Regarding "sexism = prejudice + power"

The_Patriarchy · 2012-07-09T05:59:05+00:00

When having an argument, I recommend stating clearly that your definition of "sexism" is discrimination based on gendered prejudices. It is a label of actual action or belief. It has nothing to do with any power status of the individuals involved.

No, this is exactly what you DON'T want to do. It gives their asinine "definition" some semblance of legitimacy by making it appear as if there are multiple "true" definitions.

You have to know the history of the term. Be prepared to throw that history in the face of ANYONE claiming it's the "real" or "sociological" definition. What is the history? It starts with a redefinition of "racism" by those espousing what's known as "Critical Race Theory":

As near as I can tell, the formulation "Racism = Prejudice + Power" originated in a book by Pat Bidol in 1970. Titled "Developing New Perspectives on Race," in it Bidol explicitly makes the formulation as stated and then uses this definition as the basis for an argument that in the United States Blacks cannot be racist against whites, they can only be racially prejudiced against them. This makes an important connection that matters as far as this particular nonsense is concerned, which is that this stipulated definition exists as an excuse to defend members of racial minorities against accusations of racism and it has always existed for this reason. The definition was largely popularized by Judy Katz, who referenced Bidol explicitly in her 1978 book "White Awareness" which presented a course of counter racist training for organizations. The book was highly influential and through it the formulation, for those who were searching for such a tool with which to deflect accusations of racism, gained popularity.

Which brings us to the present day, more or less, where the slogan has achieved a sort of quasi legitimacy by virtue of having been repeated so often. Of course, it's of absolutely no use to anyone for anything except what the slogan was intended for initially, and even then it's a very poor tool. Nevertheless, when reading over the tossed out thoughts on race by the left wing of the technocracy in particular, it remains as a sort of gospel despite the fact that as far as I can tell, the arguments for it are either very thin or even non-existent. In the Katz book, for example, it is purely stipulated and the only argument given for it is that without the component of power, any definition of racism looks exactly like prejudice. Why the formulation "racism = racial prejudice," which is much more consistent with the general usage of the term, is problematic is left unexplored by Katz and by all the theorists I have found who take this tactic.

http://www.wetasphalt.com/content/why-racism-prejudice-power-wrong-way-approach-problems-racism

So, the racism redefinition was created literally to excuse racism from Critical Theorists and groups favored by Critical Theorists...it serves no other real purpose. This is important. Some feminists (i.e. those surrounding "Feminist Theory") then co-opted it to apply to sexism. e.g.:

Short definition: Sexism is both discrimination based on gender and the attitudes, stereotypes, and the cultural elements that promote this discrimination. Given the historical and continued imbalance of power, where men as a class are privileged over women as a class (see male privilege), an important, but often overlooked, part of the term is that sexism is prejudice plus power. Thus feminists reject the notion that women can be sexist towards men because women lack the institutional power that men have.

https://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/10/19/sexism-definition/

It is a textbook example of a "Persuasive Definition":

A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes.[1][2] The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "terrorism", "democracy", etc. In argumentation the use of a stipulative definition is an example of the definist fallacy.[

[...]

Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as politics, sex, and religion, as participants in emotionally-charged exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts. A persuasive definition of a term is favorable to one argument or unfavorable to the other argument, but is presented as if it were neutral and well-accepted, and the listener is expected to accept such a definition without question.[

It is not a valid definition...it's propaganda, and you should call out ANYONE claiming otherwise.

nlakes · 2012-07-09T05:18:33+00:00

Rape = forced sex + male victim.

Look, I have just proven women can't get raped by making a definition that excludes women.

theozoph · 2012-07-09T06:23:49+00:00

Actually, I think we can use the feminist definition of sexism without problem, because the "power" side of the equation isn't understood at all by feminists.

Feminism teaches that sexes are like social classes, with the inherent power differential that this entails. This is, of course, completely erroneous, and from this premise you can deduce absurd propositions, like Catherine the Great having less power than the male serf that tilled her land...

Therefore, in the equation "sexism = prejudice + power", all depends on the personal and respective power of the individuals involved in the interaction. In family court, where the power is in the hand of the judge, and where the bias is in favor of women, men are subjected to sexism. In politics, where politicians / lobbies have the power and favor women, men are subjected to sexism, etc.

