Sexism - It's a Real Thing

BigRedBuster said:
He's "black".....he's not "African American".
Click to expand...


I'm not that familiar with him, but "Indo-Fijian" is not Black. It rather sounds (based on his name, his parents' names) like his heritage is entirely Indian -- some of whom are also quite dark-skinned. But parts of your point stand.

Serena is one of the best tennis players of all time. Federer is one of the best men's tennis players. We don't usually make the distinction, and lose no information for it, and the same applies in reverse. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
I'm not that familiar with him, but "Indo-Fijian" is not Black. It rather sounds (based on his name, his parents' names) like his heritage is entirely Indian -- some of whom are also quite dark-skinned. But parts of your point stand.

Serena is one of the best tennis players of all time.
Click to expand...
it's not sexist to say that Serena Williams is one of the best woman's tennis players of all time.  The term of "woman" is being used as an identifying adjective, not a qualifying adjective.  Men's tennis and Women's tennis should be treated as two totally different professional sports.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Funny thing - I have indian friends who call themselves black and brown and I have vietnamese & cambodian friends that call themselves black.  There are (sadly) hierarchy's even within racial groups.  Darkest skin in the vietnamese culture considers themselves black, and fair skinned people are "preferred" and are held in higher esteem.  (might not be the right word choice but it's all I've got right now).  Same thing in PR, there was actually a good (HBO Sports) special that talked about lighter skin tones vs. darker on the island.

With all that said, I'm not sure I'd ever refer to an Indian person as black (or brown).

 
Not sure why we are derailing the thread on a discussion if Vijay is black.

What do you think he would have to put on a census if he were an American?
vijay-singh_2557857b.jpg


 
Landlord said:
I think it's being used as both, tbh (not that I think there's anything wrong with it, unless someone uses it in a pejorative way).
Click to expand...
But how is calling Serena "the best woman's tennis player" a pejorative comment?  It's only a pejorative comment to someone who wants to take it that way, and tries to take offense to every comment.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Not sure why we are derailing the thread on a discussion if Vijay is black.

What do you think he would have to put on a census if he were an American?
vijay-singh_2557857b.jpg
Click to expand...
I'm not an American Census expert, but looking quickly on the internet (so it must be true) he would probably identify himself as "Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander".  That's a totally different category than "Black or African American".

http://www.ir.ufl.edu/OIRApps/ethnic_code_changes/info.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've heard/seen plenty of fragile men get very defensive about female athletes and feel the need to disclaim and let everybody know that "x" female athlete is only one of the best female athletes, and most certainly doesn't belong in the conversation about best athletes period.

Again, it can be pejorative when you take men's sports and casually perceive them as being default, with women's sports being a special unique category. When we talk about GOAT athletes, without context of gender, the answers are 99% of the time men. Are we actually just talking about best male athletes but not saying so? Maybe we should get in the habit of disclaiming that. Or are we implying that in an assessment regardless of gender, no women belong in the list? That could hypothetically be true, but could also easily be insulting.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
it's not sexist to say that Serena Williams is one of the best woman's tennis players of all time.  The term of "woman" is being used as an identifying adjective, not a qualifying adjective.  Men's tennis and Women's tennis should be treated as two totally different professional sports.
Click to expand...
I agree with the last sentence here. So I think there's a compelling argument about sexism if women is always used as an identifying adjective when men is not. I'm offering that we can refer to both women and men as "the best tennis player", equally without qualifying adjectives, equally without any confusion. And I do think this is what a lot of the pushback is about when it comes to Serena.

--

@BigRedBuster, I think the point is the guy seems like he's of Indian descent. If he were American instead of from Fiji, you'd call him Indian. I could be wrong about his heritage, and "Black" can be quite a broad term...but his name and his parent's names sound completely Indian to me.

Although, I guess this settles it: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/16/magazine/relations-friends-and-allies-across-the-divide-dave-renwick-and-vijay-singh.html So he considers himself both! 

Singh: I was born in Fiji, of Indian descent. No doubt, I'm black.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you can put career athletic accomplishments of men and women in the same discussion as "greatest athlete", as long as it's a discussion about career accomplishments.  When ESPN did their rankings of top 100 athletes of the 20th century, there were 2 women in the top 20 (Babe Zaharias at 10, and Martina Navratilova at 19).  I am not going to get in an overall discussion of those rankings (because they look to be focused on American athletes), but I think that's to put those 2 women in the top 20.  If this list were updated to include the current era of Williams' career, I wouldn't be surprised if she were included in the top 10.

 
Waisting time talking about one of the least important parts of my post.  Fact is, if he were walking into a restaurant, most Americans would think a "black" man is walking into the restaurant.  If some idiot is racist against blacks, he's not going to look at him and say...naaa...he's cool.  He's actually Indian.

Now.....If you disagree with that, I really don't give two s#!ts and the entire argument is taking away from what the thread is about and that's sexism.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
zoogs said:
@BigRedBuster, I think the point is the guy seems like he's of Indian descent. If he were American instead of from Fiji, you'd call him Indian. I could be wrong about his heritage, and "Black" can be quite a broad term...but his name and his parent's names sound completely Indian to me, and the description I read of "Indo-Fijan" corroborates this. 
Click to expand...


You are right, Zoogs.  Here's a link that might clear this up:

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/vijay-singh-has-always-been-reluctant-discuss-his-early-years-pro-and-good-reason

The most relevant fact is that Singh is not an indigenousn 
Fijian, but a Fijian of Indian extraction, a descendant of the
 Hindus and Muslims from the subcontinent who came to work Fiji's
 cane fields between 1879 and 1916.
Click to expand...


He's Hindu, too.  So racially 100% Indian, but multiple generations on Fiji.  Rather interesting, really.

 
Dude, I don't think it's wasting time to get someone's ethnicity right. It looked like you totally glossed over that he was Indian. And your entire point was not about to what category most Americans who don't know his name or don't know what Indian names look like would automatically consign him on sight, it was about how he should have been more cognizant based on his own background.

I agree that being cognizant is important, which is why I think a fuller clarification of his background was worth the time. Little details like what a person's heritage actually is aren't irrelevant sidebars just because they don't serve the point of an argument.

 
No, the main point, was a man was so sexist that he wouldn't play in a  golf tournament that a woman was let into.  The fact he's black, indian, Fijian....or whatever anyone wants to call him was based on an afterthought comment I added at the end of my post.

But...hey...if you think it's more important to talk about if Singh is black or not black instead of sexism....have at it.  It's not what I'm going to talk about though.  I'm out of the conversation.

 
I don't really understand why you're reacting as if you've been attacked. We (or I am) are basically agreeing with you with a clarification about someone you mentioned. In a conversation based on the germane theme of accurately understanding where others might be coming from, I propose that another possible response would have been "Oh, is he? That's interesting, I didn't know that."

 
Back
Top