pixy led

77825225672443:

permutationofninjas:

77825225672443:

permutationofninjas:

77825225672443:

permutationofninjas:

77825225672443:

permutationofninjas reblogged your post: Why The “Wage Gap” Simply Isn’t Possible (In A Free-Market Capitalist Economy)

a) Every single person who’s ever had an SS article published…JSTOR, which is a journal…

oh lulz

I’m not even dignifying this bullshit with a direct response

any quick search on india and racism is pretty obvious, fuck, you don’t even have to search anything

remember how india is a colonized nation as well? that whole white colonizing thing? yeah, it kinda affected their society, and it’s as well got shit tons of white privilege everywhere, especially in academia. It does not take a nuclear physicist to figure that shit out.

(well, except if you’re a white nuclear physicist, then I guess it does)

Because the knowledge of oppression that living under colonial rule gave them clearly means that they’d be completely unaware of how racism works.  Right.

As mentioned, though, there have been articles published to JSTOR journals from pretty much every country on the face of the earth.  It’s not that hard to get an article published (and easiest in things like SS), so if basically any academic, anywhere in the entire fucking world agreed with your definition, the odds are high that a search would cause it to show up.  The couple thousand it would take for that idea to be even remotely accepted….well, lets just say that there’s no way in hell that wouldn’t have turned up on the front page of a search.

inb4 “But science is inherently racist and run by a secret cabal of white people bent on segregating all people who aren’t white through oppressive definitions that oddly enough apply equally regardless of race.”

Teaching for diversity and social justice, Volume 1
 By Maurianne Adams, Lee Anne Bell, Pat Griffin

pages 55-63, most specifically page 61:

“Actions by members of a targeted group against a member of an advantaged group, however, are more complicated and are not equivalent to the actions of an advantaged group against a member of a targeted group. Point out that bouth members of advantaged and targeted groups are capable of prejudice abuse, violence, and hatred, but only the advantaged groups have the institutional and cultural power to back up their prejudices against targeted groups. For example, individual people of color might feel or express prejudices against white people, just as individual women might have prejudices against men, but as a group, neither people of color nor women hold many positions of power in major institutions in the United states that would enable them to turn their prejudices into widely held institutional and social policy. Claims of “reverse racism” or “reverse sexiam” fail to take this power dynamic into account.”

Sorry, but your cries of “misandry! feminists are misandrist!” fail.

(also if you can’t figure it out, it boils down to “If you do not have institutional privilege, you cannot enact racism or sexism”. Sorry if this destroys your anti-social justice worldview)

Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, this equation kind of forms a large part of critical race theory.

We might note that this is not from a published and peer-reviewed journal article, but from a book.  More importantly, it’s a classic example of “advocacy teaching,” something that’s been noted within the academic community as problematic.  (In point, the subject is always described not as “sociology” but as “social justice.”  There is a difference: one is science, the other ideology.)  The issue with introducing it here is that the book doesn’t actually back or cite its claims, because it’s a resource meant to be taken as gospel for students rather than one presented to the academic community.

However, you’ve succeeded at finding one source which agrees with you, even though it makes the mistake of not looking at the actual facts of policymaking.  The problem is that they commit the same apex fallacy I’ve been pointing out all along, as well as the in-group bias fallacy dealt with here.

They declare a group to not have power without examining the evidence.  There is a claim made, for example, that women could not perpetrate sexism against men because they hold less political power, but when we look at the actions of politicians we find that women are often favored.  Why might this be?  Well, first, the in-group bias issues from the link above.  Second, women make up substantially more than 50% of the voting electorate.  This makes politicians to a degree beholden to them, and we see that in action.  In essence, they misunderstand how power works, but that’s a separate argument.

Either way, well done.

Only 4,999 to go.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=yitBhzsd9OIC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA356#v=onepage&q&f=false

from Race and Racialization: Essential Readings  By Tania Das Gupta, p356:

“Racism is more than acts of discrimination. It is not something that is experienced by all racial groups in the same way. We must “take into account the effects of unequal power” relations in our society (Neufeld, 1992: B7). Hence racism is understood in terms of the collective  how individuals, because of their membership in a particular racial grou, are privileged or disadvantaged by the structural and cultural factors in society. Compared to prejudice, which is found within all groups, racism is associated with those who have “the power to enforce and act on their prejudices” (Dobbins and Skillings, 1991: 41)”

But, since you seem to have a raging boner for JSTOR, here’s one for you!

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1317846, see pp157-8, but also the whole fucking thing :)

I’m waiting for your thousands of sources ;) Oh wait, you’ve provided…0.

0/5000

v

3/5000

shit, well dividing by 0 gives infinity, then I guess there are infinitely more resources that support the point of -ism = privilege + prejudice.

Whoops. I love how you’ve totally failed to actually take any responsibility to advocate your claims, whilst creating impossible goals to the latter.

