You Sexist You!

[lilpixieofterror]

I didn't say she focused on career first and family took a backseat to it. I said that she balanced the two expertly and that her career didn't take a backseat to her domestic life.

And nobody said it did either, but do keep to shove words down people's throats though. It is quite entertaining to watch you keep digging and digging and digging rather than just admitting that was a pretty poor example of 'sexism'. If you want to see real sexism, in action, try taking a look at the modern day Africa and Asia. Now that is some real sexism in action going on over there...

I didn't want anyone to laugh at anything. I wanted to have a friendly and fruitful discussion with the people I'd once considered friends. Your persistent verbal abuse and harassment of me has more than sent the message that you're not interested in that.

Than you need to start thinking about what you say before you just say something silly. You want to have a talk about sexism? How about we talk about the horrible oppression of women over in parts of Asia and Africa are currently going though? How about we talk about women sold into sex slavery across Africa and Asia? We could also talk about the amounts of baby girls killed in those parts of the world for the terrible crime being born female. An author, writing some stuff about a rocket scientist domestic life is hardly a bleep on the radar compared to the actual sexism that is going on across other parts of the planet, this very second. A well written article, discussing a good woman's life and some of the struggles she went though (such as not being able to go to Engineering school) isn't sexism. Try talking about actual sexism and you'll get a different response.

And whereas I just wanted to have a friendly and fruitful discussion, you just want to shut me up and find ways to insult me. Congratulations, you've succeeded in genuinely hurting me.

Oh please, stop with the victim complex because you personally attacked me and get all upset and bent out of shape when somebody returns the favor. You have personally insulted me, several times, here on tWeb and this very thread, so stop with the victim hood routine because you are not an innocent victim or do you not remember the things you've ended up saying on here before? The bottom line is that you made a silly comment about how a 'male scientist wouldn't have details about his domestic life on an obituary' and when it was demonstrated that wasn't true and many have... you shifted the goal post to something else and now you are talking about your 'poor treatment' when you just can't bring yourself to admit that this might not be a very good example of sexism at all.

It's a nice obituary...as I already said. That's why the opening, which did make it seem as if her scientific career was a footnote to her family life, was so baffling.

Do you always judge an entire article or book, based upon the first sentence it mentions? Perhaps the goal was to establish that she wasn't some demigod and she did live among us mortals and did things the rest of us do too (such as cook in the kitchen). Point is, there could be several ways to see the goals of this article beyond taking the route of "It is sexism!" and attacking somebody for something you have no idea they even were doing or not. You talk all about 'making you feel bad' when you go to attack the reputation of a man, you don't even know, and attempt to make a smear a job of his reputation, before you even try to think the best of what he was writing about. You don't see that as shameful behavior at all and something that shouldn't be done, without just cause? Do you have any just cause to attempt to drag an possibility innocent man though the mud, for something I'm pretty confident he wasn't trying to do at all? I don't see any just cause to drag this man though the mud and this sort of behavior, from many modern feminist, is shameful.

I don't hate you. I used to consider you a friend, before the site crashed. You think I decided to return just to argue about political and social stuff? I returned because I thought I still had friends here...only to find out that politely disagreeing with them on relatively minor political and social issues apparently is incompatible with that. It's definitely not fun trying to genuinely convey certain ideas only to be met with such disdain and hostility, and then having to swallow my hurt and bitterness all the time.

As I pointed out above, this has nothing to do with what you think. It has to do with the horrible treatment you seem to be giving an innocent man, who never met to say or do anything 'sexist' in his article. You talk about 'politely disagreeing', but this has none of those hallmarks or do you think accusing a man, you don't even know, of writing a sexist comment is polite and is deserving of being called a sexist? You don't see that a shameful behavior, at all? You want to say sexism still exist? Ok whatever, but is dragging somebody though the mud, a polite thing to do?

[fm93]

Nope.

Never heard of non-angry grumbling, but whatever.

As I cited, USAToday.com has done several of these articles on the deaths of celebrities, and most all of the ones done about females are just like the males. So what made this one different? Sexism? Or the more likely reality of her being a family woman whose son was interviewed and remembered her cooking.

