Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the situation. Go to Cancun if you want to see males in their most animal-state. Is it condonable? I do not know, but it is the way nature made us. Nature designed us to want reproduce - without our rules, morals, and what-have-you, we would be doing much worse things than asking to see private parts. Unfortunately, nature also gave us language, which means a lot of times males will utter really stupid things because their sex-drive takes over and their brain reaches a state of near-retardation (hence the popular phrase "show us your tits").
In shorter words - if you are a female in a bar that is overwhelmingly packed with males -- yes, you should very much expect to get harassed. Yes, it is not "right", but its the way nature made us so there is not a lot of sense in complaining about it. You could just as well complain about people being obese, because nature designed us to enjoy food. Am I saying women deserve to be harassed when they dress sexually? No, of course not. But what I am saying is that some males have less super ego than others, and it varies with the situation, so there are certain situations (like this one) in which a female could certainly expect to be harassed.
More like an Overcoming Bias hipster, the post I linked however is one of the excellent-content posts from post-migration. (Even the comments are interesting, I especially liked those by lindagert trying to describe what it's like not having the ability to mentally visualize anything.)
But fair enough point about your reply being a counter-example, I stand corrected. I interpreted your reply as more akin to "your observation about general human behavior has absolutely no merit because not every human follows the same pattern, just look at me", rather than a formal logical counter-argument to an informal assertion made outside of a proof that not only personifies nature without the usual caveats but also to which a more charitable interpretation of being a comment in a discussion (not an attempt at a proof) would not apply the universal quantifier reserved for formal arguments. I guess I should have interpreted your reply more charitably as well, but in the other direction with respect to being an attempt at a proof.
That was my reply exactly, except I would've used fewer big words ;) I guess conversation and arguments like this still follow the same rules as formal logic - they're just applied in a fuzzier way.
I generally tend to avoid the less wrong set. While there is some good stuff on there, the bulk of it to me seems to be overwhelmingly arrogant and self-absorbed, which doesn't seem to strike me as likely to pick up any new biases, just regurgitate old ones.
I didn't put any words in your mouth, these are the extensions of your reasoning -- you simply haven't considered the full weight of your positions and so these conclusions are a surprise to you.
Let's give you the benefit (a huge one) of the doubt here, I'll consider fully and without prejudice everything you're saying:
The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion? The only logical counter position would be to claim people have random and inexplicable behavior, a position which practically nobody holds in full sincerity.
You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism. Literally, if some behavior can be explained by a surface comparison to animal behavior, or by similarities to vague concepts in evolutionary psychology, then it can't be sexism. Let's even accept your very unscientific and highly dubious observations about Cancun and male behaviors, and conclude from this that all males have irresistible animal instincts which compel them to act offensively and crudely.
We have two things here: first, only behaviors which cannot be explained in any other way can be considered sexism. That means that the only behavior which is sexist is the behavior which occurs when a person, in their mind, has the thought "I will now enact a sexist agenda" or something like that. If, for example, a person thinks "it would be okay to go and lick her tattoo" that is not sexist, because it can be explained as a result of poor socialization combined with repressed animal sex urges.
Second, we cannot complain about "natural" behaviors, because after all, they are natural. You might as well complain that it's not a full moon every night, or that the Sun is too bright in the Summer months. Tough, that's nature.
1. Only behavior which is motivated by an explicit intent to be sexist is sexist.
2. Behaviors which can be explained by appealing to "nature" or "instinct" (natural behaviors) do not merit complaint, and efforts to change or curb them are misplaced.
Therefore, two conclusions arise from this.
First, nothing is sexist! All behavior can be explained by appealing to base and instinctual motives. Sexual harassment in the workplace is unavoidable: what do you expect when you put a man next to or above a woman he finds attractive, for eight hours a day? Sexual discrimination in the workplace is also not sexist: it's not a discrimination against women, it's just a natural and active desire to engage with other males. And the situation described by the OP is also not sexist: those men aren't being inappropriately aggressive towards her because she's a woman and they don't respect her boundaries, it's just because they're sex-starved losers!
