Thread: How offensive is it to be called sexist? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023978
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
My Hell call to GeeD is beginning to wax a bit Purgatorial on the issue of sexism and how offensive it is to be called sexist, so I've brought it here. This is before I disappear for some hours, so I won't be able to answer anything until this evening.

Getting this one out of the way first, I know calling someone sexist is offensive. But being offensive in Hell is not outwith the rules and the peanut gallery is liable to suggest that a Hell call that is not worded strongly is a "the worst Hell call ever" so challenges there tend to get inflated.

Coming from an educational background, saying to someone that something they've said is sexist would be the start of a conversation about what sexism is and why it is sexist. Marvin's reaction was
quote:
Calling someone a sexist is several orders of magnitude worse than calling them ignorant
As others are expressing different viewpoints on how offensive it is (following that post) I wondered why the reaction

(and sorry, I really have to go, so can't stay and link the rest)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...saying to someone that something they've said is sexist...
...is different to saying that the person is sexist. That's important.

But to me, it's like the difference between calling someone a fornicator and calling them a rapist. Both are insults, but the latter is far, far worse.

It's not, incidentally, about how insulting the attack is to the person on the receiving end. It's about the societal perception of the person should the insult "stick". Being sexist is a Really Bad Thing, being ignorant is not.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
Yeah, to my mind 'sexism' implies bad faith whereas ignorance isn't necessarily your fault.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Yeah, to my mind 'sexism' implies bad faith whereas ignorance isn't necessarily your fault.
I'm not so sure. Maybe it is because ignorance sounds a lot like innocence, but ignorance can be deliberate and wilful, as I have stated elsewhere. Moreover, racism, sexism and the rest can be deliberate or unconscious (or should that be subconscious?).

What is for sure is that sexism, or to be more accurate, the application of it, is illegal in the UK. Racism and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ditto, but applied ignorance is not against the law.

Maybe it is that legal position that determines how people feel: they don't mind criticism that implies they don't care, but they do object to any accusation that they behave illegally, even though the outcome of ignorance could actually be worse than that of sexism.

[ 19. October 2012, 12:06: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
 
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :
 
Hmmm. Supposing I take over as head of a new team. I announce that every week we'll have a team social/drink on Friday evening. For the first couple of weeks, everyone attends except Sam. Then someone takes me to one side and tells me that Sam is an observant Jew, and always leaves in order to be home before dark on a Friday.

If I am *innocently ignorant* I will be very embarrassed, ask whether there are any other changes I need to make so that our socialising is inclusive, and then make the necessary changes.

If I am *recklessly ignorant* I will announce that social night is now Thursday. I will not ask if there are any other changes needed for us to be inclusive. I could well be continuing to make someone else feel uncomfortable or excluded by routinely choosing the pub as our social activity.

If I am *wilfully ignorant* I will say "Huh. Everyone normal wants to go to the pub on a Friday. If Sam chooses not to socialise with the team for his own reasons, that's his lookout."

If I am *anti-semitic* I will have picked Friday night on purpose so that Sam is excluded.

Out of these options, being an acknowledged (to myself) anti-semite seems like the worst one to be. However, wilfully ignorant is pretty shitty too. You might argue that it's worse because the wilfully ignorant person doesn't even acknowledge to themselves the values that are driving their behaviour.
 
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on :
 
Being called sexist isn't all that offensive. The term gets thrown around so much it has become meaningless. The same goes for racist and bigot. Homophobia is well on its way.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...ignorance can be deliberate and wilful, as I have stated elsewhere.
It can, but that is not implied by the simple use of "ignorant" as an insult.

I think Erroneous Monk sums this up very well.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
Hmmm. Supposing I take over as head of a new team. I announce that every week we'll have a team social/drink on Friday evening. For the first couple of weeks, everyone attends except Sam. Then someone takes me to one side and tells me that Sam is an observant Jew, and always leaves in order to be home before dark on a Friday.

If I am *innocently ignorant* I will be very embarrassed, ask whether there are any other changes I need to make so that our socialising is inclusive, and then make the necessary changes.

If I am *recklessly ignorant* I will announce that social night is now Thursday. I will not ask if there are any other changes needed for us to be inclusive. I could well be continuing to make someone else feel uncomfortable or excluded by routinely choosing the pub as our social activity.

If I am *wilfully ignorant* I will say "Huh. Everyone normal wants to go to the pub on a Friday. If Sam chooses not to socialise with the team for his own reasons, that's his lookout."

If I am *anti-semitic* I will have picked Friday night on purpose so that Sam is excluded.

Out of these options, being an acknowledged (to myself) anti-semite seems like the worst one to be.
Yes, it is. And if the truth is that you're just innocently ignorant, being accused of being an anti-semite is going to really fucking hurt. Being called ignorant is far and away the less offensive insult.

It's the same with being called sexist instead of ignorant.
 
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Being called sexist isn't all that offensive. The term gets thrown around so much it has become meaningless.
Julia Gillard might disagree, and, for other reasons, so might Tony Abbott.

One might want to check what one has said before becoming dismissive about the accusation.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
Being called sexist is very offensive. Not as much as if called racist though - which might be a sign that our society still is inherently very sexist so it doesn't feel as bad as racist does. And I'd be offended if callled either, especially when its not true.

I can't see why that should stop us using the word though. If people deserve it and you fancy a fight. Call a spade a spade. If someone is acting offensively, offend them back if you want. As long as its true.

(Though I don't think that gee is anywhere near the most blatantly sexist of the regular posters here. Probably not in the top ten. I know who I think is at the top but I've recently been managing to stop myself replying in anger to their posts. Though it took some effort yesterday)
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
As long as its true.
Ay, there's the rub. [Smile]
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
This is interesting...whose sig line goes (went?) something like 'hell hath no fury like a vested interest masqerading as a moral principle'?

Less scrupulous members of groups who are widely regarded as having (or having had) legitimate victim status, may use this membership to attempt to strengthen their position by accusing an opponent of bigotry.

If the attempt is poorly executed and rather transparent, I guess it's more infuriating than offensive...perhaps even amusing. It also does least to damage the credibility of scrupulous members of the victimised group.

If the attempt is well-executed (but untrue), then it's probably very offensive and would extract vigorous rebuttal.

And if it turns out to be true - then it stings as it should, but should not be regarded as offensive, I guess.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
To my mind, being called sexist isn't a problem at all -- it is a ploy to try to win the day with name calling. I would say the same is true of being called racist, ageist, classist, etc. Being limited in any of these ways may be a problem, but the blatherings of fools should never be a burden to an honest person.

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I often say sexist things and am glad to be called on it - as it's not my intention to be sexist.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Being sexist is a Really Bad Thing, being ignorant is might not be.
Fixed that. Willfully ignorant can be very bad, IMO.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Willfully ignorant can be very bad, IMO.
Go figure. To my mind, willful ignorance is the best kind...

--Tom Clune
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
To my mind, being called sexist isn't a problem at all -- it is a ploy to try to win the day with name calling. I would say the same is true of being called racist, ageist, classist, etc. Being limited in any of these ways may be a problem, but the blatherings of fools should never be a burden to an honest person.
So anyone who calls you sexist is perforce a fool? Nice insulation. If BEING sexist is a problem, how will you know unless someone calls you on it?

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Willfully ignorant can be very bad, IMO.
Go figure. To my mind, willful ignorance is the best kind...
Why?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
OK, I started this by calling someone sexist. And I was referring to it as unconscious and unthinking.

Normally, other than in Hell, if I encountered a student being sexist (or racist, I've dealt with both) I would say something like "did you realise that you could be interpreted as being sexist there because ..." If it was someone senior to me talking in a leisure situation I probably wouldn't challenge them as unlikely to change anything. One of the levellers of the Ship is we lose any seniority and status we might have and have to live on our thoughts and words alone.

