Definition of racism, sexism, etc...

The belief that males are better should be called malism. The belief that white people are better should be called whitism.

Logically, racism should mean having races is better. Sexism should mean having sex is better. The opposite of sexism should be asexism.

And I know language is not logical. What I am interested in is why it is the way it is.

And the belief that females are better is called femalism, and the belief that blacks are better is called blackism?

And a racist would just be a big sports car fan instead of a person who judged on skin color.

edited 24th Mar '12 8:47:39 AM by doomsday524

because there's no substantial difference between the belief that white people are better and the belief that brown people are better.

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

That's right. There is no substantial difference. Racism is racism. Bigotry against a person for the color of their skin is bigotry against a person for the color of their skin. Anyone who denies that is a racist freak.

edited 24th Mar '12 4:25:16 PM by doomsday524

The color-blind philosophy ignores institutional privilege. And in doing it creates a false equivalence between all forms of 'bias', and thus has a narrow focus on de jure equality. Color-blind is really just plain blind, what's needed is consciousness of race, not shutting your eyes.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

So if a black person hates white people for the color of their skin, that's acceptable, that's just fine and dandy, isn't it?

Racism of any kind has no place on these forums. If people are going to say "it's okay to be racist as long as you're black", they're not any better than Stormfront.

The "it's still the 60s institutional cracker privilege" thing doesn't exist (he's the most influential person in the country, even though he's ruining it just like Carter did before him and it's not just him but Oprah, the list goes on), but even if it did what if a white person was racist in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Would liberals find that acceptable?

edited 24th Mar '12 5:11:08 PM by doomsday524

"So if a black person hates white people for the color of their skin, that's acceptable, that's just fine and dandy, isn't it?"

No, but I'm saying the assumption that we live in a raceless society underlying the presumption of the "equality" of this bias is ignorant. It completely ignores the imbalance of power that exists.

"The "it's still the 60s institutional cracker privilege" thing doesn't exist (he's the most influential person in the country, even though he's ruining it just like Carter did before him and it's not just him but Oprah, the list goes on), but even if it did what if a white person was racist in Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe? Would liberals find that acceptable?"

See, this is what I'm talking about. The fact that black people have disproportionately poor access to material resources and political power, not to mention still existent racism is outright ignored, denied. And not only that, it's racist to suggest that this is the case. This is plain denialism.

I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.

Deciding what's racism and what's classism in society depends greatly on your own personal point of view. It is however self evident that -on average- black people in america are worst off then white people. This can't be overstated or denied.

Putting race relations aside for a second I want rises the related issue regarding sexual orientation vs. marital status.

For example the english hotel owners who refused to rent a room to a gay couple defended their actions by saying they weren't denied service because the couple was gay but rather because they were unmarried. Which begs the question of which minority group should be seen as 'fair game' and which shouldn't.

hashtagsarestupid

This seems rather easy to me. No minority group should be seen as fair game, not even gay white supremacist furry ex-con Westboro Baptist Church members with HIV.

Refusing to rent a room to gay people is disgusting, and it is every bit as disgusting to refuse to rent a room to unmarried people. Or to anybody else, really, as long as they can pay for it.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

You're being flippant, I know, but it's misleading to suggest that these "minorities" are in any sense equivalent. Homosexuality occupies a position of very little privilege in society, and although the perception of homosexuality and homosexuals in the West has improved considerably in recent years, homosexuals are subject to discrimination. White supremacism and the WBC are extreme manifestations of privileged ideologies which seek to oppress others. Furry fandom is merely an obscure (usually Internet-based, often kink-related) subculture. Ex-cons are subject to lowered social privileges based on their alleged individual actions; further analysis of this would have to consider the various reasons for their conviction and release. HIV is a virus causing a deadly and debilitating illness which carries a severe social stigma.

What I'm saying is, you can't just lump gays and the WBC together under a banner of "minorities". The reality is that these are very different groups of people, and if we are to do anything about discrimination and oppression, we need to recognise this.

edited 25th Mar '12 6:14:45 AM by BobbyG

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Also while example given (HIV) doesn't count, it should be made known that ince... ah who cares?

hashtagsarestupid

I'm sorry, I was completely unable to parse that.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Suppose technology moves on and:

1. Everybody is a cyborg. Changing asethetic modules on your body is just like changing your shirt. Changing locomotion modules on your body is just like getting in your car. Only your brain is sacred.

