Summations Only

Jesus, Hooah, over and over again. It started in Message 363. Then, I did it again in Message 373. Yet a third time in Message 388. A fourth time in Message 392. A fifth in Message 425, where I gave you, Oni, and Rahvin every opportunity to explain to me how your model was as accurate as mine but you all refused. A sixth time in Message 435 the plainest possible terms what I was looking to get from you guys.Hooah, I know you saw most of these messages because they were either replies to you or you replied to them or both. I've been constantly telling you what you had to show me to convince me, and the best you've been able to do in response is "we're right, you're wrong, stop being a poopy head and agree with us."So, any time you can do that stuff, I'm prepared to be convinced. But if you could, you'd have done it by now. That's how I know you're wrong.

Not a single one of those posts clearly states, in no uncertain terms, "this is what my detractors must do in order to change my mind".

Well, that's a lie:

quote:

---

What we're testing, here, is the accuracy of two competing models for the notion of "racism." I contend that mine is better because it's more accurate at distinguishing between that which is racist and that which is not.

---

quote:

---

Without using the concept of privilege, explain why the second is racist but the first is not.

---

quote:

---

But Rahvin and Hooah have their work cut out for them explaining why it's not racist, because by the simplistic and wrong definition that racism is "any time you make a judgement about someone based on race", "Stuff White People Like" would be something they have to conclude is racist.

---

What did you think I meant by "work cut out", Hooah? What "work" could I have possibly meant except the work you were doing to try to convince me?

quote:

---

Those that insist that privilege is not central to discrimination and therefore racism are obligated to explain under their model why it's not racist to refer to a white person as a "cracker" or to invoke white stereotypes like "can't dance", "love cheese", etc.

---

Are you not one of "those who insist that privilege is not central to discrimination"? Who did you think I was talking to, there?I'm not a mind-reader Hooah, if you don't understand something I've said in my post, you have to speak up about it and ask questions. If you didn't understand what I meant at the time, why didn't you say so?I'm starting to think the problem here is - you're just not very bright.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Of course it qualifies legally as sex discrimination.Here's an example:In the late 80s/early 90s, I worked at a prestigious cancer center. I was hired as a temporary medical transcriptionist: having completed an MFA at a nearby private university, and discovering that I had neither the patience nor the inclination to teach, I took advantage of my typing speed, vocabulary and prior experience at transcribing press conferences for the United Nations Forces-Korea commanding general to find surprisingly remunerative work.I was offered a permanent position and accepted it. I had developed an interest in computers during my undergraduate days, and so was well positioned when the institute decided to replace typewriters with networked PCs. Since every patient encounter was transcribed for the medical record, the department was a large one, fielding 20-25 transcriptionists as well as supplementary services from third-party contractors.The departmental manager had worked her way up from a transcriptionist position. She was terrified of computers. When the new system began linking notes with inaccurately identified patients, she panicked and concealed the problem. The problem was too large to hide for long, she was demoted back to transcriptionist, and I was offered the job as departmental manager. I accepted.Soon after, an assistant director of medical records was named to oversee both the transcription department and the section of the medical records department dedicated to managing the document databases.She had been "downsized" from her prior employment--her first job after completing a mid-life MBA--after which she won a sizable court award based on her claim of sex discrimination. Her account of her experience with that employer was quite persuasive; I had, and have, no doubt that she encountered the discrimination she claimed.Unfortunately, she had no experience in medical or IT administration; she was also a haughty, unpleasant person. Doctors and administrators astutely avoided her and continued to bring their problems to me. In response, she began to harass me based on my gender: if she saw me working on cabling under a workstation, she would comment, "That's where a man belongs--on his knees!" She speculated deprecatingly on my virility, my intelligence, and the fidelity of my spouse. My previously outstanding work reviews became exercises in Machiavellian workplace maneuvering, as she sought to lay a paper trail for my dismissal.I asked for a meeting at which I protested her behavior and pointed out that she was creating a hostile work environment based on my gender. She laughed in my face, assuring me that men cannot file complaints or suits for sex discrimination, because only the privileged gender--men--could commit sexual discrimination.She said she learned that in a grad school seminar on feminist theory.Having failed to persuade her otherwise, I took my concerns to Human Resources. The director there told me that she, too, had learned the "privilege test" in grad school, and that I should just develop a thicker skin.I shrugged, took out my notebook and wrote, while repeating the words aloud, "Director _______ suggests that women cannot be guilty of sex discrimination because they lack institutionalized gender privilege, so I should grow a thicker skin."A few days later, I received a call from the institute's general counsel, requesting a meeting. The upshot was that the general counsel suffered from no delusions about the law, though she confided that she, too, had encountered the "privilege" argument in academe. She was especially perturbed by my detailed logbook, in which I had recorded each instance of gender based discrimination and insult, including the date, time and witnesses present.The assistant director who had won a sex discrimination suit elsewheere was quietly let go. Although she threatened legal action, it did not materialize. I chose to accept a satisfying cash settlement and hearty letters of recommendation to assist me in finding employment elsewhere.While there remains a glass ceiling between women of merit and upper management ranks, women are quite well represented in middle management and supervisory ranks in both medical administration and business in general. As they have filled those mid-level jobs, and as more men take positions in traditionally "pink collar" jobs, the opportunities for women to engage in sex discrimination have multiplied. That such discrimination occurs does not seem surprising to me, since the abused often become abusers.As a faculty spouse, I learned that multiple lesbian professors had substantiated complaints in their personnel files from both straight and lesbian female students who had been stalked, harassed and threatened; the university had taken no action, since they feared law suits from the accused, as well as the inevitable publicity.Like all totalizing theories--diverse critical law theories, queer theory, etc.--the absolutist assertion of institutionalized gender privilege as a sine qua non of sex discrimination leads to patent absurdities. These academic analyses frequently fail to account for other power factors such as class because they are formulated by members of a privileged class. One of the difficulties faced by feminists attempting to organize as a popular political movement in the 1980s was the near-total irrelevance of largely abstract, academic theorizing to the real world experience of poor women in general and women of color in particular.Any theory that exempts, by definition, individuals from facing even the conceptual consequences of their discriminatory actions--because some members of one of their categories of social identity suffer or suffered from those same actions at the hands of others--crumbles in the world outside academe because it cannot pass the smell test of fairness.