I see sexism as a form of ignorance as that's when I normally encounter it - a lack of awareness that what is being said might unthinkingly discriminate against people for whatever reason. When I meet sexism (and racism) in students for their own employability we have to point out that this is not allowed in the work place. It usually comes from home attitudes, whether innocently or wilfully racist or sexist.

Working with teenagers I've had these discussions with both girls and boys for saying things that discriminated against both genders. We've equally had to challenge groups mocking boys who want to train as nursery nurses or stay at home to look after children and groups telling girls that they can't become mechanics.
 
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Willfully ignorant can be very bad, IMO.
Go figure. To my mind, willful ignorance is the best kind...
Why?
Because you have the pleasure of knowing what you don't know. If ignorance is bliss, willful ignorance is fully-realized bliss...

--Tom Clune

[ETA: I have never been called sexist by anyone wishing to inform me of anything. But that or similar are common from folks hoping to intimidate me so they can sleeze out an unmerited victory in an argument. Of course, YMMV, you MCP...]

[ 19. October 2012, 17:42: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
...ignorance can be deliberate and wilful, as I have stated elsewhere.
It can, but that is not implied by the simple use of "ignorant" as an insult.

I think Erroneous Monk sums this up very well.
I agree. Erroneous Monk has shown what a vast range "ignorant" can cover. One must then look beyond that word and decide on the nature and actual or potential harm of that ignorance.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And I was referring to it as unconscious and unthinking.
I have encountered this type of racism and sexism. A lot more of the fully conscious, but either way, not very excusable.
One would need be a virtual shut-in to not at least peripherally understand there are issues.


quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Because you have the pleasure of knowing what you don't know. If ignorance is bliss, willful ignorance is fully-realized bliss...

--Tom Clune
A person truly following this statement has the makings of a fine politician. Provided one thinks the BNP or Republican party are fine.

[ 19. October 2012, 18:49: Message edited by: tclune ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Of course, YMMV, you MCP...]
Sigh. I thought you were being sincere in your discussion here. Shame on me.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Willfully ignorant can be very bad, IMO.
Go figure. To my mind, willful ignorance is the best kind...

--Tom Clune
i wouldn't know.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
To my mind, being called sexist isn't a problem at all -- it is a ploy to try to win the day with name calling. I would say the same is true of being called racist, ageist, classist, etc. Being limited in any of these ways may be a problem, but the blatherings of fools should never be a burden to an honest person.
I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences in debate, but I'm amazed to hear such ignorant rubbish from a shipmate I've always respected. These things are not just idle name calling or cheap ploys to win arguments -in fact, they often start further argument, as in Hell. My father was an honest person, but he was a racist. He didn't deliberately do anybody down, but he believed as a matter of scientific fact that certain races were intellectually superior. There are plenty of people about who are deliberately and unpleasantly racist or sexist or whatever - and some of these may be deliberately dishonest but there are many more others who unconsciously transmit racist or sexist assumptions they've never learnt to question.

By the way, working cultures that socialise on the basis of everybody going for a drink on Friday evening usually are sexist and racist. Or at least, they were. You could argue that they're not any more, because many more women are now able and willing to join in - but the other view is that they are still boys' clubs and the women who join them just become honorary boys.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
working cultures that socialise on the basis of everybody going for a drink on Friday evening usually are sexist and racist. Or at least, they were. You could argue that they're not any more, because many more women are now able and willing to join in - but the other view is that they are still boys' clubs and the women who join them just become honorary boys.
One could also object that it discriminates against those religions that oppose alcohol consumption. But ho hum-- is there anything we can possibly do that no one will find inconvenient, or objectionable, or insidiously self-serving if they try hard enough? The best solution may be to socialize under a variety of circumstances.

When I was in graduate school 1972/3, the whole school tended to adjourn to a beer & pizza place late Friday afternoon-- both faculty and students (among whom women predominated). I thought we had a great time, and it contributed to esprit-de-corps. Yes, food as well as drink was consumed, and it was a university rather than workplace community, but it was also quite awhile ago.
 
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :
 
'Wilful ignorance' is a very wobbly concept, akin to 'self deception'. Both imply simultaneously knowing and not knowing. If we were strictly rational, this would be impossible, but we're not strictly rational. And yet diving into the fragmented consciousness and interaction of emotion with reason that makes these paradoxes possible, can be pretty futile.

We only think that matters if we're hung up on blame and the attribution of responsibility. The point is to hammer away at sexism, racism, etc. Make them untenable in the world and the human mind will adapt to that, as it evolved to adapt and in the end, always will.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
'Wilful ignorance' is a very wobbly concept, akin to 'self deception'. Both imply simultaneously knowing and not knowing. If we were strictly rational, this would be impossible, but we're not strictly rational.
I disagree. One can "willfully" not know something by deliberately avoiding information one doesn't want to know about. Children, for example, are notoriously "willfully ignorant" of their parent's sex lives-- if you start to share the information, they will plug their ears and chant loudly. They don't want to know.

A darker example might be Joe Paterno, who was most likely "willfully ignorant" of Sandusky's crimes. He passed along the incriminating info., then-- possibly deliberately-- did not follow up, because to have knowledge of the crimes would have caused all sorts of conflict for him. It was much easier not to know-- so he chose not to. Ignorant, but willfully so.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences in debate, but I'm amazed to hear such ignorant rubbish from a shipmate I've always respected. These things are not just idle name calling or cheap ploys to win arguments -in fact, they often start further argument, as in Hell.
Perhaps this is a pond thing; I have to say that I agree with tclune - people who simply call you sexist, racist, classist, etc. without telling you how to modify your speech or behavior to be more fair to others are, IME, frequently using cheap ploys to attempt to win arguments.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I think it speaks ill of people when they try to brush aside criticism. Maybe it's a pond thing.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Nah. It's more of a personality/Myers-Briggs/Enneagram thing...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
I can see the Pond and know it's real.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Can you see sexism and know it's real? How about criticism?

[ 20. October 2012, 02:21: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Can you see sexism and know it's real? How about criticism?
You mistake my meaning. I cannot see Enneagram or Myers-Briggs categories and know they're real.

But yes, I have seen both sexism and criticism, and can attest to their reality.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Actually, I was being willfully ignorant.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Actually, I was being willfully ignorant.
Just to prove it can be done?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
No, more because it's mildly amusing to see steam come out of some people's ears at the mere mention of Myers. But I didn't have you particularly in mind.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
Sexism, like racism, is so imbedded in the culture that anyone (of any gender) who claims to be free of it is only demonstrating their lack of insight. One can be resolutely anti-sexist, but that doesn't make you perfectly non-sexist--it only means you are opposed to sexism, even the sexism you have internalized. So no, it's not offensive in itself--it should trigger curiosity about what you might have done or said that expressed unconscious sexism.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
...saying to someone that something they've said is sexist...
...is different to saying that the person is sexist. That's important.
And I said that in my OP - that outside Hell or a real screaming argument, I wouldn't call someone sexist, I would say their actions are sexist. Unfortunately, the way Hell works here, unless the opening post is fairly aggressive, it gets dismissed.

quote:
Marvin the Martian: But to me, it's like the difference between calling someone a fornicator and calling them a rapist. Both are insults, but the latter is far, far worse.

It's not, incidentally, about how insulting the attack is to the person on the receiving end. It's about the societal perception of the person should the insult "stick". Being sexist is a Really Bad Thing, being ignorant is not.
Hang on comparing ignorance to sexism as is fornication to rape is ridiculous, well beyond conjugating one of those "special" verbs.

Sexism is, for most of us, just a form of ignorance and something we all do unconsciously to some degree or another. And conflating sexism to be as evil as rape closes ears to what is actually being said: that those particular words or actions are not giving both genders equal consideration.