The big problem with feminism and most feminists, is that they approach social situations with an essentialist viewpoint where your sexual identity is the only factor considered, and defines your "power level" ~~irregardless~~ irrespective of any other factor. Since real power lies not in your genitals or sexual orientation, but in economic and social realities, they misread almost all situations into their victim narrative even when they are the real dominants / aggressors / bullies.

This is how Hillary Clinton, by all respects one of the most powerful women on the planet, can pretend to be part of an "oppressed class".

youngcaesar420 · 2012-07-09T05:07:50+00:00

If feminists insist on defining sexism like this, then why don't you just argue on points of prejudice? Racism is prejudice based on race, so why not just discuss "sex-based prejudice"?

rightsbot · 2012-07-09T04:46:16+00:00

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

TracyMorganFreeman · 2012-07-09T11:57:19+00:00

Another thing to consider is whether women actually have power.

One can exert influence without pulling the trigger and still have power. I mean who really has the power, the guy pushing the button for the missile or the nuclear bomb or the trigger for their sniper rifle or some person giving them the order to?

The only version of power that feminists seem to use in this misdirection is the person pulling the trigger, while taking no responsibility for women being the majority voting bloc for decades no consideration for the possibility of social or media bias in their favor.

Women are 56% of those above 18 in the US. 44/56=.79; this means for every 100 women of voting age, there are 79 men, which also means there are 25% more female voters than male ones. No power? Only by cherry picking your definitions.

namewastakenlol · 2012-07-09T12:26:30+00:00

Here is a challenge for anyone willing: find even a single reason that the "prejudice plus power" definition is even slightly useful for dialog... other than excusing prejudice against males.

cheio · 2012-07-09T06:12:52+00:00

Sexism has nothing to do with power. Not powerful people can be sexist.

Moreover I think that sentences like these should not be put as mathematical equations. It gives the impression of being scientific, deterministic and not to be doubted, but in fact it just confuses things by replacing significant English grammar by abstract math symbols and then not using any number or declared variable rather than vague words and not telling how things should be "added" and "equated".

If there's still any doubt, that "sexism = prejudice + power" is bullshit, argue mathematically. Subtract "prejudice" on both sides of the equation and get: "sexism - prejudice = power". Any questions?

picopallasi · 2012-07-09T09:33:31+00:00

Since I personally hold no power and I'm but a tiny minority (1% caucasian population) where I live, that means I can be racist then (or rather can avoid being called racist?) I've joked about this before, but this must logically follow according to their definition.

Feckless · 2012-07-09T10:59:58+00:00

Ask them to define power.

drgk · 2012-07-09T16:57:09+00:00

When the definition of a word doesn't fit, they just redefine it.

rusty890 · 2012-07-09T18:15:26+00:00

This is nothing but a weak attempt by some feminists to immunize themselves from criticism for their misandry. Don't pay any attention to it.

NemosHero · 2012-07-09T20:11:21+00:00

What if you pulled Foucault's analysis of power into this equation? The idea that power is not unidirectional, but is an exchange of one power for another.

Faryshta · 2012-07-09T22:00:51+00:00

Actually they agree that they are using prejudice. You just need to point that prejudice is always harmful.

2012-07-11T02:26:17+00:00

Whenever this definition comes up do this:

laugh, dismiss the person as a bigoted idiot, and walk away.

accountabilityishard · 2012-07-09T06:20:33+00:00

You're doing yourself a disservice in even acknowledging that piss poor argument regarding sexism.

Feminists near literally pulled that out of their ass so they don't have to face their own hypocrisy.

Grapeban · 2012-07-09T14:47:26+00:00

Well, you could use a different definition, where sexism just = prejudice, but all there gonna say is that it isn't an issue when there is no institutional and historical prejudice to back it up.

TheHat2 · 2012-07-09T06:17:19+00:00

The result of the equation is all wrong, in essence.

Discrimination = Prejudice + Power

This takes into account discrimination based around race, sex, gender, orientation, religion, political party, etc. Whoever has greater power, and also possesses the prejudice can actively discriminate as they please, denying opportunities or rights wherever possible.