Omni, I want to be very careful here - I'm not minimizing your experience in any way or denying that you were the victim of discrimination. What happened to you was certainly unfair and certainly against the law.But I don't see where, in your story, you were the victim of discrimination on the basis of your gender. You were clearly discriminated against on the basis of your immediate superior perceiving you as a threat to her position, who then used sexualized taunts to try to force you out of the company. If you had been a woman, she would have used sexualized taunts geared towards women.The discrimination was that she used her privilege advantage to your detriment. But the privilege she used had accrued on the basis of her status, not her sex. And the notion that a woman can never be guilty of discriminating against a man just isn't my position at all. Anybody who told you that was true was wrong, and I've never heard such nonsense at college or anywhere else.But I agree that what happened to you was deeply unfair and I don't minimize it. But, again, I don't see it as contradictory of my position that discrimination can only happen from greater privilege to lesser, I see it as supportive of it.

When you are constantly stubbing your toe on that one bed post you might want to consider it's not the fault of the bed.

So you wanted me to explain something that I do not agree with? If I recall (feel free to jog my memory by pointing me to which of those messages contained this line of text), I said both instances were racist. Same thing here. oh, look at that. Again, those things ARE racist. Why would I have to prove to you why they are not racist in order to prove how I am correct? YOU are the one that says they are not racist. Take a look in the mirror there, champ.

Still waiting for your one example from SWPL so that we may compare your model (in all it's glory) to our (simple) yet effective model.Just one example is all.- Oni