I have no problem concluding that the writer just happened to write an eccentric lede. But if it's far less likely that a similar male figure would be memorialized in that manner, I think it's at least worth contemplating. I think of some retired professional athletes who did have a widespread reputation for being great human beings off the field, but I cannot envision an obituary about them beginning with an emphasis on that personal life over the prestigious athletic careers for which they're primarily known. I mean, Roberto Clemente, who was such a renowned humanitarian that the baseball award for humanitarianism is named after him, received an obituary that still first emphasized his athletic accomplishments. (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/gene...bday/0818.html)

That's what a standard is.

For this specific writer, I meant. Not necessarily in the industry.

Not really. If he had the know-how, why not ask him if you are incapable of fixing it yourself?

That wasn't the question; it was "Why would you ask him specifically to fix your roof but then have him fix your computer?" If you want him to fix your computer, you'd just ask him to fix your computer, wouldn't you? And if you asked him to fix your roof, it's only logical for him to expect that he'll be fixing your roof, isn't it?

Which is why the majority of the article was about her career.

Which I'm glad to see, but that would naturally lead to the question of why the opening seemed so different from the rest of the article.

I do. That's exactly what the publicized complaints inferred.



I disagree. From the responses I've read in the past few hours, the complaints are that being a wife, mother, or daughter" are somehow denigrating to the woman's independence (see this little rant from Salon to get my point: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/01/grou...re_could_cook/)

Hmm. I'm not completely sure, but I think they have something else in mind. I've seen anecdotes from women in which it's claimed "I was being catcalled on the street, but then when I walked down that street with my boyfriend/husband the catcalls stopped." I think the takeaway is supposed to be that those catcallers stopped because they started thinking of the women in terms of "They belong to a man, so I shouldn't do this." From this, I think the further takeaway is supposed to be that those people should've refrained from catcalling because women are human beings who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, not just because they belong to a man. And so I suspect the Salon writer was trying to relate that point to the Brill obituary somehow. It's probably not the perfect application, but if my understanding is correct, they're not saying that being a good wife/mother/daughter is inherently denigrating. It's just that people shouldn't think of women as deriving worth from that relation as a wife/mother/daughter.

I agree that the Salon writer's argument is a bit off.

[fm93]

Oh please, stop with the victim complex because you personally attacked me and get all upset and bent out of shape when somebody returns the favor. You have personally insulted me, several times, here on tWeb and this very thread

I've insulted you before after I lost my temper at you insulting me. That doesn't excuse me personally, but I don't recall ever initiating insults--not intentionally, at least (I suppose it's possible I could've said something that was incorrectly taken as insulting). And I don't see where I insulted you personally in this thread.

As I pointed out above, this has nothing to do with what you think. It has to do with the horrible treatment you seem to be giving an innocent man, who never met to say or do anything 'sexist' in his article. You talk about 'politely disagreeing', but this has none of those hallmarks or do you think accusing a man, you don't even know, of writing a sexist comment is polite and is deserving of being called a sexist? You don't see that a shameful behavior, at all? You want to say sexism still exist? Ok whatever, but is dragging somebody though the mud, a polite thing to do?

I didn't say the writer was a sexist, though. I said the opening to his work seemed to evince sexism. That is, I don't believe that he thinks women are inferior to men. What I'm saying is that his work seemed to be applying an unequal standard to women. He could be--and if I'm correct, probably is--doing this completely unconsciously or unintentionally, and is probably a good person. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he was morally awful on the level of people who physically abuse women and treat them like slaves.

[fm93]

Maybe, instead of taking offense at the New York Times and assuming they were slighting this woman, the correct question might be "Why does the Times NOT also praise men who are great fathers in addition to great career men? Why are only WOMEN given this positive treatment, and why are men discriminated against by The Times in this way?"

(a great question from the comment section at the Salon article I linked to)

That's a good question indeed. I think men SHOULD have that emphasized more in their obituaries, personally. If you go back in the thread, you'll noticed that I said this earlier to lilpixieofterror:

Either the female scientist's career achievements can also stand on their own, or obituaries of male scientists should also remind the public that men can have exemplary family lives.

