Our culture is still largely a patriarchal culture and is descended from patriarchal cultures. As such we still use idioms that are misogynistic in nature, such as "stop being such a b****.." or "The Dodgers are all p*****s." We still equate feminine with weakness and frequently judge women on their sexual attractiveness even political leaders. Many people might not consciously consider women inferior or incapable of being leaders but will still use such language and engage in such behavior. That would be weak misogyny.
That you're citing US casualties in the Vietnam war on an argument about sexism. That somehow people don't care about that most of the deaths were men. There are reasons why most of the deaths were men and plenty of people cared about US deaths in Vietnam and it wasn't because of sexism.
Vietnam US male fatalities: 58,212 US female fatalities: 8 Yes, this was because of sexism. Yes, you don't care.
Maybe you suspect I'm being mean to women somehow when I call this sexist: Vietnam War US male fatalities: 58,212 US female fatalities: 8 But look at the flip side: Vietnam Congressional Medals of Honor Men: 260 Women: 0
If somehow sexism was addressed, say two centuries earlier, it might have made the civil rights movement occur earlier and with much more progressiveness. Racism is ultimately tribalism that is driven by testosterone. With at least "white" women in power earlier in the colonized world there would be more feministic empathy for the plight of others.
White women voted for Trump, not a white woman, in the last election. If it is all down to testosterone, males can't really help having testosterone, can they? (Makes me wonder why we would allow people to take testosterone shots, but whatever.)
One I was barely alive when the Vietnam war ended so yes I didn't care then. That said there were many protests over the Vietnam war which ultimately was why the US had to withdraw so many people did care. Again I'm not really sure why you keep on bringing this up without recognizing the particular conditions of why there were so few female US casualties. What is exactly your point?
There were women leaders during European Colonial expansion notably Queen Isabella of Spain and Queens Elizabeth and Victoria of the UK. None of them showed particular empathy towards colonized people.
They were following the routines of their monarchy. I was counting on females of the peasant and merchant classesthat endured the rigors of physical labor, harsh elements and the natural human experience. They have good maternal empathy. Yeah I was asking for too much, as most peasants of the those times were illiterate and merchants didn't have time for social empathy. LOL
Both sexism and racism result in people being discriminated against in the workplace, in the courts, and other areas of life. Both result in the death of victims as both women and minorities are exposed to violence as a result of attitudes towards women and race. So again, how can you say one is worse than the other?
Yep. There's a point somewhere that msg board culture and reddit are inherently male centric and toxic(?)(!). Hmm, I just thought of this in a vaccum, but why don't we call this issue Women Lives Matters? ALTHOUSEPARTY WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
What about attractivenism? For centuries people have been discriminated based on their level of attractiveness. Attractive people has advantage over unattractive people pretty much in all human interactions in life. And it only amplifies if you are a also discriminated on other dimensions, like being an unattractive gay minority.
It is an absurd question, Os, one i'm a little surprised that you would bother to ask. I see no reason to have to "choose." Both are damaging to large segments of American society and the health of our republic, for obvious reasons, in my opinion, reasons I won't repeat here because I've given my thoughts on both topics over the last 18 years in this forum (and before it was created back in the Stone Age) dozens of times.
How is it telling? There's no scientific way to measure which has caused more harm. It's purely subjective and dangerous. It's like asking which is worse - to kill someone by strangling them or by drowning them?
let me use an analogy, and then compare it to the sexism/racism question. In a class on value theory that I teach (and that I have taught since 1995), I do a "chocolate taste test" as a way of illustrating issues having to do with values and preferences, and judgments about objective value. Chocolate A vs Chocolate B kind of stuff. I have also done this for academic seminars in a room full of card-carrying, Phd-holding academics. I ask two questions: Which chocolate do you like better? and, Which is better chocolate? Most students/participants do fine with the first question--it's the second question that some will struggle with. In one seminar, I had a German-trained and internationally-noted biologist absolutely REFUSE to answer the second question . . . absolutely refuse. And that is very telling also. "Telling" because it revealed in a very stark way his philosophical and epistemological beliefs about value--in a word, it revealed his relativism. Now, back to the sexism vs racism question: Which is worse? If you have people who genuinely ponder the question, and wonder about its significance, even treating it as a hypothetical of sorts, and it forces them at least to speculate "well, how would I answer that question if I were pressed to answer it?", then the very act of posing that philosophical question has done its job: it has made people think. It has pushed them just a little bit out of their comfort zone, and forced them to confront implicit value questions that they do not ordinarily face when thinking about either sexism or racism. We might even move the needle just a bit, say, with someone who considers him/herself well-versed on the topic of racism, but doesn't generally consider him/herself a sexist--in the same way that may white people do not consider themselves racist. You've gently forced someone to consider something relatively uncomfortable about themselves. Now consider someone who absolutely REFUSES to answer or respond to the question. He rejects the question out-of-hand as "absurd" or "nonsensical." What that has told me about that person--what that response reveals about that person--is a certain habit of thought, a certain disposition, a certain set of tendencies perhaps. Just as the chocolate relativist years ago revealed his own chocolate relativism in a room of his peers and colleagues (which btw then turned into one of the most marvelous discussions that particular room full of people had experienced in a long time), the anti-prejudice dogmatist's refusal to even consider the question here reveals his dogmatism in an online forum. The anti-prejudice dogmatist, who perhaps believes something like "all prejudices are equal!" in order to assert "so DOWN with all prejudices!!", is suddenly off the hook when it comes to genuine discussion of tough cases. All prejudices are not equal. In some cases, sexism is worse than racism; in other contexts, the judgement is reversed. One way of demonstrating the significance of the original question is to pose that question to black women, which I recall happened quite a bit back when Hillary Clinton was running against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. Not surprisingly, thoughtful black women who actually took the time to consider the question differed in their responses: some said that sexism was a worse force in their lives, while others claimed racism was worse than sexism in their lives. None rejected question out of hand as "absurd" but instead considered the question thoughtfully. So to get back to @Sweet Lou 4 2 's objection ("There's no scientific way to measure which has caused more harm. It's purely subjective and dangerous"), yes, the question is subjective. No, the question is not dangerous. Not considering the question (whether it's this particular question or similarly subjective questions about value, chocolate, prejudice, and the like) is what's dangerous. These questions also most certainly can be studied, even scientifically--that is what social scientists do for a living. Denying the possibility of dialogue on important questions of value is what is dangerous. Call that a conservative value if you like. But sticking one's head in the sand while figuratively shouting "la la la la la I can't hear you!!" is even worse. It is a denial of value. It dehumanizes the person with whom you disagree by cutting off any chance of dialogue with that person. It tells that person: you are so unimportant, I'm not even going to consider your position. It tells that person, I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it.