I would agree that calling someone misogynist is worse than calling them sexist because that is saying someone hates women, which is several degrees worse than sexism which says something they're doing is disadvantaging the opposite gender.

[You misread/misunderstood what I said in Hell, by the way. I had been equating sexism and ignorance throughout that thread. I said something entirely different when I retracted the charge of sexism.]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
I'm sorry if you've had bad experiences in debate, but I'm amazed to hear such ignorant rubbish from a shipmate I've always respected. These things are not just idle name calling or cheap ploys to win arguments -in fact, they often start further argument, as in Hell.
Perhaps this is a pond thing; I have to say that I agree with tclune - people who simply call you sexist, racist, classist, etc. without telling you how to modify your speech or behavior to be more fair to others are, IME, frequently using cheap ploys to attempt to win arguments.
But that's a straw man, the OP and the context of this discussion is calling someone sexist because ... [description of actions]. Which was providing information as to how to modify speech and behaviour. It wasn't just throwing out labels as ways of shutting down conversation.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Sexism, like racism, is so imbedded in the culture that anyone (of any gender) who claims to be free of it is only demonstrating their lack of insight. One can be resolutely anti-sexist, but that doesn't make you perfectly non-sexist--it only means you are opposed to sexism, even the sexism you have internalized. So no, it's not offensive in itself--it should trigger curiosity about what you might have done or said that expressed unconscious sexism.
Yes - that's what I said.

[Smile]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
And conflating sexism to be as evil as rape closes ears to what is actually being said: that those particular words or actions are not giving both genders equal consideration.
Of all the things I've been criticised for over the years, being too hard on sexism is one of the least expected.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Marvin, I think the problem is that you see someone saying something is sexist as an accusation equivalent to an accusation of rape and then react accordingly.

My understanding of sexism is that it's endemic and a form of ignorance, either wilful ignorance or simple ignorance. I am not making a judgement about the form of ignorance when I say something is sexist. However, that judgement of wilful ignorance may follow on from any conversation.
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
<Desperately fighting urge to post "There, there CK; don't you worry your pretty little head about it any more" lest it appear ... unhelpful>
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
[Big Grin] - roflmao

(btw, you did read the Hell thread[s]?)
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
I read bits of them; IIRC they went past my "where interesting becomes disappearing-up-its-own-fundament" threshold eventually. I'm a rather fair-weather consumer of threads.

FWIW my answer to the OP question would be,as it so often is, "It depends". Primarily on a number of contexts: those of the situation that gives rise to the accusation, and also the situations of the caller and callee. I'm not sure that for most people it's significantly worse than being called ignorant, in the general case. Whilst in pure terms being ignorant is nothing to be ashamed of (unless it's deliberate and wilful), most people hear "stupid and brutish" as opposed to "unaware of something in a value neutral fashion".

Of course, call me sexist in the cut and thrust of friendly badinage amongst chums, I don't care, it's all part of the game (and I may be deliberately or even intrinsically sexist in that context). Call me sexist as a serious accusation in a work context, and I'll not only get the right hump, I'll do my damnedest to prove you wrong, and it will stick in my mind for quite some time.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Instead of getting all defensive, which means shutting yourself off from any truth you don't want to hear ("I can't hear you, la la la la la la la"), why not, "I certainly did not mean to be; what was it I said that struck you as sexist?"
 
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on :
 
MT, was that in response to me?

If so, maybe I should have just left it at "It depends". And my response would generally depend on the context too. In RL if I was called sexist in a meaningful situation then I would almost certainly adopt an exploratory/understanding approach to find out why I'd come across that way, and if I had in fact been sexist. But under the surface I would, potentially, be hurt and somewhat put out.

There are exceptions: the aforementioned context of a wind-up argument amongst friends, and also if the accusation was levelled by someone who was so right-on they invent new -isms before getting out of bed each day. The kind of accusation where "Oh do fuck off" is about the only available sane response, but which often has to be a head thought, and a more socially engaging response delivered verbally.

[Note to self: stop making the fatal mistake of quick responses in serious threads when distracted by other things]

ETA My original "I'd get the hump" comment is because I wouldn't BE sexist in a work situation; certainly not to a degree where I'd be likely to get called on it. Therefore I was working from an assumption that personally I would be offended because it would be false. If I was called on something and it brought me up short with a mental "Oops, that was a bit off actually" then I wouldn't get the hump, I'd be more appropriate.

Which all comes back to "It depends".

[ 20. October 2012, 17:52: Message edited by: Snags ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
My original "I'd get the hump" comment is because I wouldn't BE sexist in a work situation; certainly not to a degree where I'd be likely to get called on it.
But my point is that you might say something sexist and not realize it's a sexist thing to say, even if you would never BE sexist intentionally.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But that's a straw man, the OP and the context of this discussion is calling someone sexist because ... [description of actions]. Which was providing information as to how to modify speech and behaviour. It wasn't just throwing out labels as ways of shutting down conversation.
But if the discussion is about how offensive it is to call someone a sexist, it's relevant that there are at least some people in the world who do not view it as being particularly offensive because the term gets tossed around too often and too casually.

Sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, bigot. At least in some areas of the US these are the secular liberal version of original sin (but without the hope of redemption): you are these things simply because you exist and therefore are horrible in some way. Clearly there are differences in the ways we're using language, but calling someone sexist isn't necessarily an effective way to point out the flaws in their reasoning or behavior. To my ears it mostly sounds quaint (are we back in the 70s?) and/or likely that someone is parodying something rather than making a serious argument. Obviously YMMV (and probably does).
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But that's a straw man, the OP and the context of this discussion is calling someone sexist because ... [description of actions]. Which was providing information as to how to modify speech and behaviour. It wasn't just throwing out labels as ways of shutting down conversation.
But if the discussion is about how offensive it is to call someone a sexist, it's relevant that there are at least some people in the world who do not view it as being particularly offensive because the term gets tossed around too often and too casually.

Sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, bigot. At least in some areas of the US these are the secular liberal version of original sin (but without the hope of redemption): you are these things simply because you exist and therefore are horrible in some way. Clearly there are differences in the ways we're using language, but calling someone sexist isn't necessarily an effective way to point out the flaws in their reasoning or behavior. To my ears it mostly sounds quaint (are we back in the 70s?) and/or likely that someone is parodying something rather than making a serious argument. Obviously YMMV (and probably does).
YMMV, indeed. Your comment struck this not-so-secular liberal as the sort of right-wing "anti-PC" rant that "gets tossed around too often and too casually." iow, precisely the way apparently that "sexist" strikes you.

You say potato, I say potato.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
YMMV, indeed. Your comment struck this not-so-secular liberal as the sort of right-wing "anti-PC" rant that "gets tossed around too often and too casually." iow, precisely the way apparently that "sexist" strikes you.

You say potato, I say potato.
It might help to understand that I spent a bunch of energy fighting this program, which I tend to blame for turning people in the state into crazy people.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
YMMV, indeed. Your comment struck this not-so-secular liberal as the sort of right-wing "anti-PC" rant that "gets tossed around too often and too casually." iow, precisely the way apparently that "sexist" strikes you.

