Gender & Sexual Harrassment

[Autoptic]

Not actually addressing OP, but anyone find it funny that were this a girl in such a situation the guy may've got labeled a doormat or something? She wouldn't get jumped on for considering leaving him. It might be cheered on or even may've been independently suggested. :smartass:

[JustMel]

Not actually address OP, but anyone find it funny that were this a girl in such a situation the guy could be labeled a doormat or the like? She wouldn't get jumped on for considering leaving him. It might even be cheered on or independently suggested. :smartass:

Actually, my advice would be the same regardless of gender.

[Causa Mortis]

Not actually addressing OP, but anyone find it funny that were this a girl in such a situation the guy may've got labeled a doormat or something? She wouldn't get jumped on for considering leaving him. It might be cheered on or even may've been independently suggested. :smartass:

Because generally men do more of the whole physical violence thing while women do more of the whole cooking and nurturing thing.

[Autoptic]

Because generally men do more of the whole physical violence thing while women do more of the whole cooking and nurturing thing.

Aside from that being unequivocal sexism, assuming a girl was doing this to the hypothetical guy, violence probably wouldn't be suggested or even accepted. This actual situation needn't involve violence anyway.

[Zsych]

True enough, and I'd agree with the stance that the guy was a doormat, and deserved a kick in the butt, in that situation. Power is at the core of the male psyche. You can be nice to people, but you can't really give that up.

[vampyroteuthis]

Aside from that being unequivocal sexism, assuming a girl was doing this to the hypothetical guy, violence probably wouldn't be suggested or even accepted.

Also sexist. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of gender or orientation.

[Autoptic]

Also sexist. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of gender or orientation.

:huh: So the hypothetical guy should just cuntpunt her instead of reporting it?

[vampyroteuthis]

:huh: So the hypothetical guy should cuntpunt her?

You haven't provided enough facts in your hypothetical situation. Regarding the situation outlined in the OP, I'd go with filing a complaint, pushing the person away, and/or pepper spray, personally. If harassment becomes assault, the person does not stay away when rebuffed, and there is no help available, then whatever physical violence is necessary to end the situation is acceptable. Opinion on this varies, though. There was an entire thread recently on acceptable responses to sexual assault; that might be a good place to educate yourself before making sexist assumptions about women being exempt from respecting other people's bodily integrity.

[Autoptic]

You haven't provided enough facts in your hypothetical situation. Regarding the situation outlined in the OP, I'd go with filing a complaint, pushing the person away, and/or pepper spray, personally. If harassment becomes assault, the person does not stay away when rebuffed, and there is no help available, then whatever physical violence is necessary to end the situation is acceptable. Opinion on this varies, though. There was an entire thread recently on acceptable responses to sexual assault; that might be a good place to educate yourself before making sexist assumptions about women being exempt from respecting other people's bodily integrity.

There were enough. I never said or at all implied harassment was acceptable in the real or hypothetical situation. I said violence wasn't necessary, thus implying the assumption that an unnecessarily violent macho man would be better off was completely unfounded; then, I pointed out, if the harasser was female, silently (to others beside the harasser and SO) waiting to respond with violence would probably become a sexist matter as well.

[admittedheretic]

Also sexist.


sex·ism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) /ˈsɛkTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.;zTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.;m/ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Show Spe[sek-siz-uhTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.] –noun

1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) directed against women

So by sexist do you mean 1,2, or both?


Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of gender or orientation.Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of the day of the week.

[vampyroteuthis]

There were enough. I never said or at all implied harassment was acceptable in the real or hypothetical situation. I said violence wasn't necessary, thus implying the assumption that an unnecessarily violent macho man would be better off was completely unfounded; then, I pointed out, if the harasser was female, silently (to others beside the harasser and SO) waiting to respond with violence would probably become a sexist matter as well.

