PDA

View Full Version : Is it sexist?



the_offsprings_monkey
12-01-2005, 04:45 AM
Ok I was having a chat with my mate James on msn and I was talking about some girl who really pisses me off. He tells me to punch her in the face and it'll all be ok, then when I say I don't hit girls he calls me sexist. How the fuck is not hitting women sexist?

Little_Miss_1565
12-01-2005, 05:17 AM
It's not sexist. Your friend is clearly retarded.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 05:37 AM
Sexism ; treating people of different genders differently. You constantly brag about what a badass fighter you are, then say you don't hit women. How is it not sexism, but it's very definition?

That being said, don't punch her in the face. She'll probably tear you apart, kitten.

the_offsprings_monkey
12-01-2005, 05:40 AM
Sexism ; treating people of different genders differently. You constantly brag about what a badass fighter you are, then say you don't hit women. How is it not sexism, but it's very definition?

That being said, don't punch her in the face. She'll probably tear you apart, kitten.
You don't even know WHO it is.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 05:42 AM
I don't need to. You've said the only reason you haven't hit her is because she's female and you don't hit girls. Right or wrong, that's sexism, no matter how you spin it.

the_offsprings_monkey
12-01-2005, 05:44 AM
Think of it how you want, I just feel hitting women is fucking wrong.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 05:51 AM
That's fine. That's a good thing. It doesn't make it any less sexist.

JohnnyNemesis
12-01-2005, 06:03 AM
It's not sexist because patriarchal dominance expressed through violence is an established institution that PROMOTES sexism. Recognizing that and refusing to strike a woman resists sexism. Your friend is indeed retarded.

But yeah, you ARE a fuckin' pussy.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 06:05 AM
By that logic racially-based positive discrimination isn't racist.

Seriously, it's sexist, and affirmitive action is racist, by definition alone. That doesn't mean they're bad.

wheelchairman
12-01-2005, 06:08 AM
Johnny's just being a marxist.

When you do that, you differentiate between exploitative/exploited master/slav etc.

JohnnyNemesis
12-01-2005, 06:09 AM
By that logic racially-based positive discrimination isn't racist.

Seriously, it's sexist, and affirmitive action is racist, by definition alone. That doesn't mean they're bad.

That's a whooooooole 'nother issue, but I'll say that I'm agreeing with you 60/40 on that, and 100% on the last sentence.

There's something disturbing about the fact that Ashley made a thread leading to worthwhile discussion, when we all know full well that we could return to topic and turn this into a thread about his cowardice.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 06:11 AM
Differentiating doesn't change the fact that it's still discrimination based on race/gender/social status/whatever. It's sexist. I can understand that people don't want to call it sexist because sexist is a buzzword with very negative connotations, but it doesn't change facts.

And if we're gonna go beyond face value ; patriarchal dominance is expressed even deeper by the common societal stigma against men who hit women, promoting their status as the 'weaker sex'. The stigma should be against men who hit weaker women, or women who are bound by love/relationships towards them, forcing them into a position of subjugation and making them a chronic victim.

What, for instance, would your opinion be on a man who has a 300lb dyke lumberjack start kicking the shit out of him and doesn't fight back?

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 06:14 AM
And as for the positive discrimination thing, it's racism when it's based on race alone. I understand it's to aid integration and break a social cycle, that doesn't change that it's fundamentally racist. Just because you can justify it doesn't change the fact that ; above all else, it's racial discrimination.

The problem is people equating everything racist as 'bad'.

wheelchairman
12-01-2005, 06:16 AM
hmm indeed you are right.

Then it is but a difference between correct and incorrect racism/sexism.

Not that I'd condone a 300lb dyke kicking his ass. I don't think I'd interfere, I just wouldn't respect the man. Which yeah is a societal based prejudice that's a part of me.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 06:26 AM
Well, justified or unjustified, rational or irrational, nobody can really say what's correct and incorrect.

Personally I'm still undecided on the whole Positive Discrimination thing, it's got upsides and downsides to it.. but even if I advocated it, I wouldn't pretend it wasn't racism.

wheelchairman
12-01-2005, 06:40 AM
To a marxist there is correct and incorrect stances on the matter. And it's a whole lot funner to say that there are as well.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 06:47 AM
Yeah, but Marxists are fundamentally incorrect and evil.