You say potato, I say potato.
It might help to understand that I spent a bunch of energy fighting this program, which I tend to blame for turning people in the state into crazy people.
It might, if you could find me a link from a news source that didn't sound like a Faux News rip-off.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
You can watch the video of students complaining about the program, but I have my doubts you'll find that persuasive. But I can't find you a link to a "respectable" news source since this is precisely the kind of program that doesn't qualify as 'news'.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, bigot. At least in some areas of the US these are the secular liberal version of original sin
Except that, unlike original sin -- belief in which is in the realm of faith -- sexism, racism, homophobia and bigotry are documentably all-too-real phenomena.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
(but without the hope of redemption): you are these things simply because you exist and therefore are horrible in some way.
No, that doesn't necessarily follow. It is possible for those holding any of the the abovementioned views to grow out of such views. I think a good many or most of those who recognise the reality of racism etc. also allow for the possibility of such growth. (Which unfortunately doesn't seem to happen nearly often enough)
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Clearly there are differences in the ways we're using language, but calling someone sexist isn't necessarily an effective way to point out the flaws in their reasoning or behavior. To my ears it mostly sounds quaint (are we back in the 70s?) and/or likely that someone is parodying something rather than making a serious argument. Obviously YMMV (and probably does).
Sexism, racism, etc. are far from being quaint throwbacks to a bygone era. However i will agree that it is better to address instances of racism, etc., with specificity and logic rather than merely applying a label, however accurate the label may be.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It might, if you could find me a link from a news source that didn't sound like a Faux News rip-off.
That's not exactly a news source. It is the website for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. They have successfully sued quite a few universities for denying their students freedom of speech.

One of their successful lawsuits is described here.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It might, if you could find me a link from a news source that didn't sound like a Faux News rip-off.
That's not exactly a news source. It is the website for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. They have successfully sued quite a few universities for denying their students freedom of speech.

One of their successful lawsuits is described here.

Moo
And it might be a very fine organization, taking on only cases of egregious misuse of power. My point was simply that I've never heard of them, and the type of inflammatory language they use is reminiscent of that found on Faux News. Now it may very well be that that similarity is in fact quite superficial. I just don't have a whole lot to judge these particular cases on w/o some other sources to compare their reporting to.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
You can look at their website and get an idea of what they're like. The fact that they have won lawsuits indicates that they are not fruitcakes.

Moo
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
As the Phelps family make their money winning law suits I'm not convinced that argument stands up.

saysay - I looked at the link from FIRE too and found no explanation as to what the issue is, just an emotively expressed campaign against it. Do you have a link to the materials used?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
saysay - I looked at the link from FIRE too and found no explanation as to what the issue is, just an emotively expressed campaign against it. Do you have a link to the materials used?
Here is a link.

Bear in mind that the students are required to participate.

Moo
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It is the same sort of thing that has been taught compulsorily in UK schools for the last 10 years as part of the Citizenship curriculum. It's currently under review, but all education in the UK is currently under review by Secretary of State Gove.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It is the same sort of thing that has been taught compulsorily in UK schools for the last 10 years as part of the Citizenship curriculum. It's currently under review, but all education in the UK is currently under review by Secretary of State Gove.
This is not a school. It is a university. Does Oxford require this sort of thing?

Moo
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
The US university system does not stack up with the UK university system exactly so you can't make that equivalence. Our schools continue schooling after your high schools do, and we do the equivalent of your first year of degrees in school. We use USA degree level books for our A level qualifications in some subjects (science and engineering being the two I know about).
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Would this be considered A-level material?

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
You can look at their website and get an idea of what they're like. The fact that they have won lawsuits indicates that they are not fruitcakes.
Well, I wasn't exactly calling them "fruitcakes"-- I was suggesting they could be equivalent to Fox News. But I understand your confusion.

What I'm looking for is some other source of confirmation, preferably from a known source. Since they are (for me) a complete unknown, a self-referential source-- their own website-- really tells me nothing. I'm sure they think they're swell. And quite possibly they are. But I'd like to hear at least one other group second the opinion.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
You can look at their website and get an idea of what they're like. The fact that they have won lawsuits indicates that they are not fruitcakes.

Moo
Not commenting on the particular entity being discussed, but winning lawsuits does not preclude being a fruitcake.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
You can look at their website and get an idea of what they're like. The fact that they have won lawsuits indicates that they are not fruitcakes.

Moo
Not commenting on the particular entity being discussed, but winning lawsuits does not preclude being a fruitcake.
It is significant that the lawsuits they have won have resulted in prohibiting the universities which were sued from restricting the free speech of students.

Moo
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@ Moo: I can only go on the three pages that site links to, but it doesn't look that inflammatory to me from this side of the Atlantic. I suspect from the tenor of the arguments the links are to the most controversial of the material as far as campaigners are concerned.

We were taught compulsory General Studies alongside A levels when I was at school, and it covered a range of subjects over the two years, but included such things as awareness raising, teaching self-reflectiveness, looking at discrimination and prejudice and their causes. I'd have to ask what my daughter was taught in her sessions more recently, but those aren't topics that would surprise me.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Originally posted by Curiosity killed:
quote:
It is the same sort of thing that has been taught compulsorily in UK schools for the last 10 years as part of the Citizenship curriculum.
I don't think this part of the UK has a Citizenship curriculum (although Responsible Citizen is one of the Four Competencies of Scottish education.) I've just checked with my 16 year old, who has never had a specific lesson on racism. Her current "social education" is focusing on safe driving, as they're coming up to the point when some of them will start learning to drive. The previous topic was the link between sunbeds and skin cancer.

Obviously, racism comes up in connection with texts such as To Kill a Mockingbird but it's not a stand-alone topic.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I have been reading FIRE website off-and-on for more than twelve years. They want students and faculty to be free to examine all ideas. That is what a university is for.

Here is a description of the University of Delaware program. It is taken from the FIRE site, but AFAIK no one has ever demonstrated that FIRE misrepresented their position.

quote:
The university’s views are forced on students through a comprehensive manipulation of the residence hall environment, from mandatory training sessions to “sustainability” door decorations. Students living in the university’s eight housing complexes are required to attend training sessions, floor meetings, and one-on-one meetings with their Resident Assistants (RAs). The RAs who facilitate these meetings have received their own intensive training from the university, including a “diversity facilitation training” session at which RAs were taught, among other things, that “[a] racist is one who is both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist (racist) system. The term applies to all white people (i.e., people of European descent) living in the United States, regardless of class, gender, religion, culture or sexuality.”

The university suggests that at one-on-one sessions with students, RAs should ask intrusive personal questions such as “When did you discover your sexual identity?” Students who express discomfort with this type of questioning often meet with disapproval from their RAs, who write reports on these one-on-one sessions and deliver these reports to their superiors. One student identified in a write-up as an RA’s “worst” one-on-one session was a young woman who stated that she was tired of having “diversity shoved down her throat.”

According to the program’s materials, the goal of the residence life education program is for students in the university’s residence halls to achieve certain “competencies” that the university has decreed its students must develop in order to achieve the overall educational goal of “citizenship.” These competencies include: “Students will recognize that systemic oppression exists in our society,” “Students will recognize the benefits of dismantling systems of oppression,” and “Students will be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality.”

At various points in the program, students are also pressured or even required to take actions that outwardly indicate their agreement with the university’s ideology, regardless of their personal beliefs. Such actions include displaying specific door decorations, committing to reduce their ecological footprint by at least 20%, taking action by advocating for an “oppressed” social group, and taking action by advocating for a “sustainable world.”

In the Office of Residence Life’s internal materials, these programs are described using the harrowing language of ideological reeducation. In documents relating to the assessment of student learning, for example, the residence hall lesson plans are referred to as “treatments.”
I don't wonder that many students object strongly.

Moo
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It's not a standalone topic in those materials. There were three pages linked.

