Best way to disarm the, "Prejudice = Power + Discrimination" argument?

EvilPundit · 2012-08-29T19:36:39+00:00

Just point out that it's a false definition. Stick with the true definition - that sexism is discrimination purely on the basis of sex.

Also, point out that power is not a group thing. Some individual women have power over individual men, and vice versa.

TheSacredParsnip · 2012-08-29T19:25:59+00:00

This and 'mansplaining' are quick signs that I need to stop talking to whatever idiot I mistakenly started a conversation with.

Otherwise just show them a dictionary.

I doubt you'll be able to change someones mind once they've reached that level of lunacy.

2012-08-29T19:28:25+00:00

It's funny how the more full of shit an argument is the harder it is to combat it.

I've countered this argument so many times but I can't remember exactly what I said. the main point you need to reinforce is that regardless of history or power, anyone is capable of racism. also you need to remind people who say this that there are ethnicities and women who have a form of power

you're next step is to then prove disrcimination against people like white men, here are a few articles. you can then tell them that these articles tend not to make mainstream news because they are counterproductive to pc

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teenagers-poured-gasoline-boy-walking-home-school-set-fire-cops-article-1.1033062#ixzz1oKlZS0XP

Demonspawn · 2012-08-29T19:02:44+00:00

Remind them that women control 55% of the vote, and as such under their definition men are the gender which cannot be prejudiced.

Hach8 · 2012-08-29T20:02:17+00:00

the trouble you have arguing against it is that feminists will not accept that women have any power, when in fact they have the majority of power in both legal and social systems.

You can't argue with people who ignore facts, which is ultimately how much of feminism argues.

In many personal interactions though, women have the power. Men are generally more concerned with pleasing women than the other way around, socially (see, e.g. dating). And legally, a woman's accusation is taken much more seriously than a mans, particularly for something like rape or domestic violence.

Additionally, women occupy many moderately high power positions where they have men or boys below them. In those cases they do have the power, and thus discimination in those situations is prejudice or sexism.

Additionally, even if they argue "society" is more about the general "populous" in power, you should note that power is generally distributed not based on gender alone, and there are more low power men than there are high power women, by a large margin. By talking about "power" in such abstract terms, it strips all meaning from the word, because you're arguing that all men have the "power" even if they are unemployed, homeless or in prison. This makes "power" meaningless.

Though they may also just argue that maleness is a pre-requisite to power, but that takes it back to the individual level, and that the power should be defined by relationships between individuals, not as abstract social blankets applied to everyone in the US.

EpicJ · 2012-08-29T19:17:58+00:00

Could you give an example so I could have some context to where this would be used in an argument.

IPGDVFT · 2012-08-29T19:28:35+00:00

Well, the oxford dictionary defines sexism as:

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

So you could go that route, but usually this argument stems from something that actually happened and you used the word sexist.

I would go with "If you look in the dictionary you will see that the definition of sexism doesn't include anything about prejudice plus power. It only includes prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination based on sex. But instead of arguing semantics how about we actual focus on what happened."

Don't let the individual change the subject off of the actual issue to argue semantics.

ignatiusloyola · 2012-08-29T19:32:12+00:00

I thought it was "sexism = prejudice + power".

Evulmeh · 2012-08-29T21:39:58+00:00

I think it's a misinterpretation to take "power" as strictly "individual power over another". I like to use the example of two poor farmers in the south in the 1950's, one white, one black. They might be equally prejudiced, and they might have about the same direct access to power, but one has prejudices that are mirrored/supported by the larger social power structure, and one doesn't, which means that one has far more ability to act on his prejudices, and those acts have far more potential to harm.

It gets more complicated when we talk about sexism, because the prejudices involved are supported by society in different ways. There are prejudices about how women are supposed to act, and those prejudices are enforced by (among other things) gender policing by both men and women. There are also prejudices about how men are supposed to act that are similarly enforced. There's a lot of debate about the specific character of those prejudices and how they're policed that I don't want to get in to, but it seems legitimate to say that women can exercise sexism when they're acting on those kind of social prejudices.

thelanguage · 2012-08-30T06:59:24+00:00

My basic answer is that the very act of creating a definition of sexism that precludes women from ever being sexist is a use of power.

You can also just say that that definition of sexism/power makes the difference between sexism and discrimination irrelevant. If its sexism against a woman and discrimination against a man then the two are morally equal.

Honestly, though, anyone repeating that nonsense is probably too far gone--It is hard for me to imagine how someone can buy into that without being a bigot.

rightsbot · 2012-08-29T19:00:18+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

A_Nihilist · 2012-08-29T20:23:17+00:00

You could bring up the fact that it's a feminist/minority studies definition that almost nobody uses.

dakru · 2012-08-29T20:45:40+00:00

It doesn't work for them because men are not a monolithic organised group that collectively has power. They're a group of people who make up about half the population and don't have all that much connecting them. Men don't "have power"; there are more men than women at the top, and there are more men than women at the bottom, and in the middle (the voters who decide who gets to the top), there are more women.

loose-dendrite · 2012-08-29T20:53:13+00:00

Tell them that it's specious to use a definition as a point of argument. When virtually anyone says 'sexism' they mean prejudice. "Work" to physicists has a specific meaning same as "sexism" in women's studies departments.