Second, and even more stupid: bigotry doesn't exist! If the standard for sexist behavior is very specific and limited intent to be sexist, then by analogy you can show that the standard for e.g., racism, is the same. And per the first conclusion, there then is no racism. Or homophobia. These are, after all, very natural expressions of revulsion and disgust for people not like ourselves, and we cannot be faulted for our instincts. Why, these very instincts are what brought us out of the jungle!
A third, less obvious conclusion, is that nothing can be done, or needs to be done about any of this. Women, don't like being manhandled? Don't go to bars where there are males, they can't help themselves. Non-whites, don't like receiving dirty looks or beatings? Stay away from white people, they have a natural revulsion for people not like them.
And whatever you do, don't complain! It's natural and to be expected!
So then, if you can't complain about it, if the behavior is completely natural, then the obvious conclusion is that if you are subjected to offensive-but-natural behavior, you share responsibility for that because you could have prevented it. After all, you have a brain woman, you could have predicted getting manhandled by a bunch of nerds! And everything else I "put in your mouth" is just a little bit more absurd than this. (But only a little, because this is a pretty stupid position to begin with.)
What you're employing here is a logical fallacy called appeal to nature, which in general is an appeal to something that is irrelevant. You haven't demonstrated that it's relevant at all to consider what is natural, even if we allow for your wildly exaggerated notion of nature. You are also being lazy and offensive.
"The statement you make is essentially that all behavior has an explanation behind it, no matter how distasteful or uncivilized. Fine, agreed. First, what is the value in pointing out this obvious conclusion?"
No more value than the author of the article provides by pointing out she got hit on / harassed in a crowded bar full of males.
"You then continue to say that because behavior has an explanation, that behavior cannot be sexism."
I do not believe I ever said that, point it out to me if I am wrong. What I did say is that sexism is a different thing from say, sexual harassment, misogyny, sexuality, sex-drives, or anything else with the word sex in it. Like I pointed out before, my original gripe is that "sexism" is used incorrectly here. Call it sexual harassment, then we are good.
On the topic of complaining about sexual harassment - yes go forth and complain, or don't. I really don't care, but either way the words will be lost in the wind. The only thing you could do to prevent this behavior is make stricter laws about sexual harassment, and do we really want that? Should we start arresting people when they hit on others, unwarranted, in a bar, where single people go to find mates?
As for everything else, I'm not going to waste a bunch of time typing out answers because you seem to have derived many conclusions, some of which are true, but most have nothing to do with my actual arguments (they are related to the topic of sexism, so bonus points there). I say this with all due respect, and no sarcasm: this will help you construct better arguments and avoid fallacies:
Actually, that is exactly your case. You place an appeal to nature next to claims of why the story is not an example of sexism. You supplied a nature-derived argument as a counter to my argument that the behavior fit your definition of sexism. You are arguing that naturally explained behavior is not sexist! And simultaneously you are denying the conclusions of that argument.
I don't mind telling you either, that a key part of your argument is actually bullshit. You're relying entirely on categorical statements about an entire class of people, substantiated with nothing more than intuition and a trip to Cancun!
It's amazing that, with an argument like this, you could be so smug as to suggest a reading of a list of fallacies. You should go into sales.
List of fallacies is useful, I need it myself as I am as prone to making them as anyone else (I bet you can find at least 10 in my arguments). I would suck at sales. ;)
Downvoted you to enact the "consider an idea for what it's worth and not react to your perception of who wrote it while desperately attempting to preserve your prejudices" agenda.
Sometime's PC goes overboard. It is not a bad thing necessarily, unless abused.
One example of PC going wrong is the word "retarded" - the PC crowd thought "mentally challenged" would be a better term, even though retarded just means you are a bit slow, mentally-challenged makes it seem like thinking is an arduous task.
Suppose anytime someone was a jerk in public, took up an extreme and unsubstantiated view, and held closely to it despite multiple appeals to show him the obvious errors in his reasoning -- suppose we call that "Doing a Gavan" or "Woolerying" (although the latter would be unfair to your parents and family.)