I missed the part where someone asserted that a macho man would be better off. I do agree with you that in the situation outlined in the OP, violence is unnecessary, as outlined in my previous post. What I was responding to was your assertion that:
Aside from that being unequivocal sexism, assuming a girl was doing this to the hypothetical guy, violence probably wouldn't be suggested or even accepted.
My argument was not that violence is acceptable in this particular situation, but that if we can conceive of any situation in which it is acceptable to meet sexual assault with violence, then that violence is acceptable regardless of the gender and orientation of the parties involved. This is true not just in my own personal conception of sexual assault (about which you have no reason to care) but in FERPA regulations and in laws governing harassment and assault. Therefore the suggestion that women can get away with more violence against men in situations of sexual harassment and assault is in fact, untrue.

So by sexist do you mean 1,2, or both?
Condoning violence as an acceptable response to sexual assault if it is a woman being assaulted, but not doing so if the person experiencing assault is a man, is sexist in both of the ways described in the dictionary you quoted. Anything else I can help you with?

Sexual harassment is sexual harassment, regardless of the day of the week.
Yes. Then we are in agreement.

[Synamon]

Not actually addressing OP, but anyone find it funny that were this a girl in such a situation the guy may've got labeled a doormat or something? She wouldn't get jumped on for considering leaving him. It might be cheered on or even may've been independently suggested. :smartass:
Nice strawman you built. There are people in this thread telling the OP to leave her, I was one of them. If one partner can't support and respect the other's judgment and let them handle the situation then their relationship is done. It doesn't matter if she is handling the situation wrong (in his eyes) or what the gender of the participants in this little drama are.

[Autoptic]

My argument was not that violence is acceptable in this particular situation, but that if we can conceive of any situation in which it is acceptable to meet sexual assault with violence, then that violence is acceptable regardless of the gender and orientation of the parties involved. This is true not just in my own personal conception of sexual assault (about which you have no reason to care) but in FERPA regulations and in laws governing harassment and assault. Therefore the suggestion that women can get away with more violence against men in situations of sexual harassment and assault is in fact, untrue.

Good luck with that in court or at your job. A male will be considered a threat to a woman with less provocation and will be accused of unnecessary force much quicker. Also, consider, if the hypothetical guy doesn't report anything then suddenly attacks the girl, she's in a prime position to accuse him of something, even attempted sexual assault, much less merely unprovoked assault. The cops will presume real quick, as might anyone showing up late.

Nice strawman you built.

Uhm...read the thread.

Because generally men do more of the whole physical violence thing while women do more of the whole cooking and nurturing thing.

True enough, and I'd agree with the stance that the guy was a doormat, and deserved a kick in the butt, in that situation. Power is at the core of the male psyche. You can be nice to people, but you can't really give that up.

[Synamon]

Uhm...read the thread.
Those posts were made were in response to your strawman. Apparently the sexism strawman appealed to a few members of the forum. It had nothing to do with the OP or the thread.

[Autoptic]

If one partner can't support and respect the other's judgment and let them handle the situation then their relationship is done. It doesn't matter if she is handling the situation wrong (in his eyes) or what the gender of the participants in this little drama are.

He seems to be predicting fallout that'll affect them both. Apparently, she's dragging him along through related problems. Her judgment seems to be toxic for both of them and nothing to respect.

[vampyroteuthis]

Good luck with that in court or at your job. A male will be considered a threat to a woman with less provocation and will be accused of unnecessary force much quicker. Also, consider, if the hypothetical guy doesn't report anything then suddenly attacks the girl, she's in a prime position to accuse him of something, even attempted sexual assault, much less merely unprovoked assault. The cops will presume real quick, as might anyone showing up late.

The cops have also been known to presume real quick about people who don't look affluent enough, or white enough. True. Law enforcement is far from perfect. However, I was citing what the laws and regulations have codified in order to present a counterfactual to your assertion that
assuming a girl was doing this to the hypothetical guy, violence probably wouldn't be suggested or even accepted.

[cannotseethe]

Good luck with that in court or at your job. A male will be considered a threat to a woman with less provocation and will be accused of unnecessary force much quicker

Oh, I see. You're attempting to establish sympathy with the OP by mirroring his tendency to make someone else's problem all about him. I eagerly await the final flourish, in which you make a point that might aid someone with a tangible dilemma.