JohnnyNemesis
12-01-2005, 07:11 AM
And as for the positive discrimination thing, it's racism when it's based on race alone. I understand it's to aid integration and break a social cycle, that doesn't change that it's fundamentally racist. Just because you can justify it doesn't change the fact that ; above all else, it's racial discrimination.

The problem is people equating everything racist as 'bad'.

This is all true, which is why when it comes down to words, I don't think of reverse racism as real "racism", simply because I'm not fully convinced that the targets of "reverse racism" are fully established as a race in the common sense of the word. This applies only to America, because I will tell you I know next to nothing about these relations anywhere else.

When it comes down to the connotation of race in the U.S., however, and the different ways that ethnicity come into it, I just can't see how "white" is the same kind of group, and they're CERTAINLY not an oppressed group, which is what we usually equate race with. It doesn't justify discrimination against whites though (and I'm not sold on Affirmative Action being discriminatory in any unfair sense-only in the inherently discriminatory sense so many social institutions are-but again, whole 'nother issue)

Basically we agree on it all, but disagree on the terms used, I guess.

I'm struggling to be clear here, but I hope everyone understands.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 07:25 AM
Well, the discussion in the first place was about terms only. And don't use terms like "reverse racism", God damn. Anyways, you should know as well as I that the marginalised are wont to form seperatist movements, and kick the living shit out of people for being white. Is that racism, or can you explain it all away? But then, you damned mudskins do the most retarded things, like equating people like Malcolm X and Rev. Farrahkhan to Martin Luther King, which is probably the biggest insult imaginable to Reverend King.

As for the positive discrimination thing, it's bad. If it's based on race alone, it's bad, because there are plenty of poor white trash in America stuck in the same viscious cycle the majority of niggers are in, and deserve just as much chance as the niggers do. As to whether it'd be acceptable if based on wealth, location and social status instead of race.... I'm still undecided. I'm leaning towards supporting it, but I don't know enough about economics and such to make an informed decision.

Vera
12-01-2005, 07:27 AM
You could say it's not sexist simply because the word "sexist" has a strong, negative implication attached to it - basically "that's sexist" = "that's wrong", "you shouldn't do that". The same way "that's racist" = "that's wrong", "you shouldn't do that".

So if we're just talking everyday use of language and ditch the whole definition of term sexism debate, it's not sexist.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 07:27 AM
actually, just re-read your post. Misunderstood it before. Yeah, we're agreed. But dammit, call racism racism, you stupid mudskin. It's still racism when the spics and niggers do it against whites.

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 07:34 AM
You could say it's not sexist simply because the word "sexist" has a strong, negative implication attached to it - basically "that's sexist" = "that's wrong", "you shouldn't do that". The same way "that's racist" = "that's wrong", "you shouldn't do that".

So if we're just talking everyday use of language and ditch the whole definition of term sexism debate, it's not sexist.

That depends entirely on the size of the woman. It's wrong to hit anybody for annoying you, provided they're the same size/toughness, there's no difference between hitting a woman and a man.

ruroken
12-01-2005, 09:13 AM
Fucking Honor Code.

the_offsprings_monkey
12-01-2005, 09:18 AM
My friend is a lot like sin come to think of it, when he heard I had cut he said this to me "Ashley you fucking idiot, next time I hope you fucking bleed to death". So his views are a lot like sins.

ruroken
12-01-2005, 09:20 AM
My friend is a lot like sin come to think of it, when he heard I had cut he said this to me "Ashley you fucking idiot, next time I hope you fucking bleed to death". So his views are a lot like sins.
One thing does not = "a lot like"

the_offsprings_monkey
12-01-2005, 09:32 AM
One thing does not = "a lot like"
My mate's like a mini sin, he's rasist, tell's me to go cut, hates my gf, and is rude to everyone, so yea, they have alot in commen, only my mate likes me :D

Sin Studly
12-01-2005, 09:42 AM
Everybody wants you to bleed to death. That doesn't mean they're anything like me.

the_offsprings_monkey
12-01-2005, 09:47 AM
Everybody wants you to bleed to death. That doesn't mean they're anything like me.
:rolleyes: pffft not THAT many people, and he said it because he cares.

T-6005
12-01-2005, 11:00 AM
A brilliant thread ruined.

I suppose TOM's second post offset the intelligent discussion caused by the first.