The first article that I linked to (from Scientific American) also raised that sentiment:

Lest you think that I only care about women, let’s not act like this doesn’t have a real and dangerous impact on men, too. If a man spends years of his life as a doting father and caring husband, yet his strong devotion to his family is not considered an important fact for his obituary because he’s male…then yes, that’s also a big problem.

You act as if my objection was based entirely on the idea that it's insulting to women. That's not quite accurate.

[Paprika]

I'm not seeing what the contradiction is. It can't be both?

When it suits you, it's sexist. When it becomes inconvenient it's just "odd and inconsistently applied".

You waffle, which is one reason why you get a certain type of response from others. In general, the pushback isn't (at least) mostly for merely 'politely disagreeing' but the way you argue.

and then having to swallow my hurt and bitterness all the time.

Deal with it. It's very unlikely that nothing's changed besides your political views, so stop merely blaming others and start some self-examination.

[fm93]

When it suits you, it's sexist. When it becomes inconvenient it's just "odd and inconsistently applied".

As I told Bill, I define "sexist" as "an unequal standard skewed along lines of gender/sex." It's odd and inconsistently applied along lines of gender/sex, and so I considered it technically sexist. They're complementary.

You waffle, which is one reason why you get a certain type of response from others. In general, the pushback isn't (at least) mostly for merely 'politely disagreeing' but the way you argue.

I suppose I could have more clearly defined the terms at the beginning in this case, but some people appear to be stubbornly set on insisting that I'm deliberately changing things as I go along, instead of simply asking me to clarify something if something seemed to be confusing. And in basically every instance, I have in fact explained what I meant and showed that my initial statements pointed to it.

I can also point to several clear-cut instances in which it's someone else who has egregiously misread a clearly-stated post.

Deal with it. It's very unlikely that nothing's changed besides your political views, so stop merely blaming others and start some self-examination.

Er...technically, my political views have not significantly changed; I simply never expressed them before. I have engaged in self-examination, meanwhile, and have not found anything incriminating.

[lilpixieofterror]

I've insulted you before after I lost my temper at you insulting me. That doesn't excuse me personally, but I don't recall ever initiating insults--not intentionally, at least (I suppose it's possible I could've said something that was incorrectly taken as insulting). And I don't see where I insulted you personally in this thread.

Oh please. I could care less if you insulted me or not because I don't say things I can't handle because I'm a big girl that doesn't try to blame others for my own actions. I do care about hypocrisy though and complaining about insulting people, while engaging in it yourself, is the issue.

I didn't say the writer was a sexist, though. I said the opening to his work seemed to evince sexism.

Key term is that you THINK it MIGHT be 'evince sexism' (well that is currently what you're saying, although it seems you change up your goal post all the time, so it is hard to say what you currently are arguing for at the moment), but you haven't been able to prove it beyond just your say so. You know what they say about opinions now, don't you?

That is, I don't believe that he thinks women are inferior to men. What I'm saying is that his work seemed to be applying an unequal standard to women. He could be--and if I'm correct, probably is--doing this completely unconsciously or unintentionally, and is probably a good person. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he was morally awful on the level of people who physically abuse women and treat them like slaves.

And your evidence of this is what? Your say so? Again, I want evidence and not blind assertions that you think are happening. Sorry, it isn't sexism and you saying it is will not make it true (no matter how much you think it will). If you want though, I'll introduce you to some real sexist and you can go and tell them about their sexism. You might need a hazmat suit though because you think I am bad (with all of your whining, you seem too), you haven't seen anything yet.

[lilpixieofterror]

I suppose I could have more clearly defined the terms at the beginning in this case, but some people appear to be stubbornly set on insisting that I'm deliberately changing things as I go along, instead of simply asking me to clarify something if something seemed to be confusing. And in basically every instance, I have in fact explained what I meant and showed that my initial statements pointed to it.