[Autoptic]

The cops have also been known to presume real quick about people who don't look affluent enough, or white enough. True. Law enforcement is far from perfect. However, I was citing what the laws and regulations have codified in order to present a counterfactual to your assertion that

You ever heard of duty to retreat (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? The average adult male wouldn't be considered at sufficient risk to actually assault the average female since he could probably flee without injury. A female suddenly resorting to violence claiming she felt threatened will very likely be given more leeway.

[vampyroteuthis]

You ever heard of duty to retreat (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)? The average adult male wouldn't be considered at sufficient risk to actually assault the average female since he could probably flee without injury. A female suddenly resorting to violence claiming she felt threatened will very likely be given more leeway.

My point is precisely that the level of threat, and therefore the acceptable level of violence in response, ought to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I see no assumptions about sex or gender written into 'duty to retreat', so this is not at odds with the point I have been making. The generalisations about gender have been added by you.

[Autoptic]

Those posts were made were in response to your strawman. Apparently the sexism strawman appealed to a few members of the forum. It had nothing to do with the OP or the thread.

If they agreed, it clearly wasn't a strawman. It did apparently turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy in this particular thread, but I've seen it happen many times since I've been around this forum.

[admittedheretic]

Condoning violence as an acceptable response to sexual assault if it is a woman being assaulted, but not doing so if the person experiencing assault is a man, is sexist in both of the ways described in the dictionary you quoted. Anything else I can help you with?

So was Autoptic discriminating against or did he devalue women? Or both? If so, how so?

To me, it was obvious he wasn't doing either.

Yes. Then we are in agreement.Over nothing. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Good ole circular logic.

Nice strawman you built.

How was that a strawman? It wasn't.


There are people in this thread telling the OP to leave her, I was one of them. If one partner can't support and respect the other's judgment and let them handle the situation then their relationship is done. It doesn't matter if she is handling the situation wrong (in his eyes) or what the gender of the participants in this little drama are.How is that relevant to anything Autoptic has said besides your imaged notion that he is arguing against you.

In order for a strawman fallacy to exist a person has to make a point. What is the point you think Autoptic has made relevant to the OP? I can't speak for him, but I'd wager he likely won't argee with your fabricated assumption of what he thinks.

Those posts were made were in response to your strawman. Apparently the sexism strawman appealed to a few members of the forum. It had nothing to do with the OP or the thread.

It was a tangent, but it was presented as such. Way to state the obvious and then twist the argument again with a strawmantangent of your own

[Autoptic]

My point is precisely that the level of threat, and therefore the acceptable level of violence in response, ought to be judged on a case-by-case basis. I see no assumptions about sex or gender written into 'duty to retreat', so this is not at odds with the point I have been making. The generalisations about gender have been added by you.

The threat needn't be real though. The women get more leeway with mere potential threats with less actual physical or verbal threat even implied. Having to hold till that extra bit of escalation occurs can be lethal though. Three thugs attack me unarmed I'm not allowed to shoot them since lethal force is "excessive", but a woman could probably get away with it. I may have a better shot than her in an unarmed fight, but my chances can still be bad, and I could just be killed at their leisure, no differently than the woman, if I lost.

This is going way off topic though.

[vampyroteuthis]

So was Autophobic discriminating against or did he devalue women? Or both? If so, how so?
Autoptic presented a hypothetical scenario in which, he argued, a different judgement would be made if the genders were reversed. I pointed out that such a judgement would be sexist.

To me, it was obvious he wasn't doing either.
I never said he was. I said that the scenario which he presented would be another example of sexism.

Over nothing. Sexual harassment is sexual harassment. Good ole circular logic.
I was pointing out that the laws and regulations concerning sexual harassment and assault make no distinction based on gender or sexual orientation. It was a clarification of a definition, not an axiom or an if-then proposition. How is that circular logic?

I have yet to see where you are actually disagreeing with any of the points I have made, rather than misreading them based on your own projections of my intent.

[Zsych]

1. Autoptic is right about what he's saying about the differences in how men and women are treated. The End.

Personally, I'm not sure most women are so much weaker that they need to be considered that weak. A woman is perfectly capable of kneeing you, biting you, or clawing your eyes out.