However your last paragraph is probably the most confusing, in that you string unrelated facts (women make up >50% of the population, therefore ELECTIONS); and yet somehow you manage to twist reality into some weird delusional fantasy land  yet again

clearly, women hold more political power, since when they advocate on behalf of their rights, they’re often silenced in a multiplicity of ways. But history isn’t always your strong suit, I see.

Dear, my sources are every single article that pops up on JSTOR when you type in “racism” that doesn’t use your definition.  At current count, that’s 88,286, minus however many you can provide from there directly.  (88,285 if you provide a link that’s not dead.)  Also, your link’s dead, it resolves to nonexistent content.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1317846 it had a comma the last time which shouldn’t be part of a JSTOR url.

If you’re somehow managing to still have trouble, it’s called “Teaching Privileged Students About Gender, Race and Class Opression”

Yet you still have to provide a single link, except “baaww”.

Actually, it doesn’t have to do with population so much as that more women vote than men, but it’s a significant majority.  The point is that a group with the majority vote, especially one with evident in-group bias controls a great deal of political power.

Certainly, there are legislatures pushing through idiotic pro-life measures, but every time I see pro-lifers about three-quarters of them are women….seems to me that’s a religious stupidity problem.

75% of the pro-lifers I’ve seen are men, but a Gallup poll in 2008 disagrees with both of us: http://www.gallup.com/poll/107458/Abortion-Issue-Laying-Low-2008-Campaign.aspx

The apex fallacy comes from the idea that men in power will make decisions that benefit men, because they are men.

Clearly, this isn’t evidenced by the current trend of men implementing anti-abortion bills in the US Senate, right?

 Evidence shows that this is simply not the case, and that while women show a noticeable tendency to do so men do not.  If you still don’t get it I can’t help you.  As for advocating issues….have you seen what happens on those rare occasions where men stand up to advocate for their own issues?  Women are given national forum, and over 270 different commissions in the U.S. alone.  Men?  One, in New Hampshire.  In fact, we find that men in power overwhelmingly make decisions that benefit women to the exclusion of men.  What this means is that we cannot describe women (note that this doesn’t apply to people of color, the LGBTQ community and other minorities, this is specific to gender) as being a group that has no power because in the end society does a great deal to meet their needs.  It’s entirely irrelevant whether they wield that power directly or through others, because if we argue that only directly wielded power is relevant we would have to say that the PotUS has virtually no power….all his power is in what he can get others to do.  When we look at men, the sociological evidence and statistics overwhelmingly show that their needs are ignored.

Women suffer, protests happen.
Men suffer, no one cares.
Women are raped, it’s a national issue.
Men are raped, no one cares.
Women die, governments must act.
Men die, no one cares.

Show me one example not connected to pregnancy or walking around topless in the U.S. or Canada where a law discriminates against or directly and overwhelmingly harms women.

Show me one.

In the Indian Act (referring to Canadian Aboriginal people), Indian women marrying non-Indians lose their status. Indian men marrying non-Indian women keep their status’ and their wives become Indian, regardless of their background. The Indian woman marrying a non-Indian not only loses her status - her name is stricken from the tribal band list, she loses the right to inherit property, cannot participate in the affairs of the band, or pass on Indian status to her children.

I didn’t even have to look that far.

Oh, and that whole thing about “men are raped, no one cares?” You know, willful ignorance is this wonderfully magic thing. It enables you to make up blanket statements, when reality really just says the opposite.

clearly I just created this now though

uhmm…
1. Lol @ women rape victims actually being taken seriously first of all. yeah no.
Have you ever talked to a rape victim ever about how police treat her and how society treats her? have you ever even ONCE read about the experiences of rape victims? Do you know what kind of questions are asked to women when they have to go on the stand against their rapist to testify? 

2. the reason why violence against men at the hands of women isn’t seen as “serious” is because women are considered weaker than them and therefore a big strong man couldn’t POSSIBLY be raped/hurt by a poor silly wimmins. It’s sexism against women negatively affecting men because men are seen as being able to handle themselves and women are seen as these fainting damsels in distress. 
Of course, because the stereotype ISN’T true, men DO got hurt at the hands of women. But if they tell anyone, it’s embarassing and shameful and not taken seriously because “LOL U GOT HIT BAI A GURL!” attitude.  This stereotype is also why women get shorter sentences and such. Because they’re just a silly woman that doesn’t know better. Women aren’t seen as a valid threat or anything cuz what can they possibly do? Where as men are big strong people that are consdeired a viable threat. Women not being taken seriously isn’t sexism against men. 

None of these things are good. But the root cause of it is women being seen as lesser, non threatning, weak creatures, where as men are supposed to be strong, capable, ones. It isn’t sexism against men. It’s sexism against women negatively affecting men because people buy into the stereotypes of women and women and then believe that women can’t hurt men. Then when the women DO hurt men, men can’t seek help or aren’t offered help because they were expected to be stronger than women and able to fight them off. 

(Source: iuwaehfoaiuwhefoiaulfjqn)