>>7
Quite frankly arguing about that definition is a rather empty debate.
I disagree.
As I said, discrimination and general douchebaggery can and does exist from women towards men, but on a societal level, it just hasn't had the same impact, as women don't have presence in the power spheres that men do, and from which they can exclude the other gender.
So in other words, the
exact same action, when committed by a man against a woman, is different than when the roles are reversed. In other words, your definition of justice and morality discriminates based on sex/gender.
So, those -isms, like racism, are precisely about the large-scale socio-cultural phenomenons.
But those would then strictly refer to large scale trends! So if a person tells another person ``that's my seat you stinking nigger'' on a bus, it's not racism because it was a one-shot small-scale event and it has no bearing on the large scale phenomenons. But then you'd disagree and say that it's racism because it
follows the large scale trend. And then I'd say ``
so what? that's not why it's wrong!''. But this is actually part of a bigger problem.
I seem to notice a divide within
feminists people who refer to themselves as feminist: The group which recognizes the elimination of personal injustice and discrimination as the top priority, and the group that recognizes
large-scale socio-economic justice as the top priority. The ultimate goal is quite identical in both cases (i.e. personal injustice and discrimination exists if and only if large-scale injustice does), but they are otherwise very different. While the first group truly wants justice for each individual and cannot stand discrimination of any form, the second group does not exclude the possibility of discriminating against
some individuals if it helps ``the greater good''. I strongly reject this sort of moral compromise; you can't just randomly wrong, and discriminate against, a bunch of innocent people to advance a personal cause. Moreover, this sort of approach might prove ineffective if the people you wronged decide to treat you as an enemy and to discriminate against whatever unprivileged group you were trying to help as a form of revenge. You can't fight fire with fire, and you can't fight injustice with injustice. Therefore I see the second group as logically inconsistent and as lacking integrity.
This is why, for example, I define my ``feminism-related'' terms as follows:
sexism := discrimination based on sex or gender.
racism := discrimination based on ethnicity or apparent ethnicity.
>>8
Pretty much this.
>>10
Boring
!