@astrolite: I'm not sure what constitutes proof in those cases. Either way, she's better off checking what the public perception of the guy is, and talking to him further before escalating.

@vampyroteuthis: The laws may not be different, and some behavior may be sexist, but in reality... judgments in the court would be biased by people's feelings... and judgments outside of court, would be biased by people's feelings. A guy who was stupid enough, in such a situation, to seriously go and complain to the authorities about a girl treating him like this, would be considered a joke.

[vampyroteuthis]

The threat needn't be real though. The women get more leeway with mere potential threats with less actual physical or verbal threat even implied. Having to hold till that extra bit of escalation occurs can be lethal though. Three thugs attack me unarmed I'm not allowed to shoot them since lethal force is "excessive", but a woman could probably get away with it. I may have a better shot than her in an unarmed fight, but my chances can still be bad, and I could just be killed at their leisure, no differently than the woman, if I lost.

This is going way off topic though.

As I keep saying, physical force, assault, and self-defense are all things that ought to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, and assumptions that any man being assaulted is capable of neutralising his attackers is as sexist as assuming that any woman isn't. I also agree with your point that the police are far from lacking in prejudice when it comes to gender, race, sexual orientation, etc. None of this, however, supports the bolded part of your original claim:
Aside from that being unequivocal sexism, assuming a girl was doing this to the hypothetical guy, violence probably wouldn't be suggested or even accepted. This actual situation needn't involve violence anyway.

-------------------------
@vampyroteuthis: The laws may not be different, and some behavior may be sexist, but in reality... judgments in the court would be biased by people's feelings... and judgments outside of court, would be biased by people's feelings. A guy who was stupid enough, in such a situation, to seriously go and complain to the authorities about a girl treating him like this, would be considered a joke.

Considered a joke by some, perhaps, and not by others. In the absence of further empirical evidence it is impossible to say more than that.

A general trend is not a universal truth. Conflating the two only breeds resentment and a sense of futility.

[admittedheretic]

Autoptic presented a hypothetical scenario in which, he argued, a different judgement would be made if the genders were reversed. I pointed out that such a judgement would be sexist.

If sexist pertained to varying judgments based upon gender then you would have a valid point, but alas it does not and thus respectively you do not.


I never said he was. I said that the scenario which he presented would be another example of sexism.Yeah, you did.

sex·ist (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
–adjective
1. pertaining to, involving, or fostering sexism: a sexist remark; sexist advertising.

–noun
2. a person with sexist attitudes or behavior.

The scenario which he presented was an example of a different judgment made if the genders were reversed; not sexism.



I was pointing out that the laws and regulations concerning sexual harassment and assault make no distinction based on gender or sexual orientation. It was a clarification of a definition, not an axiom or an if-then proposition. How is that circular logic?A point relevant to what? I must have missed where Autoptic suggested that literal laws do make distinctions based on gender regarding sexual harassment.

When I want a clarification of a definition I check the dictionary and ask questions pertaining to the context in which the definition was used.

It was a clarification or the definition of what?

I was using 'circular logic' metaphorically speaking because the later part of your statement was moot and you said something along the lines that 1=1.

To clarify my self better, no shit?


I have yet to see where you are actually disagreeing with any of the points I have made, rather than misreading them based on your own projections of my intent.I disagree with how you use the terminology sexist and sexism.

I disagree about your unwarranted "point" about law regarding the specific context in which you used it.

I disagree with you using the connotation you seemed to be intending to imply as a means of influencing a debate.

I disagree with what you think is clarification.

[vampyroteuthis]

(your post)
Your feelings about meaning, my intentions, and whether relevant points are "warranted" aside, I'm still not seeing a rebuttal to my argument.

[admittedheretic]

Your feelings about meaning, my intentions, and whether relevant points are "warranted" aside, I'm still not seeing a rebuttal to my argument.

What argument? :laugh:

[vampyroteuthis]

What argument? :laugh:

Pick one.

[admittedheretic]

I already picked several to which you said don't address your actual argument. What is your argument that I haven't provided a rebuttal for?

[vampyroteuthis]

I already picked several to which you said don't address your actual argument. What is your argument that I haven't provided a rebuttal for?