If they aren't a moron then their next argument will probably be "OK, then I'm talking about how power coupled with discrimination is the only kind of discrimination that matters/is a real problem/has a non-trivial impact". Unfortunately they believe, axiomatically, that men have power over women so you'd have to deconstruct their faith to get any further.

MechPlasma · 2012-08-29T21:31:13+00:00

It depends on the context. There's three things people who say this kind of thing believe.

1: In what I believe is the case that made you think of this, they believe women can't be sexist not because anything about power, but because women deserve special treatment - literally. It's, obviously, not something feminists believe, it's something that someone believes if they're a straight-out sexist moron.

2: The Patriarchy theory (as according to an utter load of feminists): They believe that all sexism was intentionally created by men, for the benefit of men. Therefore, any kind of prevailant sexism cannot be in favour of women, and anything that discriminates against men must be a side-effect of something that privileges men much more.

3: The Kyrarchy theory: basically the same as the Patriarchy theory, but where it was rich men that made up the sexist stuff to keep poor men and all women... poor. It's basically the same as the Patriarchy theory, but where sexist tropes that couldn't possibly benefit men are considered as the rich discriminating against the poor.

The first point is the easiest to counter because it's purely a position of ignorance, and all it usually takes is a few people to say "no, you're wrong". The second and third points are actually really hard to counter, because although they basically amount to massive conspiracies and extremely unlikely turns of events, I've never actually seen an argument that can unquestionaly prove it didn't happen.

MechPlasma · 2012-08-29T21:32:26+00:00

It depends on the context. There's three things people who say this kind of thing believe.

1: In what I believe is the case that made you think of this, they believe women can't be sexist not because anything about power, but because women deserve special treatment - literally. It's, obviously, not something feminists believe, it's something that someone believes if they're a straight-out sexist moron.

2: The Patriarchy theory (as according to an utter load of feminists): They believe that all sexism was intentionally created by men, for the benefit of men. Therefore, any kind of prevailant sexism cannot be in favour of women, and anything that discriminates against men must be a side-effect of something that privileges men much more.

3: The Kyrarchy theory: basically the same as the Patriarchy theory, but where it was rich men that made up the sexist stuff to keep poor men and all women... poor. It's basically the same as the Patriarchy theory, but where sexist tropes that couldn't possibly benefit men are considered as the rich discriminating against the poor.

The first point is the easiest to counter because it's purely a position of ignorance, and all it usually takes is a few people to say "no, you're wrong". The second and third points are actually really hard to counter, because although they basically amount to massive conspiracies and extremely unlikely turns of events, I've never actually seen an argument that can unquestionaly prove it didn't happen.

southernasshole · 2012-08-29T22:05:39+00:00

Disregard both them and their argument, their definitions for sexism and racism are intentionally engineered to make it impossible for women and anyone not white to be sexist/racist.

If you're actually arguing with someone espousing those definitions you're wasting your time with a willful bigot.

enkidusfriend · 2012-08-29T23:32:26+00:00

A gender does not have power. Individuals and multi-gendered groups (goverments, banks, etc.) have power. If individuals are using that power with prejudice with regards to a gender, they are sexist.

NemosHero · 2012-08-30T00:04:50+00:00

Foucault's definition of power. Power is not unidirectional. Power is a sort of agreement, a network of gives and takes. Therefore, sure sexism is power + discrimination, power is a system, therefore everyone is capable of sexism. Good day

alecbenzer · 2012-08-30T00:57:17+00:00

With a dictionary/encyclopedia?

sexism is ... prejudice or discrimination based on sex

-- wikipedia

SilencingNarrative · 2012-08-30T01:28:08+00:00

How about "i agree with you that women cant be sexist against men, because women are an oppressed class without power. And not just any oppressed class. In fact, they are the only oppressed class in all of history whose oppressors go out into the fields every day and work for them"

SDcowboy82 · 2012-08-30T02:00:04+00:00

Violence = contact + malicious intent. I am personally incapable of malicious intent, so by definition I cannot be violent.

linearThinker · 2012-08-30T06:13:44+00:00

How about a dictionary?

overcontrol · 2012-09-02T01:53:21+00:00

You can't get bogged down with arguments about definitions. Just ask them "What do you call it when men forced into war based on their gender, if not sexism?" Act like you don't really care about what something is called, but rather that it is a real issue.

Misandrists rely heavily on semantics. Let them have their way with definitions without distracting from the actual issue.

Be warned, once their lexicons stop having power in debate, they'll likely resort to accusations and character assassination. At this point it is safe to bow out.

Title	Best way to disarm the, "Prejudice = Power + Discrimination" argument?
Author	UtilitarianByNature
Upvotes	25
Comments	53
Date	August 29, 2012 6:58 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/z186s/best_way_to_disarm_the_prejudice_power/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/best-way-to-disarm-the-prejudice-power.1014713 https://theredarchive.com/post/1014713

Comments