Now, if this became really popular, then people who you would never in your life meet would start using it. You'd turn on the TV and people would be like "Oy! Check this Gavan out," and "Looks like he's pulling a Gavan wink". That would be quite annoying, to say the least. And this is in a case where you arguably did something to deserve it!
Now consider that you were born a certain way, and people use that word which describes you and your condition, as a pejorative. How would you feel living in a world where, by the mere fact of your birth, you and people like you are the object of jokes and insults.
I would not consider it going overboard to say that we as a society should make an effort to prevent this from happening.
(Also, it's strange that you don't oppose PC language on the basis that it attempts to alter a natural behavior. Natural behaviors are natural and nothing can be done about them, right?)
I would be honored if "doing a gavan" or "woolerying" became terms. ;) But seriously, the only way to right a word of its negative context is to start using it in a positive fashion, that way no one can use it abusively. Retarded was actually not first used as an insult, but just a term meaning slow...people decided to make it an insult. Two of my friends who are gay call each other "faggots" - which is probably the best thing you can do to remove the negative connotation of the word. Black people have successfully done this, with the N word, which they have made exclusive to their community. Really, words are just words. If someone calls another "retarded" it depends more on their tone of conversation than the word itself.
Those are all three bad examples though. Call any black person "nigger", any gay man "faggot", or speak to a special ed teacher about his "retarded" students and on the whole all will be offended.
The fact that retarded was a clinical term is irrelevant, similarly I think "nigger" derived from some matter-of-fact observation. This is really just another manifestation of your idea that root causes matter. They don't -- not as much as impacts do, both legally and for many people morally as well. Also, again, reciprocity is not a requisite here -- there is no fair use policy for offensive words or behavior.
Whenever someone says "if they can use it so can I", I have to wonder "why would you want to?" Why would you ever want to refer to gay people as "fags" or black people as "niggers", even if they do call each other in such a way.
No. You are not supposed to use retarded because that word has consistently been used to insult and denigrate disabled people. It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult. It doesn't matter whether the person you are insulting is gay or not.
My gay friends prefer "gay" or "queer" over homosexual. My black friends prefer "black" over African American. I could very well be wrong about the word retarded though. :)
You did not understand me. Using “gay” as a positive term isn’t a problem. “He came out first as a gay footballer” is a perfectly alright sentence. Using ”gay” (or “retarded”) as an insult is where the problem lies (with “retarded” the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term – and since it’s so overwhelmingly used negatively, using it neutrally isn’t really possible).
When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with “Man, you are so gay!” then that’s a problem. You are using “gay” as in insult, as if being gay were a bad thing. That’s the reasoning behind why many people think using “gay” in that manner is a bad idea. That works analogously for “retarded”.
That’s not to say you can’t express, say, disgust at someone liking My Little Pony. “Man, your taste fucking sucks!” is a perfectly alright response no one will have a problem with (beyond disagreeing whether My Little Pony is good or bad).
Again, I don’t want to ban people from using “gay” or “retarded” as insults. But when they do I will call them out and explain my reasoning.
> with “retarded” the additional problem is that no one uses it as a positive term
Not true. In the automotive world "retarded" is used quite often in regards to your distributor, vacuum and timing. By adjusting things, your timing can be advanced or retarded. It is not a negative thing. It is simply how engines are tuned.
It truly is a shame that a very legitimate word (retard) with a very legitimate meaning (to delay or slow progress) that had been used in legitimate ways for years was co-opted to insult people with diminished metal capacity. (While technically true, it is mean. Much like calling me whitey is technically true as I am white... it is generally an insult.) If not for that, the use of phrases like "well that was retarded" would still be legit uses since it is in spirit of the original meaning and not too far from saying "well, that was stupid". One could even argue that in a slightly less PC world we could still be using it to describe things and actions... just not people. But that is wishful thinking. The damage has been done.