Show me something that you call a rebuttal that goes beyond an expression of your personal feelings into something approximating evidence.

[admittedheretic]

Show me something that you call a rebuttal that goes beyond an expression of your personal feelings into something approximating evidence.

Did you miss where I cited a dictionary?

There you have your something. Now will you please explain what your argument is?

[vampyroteuthis]

Did you miss where I cited a dictionary?

There you have your something. Now will you please explain what your argument is?

Certainly not. I have explained myself; you have asserted that you disagree, and impugned my motivations in responding to Autoptic, but you have failed to explain how the scenario I asserted was sexist towards men is, in fact, not sexist. This is completely unproductive. Your dictionary definition did nothing to diminish either my point or your lack of one.

[admittedheretic]

Certainly not. I have explained myself; you have asserted that you disagree, and impugned my motivations in responding to Autoptic, but you have failed to explain how the scenario I asserted was sexist towards men is, in fact, not sexist. This is completely unproductive. Your dictionary definition did nothing to diminish either my point or your lack of one.

:huh:

Please quote me where I asserted anything you have said is sexist toward men. Is that suppose to be what your "real" argument is about?

I didn't cite the dictionary to refute an argument that I know nothing about.

[vampyroteuthis]

:huh:

Please quote me where I asserted anything you have said is sexist toward men.

It's this sort of reading comprehension failure that is turning this conversation into a pungent morass. I have never said that you asserted that anything I said was sexist toward men. It makes me weary even to type a sentence that convoluted and filled with "I said"s. If you go back to the part of this thread where Autoptic and I were having a debate, you will see that he outlined a hypothetical scenario in which perceptions of vulnerability to assault and the justification of violence as a response to sexual assault were skewed against men, and I said that that scenario was sexist. You then asked me according to what part of the dictionary definition I considered this scenario sexist, and I replied, all of them. I am genuinely confused about what it is you think I am saying, as it seems to bear little to no relation to the ordered and grammatical patterns into which I have arranged my words.

[admittedheretic]

It's this sort of reading comprehension failure that is turning this conversation into a pungent morass.I have never said that you asserted that anything I said was sexist toward men.

Yeah, you did. See your previous post.

you have failed to explain how the scenario I asserted was sexist towards men

You have failed to explain how I've failed to explain how the scenario you asserted was sexist towards men.

[vampyroteuthis]

You have failed to explain how I've failed to explain how the scenario you asserted was sexist towards men.

you have failed to explain how the scenario I asserted was sexist towards men is, in fact, not sexist.
You truncated my quote, suggesting that perhaps you misunderstood its full import. Taking into account the part in bold might clear things up a bit.

[admittedheretic]

It was limited for a reason. I don't always "arrange my words" literally. There is such a thing as a forest and not just a bunch of trees.

I truly do not know what your argument(now a scenario) is really about. If you would read my previous posts, I have been asking you to explain it.

The only scenario I'm aware of is the one that Autoptic mentioned. That is, if the genders in the OP's scenario were reversed. To which you called sexist, did you not? I disagreed it is sexiest and I cited a dictionary to support my position. You provided a bunk and hyperbolic definition.

Just please answer these two simple things.

1) What scenario are you referring to?
2) Quote me where I said something and then failed to later support it.

[vampyroteuthis]

I'll humour you, but this is my final attempt to explain -- apologies to anyone else reading thus far who's getting sick of this whole thing.
1) What scenario are you referring to?
assuming a girl was doing this to the hypothetical guy, violence probably wouldn't be suggested or even accepted.
After this, you posted your dictionary quote and asked according to what definition of sexism I find this situation sexist, to which I replied:
Condoning violence as an acceptable response to sexual assault if it is a woman being assaulted, but not doing so if the person experiencing assault is a man, is sexist in both of the ways described in the dictionary you quoted. Anything else I can help you with?


2) Quote me where I said something and then failed to later support it.
A brief list (not exhaustive):
If sexist pertained to varying judgments based upon gender then you would have a valid point, but alas it does not and thus respectively you do not.
The scenario which he presented was an example of a different judgment made if the genders were reversed; not sexism.
I disagree with how you use the terminology sexist and sexism.
I disagree about your unwarranted "point" about law regarding the specific context in which you used it.
I disagree with you using the connotation you seemed to be intending to imply as a means of influencing a debate.
I disagree with what you think is clarification.

