http://qs321.pair.com?node_id=1029206


in reply to Re^12: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
in thread How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

To assume that targeting all feminists is sexist is to make a sexist assumption about the composition of feminists. (Which was pretty much my original point.)

Re: reflecting the reader, yes; and that means that readers willing to see a wider range of possible intents by the writer will have fewer issues with such reading.

  • Comment on Re^13: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^14: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 17, 2013 at 19:52 UTC
    To assume that targeting all feminists is sexist is to make a sexist assumption about the composition of feminists.

    It would be sexist, because it would target the philosophy of feminism. While not all feminists are female; the philosophy deals exclusively with rights of; and prejudices enacted against; women.

    Thus attacking 'all feminists' is to attack that philosophy; and thus is an attack on women (feminist or not); and is thus sexist.

    (I believe that is essentially a from memory paraphrase of a US Supreme court ruling; but I cannot find it. It is also possible I got it from a movie or a book.)

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      I think that reasoning is a little on the torturous side. In this particular case, I would think it more likely for a reader to assume that the attack is against the perceived behaviour of "all feminists" than that it have anything to do with the philosophy.
[reply]

        Okay. Let's break that down.

        I think that reasoning is a little on the torturous side.

        Have you ever read any supreme court (US, European or other) court rulings?

        They are, and have to be by their very nature, tortuous. Much, [http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-67482#{"itemid":"001-67482"}|much], much more tortuous and convoluted that my brief paraphrase.

        In this particular case,

        About this specific case ...

        I would think

        You've reach a judgment ...

        it more likely

        Based on some statistical probabilities ...

        for a reader to assume

        that 'all readers'? or 'an average reader'? a 'majority of readers'?

        And is that male readers -- you have insight to the minds of all men -- or female readers -- you have insight to the minds of all women -- or both?

        And are you assuming those readers will make the same assumptions as you? Or maybe you are suggesting they should?

        that the attack is against the perceived behaviour

        In order for the readers to assume a perception (by the writer) of a third party group; they would have to also perceive that behaviour of them; or be aware that the perception of that behaviour by that third party group is widely held.

        Either way; if the perception is so widely held then it is not an individual targeting the group in an attempt to disseminate a malevolence; but rather a joke targeted at a common (perhaps, mis)perception. Common fodder for humour in all walks of life and target groups.

        of "all feminists"

        So, you are assuming, that all readers will assume some thing about all feminists.

        You are, of course, entitled to hold your opionion, but you'd best be very circumspect in levying accusations based upon it.

        You haven't and aren't; but the same applies to anyone else basing accusations, upon such assumptions of many other's assumptions; about many others.

        than that it have anything to do with the philosophy.

        Feminism is a philosophy, and actually many different (flavours of) philosophies, and to ignore when drawing conclusions related to it, is to ignore reality.

        Sexism can be defined in terms of equality of treatment between the sexes; but feminism is a fuzzier, malleable, whatever the proponent chooses to read into it affair, and impossible to adequately define..

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Past Polls