Side note: It is some what also the case with the word "gay" which used to just mean "happy". Although, when people say "well, that was gay" they are generally not meaning "happy" so we've pretty much departed from that. I don't know the whole history of the N-word, but I don't believe there was ever a non-hateful use of the word (even taking into consideration its origin).
> When someone tells you he likes My Little Pony and you respond with “Man, you are so gay!” then that’s a problem. You are using “gay” as in insult, as if being gay were a bad thing.
Maybe some people do think it's a bad thing. Who are you to be the arbiter of objective truth, ethics and correctness on that point, to which all other person's thoughts must conform? And note that "bad" does not have to mean evil, it can just mean undesirable, disgusting, weak, defective, or non-ideal. For example, there's a good argument to be made that homosexuality is a flaw from a biological and evolutionary standpoint. It's certainly not a condition which leads to reproductive accomplishment given that M+M and F+F cannot literally produce a baby. And note that nothing about that argument says that homosexuality is morally wrong. A lot of people think shit smells bad, for example, though they don't find it evil or a "lifestyle choice", since it's a biological process.
> It's the same with gay. You are not supposed to use it as an insult.
When you say "not supposed to" I'm curious by whose authority are you claiming that? For sake of argument, let's say there are some people out there who view homosexuality as an undesirable or defective or merely an "icky" thing. For example, they may not feel a gay man is evil or making a lifestyle choice, necessarily, but they may find it disasteful or uncomfortable, and they may not think it's psychologically healthy for two gay men to raise a child. Yet the "gay is 100% OK" crowd tends to demonize a person if they don't think exactly the same as they do. But if they do feel it's a negative thing, or something they feel is gross, why can't they use it as an insult? Just as they would use the insult of fat, stupid, ignorant, etc. By whose authority are certain insults not "allowed"? Is there some holy document which declares precisely and completely objectively which words you can and cannot say, or which thoughts you can and cannot express? And not I'm not talking about legal documents, those are clearly made up by humans, and vary by culture, time, fashion, etc.
It's this kind of nuance which is at the heart of why so many people don't agree with so-called Political Correctness. It's seen as an almost facist or Big Brother kind of thing where one group of people make these pronouncements about what some other group of people are and are not allowed to say, or think. There are shades of grey involved, clearly, where some cases are "black", and some "white-ish" but a whole lot of gray. But people on the P.C. bandwagon -- which also seem to correlate highly to US college students, professors and academics, especially non-STEM -- get on this moral high horse about what sounds like a very narrow and very strict definition about what's Right and what's Wrong to say or think. Which itself, to me, seems ludicrous at best, and unethical and oppressive at worse. A kind of close-minded authoritarianism about supposedly being open-minded and free. (BOGGLE)
This gets hurled as an insult often enough that using it is a bad idea. If you use it, you class yourself alongside the hateful morons who use it as an insult.
> retarded just means you are a bit slow
Ideally, perhaps; that is not the case in reality.
Actually, what I am saying is that nature is not always nice or civilized. When you get a bunch of drunk males into a room, their super ego goes down and they will begin to behave (almost literally) like animals. Is it right or wrong? I don't know, but it is not sexism. Is it to be expected? Yes. How do I know it is to be expected? Because you can easily replicate the situation. Go to Cancun if you want to see males in their most animal-state. Is it condonable? I do not know, but it is the way nature made us. Nature designed us to want reproduce - without our rules, morals, and what-have-you, we would be doing much worse things than asking to see private parts. Unfortunately, nature also gave us language, which means a lot of times males will utter really stupid things because their sex-drive takes over and their brain reaches a state of near-retardation (hence the popular phrase "show us your tits").
In shorter words - if you are a female in a bar that is overwhelmingly packed with males -- yes, you should very much expect to get harassed. Yes, it is not "right", but its the way nature made us so there is not a lot of sense in complaining about it. You could just as well complain about people being obese, because nature designed us to enjoy food. Am I saying women deserve to be harassed when they dress sexually? No, of course not. But what I am saying is that some males have less super ego than others, and it varies with the situation, so there are certain situations (like this one) in which a female could certainly expect to be harassed.