Everyday sexism

paddoboy:

Why should I care what Q-reeus wants you to do?

Excuse me?

You wrote:

"Must be a female Alien...can't make up her bloody mind!"
​

There's nothing false or silly in pointing out that this is a sexist comment. It clearly applies the false stereotype that women are bad at making up their minds. In the process, it seeks to belittle women. The implication is that you - a man - aren't burdened with the deficits that mere women have.

Don't you dare accuse me of making false remarks, when I directly quote you. I have made nothing up. What you wrote is on the record for all to see.

I note, also, that you consider my preference that women be treated with respect to be a "silly bias" that does not burden your conscience in the least. That's just further evidence of your oblivious self-entitlement, right there, if any more was needed.

Excuse me?

Rather than getting all hoity toity about how terribly insulted you feel, why don't you apologise to the women who were insulted by your throw-away mindlessly sexist comment?

I was quite clear. I wrote "other moderators". Work it out for yourself.

All I have to do is to look at what you choose to write here. You put it all on the record. What else is needed to draw a reasonable conclusion?

You should stop taking your behavioural cues from sexist advertisers. Who made them your role models?

If there are sexist advertisements - and there still are, though thankfully advertisers are gradually waking up, although change for the better is slow - that doesn't excuse your behaviour.

I think you tried to put up the "stupid man" advertisement genre as an excuse. If there are sexist ads targetting men, then women are fair game for your sexist comments. Is that how your argument goes? What the hell is wrong with you to think that is a good excuse?

I bet the women you insulted with it were thrilled

Okay. Let me get this right. You feel free to address women who are strangers as "love" and men as "matey". Does it strike you at all as overly familiar to address a woman who you have just met as "love"? Never mind whether it's overly-familiar to address a man you've just met as "mate".

In the case of the man, you're implying that he ought to be your friend, even though he doesn't know you. But in the case of the woman, you're implying that she should either be your lover, or perhaps subordinate to you - similar to the position of parent and dependent child.

Since I doubt you've ever thought consciously about what those forms of address imply, it has probably never occurred to you that they might be unwelcome or inappropriate. Probably, if somebody were to call you out on them, you'd tell them to lighten up, love.

I'm here to tell you that addressing women you've just met as "love" is presumptuous. It can even be creepy. That is not to say that every woman will take it that way. Like you, the people you interact with have grown up in a culture. Maybe they are habituated to such forms of address and the implicit power-plays at work in them. Maybe they have learned just to suck it up and accept that this is how things are. None of that excuses your choices, especially now that you know what's wrong with them.

 

That is a strawman, as any intelligent reader will immediately see. I have not generalised to "casual everyday banter". I have been very specific about my objections to your sexist comments and attitudes.

What is wrong with you?

You ought to be apologising to women in general for your sexist attitudes. Instead, you're going out of your way to tell lies about me, while doubling down on your sexism. Again.

 

Possibly. It would depend on their relationship, to some degree.

Did he refer to her as such while she was present, or only while she was absent? Did he call her that to her face, or only use the term behind her back? The answers to those questions might give you a hint as to his attitudes.

 

What do you think?

 

You asked your wife about that, did you? Or are you just assuming, and presuming to speak for her?

The same problem is still there. If the women who addressed you in that way were being inappropriate, that in no way justifies your inappropriate behaviour, whatever it might have been.

If you like being called "love" by women, that's up to you. If it doesn't bother you in any way to be addressed that way, again that's up to you. It doesn't make it right for them to make the assumption that you'll be fine with it, though. Nor does it make it right for you to assume that just about every woman you meet will be fine with your overly-familiar style of address.

People who know each other can agree to address each other how ever they like. If you like your wife to call you Twiddly-Snookums and she likes calling you that, it's nobody's place to take issue with that. The problem comes if you assume that nobody you meet is going to mind if you address them as "my little dumpling" or "lovey" or "cutey" or "girly" or "woman" or "wench" or whatever.

 

Obviously, it depends entirely on the content of the "banter". There's no possible way you can say that no banter is ever sexist.

I don't think you're qualified to spot sexism. You've given no signs you can recognise it.

Does that make it okay, then, if men are sometimes the victims of sexism?