2. Reproduction can be achieved by combining the DNA of any number of individuals. The formula of "male + female" be damned.

When the above has been achieved, would you still support the traditional and archaic ideas of gender, or would you prefer asexism?

edited 25th Mar '12 7:26:42 AM by HsiaoKuo

I am not saying that they are. Obviously they aren't, not even remotely. they are just some random categories toward which some people might feel ill-disposed, either for rather sensible reasons (as in the case of white supremacists) or for entirely nonsensical ones (as in the case of HIV positive people.)

My point is that this does not matter: one does not have the right to mistreat anybody, for any reason.

But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.

Bobby: I think the gay part was to make it out so they were hypocritical. Something a lot of people dislike.

Read my stories!

^^^ Gender is mostly a social construct, although there are some physical and psychological aspects to it.

But basically, if society doesn't tell you you're male, you wouldn't know you're male, I think.

ETA: Mind you, there are a lot of nuances to this, but I think the core idea is not entirely wrong, albeit not entirely right.

edited 25th Mar '12 7:46:52 AM by juancarlos

"My life is my own" | If you want to contact me privately, please ask first on the forum.

Sort of that. That theory is more that the idea that certain traits and activities ascribed to males/females are merely things promoted by society and can vary from culture to culture.

Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.

@Bobby: I was going to bring up the semi legitimate health concerns involving renters with infectious diseases, then thought better of it.

@Hsiao Kuo: So you're saying... lets all become cyborgs? That's tv tropes solution for everything

hashtagsarestupid

So if I understand this right, the OP is requesting us to use more specific terms to narrow down the object of that particular racist or sexist attitude? This would work except most people who see through these lenses don't think they are in the wrong, so they will not label themselves in anyway. If outsiders try to label them like that, it wouldn't be much affect.

Besides, I have been the subject of harassment not just for my gender, but because I'm Irish. So does that mean I have to narrow "whiteism" to "Irishism"?

Too linguistically complicated for me. Bias and hate is bias and hate. Let's fight the general forms so we can battle the specifics better by default.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Sexism is prejudice on the basis of sex. It doesn't matter who commits it. That's what it is. Even if you believe that it's more acceptable when channeled in certain directions, against those with "institutionalized privilege," the definition still holds.

A slap is a slap, even if there are mitigating factors behind a particular instance.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

@ Gabrael: I'm not saying the term "sexism" is too general. I'm saying it's a misnomer.

logicaly, a sexist is a person who advocates sex: this person thinks 1. Sex (as in gender) exists; 2. People can indeed be divided into male, female, and/or intersexed; 3. This is a good thing.

By the same logic, an asexist is a person who doesn't believe sex actually exists. People are people, end of story.

Using the word "sexist" to mean "males are better" or "females are better" is a illogical misnomer.

edited 26th Mar '12 6:27:57 AM by HsiaoKuo

People have been using 'X-ism' to mean 'prejudice based on X' for a while now. I think it's widely established enough by now that you can't claim it's incorrect. The English language is dynamic, even dictionaries recognise that.

Be not afraid...

Fair enough. 'X-ism' can mean both 'prejudice based on X', and 'support for X'.

Then, what are some good words for my above two definitions? Do any already exist? Do we have to invent them?

edited 26th Mar '12 6:30:51 AM by HsiaoKuo

Here's the problem, gender exists for a reason. I am a woman not just because I have all the biological componets, but because I choose for society to see and treat me as a woman as well.

My son is a son because he is biologically so. Now should he reach adulthood and decide to become my daughter, we will deal with it together the best we can.

But until then, his health and social functioning depends on both his and other's recognition of himself as a male person just as mine is somewhat dependant on my recognition as a female person.

I'm all about pushing for more equality, but I don't see how inventing new terms or trying to redefine what we have is truly helpful.

"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur

Really OP you just using a more culturally specific term over the generally accepted one. You might be correct in what you are saying, but what is wrong with the current vernacular?

hashtagsarestupid