Competencies Narritive (sic) 1 - understand how your social identity affects how you view others - self-reflection and understanding to make students more effective at working with others;

Competencies Narritive (sic) 2 - Understand how differences in equity affect our society at local and national level (they missed international) - looks at a range of different inequalities including racism and sexism, should know how to change behaviours to reduce this inequity;

Competencies Narritive (sic) 10 - Sustainability - looks at living in a community and considering things like recycling, transport selections, eating choices and working together with fellow students

Cross post - responding to NorthEastQuinee

[ 21. October 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
They want students and faculty to be free to examine all ideas. That is what a university is for.
Agreed. But that doesn't mean that universities don't introduce/ teach new ideas-- they do, that's what they're for. Again, I know nothing of FIRE, but organizations here in the US that use similar language that I am familiar with from my work as a univ. prof. really at root are objecting to information being taught that is contrary to their ideological bent. "Examining all ideas" does not equal "teaching what I have always been taught to believe", or even "teaching only raw data with no interpretation or subjective analysis". I know that sounds obvious, but honestly, I have encountered way too many organizations where this is not the case. Presenting perspectives, whether in reading, lectures, or even free classroom discussion, that is contrary to the organizations ideology is branded "oppressive" and "denying free speech".


quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have been reading FIRE website off-and-on for more than twelve years...
Here is a description of the University of Delaware program. It is taken from the FIRE site, but AFAIK no one has ever demonstrated that FIRE misrepresented their position.
Well, that hardly proves anything does it, since the only evidence we have of there being a problem with the U of D program is FIRE. Again, it is all self-referential. Really would love to see some outside data from a known source one way or the other.

fwiw, the description of the U of D program, when you strip it off the inflammatory language, sounds like the standard diversity education programs that are run on virtually every campus across the US, including my own. Of course, as with all things (but perhaps even more so in the tense topic of race relations) the quality varies greatly both in the materials used and in the presentations. Many/most univ. depend a lot on RAs, as U of D does, which means relying on young undergrads to lead a very mature discussion. That can be a problem, obviously, but also reflects the fact that the real-life application of this material is found in those sorts of group living arrangements. This is usually supplemented by instruction across the curriculum (as I am asked to do) where the topic can be explored in a more scholarly way, with discussions led by professors.

Of course, the fact that this is standard fare rather than a one-off by U of D, will be seen by many (possibly including FIRE) as evidence of the "liberal indoctrination" of univ. ed. in America. From the univ. pov, it is part of the very goal you cited up top: exploring a wide range of ideas-- i.e. diversity.

And again, I have no prior knowledge of FIRE or U of D's program, so w/o some outside confirmation, can't say how either fits into the broader picture of diversity ed. in American univ.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
Curiosity killed, my 18 year old doesn't think that those topics were included in his curriculum (state comprehensive) unless they came up in some other context. However, he does admit that there is a possibility that he "wasn't paying that much attention" (maternal eyeroll).
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It might help to understand that I spent a bunch of energy fighting this program, which I tend to blame for turning people in the state into crazy people.
As the program seems to have been suspended two days after the press release you link to, you must have had a busy day.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It might, if you could find me a link from a news source that didn't sound like a Faux News rip-off.
No, as others have said FIRE has done some worthwhile stuff. I suspect that if I was American I'd generally support them. No doubt they have more than their fair share of far-right fake-libertarians, but they aren't all like that. And they aren't all paranoid fantasists wallowing in self-appointed victimhood.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

We were taught compulsory General Studies alongside A levels when I was at school, and it covered a range of subjects over the two years, but included such things as awareness raising, teaching self-reflectiveness, looking at discrimination and prejudice and their causes.
The complaint about Delaware seems to have been in response to course materials used to train the advisors (IYSWIM) that said that all white people in the USA were neccessarily racist. Which goes beyond what any school or university in Britain is likely to do.

And which, apparently, were withdrawn pretty much instantly. Though its hard to be sure because there really isn't much about this online & I've got no other sources. Though the three places I found that said that included two rather nasty-looking white supremacist websites - who in this case might be assumed of having an interest in pretending that the program was still in place even if it wasn't so might be telling the truth. In an "even a stopped clock" sort of way.

Reading between the lines it looks as if the advisers attended one of two one-day seminars or conferences led by Shakti Butler - a "diversity-rights activist" who is pretty easy to find on the Net.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fwiw, the description of the U of D program, when you strip it off the inflammatory language, sounds like the standard diversity education programs that are run on virtually every campus across the US, including my own.
And that terrifies me.

quote:
Of course, the fact that this is standard fare rather than a one-off by U of D, will be seen by many (possibly including FIRE) as evidence of the "liberal indoctrination" of univ. ed. in America. From the univ. pov, it is part of the very goal you cited up top: exploring a wide range of ideas-- i.e. diversity.
There are some materials online; you did catch the part where resident assistants (who would also likely be relatively immature undergraduates) were instructed to ask really invasive questions about a person's sexual identity? And refer students who replied 'none of your business' for 'treatment'? I also saw questionnaires asking students how likely they were to date someone of another race or religion; 'progress' was defined as students being more willing to do so at the end of the term than they were at the beginning. The program isn't about diversity in terms of exploring a wide range of ideas; it's about making sure certain ideas cannot be explored by faculty, staff, and students.

Anyhow, point being that they are a public university that receives a certain amount of state funding and are the only even semi-affordable university option for many students in the state - many of whom attended public schools and would have had mandatory diversity education much earlier in their schooling. It still exists in a modified form and I still think it's an appalling program brought to people by the same people who told me who I was and how I was raised and what I thought and felt and almost wouldn't allow me to graduate because I wouldn't recognize* the wrongness of beliefs I had never held in the first place. Which is all a long explanation for why I don't necessarily find a charge of sexist or racist or whateverist offensive as there are a bunch of people who toss them around too casually.

*it's the language that bothers me; 'recognize', 'realize,' ' be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality'. Neat trick how they know that their students - many of whom spent at least part of their lives living and being educated in other countries and other languages - have horrible daily habits and a consumer mentality. And why should a university be teaching 'citizenship' as if we are all (or want to be) citizens of the same place?
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There are some materials online; you did catch the part where resident assistants (who would also likely be relatively immature undergraduates)...?
Given that I made that exact same point using almost the exact same language a sentence or two after the one you quoted, yeah, I caught it.

[ 21. October 2012, 20:31: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There are some materials online; you did catch the part where resident assistants (who would also likely be relatively immature undergraduates)...?
Given that I made that exact same point using almost the exact same language a sentence or two after the one you quoted, yeah, I caught it.
And you don't have a problem with that? Students being forced to disclose intimate information about their sex lives and identity to a virtual stranger who may be of the opposite sex and may or may not have a sexual interest in their resident - who by definition lives on their floor and frequently cannot change rooms even if they are uncomfortable with their RA?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And you don't have a problem with that? Students being forced to disclose intimate information about their sex lives and identity to a virtual stranger who may be of the opposite sex and may or may not have a sexual interest in their resident - who by definition lives on their floor and frequently cannot change rooms even if they are uncomfortable with their RA?
I think this is the worst of it. In school programs of this type, the student leaves at the end of the day. The Delaware program forced students to live in close contact day-and-night with those who had asked them extremely invasive questions.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
There are some materials online; you did catch the part where resident assistants (who would also likely be relatively immature undergraduates)...?
Given that I made that exact same point using almost the exact same language a sentence or two after the one you quoted, yeah, I caught it.
And you don't have a problem with that?
Seriously? After I just pointed out that I raised the same issue-- and where I raised it? Why not read what I wrote-- since it involves, as I said, reading one more line than the one you quoted? Yes, I already said that was an issue. As I pointed out. Twice now.

You seem to be reading me as an advocate of the U of D program and a critic of FIRE, when in fact, all I've said is that I know nothing of either and can't find anything online about either that isn't self-referential.