I appreciate that. I have waited quite cautiously to comment in this thread because I usually find myself in accord with your perspective on matters of political analysis and social justice. I just don't know enough about what transpired between EG and RW to comment intelligently, though my sympathies are with RW, simply based on the constraint of the elevator walls. And the appalling online behavior directed at her after her comments is, for me, sufficient evidence to accept that there are major sexist and misogynist issues within the atheist community. I see this as a distinction without a difference: the question in law is not the primary motivation of the malefactor's behavior, but the form of his/her behavior. I would hazard to say that more frequently than not, at the root of the male act of sexual discrimination is not a raging misogyny, but the male's selection of the most opportune method of dismissal and diminishment. In other words, as you observed, discrimination in the workplace is often driven by a perceived threat; the fact that the threat comes from a woman is what determines the specific, sexualized form of the discriminatory taunts, insults, etc. directed at her.The assistant director chose the style and form of her assault based on my gender.In parallel, to the degree that sexualized aggression toward women in the workplace has been alleviated, it is primarily because it no longer works so well, not because "threatening" women are no longer "counterattacked." Again, it is the form of attack that the law can recognize and address. One may freely undermine, outmaneuver or malign any workplace competitor--but not in terms of gender; one may indeed harbor a raging misogyny or misandry, and these may motivate aggressive behavior, but as long as the behavior remains free of the well recognized forms of sexual discrimination, that particular legal vulnerability is not incurred. Similarly, one can fire an employee at will for any reason or no reason at all--but not for a demonstrable reason of race, gender, etc.In this regard, form is the substance of the matter. To my mind, which privilege she used to make her gender-based attack is irrelevant. What society can observe, and what the law can address, is the gendered form of the attack. Not to worry: I came out smelling like a rose.I don't believe you can slice privilege up into mutually exclusive categories.When an abuse of privilege takes the form of discrimination based on race, that is racism.When an abuse of privilege takes the form of discrimination based on gender, that is sexism.Privilege is fungible.Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.Edited by Omnivorous, : find more typos, you'll just have to live with 'em

Sorry Crash, but you are just wrong. As has been pointed out by everyone else on this thread, racism does not need privilege to be racism. Your definition of racism is obscure and is not the agreed upon definition of the general public.

You didn't even reply to it, so no, you didn't say "both instances were racist." Message 425But both instances aren't racist. As I said at the time:

quote:

---

No credit for answering "they're both racist", because it's trivially obvious that they are not.

---

So, again, if you're defending a model of racism that labels "racist" that which is demonstrably not racist - for instance, an academic merit scholarship for African-Americans - then again, you're not going to be able to convince me that your model is better or more accurate than mine, because it's not - mine doesn't do that. Mine accurately detects that a merit scholarship for African-Americans isn't an instance of racism. So you're saying that "Stuff White People Like" is racist. That's what you mean by "same thing here", right? Same answer - "racist". Right?Oni is defending the same model as you and he says SWPL isn't racist. You guys should talk, or something. Because you won't be able to convince me that your model is better than mine if it's not as accurate as mine, and to the extent that yours erroneously labels as "racist" that which is not, it's not as accurate as mine.

SWPL is the example. Hooah says its racist, though, maybe you guys could settle that.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Sure. I suspect the difference is that the law requires a standard that results in less ambiguity, whereas the sociological perspective is more concerned with an institutional view. The law has to concern itself with behavior; privilege is outside of scope.

Well shit, KJ. If your one-line repetition of arguments I've already rebutted hadn't completely convinced me, I'd certainly have been convinced by the way you've gone through and downvoted all my posts.

Thanks. I wasn't sure if I had replied or not. They are both racist (that is my reply). I don't give a shit about convincing you of which "method" is more accurate or whatever. I am telling you that your definition is one that is obscure as fuck and only used by you and maybe some stuffy crackers in sociology class that don't know shit about racism. Yes, technically it could be construed as being racist because it is something that is done based on race, what with the title being "stuff WHITE PEOPLE like". What I am not saying is that it is offensive. Being offensive is not a prerequisite for being technically racist. Ooh. Nope, wrong again their cracker ass fantastic. In Message 382, Oni says: But reading his further comments about this "stuff white people like" (because I have no idea what it even is) is that it is not even at all remotely related to racism and you are an asshat retard for continually bringing it up. So, like Oni, I too will ask you to point out the relevancy of "stuff white people like". I don't want to sound like I'm kissing his ass or just parroting him, but Oni and I have the same position on this "stuff white people like" even though you think you've caught us in a jam.Is it technically racist? Yes. Why? Because it is something that is done based on race. Could "stuff white people like" accurately also be called "stuff BLACK PEOPLE like" and still be exactly the same? No? Why not? Because it is about white people.Even though it technically is racist, it simply isn't offensive and thus, no one gives a shit. So again, in order to convince you that yours is the wrong position and mine is the right one, you think I am supposed to make an argument that is not mine? You want me to support a position that I do no take? Is that right?Just your say so is not sufficient to say yours is more accurate. Yours is absolutely not accurate at all since every single other person in this entire discussion is using the words sexism and racism differently. The rest of us are actually differentiating racism/sexism from offensiveness, discrimination and privilege. You aren't. Your definition doesn't even accurately identify racism or sexism at all. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.