Sexism (as well as racism, homophobia, ableism, etc.) can be exhibited by prejudice alone by any side of the group, majority or minority, the powerful or those without. Just because someone is a woman does not mean they cannot be a sexist towards men. Just because someone is black doesn't mean they cannot be racist against whites. Admittedly, it's more uncommon to find people like this, due to social stigmas and cultural biases, but even then, that doesn't stop people from feeling such prejudices. An unlikelihood doesn't equal an impossibility, after all.

Besides, there's a reason the term "misandry" exists.

2012-07-09T07:16:10+00:00

Rational discourse with feminists is impossible mostly.

LucasTrask · 2012-07-09T09:52:31+00:00

...it is a meaningless argument to such feminists.

There's no arguing with "feminists."

pcarvious · 2012-07-09T06:30:33+00:00

You need to fix something with regards to your post. Oppression is Power plus Prejudice. Power is defined as the ability to make others do what you want. Sexism is Oppression of a sex. Under the feminist Patriarchy theory, women cannot have power because they are not vested with power by society. Rather any power they can express comes directly from another source, IE men. The force that oppresses women, strict roles etc, are enforced equally on men as women. Men just have the benefit of having the dominant role. Therefor, they have the power.

Now in regards of countering this. You're dealing with the academic definition of Oppression that's used in most social theories. Most theories require that, people not over-generalize or hastily generalize their content and results onto the entire population. This means that, we cannot look at the people at the top and expressly state that all men are advantaged while using them as a sample. This is an apex fallacy and should be avoided.

Now, moving on from there, I would point out that power is actually contextual. Rather than being something that an individual has access to all the time they have access to it intermittently as long as an entity with more power isn't present. Entities with more power can include, groups, families, judicial entities (police, courts etc) businesses, and on and on. The ability to make these entities do as you want is actually a very good way to look at power and the ability to mobilize power. That aside, if we look at power solely on an individual basis, then it's going to be moot. As we scale it upward though it is very limited. There are umbrellas of sorts that overlap within power hierarchies. The larger the scale the more diversified the power actually is, and the less power it has over individuals.

Now here's what I mean by that. Let's look at the government as a basic example of an entity that is actually a power structure that conflicts with itself. As a whole the government is incredibly powerful. It has the ability to literally effect millions of lives, billions actually. Accordingly it has an equally large amount of power vested as a whole. But if we break it down into the branches, they can actively work against each other to limit the other's power. Accordingly, the ability to exercise power is limited. Each congress person also has power, more than say, an average Joe on the street, but if they can't mobilize that power then it's useless. It's money that can't be spent.

Now going with the money analogy, people invest their capital (power) in others. This is done anticipating a return. Meaning, that I might scratch your back to get you to scratch the back of the two aides to the congress person in your district. Power is not direct, nor is it directly applicable at all times. In fact, the more power someone has the less power they can more than likely exercise without restrictions coming into play. I can only spend so much time and effort trying to get what I want from someone before the effort is rendered null and void regardless. It's time sensitive, case sensitive and often going to fall apart shortly after I exercise it.

Now, moving from here, I want to point out something especially important. Arguing that something is powerful based solely on individuals will also be an invalid argument. It is not generalizable nor is it provable.

Rephaite · 2012-07-09T05:20:30+00:00

If sexism is prejudice + power, then the word is specifically saying that the person is in a position of power. It is thus an attack on their power, not on their actions (the prejudice).

The actions are kind of an important part there. That's why they're included in the equation. Power without prejudice doesn't warrant much attention (at least as far as sexism goes).

It is saying that the action would be acceptable so long as the person didn't have power.

It doesn't say "sexism = prejudice + power, and everything else is ok". The point is that prejudice with power warrants more attention than prejudice without the power, because the power is the part of that equation that lets the prejudice actually impact the people it's targeting.

Title	Regarding "sexism = prejudice + power"
Author	ignatiusloyola
Upvotes	36
Comments	76
Date	July 9, 2012 4:44 AM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w97sy/regarding_sexism_prejudice_power/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/regarding-sexism-prejudice-power.1018318 https://theredarchive.com/post/1018318

Comments