Ideally, the goal of diversity ed. is to learn to avoid these sorts of assumptions/ blindspots. The reality is we all fall into them, including diversity educators-- and you and I. It's a slippery slope, requires a lot of humility and self-awareness to do it well. Have no idea where U of D or FIRE fall in that. But I would still insist the general goal of diversity ed. is a good one, in line with the stated goal of a univ. education.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
And you don't have a problem with that? Students being forced to disclose intimate information about their sex lives and identity to a virtual stranger who may be of the opposite sex and may or may not have a sexual interest in their resident - who by definition lives on their floor and frequently cannot change rooms even if they are uncomfortable with their RA?
I think this is the worst of it. In school programs of this type, the student leaves at the end of the day. The Delaware program forced students to live in close contact day-and-night with those who had asked them extremely invasive questions.

Moo
Did you never live in a dorm? That has always been true of dorm/ sorority/ fraternity life, long before there was diversity education.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Did you never live in a dorm? That has always been true of dorm/ sorority/ fraternity life, long before there was diversity education.
I had never heard that dorm/sorority/ fraternity life required the residents to answer questions about the details of their sex lives. If a resident wanted to volunteer such information, that was his choice. In the Delaware program there was no choice.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Did you never live in a dorm? That has always been true of dorm/ sorority/ fraternity life, long before there was diversity education.
I had never heard that dorm/sorority/ fraternity life required the residents to answer questions about the details of their sex lives. If a resident wanted to volunteer such information, that was his choice. In the Delaware program there was no choice.

Moo
It was a part of dorm living when I was in univ. 40 years ago-- all sort of enforced "community bldg" exercises. Whether it should be or not, is, I agree, a valid concern. But it's not something that's new or unique to diversity ed.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
When I was at the university sixty years ago no one asked personal questions of people they didn't know well. If anyone had done it, they would have been very unpopular.

People could volunteer whatever information they wanted, but sometimes the confidences were unwelcome.

Moo
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
Maybe the switch came somewhere in that 20 year period between 1952 and 1974 when the whole small group phenomenon and enforced intimacy came into vogue. But again, by now, really not all that new, nor unique to diversity ed.
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
Thank goodness that when I went to university in Britain within the last decade, nobody made it a condition of my degree that I be interrogated about my sex life and my inherent racism and homophobia! If there's any racism in me right now, it's the "You Yanks are f***ed up" variety.
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
I think there may be a problem inasmuch as there isn't really a good word to call people out on the kind of thinking that regards one group as the "default category" in a way that can lead to that group becoming privileged in comparison to others. When you say "sexist" or "racist" it tends to make people think of real venom and hate but that's not it at all. For instance, I am privileged in many ways: as a white, middle class person I'm likely to find that lots of areas of my life are made slightly easier as a result. These days I'm in a heterosexual marriage, which adds extra privilege - but having been in long term same sex relationships I've experienced the other side of that coin too.

If I act in a way that is clueless to people who don't have this kind of privilege, I want people to point that out to me. Not necessarily using an "ism" word - which is why I think maybe we need a better vocabulary for that. An example of this: until recently I lived in an area of London where most people were not white - a real melting pot with people from all over the world and every possible skin colour. If you walked into one of the chain shops that sold makeup, however, there would be the usual range of makeup shades in white people colours from very pale to slightly tan. I think the Boots there had a Fashion Fair stand (Fashion Fair cater to darker skin tones but are very expensive compared with most of the makeup sold in the shop) but that was all. It made absolutely no sense except in light of the fact that "white" is considered "default" and anything else is "special" (and hence more expensive) - that's a kind of white privilege. Is it racist? Well, probably not as many people would understand it. It's not as though they were banning people from the shop. Whoever set up the layout and arranged the stock probably didn't even think of it. But there is something a bit "off" there.

Likewise when I was looking for a greetings card yesterday the "for him" section was a sea of every colour - the "for her" section was overwhelmingly pink. These were not even just cards for little girls but for wives, mothers, aunts, sisters etc. Male as "default"; female as "special" - delineated by pink. Is it sexist? There's something off there too, but I wouldn't want to mark every individual card designer, or the people who order in the sea of pink cards, or the people who buy them and drive the market for pink cards, as sexist. It's more subtle than that.

So what I think I'm trying to say is that people probably are very offended by being accused of sexism, and part of that stems from the fact that the people using the word may mean something quite different from it from what the people hearing it understand by it, because we don't have a better word to use in the case of the subtle, grey areas around societal privilege.

[ 22. October 2012, 10:02: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
And according to the reply the university made to the criticism, they didn't force anyone to either. They said it wasn't a condition of graduating.

Its hard to imagine anything like that going on here. Staff maybe, but not students. Universities simply don't exert that amount of control over students, and the little control they do have is getting weaker.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
ken, I suspect that this is one of the local universities in the States that's more equivalent to a sixth form than a university as we have them here.

And I will be surprised if you didn't do compulsory General Studies in the Sixth Form too, majoring on sociological and arts subjects because scientists have to be expert at them too to be fully rounded members of society.

[ 22. October 2012, 10:07: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And according to the reply the university made to the criticism, they didn't force anyone to either. They said it wasn't a condition of graduating.
It was, however, a condition of living in student housing. I wonder whether it was made clear to the students beforehand that this is what they were letting themselves in for.

Moo
 
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
ken, I suspect that this is one of the local universities in the States that's more equivalent to a sixth form than a university as we have them here.

And I will be surprised if you didn't do compulsory General Studies in the Sixth Form too, majoring on sociological and arts subjects because scientists have to be expert at them too to be fully rounded members of society.
Yes, we did General Studies, which I nicknamed General Ignorance. It was all fairly innocuous, with nothing about me being racist for being a WASP or sexist for being a man. Neither did it ask us to discuss our individual sex lives.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Dinghy Sailor, the 3 pdf documents FIRE attaches actually say nothing about being asked about sexuality. They talk about being self-aware in terms of working and living with other people and raising awareness of forms of discrimination - in whatever form. And both of those were part of the General Studies I attended.

There seems to have been some insensitive teaching of these modules, but the actual requirements do not look that out of kilter with teaching in the Citizenship and/or General Studies that is compulsory in the UK.

Both cliffdweller and I have asked for alternative accounts, not the very partial account from FIRE - which is couched in emotive language, and it is not forthcoming. From the tenor of the article in FIRE I suspect that the three linked documents are those that are seen as the most offensive.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Dinghy Sailor, the 3 pdf documents FIRE attaches actually say nothing about being asked about sexuality. They talk about being self-aware in terms of working and living with other people and raising awareness of forms of discrimination - in whatever form.
The video which saysay linked to here shows two students and one RA describing their experiences. The RAs were required to have private interviews with individual students. One of the questions they were supposed to ask was when the student had become aware of the nature of his sexuality. The RA in the video was quite uncomfortable about this. The video also shows two professors who were told by their students what was going on and who pressed for the end of the program.

Moo
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@Moo - My second paragraph, which you ignored, said that there seemed to be some issues in the teaching of these materials.

Your argument is all about the delivery, not the requirements. I am saying that this curriculum is not unknown in other places, although delivered in different ways. The issues at the UofD seem to be mainly about the delivery.

And this has stuff all about sexism and how offensive it is to be called sexist.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Moo - My second paragraph, which you ignored, said that there seemed to be some issues in the teaching of these materials.
The RA on the video said that she was instructed to ask intrusive questions in one-on-one interviews. The students said they were asked such questions. This suggests that the pdf documents did not give all the details of the program.

The fact that only FIRE reports this suggests that only FIRE saw it as a problem. This does not mean it was not a problem. Sixty years ago almost no one published anything about child sexual abuse.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Moo, for one final time and then I'm out of this.

Those pdfs are giving the curriculum of the UofD course - they are an outline of the requirements of what is to be taught, and that curriculum is pretty unexceptional - similar to courses taught in many places.

How that curriculum is taught is the scheme of work or delivery of the course. That seems to be the issue at the UofD.