Do you not read your own post? Here is what you claimed at first:

The point, as the article I specifically linked to explains, is that you know an obituary of a famous male scientist like Einstein wouldn't have a section devoted to exemplifying his family life. His career achievements would stand on their own. Whereas a female scientist's obituary was written by someone who apparently decided that the family life section needed to be there. That's an unequal standard. Either the female scientist's career achievements can also stand on their own, or obituaries of male scientists should also remind the public that men can have exemplary family lives.

And now your claim is:

I also specifically said to Bill that the rest of the obituary was fine and that it was specifically the opening that I thought was somewhat problematic. So please keep that in mind next time you decide to falsely accuse me of poor reading comprehension when you in fact are the one who has missed some critical parts in the reading.

Don't admit you're wrong, just change gears and hope nobody can spot that goal post, running down the field, eh?

[Paprika]

As I told Bill, I define "sexist" as "an unequal standard skewed along lines of gender/sex." It's odd and inconsistently applied along lines of gender/sex, and so I considered it technically sexist. They're complementary.

When it suits you, it's "sexist" with all the perjorative force you liberals put behind the term - "problematic" and "more serious". Later it's merely "odd" and "technically" sexist.

I suppose I could have more clearly defined the terms at the beginning in this case, but some people appear to be stubbornly set on insisting that I'm deliberately changing things as I go along

You made a big deal about the obituary but now claim that it isn't such a big deal and you never did make a big deal about it. What do you think the response is going to be?

Er...technically, my political views have not significantly changed; I simply never expressed them before.

"Technically". Right, they may not have changed, but from the perspective of others for all practical purposes they've changed, so you can amend it thus:

Deal with it. It's very unlikely that nothing's changed besides your expression of political views, so stop merely blaming others and start some self-examination.

I have engaged in self-examination, meanwhile, and have not found anything incriminating.

I can't help you if you retreat too much into denial.

[fm93]

Do you not read your own post? Here is what you claimed at first:



And now your claim is:





Don't admit you're wrong, just change gears and hope nobody can spot that goal post, running down the field, eh?

The phrase "Section devoted to family life" referred to the opening section. Nowhere in the first post did I claim that the entire obituary was problematic. I can apologize for not having made that more explicitly clear, but I can't apologize for "moving goal posts" because that's not what I did.

[fm93]

When it suits you, it's "sexist" with all the perjorative force you liberals put behind the term - "problematic" and "more serious". Later it's merely "odd" and "technically" sexist.

"Problematic" wasn't intended to convey anything pejorative. "More serious" was in reference to Jedidiah's account of some women getting annoyed at men opening doors for them, which ordinarily isn't anything serious. I don't consider the incident anything severely bad; I consider it a relatively minor problem that's more serious than what Jedidiah mentioned...and that's a testament to how non-serious Jedidiah's account generally is. But a minor problem still counts as a problem. Again, apologies for not having made these things more clear, but I find it frustrating that people seem hell-bent on trying to interpret this as deliberate goal-post shifting.

You made a big deal about the obituary but now claim that it isn't such a big deal and you never did make a big deal about it. What do you think the response is going to be?

Define "big deal." Did I ever act like this issue was plaguing the entire female sex? Or that this was a terrible breach of human rights and the author should be tried in federal court? All I've been trying to convey is "Hey, this is an odd and inconsistently applied standard. Yvonne Brill's obituary ought to read the same regardless of whether Brill's female or male, but it doesn't seem that it would be. That's not quite right."

I can't help you if you retreat too much into denial.

I remember how I used to post. Feel free to go through the Wayback Machine and find my old posts from the pre-crash site.

[Paprika]

"Problematic" wasn't intended to convey anything pejorative.

Define "big deal." Did I ever act like this issue was plaguing the entire female sex?

No, you just labelled it as "benevolent sexism" and an "unequal standard" applied to men and women- this surely was an attempt to limit the range of the terrible discrimination

I remember how I used to post. Feel free to go through the Wayback Machine and find my old posts from the pre-crash site.

My own recollections tally with the judgments of those you formerly regarded as friends.