender is irrelevant because anyone can use the force, anyone can wield a lightsaber, anyone can pilot a ship or shoot a blaster.  We had Leia as a gun-toting protagonist, then it expanded with Jyn, Rey, and especially Hondo in TLJ. 

 

It would be less believable for the Fellowship to contain a woman.  It is entirely believable that Jyn, Rey & Hondo do the things they do.