[admittedheretic]

I'll humour you, but this is my final attempt to explain -- apologies to anyone else reading thus far who's getting sick of this whole thing.

Thanks. It was humoring.

After this, you posted your dictionary quote and asked according to what definition of sexism I find this situation sexist, to which I replied:In post #33 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I responded to your post #26 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which was a response to Autoptic's post #23 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I agree with what Autoptic said in post #23 because it is a brute fact of nature that males and females behave and think differently. Pointing out the differences between the two is not sexist. Violent acts and advice are less prevalent amongst females than males.


Condoning violence as an acceptable response to sexual assault if it is a woman being assaulted, but not doing so if the person experiencing assault is a man, is sexist in both of the ways described in the dictionary you quoted. Anything else I can help you with?

How does it discriminate or devalue women? It doesn't. It doesn't meet the criteria for the second definition.


A brief list (not exhaustive):If sexist pertained to varying judgments based upon gender then you would have a valid point, but alas it does not and thus respectively you do not.I supported this with a dictionary.
The scenario which he presented was an example of a different judgment made if the genders were reversed; not sexismThe premise of the scenario was that gender roles are reversed. Supported.
I disagree with how you use the terminology sexist and sexism.Again, supported by the dictionary.
I disagree about your unwarranted "point" about law regarding the specific context in which you used it.You didn't challenge this.
I disagree with you using the connotation you seemed to be intending to imply as a means of influencing a debate.Supported because the second definition does not fit the scenario.
I disagree with what you think is clarification.Self-evident.

[vampyroteuthis]

Thanks. It was humoring.

In post #33 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I responded to your post #26 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) which was a response to Autoptic's post #23 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

I agree with what Autoptic said in post #23 because it is a brute fact of nature that males and females behave and think differently. Pointing out the differences between the two is not sexist. Violent acts and advice are less prevalent amongst females than males.

How does it discriminate or devalue women? It doesn't. It doesn't meet the criteria for the second definition.

I supported this with a dictionary.
The premise of the scenario was that gender roles are reversed. Supported.
Again, supported by the dictionary.
You didn't challenge this.
Supported because the second definition does not fit the scenario.
Self-evident.

admittedheretic, I am not going to re-state my point as I have already made it at least four different ways.

You claim to have been asking me to clarify my point. However, the bulk of your posts in this thread have not consisted of questions intended to clarify, but of accusations about my intentions, mischaracterisations of what I have said, and assertions that you disagree, sans explanation.

Let us review. You cited (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) a dictionary definition of sexism and asked me according to what definition of sexism I considered the scenario outlined by Autoptic to be sexist. I replied (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
Condoning violence as an acceptable response to sexual assault if it is a woman being assaulted, but not doing so if the person experiencing assault is a man, is sexist in both of the ways described in the dictionary you quoted.

Apparently my meaning here was not clear to you, because you asked me (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) whether I was calling Autoptic sexist, and according to what definition.
At that point I gave you the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps my wording was difficult for you to understand -- and clarified (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that I was not calling Autoptic sexist. I restated my point. You then said that you disagreed with my definition of sexism, insisted that I had called Autoptic sexist, and asked me again to clarify what I was saying (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). However I had not offered a definition of sexism, but expressed agreement with the definition you quoted. Nor did I at any point in this thread say that Autoptic was being sexist. You asked me again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) what my argument was, asserting that I did not have one.
I said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
you have failed to explain how the scenario I asserted was sexist towards men is, in fact, not sexist.

Somehow you twisted this around (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and said:
Please quote me where I asserted anything you have said is sexist toward men.
This was a new accusation on your part.
I explained myself again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
You reiterated (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) your accusation.
I explained myself again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).
You asked me again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) what my argument was.
I explained again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Now in your latest post you seem to be offering a definition of sexism that is specific to sexism against women. This is at odds with the initial definition you posted, with which I agreed. You continue to assert that I have not made my point clear.