You are conflating the delivery of this specific course with discrimination as a whole and not seeing that what you are objecting to is a specific issue about the delivery of a specific course.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think there may be a problem inasmuch as there isn't really a good word to call people out on the kind of thinking that regards one group as the "default category" in a way that can lead to that group becoming privileged in comparison to others. When you say "sexist" or "racist" it tends to make people think of real venom and hate but that's not it at all.
I think "sexist" is a lot less loaded than "racist" in this context. It does mean what you want it to mean I think, and doesn't neccessarily imply hate. Unfortunately its also a rather old-fashioned word that is going to make at least some people cringe or laugh, and also plays into the hands of the sexists (see, I used the word) who prete4nd that feminism has gone too far and we need some kind of pro-male backlash. All that guff about "PC" and "strident 709s feminists".

quote:

Likewise when I was looking for a greetings card yesterday the "for him" section was a sea of every colour - the "for her" section was overwhelmingly pink. These were not even just cards for little girls but for wives, mothers, aunts, sisters etc. Male as "default"; female as "special" - delineated by pink. Is it sexist? There's something off there too, but I wouldn't want to mark every individual card designer, or the people who order in the sea of pink cards, or the people who buy them and drive the market for pink cards, as sexist.
I think I'd be fine with using the word "sexist" there (apart from its dated connotations) If I though that the people who were selling the cards really despised or hated women I'd say that, whioch would be stronger than "sexist".

"Racist" is a much more loaded word, and also gets you into arguments about other things - ones that don't translate very well between situations - there are people, for example, who make a strong disctinction between "racialism" and "racism" and would claim that (in Britain) black people can be one of them but not the other. And the media disconnect about "structural racism" and "institutional racism". Or there is the language of "privilege" used in the USA which doens't really translate over here in quite the same way. Or arguments about racial identity diversity and mixed-race race identities that are constructed differently in the UK and the USA (and changing rapidly in the USA) - it looks from the quotes about racism awareness in the websoite linked to that the Delaware thing might have bumped into arguments about that.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

And I will be surprised if you didn't do compulsory General Studies in the Sixth Form too, majoring on sociological and arts subjects because scientists have to be expert at them too to be fully rounded members of society.
No, we had nothing like that. If "General Studies" had been invented it never got near our school. And the timetableing was designed to prevent you mixing science and non-science A-levels (I still mildly resent not being able to do A-level English becuse it was my second-best subject and I enjoyed it)

We did have a non-compulsory course for one term where they tried to get us to talk about stuff. When I say non-compulsory, there was one timetabled slot in the week in the Lower Sixth that wasn't A-levels, sport, or RE, and they offered half a dozen different options provided outside the school. It was on Tuesday afternoons I think. One of them was called something corny like "student survival" Based on the assumption that we were about to leave home and live on our own or share with people and do stuff. Some of it was discussion groups, about sex and drugs and all the usual. Other parts of it were practical advice about things like cooking and washing. The only thing I actually remember from the entire course (all of about ten Tuesday afternoons) was the woman who took it saying that young men living on their own or sharing ought not to wear white underwear. Because in practice they would never keep it clean and sooner or later they would be embarrassed by it. (This is true - tell your sons and nephews!)

No not everyone would have done this one. In fact if I can remember the size of the group correctly, very few did. Less than half I'd guess. I can't remember what the options I didn't take were. The other ones I did take were an introduction to computer programming which we did at the local technical college (which was sort of cutting edge for a secondary school in the early 70s), and typing which was the most useful one of them all because a few years later whne computer keyboards were everywhere. Also I had this theory that all the men hoping go go to university ought to learn to type because it was useful, but none of the women should, because when they got a job afterwards they'd be expected to do all the typing.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I think there may be a problem inasmuch as there isn't really a good word to call people out on the kind of thinking that regards one group as the "default category" in a way that can lead to that group becoming privileged in comparison to others. When you say "sexist" or "racist" it tends to make people think of real venom and hate but that's not it at all.
I think "sexist" is a lot less loaded than "racist" in this context. It does mean what you want it to mean I think, and doesn't neccessarily imply hate.
fwiw, some have suggested that that fact indicates that our society is more sexist than racist-- that it's more comfortable/ acceptable to be considered "sexist" (seen as a form of "old fashioned") than it is to be considered "racist" (seen as bigoted and hateful). fwiw.

I would agree with Liopleurodon that our lack of vocabulary is contributing to the problem. Without a range of words of varying strengths, we end up treating sexism and racism in a very binary way-- you either are or you aren't. The reality is obviously much more nuanced. One can be quite accepting and inclusive, but have one or two blindspots where you have unexamined beliefs or behaviors that are perceived by some as... (again, no word!)

All of which contributes to the problem by encouraging silence. It's easier to say nothing than to say something that might be interpreted or misinterpreted as "racist" which,, because of the deficiencies of our language, puts you in the same leagues as a KKK Grand Wizard. But lack of communication leads to lack of awareness & understanding. Having a broader range of words to describe a range of behaviors (similar to the very helpful delineations from "innocently ignorant" to "anti-Semitic" posted upthread) would aid in communication.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously? After I just pointed out that I raised the same issue-- and where I raised it? Why not read what I wrote-- since it involves, as I said, reading one more line than the one you quoted? Yes, I already said that was an issue. As I pointed out. Twice now.
My bad. I thought the point of asking a question was to, um, ask for clarification about something one wasn't clear about.

quote:
But I would still insist the general goal of diversity ed. is a good one, in line with the stated goal of a univ. education.
And that's where we disagree. That's pre-school family and church material; maybe it's kindergarten. Otherwise you're unlikely to survive your schooling. It has no place in a university curriculum, especially not as a mandatory requirement.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity Killed:
And this has stuff all about sexism and how offensive it is to be called sexist.
In my part of the world it's not offensive to be called sexist because people throw the accusation around too easily. It is, however, potentially offensive to be called a feminist as it means you may have given the impression of having complete and utter contempt for women and their abilities.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Seriously? After I just pointed out that I raised the same issue-- and where I raised it? Why not read what I wrote-- since it involves, as I said, reading one more line than the one you quoted? Yes, I already said that was an issue. As I pointed out. Twice now.
My bad. I thought the point of asking a question was to, um, ask for clarification about something one wasn't clear about.
Well perhaps then it is me who misunderstood. It was not at all clear to me that you were asking a clarifying question-- since what you did was lecture me with virtually the identical words I had just said in my post, making the precise point. When I pointed that out, including the place where you can find my statement, you repeated the lecture. I apologize for not recognizing that was a question. Can you rephrase the question-- what is it you are unclear about?
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It is, however, potentially offensive to be called a feminist as it means you may have given the impression of having complete and utter contempt for women and their abilities.
[Snore] That's just the old conservative "PC" lie again. The rich and the powerful pretending to be victims to reinforce their power, and calling foul whenever anyone talks back. Its a symptom of too little feminism, not too much.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can you rephrase the question-- what is it you are unclear about?
I think I may understand now. ISTM that you do not have a problem with the program as described being a part of a university curriculum or mandatory diversity training (although you acknowledge that there may have been issues with the delivery of the information in this particular instance). I, on the other hand, think the program is highly coercive and morally and ethically wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
That's just the old conservative "PC" lie again. The rich and the powerful pretending to be victims to reinforce their power, and calling foul whenever anyone talks back. Its a symptom of too little feminism, not too much.
You may be right that it's a symptom of too little feminism rather than too much, but it's not a "conservative 'PC' lie." It's what I'm told when I attempt to engage most feminists in discussion: that I am clearly not a feminist and shouldn't describe myself as one unless I am willing to exchange certain beliefs for others (which unfortunately I don't believe to be true).
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Can you rephrase the question-- what is it you are unclear about?
I think I may understand now. ISTM that you do not have a problem with the program as described being a part of a university curriculum or mandatory diversity training (although you acknowledge that there may have been issues with the delivery of the information in this particular instance). I, on the other hand, think the program is highly coercive and morally and ethically wrong.
Yes, that would essentially be my position, based on the very limited data we've been given at this point in time. If/when reports become available from other sources that impression may change.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
It's what I'm told when I attempt to engage most feminists in discussion: that I am clearly not a feminist and shouldn't describe myself as one unless I am willing to exchange certain beliefs for others (which unfortunately I don't believe to be true).
OK, I"ll bite: what beliefs are those?

