Could be that I'm overstating, but let's play with the idea a little further. Maybe a better way for me to draw the distinction is between focussing on "intent" and "impact." Those are two different things. I suspect we've all had an experience where our words clearly hurt someone even though we had no intent to do so. The problem we're trying to address isn't intent -- it's impact. So why do men tend to steer these conversations towards the man's intent?Some Schmo wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:03 pmThis is overstating my perspective. My initial advice was to everyone, not just women. And I don't think it's conveying the message "I know more than you do" when you say things that remind them maybe their strategy isn't working. I never once thought to myself, "I need to educate Lem." It was more like, "How can I make what I'm trying to say more clear?" (at least at first; obviously, I gave up after a time).Res Ipsa wrote: ↑Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:34 pmI think you have to consider the context before choosing a role in the conversation. A common problem that women express is the way men treat them in conversations. If I had to pick a general term, I'd say "devalue." (To avoid the whole #not all men distraction, when I mean "all men" I'll say "all men." When I describe what men or women do without the "all," I'm talking about general tendencies, not each and every person on the planet.) And one of them is they assume that they know more than women, and so they dominate the conversation and tell the women what to do. So, think for a minute about what you are presuming when you assume the role of "outside consultant." First, as shown by the level of anger and scorn you showed on thread, you are an interested party, not an outside consultant. More importantly, the message you send is that Lem or any other woman needs a male "expert consultant" in a conversation about sexism. If you take the concept of privilege seriously, then we known that you and me don't see the harm. We don't see the daily Crap women put up with just because they are women. If we're talking about reducing or avoiding harm, then an expert who is blind to the harm really isn't an expert at all.
"Consultant" certainly wasn't the right word, it was just the best one I could think of for what I was trying to say.
See, I guess I have a bit of an issue with the framing "good guy or bad guy." To me, it's more about, "Was he guilty or innocent of the charged offense?" Now, to your point, if we say, "He's guilty," then we advise him to apologize (as what happened in the thread). If we say, "No, I don't think he's guilty," then we would likely feel like the accusation was unfair. I'm not sure I see the problem with either assessment.Res Ipsa wrote:To understand what I'm saying, I think you have to seriously look at how discussion of the type on the other thread work. As they typically play out, it's a game rigged against women who point out sexist speech and behavior. If we choose to portray sexism as a moral defect, then the discussion becomes all about identifying the "good guy" and the "bad guy" in the conversation. If we approach the issue by asking the question: is the man a good person, then the woman loses. Every, single, time. The man is not sexist because he's a good person (insert rationalization here), and so the woman can be dismissed as the "bad guy." I don't think it's and intentional strategy for the vast majority of men, but what they do in these kinds of discussions, just like clockwork, is frame the issue as being about whether the man is a good guy, they derail the discussion away from the harmful effect of the words themselves and what we might to avoid that. So, as soon as you weighed in as a consultant, you effective decided the end result by choosing to approach the issue as a moral one.
And of course, both things can be true at the same time. He could have said something sexist with the intention to aggravate (not because he actually feels superior to the woman and is trying to dress her down, but to defend himself when he feels he's being unfairly attacked), and it can be construed as a direct attack on the target's femininity (because the target isn't aware her chain is being yanked, and thinks she knows the source of the malicious intent in the "attacker's" heart).
The main problem I see here is that if sexist comments cause harm (which they do), then it really is a moral issue (depending, I suppose, on how you define morality - I define being morality as trying to not cause harm to other conscious beings). You said earlier, "You can choose to view the issue of sexism as a moral referendum on individuals or you can choose to view it as an opportunity to try and figure out how we can our fellow humans better. So, why choose the former rather than the latter." I'm not clear on how you tease out the latter from the former. They are related.
In substance, I think your "guilty/innocent" distinction is just a different wording for my "good guy/bad guy" distinction. Because the focus is on the man's intent, innocent is the same as good guy and guilty is the same as bad guy.
But let me follow your own logic for a minute. You and I agree that sexist comments cause harm. I think that the question of whether we choose to value reduction of harm to others has moral implications, and I think we agree on that. But that's a different issue than treating sexism as a moral defect vs. making a statement or taking an action that has a harmful effect. The LEO that shot a man the other day said she meant to grab her taser. Whether she intended to shoot her gun or she made a mistake, the guy is still dead. Her intent is irrelevant to the harm.
If we stop treating sexism as a moral defect, we can focus on the harm and how to reduce it. If we conclude that Lem is at fault because Analytics had a justifiable motive, we haven't addressed the problem at all. In fact, we've simply reinforced the notion that it's okay to say something sexist as long as you don't subjectively hate women. Focussing on who is at fault and who "owes" whom and apology simply avoids the issue that you and I agree is important. Lem and Analytics are both adults who are fully capable of navigating interpersonal relationships.
)