All this is not counting the posts in which I clarified my argument further in response to both Autoptic and Zsych, but only taking into account posts in which I explicitly addressed you.


I am starting to wonder whether you are really do not understand my point, as you so insistently and vociferously claim.

In a last-ditch attempt to get back on point, let me ask you what about this statement you disagree with, and why:
Condoning violence as an acceptable response to sexual assault if it is a woman being assaulted, but not doing so if the person experiencing assault is a man, is sexist in both of the ways described in the dictionary you quoted.
Since I neither have nor wish to possess an intimate knowledge of your intuitions, please be advised that simply saying "I disagree" again and again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) does not constitute an argument to which it is humanly possible to respond with any substantive content.

[admittedheretic]

Man, you sure do know how to lose an argument gracefully.


You claim to have been asking me to clarify my point. However, the bulk of your posts in this thread have not consisted of questions intended to clarify, but of accusations about my intentions, mischaracterisations of what I have said, and assertions that you disagree, sans explanation.I didn't claim to have asked you to clarify. I did ask you to clarify.

In my second post I asked you to explain how the scenario meets the criteria for the second definition. I've repeated the question several times and you are still dodging it.

You have been dodging the underpinning question from my second post hence the tangents.


Apparently my meaning here was not clear to you, because you asked me (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) whether I was calling Autoptic sexist, and according to what definition.
At that point I gave you the benefit of the doubt -- perhaps my wording was difficult for you to understand -- and clarified (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) that I was not calling Autoptic sexist.So, you are saying that Autoptic stated a belief of his that is sexist, but he isn't sexist himself. Yeah, that makes sense. I had a hunch you would make this illogical argument.

How about you clarify how you misused/abused/don't understand the word sexist?

Your half-witted ad homs are tiring.


I restated my point. You then said that you disagreed with my definition of sexism, insisted that I had called Autoptic sexist, and asked me again to clarify what I was saying (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). However I had not offered a definition of sexism, but expressed agreement with the definition you quoted. Nor did I at any point in this thread say that Autoptic was being sexist. You asked me again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) what my argument was, asserting that I did not have one.
I said (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) The dictionary disagrees with your definition of sexism; not just me.


Now in your latest post you seem to be offering a definition of sexism that is specific to sexism against women. This is at odds with the initial definition you posted, with which I agreed. You continue to assert that I have not made my point clear.The definitions I mentioned in my first and last post are essentially the same. I hope this helps.

sex·ism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) /ˈsɛkTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.;zTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.;m/ To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) Show Spe[sek-siz-uhTo view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.] –noun

1.attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) directed against women
How does it discriminate or devalue women? It doesn't. It doesn't meet the criteria for the second definition.



In a last-ditch attempt to get back on point, let me ask you what about this statement you disagree with, and why:I'll humour you, but this is my final attempt to explain

So, the order goes, final, last-ditch, and then what?


Since I neither have nor wish to possess an intimate knowledge of your intuitions, please be advised that simply saying "I disagree" again and again (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) does not constitute an argument to which it is humanly possible to respond with any substantive content.I disagree. I never simply said I disagree. How doesn't it?

[nowt]

How doesn't it?

Why?

[admittedheretic]

Why what?

[nowt]

Why what?

Originally Posted by admittedheretic
How doesn't it?

Why?

[Thinktress]

The threat needn't be real though. The women get more leeway with mere potential threats with less actual physical or verbal threat even implied. Having to hold till that extra bit of escalation occurs can be lethal though. Three thugs attack me unarmed I'm not allowed to shoot them since lethal force is "excessive", but a woman could probably get away with it. I may have a better shot than her in an unarmed fight, but my chances can still be bad, and I could just be killed at their leisure, no differently than the woman, if I lost.

This is going way off topic though.

This was a really interesting sentence to me, "The women get more leeway with mere potential threats with less actual physical or verbal threat even implied."

It can be a little nervewracking sometimes to figure all of that out. What is the potential of a given situation? What's being implied? How sure are you? How long is it safe to wait to figure it all out?

Are you mad that women get so much leeway, or mad that men don't also get this leeway?