(let me add that IMHO if there is a term that is even murkier and loaded with baggage than "sexist" it would probably be "feminist")

[ 22. October 2012, 21:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Oh, little things like my religious beliefs and the fact that I don't think Christianity is the most horrible misogynistic religion ever. That being in an intimate romantic relationship with someone who shares (or at least respects) my religious beliefs and celebrates the same holidays is frequently easier to negotiate than attempting to do so with someone who does not share those beliefs. That monogamy is not an inherently oppressive way of organizing your sex life, sex is an intimate act best reserved for marriage (even if human weakness means I don't always pull that off), that my sexual identity and sex life is not the business of anyone apart from my partner and I. That I am in fact a woman not a man and that means something in terms of both my physical abilities and the accommodations I will likely need in certain situations.

You know, the kinds of things that program seemed designed to "treat". Though I do agree that the term 'feminist' is murky and loaded with baggage, as it seems that everyone I talk to has their own personal definition.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
Oh, little things like my religious beliefs and the fact that I don't think Christianity is the most horrible misogynistic religion ever. That being in an intimate romantic relationship with someone who shares (or at least respects) my religious beliefs and celebrates the same holidays is frequently easier to negotiate than attempting to do so with someone who does not share those beliefs. That monogamy is not an inherently oppressive way of organizing your sex life, sex is an intimate act best reserved for marriage (even if human weakness means I don't always pull that off), that my sexual identity and sex life is not the business of anyone apart from my partner and I. That I am in fact a woman not a man and that means something in terms of both my physical abilities and the accommodations I will likely need in certain situations.

You know, the kinds of things that program seemed designed to "treat". Though I do agree that the term 'feminist' is murky and loaded with baggage, as it seems that everyone I talk to has their own personal definition.
Wow. Yes, different definitions, to say the least.

But what in the world do you see in the UofD curriculum that would challenge any of the beliefs you mention in your first paragraph? Other than the delivery, the curriculum looked quite similar to the one taught at the very conservative evangelical Christian univ. where I work, where your beliefs re: Christianity and monogamy are practically part of the water we drink.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
Well, part of it is that I attended school there, and so I know a lot of the people and professors involved. And I know that there are a lot of scholarship programs and whatnot that require students to live on mixed-sex floors. And back when I was in college I was at war with a fair number of the women's studies set (precisely because of their habit of phrasing things not in terms of 'American culture is like this' or 'some people are taught this' but 'you were taught' and 'you were raised to believe' when I most certainly was not).

The questions students were being asked about whether or not they would date a Muslim, when did they become aware of their sexual identity, etc. and the guide they gave RAs in terms of when to refer someone for 'treatment' (if they said no to the first question or replied that it was none of someone's business) make me think that the program is intended to change students attitudes about some of those things.

As I said, part of it is the language: 'recognize', 'realize,' ' be able to utilize their knowledge of sustainability to change their daily habits and consumer mentality' without knowing what their daily habits are to being with or whether or not they in fact have a consumer mentality. Teaching white students that they are inherently racist because they are white and 'reverse racism' is a nonsense term elides a whole bunch of other kinds of racism that exists in the world and IMHO is the kind of thing likely to make any racial tensions between students worse rather than better.

The campaign for hook up culture as being necessary to feminist progress as well as the existence of a sex advice columnist in nearly every college newspaper feed these worries. As does the Violence Against Women Act and the requirement that schools use the much laxer 'preponderance of evidence' standard. As I think I said earlier, I blame this program for creating a bunch of people who live and work in the state who also think it is perfectly acceptable to use highly coercive means to force people to adopt* opinions the state approves of.

*or at least lie about it and say they have adopted those opinions.
 
Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[QUOTE][qb]But I would still insist the general goal of diversity ed. is a good one, in line with the stated goal of a univ. education.
And that's where we disagree. That's pre-school family and church material; maybe it's kindergarten. Otherwise you're unlikely to survive your schooling. It has no place in a university curriculum, especially not as a mandatory requirement.
So self-awareness is not part of education? Are universities merely degree factories?
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
So self-awareness is not part of education? Are universities merely degree factories?
Not if self-awareness comes at the expense of knowledge of things like math, chemistry, health, etc. or if it is in factcensorship mislabeled as self-awareness.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
saysay, I remember now you mentioned your UofD experience on the earlier "breastfeeding in class" thread. It does sound like there was and possibly still is a pretty poisonous culture there. And that does help us understand why you-- and possibly FIRE-- respond so strongly to these sorts of issues, and what might have gone so wrong with what is, as others have noted, a fairly run-of-the-mill diversity ed. program. I think I have a broad enough experience over the last 40 years of various colleges and universities to say that your UofD experience is not at all representative of all or even most American colleges. That doesn't change your experience, sadly, but perhaps can help us put it in it's place w/o generalizing too broadly.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
.... that my sexual identity and sex life is not the business of anyone apart from my partner and I.

That I am in fact a woman not a man....
If you think femists generally disagree with those points then I suspect you haven't met many feminists.

Seriously, were you actually at the University of Delaware when that program was in place? Did you participate in it? Were you forced to participate in it? Because I'm having trouble believing what you say about it here.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And that does help us understand why you-- and possibly FIRE-- respond so strongly to these sorts of issues, and what might have gone so wrong with what is, as others have noted, a fairly run-of-the-mill diversity ed. program. I think I have a broad enough experience over the last 40 years of various colleges and universities to say that your UofD experience is not at all representative of all or even most American colleges. That doesn't change your experience, sadly, but perhaps can help us put it in it's place w/o generalizing too broadly.
If I thought my experience of much of life was particularly representative of others' experiences I'd be calling on G-d to go ahead and smite all of humanity. But I do think you may be underestimating the effect of employing as many administrators (non-faculty) in student life as many colleges and universities do, not to mention the laws and rules put into place as a result of (and in hopes of preventing) something like the Virginia Tech Massacre or Columbine. That this particular program was used as a model for other residence life programs and the director of the program is now the vice president of the American Association of College Personnel is worrisome.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Seriously, were you actually at the University of Delaware when that program was in place? Did you participate in it? Were you forced to participate in it? Because I'm having trouble believing what you say about it here.
No, I was there when we were still fighting about speech codes and hate crimes (both of which I opposed). I was merely required to take a couple of courses that required invasive personal writing and have as the third reader of my senior thesis someone who may have actually been evil. I'm sure you are having trouble believing what I say about it - when I first started hearing rumors about it I thought the students were exaggerating or being hyperbolic or something. But, no, apparently RAs are being trained to stifle free discussion of religious or political differences as it upsets people.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
[QUOTE]]If I thought my experience of much of life was particularly representative of others' experiences I'd be calling on G-d to go ahead and smite all of humanity. But I do think you may be underestimating the effect of employing as many administrators (non-faculty) in student life as many colleges and universities do
Being on the inside, and with perhaps more recent and broader experience than yours, I would say the most significant impact is contributing to the scandalous increase in costs of both public and private higher ed.
 
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :
 
There's certainly that. However, having worked as one of those drains on society at more than one university (seeing as how most faculty are not qualified to keep up with the ever-changing legal and curriculum requirements), I have spent a lot of time fighting proposals that make think the person proposing them is actually crazy, amoral, or both.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0