What on earth is the relevance of two rape cases to this thread? Rape is not on a par with everyday sexism. Rape is sexual penetration without consent. (On the other hand, we could discuss "rape culture", but given where you're at I don't think you're equipped for that discussion.)

The cases you mention have been widely reported in the press. One would hope that the juries had the best possible access to the relevant evidence for and against guilt in both cases. You and I have, at best, read some media reports of the trials. While we might have vague opinions on the likely guilt or innocence of the accused men, neither of us has access to all the evidence that was presented in both trials. Clearly the juries in those cases couldn't reach verdicts, which suggests either that the evidence was controversial or perhaps that certain members of those juries were unable to look at the evidence objectively. The standard of proof in a criminal trial is also very high: proof has to be "beyond reasonable doubt".

Whatever the case, I have no idea why you brought up these cases in the context of this thread about your sexism. Was there a point, or is this just useless distraction off the topic?

Do you think you're the best person to judge whether you're sexist? Do you think it's up to you to decide?

Is that anecdote supposed to demonstrate that you're not sexist? How?

Do you tell your Irish jokes to Irish strangers you meet, assuming they will find them as hilarious as you and your mate do?

I don't see any relevance of that anecdote.

I see.

"Oh, did I really just say that all women are incapable of making up their minds? What a silly old duffer I am. Obviously I meant nothing by it. Lighten up, everyone, while I think of another sexist joke to entertain you all with!"

You're not convinced that any woman could be offended when you say that women can't make up their minds. Therefore, you're going to continue to say that to and about women. You might cause some minor accidents (somebody might take offense now and then), but that's an acceptable price to pay for the good laughs you'll get out of your sexist jokes.

After all, it's not like you're a rugby player who raped somebody. A little sexist joke or three is nothing for anybody to worry about.

Is that how it works?

 

"I'll bloody well do what I like. Take that an stuff it up your arse! I don't care what any of you (women) think."

 

wegs:

Good questions, wegs. I wonder if paddoboy will deign to answer a woman who asks him questions? Or will he ignore you?

It is clear that he has no intention of changing his behaviour, so he must think he has good reasons to continue.

I agree. A misogynist has a conscious or unconscious hatred of women, or of women's power. It's usually all about power and entitlement for those men. Sexism, on the other hand, doesn't have to come from a place of hatred. It can just be an ingrained, unthinking attitude that somebody (usually a man) has as a result of his upbringing and/or acculturation.

In other words, all misogynists are sexist, but not all sexists are misogynist.

 

Michael345:

It used to be common for white people to call black men "boy". Common means it's fine to do it, does it?

Your reaction to other people's behaviour directed at you is entirely up to you. What ought to concern you more is how other people react to your behaviour.

If it is your habit to address women as "love", would it bother you at all if a woman you'd just met and addressed in that way acted offended? Would you, like paddoboy, tell the little woman to "lighten up" and get over it, because you'll bloody well address her however you like?

I guess if you want to use this thread to out yourself as a sexist pig, in solidarity with paddoboy, you've come to the right place. But are you sure that's what you want to do?

 

paddoboy:

Did you even bother reading posts #46, #47, #48, #50 and #51?

What's wrong with you that you can't bring yourself to address any of what I wrote there, instead restricting yourself to responding to a post that I addressed to somebody else?

You need to face up to your own behaviour, not make apologies for michael.

So what?

Your sexism is okay because you're friendly with two workers at your local club?

Why do you keep bringing up all these irrelevancies, while ignoring almost all of the substantive points I've put up for your consideration?

Stop trying to distract and address the matters that have been raised. You started off getting all huffy over my initial one-line comment pointing out your sexism, but now you apparently won't touch any of the reasons I have put to you with a barge pole. Why is that?

Why don't you respond to wegs' question?

I'm in Victoria. Are you telling me you're going to shout me an interstate flight etc. just to prove that people at your club think you're a good bloke? You'd do better to apologise to all the women you may have offended in the past, and promise to try to be better in future.

 

I missed this:

Why should they need to have to object? Why wouldn't you just act in a way that removes the possibility that they could object? In other words, why not just do the right thing in the first place?

Do you have any understanding of why a woman might not object to strange man calling her "love", even if if it makes her uncomfortable?

I don't think you are capable of putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. You're way too self-absorbed. If a woman went out of her way to avoid you, I don't think you've even notice.