I think Klein’s tweets are hilarious. TL;DR, he basically assumes sexism does not apply to men. I mean, you could say men are probably more privileged than women. But I really don’t see anyone...
I think Klein’s tweets are hilarious. TL;DR, he basically assumes sexism does not apply to men.
Systemic sexism and racism exist at the intersection of bigotry and power dynamics. Racism isn't just being called the n-word, it's that + no one caring when you protest + not being given a loan a white person would have gotten + being shot by the police for no reason
The reason that "sexism against men" makes no sense as a concept is that men have the power. They're privileged in so many ways, from small invisible things, to large, outrageous things (like a confessed abuser and harasser like Louis CK can just have a comeback and that's fine)
I mean, you could say men are probably more privileged than women. But I really don’t see anyone really acknowledging that the rights for women have sharply improved over the past eighty years. Deny it all you want, but women are taking on roles that “only men can handle.”
The problem is that women are still one side of the coin. In topics that shouldn’t have a difference due to gender like gaming, they should not have preference over men, just as men should have have preference over women. Women can be sexist to men, just as men can be sexist to women.
Klein denies this fact, assuming just because men have power means that sexism against them is completely justified.
Everyone can get into gaming. You don’t need to put people in different categories to do so.
I think you're missing the definition of sexism here as "prejudice with power to enforce it", like how racism is being defined as such as well. What you're defining as sexism is now more commonly...
I think you're missing the definition of sexism here as "prejudice with power to enforce it", like how racism is being defined as such as well. What you're defining as sexism is now more commonly called prejudice now to differentiate the two (as I understand it).
You're dismissing the entire point because you want to nitpick terminology, which means you'll never understand what they're actually talking about in favor of attacking a strawman version of it.
I really would not say "women can be sexist to me just like men can be sexist to women." IRL, in practice the two flavors have very, very little in common. It sounds pretty marginalizing to say...
I really would not say "women can be sexist to me just like men can be sexist to women."
IRL, in practice the two flavors have very, very little in common. It sounds pretty marginalizing to say it's the same.
Sexism against men isn't "justified" but acting like it's just as nefarious as systematic oppression against women and offices where sexual harassment thrives is just silly.
Well, of course reddit got all whiny about it. Still, Klein’s tweets are not very good, and Riot could have used the opportunity to speak with men about sexism against women. (Its a bit of a...
Well, of course reddit got all whiny about it.
Still, Klein’s tweets are not very good, and Riot could have used the opportunity to speak with men about sexism against women. (Its a bit of a nitpick, but it can’t be helped.)
I’m not pushing the blame entirely on Riot, because I understand they’re trying to make amends. If that really was the case then, then I guess I must’ve been wrong on that.
Let's imagine for a moment that we're talking about some other grouping of people. Say that on an elementary school playground, Group A has been bullying Group B. Pushing them off swings, stealing...
Let's imagine for a moment that we're talking about some other grouping of people.
Say that on an elementary school playground, Group A has been bullying Group B. Pushing them off swings, stealing their lunch money, etc. The teachers have a talk with Group B about what's been going on and how to fix it. Then they bring in Group A to be part of the discussion, once they've heard the statements of the victimized group.
Was it unfair to exclude Group A from the initial meeting? Why or why not?
I think Klein’s tweets are hilarious. TL;DR, he basically assumes sexism does not apply to men.
I mean, you could say men are probably more privileged than women. But I really don’t see anyone really acknowledging that the rights for women have sharply improved over the past eighty years. Deny it all you want, but women are taking on roles that “only men can handle.”
The problem is that women are still one side of the coin. In topics that shouldn’t have a difference due to gender like gaming, they should not have preference over men, just as men should have have preference over women. Women can be sexist to men, just as men can be sexist to women.
Klein denies this fact, assuming just because men have power means that sexism against them is completely justified.
Everyone can get into gaming. You don’t need to put people in different categories to do so.
I think you're missing the definition of sexism here as "prejudice with power to enforce it", like how racism is being defined as such as well. What you're defining as sexism is now more commonly called prejudice now to differentiate the two (as I understand it).
You're dismissing the entire point because you want to nitpick terminology, which means you'll never understand what they're actually talking about in favor of attacking a strawman version of it.
I really would not say "women can be sexist to me just like men can be sexist to women."
IRL, in practice the two flavors have very, very little in common. It sounds pretty marginalizing to say it's the same.
Sexism against men isn't "justified" but acting like it's just as nefarious as systematic oppression against women and offices where sexual harassment thrives is just silly.
Well, of course reddit got all whiny about it.
Still, Klein’s tweets are not very good, and Riot could have used the opportunity to speak with men about sexism against women. (Its a bit of a nitpick, but it can’t be helped.)
I’m not pushing the blame entirely on Riot, because I understand they’re trying to make amends. If that really was the case then, then I guess I must’ve been wrong on that.
Let's imagine for a moment that we're talking about some other grouping of people.
Say that on an elementary school playground, Group A has been bullying Group B. Pushing them off swings, stealing their lunch money, etc. The teachers have a talk with Group B about what's been going on and how to fix it. Then they bring in Group A to be part of the discussion, once they've heard the statements of the victimized group.
Was it unfair to exclude Group A from the initial meeting? Why or why not?